HOME Featured Stories February 2007 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Bernice Lipkin, February 28, 2007.

The first photo is by Fred Reifenberg. See other of his imaginative and delightful photos at

The second was submitted by Michael Travers of some Israeli Purim spielers.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 28, 2007.

Nationwide White House Call-In for Jonathan Pollard
White House Telephone Number: 1-202-456-1414

Every call is tallied by subject matter.
Every time you say "Free Jonathan Pollard" it counts!
Take a minute for Jonathan Pollard and call now!
Click here for the facts.

Rabbi Shteinman (l) and Rabbi Lerner (r)

Two of world Jewry's most renowned Torah Sages, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv of Jerusalem and Rabbi Aaron Leib Shteinman of Bnei Brak, have signed a historically unprecedented letter to U.S. President George Bush, calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard.

It is reportedly the first time that these Torah Sages have ever addressed a foreign head of state about any matter.

The letter was relayed to Jeremy Katz, Special Assistant to the President and Liaison to the Jewish community, and others in the White House. Copies of the letter, written in both Hebrew and English, were also sent to various Jewish communal leaders and activists.

The joint letter to the U.S. President was the initiative of Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Executive Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel. Lerner, who has visited Pollard many times in his prison cell in North Carolina [ See below here. and below here.], met of late with leading Torah sages in Israel and asked for their involvement in securing his release. Another rabbi who has taken great active interest in the case, and whom Pollard considers his personal rabbi, is the Rishon LeTzion, former Chief Sephardic Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu of Jerusalem. Rabbi Lerner discussed with Rabbis Shteinman and Elyashiv the special elements of the Pollard case, over and beyond its being a supreme Torah value of "Redemption of Captives." Mentioned were Pollard's self-sacrifice on behalf of the security of the Jewish People, the disproportionate nature of the sentence, the failure of the Israeli Government to act on his behalf, Pollard's failing health, the positions taken by former CIA head James Woolsey and Dennis Ross [see below], and more.

The rabbis then decided that their best course of action would be to send a concise personal letter to President Bush. The letter reads as follows:

Dear Mr. President,

We appeal to you as President of the greatest power on earth, the epitome of compassion and generosity, to grant clemency to Mr. Jonathan Pollard who has been incarcerated for more than twenty years.

With deep respect and appreciation,
(signed: Rabbis Elyashiv and Shteinman)

In Oct. 1993, nearly 30 leading rabbis in the United States took out a full-page ad in the hareidi-religious Yated Ne'eman newspaper, calling upon "every Jew to make efforts to free [Jonathan Pollard] from his imprisonment; those who can should write letters to the government, and whoever can intercede on his behalf should do so."

The White House has also been bombarded of late with calls for Pollard's release from another direction: A nation-wide call-in campaign, also initiated by Young Israel and endorsed by Agudath Israel.

Jonathan Pollard's wife Esther, speaking with IDF Radio this morning, called on Prime Minister Olmert to follow the example of the Torah sages by making an immediate demand for Jonathan's release. "Mr. Olmert does not have to free murderers or terrorists," she said. "All he has to do is bring Jonathan home now and he will have blessing and the thanks of the Nation."

"After 22 years in prison," Mrs. Pollard said, "22 years of torture and affliction and the worst possible treatment by the Government of Israel - and by the Americans - Jonathan deserves to be home in Israel well in advance of Pesach so that he can truly celebrate the Holiday of Freedom."

Jonathan Pollard has been imprisoned since November 1985 regarding his conviction on one count of passing classified information to an American ally - Israel. The normal sentence for this offense is 2-4 years, and his unprecedented life sentence was in direct contrast to his plea bargain arrangement. He has long been in a maximum security prison, under difficult conditions.

U.S. Appellate Court Justice Steven Williams has called the Pollard case a "fundamental miscarriage of justice," and even James Woolsey - former head of the CIA, a body that has traditionally been against clemency for Pollard - believes Pollard should be released. He recently told Arutz-7, "Now that [Pollard] has served [over] 20 years in prison, my view is that 20 years is enough. I also think that the close relationship between the US and Israel is also of some consideration, and at this point I think he's served long enough."

Former US Ambassador Dennis Ross, who has been involved in shaping US policy in the Middle East under Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr., has said that Pollard's sentence was excessive, and that he told all three presidents that Pollard should be released. "Pollard has been in jail for so long," Ross said last December, "that whatever facts he might know would have little if any effect on national security today."

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor of Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, February 28, 2007.

Bill O'Reilly touched upon a dark aspect of Hillary tonight, don't let it go. Don't let Anna Marie Smith cop 60 % of the airtime, this is important news.


Clinton charitable foundation-Hillary an officer.

5 million dollars fund -- Hillary violated Senate rules by not didn't file a report of her position as an officer of this non profit -- Spokesperson said it was a clerical error, From the Fox report, the $5 million foundation has gave spent 1.3 mill

Recipients that O'Reilly noted were : Baptist Foundation; U/AK and King Hussein Foundation. This is an explosive revelation

Here is a list of the past winners of the KHF Prize taken from the foundation website

* Year 2005 winner: The Arab Human Development Reports, Dr. Rola Dashti, Mrs. Sulha Djuderija, and OneVoice
* Year 2004 winner: Medecins Sans Frontiers
* Year 2003 winner: Mary Robinson
* Year 2002 winner: Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization
* Year 2001 winner: UNRWA
* Year 2000 winner: Grameen Bank

Mary Robinson is a very controversial person. Her record at Durban was certainly dismal, and could well be and is often accused of as being anti-Semite. In what years was the contribution to the KHF made?

Surely, the Clintons could have found a more worthy recipient. It brings to mind, Hillary's kissing Mrs Arafat.

UNRWA is a highly flawed institution which has contrived and connived with the Arab powers for 60 years to reduce the palestineans in the UNRWA refugee camps to pathetic peon status -- and then blame their sorry state on Jews and Israel.

NO, any contribution to the KHF needs to be explained on more grounds then not reporting it to the Senate finance committee.

Before I run this in Israel Lives, I'd like some explanation from Hillary's camp.

Susie - What charities or efforts does Hillary, do the Clinton's, support with a decidedly pro-Israel bias?

Yes, I know that Hillary worked for the magic crystal solution for MDA being included in the International Red Cross.

This below was written by Michael Rubin, who is a visiting fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations. It is called "Mary Robinson, War Criminal?" and was published May 20, 2002 on National Review Online

On September 12, 1997, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Mary Robinson as the United Nation's High Commissioner for Human Rights. On paper, Robinson is as eminently qualified as any other U.N. political appointee. For seven years, she served as president of Ireland. The website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights trumpets Robinson's "outstanding legal qualifications" and her long record in human rights. Chief among Robinson's accomplishments are her attendance and participation in many United Nations conferences and her travel. The official website crows, "Ms. Robinson was the first head of State to visit Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide there... While in Rwanda, she met representatives of, and was briefed by, agencies on the ground, as well as by the United Nations Human Rights Monitors. She was also the first Head of State to visit the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia..."

What the United Nations trumpets as qualifications look like little more than empty grandstanding to anyone caught outside the U.N.'s labyrinthine bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the International Criminal Tribunal might be an appropriate place for Robinson to return, albeit for a slightly longer visit.

The trouble starts with Robinson's tenure as president of Ireland. During the last four years of Robinson's tenure, the European Union donated large sums of money to the Palestinian Authority. Ireland even held the presidency of the European Union for the second half of 1996. During this time, Arafat siphoned large amounts of European aid money away to pay for terror. Robinson can plead ignorance, but documents seized during the recent Israeli incursion into the West Bank revealed that the Palestinian Authority spent approximately $9 million of European Union aid money each month on the salaries of those organizing terror attacks against civilians. While European officials like Robinson looked the other way, the Palestinian Authority regularly converted millions of dollars of aid money into shekels at rates about 20 percent below normal, allowing the Palestinian chairman to divert millions of dollars worth of aid into his personal slush fund.

Remember the young boys, students, and old women killed in the rash of Palestinian bus bombings back in 1996? It's hard to believe that European politicians are so incompetent than to notice that Palestinian violence grew in proportion to their aid money. European funds enabled Arafat to purchase $50 million worth of sophisticated Iranian weaponry for use against civilians. While the world knows the story of the Karine-A's interception last January, few remember that the ship represented only one of many Palestinian weapons schemes (Remember the Calypso? The Santorini? The smuggling tunnels from Egypt into Gaza?) European leaders may claim ignorance, but Robinson should be the first to admit that indirect responsibility is no mitigation for war crimes. The sad fact is that aid given by Robinson helped build the organizations that now kill children at pizzerias, teenagers at discos, and pensioners at Passover seders, not to mention numerous American citizens along the way.

Robinson's tenure at the United Nations has been little better than her record as Ireland's president. She was the driving force behind the Orwellian "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance." At the conference, Robinson presided over little more than an intellectual pogrom against Jews and Israel. She remained largely silent as the preliminary Asian Regional Conference in Tehran (to which Israel was excluded) inserted blatantly racist statements into the conference agenda. She failed to speak out when, on the grounds of the U.N. conference itself, the Arab Lawyers Union distributed pamphlets depicting hook-nosed Jews as Nazis spearing Palestinian children. In the same tent where nongovernmental organizations depicted Israel as a "racist, apartheid state," were distributed fliers entitled, "What if Hitler had won?" The answer: "There would be no Israel, and no Palestinian bloodshed." While Robinson takes no responsibility for enabling the greatest single display of anti-Semitism in 50 years, she failed to lift a finger when the South African government denied visas to European anti-slavery activists critical of human rights in Islamic nations like the Sudan, where over two million people have perished in a war since the regime in Khartoum declared a jihad against non-Muslims in 1983. Either black Sudanese are less worthy of concern to the human-rights commission, or it would be inexcusably politically incorrect to actually protest human-rights violations conducted in the name of Islam.

Robinson's post-Durban record is little better. On April 15, Robinson's commission voted on a decision that condoned suicide bombings as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood (six European Union members voted in favor including, not surprisingly, France and Belgium). The vote came after Robinson initiated a drive to become a fact finder to investigate the now-famous massacre in Jenin (also known as "the massacre that never happened"). Curiously, in the months preceding Israel's incursion into the U.N. refugee camp in Jenin, suicide bombers launched from the camp wearing explosives likely bought with European money killed more than 100 Israeli civilians. However, for Robinson, a massacre is the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians in a war zone (47 Palestinian militants and 23 Israel soldiers also died). The deaths of more than 100 Jewish civilians by suicide bombers is worthy of little more than deafening silence interrupted by an occasional pithy statement of moral equivalence. The world still waits for Robinson to use her bully pulpit to call for an investigation of the terrorist murder of Jews (but then again, such an inquiry might lead uncomfortably close to UNRWA and European Union officials ).

Of course it's farcical to believe that Robinson will ever be brought before the International Criminal Tribunal, or that she even should be. With her double standards, amazing ability to look the other way, and her record at the Human Rights Commission, Robinson has done more than any other international official to demonstrate that international courts, commissions, and agencies are more about politics than ethics, human rights, or morality, and therefore should never the legitimacy of U.S. endorsement.

The charge of indirect responsibility for crimes against humanity is a reasonable charge so long as it is levied against those whom the chattering classes in Europe wish to condemn. Otherwise, dozens of Dutch peacekeepers would be in prison now for handing countless Muslim men and boys to Serb gunmen in a so-called U.N. safe haven. U.N. peacekeepers might be defending their actions in The Hague for working feverishly to avoid taking any action in Rwanda as all hell broke loose. UNIFIL observers might need to explain under oath why they helped cover up Hezbullah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers from across a border the secretary general himself certified. Speaking of the secretary general, he might wish to explain, at least as a witness, why he saw fit to meet with and legitimize Hezbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah just two months after Nasrallah declared, "Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities." UNICEF director Carol Bellamy might want to explain why slaves (oops.. "abductees" in U.N. and E.U. parlance: We mustn't antagonize the Sudanese government) liberated by UNICEF in Sudan never returned home, but ended up dead at government check points a day after UNICEF representatives crowed triumphant and foreign journalists departed. Then again, with UNICEF workers in West Africa trading emergency food and medical assistance for child sex, why question a few dead Sudanese so long as the photo-op was successful?

The European Union and the United Nations are sick with self-righteousness, moral equivalence, and appeasement, but Mary Robinson is just one symptom. Worthy international causes have been hijacked for narrow political agendas.

Accountability has become a dirty word. And looking the other way, especially regarding terrorism, has become a form of art. But then again, why reform if bashing Israel and sponsoring forums to promote anti-Semitism can reinforce your credentials in the eyes of your peers?

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, February 28, 2007.
[Editor's Note: For more information, see below.]

Remember the blue and white JNF boxes you and I feed in good faith. Today, JNF abets the acquisition of JNF land by Arabs. How could this be? Will it be stopped?

The JNF, Jewish National Fund was founded in 1901 at the Fifth Zionist Congress at Basle, which resolved: "The JNF shall be the eternal possession of the Jewish People. Its funds shall NOT be used except for the purchase of lands in Palestine and Syria." The public ownership of land is based on the Biblical injunction: "The Land shall not be sold forever, for the Land is Mine." (Leviticus 25:23). The JNF protocol specifically prohibits selling land ownership and selling any rights to non-Jews. Jews from all over the world put their money into the little Blue Boxes, donating millions of dollars to the Jewish National Fund (JNF).

For those wishing to donate to truly Zionist organizations dedicated to purchasing land in Israel for Jews, and guarding and protecting that land, should write to Aryeh King at: kingshir@bezeqint.net.il.

For those wishing to reach leadership at JNF to find an explanation for the apparently inexplicable please write the following and cc janetlehr@veredart.com:

rlauder@jnf.org; adabrow@jnf.org; rlevine@jnf.org; lkleinman@jnf.org; aklein@jnf.org; jhess@jnf.org; hdamsky@jnf.org; blevin@jnf.org; iblachor@jnf.org; shochberg@jnf.org; mwechsler@jnf.org; slizerbram@jnf.org; dfrank@jnf.org; jlevine@jnf.org; dcantor@jnf.org; hweiss@jnf.org; nsiegel@jnf.org; eborkson@jnf.org; mpollock@jnf.org; jperlow@jnf.org; swilensky@jnf.org; bgould@jnf.org; mbrivik@jnf.org; javiram@jnf.org; jlevine@jnf.org; mruskin@jnf.org; jgoren@jnf.org; aklein@jnf.org; cfax@jnf.org; scohen@jnf.org; dmargules@jnf.org; jgrossman@jnf.org; lwolk@jnf.org; rwigoda@jnf.org; tbanks@jnf.org; mwiener@jnf.org; cwhitehill@jnf.org; hlis@jnf.org; nforman@jnf.org; abrooks@jnf.org; sbaratz@jnf.org; eheilicher@jnf.org; jresnick@jnf.org; jlevin@jnf.org; lpalan@jnf.org; jdavis@jnf.org; rlubin@jnf.org; bharrisburg@jnf.org; sfirestone@jnf.org; espritz@jnf.org; jrudoler@jnf.org; rpetcove@jnf.org; rbenedon@jnf.org; dshatz@jnf.org; rgering@jnf.org; mmiller@jnf.org; lbarris@jnf.org; sscheiner@jnf.org; ekay@jnf.org; hober@jnf.org; rsieger@jnf.org; mkelman@jnf.org; msimon@jnf.org; inegrin@jnf.org; jkay@jnf.org; rrobinson@jnf.org ; hcohen@jnf.org; mrosenzweig@jnf.org; abinder@jnf.org; ykane@jnf.org; mbernstein@jnf.org; elankin@jnf.org; aalterman@jnf.org; tbanks@jnf.org; sbaratz@jnf.org; jbelson@jnf.org; jberko@jnf.org; wberkowitz@jnf.org; dberman@jnf.org; mbirger@jnf.org; ebalachor@jnf.org; ablumenfeld@jnf.org; eborkson@jnf.org; sbreslauer@jnf.org; abrooks@jnf.org; dcantor@jnf.org; scardin@jnf.org; schesley@jnf.org; rcohen@jnf.org; gcohen@jnf.org; dcohen@jnf.org; adavids@jnf.org; jdavis@jnf.org; sdelug@jnf.org; jdweck@jnf.org; cfax@jnf.org; nforman@jnf.org; dfrank@jnf.org; sfratkin@jnf.org; jfriedman@jnf.org; tgelbart@jnf.org; sgendell@jnf.org; agoldman@jnf.org; rgolub@jnf.org; jgoren@jnf.org; ihack@jnf.org; rharrisburg@jnf.org; eheilicher@jnf.org; jhess@jnf.org; whess@jnf.org; rhurwitz@jnf.org; bisrael@jnf.org; chacobson@jnf.org; mjacobson@jnf.org; mkagan@jnf.org; bkahn@jnf.org; ckalmanson@jnf.org; trubin@jnf.org; aross@jnf.org; jresnick@jnf.org; dradler@jnf.org; jrabin@jnf.org; mpost@jnf.org; rpopkin@jnf.org; spersky@jnf.org; npaul@jnf.org; rpatt@jnf.org; lpalan@jnf.org; jpabian@jnf.org; roxman@jnf.org; rorkand@jnf.org; tolken@jnf.org; moliner@jnf.org; dnewman@jnf.org; tmower@jnf.org; mmower@jnf.org; mmiller@jnf.org; mmarkowitz@jnf.org; dmarkind@jnf.org; dmargules@jnf.org; rlubin@jnf.org; blipton@jnf.org; rlevine@jnf.org; jlevine@jnf.org; tzuckerman@jnf.org; mzuckerman@jnf.org; swolnek@jnf.org; lwolk@jnf.org; mwolf@jnf.org; swilensky@jnf.org; rwigoda@jnf.org; mwiener@jnf.org; cwhitehill@jnf.org; hweiss@jnf.org; mwechsler@jnf.org; jwachstein@jnf.org; jlevin@jnf.org; blevin@jnf.org; mlefton@jnf.org; mlazar@jnf.org; vkurtz@jnf.org; bkruglick@jnf.org; lkleinman@jnf.org; aklein@jnf.org; lkestenbaum@jnf.org; gkay@jnf.org; jkaufman@jnf.org; tkatz@jnf.org; rkaslove@jnf.org; jkaplan@jnf.org; dkaplan@jnf.org; jrudoler@jnf.org; lruss@jnf.org; msalberg@jnf.org; rsalfeld@jnf.org; jschector@jnf.org; sscheiner@jnf.org; sschonfeld@jnf.org; jschottenstein@jnf.org; mschwartz@jnf.org; eseelig@jnf.org; hshapiro@jnf.org; asilber@jnf.org; bspack@jnf.org; espritz@jnf.org; mstein@jnf.org; msterling@jnf.org; jsternstein@jnf.org; btannenbaum@jnf.org; source: http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=exec_off

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, February 28, 2007.

(IsraelNN.com) Legislators serving on the Knesset's State Control Committee were given a tour Tuesday of the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mt. of Olives, overlooking Jerusalem's Old City. The purpose of the tour was to examine first-hand the many complaints registered with the authorities over extensive desecration of graves at the site, including graffiti and smashed headstones.

MK Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party-National Union), chairman of the Knesset State Control Committee, expressed bitterness over the destruction he saw at the ancient cemetery: "If such vandalism as the smashing of headstones and the desecration of graves had occurred in a Jewish cemetery in Europe, I am convinced that the entire Jewish world would be shocked and the law enforcement authorities would attempt to capture the guilty parties."

MK Orlev noted that, in contrast to the case of a European Jewish cemetery desecration, such "shocking phenomena" are taking place "in the heart of the capital of Israel, adjacent to the Western Wall, [yet] the sovereign Jewish regime remains apathetic."

Representatives of the Development Authority responsible for eastern Jerusalem, who accompanied the parliamentarians on their fact-finding tour of the Mt. of Olives, promised to implement government decisions to preserve and restore the desecrated Jewish cemetery. Among other measures, the development authority is to establish effective security arrangements for the area, repair the damaged headstones, and assure general cleanliness, waste collection and disposal.

MK Orlev announced that the committee he heads will request State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss to examine the conduct of the relevant state authorities responsible for the Mt. of Olives site. In three months, Orlev said, the State Control Committee would hold a follow-up meeting on the issue.

The cemetery on the Mt. of Olives includes approximately 150,000 graves, dating from the First Temple period through modern times. Among the many graves there are those of many famous Jewish historical figures such as Rabbi Moshe Ben-Nachman (Ramban), former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook, Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel Shlomo Goren, the codifier of modern Hebrew Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, author and Nobel Prize laureate S. Y. Agnon, British Chief Rabbi and Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, and media mogul Robert Maxwell. Many Jews through the ages have sought burial on the Mt. of Olives because the site is mentioned in the Bible as the first spot from which the dead will be revivified.


1. The real desecration is in fact the attitude of the current Chelmite "government". They just don't like religious Jews of any stripe. Their religion is leftist secularism, and the just want to be loved by the world, a world that hates Jews. And whatever they might think they are, the world will define them too as Jews, just like Hitler did, and if our fate is doom, they will share it. The world doesn't love them back, no matter how much they kiss up. Disgraceful! Chazak Ve-ematz!
Gershon, Champaign, IL (28/02/07)

2. it just cant be and just to think that the Jews werent living in Israel until 1948,hummmmmmmmm now how did these Jews sneak these graves in there? ought to tell them something should'nt it?
harold, usa (28/02/07)

6. The savages attack graves now. If the U.S. and Israeli governments allow them to keep getting stronger and stronger, then these vermin will skip the graveyards and go after the population centers. What will the West do? Coddle our Islamic enemies... let them keep pulling the wool over the eyes of millions in the U.S. and Europe with this 'religion of peace' garbage... that's what will happen. I am starting to know what the process of suicide looks like more and more.
Leo, Fort Wayne, Ind (28/02/07)

8. Disbelief again My disbelief is not at the desecration, which is the normal behavour to be expected from our "neighbors" but the disbelief is yet again in the the East Jerusalem Authority whose promises are as worthless today as they have been in the past. Since I have family on the Mt of Olives - I know at first hand Or-Lev -FOLLOW UP NECESSARY!!!!!
zvi fenton, Jerusalem (28/02/07)

9. RE; Harold in USA Ahmaine...you are so right. I mean if we Jews did not already have the land prior (1948) to the Arabs ...then Explain why all our Patriarchs from.the Torah.and Rabbis and so on are burried in Israel dating back thousands of years. The world needs to wake up to the truth...Shalom
Zahara, USA (28/02/07)

13. Why like this al the time, arabs already destroyes our graves and europe does the same, what's new? But the solution is to throw all arabs and certain christian OUT OF ISRAEL, and i mean shomron and yehuda too...than nobody will do this anymore, throw also our bad leaders out of Israel and put people there like Bibi! Shalov rabotai, tehiyeh bari kolam!

ELIEZER, (01/03/07)

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz is a writer for Arutz Sheva. This article appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, February 28, 2007.

If you stop to consider, it might occur to you that there is something surreal about Purim this year. It is almost as if we are witnessing "replay".

Haman is once again in our midst, but this time he is called Ahmadinejad - same country, same place, same agenda. Today's Iran is Persia of yore, and even as the malevolent Haman schemed Holocaust - the "final solution", so too, his 21st century heir is orchestrating a plan to wipe Israel off the map. And even as the Jews in Shushan were divided, caught napping and assimilating into their secular culture, so today, our people are fragmented, sleeping, and succumbing to the enticements of society.

To be sure, there is one huge difference between Shushan of old and the events of today - Esther and Mordechai are missing. There is no one to summon our people, to awaken them from their slumber and charge them with their Divine calling. There is no one to proclaim those two magic words, "Keemu V'Keeblu" - "Let us re-accept and re-commit to our Torah" - two magic words that resulted in a. nechapochu - "a miraculous turn-around", converting darkness into light, doom into blessing, culminating in the joyous festival of Purim. But worse still, today we find ourselves in an untenable situation. Not only do we have to deal with the Ahmadinejads of this generation - Hamas, Fatah, and all the other anti-Semites who are proliferating on every continent, but we have to deal with a scourge that is by far more menacing - those of our people who have become Jewish self-haters. And that is an evil that we cannot easily overcome, for the decay from within is by far more deadly than any onslaught from without. Our own people, members of the liberal left, have taken up the cause of those who would wipe us off the map (see Professor Alvin Rosenfeld's study on "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism".) There is an entire corps of intellectual, liberal Jews who would demonize Israel and accuse her of being an apartheid state which uses fascist tactics for ethnic cleansing. As unbelievable as it may sound, this anti-Semitic vituperative is actually parroted by some of our own people of the left, who, in the name of freedom of speech, justify their anti-semitic stance by claiming that they are merely criticizing Israel.

Incredibly, instead of crying out against jihad and the reign of terror that is being foisted upon Israel without surcease, these so-called Jews excoriate Israel for defending herself. Loudly, they demand a Palestinian state, never realizing that, in point of fact, there already is a Palestinian state in place that came about in August of 2005 when Israel evacuated twenty-one Jewish settlements and forcibly removed her own people from their land. The new State of Palestine has become a launching pad for Jihad; an odious cesspool of terrorists; a depot for lethal weapons; a haven for assassins from Iran and other parts of the globe, a place where slaughter, graft, and corruption are daily fare, - and now these so-called do-gooders would impose that very same fate on Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.

To complicate matters, Abbas (the president of the Palestinian authority) has formed a unity government with Hamas. So now they can place added pressure on Israel to relinquish more and more of her land. But what the media and the world fail to report and accept, is that there is no difference between the goals of Fatah and Hamas. Fatah talks negotiation while simultaneously launching savage, murderous attacks, and Hamas just kills without negotiation. But the bottom line is that the charters of both parties call for the annihilation of Israel. When Abbas announced his unity government, he also said that "Arabs have to put their internal strife aside so that they might raise their guns only against Israel, for the sons of Israel are corrupting humanity on earth." But the media and the world chose to ignore all that. To them, attacks on Israel are non-issues.

Now it's one thing for the media to be oblivious to anti-Semitic declarations, but it's something else again when this same platform is endorsed by Jews Was it only yesterday that, despite assimilation, Israel evoked a surge of pride in the most assimilated heart, creating a different climate in America. Remember when Mayor Giuliani, refused entree to Arafat, when Jesse Jackson was called upon to apologize for calling New York City "Hymietown" and Harvard, under pressure, felt constrained to return a very large grant to the Arabs? Why is there silence now?

To understand the extent to which Israel-bashing has become politically correct, just consider that at a recent winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, Husham al Hussainy, an avowed Israel hater, was chosen to deliver the invocation. During Israel's war with Hizbollah last summer, this man led rallies in support of Lebanese terrorists, carrying swastikas and anti-Semitic posters. Giving honor to such a man could never have happened a few short years ago and I'm not even discussing Carter's best seller which vilifies Israel, or General Clark's anti-Semitic` rhetoric, scoring "New York's 'money people'" And there are many more of their ilk out there. But what is significant is not so much what these anti-Semites are saying, but rather, that they feel confident in saying it. They fear no backlash because they know that none will be forthcoming - a tragic commentary on the state of affairs in the United States today. But all this pales into insignificance when compared to that which is transpiring in the State of Israel, where this same anti-Israel sentiment has taken hold of many of our people.

Now, as if this was not enough, Israel has yet another scourge to contend with. In addition to the usual terrorist attacks, corruption is eroding the moral fiber of our people, from government, political, and military leaders to athletes, almost everyone is under investigation or being indicted - and that is by far more deadly than that to which we are witness in the United States, for if there is decay from within in Israel, the very security, the very survival of the state is at stake. If there is no idealism, if there is no vision, how can the nation defend herself? How can 5,308,300 Jews survive in a sea of tens of millions of hostile Arabs.

So how did we come to this catastrophic turn of events?

The answer is painfully simple - secular zionists were bent upon creating "a state that would be like all other states", and to that end, they were determined to fashion a "new" Jew - a Jew who was not burdened by his past; a Jew who would be physically strong and not be weighed down by a black hat. So, a generation was raised without Hashem, without Torah, and the vacuum filled with materialism, hedonism, greed, drugs, and all the other ills of Western civilization. Secularists of the newly formed state were so obsessed with cutting the umbilical cord to their Jewish past, that, not only did they refrain from mentioning Hashem's Name, but even reference to our Patriarchs to whom G-d promised the land, had to be omitted. For example, in Hatikvah, the national anthem, instead of saying, "lashuv l'eretz avoteinu" - "to return to the land of our fathers," "leyot am chofshi b'artzenu" - "to be a free people in our land" is sung. Our Yom Tovim - Pesach, Shavuos, and Succoth, have been converted to agricultural and national celebrations; Chanukah has become a symbol of military might; Purim a day of carnival and frolicking; Rosh HaShana, a time to take off and go to the beach, and G-d's Covenant - our encounter at Sinai, His promise that the land would be ours in perpetuity, has all but been forgotten. Is it little wonder then that many Israelis question their right to the land and find it difficult to refute the intellectual elite who view Israel as no different than colonial occupiers? More than Ahmadinejad's nuclear threats, it is this internal rot that is threatening our existence.

Our long, painful history is testimony to a simple truth of which I spoke some thirty-four years ago in my first public appearance in Jerusalem: "B'shuv Am Yisrael l'Elokav, B'hitachaid Am Yisrael eem Torato, ayn koach b'olam she youchal lo" - "When the Jewish people return to G-d and become one with their Torah, there is no force on earth that can prevail against them."

How easy it all sounds, and yet, how complicated, how remote this message is if the simple element of faith is lacking. But if those of us who understand; if those of us who can still hears the echoes from Sinai would attempt to be Esthers and Mordechais and awaken our slumbering people, inspire them to take hold of their Divine destiny and assume their Priestly roles, then we would make this remote formula the reality of our lives and once again become a Goy Kadosh - a holy nation; Mamlechet Kohanim - a Priestly Kingdom; Ohr L'Goyim - a Light Unto the Nations." If we will it, it can happen! Our destiny is calling.... It is up to us to make the words of the megillah - "La'YehudimHoyso Orho V'Simcha" - "And for the Jewish people there was joy and gladness" come alive.

Contact the Rebbetzin at webmaster@hineni.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, February 28, 2007.

With the growing importance of blogs in shaping public opinion, Israel has an opportunity to start getting its message across beyond the filter of the mainstream press. As I suggest in the column below from yesterday's Jerusalem Post, it is time for the Jewish state to begin reaching out to the blogosphere and utilizing this important resource in the battle against Arab propaganda.

This article is archived at

As archeologists continue to excavate the site of the Mughrabi Gate alongside the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City, it remains anybody's guess what they might just find underneath the mounds of soil, rock and debris.

But one item already unearthed by this dig should have us all deeply concerned, and that is the mainstream media's disgraceful habit of parroting Arab propaganda.

It was just a few weeks ago that a shocking array of prominent media outlets, in their coverage of this non-event, went about spreading one irresponsible and malicious lie after another about the Mughrabi Gate dig, tarnishing Israel's image and inflaming public opinion against the Jewish state.

A headline in The Australian screamed "Palestinians unite to fight Temple Mount dig," as if the bulldozers were actually tearing up the mount itself. Across the globe, France 24, the international French news channel, declared: "Palestinians protest over Jerusalem mosque works," falsely implying that Israel was ripping apart a Muslim house of prayer. Similarly, China's official Xinhua news agency reported: "Arab League urges international response to Israel's dig at al-Aqsa Mosque," as though the earthmovers were displacing the mosque itself.

Perhaps the most egregious example was provided by Time magazine, whose editors could not resist taking a swipe at Israel by running the headline: "Raiders of the Temple Mount." It's hard to remember the last time so many falsehoods were spread so extensively in such a short period of time.

If there is a lesson to be learned from this sorry state of affairs, it is that Israel needs to begin utilizing alternative means to circumvent the mainstream media and spread its own message far and wide.

IN ORDER to better counter the Arab propaganda machine, the Jewish state should actively reach out to its many supporters in cyberspace, and especially in the blogosphere, for help in disseminating the truth.

Blogs, or weblogs, are basically on-line journals where individuals or groups can posture, pontificate or simply share their thoughts by posting them on the Internet. There are literally millions of blogs out there, covering just about every subject you can imagine. Their reach is enormous, and their influence is growing rapidly. According to a July 2006 study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 39 percent of US Internet users, or about 57 million American adults, read blogs. This is nearly double the amount of just three years ago.

Over half of all bloggers are under the age of 30, underlining the importance of blogs to the next generation of decision-makers. Some of the most popular sites welcome hundreds of thousands or even millions of visitors.

In recent years, blogs have come to play a key role not only in shaping the news, but in making it as well.

In September 2004, just two months before the last US presidential election, a team of determined bloggers debunked the authenticity of documents presented by CBS News which claimed that George W. Bush had dodged the draft.

Blogs have now become such a vital component of US presidential politics that campaign teams hire people to do "blog outreach." Some have paid and volunteer staffers who monitor blogs and keep track of the pulse and current of public opinion.

Even shady Middle Eastern dictators have come to appreciate, and even fear, the power of blogs. Just last week, in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's autocratic regime sentenced a blogger to four years in prison for "insulting the president."

THE FACT IS that blogs are a vibrant source of energetic and independent thinking, often providing readers with a fresh way of looking at things that is unencumbered by bureaucratic blinders or organizational self-interest.

As a blogger myself, I often find better and more timely analysis on the Web than in the mainstream media. Indeed, some of Israel's best friends and most articulate defenders can be found in the blogosphere, where sites such as Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Atlas Shrugs, Hugh Hewitt, Debbie Schlussel and Instapundit all provide a refreshing alternative to the moral relativism and politically correct anti-Israel blather of the media.

AT THE height of the Mughrabi Gate crisis earlier this month it was the blogosphere which played a critical role in getting out the truth, just as it did during last summer's Lebanon war. Time and again, blogs have shown themselves to be a potent communications tool, and Israel needs to start tapping into their vast potential.

This can be accomplished by launching a concentrated and effective outreach effort aimed specifically at influential bloggers, who should be courted with the same resources and commitment as the mainstream press.

The government and Jewish groups should begin by organizing periodic fact-finding tours of Israel for key bloggers, giving them a chance to learn firsthand about the situation here in the region.

An annual conference of pro-Israel bloggers, attended by key Israeli statesmen and personalities, could help to galvanize what is already a burgeoning network of support for the Jewish state.

It is also crucial that Israeli spokesmen and leaders take the blogosphere into account when formulating their media strategies and messaging tactics, both by sending them relevant information and making sure to keep them in the loop.

SURE, mainstream entities such as CNN, the BBC and The New York Times will continue to dominate the news business for years to come. But the battle for public opinion is far from being a lost cause. Israel just needs to start thinking a little more creatively about how to wage the battle. By working with our allies in the blogosphere, Israel can begin to turn the tide in its favor and chip away at the falsehoods being spread by the press. If we can't beat the media, let's circumvent it. Reaching out to bloggers seems like a good place to start.

Michael Freund blogs on Middle Eastern and Israeli affairs. His 'Fundamentally Freund' can be found at IsraelNationalNews.com. Contact him at msfreund@earthlink.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February , 2007.

This was written by Raphael Israeli, who is a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and a professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of numerous books including The Third Islamic Invasion of Europe (forthcoming); Green Crescent Over Nazareth; Islam in China: Religion, Ethnicity, Culture, and Politics; The Iraq War: Hidden Agendas and Babylonian Intrigue: The Regional Impact on Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis and Arabs; and Palestinians Between Nationalism and Islam.

This a Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) publication. This article is archived at

  • The aftermath of World War II brought about an acute shortage of manpower in Europe. Former colonies, where manpower was available that required relatively limited cultural adaptation, became the plentiful sources for unskilled laborers who would replenish the dwindling pool of workers in Europe.

  • These workers constructed Muslim communities in certain localities throughout Europe, where their numbers created local majorities that no candidate for elective office could ignore. The growth of these communities required the construction of mosques and Muslim cultural centers, some of which grew into secret lodges of subversion, incitement, and recruitment of radical youth.

  • Muslim communities have imported the Middle Eastern conflict into their host countries, with attending acts of violence and unbridled anti-Semitism toward local Jewish communities which had otherwise lived peacefully except during the Holocaust interregnum.

  • Some European Muslim leaders make no secret of their intent to change Europe to their tune, not to adapt to it. They demand their own school systems, in their own native languages, financed by the host state and, in the long run, to its own detriment.

  • European countries have adopted multiculturalism, and increasingly multilingualism, as an imposed reality whereby they have abdicated their role to absorb the newcomers and integrate them into the existing systems, and instead let the immigrants dictate their own visions of "integration," which means in effect separatism, secession, or an eventual takeover when demography had run its course.

  • There are already areas in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Britain where Muslim children constitute the majority of the school population. In addition, there are a growing numbers of converts to Islam in major European countries such as France and Britain - 50,000 in each in the past decade.

The Muslim world includes 57 Muslim-majority countries spanning Asia and Africa, comprising about 1.5 billion believers, making it the second-largest faith after Christianity. Since its inception, Islam spread, as did other faiths, by conquest, missionary work, or through expanding trade from the core areas of Islam in the Middle East to the Far East and the coasts of Africa. While Islam was extending its rule into others' territories, it necessarily came into armed conflict with the prevailing cultures, like the Berbers in North Africa, the Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, or the Christians of the Middle East and Europe. But since the Europeans halted the Muslim Ottomans at the gates of Vienna in the late seventeenth century, and the British defeated the Muslim Moghuls in India in the nineteenth century, a reversal in the fortunes of Islam has unfolded. Thenceforth, Islamic was in descent and the European and Western powers were on the ascent. As Islam withdrew, independent Judeo-Christian and Hindu nations emerged in the Balkans, in India, and in Palestine, and the remaining Islamic world was colonized by Europe, until its reemergence as independent nation-states after the world wars.

The Attraction of European Society

Colonization had its long-term effects nonetheless, inasmuch as modernization, both in thought and in effect, set in and began gnawing at the monopoly of Islam in those societies. As a result, the elites of those emerging new nations took to Western culture and learned the languages, the mores, the civilizations, the institutions, and the thought of their occupiers, and remained tied to them long after their emancipation from foreign rule. So, after attaining independence, many formerly colonized populations moved to the metropolis of their previous occupiers and established Muslim communities there.

Some of the newcomers were more at home in the ambiance of their newly adopted cultures than in their original homes where they had become alienated. Others went in search of better economic opportunities. Still others came for study periods or to seek political asylum, but then were reluctant to relinquish the freedom, prosperity, and tranquility of the West and to return to the poverty, oppression, and turmoil of their own countries. Compared to the immense populations of their original homelands, these were tiny trickles of privileged individuals or families who were intent on adapting to their new environments, to adopt their new countries and cultures as their own, and to take the necessary steps to merge into the host-cultures of their choice. Their limited numbers, on the one hand, and their dispersion among the general population, on the other, was a built-in guarantee that in no time they would integrate into the mainstream and assimilate completely.

The rapid economic growth of Europe in the aftermath of World War II - due to both reconstruction of the ravages of war and the economic and technological revolutions that those societies underwent, coupled with the very slow pace of reproduction of European populations, where both men and women were seeking careers rather than raising families - brought about an acute shortage of manpower. Former colonies, where manpower was available that required relatively limited cultural adaptation, became the plentiful sources for unskilled laborers who slowly at first, and then in droves, would lavishly replenish the dwindling pool of workers in Europe. In addition, vast countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia, which had been founded as immigrant societies, would also absorb much of this massive immigration from Muslim countries to the West.

Abusing European Generosity

This growing movement of populations now came to encompass not only adventurers and seekers of new economic opportunities, but also increasing numbers of "political refugees," some of whom were genuine asylum seekers from their oppressive regimes at home. Many others, however, abused the generosity, concern for human rights, and openness of the West to escape "justice" in their own countries or to use their countries of asylum as launching pads for political struggle against their home regimes. Eventually, some of these immigrants would turn against their adoptive countries and launch terrorist campaigns against them.

These new immigrants, who for the most part gained local citizenship after the requisite period of residency, which varies from one country to another, soon began to have an impact on their adoptive countries in different areas:

  • Under the humanitarian heading of "family reunion," they secured immigration rights for many of their relatives back home, thus markedly increasing their numbers; for many of the radical Muslims, this has become a sort of "soft Jihad" to encourage Muslim immigration into their new adoptive countries in order to increase their influence through sheer numbers.

  • Due to their social and religious needs, they constructed Muslim communities in certain localities throughout Europe, where their numbers created local majorities that no candidate for elective office could ignore; the growth of these communities required the construction of mosques and Muslim cultural centers, part of which were and remain innocent houses of prayer, but others grew into secret lodges of subversion and undercover calls for incitement and recruitment of radical youth.

  • Muslim communities, side-by-side with their irreproachable cultural activities, soon also engaged in illicit avenues of civil disobedience and sometimes in radical incitement against the state; as a result, prisons in Europe are saturated with Muslim inmates out of proportion to their percentage in the general population.

  • Muslim communities have imported the Middle Eastern conflict into their host countries, with attending acts of violence and unbridled anti-Semitism toward local Jewish communities which had otherwise lived peacefully except during the Holocaust interregnum.

  • Some European Muslim leaders make no secret of their intent to change Europe to their tune, not to adapt to it. They demand, and in some cases achieve, in the name of multiethnicism and multiculturalism, their own school systems, in their own native languages, financed by the host state and, in the long run, to its own detriment.

  • European countries have adopted multiculturalism, and increasingly multilingualism, not as the implementation of a social ideal of cross-fertilizing different cultural groups by allowing them to enrich each other, but as an imposed reality whereby they have abdicated their role to absorb the newcomers and integrate them into the existing systems, and instead let the immigrants dictate their own visions of "integration," which means in effect separatism, secession, or an eventual takeover when demography had run its course.

A Population Explosion in the Muslim World

Generally speaking, the billion and a half Muslims of the world are distributed into three major blocs: about one-third in the Middle East and Africa, with the Arabs constituting over half, with another 150 million in Turkey and Iran (75 million each), and the rest in black Africa, principally Nigeria and the Horn of Africa. Another third encompass the Indian subcontinent with its three major components of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh with about 150 million in each country, and smaller Muslim populations in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The rest are concentrated in East and Southeast Asia, with about half in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, and the rest in Malaysia, and Muslim minorities in Thailand, Burma, the Philippines, and in Russia and China (about 25 million in each).

The growth of Islam in the Western societies of Europe, America, and Australia is quite a new phenomenon, and as its numbers increase, either via immigration (legal or illegal) or by natural growth, the awakening of a Muslim identity discourages integration and gives rise to problems. There are already areas in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Britain where Muslim children constitute the majority of the school population, a situation that is pregnant with disaffection and can potentially lead to unrest and terror.

Beyond its expansion into new areas, such as Western democracies, the Islamic world has sustained a consistent internal growth of 3 percent for many years, that is, a doubling of the total population every 25 years. This means that with this high birthrate, a result of tradition, prohibitions on birth control, and the general trend in the developing world where the rich get richer and the poor have more children, and decreasing mortality due to health improvements, there is a virtual population explosion in the Islamic world.

Countries like Iran, Turkey, and Egypt, which boasted populations of 35-40 million in the 1980s, have each doubled since then. Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, where the Muslim populations were already high in the 1980s, have also doubled since then. Smaller countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco, and Algeria have also doubled their populations, as have the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. So, in general, the three-quarter billion Muslim population of the 1980s has soared to one and a half billion, that is, 25 percent of the estimated world population of six billion. Moreover, since most of this population is young, the rapid demographic growth in those countries will continue apace as the children in this population come of age.

While demographic statistics in those countries are not always reliable, there is little doubt about the trends. Moreover, while European statistics on incoming Muslim legal immigrants can be relied upon, the countless illegal migrants remain uncounted. A lack of statistics from the Muslim countries of emigration further complicates the calculations of demographers. Yet one thing is certain: an immense surplus of Muslim manpower has been migrating into Western democracies, either as "political refugees," as welcome manpower for manual jobs that Europeans are reluctant to do, or as illegal migrants who easily slip through porous European borders.

Muslims in Europe

When Europe changed the rules and began to tighten its border control following major terrorist attacks in Madrid and London in 2004-5, the 25 million-strong Muslim population of Europe was already difficult to supervise due to the liberal freedom of movement allowed Europeans across the entire expanse of the European Union. An additional source of demographic growth for the Muslim population in the West is domestic proselytization, which produces some of the most devout and radical Muslims, like the Black Muslims of America, and potential recruits for terrorism like Richard Reed in the UK. In France alone, it is estimated that in the decade between 1995 and 2005, some 50,000 Christian French converted to Islam.

These figures amount in their aggregate to a Muslim population of about 6 percent in the European Union today, with France reaching 10 percent (6 out of 60 million), and 7 percent in the Netherlands and Belgium. In Germany, Britain, Italy, and Spain, Muslims can be counted in the millions, and Muslim visibility and public prominence seem out of proportion to their real numbers for a number of reasons:

  • They are usually concentrated in the large cities and clustered together in certain neighborhoods, which seem to have slipped out of the host culture's jurisdiction. In many areas of Paris, Marseille, Malmo, and Berlin, local Europeans feel like strangers in their own countries.

  • Due to the background of the unskilled immigrants, who are usually uneducated, they feel alienated inasmuch as many preserve their languages and mores, are different in dress, food and way of life, and build up a high degree of frustration which occasionally explodes in violent demonstrations.

  • Alienation, poverty, and frustration often lead many of the youth among the immigrant Muslim population to crime. In all European countries, Muslim prison inmates are out of proportion to their rate in the population, leading the host countries to realize that their generosity and openness in welcoming the immigrants and supporting their training and welfare has often turned into a permanent burden on the state instead of relief of its manpower shortage.

  • Muslim enclaves are sometimes seen as insensitive to the general host population. For example, mosques which call for prayer may turn previously quite neighborhoods into areas of friction. Or nationalized Muslims may demand that the cross that garnishes the national flags of their host countries be eliminated.

  • The growing numbers of converts to Islam in major European countries such as France and Britain - 50,000 in each in the past decade - plays a growing role on the visibility of the Muslim community.

  • Scandals like forced marriages of young Muslim women in Europe, or their murder to protect the "honor " of the family, the Rushdie affair of the 1990s, acts of terror, and violent demonstrations such as in the Danish cartoon affair of 2005-6 all tend to raise the profile of Islam in Europe and make it seem particularly menacing.

Factors Limiting Growth of Muslim Identity in Europe

On the other hand, several factors militate against an even faster rise of Muslim communitarian identity and demographic growth in Europe, as discussed in Amitai Etzioni's seminal work:[1]

  • The large numbers of Muslims who have assimilated over the past generation or two in their European environment, especially among the young who have been absorbed by the local educational systems, have grown ignorant of their original cultures and languages, and are more interested in developing peaceful and successful careers than in spreading Islam or responding to its call. Those Muslims may intermarry with locals and ultimately assimilate.

  • Precisely due to the ascendance of militant Islam in Europe and the West in general, with the attending violence that sometimes accompanies its assertion of its identity and its manifestation of disaffection and discontent, the more assimilated and quietist Muslims, who are reluctant to be identified with their radical kin, distance themselves from them and elect to melt unnoticed into the general population.

  • Unlike the radical militants, who do not hide their intent to Islamize European societies, the mainstream Muslims seem to have reconciled to the idea of integrating into their adoptive societies and state their intentions to maintain peace and to mind their own business. While the radicals would rather establish their own Muslim political parties, mainstream Muslims prefer to affiliate with the existing political system.

Muslims Confront European Host Societies

As long as Islam lived within its traditional boundaries, its tensions and frictions with the West remained outside the domain of the Western public; it was remote and lay beyond the horizon. But with the rise of fundamentalist Islam and the increase of Muslim immigration to the West, Muslims learned to face up to their host societies and even to confront them in debate. Their growing self-confidence and self-assertion taught them that they could debate the West without being imprisoned or executed, as they would be in their home countries.

For the Europeans, the clash of civilizations, which had taken place for centuries on the borders of Christendom, moved into their own heartland and they were unprepared for it. Convinced that their open and democratic societies would prevail and lead the new immigrants to abandon their roots and identity, Europeans were shocked to discover that over the years the gaps had widened, the differences grew into clashes, and the complaints had grown into demands. The Westerners began to realize that they were obliterating their traditionally homogeneous societies in favor of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and at times even multi-linguistic ones. Europeans began to see their goodwill and hospitality towards Muslims "rewarded" by violent demonstrations.

This European reaction will not make it easy for Turkey to enter the European Union. Bringing Turkey in would mean not only freedom of movement of Turkish labor and nationals throughout Europe, but also spreading the message of Islam into all corners of the continent. With some 6-7 percent of the EU population Muslim today (25 million out of 380 million), frictions are already difficult; how much more so if 75 million Muslim Turks would join, raising the rate of Muslims to 20-25 percent (100 million out of 450 million). The rapid growth of the Muslim population, on the one hand, and the shrinkage of the European family unit, on the other, would mean that in the next generation Europe may become half Muslim. Britain, the most ardent proponent of Turkish integration into the EU, agreed to suspend the talks between the parties when it realized that Turkish oppression of the Kurds continues unabated, that women are still discriminated against in Turkish society, and that Turkish school textbooks, which are monitored by the EU, contain thousands of cases of racism and human rights abuses, notably negative portrayals of Greeks, Jews, Kurds, and Armenians.[2]

The Behavior of Muslim Minorities

Demography has a long-term effect on the chances of coexistence in countries where Muslims are a minority because of the built-in contradiction between the requirement of Muslims to live under Islamic rule, since only there can the Law of Allah can be brought to bear, and the grim necessity for many Muslims to escape from the persecution of their Muslim regimes in order to seek refuge in the West. Believers who live in non-Muslim lands must either regard their stay there as temporary, and in the meantime do their best to live their Muslim life undisturbed, or return to the Abode of Islam as soon as they can, or try to turn their country of residence into a Muslim one by seizing power in it. For this reason, Muslim minorities have pursued states of mind varying from quietist acceptance of permanent minority status to violent rebellion.

The response of the Muslim minority depends in no small measure on the perceived threat posed to it by the majority host culture. Whenever coexistence with it seems feasible, as was the case with Muslim minorities in the West before the rise of fundamentalism among them, they could always say that as long that they could perform the obligations of their faith without inhibition, they could consider themselves as living within enclaves of the Abode of Islam, a state of affairs they could bear indefinitely. But as soon as perceived oppression made their lives as Muslims untenable, and they diagnosed their position as dwellers in the Abode of War, they were set on a collision course with their hosts, and conflict ensued.

Additional variables have an impact, including the general Muslim environment, which when embracing the road of militancy can draw behind it Muslim minorities who are fascinated by its power, which compensates for their feelings of oppression, underprivileged status, and hopelessness in tackling the requirements of modern life. Furthermore, the larger the minority, to the point of constituting local majorities in certain areas, the more it feels self-confident to challenge the majority. In areas where large concentrations of Muslims are clustered together, they feel strong enough to advance demands and to resort to violence or to threaten the use of violence if their demands are not fulfilled. Finally, if the regime under which they live is as oppressive as their own countries of origin, they would be less inclined to rebel, knowing what their punishment would entail, but under the liberal democratic rule of the West, it is easier for them to act to undermine it and paradoxically seek its destruction because it gives them more leeway.

There was a time when Muslim minorities were quite limited in numbers and scope of dispersion, usually as a result of interaction with the colonial powers who encouraged a certain amount of "natives" to tread their cultural ways in their own metropolitan centers, and some of them intermarried and stayed. However, the large waves of Muslim immigrants since the mid-twentieth century to the Americas, Australia and Europe, and more so the opening labor markets in the West to Muslim "guest-workers," coupled with important movements of conversion to Islam as a result of intense Muslim da'wa (mission), has dramatically increased the numbers of Muslim migrants to those countries. Moreover, the "guests" have come to regard themselves as permanent residents with all attending privileges of citizenship and social benefits. Not only do they not any longer regard their presence outside the realm of Islam as temporary, embarrassing and calling for justification, but with the birth in place of the second and third generations, who grow to learn the languages, cultures and ways of their new habitats, the process of their acculturation into their new homelands has accelerated.

As Muslim Populations Grow, the Illusion of Integration Fades

As long as their rate in the general populations of their new countries was negligible, and the socio-political environment was liberal (like in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Israel and Europe), then social pluralism and individual freedom of worship were advocated by the Muslim minorities. Under oppressive regimes like the Soviet or the Chinese, the Muslims were quick to adopt material acculturation into their host society, with all the trappings of language, dress, education and participation in the elites and social customs. The core of the faith was kept almost intact however, with the Muslim calendar, festivals, dietary laws, worship, and places of prayer preserved to the extent possible. This was easier in areas where Muslim minorities were more sizeable and commanded the critical mass necessary to entertain communal life, and much more difficult when the Muslim population was so sparse as to render any public display of Muslim identity impractical.

When Muslim minorities become frustrated by the unworkability of a pluralistic society, either because they believe they are discriminated against or their expectations are not met, they become antagonistic to their host society. This is so much more so when they perceive the majority as having transgressed the limits of previous coexistence and encroached upon their freedom of worship or conduct. In such cases, they use Western vocabulary (freedom, tolerance, democracy, human rights, etc.) to impress upon their hosts that while they wish to play by the rules of their adoptive countries, it is the latter that violate them. In more extreme cases, like with some Muslim fundamentalist leaders (religious actors par excellence) in London, they claim that they came to Europe in order to change it, not to be reshaped by it, or they reject Western attitudes altogether. This sets the Muslim minority, and especially the fundamentalist elements in its midst, on a collision course with the host authorities. Militant elements among this disaffected minority may seek political or cultural autonomy (such as the London Muslim "Parliament").

In India, Muslims had conquered the land and subjugated Hinduism, but when Muslim power was eroded by the British, Islam sought and achieved separation from the Hindus for the most part, rather than submit to the democratic rule of modern India that would have allowed the Hindus to exercise political domination over the Muslims. When the majority of Indian Muslims established their own state (Pakistan), their 'ulama spoke of the reinstitution of the Shari'a as their state law. There was no alternative to this arrangement if one bears in mind the fact that Islam is incompatible with other political ideologies.

As Orthodox Muslims see it, and much more so the fundamentalists among them, Islam is ideally an either-or affair. Either Islamic law and institutions are given full expression and dominate state life or, failing that, if the state is non-Islamic, Muslims should try to reverse the situation or leave.

Despite the initial naïve days of Muslim immigration into Europe, when it was assumed that Muslim minorities would integrate painlessly into the much more prosperous nations where they made their new homes, difficulties began to emerge from the outset, which were dismissed as pangs of acculturation. But as the years passed, the Muslim communities grew, their Muslim radicalism came to the surface, and the illusion of integration began to fade, replaced by the illusory vision of multi-cultural societies, which made cultural concessions to the immigrants in order to accommodate them and make them partners in the system. But far from satisfying the Muslims of Europe, whose growing numbers gave them the necessary self-confidence to defy the system, that only further increased their sense of alienation from their host countries. The Europeans, in turn, sensing that their liberalism had turned against them, began to try to back-pedal, but it was too late and the collision became inevitable.


1. Amitai Etzioni, From Empire to Community (New York: McMillan, 2004).

2. Anthony Browne and Suna Erdem, "Education Clash Holds Up EU Talks," The Times (UK), April 8, 2006.

Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 28, 2007.

This article appeared in the Arutz Sheva
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6950) The original contains live links to additional material.

The Eichmann metaphor at Haifa University.

Over the past few years, Ward Churchill, an instructor at the University of Colorado, has become the best-known symbol of academic lunacy in the United States. In an essay and then in a "book" authored by Churchill, both with the title On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Consequences of American Conquest and Carnage, published by the "radical and anarchist" publisher AK Press, Churchill wrote that the victims of the 9/11 Al-Qaeda attacks on New York were "the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the Twin Towers."

Instead of repudiating Churchill's lunacy, many on the fringes of the Western Left embraced and endorsed him, not only supporting his "right of free speech," but agreeing with the content of his statements.

An associate professor of theater at the University of Haifa denounces Israeli soldiers as "little Eichmanns."

Churchill has a long history of turning out anti-American hate screeds. He has long tried to pass himself off falsely as an American Indian, a victim of "white Amerika." He has a long track record of defending terrorism and playing apologist for Holocaust deniers.

Churchill teaches "ethnic studies" at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Since the "little Eichmanns" incident, a movement led by the Governor of Colorado has sought to get Churchill dismissed from his university job, and those efforts are expected to be successful very shortly.

A bit less well known than Ward Churchill, the University of Haifa has its own faculty member who makes a practice out of Eichmann metaphors, whose comments denouncing Israeli soldiers closely resemble those of Churchill endorsing the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers.

In the Haifa weekly Kolbo, dated February 1, 2002, page 30, Professor Avraham Oz, a far-leftist anti-Israel associate professor of theater at the University of Haifa, denounces Israeli soldiers as "little Eichmanns."

The news clipping above cites Oz as saying in his classroom, in the middle of a lecture that was part of a university course, that "in each of these people [evidently meaning Israeli soldiers] is hiding a little Eichmann." Oz then went on to compare the actions of Israel's military in the "occupied territories" to those of Nazi Germany. Students listening to him were outraged and complained. (That is probably how the newspaper heard about the incident.)

Oz has a long history of denouncing Israel inside his classroom and utilizing his classroom for purposes of political indoctrination. He was earlier denounced for this by Limor Livnat when she served as Minister of Education, who also demanded that Haifa University officers take action regarding Oz.

Oz's credentials to issue fatwas in judgment of Israeli soldiers are that he teaches courses in theater. When contacted for a reaction by the paper, Oz admitted the comments about Eichmann and added that he even was including questions on them in his course exam. Pity the student who does not provide him with the political answers he is seeking in those exam questions.

Oz has tried to organize "Nakba Day" on his campus, together with Pappe.

Oz has long been a defender and ally of Ilan Pappe, denouncing his own dean and drumming up support for Pappe in the infamous "Tantura Affair" fabrication. (Pappe and a student invented a non-existent "massacre" of Arabs by Jews, and had their legal defense fees financed in part by the PLO.) Like Pappe, Oz has also been active in promoting international boycotts of Israel and even of his own university.

He falsely claims his own university "discriminates against Arabs" and he has tried to organize "Nakba Day" on his campus together with Pappe. On Nakba Day, Israel's catastrophic creation would be mourned.

Among Oz's extra-curricular activities is his running an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic chat list named "ALEF" ("Academic Left"), whose members include some of the worst neo-Nazis and anti-Semites on the planet, some of them Jewish. ALEF operates under the auspices of the University of Haifa and is hosted on the University of Haifa computer. A good idea of the nature of ALEF can be derived from the fact that its members engage in debates over whether or not Hitler was "guilty" of anything, and also post praise there for David Irving. Oz only intervenes in the list debates when pro-Israel material is posted there inappropriately.

Because of his devotion to denouncing his own country and hosting neo-Nazis and anti-Semites on his chat list, Oz is celebrated by them, ranging from Al-Ahram to communist web sites and neo-Nazi web magazines.

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 or write him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, February 28, 2007.

The Ma'an News Service publishes numerous daily announcements in Arabic, which it subsequently translates and releases in English. In recent stories, PMW has noted that the Ma'an releases in Arabic include the hate ideology espoused by the terror organizations that deny Israel's right to exist, express reverence for suicide terrorists and justify terrorist murder as "resistance." But when translated into English, the same stories go through a sterilization process to hide from the English readers -- and possibly from the two Western countries, the Netherlands and Denmark, who give them funding -- the terrorist ideology Ma'an is helping to propagate.

The following are two examples: 1 -- On Jan. 29, 2007, a suicide terrorist killed three Israelis in the city of Eilat. The Ma'an Arabic report included the language of the terror organizations, while the English was cleansed with changes and omissions, including changes to the language of direct quotes. The differences are striking:

Denial of Israel's right to exist

In English Ma'an accurately reports that the event happened "in the southern Israeli resort of Eilat." But in the original Arabic, Eilat is changed from an Israeli city to a Palestinian city occupied by Israel -- reflecting the terrorist assertion that all of Israel is "occupied Palestine."

Ma'an English: "...in the southern Israeli resort of Eilat."

Ma'an Arabic in first reference: "... in Eilat located in the south of occupied Palestine."
Ma'an Arabic in second reference: "...carried out a brave deed and for the first time in occupied Eilat."

In the English the mother is referred to simply by her name and age: "Ruwaida Siksik, 42."

In Arabic Ma'an adds: " Ruwaida Siksik, 42, whose family originated from the occupied city of Jaffa."

The routine definition in a news story of Jaffa, a part of southern Tel Aviv, as "occupied" and Eilat as "occupied Palestine" is a way to linguistically express denial of Israel's right to exist, and is the terminology used by the terror organizations.

Glorifying suicide terror as Shahada -- revered Martyrdom The act of the suicide bombing is likewise reported differently in the English and the Arabic. The English refers to a "bombing," while the Arabic gives it an idyllic Islamic categorization of an "Amaliyyah Ishtish'hadyyah" - a Shahada-seeking action. This is not merely a positive categorization, but is defining the suicide bombing as an honored Islamic action. The perpetrator is given the status of a Ishtish'hadi- Shahada-seeker, who becomes after his death a Shahid -- a revered holy Martyr. In Arabic: "She heard the news on Monday morning that he died as a Shahid ...

In English: "Family of Eilat bomber"

In Arabic: "mother of the Shahada-seeker"

Another interesting difference is that in the Arabic, the brother of the bomber admits to knowing that his brother was leaving on a terror operation. This is omitted from the English version. 2- The second article demonstrating the terror support by Ma'an is its release yesterday about the murder of Erez Levanon, a 42-year-old Israeli musician and father of three children, who was attacked and stabbed to death by two Palestinians while praying in a field.

The Ma'an English: "Palestinian sources told Ma'an that armed Palestinian men ambushed an Israeli..."

The Ma'an Arabic: "Palestinian sources told Ma'an that Palestinian resistance men ambushed an Israeli ..."

This is not just semantics. In choosing to categorize murder as "resistance," Ma'an is choosing the language used by terror organizations to justify murder.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, February 27, 2007.

Dear Christian leaders,

The recent upsurge of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish publications and speeches and boycotts and divestment movements and Holocaust denial is well documented, and continues apace even as Hamas re-iterates for the umpteenth time its commitment to destroy Israel and genocide its Jews.

This upsurge is not unexpected, since, as I have reported numerous times, the propaganda war against Israel is part-and-parcel of the broader Arab war against Israel, and against Jews. When high intensity warfare (what we would call a regular war) failed for the fourth time in 1973, the Arab world turned to an increase in low intensity warfare (aka terrorism) and propaganda warfare in order to weaken Israel and undermine Israel's relationships with Europe and the USA and Canada. Now that the most recent chapter in the terror war saga (aka the Second Intifada) has failed, the assault continues with more and more stress on the propaganda war...hence the upsurge.

The anti-Israel propaganda has, since the USA entry in to a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, beeen very closely tied in with anti-war propaganda, and anti-Bush propaganda. Recall the anti-war demonstrations that included placards and chants against Israel. Recall the equations of "occupied Palestine' and "occupied Iraq". And recall the baseless and at times utterly irrational anti-Bush placards in anti-Israel demonstrations which condemn Bush for supporting Israel.

These facile and vacuous faux-equations are very useful for propagandists and diatribalists, because they create an effective broad spectrum condemnation of anyone or any institution or any action that can somehow be construed, rightly or wrongly, as support for Israel.

But over the past year, we are witness to a new and deeply threatening turn in that propaganda movement's choice of victims. Now Chistian supporters of Israel are in the pro-terrorist diatribalist's cross-hairs...

...but not for their support of Israel.

That would be too transparent.

Instead, as Robert Spencer's article below demonstrates, Chris Hedges and a number of other rather third-rate authors have suddenly, coincidentally (?) at the same time, come up with books all dealing coincidentally (?) with the same faux-revelation: Right-wing Christian fundamentalists want to take over the USA and shut down its all-too-free and not-Biblical-enough government and replace it with a Biblically-based government.

It is not likely to be just a coincidence that this accusation is a mirror image of what Islamofascist Jihad wants to do, substituting our Constitution with the Qur'an and making Shari'a the law of the land.

It is likely to be no coincidence that this sudden upsurge of books dealing with this accuse-the-victim accusation accompanies the upsurge in anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda.

It is very important to understand that one of the most effective methods of demagoguery and propaganda is to accuse the victim of the very crime that the propagandist is perpetrating against that victim. As Spencer argues, this is a great way to get the audience's attention away from the real crimes (in this case, the Islamofascist terrorist Jihad) and make it more difficult for the victim to defend himself against the crimes being perpetrated against him.

So it is not likely to be coincidental that this new upsurge of anti-Christian books all suddenly appear almost at once, and all deal in only slightly different ways with the same irratioinal theme --the threat posed to our lives, our liberties, our culture, our religion...by the Christian right.

The value of this type of "accuse the victim" propaganda is immense -- it gets the real criminal off the hook (at least for a while); but its danger is far greater than mere propaganda.

Islamic victories against larger more powerful enemies were often brought about by a 'divide and conquer' technique; where Islamic representatives succeeded in getting vying factions in the infidel government or society to side with Islamofascists against their internecine rivals, thus cracking that government's unity and making defense against the jihad less effective.

This ploy worked well against the Byzantime Empire, the Sassanians, the Copts, the Berbers, and the Spanish. And it is working today in the USA as well.

Turning some facets of the Christian community against others is exactly the same ploy, and is being effected, at least in part, by the books discussed in Spencer's article.

This ploy is successful for the anti-Ameican and anti-Israel Jihadists in two ways:

a.) it discredits the Christian supporters of Israel, brands them as anti-American, and thus undermines them and Israel; and, by illogical extension, makes anything that opposes them and Israel into a pro-American endeavour...so indirect support for the Islamofascist terrorists waging war against us is now support for America!

b.) it replaces in the American consciousness a very real threat (Islamofascist terror Jihad) with a fictitious threat (Right Wing Evangelical Christianity's "jihad"), thus making it more difficult for our government to wage its defensive war against that real Islamofascist Jihad.

But why? Why would American or British journalists and writers, at least some of them Christians, want to lend support to the propaganda ploy of the Islamofascist Jihadists who want us all either dead or Muslim (per Osama's frequently televised speeches)?

Can they hate Jews, hate Israel, hate Evangelical Christians, so much that they are willing help the Islamofascists?...willing to dig their own graves, and the graves of their families and co-religionists, and perhaps the grave of Western Civilization as well, by helping the Jihadists in their terror war against us?

A hint of what might be a motive appears when we combine two not well known facts:

1.) the Saudi royal family pays journalists to write nice things about Saudi Arabia. See attachment #4. We do not know exactly which journalists are on the Saudi payroll, but those who irrationally and intentionally distort obvious facts in their reportage of things Arab or Islamic or Israel-related ( a process now named "fisking" in honor of Robert Fisk who epitomizes this faux-journalism) are good candidates for suspicion.

2.) the Saudi royal family has invested billions of dollars in to an endeavour to change the way USA high school and college textbooks present Islamic history and Jewish history: the bloody and brutal Islamic history of conquest and conversion at the point of a sword is sanitized into a paean for "radiant Islam" that peacefully and lovingly won millions of converts by virtue of its -- well, virtue; and Jewish history is distorted such that there is no religious or historical justification for the state of Israel, and the modern Jewish state is demonized. See attachments #5-7.

Could the same Saudi interest in buying the professional loyalty of some western journalists, and rewriting the USA high school and college texbooks to put Islam in a better light, be at work in this new surge of full-length novels-made-documentary about the Christian Right's "jihad"?

There is no proof, not even direct evidence. That is why I say: "a hint of a motive"...just a hint.

But, as my grandmother of blessed memory used to say: when things don't make sense...look for the money.

David Meir-Levi

PS. Regarding Chris Hedges, one of the authors discussed in Spencer's article, it is of interest to note that he has been mis-reporting events in the Israel-Arab conflict for years. Some of his articles are almost textbook examples of 'fisking'.

Chris Hedges wrote "eyeless in gaza I" and "eyeless in Gaza II" in Harper's Magazine, Oct., Nov., 2001, where he accused Israeli soldiers of using arab children for target practice. A careful review of his articles (see attachments #1-3) caught him in what seems to have been a transparent lie.

He wrote that he was behind a sand dune, could not see what was going on...and heard the shouts (in Arabic) between Arab children and Israeli soldiers at a road block in the Gaza Strip. The children, sheltered in a concrete building, taunted the soldiers; and the soldiers called them names and called them cowards and dared them to come out.

When they came out in to the open, according to Hedges, the soldiers shot the children...in cold blood, for target practise. Hedges acknowedged that he did not hear the shots, so the soldiers must have been using silencers, he assumed. He could not see, he could not hear...he assumed.

He then went on to relate how he saw the mangled bodies of the victim children (an M-16 bullet makes a very very big hole when it hits -- that's part of its effectiveness) later, in a Gaza hospital, and silently cursed the cruel and barbaric israelis.

Problem: M-16's can't take silencers. they fire a supersonic bullet. The very loud cracking sound associated with high powered assault and hunting rifles is the sound of the sonic boom made by the bullet's passing the sound barrier. That sound is made only after the bullet has left the rifle barrel. So a silencer would do nothing to silence the sound. Hedges was then a 32-year veteran of wartime news coverage. He, and anyone who ever trained on an M-16, is likely to know what I just described.

If Hedges heard no shots, then there were no shots. And he should have known that.

Did he simply make up the target practice accusation and supported it with the agonized description of the hospitalized children. Or did he fall victim, gullible and naive, to the propagandistic lies of a local Gaza doctor? We may never know. And we may never know how and why such terrible harm was done to those poor chldren. But, based on Hedges' own description, it was not the Israeli soldiers who did that harm.

But that did not matter. The horrific story traveled several times around the world before any later more slow-moving and less dramatic critical analyses caught up with it.

Is Hedges doing now in a full-length novel what he did back in October, 2001?

This article is called "Beware the Christian Jihad?" and it was written by Robert Spencer. It appeared today in www.FrontPageMagazine.com.

A new book that is climbing the Bestseller List warns Americans of a dedicated minority of religious fanatics who are hijacking a great religion and actively working to destroy the United States Constitution and set up a theocracy in America, in which nonbelievers will be discriminated against or even summarily killed. Nor is their nefarious vision confined to the United States alone: this small but influential and wealthy band of religious zealots is also trying to turn events in the Middle East to their own advantage, so as to advance their religious agenda there also.

Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Atta? No, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Tim LaHaye. The book in question is Chris Hedges' American Fascists, which argues that America as we know it is under threat -- not from Islamic jihadists, but from a small group of evangelical Christians who are determined to remake the United States as a Christian state. Warning about "Christianism," a neologism coined to parallel "Islamism," has become fashionable. Ranging from the merely hysterical to the ranting and paranoid, books sounding the alarms about Christian theocracy are appearing in large numbers. Among the crop published in 2006 alone were, besides Hedges' book, American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips; The Baptizing of America by James Rudin; Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg; The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege by Damon Linker; Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer; Piety & Politics by Barry Lynn; and Religion Gone Bad by Mel White. Other popular books sound many of the same themes, including The Conservative Soul by homosexual activist and blogger Andrew Sullivan and the atheist apologetics The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.

A general tendency of such books is to equate to varying degrees, often in an off-handed manner suggesting that the equivalence was self-evident, Christian and Muslim "extremists," "radicals," or "fundamentalists." Hedges declared that "the Christian Right and radical Islamists, although locked in a holy war, increasingly mirror each other. They share the same obsessions. They do not tolerate other forms of belief or disbelief. They are at war with artistic and cultural expression. They seek to silence the media. They call for the subjugation of women. They promote severe sexual repression, and they seek to express themselves through violence." Sure, we're told, the Islamists are working to impose religious rule on their societies, but so are the Christianists, and the Christianists posed the far more immediate and serious threat. Some even charge that just as the Taliban practiced stonings and beheadings, so would these "Christianists" if they got half a chance.

The threat is imminent. Hedges claims that "those arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them to shred the Constitution in the name of national security and strength." He even asserts that "those in the movement often speak about such a moment with gleeful anticipation." For now -- but only for now -- the Christian Right is "forced to function within the political system it seeks to destroy."

If there really is a domestic threat of religious authoritarianism that threatens to destroy the Constitution, this would be a matter of considerable concern. But as the Qur'an says, "Bring your proof, if you be truthful" (2:111; 27:64). Good advice.

In support of his claims that "those arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them to shred the Constitution in the name of national security and strength," Chris Hedges offers only a single quotation from "right-wing strategist" Howard Phillips, who said in a speech to the Council for National Policy that "it is time to leave the 'political Titanic' on which the conservative movement has for too long booked passage" and to "build an ark so that we can and will be ready to renew and restore our nation and our culture when God brings the tides to flood."

A call to shred the Constitution? Phillips' words read more plausibly as a call to a conservative movement demoralized by defeat after defeat not to give up, but to develop a new strategy and await a day in which their message will be received more favorably.

The primary focus of the theocracy foes' fears is a movement arising from Calvinistic circles in the United States, Christian Reconstructionism. According to the anti-theocracy writers, Christian Reconstructionism has insinuated its adherents into the highest levels of government, and want to replace the Constitution with laws mandating the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers. The proof for this comes largely from the writings of the intellectual guiding lights of the Reconstructionist movement, and the chief villains of virtually every piece devoted to exposing its enormities: two American Calvinists, Rousas John Rushdoony (who died in 2001) and his son-in-law, Gary North.

Rushdoony and North may be well cast in this villain's role, for at least according to some reports they apparently do depart from Christian tradition in calling for capital punishment for crimes such as adultery and homosexuality, as specified in the Book of Leviticus. In a 1998 piece in Reason magazine, Rushdoony is said to defend Biblical punishments for a variety of offenders: "blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of 'unchastity before marriage,' 'incorrigible' juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics." North is quoted in the same article defending the ancient Biblical punishment of stoning: "Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost."

Foes of theocracy point to statements like this one from the popular Presbyterian minister and writer George Grant: "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less...Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God's rule."

Strong words. But do statements like these amount to a manifesto to subvert the non-establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and establish Christian rule in the United States? The "theocrats" themselves deny this. Chris Ortiz of Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation explains: "The paranoid secularist reads this portion of Grant and links it with the political activism and lobbying of the Religious Right in order to assemble a frightening monster of religious fascism. But, Grant would likely be the first to argue that there is no theocratic conspiracy...In other words, don't confuse the rhetoric or ideology of certain radical thinkers with the mass of conservative Christianity."

Grant is indeed first to argue that there is no theocratic conspiracy, or at least, if there is, that he opposes it. Responding to claims that the passage above is a declaration of intent to destroy the U.S. Constitution, he wrote in an email to me:

1. My body of work demonstrates that I am an ardent defender of the 1st Amendment.
2. I am an opponent of "state churches."
3. I am an opponent of confusing, blurring, or overlapping the spheres of authority and jurisdictions between church and state and family. [...]

The quoted passage is from a long discussion regarding cultural evangelism, not petty partisanship. It is from a discussion of ends, not means. The language is the culmination of a discourse in the realm of eschatological theology, not practical activism...

In a similar vein, Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation declares: "We propose an explicitly Biblical system of thought and action as the exclusive basis for civilization. Only by restoring the Christian Faith and Biblical law as the standard of all of life can Christians hope to re-establish Christian civilizations." Theocracy? Maybe, but the statement goes on to say: "We believe that the source of godly change is regeneration by the Holy Spirit, not revolution by the violence of man... No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God's sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced."

In fact, much of the evidence that theocracy foes point to in order to establish their point that Christians intend to subvert the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Biblical law is actually evidence only that Christian pastors and leaders have for some years been reasserting the right and duty of Christians to participate in American public life, as over against the radical secularists who contend that any political activity by Christian groups constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The more conspiracy-minded among the theocracy foes, of course, brush aside such denials. The whole thing is a secret plot, you see -- what else would you expect but that the plotters would deny their plotting? After all, according to Chris Hedges, the American values of "compassion, tolerance and belief in justice and equality" are "being dismantled, often with stealth..." There can be no rational response to such paranoia, or any definitive refutation of it, but it is noteworthy to compare these denials to the open statements by Muslim leaders about the Islamic supremacist imperative. For while there is no shortage of Muslim spokesmen who proclaim their rejection of terrorism, those who are pursuing the jihad are generally quite open about their intentions -- in stark contrast to the flat denials from the very Christian leaders who are supposed to be leading the push for theocracy.

Before he left Britain one step ahead of law enforcement and returned to his native Lebanon, the jihadist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad often boasted of his intention to "transform the West into Dar Al-Islam" and establish Islamic law on British soil. "I want to see the black flag of Islam flying over Downing Street," he said, and his now-disbanded al-Muhajiroun group was dedicated to this goal. The transformation of Britain into an Islamic state could come in two ways, he explained: "if an Islamic state arises and invades," in which case "we will be its army and its soldiers from within." But if no such Islamic state arises, Bakri said that Muslims would convert the West to Islam "through ideological invasion...without war and killing."

Al-Qaeda's second in command, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, articulated a global vision in the summer of 2006: "War with Israel is not subject to a treaty, cease-fire, Sykes-Picot Treaty agreements, patriotism or disputed borders, but it is jihad for the cause of God until the entire religion is for him only. Jihad seeks the liberation of Palestine, the entire country of Palestine and to liberate every land that used to be a territory of Islam, from Spain to Iraq. The entire world is an open field for us...With the grace of God, we have now returned to the field...Dear Muslim brothers everywhere, today we must target the Jewish and the American interests everywhere." [1]

Until November 2003, when adverse publicity compelled them to take it down, the Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington carried this statement of Islamic supremacism and belligerency on its website: "The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to continue oppressing the weak and [the] helpless..." [2]

In other words, if a country is perceived to be hindering the spread of Islam, Muslims are obliged to wage war against it. The spread of Islam must continue at all costs. There can be no half-measures or peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals on an indefinite basis. As the Egyptian jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), whose works are still widely influential among Muslims worldwide, put it in his jihad manifesto Milestones (Ma'alim 'ala Al-Tariq), which has circulated throughout the world and been published in well over a thousand editions: "Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers]...Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah: Islam cannot accept or agree to a situation which is half-Islam and half-Jahiliyyah...Command belongs to God, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; God's Shari'ah [Islamic law] will prevail, or else people's desires. 'And judge between them according to what God has revealed, and do not follow their opinions, and beware of them lest they confuse you in matters which God has revealed' (Qur'an 5:50)...'And if they do not respond to you, then know that they are following their own opinions; and who can be more misguided than one who follows his own opinion against the guidance from God? Indeed, God does not guide the wicked people.' (Qur'an 28:50)...The foremost duty of Islam in this world is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, and to take the leadership into its own hands and enforce the particular way of life which is its permanent feature." [3]

The jihadist website Khilafah.com puts it succinctly: "Islam makes it a duty upon all Muslims to work to change their countries from Dar al-Kufr [the land of unbelief] to Dar al-Islam [the land of Islam]..." It exhorts Muslims to "carry Islam to the world through invitation and jihad."

Andrew Sullivan, while sounding the alarm about Christian theocrats, concedes that Christian Reconstructionists are "marginal, extremists, and largely disowned by the fundamentalist mainstream." Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Islamic jihadists, who are active in numerous countries around the world, and whose version of Islam is not being effectively combated by any significant movement of peaceful Muslims anywhere.

Should we turn our attention away from a real threat to an imagined one? That is what Chris Hedges and the other anti-theocracy writers are asking us to do. While fiction has always competed with reality in the public discourse about the Islamic jihad, the Christian theocracy scare books represent projection on a massive scale. Unfortunately, while Chris Hedges leads the hunt for Christian theocrats under our bed, real theocrats continue to advance a violent supremacist agenda worldwide. We ignore or dismiss that at our own risk.


[1] "A Video Speech from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri Regarding the Events in Lebanon and Gaza -- 7/27/2006," SITE Institute, July 27, 2006.
[2] Steven Stalinsky, "The 'Islamic Affairs Department' of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C.," Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Special Report - No. 23, November 26, 2003.
[3] Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, The Mother Mosque Foundation, n.d., pp. 130-131.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 27, 2007.

That's Peretz -- first row right.

How much dumber could he get...Israel's Defense Minister Peretz is looking at a military exercises maneuvers thru blocked binocular lenses. No joking, it is real!

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Foundation, February 27, 2007.

This article was written by Tashbih Sayyed and it appeared February 7, 2007 on the Family Security Foundation website
(www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=768170). Tashbih Sayyed is the Editor in Chief of Pakistan Today, The Muslim World Today, Our Times, and In Review, and a regular columnist for newspapers across the world.

As another sign of the growing power of Global Jihad, Israel's Arab minority has rejected the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. In a manifesto, "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel", drafted by 40 academics and activists under the sponsorship of the Committee of Arab Mayors in Israel and endorsed by an unprecedented range of Arab community leaders, Arab leaders have declared that Israel is a bi-national state and Arabs are an indigenous group with collective rights, not just individual rights.

They couldn't be wrong more.

Blinded by their anti-Semitism, Arabs ignored the fact that neither are they an indigenous group nor is the Jewish nationhood is a new phenomenon in Palestine; the Jewish nation was born during 40 years of wandering in the Sinai more than five thousand years ago and has remained connected with Palestine ever since. "Even after the destruction of the last Jewish commonwealth in the first century, the Jewish people maintained their own autonomous political and legal institutions: the Davidic dynasty was preserved in Baghdad until the thirteenth century through the rule of the Exilarch (Resh Galuta), while the return to Zion was incorporated into the most widely practiced Jewish traditions, including the end of the Yom Kippur service and the Passover Seder, as well as in everyday prayers. Thus, Jewish historic rights were kept alive in Jewish historical consciousness."

Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, never had a separate identity. They always thought of themselves as Arabs rather than as Palestinians. It is a matter of record that the Arabs owe their presence in Palestine to the Ottomans who settled Muslim populations as a buffer against Bedouin attacks and Ibrahim Pasha, the Egyptian ruler who brought Egyptian colonists with his army in the 1830s. And during all those times when Arabs lived under the Ottoman rule, they never showed any desire for national independence (emphasis added). According to Bernard Lewis, "From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity."

Lewis notes, "There had been a steady movement of Jews to the Holy Land throughout the centuries." In 135 CE Jews took part in the Bar Kochba revolt against imperial Rome and even re-established their capital in Jerusalem. Defeated by the most brutal of the Roman legions under the command of the emperor Hadrian, Jews were forbidden to reside in Jerusalem for nearly five hundred years. Once a year on the ninth of the Hebrew month of Av, they were allowed to weep at the remains of their destroyed Temple at a spot that came to be called "the Wailing Wall." In the meantime, the Roman authorities renamed Judea as Palestina in order to obliterate the memory of Jewish nationhood.

A resolution adopted by the first Congress of the Muslim Christian Association which met in Jerusalem in February 1919 underlines the Arab understanding of the situation conclusively. It said, "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."

Similarly, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said, "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the United Nations Security Council, "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

Jerusalem has always remained a Jewish majority -- a symbol of Jewish yearning to be an independent nation as they thrived in communities in many of Palestine's towns. "By 1864, a clear-cut Jewish majority emerged in Jerusalem - more than half a century before the arrival of the British Empire and the League of Nations Mandate. During the years that the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel was restored, a huge Arab population influx transpired as Arab immigrants sought to take advantage of higher wages and economic opportunities that resulted from Jewish settlement in the land. President Roosevelt concluded in 1939 that "Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded the total Jewish immigration during the whole period."

The present Arab declaration challenging the Jewish character of Israel cannot be ignored because it is not just an expression of dissatisfaction by a minority about their socio-economic situation but a reminder that Islamist radicalism and fundamentalism has now decided to challenge openly the legitimacy of the Jewish state using Arab citizens of Israel as its proxy in Israel. It must not be forgotten that the Israeli Arabs are part and parcel of the same Global Jihad that has been murdering our gallant soldiers on the war fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The international community has to act to stop these serious acts on the part of Global Jihad to undermine the only democracy in the Middle East. It is important to note that Israel is the target of Global Jihad for the same reasons as the United States of America and other open societies everywhere in the world.

Israel is the only democracy in the region

As all of the Muslim states, without any exception, are either autocracies or theocracies or both, they feel threatened by the very existence of a truly democratic state in their midst. This is a common experience of anyone who visits the region that for the oppressed populations of the Muslim countries, the Jewish state serves as a beacon of hope. During my first visit to Israel, I was pleasantly surprised to see that most of the Arabs that I had a chance to talk with preferred to live under the Jewish state.

Israel is a pluralistic society

Israel is the only pluralistic democracy, respectful of human rights, that exists in the Middle East. The evidence of Jewish pluralism is everywhere; the Arab population in Israel was freer than the populations in any Arab state. Israel's Arab citizens had full freedom of expression and demonstration. They were enjoying full voting rights. They were free to elect their own leaders to the Knesset. They had their own political parties. Newspapers owned and managed by Arabs were thriving. In fact the Israeli Arabs had full rights to citizenship. Having been born and brought up in a Muslim society, I couldn't believe my eyes as I saw Arab citizens of Israel having more dignity, self respect and rights than any of the Muslims living in any of the Muslim states.

Israel is truly an open society

Israel is the only state in the whole Middle East where women had total freedom of pursuing happiness. I saw Muslim women going to schools, colleges and universities without any restriction or inhibition. I noted with interest that right along with hijab and veil-wearing Arab female students there were many who were wearing jeans. Such an open society is definitely a threat to the traditional Arab society in which women cannot be allowed any kind of freedom -- as free and independent women in a traditional Muslim culture is a sign of diminishing male authority and respect.

From a strict Islamist fundamentalist point of view, a society that allows its women to operate freely and independently is a society representing Jahiliya -- the era of darkness, of ignorance and shamelessness. Islam, in an Islamist's view had come to destroy the pillars of shamelessness that supported the era of jahilya. For Global Jihad representing the strictest and manipulated version of Islam the Judeo-Christian culture today is a symbol of all that was Jahilya. And Israel's Jewish heritage and foundations are a direct threat to the domination and continuance of Islamist obscurantism.

I saw Arab businesses thriving in Israel. To my amazement, most of my Jewish friends were recommending, supporting and promoting them. Such an Israeli tolerance for a people who have never stopped from aiding their enemies was unbelievable. I visited a number of Arab institutions and found them flourishing. This again explains why the Arabs do not want Israel to exist; it is setting an example for a just society that respects human beings irrespective of their color, creed or ethnicity and above all without stopping to think for a moment that they are potentially an enemy.

It is now a common experience in Israel that the Arabs living under Muslim Arab authorities want to be treated in Israeli hospitals, when suffering from life threatening illnesses. And there never have been an instance when any Israeli hospital has ever refused treatment to any Muslim Arab, even in cases when the person who came for treatment was suspected of being a potential terrorist. The world knows that some of the Arabs who received treatments in the Israeli medical facilities did in fact come back as homicide bombers causing death and destruction to the innocent citizens of Israel.

It is a real experience to be in Israel. Just like in the U.S., the Jewish state has citizens who have come from more than hundred countries and represent diverse ethnic, religious, and racial groups. All of the continents, Asia, Africa, Australia, the Americas and Europe are represented there and everyone enjoys equal rights. One cannot find even a shade of discrimination in any form.

It is a model for the region

"Israel's economic, political, scientific and social success have the potential to become a model for the region. The more sensible Arabs in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority, when comparing the miserable life imposed upon them by the bullies of al Fatah, Hamas or Hezbollah with the very superior lifestyle of their Arab-Israeli brothers inevitably conclude that liberty and rationality bring dividends.

Israel, which comprises some 10,000 square miles, compared with Arab countries that total over five million square miles -- not including Iran -- has shown itself to be a model of democracy and decency. Over one million Arabs live in Israel with full rights of citizenship. They vote and serve in Israel's parliament. And yet, bereft of oil, Israel's per capita gross domestic product tops 24,000 dollars (compared with the oil-rich Saudi Arabia whose per capita GDP hovers at 13,000 dollars), and it remains a thriving bastion of democratic liberalism in an ocean of oligarchies and dictatorships."

Consequently the Jewish state has already become a magnet for the Arabs living in the neighboring Muslim states, explaining the fast growing population of Arabs in the Jewish state; the fast growth is not just because of the birth rate but is also because of the immigration on many pretexts of Arabs from neighboring countries.

The rejection of Israel as a Jewish state by Israel's Arab minority has underlined the level of threat to Israel's security which has never been so pronounced. It seems as if all the dark forces determined to undermine and overwhelm democracy and pluralism have joined hands; Hezbollah has convinced the world that Israel is not invincible; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim states have arguably proved their effectiveness in convincing Washington that without validating Palestinian terrorism, it cannot win its war on Islamist fascism; Iran is on its way to gain the second Islamist nuclear bomb; and the international assaults on Israel's character are gaining in momentum.

The Islamists' demand to redefine the foundations of Israel is part of the same campaign that has been working not so discreetly in the US to replace the Jeffersonian civic religion by Islamist fascists. It is in the US interest to watch how Israeli Arabs' move to dismantle the Jewish state is shaping up. Just like the manner in which Islamist organizations in the US are taking advantage of our openness to destroy our Judeo-Christian foundations, Israeli Arabs are also taking advantage of a democratic constitution to subvert an open and pluralistic way of life.

Israeli Arabs' rejection of Israel as a Jewish state is an extension of their demand for the return of refugees to Israel. They have kept the refugee issue alive for so many decades only because they knew that what they cannot win in the battlefield, they can gain by using the Jewish state's commitment to remain a democracy.

It is an historical fact that fighting an internal enemy is much more difficult than defending against an external threat. Israel and the US both have fought off external enemies with success but now both are facing an enemy that has entrenched itself deep within their democracies. This onslaught on our freedoms from within has to be dealt with forthwith before it gets out of hand.

Contact The Family Security Foundation by email at operationsdirector@familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Rick Weston, February 27, 2007.

LOS ANGELES - Korean-American community leaders said they plan to launch a protest against the publisher of a popular South Korean comic book that contains anti-Semitic images.

One comic strip in the book shows a man climbing a hill and then facing a brick wall with a Star of David and "STOP" sign in front. "The final obstacle to success is always a fortress called Jews," a translation says.

Another strip shows a newspaper, magazine, TV and radio with the description: "In a word, American public debate belongs to the Jews, and it's no exaggeration to say that U.S. media are the voice of the Jews."

Yohngsohk Choe, co-chairman of the Korean American Patriotic Action Movement in the USA, said, "I don't have words to describe the outrage I feel."

The group met Friday with Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish advocacy group. Cooper said he would travel to Seoul on March 15 to raise concerns about the book.

The book, written by South Korean university professor Lee Won-bok, is part of a series called "Distant Countries and Neighboring Countries," which is intended to teach youngsters about other countries. The series has sold more than 10 million copies.

Eun-Ju Park, chief executive of Seoul publisher Gimm-Young, said in an e-mail that the author sent an apology to Charles Kim, national president of the Los Angeles-based Korean-American Coalition.

Park wrote that she would look into the matter "more closely and correct what needs to be corrected."

Contact Rick Weston at matchwest@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 27, 2007.

This story is from yesterday's CNN.com

A South Korean child reads a copy of the controversial comic at the Kyobo Book Store in Seoul.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- The author of a best-selling comic book series intended to teach children about other countries said Monday he would change a chapter on Jews that has been called anti-Semitic and similar to Nazi propaganda.

Rhie Won-bok maintained, however, that his depiction of Jewish control of American media and politics was based on fact and "commonly believed."

"The Jews are the invisible force that controls the U.S.," Rhie, a professor of visual arts at Duksung Women's University in Seoul, told The Associated Press. "I wrote the chapter to let people know that you can't understand the U.S. without knowing the Jewish community."

More than 10 million copies from the 12-book series titled "Meon Nara, Yiwoot Nara," or "Far Countries, Near Countries," have been sold since it was first published in 1987, according to its publisher, Gimm-Young Publishers. The company boasts that at least one volume is in every South Korean home in this country of 48 million people.

The comics with playfully drawn figures have sought to explain European countries, the U.S., Japan and even Korea itself.

The 12-book series "Meon Nara, Yiwoot Nara" (Far Countries, Near Countries) at Kyobo Book Store.
The first volume of three focusing on the United States was published in 2004. In a chapter titled "You have to know the Jews to see the U.S.," Rhie takes a wide-ranging look at Jewish history, mentioning the Holocaust and Jews being spread throughout the world without a homeland.

Although noting that Jews have faced prejudice for many centuries, the book takes a more sinister view of their role in the United States.

Rhie said the September 11 attacks occurred because of Arab terrorists' hatred for the U.S. he blamed on Jews who "move the U.S. in the way they want using money and the media as their weapon."

The book also says Korean-Americans are diligent and successful in the U.S. "but in the end, always run into the wall called the Jews." The accompanying picture shows an exasperated man walking up a hill only to be blocked by a brick wall with a Star of David and the word "STOP" in English.

Images from the book "echo classic Nazi canards," Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center said in a statement earlier this month. In a letter sent to the publishers, Cooper urged them to review "the slanders in this book that historically have led to anti-Semitism, violence, hatred and even genocide."

Rhie asserted he is "not at all anti-Semitic" and that he would remove the parts that have drawn offense or write them differently. "The last thing I want is a conflict between the Koreans and the Jews because of my book," he said.

There is no established Jewish community in Korea.

To Go To Top

Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, February 27, 2007.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post. Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

The general tendency of Westerners is to view global jihad as a foreign policy issue. But today it is clear that it is also a domestic policy issue.

Over the weekend The Sunday Telegraph reported that a recently circulated British intelligence report warned: "The terrorist threat facing Britain from home-grown al-Qaida agents is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks in 2001."

After foiling the jihadist plot to down US-bound British passenger aircraft last summer, MI5 director Eliza Manningham-Buller claimed that there are some 1,600 British Muslims actively involved in plotting attacks against Britain. According to the intelligence report cited in the Sunday Telegraph, today that number exceeds 2,000.

As one senior British political source told the newspaper, "The Security Services have constantly warned that the task of countering Islamic terrorism is a daunting one. There will be more attacks in Britain."

It is not surprising that Britain faces the specter of mass attacks carried out by its own citizens in the name of Allah. Repeated exposes of the goings-on in British mosques and in supposedly "moderate" British Muslim communal organizations have shown unequivocally that they are being used as indoctrination centers for jihad.

A poll published last month by Britain's Policy Exchange think tank bore out the poisonous impact this indoctrination has had on young Muslims in the country. Thirty-seven percent of British Muslims between the ages of 16-24 would rather live under Shari'a law than under British Common Law; 36 percent think Muslims should be killed if they convert to another religion; 13 percent admire al-Qaida and similar terror groups; and a whopping 74 percent of young British Muslims believe women should wear veils.

WHILE IT is true that in the US the danger of home-grown jihadists to national security is lower than it is in Britain, it is also true that there is a growing phenomenon of jihadist violence being perpetrated by Muslim men against American civilians in the name of jihad.

Ten days ago, the Investors Business Daily published an editorial enumerating a partial list of acts of terrorism carried out by Muslim men against their fellow Americans since the September 11 attacks. Most recently, Sulejman Talovic entered a shopping mall in Salt Lake City, murdered five and wounded four unsuspecting shoppers before being killed by an off-duty police officer.

As was the case when Derrick Shareef, another Muslim male, was arrested in early December for plotting to carry out a similar attack at a shopping mall in Illinois just before Christmas, the media and the law enforcement agencies covering the Salt Lake City massacre have made light of the fact that the perpetrator was a Muslim.

While Talovic is dead and so cannot explain his motives to authorities, Shareef was arrested after telling an FBI informant of his plans to murder Jews specifically and Americans in particular for Allah. As Shareef told the informant, "I swear by Allah man, I'm down for it too. I'm down for the cause. I'm down to live for the cause and die for the cause, man."

SHAREEF'S protestations of jihadist ardor made little impression on either federal authorities or the media. Upon announcing Shareef's arrest, US Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that he was acting on his own and that he had no outside inspiration for his decision to commit mass murder for Allah. As was the case with Talovic and with Naveed Afzal Haq, who murdered one woman and wounded five during his shooting rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation last July, the media and federal authorities have hushed up and failed to investigate the jihadist motives for the Illinois attacker or link him to any larger phenomenon.

The Investors Business Daily editorial ran under the headline "Sudden jihad syndrome." The term, which has been bandied about by law enforcement officials in both the US and Britain in recent months, encapsulates the view that Muslims can be incited and then move to commit acts of murder in the name of Allah and jihad instantaneously.

The attractiveness of the "sudden jihad syndrome" explanation for violent Islamic crime is clear. By arguing that the jihadists are acting on their own after being mysteriously inspired by no one, law enforcement officials and the media are relieved of the thankless task of investigating mosques, Muslim advocacy groups and Islamic centers, where the jihadist indoctrination is conducted on a daily basis.

IT IS hard to know what to make of this view. Perhaps there is something to it. Perhaps the message of jihad is so strong that young Muslim men can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings after the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation perhaps.

What is clear enough is that since this is the view that is informing policymakers, law enforcement officials and the media in handling a clear trend of jihadist murder, it requires serious empirical study. The obvious place for that research to take place is in the universities.

Unfortunately, there can be little hope that universities in the US or in the West in general will devote any serious consideration to this most important sociological, psychological and national security trend. Far from being willing to study the most central issue of our times, universities are leading the charge in either ignoring it, or apologizing for it.

On February 15, the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN, Hamid Al Bayati, spoke at New York's Fordham University. During the course of his remarks, Bayati doubted the fact that the Holocaust had occurred. In his words, "I'm not aware of any dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people. Some academics or diplomats would say Hitler used chemical weapons, but I am sure he didn't use them against his own people - his German people."

When pressed by law professor Avi Bell on the fact that several hundred thousand German citizens were gassed to death by Nazi Germany, Bayati still refused to take the point.

Fordham University is far from alone in providing a platform for Holocaust deniers. Last Thursday the Dean's office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology co-sponsored an event on the Arab-Israel conflict called, "Foreign Policy and Social Justice: A Jewish View, a Muslim View." The man invited to provide the Jewish view was Dovid Weiss, a member of the crackpot Neturei Karta sect. Weiss rose to prominence when he traveled to Teheran last December to participate in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference.

While MIT and Fordham were hosting Holocaust deniers in the name of intellectual freedom, their fellow universities were hosting "Israel Apartheid Week." As part of their efforts to criminalize the Jewish state, Arab and Jewish speakers at "Israel Apartheid Week" events refer to Israel as "1948 Palestine" and show propaganda films portraying IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria as murderers.

The events are generally sponsored by the International Solidarity Movement. In addition to their campus outreach, the ISM sponsors the weekly riots against the security fence in Bil'in and in Hebron, where its protesters throw rocks at IDF soldiers. Given the violent content of their actions in Israel, it should come as no surprise that their events on US campuses also breed violence.

At an "Israel Apartheid Week" event at City University of New York, after watching a propaganda film, 19-year old Binyamin Rister rose and politely asked the ISM presenters if they supported terrorism. When he received no reply he politely repeated the question. Rather than wait for an answer, CUNY security guards dragged Rister from the room and then repeatedly banged his head against the wall of an elevator and threw him head first down the stairs. Rister's injuries from the assault by campus security required him to be evacuated by ambulance in a neck brace to the hospital.

In an almost identical case at Georgetown last year, Bill Maniaci a 65-year-old retired Jewish American police officer was brutalized by Georgetown security guards after he asked ISM spokesmen if they supported terrorism. He is currently suing Georgetown for $8 million in damages for the assault. According to Lee Kaplan's report of the CUNY event in Frontpage Magazine, there were seven witnesses to the unprovoked attack against Rister. He too has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against CUNY.

EVEN THOSE propounding the view that jihadist murderers in the US and Britain are inspired to kill after being brought under the spell of the "sudden jihad syndrome" cannot deny that the root of the jihad is ideas. Similarly, it is self-evident that the key to beating the global jihad is victory in the battlefield of ideas. Unfortunately, as the pro-jihadist trend on US and Western campuses, and its impact on idea consumers in law enforcement, the media and policy circles throughout the free world shows, to the extent that those charged with engaging in the battle of ideas are engaged, they fight on the side of the enemy.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, February 27, 2007.

This was written by Aaron Klein, World Net Daily's Jerusalem bureau chief. It appeared today in New York Sun

TEL AVIV -- The ruins of two large synagogues in evacuated Jewish communities of the Gaza Strip have been transformed into military bases used by Palestinian Arab groups to fire rockets at Israeli cities, according to a senior leader of a Gaza militant group.

When Israel withdrew from the Gaza in August, 2005, it left intact 20 synagogues of the Gush Katif Jewish communities following an Israeli Cabinet decision against demolishing the structures. Immediately after the Israeli evacuation was completed, Palestinian Arabs destroyed most of the Gaza synagogues.

Speaking to The New York Sun from Gaza, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Abir, said the area in which the synagogues once stood is now used to fire rockets at Israel.

"We are proud to turn these lands, especially these parts that were for long time the symbol of occupation and injustice, like the synagogue, into a military base and source of fire against the Zionists and the Zionist entity," Mr. Abir said.

Mr. Abir blamed the Jewish state for the desecration of the Gaza synagogues by Palestinian Arabs, claiming the decision to leave the structures intact was part of an Israeli conspiracy.

Israel "left the synagogues behind so the world would see the Palestinians destroying them," Mr. Abir said.

The Daily Alert is prepared for the Conference of presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). Contact them at daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 27, 2007.

Yehiam Soreq or Sorek is one of the most openly anti-Semitic "academics" employed in Israeli academia. He teaches at the "Beit Berl" college, associated with the kibbutz movement and the Israeli "labor movement" (teh Labor Party and the Histadrut); it is named after the Zionist leader Berl Katsenelson. Sorek teaches history there. He is a vicious anti-Israel extremist, signs all the anti-Israel petitions (here is but one: http://maritimes.indymedia.org/news/2002/09/2941.php ). He differs from the other academic anti-Zionists in Israel mainly in turning out propaganda articles that are much loopier and loonier than those of most of the others --. see below. (His web site in Hebrew is at http://www.beitberl.ac.il/professors/ProfessorsPreview.asp?ID=347 It says he has a PhD from South Africa.)

SOrek has now become the SECOND Israeli "academic" to endorse medieval blood libels about Jews supposedly using blood for ritual purposes in the Middle Ages. As you know, Prof. Ariel Toaff from Bar-Ilan University has been making such claims and Bar Ilan University is now under ENORMOUS attack for employing such a person. Toaff yesterday refused to appear before a Knesset committee to answer questions and he may be charged with contempt.

Over the past weeks, numerous people, including myself, have been saying that there is not a single Jew in the world who endorses Toaff's ridiculous "research". Alas, we were wrong. There is now one other. Yehiam Sorek. In today's Maariv, he basically endorses Toaff's claims (which Toaff himself is now trying to play down). He proclaims Toaff a brave hero and insists that just as there cannot be smoke without a fire, medieval blood libels against Jews must have some factual basis. Criticism of people like Toaff is as illegitimate, writes Sorek, as similar criticisms against pro-Palestinian propagandists in Israeli academia who write about the "Naqba", the Arab word for catastrophe, favorite nonsense word of the braindead Left when referring to Israel's creation.

Yehiam Sorek's blood libel anti-Semitic screed can be read in Hebrew at

Ben Dror Yemini, editor of Maariv, dismisses Sorek as a vile anti-Semite and pseudo-academic, in Hebrew at
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/549/492.html Ben Droro Yemini writes that it is only a question of time before Sorek discovers that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion also are factually correct and entitled to be taught in Israeli schools.

The director or Beit Berl is Ruthie Gavri at Phone 972-9-7476302 ruth@beitberl.ac.il

Beit Berl's fax is 972-9-7476340. A form letter on the web for writing Beit Berl is at


You may also wish to write to the Minister of Education, Yuli Tamir, email info@education.gov.il, with a cc to mankal@education.gov.il and owl@education.gov.il

Here is an earlier posting of mine on Herr Sorek:

"Hannuka Among the Hellenists"
"Yehiam Soreq or Sorek, a "historian" who teaches at the Beit Berl College"
December 15, 2006

Of all the Jewish holidays, the one that I think best captures the contemporary Jewish zeitgeist, the one that is the most relevant to the current (and, if certain trends are not reversed, the last?) chapter in Jewish history, is Hannuka.

Hannuka is, of course, the story of Jewish national liberation. It is the story of the military victory of the few against the many, of the champions of Judaism against the pagan barbarians.

But it is more than this. It is the saga of the heroic struggle of Jewish survivalists (those one would today label "Zionists") against the assimilationists and self-hating Hellenists of the second century BCE.

Hannuka is less a story about the battle against the Greeks than it is about the battle against the predominant assimilationist paradigm at the time among the Jews. It is about the battle against the anti-survivalists, those who hated themselves for being Jews, those who seek to be "progressive", "modern", and "in", through rejecting, abasing, disgracing and degrading themselves and their people. The Hellenists who fought the Hasmoneans were struggling against Jewish survival. Sound familiar?

In the United States, the main movement of Hellenistic assimilationism has been the school of "Political Liberalism as Judaism", the pseudo-religion that holds that all of Judaism can be reduced to the pursuit of this week's liberal political fads. But the global avante garde of Jewish self-hatred these days is the Israeli Fundamentalist.

The Israeli Fundamentalist is the main manifestation today of Jewish anti-Semitism.

It not only promotes "plans" and policies designed to end Israel's existence, increasingly endorsing the one-state, bi-national Rwanda solution to the "problem" of Israeli national existence, but it also regularly attacks every symbol and concept of traditional Judaism.

You think I am exaggerating? Well just consider the Op-Ed a few years back in the Israeli anti-Zionist daily Haaretz, penned by one Yehiam Soreq, a "historian" who teaches at the Beit Berl College in Israel. Beit Berl is a college run by the kibbutz movement. Article appears in English here:

The "historian" Soreq devoted his Haaretz column to proving that the Maccabees were fascist and racist hooligans, bloodthirsty zealots, and downright Likudniks. His column was entitled "Bloodthirsty Zealots". His thesis was that Jews should stop celebrating Hannuka and the exploits of the Maccabees, and should instead feel sympathy for the poor occupied and mistreated Greeks and Hellenists.

His article was not a spoof.

The evil Maccabees were plotting to perpetrate population "transfer", wrote Soreq, that most evil of all crimes in the "minds" of Israel's fundamentalists. Population "transfer" is far worse than, say, mass murdering 2000 Jews after signing with them a series of peace accords, or turning the West Bank and Gaza over to barbarian fascists to allow them to carry out such mass murders. Soreq is a member of that same Fundamentalist that will not rest until all Jews have been expelled from the West Bank and Gaza in an act of ethnic cleansing, and until no Israeli armed forces are left behind to interfere with the terrorist activities of the "Palestinians."

Matityahu, the father of Judah Maccabee and his brothers, was a lunatic, wrote Soreq. He was a warmonger who dragged his country into an unnecessary "war of choice", one that was not a legitimate "war of self-defense". (Never mind that there is nothing at all in Judaism that says Jews should refrain from conquering their lands unless it is part of a war of self-defense.) The Maccabees were the aggressors, insisted Soreq. And they suppressed the free speech of those who supported the Greeks; how undemocratic of them!

Judah Maccabee was guilty of causing many families to lose their loved ones by leading people to war, wrote Soreq, instead of pursuing some sort of Hellenistic Oslo appeasement and capitulation, the sort the "enlightened " seeks today to impose upon Israel. All Judah Maccabee really wanted to do was to Occupy, Occupy, Occupy, insists Soreq. No better than the West Bank settlers today! And not only that, but Judah and his hooligans were Orthodox Jews, which every fundamentalist knows must make them primitive and barbaric; you know, unlike the enlightened Marxist historians who live on nice kibbutzim or teach at the Beit Berl college.

Unfortunately, Soreq is hardly a lone phenomenon. Israel's anti-Jewish have been launching similar jihads against every other symbol of Jewish valor. Masada was a cesspool of non-tolerant fanatics, according to them. The Bible is a backward document full of fabrications. Schools should stop teaching it altogether, they demand, and instead teach something really useful, like the works of Palestinian "poets". Archeology proves the Bible is nothing but lies and fantasy, they insist. One wag labeled such people Pentateuch Deniers (intended as a play on "Holocaust Deniers").

In Israel, the country's politics - particularly its cultural/educational elite and its chattering classes - are now largely dominated by those motivated by the desire for their country to commit national suicide. They scorn themselves, their own country and their own people, the same way that the Hellenized Jews did at the time of the Maccabees. Many endorse boycotts of Israel by anti-Semites abroad. Like the Hellenized Jews, they are convinced that traditionalist Jews are reactionary and primitive, and that the greatest national priority should be renunciation of Jewish peculiarity and the striving to assimilate amongst the cosmopolitan progressive "Greeks" of the world. They are ashamed of their Jewishness and convinced that the only path to peace is to renounce it. They insist that a Seleucid "narrative" should replace the Jews' own reactionary national one.

Israel's universities are by and large the Occupied Territories of these Hellenists. The Israeli media is to almost the same extent. Hellenists dominate much of the Israeli military and, somewhat incredibly, the intelligence services. (It is doubtful the country could have undergone the Oslo debacle had these intelligence services not operated as lap dogs for the Beilinized Israeli Fundamentalist.)

Hellenists have attempted to rewrite the Israeli school curriculum, to teach Israeli Jewish children to despise themselves. Their message is that Jews must feel ashamed, because they are mean, selfish, evil and immoral people. Surely, there would be no anti-Semitism on the planet were not the Jews such racist and insensitive people.

Their aim is to convince the Jews that the only way they may become accepted in the world is to adapt to paganism, to stop seeking to exist as a separate national entity, to commit national suicide. Moreover, their campaign is aimed at challenging the moral existence of the Jews. They realize this is the weakest chink in the armor of the Jews. If Jews can be convinced that they are morally in the wrong, then no Maccabees will emerge. The aim of the Jewish Hellenists is the delegitimization of the Jews as a nation, discrediting the moral position of Jewish survivalism.

The message of the contemporary Hellenists is unambiguous: Those who wish to purify the Temple, who seek pure oil for the Temple lamp, who wish to evict the barbarians from Jerusalem, are the enemies of peace. The Maccabees must be arrested for incitement. The Jews must provide Antiochus with concessions and arms and funds and a Road Map. Under no circumstances should the Jews seek to defend themselves militarily against the Seleucids, for there is no military solution to the problem of Seleucid aggression. If the barbarians murder the Jews, it is because the Jews are evil, selfish people and because they have been too reluctant to abandon their primitive survivalism.

If the Israeli anti-Jewish has its way, the Post-Hasmonean, post-survivalist era will be upon us.

http://www.israel-academia-monitor.com/index.php?type=large_advic&advice_id= 4399&page_data[id]=175&cookie_lang=en&the_session_id= 97a515e465964bc2273301f40c79ca36&PHPSESSID=441c451e14b0eade6a6a48abd467fe53

Sorek's email address is yehiam.sorek@beitberl.ac.il

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 or write him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, February 26, 2007.

Today's major threats to Israel 's security have connections to Shiite Iran. Iranian ally Syria yearns to once more rule over for the Golan Heights, Hamas and Hizbullah, both financed by Iran, yearn to annihilate the Jewish State, and of course Iran, whose president wishes to "wipe Israel off the map", itself is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power. Furthermore, the lion's share (or camel's share in the native vernacular) of a morphing Middle East, mostly adherents to a Sunni version of Islam, likewise feel threatened by an emerging Persian juggernaut and its friends. The fact that America and coalition partners destabilized a regional balance of power, toppling and disrupting Iran's proximate archenemies, Sadist Hussein's Sunni Baathist party in Iraq and a Sunni Taliban fundamentalist government in Afghanistan respectively, exacerbates that threat, thus Sunni movers and shakers stain their fashionable robes, unable to hold tea cups steady, sipping with trembling spindly fingers. Indeed, Saudi led OPEC is even willing to pump more fossil fuel, thus lower its barrel price, consequently diminishing the cash flow to Iran's oil dependent economy, disrupting the juggernaut in progress. However, the Shiite regime has underwriting friends in low places, like Russia's egomaniacal Vladimir Putin. Indeed, you can take Vladimir out of the KGB, but you can't take the KGB out of cagey Vladimir; just ask Russia's once most powerful and richest oil oligarch, of partial Jewish ethnicity, Mikhail Khodorkovsky when visiting hours permit, or if it were possible, erstwhile spy Alexander Litvinenko from the grave, not likely to radiate much enthusiasm toward the Don who signed his death warrant from Moscow.

Putin's tentacles, however, extend beyond the Eastern Hemisphere, snaking into Venezuela, a nation in turmoil, ruled by virulent anti-Semite Hugo Chavez. Both Russia and Venezuela, economies dependent on the per barrel price of oil, are on the short list of the planet's foremost pushers of that addictive liquid, thus both leaders, positions of power tied to economic results, fortunes intertwined, might be expected to hold hands singing kumbaya while doing business. Not coincidentally, Chavez is a fan of oil revenue dependent Iran and its 'in your face' Imam possessed anti-Semite supreme President Mahmoud AhMADinejad, kindred spirits in Holocaust revisionism. Indeed, sucking up to extreme Islam, Shiite-style, is also good business for the ambitious South American tyrant, no doubt wearing his socialist hat to suck in vast numbers of poor folks, the core component of his domestic power base. Putin, Chavez, and AhMADinejad, albeit the latter somewhat subservient to Iran's anti-Semitic mullahs, have much in common, are collectively potent adversaries of the Jewish State, more essentially by deeds than words, thus should be observed very carefully by Israeli intelligence forces. It goes without say, Uncle Sam's analysts have mega interest as well in this triad, potentially treacherous to a 'war on terror' right in America's own backyard.

Lest anyone doubt that a Venezuela crafted by Chavez and an Iran defined by AhMADinejad are not far apart in utter disdain for Jews and Israel, perhaps a quantum leap more so than Putin at least in rhetoric, review the following evidence compliments of the ADL.

Anti-Semitism is routinely found in Venezuela's government-sponsored press, with stereotypical descriptions and caricatures of Jews and anti-Israel invective appearing in opinion pieces and editorial cartoons. Some examples:

  • Those who are upset with Ahmadinejad's visit to Venezuela are the gangsters of the local Jewish mafia; the terrorists who control the Confederations of Israelite Associations (CAIV) and other criminal organizations of similar reputation." -- Los Papeles de Mandinga, September 19, 2006
  • It was to be expected. The profound humanistic conviction and moral solidarity of Commander Chavez for denouncing the atrocities that are systematically committed by the state of Israel against Arab people have bothered the cancers of the inferno -- international imperialism and Zionism." -- Diario Vea, September 14, 2006
  • Zionists, the destructive sect of radical Jews, are again impregnating the Jewish community with its animosity towards humanity. The genocide they executed in Palestine and Lebanon is similar to the Holocaust which the Nazis executed against them, and they will undergo another Holocaust because of the global hatred they are accumulating." -- Diario Vea, July 4, 2006.

"President Hugo Chavez and his government institutions have elevated their anti-Israel rhetoric to dangerous levels, and it often crosses the line into anti-Semitism," said Abraham H. Foxman. "It is troubling that the leadership of a Latin American country, that once served as a safe-haven for Holocaust survivors and that still boasts a sizeable Jewish community, has taken a wrong turn into fostering hatred, prejudice and bigotry while supporting countries and groups who call for Israel's total destruction."

Chavez and his government have resorted to implicit and explicit anti-Semitic displays, including rehashing the ancient canard of Jewish control, blaming Israel and the Jews for the world's problems, and adopting anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish financial influence. Recently, in a series of public statements on Israel's war with Hezbollah, Chavez repeatedly compared Israel to the Nazis and Hitler, and in speaking to his own people he has on at least one occasion dabbled in classical anti-Semitic canards:

  • Israel was committing genocide in Lebanon and its leaders should be held responsible and should be judged by an international tribunal ... The Israelis criticize Hitler but have done something worse." -- August 25, 2006.
  • This fascism is something similar to what Hitler did: bombard cities, kill innocent children, women and men, and destroy the infrastructure of people." -- July 26, 2006
  • ... The world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendents of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolivar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession of all the wealth in the world ... -- December, 24, 2005.

Israel surely has its enemies in the Middle East, but not exclusively in that region. Indeed, worldwide connections exacerbate the Jewish State's security dilemma. Yet, we must note the one common bond of oil revenue dependent economies, and must ask ourselves if the ultimate answer for the beleaguered Jewish State, as well as formidable ally America, is to eventually stop buying their oil and convince other industrial nations to do the same. Hmmm. Just a thought!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by News Max, February 26, 2007.

This was written by Dave Eberhart and appeared today on www.NewsMax.com.

Richard Perle tells NewsMax that key members of the Bush administration have failed the president -- and Perle names names.

In a wide-ranging interview, the former assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan and chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 2001 to 2003 under President Bush calls former Secretary of State Colin Powell a "disaster" and says current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "was in way over her head from the beginning."

Others fall within his sights: Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, and George Tenet, among others.

Surprising words from the man critics of the White House have dubbed "the Prince of Darkness" -- a leading neo-conservative who was one of the key proponents of the 2002 invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Speaking from his home in Chevy Chase, Md., Perle -- the man who was credited with orchestrating the Reagan policies that led to the fall of the Soviet Union -- is busy explaining his role in a less savory subject, the current situation in Iraq.

While Perle does see a silver lining and believes that our actions may have prevented greater evil, he worries that the situation is looking more and more like Vietnam, especially as that war was lost on the home front.

Perle will be featured in PBS's upcoming two-hour program "The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom."

It is one segment of a series called "America at a Crossroads." PBS says the series will explore the challenges confronting the world post-9/11, including the war on terrorism, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the experience of American troops, the struggle for balance within the Muslim world, and perspectives on America's role globally.

The "Crossroads" series will launch on Sunday, April 15, and will run on PBS through Friday, April 20, 9-11 p.m. (ET). Perle's "The Case for War" segment will air on April 17.

Despite the airtime devoted to Perle, PBS never seems to offer him the opportunity to look at the camera and clearly explain how some of the best and the brightest in the Bush administration got it wrong.

Still, there are some surprising turns. In a particularly poignant segment of "The Case for War," Perle talks about the looming threat of Iran, giving this surprising take -- from someone reputedly one of the nation's foremost saber-rattlers:

"I don't think we need to send in the Marines, and it's not being contemplated."

According to PBS, its "America at a Crossroads" initiative includes an extensive public outreach program designed to create a national dialogue. The outreach program encompasses screenings and discussions in more than 20 cities with U.S. military personnel, leading policy experts and Islamic leaders; an in-depth online presence; and educational initiatives.

NewsMax: What do you find most frustrating about this slow agony of progress in Iraq?

Perle: I have watched the president from the beginning and my sense is that his instincts have been pretty good and his policy decisions -- the ones that he himself has acted on -- are pretty good. But he has an administration that not only does not implement his policies, they are often hostile to his policies. He has failed to gain control of his own administration.

NewsMax: Rather than a documentary defending the decision to go to war in Iraq, perhaps folks would better appreciate Richard Perle doing something along the lines of David Halberstam's Vietnam-era tome "The Best and The Brightest" -- similarly discussing how we got where we are in Iraq with the best and brightest leading the way.

Perle: We just don't have the best and the brightest. I think Colin Powell was a disaster. He never liked the president's policies. He did almost nothing to get them implemented. Condi [former head of the National Security Council and now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] was in way over her head from the beginning, and the president gave much too much weight to her views. The administration was full of people even in the White House at the National Security Council who were hostile to the president's policies.

NewsMax: On the subject of your "America at a Crossroads" segment for PBS: In one of your filmed confrontations with protestors on the National Mall, you tell a woman, "I'm sorry for your loss, but I'm not the president." You're saying to her that you are not the architect of the war and you didn't make the decisions. But you were a powerhouse on the Defense Policy Board.

Perle: As a matter of fact, I was not at all happy with the conduct of the board. Now people can differ about what approach would have been more effective. I think we got ourselves, unfortunately, into an occupation [of Iraq] that we could have avoided. We could have avoided it by turning things over to the Iraqis more or less immediately, which is what I was arguing for.

NewsMax: Inherent in that view would be the need to maintain the Iraqi army, even though the officer corps may have been riddled with Baathists.

Perle: Yes. I think it was a mistake to disband the [Iraqi] army the way it was done. But the big mistake was not handing things over to the Iraqis immediately. If you are in a position of occupation and you can't get the electricity going, you're bound to inspire an insurgency. I don't think that insurgency was inevitable.

NewsMax: One of the things that PBS is advertising is that it is hoped this unique series, "America at a Crossroads," is going to provoke a national dialogue, and yet, ironically, our own United States Senate is gridlocked.

Perle: They are having a screaming match, not a dialogue.

NewsMax: How do you see it playing out on Capitol Hill?

Perle: The House and the Democratic leadership have decided to make Iraq a partisan political issue. They are using it to rally Democrats, and it seems to me that they have lost all sight of the national interest.

NewsMax: Some have styled what's going on as a looming constitutional disaster -- a potential historic war between two branches of government.

Perle: Despite all of the earlier claims about wanting a bipartisan approach to these issues, everything that they [Democrats] are doing is to the contrary. What's sad is getting this nonbinding resolution and then moving with this basically deceptive [Rep. John] Murtha approach, which is to pretend that all they are doing is putting restrictions on funding in the best interest of the troops.

In fact, they are trying to make it impossible for the commander-in-chief to dispatch the troops.

I've been in Washington now since 1969. I can't recall a more hypocritical coordinated assault by one party than this one. Even in the worse days of the Nixon administration it never reached this.

NewsMax: How do you suspect this is all going to end?

Perle: I think that the Democrats have injected a note of such bitter partisanship that it is going to backfire.

NewsMax: In the 2008 elections?

Perle: Even before that. I think that most Americans are unhappy with the situation in Iraq, but they do not want to see a humiliating withdrawal, and they don't want to see a bitter partisan dispute when they realize that the country needs to pull together.

Nancy Pelosi is overplaying her hand. Jack Murtha has just gone around the bend. I don't understand him at all, and I think in the end the public, broadly speaking, will say, "Enough of this."

NewsMax: Now that Al Franken has declared for the U.S. Senate, do you find him a more serious guy?

Perle: He tells me that he is out of a job [host on Air America Radio]. He actually has a decent sense of humor, so he tries to be funny, but he was reasonably serious with me. I didn't think, however, that he had a lot to say of importance.

Franken was hung up on the fact that we didn't find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and that whole thing gets a little tedious after a while.

The president didn't create [the intelligence organizations]. He made the mistake of keeping [former CIA chief George] Tenet in place, but that is another matter.

NewsMax: What about the U.S. intelligence efforts in the ramp-up to war in Iraq?

Perle: The intelligence that was available to [the president] after September 11 was that they were categorical in their belief that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. There was no deception. There was no cherry-picking. There was no pressure on the analysts. That whole line is rubbish. I was seeing the intelligence at the time.

I was then chairman of the Defense Policy Board, and we had briefings and so I heard the CIA briefings and the Defense Intelligence Agency briefings, and they never left any room for doubt. The idea that that intelligence product was manipulated by the administration is just completely without foundation. But the Democrats have embraced it because it is how they hope to explain the fact that most of them voted for the resolution authorizing force against Saddam.

NewsMax: Throughout your program, you adamantly say you were for the regime change in Iraq. The regime change was a good thing...

Perle: Saddam is gone, and I think that is a good thing. He was a menace. It is very popular now to suggest that because we didn't find WMD, he wasn't the threat. What we didn't find in truth was stockpiles of WMDs. He certainly had the capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons again when he wanted to do so, and so I believe he was a threat, and I think we had the right to respond to that threat.

You can't operate on the basis of what you know later. You've got to operate on the basis of what you know then.

NewsMax: So, the fact is that while the ramp-up to the war was clumsy and less than a smooth scholarly enterprise, we got there and it was justified?

Perle: Yes, I believe it was justified, and I wish we had handled it a little bit differently, but -- if we were having a debate now about how effectively we handled the post-Saddam situation, it would be a very different debate than the one that we are having.

NewsMax: Reportedly, 70 percent of the American public wants the boys to come home...

Perle: It depends on how you ask the question. Of course, we all want the boys to come home. If the question you put was "Do you think that we should withdraw even if it means that Iraq subsides into chaos and we will have been defeated and humiliated in Iraq?" you will get an entirely different answer.

I think polls on a matter like that are pretty useless.

NewsMax: How about the analogy between Iraq and the Vietnam experience?

Perle: I think that there are, unfortunately, elements in Iraq that are a lot more reminiscent of Vietnam than I would have wished -- and more reminiscent than was true in early Iraq. I mean, what is beginning to look a little bit familiar is the withdrawal of support on the home front. I don't see troops who were in Iraq demanding that we pull out.

NewsMax: How about the recent intelligence that Muqtada al-Sadr and members of his army left Baghdad in advance of the troop surge and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family?

Perle: It's an indication that we may be able to turn this thing around. One of the mistakes of the administration was in believing that you could deal with Iraq in isolation without a successful strategy for Iran and Syria. What the Iranians are doing now, they have been doing all along, and the administration just hasn't been willing to act on it.

To Go To Top

Posted by Samson Krupnick, February 26, 2007.

R&B Editor's note: Wahhabis are not Sunnis and "Saudi" Arabia must be destroyed.

We are in a dangerous situation, wherein mass murder ("terror") continues to spread. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made the mistake of permitting Wahhabi Hamas ("Palestinian" branch of the international Wahhabi Muslim Brotherhood, sister organization of Wahhabi Al Qaeda) to participate in Resident Arab ("Palestinian") elections, supposedly in the interest of "democracy". Hamas won the elections with over 70% of the vote, calling for the destruction of the State of Israel precisely as did The Egyptian from Alexandria (alias "Yasser Arafat", previous alias "Abdul Rauf el-Codbi el-Husseini"). The Potemkin Village Fantasy of two nations, Israel and "Palestine", living side by side in peace and tranquility, evaporated.

The fantasy of "two states" was never accepted by most Resident Arabs, nor even by a minority of Israelis. The terms by which "Palestine" Authority Chairman, 1972 Munich Massacre Mass Murder Master Mahmoud Abbas would accept a two state "solution" were flooding Israel with 4.6 million Arab "refugees" and Israel's retreat to the 1949 armistice borders.

"Arafat" turned down deals offered by Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and U.S. President Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush refused the terms of Abbas and specified the U.N. resolution of any withdrawal be in consideration of security with safe and defensible borders for Israel.

Abbas was interested in playing the part of a man of peace. Wahhabi Hamas took full advantage of its large democratic victory to pursue its objective: "Destruction of the Zionist Entity". Hamas head Ismael Hanieh visited Iran, where he proclaimed, "We shall never recognize the Zionist Entity". He was promised there some one billion dollars and an endless supply of sophisticated arms, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Meanwhile, bowing to Condoleezza Rice pressure, more arms and equipment were permitted to Fatah, supposedly to battle Wahhabi Hamas. Abbas declared, "More fire should be against the occupiers rather than at Palestinians".

Under threat of civil war, both Abbas and Hanieh were invited to Mecca. Wahhabi Hamas secured the support of Wahhabi "Saudi" Arabia in its war with Fatah. Already supported by Iran supplying arms through Syria, Wahhabi Hamas came to Mecca the winner and left the winner. Supposedly this was to be a meeting to bring "peace" to "Palestine".

As it appears, Hanieh was the victor and Abbas the loser. Wahhabi "Saudi" Arabia offered one billion dollars for presumed tranquility. Aside from alleged American pressure on "Saudi" Arabia, more prompted them to bring tranquility into the Middle East. "Saudi" Arabia and another five tribal entities ("nations") in this area are dominated by Wahhabis and Sunni Muslims, while Iran and Iraq are primarily Shi'ite. Thousands have been murdered in Iraq by Wahhabis, Sunnis, Shi'ites and Iranian "insurgents".

American and its allies failed to "stabilize" this bloody battlefield. The new Iraqi army cannot keep the peace. Shi'ite groups attack each other, making "peace" almost impossible. Leaving this mad house is not practical.

Meanwhile, local scandals take up much of our time, spreading in the shadow of the failures of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz in the July-August, 2006 Lebanon War. Attacks continue. While the Lebanese army and U.N.I.F.I.L. troops guard borders, neither prevents smuggling in huge quantities of sophisticated arms and equipment for Shi'ite Hezbollah.

Hezbollah dreams of ruling Lebanon. Another war is coming sooner or later with Lebanon. A terrible sin was committed by Ariel Sharon in ordering the ethnic cleansing and expulsion of 10,000 Pioneering Jewish men, women and children from 23 Jewish Pioneering Communities in Gush Katif, and three in northern Samaria, as a "peace gesture" to the Resident Arabs, who considered this crime a great military victory. Gush Katif now headquarters five mass murder organizations, including Wahhabi Al Qaeda. Huge quantities of arms are smuggled into Gaza from Egypt in the south and Lebanon in the north.

Meetings continue to take place between Ehud Olmert, Mahmoud Abbas and Condoleeza Rice, following guidelines established by the "Quartet" of the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia. The "Quartet" requires Wahhabi Hamas recognition of Israel, abandonment of mass murder, and of honoring previous agreements, whatever they may be.

Supposedly we are well equipped to defend ourselves from Iran with our Arrow missiles and the Israel Air Force is prepared to attach and destroy Iranian nuclear installations as Menachem Begin destroyed the nuclear reactor in Baghdad in 1981. We need a new Government quickly to better face more difficulties properly and effectively with the help of the Almighty.

Shalom, Chodesh Tov and Purim Sameach from Yerushaliyim,

Contact Samson Krupnick at krup@012.net.il This was distributed by the Root and Branch Association, Ltd (rb@rb.org.il).

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 26, 2007.

Last night about 6:30 PM CST, I had a call from Israel - 2:30 AM Israel time. The news was not good. A 42 year old Jewish man, Erez Levanon, z'l, who used to drive to a nearby small forest to stroll and commune with nature, pray with G-d and to find his way to peace was found brutally murdered with multiple stab wounds. It was reported that the murderers hiding in a house in Beit Omar near Bat Ayin, had been caught by the Shimshon unit of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces).

I am beside myself with rage. I do not believe in the Christian concept of turning the other cheek. If caught, these rotten dregs of a primitive, vicious race should be immediately sliced into pieces and fed to pigs. This was a good, gentle man with three children who will now grow up without their father.

I am certain that the non-Jewish Government and despicable Leftist Courts will give these monsters a trial and put them in prison for a while. Then this current corrupt anti-Jewish Government will release them along with other Muslim Arab Terrorists in an early prisoner exchange for kidnapped Jews.

This current unholy government has unleashed these radical Muslim hostile creatures to savage Jews wherever they can find them alone and vulnerable.

Once the Arabs in the Gush Etzion area, where Erez Levanon was murdered, feared to accost the Jews but the unholy non-Jewish government of Ehud Olmert taught them they had nothing to fear. The corrupt Jew-hating Courts of Israel were there to protect the Terrorists of Islam so why should they worry.

I can hear the Leftists cheering that another "settler" has been murdered. One less "settler" to be forced off the land. Do you think it matters to the non-Jews of Kadima, Labor, Meretz that Jews cannot walk in Israel's forests, eat at a restaurant, ride a bus? NOT AT ALL!

The real Jews of Israel should be sufficiently enraged to march as a nation to Jerusalem and rip this imposter Government from its comfortable, unearned offices. Never even in its worst moments has Israel, through incompetent leadership, had such low dregs of humanity ruling the nation. Every crooked politicians, embezzler, treasonous dreck (that's shit in any language) has been drawn to this Government like a fly to garbage. The maggots they produce are given other jobs to control the system and the people.

In the last few days I watched a dog expert explain why dogs bark incessantly, forcing the neighbors to call the police to shut them up. The "expert" concluded that these barking dogs were merely frightened and barked to give themselves false courage.

Shortly after that, I read a speech by Olmert to the effect that after the Holocaust we (meaning he) will not live under an existential threat again - ever. Never again!

I could not help but think of a frightened dog barking. But, we have heard such barking before when other Prime Ministers barked their threats that, if the Arabs do this or that, they will know what to do. They knew that barking their fear would influence the people to think they were brave instead of the sniveling, yapping politicians they are.

So now a peaceful man, taking a moment of solitude, in a small forest is dead. Like others before him, his children must be raised by one parent and the ripples of pain spread. Don't expect much of the Olmert Government, a Leftist Court that serves the Terrorists and Police force trained to attack "Settlers". The weak Olmert Government had just recently opened up the road to Arab Muslim Terrorists by closing the checkpoints.

Another dead Jew means nothing to Olmert and Rice in the dismemberment through re-partition of the Jewish State. Isn't it time to clean out the garbage called the Government?

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, February 26, 2007.

This statement is from Dror Vanunu (gkatif@netvision.net.il), of the Gush Katif Committee. My comments are interspersed in red.

Prominent leaders from the Left sign a petition for Gush Katif.

Last week a group of scholars, writers and ex-politicians from the left held a special press conference in the vicinity of the renewed farms of the evacuees in the Ziqim area, south of Ashqelon. They signed a petition against the neglecting of the evacuees and demanding the immediate involvement of the government in their rehabilitation. The petition was presented by Major General (Res.) Uzi Dayan to Lior Kalfa, Chairman of the Gush Katif Committee at the end of a visit and meeting with the expellees.

Public Petition

"Evacuated with determination -- Rehabilitation with sensitivity.

We request from the State of Israel to stop immediately the neglecting of the evacuees from Gush Katif and North Samaria. At certain times a government has the right to evacuate territories and even to uproot communities but the State should also protect the impaired rights of the evacuated civilians, compensate them and rehabilitate them. This is a mutual guarantee that we are all obligated to, this is an order of the morals and of the heart, this is by order of law, this is the credo of democracy.

The residents of Gush Katif and North Shomron have been evacuated from their communities for the sake of us all. In spite of this, one year and five months have passed since the evacuation and thousands of evacuees are still unattended in temporary dwellings in caravilla sites. They do not have permanent communities, the unemployment skyrockets, the communities are torn apart, the loss is immense and thousands of evacuees lack a solid ground to restore their lives. Didn't you learn from the experience? Did you forget that refugee camps struck by unemployment are a ticking bomb?We look into the distress of our brothers, we ache with them and we object to their present situation. The neglecting of the evacuees from Gush Katif could prevent the legitimacy of the government to undertake similar moves in the future. [It can be gleaned from the last sentence that many of the signatories to the petition signed primarily for political reasons; that is, to pave the way for the expulsion of tens of thousands of Jews from Judea and Samaria in the near future. Shameful!]

We evacuated them with determination; we should care for their rights with sensitivity."

The petition was signed among all by A.B. Yeoshua, Arieh Eliav, Sami Michael, Amos Oz, Yossi Sarid, Gila Almagor, David Grossman, Doron Almog, Yaron London, Shulamit Aloni and others.

The following statement was published by the Gush Katif Committee

"The Gush Katif Committee welcomes with satisfaction this initiative and the clear demand to the government to put en end to the plight of the evacuees.

We wish to tell you that despite the neglecting, we are not stopping for a moment to progress and to strive to become again contributing citizens of Israel.

Together with our thanks for the petition we wish to emphasize that it becomes clear today that no purpose can justify the uprooting of communities from their land, not on a moral, Zionist, or Jewish perspective."

UJC Support for Gush Katif evacuees.

The Gush Katif Committee has been investing significant efforts since the evacuation in order to involve the "United Jewish Communities" in the United States (UJC) in the rehabilitation of the evacuated families and to extend financial aid for the multiple needs of the Gush Katif communities. At first the Jewish federations were reticent to recognize the need for massive assistance under the influence of the message conveyed by the Israeli government even prior to disengagement that "there is a solution for each settler" and that their involvement is unnecessary. The periodical reports that were published by the committee, the pressure on the side of supporters and friends of Gush Katif throughout North America who demanded from the local federations to support the expellees from Gush Katif in the same way that they supported the different projects -- as rehabilitation of the north, project for which the UJC mobilized about 350 million dollar- brought about this change in the attitude of the Jewish Federations and a reassessment of their position.

During the past two months a number of delegations from the Jewish Agency, the UJC and heads of major federations have visited the temporary sites of the evacuees, have learnt at firsthand about the hardships faced by the communities and drew mutual reports together with the Gush Katif Committee on the situation and of the special needs of the communities towards complete rehabilitation. During those meetings the delegations became aware of the tremendous difficulties that the people from Gush Katif had to deal with and were astonished to witness an ongoing motivation, a desire to start anew and to succeed to become once again active and resourceful citizens of Israel.

Ze'ev Bielsky, chairman of the Jewish Agency accurately expressed this by saying that:" Undoubtedly the situation of the Gush Katif evacuees is far more critical than the situation of the residents of the North who left their homes for 33 days but at the aftermath of the war had a home and a livelihood to return to. [$350 million was raised for the residents of the North soon after the fighting stopped. Despite the much greater severity of the situation that the expellees are still facing (according to the Jewish Agency, itself!), only $2.5 million has been approved for them -- this after 18 MONTHS of neglect! See below:] For years the State of Israel has been eager to settle those regions, now we have to remove the many hurdles and to help you in your endeavor."

At the end of January, the UJC Board of Trustees convention took place in Florida and among others matters; the situation of the uprooted communities of Gush Katif was discussed.

Rivka Goldsmidt, representing the Gush Katif Committee, spoke with emotion of the plight of the families and her words aroused deep empathy with the terrible reality that has been forced on the Gush Katif families since summer 2005. The decision to extend assistance to the communities was unanimously accepted and a 2.5 million dollars aid (out of the evaluated 86 million dollars program) will be allocated for the support of projects in the fields of employment, education and trauma relief. [That UJC is knowingly giving just 3% of the necessary funds to the expellees, 18 months after their expulsion, is a sin! UJC has well over $100 million remaining from the more than $350 million raised in the Israel Emergency Campaign this past year. EMERGENCY FUNDS ARE, BY DEFINITION, TO BE USED EXPEDITIOUSLY. MANY OF THE EXPELLEES WERE ALSO VICTIMS OF THE WAR IN THE NORTH. WHY DOESN'T HOWARD RIEGER, PRESIDENT OF UJC, APPROVE THE $86 MILLION FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE FORMER GUSH KATIF RESIDENTS? PLEASE EMAIL MR. RIEGER AND DEMAND THAT HE GIVE THE EXPELLEES ALL OF THE DESPERATELY-NEEDED MONEY. howard.rieger@ujc.org Thank you so much!]

Lior Kalfa, chairman of the Gush Katif Committee has expressed his gratitude to Mr. Ze'ev Bielsky, Mr. Nachman Shay, and to Mr. Doron Krakow for urging their respective organizations to bring assistance to the evacuees and for their true willingness to become partners in the complex rehabilitation process: " We hope that this is the first step to the creation of a stable partnership with the communities of Gush Katif. We hope for your intensive involvement in the restoration of our permanent communities, the building of public structures and the professional rehabilitation of families in the years to come.

The heads of the Gush Katif Committee and the Jewish Agency are defining the areas of assistance for this allocation: Scholarships for students, help for education and relief programs, community needs and re-employment programs through JobKatif.

Contact Buddy Macy at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 26, 2007.

This comes from the Winds of War website.

Neal Boortz wrote this piece, and recited it on the air to a Muslim who called in complaining about -- oh you know, Muslims being victimized and taking the rap for a small minority of Muslims who are causing all the trouble in the world.

But a Canada Survey proves otherwise.

But first here's Neal's list of Muslim atrocities that have not produced the Muslim outrage that's due as read to the distressed Muslim caller.

  • Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
  • A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
  • Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
  • Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
  • Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose. Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 26, 2007.

Israel's youth is increasingly leading the struggle to free Jonathan Pollard - and now, a yeshiva high school class in Tiberias is planning a three-day march to Jerusalem calling for his release.

Rabbi Avichai Golan, the projects director of the ORT Yeshiva High School in Tiberias, explained to Arutz-7 how the idea came about: "Every year, the 11th grade sets out on a long trek - but this year, with Pollard in jail for his 22nd year, the students decided that they want it to be on behalf of Pollard. We'll be starting out on the first day of the month of redemption - Nissan - for there is no reason that Pollard should not be home in time for the holiday of redemption, Passover, which falls in the middle of Nissan. The students feel that in this way, they can wake up the country to demand that our government submit an official request to the US for his release."

Awards and Recognitions

At the same time, it has been announced that the prestigious Jerusalem Conference - to be held at the same time in the Hyatt Hotel in Jerusalem - will award its "Lover of Zion" award to Jonathan Pollard. His wife Esther will receive it on his behalf. The award and the march are just the latest manifestations of the increasing public recognition in Israel of Pollard's contribution to Israeli security and of his plight. They follow the bestowing of an award to Pollard by the Torah and Land Institute at its annual conference last month in Bar Ilan University, honorary citizenships in Bat Yam, Beit El, Gush Katif, Kiryat Arba and other localities, and more.

'From Bondage to Freedom'

The high school march, entitled 'From Bondage to Freedom,' is scheduled to begin around the Petach Tikvah area, and will end 85 kilometers (52 miles) later, at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The students will stop at various historic sites along the way, such as Latrun, the battlesites of the Maccabim, the route of the caravans during the War for Independence, and more. The preliminary plan is to spend the first night in Kibbutz Shaalvim, and the second in Kibbutz Tzova.

"We hope to attract many other high school students from all around the country to join us on the last day as we make the ascent to Jerusalem," Golan said. "You can imagine what an impact it can have if hundreds of youths waving Pollard banners and wearing Pollard shirts walk along the main Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway to the nation's capital."

However, the plans are still being made on a small-scale - partly because of budgetary constraints. At Arutz-7's request, Golan provided this email address for those who might be interested in contributing: "avital@012.net.il"

Once in Jerusalem, the students plan to submit a petition signed by thousands of youths calling for freedom for Pollard to the American Consulate on Agron Street.

With the recent statement by former CIA head James Woolsey on Arutz-7 in favor of clemency for Pollard, following years of CIA antipathy towards him, Pollard supporters in Israel feel that many Americans who feared that supporting Pollard implied an anti-American position can now be more open about their true feelings.

In addition, leading Jewish organizations such as Agudath Yisrael and the National Council of Young Israel have called upon their constituents to call the White House (1-202-456-1414) and ask for Pollard's release from prison.

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor of Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel and Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, February 26, 2007.

The body of Gush Etzion resident Erez Levanon, 42 and father of three, was found late last night in an abandoned village near Beit Omar in the Hevron area. It appears that his murderers stabbed him many times.

It is assumed, though the police will not say so with absolute certainty, that the murder was perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists.

Eliyahu Mendelovitch, a neighbor of the victim who participated in the search and retrieval of Levanon's body, told Arutz-7 that the murderers most likely waited in ambush for him. Erez often went to the same spot at the same time each day to pray alone, in the custom of Breslover Hassidim. Click here to listen to the interview with Eliyahu Mendelovitch.

Rabbi Michi Yosefi, a close friend and neighbor of the late victim, said that Eretz was "humble and did not seek attention, yet managed to touch the hearts of thousands of Jews with whom he came in contact during their spiritual searchings in India."

Erez was also a talented musician, who "did wonders with his music and lyrics. He put out a disc that is unlike those sold in stores; something very unique." The Maariv NRG Hebrew website article on the murder includes a link to hear the song "The Heart and the Well," written and composed by the victim.

Erez Levanon's funeral set out this afternoon from Bat Ayin to the regional Gush Etzion cemetery in Kfar Etzion, just a kilometer away.

Erez spent the last seven summers in India - first in Manali and afterwards in Bela - meeting with young Israelis seeking to "clean their heads." "What he managed to do there was simply amazing," Yosefi told Radio Kol Chai. "I always wondered where such a talent came from... He had a special strength of faith."

Sha'ul Goldstein, head of the Gush Etzion Regional Council, attacked the government policy of removing checkpoints in Judea and Samaria as "gestures" to Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas. Goldstein said that the murder should force officials to reevaluate this policy, as the removal of checkpoints is what allowed the killers to arrive in the area and escape quickly afterwards.

Contrary to initial reports, Erez's lifeless body was not found by Arabs, but rather by his neighbors who began searching for him when he did not arrive at a scheduled appointment.

UPDATE February 27, 2007 Israeli security forces on Monday arrested two Palestinians in Beit Omar in the West Bank who confessed that they stabbed Erez Levanon, 42, to death in a forest outside his home in Bat Ayin on Sunday. Mudar Abu-Dia and Mousaa Ah'lil, both 18, told police following their capture that they had followed Levanon to a forest that he liked to pray in and there ambushed and slaughtered him. The two boys originally claimed to have been working alone, but the killing was apparently popular enough among the "Palestinians" that the Islamic Jihad jumped in and claimed credit for having directed the youthful murderers.

Levanon was a popular songwriter and singer who played music for patients in Jerusalem-area hospitals and would entertain for free at bar mitzvas and weddings of those who lacked money. He was a follower of the 18th century Hassidic master Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav. In pursuit of the Bratslav tradition of personal prayer, Levanon and others in the community would often go into the forest where he was slain to pray. (Jerusalem Post)

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor of Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com) Nissan Ratzlav-Katz is a write at Arutz-Sheva.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 26, 2007.

This was written by Bradley Burston and it appeared today in Haaretz
() It is entitled "A Special Place in Hell."

This is the second in a series of exercises in over-generalization , following Ten reasons the left hates Israel - five good, five bad. Apologies are tendered in advance to the rational left, the members of whom often hate the following as much as Israelis do.


Why do Israelis hate the Western left?

# Because Arabs can murder, rape, starve, maim, torture, deport, excommunicate, honor-kill, abuse, extort, rocket, shell, assassinate, suicide bomb, humiliate, jail without due process, occupy, and enslave other Arabs without eliciting peep one from the evolved, hypersensitive consciences of the Western left - unless the silence is broken in order to find Israel and its U.S. ally responsible.

How to Speak Leftist: Blame the West

Repeat until winded: Arabs have been subjugated and colonized for centuries. The interventionist and occupation policies of the IDF and its Western sponsors promote infighting among Arab allies, in order to divide and continue to conquer.

# Because Palestinians can meat-cleaver, rocket, machine-gun, bludgeon or bomb Israeli civilians to death, without the Western left making a sound.

How to speak Leftist: Blame Israel

Example: Talkback in response to apparent terror stabbing death of settler, Monday:

It must be easy holding a gun to somebody's head and calling them a terrorist when all along you have been demonizing them and restricting their freedom, but then again you are taking out the holocaust frustrations on weaker people, which in your eyes makes you strong, put your gun down and face the Palestinians even handed and see how far you will get, you are bloody cowards.
Monty, no address listed

# Because in recent years, attacks on Jews, Jewish graves, synagogues and other Jewish institutions in Eastern and Western Europe and in North America have reached levels unseen in recent memory, and in many cases in which Muslims were behind the incidents, the left has been notably reluctant to voice condemnation.

How to Speak Leftist: Blame Israel

Repeat until winded: Israel's crimes against the Palestinians have been the driving force in the rise of contemporary anti-Semitism and attacks on Diaspora Jews.

# Because some elements of the left are willing to countenance and euphemize actual genocide when practiced by Muslims in places like Darfur, while missing no opportunity to accuse Israel of systematic genocide, when describing Israeli attempts to repel suicide bombings and other terror attacks.

How to speak Leftist - Example:

Talkback response from Mo, NYC:

Zionist forces who turn a blind eye to the wholesale depravation and oppression of Palestinians are making Dafur a cause celebre. The questions the left asks are -- why are people whose hands are very dirty with human rights abuses, with wholesale cultural annihilation vis-a-vis the Palestinians (not genocide, but destruction of cultural and institutional resources and identity) -- why are such people suddenly focused on Darfur?

If Darfur is an example of a bad situation (and it certainly is, no one on the left is denying that), why doesn't it make you wake up to what is happening in your own back yard, to which you are a party? Could it be that Darfur is an attempt at evasion/redirection? Could it be that any human rights issue if it involves Arabs as perpetrators is pounced on by Zionists to avoid attention to their own misdeeds? That's what troubles the left.

# Because nationalism on the basis of Palestinian cultural affiliation is celebrated as the natural right of a disenfranchised people with a common history of enforced displacement, and who trace their origins to ancestral homeland - while Jewish nationalism on the same basis is condemned as inherently and irrevocably racist and illegitimate.

# Because the Western left absolves the Palestinians of all responsibility for their fate, holding Israel solely responsible for the plight of the Palestinians, their choice to pledge fealty to the armed struggle rather than call Israel's bluff and take concrete steps toward statehood.

# And because the Palestinians are not held accountable for their refusal to wage a specifically non-violent struggle for independence, instead relying on macho-drenched violence, which does little but alienate the world from the Palestinian cause.

How to speak Leftist: Repeat until winded

The withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon prove that resistance is the only way to force Israel to relinquish conquered territory.

The lopsided pro-Palestinian votes in the UN prove that the Palestinian cause has not been hurt by resistance.

Israeli policies make non-violent protest impossible.

Postscript: It has been suggested to the Palestinians many times, that they organize a massive non-violent protest in which they simply Get Up And Walk. Walk towards Israel. Hundreds of thousands of people, marching for their rights. It has worked for many other movements in history.

No rocks. No cinder blocks. No slingshots. No AK-47s. Just get up and walk.

And if Israel responds with violence, which is likely, the Palestinians will win. The world will respect their cause. Not just the Western left. The Palestinians will win a state. Alongside Israel.

As it is, the masked testosterone undergrounds only win themselves macho bragging rights, which, for them, appears to be enough. But if the masses renounce violence, the Palestinians will finally win one.

Not just the left.

A comment from Michael Green from Tel Aviv responding to the usual "1st world vs 3rd world" line:

Your frame-of-reference is wrong!

"[Israel/Palestine] is the only place the 1st World has a newly founded colony embedded in the 3rd World, newly displaced the indigenous inhabitants, won`t end apartheid separation, and where displaced indigenous people still carry on a conflict."

The Left's major error is that, by viewing the problem as a "1st World vs. 3rd World conflict", it applies the wrong frame-of-reference!

The conflict is in reality between:

- A national liberation movement (Jewish) in its historic homeland; and

- Arab-Islamic Imperialism that wants to annihilate the Jewish nation state -- just like it has annihilated dozens of nations in the 14 century history of Jihadist Imperialism (including in our day, Maronites, Copts, Assyrian Christians, Kurds, Berbers, etc).

Once you see the conflict as "Jewish National Liberation vs. Arab Imperialism", then everything will be crystal clear and the Left will regain its ability to view the conflict from its correct perspective!

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Kapen, February 26, 2007.

With the Jewish holiday of Purim right around the corner (Jewish holidays are observed according to the Jewish calendar so they may fall on different dates, this year it falls on March 4) a holiday when Jews celebrate the victory of good which represented by Mordechai, a simple Persian Jew, and his niece Esther, the Persian queen who becomes a heroine and the rescuer of her people, let us contemplate some lessons we may learn from this happy holiday.

As the Purim story goes, recounted in the Book of Esther, or the Megilah (scroll) of Esther, Esther is chosen by the King Ahasuerosh, the great king of Persia and the ruler of 127 nations, to be his queen, not disclosing her Jewish background. Alas, an evil and rabid anti-Semitic prime minister named Haman, Haman the Wicked as known in Jewish lore, concocts a scheme to obliterate all the Jews of the kingdom, to which the not too bright a king gives his O.K. and something has to be done A.S.A.P. Mordechai then appeals to his niece the Queen to reveal her true identity to her husband the king and intercede on behalf of her people which she does, albeit reluctantly at first, and the rest is history. The wicked Haman is severely punished and the Jews are saved and celebrate it till today.

However, for the Jews it didn't end there, in present day Persia, now called Iran, there is another evil man and rabid anti-Semite who denies the Holocaust and calls for wiping the Jewish state off the face of the earth.

Furthermore, in defiance of the United States and world opinion by continuing to enrich uranium and most probably on the way to create nuclear weapons, he poses a morbid threat not only to Israel and the entire region but globally, as terrorists may get a hold of these mass destruction weapons, a most formidable thought.

Granted, there is no Queen Esther or Uncle Mordechai to intercede with this modern- day Haman, but let's hope and pray that as it is written in the Book of Esther: Salvation will come from another place.

Contact Rachel Kapen at skapen265466MI@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 26, 2007.


While Israel's Foreign Minister Livni calls Abbas moderate, the website of his Fatah still features a cartoon of Sharon "the butcher." In the cartoon, only, Sharon holds a butcher knife over a bleeding Arab baby on a butcher block, near two Arabs hanging on a meat hook. Another cartoon depicts Sharon whipping an Arab tied by barbed wire to a post (IMRA, 1/28).


She admits that withdrawal from Gaza turned it over to terrorist control and it became a nest of terrorists. "Nevertheless," she said, she doesn't regret it and we must "stick to a two-state solution." (Doesn't she regret the bloodshed?)

She does not suggest what is in Israel's interest nor how she serves her country by making her priority an Arab state that so far makes war on Israel. She serves her ideology, not country, by refusing to draw conclusions from the facts.

She was heartened by Israeli youths imploring her to make peace. She said that setting up an Arab state is the right thing to do. The Arabs first would have to end terrorism (IMRA, 1/28).

I think it is the wrong thing to do. It isn't justified by citing the harm from its earlier step and then rationalizing that it was a legitimate step by interposing the word, "Nevertheless." It sacrifices Jewish patrimony and secure borders to reward Muslim imperialists for attempted genocide. Her encouragement by peace-loving Israeli youths should be over-matched by Muslim youths eager to murder those Israelis. She did not say who those Israelis were, what they knew, and how much they would sacrifice if they knew the situation. Perhaps they are blinded by her ideology. It is an ideology that seeks peace in such a way as to guarantee war, which is what her ideology has wrought, so far.

She says that the Arabs first would have to end terrorism. They were supposed to end it under Oslo, signed 13 years ago. They don't fulfill their obligations, because with US pressure, Israel gives them concessions anyway. Why believe she would be different, she who ignores Israel's record of giving in?

She has yet to give a rational reason for her policy. There is none.


She said the "world" should pressure Hamas and Israel will decide what to do (IMRA, 1/28). Israel always says it is deciding, and should have decided in advance, but praises its restraint. What "world?" The "world" doesn't care!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 26, 2007.

This was written by Anne Bayefsky and it appeared February 23, 2007 on National Review Online

A newly released United Nations report epitomizes the foul anti-Semitism which has overtaken the U.N. human-rights machinery. In language reminiscent of Nazi Germany, John Dugard, the U.N.'s "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967," has announced that Jews seeks racial domination.

In Dugard's words: "The IDF inflicts serious bodily and mental harm on Palestinians...Palestinians throughout the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territory] are denied freedom of movement. Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them?"

Dugard's U.N. mandate is to demonize Israel. Palestinian human-rights violations were deliberately omitted from the job description, first drafted by the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 1993 and continued by the "reformed" U.N. Human Rights Council. Dugard, a lawyer, not only accepted the one-sided mandate, he relished the opportunity to become an advocate of a one-state solution in the name of human rights. What Dugard fears most is not hate and the terrorism it fuels, but "Judaization" -- the idea of a Jew living in claimed Arab land. Deliberately mirroring Nazi imagery, his report refers to Israel's security fence this way: "The Wall being built in East Jerusalem is an instrument of social engineering designed to achieve the Judaization of Jerusalem..."

The "Judaization" problem stands side-by-side with this U.N. champion of the Hamas government. According to Dugard, Israel has no right to refuse to transfer funds to the Hamas government. Why? "Predictably, Israel justifies its action on security grounds, but the real reason seems to be a determination to effect a regime change." A look at the Hamas Charter might help determine the wisdom of regime change: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it...There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad..." But according to this U.N. expert the problem is not a government dedicated to killing Jews, but the Jews themselves.

The primary tool of the U.N.'s point-man for whipping up modern-day anti-Semitism is to pillory the Jew as racist extraordinaire. Israel is the evil equivalent to apartheid South Africa. Referring to apartheid 24 times in his report, he proclaims: "Israel's laws and practices in the OPT certainly resemble aspects of apartheid." He fails to mention, predictably, that one-fifth of Israel's population is Arab -- citizens who vote and hold seats in the Israeli parliament -- while Arab countries are Judenrein. And Israel is the apartheid state?

The ultimate carrying-card of U.N.-driven anti-Semitism is to blame the Jewish state for the world's ills. Dugard exemplifies this most dangerous of canards. He reports:

For years the occupation of Palestine and apartheid in South Africa vied for attention from the international community. In 1994, apartheid came to an end...the OPT has become a test for the West, a test by which its commitment to human rights is to be judged. If the West fails this test, it can hardly expect the developing world to address human rights violations seriously in its own countries...

Thus the U.N. inverts right and wrong. Why should Sudan stop genocide? It's waiting for the Jews to repent or the Jewishness of Israel to be terminated. Why should Zimbabwe stop murdering and starving its own people, white and black? Why should China grant anybody freedom of speech? Why should Saudi Arabia let women out of the house alone or into any driver's seat? Why should Egypt stop the mutilation of the genitals of the majority of its married female population? They're all waiting for a solution to the Jewish state problem.

American tax dollars were used to pay for the Dugard report and its dissemination worldwide by the U.N. Isn't it about time the tap was turned off?

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, February 26, 2007.

[Editor's Note: Nadia Matar's essay was originally distributed on February 1, 2006 by the Root and Branch Association (rb@rb.org).]

Excerpt from Root & Branch Editor's Note included with Nadia Matar's essay when originally distributed on February 1, 2006: "Nadia Matar was wounded today, along with M.K.s Aryeh Eldad and Effie Eitam, and hundreds of Jewish boys and girls, in the Israel Government...assault on the Jewish Pioneering Community of Amona...The State of Israel as we have the misfortune to now know it is rapidly passing out of existence. Soon missiles from Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran will devastate Tel Aviv, Haifa and other centers of power of the current regime" [May national repentance avert further evil than has already befallen us since last year at this time -- R&B Editor, February 25, 2007].

Jerusalem Post Report (Thursday, February 8, 2007): "Knesset Director-General Avi Balashnikov announced Wednesday [February 7, 2007] that NIS 375 million was allocated toward the fortification of the Knesset building. The new fortifications will include the installation of security cameras and reinforcing the Knesset's roof against a potential rocket attack".

Now it's official. After the statements by Olmert the week before last and by Inspector-General Karadi last week, there no longer can be any doubts: The Saison, the "hunting season" against the Jews in the Land of Israel, is evident to all. As Yehudah Lapidot tells us in his book The Saison: The Hunting Down of Brothers, the appellation Saison (hunting season in French) was applied to the attempt by the Haganah in [19]44-45 to eliminate I.Z.L. [Irgun Zevai Le'umi also known as Etzel]".

In order to realize the goals of the Saison, the Haganah used almost every means at its disposal, that included kidnappings and protracted interrogations (of Etzel members and supporters), that at times were accompanied by extreme torture; expulsion from places of employment and schools; taking Jews forcibly from apartments, and more. The most drastic step, however, that aroused stormy controversies in the Yishuv (the pre-State Jewish community in Land of Israel), was the surrendering to the British C.I.D. (plainclothes detective branch) of those suspected of belonging to the Revisionist movement in general and to Etzel in particular.

The persecution of members and supporters of the Revisionist movement reached its peak shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, when Ben-Gurion ordered the sinking of the Altalena, and gave the order to shoot at the Jews on the ship. Sixteen Jews on the sinking Altalena and who were swimming towards the Tel Aviv shore were murdered in cold blood. Their only "crime" was belonging to the movement of Menachem Begin. Ben-Gurion gave the order; Yitzhak Rabin was happy to carry it out. The "holy cannon" was the name given by Ben-Gurion's people to the weapon that they used to sink the Altalena in their implementation of this despicable political murder.

Ben-Gurion never ceased to regard the Etzel as a political rival that must be eliminated. In collaboration with the British, he initiated a campaign to persecute the Etzel's members and supporters. The Saison and the Altalena episode silenced the Revisionists for many years.

At present, the entire Jewish-national camp, headed by the public of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, constitutes a threat to the rule of the Left. Demographically, the Left, with an average of one child, or a maximum of two children, has no successor generation. These children receive a shoddy, spoiled education, without Judaism or Zionism, that turns them into Hebrew-speaking non-Jews: without roots, without knowing what it is to be a Jew, without an understanding of what they are doing here in Israel. In contrast, the many children (God bless them) of the Jewish camp (both the religious and the traditional) are educated to love of the Torah, People and Land, and, before we know it, with God's help, they will be the majority here.

The Left is panic-stricken. It still controls the key positions in the country: The Media, State Attorney's Office, High Court of Justice and Knesset -- but its days in power are numbered. It needs to silence the Jewish-national camp, once and for all. Flooding the country with hundreds of thousands of non-Jews from the U.S.S.R. was the first attempt to block the demographic revolution of the Jewish camp. But, a miracle occurred, the majority of those from the U.S.S.R., both Jews and non-Jews, who know what Bolshevism is, and who instinctively understand just who the Arabs are and what they want, voted for the Right! The first scheme to preserve Leftist rule was unrealized.

The Oslo Accords were the second attempt in this direction, when the Oslo architects gave cities of refuge in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to Arafat and his band of murderers, along with weapons and ammunition. The Oslo criminals hoped that the members of the P.L.O. and Hamas would only use these weapons against the Jewish pioneers in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, turn their lives into hell on earth, and thereby force the Jews to leave Judea, Samaria, and Gaza of their own free will and return to within the 1967 lines.

In this manner, Shimon Peres and Ben-Gurion's other successors hoped to crush the settlers in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and, through them, the entire Jewish camp. This would have been a cheap and easy solution for the problem of the Jews of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and their supporters. But, once again, things went wrong: The P.L.O. and Hamas could not restrain themselves, and, instead of heeding the advice of extreme Leftists in Israel and murdering only Jews within Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, those stupid Arabs also began to blow themselves up within little Israel and murder Israelis!

Thus, the Arabs let everyone understand that they do not draw any distinction between the "settler" from Tel Aviv and the "settler" from Ofra. Moreover, the Jews of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were not deterred. Like the Children of Israel in Egypt, "the more they were oppressed, the more they increased" and were strengthened. In their Jewish pioneering communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza -- the Right gained power, this time under the leadership of Israeli war hero Ariel Sharon.

The Left no longer knows what to do with itself. It is really losing it. The years pass, but they have not succeeded in neutralizing the Jewish camp. To the contrary! The People is increasingly convinced that it is the policy of the national camp that is correct. This is the reason why Sharon was elected, and not Mitzna.

What did the Left do? It used Ariel Sharon to implement the mission of neutralizing the Jewish camp. It threatened Sharon that if he would not realize the policy of the Left, his sons would go to prison. Ariel Sharon, a totally corrupt and egotistical person, did not hesitate to cooperate with them.

Overnight, people such as Peres, Sharon, Beilin, Olmert, Livni, Mofaz and others coalesced into a one-dimensional monster, a Party called "Forward" [Kadima]. With determination but without sensitivity, it would quickly crush the national camp, and support the continued rule of the Left. Of course, they still do not openly proclaim this as their aim, they sell the public all kinds of stories, as if "the disengagement is essential to stop the 'Arab demographic problem'". But anyone who uses a bit of his intelligence knows that the truth is different, and that this is a contemptible plan to curb the Jewish demographic problem.

First, the Sharon-Peres monster decides to disconnect the Jews from their oxygen: The Jewish Pioneering Communities of Gush Katif and northern Samaria. The mission is carried out with humiliating and intolerable ease. The mamlakhti (state-oriented) and naive Jewish victim dances and embraces the hangman.

Color returns to the cheeks of the Left. "Just look, at long last, we finally moderated our bitter rival", they think to themselves. "We beat the "right" with a knockout. Now we can easily toss him out of all the Jewish Pioneering Communities of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza". We will disperse them, defeated and beaten, throughout little Israel -- without assistance, without support, without compensation, without any possibility of rising again. Once and for all, this will take care of our problem with the Jews. Now we can return to the 1949 lines and establish a bi-national state. "At long last, the nations of the world will love us. Without Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and without the annoying Jewish camp".

It appears, however, that the Left's rejoicing was premature. The Jewish victim is still breathing! And its youth even kicks! In the attempt to destroy the home in Neveh Daniel and the distribution of the evacuation orders in Hebron, the youth did not act as in Gush Katif. They did not dance or embrace, but dared to raise their head and declare: "Another expulsion of Jews from Israel? Never again! This time we won't let them! Our eyes have been opened. We understand that they want to eliminate us, as the first phase in the elimination of the entire Jewish state. No! Here's where we draw the line!"

The Sharon-Peres-Olmert-Livni monster is losing its cool. This cannot go on! How dare the Jews continue to be faithful to their principles? How dare they speak about Greater Israel? Now, the Olmert-Livni-Mazuz-Diskin-Halutz-Karadi gang takes off the gloves and broadcasts to all: Any Jew who is unwilling to commit suicide with dances and hugs -- we will crush him, we will trample him, we will persecute him, we will spray him with tear gas and pepper spray, and even shoot him, if necessary.

Although Ben-Gurion had wanted, for a long time, to get rid of Herut and Lehi (the fighters for Israel), the official excuse for initiating the Saison was the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo. Moyne had been appointed by the British as Minister of State for the Middle East, and from his headquarters in Cairo he was responsible for the implementation of the White Paper policy. Lehi regarded him as responsible for the expulsion of the "illegal" immigrants' ships, decided to kill him.

But, as we said, this was just an excuse to begin the Saison. If there had been no assassination, Ben-Gurion would have found some other pretext. The same holds true for us today. Olmert's official reason for his public and grandiose declaration of war against the settlers of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza as a whole is the "violence of the lawbreakers in Hebron". Anyone with eyes in his head, however, realizes that this is merely a pretext, and this is actually a continuation of the Saison that began in 1944: The Left's organized and ongoing persecution of the national camp.

Olmert's speech the week before last with his demand for forceful action against the "Jewish lawbreakers" took us back 62 years, to 1944, when, in a Histadrut convention, Ben-Gurion called for the elimination of the Herut movement, for which he gave operative orders.

To quote him::

"We have been requested by the supreme bodies -- the Zionist Executive and the Va'ad Le'umi -- to vomit them [the supporters and members of the I.Z.L.] from our midst, and I want to translate this demand into the language of reality and action. If a young man, a member of these gangs or a supporter of them, works in any factory or office, the workers and the other office employees are required to expel him... I intentionally chose this harsh example, everyone who is connected to these gangs, everyone who supports them -- not necessarily if he uses a pistol or throws a bomb, but anyone who disseminates their literature and pastes their announcements -- he must be removed from his place of work [...]. The same holds true if he studies in a secondary school or other [school] -- and not only if he himself participates in acts of murder and robbery, but even if he brings the terrorists' unclean literature to youth, and disseminates it among them. He must be expelled from the school, so that he will know, and his siblings will know, and his parents will know, that the public rises up against these crimes, that endanger, not only the individual, but the nation as a whole.

"The second thing that is required of us: Not to give them refuge and shelter. We must tell every Jew in Israel to withhold shelter and refuge from all the members of the gangs and from all their supporters. It is forbidden to give refuge to these criminals who endanger our future. And the third thing: Not to surrender to their threats! We must create such a regime in the nation that they will not be able to threaten anyone. Every boy and girl will be instructed by the school in which they study that if these gangs come to his father and mother to demand money -- the proper place is to be immediately informed; if he does not know of any address -- he is to go to the police".

As regards collaboration with the British, Ben-Gurion said:

"To the extent that the British authorities and the police are interested in the destruction of terror [let there be no misunderstanding, (Ben-Gurion did not speak of the Arab terror, he referred to the I.Z.L. as the "terror" gangs -- N.M.), "I repeat, our interest in the elimination of terror is greater and more vital that of the British government".

Compare Ben-Gurion's speech with the statements by Olmert, the head of the General Security Service Yuval Diskin, and the Chief of the General Staff Dan Halutz in a special meeting of the security-legal leadership before the evacuations in Hebron, in Amona, and in the other outpost Jewish Pioneering Communities. "The Jewish lawbreakers" threaten the existence of the state; they declared. They engage in a "dangerous ideological criminal activity". They called for stiffer enforcement measures against these Jewish "rioters"; announced that they would increase the use of expulsion orders and administrative detention; and said that they would enlarge the police force in Judea and Samaria -- not in order to stop the Arab terrorists who continue to fire Kassam rockets at Israel and murder Jews on the roads, but to smite, to persecute, and to repress these "idealistic" Jews. Add to this Karadi's statement about the possibility of shooting at Jewish pioneers demonstrating for the territorial integrity of Israel, and we have a return to the time of the Saison in 1944.

This frontal attack on the Jewish Pioneers of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza seems daunting. Every newscast, every radio program, and press ­- which attacks and besmirches Jews loyal to Israel, would not shame the anti-Semitic authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We can really identity with what Ya'akov Shavit wrote in his book "The Hunting Season", "In practice, the organized public opinion turned the I.Z.L. into a group that was isolated, shunned, and mercilessly persecuted". The I.Z.L. was described as "insane Jewish fascism" that would lead to the suicide of the Yishuv and "therefore it deserves an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!" This is the attitude of the ruling Leftist elite today, against the loyalists of Israel.

Accordingly, in light of the renewed Saison, it is important for us to remind ourselves and our wonderful youth that such things already happened, and that we have nothing to fear. We should tell everyone that, in the end, the Saison of 1944 did not succeed, and this time, as well, we will not allow them to succeed. Despite the informing, the arrests, the torture, and the surrendering of underground members to the British authorities; despite the Altalena; and despite the paralysis of the national camp, in the long run Ben-Gurion and his band failed to eliminate the I.Z.L.

Actually, the opposite is the case. The British eventually left Israel, thanks to the activities of the I.Z.L. and the Lehi. Today we -- the camp of Israel loyalists -- comprise a tremendous camp that continues to realize the idea and vision: That all of the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel according to the Torah of Israel, and no one has the right to hand it over to foreigners.

Shavua Tov, Chodesh Tov and Purim Sameach from Efrat,
Mrs. Nadia 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

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, February 26, 2007.

This was published yesterday in the Jerusalem Post, entitled "Supporting peace education in the PA?."

Anyone who hopes for peace should be horrified by the content of the latest set of Palestinian schoolbooks. In many respects, these new books for Grade 12, written by Fatah-appointed Palestinian educators, are the worst of the textbooks produced by the Palestinian Authority since 2000. These newest books deny Israel's right to exist, anticipate its destruction and define the conflict with Israel as religious, not merely territorial.

As is documented in the new report by Palestinian Media Watch entitled "From Nationalist Battle to Religious Conflict," the ideological divide between Fatah and Hamas appears to be disappearing. Hamas has always defined its war with Israel as religious and existential, and now that is what all Palestinian children will learn in school:

"Ribat for Allah is one of the actions related to jihad for Allah, and it means: Being found in areas where there is a struggle between Muslims and their enemies. The endurance of Palestine's people on their land these days... is one of the greatest of the Ribat." (Islamic Education, grade 12, p. 86-87)

THE PALESTINIAN conflict with Israel is a unique and eternal Ribat with a special Islamic destiny:

"The reason for this preference [of the Palestinian Ribat] is that the momentous battles in Islamic history took place on its land."

As to when there will be peace with Israel? Never, according to the schoolbooks:

"[Palestine's] residents are in a constant struggle with their enemies, and they are found in Ribat until Resurrection Day."

Israel's right to exist is denied and Israel's founding is called a theft:

"Palestine's war ended with a catastrophe that is unprecedented in history, when the Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people from their cities, their villages, their lands and their houses, and established the State of Israel" (Arabic Language, Analysis, Literature and Criticism, grade 12, p. 104). Israel is called: "the Zionist entity," and "Zionist Enemy." Israel's existence since 1948 is an "occupation" (ibid pp. 104, 122).

The conflict will eventually end - not with peace, but with Israel's destruction, effected by Palestinians of all ages and abilities:

"Palestine will be liberated by its men, its women, its young and its elderly" (Arabic Language and the Science of Language, grade 12, p. 44).

THE BOOKS anticipate this future destruction of Israel by painting a picture for the Palestinian child of a world in which Israel already does not exist. The place of Israel is marked as "Palestine" on all maps, and "Palestine" is defined as a dawla - the Arabic word for "state," not a geographical region. This "state" is said to have water access to both the Mediterranean and the Red seas, a situation possible only in a world without Israel. (Physical Geography and Human Geography, grade 12, p. 105) Likewise, the size of "Palestine," the "state," is said to be more than 10,000 sq. km., a situation possible only if Israel does not exist, since the West Bank and Gaza Strip together total only 6,220 sq. km.

Because Israel has no right to exist, and must be fought and destroyed for Islam, violence and terror against Israel since its founding are justified and glorified as muqawama, resistance: "The tragedy of Palestine of 1948 and afterward the muqawama in which the inhabitants carried acts of most glorious heroism and sacrifice" (Arabic Language, Analysis, Literature and Commentary, grade 12 p. 105).

THE WORLD cringed in horror at the Iranian Holocaust denial conference. But the new PA schoolbooks teach World War II without the Holocaust. There are extensive details about the history of the war, lessons about the Nazi "race theory" and even mention of "an international court to bring to trial the senior Nazi leaders as war criminals." (The History of the Arabs and the World in the 20th Century, grade 12, p. 46). However, the books fail to mention why the Nazis were on trial, or that their "race theory" involved elimination of Jews and other minorities.

It is clear that the newest PA schoolbooks are a tragic recipe for incessant war. Israel is presented as an illegitimate enemy to be hated, fought and destroyed. Even the most well-meaning student is left with no justification or religious option to accept Israel as a neighbor to live beside in peace.

THEREFORE, anyone who is truly interested in peace and peace education should be appalled by these new books, repudiate this hate material and demand that the books be discontinued and rewritten. US Senator Hillary Clinton said earlier this month that this curriculum, together with PA media targeting children, "basically, profoundly poisons the mind of these children" and that these books are "an indoctrination," not an education.

But an American Jewish group, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom-Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace has rushed to defend these hate-filled schoolbooks. As reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the group wrote Clinton urging her to "re-examine claims that the Palestinian schoolbooks indoctrinate hate." The group argued that the books encourage "a peaceful resolution of the conflict," and are better than those used in most of the Arab world because they "endorse democracy."

This superficial defense of PA books, compared to the fully-documented, 35-page PMW report, with its line-by-line descriptions of hate education, leaves us with the strong impression that no one from the group has actually read either the schoolbooks or our report. If so, the group's eagerness to defend these new texts is irresponsible.

We just find it hard to believe that Brit Tzedek v'Shalom has actually studied these grade 12 textbooks and has chosen to defend an educational curriculum that denies Israel's right to exist, justifies terror and promises an eternal religious battle for Israel's destruction, knowingly defending incitement to murder.

TRAGICALLY, the Palestinian Authority will exploit this Jewish group's ill-considered approval of its new texts. Can Brit Tzedek v'Shalom be so blindly determined to champion the Palestinian cause that it will defend even the indefensible? Groups such as Brit Tzedek v'Shalom who have defended PA schoolbook education in the past, created sufficient uncertainty about PA hate-education to ease international pressure on Palestinian leaders to pursue peace education.

Our challenge to Brit Tzedek v'Shalom: If you are as dedicated to peace as we are, you have a moral obligation to publicly retract your defense of the new PA produced textbooks and demand instead that the authority pursue peace education. Otherwise, you will bear moral responsibility as defenders of hatred for the inevitable tragic results of this Palestinian hate education.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 26, 2007.

The first part comes from the Wide Awakes website
(http://thewideawakes.org/archives/2005/06/13/ grover-norquist-terrorist-sympathizer/). The second article is by Byron York and is called "Fight on the Right."

There are no absolutes. I love it when people come here assuming that republicans or conservatives are all stupid hicks. What is disappointing and sometimes mystifying is when you realize that someone in your midst doesn't represent the ideas you thought they did. I've had some experiences with that myself within the ranks of TWA, and when reality finally hits, it can be a devastasting blow. I think it was the same for David Horowitz back in 2003, when he published the article by Frank Gaffney. At the time, Instapundit, and many other bloggers were all over the news. Here is some of the background:

Frontpage Magazine had this story back in 2003
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=11209&p=1). Always "in the know", David Horowitz prefaces and frames an article by Frank Gaffney, exposing Norquist as a supporter of the Islamic 5th column in the whitehouse supporting Islamic terrorism.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist's activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover's part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

With more background information by David Horowitz, he then shares with the readers of Frontpage Magazine an expose by Frank Gaffney regarding Grover Norquist. Make sure you spread this story far and wide! This has been going on since at least 1998, yet people are refusing to face the facts and put our nation at risk because of political correctness. This is not the time for sensitivity training, people!

The association between Grover Norquist and Islamists appears to have started about five years ago, in 1998, when he became the founding chairman of an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute, better known as the Islamic Institute. The Institute's stated purpose was to cultivate Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans whose attachment to conservative family values and capitalism made them potential allies for the Republican Party in advance of the 2000 presidential election.

If successful, such an outreach effort could theoretically produce a windfall in votes and campaign contributions. Consequently, it enjoyed the early support of Karl Rove, when he was then-Governor Bush's political advisor, and who knew Norquist from their days in the College Republicans.

[Editor's Note: To read Gaffney's article, click here. ]

Michelle had this back in July of 2004.

The Washington Post reports that Abdurahman Alamoudi, once embraced as a "mainstream" and "moderate" Muslim activist who courted both the Clinton and Bush administrations, will plead guilty today to accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Libya in violation of U.S. law and attempting to hide it from the government.

Despite this defiant public declaration of support for terrorists, Alamoudi was welcomed in GOP elite circles at the behest of power player Grover Norquist.

More surprising and disturbing news at the Citizen Soldier:

Grover Norquist, whom most conservatives know as Executive Director of the College Republicans, boardmember of the NRA, and head of Americans for Tax Reform, has been exposed as helping Muslim groups and individuals who finance and support Islamic terrorism gain access to the Bush White House.

With all of this evidence, who's going after Norquist besides Michelle Malkin back in 2004?

Norquist has also been exposed as the founder of the Islamic Institute, a group believed to be funded by foreign governments, Wahhab Islam elements in Saudi Arabia, and U.S. Muslim groups recently raided by a special Treasury Department task force for funding Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.

Copies of two checks from Alamoudi to the Islamic Institute:

Read the rest and pass it on. Get the message out there and let's figure out a game plan to do something about it!

At Free Republic, they have an old piece from The New Republic, that was published in November of 2001.

As president of Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist is best known for his tireless crusades against big government. But one of Norquist's lesser-known projects over the last few years has been bringing American Muslims into the Republican Party. And, as he usually does, Norquist has succeeded. According to several sources, Norquist helped orchestrate various post-September 11 events that brought together Muslim leaders and administration officials. "He worked with Muslim leaders to engineer [Bush]'s prominent visit to the Mosque," says the Arab-American pollster John Zogby, referring to the president's September 17 trip to the Islamic Center of Washington. Says Zogby, who counts Norquist among his clients, "Absolutely, he's central to the White House outreach." Indeed, when Jewish activists and terrorism experts complained about the Muslim invitees to Adam Goldman, who works in the White House public liaison's office, Goldman replied that Norquist had vouched for them. (Goldman denies this, but two separate sources say they heard him say it.) "Just like [administration officials] ask my advice on inviting religious figures to the White House," says Paul Weyrich, another top conservative activist, "they rely on Grover's help [with Muslims]."

Norquist denies being involved in "micromanaging the specifics" of White House meetings, but admits "I have been a long time advocate of outreach to the Muslim community." In fact, the record suggests that he has spent quite a lot of time promoting people openly sympathetic to Islamist terrorists. And it's starting to cause him problems. Weyrich, echoing other movement conservatives, says he is "not pleased" with Norquist's activity. According to one intelligence official who recently left the government, a number of counterterrorism agents at the FBI and CIA are "pissed as hell about the situation [in the White House] and pissed as hell about Grover." They should be. While nobody suggests that Norquist himself is soft on terrorism, his lobbying has helped provide radical Islamic groups -- and their causes -- a degree of legitimacy and access they assuredly do not deserve.

I want to know what the hell this man is doing now, and why is he in a position of influence when it's a PROVEN fact that he's working with the enemy (American organizations who support terror!). I don't understand some things about the Bush administration, and this is plainly one of them. Norquist served as economic advisor to Angola UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi and was once registered with the Department of Justice as a foreign agent of Angola. He has a pretty high profile. I have several questions -- about his marriage to a muslim, his converting to Islam, his cozy relationship with Islamic terrorism, and whether or not he's getting paid for arranging meetings between Bush and the Saudis.

How can you be "tough on terror" on the one hand, but meeting with muslim leaders who support terror right in the white house? This doesn't make sense.


1. AMERICA FOR SALE is the message communicated by Norquist's activities. I'm sure he will argue that "he's done nothing illegal." That is no doubt entirely true. But does "not" doing something illegal justify selling out your own country? He must know that the people he is "connecting" to high ranking US officials have an agenda that is harmful to America and her people; he must be aware that the organizations that he fronts have ties to terrorists. If this is a correct assumption, then I have to conclude that Norquist is a piss-poor excuse for an American. If Norquist is "unaware" of these terrorist links, then I have to conclude that he must be one of the dumbest people alive, right behind Michael Moore.
Comment by Mustang -- 6/13/2005 @ 3:50 pm

2. Oh I'm sure he's fully aware. I don't understand why people aren't clamoring for this guy to retreat from public life! Ruin his career! SOMETHING! Anything ...instead of mentioning it and moving on as though someone's watching the scenery pass from a train window and noting a passing street or something.
Comment by Cao -- 6/13/2005 @ 6:05 pm

3. Grover Norquist: Terrorist Sympathizer

On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by ...
Trackback by Cao's Blog -- 6/14/2005 @ 3:51 am

4. This all is simply making me dizzy. To you, Mustang, and a host of others collating this disturbing info for us ... hat's off.

To those liberals out there who say that all we do is coddle our own and protect our cronies I say: There ARE such a things as ethics and morals. There IS an absolute RIGHT and WRONG. And, it seems that one of "our own" may have seriously lost sight of this, for what... the almighty $$? what ... the almighty $$?
Comment by The MaryHunter -- 6/14/2005 @ 5:59 pm


Norquist has argued for years that Muslims should be a vital part of the Republican party. In a June 2001 article in The American Spectator, he wrote that Muslims are "a faith-based, naturally conservative community," noting, for example, that majorities of Muslims oppose abortion and support school choice. Citing surveys by Muslim groups, Norquist claimed that in the 2000 presidential election George W. Bush won more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote nationwide. In Florida, Norquist said, Muslims favored Bush over Al Gore by a 20 to 1 margin: "The margin of victory for Bush over Gore in the Muslim vote was 46,200, many times greater than his statewide margin of victory. The Muslim vote won Florida for Bush." (And, Norquist did not need to add, the presidency itself.)

March 19, 2003 9:40 a.m.
"Fight on the Right"
Byron York, New Republic White House Correspondent

"Muslim outreach" and a feud between activists.

In February, a long-simmering and mostly behind-the-scenes feud between two prominent conservatives, tax-reform advocate Grover Norquist and national-security expert Frank Gaffney, burst into the open. At issue was the conduct of Norquist's energetic campaign to bring Muslims into the Republican party. While Norquist argues that Muslim political participation will be a key part of the GOP's electoral strategy in coming years, Gaffney charges that aggressive outreach efforts to Muslim leaders have brought the party, and in particular the Bush White House, dangerously close to organizations that have in the past endorsed or, at the least, declined to condemn international terrorism. Among them are the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, the American Muslim Council, and others whose representatives have been invited to meetings in the White House and with officials across the Bush administration.

The feud has now escalated into a full-scale battle. Gaffney and others at his organization, the Center for Security Policy, have distributed thick packets of information to reporters and conservative activists outlining the case against the Islamic organizations. Norquist has responded angrily, barring Gaffney from conservative strategy meetings and accusing him of racism and bigotry. The fight has spread bad feelings on all sides, and has left more than a few conservatives worried that it might do serious damage to the conservative movement.

But the argument between Norquist and Gaffney is about much more than two men, or even the conservative movement. At its heart, it is about the Bush White House and whether its contacts with some Muslim groups might someday make the administration vulnerable to charges that it cultivated close relations with groups tied to radical Islam -- even as it conducted a war on terror around the world. The Norquist-Gaffney feud, some conservatives fear, might be just the first act of a very long play.


The conflict began to emerge on January 31, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Arlington, Va., when Gaffney participated in a panel discussion entitled "Safeguarding Civil Liberties in a Time of War." He discussed the threat posed by recruitment programs run by radical Wahhabi Islamists inside U.S. prisons, on military bases, and on college campuses. And there's more, Gaffney said: "I'm sorry to say there is an active and, to a considerable degree successful, [Wahhabi] political operation aimed not least at the Bush White House."

Later, during a question period, Gaffney said he had recently received a press release from the American Muslim Council == which he called "one of the leading Wahhabist sympathizers, and, I believe, [Wahhabi-] funded organizations in this country" -- announcing that a top AMC official had been invited to the White House. Gaffney continued: "And in this press release, they credited one Ali Tulbah [a Bush administration official] for having gotten them into the White House. It turns out that Ali Tulbah's father is one Hasan Tulbah, the treasurer of the Islamist Da'wah Center, a prominent Wahhabi mosque in Houston. But the reason he was able to influence whether [former AMC executive director] Eric Vickers and the AMC were present in this White House meeting was because he is also, I believe, the associate director for cabinet affairs in the Bush White House, responsible in his portfolio, if you can believe it, for the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Justice Department. This is not how we win the hearts and minds of peace-loving, pro-American Muslims. It is a perilous path, and I hope that it will be corrected."

Gaffney's remarks were startling, not because he was wrong about Islamist recruitment efforts -- he in fact appears to be right on target -- but because he singled out Tulbah, and suggested that the low-level White House aide played a role in the Islamist political operation. In the weeks since, Gaffney has not offered any evidence to back up his charges. Instead, he now says the problem he was addressing was not Tulbah specifically, but the issue of poor political judgment at the White House. Nor have several experts on Islam and terrorism who are generally allied with Gaffney been able to point to any problems with Tulbah.

Gaffney's remarks enraged Norquist, who responded in an open letter to conservative activists. "There is no place in the conservative movement for racial prejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred," Norquist wrote. "We have come too far in the last 30 years in our efforts to broaden our coalition to allow anyone to smear an entire group of people... The conservative movement cannot be associated with racism or bigotry."

The reaction was explosive. Even if Gaffney had been wrong to mention Tulbah by name, some conservatives felt, Norquist's reaction was over the top. To make matters worse, Norquist used a standard rhetorical device of the Left: If you can't win an argument with a conservative, call him a racist. "I, for one, don't see it," says David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union and an organizer of the CPAC conference. "If you read the transcript [of the panel], you can see if Frank was right or wrong, but there was nothing racist or bigoted about it."

Heightening the tension was Norquist's angry assertion that the White House, and in particular chief political adviser Karl Rove, supported his racism-and-bigotry argument. One witness quotes Norquist as saying, "This is terrible. Karl's upset because we're insulting the people who helped Bush win the election." Another witness recalls that Norquist "said the president and Rove were angry at the conference." In addition, Norquist sent an e-mail to American Conservative Union board members saying that "[t]he White House and the press are increasingly angry with [the American Conservative Union] for some indefensible statements and actions at CPAC this year."

The letter caused a complete break inside the conservative camp. Keene has not spoken to Norquist since it was written, and Gaffney, whose organization shares an office suite with Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, was kicked out of Norquist's famous Wednesday meeting of conservative strategists.

That is where things stand now. In a recent interview, Norquist denied using the White House to support his accusations: "I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position -- in anything." But he refused to back away from his incendiary charges about Gaffney, on one occasion calling him a "sick little bigot." "I'm sorry," Norquist said. "His whole life screams of bigotry, and what he said is just part of a pattern." Gaffney could have held higher-up administration staffers responsible for choosing who attends White House briefings, Norquist argued, but instead "decided to single out the Muslim." He continued: "Frank Gaffney and Osama bin Laden share the same view on the relationship between the United States and Islam. I agree with the president in rejecting Osama bin Laden's and Frank Gaffney's worldview."

Suffice it to say that this sort of talk simply doesn't go on in public between two respected conservative leaders. What's more, it is absolutely baffling to anyone who knows only what happened at the CPAC conference. To understand what is really going on, one has to look closely at a conflict that has been building for quite a while.


Norquist has argued for years that Muslims should be a vital part of the Republican party. In a June 2001 article in The American Spectator, he wrote that Muslims are "a faith-based, naturally conservative community," noting, for example, that majorities of Muslims oppose abortion and support school choice. Citing surveys by Muslim groups, Norquist claimed that in the 2000 presidential election George W. Bush won more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote nationwide. In Florida, Norquist said, Muslims favored Bush over Al Gore by a 20 to 1 margin: "The margin of victory for Bush over Gore in the Muslim vote was 46,200, many times greater than his statewide margin of victory. The Muslim vote won Florida for Bush." (And, Norquist did not need to add, the presidency itself.)

As impressive as that sounds, Norquist's numbers are open to serious question. Pollster John Zogby says there is not a great deal of information on Muslim voting, but "my data indicates that it was tilted Democratic in 2000. It went more for Gore and Nader than for Bush." Michael Barone, author of the authoritative Almanac of American Politics, argues that it is impossible to draw an accurate picture of Muslim voters, given the lack of exit-poll information. As for the claim that Muslims gave Bush his winning margin, Barone says simply, "Any 538 voters in Florida can claim credit for winning the presidency for Bush."

Nevertheless, Norquist maintains that Muslims played a key role in the Bush victory. In the Spectator article, he gave much of the credit to Khaled Saffuri, his chief adviser in Muslim matters, who in 1998 helped found an organization called the Islamic Institute. The Institute's mission is to "build relationships between American Muslims and policy makers in the United States," and it has in the past promoted conservative positions on such issues as free trade, school choice, and tort reform.

While those matters are important, Norquist reserved his highest praise for Saffuri's work in having "brought to the GOP's attention the most important issue for the Muslim community -- the misuse of 'secret evidence' in immigration cases." Urged on by Norquist, Saffuri, and others, Candidate Bush denounced secret evidence during the 2000 campaign. In his second debate with Gore, he brought the subject up when asked a question about racial profiling: "There's other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that."

In connection with the secret-evidence issue, Saffuri and Norquist made common cause with Sami al-Arian, the University of South Florida computer-science professor who had made a crusade of the issue. (Al-Arian's brother-in-law had been jailed and later deported in a terrorist investigation that made use of secret evidence.) Al-Arian headed the far-left activist group National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, and made secret evidence its primary concern. Saffuri and Norquist shared a position with al-Arian's group on matters concerning secret evidence, and Bush was photographed with al-Arian during the campaign. Al-Arian also visited the White House in June 2001, a year and a half before he was indicted on conspiracy charges as the alleged head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in America. The indictment charged that al-Arian and his allies, "while concealing their association with the [Palestinian Islamic Jihad], would and did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States, under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights." During all this time, al-Arian's alleged terrorist ties were public knowledge, having been the subject of press reports and congressional testimony.


The GOP's Muslim connections attracted relatively little attention in the pre-September 11 world. But after 9/11, when the White House began a very public effort to reach out to Muslims, its choices of Muslim contacts -- made with input from, among others, the Islamic Institute --became quite controversial. One particular meeting on September 26, 2001, sparked criticism that the White House had not taken care to screen out groups that have supported terrorism, in word or deed. Groups invited included CAIR, which, according to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, serves as "an ideological support group for militants"; the American Muslim Council, whose leaders (again according to Emerson) "have openly championed Hamas terrorists, defended Middle Eastern terrorist regimes, and issued anti-Semitic and anti-American statements"; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, whose "rallies and sponsored events reveal implicit support of terrorist activities." (Gaffney refers to these and other groups as the "Wahhabi lobby.")

And that, in turn, brought criticism of the Islamic Institute, because Norquist and Saffuri had been the most prominent advocates of closer relations between the White House and the Muslim community. A significant part of that criticism has come from Gaffney, who points to a number of troubling associations involving the Islamic Institute. Among them:

  • In early 1999, the Institute accepted a $10,000 contribution and a $10,000 loan from Abdurahman Alamoudi, a founder of the American Muslim Council (and Khaled Saffuri's former boss). The next year, in a demonstration in front of the White House, Alamoudi yelled to the crowd, "Anybody who is in support of Hamas here?" When the demonstrators cheered, Alamoudi said, "Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas. I wish to add that I am also in support of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here?" The crowd cheered again. Alamoudi's words caused a near panic among some of his less radical friends and associates, including those at the Islamic Institute, who say they have dissociated themselves from him. "I think what Alamoudi said was wrong, and I personally asked him to retract it," says Saffuri. "Since he made that statement, we have not had anything to do with him."

  • The Institute maintained contact with Sami al-Arian as late as last summer, when the professor visited their offices in Washington. As with the Alamoudi connection, the al-Arian indictment left Saffuri distancing himself from a former associate. "If the charges are true, I feel deceived by him," Saffuri says. "But look, we didn't do work with Sami. He came by our office two or three times in the last four years." Norquist says he did not have a relationship with al-Arian and dismisses questions about an August 2001 letter -- copied to Norquist -- that the professor wrote to the Wall Street Journal objecting to an article on terrorism. "Many people 'cc' me on letters as a way to impress somebody," Norquist says.

  • In August 2000, the Institute accepted a $10,000 contribution from a Virginia-based charity called the Safa Trust. In March 2002, the Safa Trust was one of several organizations raided by U.S. Customs agents as part of Operation Green Quest, a program designed to cut off terrorist funding. Investigators suspect the trust was part of a complex, interlinked network of organizations that have, among other things, funneled Saudi money into terrorist activities. No one from Safa has been indicted, but Saffuri found himself once again explaining away his association with a group linked to terrorism.


The connections call into question the Islamic Institute's role in supporting the White House Muslim outreach effort. But as Norquist points out, the White House has contacts in the Muslim world quite apart from the Islamic Institute, and it would be inaccurate to view Norquist or the Institute as somehow dictating White House policy. Even Gaffney agrees with that. "I think the role that [Norquist] has played personally in this effort on behalf of Wahhabi-sympathetic and -supported institutions is an important one, but it's a bit role," Gaffney says. "It's a sideshow." The main show, he says, is the Bush administration's policy on which Muslim groups will be granted access to the White House.

For example, after the White House took heat for the September 26, 2001, meeting with the president, administration officials are said to have pledged to be more careful in the screening process in the future. But, in January of this year, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper and Jason Erb, communications director and government-affairs director, respectively, were back in the White House for a briefing on immigration policy. (Not long after, a former CAIR employee who had done community-relations work in Washington was arrested in New York on terrorism-related charges.)

Gaffney and others have urged the ad ministration to concentrate outreach efforts on more moderate Muslim groups. They worry that the inclusion of groups like CAIR in White House events gives them a credibility they could find nowhere else, making it easier for them to meet with officials in the cabinet departments and on Capitol Hill.

What particularly worries some observers is the possibility that White House contacts with some of the Muslim groups and leaders might be more extensive than is publicly known -- and that the president's political opponents will try to exploit them. Indeed, on February 27, California Democratic congressman Henry Waxman wrote a letter to the Secret Service requesting all electronic records of visits by Sami al-Arian to the White House complex. Waxman also asked for "all requests, whether granted or denied, by White House employees that Sami al-Arian be admitted to the White House complex." And he asked whether the Secret Service had identified al-Arian's alleged terrorist connections and objected to his visit, only to be overruled by White House officials.

Administration officials say they will try to "accommodate" Waxman's request. Perhaps nothing will come of it, but they cannot simply dismiss his concerns. Waxman functions as a sort of lead scout for Democrats, a congressman willing to make inquiries into topics that might bear fruit politically but that other politicians are too timid to broach. For example, he took a leading role in demanding that Vice President Cheney release documents from his energy task force; even though some Republicans did not take it seriously at first, Cheney ended up facing a lawsuit from the General Accounting Office over the matter (the suit was dismissed).

So there is a much bigger conflict going on behind the ugly battle between Frank Gaffney and Grover Norquist. Conservatives might wish that it would go away -- or at least that Norquist would stop calling people racists and bigots -- but they first have to worry about the administration's Muslim outreach program, which gave rise to the conflict in the first place.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, February 25, 2007.

This was written by Danielle Pletka and it appeared February 19, 2007 in the New York Daily News
(www.nydailynews.com/02-19-2007/news/story/498759p-420478c.html). Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Rice's sitdown with Abbas and Olmert is worse than hollow - it's a backslide for the U.S.

Today, Secretary of State Rice will sit down with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a summit that's being advertised as the start of a new effort to outline a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. The meeting may be perfectly pleasant - but it's another triumph of hope over experience. And the thinking that led to this point portends disaster for the United States.

Olmert leads a government that may soon fall. Abbas speaks for no one but himself; the unity government he has agreed to lead with Hamas does not recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist. And the United States surely has other, more pressing challenges to face in the Middle East.

But Rice, Olmert and Abbas have persuaded themselves that there is, in the tired parlance of the committed peace-processor, a window of opportunity. For the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the motive is straightforward political expediency. If you can't do anything else, why not engage in distracting diplomacy?

For Rice, there is another dynamic at play: The American secretary of state believes that a Sunni Arab world unified by fear of a radical Iran may finally force the Palestinians into peace with Israel. In other words, the Arabs will deliver the Palestinians, and the Americans will deliver the Israelis.

This is old think at its worst. Before 9/11, American policy in the Middle East rested on the premise that "moderate" Sunni states - like Egypt and Saudi Arabia - offered lasting stability in the region, by serving as a counterweight to states like Iran and Syria. George Bush repudiated that premise, insisting that true stability would flow from democracy.

Now, it increasingly appears that the Bush administration's democracy push is done. American diplomats are again talking up the important role of "moderate" or "reasonable" Arab states, ignoring the fact that most foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis or that Egypt has launched an unprecedented crackdown on civil society.

In keeping with the effort to bolster the "moderates," the administration is trying to funnel $86 million to Abbas for his security forces. The fact that those self-same security forces are indistinguishable from the Fatah terror group known as the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and that Fatah itself pursued a policy of terror over peace throughout its tenure in power, has not slowed the administration's eagerness to engage in a new peace process.

The logic behind today's meeting is unclear. Clever State Department diplomats believe that by describing a "horizon," or shape to a future Palestinian state, they will undercut Palestinian rejectionists and, in turn, destabilize Hamas. But embracing one terrorist to weaken another is not a foreign policy strategy, it's just unprincipled gamesmanship.

Similarly, the Bush administration's new fondness for so-called moderate Arab states over extremists ignores all the lessons learned after 9/11. Al Qaeda and its ilk have a foothold in the Middle East because supposedly moderate dictators and autocrats deny people basic rights. Getting back into bed with those moderates at the expense of the 300 million people of the region is a terrible mistake for which the United States has paid dearly once already. Secretary Rice is looking for diplomatic successes in all the wrong places.

The Daily Alert is prepared for the Conference of presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). Contact them at daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 25, 2007.

This was written by David Morris and it appeared February 23, 2007 in Florida Jewish News
(http://floridajewishnews.com/News/Israel/%E2%80%98Home_Game%E2%80%99_Portrays _Disengagement%E2%80%99s_Human_Side_20070223914/).

Trauma. Confusion. Abandonment. Words that no doubt capture the emotions felt by close to a million Israelis living in the northern part of the country this past summer during the 34-day conflict with Hizbullah in southern Lebanon. Yet these same words reflect similar emotions experienced just a year earlier during the summer of 2005 when the approximate 9,000 Israelis living in the 22 communities of Gush Katif in Gaza were told they must leave their homes and be resettled in other parts of Israel. The Disengagement Plan called for the evacuation of all Jews by Aug. 15 -- the day after Tisha B'Av--and the eventual handing over of the entire area to the Palestinian Authority. Thank you for supporting our advertisers!

As the evacuation deadline was approaching, Avi Abelow, a young businessman living in the community of Efrat located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, decided he must make a personal commitment. He would go to Gush Katif and spend time meeting and encouraging its residents. Following the 1967 Six Day War, Jewish settlement activity began in northern Gaza and peaked in the 1970's. Many of the settlements established were seen as 'agricultural miracles' as they succeeded in growing, literally out of sand, top-quality tomatoes, exotic fruits and exquisite flowers for export to Europe.

"Although my personal politics would have favored a different solution, I saw what was happening as a human tragedy to be shared with fellow Jews who had invested years of their lives building up this area and now saw it come crashing down," Abelow said. "Of course the subject of the Gush Katif settlements was and for many will always remain a very political one. But since the Disengagement, what has happened to these families is a story I believe deserves greater empathy on the part of all Israelis and all Jews throughout the world. For those who lived there, the withdrawal is not going to be seen as a piece of 'history' but rather as an event that changed everything. They had to pay the price for all of us and I think we should at least attempt to understand their plight."

Abelow took his video camera along to document what he saw -- the protests, the maze of military checkpoints and the attempts by both the army and police to keep other Israelis from entering Gaza.

"I had plenty of difficulties driving my car around, needing to take back roads and often driving through fields in order to reach a settlement," said Abelow. "I noticed that others were filming the events happening around me and I'm sure there were many people filming things I didn't know about and in places I couldn't possibly get to. But I never imagined I would eventually leave my job in Tel Aviv and decide to make a full length documentary based on material taken right from the videos of Gush Katif residents."

Abelow knew an upcoming Israeli filmmaker, Yaron Shane, and together they began looking at the some 80 hours worth of footage given to them by 16 different families. They kept seeing scenes from the annual high school basketball tournament between the area's 22 communities that had been taking place amidst all the world media attention concerning the pullout. They also learned that the final championship game was scheduled for August 15--the very last day residents were told they all must leave Gaza.

Shane says he and Abelow initially prepared a four-minute clip for Internet play only and that they never intended on making a full-length documentary.

"When we saw the site counter quickly rack upwards of 50,000 hits, we knew we had to produce a longer, more detailed look at the turbulent events," says Shane. "We began piecing together into a cohesive whole the different personal and public dramas taking place both within the tournament and outside the gym."

Abelow explained that once he and Shane saw the high level of emotion surrounding the basketball tournament and the suspense of who would make it to the final, it was very clear this would be the film's backdrop. They named it 'Home Game.' The film chronicles daily life before and during the evacuation of the 30-year-old farming community of Netzer Hazani, in the southern Gush Katif settlement bloc, as its teenage basketball players prepared for the annual tournament.

Abelow, the film's producer, was recently in South Florida for two days trying to build support and convince every synagogue, federation and JCC to show it. He arranged for two screenings at a small synagogue in Miami Beach (where his grandparents belong) and another at the Palm Beach Orthodox Synagogue.

"Our goal is for every Jew to have the opportunity to see 'Home Game' and to put aside their political orientations and religious affiliations. Whatever baggage they have that keeps them from feeling empathy for the families and especially the youth of Gush Katif, we want them to leave at the door," Abelow said. "We hope this film can create greater tolerance between different sectors of Israel's population."

Over 10,000 people in Israel, the United States and Great Britain have already attended screenings often held at Jewish community centers, synagogues and private homes. Abelow is working on presenting the film on Israeli television and in the country's cinematheques and film festivals.

A.B. Yehoshua, the award-winning Israeli writer and recipient of the Israel Prize commented on the documentary saying, "I viewed the film 'Home Game,' and found that it was made in an objective manner, in order to portray the difficulties and the lives of those people living in the settlements of Gush Katif. This cinematic work is fair despite the ideological position behind which it stands. It is definitely worthwhile to see this film in order to expand one's point of view regarding the reality of Israeli life. "

So far Abelow has single-handedly managed to screen 'Home Game' in some 120 different locations in Israel.

"We started in the religious community and we've expanded rapidly into the secular community. We would like to establish a tradition of showing this film on Tisha B'Av and then discussing its implications in terms of Jewish history. Yes, right now I am looking for money to enable us to expand the number of screenings around the world. But more important that the money, I would like Jews everywhere to plan to visit Israel soon and make a special effort to meet some of the people who experienced this traumatic event."

For information, visit: www.homegamethemovie.com. 'Home Game' is available as a DVD and can be purchased by calling (Israel) +972-2-589-2000 or contacting: dani@ruderfinn.co.il.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Nathan, February 25, 2007.

Serge Trifkovic of Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad fame has an excellent analysis in Chronicles Magazine of the continued international pressure on Serbia to hand over Kosovo to Albanian Muslims and the terrorist KLA:

On February 2, U.N. special envoy Martti Ahtisaari finally unveiled his much-anticipated plan for the final status of the Serbian province of Kosovo which has been under NATO-UN occupation since Bill Clinton's war against the Serbs in 1999. While avoiding the contentious word "independence," Ahtisaari presented the framework for a new Albanian state that would have all key attributes of sovereign statehood. [...] The period of international supervision envisaged by the plan, as well as a host of "guarantees" and promises of "substantial" municipal autonomy for the few remaining Serbs and other non-Albanians in the province, are but a fig leaf meant to conceal the plan's reality: that on the fundamental issue of Kosovo's legal, constitutional and political status Ahtisaari gives everything to the Albanians and nothing to the Serbs. Even without using the "I" word, the plan proposes de facto separation of Kosovo from Serbia. Its primary focus is to finalize the detachment of Kosovo from the last formal vestiges of Serbia's authority, with the definition of its future status a secondary consideration.

The promise of a "review" after two years is mendacious: if on their current church-burning, dope-smuggling form, the KLA terrorists and criminals who run Kosovo are deemed worthy of independence, it is preposterous to assume that someone -- anyone -- would dare suggest otherwise two years from now, once they are even more firmly entrenched in power. If 150 Serbian churches went up in flames, and a quarter-million Serbs and other non-Albanians were ethnically cleansed while tens of thousands of KFOR soldiers and UNMIK policemen were stationed in the Province, what would be the worth of Ahtisaari's "guarantees" once they all leave and the KLA (under whatever current name) takes over?

Ahtissari's plan is [...] deeply destabilizing because it helps create a base for jihad-terrorism in the heart of Europe and sets a dangerous precedent that will be emulated by each and every disenchanted minority around the world: from Transylvania, to southern Slovakia to the Basque Country to Northern Cyprus to the Crimea, not to mention Transdnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. (To this there may come yet another assurance from the State Department that "no precedent would be set"; yet, while Foggy Bottom bureaucrats may impact reality, they certainly cannot control it.)


The 1999 NATO war against the Serbs was ostensibly waged for human rights, but -- judged by any rational standard -- the NATO-UN mission in Kosovo has been, and still is, an unmitigated disaster. The pretense that this is not so is nevertheless maintained by Ahtisaari and his mentors, amidst murders, unreversed ethnic cleansing, rampant crime, prostitution, drug-smuggling, and general dysfunctionality of a thoroughly failed, violent, and dysfunctional polity, a black hole utterly devoid of a single redeeming feature.


[Ahtisaari's] goal is to create a new Muslim state in the heart of Europe that would be a veritable black hole of criminality, lawlessness, and jihad terrorism. He must not succeed: pandering to Islam's geopolitical designs -- in the Balkans, or anywhere else -- is not only bad, it is counterproductive, and violating laws of God and man along the way is evil.

Fool's Crusade, which blows out of the water the persistent myths of the Balkan wars of the past fifteen years.

Contact David Nathan by email at davenathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 25, 2007.

On sex with Animals:

"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."

Islamic Teachings on sex with infants:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"

Islamic Teachings on sex with animals:

"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."

Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city?

"If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it."

Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and burned. What an Islamic justice towards animals? Where are the animal rights group?

"It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into other foods their consumption is not forbidden."

"If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary."

Editor's note: It does not say who should have ablution: the animal or the man?

"A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine."

From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh"

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 25, 2007.
This was written by Youssef Ibrahim and it appeared January 29, 2007 in the New York Sun

Ever wondered what might be the correct "Islamic" way to beat your wife, or what a Saudi princess's greatest wish might be if she were king?

The wires were buzzing Thursday with reports of "oohs" and "ahs" from the elitist World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland, complete with applause for a Saudi royal princess, Lolwah al-Faisal, after she asserted that her first executive move would be to "let women drive."

Amazingly, according to the Associated Press news dispatch on this lame comment, the audience erupted in applause.

How can what passes as an elemental right in today's world -- when uttered by a Saudi female belonging to the most oppressive, religiously fanatical ruling family in the world -- be treated as a sign of progress in a kingdom of darkness?

The problem with Western sycophants toadying up to Islamic oppressors for money or favors is that those Westerners insult the oppressed majorities by treating their tormentors as precocious 12-year-olds to be coddled when stating the obvious or giving the "right" answer.

Princess Lolwah has since returned to her country where she -- and all other women practically been erased from society by law. It is a place where women are reduced to walking black tents, where they are denied basic rights to education, work, travel, and equality, and where they are left with the options of being someone's first, second, third, or fourth spouse. Indeed, a place where imams are allowed to preach the proper way to beat a wife and whip non-Muslim infidels.

Western enablers at the World Economic Forum fail their most fundamentalist reformist obligations by overlooking these oppressive practices. Instead, the Davos forum should have focused on illuminating landmarks such as the U.N. Arab Human Development Report of 2005, which described in excruciating details the many ways women have been cancelled as human beings under Saudi Arabia's religious jihad.

So woeful are the violations detailed in the report that one apologist, Saudi Arabia's Prince Talal Bin Abdul Aziz, the president of the Arab Gulf Program for the U.N. Development Organizations, attempted in a lame foreword to disassociate religion from such abuses, writing that Islam had "no connection with any of the mistaken practices carried out against women."

Just as with his relative, the disconnected princess in Davos, Prince Talal is wrong on factual grounds. Saudi Islam as practiced today and proselytized to the rest of the world with oil money is an oppressive and anti-life discipline.

Less than two years ago, there was a priceless piece of Islamic jurisprudence that illustrated how disconnected talk of reform is from practice in the Arabian Peninsula under Saudi hegemony. An eminent, and very pro-Saudi, Islamic cleric, Sheik Abdullah Aal Mahmud of Bahrain, enshrined himself with a television broadcast on June 20, 2005, on the Bahraini government-owned network as he asserted that Islam indeed sanctions the beating of wives and instructed his millions of viewers on the "correct" way to do it.

"If the husband wished to use beatings in the treatment of his wife, it is essential, absolutely essential, to never do it in front of the children. The beating must remain between him and her and with the conditions outlined, which are that he does not draw blood nor leave a perceptible bruise on her body and avoid her face as well as dangerous [sic] parts concerning the body. If the husband violates these directives, he then violates the limits set by the almighty. ... Because the woman is not to be seen as merchandise to which he can do whatever he pleases."

Amazingly, the sheik was sincerely trying to show how humane Islam is in its prescriptions on how to treat women.

For the princess's Western enablers at Davos, the same sick logic applies. To show a symbol of oppression as one of liberation treats twisted views as worthy of respect. It is irresponsible.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Saperstein, February 25, 2007.

We have returned to our refugee camp after our trip to Florida. The trial, Moshe Saperstein vs. Palestinian Authority / Palestine Liberation Organization, lasted two days. [My husband had been wounded in his remaining left hand and left leg by a PA/PLO shooter in February 2002.] The PA had defaulted and had no representation in court. Now it was only a matter of determining compensation.

The attorneys for my husband were brilliant, articulate and fully prepared with documentation captured from PLO headquarters showing that Yasser Arafat had ordered and paid for the deadly attack that left three dead and my husband further disabled. In addition, a surveillance camera had captured the event on film.

A jury of eight voted unanimously to compensate my husband with sixteen million dollars. And pursuant to the Anti Terrorism Act of 1990 the judge was duty-bound to treble the amount.

I was on the stand for over an hour describing our life in Gush Katif. When I spoke of my husband's suffering I spoke from the heart, and clearly touched the hearts of the jurors. My husband concluded his own remarks on the stand with "Don't feel sorry for me, because I don't feel sorry for myself."

We felt a sense of justice but also of futility. No one has ever forced the PA/PLO to pay its debts. Despite other similar judgments no one had received compensation.

Despite severe jet lag I plunged into work, holding meetings with the staff of each Operation Dignity project. The Orange Gallery had been out at exhibitions. Our work was now on exhibition in Holland. The square in front of our two pre-fabs has been paved. Furniture rescued from Gush Katif was now in the Gallery. Earthenware urns stand ready for Spring planting. We will create an orange garden around the seating area.

Our official opening date in March 19, the First of Nissan, the month of Passover -- our holiday of freedom.

I emphasize, with the greatest pride, that the Orange Gallery is a Gush Katif project. Not one shekel of government money was used, or even offered. We took control of our own lives with strength and determination. We created a Gallery for our artists and artisans, and our Bnei Menashe sisters. And you, my dear friends, by your belief in us, gave us the funds and encouragement to succeed. Be proud of your accomplishment, and continue to support us. See our website, www.theorangegallerygk.com

KATIFNIK director Natan Anavi reports "We gave out flyers and have been getting calls to repair all those pesky things that never seem to get fixed. People always remember to make repairs before the Pessach holiday."

Our Bnei Menashe women have produced beautiful chalah and matza covers, and a Shabbat bag. You'll be seeing their work on our website.

While out for a power walk last night I met some neighbors. "While you were away the Expulsion Authority called a meeting but we refused to attend," they said.

"Why?" I asked.

"They won't allow our married children to live near us at the new Nitzan site. They won't allow long-term renters to live with us. We want all our people together! They may have destroyed our Gush Katif homes, but they'll never destroy our spirit!"

It is good to be back.

OPERATION DIGNITY is bringing hope, financial aid and employment to our people? OPERATION DIGNITY needs your help to revitalize a once proud people.

Send your check, earmarked "Operation Dignity" to

Central Fund for Israel
Rehov Hagoel 13
Efrat 90435


Central Fund for Israel
attention: Arthur Marcus
Marcus Bros. Textiles
980 Sixth Avenue
New York, NY 10018 USA

Rachel Saperstein and her husband Moshe lived in Neve Dekalim, Gush Katif, Gaza, Israel. Rachel Saperstein was a teacher at the Neve Dekalim ulpana and a spokeswoman for the Katif Regional Council. Her book, "Eviction: A Gush Katif Viewpoint", with photos by Moti Sender can be ordered from www.pavilionpress.com.

Moshe Saperstein is a Jerusalem Diarist, one of the group of Israelis who are recording their experiences living in Israel. He lost an arm while fighting in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. He was again wounded in a February 2002 incident when he drove his car into a terrorist who had just shot and killed a young mother traveling in the car in front of him. He writes frequently of his physical and emotional struggles.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 24, 2007.

This was written by Ze'ev Schiff and it appeared yesterday in Ha'aretz
(www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=829434&contrassID=2&subContrass ID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y).

When Yaakov Peri stepped down as chief of the Shin Bet, in 1994, Jibril Rajoub, then head of Preventive Security Services in the West Bank, called Peri to express his sorrow. "This is a terrible blow to the security of the state!" said Rajoub. The state he was talking about was Israel. And the fact of the matter is that Rajoub, in his day, did work hard to prevent the second Intifada.

This same Jibril Rajoub has now appeared on television and shocked his Israeli acquaintances with the remark that in the end, the Palestinians will recover every inch of land between the river and the sea. Rajoub's standing is no longer what it was, but this sudden, Hamas-style declaration undermines our trust in the statements made by so-called "moderate" Palestinians.

With all due respect to my Palestinian friends, I can only conclude from these remarks that we must shut our ears when the Palestinians scatter promises about wanting to live alongside Israel. It is not words that matter, but deeds, and deeds alone.

Another shocking phenomenon emerges from the appalling account of former cabinet minister and senior Fatah official Sufian Abu Zaida, in an interview with Haaretz correspondent Avi Issacharoff (February 5). Abu Zaida described how his neighbor, a colonel in the PLO, and his nephew, were executed. First they were shot in the legs, and finally in the back, with the gunmen telling jokes while pulling the trigger. Before they shot the nephew, they tried to make him drink acid.

On a previous occasion, Abu Zaida's house was firebombed, and an attempt was made to kidnap his son. "Do you understand how much they hate us?" asked Abu Zaida. "The chances for peace with Israel are greater than the chances for peace between Hamas and Fatah."

Sheik Ra'ad Salah, head of the Northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, should be reading this. In his fury over the work at the Mugrabi Gate, he repeatedly accused the Israelis of being "murderers." But Sheik Ra'ad knows, of course, what the whole world knows and can see on TV: Arabs in Iraq are brutally murdering other Arabs, most of them innocent. Sometimes they even kill them at prayer, and destroy mosques. Sheikh Ra'ad knows what members of the Islamic Movement in Algeria did to tens of thousands of citizens, including women and children, just a few years ago. But in his eyes, Israelis are the murderers.

There is only one conclusion, and Moshe Dayan already said it in his eulogy over the grave of Roi Rutenberg, who was murdered by Arabs from Gaza in the 1950s: "This is our life's choice: to be prepared and armed, strong and determined, lest the sword slip from our hand and our lives be cut down."

When ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy says Israel doesn't need the recognition of Hamas, he is shifting the focus of the argument. He is getting into the fundamental, the moral and the diplomatic. The key issue here, and our primary concern, is the continuation of terror; today manifested in the continued rocket fire, the refusal to release Gilad Shalit, the attempts to carry out suicide bombings and the massive smuggling of arms. Bringing an end to these things constitutes part of the Quartet's demands.

Of course Israel must help Mahmoud Abbas, and through him, the suffering Palestinian people. But it cannot participate in a sneaky attempt by Hamas to use a moderate and positive-thinking man like Salam Fayad, who would have been the finance minister in a unity government, to put aid money into the hands of Hamas ministers, including those heading the movement's military wing.

Having a moderating force in the Gaza Strip and within the Palestinian Authority is in Israel's interest, but it is not enough. Israel must also insist that the Palestinians pass the critical test of reining in terror and fully abide by all agreements.

Contact Avodah at Avoda15@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 24, 2007.

This was written by Franklin Raff and it appeared on the World Net Daily website. Franklin Raff is senior executive producer at Radio America.

Editor's note: On Monday, Feb. 19, Franklin Raff gave this speech at the National Religious Broadcasters' Conference International Christian Prayer Breakfast for Israel in Orlando, Fla.

When I returned from the place that was called Gush Katif -- from the disengagement in Gaza -- returned with the memory of IDF soldiers dragging their Jewish brothers and sisters out of their homes, shackling them up in the dust and permanently banishing them from their property. I thought for a moment of the Judische Ghetto-Polizei, the infamous Jewish ghetto police. And almost perversely, it seemed, I saw them praying together, weeping openly together, forced soldier and forced refugee, as Qassam rockets fell on our retreat. Qassam rockets, launched by Arabs and aimed at us, as we went through the process of giving them houses, greenhouses, villages, farms, cooperatives and endless fields. Green fields, green fields in the desert, fields my distant ancestors first irrigated and made arable -- which I saw for the first time on that last day, and which my children will never see.

I am a Southerner by birth. As we say, by the grace of God I am a Virginian, and I grew up on a farm. Wherever I travel in the world I know the smell that earth has when it is blessed by God and by the working hands of free men who love God. That last evening as we gathered in a field in Neve Dekalim -- in Gaza -- to make a minyan for evening prayer before the final evacuation of the Jews, I was struck by the smell: the same smell I remember from our farm when I was a boy. Nitrogen and mud and life and freedom. Perhaps you know that smell. I have been to Iraq, to the farms along the Euphrates River where the men drink tea in the shade while their wives stoop and toil in the fields, covered head-to-toe in the hot sun in black hajibs. The soil there is dusty, and it smells only of salt.

When I returned from what was called Gush Katif, from that glorious smell which in the days to follow became the smell of bulldozer diesel exhaust and high explosives -- also an unmistakable smell -- I understood, in a visceral way, the tragedy of "land for peace." I understood fully, for the first time in my life, the fable about the scorpion and the frog, which had baffled me as a child. And you know why this fable confuses children. They do not yet believe in evil. And you remember the frog in the pot of water as it comes to a boil. If the path to destruction is taken in small, incremental steps, the frog will make minimal protestations, if any, before he takes his final breath.

Evil exists. The beast which has many disguises. The seductive thief of individual liberty, the destroyer of families. The disarmer of private citizens. The beast gently disposes of our freedoms and seizes our property. He then erases our bodies and our culture and our history and the memory of our God. The annihilator of God's message and God's children, Christian and Jew alike, is alive, and his armies are advancing.

So, who will defend Israel -- not when it is too late, not when its ruins become one more monument to the folly of appeasement -- but now. Who will defend Israel?

We will. This time, the Jews are not alone. Today, together, we defend Masada. I am blessed to live in a time in which righteous Jews and righteous Christians love each other. I will pray that it will be so until the final days.

Our leaders in Washington and Jerusalem will beg us to surrender. They will beg us to surrender, and they will throw Nobel Peace Prizes around like Judas' silver coins. But we will not surrender. To the jihad, which openly promises the destruction of Israel, the overthrow of the United States and our Constitution, the universal establishment of the Caliphate and the enslavement of women and we so-called infidels, I will not surrender one inch of my country, not one inch of Dearborn, Mich., not one inch of my native Virginia, and not one more inch of Judea and Samaria. Never.

Ru'ach is Hebrew for Spirit, or the Sprit of God. It is a cognate of Re'ach, or wind, and smell. We are tied to the land. But what we stand to accomplish by defending it has everything to do with spiritual territory. This, we will defend.

Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, February 24, 2007.

Enclosed you'll find excerpts from (non-solicited!) Hagai Segal's column in Makor Rishon (Feb. 23, 2007), which reflects the collapse of a 20 year monopoly by Israel's "Prophets of Demographic Doom."

Shavoua' Tov and may we heed the lessons of last week's portion of the Torarh (Terumah): Contributions transform & elevate reality (Temoorah, Rom in Hebrew), constitute a cohesive social and economic force, rewarding givers and receivers, Yoram

"YORAM ETTINGER IS RELENTLESSLY UNDERMINING DEMOGRAPHIC HYSTERIA. It has been many months since this polite person, a top expert on US policy, has conducted 4-5 daily briefings with policy-makers and public-opinion molders, sharing with them his PowerPoint presentation on the demographic reality. Each such presentation lasts for 1-1.5 hours, but Ettinger does not relent and does not get bored. He is as enthusiastic as if each presentation were his first presentation...

"THERE HAS BEEN A DRAMATIC BENEFIT FROM ETTINGER'S EFFORTS. Ettinger has already convinced most politicians and journalists that Israel's leading demographers have been mistaken and have misled. The larger political parties and most Israeli newspapers have admitted that Ettinger and his partners -- and not Prof. DellaPergola and Prof. Sofer -- are right: The number of Arabs in Judea & Samaria is barely 1.5MN and not 2.5MN. There is a solid, long-term Jewish majority, since the 1960s, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and the demographic momentum is Jewish and not Arab. Arabs produce fewer babies and escalate emigration.

"ETTINGER'S DETAILED FINDINGS HAVE BEEN WIDELY DOCUMENTED by most Israeli newspapers. In brief, he has been able to instill a terminal doubt in the conventional estimates of the Palestinian population. He has proven that such estimates are based on deceit and erroneous projections. Hundreds of thousands Palestinians, who reside abroad, are counted as de-facto residents by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem Arabs are double-counted as Israeli Arabs and as Palestinians, and no reference has been made to the sharp decline in Arab population growth rate. A significant gap has been developed between the actual and the perceived number of Palestinians, which highlights the baseless demographic fatalism.

"ETTINGER'S DILIGENCE HAS ALREADY PRODUCED RESULTS... Even left-wingers, such as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former Justice Minister Dan Meridor have accepted his findings. Senior members of "Ha'aretz'" and "Ma'ariv's" editorial board have been exposed to Ettinger's presentations, and have covered it in their newspapers. Former Finance Minister, Baiga Schochat has slept better, as a Jew, since he saw the presentation. The "Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies" published the AIDRG study. A significantly smaller number of Israeli reporters and columnists still wave the demographic threat. Although Prime Minister Olmert is still reluctant to watch the presentation, the current pace of Ettinger's initiative suggests that the Israeli government will soon accept AIDRG's updated data.

"THE ESSENCE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS IS A GREAT DEAL OF TENACITY. Ettinger does not rest on his laurel... If Ettinger can convince his interlocutors that the demographic problem is by far less severe than previously (mis)perceived, than it is possible to convince them that a withdrawal from Judea & Samaria would be wrong.


Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Don Feder, February 24, 2007.

Among the many groups for whom I feel absolutely no sympathy is the Jewish left - which has lately been agonizing over the prevalence of Jew-hatred at anti-war rallies.

Signs comparing Israelis to Nazis and identifying Jews as the enemies of humanity have become de rigueur at (you should pardon the expression) peace rallies.

Jewish leftists -- at least those who still feel a connection to the Jewish people -- are dismayed.

An article in the January 27 Contra Costa (California) Times calls our attention to the San Francisco Anti-Defamation League's first conference on how progressives "can protect themselves against anti-Semitism -- from the liberal left."

Among other examples of tolerance and brotherhood cited by the Times, at one San-Fran demonstration last year, Arabs chanted "Jews are our dogs."

According to the article, many on the lox-and-cream-cheese left is upset with former President Pinhead's latest book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" -- which condones suicide bombings. (Carter calls on peaceful Palestinians to stop terrorist attacks if Israel begins "respecting international law" -- rolling over and playing dead. )

Jewish progressives wonder why the movement seems to single out Israel for hysterical denunciations, and if their comrades haven't replaced "Israel" for "Jew" in the old anti-Semitic formulation. (Try to imagine Carter writing a book called "Saudi Arabia: Equality Not Misogyny" or "Iran: Democracy Not Theocracy.")

Regarding the group-therapy for Jewish leftists, Jonathan Bernstein, director of the ADL's San Francisco regional office, says, "We have heard from so many people who feel ostracized and alone and don't really know what to do with this problem." Bernstein complains that said good people shouldn't "have to pick between being Jewish and whatever worthwhile cause."

That some Jewish leftists are uncomfortable with the movement's uglier antics is surely one of humanity's great tragedies -- ranking right up there with the heartbreak of psoriasis.

According to organizers, the conference (which was held the following weekend) would include a discussion of "coping strategies," "having a rally within a rally," and "on the spot responses to hurtful language." Wow, "on the spot responses to hurtful language" -- talk about getting tough with anti-Semitism.

I'm reminded of a Woody Allen movie where the comedian is at a cocktail party and some of his Upper East Side friends start discussing how to respond to the Nazis marching in New Jersey. One suggests putting on a satirical play parodying the brown shirts. An agitated Allen says that -- harsh as that may be -- instead, perhaps they should consider getting rocks and clubs and beating the Nazis to a bloody pulp.

Now that's a coping strategy I can relate to.

Leftist anti-Semitism is as old as the left. Since the French Revolution, polemicists have cast Israelites as the quintessential capitalist exploiters -- never mind the prevalence of Jews in various socialist movements. (Voltaire charged that the Jews were "born with a raging fanaticism in their hearts.")

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (the father of modern socialism and anarchism) -- who coined the expression "Property is theft" -- explained:

"The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer. He is an intermediary, always fraudulent and parasitical, who operates, in trade and in philosophy, by means of falsification, counterfeiting, and horse-trading."

What then should be done with this irredeemably anti-social element? "The Jew is the enemy of mankind," Proudhon advised. "It is necessary to send this race back to Asia, or exterminate it...By fire or fusion, or by expulsion, the Jew must disappear." Said genocidal raving predated the Holocaust by a century.

Karl Marx, old Uncle Fuzzy-Whiskers (the scion of a German-Jewish family that had converted to Christianity for social position) explained the Jewish problem this way: "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money."

No wonder Hitler and Stalin got on famously, until that unfortunate incident of June of 1940.

After the fall of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union became the worldwide nexus of anti-Semitism.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, anti-Semitism's Mecca shifted to -- well, Mecca. In the Moslem world, Mein Kampf and "The Protocols of Zion" are best-sellers and rabid Jew-hatred is standard fare in political, religious and cultural discourse. So, naturally, Islam has become the left's pet religion and Islamacism its principal ally.

Besides an unremitting animus toward the Jewish state, the anti-war left has embraced many of the old anti-Semitic stereotypes of its revolutionary forebears. Feminist author Phyllis Chesler observes: "The Jews and the Jewish state have become the symbol of Satanic America, capitalism, imperialism, colonialism."

Consider Noam Chomsky -- Hugo Chavez's favorite philosopher. Sure he wants to see Israel destroyed, and trusts in the good will of Hamas and Fatah for the safety of those Jews left in Palestine. Sure he associates with Holocaust-deniers. And sure he admires Iran's version of Jack The Ripper. But is the Jewish-born Chomsky an anti-Semite?

In a 2002 interview with a Palestinian solidarity group, Chomsky declared, "By now, Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population."

When a Marxist says someone's "privileged" it means they're getting something they didn't earn and don't deserve.

Chomsky hates American society. Thus the avatar of the New Left and leading intellectual light of the anti-war movement is saying that Jews have risen to the top of a rotten, corrupt culture that spreads war, famine and misery across the globe. Did they attain that favored status by dint of their virtues?

For today's left, the Jew is the corporate executive, exploiting his workers, raping the environment and reaping obscene profits. He's the globalist, pushing a world economy run by multinationals. He's the neo-con manipulating the White House and Congress to engineer a war with Iran -- to enhance Israel's security. He's the quintessence whatever the left despises at any particular point in time.

And not just the loony left, not just the fringy left -- but the establishment left.

Toward the middle of last month, in an online posting at Arianna Huffington's website, retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark was asked why he thought America would attack Iran.

Clark replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

Why the Israeli press, and not the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh or Fox News? And, in case you haven't guessed it, "the New York money people" isn't code for Episcopalians.

In his 2004 campaign, Howard Dean urged that regarding Israel and the Palestinians, the United States should adopt an "even-handed" approach. This is another way of saying that between an historic ally and a people who invariably side with our enemies and never miss a chance to tell us how much they hate our guts, America should be strictly impartial.

Any objections from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to Carter's vile comparison of Israel to South Africa's former white supremacist regime? Not that I'm aware of.

Is the Democratic Party anti-Semitic or merely soft on anti-Semitism? Nothing could be more damning than the party of Old Joe Kennedy's embrace of Al Sharpton -- the man who sparked a full-scale pogrom in Crown Heights in 1991 and a massacre at Freddy's Fashion Mart in 1995. (Instead of "New York money people," Sharpton prefers "diamond merchants with blood on their hands" and "interlopers.")

During the 2000 campaign, Al Gore obediently appeared at a Sharpton-organized debate at Harlem's Apollo Theater -- which would be comparable to George Bush carrying the torch at a cross-burning.

Anywhere you look on the left, you'll find spiritual descendants of the Cossacks and storm troopers -- anti-Semites or those who condone anti-Semitism.

Peace and justice don't grow in a cesspool. Instead of kvetching about "hurtful language" and devising "coping strategies," Jewish leftists -- those who are more Jewish than leftist -- should reconsider their "whatever worthwhile cause" -- which may not be that worthwhile after all.

Don Feder was an opinion writer for the Boston Herald and a syndicated columnist. He is currently a political/media consultant. This article appeared in www.FrontPageMagazine.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 24, 2007.

The "Party of God," Hezbollah, its chief sponsor Iran, is the terror organization with the most American blood on its hand; it is the terror organization U.N. Resolution 1701 declared it must be dismantle and disarmed, yet not even a year later it is sitting stronger than ever on Israel's northern border with Israel.

The U.S. government declared Hezbollah's leaders, specially designated global terrorists, yet, it is in proximity of each US citizen; it is here in the United States sitting strong in your neighborhood. Because of the U.S. porous borders with Mexico and Canada Hezbollah operatives have easy access to carry out recruiting operations, interstate criminal enterprises such as, cigarette smuggling, human smuggling, drug trafficking, and counterfeiting. They are using our fund raising system and their "charitable work" of fund raising in the millions of dollars enables the organization to purchase high-tech weaponry and materials that is delivered to the group's Lebanese headquarters.

The mighty dollar, Washington and the big, very big, interest groups and loose laws is the "Achilles Hill" of every Unites States citizen. For all those who appose closing the borders, this is a story of how the United States is aiding and abetting world terror.

This was written by Steven Emerson and comes from The Investigative Project on Terrorism (202-363-8602 or articles@ctnews.org). It appeared March 2007 in The American Legion Magazine. Steven Emerson is executive director of The Investigative Project and author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among US (Free Press).

Since 9/11, U.S. counterterrorism policy has focused primarily on the threat from al-Qaeda. But before Osama bin Laden's men brought down the Twin Towers, the international terrorist organization with the most American blood on its hands was Hezbollah. Even now, Hezbollah continues on its terrorist path. Last summer, the world watched as violence erupted in the Middle East after Hezbollah's cross-border raid into Israel resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others. Meanwhile, the organization has honed techniques for financing its killing with proceeds from a wide range of illicit activities.

Hezbollah, the "Party of God," began as a radical Muslim Shiite organization in 1982, in response to the first Israeli-Lebanese war. Its stated goals were, and are, wiping Israel off the map and establishing a Shiite state in Lebanon. Its chief sponsor is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which provides major financial support as well as weapons and paramilitary training. Syria, Lebanon 's neighbor, also lends substantial support.

The two major leaders of Hezbollah are Secretary General Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and the organization's spiritual chief, Sheikh Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, both named "specially designated global terrorists" by the U.S. government. Fadlallah issued the fatwa authorizing the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks that killed 241 Americans, the government has charged.

The "Party of God" has evolved from a guerrilla and terror force, establishing itself as a "legitimate" political party in the Lebanese government and acting as a representative of Lebanon 's large Shiite population. Having gained high political profile, Hezbollah continues to maintain its armed militia and terrorist training bases.

Close to Home. Hezbollah's achievements as a multinational terror organization right here in the United States offer a glimpse into how the group functions. Our nation's porous borders with Mexico and Canada give Hezbollah operatives easy access to carry out fund-raising and recruiting operations. High-level Hezbollah agents have conducted complex, interstate criminal enterprises, raising millions of dollars and enabling the organization to purchase high-tech weaponry and materials to be sent to the group's Lebanese headquarters. These networks demonstrate clear chains of command and engage in a wide array of activities, including cigarette smuggling, human smuggling, drug trafficking, counterfeiting and "charitable work."

Perhaps the best-publicized Hezbollah fundraising scheme in the United States involved a Charlotte, N.C., cigarette-smuggling ring. Operatives bought cigarettes in North Carolina and resold them in Michigan without paying Michigan's higher taxes. Mohamad Youssef Hammoud, the group's ringleader, was convicted in 2002 on several charges: conspiracies to launder money and traffic in contraband cigarettes, immigration law violations and attempted bribery. Evidence in the trial revealed links between ringleader Hammoud and Sheikh Nasrallah, including a photo of the two men together. The case demonstrated the ease with which illegal immigrants take advantage of the U.S. system, raising money from illicit activities to support both an American Hezbollah cell and the group's headquarters in Lebanon.

The most high-profile case of a Hezbollah trained fighter on U.S. soil involved Mahmoud Youssef Kourani. In March 2005, Kourani pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, and in June 2005, he was sentenced to 54 months in prison. The FBI affidavit in the case alleged that Kourani had sent $40,000 to his brother Haidar, Hezbollah's chief of military security in southern Lebanon. An informant told the FBI that Mahmoud Kourani claimed he had trained in Iran on behalf of Hezbollah and was a member of the Hezbollah unit responsible for the kidnapping and murder of Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon in 1988. According to government documents, "On approximately Feb. 4, 2001, Kourani surreptitiously entered the United States by sneaking across the U.S.-Mexico border in the trunk of a car. He reached Mexico by bribing an official at the Mexican consulate in Beirut to give him a Mexican visa."

In addition to human smuggling, Hezbollah financiers have engaged in large-scale drug operations in North America. A federal indictment in January 2002 charged 36 individuals nationwide, including Ohio resident Mohammad Shabib. Investigators believe that since the early 1990s, Shabib managed to deposit roughly $8 million skimmed from drug sales into Chicago bank accounts. Part of the loot is believed to have benefited Hezbollah activities.

A New Front. Hezbollah operatives have frequently sought out sympathetic members of the Lebanese Diaspora to assist them, several of whom have owned and operated Lebanese restaurants. Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, owner of Cafe La Libanesa in Tijuana, Mexico, was arrested in December 2002 for running a ring that allegedly smuggled at least 200 Lebanese compatriots into the United States, including an employee of Al- Manar, Hezbollah's television station. Although it was never confirmed, Boughader was suspected of having helped Kourani to slip over the border. Last May, a Mexican judge sentenced Boughader to 14 years in prison for organized crime and human smuggling.

The case of Rady Zaiter, a.k.a. David Assi Alvarez, is an example of drug-running activities designed to benefit Hezbollah, using a restaurant as a front. In June 2005, Ecuadorian police broke up an international drug-trafficking ring led by the owners of El Turco restaurant: Zaiter and his partner, Maher Hamajo. The restaurant in Quito served as the logistical center for the ring's activities. Drug mules carried cocaine in double-bottomed suitcases bound for other countries in South America, as well as Europe and the Middle East. According to investigating authorities, Hezbollah received at least 70 percent of the drug money. Additionally, officials confiscated more than $150,000 and 2,000 euros. Further arrests were made in Brazil, Syria and the Dutch Antilles, bringing the total apprehended to 19 people. El Turco, like the Detroit-area restaurant La Shish that was recently allegedly linked to Hezbollah, was a very popular restaurant, appreciated by the locals.

In May 2006, Detroit-based restaurant owner Tala1 Khalil Chahine and his wife, Elfat El Aouar, were indicted on federal tax-evasion charges. They allegedly concealed more than $20 million in profits from their La Shish restaurant chain and funneled some of those funds to Lebanon. In 2002, Chahine attended an Al-Mabarrat charity event in Lebanon at which he and Sheikh Fadlallah served as keynote speakers. Chahine admitted he attended the charity fund-raiser, reinforcing federal prosecutors' statement that he has "connections at the highest levels of Hezbollah." According to the Department of Justice, "Chahine was the representative at the (Al-Mabarrat Lebanon) event of a worldwide group of fund-raisers." Federal prosecutors also alleged that agents searching Chahine's Michigan house discovered a letter thanking him for his sponsorship of 40 Lebanese orphans -- a term the Department of Justice considers "a euphemism used by Hezbollah to refer to the orphans of martyrs."

Al-Mabarrat has a U.S.-based branch headquartered in Dearborn, Mich. Founded in 1991, the Al-Mabarrat Charitable Organization-USA, Inc., has repeatedly changed its name over the past 15 years. Although Al-Mabarrat acknowledges on its Web site that it works in conjunction with the Al-Mabarrat Association in Lebanon (whose logo it shares), it omits the fact that Al-Mabarrat Lebanon is run by Sheikh Fadlallah. Despite Al- Mabarrat USA's direct link to a Fadlallah-controlled organization, the U.S. branch continues to operate unfettered.

Hezbollah's use of Al-Mabarrat as a fund-raising front is a savvy strategic move, mirroring a tactic long exploited by terrorist groups operating on U.S. soil. By utilizing charities, terrorists can generate popular support by providing some legitimate services, attract contributions from donors both unwitting and aware, and attempt to obscure financial trails. But such operations extend far beyond the United States.

Worldwide Reach. Hezbollah revealed its strong South American presence to the world with the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. The attack killed 29 people and wounded more than 240. The group struck again in the Argentine capital in 1994, killing 86 at a Jewish community center in the largest terror attack against Argentina to date.

Hezbollah has long used parts of South America as a training ground, in particular the tri-border area where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet. It has demonstrated a keen interest in extending its activities to other parts of Latin America, including Venezuela, Cuba, Panama and Colombia.

The best example of the extent of Hezbollah's South American reach is the 2002 arrest of Assad Ahmad Barakat in Brazil. Designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as a Hezbollah fundraiser, Barakat has been called one of the terrorist organization's most prominent and influential members. He is believed to have transferred up to $50 million to Hezbollah since 1995. Two of his businesses -- Casa Apollo, a wholesale electronics store, and Barakat Import-Export Ltd. -- were used to launder terrorist money and facilitate the movement of Hezbollah operatives. Both have been designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as terrorist fronts.

Although Europe has thus far been exempt from Hezbollah attacks, numerous intelligence experts and officials assert that the group's operatives maintain cells across the continent. German authorities, in particular, have expressed concern about the presence of several hundred Hezbollah members in their country. Hezbollah has established several front charities, mainly operating from Great Britain and Germany, to raise funds earmarked to support the group's members in Lebanon. For example, the British-based Lebanese Welfare Committee, HELP Charity Association for Relief and Abrar Islamic Foundation are among the charities suspected of channeling funds to Sheikh Nasrallah and Hezbollah.

Reports of an increase in Hezbollah recruiting have emerged in eastern European countries, specifically Slovakia, Bosnia and Russia. And over the past few years, Hezbollah has sent operatives with European identification papers to Israel in order to collect intelligence for future attacks. Efforts by European authorities to curtail Hezbollah's influence have included France 's 2004 ban of Hezbollah's television station and chief propaganda machine, A1-Manar, from that nation's satellite television providers. Spain and the United States have made similar moves.

Finally, Hezbollah has been actively fund-raising in Africa for the past two decades, tapping a pool of Shiite Muslim communities, especially in Senegal and the Ivory Coast. The organization engages in mafia-style extortion, all the while receiving money from its large sympathetic donor base. The money generated from the group's African operations alone runs well into the millions of dollars. The Ivory Coast is used not only for fund-raising but also as a safe haven for Hezbollah operatives on the run. Iran has also stepped up its Ivory Coast presence, financing mosques and sending imams to preach in them.

While al-Qaeda has long utilized the African "blood-diamond" trade to facilitate its operations, Hezbollah has recently begun taking its own share in various West Africa countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burkina Faso, Togo and Sierra Leone. A blood diamond, also called "conflict diamond" or "war diamond," refers to the precious gem mined in war-torn countries of western and southern Africa, and sold, often clandestinely, in order to finance insurgents, rebels and terrorists. The extortion of diamond merchants is believed to be a tactic adapted by Hezbollah from its South American experience.

New Alliances. One issue with wide-ranging implications for U.S. consumers is the growing alliance between Hezbollah, its regional sponsors, and emerging elements in Latin America -- notably Venezuela, where the terrorist group is calling for a stronger relationship with President Hugo Chavez.

After Chavez visited Lebanon last summer, a Hezbollah official told an Indian newspaper, "Mr. Chavez is closer to us than any other Arab leader, and we hope that we will be able to benefit, as he has, from this particular experience (in Lebanon)." The affection seems mutual. On a trip to Iran in July to meet with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chavez said, "The brave resistance of the Lebanese people and Hezbollah symbolizes their indomitable spirit and reveals how the Islamic and Arab world is fed up with U.S. policy in the region."

Venezuela, an OPEC nation, owns CITGO Petroleum, identified on CITGO's Web site as a "wholly owned subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela." Filling up at any of the 14,000 CITGO gas stations across the United States thus funds a government that is on the record as being a strong supporter of Hezbollah.

Criminal activity in the United States has raised millions of dollars for Hezbollah as well. The question remains whether Hezbollah members and supporters within our borders possess the wherewithal to carry out attacks if ordered to do so. Although no direct evidence exists of an imminent attack, their presence, as well their ability to conduct illicit operations often undetected by U.S. border security and law-enforcement officials, presents a significant threat to U.S. national security and the safety of American citizens.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, February 24, 2007.

King Abdullah, reciting from his Wahhabi Koran in a recent no Jews allowed ceremony held in Mecca, pronounced Fatah head hancho Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas high muckamuck Ismail Haniyeh kindred spirit anti-Semites, never to recognize Israel for as long as they may live. There were no objectors at the ceremony, attended only by Sunnis attempting to woo adulterer Haniyeh more so than Abbas, the former indeed being courted by lustful Persian Shiite suitors, back into the fold of righteous Arabs, knowing the true chain of command chosen to trod in the tracks of Prophet Muhammad, Allah's right hand warrior. No Rice was tossed at the unified duo while boarding jets en route to a brief honeymoon in wild and crazy Gaza-by-the-sea, where jubilant celebratory creeps regularly fire Qassam missiles into Israel, not just in honor of the occasion, but almost every day. Indeed, there was no need for music in such a religious atmosphere, thus the string-along Quartet composed of out of tune music makers from the United States, European Union, Russia, and the United Nations were not even invited to play their signature song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want," ironically a message that ultimately would be directed at Israel.

No doubt, the two name double game Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen, four decade understudy to Yasser Arafat, ever the snake charmer bedecked in Armani suits, never was that far apart from a not-so-subtle Haniyeh in his hatred of Jews and Israel, but uses different tactics when schmoozing with Western pie-in-the-sky peacemakers. After all, anyone that trivializes the Holocaust as he did, in the early 1980s, composing a doctoral thesis linking Zionists to Nazis, as well as questioning the magnitude of the infamous butchery, despicably even questioning whether gas chambers were utilized, and in fact never renouncing the revisionist filth, is in his heart of hearts not so different than Haniyeh or for that matter Iran's Imam obsessed President Mahmoud AhMADinejad, infamous for his own Holocaust denial conference as well as the profane utterance suggesting Israel must be "wiped off the map." Furthermore, Fatah's Abbas, remaining the default negotiating partner of Western and some Israeli 'land for peace' shlemiels, despite being the more respected member of a not so odd couple of convenience with Hamas' Haniyeh, in effect is even more perilous to Israel than the more outspoken hate-spewing but candid leader of that so-called Palestinian unity government.

"Crazy", indeed, should be a new signature song for the Quartet and any Israeli 'peace at any price' groupies who might still wish to break pita with Mahmoud the 'smoothie', allegedly unified with a blatant terrorist cadre for the sake of harmony. All of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern sector of Jerusalem, garnished by a right of return to core Israel, would be put on the table, along with a peace offering by the 'smoothie' that carries as much weight as an underfed butterfly. Inviting Abbas to the dance, something he could not achieve as Arafat's shmata washer and boot licker, would in all likelihood be an unmitigated disaster for Israel, especially if the Quartet inserts fossil fuel contracts with Saudi led OPEC into its calculations at the expense of the Jewish State. Keep Abdullah happy and everybody's happy, as far as certain petro-addict members are concerned. Indeed, such fossil fuel junkies might accept assurances from Abbas as he forswears violence against Israel out of one side of his mouth, handing him the Jewish shlamazal's farm, while his more honest jihadist 'unity government' partner froths at the mouth like a rabid dog, lining up deadly Qassams with 'who knows what' in their warheads, to launch at Israel after the hugs and handshakes are done, sealing the Faustian covenant.

When the bar is set so low that so-called Palestinian negotiators are merely expected not to trip over it, when recognition of Israel's right to exist is bizarrely still an issue, when Israel is expected to cede land justifiably secured in 1967 in the course of vanquishing Arabs intent on annihilating the Jewish State, an expectation never to be foisted on any other sovereign government under similar circumstances, when a Holocaust revisionist remains the one hope of civilized nations on a fool's errand to stabilize a conflict, vastly overblown in presumed significance on, in fact, totally unrelated events occurring in other Middle East enclaves, when hubristic negotiators possessing personal agendas, unable or unwilling to grasp the smallest part of the Arab mindset, form a Quartet that blows hot air into bugles that play nothing but Taps for Israel, it is time for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to say thanks but no thanks to 'well intentioned' meddlers posing as mediators, while reading the riot act to Abbas and Haniyeh, promising them they will indeed recognize the consequences of Israel's world class weaponry, if not the State itself, if out of control jihad junkies, under their jurisdiction, continue tossing Qassams and deploying homicide/suicide mutants at what is indeed a world class nation about to lose its one last good nerve.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by SPME, February 24, 2007.

This was published in THe Emory Wheel, February 18, 2007 by Alan Abramowitz, David R. Blumenthal, Sander Gilman, Herbert R. Karp, Harvey Klehr, Melvin Konner, Howard I. Kushner, Deborah E. Lipstadt, Andre J. Nahmias,Raymond F. Schinazi, Donald G. Stein.

It is archived at www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1856

Once again, Jimmy Carter has shrunk from debate. Despite having written a book whose purpose he claims was to promote dialogue and discussion, he has consistently dodged appearing with anyone who could challenge him on the numerous factual errors that fill the pages of his slim book.

First it was at Brandeis University, where he was invited to appear with professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, who has written two books and numerous articles on the topic (not to mention being a respected First Amendment scholar and one of America's most distinguished attorneys), was not even allowed into the building until Carter had left.

When it became known that Carter was anxious to speak at Emory, the administration consulted a group of faculty and was advised that the most fair and academically valuable format would be to have Carter appear with someone who could engage in a productive interchange and discussion on the topic. This clearly would be the only way for the event to meet the educational standard of a leading university.

Everyone agreed that the best person for this interchange was Ambassador Dennis Ross, who was the main negotiator on the Arab-Israeli situation in both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration. He was responsible for organizing Camp David II, Clinton's last-ditch effort to find a resolution to the situation. Ross agreed to appear, but Carter pointedly refused to appear with him or with any other expert. No explanation was given.

Is this the behavior of a man who wants to promote dialogue? What precisely is Carter afraid of? Could it be that Dennis Ross -- who, like President Clinton, places the blame for the failure of the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis at Camp David II squarely on the shoulders of Yasir Arafat -- would tell the former president, who blames Israel for everything, that he is simply wrong? Remember Ross and Clinton were there; Carter was not.

The Brandeis event had sanitized pre-screened questions, no follow-up, and an audience of students clearly mesmerized by being in the presence of a former president. At least at Brandeis, Dershowitz appeared after Carter to point out that Carter's remarks (carefully scripted to appeal to the largely Jewish audience at Brandeis) were very different from what he said in the book and in numerous media events, including Al Jazeera television, where he falsely claimed that most of the critics of his book have been representatives of Jewish organizations. He has also stated on Al Jazeera that rocket barrages against Israeli homes and families are not terrorist acts. These flirtations with anti-Semitism -- however unconscious -- have frightened Jewish -Americans.

The Wheel says that it's best to let Carter have "the last word" because to do otherwise will "only prolong the debate indefinitely into the future." As if the debate will go away if Jimmy Carter is allowed a platform all by himself. Would the Wheel recommend that George W. Bush "be given the last word" on Iraq because to do otherwise would "prolong the debate"? The Wheel has joined Carter in his attempt to stifle debate even while he claims to be seeking it. A prolonged debate with a free exchange of ideas is what an academic institution is all about.

In fact, Bush, who is not known for his responsiveness to the press, has the courage to face seasoned reporters who ask tough, unscripted questions with even tougher follow-up questions. These reporters are trained to recognize when a president is dissembling, being evasive or deliberately misleading the public, and they respond accordingly.

Remember, this is a book which has been described as "moronic" (Slate), "strange," a "distortion" (The New York Times) and "cynical" with a "bait-and-switch" title (Washington Post). The Emory administration has thus far failed to create an event with a semblance of balance. The talk of having "someone" or a "panel on the topic" next semester is an embarrassment for an institution which proclaims that it is dedicated to "creative inquiry."

We shall absent ourselves from this staged event, which will be more a political opportunity for Carter to air his biases than an open exchange of ideas. It is unworthy of an institution with Emory's aspirations, and we have to say sadly that at this moment we are not proud of Emory.

Alan Abramowitz is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science. David R. Blumenthal is the Jay and Leslie Cohen Professor of Judaic Studies. Sander Gilman is a Distinguished Professor of the Arts and Sciences. Herbert R. Karp is an Emeritus Professor of Neurology and Medicine. Harvey Klehr is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Politics and History. Melvin Konner is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology. Howard I. Kushner is the Nat C. Robertson Distinguished Professor of Science and Society. Deborah E. Lipstadt is the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies. Andre J. Nahmias is the Richard W. Blumberg Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics. Raymond F. Schinazi is a Professor of Pediatrics and Chemistry, and the Director of the Laboratory of Biochemical Pharmacology. Donald G. Stein is the Asa G. Candler Professor of psychology, emergency medicine and neurology.

Contact Scholars For Peace in the Middle East (SPME) at spmeff@spme.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Jake Levi, February 24, 2007.
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post

Iran has an interesting take on international law. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, the UN Security Council's Chapter VII resolution from last December requiring Iran to cease all its uranium enrichment activities is illegal. As he put it Wednesday during a friendly visit in Turkey, "We were against [the resolution] for being illegal and politically motivated."

Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with international law should recognize that Mottaki's statement is not merely incorrect. His rejection of the legality of Security Council Resolution 1737 is an expression of contempt for the very foundations of the law of nations which have been almost universally adhered to since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

What comes across most clearly in Mottaki's statement is that little has changed in Iran since the Khomeini revolution in 1979 brought the current regime to power. Back then, in their first stab at international diplomacy, the mullahs showed that their regime stands opposed to all the norms of civilized behavior that have formed the basis of the nation-state system since the end of the Thirty Years War. The Iranian takeover of the US embassy in Teheran and the holding hostage of 52 embassy employees for 444 days was not merely an act of state terrorism. It was a declaration of war against civilization.

And so, it should come as a surprise to no one that Mottaki rejects the Security Council's right to force Iran to abide by its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran voluntarily signed and ratified. He is behaving in a manner that is wholly consistent with Iran's international behavior since the overthrow of the Shah.

Similarly, the US and its Western and UN partners responded to Iran's provocation in a manner that is wholly consistent with their treatment of Iran since the revolution. For the past 27 years, the US, the European Union and the UN have responded to Iran's contemptuous disregard for international law and civilized norms of behavior by seeking to appease the mullahs.

Wednesday US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed this consistent preference in an interview with CNN. Brushing off the allegation that the US may be planning to forcibly prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons Rice said, "The United States is on a diplomatic path and we believe in this diplomatic path."

She continued, "If Iran will, in fact, suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities we can sit down together, reverse 27 years of the isolation of the United States from Iran and Iran from the United States. We can talk about anything. The United States has no desire for confrontation with Iran. None. We would rather have with Iran the opportunity to discuss whatever matters Iran would like to discuss."

So as far as Rice is concerned, diplomacy is not only her chosen method of dealing with Iran. It is the only method for dealing with Iran.

Muhammad el Baradei, who as chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency is charged with reporting Iranian non-compliance with Resolution 1737 to the Security Council, took Rice's diplomatic line to the next logical level when he said last month, "the only solution to the Iranian issue... is dialogue, is negotiation."

Baradei argues this point in both practical and normative terms. Practically speaking, he said Tuesday that it is impossible to put the Iranian nuclear genie back in the bottle because the Iranians have already acquired the know-how to build atomic bombs.

Baradei made that statement after meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. At the meeting Larijani told Baradei that Iran remains steady in its rejection of the Security Council's demand that it suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

Aside from explaining why it is pointless to try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear bombs, Baradei explained that it would also be wrong to check the mullahs' behavior. "Our experience without exception is that sanctions alone do not work and in most cases radicalize the regime and hurt the people who are not supposed to be hurt... [S]anctions have to be coupled at all times with incentives and a real search for a compromise based on face-saving, based on respect," Baradei opined.

Perhaps Rice's enthusiasm for appeasing Teheran is influenced by people like former senator and Democratic contender for the presidency John Edwards. This week Edwards reportedly said that the greatest short-term threat to world peace is the possibility that Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Perhaps it is similar voices in the James Baker and Brent Scowcroft corner of the Republican Party that are motivating Rice to behave like the Europeans and the UN.

Whatever the explanation for the US's French-style Iran policy, the EU for its part insists on negotiating with Iran in spite of the fact that last week an official EU document acknowledged that the Europeans know full well that their four-year nuclear diplomacy with the Iranians has failed to delay even slightly Iran's acquisition of atomic bombs. That is, Europe maintains its "jaw jaw" with Iran in spite of the fact that it knows that by doing so it is all but ensuring that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons which it has publicly pledged to use to eradicate Israel.

THE IRANIANS are more than willing to humor the West's diplomacy fetish. Even as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that "It is worth it to stop other activities for 10 years and focus only on the nuclear issue," he and his colleagues announced their willingness to discuss their nuclear weapons program with the US and anyone else who asks (aside from Israel), so long as those discussions don't impinge on their freedom to build their nuclear bombs.

From Washington to Brussels to Moscow to Turtle Bay, everyone applauds the fact that both the so-called international community and its Iranian antagonist desire negotiations. This, they say, is proof that there is no reason to abandon diplomacy.

But this is nonsense. The American, European and UN defense of negotiations with Teheran is nothing more than a willful act of collective delusion. For while it is true that everyone wants to talk, it is equally true that there is absolutely nothing to talk about.

In theory, nations engage in negotiations in order to advance their national interests, whether separately or collectively. In the case of Iran, the US and its allies seek to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. They maintain that the best means of achieving that aim is diplomacy.

For its part, Iran wishes to acquire nuclear weapons unmolested. It chooses to negotiate with the West in order to achieve that aim.

The problem here is that the sides' intentions are mutually exclusive so one side's gains come at the other's expense. Since Iran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment, diplomatically engaging its emissaries serves only to legitimize the regime and enable its leaders to acquire nuclear weapons under the cover of international diplomacy.

THIS SAME disturbing pattern repeats itself with the so-called international community's engagement of the Palestinians. This is particularly the case in the aftermath of the Mecca agreement which relegated the Fatah terror organization to the position of junior partner in the Hamas terror organization's government. As with Iran, so too with the Palestinians: While everyone agrees that negotiations are the answer, they ignore the fact that there is nothing to negotiate about.

The so-called international community argues that it wishes to engage the Palestinians in order to peacefully resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel. For their part, the Palestinians in Hamas and Fatah claim that the purpose of negotiations is to advance their strategic aim of destroying Israel.

In their dealings with both Iran and the Palestinians, the leaders of the so-called international community assert that were they to abandon diplomacy they would strengthen the most radical elements on the other side. As Baradei put it with regard to Iran, "We know that if you jolt a country's pride, all the factions, right, left and center will get together and try to accelerate a program to develop a nuclear weapon to defend themselves."

Unfortunately, experience shows that just the opposite is the case. The so-called international community's engagement of the Iranians and the Palestinians has in no way weakened the most radical elements in those societies. Rather, it has weakened the West's willingness to confront those radical elements and so brought about an effective radicalization of the West. Case in point is Britain.

Until recently, the British treated Hamas like the genocidal jihadist movement that it is. But Wednesday Britain's policy collapsed completely. In a speech before Parliament, Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "It's far easier to deal with the situation in Palestine if there is a national unity government. I hope we can make progress, including even with the more sensible elements of Hamas."

But of course, there are no "sensible elements of Hamas." So what sort of "progress" does Blair believe it is possible to make?

Moreover, while Ahmadinejad may be the most outspoken Iranian leader on the issue of eradicating Israel, he is by no means alone in his intention. Every Iranian leader from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on down has expressed a desire to see Israel wiped off the map. Engaging these fanatics in talks that have already failed can only serve to strengthen their commitment to carry out their monstrous, openly acknowledged plans.

What we have here is a full-blown eclipse of rational policy-making with diplomatic fetishism. What Rice, Blair, Baradei, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are all forgetting is that diplomacy is a means and not an end. By engaging the Palestinians and the Iranians, they willfully ignore the fact that if you are not using diplomacy to advance your aims, that diplomacy will be exploited by your antagonist to advance his aims.

If Israel had an even slightly competent government, our leaders would be pointing out the perversity and stupidity of fetish diplomacy. But Israel's government is not even slightly competent. The Olmert-Livni-Peretz government has descended to a level of incoherence that makes it seem like a waste of time to even bother criticizing it. Its moves are transparently motivated by nothing more than a desire to hold onto power for as long as possible.

In light of this abysmal state of affairs, it falls to private individuals to remind the diplomatic fetishists that diplomacy is a means, not an end. If their current policies are played out, the fact that they abjured war and remained faithful to diplomacy will not excuse them when Hamas transforms Gaza, Judea and Samaria into a Taliban state; destabilizes the Jordanian monarchy; and murders thousands of Jews in Israel. Their commitment to diplomacy will not make posterity more forgiving of their failure to prevent a second Holocaust.

You are not being peacemakers when you engage the mullahs and Hamas. You are preparing the ground for a huge conflagration.

Contact Jake Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by The Gathering Storm, February 24, 2007.

This article was written by Jason Frenkel and it appeared February 17, 2007 in Judeoscope
(http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=3191). It appeared February 16, 2007 in the Australian Jewish News (AJN).

AIJAC 'dumps' scholar over Muslim remarks

THE Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) has withdrawn its support for a visiting Israeli expert on Islam who earlier this week urged Australia to cap its intake of Muslim immigrants.

AIJAC executive director Dr Colin Rubenstein issued a statement on Friday distancing the organisation, which has partly sponsored Hebrew University Professor Raphael Israeli's six-week Australian visit, from the academic's claims that "life will become untenable" unless the Muslim population is kept in check.

Professor Israeli said Australia was in danger of being swamped by Muslims -- especially from Indonesia -- and called for a "preventative policy" to protect national security and ensure Muslims remained a "marginal minority".

But Dr Rubenstein rejected Professor Israeli's "implication that the Muslim community as a whole is a threat or danger".

"Islamist extremism is a genuine and serious global problem, but it is completely wrong to single out all Muslims for suspicion or negatively stereotype the Muslim community as a whole in this way."

Dr Rubenstein said AIJAC had censured Professor Israeli over the "unacceptable and unhelpful" remarks, and "will not be co-hosting any of his further appearances in Australia".

Professor Israeli had just begun a stint as a scholar-in-residence at the Shalom Institute in Sydney, where he is teaching a course on "Understanding Islam".

Shalom Institute CEO Hilton Immerman said that while Professor Israeli's views do not necessarily represent those of the Shalom Institute, which "rejects any form of racial stereotyping or ethnic quotas", the course would proceed.

An author of 20 books on the Muslim, Arab and Chinese worlds, he was also scheduled to give talks in Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and New Zealand. However, Dr Rubenstein told the AJN that he was unsure whether the talks would go ahead given that AIJAC had withdrew its support.

In an interview with the AJN, Professor Israeli said radical Islam would not be defeated by a war of words.

"You have to infiltrate all those circles where the Muslim radicals operate, to arrest them, and to limit immigration into western countries where these Muslims, who are bent on destroying western civilisation ... to limit immigration, even students who apply to come from Islamic countries to the West," he said.

"It serves no purpose when you have this home-grown terrorist, who has been preparing for years to blow up undergrounds in London, and all you do is lead a war of words. The war of words doesn't help. There is a whole gamut of actions that are possible in order to check this threat of Islam."

Citing France, where Muslims comprise about nine per cent of the population, as an example, Professor Israeli warned growing Muslim communities could change the political, economic, and cultural fabric of a country.

"You have to adopt some kind of preventative policy. In order not to get there, limit the immigration and therefore you keep them a marginal minority, which will be a nuisance, but cannot pose a threat to the demographic and security aspects of a country."

But Islamic Council of Victoria director Waleed Aly branded the comments "ill-advised and foolish" and said Professor Israeli didn't understand Australia.

"It is clearly possible in the current environment to say things about Muslims that you simply cannot say about anyone else," Aly said.

"The fundamental problem at the heart of this is that he seems to be suggesting that increased marginalisation of Muslim populations will somehow produce something other than mutual resentment. It should be obvious to anyone really that it's doomed to failure."

Officially, there are fewer than 300,000 Muslims in Australia according to the 2001 Census, but Islamic community officials estimate the actual number to be at least 500,000 -- about 2.5 per cent of the population.

"Even though it's so low, they are so vocal, and they make so much noise," Professor Israeli said. "And therefore the situation has to be checked before they increase their numbers, because don't forget in your immediate proximity dwells the largest or most populous Islamic country in the world [Indonesia], and by necessity, there is demographic pressure from there to channel the surplus of populations to wherever it's possible.

"And one of the big possibilities is Australia, so they will continue to come legally, or illegally, and settle here, and when they get to the rate of the 10 per cent like in France, then you will see life will become untenable." He said France might already be at the "point of no return".

"Then they control whole sections of the economy, there are areas in France where you cannot be elected to Parliament without the support of the Muslims and so on. And therefore, by increasing their numbers they start to have an impact on the social, economic, political and cultural nature of the country."

He warned that radical Muslims would find it easier to "melt" into the community and plan terrorist acts without scrutiny from authorities if the growth of Australia's Muslim population was allowed to continue.

"You will have then large concentrations of Muslims, so it's not thousands, it will be millions, and when they become millions it's a big mass where individual Muslims, including terrorists, can melt, and then go look for them.

"In England they already have that problem, they cannot locate them, they cannot sort them out from the general population, and sometimes you have to impose a curfew on a whole area to catch one or two or three terrorists, and by doing that you do an injustice to an entire population, and then they start complaining that they are discriminated against."

Immigrant Muslims had a reputation for manipulating the values of their adopted countries to suit their own ends, he said.

"And that's why Islam has become feared in western countries, which are open, democratic, and tolerant of others. And Muslim populations, which are very often minorities, very often abuse that hospitality and use democracy, openness and tolerance to their benefit, to spread their faith and to intimidate their hosts, and very often, to impose their standards and values upon them."

Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2007/02/015305print.html) posted this comment by Raphael Israeli

I became a celebrity two days after I arrived, and that subsumed all the rest of my activities. When the storm erupted, the dhimmi-like Jewish leadership cancelled all activities, in a shameful submisssion to the Muslim thugs and under the false claims of a "multi-cultural society" in Australia, which they know is not true.

The story is two-sided: I gave an interview and said many harsh words about Islam in Europe, which the reporter extrapolated as applying to Australia too. The other issue is the political correctness which does not allow those things to be said, though privately everyone supports what I said.

In any case, my teaching on Islam stands and it even increased interest in my lectures, but the public lecture tour was cancelled and the Jewish leadership shamefully disowned me instead of standing up for me. I blamed the violence of Muslims in the world (and by implication here) for the troubles they are having, but they chose to accuse the messenger. They apologized to the thugs and brought upon themselves the disgrace of unconditional submission.

They do not want to rock the boat. They are scared to stir things up. The easiest way for them was to sacrifice the guest they invited, thus punishing not me, but the Jewish audiences who need the education for which I was brought here.

I was also struck by the provinciality of the place, where a minor item of gossip about one individual who said something becomes a national issue. I am not the Minister of Immigration. Before me the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Costello have said harsher things after Muslim riots, but someone elected to seize upon this opportunity now and sweep Australia into a storm in a tea-cup.

Contact The Gathering Storm by email at gatheringstorm@mail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daryl Temkin, February 23, 2007.

Nationwide White House Call-In for Jonathan Pollard
White House Telephone Number: 1-202-456-1414

Every call is tallied by subject matter.
Every time you say "Free Jonathan Pollard" it counts!
Take a minute for Jonathan Pollard and call now!
Click here for the facts.

For the last twenty-two years, Jonathan Pollard is a name that has been remembered, forgotten, remembered, and forgotten. In recent days, a rekindled memory is being resurrected for people to once again call out the name, Jonathan Pollard.

Similar to a Simon and Garfunkel lyric which compares the visionary architect Frank Lloyd Wright to generations of other architects, the lyric reads, "Architects may come and architects may go and they never change 'their' point of view", we have now experienced more than two decades of American administrations who promise to modify the Pollard penalty, but these promises have gone unfulfilled. Over the years, how many ranking American officials have convinced Jewish communal leaders that they will reconsider the Pollard decision, that they will correct this excessive punishment which would lead to his release and/or pardon? All those promises were short lived and replaced with claims of secret damaging evidence.

The Pollard case is about a man in his twenties who saw that significant security information which America had promised to supply Israel concerning weapon and troop movements in various Arab countries was being illegally withheld. Pollard's tolerance for the various American officials who made their personal decision to place Israel in greater jeopardy became too painful for him to bear. Pollard made contact with an Israeli who received and then transferred to Israel the copies of the security information which should have been legally given to Israel. This was done in the hope of securing Israel's future safety.

Two decades later, it still is evident that none of the information transferred placed America at risk and no American security agent's identity has been compromised. No one has died or has even been threatened due to Pollard's actions. This was a case of giving information to a friendly nation which was legally entitled to that information. However, it appears that certain American officials decided to prevent Israel from receiving this information which could threaten its security.

In spite of the fact that Israel has remained America's close friend and America was supposed to share this specific information with Israel, Jonathan Pollard did commit a crime. There were other ways that Pollard could have tried to bring attention to the fact that American officials were denying and defying American policy. However, Pollard decided to do what he saw to be most expedient and immediately effective.

A plea bargain was strongly recommended to Jonathan in order to prevent a life imprisonment sentence for this crime. The American justice system was abused, the plea bargain was actually used as an admission of guilt, and the judge maliciously sentenced him to a lifelong imprisonment. This degree of punishment for comparable crime is unprecedented.

Many legal scholars and journalists have researched this case and cannot justify the extreme degree of criminality assigned to Pollard. It would appear that if Pollard was exposed to such top-secrets that twenty-two years later, he would still be considered a "loose canon", a risk threatening the balance of America's security -- everyone knows how ridiculous that is. Many believe that Pollard is kept behind bars because he is capable of testifying to the criminal activities of ranking American officials who up to this point have escaped justice. If this be the case, then, for those people, securing and continuing Pollard's life sentence is not negotiable.

There are unsupported allegations that what Pollard did may have gotten into the hands of the Soviets, and, also, there is an ongoing claim that there is a secret file on Pollard which cannot be released. Investigators remain puzzled as to what could possibly be in that secret file. Some expect that the secret file is so secret that it doesn't even know about itself.

After all the thankless and risk-filled concessions that President Clinton required of Israel, it was understood that when Clinton completed his term of office, he would thank Israel with a last minute pardon for Pollard.

As Clinton made his last minute pardons of significant criminals, the Jewish world waited breathlessly for the name of Jonathan Pollard to be announced. Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton joined the ranks of his predecessors and did nothing.

Clinton left major segments of the Jewish and non-Jewish community in shock because they were mistakenly expecting the President to be a man of courage, a man of his word, and a man who would not be swayed. That omitted Clinton pardon will forever remain a moment of consequential disheartening memory. Once again, Israel was left compromised without the gesture of thanks. And the keys to Jonathan Pollard's cell were once again hidden if not thrown away.

The name Jonathan Pollard would fade from memory as a helpless situation and a cause which few people would keep alive. Except there were some outstanding persons who made it their business to visit Jonathan. Among them, the famed activist, Rabbi Avi Weiss, and the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick, a truth- seeking journalist who writes with wisdom, insight, and passion.

Avi, Caroline, and others who have reported on their visits with Jonathan came away as if they had returned from a ghostly planet. Not because of the shock in seeing and experiencing the oppressive and sparse high security federal prison environment, but because their personal experience with Jonathan was so profound -- as if they were evidently touched and extraordinarily impressed by his intellect.

Since in prison, purportedly Jonathan has devised a breakthrough solution to obstacles in hydrogen technology and alternative fuel advancements. Outstanding scientists have learned from Jonathan's solutions and have reported their amazement with his technological insights and scientific concepts. But it appears more important that Jonathan be kept imprisoned for crimes that few, if any, understand then to allow the world to benefit from the possibility that he may have a solution to an alternative fuel technology.

Now as the eight years of the George Bush administration comes to a close, there is a chance for Mr. Bush to do what his predecessor failed to accomplish. More and more high ranking governmental officials are admitting that there is no longer a legitimate reason for keeping Pollard behind bars. Simply put, it is time to right the wrongs of the past and to bring Jonathan Pollard back into memory and obtain his release.

Rabbi Pesach Lerner has urgently called on all concerned citizens to phone the White House at (202) 456-1414 between 11:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M., EST, and make it known that they support the pardoning of Jonathan Pollard. That's all you need to say to the White House operator.

The ironic and sad dimension of Pollard is that if he had been a dangerous life-threatening terrorist, he most likely would have been released from prison long ago. Its time that our country reclaims its values, stops protecting criminals, and punishes those who really put America's future at stake.

Let us not forget Jonathan Pollard again. Perhaps with enough social outcries, our protest calling for justice will be rewarded. Hopefully, soon, Jonathan Pollard will rejoin our society and justice would regain a humane level.

We need a Frank Lloyd Wright style visionary who will have the courage and ability to take another point of view. Call the White House and spread the word to all your contacts to do the same and perhaps together, we can start "seeing" another point of view.

Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel Education Institute which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews. Contact him at DarylTemkin@Israel-Institute.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hebron Jewish Community, February 23, 2007.

A 15 year old Hebron girl was attacked this morning by an Arab woman, who hit her and threw her glasses to the ground. A Canadian 'anarchist' named Jacob Kornblum also attacked the girl and assisted the Arab attacker to escape. Following issuance of a complaint tonight, the two attackers were arrested by Hebron police for interrogation.

Hebron's leadership demands that the attacking foreigner from Canada, together with other anarchists in Hebron, be immediately deported from Israel. Their provocative activities and incitement against Hebron's Jewish community cause tremendous tension, are dangerous, and could easily lead to bloodshed.

You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 23, 2007.
This was written by Amy Klein, Religion Editor at Jewish Journal

One of the first news stories I covered in Jerusalem 10 years ago was the excavation of holy artifacts by the city. Ultra-Orthodox Jews were protesting the excavations, because they said they were disturbing ancient Jewish graves upon which the entire city was built. It was a common problem and even an old news story in Israel, but it was the first time I witnessed it.

Pairs of police officers picked up Chasidim lying down in front of the bulldozers, carrying each bearded, black-coated man by the shoulders and feet to a waiting van. As the men were carted past me -- struggling, kicking, shouting, even calling me names -- tears came to my eyes. I tried to mask them, furiously writing notes.

"Is this your first time here?" the head of the Israel Antiquities Authority said, more as a statement than a question. He offered me a tissue.

"It's hard to watch," he said.

It was true. The sight of men in uniform dragging religious Jews away provokes a visceral reaction in any Jew: nausea, cramps, tears. It evokes the images of the Holocaust, no matter how dissimilar the situation may be.

Perhaps that's why it's so heart-wrenching to watch the handful of new documentaries covering "the disengagement," as the unilateral evacuation of 8,500 Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip was called, when men and women in uniform marched in to confront, corral and drag away the (mostly religious) settlers. No matter that the uniformed people were Jews, and they weren't taking the settlers to their death but busing them to within Israeli territory. Still the shadows of the Holocaust haunt.

Especially from the perspective of the settlers, who primarily believe their mission -- to settle the Land of Israel and serve as a buffer zone to protect the rest of Israel from destruction -- is a direct response to the horrors of the Holocaust. That is why they are not willing to leave -- or be forced from their homes, and that is why, for many, it is worse that the people in uniform are Jews.

"If you're a Jew, you can't do this!" one of the settlers screams at the police in "Storm of Emotions," one of the two new disengagement documentaries showing at the 22nd Israel Film Festival.

"You look like Nazis!" a woman shouts.

"You obey orders fanatically. You think we're fanatics. You're order fanatics," another says, again evoking the famous German soldier's defense of, "We were just following orders."

But following government orders is what the police and soldiers are doing in Gush Katif, the bloc of 21 Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. Some police don't believe in the evacuation, some don't want to be the ones to evacuate the settlers. Even for those who believe it is the right thing to do -- because they are tired of risking their lives for such a small percentage of the population, or because they think it will bring about peace, or because they don't want Gaza to be part of Israel -- the actual evacuation is a horrible experience.

"Storm of Emotions" is a small picture -- insider, even -- portraying the evacuation from the perspective of the police, who helped the Israel Defense Forces implement the disengagement. The film zeroes in on a few officers (the most interesting is a kippah-wearing Modern Orthodox officer who believes he can ameliorate the situation of his co-religionists but suffers the most slings and arrows of the settlers) and attempts to portray their plight: how they tried to be as gentle as possible, tried to prevent eruptions of violence and tried to evacuate Gush Katif peaceably.

The vérité, television-like "Storm," which was short-listed in the Oscar's documentary feature category, offers a narrow window on the disengagement that sometimes lacks wider context.

"Withdrawal From Gaza," however, presents a fuller picture with broader historical overview. "Withdrawal," also showing at the Israel Film Festival and starting March 23 at the Laemmle Town Center 5 in Encino, is a more polished, feature-like documentary that tells the poignant stories of the settlers -- a doctor, zookeeper, terror victim's widow, American amputee -- shows the stunning and idyllic beauty of Gush Katif beachfront, in addition to providing numbers and facts.

Fact: It was pre-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who decided to settle Gaza in 1967, but as prime minister ordered its evacuation.

Fact: Many of the residents of Gush Katif came from Yamit, the seaport settlement in the southern Gaza Strip that was evacuated in 1982, when Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt.

Fact: By 2005 8,500 settlers lived in Gush Katif, and half left before the evacuation, but another 4,000 came down to support settlers, enacting civil disobedience that led to what might be called the five worst days in Israel's history.

In the hindsight of 18 months, it may seem that the disengagement was always a fait accompli from the moment it was decreed, but what these new disengagement documentaries show is that history is not so simple. (In addition to "Storm" and "Withdrawal," two others Gaza docs received international attention: "Five Days" was boycotted at Edinburgh's festival last summer, because of the war in Lebanon, and "Unsettled," a slick, MTV-like documentary following 20-somethings on both sides, won this year's jury prize at Sundance.)

The documentaries remind us -- even such a short while later -- that despite the results, in the beginning nothing was cut and dried.

For one thing, the settlers did not believe for a moment they would ever have to leave.

"It's my hope that we'll stay here," the religious zookeeper says in "Withdrawal." "We're still waiting for a last-minute miracle."

All the films have the requisite shots of the man in the tallit and tefillin praying on the hills; the women in kerchiefs with their eyes closed, swaying; the groups of teens dancing and singing. It's an awesome -- some might say foolish -- collective faith that the edict would never come to pass.

The settlers believed they could prevent evacuation. Even without a miracle from God -- one which they prayed for vehemently -- they believed in their physical powers: They held sit-ins at synagogues, stood behind barbed-wire on rooftops and linked hands to become human chains in the streets. Together with West Bank settlers clad in orange (color for opposing disengagement), many stood their ground until the end, refusing to walk on the bus, forcing soldiers to drag them there.

"Two weeks from now, I will either be dead or in jail or in hospital, because I'm not just going to walk out of my house and say goodbye," one American said in "Withdrawal."

In July 2005, nobody knew how violent the evacuation would be. Were the settlers armed? How would the army and police remove them? What would happen if they wouldn't go? Would an evacuation be possible?

But in 2007, knowing the ending -- that the settlements were evacuated without much injury or harm -- there is another more pressing question: What has the withdrawal from Gaza wrought?

That's one question the films cannot answer, given that they were made so close to the actual event. Some films end with epigrams telling where the evacuees live, but none can tell us what the long-term effects will be on them -- or their evacuators.

How will their lives be affected? Although disengagement only lasted five days, one thing that all the films make clear is that the disengagement was indeed a "Storm of Emotions" for settlers, as well as soldiers.

The disengagement ruptured Israeli society, unearthing the long-simmering rift between secular and religious, settler and peacenik, as never before in its history.

Whether Israel -- and Israelis -- will recover from this remains the real question for five -- or 10-year anniversary documentaries. Will the Gaza disengagement be a footnote in Israel's tumultuous history, just one of many battles, or will it be, as one of the settlers cries out to the evacuators: "It's a crime that will haunt you the rest of your lives."

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 23, 2007.

At present, terrorists are either assassinated, captured and imprisoned or killed in the act of trying to kill others. The Muslim Terrorists' anti-Semitic hatred of Jews should be defined as anti-Semitic religious Terrorism -- but, it is more than that. It is a state of mind that permits and recommends deadly force.

When we go back in history, we find that Church-taught Jew-hatred was an acceptable, even honorable practice of predatory hunting.

In the Muslim world since Mohammed initiated Islam in the 7th century, Jews (and Christians) were viewed as "Dhimmis" (second-class people) with few rights while living among Muslims.

The Christians considered killing of Jews a "noble" sacrifice to a Jew they call the son of G-d and their Lord. Anti-Semitism, whether practiced by some Christians, Muslims or even by aberrant Jews is nothing less than religious Terrorism and a license to murder Jews. Therefore, if we kill Terrorists who are driven by religion to murder us or try to murder us, why would we desist in killing anti-Semites who either provoke the killing of Jews or who themselves have their hands on the knife, sword, rope or gun that draws Jewish blood?

Why are anti-Semites not made responsible for killing Jews both before and after the deed?

Were not Jews like the "Judenrat", also deserving assassination in their time -- any less than the Gestapo who shot or gassed the Jews?

Anti-Semitism is unlike any other prejudice, given its history of causing the murder of Jews in unlimited numbers for centuries. Why should Christian village priests in their sermons or Muslim village mullahs, calling out from the muezzin, who provoke the local peasantry to rape, pillage and murder Jews, be spared when the ideas in their religions urge others to kill Jews? As I said before, does it make any real difference between the one who provokes or the actual wielder of the knife or gun or gas? Worse yet, why do we behave so passively, like a deer caught in the car headlights who stands frozen, immobile, letting them murder us with impunity?

On March 22, 2004, the crippled, wheelchair-bound master organizer of Terror, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder and head of Hamas, who was dedicated to the murder of Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel, was finally killed in a targeted assassination -- far too late for his victims. Israel killed Yassin after enduring more than three years of continuous Hamas Terrorism. Being wheelchair bound did not minimize his crimes. (1) When Yassin gave orders to kill Jews, was he not one and the same as the Muslim Arab Terrorists who carried out his orders. He was assassinated and rightfully so.

Jewish anti-Semites should not be exempt from retribution when they either assist our mortal enemies in justifying their hatred by provoking them to kill Jews because the Jewish anti-Semite sets the mind of the Terrorists that it is acceptable to kill Jews.

An example of Jews encouraging the enemy is when Jewish Left Liberal women (called: "Machsom" or Women in Black) go to the Army checkpoints. Israeli soldiers are screening Arab Muslim cars and trucks, searching for explosives or other weapons -- all intended to massacre Jews. These Women-in-Black scream at the soldiers who are risking their lives to keep bombs out of Israel's cities. These women give encouragement to the enemy and, thereby, assist in the murder of their fellow Jews.

Americans are presently hunting Terrorists in many parts of the world. Sometimes they kill them with a sniper shot; sometimes with a remote controlled UAV, firing a Hell-fire missile; sometimes in a full scale battle. Why do they kill Terrorists? Simply because Terrorists have killed Americans and others as in 9/11? The blowing up of 3 American Consulates in Africa and Lebanon as well as the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983? The USS Cole? Road-side bombs, suicide bombers, sniper drive-by shootings, suicide bombers? And other Terror attacks in London 7/7, Madrid 3/11, Breslan 9/1, in Bombay 7/11, in Thailand 1/04-2/18 & 19/07?

In other words the killing or the provoking of the killing of Americans and others is sufficient reason to hunt and kill our adversaries. Why are Jews not accorded the same privilege in protecting their families in the Land of our forefathers? If Americans find sufficient reason to conduct summary executions, as surgically targeted assassinations for known Terrorists and their leaders, why should Jews hesitate to similarly execute their pursuers?

Anti-Americanism (when accompanied by deadly force) is equal to anti-Semitism (when accompanied by the will to murder). Granted the murder of Jews has gone on far longer than the nation of America even existed. But now, Islam has America (and all the Free West) in its sights. The killing of Americans will ramp up, accumulating its own history of being a target with no other reason than America and Americans are nonbelievers in Islam. Killing such deadly adversaries seems entirely reasonable and justified to the Terrorists motivated by their religion.

We Jews have been hounded, murdered, raped, disposed of what we owned for a few thousand years. In ancient times, we fought our adversaries on the fields of battle until we were dispersed by the Roman legions and became a fractional minority who could no longer fight with our diminished numbers. As a minority, we became unfair game for Jew-haters in distant lands.

Now time has passed and we Jews have returned to our ancient homeland. Regrettably, our enemies still wish to drink our blood -- as they often say. Now we can assassinate their leaders and kill their Terrorists. But, anti-Semite Jew-hatred still prevails. The European nations who have killed us for centuries now wish to make common cause with the Muslims who also wish to see us dead and gone. We even have a sizeable collection of Jewish anti-Semites who share their goals, that of eliminating the only Jewish nation on this planet.

If Americans can eliminate their enemies, why can't the Jews adopt this Biblical credo of an eye for an eye, etc.?

Let us ponder this solution for whatever race, religion, etc. that pursue us. If we are to be hunted like animals, then let us be as lions, bears, sharks and turn our skills against our adversaries. We tried making peace and living with them, but they refused to accept peace. We have no choice left. "Ein Breira!"

Anti-Semitism is not merely a temporary attack such as when the Turks committed Genocide on their Armenian population. After they butchered over a million Armenians, they stopped. Not so, the enemies of the Jews. No matter how long they hunt and kill us, no matter how great the numbers they kill, they continue the hunt. They gather in hate-filled organizations, usually with a title and a theme telling themselves and others that they do not hate the Jews per se but, just some of the things we do.

Some of the most scurrilous hate-filled institutions are manned by anti-Semitic Jews. Their hatred is even more bizarre and palpable than that of Gentile nations, given that they too are hunted in the end. The Jewish anti-Semites know this but, a pathological anti-Jewish worm in their minds drives them on, even if they themselves might die because they encouraged the Religious Terrorists.

Such anti-Semitism may be likened to something like the Ebola Virus that makes the body's organs liquify and the patient's immune system simply fails. Modern medicine tries to fortify the immune system and kill off the virus but nothing stops anti-Semitism other than killing the virus -- permanently and world-wide.

In closing, it is worthwhile to review the ancient laws of Torah as given in Parasha Mishpatim in Chapter 21 of Shmot (Exodus) in the Tanach (Bible): The Parasha (Torah portion of the week) Mishpatim speaks of penalties within the laws of Torah when men are held responsible for various injuries unto deaths they have caused, as follows.

For example, "One who strikes a man who dies shall surely be put to death. If a man shall act intentionally against his fellow to kill him with guile, from My Alter shall you take him to die." (Vs. 12-14)

The Parasha goes on to speak that "when there is a fatality, you shall award a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." (Vs. 23-25)

Clearly this is a well thought-out judgement for men to live by, assuming they live by any law whatsoever. Men be they -- Gentile or Jewish -- certainly need the above laws to control their murderous passions. Perhaps we have waited far too long to apply that Law.

What do you do when there is not a real Jew in the Israeli Government?

What do you do when the entire Israeli Government meets the criteria of anti-Semites?

For American who are just getting a taste of Religious Terrorism which Jews have had to experience for thousands of years, perhaps you will begin to understand why Religious Terrorists deserve summary execution!:

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, 10/23/83

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of Khobar Towers, U.S. Barracks Saudi Arabia, 6/25/88

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of PanAm Flight 103, 12/21/88

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 2/26/93

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of U.S. Embassies-Nairobi & Dar es Salaam, Africa, 8/10/98

REMEMBER the MUSLIM attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon & (probably) the White House or Congress on 9/11/01 which killed 3,000 people.

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombings in Madrid 3/11/04

REMEMBER the MUSLIM murders of at least 368, ½ children in Beslan, Russia 9/1/04

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombings on 4 commuter trains & buses in London 7/7/06 (7/7 is a multiple of 11) killing 52, injuring 700 commuters

REMEMBER the MUSLIM nearly simultaneous bombings of 7 commuter trains and stations on 7/11/06 in Mumbai (Bombay) India -- killing at least 180, wounding as many as 450.

REMEMBER the MUSLIM 54 bomb and arson attacks in Thailand from January 2004 to 2/18 &19/07 killing more than 2000. `

REMEMBER all the AMERICANS and others whose lives were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks.

This is only a fraction of what the War of Civilizations by Muslims against all non-believers has produced so far and it is ALL Religious Terrorism. Only when we grasp that salient fact, will we in the Free West be able to conquer, control or combat it so we can all live in real peace.


1. "The Targeted Killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" by Jonathan L. Snow Foundation for Defending Democracy March 26, 2004

2. "Chumash" (Five Books of Moses in Tanach) Stone Edition "Shmot" (Exodus) Chapter 21: vs12-14 & vs. 23-25

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 23, 2007.
This was written by William P. Welty and it appeared today in Arutz-7

[How is it that only the Israelis know that World War III started on September 11, 2001?]

Sooner or later it was bound to happen ? Jihad would come to the United States. (Not that it hasn't been here since the Oklahoma City bombing, mind you.) And by this statement, I don't mean attacks on America's infrastructure, such as the assault on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the apparent attempted assault on the White House that occurred on 11 September 2001. No. I'm thinking of something much more simple than elaborate plans to fly commercial aircraft into buildings. I'm thinking of something as simple as the murder of a Jew by a Muslim. In Houston, Texas, no less.

The Muslim man has confessed to the crime, which his own roommate witnessed as a near decapitation of the Jewish victim.

Amazingly, the press is reporting that Houston police say they don't have a clue as to why he did it.

Honest, I'm not making this up...

The story made the January 12 edition of the Houston Chronicle and www.WorldNetDaily.com on January 13. According to the details of the reports, killer Mohammed Ali Alayed, a Saudi Arabian national, was in the US on a student visa when he slashed the throat of Ariel Sellouk, the son of Moroccan Jewish immigrants to the United States and a personal friend. Alayed "went to a local mosque after the killing."

I called the Houston Chronicle's Andrew Tilghman, who is assigned to the paper's Court House Bureau, to discuss the matter. Mr. Tilghman wrote the Chronicle story on the slaying. We discussed the puzzling statement that appears in paragraph three of the World Net Daily story, concerning the Houston Police Department's alleged inability to attribute religious motives to the slaying, despite the "religious reawakening" of Alayed to a "conservative, Islamic lifestyle".

Does one light a candle to see the sun?

It turns out, according to my interview with Tilghman, that the prosecutors chose not to pursue hate crime indictments because by doing so, the prosecutors risked complicating the case.

"Does it really matter why Alayed murdered Mr. Sellouk?" mused Mr. Tilghman during our conversation.

Good point, Andrew.

I concluded my conversation with Mr. Tilghman by suggesting to him that I'd attempt to send him a list of other Islam-motivated murders that have taken place within the borders of the United States of America since the Oklahoma City bombing. I didn't bother to mention that I won't count the 2,800 Islam-motivated murders that took place in the United States on 11 September 2001.

After all, as President Dubya points out, Islam is a religion of peace.

Concluding Thoughts

We are Dar al-Harb[*] ? and proud of it.

[*] Dar al-Harb: The Domain at War: Territory under the hegemony of unbelievers, which is on terms of active or potential belligerency with the Domain of Islam... ( Glossary of Islamic Terms by Muhammad Ishaq Zahid; Copyright © 1998-1999 by The Sabr Foundation.)

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 23, 2007.

The increasing blame on Israel for problems in the PA, the mounting pressure from Russia and now British Prime Minister Tony Blair willingness to deal with Hamas, one can-should understand how demented and dangerous the world is... Now Jews are defined as a "race," and Israeli army is guilty of terror worse than that of Arab terrorists... many of the United Nations' members are simply pathetically useless and the organization itself is dangerous to the world!

With stopping the flow of funds, the USA [and somewhat Israel] has the tools to stop much of the cyclical madness, which unfortunately she chooses not to do!

This article was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu; it appeared in Arutz-Sheva and is archived at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121662#replies

(IsraelNN.com) The United Nations, Russia, Arab states and the media have escalated an international broadside against Israel while touting the Hamas-Fatah coalition.

A report by the U.N. Human Rights Council has provided the background for the Arab position, backed by Russia, that the Western-led economic boycott of Hamas must be lifted in order to fight poverty in the Gaza area.

The council report was commissioned to John Dugard, who formerly campaigned against South Africa apartheid and who concluded that the racist policy is similar to that of Israel. He defined Jews as a "race" and charged that the Israeli army is guilty of terror worse than that of Arab terrorists. Dugard's draft is to be published next month in a full report by the U.N.

Dugard wrote that "Israel's laws and practices in the [Palestinian Authority (PA)] certainly resemble aspects of apartheid. Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group, Jews, over another racial group, Palestinians, and systematically oppress them?"

The report accuses Israel of terror by flying jets that set off sonic booms, forcing "residents to live in fear of settler terror." Dugard also alleges that Israel still is "occupying" the Gaza region despite the expulsion of Jewish residents from their communities and the handover of the land to the PA. "Gaza became a sealed off, imprisoned and occupied territory," he wrote.

He cited Arabs for committing war crimes by attacking Israel with Kassam rockets, but added that the IDF has "committed such crimes on a much greater scale."

U.N. Report Ignores Economic Aid to PA

Media throughout the world have headlined the report's assertion that Israeli "restrictions on trade and movement" have created conditions where "the poorest families are now living a meager existence totally reliant on assistance, with no electricity or heating and eating food prepared with water from bad sources."

The report's timing "is especially sensitive, coming to light after both Israel and the U.S. indicated that they will maintain the boycott after the planned Fatah-Hamas coalition cabinet takes office unless it clearly commits itself to recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and adherence to previous agreements with Israel," noted the London Independent.

The report ignores aid that has been redirected through the offices of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in order to bypass Hamas, leaving the PA as one of the world's largest recipients of foreign economic aid. The International Monetary Fund (International Monetary Fund (IMF) has reported that the PA received $709 million in aid in 2006, double the amount received in 2005.

The aid figures do not include hundreds of millions of dollars invested by various U.N. agencies in Gaza.

In addition, Hamas leaders have smuggled more than $60 million into Gaza.

Another report by a U.N. agency and published by Reuters News Agency blames Israel's attack on Gaza's "only power station" for leaving the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" without electricity. However, Dugard does not mention that Israel's Ashkelon power plant also provides electricity to many PA residents.

Britain To Deal with 'Moderate' Hamas Elements

The increasing blame on Israel for problems in the PA, along with the mounting pressure from Russia have contributed to a change in the policy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has indicated he is prepared to deal with Hamas.

"It is far easier to deal with the situation in Palestine if there is a national unity government," he said. "I hope we can make progress, including even with the more sensible elements of Hamas."

The United States has been the staunchest opponent of lifting the sanctions against Hamas, but American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has conceded that Abbas out-maneuvered Israel by collaborating with Hamas to form a unity government, which she stated has made the situation "more complicated."

The result was a meeting this week between her, Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, that analysts agreed was an exercise in rhetoric, although the conversation included angry shouts between the Israeli and PA leaders.

Mashaal To Visit Moscow

The Quartet so far has insisted Hamas meet international demands, but the terrorist organization continues to drum up international support, starting with Russia, one of the members of the Quartet. Syrian-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal is scheduled to visit Moscow from Sunday to Tuesday, as Moscow continues to ignore Israeli pleas that international powers not conduct talks with leaders of the Hamas organization.

Abbas, the leader of the Fatah movement, has been courting European nations, claiming that the unity government is committed to meeting international conditions even though Hamas explicitly refuses to do so. Fatah has paid lip-service to the conditions, but terrorist attacks by Fatah terrorists continue almost daily. Abbas also has conditioned his "recognition of Israel' on demands, which every recent Israeli government has categorically stated are unreasonable.

Abbas has said a Jewish state could be recognized only after Jerusalem becomes the capital of a new Arab country and millions of Arabs in foreign countries are allowed to live in Israel.

Abbas's problem is that "Hamas is considered to be more powerful than Fatah," according to Turi Munthe, associate fellow at the Royal United Service Institute in London.

Muslim States Pressuring Quartet

A group of 57 Muslim countries meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia has agreed to step up pressure and try to force the Quartet to lift the economic sanctions against Hamas. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) also continues to accuse Israel of endangering the Al Aksa mosque by conducting archaeological operations near the Temple Mount.

"In light of the positive developments in Palestine and formation of the national unity government, the international embargo against Palestinians has no justification," said Ekmel Al Deen Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC.

He called on the Arab countries, including oil-rich kingdoms, to provide financial and moral support to Jerusalem Arabs and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 23, 2007.

This article is called "An Upside-Down World" and it was written by Nick Cohen. It appeared February 23, 2007 in Wall Street Journal
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117220083341716983.html). Mr. Cohen, a columnist for the Observer and the New Statesman, is the author of What's Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way (Fourth Estate, 2007).

LONDON -- The other day Ken Livingstone, the mayor of my hometown of London, organized a conference on Islam and the West. It was a carefully rigged affair in which handpicked speaker after handpicked speaker stood up and announced that the democracies were to blame for the tidal wave of murder sweeping the world. To provide a spurious air of balance, the organizers invited a few people who dissented from the line of the Muslim Brotherhood and its British allies. Agn.s Poirier, a French feminist, was one of them, but she pulled out because although there were no special facilities for Christians, Hindus and Jews, Mr. Livingstone had provided separate prayer rooms for Muslim men and Muslim women.

She wanted to know: Does Ken Livingstone's idea of multiculturalism acknowledge and condone segregation? It clearly does, but what made this vignette of ethnic politics in a European city worth noting is that commentators for the BBC and nearly every newspaper here describe Mr. Livingstone as one of the most left-wing politicians in British public life. Hardly any of them notices the weirdness of an apparent socialist pandering to a reactionary strain of Islam, pushing its arguments and accepting its dictates.

Mr. Livingstone's not alone. After suicide bombers massacred Londoners on July 7, 2005, leftish rather than conservative papers held British foreign policy responsible for the slaughters on the transport network. ("Blair's Bombs," ran the headline in my own leftish New Statesman.) In any university, you are more likely to hear campaigns for the rights of Muslim women derided by postmodernists than by crusty conservative dons. Our Stop the War coalition is an alliance of the white far left and the Islamist far right, and George Galloway, its leader, and the first allegedly "far left" MP to be elected to the British parliament in 50 years, is an admirer of Saddam Hussein and Hezbollah.

I could go on with specific examples, but the crucial point is the pervasive European attitude to the Iraq catastrophe. As al Qaeda, the Baathists and Shiite Islamists slaughter thousands, there is virtually no sense that their successes are our defeats. Iraqi socialists and trade unionists I know are close to despair. They turn for support to Europe, the home of liberalism, feminism and socialism, and find that rich democrats, liberals and feminists won't help them or even acknowledge their existence.

There were plenty of leftish people in the 20th century who excused communism, but they could at least say that communism was a left-wing idea. Now overwhelmingly and everywhere you find people who scream their heads off about the smallest sexist or racist remark, yet refuse to confront ultra-reactionary movements that explicitly reject every principle they profess to hold.

Why is the world upside down? In part, it is a measure of President Bush's failure that anti-Americanism has swept out of the intelligentsia and become mainstream in Britain. A country that was once the most pro-American in Western Europe now derides Tony Blair for sticking with the Atlantic alliance. But if Iraq has pummeled Mr. Blair's reputation, it has also shone a very harsh light on the British and European left. No one noticed it when the Berlin Wall came down, but the death of socialism gave people who called themselves "left wing" a paradoxical advantage. They no longer had a practical program they needed to defend and could go along with ultra-right movements that would once have been taboo. In moments of crisis, otherwise sane liberals will turn to these movements and be reassured by the professed leftism of the protest organizers that they are not making a nonsense of their beliefs.

If, that is, they have strong beliefs to abandon. In Europe and North America extreme versions of multiculturalism and identity politics have left a poisonous legacy. Far too many liberal-minded people think that is somehow culturally imperialist to criticize reactionary movements and ideas -- as long as they aren't European or American reactionary movements. This delusion is everywhere. Until very recently our Labour government was allowing its dealings with Britain's Muslim minority to be controlled by an unelected group, the Muslim Council of Britain, which stood for everything social democrats were against. In their desperate attempts to ingratiate themselves, ministers gave its leader a knighthood -- even though he had said that "death was too good" for Salman Rushdie, who happens to be a British citizen as well as a great novelist.

Beyond the contortions and betrayals of liberal and leftish thinking lies a simple emotion that I don't believe Americans take account of: an insidious fear that has produced the ideal conditions for appeasement. Radical Islam does worry Europeans but we are trying to prevent an explosion by going along with Islamist victimhood. We blame ourselves for the Islamist rage, in the hope that our admission of guilt will pacify our enemies. We are scared, but not scared enough to take a stand.

I hope conservative American readers come to Britain. But if you do, expect to find an upside-down world. People who call themselves liberals or leftists will argue with you, and when they have finished you may experience the strange realization that they have become far more reactionary than you have ever been.

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 or write him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Matthew S. Finberg, February 22, 2007.

Americans For A Safe Israel is proposing a very nice collective action to pray for the rectification of Medinat Yisrael in its approach to Yesha (see below). I commute back and forth between Boulder, Colorado where my law offices are and Givat HaYovel (where I really live), #1 on the Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) hit parade for destruction. Even though we are within the legal boundaries of Eli and directly next to Shilo and the site of the Mishkan (Tabernacle), the Supreme Court will be hearing the eviction case March 7.

We read in the Torah a few weeks ago that Moshe prayed with all his strength for Divine intervention at bank of the Sea of Reeds when the Egyptians were in hot pursuit of Am Yisrael. To paraphrase HaShem, he said Moshe, what are you doing? There is a time for prayer and a time for action; this is a time for action. Moshe looked up and saw Nachshon walking into the sea, with complete bitachon, until the water reached his nostrils. HaShem then split the Sea providing safe passage to our People.

With all due respect and thanks to AFSI for its current program and consistent support for the Land and People of Yesha, THIS IS A TIME FOR ACTION!

Come Home! Prayer is always good, but we need you. If you can make Aliyah, do so now and settle in the threatened communities (many of which are listed below in the AFSI announcement). If you cannot make Aliyah now, rent a house, townhouse, or caravan (they are very inexpensive by American standards) and come and stay as often as possible for as long as possible. I will help you do this if you would like my assistance. BECOME A FACT ON THE GROUND! BE NACHSHON!

Your action may be the tipping point which will save Eretz Yisrael from the despicable plans of those in power who seek to dismantle Her.

With love of Israel,
Matthew S. Finberg

Contact Matthew Finberg by email at matt@finberglaw.com

To Go To Top

A MITZVAH RABBA: The Plight of Jonathan Pollard
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, February 22, 2007.

This was written by Rabbi Aryeh Zev Ginzberg and appeared February 2007 in The Jewish Observer Magazine. Rabbi Ginzberg, founding rav of Ohr Moshe Torah Institute in Hillcrest, NY, is currently rav of the Chofetz Chaim Torah Center of Cedarhurst (Long Island), New York. He is a frequent contributor to the Jewish Observer.

[J4JP Note Re Hebrew Terminology: The Jewish Observer Magazine, where this article originally appeared, is geared towards an audience which is largely familiar with the Hebrew terminology that appears scattered throughout. To assist readers unfamiliar with the terminology, J4JP has added a Lexicon below.]

It is human nature to pursue the big score. The three million dollar lotto jackpot doesn't attract much attention. By contrast, the powerball 100 million dollar jackpot finds people standing on long lines for a chance (slim as it may be) for the big score.

Mitzvos (lehavdil elef havdalos) are no different. The seemingly small mitzvos are performed without passion or excitement. The "big mitzvos," the ones that one may think offer the greatest reward, should really draw attention. The problem is, however, that the Mishna in Pirkei Avos teaches that we have to treat all mitzvos alike, for we do not know which are considered "big" or "small" mitzvos.

Yet there is one mitzvah that transcends this Mishna, one that Chazal refer to as a " mitzvah rabba," and that is the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim -- gaining release for captives.

The Gemara relates how Ifra Hurmiz, who was the mother of the king, once threw a pouch filled with gold coins before Rav Yoseif and told him, "Use it for a mitzvah rabba." Rav Yoseif pondered what could be characterized as a mitzvah rabba, and concluded that pidyon shevuyim is just such a mitzvah (Bava Basra 8a)... The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'tenas Aniyim 8:10) explains that there is no greater mitzvah than redeeming captives, and that this duty takes priority over even feeding or clothing the poor. Chazal explain that being held captive is considered worse than hunger and death, because it encompasses everything... In fact, Ginas Veradim (Yoreh Dei'a 3:10) explains that while there is much discussion in the poskim whether pidyon shevuyim is part of the mitzvah of tzeddaka or is in a category all by itself, most opinions view it as part of tzeddaka.

Our sefarim are replete with stories about our gedolim and the great efforts they exerted to perform this mitzvah. (See Sefer Yalkut Lekach Tov, Parashas Shelach, page 127, which relates how Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik zt" l of Brisk traveled on Yom Kippur in an attempt to fulfill the mitzvah, even though it was very unlikely that he would succeed in his efforts.)

Chizuk: To Give and to Gain

I've long contemplated visiting Jonathan Pollard. I had come across a press release reporting that Pollard, very ill, was about to "celebrate" his twenty-second year in jail. I reached out to Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Executive Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel, who has distinguished himself by supporting Jonathan Pollard in a myriad of ways for the last decade or more, and asked him to arrange for me a visit with Pollard... The day arrived.

While not usually at a loss for words, I wondered: how does one offer verbal chizuk to someone who has endured, is enduring, and is destined to continue to endure the shiva medurei Geihinnom (seven levels of Geihinnom) each and every day? His first seven years were spent in the infamous maximum security facility, the USP Marion, including four years in solitary confinement, several levels below ground. [J4JP: Jonathan spent most of the first 7 years in solitary confinement, not 4 years!] Then, in 1993, he was transferred to the Butner Federal Correctional Facility near Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, where he remains today.

I agonized for nothing. I traveled to Butner to give chizuk and instead received chizuk. Jonathan Pollard is an amazing individual with an insatiable appetite for life. He is strong and upbeat despite his predicament, and has an unimaginable level of bitachon.

To live and walk around in a place that is home to some of "the worst violent criminals in the United States" with a yarmulka on his head and tzitzis on his body is not only unbelievable, it is heroic. His pride in being a Jew and his love for Eretz Yisroel are simply inspiring.

He shared with me his close personal relationship with the late, unforgettable Torah leader, Rabbi Moshe Sherer z"l, who, for a period, spoke to him on the telephone very often. When Jonathan called, Rabbi Sherer always took the telephone. Rabbi Sherer once said to him, "Jonathan, I want you to promise me three things. You will keep Shabbos, eat only kosher, and never grow to hate Hakadosh Baruch Hu, despite whatever happens to you."

I asked Jonathan Pollard, "If Rabbi Sherer were to walk into this room right now, what would you say to him?"

He paused for a moment, then smiled and said, "I would say, 'Rabbi Sherer, I kept my promise to you on all three.'"

I asked him to describe his daily routine and what life is like in a place surrounded by barbed wire, electronic iron gates and thousands of hardened criminals responsible for every and any type of violent crime imaginable (and unimaginable). He did so with remarkable detail. Most of what he said is too horrific to describe. I will limit myself to the details of his life that he shared with me. His cell door is unlocked at night. Every night, before going to sleep, he places a contraption of sorts on top of the door, so that if someone would enter, the booby trap would fall to the floor, and the noise would awaken him, and he would hopefully avoid having his throat slit in his sleep.

It is impossible to imagine what it is like to be on guard for your very life seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day for one week, let alone for an incomprehensible twenty-two years. Jonathan Pollard does not have to imagine it, for he lives with it each and every day of his life.

Keeping the Promises

I asked him how he manages to fulfill the three promises he made to Rabbi Sherer years ago in this place that the inmates refer to as "hell on earth." He explained each point with clarity and commitment, reflecting great courage.

Being a person of superior intellect (as is obvious after just a few minutes of conversation), he was selected to head the administration in the prison factory where many of the inmates work each day. That type of work (the most respectable job in the institution), however, would not allow him to avoid chillul Shabbos and Yom Tov, and would also force him to interact with the fellow inmates on a regular basis. He therefore had himself switched to the degrading job of cleaning latrines and toilets several times a day, each and every day. This difficult, backbreaking job could sink any man's spirits, especially someone of superior intelligence. Yet, to Pollard, it represents a victory, as it reduces the possibility of violating Shabbos, and allows him the solitude to daven (as he does every day), and carry on Jewish living to the best of his ability under those circumstances.

His adherence to kashrus (his second promise) has not come without a huge price tag. Subsisting on canned tuna and sardines for so many years has caused his body to have a dangerously high mercury level that has resulted in a severe blood pressure problem, a heart condition, and a host of other maladies that have brought his health to a very precarious state. Not only are there no complaints, but he also views this as another small victory against his detractors.

His third promise is the most difficult one. For a man who has suffered so much for more than two decades, and is totally ignored by the country that he attempted to help, to remain steadfast in his emuna and bitachon is truly a heroic feat of epic proportions.

He explained how he does so with three different deep and heartfelt thoughts, expressed in different parts of our four-hour conversation. At first he said, "I promised myself at the beginning of this nightmare that I would come out the same way I came in." Then he added, "I love my land, Eretz Yisroel, and I love my wife more than my enemies hate me." Finally, toward the end of our conversation, he made the following bold explanation: "I don't represent myself. I represent all Jews. Our enemies are watching me to see if they can break me. For that alone I must remain strong. I must stay strong in my emuna and bitachon to show the world what Klal Yisroel is all about."

Pollard's Motivation

What motivated Pollard to do what he did? One can gain an insight from several articles published years ago that reported a conversation that Pollard had with his supervisors in the U.S. Department of Naval Affairs. He asked them why information about the poison gas capabilities of Israel's sworn enemies was being withheld from Israel. He was reportedly told, "Jews are too sensitive about gas."

Did the information he conveyed to Israel help them? In 1998, William Northrop, the Middle East Bureau Chief for New Dimensions, wrote that Israeli intelligence experts called him "the ghost of the sealed rooms," for it was largely due to his efforts and sacrifice that they were prepared when Saddam launched El-Abed, the Iraqi missile, at Israel in January of 1991.

This author has no intention of discussing the pros or cons of Pollard's actions and whether they were halachically permitted or not. We will leave that to the beis hamidrash. The purpose of this article is to focus on what the Torah community has done (or has not done) for Pollard in the past, what it is currently doing (or not doing), and what we must do in the future. We as a community have neglected him long enough.

In 1993, a kol korei (public proclamation) was issued calling for Klal Yisroel to do its utmost for Pollard, and it was signed by no less than thirty gedolim from a broad range of kehillos. Since that kol korei was issued, the major response has been one of silence. Jonathan Pollard constantly questions his visitors regarding the lack of voices from the Torah community. "What happened to the kol korei of a decade ago?" he asks.

Response to the Kol Korei

It may be of no surprise that secular Jews throughout the world have ignored the Pollard story, both on an individual and an organizational basis. In fact, just six days after he received his life sentence, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations sent a letter dated March 10, 1987 to the United States State Department, promising to never interfere on Pollard's behalf. We have not galvanized and organized ourselves after the issuance of the kol korei in 1993. We should be asking ourselves the question that Jonathan Pollard asks.

In my address at Shalosh Seudos at the recent National Convention of Agudath Israel held in Stamford, CT on Thanksgiving weekend, I posed this question to the esteemed assemblage that included rabbinical leaders, lay people, and hundreds of wonderful Jews. All had the same two reactions: We were not aware of this. To the contrary, what can we do?

What is it about the Pollard issue that prevents people from getting involved? I decided to find out, and I selected ten rabbinical leaders and, with a sense of respect, asked each of them why they hadn't taken any initiatives on the matter. Let me share briefly a sampling of their thoughts, with some comments.

Some felt that every legal option had been pursued, and had failed. With the U.S. Supreme Court confirming the life sentence,[J4JP: the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It did not confirm the sentence. It ignored it!] it is really a hopeless situation. I offered an insight from the Zohar that says that there was a criticism directed at Avraham Avinu for not continuing to daven for the people of Sodom, even after being told by Hakadosh Baruch Hu that there were not ten righteous people in the city. And even though Avraham understood that according to midas hadin (strict justice), the city was to be destroyed, he should have davened anyway... Even though the legal situation clearly looks hopeless, the Zohar instructs us that we must continue to try.

Several others pointed out that efforts were made, and after so many failures, one becomes fatigued. While that is understandable, Jews should never give up.

When a person loses his energy, his entire perspective and even his way of life suffers... and sometimes, even his entire destiny. This, too, is to be found in the Torah's description of Bnei Yisroel in their battle with Amaleik. It says "ve'atta ayeif veyageia -- and you were tired and fatigued." This implies that if Bnei Yisroel permit an ayeif state to take hold of them, then and only then can Amaleik overtake them. Being tired or even exhausted from previous efforts on Pollard's behalf should not be permitted to take its toll on us. We must redouble our efforts as he begins his twenty-second year in Geihinnom.

And finally, one rav suggested that some people are not aware of Pollard's religious dedication. They judge him by his physical demeanor, such as his long, shoulder-length hair. I shared with him an incident involving the late Satmar Rebbe zt"l

The Rebbe felt greatly indebted to the late Agudah leader, Reb Elimelech Tress l"z, for having saved him from the inferno in Europe. When Mr. Tress passed away, the Satmar Rebbe came to the levaya and also paid a shiva call to his family.

One Chassid remarked to the Rebbe, "Why do you show Mike Tress so much honor when he didn't have a beard?"

The Rebbe replied, "I know that he didn't have a beard, and in the next world they are going to ask him, 'Jew, Jew, where is your beard?' But do you know what they are going to say to you? They will say 'Beard, beard, where is your Jew?'"

Jonathan Pollard has given his freedom, career, health, future and very life for Klal Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. Who among us, with our finely trimmed hair, can make a similar claim?

Consulting Gedolei Eretz Yisroel

The day after the Agudah Convention, I flew to Eretz Yisroel to present this issue to the senior poseik and Torah authority, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita, and for his position as to our communal responsibility to focus our efforts on freeing Pollard. I was zocheh to spend a considerable amount of time with Rabbi Elyashiv in his home on Wednesday, November 29th, 2006.

Rabbi Elyashiv showed great interest in the case, and when he heard that I visited with Pollard just a few weeks ago, he questioned me in great detail about his health, state of mind, and level of commitment to mitzvos. He commented that although Pollard is being held captive because he committed a crime, his long and difficult sentence is not in line with his crime. Clearly, at this stage, he is being penalized because he is a Jew. Add to that the long period of his suffering -- now 22 years. It is clearly a chessed gadol -- a great act of compassion -- to do whatever we can do for him.

When I asked if I could quote him that this is indeed a "chessed gadol," he said, "No." He then quickly continued, "What you can say in my name is that it is a 'chessed gadol me'od -- an extremely great act of compassion.'" Rabbi Elyashiv then concluded with a beracha that all who involve themselves in this mitzvah be zocheh to all the berachos of "osei mitzvos." (Rabbi Aryeh Elyashiv shlita, grandson and confidante of the Rav, was present during this conversation.)

Should we initiate a massive letter-writing campaign throughout the community, and in all the yeshivos and Bais Yaakovs, to our senators and congressmen? For this, we turn to the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah (Council of Torah Sages) of Agudath Israel of America for guidance as to the proper course of action. Since this writing, the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah has met on this matter, and issued the statement that appears on the facing page. [J4JP: See http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/020507.jpg ]

One thing is obvious. We must do whatever we can. Not only for the sake of Jonathan Pollard. Klal Yisroel is currently in a very difficult situation. How much do we all need the individual and collective zechus of a mitzvah rabba!

[For more information on the Pollard case, one can visit the website www.jonathanpollard.org, or call the National Council of Young Israel office (212) 929-1525 ext. 115, or e-mail Rabbi Pesach Lerner at plerner@youngisrael.org.]

To assist Jonathan Pollard and enable him to buy the food items he desperately needs from the prison canteen, and enable him to pay for the phone calls he needs to make, etc, etc. contributions can be sent to Young Israel Charities, 111 John Street, suite 450, New York, NY 10038, att: Pollard.


Here are the approximate meanings in English of some of the Hebrew words in the above article:

Mitzvah: commandment; an obligatory divinely ordained imperative

Mitzvah Rabba: an exceptionally great mitzvah

(lehavdil elef havdalos): to make clear distinction

Geihinnom: Hell

Pirkei Avos: Ethics of the Fathers

Chazal: Our Sages of Blessed Memory

Chessed: a mitzvah to perform; an act of lovingkindness

Sefarim: religious books; holy books

Gedolim: Sages; Great Leaders

pidyon shevuyim: the mitzvah of redeeming a captive

chizuk: strength and encouragement; moral support

emunah: faith in G-d; belief in G-d

bitachon: trust in G-d; reliance upon G-d

Klal Yisroel: the Jewish People

Yarmulke: Kipa

Tzitzis: ritual fringes

Chillul Shabbat: desecration of the Sabbath

Daven: Pray

Hakadosh Baruch Hu: The Holy One Blessed Be He

Beis Hamidrash: Jewish study hall

Kehillos: communities

To be zocheh to all the berachos of osei mitzvos: to merit all the blessings that accrue to those who perform mitzvos.

Zechus: merit

Contact Justice For Jonathan Pollard by email at justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 22, 2007.
[Editor's Note:

From the Department of Justice


BROOKLYN, NY -- A U.S. Army contract translator pleaded guilty today in federal court in Brooklyn to illegally possessing national defense documents. The defendant, whose true name and identity remains unknown, was indicted on March 30, 2006, following an investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force ("JTTF"). Previously, in November 2005, the defendant was indicted for using a false identity to procure his United States citizenship and to gain access to classified military materials, and he pleaded guilty to those charges on Dec. 20, 2005. When sentenced by United States District Judge Edward R. Korman, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of 60 years of imprisonment on his two convictions.

This article was written by Jerry Gordon, a member of the Board of the American Congress for Truth and its Middle East Affairs analyst.

In the U.S. Eastern District Court in Brooklyn on Valentine's Day a Muslim and naturalized American citizen with five different aliases -- stretching from Mauritania to Morocco to Lebanon -- pled guilty to a charge of illegally possessing classified documents and was sentenced to 13 years, according to a report in the New York Sun. A light sentence for committing espionage and passing classified documents to Iraqi Sunni insurgents during one of his two stints in Iraq. Federal prosecutors allege that he did this when deployed at Al Taqqadam Air Base west of Baghdad in March 2004.

The irony is that his military superiors reportedly gave him high marks for his work with an Intelligence unit in Iraq. Little did they know what he really was doing. He was found out when he applied for a security clearance. He even entered the U.S. back in 1989 under false pretenses seeking 'political asylum.'

The information he passed on may have caused the deaths and injuries of hundreds of U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians in the horrific Najaf battle in 2004. In his Brooklyn apartment on his home computer was evidence that he was an al Qaeda sympathizer. One example cited in a New York Daily News report was a photo of the second airliner that hit the Twin Towers on 9/11 with the caption " we fly straight to you."

He is a spy who used false documents to become a U.S. citizen, engaged in deep espionage against our government and put our troops in the field at great peril.

This person was recruited originally as a translator for the 82 Airborne in Iraq by a multi-billion dollar U.S. company headquartered in Manhattan, L-3 Communications-Titan Group. Titan has received over several billion in procurements for in country translation services in Iraq for INSCOM-the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command since it began contract translation services in 1999.

In 2005, Titan merged with giant L-3 Communications, a defense contracting firm specializing in global communications, surveillance and intelligence technology. This followed SEC investigations about bribery charges and Army procurement penalties concerning Titan because of the revelations involving translators in the detainees 'controversy' at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. The combined entity continues to be awarded translation services contracts by the Army.

This Brooklyn federal court trial of an al Qaeda translator is just the tip of the iceberg confronting the Pentagon and its contractor Titan concerning Iraqi insurgent infiltration of our military in the field. Thus, wreaking death and destruction on our soldiers and loyal Iraqis.

If you go to L-3 Communications-Titan Group website, you'll see postings of translator positions in Iraq clearly labeled as putting yourself in harm's way. The announcement for qualified linguists interested in assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq states that applicants 'must be willing to live and work in harsh conditions co-located with US Army. ' That's an understatement. According to a report in USA today, one hapless Titan linguist, an Iraqi Kurd was captured and beheaded in October 2004 in a grisly video posted on the internet. Of the more than 665 contractor deaths in the War in Iraq, L-3 Communications -- Titan Group Iraqi translators accounted for nearly one third or 216-fatalities. This is 'deadly duty ' blared the headline of a San Diego Union-Tribune report.

How did we let this counter intelligence debacle occur with such disastrous results? The short answer was Titan's screening program for local personnel in Iraq enabled infiltration through ineffective and unprofessional interrogations. When information gathered by professional counter Intelligence linguist/analysts was presented to U.S. military commanders pointing this out it was sloughed off.

According to informed sources, the late Saddam Hussein and his Intelligence cadres prepared the way. Beginning in 2002 he enlisted Iraqis loyal to him to infiltrate as English speaking operatives into American bastions in the event of a conquest. These operatives were trained to gather intelligence and foment insurgency.

When President Bush gave his stirring graduation speech at West Point in June 2002 in the run up to the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein allegedly ordered an accelerated English language training program for 'qualified' members of his intelligence and Ba'athist cadres to become 'lay behind assets' in the event of an American invasion and conquest. The purpose was to infiltrate the unwary American military forces and bore from within by providing intelligence and targeting for insurgents. As one of my sources said; 'pretty wily, but effective strategy.'

To find out how this incredulous lapse in counter-intelligence occurred, I spoke with qualified sources who conducted screenings of Iraqi personnel at Camp Falcon in South Baghdad. The sources were former military intelligence specialists and linguists working under separate contractual arrangements.

In the aftermath of the conquest of Baghdad in April 2003, local U.S. military intelligence personnel were approached by English speaking Iraqis offering to be of 'assistance.' In May of 2003, the first of a series of contracts with Titan were issued to procure U.S. law enforcement trained personnel to assist military commanders at Camp Falcon in screening local employees.

According to these sources, the Titan Local Employment Personnel screenings resulted in a rejection rate of less than 8 per 5,000 persons. That contrasted with a rejection rate of former Military Intelligence specialists and linguists of one-third (33%). Camp Falcon was heavily infiltrated by Hussein's lay behind assets and the information they provided to insurgents resulted in the deaths of several hundred Iraqis and U.S. personnel.

The sources indicated that they passed the counter intelligence information up the line from the Camp Falcon to CENTCOMM intelligence, only to receive little or no response. One of the other U.S. contractors, Kellogg Brown Root, found the procedures and information helpful and implemented more effective screening filtering out suspected insurgents and sympathizers.

These Sources indicated that after they left Iraq, 'the situation worsened.'

The media was pre-occupied by the alleged abuses in the Abu Ghraib Prison and litigation by Iraqi detainees against defense contractors like Titan and CACI. No attention has been paid to how insurgents infiltrated Camp Falcon and the defective screening procedures put in place by Titan.

For this our taxpayers paid the convicted al Qaeda sympathizer who pled guilty in the Brooklyn Eastern Federal District Court over $100,000 as a translator. Meanwhile billions went to Titan for ineffective translator services resulting in the deaths of potentially hundreds of Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqis.

This is a dimension of the "translator scandal" that needs Congressional scrutiny and a quick fix on the Pentagon's procurement pipeline for required translators in Iraq and elsewhere. Otherwise, as my sources said, "it will get worse.'

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, February 22, 2007.

AFSI announces the launching of 'Operation Prayer Shield' and 'Days of Prayer and Action' to unite Jews and Christians in support of the threatened communities of Judea and Samaria and the preservation of the biblical sites. Please read the material below and join us in this effort by forwarding this information and signing on your church or synagogue.

Operation Prayer Shield

Operation Prayer Shield has been initiated to gather an army of Jews and Christians together for the purpose of praying about the Biblical and Political developments surrounding Judea and Samaria.

Judea and Samaria is the biblical heartland of Israel. It houses more than 200,000 Jewish people and is known in the scriptures as "The Mountains of Israel."

Governments inclusive of the United States, Britain, European Union, United Nations, and surrounding Arab Nations are working feverishly toward a plan that will territorially remove Judea and Samaria from Israel and place it in the hands of the European Union Peace Keeping Force until it becomes the Palestinian homeland.

The plan not only mandates the removal of all the Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria, but it also places all Biblical Holy Sites under Islamic control. To date Islam is claiming all the Biblical sites as their own and rewriting the history of each one.

Today, within the boundaries of the ancient landmarks are thriving communities resurrected by G-d Himself as a continuing living testimony that His WORD is infallible. Ezekiel 36 among hundreds of passages states that G-d will bring His people back to the Land given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that He will settle them in Judea and Samaria never to be plucked up again.

As bible believing Christians and Jews how can we get involved in sanctifying G-d's Name and His testimony existent in the land of Israel and throughout the earth?

We can pray. Join with us for Operation Israel Prayer Shield. We will provide your congregation with a monthly information page on each Biblical Site and the thriving community at each site today. We will also provide an article and prayer points that can be shared by the pastor or appointed leader to engage the congregation in prayer for Israel.

Days of Prayer and Calls to Action in Support of Israel's Biblical Heartland

President Bush's State of the Union Speech was a reaffirmation of the administration's misguided "Road Map" policy for "Peace in the Middle East."

The policy requires that Israel relinquish Judea and Samaria -- the so-called West Bank -- to the Arabs for the establishment of a PLO state.

It would appear that the U.S. State Department is encouraged to revive the "Road Map" -- knowing that they are dealing with the weakest government ever to lead the Jewish State.

Military experts over the last several decades have recognized that Israel would find it nearly impossible to survive if an enemy were to occupy the mountain areas of Judea and Samaria.

For the Bible-believing community, the "Road Map" is unacceptable for reasons that transcend strategic interests.

The names and places so familiar to students of scripture are the names and places of Judea and Samaria.

Those communities include but are not limited to:

Hebron Genesis 21:1,2
Kiryat Arba Genesis 21:1,2
Maon Samuel I 25:2
Carmel Samuel I 25:2
Bethlehem Samuel I 16:1
Efrat Genesis 35:16
Beth El Genesis 35:16 Samuel I 16:1
Shilo Samuel I 1:3
Elon Moreh Genesis 12: 5, 6


AFSI is proposing a series of Days of Prayer and Calls to Action in support of the threatened communities in Israel's Biblical Heartland.

All of the communities in the Biblical Heartland are threatened with expulsion and destruction as we saw in Gush Katif.

'Land for Peace' (as embodied in the U.S. plan called the 'Road Map') is a real threat.

It is our hope that the collective prayers of Israel's friends will be answered and the message of Christian concern these days exhibit will favorably influence decision makers in Washington.

If we are successful, the United States can play a vital role in saving the Biblical Heartland from the spreading threat of Islamo-fascism.

We look forward to seeing the calls to action spread across the country from church to church, raising a loud voice of support for the Biblical Heartland of Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, February 22, 2007.

This article was written by Karl Pfeifer and appeared in Engage Online

It was posted on Engage Online by David Hirsh. A number of images from Sammy Eppel's presentation are available online at
http://www.emailpresenter.com/Viewer/Viewer4.asp?p=/ viewer/presentations/20061123/634348139/pres.swf&MsgID= 1864581&TRK=1&pn=antisemitism%20dossier%20WO%20videos It is well worth a look. Just click on the images for the slide-show to progress.

Armed police raided the Jewish elementary and high school at the Jewish Cultural Centre in Caracas on 29 November 2004 implementing a court order that alleged that materials of a criminal nature, such as electronic equipment, arms and explosive devices were concealed in the building.

The swoop started at 6.30 am, when school buses and parents had already started to bringing children to the school, but, after rooting through the building for three hours, the police left having found zilch. The court order, it has since been revealed, had been issued three days earlier but the police waited until Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, arrived in Teheran for a state visit to Iran.

That was two years ago, but things have only got worse in the intervening period. Indeed, since election of the left-wing populist Chavez in 1998, Venezuela has witnessed a proliferation of virulently anti-Israel and anti-Zionist propaganda, frequently entwined with nakedly anti-Jewish slogans.

The Jewish population in Venezuela numbers only around 25,000 out of a total population of close to twenty-seven million. So, why does the official media of a government that claims to be socialist, devote its energy to poisonous attacks on a very small Jewish community?

One possible explanation given is the fact, that one of Chavez's important early advisers and political mentors was a -- now deceased -- Argentine Holocaust denier called Norberto Ceresole, a friend of the French fascist Robert Faurisson and the French ex-Communist Roger Garaudy who converted to Islam and also took up Holocaust denial. Ceresole strongly believed that Latin America must forge alliances with Arab nations to fight the United States and what he called "the Jewish financial mafia."

The tendencies towards distortion of the Holocaust might, further, be explained partly against the background of the increasingly close relationship between oil-rich Venezuela and Iran and other Muslim countries. As such, this kind of nonsense has been incorporated into the Chavez government's anti-imperialist rhetoric with Israel is viewed as a key factor in US politics and, thus, an enemy of the 'anti-imperialist revolution'.

Antisemitic ranting is not confined to government circles but is spread throughout the mass media. For example, in the Diario VEA newspaper, as recently as 20 September, the hardcore antisemite Basem Tajeldine raved: "The Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis was directed to eliminate the social basis of Judaism that believed in assimilation with the Europeans, the low class majority of Jews ... The ideological affinity and the great ties of collaboration that existed between German Zionism and Nazism is undeniable ... Sionazis is the most appropriate term to catalogue (sic) the organisation of the political capitalist Jewish elite of Israel that is responsible for the present Holocaust of the Arab people".

Similarly in El Diario de Caracas earlier this year, Tarek Muci Nasir claims that "The only resource they [the Jews -- Editor] have left to stay united, is to cause wars and self- genocide," Nasir goes on to urge that his readers "pay attention to the behaviour of the Israelite-Zionist associations, unions and federations that conspire in Venezuela to seize our finances, industries, commerce, construction, even infiltrating public positions and politics" and warns that "Possibly it will again be necessary to expel them from the country, like other nations have done before... this is the reason why the Jews are always in a continuous stateless exodus and thus in the year 1948 they invaded Palestine."

Commenting on the September visit to Caracas by Iranian's fanatic president Ahmadinejad, Freddy Pressner, head of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela, expressed "outrage", citing the Iranian leader's open denial of the Holocaust and his statements about erasing Israel from the face of planet. Chavez's bloc with Iran is making Venezuelan Jews worry about their own security for the first time.

Sammy Eppel, a Caracas-based columnist, addressed the deepening antisemitism in Venezuela in his presentation at a recent conference, in Budapest, of the Tel Aviv University-based Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism. In his lecture, he revealed that he had found no fewer than 195 examples of antisemitic content in the official and pro-government media in a 65-day period ending on 31 August 2006.

Among slides shown by Eppel was one depicting the front page of a government publication called Docencia (Teaching) which denounced the "Jewish killers" perpetrating the war in the Lebanon and which conflates the Star of David with the Nazi swastika, Eppel pointed out that, until a few years ago, "there were hardly any antisemitic articles" in the Venezuelan media and that "the government has adopted an antisemitic policy."

At meetings between Jewish community leaders and top-level government officials, including Chavez himself, the government, according to Pressner, has bleated that its hands are tied, saying, "We'll do what we can, but we can't deny people freedom of speech."

The antisemitism evident even in the political cartoons published in government-owned newspapers is now finding explosive expression at street level. For example, antisemitic slogans, bearing the "signature" of the Venezuelan Communist Party and its youth organisation, have even been sprayed on the walls of the Jewish Cultural Centre in Caracas in broad daylight. The perpetrators were filmed on CCTV but when a complaint was lodged with the police and interior ministry nothing happened.

It is clear beyond any question that under Chavez's leadership, Venezuela is experiencing a disturbing rise in antisemitism, fostered in large part by Chavez's own rhetoric and that of governmental institutions. The relentless and baseless attacks on the Jewish community are now putting it at great risk.

Contact Boris Celser by email at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, February 21, 2007.

This was written by Gary Cooperberg, who runs Project Shofar. Contact him at gary@projectshofar.org>

Goebels, the Nazi master of propaganda, discovered how easy it is to manipulate public opinion. If you tell a lie, no matter how preposterous, repeatedly and with much publicity, eventually people will accept it as truth. The Arabs exploited this concept very successfully vis a vis the alleged "palestinian" people. They created a total fiction, they taught it to their children and they repeatedly announced it to the world as if it were true. Today one is hard put to find anyone who would deny that this fabrication is the absolute truth. One neednt be an historian to know that the so-called "palestinian" people were created in 1964 for the purpose of making

Arabs appear to victims of Israeli aggression and thus to build a framework to replace Jewish Israel with a new Arab Palestine.

In this weeks online Jerusalem Post we can find a subtle but dangerous implication of this recognition of falsehood in their latest reader poll. The two choices we are given are as follows: Israel should negotiate first with: Saudis, "moderate" Arab states; or Palestinians.

The unwritten premise is that we have no choice but to negotiate with both entities. It is interesting to note the quotes around the word "moderate" (which imply that even they realize that there is no such thing), and it makes you wonder why they are missing around the word "Palestinians" (the lack of which implies that they do believe in its legitimacy). It is bad enough that we have enemies who seek our destruction, but it is far worse that we have a government and a so-called free press which lends credence to the claims of our would-be annihilators.

When was the last time a Knesset Member suggested that there is no legitimate "Palestinian" entity? How is it that the President of the United States can dictate to us that we have an obligation to create yet another Arab enemy state on Jewish soil and our leaders find merit in the suggestion? Where are the protests? The silence is deafening. It seems that we are so overwhelmed by the successful "big lie" campaign, that almost no one is willing to stand up and counter that lie with Truth! How can we hope to win the war being waged against us when we refuse to accept the fact that we are, indeed, at war? We have deluded ourselves into believing that we are engaged in a "peace" process. But this is just not true. The only time nations engage in a peace process is after a war is won. The only reason the Arabs are willing to participate is because they think that they have won and are now trying to dictate the terms of our surrender. We can only have a real peace process after we decisively win the war. And you can be sure that were the Arabs to really win the war there certainly would not be any peace process.

The fact that this country still exists serves as indisputable proof that G-d is constantly watching over us. Our errors bring us terrorism and suffering, but the state, as a whole continues to grow in spite of us. Would we just take the time to notice this fact we could end the suffering immediately and hasten redemption. Peace will not be found in Washington nor in Ramallah. It will be found in Jerusalem once we have leaders who are no longer ashamed to stand up as Jews, and who fear G-d more than our enemies and so-called powerful friends.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 21, 2007.

Arabs have developed a formula for stealing land in the southern Hebron Hills. They dwell temporarily in caves next to Jewish communities. Then they trespass, in order to attract opposition. Left wing activists "photograph violence and alleged Jewish vandalism, often staged by the Arabs."

Israeli and foreign news agencies report as planned. They portray the Bedouins as "trying to live on their homeland which Jews have taken over." "The media do not question the source of vandalism, despite photographic proof that the Arabs have" damaged farms.

Reuters reports sympathetically about one Bedouin family as having "settled in the area more than 100 years ago." "History shows that Arabs never held title to the land. During the Ottoman Empire, a local historical expert said, the leading families of the Hebron suburb of Yatta sat among themselves and divided up the lands arbitrarily. Virtually no one ever worked the land until Jews began developing the area in the early 1980s."

"The Jewish National Fund operates the nearby Yatir forest and requires the Arabs to take all of the fallen branches..." Reuters reported the requirement as unjust. It omitted the reason. The reason is to prevent the Bedouin from setting fire to the fallen branches, as they often did.

The Bedouin inhabit the caves only "for about three months during the year when they herd their sheep in the area. 'They never built in the area..." The Jews did. "The Reuters feature described the Arabs sleeping on floors while residents in the nearby community of Shani 'live in red roof-topped homes, some with backyard swimming pools.' However, there is only one community pool in the town and no others exist."

"Moreover, it is customary for Bedouins to sleep on thick mats stuffed with wool from their sheep. Many Bedouins who have in recent years moved into houses still maintain the tradition, especially those of the previous generation." Again, hardship is implied but non-existent.

"Financed by the EU, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has paid many Arabs and Bedouins to move from the Hebron area and occupy the land. One of the favorite methods of the Arabs to attract sympathy is to trespass on Jewish communities on the Sabbath, when Jews are not allowed to travel, or cross the land during the week on the premise that it is a short cut to school. They have used this method next to the community of the Maon Farm, attracting confrontations photographed by activists of the International Solidarity Movement, who often escort them."

"However, one security officer said he received rabbinical permission to travel on the Sabbath and photograph trespassing and vandalism by Arabs. The rabbis decreed that allowing the Arab actions without an immediate response threatens the existence of the communities and lives of the residents." (Arutz-7, 1/25.)


The P.A. Finance Minister says that he has resumed paying P.A. employees (IMRA, 2/14).

Half the employees are terrorist police. Many of the rest indoctrinate in terrorism. He should thank Israel for resuming its relaying of excise taxes to the P.A. and for not guarding the Gaza border through which Hamas smuggles millions of dollars. He also should thank the US for continuing to finance the P.A., contending that it is helping one faction against another, though both factions have the same goals and similar means, and helping one enables the other to call it a collaborator. What would jihad do without Western complicity in its own demise?


The whole world is being treated to the Palestinian Arabs' inability to run their own affairs (they just fight and beg). Plainly they don't deserve statehood. By disgracing themselves, they present Israel with an historic opportunity to destroy the "two-state solution," because it is not a solution. Letting the P.A. Arabs rule themselves means war and chaos. Hamas was thought to offer an opportunity to at least produce an honest, efficient, viable regime, but it concentrates on war. Giving terrorists territorial control facilitates war, says Ephraim Inbar.

So far, so good. Then Mr. Inbar, of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, suggests a remedy that is even worse. After pointing out that foreign rule over those Arabs is not good, he suggests foreign rule. To him it is not foreign, because they would be fellow Muslim Arabs -- Egyptians and Jordanians. He claims that they did a good job of running Gaza and Judea-Samaria, before.

Dr. Aaron Lerner finds the remedy a descent into unreality, after a realistic analysis. First, Egypt lets arms flow into Gaza, to be used against Israel. Second, letting the armies of Egypt and Jordan come so close to Israel, even if their governments were decent now, would be foolish, because they could become Islamist any time (IMRA, 1/28).

No, they did not do a good job of running Yesha. Egypt kept the Gazans unemployed, except for terrorist gangs it let loose upon Israel, until Israel had to wage the Sinai War in 1957. Jordan kept the Arabs of Judea-Samaria poor, it destroyed the captured synagogues, and its snipers fired upon Jews in the new city of Jerusalem. Both Arab governments did not promote self-rule nor visions of peace.

Mr. Lerner worries about Islamists taking over Egypt and Jordan, a prospect that should prompt the US to stop arming Egypt. But he also should remember what enemies Israel's neighbors were before the rise of Islamism. Islamism is worse, but Islam is hostile enough!

Lerner suggests that Israel resume its supervision of the Palestinian Autonomy. He has the secularist-type of solution, which is purely security-minded. Like Inbar he would hold those territories of Yesha, with their secure borders, Jewish religious and historical patrimony, and Israeli legal entitlement to them, in custody for the Arabs. In the end, it is inadequate for security and unjust.

I think that Israel should annex the vacant parts of Yesha and with malign neglect, encourage the Muslims to move away from Yesha and from Israel. Then Israel would have secure borders, declining terrorism, and, after a barrage of foreign criticism, respect. The trick is how to get Israelis to overcome their appeasement-mindedness and to learn how to present a Zionist case.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, February 21, 2007.

Quite a break-through.

This is an precedented act by Congress to declare the rights of Jewish refugess expelled from Arab lands, a population that has been long ignored. Hopefully it will be not only in America that such recognition and equality will occur!

david ml


Landmark Resolutions Introduced in the US Senate and House of Representatives
Recognizing Rights for Jews from Arab Countries as Middle East Refugees


CONTACT: Stanley A. Urman, 917-606-8262 or 973-669-9788
(World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries: Justice for Jews from Arab Countries)

WASHINGTON, DC (February 20, 2007) -- Rarely is any consensus reached on final status issues in the Middle East peace process. Yet, remarkably, US Congressional leaders have agreed on the rights of Jewish refugees displaced from Arab countries.

In a rare display of bi-partisanship, four Senators and four Congressmen, representing both political parties, have introduced landmark Resolutions on Middle East refugees that call attention to the fact that Jews living in Arab countries suffered human rights violations, were uprooted from their homes, and were made refugees. These Resolutions signify that "it would be inappropriate and unjust for the United States to recognize rights for Palestinian refugees without recognizing equal rights for former Jewish, Christian, and other refugees from Arab countries."

On February 16, 2007, formal bicameral resolutions were introduced in the Senate (S.Res 85) and in the House (H.Res 185). These far-reaching Resolutions seek to ensure that all victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict are treated with equality, including Jewish, Christian and other refugees from countries in the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf. Concretely, the Resolutions urge the President to ensure that in all international forums, when the issue of 'Middle East refugees are discussed, representatives of the United States should ensure: "That any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees is matched by a similar explicit reference to Jewish and other refugees, as a matter of law and equity."

This bi-partisan effort is being spearheaded in the House of Representatives by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) along with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); Rep. Michael Ferguson (R-NJ); and Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY). In the Senate, sponsors are Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ); Trent Lott (R-MS); Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN); and Sen. Richard Durbin. The Resolutions will be the strongest declarations adopted by the U.S. Congress, on the rights of Jewish and others refugees that were forced to flee Arab countries.

"When the Middle East peace process is discussed, Palestinian refugees are often addressed. However, Jewish refugees outnumbered Palestinian refugees, and their forced exile from Arab lands must not be omitted from public discussion on the peace process. It is simply not right to recognize the rights of Palestinian refugees without recognizing the rights of Jewish refugees," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

"There can be no true and lasting peace in the Middle East unless the legitimate claims of all refugees displaced by the years of conflict are recognized by the international community," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN). "Large numbers of both Arabs and Jews have been forced to flee their countries and it is only right and equitable that the President acknowledge and include Jewish and other refugees in any discussion of Palestinian refugees in pursuing this issue in the international arena."

"It would be constitute an injustice were the United States to recognize rights for one victim population -- Palestinian refugees -- without recognizing equal rights former Jewish refugees from Arab countries " said Stanley Urman, Executive Director of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries. "Both were victims of the very same Middle East conflict and the rights of Jewish refugees must be addressed."

Additional information and materials can be found at: www.justiceforjews.com
Justice for Jews from Arab Countries
Contact Mr. Shelomo Alfassa
JJAC c/o CJH 15 West 16th St. (6th FL.)
New York NY 10011

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yad Eliezer, February 21, 2007.

Israel's neediest people are waiting for Purim.

On Purim, it is a special mitzvah to give gifts of money to the poor.

This year, fulfill the mitzvah at its highest level.

Give directly to needy Jews in Israel.

100 percent of money given through Yad Eliezer will be distributed directly.

Last year, Yad Eliezer distributed $220,000 on Purim day.

This year, you too can be a part.

To give Matanot La'evyonim to Israel's most needy Jews, go to:

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, February 21, 2007.

Dear Christian leaders,

The PC(USA)'s highest levels of leadership continue to villify and demonize Israel, even though their rank and file rejected divestment last year.

The ways and means of this villification are described in the CAMERA article below.

The simplest, most obvious, and most undeniable proof that the PC(USA) docuemnt is a bigotted villification of Israel, rather than an honest attempt at peace making, is the glaringly one-sided and misleading nature of the PC(USA) literature's treatment of the Israel-Arab conflict:

"...calling for the U.S. government to block weapons sales to Israel..." without mentioning that Israel needs these weapons in order to protect itself from an endless, relentless, brutal terror war that Palestinian terrorists have waged against it since Arafat signed the Oslo PEACE accords in 1993...that's one-sided, bigotted, and misleading.

"...asking U.S. officials to make sure U.S. tax dollars are not used to build a security barrier..." without mentioning that this security barrier was built to stop the terror attacks, and has successfully done so (and note too that before the terror war there was no barrier, and the barrier could be removed if the Palesetinian leadership stopped the terror war)...that's one-sided, bigotted, and misleading.

Offering some "...sparse, condemnations of suicide bombings, but... (without describing the)...incitement on Palestinian television, or the manifold expressions of the Blood Libel (which seems to have gotten a lot more traction in the Middle East than the Gospel)..." and thus giving the impression that the cause of the violence is Israel's putative intransigence (see footnote)... that's one-sided and bigotted and misleading.

Presenting such a detailed condemnation of Israel's restrained and defensive use of force without "... documenting and condemning the immensely greater and sustained terrorist violence against Israel with the same vigor that it has condemned Israeli use of force..." is tantamount to denying that Israel has a right to defend itself.

To deny Israel the basic, universal, and self-evident right of any nation to use force in restrained self-defense against barbaric terrorism is not just one-sided and misleading...it is a quintessential expression of Jew-hatred.

The history of the last 70 years is perfectly clear, and irrefutable. The UK, the UN, the USA and Israel have between them made at least fifteen offers of peace and statehood to Palestinian leaders, and Israel has had each one rebuffed with violence and terrorism and mass murder and war.

"The prophetic voices of...[PC(USA)]...institutions are typically triggered by Israeli use of (defensive) force -- and not (by) the Palestinian violence that preceded it, the animosity that motivated it, or the support it receives from other countries in the region."

These are not "prophetic voices". These are the voices of leaders who are possessed by a Jew-hatred so strong that it warps the minds of those whom it possesses.

In word and deed, since 1936, Arab leadership has been excruciatingly clear: "Kill Jews wherever you find them, kill them with your teeth if you must, because killing Jews pleases Allah'..."Palestine must be from the river to the sea"..."there is no room for a Jewish state in Muslim lands"..."we will destroy Israel even if we must do it one Jew at a time"..."we are not fighting Israel because we want something from it, we are fighting Israel because we want to destroy it"..."it is good that Israel exists, since with all the Jews in one place it is easier to destroy them".

And their deeds have matched their words.

With all of its concern for human rights and the well-being of innocents, the PC(USA) report studiously ignores the obvious massive denial of Israel's human rights by the culture of hatred, the diatribe of genocide, the rhetoric of annihilation and the commitment to endless relentless violence nurtured in Arab populations against Jews and against Israel.

In its reports, the PC(USA) turns a blind eye to the 28,000 Palestinian terror attacks, mostly against unarmed innocent Israeli civilians, since 1994, and to the consequent 1,800 Israeli dead and almost 7,000 injured or maimed for life. And it turns a blind eye as well to the ineluctible conclusion that had Arafat been willing to build his state alongside of Israel, there would today be a thriving and viable Palestinian state in most or all of the West Bank and Gaza strip.

The PC(USA) seems to conveniently ''forget'' that Israel too has human rights:

Israel's human right to exist,

an Israeli's human right to get on a bus without worrying about being blown up or burned alive,

a Jewish mother's human right to hold her 10-month-old baby in her arms without worrying that a psychotic child-murdering Palestinian terrorist sniper ensconced in an Arab apartment half-a-mile away will blow the chlid's head off even as her mother holds her in her arms,

a Jewish family's human right to drive a car along a country road and not have a Palestinian mass murderer throw a fire bomb in to it, burning alive a two-year-old child in the back seat as the helpless mother screams in horror.

Terrorism is eviil. Genocide is evil. Mass murder is evil. Nurturing hatred against innocents is evil.

The PC(USA)'s convenient 'forgetfulness' is complicity with that evil.

Complicity with evil is evil.

Is there no one among you who will stand up and speak out against this evil?


Some have asked the question: "Why Israel does not just end the 'occupation'" and "give back the West Bank" so that the Palestinians will be happy, the Arab world will be assuaged, and the Middle East will know peace.

This is a valid and rational question, when it is asked in good faith, by those ignorant of the obvious and clearly documented history of the conflilct.

Below are the reasons why Israel does not do a re-run in the West Bank of its unilateral and unconditional ceding of Gaza.

1. Arab violence against Jews in Israel predates the creation of the state of Israel by many decades.

2. Even though Jews bought land at fair prices from willing ARAB MUSLIM PALESTINIAN land owners, Jewish ownership of land in Israel prompted riots and attacks and pogroms and violence against Jews, including innocent Jews who had no connection to those who bought the land

3. In 1929, the Hajj Amin el-Hussieni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, spiritual leader of Muslims in British Mandatory Palestine, was alraedy proclaiming the need to wipe out the Jews of Palestine, even though they had no sovereignty, no state, had stolen no land, had evicted no Palestinians...and his rantings brought about the 1929 riots that killed hundreds of Jews and destroyed the Jewish community of Hebron. The Hajj also collaborated with Hitler, and urged him on to the "final solution" in Europe and then, the Hajj hoped, in "Palestine" as well.

4. The partition plan of 1937 offered a Palestinian state on 85% of the land, and the Jewish state on only 15%...but even that little unwieldy and unviable Jewish state was more than the Arab leadership could tolerate...so they went to war (great Arab revolt: 1937-1939), and were soundly defeated by the British (the Jews had no army at that time).

5. Same re the UN partition plan (11/29/1947)...the Arabs went to war with the explicit intent to not just define borders between the two states (UN partition plan created an Arab state and a Jewish state), but rather to utterly destroy the Jewish state and genocide its Jews. Numerous Arab speeches and sermons in Palestinian mosques and newspaper editorials in Egypt and Syria and Iraq...all said so.

6. In 1953 the el-Fatah terror organization was founded by Arafat and some friends, in Kuwait. They sought to 'liberate' Palestine. The only 'Palestine' that they were talking about was Israel in its pre-67 borders established at the 1949 armistice plan. For them, occupied Palestine was all of pre-67 Israel.

7. Same in 1964 -- three years before 1967 and six day war, the PLO was founded by Egypt and the USSR, with the clearly stated intention to 'liberate' all of 'occupied Palestine'...so the Arab terrorist leaders were still talking about downtown israel, before there was ever any Israeli sovereignty over the west bank or Gaza strip.

8. Section 24 of the PLO charter, in 1964, specifically stated that the PLO had no claim to the west bank or Gaza strip...those were not part of occupied Palestine...those were areas under legitimate (per the PLO) Muslim rule (Jordan and Egypt). Yet, in 1967, after the 6 day war, this section 24 was altered so that the PLO did claim that it planned to liberate those areas too...now that they were under Jewish sovereignty.

9. Israel offered to return conquered territory after the 6 day war, in exchange for peace. All Arab states and the PLO said "NO". There was never any intention on the part of any Arab leaders to create a Palestine in the west bank and Gaza strip alongside of Israel. The plan was always: from the river to the sea...instead of Israel.

10. many Arab leaders, Arafat, Abbas, Qure'ia, Faisal Husseini, Sari Nusseibeh, have said to the west that they want peace and a two-state solution; but in Arabic to their own they are very clear that the 'two state solution' is only a phase, a stage, a stepping stone to the 'final solution' of Palestine from the river to the sea, Judenrein.

This "phased plan" was formally developed and approved by the Palestinian National Council in 1976, and has never been rescinded.

Even when locked up in his muqat'a in April, 2002 during operation ''defensive shield'' when israel RE-occupied the west bank, Arafat made speeches in which he adjured the Arab world to come to his aid so that he could finish the job of destroying israel and annihilating its Jews.

PNC member Zahir Muhse'in told the world the truth in March, 1977 in an interview with "Trouw" (Dutch = truth), an Amsterdam-based magazine, when he explained that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, or a Palestinian state, or a Palestine. The whole idea of Palestinian identity, history, homeland, etc. is all a recent fabrication, a ruse to justify the terror war, punctuated with full scale wars, that are all intended to destroy Israel...all of Israel.

11. Many Arab leaders, inter alia Akhmed Yassin, Abdul Aziz Rantisi, Khaled Mesha'al, Isma'il Haniyeh, have been completely clear and unequivocal...there can be no Jewish sovereignty on Arab land. "The state of Israel will be destroyed even if we must do it one Jew at a time". There will be no end to the resistance until Israel is destroyed.

Arafat made it clearest of all in his pre-taped TV interview that was aired in Jordan on the very day that he signed the Oslo accords..."don't worry; I am not giving up the dream. The Oslo accords are merely a stepping stone, a way to achieve our phased plan of getting whatever state we can, and then using it as a stepping stone, a launching pad, for the final great jihad against Israel. "

12. Hamas makes it even clearer: every Jew, not just in Israel, but in the entire world, must be destroyed, in accordance with the Hadith of the tree and the stone (see the Hamas Covenant, Prologue, Introduction, and sections 7 and 32).

Hamas has refused to alter its Covenant. PLO leaders have agreed to alter the PLO charter's sections that express the commitment to destroy Israel, but they have not done so.

13. Today, after almost 14 years of an endless relentless terror war that began a few days after Arafat signed the Oslo PEACE Accords, terror attacks still occur daily.

Even though Israel has:

offered to exchange land for peace (and in fact has done that with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994),

and has made the peace gesture of evacuating the entire Gaza Strip and leaving it "Judenrein" for the Palestinians (who promptly turned it in to a terrorist haven and stock-piled it with weapons of terror and war, and use it to launch rockets daily against israel),

and voted in to power a party (Kadima) which declared its readiness to make more concessions of territory on the West Bank, in the context of binding peace agreements

and dismantled four West Bank settlements as a gesture of that readiness...

...Arab leaders still wage an incessant propaganda war against israel, lying about Jewish connections to the holy land, lying about the Holocaust (Holocaust denial), and creating fake atrocities (Pallywood, Hezbollywood, the fake intifadas, the ramp Intifada), in order to stoke anti-israel sentiment.

...and Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the el-Aqsa martyrs brigade and a dozen other terror groups continue to fire Qassam rockets on a daily basis, and launch suicide bombers and truck bombs and road side bombs and sniper attacks...even as Israel offers to cede more land.

14. Palestinian schools, like many Arab schools throughout the Middle East, teach children from pre-schoolers to high-schoolers that they must hate Israel, hate Jews, hate non-Moslems. Teaching children to hate is child abuse. The Arab governments have raised child abuse to the level of public policy.

15. Israel evacuated Lebanon in May, 2000. But rather than stop its terrorism, Hezbollah continued to bomb Israeli cities and military emplacements, and initiated a sudden and unexpected war in July 2006. The fact that Israel was no longer occupying even one inch of Lebanon did not still the Hezbollah psychotic Jew-hatred and commitment to kill Jews.

16. Even after the recent Mecca accords, reached in mid-February in Mecca, brokered by king Abdullah of Arabia, which Abbas presents to the west as a 'fait accomplis"...''we have reached this agreement and the west must accept it''...Hamas leaders still insist that they will never recognize israel, never stop the terrorism, never make peace...and never desist from their commitment to utterly destroy israel and genocide all of the world's Jews.

17. When pressed by westerners (political or media representatives), Hamas leaders have conceded that maybe they could be coaxed in to a 10-year truce...but after that, back to "business as usual".

Given all of the above, it would be suicidal for Israel to assume that if it did a rerun of the Gaza strip evacuation, and retreated with all of its 250,000 Jewish citizens from the West Bank to the 1949 armistice lines, that then suddenly the Arab world would turn peaceful.

Instead, given the:

125 years of Arab violence against Zionists and Israelis,

the endless terror war since the days of the hajj,

the 10 high intensity or low intensity wars waged against israel (1937, 1947, 1956, 1967, war of attrition, 1973, 1982, 1987, 1994, 2000), including the two intifadas and the threat of a new one related to the mughrabi gate,

the endless incitement to hatred in the schools, mosques, media, and government pronouncements and the endlessly repeated diatribe of hatred and rhetoric of annihilation that has characterized Palestinian politics for the last almost 80 years,

israel demands deeds rather than words. SO...

...when a Palestinian government:

runs its territories by rule of law, with financial transparency

disarms and disbands terrorist gangs,

makes terrorism illegal and enforces that anti-terrorism law by jailing active terrorists and anyone possessing illegal arms,

jails and tries and punishes terrorist leaders with the blood of scores or even hundreds on their hands,

ends the incitement in schools and mosques and media,

changes school textbooks so that the map shows israel as well as 'Palestine' and so that the text speaks of the need to make peace with, cooperate with, israel (instead of the need to destroy israel),

and offers to sit down with israel to negotiate what is intended to be a lasting peace

and then tells the rest of the Arab world that it is time for the Arab countries to follow the example of Egypt and Jordan, and now "Palestine", and stop the wars, stop the terrorism, stop the incitement, stop the Holocaust denial, stop the diatribe of annihilation, the rhetoric of genocide...

...and make peace with Israel, establish political relations, exchange ambassadors, legitimize trade agreements, and establish the same civilized relations that France has with its former enemy Germany, that the USA has with its former enemy Viet Nam, just as is the norm throughout the civilized world and across all of human history...then...

...then the Israeli government can feel comfortable about ceding more land for peace.

This next is called "Indocrination in a PC (USA) Church Near You" and it comes from www.CAMERA.org

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) may have reversed its policy of singling Israel out for divestment at its meeting in 2006, but the denomination's leaders and staffers have not abandoned their obsession with Israel's defense policies.

A nine-page document titled "Palestinian Christians in the Middle East -- Study Resources for Children and Youth" embodies the same distorted moral narrative PC(USA) leaders and staffers were broadcasting before the church's 2004 General Assembly passed a resolution calling on the church to initiate a process of "phased, selective divestment" from Israel.

The theme of the resources is "Walls or Bridges?"

The most prominent reference displayed is a video titled "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land" which includes commentators such as Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk and Hanan Ashrawi, none of whom can be expected to discuss in any detail, Israel's legitimate security needs or the hostility it faces from its neighbors. Presbyterian layman Will Spotts reports that the video does not provide any dissenting voices. He continues:

It incorporates a series of comments by radical anti-Israel activists as if they were unbiased experts offering objective commentary. ... It shows a series of de-contextualized news clips and random video without providing anything like a complete explanation. It repeats many times statements of fact about Israeli motivations that are simply untrue. This video asserts rightly that one must ask "Does the news coverage reflect the reality on the ground?" Sadly, the video fails its own test. Israel is said to be "involved in an attempt to ideologically occupy the American media." Israel is said to be "in the White House." Israel is severely criticized for focusing on public relations; "the propaganda machine" is used to describe this. Media owners, corporate interests, Israel's public relations efforts, and Jewish and Christian organizations are said to control the news coverage. The occupation is presented the cause of all violence; this claim is one-sided at best.

The resource also suggests teachers and youth advisors obtain the September/October 2004 issue of Church & Society titled "Wall of Security, A Barrier to Peace," which provides extensive detail about the impact of the security barrier on Palestinians. Out of more than 100 pages of text, the magazine included approximately two paragraphs about the impact of Palestinian terror attacks that preceded the barrier's construction. And like a lot of mainline commentary about Israel's security measures, it is filled with distortions and omissions that lead the reader to believe the barrier is something other than a passive structure designed to prevent violence.

For example, Victor Makari, the PC(USA)'s area coordinator for the Middle East wrote an article that falsely suggests the fence near Bethlehem will electrocute anyone who touches it:

"Walking right up to an electrified portion of the barrier at Bethlehem (see photo, page1), one is immediately seized by a sense of desperation when confronted with a red warning sign -- in Hebrew, Arabic and English -- that reads (with some variation): "MORTAL DANGER -- Military Zone, Any Person Who Passes or Damages [the Arabic reads, ... Touches] the Fence [the Arabic reads, ... the Wall] Endangers His Life." (Church and Society, September/October 2004)

By using the word "electrified" Makari gives Sunday school teachers and youth leaders (many of whom will not know that the fence is equipped with electronic detection devices) every reason to believe Israel is zapping or worse, electrocuting innocent children who dare touch the barrier. How else are readers who know little about the barrier to interpret Makari's writing?

Reading the entire issue, one is left with the overall impression that the barrier was built on a whim, out of a malevolent desire to deny Palestinians their freedom and that the terrorism would end if only the Israelis stopped defending themselves from those who have repeatedly and peristently called for the destruction of their homeland.

This is the type of material PC(USA) leaders and staffers think should be used in Presbyterian Sunday schools and youth groups.

Why is this so offensive? A little background is in order.

As dangerous as life can be for Jews in the Middle East, Israel is still a much safer place for Jews than Christian Europe was during the 1940s. More Jews (approx. 33,000) were killed in the course of a few days outside of Kiev in 1941, than in all of Israel's wars since 1948. (About 24,000 Israelis have been killed by violent acts since Israel's War for Independence.)

The relative safety of Jews in the Middle East is not due to the peaceful intentions on the part of Israel's neighbors. Political and religious leaders in the Middle East speak about Israel in the same manner as the Nazi regime in Germany did before and during the Holocaust. Israel is regarded by extremists in the Middle East as a cancerous entity which must be destroyed, just as the Jews of Europe were portrayed as a blight on Europe.

Despite unending and growing enmity toward Israel, it survives.

The decisive factor behind the relative safety of Jews in the Middle East is the very thing mainline Christian leaders in the U.S. obsess about -- its military force -- its ability to obtain weapons, field an army, equip and maintain an air force and yes, build a security barrier to prevent attacks against its citizens.

From a pacifist, peacemaking perspective, calling for the U.S. government to block weapons sales to Israel, asking U.S. officials to make sure U.S. tax dollars are not used to build a security barrier would also require documenting and condemning the violence against Israel with the same vigor it has condemned Israeli use of force. It would also require pointing out the animosity against Israel that is rampant throughout the Middle East. In the main, the co-called peacemaking churches have not done these things.

Yes, there are the obligatory, but sparse, condemnations of suicide bombings, but mainline leaders seem reluctant to talk about incitement on Palestinian television, or the manifold expressions of the Blood Libel (which seems to have gotten a lot more traction in the Middle East than the Gospel) that have taken root in the Middle East.

Take a look at the statements from the leadership of mainline Christian institutions in the U.S. -- the PC(USA) especially -- and you will see a troubling tendency. The prophetic voices of these institutions are typically triggered by Israeli use of force -- and not the Palestinian violence that preceded it, the animosity that motivated it, or the support it receives from other countries in the region.

That's not peacemaking. H/T: Solomonia

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 21, 2007.

Terrorism Awareness

To those who did not get it yet! What Every American Needs to Know About Jihad!
FrontPage Magazine
February 21, 2007

Is Islamic jihad just a harmless form of spiritual struggle -- is often argued by Western apologists for radical Islam? Is Jihadi violence simply a twisted, hijacked version of Islam, rejected by traditional Muslims?

The David Horowitz Freedom Center's new Terrorism Awareness Project, which seeks to educate Americans, and especially college students about jihad, confronts questions such as these. It has produced a powerful new flash video: "What Every American Needs to Know About Jihad."


This video is adapted from a new pamphlet by Robert Spencer, which puts the threat of jihadist ideology into historical perspective. As Spencer makes clear, the religious imperatives of jihad demand the subjugation or killing of infidels and form the poisoned logic of Islamists' expansionist war against America and the West.

To read Robert Spencer's essay, download

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 21, 2007.

As expected of the New York Times, its Left Liberal reporter Greg Myre, gives a spin (distortion) to the stories about the Gaza Arabs.

Myre offers a sob story about how the area abandoned by the Jews is not as productive or hospitable for the Muslim Arab Palestinians. Myre totally ignores the history of the area -- with intent. (1)

When the Jews first came to the Gaza Strip, it consisted of sand dunes that even the Arabs who lived crowded in the Gaza City slums didn't want. It barely grew saw grass and was generally uninhabitable. The industrious pioneering Jews grappled with the sand and, after years of devoted experimentation, the Land began to show life, turned green with red, yellow, blues vegetables and flowers, supplying Israel with bug-free salads while exporting to Europe and America, flowers and tropical fruits and vegetables. Over the 31 years of devotion to the Land, now called Gush Katif (Block of the Harvest) farms, with many greenhouses the size of football fields that grew vegetables in the sand, with no bugs, many organic without pesticides. The hard-working farmers planted comfortable houses for their families as well as factories, schools, synagogues and as for eternity (or so they thought) cemeteries for their loved ones. The Muslim Arabs from Gaza began to have regular employment while also learning high tech farming.

But, as happened too often in our history, as soon as the Land turned green from produce and profits, the Arab Muslim leaders who had never made anything productive, began to bleat about how the Jews stole their fertile Land. That was followed by the recruitment of the Israeli Leftist Jews, spurred on by the Leftist Media who joined the hostile Muslims, shouting: "The abusive Jews stole the fertile Land from those poor, down-trodden Arabs."

At the behest of Ariel Sharon (who at first had helped the Gush Katif project grow) and Ehud Olmert, began to declare: "We'll have to make painful compromises for the sake of peace." They proceeded to campaign; Jews who thought they were safe within the Green Line, began to agree: "Gaza is a thorn in our side. We should get rid of it." [I heard this from a young man at my local Steimatsky's book store. I don't think he had ever seen Gush Katif or met a pioneering settler.]

So, sadly, the Sharon/Olmert campaign planned and organized the special Yatom Police in black uniforms who moved into Gush Katif like storm troopers and in 2 weeks cleared out all of the 10,000 Jewish men, women and children. Then they destroyed their carefully built houses, farms, greenhouses, factories, stores, livelihoods, even moving the dead loved ones from their cemeteries. They left the synagogues for the Arab Muslims to desecrate and destroy. WHY? I still don't know why. Making all of the 21 communities in Gush Katif/Gaza "Judenrein" was not sufficient so they threw out the Jews from 4 North Samarian settlements, leaving that whole area vulnerable to Arab Muslim attack. The Army and special Police (called "Yatom") in those few weeks earned shame that is now a permanent part of their history.

The industrious Jews were driven out by Jewish Kapos and their foreign instigators. Now the Muslim Arab Palestinians were given what the Jews developed. Naturally, the media predators came along as camp followers. They, like Myre, began to write stories explaining why the Arabs could not nurture the sand and, of course, blamed the now-departed Jews.

As the Jews left, the Palestinians came in like locusts and devoured what the Jews had so painstakingly developed. They tore the pumps and control gauges. They even stole the plastic sheeting covering those greenhouses that were left to encourage Arab industry. All went back to sand so Abdullah and Mohammed and all the expectant Arabs stood there with the sand drifting through their fingers, wondering what to do next. Then came the media pimps and the Terrorists, telling all that "It was the Jews who kept them from re-building."

In the first year they were able to scrounge a crop from what the Jews had planted already, but in the years to follow, all that went back to sand.

Arafat's officer thugs personally claimed whatever Land might benefit them but they could not bring back to life what was a thriving enterprise under the industrious Jews.

Now the dregs of the journalistic world write stories with sufficient spin which, somehow blames the long gone Jews for the Arab failure. Worse yet, the Israeli Leftists have become organic partners with Terror as Gaza turned into a Terrorist firebase, throwing Kassam Rockets with increasing accurate range, into the 44 communities "inside" the Green Line, hitting the town of Sderot and the city of Ashkelon.

What happened to those 10,000 industrious Jews who were forced out of the homes, farms and all they had worked for over the years became a black stain on the Government. All the promises of compensation, replacement homes, replacement Land for the farmers, replacement jobs for the now unemployed were all forgotten by the Leftists who had driven them out. Their reward for leaving was for whole families to live in one or two rooms of seedy hotels, given trash trailers (called "caravillas"), denied compensation by the equivalent of bureaucratic terrorists who lorded it over the now wandering Jews. Olmert did little to nothing to fulfill the Government's promises while the Leftist Media spun stories that these industrious Jews brought it all on themselves. The media pimps conveniently ignored the fact that it was the Leftist Government who urged the settlers to go to the Gaza Strip to settle the barren land to begin with.

Greg Myre offers the line that, "When the Israelis depart, the land-hungry Palestinians would flood into the former Jewish settlements." Instead, the Palestinian Land Authority "cum" Terrorists kept them out. But, even those who were allowed in, found they had to work, re-build and this required the same drive the Jews had. So now, the Muslim Arabs sit on sand -- or they use the Land for firing positions to launch Kassam Rockets into Israel. Thus we hear from the yellow journalists both in New York and the Leftist media in Israel spinning and lying as they try to cover up their role in this growing catastrophe.

"Israelis Are Gone, but Gaza Rebuilding Is Slow"
by Greg Myre
New York Times

RAFAH, Gaza Strip, Feb. 16 -- In a place were most everyone has a hard-luck story, Ibrahim Abu Shatat could write an entire book. Two of his homes have been destroyed by Israeli troops, he has been out of work for six years and his family of nine has lived in the storage room under Rafah's soccer stadium for three years.

Yet Mr. Shatat may be one of the few Gazans who see a ray of hope. Partly through his persistence, construction has begun on 300 homes in the sand dunes next to the former Jewish settlement of Rafiah Yam. Along with a neighboring school, they are the first major construction projects in or near a settlement since Israeli soldiers and settlers pulled out of the Gaza Strip in summer 2005. And one of those homes will be his, possibly by fall, Mr. Shatat said.

The Israeli withdrawal raised Palestinian hopes for new homes, schools and businesses, and an easing of the overcrowding in the Gaza Strip, an impoverished coastal territory where about 1.5 million Palestinians live.

"When the Israelis left, we demanded that the Palestinian government give us a piece of land," said Mr. Shatat, 47. But internal Palestinian turmoil, the conflict with Israel and a lack of money have kept the abandoned settlements looking almost exactly as they were the day the Israelis left. Israel, in agreement with the Palestinians, flattened the roughly 1,600 settler homes, and so far, the rubble is being removed from only 3 of the 21 settlements.

But there is progress on the barren patch that was a no man's land just outside Rafiah Yam, in southwest Gaza near the border with Egypt.

Mr. Shatat took his wife, Maha, to the construction site for the first time on Friday to see the cinder-block foundations of about 20 homes. The plans call for modest, detached houses of two or three stories, with one family living on each floor. "I'm so excited," Mrs. Shatat said. "Now I finally believe it is happening."

Since the Palestinian uprising began in 2000, at least 1,500 families in Rafah have lost their homes, according to the Palestinians. Israeli military bulldozers made repeated forays to destroy houses that Israel said were being used by weapons smugglers and gunmen firing on Israeli forces along the border with Egypt.

The Israeli departure raised the prospect of land-hungry Palestinians flooding into the former settlements. But while many Palestinians are impatient for new housing, security guards have kept out would-be squatters in most, but not all, cases. The settlements also came with greenhouses that offered the prospect of thousands of agricultural jobs. Yet the greenhouses sit idle.

The Palestinians invested millions of dollars to repair the greenhouses shortly after the Israelis left, and had an excellent crop in the winter of 2005 and 2006. But they were unable to export their produce to Europe, the main market, because Israel kept Gaza's main crossing for goods closed for weeks at a time, citing security concerns.

Short of money and fearing a similar fate this year, the Palestinians did not plant a winter crop in the greenhouses. But the goods crossing has been mostly open in recent weeks, when the crops would have been ready for export.

The Palestinian Agriculture Ministry says it will soon start renting the greenhouses to private farmers and will encourage them to grow for the local market, since there are no guarantees that fruits, vegetables and flowers can be exported in a timely manner.

Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya, said the government had been allocating former settlement land for universities, hospitals, recreation facilities and housing. The projects have been slow in developing for several reasons. The Palestinian government has never been known for its efficiency, and several months after the Israelis left Gaza, Hamas, the radical Islamic movement, came to power, which prompted Western countries to cut direct financial assistance. "We had to find countries to finance these projects," Mr. Yousef said. Saudi Arabia is providing $11.5 million for the 300 homes in southern Gaza, and the United Nations development program is overseeing the project.

Mr. Shatat was a welder in Israel for 14 years and built a large, three-story home in Rafah, just 50 yards from Gaza's border with Egypt. But the Palestinian uprising that began in 2000 dealt his personal fortunes a double blow.

Mr. Shatat was among the thousands of Palestinians who lost their jobs as Israel restricted the number of Palestinian workers allowed in. Then, five years ago, with Palestinian militants in Rafah battling Israeli troops, Mr. Shatat's home was rendered uninhabitable when Israeli forces demolished his neighbor's home. The Shatats rented a home nearby; that was destroyed in January 2004 when Israel tore down more homes. The only shelter Mr. Shatat could find for his wife and eight children, now ages 3 to 20, was the storage room under the Rafah stadium.

As soon as he moved his family in, Mr. Shatat began lobbying the Palestinian Authority to build replacement homes for those destroyed in the fighting, but received little help, he said. He set up a committee for the homeless in Rafah, and made himself a nuisance at government offices in Gaza City, particularly at the Land Authority. "I told them that if they did not give us land, we would start living in their offices," he said.

About a year ago, the Palestinian government allocated land for 300 homes, though this will provide shelter for fewer than half those who lost homes in fighting along the border, according to Mr. Shatat.

Several miles up the Mediterranean coast, the former settlement of Tel Katifa offers a more typical example of the state of the former settlements. At its northwest corner, armed members of Fatah stand guard, maintaining positions they have held since shortly after the Israeli departure. Along the southern side, Hamas forces hold an outpost established a month ago, in a bid to replace the Fatah men.

At the southwest corner, unarmed guards from the Agriculture Ministry hope their presence, marked by a torn Palestinian flag flapping overhead, will discourage the factions from shooting at each other. So far, Fatah and Hamas have exchanged only sporadic gunfire during the factional fighting in Gaza.

Meanwhile, a family affiliated with Fatah is living in Tel Katifa's former kindergarten, the one building left standing when the Israelis pulled out. Fawzi Abu Abed said his family moved in after receiving permission from a Palestinian family that claimed it owned the land before the Israelis arrived. Mr. Abed said his home was destroyed by the Israelis in 2002, and government subsidies to rent a home ran out last year. "The government is broke, so we had to find our own solution," Mr. Abed said.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daryl Temkin, February 21, 2007.

Let's face it, Purim is coming and it's time to get serious.

For the many Jews and non-Jews who may not be up to speed on celebrating Purim, it's a very simple Jewish holiday. An evil man named Haman made a plan to kill all the Jews of a land mass known as the Persian Empire. A man named Mordechai discovered Haman's plot and along with a woman named Esther, prevented the plot from happening. The turn-around in world events of the ancient Persian Empire moved from a plan to kill all the Jews to the hanging death of Haman, the mass genocide planner.

Turning history away from the verge of destruction to the opportunity to live again is the essence of Purim and the Purim celebration. Purim stresses that it can take only one person to save the world, and it also stresses that because the world was "drunk", or so preoccupied with self indulgence, it didn't realize that massive human destruction was at hand.

From this holiday comes the Jewish joke which summarizes Jewish holidays, "they tried to kill us, they didn't succeed, now let's eat".

In general, Purim is celebrated as a day of frivolous activities. It's a day of jokes, costumes, gift giving, and festive meals, all celebrating that evil was discovered, foiled, and didn't succeed. Purim is the only Jewish holiday during which drinking alcoholic beverages is condoned inasmuch as there is an unusual Jewish legal phrase that allows one to get lost in frivolity or inebriated to the extent that the difference between the evil Haman and the praised Mordechai is not recognizable.

Now, let's get serious.

There is one day of the year for Purim-like behavior to exist. The problem is that most of the world has been acting like it was Purim all year around. Purim is the day permitted for the world to be a little crazy, but it was only meant to last one day.

Purim is a day during which people are allowed to put aside their usual skills of rational thinking. Yes, for one day, it is permitted to act like a naive child who sees good and evil and doesn't know the difference, or worse, sees evil as good and good as evil.

Judaism is mostly concerned with teaching the world to recognize evil and to make clear distinctions between good and evil. In my many years of Jewish observance, I was always troubled trying to understand this element of Purim which encouraged drinking to the extent that one loses the ability to distinguish between good and evil. It just seemed so un-Jewish -- so antithetical to everything that Judaism represents. But now, I think that I finally figured it out.

Purim is a statement that you have one day to feel like what it is to act like an absolute fool, but the rest of the year, you better wake up and get it right. For the rest of the year, you better be sober and resist your desire for self indulgence and irresponsibility. You might desire or even find it comfortable to believe that all the "Hamans" of the world don't have to be taken seriously and they really don't plan to do what they say they will do. You might find it politically correct to simply say, "Oh, he's just an extremist and no one will follow him." Or, how about, "He dresses nicely, let's call him a moderate and let's just appease him with all that he wants." Finally, one has to be very skeptical of those who say, "Come on, everyone just wants to get along. Now lets party."

Purim teaches that even when it is not comfortable, even when you are tired or fatigued, you must be alert and better be skilled to recognize who is evil and who is good, who is an evil Haman and who is a praiseworthy Mordechai. If you don't understand that the world must remain sober and stop acting as if it is Purim, then you will find the world acting as a fool and treating evil as good and good as evil.

So, how can one seriously speak of a Palestinian state at a time of Purim? Perhaps this is the best time to get the world's values out of the phase of self indulgence and into the world of reality and sobriety.

Do the Arabs deserve a state where there won't be a Jewish starred flag flying overhead and a national anthem which speaks of a two thousand year hope for a Jewish homeland? Of course, yes -- there are some twenty-two Arab states which can boast that there is not a Jewish star on their flags. So let there be a twenty-third Arab state and call it Palestine. There happens to be a large land mass currently named Jordan whose population happens to be 70% Palestinian. There happens to be a huge land mass of eastern Jordan that is sparsely populated and could become divided into a second Palestinian state, and it would serve as a strategic buffer between Iraq and Jordan. The land mass is so large that all the Palestinians could live without a concern for overpopulation, with plenty of land to farm and populate, to build roads, schools and hospitals as well as high tech industries, if a state is what they really desire.

Then the Palestinians would be free to establish, to their heart's content, their own army that could protect them and Jordan from an Iraqi invasion. The Palestinians could have their dreams fulfilled for having their own air force and airports. Their imports and exports could pass through Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. There would be no check points since this Palestinian state would be comfortably planted in the midst of the Arab world. The Palestinians would have, as Condoleezza Rice desires, one contiguous land mass and would not depend on Israel for work, for water, electricity, or garbage collection.

So what would the Palestinians have to give up in order to make a real sovereign state with plenty of land for their children to play in and grow? They would have to give up their refugee camps in Gaza and their refugee camps in the West Bank. They would have to give up their squalid homes and lack of effective sewers systems and their rustic hygienic standards. Yes, the impossible "Right of Return" would mean becoming pioneers in their new land. Jerusalem as their capital could become the building of their own New Jerusalem city in an ideal location somewhere near Iraq. Their new Jerusalem could be custom-designed to every Arab or Islamic requirement -- even with a mosque on every desired corner. The Palestinians could start hundreds of new villages and start-up industries. They could plant olive trees in the millions, build universities and even establish their cultural pride of Palestinian weaving and embroidery centers. They could build Palestinian tourism filled with modern day attractions in accordance with Islamic requirements. This could all be done without having to dig explosive smuggling tunnels in to Israel or launching endless numbers of rockets in hope of killing Israeli citizens.

Within the context of Purim, it's time to become sober. It is time to deal with evil and to deal with good in the most rational and effective manner. Instead of making serious political decisions which reflect a lack of rationality and sobriety, we must be mindful that Purim is not really about acting crazy and striving for self indulgence or an inebriated mental state, but that it is an appeal for reality and for taking actions that will promote life and civil human existence. Therefore, build a twenty-third Arab state and call it Palestine but just not in a place where endless numbers of Jews and Israelis will have to meaninglessly sacrifice their lives for endless generations to come.

Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel Education Institute which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews. Contact him at DarylTemkin@Israel-Institute.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald M. Steinberg, February 21, 2007.

The differences between Europe and the Israeli government over the status of the West Bank -- Judea and Samaria -- are well known. In London, Paris and Brussels, this area is viewed as "occupied territory," while for Jerusalem, the area is "disputed."

A similar debate is taking place within Israeli society, as groups with different ideologies challenge the government's policies, including the expansion or removal of settlements and the route of the security barrier. This discussion is important, legitimate and extremely complex.

But when foreign governments team up with and provide financial support to private Israeli groups in order to oppose policies selected by democratically elected leaders, this is a problem. It is also a violation of sovereignty, and a clear example of neocolonialism.

Nevertheless, the recent discovery that the British Embassy in Tel Aviv is funding an Israeli non-governmental organization (NGO) known as "Bimkom -- Planners for Planning Rights" -- is not surprising. The ostensible focus of the "research" is on the impact of the security barrier on Palestinian villages caught in the middle, and since Bimkom is a political organization, the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

In this way, the British government will receive an analysis from an Israeli group that supports London's position against the route of the barrier. The same information could have been obtained through official government channels, (i.e., intelligence) but without the important political dimension. (The Danish government provided Bimkom with $200,000 for a project on "Palestinian neighborhoods.")

For years, European governments have used the same approach by providing funding to well-known Israeli domestic political groups, such as Peace Now, B'Tselem, and the Peres Center. The Swiss Foreign Ministry and the European Union, among others, supported the failed public relations campaign to sell the Israel public the Geneva Initiative -- a track-two peace proposal led by Yossi Beilin and his Palestinian counterparts.

And under the misleading label of "partners for peace," the EU Delegation in Tel Aviv is funding a group known as the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, which promotes anti-Israel boycotts and divestment. It also funds Israeli-Arab groups, such as Mossawa and Adallah, which ostensibly advocate for social and economic justice for the Arabs of Israel, but have done their fair share to demonize the Jewish state.

WHAT IS new in the case of Bimkom is the response of the Foreign Ministry, which stated: "It is interference by Britain in an internal Israeli matter. How would they react in London if our embassy was to fund research on a British organization that is trying to promote an agenda that is critical of [the government]?"

The language is a diplomatic and understated -- indeed, almost English -- reaction to a fundamental defect in European policy toward Israel. A more blunt response might have provided a hypothetical examples -- such as an advertising campaign funded by the US government in London or Paris promoting a hard-line anti-abortion position. Or a propaganda effort on the Northern Ireland conflict, or in support of separatist movements in France (Corsica) or Spain (ETA).

Furthermore, the scale of European government funding for Israeli and Palestinian political organizations that claim to promote human rights, peace and democracy is huge, and largely hidden. The massive Euro-bureaucracy has created a complex network of funding agencies for "civil society" in the region, and no central index or reporting system exists.

Until last year, the EU office in Tel Aviv violated its own principles of transparency and kept the list of Israeli NGO beneficiaries secret, ostensibly due to threats of violence. NGO Monitor's investigations led to a change in this instance, but funding for Palestinian NGOs is still largely covert.

THE CHANGE in Israeli government policy and a willingness to confront such anti-democratic manipulation, particularly by European governments (including non-EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland), marks an important step. Going beyond the terse statement, the Israeli representatives should bring a detailed file on the funding provided for politicized NGOs to every meeting between heads of state, foreign ministers and government officials.

If Europe expects to play a more important role in regional security and diplomacy, it cannot also continue to provide funding designed to undermine the Israeli government's positions, both internally and in the international arena.

In Europe, the amorphous entities known as "civil society organizations" and NGOs also need close scrutiny. These bodies are unelected, and their officials are not accountable.

In democratic societies, government officials who provide funds to these entities generally use this as a means to promote their own interests and objectives, without checks and balances or transparency. In closed non-democratic societies, such as Syria, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, foreign government assistance for NGOs that promote democracy, tolerance, and human rights may have a positive impact, but only if this support is carefully monitored to prevent abuse. Europe's failure to provide such monitoring exacerbates the damage.

Israel, as a vibrant democracy, does not need, and should not be the target of "civil society initiatives" engineered by foreign governments, whether well-meaning or hostile. From this perspective, the example of Bimkom, the security barrier, and the British Embassy is small but highly illustrative.

The time has come to end this misguided and patronizing policy.

Gerald M. Steinberg is editor of NGO Monitor and director of the Program on Conflict Management at Bar-Ilan University. This article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894478646&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

To Go To Top

Posted by David Singer, February 21, 2007.

Gaza has all the trappings of a State except declared Statehood.

The 22 members of the Arab League and the Quartet -- America, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union -- have allowed this farce to continue for the last 18 months.

Gaza, larger in area than Malta, has a President, a Parliament, a Prime Minister, multiple police and security forces, a burgeoning bureaucracy, observers to every United Nations Committee you can think of, delegations to countries all around the world, a flag and an anthem and most importantly of all -- not one Jew.

The 7000 Jews living in Gaza were forcibly removed from their homes and businesses 18 months ago. That they were so evicted by other Jews, supposedly for their own safety, is shameful. However given half a chance the Gazan Arabs would have willingly done the job. They even boasted that it was their campaign of terror and violence that finally forced the Jews to leave.

Ethnic cleansing is apparently acceptable in international humanitarian law where Jews are the victims.

The violence against Jews has been replaced by the killing and intimidation of Gaza's now exclusively Arab citizenry, as Hamas and Fatah each battle to assert their authority over the other in an internecine struggle that shows no signs of abating.

The people without a land who had been yearning for a land for the last 40 years was suddenly in full possession and control of part of that land but just couldn't bring itself to utter the magic words of independence.

Figuratively speaking the jilted bride was left waiting at the mosque.

The occupation had ended, the occupiers had gone but the population acted as though nothing had changed.

There was no rejoicing and dancing in the streets, no hugs embraces and tears among the populace who now found themselves in full control of their destiny and self-determination.

There have been no exciting nation building programs implemented to give new direction and vision to Gaza's population.

Destruction, not creation, has become the buzzword in Gaza.

Sadly statehood is the last thing that Gaza wanted because it would put an end to the claim of statelessness, terminate the claim to refugee status by a large proportion of its population and signal the end of the perpetual financial support received from UNWRA since 1948.

Furthermore statehood might be taken to be an abandonment of further claims to any land that was formerly comprised in the Mandate of Palestine.

The reticence of the Arab League in these circumstances was misplaced. True, Statehood for Gaza would pull the rug from under the feet of this cartel and put pressure on it to end its refusal to recognise or negotiate with the State of Israel. But the League's policy of inaction and its' failure to call for statehood has seen Gaza's population become a killing field of ever growing proportions.

The Quartet however need not have been so coy. It had a different agenda aimed at solving "the Palestinian question" which it considered to be the most intractable problem in the Middle East.

The unexpected removal of all Jews from Gaza presented the Quartet with the opening it had been desperately seeking to take a giant step forward in solving this problem. Yet the Quartet faltered dismally in failing to demand that the Parliament in Gaza declare statehood within the boundaries that separate it from Israel and Egypt.

This single act could have been the circuit breaker towards ending 130 years of conflict resulting from competing claims by Jews and Arabs over the same land.

Instead the Quartet focused its efforts on attempting to achieve an overall rather than a partial solution to Arab claims in the West Bank and Gaza in fulfilment of its' misconceived Road Map aimed at misguidedly creating a third State in Mandatory Palestine between Israel and Jordan.

The Quartet has now paid the price for its' folly.

It has created a void into which Hamas has stepped making it impossible now to achieve statehood in Gaza until Hamas is removed from power.

The frantic shuttle diplomacy and endless meetings continue to be held. They achieve no positive outcome other than the accumulation of frequent flyer points for their participants.

Meanwhile the killing and mayhem in Gaza continue to head the news bulletins.

It is now time to call on Jordan and Egypt to play a constructive role in cleaning up the mess in Gaza, which is quickly sinking into the arms smuggling tunnels it has been so busily excavating under its very foundations.

The time for playing semantic word games, holding joint press conferences and grabbing photo opportunities is surely over.

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer and Convenor of: Jordan is Palestine International -- an organization calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine.

To Go To Top

Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, February 20, 2007.

This was written by Matthias Kuentzel This appeared February, 14, 2007 in The Weekly Standard, Volume 012, Issue 22. Matthias Küntzel is a Hamburg-based political scientist and a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His book Jihad and Jew-Hatred: On the New Anti-Jewish War is forthcoming this year from Telos Press. This article was translated from German by Michael Bugajer and John Rosenthal.

Denying the Holocaust, desiring another one.

On December 12, 2006, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally brought to a close the infamous Holocaust deniers' conference in Tehran. A strange parade of speakers had passed across the podium: former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, the nutty followers of the anti-Zionist Jewish sect Neturei Karta, and officials of the neo-Nazi German National party, along with the familiar handful of professional Holocaust deniers. Frederick Töben had delivered a lecture entitled "The Holocaust--A Murder Weapon." Frenchman Robert Faurisson had called the Holocaust a "fairy tale," while his American colleague Veronica Clark had explained that "the Jews made money in Auschwitz." A professor named McNally had declared that to regard the Holocaust as a fact is as ludicrous as believing in "magicians and witches." Finally, the Belgian Leonardo Clerici had offered the following explanation in his capacity as a Muslim: "I believe that the value of metaphysics is greater than the value of history."

If this motley crew had assembled in a pub in Melbourne, nobody would have paid the slightest attention. What gave the event historical significance was that it was held by invitation, at the Iranian foreign ministry: on government premises, in a country that disposes of the world's second-largest oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia) and second-largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). And in this setting, the remarks quoted above provoked not dismissive laughter, but applause and attentive nods. On the walls hung photographs of corpses with the inscription "Myth," and others of laughing concentration camp survivors with the inscription "Truth."

The Tehran deniers' conference marks a turning point not only because of its state sponsorship, but also because of its purpose. Up until now, Holocaust deniers have wanted to revise the past. Today, they want to shape the future: to prepare the way for the next Holocaust.

In his opening speech to the conference, the Iranian foreign minister, Manucher Mottaki, left no doubt on this point: If "the official version of the Holocaust is called into question," Mottaki said, then "the nature and identity of Israel" must also be called into question. The purpose of denying, among all the Nazis' war measures, specifically the persecution of the Jews is to undermine a central motive for the establishment of the state of Israel. Auschwitz is delegitimized in order to legitimize the elimination of Israel--that is, a second genocide. If it should turn out, however, that the Holocaust did happen after all, Ahmadinejad explains that it would have been a result of European policies, and any homeland for the Jews would belong not in Palestine but in Europe. Either way, the result is the same: Israel must vanish.

This focus explains why the conference's sponsors attached so much importance to the participation of a delegation from the Jewish sect Neturei Karta. Although it does not deny the Holocaust, the sect welcomes the destruction of Israel. That objective was the common denominator uniting all the participants in the conference. In his closing speech, Ahmadinejad formulated it with perfect clarity: "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall... The Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."

Holocaust denial and the nuclear program

Just as Hitler sought to "liberate" humanity by murdering the Jews, so Ahmadinejad believes he can "liberate" humanity by eradicating Israel. The deniers' conference as an instrument for propagating this project is intimately linked to the nuclear program as an instrument for realizing it. Five years ago, in December 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani first boasted that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything," whereas the damage to the Islamic world of a potential retaliatory nuclear attack could be limited: "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." While the Islamic world could sacrifice hundreds of thousands of "martyrs" in an Israeli retaliatory strike without disappearing--so goes Rafsanjani's argument--Israel would be history after the first bomb.

It is precisely this suicidal outlook that distinguishes the Iranian nuclear weapons program from those of all other countries and makes it uniquely dangerous. As long ago as 1980, Khomeini put it this way: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Anyone inclined to dismiss the significance of such statements might want to consider the proclamation made by Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who stands even higher in the Iranian hierarchy than Ahmadinejad. A few months ago, on November 16, 2006, Rahimian explained: "The Jew"--not the Zionist, note, but the Jew--"is the most obstinate enemy of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind... The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia." The country that has been the first to make Holocaust denial a principle of its foreign policy is likewise the first openly to threaten another U.N. member state with, not invasion or annexation, but annihilation.

Yet it's all confusing. Why, if Iran wishes Israel ill, does it deny the Holocaust rather than applaud it? Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial has been especially well received in the Arab world, where it has won praise from Hezbollah, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas. Yet in the Arab world, Hitler is admired not for building highways or conquering Paris, but for murdering Jews. How can Holocaust denial be most prevalent in a region where admiration for Hitler remains widespread? To unlock this paradox it is necessary to examine the anti-Semitic mind.

Brother Hitler and Eichmann the Martyr

Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism at its most extreme. Whoever declares Auschwitz a myth implicitly portrays the Jews as the enemy of humanity: The assumption is that the all-powerful Jews, for filthy lucre, have been duping the rest of humanity for the past 60 years. Whoever talks of the "so-called Holocaust" implies that over 90 percent of the world's media and university professorships are controlled by Jews and are thereby cut off from the "real" truth. No one who accuses Jews of such perfidy can sincerely regret Hitler's Final Solution. For this reason alone, every denial of the Holocaust contains an appeal to repeat it.

Consider this passage written by an Egyptian columnist for the state-controlled newspaper Al-Akhbar, Egypt's second-largest daily, and published in April 2002:

The entire matter [of the Holocaust], as many French and British scientists and researchers have proven, is nothing more than a huge Israeli plot aimed at extorting the German government in particular and the European countries in general. But I, personally and in light of this imaginary tale, complain to Hitler, even saying to him from the bottom of my heart, "If only you had done it, brother, if only it had really happened, so that the world could sigh in relief [without] their evil and sin."

Often, however, enthusiasm for the Holocaust is expressed unvarnished. In 1961, when the trial of Adolf Eichmann dominated the headlines, such enthusiasm became evident for the first time. The Jordanian Jerusalem Times published an "Open Letter to Eichmann," which stated: "By liquidating six million you have... conferred a real blessing on humanity...

But the brave Eichmann can find solace in the fact that this trial will one day culminate in the liquidation of the remaining six million to avenge your blood." Arab writers such as Abdullah al-Tall eulogized "the martyr Eichmann," "who fell in the Holy War." In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt summarized the mood in the Arab world:

The newspapers in Damascus and Beirut, in Cairo and Jordan did not conceal either their sympathy for Eichmann or their regret that he "did not finish the job"; a radio broadcast from Cairo on the opening day of the trial even included a little sideswipe at the Germans, reproaching them for the fact that "in the last war, no German plane had ever flown over and bombed a Jewish settlement."

This heartfelt desire to see all Jews exterminated was reiterated in the Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar in April 2001 by the columnist Ahmad Ragab: "[Give] thanks to Hitler. He took revenge on the Israelis in advance, on behalf of the Palestinians. Our one complaint against him was that his revenge was not complete enough."

Obviously, from a logical point of view, enthusiasm for the Holocaust is incompatible with its denial. Logic, however, is beside the point. Anti-Semitism is built upon an emotional infrastructure that substitutes for reason an ephemeral combination of mutually exclusive attributions, all arising from hatred of everything Jewish. As a result, many contradictory anti-Jewish interpretations of the Holocaust can be deployed simultaneously: (1) the extermination of millions was a good thing; (2) the extermination of millions was a Zionist fabrication; (3) the Holocaust resulted from a Jewish conspiracy against Germany that Hitler thwarted and punished; (4) the Holocaust was a joint enterprise of the Zionists and Nazis; (5) the Zionists' "Holocaust industry" exaggerates the murder of the Jews for self-interested reasons; (6) Israeli actions against the Palestinians are the "true" Holocaust--and so on.

We are dealing here with a parallel universe in which the reality principle is ignored, and blatantly contradictory fantasies about Jews all have their place so long as they serve to reinforce anti-Semitic paranoia and hatred: a universe in which the laws of reason have been abolished and all mental energy is harnessed to the cause of anti- Semitism.

Amid the confusion, this universe is characterized by two constants: the refusal to come to terms with the facts of the Holocaust as it actually took place; and a willingness to find in the Holocaust a source of encouragement and inspiration, a precedent proving that it is possible to murder Jews by the million. This is why the precise content of Ahmadinejad's Holocaust tirades is not the issue. He is obsessed with the subject because he is fascinated by the possibility of a second Holocaust.

Why, then, did Ahmadinejad repeatedly and publicly embrace the ultra-orthodox Jews at the conference? Why did he personally greet every Jew present and say that "Zionism should be strictly separated from the Jewish faith"? Let us take a look at modern anti-Semitism in Iran.

Ahmadinejad and the Jews

Ahmadinejad's great inspiration, the Ayatollah Khomeini, not only recognized the mobilizing power of anti- Semitism in the struggle against the shah, he made use of it himself, as far back as the 1960s. "I know that you do not want Iran to lie under the boots of the Jews," he cried out to his supporters on April 13, 1963. That same year, he called the shah a Jew in disguise and accused him of taking orders from Israel. This drew a huge response from the public. Khomeini had found his theme.

Khomeini's biographer Amir Taheri writes: "The Ayatollah was by now convinced that the central political theme of contemporary life was an elaborate and highly complex conspiracy by the Jews--'who controlled everything'--to 'emasculate Islam' and dominate the world thanks to the natural wealth of the Muslim nations." When in June 1963 thousands of Khomeini-influenced theology students set off to Tehran for a demonstration and were brutally stopped by the shah's security forces, Khomeini channeled all their anger toward the Jewish nation: "Israel does not want the Koran to survive in this country... It is destroying us. It is destroying you and the nation. It wants to take possession of the economy. It wants to demolish our trade and agriculture. It wants to grab the wealth of the country."

After the Six Day War of 1967, the anti-Semitic agitation, which drew no distinction between Jews and Israelis, intensified. "[1]t was [the Jews] who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present," Khomeini wrote in 1970 in his principal work, Islamic Government. "[T]he Jews... wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that... they may one day achieve their goal." Then in September 1977, he declared, "The Jews have grasped the world with both hands and are devouring it with an insatiable appetite, they are devouring America and have now turned their attention to Iran and still they are not satisfied." Two years later, Khomeini was the unchallenged leader of the Iranian revolution.

Khomeini's anti-Semitic attacks found favor with the opponents of the shah, both leftists and Islamists. His anti- Semitism ran along the same lines as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the turn-of-the-century hoax beloved of the Nazis that purports to expose a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. The Protocols was published in Persian in the summer of 1978 and was widely disseminated as a weapon against the shah, Israel, and the Jews. In 1984, the newspaper Imam, published by the Iranian embassy in London, printed excerpts from The Protocols. In 1985, Iranian state authorities did a mass printing of a new edition. Somewhat later, the periodical Eslami serialized The Protocols under the title "The Smell of Blood: Jewish Conspiracies."

Just two years ago, in 2005, at the Iranian booth at the Frankfurt Book Fair, I was readily able to buy an English edition of The Protocols published by the Islamic Propagation Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Other anti-Semitic classics were also available, such as Henry Ford's The International Jew and Mohammad Taqi Taqipour's screed Tale of the "Chosen People" and the Legend of "Historical Right." The cover of the latter volume caught my eye: a red Star of David superimposed over a grey skull and a yellow map of the world. Obviously, even after the death of Khomeini in 1989, the worldwide dissemination of anti-Semitism by Iran continued.

The fact that 25,000 Jews now live in Iran, making it the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country, is not incompatible with the foregoing. The Jews in Iran are made clearly to feel their subordinate Dhimmi status. Thus, they are not allowed to occupy higher positions than Muslims and so are disqualified from the leading ranks in politics and the military. They are not allowed to serve as witnesses in court, and Jewish schools must be managed by Muslims and stay open on the Sabbath. Books in the Hebrew language are forbidden. Up to the present, the regime, which has time and again published anti-Semitic texts and caricatures, has prevented such hate-mongering from resulting in violence against Jews. Nevertheless, the combination of incitement and restraint leaves the Jewish community in a state of permanent insecurity. Today, the Jewish community serves Ahmadinejad not only as an alibi in his power game, but also increasingly as a deterrent: In the event of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, this community would find itself hostage and vulnerable to acts of reprisal.

Irrespective of the leeway that Ahmadinejad has, for the time being, left the Iranian Jews, his rhetoric is steeped in an anti-Semitism that is unprecedented for a state leader since World War II. Ahmadinejad does not say "Jews" are conspiring to rule the world. He says, "Two thousand Zionists want to rule the world." He says, "The Zionists" have for 60 years now blackmailed "all Western governments." "The Zionists have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural, and media sectors." "The Zionists" fabricated the Danish Muhammad cartoons. "The Zionists" are responsible for the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Iraq.

The pattern is familiar. Ahmadinejad is not a racist social Darwinist who, Hitler-like, wants to eliminate every last trace of "Jewish blood." The term "half-Jew" is not used in Islamist discourse. But he invests the word "Zionist" with exactly the same meaning Hitler poured into "Jew": the incarnation of evil.

The Iranian regime can court the Jewish Israel- haters of Neturei Karta all it wants, but anyone who makes Jews responsible for the ills of the world--whether calling them Judas or Zionists--is clearly driven by an anti- Semitism of genocidal potential. Demonization of Jews, Holocaust denial, and the will to eliminate Israel--these are the three elements of an ideological constellation that collapses as soon as any one of them is removed.

Ahmadinejad inhabits a delusional world that is sealed off from reality. The louder the liberal West protests against Holocaust denial or the Islamists' demands for the destruction of Israel, the more conviced Ahmadinejad becomes of Zionist domination. In a conversation with the editors of the German newsweekly Der Spiegel, the Iranian president reacted as follows to the remark that the magazine does not question Israel's right to exist: "I am glad that you are honest people and say that you are required to support the Zionists." Only when we too finally realize that the Holocaust is a Jewish lie--only when we too want to annihilate Israel--only then will Ahmadinejad be convinced that we are academically credible and politically free. It is this lunacy that makes the revolutionary mission of the Iranian leadership so dangerous.

Which brings us to the question of the broader significance of Iranian Holocaust denial. The Islamist mission is by no means restricted to Israel.

"Historical War"

In his first speech on the guiding principles of his politics, Ahmadinejad made this clear: "We are in the process of an historical war,... and this war has been going on for hundreds of years," he declared in October 2005. This is a war, then, that is not fundamentally about the Middle East conflict and will not end with the elimination of Israel. He continued: "We have to understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave." This "holy hatred" is boundless and unconditional. It will not be mitigated by any form of Jewish or non-Jewish conduct--other than subordination to sharia and the Koran.

In his letter to George W. Bush, the Iranian president described his objective: "Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems." The letter also tells how the liberal democracies will be shattered. Even here (if slightly diluted), the ideology of martyrdom--You love life, we love death--is propagated: "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world... A good land and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves."

Shiite Islamism confronts us with an adversary who reviles the achievements of modernity as Satan's work, who denounces the international system created after 1945 as a "Jewish-Christian conspiracy," and who therefore wishes to overturn the accepted historiography of the postwar period. At the start of the Holocaust deniers' conference, Foreign Minister Mottaki explained that the problem is the "wording of historical occurrences and their analysis [are written from] the perspective of the West." As against this "Western" historiography, Islamism wants to create a new historical "truth," in which the Holocaust is declared a myth, while the Twelfth Imam is deemed real. Whereas the delusional worldview of Holocaust denial is elevated to the norm, any deviation from it is denounced as a symptom of "Jewish domination."

Even as he is conducting his religious war, Ahmadinejad is also playing the role of a global populist. He addresses his speeches to all the world's "oppressed." He cultivates good relations with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez and ingratiates himself with the Western left by using anti-American rhetoric. His use of the word "Zionist" is strategic. It is the Trojan horse by which he makes his anti-Semitism respectable, allowing him to be at once an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier and the ultimate spokesman for the "oppressed nations."

Of course, Iran would not have to rely on Holocaust denial to pursue its strategic objectives. Yet Ahmadinejad insists on the point, in order to provide ideological undergirding to his push to destroy Israel. He also speculates that this project might win the approval of the Europeans. After all, in Europe the delegitimization of Israel has been going on for some time--if for different reasons. Recently the BBC organized a symposium on the question of whether Israel would still exist in 50 years. In a poll taken four years ago in the E.U., 59 percent saw Israel as "the biggest danger to world peace." Even in the United States, a growing number of intellectuals are convinced that Israel and its American supporters are the real source of the problems facing American foreign policy.

The alarm cannot be sounded loudly enough. If Iran is not put under pressure without delay and forced to choose between changing course and suffering devastating economic sanctions, the only remaining alternatives will be a bad one--the military option--and a dreadful one--the Iranian bomb.

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben-Gurion University. He can be reached by email at quality@computer.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 20, 2007.

Several times Member of Knesset Uzi Landau has put himself up as a candidate for Prime Minister but regrettably, each time he withdrew his candidacy so another candidate seemingly more popular with the party hacks of Likud would stand a beter chance. I proposed at the time that Landau run on the theme of "One Honest Man".

Unfortunately, "One Honest Man" is insufficient for the Party Hacks of the Central Committee and the people who have no real voice in electing a Prime Minister. Whether on the Right or Left, the system stinks like a barrel of fish left to rot in the sun.

Israel desperately needs "One Honest Man" at the top to clean out the stench of years in politics, the judiciary, police -- even the military and intelligence both politicized to serve political masters. The stink of crooked politicians, police, army officers and secret police selected for P.C. (Political Correctness) has cast a pall over the entire nation. Once the people of Israel were patriotic, but now people no longer admire their government and now distrust the police. They also are appalled at the Activist Supreme Court which promotes a Leftist agenda. The country needs an old fashioned revolution replete with a Peoples' Court as in the French Revolution.

Minister of Internal Security Avi Dichter appointed Mickey Levy to replace Karadi's Deputy Benny Kaniak which keeps the dishonor of the Police alive and well!

This article was written by Caroline Glick and is called "More than a few rotten apples." It appeared in the Jerusalem Post 2/20/07.

"The mafia brings people into the police and they act as [the mafia's] servants...The people in the police are afraid of nothing. A person who can take a half-a-million shekels inside a police station and not report it is someone who couldn't care less and fears nothing. A police like this cannot endure."

Thus spake retired district judge Vardi Zeiler Sunday morning. Zeiler's indictment of the police came as he presented the findings of the state commission he led which investigated allegations of police and prosecutorial mishandling of organized crime investigations and of police collusion with the Perinian crime family.

Hours after the Zeiler Commission published its report, housecleaning in the police high command had already begun in earnest. Insp.-Gen. Moshe Karadi announced his resignation. An hour later, Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter announced he was appointing Prison Service Chief Warden Yaakov Ganot to replace Karadi and former Jerusalem District Commander Mickey Levy to replace Karadi's deputy Benny Kaniak.

In explaining his decision, Dichter said, "I have reached the conclusion that in order to undertake policy changes, and especially in order to improve the performance of the 28,000 officers and men serving in the police, I must place a different high command at the helm of the organization."

Praising Dichter's appointments, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Ganot and Levy "can lead the Israel Police to achievements and successes in preserving the rule of law, public order and the provision of personal security to every citizen."

Both Olmert and Dichter spoke of the urgent need to restore public faith in the police and promised that with its new commanders the police force is embarking on a new path that makes it worthy of the public's trust.

UNFORTUNATELY, Dichter's command appointments do not inspire faith that the police force will reform itself. Moreover, there is no reason to expect that simple replacement of senior commanders will suffice to fix what is clearly broken in the police force specifically, or in the public sector generally.

In 1994 Ganot was indicted for taking bribes. Although he was found innocent of criminal wrongdoing, the facts that led to his indictment -- which are apparently undisputed -- cast doubt on his fitness to serve as the chief of police.

While serving as the police commander of the Northern District, Ganot accepted unusually cheap contracting estimates for home improvements from a contractor whose base of operations was within Ganot's geographical command. It is true that the state prosecutors failed to prove their contention that in hiring the contractor Ganot had accepted a bribe. But in behaving as he did, Ganot displayed at worst contempt, and at best an inexcusable misunderstanding of what it means to be a public servant.

Levy's past service record contains an even more disturbing blot. In 1994, while serving as the commander of the Jerusalem Police station, Levy led his men in dispersing a legal demonstration against the Oslo process organized by the right-wing advocacy group Women in Green. As his men violently dispersed the non-violent, law-abiding demonstrators, Levy brutally attacked Women in Green leader Nadia Matar. After attacking her, Levy arrested her and filed a criminal complaint accusing Matar of attacking him.

In a bit of bum luck for Levy, a Channel 2 camera crew filmed the episode. The film clearly showed Levy assaulting Matar as she passively resisted arrest for leading a licensed, legal protest.

Acting on Levy's false testimony, the state prosecution opened criminal proceedings against Matar. After Matar's attorney entered the Channel 2 footage as exculpatory evidence, the presiding judge advised the state prosecution to withdraw the complaint. It did so only after Levy testified under oath that Matar had assaulted him.[*]

LAST YEAR, in its preliminary findings, the Zeiler Commission issued warnings to the former head of the Police Investigations Department and current State Attorney Eran Shendar and his successor at PID, Herzl Spiro, for what the commission viewed as undue willingness to close its criminal investigation against police Commander Yoram Levy for his documented untoward relationship with the Perinian crime family.

In Matar's case, after the prosecution withdrew its charges, her attorney filed a request for the PID to open a criminal investigation of Mickey Levy on suspicion of assault and perjury. Here, in a manner disturbingly similar to his refusal to pursue the investigation of Yoram Levy, Shendar claimed that in spite of the Jerusalem police station commander's prima facie false testimony against Matar and the film evidence of his brutality, there was insufficient evidence to indict him.

Both Ganot's and Levy's past records raise serious questions about the reasonableness of their appointments. Yet Shendar's failure to properly investigate Levy on the one hand and Dichter's willingness to appoint Ganot and Levy in spite of their problematic records on the other indicates that the problems that afflict the police in general and the public sector generally will not go away with the shake-up of the police high command. Those problems, as former internal security minister Uzi Landau puts it, are "systemic" and cannot be reduced to a few rotten apples here and there that need to be removed.

That systemic problem is not one of lawlessness so much as propriety. In a disturbingly large number of cases the Israel police, like its counterparts in the state prosecution, has forgotten that its status as public servant does not render it a privileged class above the "unwashed masses" who pay their salaries.

AND HERE we arrive at the wider systemic problem that Landau referred to. It is the same systemic flaw that caused the Zeiler Commission to be formed and the same problem that fomented the establishment of the Winograd Committee, whose investigation of the government's and IDF's conduct of last summer's war with Hizbullah is due to be completed next month.

For the past decade or so, Israel's elites in the public sector and in the media have repeatedly drawn an unsubstantiated distinction between professional bureaucrats and politicians. The former are upheld as incorruptible and upright while the latter have been decried as incompetent, unprofessional and inherently corrupt. This absurd distinction has engendered the view that our bureaucrats can do no wrong while our politicians can do no right.

And this is the heart of the matter.

Whether a person is fit to serve or not has far less to do with his resumé than with his character. This is as true of so-called professional bureaucrats as it is of so-called politicians. In the case of the police, what men like Karadi, Ganot and both Levys, like Shendar and Spiro, lack is not professional qualifications, but integrity.

IN SHARP contrast, at the same moment that the disgraced professional Karadi announced his resignation, a purely political meeting in Tel Aviv took place that showed politics at its best.

At Likud party headquarters a group of Likud Central Committee members attempted to convince Uzi Landau to return to the Knesset. Landau failed to be reelected in last year's general elections largely because he refused to abandon his convictions.

Rather than close ranks around then party leader and prime minister Ariel Sharon, Landau led the internal Likud campaign against Sharon's withdrawal and expulsion plan from Gaza and northern Samaria. Now he is in line to reenter the Knesset to fill the seat being vacated by MK Dan Naveh, who has decided to leave politics in order to take a high-paying job in the private sector.

The Likud Central Committee has for years been portrayed by the media as the most corrupt enclave in Israeli society. Its members are castigated as hacks who, to a man, care nothing for the public welfare or the good of the state and are motivated only by an unquenchable appetite for political jobs and graft.

Yet, lo and behold, as the police force was dismembering itself on live television, these supposedly wholly corrupt Neanderthals were imploring one of the most ideologically driven and competent politicians in Israel to drop what he is doing and return to the Knesset for the good of the party and the country.

Unfortunately for both the party and the nation, Landau rejected their pleas. No, he has not abandoned his efforts to serve the country in favor of a lucrative private sector job. After leaving the Knesset last year Landau founded a non-profit organization called "Beautiful Country" that seeks to reinforce the general public's Zionist ideals by organizing subsidized nature hikes and tours of the country, and public lectures for people who are little involved in the issues of the day.

As he explained, Landau doesn't feel right abandoning the project now, before he has gotten it fully operational. In the next elections, he promised, he will think about running again if the party is still interested.

THE CONTRAST between the political meeting with Landau, the politician, and the spectacle of the professional police disgrace makes a point that is crucial that Israeli society understand if we wish to truly solve our systemic problems. Israel has many honest public employees, and it has many dishonest politicians. So too, it has many dishonest and disgraceful public employees and many honorable and admirable politicians.

The challenge of our times is not to find a way to get the so-called professionals to oversee politics. Our central challenge is to ensure that our public servants in both appointed and elected office are honest and good people who have our best interests at heart.

[*] More information from Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com) by Nadia Matar, Feb. 20, 2007:

Matar: Police Not Headed in Right Direction
by Hillel Fendel

Nadia Matar, co-chair and founder of the nationalist grassroots organization Women in Green, recalls a demonstration she organized 13 years ago protesting the Oslo Accords -- and in which she was brutally arrested by then-Deputy Jerusalem District Commander Mickey Levy. Levy accused her of attacking him, but when a film of the event was later produced showing the opposite, the charges against her were abruptly withdrawn. Matar now asks that State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss block the expected appointment of Levy as Israel's new Deputy Police Commander. In a letter to Lindenstrauss, Matar asks that he investigate Levy's past, noting that Levy "faced a disciplinary trial in the Bureau for Investigations Against Policemen for perjury -- but was strangely acquitted [despite the film]." The video can be viewed in today's Arutz-7 article:

In her letter to Comptroller Lindenstrauss, Matar writes, "Public Security Minister Avi Dichter says that the new appointments [to the police force, following the resignation of Commissioner Moshe Karadi and firing of two others after a corruption investigation] will lead the police along a new path. Given Levy's behavior and the cover-up by the police organs of his criminal acts, I ask you: Aren't these new appointments actually a continuation of the old corrupt ways? If the police truly want to clean up and start fresh, a man like Mickey Levy cannot be appointed to such a high position."

The incident in question occurred in 1994 outside the Supreme Court in Jerusalem. Hearings were being held there regarding the killing of 29 Arabs by Baruch Goldstein, and possibly others, in the Machpelah Cave several weeks earlier. Several Women in Green members -- fewer than the 49 that would have required a special police permit -- gathered to protest the fact that Arab deaths were being investigated, but not Jewish ones.

"Since the Oslo Process began [six months ago]," Matar called out to the small crowd, "33 Israelis have been murdered -- yet no one is answering our call to investigate why." She then began to read aloud the names of the murdered, when suddenly she was beset upon by Commander Levy and other policemen. The video shows that she attacked no one, but that Levy and other policemen pulled and shoved her brutally; a woman in the crowd is heard crying out, "Are you sick, hitting women like that!" Matar later told Arutz-7 that this was Women in Green's first encounter with the police: "We had just been founded several months earlier, and we had weekly rallies -- but we didn't seem to get any media attention. Then we realized that if the media didn't come to us, we would go to them. So when the Goldstein investigation happened, with all the attention it gathered, we moved our protest to there as well -- and that's why Channel Two was able to film what happened to us."

"The police were determined to disperse the rally," Matar said, "even though a license is only required for a protest of 49 people or more... Soon, a police van pulled up, and out jumped Mickey Levy. He attacked me, and violently dragged me to the van. My mother-in-law, too [Women in Green co-founder Ruth Matar], was stricken, and fainted from the attack... I was later charged with physically assaulting a police officer, with Levy lying and claiming in court that I had hit him. Fortunately, a Channel Two news crew was on hand at the demonstration and we were able to get the video that clearly showed Levy's violent treatment of me."

Nadia's trial on charges of "assaulting a police officer" soon got underway, but two years later, in March 1996, just as her defense was to begin, the Police Department and the prosecutor's office suddenly decided to withdraw the charges against her. She expressed disappointment at the time, saying that she would now be unable to prove that she herself was attacked by Levy.

Several months later, however, then-Attorney General Elyakim Rubenstein recommended that Levy face police disciplinary charges -- of which he was later "strangely acquitted," Matar writes, despite the movie clip.

The Israel Channel 2 video discussed in Caroline Glick's article clearly shows Officer Mickey Levy brutally attacking Nadia Matar at a legal, quiet vigil. The video can be viewed in today's Arutz-7 article: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121621

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 20, 2007.


The Attorney-General is making another power grab. Now he assumes control over the Prime Minister's powers, asserting that he would overturn decisions by PM Olmert if he thinks they conflict with the criminal investigation of Olmert. The appointed Attorney-General is not accountable, the elected PM is. The danger to Israel is to be ruled by lawyers, ones who enforce the law selectively, at that.

The prosecutors claim they merely are protecting the rule of law. Actually, they are advancing their agenda (one of which is anti-Zionism). They managed to seize the appointment of the Attorney-General from the government, by having the applicants vetted by a committee of unelected lawyers. The same thing is done by for the Supreme Court if not also other levels of judges.

Having uniformity of view, the prosecutors enforce laws selectively, according to that ideology. They are lenient to favored groups and severe towards groups out of favor. One favored group is the hundreds of gangs of Beduin thieves, who have ended the rule of law in the Negev. Only 15% of the population, they account for 60% of the crime, there. They have squatted on thousands of acres of state land. Then they demand that the state provide them with water and electricity. They cut power lines and water pipes, cellular telephone antennas, and break into businesses, then offer "protection." They also engage in highway robbery. Jews now must travel in convoys at night or in bullet-proof buses. Rustling of livestock, trees, and greenhouses has more than doubled over 2005.

"According to Israeli criminal law, 'A person will not be criminally liable for an act that was immediately necessary in order to prevent an unlawful attack that involved clear danger to his life, his liberty, his body or his property, or that of others.'" The farmer who shot a notorious Bedouin robber leading a gang that had just poisoned his dogs, which preceded the other three times they stole his herd, is being prosecuted for manslaughter. Why?

Could be that prosecutors are afraid of the Bedouin. Probably the bias is political, since the lead prosecutors are far leftists. They don't protect the rule of law in the Negev, so why believe they are doing so with PM Olmert? (IMRA, 1/23.) They keep hold over crooked PMs by suspending strong prosecution. They condone police brutality against observant Jews in Yesha.

Who will clean out of prosecution the far leftists and reform the system, and clear Bedouin off the stolen land and crack down on their criminality? Foreign critics inhibit Israeli self-defense.

In later news, the robbed farmer was ordered into house arrest far from his farm. Who will protect his farm, now? We don't hear that the three robbers who escaped were arrested. Only the Jewish victim is punished, in Israel -- Israel, the anti-Jewish state.


NGO Monitor contrasts NGOs' malicious actions with NGO statements of noble purpose. Under cover of humanitarian work and objectives, NGOs support jihad or defame Israel. One such NGO is the Palestine Children's Welfare Fund. It exploits children's issues so as to promote radical conflict. Thus a children's drawing contest gave awards to entries that depicted hatred of Israel.

The Fund sued NGO Monitor and allied groups for defamation of character and damages, when they linked it to Islamist terrorism. The Texas Court found his suit a "morass of vitriolic accusations" that had "no basis in law." The Court ordered plaintiff to pay $60,000 in costs and $1000 to each defendant for his violation of court orders. The court did not let itself be used to silence legitimate criticism (IMRA, 1/23). Criticism of promoters of radical conflict is humanitarian.


The Israel on Campus Coalition was formed by Jewish groups in the US to counteract anti-Zionist propaganda. One of the members of the coalition, the Union of Progressive Zionists, has been sponsoring a campus program that falsely and harshly accuses Israel of human rights abuses against the Palestinian-Arabs. Its program "omits historical facts, provides no balance or context, and promotes outright falsehoods about Israel.

"Examples identified by the American Jewish Congress from the Progressive's web site demonstrate how the program demonizes and incites hatred of Israel. Israel is condemned for its alleged 'violence and law-flouting.' The IDF is condemned for supposedly ordering its soldiers 'to shoot to kill unarmed people without fear of reprimand.'...And Jewish settlers purportedly 'inflict the purest evil on their neighbors.'" (Actually, the Arabs do those things and the IDF inhibits its troops.)

The Progressives don't belong in a Zionist organization. When ZOA proposed expelling the Progressives, however, it lost the vote (IMRA, 1/23).


The head of the new Hamas-Fatah coalition government said it would not stop fighting Israel and start recognizing it (IMRA, 2/12).

Thought Fatah would exercise a "moderate influence?" The coalition is just a ruse to serve as a pretext for renewed foreign aid.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 20, 2007.

We keep reading and hearing reports in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, FOX and CNN<> to the effect that the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, having met with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas is awaiting the positions of Hamas and Fatah in their transition into a Unity Government. Early reports indicate that this is irrelevant because Hamas has already re-stated their position of NOT accepting Israel on any terms. Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) said that "Israel need not talk to Hamas and only he will talk to Israel." (1 & 2) Presumably, Abbas will talk-the-talk that the State Department will put on his tongue and the State Department will call that "sufficient".

Rice and the unholy Quartet (U.S. State Department, the European Union, U.N. and Russia, keeps repeating their mantra that Hamas must accept all prior agreements the PLO made with Israel Given the incontrovertible fact that ALL of those prior agreements were broken either by Yassir Arafat and later by Abbas -- to what exactly is Hamas supposed to adhere? The language embodied in those agreements or the broken agreements following their signing?

Hamas could easily accept the actual facts as written in the now broken agreements and, thereby, meet the convoluted terms of Rice, the Quartet and then accepted by the current consummate fool of a Prime Minister -- Ehud Olmert.

Think about Oslo, for example. Almost all, if not every line of the Oslo Accords was broken by Arafat within hours or days of its signing September 13, 1993 on the White House lawn. That failed agreement snaked through the secret labyrinth of Rabin, Peres, and Beilin machinations with Norway and other nations playing a secret role. That agreement shattered like the broken glass of "Kristallnacht". It was formatted so poorly that it was designed to shatter like glass and thus be acceptable to Arafat -- according to the planning by Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin.

For Rice to demand that Hamas and Fatah keep such a broken set of agreements is a badly conceived sham. When you review the so-called agreements of Oslo 1 and 2, you can see that, with cold deliberation, Arafat with his advisor Mahmoud Abbas, broke every line, every jot and tittle, of the Oslo Accords. In essence, there is no Agreement in the Oslo Accords and, in practice, there never was such an Agreement. But, if Rice can string together some nonsense words like: "Hamas recognizes Israel but doesn't see her", would that allow the donor money of American tax-payers' dollars to flow once again?

When one sees the thousands of convicted terrorists released in other agreements, here too, the Agreements were broken from day one as most of the terrorists went back to their old units to begin terror again and/or to teach terror. Yet, we see Olmert, at the behest of Rice, contemplating the release of more than a thousand imprisoned terrorists, including Marwan Bargouti who is serving 5 life sentences for murder. All of the tried and convicted Muslim Arab terrorists either have Jewish blood on their hands or were convicted of attempting the murder of Jews.

Once again the Agreements with Muslim Arab Palestinian or other Arabs generally is a non-starter. The pretense by Rice and/or the Quartet that there were binding standing agreements that were honored is merely a sham.

It has been repeated that Rice is willing to hold talks only with Abbas, despite the fact that he is now to be an organic part of Hamas under the guise of a Unity Government. Translate that to mean that Rice and the State Department with approval by President Bush, will be funneling millions into Fatah with a money tunnel branching off to Hamas -- now called the "Unity Government". On January 31, 2007 Bush oversaw a gift to Hamas of $86 million American tax-payers' dollars.(3) Did Bush forget that several weeks ago, Abbas called on supporters in his Fatah faction to turn their guns on Israel instead of fellow Palestinians? (4) This was only small change compared to the hundreds of millions to be spent on training and equipping the 60,000+ man army for the Hamas/Fatah Unity Government.

Translate that to mean that Bush has taken on the obligation in the name of all Americans to fund the Palestinian terrorist army long into the future. Bush and Rice have already begun funding and arming Arafat's old guard (Force 17). Remember that in Khartoum February 1973 the leader of Arafat's Force 17 commanded the Black September Terror operatives when they executed U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noél, U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission George Moore and the Belgian charges d'affaires, Guy Eid -- on orders recorded from Yassir Arafat. (5)

All of this was revealed to the State Department but, they kept on paying Arafat to maintain his Army of Terrorists and his Force 17 Presidential Guard. In effect, the Arabist U.S. State Department became co-conspirators in the murders of Ambassador Noél, Moore and Eid by protecting Arafat with silence. Whoever was responsible in the State Department, all of them, should have gone to jail as accessories to murder and for treason

Come on, Ms. Rice, we are not that stupid to ignore this trick..again...or are we?

Even if a Palestinian State is created with false, unenforceable agreements how long before all agreements are broken and Israel is hit by a saturation missile attack from Judea and Samaria which under control of those "good ole boys" the formerly-imprisoned terrorists who insist that they are Palestinians and should own ALL of Palestine. Remember, they claim ALL of what was British Mandatory Palestine. Their maps claim for a future State cover ALL of the Jewish State of Israel -- which seems consistent with State Department desires since 1947.

Let us conclude with what has been told to President Bush by scholars who specialize in Muslim behavior, tradition and further supported by what he has learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, he has a resident scholar in Condoleezza Rice who advised him earlier as an expert in Russia which had Muslim nations as connected nations.

What they all know is that Muslims can make agreements, treaties, even business arrangements -- all of which can and often will be abandoned with or without notice. This is their obligation to the Koran and Islam which they are taught from birth to death. Agreements with infidels (non-believers in Islam) must also follow the way of Mohammed as specified in the "Hadith" (oral teachings) which includes making false, short term agreements with non-believers for the benefit of Islam and Allah.

They may lie, kill, cheat, break any and all agreements if the Muslim believes it inures to the growth and spread of Islam. In fact, agreements with "infidels" must be broken at a time not to exceed 10 years. (This is based upon the Hudaybiya Treaty which Mohammed made as a peace treaty with the Jewish tribe of Qurayza. He broke it when he was militarily stronger, returned, killed the men of the Qurayza by beheading, sold the women and children into slavery. Shortly after the Oslo Accords were signed Yassir Arafat, speaking in Arabic to his followers, said Oslo would be like the Hudaybiya Treaty -- null and void in 10 years.)

If a Muslim swears an oath on a Koran, he is swearing to NOT follow that oath IF it is any law or agreement with an "infidel". Therefore, such agreements with Israel or America are "null and void" -- even as they are being committed to by America or Israel. Signatures on documents may as well be signed in disappearing ink because both the signature and the meaning fades in moments.

The Muslims will seem to keep the spirit and the specifics as long as it benefits them and Islam. The two most obvious dupes (or dopes) are the Americans and Israelis. American soldiers have learned this in Iraq as they train Muslims to fight alongside them, only to find they have either informed the terrorists of where the soldiers will be or the Iraqi soldiers might shoot their American partners in the back on joint patrols.

Rice, Bush and the State Department know all of this and yet they foist these agreements on Israel. Not exactly a vote a confidence in the ethics and trustworthiness of an ally who puts you at risk knowingly.

Currently, Ms. Rice has tripped over to Jordan where she will meet King Abdullah of Jordan, along with Saudi representatives. Presumably, they are planning some method to legitimize the coming Unity Government of Hamas and Fatah previously cooked up in Mecca, no doubt, with State Department planning.

I can hardly wait to see how the lies are dressed up as "peace-making" -- including the release of donor funds to Unified Terrorists, Inc. and including the release of those convicted Terrorists.


Please note the following paragraphs reprinted from our article of February 18th, entitled: "RICE GIVES NORTH KOREA A PASS" These particular paragraphs do not deal with North Korea, but with the Hamas and Fatah "Talks" in Mecca under Saudi invitation":

"Well, Hamas and Abbas just had "Talks" in Mecca under Saudi invitation and after much self congratulations of creating a Unity Government, Hamas came back with new demands. Rice, at the behest of her Boss, is desperate for anything that looks like a set of Peace Talks between Hamas/Fatah and Olmert's weak and-about-to-fall government...

"After months of bloody virtual civil war between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya submitted his resignation to assist in the sham formation of a Unity Government and Abbas immediately asks him to form that new government. Their "trick" is to open up the door for the U.S. and E.U. to resume the paying donor monies in the billions to the Muslim Arab Palestinians because this is a "new" government...(6)..

"However, none of this sham agreement requires Fatah and Hamas to honor the prior mandated obligations, namely, recognize Israel, cease terror and no agreement to the returns of relatives, of so-called refugees to Israel, numbering in the millions...

"The Mecca deal brokered by the Saudi King Abdullah between the Fatah and Hamas was DOA (Dead On Arrival) but Rice, Olmert and LIvni are trying to resuscitate a corpse and make it walk around in a charade of good health. Haniya of Hamas has said openly that he will not recognize Israel's right to exist; he won't disarm; nor will he accept any of the previous agreements such as Oslo...he will "respect" them. Period."


1. "Rice Tries to Hold Together Her Plan for Mideast Talks" by Helene Cooper New York Times February 19, 2007

2. "Cloud Over Mideast Talks" by Joel Greenberg Chicago Tribune February 19, 2007

3. "Bush Gives $86 Million Transferred to Abbas" January 31, 2007
http://www.cncnews,.com/ViewForeginBureaus.asp?Page= /For...01/INT20070131c.html & forum.military.com/eve/ forums/a/tpc/f/409192893/m/958004101001

4. "Bush Orders $86 Million Transferred to Abbas" Jan. 31, 2007

5. "How Arafat Got Away with Murder" by Scott W. Johnson Weekly Standard Jan. 29, 2007

6. "RICE GIVES NORTH KOREA A PASS" by Emanuel A. Winston February 18, 2007

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, February 20, 2007.

Is the main struggle in the Middle East today between radicals and moderates or between Sunni and Shia Muslims? The United States puts the emphasis on the former while Saudi Arabia stresses the latter idea.

This is how to put into context the Saudi effort to mend the violent conflict between the two main Palestinian groups, nationalist Fatah and Islamist Hamas. The Saudis want to steal (or perhaps one should say "buy") Hamas away from Iran and Syria, which U.S. policy sees as the radical and Saudi policy views as the Shia camp.

The resulting Mecca agreement signed last week provides for a Palestinian coalition government in which both groups could keep their own policy positions. From the Palestinian viewpoint, this is a cynical public relations' ploy. To the West, it can be pretended that the new Palestinian Authority (PA) regime is more moderate, despite the fact that Hamas continues to dominate the government while maintaining its genocidal aim of wiping Israel, and most of its people, off the map.

Indeed, the PA will continue to tolerate and cheer the firing of rockets at Israeli civilian targets daily and the launching of terrorist attacks. Those responsible will not be warned, criticized, stopped, or arrested by it. This makes the PA a state sponsor of terrorism.

The basic plan is to create a coalition government for the PA, control of which was won by Hamas in the January 2006 election. There would still be a Hamas prime minister and a majority Hamas government but with some cabinet posts--notably, foreign affairs and finance, the critical ones for raising Western money and support--to Fatah. An independent would be given the Interior Ministry, which supposedly controls the Palestinian armed forces.

But let's return to the Saudi view because this debate over "defining the enemy" is going to be absolutely critical to the fate of the Middle East, which nowadays means also the fate of the world.

Today, the main issue in the region is the attempt by Iran and Syria to gain control of as much of the Middle East as possible. Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida are old news. Their ideology and program has been adapted by Tehran and Damascus to be used far more effectively to mobilize support.

The main fronts in this struggle are Lebanon, where this axis uses the large Hizballah group, and Iraq, where its assets include both the Sunni insurgents (who look to Syria) and the most extreme Shia groups (whose patron is Iran).

By putting together this deal, the Saudis cleverly showed three things:

-- Unlike Iran and Syria, the Saudis can work with others and mediate. Iran, Syria, and Hizballah tend to put everyone else into two categories: those who can be intimidated and those who have to be killed. The Saudis are, if anything, flexible.

-- The Saudi advantage is money. Promising $1 billion to Hamas and Fatah if they signed on the dotted line, enough money to finance the PA for a year and pay all those officials who haven't been getting their salary due to Western sanctions, is quite an incentive to go along.

-- The Saudis can get things done. While Iran, Syria, and Hizballah shout a lot of slogans and profess undying love for the Palestinians, the Saudis did something to help them materially.

There are also, however, several problems with the Saudi strategy. First and foremost, the Saudis may be able to rent Hamas but they cannot buy it. In recent years, Hamas has moved increasingly closer to Iran, the main source of its money, and Syria, where it has its headquarters. When Hamas won the Palestinian elections, this was a big victory for the axis and an encouragement for radical Islamist forces in general.

Yet, in its ideology, extremism, and anti-Americanism, Hamas is closer to Iran and Syria than it is to Saudi Arabia. Thus, the Saudis will be subsidizing some radical terrorist groups in the battle against other ones, and even this will be only a very temporary victory.

In addition, and this is a real pity, the Saudis are not going to use the leverage earned by their brokering a compromise to Hamas' advantage and providing lots of money as a way to push or even force Hamas toward a more moderate position. By undermining Western sanctions and rewarding Hamas' intransigence, the Saudi deal makes any diplomatic progress on an Israeli-Palestinian solution even more remote.

Coupled with the Palestinian deal, the Saudis are also pursuing a wider strategy:

-- The Saudis can greatly damage Iran by keeping the price of oil low. The Iranian economy is in terrible shape; in fact, the U.S. sanctions have been very successful in limiting investment there, and Saudi Arabia can do more to pressure Iran on the nuclear issue than any single country by threatening to further cut into Iran's income.

-- Trying to see if a deal could be worked out with Syria, in which Lebanon could be stabilized. The Syrians set their terms too high and the effort failed.

-- Support for Lebanon's government against the Hizballah challenge to overthrow it.

-- The Saudis have offered to make the Iraqi government "honorary Sunnis" (the regime is overwhelmingly Shia) by appealing to them to be loyal to the "Arab world" rather than Iran. The problem is that the Arab states are treating Iraq so bad, including supporting terrorist insurgents there, that it makes it harder to win over Baghdad.

-- Finally, the Saudis want to assure Israel that they are not seeking a confrontation and that their interests are parallel in many ways. At the same time, though, Saudi policy is strengthening the most extreme Palestinian forces. Still, recognizing the wider regional picture, the Israeli government has refrained from criticizing the Saudis and their Mecca deal.

This was written by Barry Rubin, who is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press, August 2006). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 20, 2007.

Nothing of substance occurred in the Rice-Olmert-Abbas talks, Yoram Ettinger feels, but he says Hamas came away on the up side.

Yoram Ettinger, an expert on U.S.-Israel relations, opines that visiting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has the mistaken conception that the Israel-PA issue will affect the fate of US efforts against Iran. "She wants concessions from both sides," Ettinger said.

A former liaison for Congressional affairs in Israel's Washington embassy, Ettinger spoke with Arutz-7's Yigal Shok following the three-way meetings of Rice, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and Fatah chairman Abbas in Jerusalem yesterday (Monday).

Arafat, Peres, Rabin (l-r)

"The end result is the status quo; nothing has changed," Ettinger said. "Secretary Rice still hopes that Israel and Fatah will come closer and make concessions to each other, because what's important to her is not the Palestinian issue but the situation in Iraq and Iran; she feels -- mistakenly, in my opinion -- that the Palestinian subject is the heart of everything and causes all the shocks in the Middle East and can determine the effectiveness of any coalition against Iran."

Hamas Must Merely Make Verbal Commitments

However, he said, "Hamas is the winner of this summit, because the sense of this policy is that Hamas is being accepted as a legitimate partner for dialogue. Just like when Arafat 'as if' recognized Israel, and 'as if' abandoned the path of terrorism -- even though the last 13 years have shown that this was not at all true -- and now Secretary Rice is trying to get Hamas to do the same thing! Israel is going along as well. All they are asking is that Hamas 'commit itself' to the Quartet conditions. But we have received the same things in the past, and what did we gain? Abu Mazen is now portrayed as a 'leader of peace' merely for his words. The fact that his commitments are not being implemented in practice is a different story."

The purpose of Rice's visit was to "rush up the establishment of a Palestinian state and to bring Israel to uproot Jewish communities in Yesha [Judea and Samaria]," Ettinger said -- "but this plan failed because of the Mecca summit and the current -- I emphasize, current -- problematic stance of Hamas. Rice's anticipations were great, but the reality was not quite that way."

Ettinger emphasized that the Israeli political leadership has come around to Rice's way of thinking, "namely, that Israel must withdraw to the pre-Six Day War borders and enable the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is either because Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzippy Livny actually believe this, or because they feel that there is no choice but to dance according to the tune of the State Department -- even though this is not necessarily the stance of President Bush, and certainly not of Vice President Cheney and the Congress. This shows a genuine lack of understanding on the part of our leaders regarding what goes on in the U.S. and the true status of the Secretary of State."

Hillel Fendel is News Editor of Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Lademain, February 20, 2007.

Dear (name redacted)--why are you, of all people, bemoaning possible damage to Iranian sites of scenic beauty?

We are the NON-evangelical Christians for Zion. We challenge you who weep over Iran to take care of your own, first. We challenge you to worry first about preserving the many glorious sites of American scenic beauty. We challenge you to remember that the lands of Israel (once known throughout Europe and the US as "Palestine, the Homeland of the Jews") never belonged to the so-called "Palestinians" who wrongfully claim it, today, because the Islamic Arabs who later re-designated themselves as "Palestinians" were merely a figment of Jimmy Carter's imagination when he and the Egyptian terrorist, Yasser Arafat, put their heads together for to deconstruct the tiny nation of Israel. The land itself, the entire region, once belonged not to the Arabs, but to the Ottoman Empire and the latter lost the region when it took Germany's losing side in WW 1.

It is our belief that the tiny nation of Israel was betrayed by its greedy leadership over the past 30 or so years and that they, in turn, were promoted by financial supporters who have been and still are doing business with the Saudis and their myriad front companies and nominees---primarily in real estate and government countracts, in the US and abroad.

Consider this: OPIC, funded by uninformed US taxpayers, underwrites much of this commerce; witness the enormously costly but failed Dobhar (India) and Gaza Power Plant boondoggles, both involving Enron International and Rebecca Marks. Deep into the Gaza financial fiasco we find the US State Dept.; OPIC; the Bank of Saudi Arabia; Yasser Arafat and his partner, Shimon Peres; Abb Staal of Sweden and Norway; and looming over all of this was Bush and then Bill Clinton (especially Clinton) with their arms stretched out like Laddie Bountiful, distributing not their own funds but only Other People's Money to fund Jim Baker's notion of foreign policy which stood on the sentimental but outrageously self-serving platform: "that those who do business together are friends who will lead us all to peace." The Saudis then enriched our ex-POTUSes. Clinton, indirectly, (through his presidential library, a tax exempt NGO) for promoting this stupid notion. The Saudis and the UAE likewise have been using many ways to fund Carter and Bush and Colin Powell, etc. etc. [Speakers fees in the millions; charitable contributions to their respective tax-exempt NGOs in the mega-millions; junkets; dinners; entertainments, etc. etc.]

Everyone should understand, including US Senator Diane Feinstein, that "People Who do Business Together" are neither allies nor friends and that this is at last dawning on the average American. People who are "doing business together," especially under such circumstances as characterize Enron International (still in business under myriad new names) are at best symbiotic participants, most of whom being in a position to rip-off the uninformed American taxpayer. In fact, we dare speculate that the Saudis know more about ripping-off the American taxpayer than does our average Senator because the Saudis attend our best universities and circle amongst the highest echelons of commerce and "society" in our nation's capital.

The Saudis are patient and cold and use American forces to advance their security. We believe this allows them to further their long-range plans to surround, infiltrate, and then march full-bore into Europe. When Egyptian and Syrians, pretending to be "Palestinians," wave expensive new banners urging Spaniards to hate Israel, who do you think is picking up the tab for these despicable riots? The supposedly "poor-poor-Palestinians"? (Or could it be that Sucha Arafat is finally dispensing dead Arafat's billion-dollar pelf to fund "Pali-symp" demonstrations throughout Europe?) We dare say that the Islamic oil states, many themselves only of recent origin, are pouring their oil revenues into Spain and France and Belgium to set the stage for the destruction of American allies--one being Israel.

KIndly understand that most of the Iranians who do not hate Jews are the Iranian emigrants who escaped Iran when the Ayatollah seized power. Many would return to Iran if there's something worth returning to. Whether there is or is not will depend not on the US or its allies, but on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is responsible for exposing "Iran's beauty" to dire consequences should he make good on his declaration of war against Israel and other U.S. allies. His rantings should not be dismissed. The time has come for Jewish peace-nuts everywhere to face up to the fact that their begging for "preserving the beauties" of their declared enemies (instead of their own) will not put a stop to Iran's declared aggression. Or any Islamic aggression, for that matter. In fact, such absurd beggary merely buttresses the Islamic's notion that the US is already defeated and demoralized, which in turn incites further aggression and murder of civilians because the mindless army of Islam (raised up over the past 30 years by the same simps who funded and sentimentalized and shmalzed over the "poor poor faux-palis) is an army trained to obey orders not just for their own state (Iran) but for their concept of "God." Murdering innocent Christians is but routine "holy war" for a robot-pali-symp.

Any Jew who ignores these facts, or who idolized Colin Powell (a political hack if there ever was one) is either willfully ignorant or blinded by his or her own fantasy that peace can be had if you pray for it, or march for it, or "reach out" to the enemy and beg for it.

It is our opinion that the Jews who get all shmaltzy when proclaiming their love for peace--the so-called "lefties" in Israel, and their wealthy Jewish US funders who do much the same thing, are making theses noises because they are willing to settle for any resolution, any dictatorship, just so long as they are themselves permitted to escape while holding onto their comforts. The tears of joy that pour down their craggy old cheeks when they think their words will persuade the lion of Islam to lie down in peace with the curly Jewish lamb are proof of their failure to understand that the lion and the lamb can indeed lie down together ... providing the lamb is frequently replaced.

The beauties to be found in the US and once-upon-a-time in Indonesia, Israel, France, Spain were mercilessly trampled and destroyed by the same Muslims who will blindly obey Ahmadinejad's call for war. We forget this as our peril.

Contact Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, February 20, 2007.

This was written by Mohammad Yaghi, who is a Lafer international fellow with The Washington Institute and a columnist for the Palestinian daily al-Ayyam.

The article appeared in the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and is PolicyWatch #1200

[Editor's Note: The cartoon was not part of the original article.]

As recently as December, Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas refused to back a proposal for a unity government offered by Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) member and head of the Independent Palestine list Mustafa Barghouti. That deal was based on the concept of a technocratic compromise under which Hamas officials would not have held the prime ministership or led any ministries. Yet under the terms of the February 8 Mecca accord, the current prime minister, Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh, will stay on as head of the next government, and the only portfolios Hamas members specifically will not hold are the finance, foreign affairs, and interior ministries, which will be headed by independents acceptable to both sides. The key question then is why Fatah settled for a unity agreement in February that provided it far less gains than previous unity proposals rejected by Abbas.

Fatah's Scare

While the Mecca accord may be interpreted as a mutual effort between Hamas and Fatah to stop intra-Palestinian violence in Gaza, a closer examination of the most recent clashes suggests that Hamas came away the winner and Fatah had to sue for peace.

Fighting between Fatah and Hamas reached an unprecedented level of intensity after a roadside bomb killed two members of Hamas's Executive Force in Jabalya on January 25. Since that incident, most of the clashes pitted Hamas's Executive Force, and Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades against Fatah's Preventive Security Organization, Presidential Guards, General Intelligence Service forces, and elements of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades associated with Fatah leader and legislative council member Momammed Dahlan. For the most part, the national security forces -- the police -- avoided the confrontations and attempted to remain neutral, fearing revenge killings to their families or because Hamas had already penetrated their ranks.

Fatah's forces suffered from internal divisions and rivalries among their leaderships. Despite a public reconciliation between Dahlan and his primary Fatah adversary in Gaza, Ahmed Hilis, forces loyal to Hilis did not join the fighting. Similarly, loyalists to Ashraf Joma, a Fatah PLC member from Rafah, avoided the confrontations with Hamas, signaling that these leaders prefer not to be identified as part of Dahlan's camp in Fatah.

Fatah also remained divided about whether to respond to Hamas provocations in Gaza with attacks against Hamas in the West Bank. In an early February meeting of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, Tawfiq Tirawi, head of the General Intelligence Service, criticized former Preventive Security chief Jibril Rajoub for playing the Red Cross between Fatah and Hamas rather than standing firm with Fatah against Hamas.

Unable to unite its forces under a coherent leadership, Fatah suffered greatly during the fighting after January 25. Most of the combatants killed during the fighting belonged to the Presidential Guards, the General Intelligence Service, or the Preventive Security Organization. Hamas forces succeeded in capturing and in some cases destroying several of the local headquarters of these organizations, in some cases killing colonels and commanders in addition to ordinary soldiers.

For the members of Fatah engaged in the fighting, the intervention of Saudi King Abdullah came at an opportune moment that surely prevented additional losses on the ground. The composition of the delegation Abbas took to Saudi Arabia was revealing. The group included many of the most prominent Fatah leaders who had initially pushed for confronting Hamas and opposed concessions for unity in the past, such as Dahlan, Samir Mashrawi, and Rawhi Fatouh from Gaza and Azzam al-Ahmed and Nabil Amr from the West Bank. It is unlikely that this group would have accepted a unity agreement with Hamas were it not for the substantial losses suffered by Fatah in the fighting since January 25.

Comprehensive Gains for Hamas

Fatah's defeats on the ground enabled Hamas to score most of the gains from the Mecca accord. Hamas succeeded in not explicitly accepting the Quartet's conditions for lifting international economic isolation of the PA. The letter appointing Haniyeh as the head of the new government simply mandates that the government "respect the Arab and international legitimacy resolutions and agreements signed by the PLO." Had the agreement included the word "accept" instead of "respect," or had it even specified which resolutions it referred to, Abbas and Fatah could have claimed that Hamas had shifted its position. Instead, Hamas had to modify none of its political program to reach the unity agreement -- as indicated by subsequent statements from its spokesmen that Hamas will never recognize Israel.

Beyond retaining its political program unchanged, Hamas advanced many components of its long-term strategy of wresting control of the PA and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Fatah.

First, the agreement secures the official incorporation of Hamas's Executive Force into the Palestinian security services whose salaries will be paid by the PA's Finance Ministry. Further, Hamas will have greater influence over the remaining security forces with the inclusion of Haniyeh and the Hamas-nominated interior minister in the Palestinian National Security Council.

Second, Hamas and its independent allies will formally control twelve ministries, including education, information, labor, and local government. Hamas's majority in the cabinet and its continued control of the PLC will allow Hamas to enact its administrative program, including any decisions to create positions for Hamas loyalists in the PA bureaucracy. A followup committee on political partnership is currently working to divide the highest PA administrative positions previously monopolized by Fatah such that Hamas members will become governors and ambassadors in the coming months. Consequently, the PA will no longer support Fatah's patronage system exclusively; it will soon begin paying expenses Hamas had previously covered with its own budget.

Third, another committee will formalize Hamas's long-sought objective of reforming the PLO and incorporating Hamas's leadership into the body that remains the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. A key part of the agreement will include the establishment of a new Palestinian National Council -- the legislative umbrella of the PLO -- through elections where possible, and by agreement in refugee populations outside the PA.

Fourth, Hamas used the talks in Mecca to advance relations with the Saudis, having previously rebuffed efforts by Egypt and Qatar to broker unity arrangements. The reported Saudi pledge of $1 billion of assistance to the unity government suggests that Hamas achieved its objective of breaking the PA's international isolation by turning to the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries for support. If the Quartet (the United States, European Union, Russia, and the UN) continues to withhold aid to the PA, Hamas will claim that the international community opposes all Palestinian parties, including Fatah and the independents represented in the new government, not just Hamas.

In return for all these gains, the only visible concessions Hamas made for the cause of unity were to accept Salam Fayyad as finance minister after previously opposing him, allowing Abbas to veto the Hamas nominee for interior minister, and accepting the creation of a new Fatah deputy prime minister.


Several final details of the Mecca accord have yet to be formalized regarding the precise apportionment of ministries and administrative positions, so it will be premature to view the deal as final until the new government is seated.

As it stands, the agreement spells significant gains for Hamas politically, institutionally, bureaucratically, and in its relations with the Arab world. It is likely that Abbas and Hamas together will still attempt to use the Mecca accord as a means of alleviating the Quartet's sanctions by claiming the government has accepted its conditions -- even if Hamas as a party retains its core political ideology. Speaking in Cairo on February 11, Abbas decalred, "Those who are not part of the government can say whatever they like, but those who are part of the government must respect the commissioning letter."

The Mecca accord will not end the struggle between Fatah and Hamas to dominate the Palestinian political system, but it does represent an effort to gain a respite from the violence by dividing the PA according to each faction's current position on the ground.

The Daily Alert is prepared for the Conference of presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). Contact them at daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 20, 2007.

After all that has happened here, the real question is how anyone can trust any part of the official establishment at all. It has been the case from even prior to the establishment of the State that there is one set of laws for those in power and another for those out of power and a third set for those deemed as "enemies of the State." The major change that has occurred is that today the majority of Jews in Israel are now in the category of "enemies of the State" for one reason or another. Some because of their political beliefs, some because of their religious beliefs and some for the crime of living in the wrong part of the country.

Those who in recent years have expressed shock and outrage at the "sudden" brutality of the Israeli police have studiously ignored the generations long and systematic brutality the establishment has used against the Haredi community. They conveniently forget the hundreds of Sephardi, Yemenite and EDOT HAMIZRACH Rabbis and community leaders that were targeted for false charges and rotted away in Israeli jails over the years for the crime of demanding equality in our "worker's paradise." In short, we have never had the rule of law in the State of Israel. Israel has always been a "People's Republic" and the police the primary instrument of keeping the masses under control. Nothing has changed but the demographics.

This article was written by Hana Levi Julian and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) A new poll published by the Center for the Study of Crime Law and Society at the University of Haifa has revealed that only 14 percent of the Jewish Israeli public has complete trust in the Israel Police Force.

Professor Arye Rattner, director of the Center, said by contrast, that more than double that number, 38.5 percent of those surveyed expressed a total lack of trust in police.

The numbers have steadily dropped since 2002, when 50 percent of the public reported that they trusted the police force and only 13 percent expressed a lack of trust.

Within a year, the number of Israelis who expressed a high level of trust in police had dropped to 36 percent, although the number of those who said they did not trust law enforcement officers remained at 13 percent.

Prof. Rattner said the statistics are ominous signs that the social fabric of the Jewish State is being strained to a point that the damage may soon cause a rise in crime and social services statistics.

"The results of the survey point to a serious blow to the legitimacy the Israeli public grants -- or doesn't grant -- to the police," said Rattner. "This loss of legitimacy may lead to demonstrations of contempt for the rule of law and a decrease in the level of respect for and compliance with the law," he added.

Researchers questioned 1,625 Jewish Israelis over the past several weeks as part of a multi-year study that has tracked the level of trust in the country's police force since 2000.

Faith in a different sector of Jewish leadership has also dropped to record lows, according to a Geocartographia poll released this week.

An overwhelming majority of 74.4 percent of the respondents said they favor dissolving the Knesset, the highest figures since former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak was forced to call elections less than two years after being voted into office.

In a Geocartographia poll conducted in November 2006, the majority of respondents said they were in favor of the resignations of then-IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz and Labor Defense Minister Amir Peretz, who has remained in his post. More than half of the respondents -- 53 percent -- said that Kadima Prime Minster Ehud Olmert should resign his post or call new elections.

Within two months, Halutz resigned. Peretz has remained. Olmert has continued in his post, although the Prime Minister is currently under investigation on allegations of corruption in previous government posts. Former Justice Minister Chaim Ramon was forced to resign his post after being charged with sexual misconduct. Ramon was later convicted.

Recent polls have showed that if elections were held today, the Kadima party would shrink to a bare few seats in the Knesset.

Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 20, 2007.

(IsraelNN.com) A rally was held outside Prime Minister Olmert's residence in Jerusalem last night (Monday), demanding that the government cease considering the release of Palestinian terrorists, and work for the release of Jonathan Pollard instead.

Three Pollard supporters were arrested when they managed to reach the David's Citadel Hotel floor on which visiting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was staying. A group of about ten people -- not officially connected with the rally -- entered the hotel, and several of them made it past metal detectors towards Rice's room. They managed to call out, "Free Pollard Now!" before being stopped by guards; police later detained three for questioning.

Associated Press, which reported on the incident, stated it was not clear whether Rice was in the room at the time.

Talks Over Terrorist Release

Rice had met earlier in the day in the hotel with Prime Minister Olmert and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, in talks that presumably dealt with the PA demand for the release of hundreds of terrorist prisoners in exchange for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

Pollard continues to languish in American prison in North Carolina, well into the 22nd year of a life sentence. He was never indicted for treason or harming the United States, nor of compromising its codes, agents, or war plans, but rather of one count of passing classified information to an ally -- Israel. The normal sentence for this offense is 2-4 years, and his life sentence -- in direct contrast to his plea bargain arrangement -- was called by Appellate Court Justice Steven Williams a "fundamental miscarriage of justice."

Pollard has said he would never want to be a part of prisoner release deal involving terrorists. He wrote in a letter last week, "The State of Israel is absolutely obliged to bring all of her prisoners and captives home -- but not by making deals with the devil to spill even more Jewish blood... Israel's dismal record since the signing of the Oslo Accords shows a clear pattern of favoring our enemies by releasing terrorists and murderers, always at the expense of their victims and the victims' families. It is a blot on the honor of the Nation of Israel that the Government is far more concerned about appeasing the Americans (who demand these humiliating prisoner releases) and placating our enemies than it is about discharging its most basic responsibilities to those who serve the State."

Among those in attendance at the protest were Pollard's wife Esther, Moshe Feiglin (chair, Jewish Leadership), Shifra Hoffman (chair, Victims of Arab Terror), Nadia Matar and other Women in Green, Elinora Shifrin, Asher Mivtzari, and leaders of the youth activities on behalf of Pollard.

Hoffman held a sign reading, "Arab Terrorists must not be freed! Free Jonathan Pollard!"

A major call-in campaign is underway, in which supporters of Pollard are asked to call the White House (202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414) every day and ask President Bush to pardon Pollard. The National Council of Young Israel, Agudath Israel of America and other American-Jewish organizations are encouraging the endeavor. The Justice For Jonathan Pollard organization exhorts the public to call in, noting that every call to the White House is registered and tallied by subject matter.


See photographs of the Pollard Protest Rally by Jacob Richman at
http://www.jr.co.il/rally/r114.htm and photos by Jonathan Stein at

All photos of the rally to be posted to the photo gallery at www.jonathanpollard.org

Nationwide White House Call-In for Jonathan Pollard
White House Telephone Number: 1-202-456-1414

Hillel Fendel is News Editor of Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

'False Claims by Palestians -- Their claims that Jewish Temples never existed is refuted by words from their very own 'holy book' the Qu'ran.' (K.M.K)

The political status of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is the subject of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. According to press reports, at one moment in the Camp David negotiations last July, senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat asked his Israeli counterpart: "How do you know that your Holy Temple was located there?" A Jerusalem Report cover story (September 11) placed this in the context of a growing Palestinian denial of the existence of the First and Second Temples. "It's self-evident that the First Temple is a fiction," one Palestinian archaeologist at Bir Zeit University is quoted as saying. "The Second also remains in the realm of fantasy."

Archaeologists will have their debates, and their place is in the academy. (There, the biblical account of the First Temple is contested, while the existence of the Second Temple, and its general location on the Temple Mount, are regarded as well-attested facts.) But at the negotiating table, the subjective sanctity of any site is a concrete reality which must be respected in its own terms. This is all the more so in the case of the existence and location of the First and Second Temples: both are attested by precisely the same Islamic sources which render the Haram al-Sharif (including the Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock) holy to Islam.

(The Qur'anic passages below are quoted from what is widely considered to be the most orthodox Sunni translation and commentary, prepared by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, vetted and corrected by four committees commissioned by King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, and published at the King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Complex in Medina, Saudi Arabia, by royal decree.)

Did the Temples Exist?

The Qur'an refers to the existence of both temples in verse 17:7. In this passage, the Qur'an deals with God's punishment of the Children of Israel for their transgressions:

(We permitted your enemies)
To disfigure your faces,
And to enter your Temple
As they had entered it before,
And to visit with destruction
All that fell into their power.

The word translated as "Temple" by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (and by the influential translator Marmaduke Pickthall before him) is masjid. This word, which is usually translated as mosque, has the meaning of a sanctuary wherever it appears in a pre-Islamic context. The usual Muslim exegesis of this verse (including that of Abdullah Yusuf Ali) holds that it refers to the destruction of the First and Second Temples.

Muslim tradition is especially adamant about the existence of the First Temple, built by Solomon, who appears in the Qur'an as a prophet and a paragon of wisdom. Verse 34:13 is an account of how Solomon summoned jinn (spirits) to build the Temple:

They worked for him
As he desired, (making) Arches,
Images, Basons
As large as wells,
And (cooking) Cauldrons fixed
(In their places)

Early Muslims regarded the building and destruction of the Temple of Solomon as a major historical and religious event, and accounts of the Temple are offered by many of the early Muslim historians and geographers (including Ibn Qutayba, Ibn al-Faqih, Mas'udi, Muhallabi, and Biruni). Fantastic tales of Solomon's construction of the Temple also appear in the Qisas al-anbiya', the medieval compendia of Muslim legends about the pre-Islamic prophets. As the historian Rashid Khalidi wrote in 1998 (albeit in a footnote), while there is no "scientific evidence" that Solomon's Temple existed, "all believers in any of the Abrahamic faiths perforce must accept that it did."(1) This is so for Muslims, no less than for Christians and Jews. The Location of the Temples

So much for the existence of the Temples. But what of their location? The Islamic sanctity of the Haram al-Sharif is based upon verse 17:1:

Glory to (Allah)
Who did take His Servant
For a Journey by night
From the Sacred Mosque
To the Farthest Mosque

This is the textual proof of the isra', the earthly segment of the Night Journey of the Prophet Muhammad: overnight, Muhammad was miraculously transported, round-trip, from "the Sacred Mosque" (al-Masjid al-Haram) -- that is, the Ka'ba (or its vicinity) in Mecca -- to "the Farthest Mosque" (al-Masjid al-Aqsa). Later Muslim tradition came to identify "the Farthest Mosque" with Jerusalem. But during Muhammad's lifetime, no mosque stood in Jerusalem; the Muslims conquered the city only several years after his death. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's commentary on this verse summarizes the traditional explanation: "The Farthest Mosque," he writes, "must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah." When Muslims did build a mosque on this hill, Muslim tradition holds that it was built deliberately on the verified site of earlier sanctuaries. According to Muslim tradition, when the Caliph Umar visited Jerusalem after its conquest, he searched for David's sanctuary or prayer niche (mihrab Dawud), which is mentioned in the Qur'an (38:21). (David was believed to have chosen the site on which Solomon built.) When Umar was satisfied he had located it, he ordered a place of prayer (musalla) to be established there. This evolved into a mosque-precursor of the later Aqsa Mosque. Thus began the Islamization of the complex that later came to be known as the Haram al-Sharif. It became the tradition of Islam that Muslims restored the site to its earlier function as a place of supplication venerated by all the prophets, including Abraham, David and Solomon.

Sari Nuseibeh, president of Al-Quds University, has emphasized this original meaning of the site for Muslims: the mosque is the last and final in a series of sanctuaries erected there. "The mosque was itself a revivication of the old Jewish temple," writes Nuseibeh, "an instantiation of the unity with the Abrahamic message, an embodiment of the new temple yearned for and forecasted. And why should this seem strange when Muhammad himself, according to the Qur'an, was the very prophet expected and described in the 'true' Jewish literature?"(2)

Whether it is called the Temple Mount or al-Haram al-Sharif, this corner of Jerusalem is the physical overlap between Judaism and Islam. Verse 17 of the Qur'an, quoted above, is entitled Bani Isra'il, the Children of Israel. The present-day State of Israel has acknowledged the sanctity of the site for present-day Muslims, in the interest of peace. For Muslims to question or even deny the existence of the Temples, in disregard of the Qur'an and Muslim tradition, is to cast doubt upon the very sources which underpin their own claim.

(1) Rashid Khalidi, "Transforming the Face of the Holy City: Political Messages in the Built Topography of Jerusalem," paper presented to the conference on "Landscape Perspectives on Palestine," Bir Zeit University, November 12-15, 1998 http://www.jqf-jerusalem.org/journal/1999/jqf3/khalidi.html

(2) Sari Nuseibeh, "Islam's Jerusalem,"

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

To Go To Top
Posted by David Meir-Levi, February 19, 2007.

To the rational mind, there is no need to provide proof that the Temple Mount today is the site of the Herodian (aka Second) Temple.

The tradition that places the Solomonic (First) Temple beneath the Herodian Temple may be questioned, in as much as there is no archaeological evidence or extra-biblical text that can locate it for us; but the obvious support for such a location comes both from the well-known references of the Assyrian king Sennacherib who beseiged Jerusalem in 705 BCE and was 'bought off" by gifts of the gold and silver in the Jerusalem Temple treasurey (thereby demonstrating that there was a well-endowed Temple in Jerusalem during the time of king Hezekiah); and from the very fact that the Herodian Temple was built on that site precisely because it was the site of the First Temple (and of the intervening smaller and less impressive Temple built by the returnees from Babylonia at the end of the 6th century BCE, as described in the book of Chronicles, which was expanded and rebuilt in to the much larger and more grandious Herodian Temple 500 years later).

The references to the place and character of the Herodian Temple abound in the Christian Scriptures, in the historical writings of Josephus, in the inter-Testamental literature, in the Talmud, and in the Muslim historians mentioned in the article below. There are others as well from Classical sources, but they are not detailed enough to give incontrovertible evidence to the Temple's location on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

It is important to note, however, that there are some (perhaps many) irrational minds at work in the crafting of the Arab narrative that denies the Jewish origins of the sanctity of the Temple Mount.

This is an issue of considerable importance to Christians, in as much as the current Muslim assertions which seek to discredit Jewish and Christian tradition (and Scripture) are at odds not only with Jewish and Christian sources, but also with Muslim sources that pre-date the modern Muslim attempts to re-write history and geography in order to justify their false claims.

It is important to recognize the irrationality of these propagandistic claims of the modern Arab narrative, because these hyperbolic and mendacious faux-history assertions disclose to us, by virtue of their irrationality, the refusal of the current dominant Arab leadership to deal honestly with the existence of Israel, and to work toward any sort of peaceful resolution to the conflict.

If they wanted peace between Israel and the Palestinians, they would not spend so much time and energy making up completely falacious and misleading stuff that seeks to discredit and vilify Israel and Jews and Judaism (and, by extention, Christianity as well -- after all, in the absence of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, what is the reliability of the Christian Scriptures which place Jesus, for most of his life, in and around the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem?)

Moreover, the fact that the Qur'an (chapter 17) places both Holy Temples (Solomon's and the Herodian) in Jerusalem demonstrates the degree to which the authors of the Arab Narrative rely upon the Goebbellian system to advance their lies.

By repeating the same lie often enough, and with enough conviction and passion, they will bring others to believe it...despite the mountain of evidence that defies it.

The article below is called "The Temples of Jerusalem in Islam" and was written by Martin Kramer. It appeared as The Washington Institute's Special Reports On The Arab-Israeli Peace Process -- Number 277, September 18, 2000. Martin Kramer is director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University.

RAMPING UP THE VIOLENCE: the truth about the Temple Mount controversy
Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, February 19, 2007.

This article was written by David Gelernter and it appeared February 28, 2007 in the Weekly Standard
(http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/ 311eafts.asp?pg=1). David Gelernter is a national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.

[Editor's Note: The graphics were not part of the original article.]

Israeli government authorities are building a ramp to allow non-Muslims to reach the enormous platform atop the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The old access ramp was condemned as unsafe and torn down several years ago. The interim ramp that replaced it was designed for short-term service only. (Muslims control the Temple Mount and therefore have their own private access routes.) The new ramp is controversial. Some ramp must be built or non-Muslims will have no way to reach the Mount; but leading Israeli archaeologists say that the ramp under construction is badly placed and ought to be someplace else.

This dispute among Israelis is important but in itself would never have attracted much attention. However, by the nature of their reactions, Arab leaders have brought worldwide notoriety to the story--and made it a blood-curdling study in the power of lying in this credulous, ignorant global-media age.

Outraged Arab politicians describe the new ramp as an attack on the Al-Aqsa Mosque--although the mosque is on the Temple platform and the ramp stands outside the platform on pylons, and won't have any effect on the mosque at all. But those are mere facts. Prominent Arab agitators disdain even to notice them. Some have called for violence against Israel because of this imaginary assault on the mosque. And we know what "violence against Israel" means to the Jew-hating anti-Zionists among Arab statesmen: restaurants, sidewalk cafés, bus stops, and Passover seders drenched in blood and scattered with smashed body parts as dying children cry quietly.

The leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, Raed Salah, announced in response to the ramp project that "the danger in Jerusalem has increased. It is high time for the intifada of the Islamic people." The prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Ismail Haniyeh, called the construction project "continued Israeli aggression on Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem." An Egyptian MP, Mohamed el-Katatny, announced in parliament, "That cursed Israel is trying to destroy Al-Aqsa mosque. ... Nothing will work with Israel except for a nuclear bomb that wipes it out of existence."

This hysterical Arab reaction must be understood in context. Why are Muslim religious authorities in charge of the Temple Mount anyway--Judaism's holiest site, in the heart of Israel's capital city? And who built the Temple Mount in the first place, and what makes this site holy? When we answer these questions--keeping in mind that the ramp story is likely to be reported nearly everywhere (outside the United States and Israel) from the Arab viewpoint--the real question becomes not whether this ramp should be finished (probably not), but how to heal an insane planet. The ramp can be taken down; but how can the Arab world be cured of its blood-lust against the Jews of Israel?

Let's start with the situation on the ground. Prominent Israeli archaeologists object to the new ramp because several of its footings stand in an important archaeological garden outside the Mount. They agree that a new ramp is necessary, but insist that it be routed around the garden. Some Orthodox Jews are unhappy with the project on religious grounds.

The Israel Archaeology Association, which approved the project, responds that you can't please everyone, especially in Jerusalem, least of all near the Temple Mount. If the ramp is moved, other groups will object. Which is a weak-sounding response--or perhaps no response at all, merely an excuse.

But Arab objections have nothing to do with the archaeological garden; Arab leaders are worried (they say) about the safety of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Yet the ramp poses "no risk whatsoever to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which stands about 100 meters to the east," says the eminent archaeologist Eilat Mazar of the Shalem Center and the Hebrew University. Mazar is one of the archaeologists who object to the ramp's current location and want it moved.

Is it possible that Arab leaders are more interested in attacking Israel than protecting religious and cultural monuments? How anxious are Arab statesmen to protect the treasures of the Temple Mount? Let's step back a few years and see.

The Temple Mount is ruled by the Islamic authority of Jerusalem, the Waqf. The Waqf is supposed to respect the status quo and ask Israeli approval before making changes. In 1996, the Israeli government approved a Muslim request to build a large new underground mosque on the Mount. Construction began, and a request to build an "emergency exit" for the new mosque followed, and was also approved.

Enormous excavations were carried out. Thousands of tons of soil and fill were scooped out and trucked away. Those trucks were filled with some of the most precious stuff in the world. The Temple Mount is potentially the most important, exciting place on earth for archaeological digs.

A huge platform is balanced atop the Mount, shored up by enormous earth-and-stone works. King Herod the Great of Judea built this platform in the first century B.C. as a base for an enlarged, rebuilt Temple. (The Temple was the focus of Jewish ritual and pilgrimage.) But Herod's magnificent Temple was burnt to the ground by Roman forces under Titus, later emperor of Rome, in 70 A.D. The Jews had rebelled against Roman overlordship--Herod himself had been a Roman client; they fought hard and lost. Rome was the only superpower of the day. On Titus' arch of triumph in Rome you can still see carvings of the plunder that the Romans carted home from Jerusalem--including the famous seven-branched Temple menorah, later destroyed accidentally by fire.

The Romans grabbed as much as they could, but left behind innumerable traces of the Temple and of life in the Second Jewish Commonwealth, in the age when Jesus preached and the Mishnah was composed. There must be other archaeological treasures up there too, fragments of Jewish, Roman, Byzantine, and Muslim life in the centuries following the Roman rampage. Infrared photographs and other survey techniques suggest the presence of vast underground halls beneath the platform's surface. Some ancient rabbinic sources assert that the Ark of the Covenant, lost since the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C., was buried on the Temple Mount; it might conceivably be standing in one of those underground chambers.

But the Waqf has a nice, simple policy regarding archaeological digs on the Mount. Don't bother applying; none are allowed. The world's most important archaeological site is off-limits to archaeology.

Under the circumstances, those underground excavations for the new mosque and its "emergency exit" looked like a stroke of qualified good luck. (The exit turned out to be a 2,000-square-meter pit that entailed the removal of over 6,000 tons of earth.) All that indescribably precious soil was scooped out, trucked away--

And trashed. Hundreds of truckloads were unloaded in municipal garbage dumps. Some drops were made late at night. This was vandalism on a breathtaking scale, and the vandals knew it. (In fact removing the soil was a crime in itself; archaeologists need to inspect soil in situ to understand the context and to know which layers were on top, what came next, and so forth.) All in all this was a sickening crime against the human spirit, a rape of the Mount. But radical Arab leaders routinely deny that a Temple ever existed in this place. They would love to annihilate every trace of Jewish history as they would love to destroy the Jews themselves. For would-be murderers, destroying truth is the next best thing to destroying life.

The precious soil was left unprotected, and garbage accumulated on top. Archaeologists managed to sift through certain portions that remained accessible. Important finds turned up. But "we are certain," Mazar said recently, "that a vast amount of important data was lost."

The Israeli government let it happen; ignored the outcry of Israelis and of archaeologists all over the world and allowed construction and dumping to continue. "The world's patrimony is being carried off in dump trucks," wrote Hershel Shanks (editor of Biblical Archaeology Review) in the Washington Post in July 2000. "All who care about the archaeological remains on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem ... should be incensed at Israel's failure to stop the Waqf ... from illegally destroying precious remnants of history important to Muslims as well as to Jews and Christians." An open letter to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, signed by dozens of prominent Israelis of all political colors, demanded that Barak stop "a serious act of irreparable archaeological vandalism and destruction."

But he didn't. Many believe that the Barak government refused to act lest the "peace process" be interrupted or Arab violence break out. According to this (all-too-likely) explanation, a pathetically self-deluded Israeli government, conscious of the long, venomous history of Arab and world reactions to Israel, was too anxious and weak to stop this ugly crime.

The Islamic Authority of Jerusalem is no one's idea of a competent protector of one the world's most precious sites. How did it come to be in charge of this spot in the first place?

When the United Nations voted in 1947 to create twin states in British Palestine, a Jewish and an Arab state side-by-side, the city of Jerusalem was to be internationalized and belong to neither. The Zionists accepted this plan but the Arabs rejected it--and in May 1948, the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and the Arab Legions of Transjordan attacked the new Jewish state. They failed to destroy it but did capture half of Jerusalem--the important half, the Old City, where the Temple Mount stands. For the next 20 years the Kingdom of Jordan refused to allow Jews into the Old City, refused them access to the Western Wall--and systematically destroyed the city's synagogues, presumably as proxies for the Jews who got away.

Egypt provoked another war with Israel in 1967 (the Six Day War) by demanding that U.N. troops be withdrawn from the Sinai buffer zone and blockading the Straits of Tiran. During the fighting, Israeli soldiers recaptured the Temple Mount. They discovered that Jordanians had torn up Jewish tombstones from the Mount of Olives and used them to pave roads and build latrines. And yet soon afterward Israel unilaterally awarded control of the Mount to the Waqf. It was the same sort of pathetic, heartrending gesture that speaks of desperate longing for friendship and no more war that Barak made 30 years later, when he allowed the Waqf to pillage and violate the Mount.

That generous Israeli gesture of the late 1960s was met by universal gratitude throughout the Arab world, especially among the Palestinians of Jerusalem.

Just kidding.

Virtually all such Israeli gestures meet with the same response: redoubled hatred. (In one of the first Israeli digs in Jerusalem after the Six Day War, archaeologists found a previously unknown Muslim palace. "The finds from the early Muslim period are thrilling," said a high ranking official in the Jordanian Antiquities Department at the time, named Rafiq Dajani, "and frankly I am surprised that Israeli scholars have made them public." A few days later he was fired.)

How did it all come to be in the first place? Perhaps it is worth pointing out the obvious: Muslims revere this site in consequence of the Temple that once stood here.

Nowadays some cosmopolitan thinkers speak of the Temple as if it were a folk story or fairy tale or an "alleged" building. But it was as real as the World Trade Center. No sane historian doubts its existence. It is attested in many contemporary sources, Jewish and otherwise.

One report asserts that Titus did not intend to burn the Temple, and said that "the loss would be for Rome. Its continued existence will be a glory of the Empire." But the fighting raged out of control, and the Temple caught fire by accident. In any case, writes Simon Goldhill, professor of Greek at Cambridge University, the Temple "was the largest and most awe-inspiring religious monument in the world." Speaking of the extraordinarily refined and sophisticated engineering that went into Herod's project, Goldhill refers to the Platform's southern retaining wall--which "gives some sense," he writes, "of the [enormous] size of the stones and the brilliance of the wall's construction. There is nothing like this anywhere else in the ancient world."

Israelis created (long ago) the platform on the Temple Mount and the Temple itself, and the religious community that gave it all meaning--a gift to mankind that is valuable beyond measure. Thousands of years later, Israel turned over the keys to the Waqf in a peace offering, an act of friendship. Roughly 30 years after that, they allowed their Arab brethren to pillage and destroy invaluable records of ancient history rather than disturb the "peace process" or the Palestinian Arabs. And so today, Arab leaders demand (in violent outrage) that the world protect the Al-Aqsa Mosque--their precious, sacred cultural treasure--by stopping an Israeli construction project that won't go anywhere near it.

They are showing the world a rare combination of laughable hypocrisy and terrifying evil.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, February 19, 2007.

The opportunity costs, both human and economic, of the Iraq war tragically mount each day, building ever higher dunes of debt, composed of casually minted dead presidents, shrouding the virtual and formal coffins of biologically created disabled and dead mankind respectively, lives shattered and wasted, reshaping America's political landscape, in sync with the shifting swirling blood drenched sands of that war torn Middle East trifurcating nation, rotating ever faster, forming a cyclonic sinkhole relentlessly digging its way to even deeper depths of Hell. The outer world watches in horror, yet does nothing but blast the preemptive 'war on the cheap' invasion planner, too stingy and arrogant to hire an architect ala Frank Lloyd Wright on steroids, both general and general contractor, possessing ample crew to reassemble the mess using technologically advanced bricks and mortars. The tiny nation of Israel observes, contemplates, puts its finger out to sense direction, but "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows," growls America's greatest Jewish lyricist philosopher Bob Zimmerman a/k/a Dylan, verse honed in erstwhile turbulent times, but guess what, those "Times, They Aren't A-Changin'". Indeed, a resurrecting Vietnam-style traumatized America, unraveling the Bush presidency with the velocity of a spinning dreidel, bodes ominously for the Jewish State if caught in that maelstrom of public discontent, connected by dots to stout Israel supporter and Iraq war planner now retired Pentagon V.I.P. Douglas Feith, potentially morphed in that public's mind's eye to agent provocateur at the behest of AIPAC lobbyists and a wily Knesset, stewarding a State in need of protection. Let the truth be told, the Bush Administration used Feith and other neo cons to justify a need to go to war. Let the truth be further told, directing the flow of Iraq's bountiful reservoirs of Texas tea westward, quenching the thirst of an SUV addicted society, as well as further expanding the bottom line of Big Oil Inc. are concepts that might not have seduced Americans to send Johnny off to war, but selling them the Brooklyn Bridge yet again with Sadist Hussein linkages to Bin Laden and a nebulous 'war on terror' ala neo con rhetoric sounded much more convincing and indeed worked like a charm.

So Israel, homeland of a people heretofore born to wear the Scarlet S for scapegoat, or in the Jewish vernacular shlamazel, emblazoned into its collective chest, what's it gonna be? Might it be wise to deploy a charismatic Israeli ambassador on a transatlantic jaunt to schmooze with say Ms. Nancy Pelosi, for one, newly installed Democratic speaker of a House with damaged siding, convincing her that siding with Israel, a nation not at all connected to the political juggernaut that bullied Congress and America into Middle East quicksand without a rope, would surely be her cup of San Francisco chowder. Furthermore, might this be a 'Golden Gate' opportunity to persuade America's most powerful grandma that tiny Israel really isn't an occupying power, that IDF forces are deployed within the justifiably secured Israeli territories of Judea and Samaria to protect peaceful Jewish citizens (not settlers) from hostile Arab neighbors, that Israel must not cede such land to a dysfunctional crew of so-called Palestinian keystone cops who cannot even govern the small enclave of Gaza now morphing into a safe haven for terrorists, that Warren Buffet would be more than a little upset if his multi-billion dollar investment in Israeli owned and operated Iscar Metalworking Companies, located in the Golan Heights, flew the Syrian flag, and that it would be more than appropriate if Uncle Sam's Embassy relocated to Israel's capital Jerusalem, all of which must remain within the borders of sovereign Israel? No doubt, the opportunity costs to Israel, choosing not to adapt to the rapidly changing political dynamic of her most formidable ally, could be enormous. Most importantly, there are no do overs.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 19, 2007.


Taking responsibility for Lebanon War failures, the Chief of Staff resigned. Even if the PM and Defense Min. (who interfered with the IDF daily) resigned, that would not solve the problem. The problem is a recurring one, untouched by periodic sacrifices of individual leaders. There is a fundamental problem in training and decision-making. The IDF also got into politics, by letting itself be involved in expelling the Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria (Arutz-7, 1/18).

What is this deeper problem? I think that at least part of it is the leftist political kowtowing by IDF generals who use the military as a means of entry into politics. Promoting politically correct incompetents harms the military.

Leftism is defeatism, at loggerheads with military means and missions. Afraid of prosecution for shooting, how can the soldiers protect their people? The regime acts as if its major responsibility is to spare the enemy rather than preserve its own people. Israel fails to treat the enemy as an enemy. It bows to US demands to reduce defensive measures. It should take the offensive and root out the terrorist infrastructure. The Jewish people should reclaim the Territories and get them out of the hands of the Arabs, who make war. This would free the IDF for training in broader warfare. The IDF doesn't strategize much.

National security is the first duty of a government. Reducing the military budget and squandering funds within it leaves the Army unequipped and unprepared.


Hundreds of volunteers and a few paid staff collect food left on farms or unused by stores and caterers, and redistribute it to the poor of Israel (Arutz-7, 1/18).


The head of the European monitors of the Sinai-Gaza crossing claims that all weapons confiscated were destroyed and none others were smuggled through. He thinks recent Israeli closing of the border merely arouses terrorism.

What the EU head didn't see, he thinks didn't get through (IMRA, 1/18).

Then why did terrorists blast holes in the fence and sometimes chase the monitors away? Why did Egyptian arms warehouses dispatch trucks to the border? What makes him think the P.A. wants to stop the arms from coming in, when it has been smuggling them in for years, and now Israel mostly is not guarding the border? How does he explain the increase in P.A. firepower? As for the cause of terrorism, the P.A.'s curriculum is terrorism.


Israeli left its security in hostile Quartet hands, letting the Quartet to judge compliance with the Road Map. The Muslims have spent the past couple of years cultivating in foreign minds their distorted notion of compliance with the Map. Israel failed to counteract that false impression.

The Arabs depict compliance as legalizing terrorists and their weapons by hiring them into the official police force, and not bothering over what they do with those weapons in their spare time. The State Dept. is enthusiastic about this interpretation.

The Map judges compliance of each side relative to what the other side does. But Israel isn't involved in terrorism; the two sides should not be equated. The Map specifies that terrorism be hampered and ended before Israel had to meet its obligations under the Map.

Israel is ignoring the issue, during this temporary suspension of the Map while the world devises a rationale for ending any curbs on Hamas. The Israelis think, if they think at all, that they can explain their different view at the last minute, when the pre-indoctrinated Quartet is ready to make decisions (IMRA, 1/18).

The Map is vague, too. Many international agreements are. Israel should not make concessions based on vague agreements. The Arabs are sure to evade vague requirements and the West is sure to endorse the evasion.


The NY Sun mostly is pro-Israel in its opinion pieces and fair in its news articles, but sometimes draws on foreign news from the biased Associated Press or Daily Telegraph.

>From the A.P., it stated an Israeli report of having discovered four bombs in northern Israel recently placed by Hizbullah. Such Hizbullah action would violate the ceasefire. A.P. put it that "The Israeli claim, denied by Hizbullah, immediately raised tensions along the volatile border." (Laurie Copans, 2/8, p.7.)

It isn't clear what "tensions" means. But the placing of the bomb raised an alarm, more than Israel reporting the truce violation. A.P., however, places the onus for raising tensions on Israel. Should Israel not have reported the violation, so as not to raise tensions? Wouldn't the terrorists love an Israeli failure to react!

Why does A.P. bother mentioning that Hizbullah denied the Israeli accusation as if credible? Islamists always deny violations. Denial is their tactic.


Modern life and globalization require reporters from various cultures to travel to various countries. Mecca, however, bars entry to foreign journalists and others of non-Muslim faith to that city and sometimes to the entire country. Then the Saudi government turns around and poses as the reconciler of conflicts between people of barred faiths, such as in the Muslim-Jewish conflict.

The Saudi contribution to that conflict has been to subsidize indoctrination in an Islamist ideology that intensifies it.

When foreigners of note insist on coming, the Saudis often relent. Let foreign government demand that S. Arabia accommodate them. The Saudi 7th century code is too troublesome (Youssef Ibrahim, NY Sun, 2/8, p.1).


The King of Jordan calls for a "two-state solution" before another war breaks out, and claims that the opportunity to help inaugurate it would enable him to visit Israel. He admits that Iran stirs turbulence by subsidizing Hamas, and would resist a solution, but insists that non-extremists are stronger than the obstructionists. He claims unconcern about having a PLO or Hamas Arab state on part of the border with Jordan, where Israel now is in charge (IMRA, 1/18).

Of all the heads of state, it is particularly unfitting of him to call this a two-state solution, when his own country, Jordan, is a Palestinian Arab state. The existence of his state on three-fourths of Palestine precludes any alleged need for another Palestinian Arab state and that the formation of one would exacerbate the problem of Israel seeming small enough for the Arabs finally to destroy. He counts on most people's ignorance of history and geography to get away with this scam. Apparently he would risk a new, Islamist state's overthrowing his dynasty, in order to help Islam overcome the infidel Israelis.

He calls Hamas extremist, but admits he has not visited Israel during his reign of eight years, despite a peace treaty. Pres. Mubarak of Israel also doesn't stain his political purity by such a visit. Who then are the extremists? How sincere is their fealty to a "peace process" that Arafat depicted as part of the phased conquest of Israel, whittling it down to what Sadat called a "manageable size," meaning manageable for Arab armies?

Even if some Arabs in the P.A. were to sign still another agreement with Israel, called a final peace, how do we know that: (1) They suddenly will have switched from religious hatred to tolerance and peace-loving; and (2) Iran won't still stoke Hamas into renewing the war, and on better turf, due to Israeli concessions?


What the Arabs call "resistance" in the P.A., Lebanon, and Iraq means jihad. The jihadis tell Westerners that all they want is national territorial integrity, but advocate to their people a trans-national caliphate. They have demonstrated the falsity of what they tell the West. (Jihadists pour into Iraq, which has territorial integrity, in order to turn the regime into a jihadist one.)

Although Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Hizbullah still claimed some territory on the Golan, and then added that it wanted some formerly Shiite villages inside an older part of Israel. In other words, the jihadists keep finding excuses for fighting on, really for religious reasons.

Israel withdrew from Gaza. Instead of making peace there, the Muslims used the opportunity to make more war.

The rest of the world should assist Arab regimes in putting down the "resistance." Instead, the tendency is to demand concessions from Israel, such as prisoner releases and withdrawal from the Shaba Farms area on the Golan (that the UNO designated as not Lebanese). If Israel did that, the "resistance" would take credit for it and the problem they represent would grow (Pinhas Inbari, IMRA, 1/18).

Many Arab regimes think they can direct jihadist fire without being singed. The world's motives are murky, muddled, or sordid. It's "solutions" are harmful.


Suppose the new Chief of Staff were a brilliant strategist and deep reformer. He could not defend Israel. Israel's political rulers are intent on piecemeal surrender to the Arabs. They give priority not to defensible borders but to turning those borders over to the enemy. They don't let the Army defend their cities from P.A. rockets, lest doing so weaken Abbas, whom they pretend would make peace. (The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations denounced Abbas for having claimed to be against violence against Israel and then recently promoted it. Sen. Spector asked Sec. Rice to confront him over that self-contradiction {IMRA, 1/18}, but she confronts only Israel.)

In striving for what it supposes are the Arabs' interests in behalf of a phony peace process with which Israelis are disillusioned, instead of striving for their own national interests, Israel has built a security fence that motivated tens of thousands of Arabs to pour into Jerusalem. This weakened the Jewish people's hold on their own capital (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 1/18). Israel fails to see or admit probable consequences of its actions. It should have barred those Arabs.


At an artificial price of 36 cents per gallon, Iranians over-consume gasoline, putting it in short supply. The government proposes rationing (IMRA, 1/21).

Profligacy harms all mankind.


Although 21 sites were designated for housing the Jews expelled by Israel from Gaza, and the temporary housing has been withdrawn from them, no permanent housing has been built for them. Most of them remain unemployed and have been living off their (insufficient and late) compensation (IMRA, 1/21).

Israel didn't gain anything from the Arabs for doing this to the Jews. The Arabs now are better able to fire rockets into Israel. The expulsion of the Jews was harsh and simply anti-Zionist.


China's main policy is to secure growing access to raw materials. That need drives its foreign policy (IMRA, 1/21).


Although Baathists started the resistance against US forces, the main Sunni forces now are Islamist. The various Islamist groups have come under an umbrella organization run by al-Qaeda.

The NY Times does not report this. Nibras Kazimi, the NY Sun's Iraqi correspondent thinks the Times doesn't want to admit that the US is fighting against al-Qaeda, lest the war regain popular legitimacy, since it was al-Qaeda that committed the 9/11 attacks on the US. Likewise, the Times has not reported that al-Qaeda has asked N. Korea for a nuclear weapon (NY Sun, 2/8, Op.-Ed.).

Why doesn't the Bush administration inform the public?


Bernard Lewis points out that the mutually assured destruction that protected Westerners from the USSR's nuclear-armed missiles has no deterrent effect upon Iran. It has the opposite effect. Iran thinks Israel would be annihilated, dead Muslims would go to heaven, and Islam would survive (IMRA, 1/22).


The Muslim Student League organizes events and invites speakers to promote hatred of the Jewish people and of Zionism, even to advocate violence against them. This is considered their freedom of speech, because they don't advocate hatred of particular individuals.

It also is freedom of speech for others to denounce the hate-mongering. Some university heads do so, disassociating university policy with League policy. The University of California in Irvine long kept silence, and its recent rejection of hate messages failed to explain who was vulgarly disseminating hatred against whom. (Prof. Steven Plaut, 1/23 from Amihai Glazer).

That slap on the wrist probably encouraged the Muslims more than the absence of a slap, which might leave them apprehensive.

Defining freedom of speech has not gotten easier, despite court precedent. Conditions have changed. The issue needs to be re-examined.

To start with, the US ought to include in the curriculum enough information so that students can judge totalitarian ideologies without being taken in by them. Universities should allow students freedom of thought, instead of hiring one-sided faculties and letting them impose anti-Zionist and other leftist ideologies. They should stop hiring Muslim demagogues altogether. The universities should denounce preachers of hate. They should protect non-Muslims from Muslims and expel those who commit or organize violence.

I don't see why preaching hatred of a particular Jew, which has minor consequences, is forbidden, while preaching hatred of Jews as a whole, which has genocidal consequences, is permissible. I think rules against advocating certain political views, such as against Holocaust denial, and against preaching hatred, though well-intentioned, invite censorship. However, the old standard of "clear and present danger" should be reinterpreted. Muslims can be incited to violence more readily. For them, almost any incitement to violence presents a clear and present danger. Antisemitic agitation has been demonstrated to be a process that builds up to deadly outcomes. The bars against agitation among Muslims and against the Jewish people should be set lower, in Western societies. I suppose the same holds true for anti-Tutsi agitation in Rwanda.

The broader question is why we allow students or professional agitators from enemy states into our universities and into science courses they can utilize against us, and why we allow Muslims into the US. Pres. Bush should have called for a broader declaration of war. He would have limited it to Islamism, but that is a good start. People who seek to destroy our civilization should not have access to its knowledge or to its malleable youth. I want my country back. I don't want to lose it to repressive Islam or ridiculous political correctness.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Eugene E. Narrett, February 18, 2007.
"We must not delude small nations into thinking that they will be protected from aggression..." -- Sir John Simon, London, 2/21/38

Many people have noticed a terrible resemblance between the way Britain sacrificed the Czechs to Germany in 1938 and what the Oslo-Road Map plan has been doing to Israel. Ariel Sharon stated in 2002 that "Israel will not be Czechoslovakia," a rare moment of bravery for which the vassal was rebuked promptly. Shortly afterwards, he returned to substantiating the parallel.

Still, few people realize how deep the comparisons go, how alarming they are and how they illuminate the true goals of British policymakers, -- and their indifference to collateral damage. The record shows that the British are quite willing to accept war and destruction of assets (so long as most of the losses are born by others) and then have others pay and labor to rebuild what has been ruined largely through their own global designs, their relentless pursuit of Atlantic Union and World Federation.

Let us examine British diplomacy re Europe during the 1930s, making pertinent comparisons, predictions and prescriptions for today's Middle East. More...

Just as betrayal of the Jewish National Home was bloodily underway by March 1920 so the British policy of appeasement of Germany was in place by 1920. Dr. Carroll Quigley divides this policy into three stages: 1920-34; 1934-7; 1937-40:* that's right; the British continued to appease Hitler through the first eight months of the war. The pattern of assisting a voracious enemy, pretending incapacity to resist, and demanding crippling "compromises" via "negotiations" (then as now) from allies distinguished British policy during this period.

The Romantic penchant for emotionalizing values and exculpating criminals had been absorbed by 20th century mass media and politicians to psychoanalyze maniacal enemies and offer them therapeutic, fiscal and military emoluments. The English led this trend now familiar as political correctness. Noteworthy is a speech by General Jan C. Smuts of the Round Table in 1934 which demanded that Europe "set free the captive and obsessed soul" of Germany from its "inferiority complex" so that the world could "reap a rich reward of tranquility, security, and returning prosperity" (267). Even James A. Baker III and France's top officials are not as fulsome about Iran and Co. as was this instance of international State interests cloaked in therapeutic pieties.

As early as 1923 the Round Table (the name's allusion to King Arthur hints at the fear of impending self-destruction said to "haunt" Rhodes and his circle; it may be seen in the androgynous aristocratic starvelings of Pre-Raphaelite painting) called for the removal of French troops from the Rhineland, the fertile, ethnic German area west of the Rhine. With its troops occupying the Rhineland, and German troops banned from the industrial Ruhr and Saar valleys on the eastern bank France could preempt any German strike. Yet speaking for the Milner group, John Dove, editor of the Round Table 1921-34 urged this disaster on France, England's ally. Dove also was the proponent of a British-dependent Arab Federation from Iran to the Mediterranean that would include all of "Palestine."

British nationalists pursued such policies because they were in fact internationalists whose main goal since 1877 was the absorption of America into a British-led Oceanic federation that would bring freedom, social welfare and peace to the world, they said.

The Treaty of Versailles (1919) called for French occupation of the Rhineland till 1935; Britain persuaded the French to exit by 1930. They then began pressing for Germany to be given equality of arms with Britain, superiority to the French and pointedly told the latter that Britain did not feel bound to put troops on the continent to help anyone. This was a virtual invitation for Germany to re-militarize the Rhineland, a plan that English diplomats like Lords Lothian, Halifax, Austen and Neville Chamberlain made explicit to Hitler on several occasions (268 passim). At the same time, Britain vigorously undercut French attempts to include Russia in any anti-aggression pacts that might deter German expansion. Why? Because another key British aim was to build Germany up, even under Hitler to, 1) scare America into a lasting alliance; 2) unify the continent under Germany as a bulwark against Soviet Russia; 3) eliminate the Jews who might otherwise enter "Palestine" and be brash enough to demand sovereignty.

Top British leaders made clear to Hitler that they wanted him to absorb Eastern Europe, openly supporting his demand for lebensraum but urged that he proceed slowly and by negotiations that would "soften up" the will to resist of the intended victims and avoid political defeat for his British enablers. The parallels of methods and goals to the Camp David-Oslo-Road Map process is plain: negotiation is not for peace but to soften up the targeted victims, nominally allies; to protract the destruction process so that the enablers suffer no electoral repercussions from their own people and to internationalize the crisis: the expulsion regime and policy must be saved at all costs. Thus the periodic tough talk of the Olmert group during and after the Hizbollah conflict of summer 2006...

The war of nerves against the French and the Czechs that the British pursued from 1930-9 has its parallel in Anglo-American and EU-UN "negotiations" with the PLO, Iraq, Iran, Hamas-Fatah and other jihadist groups in recent decades. As the process lengthens, terror is increased to render targets, including opinion at home, more pliable. Almost a year after Austria and then the Czechs had been offered on the altar of British imperial designs aligned with German supremacists, and four days before WW II broke, Neville Henderson, the ambassador to Berlin was offering Germany an alliance if only the Nazis would follow the soften-the-victim by negotiations route with Poland as they had with the Czechs. But by then the Germans considered the British to be "worms" not unlike jihadist attitudes toward their enablers when they 'talk tough' to stay in office. Call it the spoiled brat syndrome, globalized and fiercely armed.

Hitler was able to browbeat the Austrians into not resisting German invasion and 'joining' (Anschluss) by telling them, correctly that he had British support for his plans. On February 21, Sir John Simon declared, "we must not delude small nations into thinking they will be protected from aggression..." Shortly afterward Austria was gobbled up. When the French met with the British to discuss supporting the Czechs and thus stopping German expansionism, the British pressured PM Deladier to himself join in pressing the Czechs to submit. In parliament Philip Kerr, Lord Lothian wholesaled German excuses and rationales for resuming its place in the sun "and blamed all the disasters in Europe on America" (281): shades of our times, and again, like Smuts, Lothian used Nanny-State clichés to palliate Nazism as a "temporary and pathological state," a comfortable position for those safe enough to take the long view.

It is interesting that leading British statesmen condemned the continued existence of Czechoslovakia as "almost the only racially heterogeneous state left in Europe." The moral frame of reference has flipped over completely (multi-culturalism now is the prime good for western states, the better to "liquidate" all nations and create a world state) but the methods, hypocrisy and viciousness remain up front. "The best security for peace is that the world should be divided into zones," first, "a new Federal unit built around the English-speaking nations... ultimately the commonwealth will be worldwide. Lionel Curtis, trustee of the Rhodes Scholarship Foundation, wrote the pompously titled Civitas Dei, published as the "Commonwealth of God" to promote this approach in America through the Council on Foreign Relations, its journal, Foreign Affairs, and the various publications promoting "Union" or "Atlantic Union" or "Union Now." This Commonwealth of God would be an "international commonwealth" in which nations would "yield part of their sovereignty" to the collective, a goal the UN has been increasingly directed to pursue via regional pacts subject to little congressional control.**

Quigley offers a trenchant point made often by non-establishment commentators of our day: that appeasement does not lead to stability or peace but engenders in the mind of the enabled aggressors the appetite and belief that they can increase their demands (281).

The War on Terror is a form of appeasement; between its low-level chronic bloodshed and threats it mobilizes populations, justifies increasingly obtrusive security measures and oversight and feeds the appetite and expectations of terrorists.

One of his more startling revelations is that the first leader to demand German annexation of the Sudetenland, the heavily fortified Czech border areas was not Hitler but Neville Chamberlain, privately on May 10, 1938 and publicly, in a "calculated indiscretion" on September 7. As late as September 15, 1938 Hitler himself was demanding only self-determination for the region. With the "peace process" progressing too slowly for the British pipers, having previously warned the Czechs not to mobilize their forces they then demanded they do so. This, along with a compliant media helped to create war "terror" in the home population four weeks after the British had assured Goering and Hitler that Britain would not fight for the Czechs (285). The British people were assured that Czech sacrifice was the only way to bring "peace in our time." Today they say Israeli surrenders or unilateral ceasefires are required 'to end the cycle of violence.'

Another irony of this situation, which had Britain simply stayed out might well have precluded WW II is that the armed forces of Czechoslovakia were on a par with those of Germany (287-8). The Germans would have been hard pressed to defeat the Czechs alone much less the Czechs and French. Israel, similarly has or until recently had enormous military superiority to its hostile neighbors and could have totally defeated them, deflated jihad and precluded the war on terror -- had American diplomats simply stayed out. But they do not want to stay out: they want negotiations to disarm the intended victim, in the case of Israel, through client politicians and parties committed to defeat they protract the crisis and make surrender inevitable. The Oceanic bloc wants to dismember Israel as "Chamberlain and his associates wanted to dismember Czechoslovakia." This went so far that when highly placed Germans (including Chief of Staff Beck) plotting to assassinate Hitler that September pleaded with the British to stand firm, Chamberlain promptly flew to Hitler's mountain retreat at Berchtesgaden effectively outing their plot and strengthening Hitler's resolve to carve up and absorb the designated victim (288-90). For six more years various German groups plotted to assassinate Hitler and seek in vain for British assurances of help or at least non-belligerence. But the British wanted a big aggressive Germany to dominate the continent, attack Russia and bind America to their Atlantic Union. They succeeded in each case, -- and they also got Hitler to get rid of the Jews for them so they could proceed toward the Arab Federation "with its front door on the Mediterranean" as promoted by John Dove and others from 1919 till today. And the shoah also assisted them in justifying a "world commonwealth" and Court. ***

Just as Israel has been blamed at every step of the peace process for being 'stubborn' so too in 1939 the Round Table had "severe criticism of the Czechs" for a host of problems including not dealing kindly enough with their minorities, -- unlike the way for instance that Britain dealt with nations great and small. Sounding like Bill Clinton and many others, the Round Table group became vocal on "the reign of law between nations as the only way to prevent war" when the French alone could have crushed Hitler in 1935. But the British had their eye on the prize of global dominion as our diplomats have since.

As astonishing as this history is the Oslo-Road Map process has surpassed it. While the British diplomatic elite felt impelled (partly for political reasons) to declare, if not to wage war on Germany after it attacked Poland (rather than by gradually using diplomacy and threats as in Czech land) in recent decades in the Middle East the Anglo-American elites, not to mention the EU, Russia and UN seem to be 'sisters of perpetual indulgence' for jihadist violence against Jews and blatant, in your face breaking of every accord that is reached. This indicates the special place that crippling Israel and extracting its holiest sites has on the global agenda. Why, pray tell was the old city of Jerusalem made a site of pilgrimage and the capital of "Jordan" during the nineteen years the Arabs ruled it? The discrepancy helps reveal the true agenda of the process.

Quigley mentions that as a reward and inducement to more 'good behavior,' the British gave Hitler six million pounds in Czech gold they had for 'safe keeping.' This resembles the continued western flow of arms and money to jihadists targeting Israel, for now. It also is what may happen to the treasure that Jews in Israel and all over the world have created during the past three centuries in the Promised Land.

The lesson is that when diplomats domestic and foreign lure a small nation toward the path of "negotiations" with genocidal enemies, ignore them, strike hard and agree to join them on your own terms. The only winning option is the military one as McArthur, Patton, and Grant demonstrated.


*Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (NY 1981). Page numbers in parenthesis refer to this text. The relevant section spans pages 265-303.

** Frank Aydelotte, Clarence Streit, and Christian Herter were major publicists of this trend in America. See James Perlow, Shadows of Power (1986), 66, 85-6, 95-6, 104, 142, 154. Quigley, 282-4

***Numerous texts demonstrate how information about the magnitude of the holocaust was used by the British and American diplomatic establishment to increasingly legalize an issue of war and reparations and to proselytize for the UN and World Court. See for example David Wyman (1998); Christopher Simpson (1995). Predictably it is the Jews of Israel who are targeted by the institution ostensibly created to redress the shoah.


Here are a few of many more salient details that highlight the geopolitical repeat of the phased destruction of Czechoslovakia by British diplomacy and German aggression to the betrayal and phased destruction of Israel by Anglo-American and EU/UN diplomacy and Arab aggression since the second intifada (1987) led to Madrid I and Oslo.

The Arabs west of the Jordan River, both Israeli Arabs and those in the Autonomous areas have many more political and economic privileges and benefits than those in any other state. From medical care to virtually free electricity and water, to uncensored media that spew Nazi-style Jew hatred, their liberties reaches license. Similarly, "the minorities of Czechoslovakia were the best-treated minorities in Europe [in the 1930s] and their agitations were noticeable precisely because they were living in a democratic liberal state that gave them the freedom to agitate."

The resemblance to the violent even murderous agitation and the attentive media that follow and sometimes stage or prompt it in Israel is clear.

Beginning in 1935, second President Czech President Eduard Benes made numerous conciliatory offers toward self-rule for the Sudeten Germans. They were offered proportional representation throughout the Republic but they declined it. One thinks of the gift of total autonomy within Area 'A' with which the Arabs refuse to be satisfied though Jordan and Egypt gave them no autonomy and little if any services.

In 1937, Czech Prime Minister Hodza offered to transfer all German administrators serving in the Czech government to the Sudeten area so that they could be entirely self-ruled. But none of these suggestions was acceptable to Konrad Henlein [head of the Sudeten German Party] for the simple reason that he wanted no concessions within Czechoslovakia ... his real desire was to destroy the Czechoslovak state." Here is a precise description of the position and rejectionist behavior of all the Arab states to an Israeli state, no matter how small since 1937, right down to the PLO, Fatah and Hamas today. They don't want concessions; their real desire is to destroy the Jewish state as they often state while western diplomats minimize and back page the ugly and lethal fact.

But concessions continue to be offered, then and now, under pressure of the great power "friend" the beleaguered nation in question. Months before Hitler demanded self-rule for the Germans in the Sudetenland, Neville Chamberlain, Lords Halifax and Lothian among others were privately discussing, inadvertently 'leaking' and eventually publicly stating that the Czechs should cede the entire mountainous region outright. This demand for conciliation actually was a blatant and vicious recipe for dismemberment and ruin because the nation's system of fortifications ran through the mountain region. The Sudeten Mountains then, the mountains of Judea and Samaria today: a historian asks: how could Czechoslovakia have its peace or even its existence guaranteed by France after surrendering its key defensive positions when according to the British it could not be guaranteed by France, Russia, and England with these defenses intact?

How will the United States, even with the best will in the world be able to guarantee and maintain the existence of Israel minus Judea and Samaria when it claims that peace will never come so long as Israel retains its heartland and mountain barrier and maintains full autonomy for its own armed forces?

One last parallel to emphasize: just as the Czech armed forces' quantity were on par with those of Germany in fall 1938 and the quality of their forces far superior, so is the quality of Israel's armed forces today still far superior to those of its neighbors. But without its mountain barrier, Jewish settlements, and with EU, UN and NATO troops in Judea, Samaria and Gaza these advantages will be gravely compromised. More security measures will follow, everywhere...

History does repeat itself; but with awareness the game need not again be played out till checkmate, global catastrophe and holocaust.

# Quotations are from Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (NY 1966), 625-7; 628-34 for details of the comparative military strength and additional British diplomatic pressures.

Professor Eugene Narrett teaches writing and Literature at Boston University. He is the author of hundreds of articles, columns and reviews on politics, American culture and the arts. He is completing a study on Romanticism and the longterm decline of Western Culture. He writes often on subjects relating to Israel and Judaism and is a weekly columnist for the MetroWest Daily News in Framingham, Massachusetts.

This article appeared on "Israel End Times. The thoughts and writings of Prof. Eugene Narrett", and is archived at
http://israelendtimes.com/blog/2007/02/18/ munich-road-map-parallels-run-deep.htm#more-86

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 18, 2007.

Two primary sellers are trying to sell out the State of Israel. One is the political echelon of the Left and the other is the Media which, for all intents and purposes, is a political party in disguise. The former is a political party while the latter purports to be a conveyor of the news. The fact is that the Hebrew Media in Israel is an organic extension of Leftist doctrine. The two "sellers" are inseparable.

Whatever the political Left thinks, the political Media prints and broadcasts.

In a way, the political party of the Media is far more influential that its mentors because it is the Media which reaches the people every day. While they may take their lead from the party of the Left, it is they who format the thoughts so they slip into the minds of the people as reasonable. Brain-washing the public is an art form, practiced by journalists, commentators, editors, directors and broadcasters. Of course, the publishers and politicians set the tone.

Newspapers, led first by Ha'aretz, are the leading voices of the Left -- followed closely by Ma'ariv and Yediot Ahronot. Of course, there are also the TV news Channels1 and 2 who both have large audiences.

As they say, if it's in print or on TV, it must be true. The fact that it isn't, doesn't diminish the misinformation from the Media's presentation of the facts. It's a perfect arrangement for a two party system. The politicians lie and the Leftist Media swears to the distorted facts. Those Media professionals who are drawn to employment at the political Media are already biased in their own thoughts and, therefore, acceptable as employees of a biased Media.

Political Media organizations such as Pravda in Russia, Al Ahram in Egypt would not hire an independent thinker who would go against their State doctrine. Those who apply as reporters, opinion writers would not think of applying to State Media outlets unless they already agreed to serve the prevailing political voice.

The Israeli political Media are the cutting edge for the Voice of the Left and, as I said earlier, are themselves a virtual political party. They should be registered as a political party with the same restraints as the law (such as it is) puts on the other political parties. They are like unregistered foreign agents, free to spend as much money on supporting the party of the Left, as they choose. They can even make policy by printing a format of ideas that force their political mentors as follows:

Publishers, editors are as powerful as elected officials -- even more so. At first the Media was controlled by three powerful Left-leaning families dedicated to secularizing the nation by keeping the ruling party of the Left in political control. The use of the theme: Zionism, was their cover. They were, after all, returning to Zion, the Land of our forefathers: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon and the Prophets.

Who among the Jews could argue with that? But, they didn't believe in any of it. Their goal was to "piggy-back" their return to Zion onto the longing of the Jews to return to live in their ancient Land but, not as observant Zionists. Their goal was to de-Judaize the Jewish nation through the oxymoron of secular Zionism or the eponymous Labor Zionists. In essence, they were not Zionists at all but, merely secular Leftists who, like all other Jews, had to flee the graveyards of Europe.

So having control of the Government, the Media and all government service institutions, what did they achieve? We now have a Land where few believe in their government because the once great ideals of a nation under G-d was bred out of the ideals of many. Those who were once called heroes, pioneers were now pejoratively called Settlers. These were the people who still believed in the Land of Zion. These were the idealists who went to hazardous border fronts to establish kibbutzim, farms and make the arid Land green. These were the people who were honored by the world as workers and defense pioneers. Yes, it was the settlers who were first to volunteer for military service and it was their officers who always took the most casualties with the battle cry: "Acheri!"...Follow Me!" It still is the "settlers", only now they are called the Right.

But, then the tide turned. The Arab Muslim Terrorists said the Land of ours which they lost is theirs and the Leftists joined them. The politicians of the Labor Left, in lock-step with the Media of the Left and the biased Court system -- literally assaulted the pioneers of the Right.

Soon, instead of being seen as heroes and guardians of the Nation's frontiers, the wave of anti-settler propaganda said: "It's all your fault that the Arab Muslims are angry and terrorizing our cities." "If only you give up our Land, farms, factories, schools, cemeteries, holy religious sites, the Arab Muslims will no longer feel shame for having started and lost seven wars to those they said was a contemptible weak enemy -- the Jewish people." The Left invariably snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by pleading for forgiveness for winning these wars of the Arab Muslims intended annihilation.

As the nation wearied of war and the loss of her young soldiers, the Leftists' both Media and Politicians, became ready recruits for the slogans drummed out by the Left. "It's the fault of settlers." Now, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says: "I am tired of fighting; tired of winning." He means: "Don't blame me. Blame the Settlers, the observant Orthodox and the Right."

Every two bit Leftist politician jockeyed for space in the Leftist Media to shout his or her condemnation of those darned settlers and when they had the power how they would push the settlers out and pacify the Muslim Arabs.

When they succeeded in such enterprises as Oslo 1, Oslo 2, Wye, etc., the Arabs were not appeased. Israeli Leftists mumbled some excuses and moved on to the next appeasement. When all of that failed, the Leftists got frightened. When the politically correct Leftist Generals and their political masters started to lose more and more, the people grew alarmed. All the lies they had been told were starting to fall apart.

To appease the Arab Muslims and divert the public from their own corrupt actions, the Leftists uprooted, evicted and destroyed the homes of 10,000 Israeli men, women and children from Gush Katif in Gaza and Northern Samaria. Now Gaza was turning into everything the Right and those "terrible settlers" had warned them would happen was, indeed, happening. Kassam Rockets were falling inside of Israel "proper". Even then, Leftists like Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, Amir Peretz ...could not stop themselves. They wanted more appeasement and more abandonment of the Land to bring the missiles even closer to Tel Aviv, the great bastion of the Left. They've put the homes of 250,000 Jewish men, women and children in Judea and Samaria on line for evacuations.

All the plans to secularize and de-Judaize the nation in order to pacify the Arabs were failing. The Army that was once the inspiring place to which young Israelis could aspire was now not so glamorous. The national Zionists' spirit was fading under the political guidance of the Left. When Israeli Generals, at the behest of the Leftists, trained young soldiers to attack the Jews of Gush Katif in Gaza, and Amona, the spirit of honor left these young soldiers when they saw what they had done to their own people.

Only the settlers held firm in their value of the Land, their idealism and, above all, the conviction that G-d was, indeed, on their side. The young people coming from Leftist families did not have this inner conviction. Theirs was the city life where honor, love of the Land of their forefathers was merely a fantasy.

Only those "crazy settlers" believed in such mysterious things. Why go to the Army? Why believe in anything beyond night life in the big city? Who cares about Zionism -- which is just a word anyway?

This then is what the Left taught the people but, the Left also unleashed self-hating Jews in Academia. They wished to show their Left Liberal credentials so academics in Israel and America began a tirade against such Jews who had some Jewish identity and who actually loved the Land. They began to call the settlers vicious names like "Nazis" and encourage European Academics to boycott Israeli Universities, even those who were Left-leaning.

They tried to out-do each other in their outrage against Jews. Here one is reminded of what happened under Goebbels -- followed by France and other European nations who attacked and dismissed Jewish professors, physicians, etc. Some Leftist Professors now, instead of teaching their subjects, harangued their students with Leftist politics and encouraged them to hate those "pioneering settlers". They taught that the Jews had no real rights to the Land. In their foaming rage, they lost sight of the fact that they too would be dispossessed of their jobs, their homes and would be sent fleeing like their peers in Europe who managed to get away in time.

In the meantime, the Politicians, the Leftist Media, the Academics honored and encouraged the idealism of the Muslim Arabs who swore to Allah to eliminate the smallest vestige of the Jewish State. Whenever an Arab claimed holy ground, no matter how frivolous or how groundless the Muslims' claim, the Jewish Leftists genuflected. No claim was too outrageous to reject.

The Left dragged down the nation, the Army, the spirit of the people until there was little left of a once proud nation except the vigorous roots of those who were pejoratively called settlers or observant dati Jews.

Now the nation must fight for its life against hostile Muslim Arabs, American and European Arabists who want Israel to vanish while they clamor for more crude oil which the Africans call "The Devil's Excrement". We watch with dismay as the dregs of so-called Jewry both in Israel and America pimp for Arab Muslim benefits. There is little doubt that those weak leaders will go underground at the first sign of real fighting which may be coming soon. Even as the Arabs grow in power and the nations are closing in, still the Left clings to power. Like a drug addict desperate for a fix, now willing to sell off the Land, steal, beg for that next fix.

Is this Israel's last chance to save herself? I don't think so. It will require ripping the corruption out of what passes for government. I would also deal harshly with a Media that acts as if it's a political party under cover of a purveyor of news. As for the self-appointed Leftists who call themselves Judges, that fouled nest should be cleaned out. I would also straighten out the Academics to the point where they are limited to teaching their own subjects, educating their students or dismissing them, -- tenure aside.

The roots of corruption in Israel's Politics, Media, Academia and Courts are deep and it will require a good bit of ruthless tugging to pull out the bad weeds that have invaded G-d's Garden.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Ben Ariel, February 18, 2007.

This is called "Court orders settlers to leave building in East Jerusalem," and is by Meron Rapoport, Haaretz Correspondent.

The Jewish families being shamefully evicted now, associated with Ateret Kohanim, remind me of those Jewish pioneers of the El-Ad ("To the City of David") organization that I was blessed to visit with as soon as they liberated areas of Shiloach years ago, as mentioned within Conflict in Jerusalem. Later I sat and talked with its leader, David Be'eri, on his lawn about the situation and future.

May a proper Jewish government be brought to power that will respect the Jewish Homeland and strengthen it and appreciate those who love it dearly. Meanwhile, may Jews, Israelis and Christian Zionists, encourage such patriotic souls in Shiloach to continue performing the mitzvot of settling the land and launch a "Save the City of David" campaign to show solidarity.

Israel's sworn enemies have no trouble getting a riot on, so why can't we manage to have an overwhelming show of support for those Jews on the frontlines to restore biblical Jerusalem? May the public have massive demonstrations and put pressure on the government to do the right thing and permit the Jews to remain. Let the yeshivas empty their classrooms and take it to the streets. No more Jewish expulsions!

El-Ad Foundation

The El-Ad Foundation is on the forefront of the movement to strengthen the ties of the Jewish people with ancient Jerusalem -- the City of David. Right near the Western Wall, El-Ad is settling Jewish families right where the capital of Israel stood in the time of the Bible, developing archeological sites, and connecting visitors to the ancient City of David.

David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall." Contact him at http://www.pushhamburger.com/david.htm

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, February 18, 2007.

Those who obsess on destructive past events, hold long-term grudges, inherit the savage instincts of dysfunctional cultures, wallow in hatred, will never see clearly or become productive members of human society. Anti-Semitism does not abate entering its third millennium despite a twentieth century Holocaust beyond human comprehension, today's resurrected Sunni Shiite war does not abate despite being rooted in a seventh century religious dispute, crimes against humanity persist worldwide rationalized by the dogma of dysfunctional cultures, some dating back to the dawn of recorded history, indeed mankind passes his self-destructive baton from generation to generation, each one digging its heels ever deeper into a never ending circular track paved with despair. Having said that, we still must not cede our souls and stare fatalistically at the grimly reaping circumstances surrounding our lives at both proximate as well as seemingly far distances, the latter not as far from us as we might think. We must not ignore all that afflicts our dysfunctional evolving species, and indeed must attempt to fix what is broken and self-destructive to the best of our abilities.

Understanding is paramount in any such serious effort. The United States failed in that regard by toppling an Iraqi tyrant without comprehending the hostile Sunni verses Shiite genie would be released from its pressurized bottle once Sadist Hussein's iron thumb was removed from the narrow opening, leading to an even more blood drenched hell. Today's world superpower, hoist with its own petard, emulated the inadequate preparation displayed by so many superpowers before it in their respective quests, failing to comprehend historical lessons, thus was destined to repeat their fatal mistakes. Yet, this must not deter future powerful nations from attempting to do the right thing. Sadistic Muslim autocratic rulers hire soulless janjaweed mercenaries to torture, rape, and murder hapless Black Muslim Africans in the blood soaked Darfur region of Sudan, such murderers immersed in their own warped devolved culture of hatred, exhibiting a morality past down by racist inhumane savages of yesteryear, still the outer presumably civilized world does nothing but pay lip service. Such inaction remains blatantly wrong, resembling the inaction of world leaders, in the know, merely ruminating over strategies while twentieth century Nazis slaughtered Jews.

Understanding cultural nuances, cultural dysfunctions, indeed what is right about any cultural surely is critical, still many world leaders remain uninformed, perhaps out of arrogance, surely out of ignorance, nevertheless embark at times headlong into challenges ultimately unprepared. Could it be that interests, not at all connected to any announced purported missions, many times motivate such aggressive actions? Could it be that industrial nations, perhaps interested in raw materials that underdeveloped nations possess, might sometimes invade those say mineral rich nations on other say more lofty pretexts? There are many such worldwide examples throughout history. Were Europeans truly interested in civilizing native Africans, evolved within civilizations different and likely more not less humane than conquerors from the North, or were such Europeans truly interested in the raw materials such Africans possessed? Do today's corporate moguls, affiliated as well as in essence unaffiliated with particular nations, sweet talk dictators of say underdeveloped lands to give up natural wealth in order to reap disgustingly high profits, very little of which betters the lives of collective native populations. Such incursions are not native friendly, thus conquerors, both of national and corporate nature, care little about understanding the indigenous cultures they exploit. With so little incentive to do the right thing, why then might we be shocked when such greed is so overwhelming that even genocide cannot move movers and shakers to act with but an ort of morality, at least attempting to stop the bleeding?

The tiny nation of Israel has experienced disrespect from its inception, has been thrust into the hell of combat many times always landing on its feet, has attempted to maintain its moral rectitude throughout such challenges, most recently allowing Hizbullah filth to survive only because intrepid Israeli soldiers would not put to sleep the cowardly Arabs, willing to shield their sorry asses behind the skirts of innocent Lebanese women, the larger frames of innocent Lebanese men, and most egregiously even the small frail bodies of young Lebanese children. Such Israeli soldiers refused to knowingly kill innocents, ever necessary if they were to destroy their craven enemy, and in effect were spat upon by a disappointed outer world for not winning a war they were expected to win. What does that say about an outer world that apparently has lost the ability to discern the fact that Israeli soldiers did the right thing? No doubt, the challenged Jewish nation, still clinging to the tenets of decency, is a prime location for a conference of world leaders from academia, government, and the business world to focus on issues relating to human morality. Why not organize such a meeting in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem? Are you listening Prime Minister Olmert?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hebron Jewish Community, February 18, 2007.

Dozens of pages of holy Psalms were found scattered in the road near the Sepharadi Jewish cemetery, near Tel Rumeida in Hebron, this morning.

This is another incident in a continuing pattern of desecrations of holy sites and articles in Hebron over the past few weeks.

Amongst others: graves in the cemetery were desecrated, at the Tomb of Jesse the eternal light was destroyed and an attempt was made to break into the holy ark, and tzedakka (charity) boxes have been stolen. All this, in addition to continued violence and property damage, as well as infiltrations into Hebron's Jewish neighborhoods. The police and army have yet to apprehend anyone for any of these crimes.

Hebron's Jewish community is gravely concerned at the police negligence in dealing with such criminal acts of violence and desecration of Jewish holy sites. Especially noticible is the gap between the police action against Jews and their lack of response at Arab crime.

The subject of discrimination and law enforcement in Hebron -- over-enforcement against the Jews and lack of enforcement against the Arabs, was discussed in Knesset committee for law and legislation last week.

Psalms desecrated by Arabs today near the ancient Jewish cemetery

Desecration at Tomb of Jesse and Ruth

Desecration of Separadi Jewish cemetery in Hebron

You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion Dreyfus, February 18, 2007.

To: Editor, New York Times
Subject: NYT: Greg Myre, "Israelis Are Gone, but Gaza Rebuilding Is Slow" (Feb. 18, 07)
February 18, 2007

To the Editors:

Assiduous fact-checkers at the Times should recall the shambles that was left after the Israelis gifted the Arabs with Gaza, and Mort Zuckerman extended his personal $13+ million dollars to preserve the greenhouses that had employed some myriads of Israelis before the ill-starred handover.

Greg Myre ("Israelis are gone, but Gaza rebuilding is slow," 18 Feb) gets the facts completely wrong. The moment the handover of Gaza was complete, the new inhabitants tore the greenhouses pipe from pipe, and limb from limb, literally destroying the work of decades, and laying waste to the potential incomes of millions and employment venues of thousands.

The so-called Gaza closing is also a never-was, and falsely assigns blame for the Arab destruction of her new territory to the Israelis, instead of the ungracious and self-destructive Arafatian minions.

The Times should print an apology as prominently as it printed these major errors of fact.

Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at dreyfusmarion@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paula Stern, February 18, 2007.

The roots of the Middle East conflict began in denial and so long as death and denial are the tools of the Arab religious and political leaders, the conflict will remain unresolved. Nothing that anyone can do, not the Israelis, not the Europeans, not even the Americans, can change this simple truth.

After centuries of persecution and yearning for the land that was theirs, Jews in large numbers began arriving in Ottoman and then British-mandated Palestine to join and strengthen the existing Jewish community. The land then, as now, was rich enough and the people creative and dedicated enough, to have supported this influx.

Even more, the native Arabs in Palestine during this time could have benefited from this influx just as the native Jewish population did. The Arab population could have joined in draining the swamps in the north and making the desert bloom. They could have joined in building a country that truly would have been the crossroads of the world, the center of commerce and travel and tourism and research and development.

Instead, they denied the rights of the Jews to return to their homeland and did it with violence. Then, as now, the Arabs chose the path of denial. It is a mistake they continue to repeat year after year. And then, as now, the world rejected their violence and recognized the right of Israel to again take its place among the nations. When the Arabs denied the Partition Plan which would have given them a state in 1947, that idiocy plunged the region and the world into 6 decades of violence and caused the Palestinians to raise their children to worship death and darkness.

The Arab countries denied their Arab brothers by refusing to absorb 600-700,000 refugees, leaving them for decades in squalor and poverty. There were no language, religious, economic, or cultural barriers that should have prevented the Arab refugees of 1948 from easily being absorbed in the Arab countries to which they emigrated. It was the culture of denial that brought about generations of suffering.

Wars often result in an exchange of population, but rarely are those displaced so despised as to remain seemingly homeless and poor through generations. A similar number of Jews, estimated between 600-900,000 Jews were forced to flee their homes in Arab lands. From Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and so many other places, hundreds of thousands of Jews came to the new state and were absorbed. It was a painful and slow process, but the Jews of Israel were as determined to absorb as the new immigrants were to be absorbed.

There is no refugee problem in Israel among the Jews who came from Arab lands, because with positive planning, they were given homes. Not so among the Arab nations who worshiped this policy of denial and crowned it with martyrdom and hatred.

A refusal to accept the truth that was obvious to all, continues to plague the Palestinian cause today. Today, the Palestinians not only deny the existence of the state of Israel by refusing to give it "recognition," but are attempting to deny long-accepted archeological evidence that under the mosques they built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, lies the buried remains of our two Holy Temples. The amazing part of their denial is not that they seek to convince the world that there was no Jewish settlement here thousands of years ago, no Jewish Temple, no organized religion. No, the amazing part of their denial is that they actually believe their own lies.

When Ehud Barak met Yasir Arafat and Bill Clinton at Camp David, he made unprecedented and dangerous concessions that would have seriously damaged Israel's security. To Barak's flawed way of thinking, the goal of any agreement should have been peace so he was willing to compromise Israel's security. We should be forever grateful that the culture of denial among the Palestinians manifested itself once again, even if it did plunge us into yet another Intifada.

And finally, we arrive at Iran's repeated denials of the Holocaust, yet another example of the Arab world attempting to deny what is obvious to all. One need only visit Auschwitz and see the piles of human hair, the eyeglasses, the abandoned suitcases and worst of all, the gas chambers and barracks to know this was a place of great evil and death. The ashes still remain in Maidanek and the bones still rise to the surface during heavy rains in Chelmno.

To deny the Holocaust despite massive physical evidence and the eyewitness testimonies of hundreds of thousands, to deny that the Temple Mount is holy to the Jewish religion because our great Temples once stood there, and to deny Israel's right to exist, are all failed attempts at denying reality. Of all the concepts prevalent in the Palestinian and Arab psyche, this culture of denial is perhaps the most damaging not only to the world and the quest for Middle East peace, but especially to the Arabs themselves.

You cannot make peace with those whom you deny and until the denial stops, there is really no reason for the world or Israel to even attempt to negotiate the situation. The roots of the Middle East conflict began in denial so long ago and so it continues today. If things are bad for the Palestinians now, amidst this culture of denial they have elevated to the level of holiness, than they have no one to blame but themselves. Nothing that anyone can do, not the Israelis, not the Europeans, not even the Americans, can change this simple truth.

Contact Paula Stern at writepnt@actcom.co.il This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, February 17, 2007.

PM Olmert plans to release Yehuda's murderers.

Remember to call the White House and ask that Jonathan Pollard be freed.

REMEMBER, every single call to the White House is counted! Call every day, Monday through Friday, 9 am to 5 pm eastern standard time. (For Israeli readers, that's Monday to Friday from 4 pm to Midnight, but not Shabbat please!)

WHITE HOUSE TELEPHONE NUMBERS 1-202-456 -1111 or 1-202-456-1414

You don't have to be American to participate, just a mench!

February 16, 2007

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lifschitz,

It broke my heart to learn of your principled struggle to prevent Prime Minister Olmert from freeing the murderers of your beloved son, Yehuda, H'yd, z'l. Please know, you are fighting for the honor and the security of all the Nation of Israel, not just for justice for Yehuda H'yd, z'l.

Although it is not a simple matter for me to get this message to you, I want very much to strengthen your hands and to express solidarity with you.

As the parents of a soldier who was brutally murdered while in the service of the State, PM Olmert's indifference to your suffering and to your feelings is unforgivable. His attitude clearly reflects the saying of our sages, "He who is merciful to the cruel, will end up by being cruel to the merciful."

How does the Government of Israel show its gratitude to those who serve the State? How does it honor its soldiers, agents, and loyal citizens? By freeing those who murder us and terrorize us? By abandoning its soldiers in the field so as not to cause civilian casualties amongst our enemies? By turning its back on the families of the victims of Arab terror as it prepares to release the worst murderers and terrorist masterminds this state has ever known?

The State of Israel is absolutely obliged to bring all of her prisoners and captives home -- but not by making deals with the devil to spill even more Jewish blood.

Israel's dismal record since the signing of the Oslo Accords shows a clear pattern of favoring our enemies by releasing terrorists and murderers, always at the expense of their victims and the victims' families. It is a blot on the honor of the Nation of Israel that the Government is far more concerned about appeasing the Americans (who demand these humiliating prisoner releases) and placating our enemies than it is about discharging its most basic responsibilities to those who serve the State. Olmert's intention to free Yehuda's murderers -- without any moral or legal basis for doing so, proves that.

As past experience has proven, whenever Israel releases murderers and terrorists as a "gesture," these scoundrels receive a hero's welcome home, and they quickly resume their terrorist activities against Israeli citizens and targets. This is true also of those who are released ostensibly to serve out their sentences in other countries. They go in the front door of the jail, and then quickly out the back door to resume terrorizing Israel anew.

Prime Minister Olmert and his cronies need to be reminded that the State has a responsibility to those who serve it and to its citizens. His plans to free murderers and terrorists are unconscionable.

I have asked my wife, Esther to join a critical protest rally on Monday 19/02/07 (organized by the Committee to Bring Jonathan Pollard Home.) The protestors will gather in Kikar Pariz at 6 PM to protest the dastardly deals that Olmert is making with Abbas (at the request of the Americans) to free yet more murderers and terrorists. Let me assure you, your son's name will be upon the lips of the protestors.

You have my word, Mr. and Mrs. Lifschitz, we shall not be silent. Esther and I and all those who are prepared to speak out against this evil, want you to know that you are not alone in your struggle. The People of Israel are with you. May G-d bless our efforts with success!

With love and deep sympathy,

Jonathan Pollard
FCI Butner, NC

SEE ALSO at www.jonathanpollard.org: Hebrew Text: Jonathan's Letter to the Parents of Yehuda Lifschitz

Contact Justice For Jonathan Pollard by email at justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, February 17, 2007.

Jerusalem -- Most people who follow the Israeli news of the missiles that fall in southern Israel would know the toll that it has taken upon the people there. What you often hear on the news is that a missile fell and that no one was hurt ... physically. The mental damage is another story in itself.

The working class city of Sderot (est. pop. 20,000), in southern Israel, is possibly the first city since Sarejevo to live under constant bombardment of its civilian population for a sustained period of time. Sderot has been under missile attack from Gaza for more than six years, and it has been hit by more than 1,400 missile attacks since Israel pulled its civilians and soldiers out of nearby Gaza during the summer of 2005, which includes more than 100 missile attacks since Israel declared a cease-fire on Nov. 26, and stopped any real military response to these attacks.

One by product of this situation is that the small mental health trauma unit in Sderot was simply no longer able to meet the needs of the situation, with more than 3,000 people in Sderot in treatment for the after effects of shock, anxiety and stress.

And so, in late December 2006, Israel's daily HaAretz newspaper broke the story that Sderot's mental health trauma unit was going to be forced to close in a few days with the beginning of the calendar year, for lack of funds.

Almost immediately upon hearing the news that Sderot's mental health services were collapsing, some American prominent philanthropists wrote to the UJC, the New York-based umbrella organization that helps Israel and other Jewish causes, and asked what the UJC was doing about providing emergency mental health assistance to the already distressed city of Sderot and other communities under fire in Israel's Western Negev region.

The immediate response that these donors got was a letter, dated Dec. 28, from the public relations department director of the UJC, which delineated the generous allocations to Sderot and the Western Negev that the UJC was planning for the region. These letter spelled out the following allocations:

* "$1.5 million has been allocated to provide 20,000 Sderot-area children ages 5-16 post-trauma counseling/therapy; school-based afternoon enrichment activities, study time and meals for two months;

* $997,500 has been allocated to provide 35 psychologists to complement the 110 already in place, to provide therapy in Sderot-area schools for six months;

* $956,640 has been allocated to provide 3,000 of the 37,000 students in ORT schools who suffer from trauma with counseling/therapy;

* $700,000 has also been allocated to provide 4,000 kids in 1st-6th grades with one- to three-day field trips in the center of Israel.

* $150,000 was allocated for the Yuval program, which helps support front-line emergency response personnel, specifically in four locations in the Sderot/Gaza region."

However, on Jan. 8, when Dr. Adriana Katz, the head of the mental health services for Sderot saw a copy of the letter, she laughed and commented that "this is the greatest piece of science fiction that I have ever read", and went on to say that while the six psychologists working in Sderot would be pleased to welcome 35 more psychologists who would indeed be needed to provide follow-up services to 3,000 people in Sderot, there was no indication from the UJC or anywhere else that these allocations were en route to Sderot or to the Western Negev.

Throughout January, calls to the UJC in New York about the emergency allocations to the mental services of Sderot went unanswered -- until this past Wednesday, when a UJC donor received a letter from the UJC in New York which spelled out the way in which $3 million had been spent by the UJC in the Sderot area during the calendar year 2006, yet with no mention of what would be provided for Sderot in 2007.

A source close to the UJC reported that the UJC would indeed hold an allocations meeting some time in March.

What about the $4 million that the UJC promised for Sderot mental health services in the UJC letter of Dec. 28?

No comment about that commitment was forthcoming from the UJC.

At this point in time, the commitment of the UJC philanthropy to provide $4 million in aid to the mental health services in Sderot is only on paper.

Simply stated, the people of Sderot would like to know if the Dec. 28 commitment made by a respected American philanthropy will be fulfilled.

The answer is that they will have to wait until the UJC allocations meeting, to be convened sometime in March.

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il

This appeared yesterday in The Evening Bulletin
(www.thebulletin.us/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=2737&dept_id=576361& newsid=17860007).

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 17, 2007.

I am sure Israelis know that many Arabic words have Hebrew connotation or similarity; I wonder if the Arabs know this too. For instance the word "medina."

Medina in Hebrew means 'country,' 'land,' 'polity,' 'province,' 'region,' or 'state.' For Mohamed, medina was the old section of an Arab city in North Africa. In Arabic madīna, city, from Aramaic mədintā, mədinā, 'jurisdiction,' 'district,' from dān, to 'judge,' 'administer.'

The State of Israel is 'Medina[t] Yisrael.'

This brings me to the point of Medina-Yisrael and Medina-Palestine.

Why is the United States State Department insisting on establishing a terror Palestinian medina on the border of Israel, causing irreversible damage to Israel's national security when there is so much other medina land available for the Palestinians in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or in any other of the 22 Arab countries?

During the British Mandate, in then Palestine, the Brits drew the region's maps and borderlines as fast as a newspaper cartoonist draws his or her morning newspaper cartoon assignment.

Why is it that the international community cannot draw a border of a new 23 Arab medina away from the throat of Israel? Why is Condoleezza Rice so adamant about putting the noose of a Palestinian medina on Israel's neck? Why?

The problem is not with the Arabs but the rest of the world. Because of our need for oil, for years we allowed the consistent spread of the Islamic cancer. The only healthy cell remained in the Middle East is Israel and the Untied States State Department is now working mighty hard to destroy it.

When a child is unruly it is not his or her fault, rather the fault of his or her unruly parents. Shamefully, for years, the United States and the rest of the [not so free] world acted as the Muslims' unruly parents. The results are crystal clear, all turned against Israel and us.

From here on, in every meeting that Israel is required to discuss any possible Palestinian state mapping perhaps Israel must demand for a Palestinian medina over there somewhere...end of discussion!

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, February 17, 2007.

The Bush Administration bizarrely supports Iraq's democratically elected Shiite government, pledging lip service to America's objectives, yet whose heart and future truly belong to the Bush Administration's 'axis of evil' Iran. The Bush Administration bizarrely supports Saudi Arabia's undemocratic non elected Sunni royal ruling class, pledging lip service to America's objectives, yet whose heart and pocket book truly belong to the Bush Administration' 'evil doer' Sunni insurgents as well as worldwide Wahhabi madrassas a/k/a human bomb factories. Although most observant pundits suggest an ever-growing resurrected Sunni Shiite civil war spouts geysers of blood over Iraq's scorpion infested desert, the Bush Administration sticks to its 'good guy verses bad guy' scenario, ignoring thirteen centuries of historical evidence. Although six decades of empirical evidence clearly supports the fact that 'land for peace' is a pie-in-the sky notion, unworkable because so many Arabs do not and will not recognize the existence of Israel, the Bush Administration, consistent with mind-sets of well intentioned erstwhile United States Administrations, will continue to push its Road Map (more aptly Road Kill) scheme on gullible Israeli movers and shakers, as soon as enough dust settles, enough lip service is paid, and some sort of temporary unity government is worked out between clashing Fatah and Hamas so-called Palestinian politicos.

How many foreign policy blunders by its formidable ally, exacerbated by cognitive dissonant illogic, will it take before Israel's leaders finally recognize they alone must do what is best for the beleaguered State they were elected to steward, and not rely on perhaps good intentioned advice bereft of logic that if followed will only bring tsuris? There are no do-overs when land is ceded. If the folly of Gaza does not hammer that home, perhaps nothing will.

The volatile Middle East, no doubt this planet's most perilous region, composed of an unstable admixture of feuding mostly misogynist undemocratic Muslim tribes and one tolerant democratic people disliked by all the rest, has its way with the world, chosen by Dame Misfortune's fickle fossil fuel finger of fate to collectively possess the one desert drenching dinosaur age energy source cherished by mostly all first world industrial nations. The latter point indeed is controlling, thus influences all policy initiatives proposed by even Israel's closest and most essential ally. When U.S. secretary of State Condi Rice, for one, at the behest of her bosses, breaks pita with Abu Mazen, as well as other presumably 'moderate' Arab V.I.P.s, then attempts to extort 'land for peace' concessions from those representing Israel, fossil fuel linkages to her agenda must be considered. As much of an ally America is to Israel, that superpower's access to oil and Saudi guarantees that OPEC will continue to recognize the primacy of its petrodollar trump all. Indeed, the preemptive invasion and all subsequent strategic missteps in Iraq, leading to destabilizing unintended consequences, would not have occurred if Sadist Hussein had not crossed the sacred line in the sand, daring to trade oil for euros, and if the Bush Administration was not also predisposed to assert control over Iraq's vast proven oil reserves. Anyone who believes otherwise is a prime candidate to buy the next Brooklyn Bridge.

Furthermore, Israel, once highly regarded as a reliable proxy fighting force, disappointed present occupants of Uncle Sam's White House by not recently clobbering Hizbullah, albeit it is virtually impossible for any moral nation to vanquish a craven enemy on its home turf willing to use its own civilians as human shields. Still, Israel's usefulness took a major hit. That fact must be seriously considered in any calculations made by Israeli leaders, expected to comply with future land for peace demands foisted upon Israel by Ms. Rice or any other Bush proxy. No longer viewed as a stud, the glue factory is a strong possibility, if that would engender worldwide kudos and oil deals for a persuasive fair weather formidable ally. If the mere mention of that possibility offends many dyed in the wool Israeli Bush supporters, please refer to a 06/18/2006 article in the Jerusalem Post 'US rejected Iranian overtures in 2003'. Reputable sources, per The Washington Post, revealed the Bush Administration ignored a certifiable offer from Iran to begin talks with the United States concerning a variety of issues including nuclear safeguards, ending support of Palestinian as well as other terror organizations, coordinating efforts in Iraq, accepting the 2002 Saudi solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and therefore most incredibly recognizing Israel -- I repeat recognizing Israel!  Of course, no one knows if the sanction-laden Persian regime was merely blowing smoke up Bush's posterior region, but how could he not at least follow up on this offer? Of course, the lunatic Iranian president AhMADinejad has since announced that Israel should be 'wiped off the map', as well as hosted a most despicable Holocaust denial conference, but might talks with perhaps more rational practical Iranian leaders preempted those despicable deeds, perhaps relegating AhMADinejad to irrelevancy? Furthermore, might those discussions have put the kabash on Iran's apparent Dr. Strangelove obsession now manifesting in multitudes of ominously spinning centrifuges? Sometimes incompetence nurtured by arrogance is inexcusable. Israeli leaders should feel no remorse in objectively analyzing one particular lame duck U.S. administration, perhaps a whole lot less of a friend to Israel than it was and is cracked up to be.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 17, 2007.

or at least should be.

The crew running my local newspaper, The Daytona Beach News-Journal (aka The News-Jazeera), started my day off on February 24th with almost an entire half page singing the praises to Hamas' leader, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and blaming Israel equally along with the Arabs for the failure of Dr. Rice's Mideast peace plans. She was hit with a reality check coming out of Mecca, and since the Arabs won't give up their insistance on Israel's destruction and Jews (at least some) refuse to play ball, I guess, for The News-Jazeera, that makes both parties equally guilty. Keep in mind that the only time the paper's editorialists spoke of barbarism related to this conflict was in an op-ed by their Pierre Tristam entitled, "Barbarism Under Israel's Boot."

"Moral equivalence" is always the name of this newspaper's game, so the two AP stories claiming that Israel and the Palestinian Arabs share equal guilt and the nauseating whitewash of Hamas were right up their alley.

I wonder how the editors would feel if it were their own kids getting deliberately blown apart in the local pizzerias, teen night clubs, on bus rides home from school, and such. Would they still insist, for starters, that Haniyeh was just a "militant?"

For years now, many of us have asked what planet The News-Jazeera's folks live on. And our local Florida problem is all too typical these days across the board.

Yet it doesn't take a rocket scientist (and we have plenty just down the road a bit at the Cape) to explain the facts of life here.

If the United States--three thousand miles wide, bordered by non-hostile nations (at least one whose territories were conquered in the name of the United States' manifest destiny ), buffered by two vast oceans, and the most powerful nation on Earth--was asked to negotiate with an enemy dedicated to its destruction, we'd expect our leaders to tell those folks to stick those negotiations as far up some bodily orifice that they would fit. And if such an enemy struck at our people, we would unleash pure hell on them...as in the aftermath of 9/11, in World War II, and so forth.

It pays to be big -- both as a nation and as a people

The resurrected State of the Jews isn't. It's hard to even locate it on a map of the world. On the other hand, Arabs now have almost two dozen states--conquered mostly from non-Arab peoples--on over six million square miles of territory.

I repeat these things often--not because I like to, but because the message just doesn't sink in as soon as it should. And for those who have eyes and see and have ears and hear--yet still behave otherwise--I repeat such key facts to rub in their faces. Neither reason nor ethics will be the excuse for shafting the Jews yet again.

Recently, the Arab terrorist organization, Fatah, met with the Arab terrorist organization, Hamas, in the feudal kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both organizations' charters still call for the destruction of Israel, and both have continued to launch deadly attacks against Jews.

Mediated by those "moderate" Wahhabi models of morality--in whose country one could still purchase black slaves on the open market not that long ago (with reports of slaves still working the oil fields), in whose holy cities "Infidels" dare not set foot in, the providers of most of the homicide bombers of 9/11, etc. and so forth--the Mecca Agreement was arrived at. The negotiations focused on resolving the inter-Arab feud over who would be calling the shots--both militarily and politically--in the Palestinian Arab territories via the formation of a Unity Government.

Recall that Israel withdrew from Gaza--strategic land used since the days of the Pharaohs as an invasion route into Israel--going on two years now. And its worst (and very predictable) nightmares came true. Arabs saw this as weakness, gave nothing in return, and simply came that much closer to launching their attacks into Israel proper. Gaza is a no-man's-land today.

Arabs are still more dedicated to destroying the one minuscule state Jews have (on land they have lived on for over three millennia) than building yet another state of their own--and second, not first, one in "Palestine." Upon the breakup of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, which ruled the area for over four centuries, Jordan was carved out of the original April 25, 1920 mandated territory in 1922 as a gift to the Brits' Arab allies in World War I.

No where in this new Meccan accord do Arabs recognize Israel, agree to stop terrorizing Jews, or make any attempt to reach a livable modus vivendi with a viable Jewish State as their neighbor.

No shock here, and much of what I write is, again, admittedly repetition of my earlier observations.

But Secretary of State Rice is traveling to the Middle East. And you know--or should know--what that usually means. Any time the State Department gets involved this way--especially when working along with its Saudi buddies (many a Foggy Folk and other Government employee has gotten rich off of petrodollar friendship sooner or later)--it's not the Arabs who get squeezed.

Again, imagine America being placed in Israel's shoes. Think about what our response would be to deliberate butchers of our kids, who deny our very right to exist.

Yet Condi & Co.-- with Dubya's apparent approval -- evidently expect Israel to agree to the birth of yet another rejectionist Arab state in its very backyard. And it will be rejectionist whether ruled by Fatah or Hamas.

On the face of it, the first results of Dr. Rice's meetings in Israel look more promising than I expected. She announced that the Arabs would have to meet The Quartet's obligations which they snubbed in Mecca. But within that lies the bigger problem.

Compared to the Hamas bad cop, Abbas and Fatah--as rejectionist as Hamas when it comes to a accepting a Jewish Israel--have constantly been portrayed by the State Department as the good cop. Long before Hamas won in Arab elections, Arafat and his slicker Fatah successors played the same game--saying one thing to an all-too-gullible West to win support while telling their own people something quite different and allowing terror to continue. The museum Arabs set up showing replicas of body parts hanging from the ceiling of disemboweled Jews in pizzerias was proudly displayed under moderate Fatah's watch. And much of the terror was carried out by it as well.

The same way Fatah and the PLO's general whitewashers tried to claim that Black September was not under the formers' control, likewise is done for Fatah's current various terrorist affiliates. Take a look at this statement by a key Fatah player, Mohammed Daoud Oudeh, also known as Abu Daoud, a Black September operative and former senior PLO member, who, according to a 1972 article in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Dustur, told Jordanian police: "There is no such organization as Black September. Fatah announces its own operations under this name so that Fatah will not appear as the direct executor of the operation." A March 1973 document released in 1981 by the State Department seemed to confirm that Fatah was Black September's parent organization. In short, the Foggy Folks are aware...but need their Arab good cop anyway. How else to get the Jews to forcibly consent to things few others would dream of? Indeed, as is well documented, State covered up for Arafat repeatedly.

Madam Secretary must know that her "moderate" pal, Mahmoud Abbas, was one of Arafat's closest right hand men in Fatah (an organization whose various affiliate groups have barrels of Jewish blood on their hands), and that he was elected President running on an open platform for Israel's destruction. While he may differ with Hamas about the means to that destruction (blown buses bring bad press), his goal remains the same. The most Abbas offers is a long term ceasefire, a hudna, and that after Israel withdraws to its 9-mile wide, 1949 armistice line existence and accepts that it be swamped by enemies sworn to its demise. Even the most moderate of Abbas' crew have described any dealings with Israel as merely a Trojan Horse. Does this really need any further explanation?

Indeed, Abbas and the Saudis agree on a similar tactic: Talk "peace" but vow that Israel must consent to allow millions of jihadi alleged Arab refugees to "return" to swallow the Jews up in their own land. And turn the terror on and off as well if "negotiations" don't deliver the Jews fast enough.

Condi and the State Department know all of this...and we're not even discussing Hamas, which is admirably more honest in its murderous intentions.

So, we're back to the beginning again.

There's absolutely nothing in the Mecca Agreement that's good for Israel. Furthermore, the hundreds of millions of dollars that will probably be heading Abbas and Fatah's way will largely be used against Jews. The Meccan manure was so blatantly obvious that even Dr. Rice felt compelled to address the issues more than she has perhaps ever done before. And I attribute this more to Evangelical connections with the President and upcoming elections than to Foggy good will towards Israel.

Since the Jews' repeated, concrete, unilateral concessions--most, again, forced by America--nothing has changed on the Arab side. The textbooks, government maps, religious sermons, media, and such are as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel as ever. And they have all been controlled by Abbas's alleged good cops. Indeed, Abbas, recently called on Hamas and Fatah to stop shooting at each other and take aim at Jews more often again.

And why not?

Who's really squeezing them?

I'll give you a hint...

Former Secretary of State James Baker's law firm is now the representative of Saudi Arabia's interests in this country. His partner is America;s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Many officials move in and out of government into major corporations--like Bechtel--with billion dollar connections to the petrobuck. They sit or have sat on the board of directors of oil companies and other corporations tied to Arab gelt. Condi even has an oil tanker named after her in Chevron's fleet. There is a long history of such ties...which helps to explain why the State Department opposed Israel's very rebirth in the first place.

So, Arabs know what to expect in such an atmosphere that is likely to present itself at the coming summit of sorts Condi has planned for Israel and its Arab "peace (of the grave)" partners. They've been there, done that many times before...regardless of Madam Secretary's reasonable opening remarks.

Dr. Rice needs to insist that Abbas show concrete evidence of his own peaceful intentions...not meaningless words that he has yet to live up to with a million excuses for. Again, if he's truly different from the Hamas folks when it comes to Israel (which he most probably isn't), we need to see how. Teaching kindergartners in his Palestinian Authority's own schools the joys of becoming shahids by blowing Jewish children apart ain't the way to do this.

In fact, there's no doubt that the Mecca Agreement is so bad that it should be good.

That is, if reason and justice were the guidelines, the sole, resurrected State of the Jews should be able to laugh at the prospect of being expected to consent to sacrificing itself on the petroleum-greased altar of international hypocrisy so that Arabs can gain their 22nd state--and second one in "Palestine" (the name Rome gave to Judaea after the Jews" second revolt for independence).

But those are not the guidelines running this show.

And these are Jews we're talking about--you know, the folks often distinguished by the "special treatment" they've received both in the Muslim East as well as the Christian West over the centuries.

As I've written before, Israel should refuse to attend the party Condi has planned...regardless of her well-known threats and tirades when it comes to Israel. Israel must make clear that Hamas is not the only problem here.

America would never agree to such a "deal."

That elements within America's government expect this of Israel is a disgrace...and one opposed by the majority of red-blooded Americans. Condi's department is filled with Arabists who too often run the show.

Keep in mind that with problematic results in Iraq very predicable in the not-too-distant future, the Foggy Folks are looking for the Jews to give them a "victory" in the so-called Arab world that they can point to--regardless of the consequences to the Jews themselves.

The only answer is for Israel to hold new elections as soon as possible and bring forth leadership that will tell its best friend, America, that Jews have waited too long for their tiny sliver of justice to throw it away for a "peace for all time" Munich 2007.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, February 17, 2007.

I'm glad that I live in this "protective Jewish bubble" of Shiloh, where our souls breathe the scent of the ancient Ketoret (incense), and we are surrounded by the walls of the Shechina [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah].

The other day I was in Jerusalem helping someone shop for gifts, and we overheard a disturbing exchange in a shop. A customer had requested that the crafts store censor the artist's identification page. The artist lives in YESHA and writes that the ancient views are an inspiration. The customer demanded that the shopkeeper delete that as a condition for buying the gift. Of course, the store agreed to the request, and I have no idea if the artist was informed. People are in business to make money.

The night before, on Israel TV, there were similarly disturbing statements by Israeli politicians about how marginal Jerusalem was to the Zionist movement and how wonderful Israel was before the burdening and unnecessary expansion do to the results of the Six Days War. "We did fine without the territories," he claimed.

Now that's selective memory for sure. The most popular joke in pre-Six Days War Israel, was the request that "the last one leaving, please turn out the lights." The long "peculiar" Auschwitz borders were impossible to defend by all means of human logic. There were constant terror attacks and snipers from the "neighboring" Arab countries on Jerusalem, the Negev and the Galilee.

The standard of living ranked with the "Third World." When we made aliyah in 1970, people in Israel were living under conditions which resembled pre-WWII United States and worse.

Ben Gurion and his followers re-wrote Jewish History. They invented a school curriculum to brainwash the population to believe that what was included in the 1949 "green line" was the true Jewish Nation. Nothing else was necessary for post-Holocaust Jewish survival and the Jewish State, which was to be a country like all others.

In 1967, when the Arabs threatened to attack us, annihilate us, "drive us into the sea," which were their exact words," all the Israeli Government wanted was to preserve those indefensible borders. There were no battle plans to liberate the Old City of Jerusalem or to free Judea and Samaria from Arab rule. Not only didn't they want to allow Jews to visit Joseph's Tomb in Shechem or the site of the Tablernacle in Shiloh or the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, they didn't even dream of freeing Gush Etzion, which had been the home of Jewish kibbutzim, which were destroyed by the Arabs during the War for Independence in 1948.

This year some of us will be celebrating 40 years since the liberation of Judea and Samaria and the Golan, while others will just be "celebrating" the survival of the country. Israel had existed for only 19 years before that war.

Think about those numbers! The post 1967 Six Days War period is more than twice the time that pre-dates it.

The chasm in Israeli society has deepened both financially and spiritually. Israel's nouveau riche is oblivious to the lives of the majority, and most Israelis only know Judea and Samaria and even our capital, Jerusalem, from army service.

When I was an elementary school student in New York, we had to memorize the map of the United States, know the names and locations of all of the states and the names of the state capitals. Israeli high school graduates are so ignorant of the geography our tiny country that I've heard soldiers waiting for rides in Beit El asking if a ride to Jerusalem passes Ariel. I wish I was kidding. The clerks answering the phone at our washing machine service in Petach Tikvah pronounces ùéìä "Shilah," instead of Shiloh, totally unfamiliar and oblivious to the historic and religious significance of my home town.

I can't lie to you. The situation is not good. We have a lot of work to do to save our nation and country. We tried massive demonstrations and prayer vigils before Disengagement, and they weren't successful. I wish I knew the magic formula to immediately stop this "National Masochism," but I don't.

What I do know is that I'm not giving up, and I'm not alone. We have to just keep on doing everything we can.

Shabbat Shalom from the Holy City of Shiloh

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 16, 2007.

This was written by Barry Rubin, who is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press, August 2006). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.

Among the saddest things about the Middle East is how Arab intellectuals are so overwhelmingly on the side of the dictatorships and extremist ideologies, which cause so much suffering in the region.

Two shocking recent examples of this problem are revealed by the German-Iraqi Najem Wali and French-Syrian Burhan Ghalioun.

Wali tells the story of the Arab Writers Union in an article in the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung. Last December, the Iraqi branch was not invited to the Arab League backed group's convention, allegedly because it was suspected of maintaining relations "with the Zionist enemy." This was better than the Iraqi writers' experience in 2005, when they arrived for the conference in Algiers and then were thrown out of their hotel rooms and banned from the meeting.

Iraq, of course, is a member of the Arab League and the Iraqi branch was created by the government. This did not stop Iraq from being treated as a pariah within these groups. All Arab writers' unions are controlled by the governments -- a strong hint about the limited degree of freedom they enjoy. Culture and intellectual life are state-ruled enterprises.

While Iraqi writers should speak to those in Israel, of course they don't. The explicit charges were false; the implicit accusation was that the Iraqi government is not anti-American enough. On top of this, of course, they are not even responsible for the U.S. military presence. And even more ironic is that, in Wali's words, "Egypt...Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States -- all of whose unions took part in the conference -- wouldn't survive a day without their American 'friend.'"

But even this isn't the worst aspect of the hypocrisy. The Arab Writers' Union has never protested about censorship or any Arab government's repression of its writers. The Saudi poet Ali al-Damini, the Syrian writers Michel Kilo and Arif Dalila, along with many others have been in jail cells without the Writers' Union objecting.

For 35 years, the Iraqi branch had been under the direct control of the dictatorship. During the regime's last years, this meant the supervision of Uday Hussein, son of Saddam. No one ever proposed barring its participation then, even when Shafiq al-Kamali, president of the Iraqi Writer' Union, was executed.

On the contrary, Wali writes, "No other Arab land received such high praise--in poems, novels, songs, films, theatre works" as did Saddam and his regime. "Hundreds of intellectuals and artists were guests of Saddam Hussein's men and traveled from one festival to the next." Bribes were widely distributed to ensure that "dozens of novels and poems sang praises of the heroism of the Iraqi warriors and swore the fall of the 'Zionist' and 'Persian' enemies."

Consider Egypt alone. Film director Tawfiq Saleh directed a film in which Saddam was the hero; author Salah Abu Saif published a book portraying the Iran-Iraq war in racialist terms. Another novelist, Gamal al-Ghitani, wrote a book justifying the killing of Kurds in northern Iraq. A leading Palestinian poet praised the Iraqi minister of propaganda as the minister of poets. Publishers were subsidized by Iraqi book purchases; magazines and newspapers existed largely because of Iraqi funding.

Since Saddam's fall, no one has apologized; nobody criticized for these actions. But the only ones punished have been the Iraqi writers who have been able to work in the aftermath of the dictator's fall.

Not that things are better. Ghalioun was interviewed on al-Jazira television suggesting why things might even be worse. It is to al-Jazira's credit that it let him appear and say these things--though, ironically, the same station is a prime example of the problem he exposed. What is new, Ghalioun explained, is the growing control of radical Islamist clerics over the media.

"Arab societies," he explained, "are held hostage by two authorities." One is "political dictatorship -- arrogant dictators, who are inhuman in their oppression of liberties, and in their crushing and humiliation of the individual." [MEMRI translation] The other are the opposition clerics "who tyrannize Arab public opinion nowadays." Ghalioun points out, "There is a kind of undeclared, practical alliance between the political dictatorship and the dictatorship of the religious authority."

One point on which they are alike is to denounce anyone who has different views "of secularism, which means heresy, or by accusing them of modernism, of having ties with the West, or of collaborating with colonialism."

Actually, this alliance between radical Arab nationalists and Islamists is the most significant trend in the region today. I call the synthesis National Islamism. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallim, speaking on al-Jazira last April, explained that conflicts between Arab nationalism and Islamism were "silly" and merely the product of American plots.

Of course, that's not true, as can clearly be seen by the inter-Arab fighting in Lebanon, Iraq, and among the Palestinians. But radical Islamists and nationalists at least agree that they oppose human rights and freedom. In doing so, they are supported by intellectuals who enjoy the gifts of money and career promotion even as they betray their supposed avocation.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessio (HaDaR), February 16, 2007.
This was written by Hana Levi Julian and Hillel Fendel of Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). It is archived at

Trilateral talks will focus on the "broader political issues," says U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, still withholding support for the PA unity government.

Rice will arrive in Israel on Saturday to hold preliminary discussions with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas prior to Monday's three-way summit in Jerusalem.

Rice has already announced that she hopes the establishment of a Palestinian Authority state will be on the agenda. She has told both Olmert and Abbas that they should begin discussing this issue.

Ramifications of a Palestinian State

The dangers of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan have been outlined and detailed by countless experts. Such a state would be "the world's worst nightmare," writes Middle East analyst Emanuel A. Winston, and "the last link in a string of terrorist states that will stretch from Algeria through Sudan, soon Egypt and then [others]... They will not only incubate new terror groups but will also increase their linkage and operational efficiency for major strikes against America -- as well as Israel."

Rafael Israeli has edited a book entitled, "Dangers of a Palestinian State," which features articles by Israel's leading political analysts outlining the strategic threat of such an entity.

From the demographic angle, Michael Wise, co-author of The 1.5-Million-Arab Population Gap, writes that, "PA control of any part of the West Bank could result in the arrival of 2-2.5 million Palestinian 'refugees' over the course of 3-5 years." The first to arrive, Wise feels, would be the more than 400,000 who have been living in abject poverty in Lebanon, to be followed soon after by up to millions more in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and elsewhere. "The opportunity to be resettled in Palestine with enormous global financial and political support will be very attractive and immediately accepted by those refugees."

Though a breakthrough in PA unity government talks between Hamas and Fatah was announced in Mecca last week, the new government has still not been formed, as major issues have still not been resolved. Contrary to earlier threats, however, Hamas leader Abu Haniye did resign yesterday, partially paving the way for the new government to be installed.

Rice was careful to reiterate the American "wait-and-see" theme throughout a news conference, dodging questions about whether the U.S. would indeed recognize the new PA unity government.

"We're not going to jump the gun here," she said repeatedly. "We're not going to make a judgment here until we have something that's firm."

But Rice did not deny a report that Middle East envoy David Welch called Abbas this week to warn him that the U.S. will not recognize the new PA unity government because its leading faction, Hamas, has not recognized the State of Israel.

"You know that I'm not going to talk about what we've done diplomatically," she said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack was equally cautious about commenting on the report. "Back up!" he told journalists Thursday when asked about Bush administration plans to boycott the new Hamas-Fatah PA government.

McCormack, like Rice, said no decisions had yet been made on an American response either way. "You don't have a government of national unity," he told reporters. "You don't know who's in that government. You don't know the platform of that government... On the basis of that lack of facts, I can't offer you an answer."

The Quartet -- comprised of the U.S., Russia, the United Nations and the European Union -- has until now continued to demand that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and uphold agreements with Israel signed by previous PA governments.

Whether they will stand by those demands in light of the new Fatah alliance with Hamas, however, remains a question. Rice ducked the issue. "I can't begin to predict what the international reaction is going to look like right now," she said.

Despite her efforts to put a positive spin on the upcoming summit, it is clear that Rice has begun to realize that "never" often simply means "wait a bit" in the PA. For example, Abbas long claimed that he would "never" join a Hamas government that does not meet the Quartet demands -- but this quickly dissolved when he signed on to the pact in Mecca last week.

"We are going to await the formation of that government before we make any decisions about it," she told reporters before setting out for Jerusalem. "Eventually you're going to have to get to a Palestinian government that accepts that it is to live side by side in peace with an Israeli neighbor."

Contact Sergio Tessio (HaDaR) at HaDaR-Israel@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 16, 2007.
This was written by Ilana Mercer and appeared today in World Net Daily

Following Sept. 11, immigration from Muslim countries tapered off, but, as the New York Times enthused, it has rebounded with a vengeance: "In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents ... than in any year in the previous two decades." Although Bush is unlikely to allow millions of displaced Iraqis the prerogatives he bestows on illegal Mexicans, the reality is that he is responsible for rendering a Muslim country uninhabitable. This makes it harder for the U.S. to reject Iraqi immigrants and asylum seekers. Starting this year, up to 20,000 Iraqis will be granted asylum in the U.S. They will join close to 100,000 "Muslim from countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia," who arrived in 2005.

Immigration (and the war in Iraq) ought to be the most crucial question in the 2008 election. It is the issue that will ultimately decide whether American values and institutions endure. Unfortunately, it's a debate American Jews can put off no longer, although it's too late for their European, British and Canadian brethren. To speak plainly: A gathering danger threatens the Jews of America -- to whom George Washington promised peace and goodwill in a 1790 address to a synagogue congregation in Newport, R.I.

American Jewry has "lived up to the standard asked of them by Washington," observed philosopher David Conway in his inquiry into the "Place of Nations in Classical Liberalism." But "The stock of Abraham," which has flourished in the New World -- producing uniquely entrepreneurial, creative and philanthropic citizens -- is now threatened by what it perversely promotes: mass immigration. And in particular, immigration from Muslim countries, where anti-Semitism and extremism are imbibed with mother's milk.

Before 1965, immigration to the U.S. occurred in manageable ebbs and flows, ensuring the new arrivals were thoroughly assimilated and integrated. Multiculturalism was unheard of. In 1965, without voter approval, the U.S. Congress replaced the national-origin immigration criterion, which ensured newcomers reinforced the historical majority, with a multicultural, egalitarian quota system, which divided visas between nations with an emphasis on mass importation of people from the Third World. The new influx was no longer expected to acculturate to liberal democratic Judeo-Christian values. With family reunification superseding economic or cultural requirements, every qualified immigrant would henceforth hold an entry ticket for his entire tribe.

Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies -- in "High Noon to Midnight: Does Current Immigration Policy Doom American Jewry?" -- courageously (for it runs counter to the views of most of his fellow American Jews) highlights the bizarre situation where entire villages from rural Mexico and the West Bank in Israel have U.S. citizenship. How so? One member qualifies and then imports the entire town. In addition to having huge extended families, Muslims and Mexicans share an anti-Americanism, a tendency to crab about historical grievance and cling to a militant distinctiveness, and a predilection for aggressive identity politics (which the New York Times finds "strikingly positive"). Second only to Latinos, the relatively new (roughly 30-year-old) Muslim community is the most anti-Semitic community in the U.S., its members harboring the greatest propensity to act on their hatred.

Although Jews don't benefit in the least from open-door immigration, having long since settled in the U.S., Israel, and other First World countries, the liberal Jewish community has continued to generously support this policy.

In Canada, Muslims now greatly outnumber Jews. In Europe, what remains of a Jewry devastated by the Holocaust comes under daily assaults and threats, mostly from the 20-million-strong Muslim community. American Jewry is next. Although taqiyya-talking Muslim organizations (almost all radical) inflate the numbers, there are still only, approximately, 2 to 3 million Muslims in America to 5.3 million Jews. But mass immigration is rapidly changing that.

Allusions to the rise of a "new anti-Semitism" are misleading, because the violent assaults on Jews and their property in Europe, England and Canada are nourished by an old hatred rooted in the Quran and in anti-infidel Islamic laws. Remember, Muslims invented the yellow rag with which the Nazis tagged Jews. The ghetto, "mellah" in Arabic, was a Muslim-devised gated community for the Jews of the Maghrib back in the 15th century. Not for naught did Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish philosopher and physician, write about the Arabs, "Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they."

As Steinlight points out, "It is virtually impossible to be reared in classical Islam and not be educated to hate Jews -- based on a literalist reading of the Quran, where many of the Suras concerning Jews are monstrously hateful, murderous, [and] terrifying. ... These texts also regard Jews as a spiritually fraudulent entity -- all the prophets and great figures of the Hebrew Bible, according to Islamic teaching, were Muslims, not Jews. ... With the exception of a tiny group of courageous American Muslims ... who have spoken out and condemned ... anti-Semitism, the 'Muslim Street' in the U.S. has yet to show its disapproval of this philosophical and political agenda."

Ted Kennedy, the architect of the lemming's lunacy that is American immigration policy, has hammered the administration for its apathy: "We can no longer ignore the plight of millions of [Iraqi] people. ... America must respond." And so should American Jews! So far, however, the exponential growth of the Muslim community through immigration has failed to rally Jewish leaders. Listening to Abe Foxman, you would think that the chief dangers to Jewish continuity are marauding Mormons (who convert dead Jew) or Mel Gibson.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 16, 2007.

This is by Obadiah Shoher and it appeared yesterday:

Embattled Jews tend to hysterically search for friends. More often than not, Israel ends up in the company of useless thugs. Olmert recently appealed for help in arranging peace with Palestinians to worthless Jordan, crumbling Mubarak's regime in Egypt, and pro-Arab Russia, among other equally valuable venues. Now Olmert reaches for Turkey against Syria and Iran. Thanks to democracy, Turkish military junta came under onslaught of Islamic sentiment. Just like China's, Turkey's primary concern in foreign policy is its own territorial integrity. Turkey is preoccupied with separatist threats, Islamism, and terrorism. The country is in no position to influence Syria on terrorism or Iran on nuclear weapons. It is absurd to imagine that Iran would yield to Turkey's pressure after rebuffing the West.

Not Olmert, but any country's leader with a bit of self-respect -- or respect for the people he claims to represent -- would have cancelled his visit over the lecturing remarks such as by Turkey's Erdogan, that Israel should respect Muslim holy places. The reference is to the recent archeological dig near the Temple Mount. Regardless of the fact that the dig comes nowhere near the Islamic artifacts, the point is this: Temple Mount is the Jewish holy place. Whatever we want to do there, we would do. Without a bit of concern for Islamic shrines.

And for those who thought that Druzes are reliable friends: witness the massive demonstration in the Golans which demanded their return to Syria. Still think the Druzes could be counted on in a war with Syria? Israel gave the Druzes her valuable citizenship, welfare, and employment opportunities. Naturally, they side with Israeli Arab enemy.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 16, 2007.

This was written by Patrick Poole, who is an author and public policy researcher. He also maintains a blog, "Existential Space," where he writes on a number of cultural, political and religious issues. It appeared on Front Page Magazine

From the East Coast through the American Heartland to the West Coast, a rapidly growing and extremely popular Islamic studies program is bringing Wahhabi extremism and Muslim Brotherhood activism into mosques and Muslim student groups throughout North America. The Al-Maghrib Institute features motivational-style speakers, aggressive marketing, savvy use of the Internet and slick multi-media presentations as part of their for-college-credit courses leading to an Islamic Studies degree offered at mosques in at least thirteen cities:

College Park, Maryland
Fairfax, Virginia
Houston, Texas
New Brunswick, New Jersey
San Francisco Bay area, California
Seattle, Washington
Memphis, Tennessee
Sacramento, California
Detroit, Michigan/Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Chicago, Illinois
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Toronto, Quebec, Canada

Al-Maghrib also ran onsite seminars in Columbus, Ohio during 2006. In addition to the courses they offer, the Institute sponsors a site selling Al-Maghrib audio and video course lectures, EmanRush Audio, and Khutbah.com, which provides texts of sermons and articles delivered by Al-Maghrib instructors and staff.

The staple of Al-Maghrib's course offerings are the double weekend seminars held at their permanent sites. Locations of upcoming seminars, including one held this past weekend in Atlanta, are provided on the Al-Maghrib website. In addition, the Al-Maghrib instructors are in high demand as motivational speakers at Muslim organization events all over the world. The Institute is also active amongst the 150 chapters of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) located at universities all over the US and Canada. The MSA is one of the front groups operated by the international Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Maghrib staff are also regular fixtures on several Islamic satellite television networks.

The organization's Wahhabi-influenced extremism, rabid anti-Semitism and Holocaust denials, and militaristic preaching of jihad even have other Muslims expressing concern about the radicalizing effect of Al-Maghrib's preaching and programs.

Al-Maghrib's educational courses are accredited by the American Open University, which in turn is accredited by Al-Ahzar University in Cairo -- the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and largest radical Islamic organization in the world. The courses offered by Al-Mahgrib count only as course credit for the AOU's Bachelors in Islamic Studies degree, the only English language program offered by AOU.

A review of the course summary for the Islamic Studies degree program shows that the reading is dominated by Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabi theologians and theorists. In particular, the AOU program requires reading of Sayyid Qutb's, In the Shade of the Quran, the text for AOU's 113 Analytic Tafseer I course. Qutb, the leading Muslim Brotherhood thinker executed by Nasser in the 1960s after an assassination attempt, has been described as "Bin Laden's Brain" due to the extensive influence Qutb has had in justifying terrorism and jihad and laying down the theoretical principles that al-Qaeda was built upon.

Another Muslim Brotherhood theorist prominent in the curriculum is Sayyid Sabiq, who wrote his book, Fiqh-us-Sunnah, at the request of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. The two volumes of Sabiq's work are the sole text for AOU's 141 Fiqh of Worship I course. In the majority of AOU's required reading for their Islamic Studies program, which Al-Maghrib offers course credit for, members of the Muslim Brotherhood and those influenced and approved by the Brotherhood figure prominently.

Bilal Phillips is another name that appears repeatedly on AOU's and Al-Maghrib's reading lists. Phillips has recently gained notoriety as one of the radical preachers secretly videotaped as part of the Undercover Mosque investigative program aired last month on England's Channel 4 (Robert Spencer reviewed this program for FrontPage in his article, Islamic Prejudice, Islamic Denial).

In the Undercover Mosque program, Bilal Phillips was videotaped explaining during a lecture the acceptability of forced Islamic marriages for prepubescent girls:

The Prophet Mohammed practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty, with his practice he clarified what is permissible and that is why we shouldn't have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman, which is looked down upon by this society today, but we know that Prophet Mohammed practiced it, it wasn't abuse or exploitation, it was marriage.

After the Undercover Mosque program aired, it was severly attacked by Al-Maghrib instructor Yasir Qadhi, who launched into a 15 minute tirade defending the extremist speakers secretly videotaped by Channel 4 at the beginning of his regular Islami Q&A program on the Islam Channel satellite network. After Qadhi's video defense aired, Bilal Phillips himself followed his friend's lead and also aired a defense on YouTube.

But the Muslim Brotherhood influence is not the only troubling aspect to Al-Maghrib's programs and message. In fact, all six of Al-Maghrib's instructors have degrees from Saudi institutions controlled by the extremist Wahhabi sect:

* Muhammad Alshreef, the founder of Al-Maghrib Institute and a Canadian citizen, graduated from the Islamic University of Medina in 1999 with a degree in shari'a. The University of Medina was founded in 1961 by the ruling Saud family specifically for the propagation of Wahhabism worldwide.

* Yasir Birjas, a Palestinian, graduated from the Islamic University of Media as the 1996 class valedictorian. He subsequently worked for a "relief charity" in Bosnia.

* AbdulBary Yahya and Yasir Qadhi both obtained degrees from the Islamic University of Medina.

* Mohammed Faqih obtained his initial degree from the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences (IIAS) in Fairfax, VA, and then graduated from the King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden's alma mater and haven for Muslim Brotherhood teachers who fled persecution from the Nasser regime in Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s. Sayyid Qutb's brother, Mohammed, was a long-time instructor in Jeddah and was one of bin Laden's primary mentors, as was Abdullah Azzam, the founder of Al-Qaeda. The IIAS was operated by Saudi diplomats as a branch of the Saudi Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University until it came under pressure from the US government when the diplomatic visas of 16 school's instructors were withdrawn by the US, according to a report in the Washington Post; after the Saudis withdrew their support in 2004, the Institute was closed and searched by the US government for its links to terrorism.

* Waleed Basyouni attended the Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, the academic heart of Wahhabi Islam, where he obtained a Bachelors and a Masters Degree. According to Basyouni's DiscovertheNetwork.org profile, he studied under Sheikh Abdelaziz bin Baz, who author Gilles Kepel identifies as "the principal Wahhabite ideologist" in his book, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (p. 210).

Al-Maghrib instructors have come under severe public criticism by other Muslims for attacking and declaring heretic other mainstream Sunni scholars who do not hold to the Wahhabi version of Islam preached by the organization's speakers. In fact, in 2006 a boycott of Al-Maghrib's was called for when Yasir Qadhi declared a recently-deceased and universally revered Islamic scholar, Sheikh Alawi al-Maliki, a polytheist on one of Al-Maghrib's online forums:

While it is the general policy of Al Maghrib not to quote individuals, I make exceptions in certain cases -- this being one of them. Alawi al-Maliki is one of the most revered of modern Sufi personas -- to speak evil of him is tantamount to apostasy in the eyes of many of his followers. For them, he is the leader of the awliya of Allah. Yet, it is no exaggeration to state that he was one of the most active proponents in our times of blatant acts of shirk (polytheism-ed.)...

All Islamic traditions identify "shirk" as the gravest offense possible, and therefore, making Qadhi's pronouncement a de facto condemnation to Hell for al-Maliki. But as soon as the boycott was called for, however, Qadhi's post was removed from the Al-Maghrib's forum without any explanation or apology.

The curriculum areas taught by Qadhi, particularly the Light of Guidance and Light upon Light courses, are dedicated to pronouncing as heretical the non-Wahhabi Sunni schools of theology, particularly the Sufi movement. These are some of the most popular seminars taught by the Institute; in fact, the Light of Guidance seminar was taught by Qadhi this past weekend in the Atlanta area.

But the concern over Al-Maghrib's teachings extend much further than their Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabi influences. Anti-Semitic diatribes and Holocaust denials are regular themes preached by Al-Maghrib's instructors. Institute founder Muhammad Alshareef expressed his thoughts on Muslim-Jewish relations in an article he published entitled, "Why the Jews are Cursed" (curiously, this article is not available on Al-Maghrib's Khutbah.com website). As noted by the Militant Islam Monitor, in Alshareef's article he expounds on the anti-Semitic canard that the international media is owned and controlled by Jews, and thus, biased against Muslims:

When I was in high school, studying in journalism class, our teacher had placed on the wall a statement that I spent many days contemplating. It simply said, "Freedom of the press (speech) belongs to those that own the press!" Who owns the press? Well, you can believe me when I say that it is not the god fearing beloved of Allah.

The remainder of Alshareef's article recites a litany of accusations against the Jewish faith, blaming them for a wide range of iniquities, including changing the words of Allah, making blasphemous statements, and murdering the Prophets. He concludes his essay by decreeing that Muslims should not ally with Jews, should not imitate them and proscribing Muslims from ever marrying Jews or Christians.

But Muhammad Alshareef holds no monopoly on anti-Semitism amongst the Al-Maghrib faculty. In a speech entitled "What Have You Done for the Deen of Allah", Waleed Basyouni identifies the behavior of Jews during Muhammad's era as the reason that Jews do not and cannot know Allah:

Seven years the prophet and his companions suffered from the Jew in Medina. Seven years, the Jew try to destroy this, a new Muslims' country. ... They try everything. They try to kill him. ... They try to make deals with the Kufar, so they could attack Muslims. They support the hypocrites. They start everything. Seven years, suffering from them. He went outside Medina to one of the Jews' city, full of money, full of farms, gold, foods. They went out from Medina, they are poor.

In a September 2002 report published by FrontPage, the Saudi Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies cited Mohammed Fiqih's alma mater, the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Studies, as "the largest source of Saudi hate literature in the Washington area." The report also quotes Saudi Institute Director Ali al-Ahmed on the IISA's enforcement of Wahhabi segregation of the sexes, including separate back door entrances for female students:

IIASA is beyond reform. It practices religious and gender apartheid. Female students are not allowed in the library except for four hours each week, when men are not around. Classes are segregated and women are taught through closed-circuit television.

According to a May 2006 report by David Ouellette, in a detailed exposition of the Quran's Surah Yusuf [complete audio mp3 file] by Alshareef's colleague Yasir Qadhi, he draws from the anti-Semitic tract, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to explain that Jews are not racially Semitic, and therefore, do not have any right to make a claim on their Holy Land. Citing a book denying the Holocaust, he informs hearers that:

All of these Polish Jews which Hitler was supposedly trying to exterminate, that's another point, by the way, Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews.

Holocaust denial seems to be a regular fascination for Qadhi. In December, Yasir Qadhi sent an email message to the AlifBaaTaa email list (Qadhi's email subsequently has either been removed or is no longer available for public viewing; link is to Google cache) with a link to an article authored by Alexander Baron, one of the invited speakers to the recent Tehran Conference on the Holocaust hosted by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At this international Holocaust denial-fest, Baron presented a paper entitled, "The Nazi Gas Chambers: Rumours, Lies and Reality -- One Researcher's Views". In his post, Qadhi offered no other comments about the article other than to provide the link, apparently in agreement with the content of Baron's analysis.

The teaching of aggressive militaristic jihad is also a common theme in Al-Maghrib's courses, which rely on commentaries by 13th Century theologian Ibn Taymiyyah and Wahhabi sect founder, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. One seminar taught by Muhammad Alshareef is his review of the jihadist exploits and military campaigns of the first four "rightly guided" caliphs, Conquest: History of the Khulafaa'. The militaristic themes for this course are evident in the one minute video trailer for the seminar.

The triumphalist vision of Islam as the inevitable sole world power and the justification of militaristic conquests under the banner of jihad are also repeated in the Al-Maghrib course, Islam Invulnerable: The Making of the Modern Muslim World. Tracing the rise of Islam as a global power from the initial Islamic invasions and occupations of the Near East, North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, it glories in the triumphs of the Ottoman, Safavid, Qajar and Mughal Empires and provides its unique spin of the present Israeli ("Zionist")-Arab conflict. The Crusades and European "imperialist" and "colonialist" efforts in recent centuries are denounced, while Islamic conquests undergo "narrative reinterpretation" to explain the difference between the two.

Al-Maghrib instructors also regular speak with other extremist preachers advocating for terrorism and violent jihad. In a FrontPage article last March, "The Visiting Jihadist", Joe Kaufman revealed that Institute instructor Abdulbary Yahya was scheduled to speak at an event with Ibrahim Dremali, an advocate of suicide bombings and had led crowds in burning Israeli flags and chanting, "With jihad we'll claim our land, Zionist blood will wet the sand." The event was sponsored by the University of Central Florida's Muslim Student Association and paid for with Student Government Association funds. Dremali and Yahya had previously shared the podium at the 2005 Texas Dawah Convention, which also featured Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

The connections between Al-Maghrib staff and terrorist supporters sometimes don't lead far from home. In 2004, Muhammad Alshareef's father, Helmy Elsherief, was detained in Egypt and interrogated regarding his associations with known terrorists. As Alshareef explained in a personal appeal published on the Al-Maghrib online forum, Elsherief was held because of his pre-9/11 work with "charities" in Pakistan that are known to have been al-Qaeda front organizations. Elsherief was eventually released by Egyptian authorities.

In particular, Elsherief was an associate of Ahmed Said Khadr, a top al-Qaeda financier, the top al-Qaeda agent in Canada, and a close personal associate of Osama bin Laden -- a fact conveniently never mentioned by Alshareef in his personal appeals. After leaving Canada, Khadr's entire family, identified by Daniel Pipes as "Canada's First Family of Terrorism", lived with bin Laden in his Kabul compound. Ahmed Khadr was killed in a firefight with Pakistani security forces in October 2003, which also injured and disabled his youngest son, Abdul. His second youngest son, Omar, is presently imprisoned as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay after killing a US medic with a hand grenade in 2002 during a battle in Afghanistan.

The extremist messages preached by Al-Maghrib and their associates have also landed instructors themselves in trouble with US authorities. This past August, the Houston Chronicle reported that Yasir Qadhi complained during a public meeting at Rice University with government officials that he was on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watch list and consequently is regularly detained when entering the country. In addition, according to an announcement issued by the Al-Maghrib Institute's staff, instructor Yaser Birjas was arrested and detained by US authorities in 2005 due to problems with his immigration visa.

In the span of just a few short years, the Al-Maghrib Institute has quickly established itself as one of the premiere Islamic instructional programs in North America, as attested to by its 13 mosque-based affiliates and their regular appearances at Muslim Student Association events. Audio and video lecture series, an impressive Internet presence and regular satellite television programs by Al-Maghrib faculty extend their influence even further. Furthermore, the Institute's instructors are in high demand as event speakers for Islamic organizations all over the world.

Al-Maghrib's rapid rise should cause concern, however, as its Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood-inspired messages of religious extremism, racial bigotry and advocacy of jihad and militancy are being spread like cancer in Muslim communities throughout the US and Canada. And this ideological cancer spread by the Al-Maghrib Institute potentially threatens Muslims and non-Muslims alike as its popularity and radicalism continues to increase.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 16, 2007.

How can one explain the word adrift: aimlessly floating, at a loose end aimlessly wandering...either way, this means being lost in the oblivion!

The lost nation of Israel led by shyster (unethical person: an unscrupulous person, especially a lawyer or political representative) Olmert and his terribly bureaucratic corrupt and way too many times recycled government.

This was written by Joel Mowbray and it appeared today in the Washington Times

No one knows what to make of Israeli politics right now. In a parliamentary system where elections can be called at almost any time, ordinary Israelis neither trust nor support their elected leadership -- yet there isn't much of a public clamor for new elections.

This odd stability could shatter in the coming weeks, depending on the results of the commission looking into the conduct of last summer's war. But if -- as it is now whispered by insiders -- the panel does not whack Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, it could be next year before any real changes occur.

It's not quite political fatigue that has gripped Israelis. Apathy is certainly present, but so is indecision -- particularly on the part of Mr. Olmert. He still has not recovered from his inability to direct a decisive military campaign against Hezbollah last summer. And now, partly because of corruption allegations swirling around him, he has not been setting the political agenda.

Then again, no one else has, either.

This leadership vacuum does not owe to a lack of big issues. Iran poses a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state. Hezbollah and even Hamas continue to stockpile weapons successfully toward their ultimate goal of eliminating the "Zionist enemy." Yet little of substance is being done -- or even planned -- to confront these obvious threats.

Key to understanding the current Israeli stasis is this paradox: Mr. Olmert is as unpopular as any prime minister in a generation, yet he presides over a coalition as stable as any in recent memory.

Israel's parliament, the Knesset, has 120 seats. Normally, it takes a coalition of 61 or bigger to control the government. Mr. Olmert's coalition holds well over 70 seats. By Israeli standards, that's huge. And it's a testament to Mr. Olmert's masterful political skills.

Consider Mr. Olmert's recent move to bring into his coalition Avigdor Lieberman, who was considered the furthest right of any leading Israeli politician. Mr. Lieberman's Israel Beitenu (Israel is Our Home) party has 11 seats, padding Mr. Olmert's majority -- and giving him cushion against defections.

No one had even fathomed such a move, yet even Mr. Olmert's detractors concede that it was genius. Especially impressive is that Mr. Olmert understood the benefits of a staunch right-winger joining the center-left coalition. Even though Mr. Lieberman is to the right of Likud leader and former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he has as much power now as he might under any center-right government that could topple the current one.

Because the prime minister is no longer elected directly by voters, any new elections would result in large numbers of Knesset members being ousted. Labor and Mr. Olmert's Kadima party would suffer significant losses, and plenty of other coalition members could meet the same fate. Luckily for Mr. Olmert, politicians generally prefer not to vote themselves out of power.

Other than the likely imminent conclusion of the Winograd Commission, which is investigating the conduct of the war with Hezbollah, the only other wild card in the near term is the Labor Party primary, scheduled for May.

The Labor head, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, likely will lose, and his replacement could be the once-believed-dead former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The former general is mounting a serious campaign as a security hawk (by Labor's standards), highlighting his extensive military experience.

Casting a pall over everything is the Gaza pullout. Religious Zionists and settlers, who have long been the beating heart of the right, are noticeably quieter and seem almost defeated. They mounted a massive opposition to the disengagement, but still lost. Not that most proponents of the pullout feel a sense of victory anymore, though. Graphic images of Jewish soldiers removing Jews from their homes and synagogues being burned to the ground scarred many Israelis. And in the end result, security worsened -- meaning a high price was paid for no gain at all.

Disenchantment resulting from the aftermath of Gaza withdrawal has sapped support for the scheduled sequel, "convergence." Mr. Olmert was elected, in fact, primarily on the platform of "convergence," which would have involved uprooting tens of thousands of Jewish settlers from the West Bank. But now the glue that united Kadima is gone.

Kadima might be a party without a core vision, but it also lacks an adversary capable of ousting it -- at least for now. The only apparent challenger is Mr. Netanyahu, who has no positive message to inspire public support. When forced to answer by pollsters, roughly half of Israelis say they'd vote for Mr. Netanyahu. But as any pollster will attest, the level of support is meaningless without intensity -- and there is little for him. Quips Mitchell Barak of Keevoon, a leading Israeli political consulting firm, "Bibi's message is 'vote for me or we are all going to die.'"

The old American saw trotted out every other October that a month is an eternity in politics could well hold true in Israel. But also by that measuring stick, Mr. Olmert might just be able to last many eternities. It's anyone's guess.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Spencer, February 16, 2007.

When Sulejmen Talovic entered the Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City Monday night with a shotgun, a pistol, and a backpack full of ammunition, he intended to "kill a large number of people," according to Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank. Talovic killed five people and wounded four before he himself was killed by an off-duty Ogden police officer who happened to be in the mall.

Why did Talovic do it? No one knows. Talovic's aunt, Ajka Omerovic, told reporters: "We want to know what happened, just like you guys. We have no idea...We know him as a good boy. He liked everybody, so I don't know what happened." Talovic, who was eighteen at the time of the murders, was a Bosnian Muslim who came to the United States with his family in 1998. Could he have been motivated by jihadist sympathies?

FBI special agent Patrick Kiernan discounted that possibility. "We're working closely with the Salt Lake P.D. and we're obviously aware that that [terrorism] is a potential issue out there," he explained. "But at this point there is nothing that is leading us down this road." And with Talovic dead and apparently having acted alone, unless something he wrote explaining his actions is discovered, it is unlikely that his motive will ever be definitively known.

But was Kiernan really correct that "there is nothing that is leading us down this road"? Unfortunately, he didn't explain how he came to this conclusion. Talovic joins an unfortunately growing list of Muslims who have committed random acts of violence, only for officials to assure us that their actions have nothing to do with terrorism. Maybe none of them do, but the list is full of troubling details:

* On January 31, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, 22, stole a car in Minneapolis. He went on a rampage, ramming the stolen car into other cars and then stealing a van and continuing to ram other cars, injuring one person. His father told officials that Mohamed was suffering from mental problems; his mother added he had been depressed and hadn't been taking his medication. During his rampage, Mohamed repeatedly yelled, "Die, die, die, kill, kill, kill," and when asked why he did all this, he replied, "Allah made me do it."

* Omeed Aziz Popal, a Muslim from Afghanistan, who killed one person and injured fourteen during a murderous drive through San Francisco city streets in August 2006, during which he targeted people on crosswalks and sidewalks, identified himself as a terrorist after his rampage, according to Rob Roth of San Francisco's KTVU. Later the murders were ascribed to Popal's mental problems, and to stress arising from his impending arranged marriage.

* On July 28, 2006, a Muslim named Naveed Afzal Haq forced his way into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. Once inside, Haq announced, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," and then began shooting, killing one woman and injuring five more. FBI assistant special agent David Gomez stated: "We believe...it's a lone individual acting out his antagonism. There's nothing to indicate that it's terrorism-related. But we're monitoring the entire situation."

* In March 2006, a twenty-two-year-old Iranian student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV onto the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, deliberately trying to kill people and succeeding in injuring nine. After the incident, he seemed singularly pleased with himself, smiling and waving to crowds after a court appearance on Monday, at which he explained that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah." Officials here again dismissed the possibility of terrorism, even after Taheri-azar wrote a series of letters to the UNC campus newspaper detailing the Qur'anic justification for warfare against unbelievers, and explaining why he believed his attacks were justified from an Islamic perspective.

None of these were terrorist attacks in the sense that they were planned and executed by al-Qaeda agents. And it is possible that all of them were products of nothing more ideologically significant than a disturbed mental state, although it is at least noteworthy that each attacker explained his actions in terms of Islamic terrorism. As such attacks grow in number, it would behoove authorities at very least to consider the possibility that these attacks were inspired by the jihadist ideology of Islamic supremacism, and to step up pressure on American Muslim advocacy groups to renounce that ideology definitively and begin extensive programs to teach against it in American Islamic schools and mosques.

In October 2006, a pro-jihad internet site published a "Guide for Individual Jihad," explaining to jihadists "how to fight alone." It recommended, among other things, assassination with guns and running people over. Is it possible that Sulejmen Talovic and some of these others were waging this jihad of one? It is indeed, but with law enforcement officials trained only to look for signs of membership in al-Qaeda or other jihad groups, and to discount terrorism as a factor if those signs aren't there, it is a possibility that investigators will continue to overlook.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hebron Jewish Community, February 16, 2007.

A group of seven German intelligence agents, identifying themselves as 'anonymous diplomats' today began an information-gathering mission in Hebron, led by a member of the Breaking the Silence/Bnei Avraham pro-Arab, anti-Jewish/Israel left-wing extremist organizations.

The agents were approached by Hebron spokesmen Noam Arnon and David Wilder, in an attempt to provide them with an additional perspective of Jewish life in Hebron. However, they were told that the group had no time, their schedules were planned weeks ago, and 'maybe next time.' "When might that be," they were asked. "We don't know," they replied.

With the group standing in the road just outside the Avraham Avinu neighborhood, Wilder requested just five minutes in order to bring them to the Avraham Avinu Synagogue and explain the five hundred year old history of the site and the neighborhood. However, his request was not even considered. After distributing his business card to them, he requested their cards in return, in order to be able to contact them directly. However, all members of the group had 'forgotten' to bring their business cards with them.

Before departing, Wilder commented that a group such as this, especially coming from Germany, with that country's dark, Nazi past, should at least be willing to spend a few minutes with Jews living in the first Jewish city in Israel, trying to revive and renew the Jewish people's past in Hebron. However, the group refused to listen to him and continued their tour with a self-hating Jew, who spouts only hate for Hebron's Jews, representing only the 'poor Arabs' who are being oppressed by the Jewish Community of Hebron, the Israeli army, and the State of Israel.

It later became clear to Hebron leaders that members of the group are associated with the BND, the ANBw, and have ties to the CIA and MI5. Their primary mission in Hebron is to gather information for the European Quartet, in order to begin implementation of their plans to follow in the footsteps of their infamous predecessors, Nebuchadnezzar and Titus: to bring about a Judenrein Eretz Yisrael, starting in Judea and Samaria, and of course, in Hebron.

How ironic that people whose friends, relatives and fellow countrymen participated in the slaughter of between six to seven million Jews should arrive in the city of Abraham with a self-hating Jew, whose goal is the expulsion of Hebron's Jewish population, and should ignore those people trying to reestablish Hebron's glorious Jewish past.

You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 16, 2007.


In the coming elections, the Islamist party is striving to capture the presidency as well as the premiership. If it does, it would gain the power to transform the country into an Islamist one. The incumbent party benefits from a reputation for ending terrible inflation.

The party has lost half its popularity, however, by corruption and illegal and high-handed but legal means of sneaking in an Islamist agenda wherever it could. The supposed prosperity may be due to an infusion of unaccountable wealth by Arabs promoting the Islamist agenda. The underlying economy is poor.

The State Dept. worries more that the military would oust the Islamists than the reverse. Interference by the State Dept., especially its downplaying of the Islamist menace, is counter-productive. Probably the secular state will resist the Islamist drive without resort to the military (Michael Rubin, MEF News, 2/2/7).

The State Dept. needs to be educated about foreign affairs and Jihad, the worst threat to the US.


Hamas and Fatah announced their 9th truce, but violence continues (IMRA, 2/4).

Hamas seems intent on wiping Fatah out in Gaza, and hides from Fatah in Judea-Samaria, truce or no truce. Truces with the Muslims should not be taken seriously by Israel. Britain made a truce with the Taliban, only to find the Taliban overran the town from which British troops had evacuated.


Pres. Bush had a vision as broad as Reagan's, though flawed by oil-industry biases and appeasement of the Palestinian jihadists. Unlike Reagan, Bush is no "great communicator" of his vision. His vision is of international jihad with various axes of territorial bases and terrorist groups radiating outward and into the West.

The Democrats have a narrow vision of individual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They compete to withdraw from Iraq. As Michael Ledeen points out (Jewish Political Chronicle, 12/2006, p.9 from National Review Online 11/1), one cannot end a multi-front war by withdrawing from one front. The Democrats deceive themselves and put the nation at risk. The problem is compounded by what Ledeen observes is the intelligence agencies (and State Dept.) deliberately misleading the President. Where is the objection by Democrats and Republicans to this subversion? The President is accused of lying, but the employees do.


Pointing out that the President of Iran, who is developing nuclear weaponry, suggests imagining a world without America and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu urged Massachusetts to divest from Iran (IMRA, 1/23).


The UNO is about to set up a tribunal on the assassination of Lebanese leaders who opposed Syrian hegemony over Lebanon. Lebanon's pro-Syria President criticized his Prime Minister for agreeing to the tribunal. For one thing, he said, the tribunal threatens the security of his country (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 2/7, P.7).

That's a good one. Syria is maneuvering to retake control over the country. It and its allies particularly assassinate Cabinet Ministers. Knock out enough, and there must be new elections, in which the well-organized Hizbullah thinks it could win enough representation to frustrate attempts to govern independently of Syria, Iran, and Hizbullah. Now that does threaten national security!


Abbas' speech admonishing fellow Muslims to turn their rifles from other factions to Israelis was far too militant to pretend any longer that he is a moderate. He said to turn all their rifles against Israel. He rejected compromise on Jerusalem and on "refugee-return." He still wants unity government with Hamas, which wants to conquer Israel. He said, in effect, that terrorists are not criminals. He made them feel proud of what they do (shoot innocent Israelis).

His tirade refuted Sec. Rice's stated premise that the solution would come from starting a temporary state, meaning, sovereignty before having eradicated terrorism or defining the limits of Arab territorial designs (Michael Widlanski, IMRA, 1/16).

His speech also contradicts Rice's depiction of him as moderate and one with whom peace could be negotiated if he had power. After his speech calling for war on Israel, she continued to praise him. (Perhaps it is because of his speech.) He finds he can call for war without repercussion from his US benefactors. Rice claims he made progress, but his people fire rockets. Rice also called dictator Mubarak a US partner, even as he lets the rockets be smuggled into Gaza. Can't the US find a real Arab moderate? (Michael Freund in IMRA, 1/17).

He showed up US policy which is to arm him, to strengthen his faction as against Hamas.


Eight Arab Foreign Ministers joined in a resolution with Sec. of State Rice demanding that foreign countries not interfere with the government of Iraq. The resolution implied criticism of unnamed Iran for interfering.

Dr. Aaron Lerner remarked that the Arabs expect the US to take all the action and risks, and they would applaud (IMRA, 1/17).

The Arabs do have a way of talking about the need to do something, but expecting the US to do it. We give the humanitarian aid to the P.A. Arabs, they don't. We save them from Saddam, they sit it out. And so on and so forth.

The Prime Minister of Iraq is a Shiite Islamist. He may welcome Iranian help. He does have the parties of Islamist militias, the ones fighting the government, in his Cabinet, and he objects to US troops putting down those militias, a requirement for finishing the war. The Shiites call on Sunnis in Baghdad, house-by-house, to leave or be killed. The government does not prevent this ethnic cleansing. Perhaps the extra 21,000 US troops will.

The US has spent tens of billions of dollars building a powerful Egyptian army, imagining we were gaining an ally. Why doesn't that army send a division to help the Coalition? Perhaps they are not the ally that the State Dept. thinks they are.


How does a Jewish woman get away from the brutality of an Arab husband in an Arab village in Israel? She escapes. One who did so recently was given a furnished apartment in a secret location in Israel, by the Yad L'Achim anti-assimilation rescue organization. Unfortunately, the woman had to leave behind her daughters, ages four and five.

The organization asked the police in the Arab village to arrest the husband for brutality. They gave excuses, their bluff was called, and finally they did. Then the mother's lawyer successfully petitioned for custody. The local social worker, however, obstructed the court order, falsely claiming that the mother had no home and abandoned her daughters and that the daughters didn't want to go to her. It took a lot of effort to get the daughters out. They rushed into their mother's arms (Arutz-7, 1/17). It was a case of humaneness vs. ethnicity.

Of course most girls would prefer the mother. Arabs beat children as well as wives. Arab men treat most females with contempt unless they go in for suicide-bombing. The government does not protect the Jewish wives.


An Israeli officer said that UNIFIL peacekeepers had thwarted Hizbullah attempts to lay roadside bombs inside Israel (Aron Heller, NY Sun, 2/6, p.7).

That is interesting news. I would like to know how many times this happened and what were the circumstances. How did UNIFIL stop Hizbullah. Did UNIFIL arrest or disarm the Hizbullah men? If not, why not?


Decent people deplore genocide. Many of them want to stop the ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and remove our troops from Baghdad, where police and the Mahdi army are committing it. "One cannot, with a straight face, support the prevention of ethnic killings in a country where we lack troops, but oppose such prevention in a country where we have them." (Eli Lake, NY Sun, 2/7, Op.-Ed..)


The insurgents are slaughtering indiscriminately. They are murdering people with skills the country needs for rebuilding. Masses of Iraqis are fleeing the country. The insurgents don't care what happens to the country or its people, so long as their ideology prevails. But their slaughter isn't entirely indiscriminate. They single out academics (IMRA, 1/18 from Arab News of S. Arabia).

Totalitarians attack the intelligentsia, for it is capable of stimulating resistance. We've gone too easy on the Shiite militias.


Twenty years ago, the US government was actively deporting or imprisoning Nazi concentration guards. An SS guard admitted to prosecutors that he was among the guards who murdered numbers of prisoners. The SS records verified the admission. He also admitted having lied upon immigration to the US.

After he was deported, his grown children in the US appealed to US officials to ask for clemency. They argued that their father was young at the time. They lied that the prosecution was just after vengeance. (What would be wrong with that?)

Usually, Members of Congress sent prosecutors the appeal, and asked their view. When told of the evidence and circumstances, they dropped the matter. Not Carter, then out of office. He did not ask to hear the other side, but urged "special consideration" for the deportee (IMRA, 1/18 from Ezra HaLevi, Israel National News. The witness was Neil Sher, whom I consider most reliable).


Four state legislatures have bills requiring that state-supported universities report how they encourage intellectual diversity and academic freedom (Andrew Ferguson, NY Sun, 2/7, Op.-Ed.).

Academic freedom, factual knowledge, and keen judgment for students is the goal, not intellectual diversity, but neither should diversity be repressed, as legislators suspect it is.


The IDF killed at least 500 Hizbullah men, more than the total for the past 20 years. That set Hizbullah back.

Israel developed during the brief war a system that within five minutes of rocket-launching, can destroy the rocket-launcher. It is an unprecedented achievement.

Much is made about Israel's failure to attain its objectives. Hizbullah failed to obtain some of its own. It said that there would be no international forces or Lebanese Army in southern Lebanon. Both are present there, now. As for Iran, it failed to ignite a wider war. It wasted $2 billion preparing for it.

Yaakov Amidror thinks that Israel showed the world it would fight hard and sooner. This did surprise the Arabs. He also thinks that Israelis concluded that retreat is a mistake and that Israel learned how to cope with this kind of war. Next time, Israel would fight better (IMRA, 1/17).

The setback is temporary. The next war, there will be new tactics on both sides. Gen. Amidror overlooks that.

The international and Lebanese Army are not stopping Hizbullah from rebuilding. Then what? Iran has the money to waste.

Israel also showed the world that it fights foolishly and gets put off by diplomats. It doesn't matter what Israelis concluded about the folly of retreat, their leftist leaders don't care. PM Olmert's main policy is retreat.


Started by the Fatah regime, the P.A. has imposed hefty, retroactive license fees on the independent broadcast media, whose advertising fees id declining from the war's blow to the economy (IMRA, 1/18). Government abuses licensing.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 16, 2007.

Today Brandeis, tomorrow Ben Gurion University and Tel Aviv University? This was written by Larry Cohler-Esses, Editor at Large.

Major givers reportedly withholding funds from school, sparking fierce free-speech debate on Massachusetts campus.

Major donors to Brandeis University have informed the school they will no longer give it money in retaliation for its decision last month to host former President Jimmy Carter, a strong critic of Israel.

The donors have notified the school in writing of their decisions -- and specified Carter as the reason, said Stuart Eizenstat, a former aide to Carter during his presidency and a current trustee of Brandeis, one of the nation's premier Jewish institutions of higher learning.

They are "more than a handful," he said. "So, this is a concern. There are evidently a fair number of donors who have indicated they will withhold contributions."

Brandeis history professor Jonathan Sarna, who maintains close ties with the administration, told The Jewish Week, "These were not people who send $5 to the university. These were major donors, and major potential donors.

"I hope they'll calm down and change their views," Sarna said.

Sarna indicated he knew the identity of at least one of the benefactors but declined to disclose it. He said only that those now determined to stop contributing include "some enormously wealthy individuals."

Eizenstat said his information came from discussions Tuesday with university administrators, who did not disclose to him who the donors in question were, or how much was involved.

Kevin Montgomery, a student member of the faculty-student committee that brought Carter to Brandeis, related that the school's senior vice president for communications, Lorna Miles, told him in a meeting the week before Carter's appearance that the school had, at that point, already lost $5 million in donations.

Asked to comment, Miles replied, "I have no idea what he's talking about."

Miles said that university President Jehuda Reinharz was out of the country and unavailable for comment. The school's fundraising director, Nancy Winship, was also unavailable, she said.

"I have not heard anything from donors," said Miles. "I don't know where Stuart's information is coming from. I don't think there is any there there, in your story."

The apparent donor crisis comes on the heels of a series of Israel-related free speech controversies on the Waltham, Mass., campus, of which Carter's January appearance is only the latest and most high-profile. Critics of Israel last year protested Reinharz's removal of an art exhibit from the school library containing anti-Israeli paintings -- denounced by some as crude propaganda -- by youths from Palestinian refugee camps.

The university got flack from the other side when it awarded an honorary doctorate in June to renowned playwright and frequent Israel critic Tony Kushner, who once referred to Israel's founding as "a mistake."

The run-up to Carter's appearance was also punctuated by acrimony when the former president declined an initial invitation to appear in a debate format with Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. Instead, Dershowitz appeared only after Carter left the hall.

Yet, the school has also won notice for a course it offers on the Middle East conflict co-taught by Shai Feldman, a prominent Israeli strategic analyst, and Palestinian Khalil Shikaki, a leading West Bank demographer. It also conducts an exchange program with Al Quds University, a Palestinian school in East Jerusalem. The Brandeis student body of about 5,000 is about 50 percent Jewish but also contains a significant population of Muslims.

Nevertheless, the free-speech controversies seemed to pit Brandeis' commitment to maintaining its status as a top-tier, non-sectarian university -- with all the expectations of untrammeled discourse this brings -- against its determination to remain, in Reinharz's words, a school under "continuous sponsorship by the Jewish community."

The alleged action by some top donors has now sharpened the tensions between those two goals, intensified by the school's commitment to the ideals of its namesake. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, a founder of American Zionism and one of the judiciary's fiercest free speech defenders.

"The American Jewish community understands the visit by Carter to Brandeis to be reflecting a heksher" -- a stamp of approval -- "from the university," said Sarna, whose field is American Jewish history. "They see it as a statement that Brandeis certifies him as kosher.

"The faculty views it very differently," he said, "that Brandeis is a forum; that views are uttered in that forum, some of which we agree with and some of which we don't. But the faculty does not view his appearance as a heksher.

"It's that gap in perception that seems to require greater dialogue between the two entities so at least one understands the other," said Sarna.

But the Carter event may have instead opened the door to greater tensions. Emboldened by it, a group of left-wing students are now seeking to bring to campus Norman Finkelstein, a controversial Holocaust scholar who charges that Jewish leaders exploit the tragedy to fend off and silence criticism of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians. He charges, too, that Jewish organizations have inflated the number of Holocaust survivors to inflate reparations payments.

A group of right-wing students has invited to campus Professor Daniel Pipes, an Arabist and policy analyst who writes often of the security threat he sees to the United States and Europe from Muslim immigrants. Pipes has also founded Campus Watch, a program that seeks to monitor what professors teach in class and publicize those it regards as extremists. This has provoked charges he is a McCarthyist, which he denies.

In a contentious meeting with faculty after the Carter event, Reinharz denounced Finkelstein and Pipes as "weapons of mass destruction," according to a report in The Justice, the Brandeis campus newspaper. His executive assistant, John Hose, explained, "These are people who tend to inflame passions, whose mission is not so much discussion and education as it is theatre, a show ... If you want serious discussion, there's lots of resources available for that already at Brandeis."

At the Feb. 5 meeting, Winship, the school's chief fundraiser, also alluded to the brewing problem with donors. The e-mails from them "kept coming and coming," The Justice quoted her as saying. "We're just trying to repair the damage. The Middle East is just this trigger of emotions for our alumni and for our friends. For the most part, the donors who come to us come through the Jewish door."

Reinharz sharply criticized the committee that brought Carter to campus for leaving the university with $95,000 in logistical and security costs, according to The Justice.

"Faculty members should not be allowed to invite whoever they want and leave Brandeis with a huge bill," Reinharz complained, according to the paper.

The school's budget for 2005, the latest year for which tax records are available, was $265.75 million against revenues of $310 million.

Members of the sponsoring committee protested that Reinharz had earlier assured them money would be no barrier to bringing the first U.S. president to Brandeis since Harry S Truman's 1957 commencement speech there.

"I think Jehuda [protested the cost] because he wanted to distance himself from Carter," said Montgomery, the student member of the Carter committee. "I feel this is Jehuda's attempt to appease the harsh donor critics."

The Brandeis president did not attend the Carter event, with his office making it known that Reinharz was out of town.

At the faculty meeting, Susan Lanser a professor of English, complained, "I know many, many faculty who do not feel they can speak freely about the Middle East" in public forums. And in an interview with The Jewish Week, Mary Baine Campbell, another English professor, spoke of "the chilling effect of knowing one speaks about things unwelcome by the administration in charge of working conditions and pay. They could be angels. I don't know. It's a slightly chilled atmosphere."

Lanser said the administration's warnings about donors had reinforced that sense. "I'm not saying that was the intent of the meeting," she said. "I think Brandeis is committed to open intellectual inquiry. But this issue gets complicated because of the strong feelings of some donors."

This vexed aftermath contrasted sharply with the widely praised tenor of the event itself. The university audience of almost 2,000 received Carter with notable civility and even gave him several standing ovations. At the same time, student questioners challenged him with tough and critical queries.

The focus of hostility toward Carter -- his new book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- has led to no less than Anti-Defamation League leader Abraham Foxman charging him with "engaging in anti-Semitism." Many others have echoed this.

The protests start with the book's title, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," implicitly comparing Israel's policies towards Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza to apartheid-era South Africa. The book itself contains gross factual errors, charge critics, and a lopsided bias that lays blame almost exclusively on Israel for the failure to resolve the conflict.

Critics object especially to Carter's claim that pro-Israel forces in the United States have a disproportionate and stifling impact on public debate of the issue -- denounced by Foxman as "the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress and the U.S. government."

At the event, Carter defended himself against such charges. Interviews with audience members suggested their ovations stemmed more from respect for Carter's former office and their acceptance of his basic integrity and good faith than agreement, necessarily, with his views.

"I think everyone was surprised at how well he was received," said Michael Berenbaum, a Holocaust scholar and historian unaffiliated with Brandeis. "That may be the most important part of the story. Instead of coming as partisans, they listened to Carter attentively, asked tough questions and gave him an audience. The Jewish community may have a more significant generation gap than they understand between what young people are prepared to hear and what older activists are prepared to hear."

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 or write him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 15, 2007.

What to do when your own government plans a coup d'etat against its own people? There are many components to a coup of this nature. First, it can be euphemistically called deliberate "friendly fire". The difference is that typical friendly fire is when your own side or an ally mistakenly targets its own friends. When the friendly fire is intentional, it could be called treason by an unfriendly government.

The following outlines what is purported to be a plan by the Olmert government to duplicate what Sharon and Olmert did in Gaza. Here, with malice and certain self-serving interests, they attacked their own people, turning Gaza into an international Terror base, aimed at destroying Israel -- or so the Terrorists say themselves. It wasn't a mistake or an error in judgement but for argument's sake, let us give Sharon and Olmert a dubious benefit of the doubt.

Clearly, they were working in coordination with C. Rice and the U.S. State Department who had other national interests inconsistent with Israel's safety. The uprooting and eviction of 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from 25 communities in Gush Katif/Gaza and 4 from Northern Samaria was ruthlessly administered. As predicted by many (including us) Gaza became a local Terror Base (soon to go global) and now the site of burgeoning, bloody civil war between the Terrorist Hamas and the Terrorists Fatah. We are, of course, mindful of Saudi Arabia's effort to unify Fatah and Hamas so they can claim donor funds and turn their weapons solely against Israel.

Areas from Sderot to Ashkelon may have to be abandoned due to the increasing missile attack and the unwillingness of the Olmert, Peretz, Livni, Peres regime to unleash the army to drive back the Palestinian Muslim Arab Terrorists along with their missile launchers.

Now this same conglomerate looks to repeat the Gaza debacle only this time the coup is to be directed against the 250,000 Israelis in Judea and Samaria. This will also lead to the forced abandonment of the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley and most probably, all of Jerusalem that Jordan controlled and desecrated for 19 years from 1948 to 1967.

It no longer matters if this is a repeat of the faulty judgment or a cabal, linked to foreign interests. This would include but, not be limited to the Arabist State Department serving the interests of Saudi Arabia and other Arab hostile States.

The Israeli Government seems to no longer represent the Israeli people but, rather caters to other nations and, no doubt, certain self-serving benefits, not limited to financial gain. This cannot be called anything else but High Treason. This government has literally abandoned the Jewish nation and the Jewish people. It no longer represents her citizens. In fact, like other dictatorships, namely Stalin's and Hitler's, it is at war with her own people, demanding both slavish obedience and tax revenue to pay for the coup d'etat.

The article by David Bedein in The Bulletin January 23, 2006 outlines some of the hidden details of the government's war against the Jewish nation and the Jewish people, both in Israel and world-wide. To read it, click here.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, February 15, 2007.

If you, or anyone you know, is unsure as to how we can know for sure that Israel is not an apartheid state, neither in the west bank nor in gaza nor in the pre-67 state, read Irshad Manji's article below. It's called "Modern Israel is a far cry from old South Africa" and it appeared in The Australian on February 9, 2007. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21194124-7583,00.html Irshad Manji is author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith (Random House Australia).

IN the past year, a stream of thinkers across the West -- from Australian writer Antony Loewenstein to US academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt -- has punctured the usual parameters of debate about Israel. I, for one, welcome any effort to prevent ideas from calcifying into ideologies. As a Muslim refusenik, that's what I do by defying the conventional prejudices of my fellow Muslims. Why would I resent refuseniks of a different kind?

It's precisely because I embrace intellectual pluralism that I respectfully challenge Jimmy Carter's recent critique of Israel as an apartheid state. To be sure, I've long admired the former US president. In my book The Trouble with Islam Today I cite him as an example of how religion can be invoked to tap the best of humanity. In no small measure, it was Carter's appreciation of spiritual values that brought together Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, compelling these former foes to clasp hands over a peace deal.

Which is why Carter's new book disappoints so many of us who champion co-existence. Entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, the book argues that Israel's conduct towards Palestinians mimics South Africa's long-time demonisation of blacks. Of course, certain Israeli politicians have spewed venom at Palestinians, as have some Arab leaders towards Jews, but Israel is far more complex -- and diverse -- than slogans about the occupation would suggest. In a state practising apartheid, would Arab Muslim legislators wield veto power over anything? At only 20per cent of the population, would Arabs even be eligible for election if they squirmed under the thumb of apartheid? Would an apartheid state extend voting rights to women and thepoor in local elections, which Israel didfor the first time in the history of Palestinian Arabs?

Would the vast majority of Arab Israeli citizens turn out to vote in national elections, as they've usually done? Would an apartheid state have several Arab political parties, as Israel does? In recent Israeli elections, two Arab parties found themselves disqualified for expressly supporting terrorism against the Jewish state. However, Israel's Supreme Court, exercising its independence, overturned both disqualifications. Under any system of apartheid, would the judiciary be free of political interference?

Would an apartheid state award its top literary prize to an Arab? Israel honoured Emile Habibi in 1986, before the intifada might have made such a choice politically shrewd. Would an apartheid state encourage Hebrew-speaking schoolchildren to learn Arabic? Would road signs throughout the land appear in both languages? Even my country, the proudly bilingual Canada, doesn't meet that standard.

Would an apartheid state be home to universities where Arabs and Jews mingle at will, or apartment blocks where they live side by side? Would an apartheid state bestow benefits and legal protections on Palestinians who live outside of Israel but work inside its borders? Would human rights organisations operate openly in an apartheid state? They do in Israel.

For that matter, military officials go public with their criticisms of government policies. In October 2003, the Israel Defence Forces' chief of staff told the press that road closures in the West Bank and Gaza were feeding Palestinian anger. Two weeks later, four former heads of the Shin Bet security service blasted the occupation and called on Ariel Sharon to withdraw troops unilaterally, which later happened in Gaza. Would an apartheid state stomach so much dissent from those mandated to protect the state?

Above all, would media debate the most basic building blocks of the nation? Would a Hebrew newspaper in an apartheid state run an article by an Arab Israeli about why the Zionist adventure has been a total failure? Would it run that article on Israel's independence day? Would an apartheid state ensure conditions for the freest Arabic press in the Middle East, a press so free that it can demonstrably abuse its liberties and keep on rolling? To this day, the East Jerusalem daily Al-Quds hasn't retracted an anti-Israel letter supposedly penned by Nelson Mandela but proven to have been written by an Arab living in The Netherlands.

Even the eminence grise of Palestinian nationalism, the late Edward Said, stated flat out that "Israel is not South Africa". How could it be when an Israeli publisher translated Said's seminal work, Orientalism, into Hebrew? I'll cap this point with a question that Said himself asked of Arabs: "Why don't we fight harder for freedom of opinions in our own societies, a freedom, no one needs to be told, that scarcely exists?"

I disagree: some people still need to be told that Arab "freedoms" don't compare to those of Israel. The people who need reminding are those who now push the South Africa analogy a step further by equating Israel with Nazi Germany. To them, Zionists are committing hate crimes under the totalitarian nightmare that they dub "Zio-Nazism" (like neo-Nazism).

When it comes to granting citizenship, Israel discriminates in the same way as an affirmative action policy, giving the edge to a specific minority that has faced genocidal injustice. Does this amount to Nazism? Spare me. As a Muslim, I could become a citizen of Israel without having to convert. After all, Israel was one of the few countries anywhere to grant shelter, then citizenship, to the Vietnamese boatpeople who sought political asylum in the late 1970s. I don't have to wonder how Syria compares on that score.

Now for the ultimate proof of Israel's flimsy credentials as a bunker of Hitlerian hate: It's the only country in the Middle East to which Arab Christians are voluntarily migrating. And they are also thriving there, notching much higher university attendance rates than the Arab Muslim citizens of Israel, and enjoying better overall health than Jews.

The Holy Land is gut-wrenching and complicated. As much as I applaud Israel's efforts to foster pluralism, I condemn its illegal Jewish settlements and less visible crimes such as the diversion of water away from Palestinian towns. These contradictions of the Israeli state should be exposed, discussed, even pilloried. And they are: openly as well as often. So there's little point in deciding whose camp is the paragon of vice or virtue. The better question might be: who's willing to hear what they don't want to hear? That's the test of whether a country is more than black or white.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by TS Girishkumar, February 15, 2007.

This is a mail from Merylin Peter (donagraziah@hotmail.com) of jerusalem. She makes efforts for a Hindu Jewish unity and related progamme. This letter sketches a resolution they took recently. They try to underline many cardinal points in Hindu Jewish friendship. Please see.

Dear All,

My last letter, containing information on Jewish weddings here, in Israel, has achieved some response. Bar mitzvahs, brit milas, other weddings... were shared with me, however, nothing beats the first wedding I ever planned and that was Bill and Eva's glat kosher Chinese-Jewsih nuptials. We had checked all out plans with Eva's rabbi who insisted that while it must be according to halacha, we had to take in consideration the feelings of Eva's parents and make it as easy as possible for them. This was to fulfill the commandment of Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother. Well, I blended as many of the different customs as I could although I put my foot down on sending the roast pig. Someone suggested I write a book... How to Make A Glat Kosher... but I felt there would be very little interest in it.

Our Purple prose for today is the results of a Jewish-Hindu leadership summit, the paper signed by Rabbi Yona Metzger the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel. This item interested me as by some fluke (or the finger of G-d) I became aware of, and began to correspond with, Dr. G. in India and have been taught so much about Hinduism and India.

The participants affirmed that:

1. Their respective Traditions teach that there is One Supreme Being who is the Ultimate Reality, who has created this world in its blessed diversity and who has communicated Divine ways of action for humanity, for different peoples in different times and places.

At this time, and following the few paragraphs above, I would like to point out that there will be a talk by Peter Berton and Otto Schnepp on Thursday, February 22 at 4:00 at 10383 Bunche Hall (UCLA) on China and the Jews. This is something I would love to attend but unfortunately the commute is a bit much for me so if any of you go, please let me know.

2. The religious identities of both Jewish and Hindu communities are related to components of Faith, Scripture, Peoplehood, Culture, Land and Language.

Israelis have an obseesion with "the news". Even on our buses one hears the news broadcasts. On our satelite channels we get, CNN, Sky (Britain), France 24/English (this is a fairly new 24 hour news station started by Chirac (known by his female assistants and secretaries as "The 3 minute, including the shower after, Man" What a difference a culture makes, our "3 minute man" is up for rape charges) who wanted to compete with Britain and America, Fox Cable, Bloomberg, China Broadcasting, Al Jazeera/English and BBC. So it is not unusual for me to be browsing through the channels to see what is occuring, what each country thinks is important, etc.

3. Hindus and Jews seek to maintain their respective heritage and pass it on to the succeeding generations, while living in respectful relations with other communities.

Well, here I am "sufing" the airways and I hear the word, Israel...so obviously I stop. It is France 24 and a military commentator, a French military commentator, a French military commentator who comments (usually) on the most inept army in the world, stating where Israel went wrong in the 34 day "war" and what they should have done.

4. Neither seeks to proselytize, nor undermine or replace in any way, the religious identities of other faith communities. They expect other communities to respect their religious identities and commitments and condemn all activities that go against the sanctity of this mutual respect.

At one time Tzahal was one of the most respected armies in the world. It was powerful and our Arab countries were very caution when they went to war with us, because of its strength and commitment. Of course, that was before Ariel Sharon decided that the main enemy of Israel was the Jews living and working in Gush Katif and new recruits were trained not to defend against our Arab enemies but to offend against fellow Jews. Soldiers did not get the training they needed for the real world.

5. Both the HIndu and Jewish Traditions affirm the sanctity of life and aspire for a society in which all live in peace and harmony with one another. Accordingly they condemn all acts of violence in the name of any religion or against any religion.

Then, as Sharon placed a man who was 33 on the list from the Likud, as his vice chairman (and he in turn, when Sharon was "incapacitated" selected the head of the Labor union as not Minister of Social Welfare, but Minister of Defense) Sharon's confidante, and son, the "power behind the throne" placed his cronies in major positions in the army. These men had nothing to give and were promoted solely because of their friendship with Omri. The head of the army was thrown out because he disapproved of the travesty that was to be done in the Gaza Strip and was replaced with the head of the air force!

6. The Jewish and Hindu communities are committed to the ancient traditions of Judaism and Hindu dharma respectively and, have both, in their own ways, gone through the painful experiences of persecution, oppression and destruction. Therefore, they realize the need to educate the present and succeeding generations about their past, in order that they will make right efforts to promote religious harmony.

I must say that what the commentator had to say was something that we all know here and it is sad that it it pointed out by, of all people, the French. He (the correspondent) said that Israel, due to the fact that it's Chief of Staff was now from the air force, had become "Americanized" and relied on its air force, which in America's case had been proven wrong several times. This would not have been so bad if the ground forces knew what they were doing and had officers who could tell them what to do. And, the second thing was there were no contingency plans. When the CinC should have been sitting with his generals making any sort of plans, he was busy talking to the press and other media, with a time out to call his stock broker.

7. The representatives of the two faith communities recognize the need for understanding one another in terms of lifestyles, philosophy, religious symbols, culture, etc. They also recognize that they have to make themselves understood by other faith communities. They hope that through their bilateral initiatives, these needs would be met.

At this time I would like to share with you a site that I received from "The Truth Provider". www.globalincientmap.com/home.php On a map of the world one sees the current terrorist events and other suspicious activity. I just pointed my cursor at several of the "hot spots" that I was interested in and voila!

8. Because both traditions affirm the central importance of social responsibility for their societies and for the collective good of humanity, the participants pledged themselves to work together to help address the challenges of poverty, sickness and inequitable distribution of resources.

I thank G-d that I have lived long enough to begin to change my opinion about Amotz Asa El who writes the column(s) Middle Israel, for the Jerusalem Post. Either he is changing or I am. Both Abe and I can't believe that we, many times, agree with him! (As with that French military commentator.) Writing about the conviction of Haim Ramon, Olmert's confidante and Minister of Justice, he mentions that Ramon (who had stuck his tongue in to a young, female soldier's mouth, because he knew "she wanted it", to which she replied in astonishment, "He's 8 years older than my father!") he says: Until now, Israel has been led by three generations. First came the founding fathers, some of whom were visionaries on the scale of David ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin, and all of whom were as modest as Levi Eshkol and Shamir. Then came the generals, most of whom were narrow-minded and some of whom were corrupt, but none of whom could be accused of not having done something for this coutry. And then came the horse thieves. to them ...(the) original Zionist dreamers were romantic idiots who did not understand the meaning of life -- that power is not a means, but an end- just like they would reach tenderly for a girl's hand at dusk, instead of just grabbing her mouth and invading it.

9. The representatives of the two faith communties also agree to constitute a Standing Commitee on Hindu-Jewish Relations. Signed: Rabbi Yona Metger, Chief Rabbi of Israel, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Hindu dharma Acharya Sabha

And with that, I too, shall sign off.

Lots of love

Contact Dr. Girishkumar at drgirishkumarts@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, February 15, 2007.

Dear Friends,

Greetings from Beverly Hills! Almost a quarter of a century ago, when I attended Beverly Hills High School ("Beverly" in short), we learned "there is Beverly Hills and the rest of the World." Later, during the years in which I was very active in the City, I discovered we are really part of a greater design, and "the rest of the world" has great influence on our City (100,000 cars trips a day of through traffic, for instance). No city is separate than all others--we live in a community of neighborhoods and cities, in a region which acts as a melting pot of cultures, religions, languages, experiences.

Last week I attended a profession staff development workshop of UTLA. It purportedly focused on the Arab World, but was nothing less than a 16 hour intensive brainwashing session about the evils of the Zionist oppressor, the (Jewish) State of Israel.

An article by Betsy Schwarcz, a local teacher who attended a UTLA workshop, was published last week in both Israel Jewish Life and Muslim World Today.

My article, A Wakeup Call, appears this week, a (PDF) copy of which is attached hereto.

The text of my article follow.

In Friendship,
Ari Bussel

Last week, Israel Jewish Life published an article by Betsy Schwarcz titled "An Inappropriate Workshop." The article was a report from Saturday's eight hour session of a Salary Point Workshop given for teachers by UTLA (Union Teachers Los Angeles, utla.net). This was part of a 16-hour professional development workshop titled TEACHING ABOUT THE ARAB WORLD: MEETING THE STANDARDS ACROSS DISCIPLINES, K-12, presented by the American Friends Service Committee February 2-5, 2007.

Betsy concludes her article:

Most importantly the workshop did not accomplish what it was supposed to. First of all, the name workshop in itself means an interactive medium. All the professional development workshops I have participated in, engage the students in some practical manner. Often, the presenter speaks about their topic and while talking discusses how their ideas can be used in the classroom. Then the students are usually asked to get a partner and do an exercise relating to what they have just learned. The speaker then asks some students to share their thoughts about the exercise. The standards are always addressed. This "workshop" failed to do any of that. A more suitable title for the program would have been "Teaching Adults About the Arab World In A Very Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Israeli Way -- No Practical Use For Grades K-12."

A former Superintendent of the Beverly Hills Unified School District commented on Betsy Schwarz's article (IJL, 2/7/2007): "This is outrageous ... an appalling and inappropriate use of public money for a presentation, [which] as Betsy notes, has no relevance for the California standards. Who made the decision to give his guy a pulpit??

Nancy Krasne, a current candidate to the Beverly Hills City Council, remarked:

This is frightening. If this was part of a sponsored district program for credit towards a pay raise the credit can be knocked off by the raciest tone of this class. This WILL BE STOPPED!

Regretfully, the following public officials did not see fit to address in this form the issues raised in Betsy's article, but may be taking action in other venues:

1) Superintendent David Brewer, LAUSD
2) Marlene Canter, President, LAUSD
3) Tamar Galatzan, the Mayor's endorsed candidate in the Valley
4) Councilmembers Wendy Greuel and Jack Weiss
5) Mayor Villaraigosa.

I was present during both the Saturday and the Monday sessions of the workshop as an official observer for the Anti-Defamation League. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Anti-Defamation League.

The Workshop was nothing but a platform for anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian propaganda. The "teaching tools and resources" presented were clearly ANTI, self-serving, truth-distorting, factually-incorrect and quite insensitive to history and to humanity. The Holocaust, for instance, is not a proprietary Jewish phenomenon. Many more Christians died during WWII than Jews. Making a joke about not being allowed to leave early since "the doors are locked, there are guard dogs outside, and we built a 25 feet wall," following a previous description of the Palestinian cities being surrounded with 25 feet walls and watchtowers every 200 meters, its population held in "an open air prison," its livelihood being taken away from it, its water being poisoned, etc., would leave a very vivid impression in anyone's mind. Such a joke would be universally considered insensitive and inappropriate, except at this Workshop. Anyone wandering the connection between the described "plight" of the Palestinians and the Holocaust, should refer to the usage of a new word: "ghettoization" (word taken from a handout).

Ghetto, Wall, Oppression--all were used against Israel in most sophisticated ways: Teaching teachers in Los Angeles about Palestinian farmers' plight, Palestinian embroidery as an expression of national identity, and the escape of Christians from Bethlehem because of Israel, emphasizing that Christian Palestinians and Muslim Palestinians live in harmony in the birthplace of Christ (nothing could be further from the truth).

Let us read, for instance, about (Arab) Women and Education. The material given reads, in part:

Over the past five decades, women have been active in the Palestinian resistance movement. Several hundred have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed by Israeli occupation forces since the uprising, "Intifada," in the Israeli occupied territories began in 1987.

One of the magazines distributed shows on its back cover an Israeli soldier aiming his rifle at a woman who is bowing and a child who looks straight into the soldier's eyes. The caption: An Israeli soldier on patrol in the West bank city of Hebron aims weapon toward a crowd of Palestinian shoppers on Jerusalem Day, Oct.20, 2006. Cover to cover, the magazine talks about Israel, Palestine, Oppressed Palestinians and Misery caused by or attributed to Israel in one form or another.

Hebron, if you wondered, is part of the Occupied Territories. A presenter who claims to have been born and raised here in the USA, stated she is an Arab, a Muslim, a Palestinian, a Woman -- from the Occupied Hebron. As an American who was born and raised here, I would first describe myself AN AMERICAN. The presenter, it seems, was not alone: Another presenter emigrated to the United States seven years ago from Nazareth, Israel, also told us she is from the Occupied Territories. All of Israel, it seems, is occupied. There is a sense of identity, magnetism to a fictitious land called "Palestine," from which all hatred emanates.

Thus, after the eight hours I attended, during which whatever happens in the Arab World is related to the evil occupation of Palestine by Israel (and if not than at the very least to America, who is connected by associated to Israel), after receiving material written by the likes of Noam Chomsky, after hearing, time and time again of the plight of Palestinian people (whether in Israel, Lebanon, or elsewhere), is there any doubt in anyone's mind that teachers attending the Workshop need to spring to action? They must educate (since what one hears in the news is misleading), they must show the right ways to the kids in their classroom, and they should support the Palestinian efforts to rid themselves of the ghettoization by the Israeli occupation.

Imagine a staff professional development workshop about Israel, or even a workshop about the Arab World which is given by an Israeli or a Jewish presenter, or yet another workshop about the plight of immigrants in California or about Gays and Lesbians (all aimed at teachers of students in K-12). Protestors will be in the building and outside. The media will be all over the place. In this case, it is Israel-bashing, a most honorable of pastime methods, definitely not "sexy enough" to be "newsworthy."

Without immediate, corrective action, we fail. Being accommodating, fair and respectful apparently does not work in the setting of this Workshop. As much as the presenters see themselves as Palestinians, a workshop about the Arab World disguising PROPAGANDA should NOT be allowed. Not in 2007. Not in 2008. Not at any time where the presentations are skewed and amount to a 16 hour brainwashing about OCCUPATION by ISRAEL and the PLIGHT OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE WORLD WIDE (as related to the occupation). I only wonder if there is any change between the previous presentations in 2005 and 2006 and the current one now that Israel is out of the Gaza Strip?!?

Probably none. Rachelle Marshall, a member of the Jewish International Peace Union, writes in a Special Report available in one of the magazines given out: Bush's Lies Can't Hide Middle East Realities:

The World Trade Center attacks gave Bush the chance to sell this agenda to Americans as essential to the "war on terrorism." [NOTE: in Saturday's presentation we learned that due to all the billions spent on the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq, are schools and education are suffering. Imagine what could be done with all these billions of dollars right here at the classroom!] ... It was a claim no more real than the imminent "mushroom cloud" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once warned about. ... Israel's confiscation of more than $50 million a month in Palestinian revenue collections, and the cutoff of international aid funds, have forced schools to close and caused serious shortages of fuel, hospital equipment, and medical supplies. [NOTE: same figure mentioned on Saturday by the speaker: $600M last year alone = $50M / month.] ... Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, with full support from America, was a major cause of the anger among Arabs and Muslims. ... more than 120,000 people of Palestinian descent have been affected by laws that serve no other purpose than to reduce the Palestinian population and impoverish those who remain.

It goes on and on, within this article, and then article after article. The availability of these magazines and handouts is no coincidence. The same statements were repeated and incorporated in the presentations.

The Palestinian "crowd" is extremely sophisticated. A Thousand and One Arabian Nights. They create a reality of their own, which has no connection with the actual reality, and seem to believe that telling a lie enough times makes it into truth. The Christian Palestinians from Bethlehem, for instance, would be those to attest that the reason their population dwindled to 1.9% of the city inhabitants has nothing to do with Israel but with the Muslim Palestinians. They will attest to the fact they do not "live in harmony," unless one defines no more Christians living in the birthplace of Christ as a prerequisite for "harmony."

Meeting the Standards Across Disciplines, K-12: What standards? Which disciplines? If the purpose is to provide a seminar on Palestinian statehood, do that. Educators' training regarding TEACHING ABOUT THE ARAB WORLD should have two elements:
    a.) Teaching
    b.) Arab World.

The parts I attended should have been called Israel's Role in Causing the Plight of the Palestinian People. One should do the honorable thing and call things by their true name. A cow is a cow and not a pig. If one wants to teach about pigs and apes, let no stone hide the pigs and the apes -- call them by their name!

[Editor's Note: Nurit Greenger wrote:

WE MUST FLOOD THE OFFICES OF THE MAYOR, OUR SUPERVISORS, UTLA AND LAUSD PRESIDENTS with phone calls and letters protesting inclusion of Palestinian propaganda and anti-Israel rhetoric being taught to UTLA teachers for inservice credit. This is an outrageous use of our taxpayer money.

Antonio Villaraigosa: mayor@lacity.org
213/978-0600 (Phone)
213/978-0750 (Fax)

Superintendent David Brewer, LAUSD
Tel: 213-241-7000 Fax: 213-241-8442 superintendent@lausd.net

Marlene Canter, President, LAUSD
phone: 213-241-7387
fax: 213-241-8453

For other Bd of Ed members, see

A.J. Duffy: UTLA Pres.

UTLA Profe Development classes:

Council Jack Weiss:
Phone (310) 289-0353 ;Phone (310) 289-0353
Fax (310)289-0365
E-Mail councilmember.weiss@lacity.org
Fax (310)289-0365
Council Wendy Gruel:
Phone: (213) 473-7002
Fax: (213) 680-7895

Eric Garcetti, Pres.

Contact Ari Bussel at aribussel@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 15, 2007.


Israeli archeologists have uncovered a Jewish ritual bath and the aqueduct that carried water between Solomon's pools and the Second Temple. It is in part of Jerusalem that the Left would cede to the Arabs (Arutz-7, 1/15).

Is an Israeli government that wants to cede its historical core to a people that strives to murder Israelis whatever territory they have, sane?


UNIFIL discovered a large arms cache belonging to the supposedly disarmed Hizbullah, Hizbzullah boobytrapped the cache, so that if UNIFIL troops were not careful about handling it, the cache would explode and kill them (Arutz-7, 1/16).


The government of Iran has asked S. Arabia to try to ease US-Iran "tensions." Iran has factions vying with the President of Iran. The President has stoked those tensions by threatening war. S. Arabia, however, has its own "tensions" with Iran, which seeks to dominate the region (IMRA, 1/16).

There are tensions produced by undiplomatic talk and tensions produced by undiplomatic conduct. The other faction wants to reduce the undiplomatic talk, so as to lower Western awareness of the Iranian menace.

We have fallen before for the notion of finding a friendly government faction in Iran. That mistaken notion led to the Iran-Contra scandal and to imagining that former President Khatami, billed as a moderate and reformer, would not continue Iran's nuclear development. He did continue it and he supported terrorism. He just spoke nicer. I prefer an Iranian leader who speaks roughly enough to alarm the West. There isn't enough tension to suit me. After all, we are not stopping Iran's nuclear drive.


The same two Christian factions that fought each other years ago, are at it, again, though not yet with deadly effect. Some are aligned with the government of Lebanon, but others are with Hizbullah (IMRA, 1/24).

Since the Islamists are out to eradicate infidels. Christians should not align with Hizbullah. They need unity and the present, more tolerant regime.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Neuwirth, February 15, 2007.

This was written by Carolyn McGough, Bruin contributor. It appeared in the UCLA Daily Bruin

[Editor's note: to read more about the attack at click here.]

Rabbi Seidler-Feller takes responsibility for assaulting a journalist in 2003 with formal letter

Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller, director of Hillel at UCLA, has sent a written statement to freelance journalist Rachel Neuwirth apologizing for attacking her on campus in 2003.

The apology is part of a settlement in the lawsuit Neuwirth brought against Seidler-Feller in 2003 in response to the incident, said Neuwirth's attorney, Charles Fonorow. The case was recently settled after three years of litigation.

The incident took place more than three years ago in front of Royce Hall after a presentation by Harvard Law professor and author Alan Dershowitz.

Seidler-Feller attempted to apologize in 2003, but Neuwirth wanted a formal apology that would be released to the public, according Daily Bruin archives.

Seidler-Feller, who is on sabbatical until August and unavailable for comment, wrote to Neuwirth "I am deeply sorry that I hit, kicked and scratched you and called you a liar on October 21, 2003."

Neuwirth said she heard Seidler-Feller discuss an upcoming event featuring Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University in Jerusalem and Palestinian Authority Commissioner for Jerusalem.

Neuwirth said she approached Seidler-Feller, warning him against bringing Nusseibeh to campus because the university president had helped direct missile attacks into Israel during the first Persian Gulf War and had been caught by Israeli intelligence calling for troops to attack Israeli citizens.

Seidler-Feller confronted Neuwirth and kicked and grabbed her wrists, Neuwirth said.

Neuwirth admitted that at some point during the confrontation she called Seidler-Feller a "capo," which is a derogatory term used for Jews who were given lighter punishment if they worked inside death camps during the Holocaust.

But there has been speculation in the past over whether Neuwirth called Seidler-Feller a "capo" before or after the confrontation.

"'Capo' was said after I was attacked maliciously and verbally," Neuwirth said. "It was said more in the tone of 'you wimp.' I could have said 'you dirt bag.'"

Neuwirth asserted that her use of the word "capo" was not intended to be derogatory toward Jewish people. She defined it as anyone forced to work for the Nazis in concentration camps.

Besides an apology, the settlement also included monetary retribution that Fonorow called "substantial."

Fonorow and Neuwirth would not comment on the exact amount of the financial settlement.

In the apology, Seidler-Feller stated, "by taking these unprovoked actions, I have contradicted the pluralism, peace and tolerance about which I so often preach."

"I am accepting 100 percent responsibility for my actions on October 21, 2003. I had no right to do what I did," he wrote.

While Neuwirth said she accepted the apology, she believes it should have been made long ago.

Rachel Neuwirth is a Los Angeles-based analyst on the board of directors of the West Coast Region of the American Jewish Congress and the chairperson of the organization's Middle East committee. Contact her by email at rachterry@sbcglobal.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 15, 2007.

Dear Ehud & Cabinet:

I fear for your safety.

Having been instrumental in opening up Gaza for a Global Terror Base, I fear there are many Jews from all over the world who will not forgive or let bygones be bygones.

May I respectfully suggest that after you leave the bunker you are building at the entrance to Jerusalem, you make arrangements to leave the country. It would be better to select a country where you would be welcome -- like Argentina or Peru. Recall that Adolph Eichmann was able to hide for quite a while in Argentina.

I understand that there is quite a large colony of second generation Germans whose fathers fled there to avoid prosecution as war criminals. Given that you can claim you made the Jewish State vulnerable to attacks by Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon Hebz'Allah, Hamas, you may be welcomed and maybe even honored.

I do not think it would be safe for you to immigrate as a war refugee to major nations such as America, England, France, etc. Those hunting you would find you too easily. Whereas in the remote reaches of South America, there will not be too many Jews whose relatives may have been killed in the coming wars against Israel. I know it is unfair to blame you, Livni, Peres, Beilin -- among others for making Israeli cities vulnerable to missile attacks.

Clearly, putting Israeli cities in range of missiles from Hamas in Gaza or Hezb'Allah in the North cannot all be laid at your doorstep. Just because you intend to put Judea and Samaria into the hands of the Arab Muslim Palestinians in a gesture of peace, you cannot be blamed for their placing missiles there.

That you trusted the judgment and commands of Rice and the U.S. State Department to divest the Land from the Jews to the Muslims is not your fault. Any saturation missile attack on Tel Aviv and the entire coastal area from the "west bank" cannot be blamed on you and Kadima.

But, people who lose their loved ones are not always reasonable in their allocations of blame. Better you make an arrangement to take yourselves and all those others who might be blamed for the fall of the Third Temple (so-to-speak) to a place where the hunters and displaced will be unlikely to search.

I am sure there are people who would be glad to host you and try to insure that Yael would not visit you with a tent peg.

However, although you and your cohorts are not concerned with the "Higher Authority" of G-d's Judgement, as many believe He judged Ariel Sharon. Moreover, there is no assurance I can offer that a Peoples' Court may be convened which will seek to judge you, your assembly or even those who serve now as Judges on the Israeli Supreme Court. But, since you yourself are a lawyer, knowledgeable in the ways of court proceedings, and such a history as the French Revolution, you can assess risk far better that I. Those arrangements are entirely in your hands.

Perhaps such preparations to find shelter in another country in a remote wilderness is all unnecessary. I understand that you have arranged Government funding for a deep bunker under your offices that will be nuclear resistant with a tunnel that leads directly to the Ben Gurion airport.

Obviously, you are planning ahead and may not need the aforementioned advice. However, just in case, there will be Jews who survive and wish to judge your regime, an escape tunned is certainly a wise option.

I understand that on Monday last you spoke to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, advising them that it your intention to surrender the entire Golan Heights to Syria on the understanding that this will buy everlasting peace with Syria.

As I recall, the Syrians are deeply committed to ending the existence of Israel and all of her people. Any Israeli soldiers who fell into their hands were tortured, murdered and even mutilated, given their rage was so great. Here again, I am uncertain how the survivors will greet your plans or those who will once again be under the Syrian guns in the low lands below the Heights.

Many will not understand your gesture of "peace" made in preparation for your taking leave of your office. I again congratulate you on your foresight on preparing a deep bunker and an escape route. If, per chance, Ben Gurion Airport is devastated before you can reach your aircraft, you may wish to have a stand-by ship for yourself, your family and those of your entourage who you wish to take to safety.

As I recall, the Catholic Church had developed what came to be known as the "rat-line" while the Red Cross provided passports and visas for high ranking Germans. The Church passed German war criminals from Church to Church. Being Jewish you could go from Shul to Shul.

They, of course, had considerable gold taken from the Jews so they would be welcomed in various countries. I mention this only because the plan worked and, no doubt, was worthy of repeating -- with modifications. In any case, I do not mean to imply that pure judgement and experimenting with the safety of the Jewish nation would necessarily qualify for the appellation of "war criminals".

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Devolin, February 15, 2007.

One might expect from a diplomat like Michael Bell, even a "Senior Scholar on International Diplomacy," the counsel to "guard the status quo." Whether the status quo be fair or the fruit of threats and aggressions, however, should not concern the diplomat. The diplomat, by virtue of definition, is not expected to take sides. Nor should he be expected to provide any sort of denouement to religious contentions between Islam and Judaism. What one does not expect from a diplomat like Michael Bell (unless, of course, you've heard him debate the issue on the CBC) is to read him labelling the Jew's religious aspirations as that of an extremist and those of his Muslim opponent as that of a benign advocate of "a delicate status quo."

I remember reading about Michael Bell being awarded the Alumni Award of Merit from the University of Waterloo. Upon receiving the award he remarked, "In Windsor we grew up with an acceptance of social flexibility and a realization of the need to treat others with dignity. This is a lesson that both sides need to learn in any movement toward a lasting peaceful resolution in the Middle East." Such moral relativism and unctuous denial of the truth of the historical reality of the Middle East is precisely the reason utopian conjurations such as the Jerusalem Project (which has already received $500,000 from the Foreign Affairs Department) will accomplish nothing and remain but a tool the violent and anti-Jewish forces within Islam will exploit in order to, according to their religious agenda, deracinate all presence of Judaism and Jews from the Middle East.

I am a Gentile. I am neither Jew nor Christian. Yet even I can see that all Canadian diplomats and ambassadors, most notably during the Liberal governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, have refused to acknowledge that the presence of a Muslim mosque atop of the Jewish Temple Mount is the result of Islamic aggression and conquest of the region by Umar ibn al-Khattab in 637. This conquest and this history is the basis of the Muslim religious claim to not only the Temple Mount, but also to the entire City of Jerusalem (let's be honest and forthright here, Mr. Bell). Yet when the Jew makes his religious claim to the Temple Mount, a religious claim which long precedes the bloody interpolation of Islam into Jewish history, the Jew is accused of being an "extremist."

As a seasoned diplomat, Mr. Bell should have better manners than to decry the religious Jew for aspiring to actual Jewish history. He should know therefore that to refer to the religious Jew as "ultra-nationalist" as juxtaposed to his neutral definition of religious Muslims as mere "Haram guards" will be interpreted by many Jews of all sects as being slanderous and derogatory. But hey, if you're a recipient of the Alumni Award of Merit and you're the Paul Martin Sr. Chair of International Diplomacy, I guess you are allowed such latitude.

Contact Michael Devolin at devolin@reach.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, February 15, 2007.

i called the white house again today, and politely asked to "please pass a message on to President Bush to please free Jonathan Pollard."

the first operator patched me through to another operator on the comment line, who asked what state i called from, and i told her "North Carolina". then she asked what my comment was and again I said "Please Free Jonathan Pollard. His release is long overdue."

the operator said she would put me down as saying so and thanked me for my call.

i have called the white house many times over the past couple of decades with various comments or other matters, and i can tell you, i have not heart the operator thank me and not the message in such a hurried voice before. this tells me she is hearing a lot of calls, and probably similar messages from more people who care about you, Jonathan.

i hope the more we call, the more they will begin to realize there is an avalanche of love for Jonathan, and that your time to be free once more is at hand.

again, the more we call and nicely ask the President to release Jonathan, the more they must notice all of us calling.

personally, i look forward to calling The White House one day (ASAP Please, HaShem!) and Thanking the Presidnet For Releasing Jonathan Pollard!:)


Yasha H.

Contact Justice For Jonathan Pollard by email at justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Stephen Gill, February 14, 2007.

You are
the softness of the dulcet
that melts the mist in the air
stirs the soul of clouds
pushes down the rain showers
which kiss the dry lips of earth
in the imperishable harmony
that I cherish to drink
from the chalice of your peace.

You are
the wordless sonata
that moves the sharp white beams
of the moon
enriches the blood with food.
In creation
you are a balance.

You are
the luxuriance of the aroma
that runs
in the veins of the enchanted blossoms.
You flower
a fragrant feast around
the flushed cheeks of the horizon
liberate the birds who fly
to receive the ruler retiring
in a strange ceremony.

You are
the beat that echoes
in the breast of the arc.
You muse
in the melody of the falls.

You are
manna on the barren mountain
of baffles
and nirvana
that helps in breaking fetters
of the relentless brutalities.

You are
the ever-growing thirst
that sages seek in every age.
Your abode
ocean's every drop.
You bind the earth and the sky
and rule to relieve
the rusting monotony.

Dr. Stephen Gill is Ansted Poet Laureate, in Cornwall, Ontario, Canada. Contact him at stephengill@cogecoca

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, February 14, 2007.

So even on-the-spot real-time streaming video of the excavations and repairs of the ramp to the mughrabi gate are not sufficient to quell the burning fears of the Muslim world that Israel is creating a danger for al-Aqsa...

...real-time live on TV facts, eye witness reports ... meaningless for the raging masses of Muslims world-wide, some of whom feel that it is just and appropriate to kill Jews in foreign lands because Israel is repairing a ramp and some Muslims, contrary to all evidence and on-site eye witness cameras, feel encroaches upon Muslim sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

This is just another sordid but elucidating example of the by now hackneyed truism: they do not want their state alongside of israel, they want their state instead of israel...and they will keep on finding excuses for terrorism, justifications for war, until they have succeeded in destroying the Jewish state... even if they must do it one jew at a time.

See a presentation of the Mugrabi Gat Project at http://www.honestly-concerned.org/Temporary/MUGRABI-ENG.pps Froom the Israel Antiquities Authority.

This below is from a contributor to Sky News (UK)(feb 14, 2007)

"... video cameras enabling on-line viewing of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) Mugrabi Gate Reconstruction Project are due to go on line tomorrow afternoon (Thursday), 15.2.07, on the IAA website:

The web site includes a video about the Project with an English explanation by IAA Director of Surveys and Excavations Dr. Gideon Avni and two articles under the heading "The Real Story Behind the Mugrabi Ramp." (Communicated by the Israel Antiquities Authority Spokeswoman)

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

to go to top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 14, 2007.

It pains me to tell you this, but Ehud Olmert has actually done something right. Possibly the very first correct thing he has done since becoming prime minister. And it is spectacularly correct!

Olmert has appointed Professor Daniel Friedmann as the new minister of justice. And Professor Friedmann is determined to blow the whistle on the long reign of judicial tyranny imposed on Israel by its anti-democratic judges and by advocates of judicial activism.

First, let's back up a bit. Israeli democracy has for many years been under massive assault by anti-democratic elitists promoting judicial tyranny. Under their doctrine of judicial activism, it is the proper role of unelected judges to trample, trump and override the decisions of the elected representatives of the Israeli people.

Led by previous chief justice Aharon Barak and now by current Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch, the advocates of judicial activism believe leftist judges should dictate to Israel's legislature what laws those lawmakers may or may not make. Accordingly, judges should be empowered simply to make up the law as they go along.

Bear in mind that judges in Israel cannot be removed from the bench through any process of impeachment or ballot referendum. Advocates of non-impeachable activist judges want them to dictate everything in the country, from micro-decisions made by the army to Israel's foreign policy because "absolutely everything should be subject to judicial review" (a favorite Barak slogan).

These people generally want the courts to impose a leftist political agenda on Israel, and that is what judicial activism judges often do. Barak infamously has stated that judges in Israel impose ideas favored by "enlightened opinion," which of course always means the secularist Left. The vast majority of Jewish Israelis hold "unenlightened opinions," according to such snooty elitists.

The Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the government to record homosexual "marriages" that were registered in other countries, and has granted spousal rights and privileges to homosexual couples. The court ruled that there is a constitutional right in Israel to be an importer of non-kosher foods (remarkable, given that Israel has no written constitution at all), but no such right to be an importer of kosher food.

The court has collaborated in the many assaults against free speech and free expression in Israel, assaults invariably directed against the Israeli Right. The court has refused to stop the persecution of anti-Oslo dissidents or to overturn Israel's ridiculous "anti-racism" law, which declares that expressing Kahanist points of view is a felony but cheering on suicide bombers or calling for Israel to be annihilated is protected speech.

A Supreme Court justice, Ayalla Procaccia, last year tossed female teenage settlers into prison for their criticism of government policy at a protest, declaring that the girls were guilty of expressing an unacceptable political opinion. "The message must be made clear that the law will be enforced, at times of calm or at times of crisis, for minors or adults," the judge declared.

Just a few weeks back, hopes for reining in judicial tyranny in Israel seemed bleaker than ever. Professor Ruth Gavison had been a contender for appointment to the Israeli Supreme Court. A longtime champion of civil rights, somewhat left of center and secularist, Gavison nevertheless is a ferocious opponent of judicial activism and would have worked against the activist judges on the bench.

That was enough to arouse the Left against her. In a campaign somewhat reminiscent of the malicious jihad in the U.S. against the nomination of Yale Professor Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, the Israeli Left mobilized its shock troops against the Gavison appointment and it was shot down.

Meanwhile, Dorit Beinisch took over as chief justice when her mentor Aharon Barak retired. Beinisch used the occasion of her accession to praise Barak's judicial activism and promised to conduct more of the same Like Barak, she believes the court is entitled to revoke and cancel laws passed by the Knesset, supposedly as part of "judicial review." Never mind that there is no constitutional basis in Israel for such judicial review.

The distinguished Robert Bork mentioned above is on record as declaring that Israel's Supreme Court is the very worst in the democratic world in terms of ignoring checks and balances and in its promotion of judicial activism. He wrote: "Israel must have the most activist, and from my point of view, the worst court in the Western world. They have developed an intrusive, pervasive constitutional law without really having a Constitution. Now that's hard to do, but they've managed it and they have managed to get themselves in a position where they, in effect, control the membership of their own court."

Tel Aviv law don Daniel Friedmann is both a man of principle and a man of conservative legal principles. Politically he is a centrist. He was one of the people who served on the Beijski Commission in the 1980's, set up after the bank share scandal of 1983. That commission recommended a program of critical economic reforms that the political hacks largely ignored.

Educated at the Hebrew University and Harvard, Friedmann strongly opposes judicial tyranny and is dead serious about reining it in. He wants to end the system under which the Israeli commission for appointing judges acts as a rubber stamp for candidates supported by the judges already on the Supreme Court. He wants to create a constitutional court that will strip the Supreme Court of its powers of judicial review of laws. He wants to change the system under which the chief justice of the Supreme Court is selected.

In short, he wants to appoint judges who will actually obey the law, an idea quite novel in Israel.

Professor Friedmann was one of those jurists who vehemently opposed the appointment of Beinisch as chief justice, repeatedly declaring his position that she is not competent or qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Beinisch had personally led an earlier successful campaign against the appointment of Professor Nili Cohen as a Supreme Court judge. Friedmann was the country's leading promoter of Cohen for the post and accused Beinisch of blocking the appointment for petty personal reasons. "It appears the justices are not immune to the possibility of misusing power, as the developments in the process of appointing judges has proven," he wrote.

All judges in Israel are appointed by a Judicial Selection Committee, which is currently made up of three Supreme Court justices, two ministers (including the minister of justice), two Knesset members, and two members of the Israel Bar Association. Once a judge is appointed, it is all but impossible to get him or her dismissed. Dismissals can take place when the chief justice leads the campaign against a judge -- and not always then.

In reality, the committee usually rubber stamps what the Supreme Court justices, who dominate it, want. Hence, appointment of judges in Israel effectively consists of unelected judges dictating which other unelected judges will sit on the bench.

Under Friedmann's proposals, the Judicial Selection Committee will be revamped. Only a single sitting judge will be a member. The others will be representatives of the public and the voters, and they will be in a position to flex their muscles against judicial abuse.

And the Israeli Left is simply hysterical about that. Israel's leftist Haaretz has been overflowing with outraged articles opposing Friedmann. One Haaretz writer compared the appointment of Friedmann to a hypothetical appointment of convicted traitor Tali Fahima as head of the Shin Bet intelligence service. (The comparison is amusing since Haaretz has long served as cheerleader for Fahima and would probably support her appointment as head of the Shin Bet if it were to take place.)

Meanwhile, the leftist apparatchik and godmother of the Oslo debacle, Yossi Beilin, had a public fit when he heard the news of Friedmann's appointment. Far-left Meretz Knesset member and Peace Now leader Avshalom Vilan raged in the press at the fact that an academic, not a political hack, was being appointed -- someone the Left would have difficult in bullying into political compliance.

A retired Supreme Court Justice and advocate of judicial activism, Mishael Cheshin, openly threatened Professor Friedmann with violence, promising to "cut off the arm of anyone who raises a hand against the court."

The Israeli law enforcement system has long been little more than the occupied territory of the Israeli Left. The attorney general does little to hide his political agenda when he makes decisions about investigations and indictments.

Friedmann's appointment upsets this cozy undemocratic arrangement and threatens to strip the Left of its unelected de facto domination by democratizing Israel's legal system. And that's the first piece of really good news in Israel in quite a while.

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 or write him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il This appeared in the Jewish Press and is archived in
www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20684/ The_End_Of_Judicial_Tyranny_In_Israel%3F.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 14, 2007.

This essay comes from the Middle East Logic website, run by Yoni Tidi (www.yonitheblogger.com/2007/02/middle_east_logic.html). Yoni wrote:

Mugrabi bridge built for attack on mosque, Salah says

Sheikh Ra'ed Salah accuses Israel of building synagogue near Temple Mount; says bridge to enable military attack on mosque. Israel is conquering al-Aqsa mosque by force, he says

This article was written by Roee Nahmias and appeared yesterday in Israel National News.

The Israeli works near the al-Aqsa Mosque are meant as a direct attack on the holy Muslim site, Sheikh Ra'ed Salah of the Islamic Movement stated Tuesday.

"The purpose of the excavations is to build a synagogue in the very location of the Al-Buraq Mosque, and the bridge is meant to enable military vehicles and trucks access to the mosque, for an attack on the Temple Mount," he said.

"Israel is conquering the al-Aqsa mosque by force," Salah charged, "and that is why it is our duty to emphasize that no Israeli institute has sovereignty over the al-Aqsa Mosque, or over holy Jerusalem. We stress that if the Israeli establishment moves one particle of the sacred mosque, this will be a crime."

Salah accused Israel of building the bridge with the intention of using it to shift military forces into the mosque. "They plan to build a massive bridge that will enable 300 soldiers to enter the mosque simultaneously, and I have a document to attest to that." he said.

"The bridge will be strong enough to hold the military vehicles of the Israeli occupation, and bulldozers and trucks. So I ask: does this not mean that the bridge is a prelude to an Israeli attack on al-Aqsa?" he added.

Sheikh Ra'ed Salah stated all of this today in Israel.

300 soldiers will be able to enter the al-Aqsa simultaneously, this is his biggest fear?

This is so Middle East on his part he is so worked up with conspiracy worries that he can't even use his own brain to figure something out.

Last Friday when Arabs rioted on the Temple Mount over 300 police officers entered the Temple Mount and if they had desired they could have seized the al-Asqa mosque. They could have held the mosque as long as Israel wanted to and we could even have placed exsplosives through out the mosque and turned it from an eye sore to a pile of ruble.

But Israel did not do so.

Welcome to the Middle East where the only logic one side can see is the logic of conspiracy theories and of turning their children into suicide bombers.

This is why their will never be and can never be peace in the Middle East. If only the culturally blind west and the stupid Israeli leadership can understand who we are dealing with.

Then the west and Israel can fight for our survival and should I say, victory.

Contact Avodah at Avoda15@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, February 14, 2007.

The writer is Carol Gould, a documentary maker and writer. Her book 'Spitfire Girls' is about the women pilots of WWII. She is Editor of 'Current Viewpoint' and recently appeared on BBC Radio's 'Any Questions?' hosted by Jonathan Dimbleby. This comes from yesterday's http://www.currentviewpoint.com:80/ and is called "A View on Jewish Tradition."

Today the United Nations released a report compiled by UNICEF on the wellbeing of the world's children living in developed countries.

Reading the grim results that highlighted the bottom-end listing of British and American children, I was reminded of an incident several years ago at an interfaith retreat in Cambridge, England.

A delightful and enlightened group of scholars, clergy and ordinary folk had gathered at the university to spend a weekend discussing the relative values of Judaism and Christianity in our Hollywood-dominated and reality-TV saturated modern world.

No sooner had the first session started than an elderly Christian woman said 'I do think it is appalling that Jewish children are subjected to that ghastly Bar-mitzvah ritual, or whatever they call it.' I challenged her. She said 'Imagine subjecting little boys and girls to years of studying Hebrew and wasting their youthful energies to learn something for a one-day event!' I said this was a tradition going back centuries and she snapped, 'They should be playing sport!'

What a start for what was meant to be a congenial weekend of Jewish-Christian interplay and reflection. Immediately the Jews in the group had been put on the defensive about an aspect of Jewish life and tradition that unites the otherwise discordant Orthodox and Reform movements. Bar, and more recently Bat-mitzvah are central to the life of most Jewish families and to the spiritual and intellectual development of their children.

When the British toddler Jamie Bulger was brutally murdered by a pair of teenagers there was much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing about the depths to which the youth of the nation had sunk since the end of World War II. Orthodox Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks said on national television that if children observe the Ten Commandments they will never go astray. It seemed a naïve approach at the time, but the UNICEF results raise the question of societal morals and how they affect children.

Jewish family life is unique. Except for a small minority family is central to the traditions and eating together is an integral part of the process of maturity. In the huge majority of Jewish homes meals are times for lively discussion and interplay. Because alcohol has a minimal presence in the life of Jews meals are civilised and often thought-provoking affairs. I would wager that in Muslim, Hindu and Far Eastern homes this is true as well, because the elderly and one's parents are central to the life of the family.

Jews have been sitting down to Shabbat dinner for thousands of years. The Passover Seder has been an annual feature of life in even the most secular of Jewish homes for centuries, as is the Rosh Hashanah meal and the break of Fast on Yom Kippur. What Jewish child can forget the first time they found the 'Afikomen' on Passover night? Who has not decorated a Sukkah or carried a little baby scroll on Simchat Torah? Even my secular Jewish friends and family never forget to light Chanukah candles for the week of that inspiring, ancient festival, nor do they fail to light Yahrzeit candles in honour of the dead.

I remember having a furious row with a friend whilst on holiday, when it transpired that she and the others she had arranged for us to meet at the hotel spent the entire week imbibing in endless gallons of alcohol. When I complained to her that there was more to life than being drunk and swearing in public, she tore into me about my uptight nonsense. My mind moved to her daughter, who had already been suffering liver trouble from alcohol abuse, a grim reminder of the role-model pattern of the worst sort.

It would be foolish to assume that religious practice automatically keeps children away from drugs or that strong family tradition keeps them sober. Chabad, the Orthodox relief movement, has a DrugsLine and is collaborating with the London Muslim community to combat youth substance abuse. What I am proposing is that British parents re-establish the bonds that held families together and if religion is not part of their lives, pressure the government to provide better sports and arts facilities around the country.

Notwithstanding the hideous press Israel gets in the UK, Jewish children benefit from wonderful, character-building trips to the Holy Land where they work in punishing conditions as volunteers on kibbutzim, in soup kitchens ( yes, there are thousands of poor Jews in Israel) and old age communities. Israeli youngsters, male and female, all have to do army service.

There are many youth organisations that cater to every political viewpoint in the worldwide Jewish community. From Habomin Dror on the Left to Betar on the Right Jewish children are afforded the opportunity to belong to groups that raise money for charities and teach character-building. At Hillel House and Jewish Ys around the world young people can join B'nai 'B'rith Youth, Netzer, Chabad and other worthy organisations that keep them out of harm's way.

In the Diaspora ( Jewish communities outside Israel) Jewish children are encouraged to study for Confirmation after their bar or bat mitzvah. Again, this is a goal that builds self-confidence and the discipline to study. How many British children know a second language? Most Jewish children do, because they study Hebrew from the time they are ten or so.

In South Africa the two schools in which black children have been excelling are those funded and run by the Jewish community, the Mitzvah and MC Weiler. Rabbi Weiler was a Holocaust survivor who devoted his life to bettering the chances of black children in apartheid South Africa. Funds were raised for these schools through the tireless efforts of the Hadassah women.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council UK can rail and rant all it wants about 'Zionazis,' and British Respect Party activist Yvonne Ridley can fulminate about 'that vile little nation,' but it is Israeli charities like ORT and Hadassah that have provided invaluable educational aids to children around the world regardless of their faith. The late ex-Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, wanted to see every child in Africa literate and productive with a career ahead of them. So much for the evils of 'Zionazis' condemned by the Muslim websites these days.

British children whose lives are less than pleasant, as described in the UNICEF report, seem to suffer from the evils of alcohol, drugs and delinquency. One of the elements that I believe has contributed to the decline of the wellbeing of children in the USA and UK is the absence of the mother. Women of my generation have put careers first; I do remember my resentment when my mother, a teacher, seemed more interested in the children in her class than in my own academic results.

Then there is the church. I was disappointed that UNICEF's findings put American children at the near-bottom of their league table. One of the aspects of American life that does not exist in Britain is the domination of organised religion. Pretty much everyone goes to church, and most Jews go to synagogue. Church activity has helped black children with careers in recent years. Christian Britain is secular and religion is treated with universal contempt by the media, alongside a worship of atheist gurus led by Dr Richard Dawkins. In both countries, one deeply religious and one relentlessly secular, it is regrettable that children are not experiencing wellbeing, according to UNICEF.

In the Jewish model the entire ethos in which the family evolves is a core factor in the success of Jewish children in society and their relative absence from the world of anti-social behaviour, alcohol and drug abuse and early-age sex and pregnancy. To bring pride to one's family and not to shame them is essential to Jewish life. To read, be well educated, to stay sober and dine with one's elders is almost a religion in itself.

I have had my share of verbal abuse for decades from people who hate Jews and Israel. Perhaps the wider community in Britain, greeted by this appalling result from UNICEF, might look to the Jewish community for guidance instead of wasting so much energy on boycotts of Israel and anti-Semitic epithets.

How sad that the rabbi of a central London synagogue, herself a convert from Christianity, recently told the congregation that she and her colleagues can no longer walk down a street in the West End wearing a skullcap without abuse from passersby, car drivers and diners in outdoor cafes.

Those shouting the abuse are more than likely the parents of the bottom-of the-league children in the UNICEF study. Perhaps instead of spewing venom at Jews they might like to start learning what makes good Jewish kids tick and why they lead decent lives.

The UNICEF result is a disgrace and should set British parents thinking. Visiting a synagogue and meeting Jewish parents might be a worthwhile start. Sending their children to Israel for a gap year would also be a valuable exercise, although the Israeli authorities would not tolerate the kind of rowdy drunkenness, violence and promiscuity in which British youth engage at home. This will never happen, because I know to my horror how much most British non-Jews hate Israel, a country for which only the ugliest comments are reserved at 'polite' dinner parties.

Learning from other communities is the only way British parents can pull their children out of the hell the UNICEF study has revealed. I would like to see the Jewish community reach out to non-Jews and I would also like to see the British Christian clergy find a way back into the soul of Britain, a country I see sinking into a secular morass of alcohol and vulgarity that can only bring down its children with it if something drastic is not done now.

Contact Simon McIlwaine by email at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk or go to www.anglicansforisrael

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 14, 2007.


Min. of Strategic Planning Lieberman predicts renewed major war with the P.A. He estimated that it would take 30,000 NATO troops to maintain there what Israel's war effort will have accomplished (IMRA, 1/13).

Presumably he means by "accomplished" a reduction in terrorist infrastructure. What makes him think that NATO, which prefers the Arabs to Israel, would try to tamp down the terrorists they have been subsidizing? UNIFIL did not keep Hizbullah from rearming for another round of warfare expected within a year of the prior round. How long does he think those troops would stay, after being attacked by terrorists? Israel needs a new Minister of Strategic Planning.


"...Leftist anti-Zionists on the faculty of Tel Aviv University... were planning an 'academic conference'" about imprisoned Arab terrorists being "'political prisoners', deserving of sympathy and support."

Ben Dror Yemini, deputy editor of Maariv points out that human rights organizations use the language of human rights to undermine Israel and freedom. "Progressives" pretend they are being understanding, when they rationalize the murderous behavior of terrorists. They abuse academic freedom to advocate this kind of hate-jihad just as do Holocaust deniers. The conference is a means of forwarding an antisemitic agenda. It is a form of insanity, a death wish (Prof. Steven Plault, 1/14), a hatred of their Jewish identity.

American Jews do not realize that many Israeli social sciences professors are anti-Zionists, prefer the enemy, and influence the government.


Bedouin gangs in cooperation with terrorists from the Hebron hills are stealing agricultural equipment from Jewish-owned farms in the Negev. Police do not offer protection. The horse and tractor of Shai Dromi had been stolen in the past few months and several dogs of his were killed. Anticipating further theft, he slept in the barn. He awoke at 3 a.m., and found his dog poisoned and four thieves on his property. (One had been released from jail last month.) With his father's gun, he shot two in the legs. Although he administered first aid, one bled to death. The government charged him with murder, misuse of a weapon, and firing it in a built-up area. (His farm, "built up?") A Likud MK wants to make self-defense, by law, self-defense. (Arutz-7, 1/14). The US has some similar laws against shooting. It goes beyond preventing property owners from being excessively violent to protecting criminals.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, February 14, 2007.

This was written by Michael Coren and it is appeared on the Media Net
( 070213/NPT/070213c3.htm). Michael Coren is a writer and broadcaster.www.michaelcoren.com.

The Israel-Palestine conflict presented its contorted face to Canada with a steaming, hysterical anger last week. In Jerusalem a bus full of unsuspecting Canadian tourists was attacked by rock wielding Palestinian youths. No Canadians were seriously injured, yet the attack itself was ironic, in that Christian tourists from North America are vital to the local economy, and to the Palestinians in particular. But then irrational behaviour is nothing new in the Middle East. In this instance, however, it has reached new heights.

Palestinians and their Muslim comrades in other countries have turned to violence in the wake of Israel's construction work around the Temple Mount. They complain that the Israelis are rebuilding a ramp that connects to the Mount and that, in so doing, are damaging the foundations beneath the al-Aqsa Mosque. It's all part of a conspiracy, they claim, to destroy the Mosque and build a Jewish temple in its place.

It is almost impossible to convey the dramatic juxtapositions of clashing religions in Jerusalem. The last remaining icon of the ancient Jewish Temple, the Kotel, the Wailing Wall, is at the very epicentre of Judaism. It is also close to the spot where a series of Muslim shrines and Mosques have been built to commemorate the third holiest place in Islam. So Jewish and Muslim worshippers are just, well, a stone's throw from each other.

If the geography is intense, the history is equally so. The Israelites under King David conquered Jerusalem around 1000 BC and rebuilt and expanded the city. David's son Solomon built the great Jewish Temple and it stood for half a millennium until destroyed by the Babylonians.

It was rebuilt and remained in place until the Roman defeat of the Jewish uprising in 70 AD. Jerusalem later became a largely Christian city until Muslim forces arrived, very much as latecomers, in 638 AD. Shortly afterwards Caliph Umar asked the Christian Patriarch, Sophronius, to show him the exact spot of the Jewish Temple. It was here that the al-Aqsa Mosque would be built.

Not, however, according to the Palestinian leadership. There was no Temple, there was no case of Jesus overturning the tables of the money-changers, there were no Jews. "For 34 years the Israelis have dug tunnels around the Temple Mount," said Yasser Arafat in 2002. "They found not a single stone proving that the Temple of Solomon was there, because historically the Temple was not in Palestine." This is the mythology driving the stone-wielding Palestinians and it is propagated by others as well.

In 2001 the Higher Islamic Authority of Palestine stated, "The claims being made by the rulers of Israel and its rabbis about the alleged Temple are pure fabrications without any base or foundation." This nonsense has been repeated by the Mufti of Jerusalem and within universities and newspapers throughout the Arab world.

In spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, many in the Muslim world refuse to accept that the Jews have any historical claim to live in Israel and continue to deny that the Temple of Jewish, Christian and secular history ever existed. In other words, the world is flat if it suits one's political purposes.

So the fact that Israeli engineers are repairing a ramp close to a mosque is largely irrelevant. Especially when Israel's archaeologists are world-renowned for their expertise and sensitivity. Even the harshest critics of Israeli policy do not question the fairness of the excavations that have taken place in the Holy Land for 50 years.

Israel took possession all of Jerusalem in 1967, and for the first time in centuries the Jewish people had full access to their holy places. Under Jordanian control, Jewish shrines had been systematically desecrated. Even now the Islamic authorities on Temple Mount have a dreadful record of destroying ancient Jewish artifacts that they find.

Political dialogue and religious understanding can only come about when politics is not hyperbole, and religion is not used as a tool for lies and mythology. To deny Jewish history is to deny the Jewish state. To deny history is to deny truth. To deny truth is to invite disaster. Canadians had a first-hand glimpse of this ongoing Palestinian disaster last week.

The Daily Alert is prepared for the Conference of presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). Contact them at daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by British Ahwazi Friendship Society, February 14, 2007.

The Iranian regime executed three Ahwazi Arabs this morning at a prison in Ahwaz.

The killing of Ghasem Salami (Salamat), 41 years old from Ahwaz City and married with 6 children, Majad Albughbish, 30 years old from Maashur (Mahshahr) and Abdolreza Sanawati (Zergani), 34 years old and married from Ahwaz City, will bring the number of executions of Ahwazi Arabs in the past two months to 10.

The Iranian regime has ignored international outcry over the executions. According to Iranian and international human rights activists, all 10 men were tried in secret courts with no access to lawyers on dubious charges and little evidence. This has prompted governments and politicians in Europe and UN officials to condemn the trials and executions.

Two weeks ago, the Presidency of the European Council -- currently held by the German government -- called on the Iranian regime to halt the executions of the three men to allow them a fair trial. It also condemned the execution of four Ahwazi men on 24 January. The statement was backed by all the governments of the European Union as well as Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Ukraine and Moldova (click here to download the statement).

In the UK, 49 Members of Parliament signed an Early Day Motion condemning the execution of 10 men. The EDM -- backed by a broad spectrum of MPs -- noted the persecution of Ahwazi Arabs and backed complaints by human rights organisations over the nature of the trials and the use of torture to extract false confessions (click here to download the EDM).

UN condemnation

European condemnation of the Iranian regime follows serious allegations by three UN independent human rights experts that the trials of 10 Ahwazi men -- including seven who have been executed since early December -- were seriously flawed. Philip Alston (Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions), Leandro Despouy (Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers) and Manfred Nowak (Special Rapporteur on torture) urged the Iranian Government to "stop the imminent execution of seven men belonging to the Ahwazi Arab minority and grant them a fair and public hearing".

The experts state that the 10 men were not allowed to see the defendants prior to their trial, and were given access to the prosecution case only hours before the start of the trial. The lawyers were also intimidated by charges of "threatening national security" being brought against them. The convictions were reportedly based on confessions extorted under torture. "The only element of the cases of these men not shrouded in secrecy was the broadcast on public television of their so-called confessions", Mr. Nowak said.

The Iranian regime has ignored letters sent by the three special rapporteurs. The executions of three of the men were staged in December, with no regard for the strong concerns expressed on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council.

Iran is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and has a legal obligation to respect its provisions, which include the right to a fair and public hearing, the right not to be compelled to confess guilt, and the right to "adequate time and facilities for the preparation of ones defence" with the assistance of a lawyer of ones own choosing.

Condemnation inside Iran

Ahwazi Arab activists point out that the executions broke Islamic laws which forbid killing during the month of Moharam.

Iranian human rights activists, led by prisoners rights activist Emad Baghi, have also voiced their criticism of the conduct of the trials and the executions. In an interview this week with the Netherlands-based Radio Zamaneh, Baghi said the Iranian regime should admit that the executions were a mistake. He claimed the men "did nothing and did not take part in any explosion" and therefore the executions were against the law.

"They did not have access to lawyer," Baghi added. "They were kept in solitary confinement for months. They did not receive a fair trial. Only four [out of 40 alleged terrorists] were connected directly to the bombings and the rest are not connected."

Baghi said the root causes of unrest among Ahwazi Arabs are poverty and unequal distribution of wealth. He told Radio Zamaneh: "Government policies are wrong. The Arabs do not have good housing, healthy drinking water, electricity and live in poverty, although they live on top of oil reserves. They are also barred from working for the government."

British Ahwazi Friendship Society is a group of Iranian-Arab exiles, living in Great Britain. Contact them at their website: www.ahwaz.org.uk or by email at info@ahwaz.org.uk For latest news on Al-Ahwaz: http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/news.htm

[Editor's note: As one reliable UK source wrote: "They are the British branch of the Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz. They push a local autonomy scheme in Iran rather than outright separation. They are not for jihad against Britain and the rest of the West. In fact, they're often fairly pro-West. They're not much of threat here[UK], as far as we know: their beef is all about stuff in Iran, and they hate the mullahs.

" They're not part of the Islamic Reformist coalition (the Lejnat Al-Wefaq, mentioned in the article, was until 2005) and they're not the Iranian-Arab Ba'athists who worked for Saddam Hussein. They didn't have any direct hand in the riots and bombings in Khuzistan in the summer of 2005 -- the arrests and executions mentioned in the article may have as much to do with that as with winning elections. They have a project called the UNPO, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. It purports to be a UN for ethnic groups that don't have their own nation-state but to get in, you have to not have an armed wing."]

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, February 14, 2007.

Are we giving Egypt a 'pass'? Though in flagrante delicto on the phildelphi corridor, Egypt is little referenced in the Western press, and that may be a tragic error. For almost every dollar Israel has received in US foreign aid since the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, Egypt received 90% of the same amount -- which they spent on ARMS, not for the welfare of their people. Egypt ranked as the third-largest purchaser of arms in the entire developing world, following only population giants China and India. It has the 10th-largest standing army in the world, well over twice the size of Israel's.

Feb. 13, 2007 A member of the Egyptian parliament, from the same party as Hosni Moubarak, has announced that dropping of just one atomic bomb could stop Israel from continuing to dig tunnels near the entrance to Mugrbi Gate and the Al Aqsa Mosque. (Guysen.Israël.News)


1-3> Background to yesterday's heightened, inflammatory rhetoric -- The Israel-Egypt [Sadat-Begin] Peace Treaty of 1979

4> June 30, 2006 NY Sun Tearing up peace with Egypt

5> Daniel Pipes -- Time to recognize the failure of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel

6> Brief Blog entry

1> Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty

Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty was signed in Washington, DC, United States, on March 26, 1979, following the Camp David Accords (1978). The main features of the treaty were the mutual recognition of each country by the other, the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and the withdrawal by Israel of its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. The agreement also provided for the free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and recognition of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as international waterways.

· The agreement notably made Egypt the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel. Jordan would follow in 1994 with the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace.

· The peace treaty was signed sixteen months after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel in 1978 after intense negotiation. Even after the landmark Camp David agreements, there was no certainty that a treaty would be signed. Egypt was under intense pressure from Arab countries not to sign a separate peace treaty. Prime Minister of Israel Menahem Begin was refusing to allow any framework for realistic negotiations about Palestinian independence for autonomy.

· In a separate Israel-US Memorandum of Agreement, concluded on the same day, the United States 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. Egypt also subsequently received US military and financial aid.

· The treaty proposed a linkage between peace with Egypt and Palestinian autonomy that was never implemented in practice.


· The agreement notably made Egypt the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel. Jordan would follow in 1994 with the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace.

· The peace treaty was signed sixteen months after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel in 1978 after intense negotiation. Even after the landmark Camp David agreements, there was no certainty that a treaty would be signed. Egypt was under intense pressure from Arab countries not to sign a separate peace treaty. Prime Minister of Israel Menahem Begin was refusing to allow any framework for realistic negotiations about Palestinian independence for autonomy.

· In a separate Israel-US Memorandum of Agreement, concluded on the same day, the United States 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. Egypt also subsequently received US military and financial aid. · The treaty proposed a linkage between peace with Egypt and Palestinian autonomy that was never implemented in practice.

2>What was the Israel-Egypt Peace Agreement of 1979?

The Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978 led to a negotiated peace between those two nations, signed in Washington DC on March 26, 1979, the first between Israel and any of its Arab neighbors. Israel had a consistent policy since its founding in 1948 that called for direct, one-to-one negotiations as the method of resolving disputes with the Arab countries, but until Sadat brought Egypt to the table no Arab country had been willing to even talk to Israel.

Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for their historic agreements. However, the initiative was far from universally popular in other Arab countries or even Sadat's own country, Egypt. Other Arab nations, and especially the Palestinians, saw Egypt's agreement with Israel as a stab in the back, leaving them weaker and with less bargaining leverage against Israel. Without Egypt, the "united Arab front" had no credibility. Sadat became isolated in the Arab world and increasingly unpopular at home, conditions that finally led to his assassination in 1981.

The Israel-Egypt peace treaty was signed in Washington on March 26, 1979. It contains nine articles, a military annex, an annex dealing with the relation between the parties, agreed minutes interpreting the main articles of the treaty, among them Article 6, the withdrawal schedule, exchange of ambassadors, security arrangements and the agreement relating to the autonomy talks. The latter issue was contained in a letter addressed by President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin to President Carter.

In a separate Israel-US Memorandum of Agreement, dated the same day, 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.

The terms of the treaty required both countries to stop all hostile activity and demilitarize the Sinai. Israel withdrew to the pre-1967 border, giving up military bases, settlements, roads and other infrastructure as well as the Sinai oil fields. Israel, which had repeatedly been the target of shipping blockades, military assaults, and terrorist attacks staged from the Sinai, made far greater economic and strategic sacrifices in giving up Sinai than Egypt did in "normalizing" relations with Israel.

A permanent international border was established between the two countries. Furthermore, a process of normalization began, including exchange of diplomatic representatives and mutual agreements in the areas of trade, economy, tourism and mail.

Since the signing of the treaty, Egypt has stood by its commitments, even after President Sadat was assassinated by Muslim extremists. The Israel-Egypt peace pact was denounced by all other Arab states and no further progress was made toward an end the Israel-Arab conflict until the Madrid Conference in 1991.

In longer retrospect, the terms of the treaty can be seen to have set an unfortunate precedent. Egypt had been an aggressor against Israel four times and had lost four times. Israel was the country that had been attacked four times and had won four times. But under the peace treaty, Israel returned to the aggressor, Egypt, everything the aggressor had lost. This had never been done before in the long history of warfare between nations, and is very bad policy because it makes aggression a "no lose" bet for the aggressor country. The Israel-Egypt agreement set expectations for all the later peace negotiations between Israel and the Arab countries that have repeatedly tried to destroy it, not to mention the Palestinian Arabs, so they are all looking for the same style of "no lose" treaty.

3>Link to the Israel Government site with the FULL TEXT OF THE treaty:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace %20Process/Israel-Egypt%20Peace%20Treaty

4>Tearing Up Peace With Egypt?
NY Sun June 30, 2006

"An Israeli 'war on all fronts' drew a rare warning from Egypt on Thursday that the military escalation jeopardizes a peace treaty with Israel as the Arab League held an emergency session to discuss the crisis," Lebanon's Daily Star reports (via dailyalert.org)."

Mustafa al-Fekki, a senior member of President Hosni Mubarak's ruling party, was referring to the peace treaty Egypt signed with Israel in 1979. Some in Israel may wonder what Israel has really gained from peace with Egypt. It's a "cold peace," with minimum contact and trade between the two sides. Meantime Egypt gained huge military and other aid packages from America and Israel gave up oil deposits in the land she gave to Egypt.

5>Time To Recognize Failure Of Israel-Egypt Treaty
By Daniel Pipes
November 21, 2006

Ninety-two percent of respondents in a recent poll of 1,000 Egyptians over the age of 18 called Israel an enemy state. In contrast, a meager 2% saw Israel as "a friend to Egypt."

These hostile sentiments express themselves in many ways, including a popular song titled "I Hate Israel," venomously anti-Semitic political cartoons, bizarre conspiracy theories, and terrorist attacks against visiting Israelis. Egypt's leading democracy movement, Kifaya, recently launched an initiative to collect a million signatures on a petition demanding the annulment of the March 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.

Also, the Egyptian government has permitted large quantities of weapons to be smuggled into Gaza to use against Israeli border towns. An Israeli legislator specializing in Egypt-Israel relations, Yuval Steinitz, has estimated that fully 90% of PLO and Hamas explosives come from Egypt.

Cairo may have no apparent enemies, but the impoverished Egyptian state sinks massive resources into a military buildup. According to the Congressional Research Service, Egypt purchased $6.5 billion worth of foreign weapons in 2001-04, more than any other state in the Middle East. In contrast, the Israeli government bought only $4.4 billion worth during that period, and the Saudis $3.8 billion.

Egypt ranked as the third-largest purchaser of arms in the entire developing world, following only population giants China and India. It has the 10th-largest standing army in the world, well over twice the size of Israel's. 6>BLOG 'Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty is a Failure'
November 21, 2006
Posted by Daniel Freedman in NY Sun at November 21, 2006 6:45 AM

"The time has come to recognize the Egypt-Israel treaty -- usually portrayed as the glory and ornament of Arab-Israel diplomacy -- as the failure it has been, and to draw the appropriate lessons in order not to repeat its mistakes," Daniel Pipes writes in The New York Sun. He's not the first to see it as a failure, as we wrote in June:

Some in Israel may wonder what Israel has really gained from peace with Egypt. It's a "cold peace," with minimum contact and trade between the two sides. Meantime Egypt gained huge military and other aid packages from America and Israel gave up oil deposits in the land she gave to Egypt.

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Nathan, February 13, 2007.

Bosnian Muslim goes on a killing spree in US mall

Police have identified the victims shot at Trolley Square on Monday, as well as the man believed to be the shooter.

Killed were Jeffrey Walker, 52; Vanessa Quinn, 29; Teresa Ellis, 29; Brad Frantz, 24; and Kirsten Hinckley, 15.

Hospitalized were Allen Walker, 16, son of Jeffrey Walker; Carolyn Tuft, 44; Shawn Munns, 34; and Stacy Hansen, 53.

The 18-year-old man who shot and killed at least five people Monday night has been identified as Sulejmen Talovic, a Bosnian refugee who lived in Salt Lake City.

Little additional information was released about Talovic.

The Bosnian community, which numbers about 3,000 in Utah, planned a news conference later this afternoon.

Talovic parked his car in the west parking lot and walked into the mall, encountering two people, whom he shot. Then he walked further into the mall and shot a woman, said Police Chief Chris Burbank.

He then walked to a gift shop and shot five people. He shot several other people before he was gunned down by an off-duty Ogden police officer assisted by four Salt Lake City police officers, Burbank said.

He had a backpack that carried numerous rounds of ammunition as well as a .38-caliber handgun, said the chief.

Police have no motive in the killing.

Police have no motive?!? That is laughable and plain stupid on the part of US authorites, but since they are getting their lessons from CAIR these types of events and lack of motive (especially when it comes to a Moslem) will become more regular...

Daniel Pipes has identified the problem, it is known as SUDDEN JIHAD SYNDROME:

In brief, Taheri-azar represents the ultimate Islamist nightmare: a seemingly well-adjusted Muslim whose religion inspires him, out of the blue, to murder non-Muslims. Taheri-azar acknowledged planning his jihad for over two years, or during his university sojourn. It's not hard to imagine how his ideas developed, given the coherence of Islamist ideology, its immense reach (including a Muslim Student Association at UNC), and its resonance among many Muslims.

Were Taheri-azar unique in his surreptitious adoption of radical Islam, one could ignore his case, but he fits into a widespread pattern of Muslims who lead quiet lives before turning to terrorism. Their number includes the 9/11 hijackers, the London transport bombers, and Maher Hawash, the Intel engineer arrested before he could join the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Mohammed Ali Alayed, the Saudi living in Houston fits, the pattern because he stabbed and murdered Ariel Sellouk, a Jewish man who was his one-time friend. So do some converts to Islam; who suspected Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman, would turn up in Iraq as a suicide bomber throwing herself against an American military base?

This is what I have dubbed the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims. Who knows whence the next jihadi? How can one be confident a law-abiding Muslim will not suddenly erupt in a homicidal rage? Yes, of course, their numbers are very small, but they are disproportionately much higher than among non-Muslims.

This syndrome helps explain the fear of Islam and mistrust of Muslims that polls have shown on the rise since 9/11.

The Muslim response of denouncing these views as bias, as the "new anti-Semitism," or "Islamophobia" is as baseless as accusing anti-Nazis of "Germanophobia" or anti-Communists of "Russophobia." Instead of presenting themselves as victims, Muslims should address this fear by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of "infidels."

Contact David Nathan at daveNathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 13, 2007.

Where Your Money Must Not Go!

One place it must NOT go is where the goals of developing Jewish communities, encouraging aliya, and promote Jewish continuity, with Israel as the linchpin are NOT preserved.

Mossawa (Advocacy center promoting equality for Arab citizens within the borders of Israel) is funded indirectly by the Jewish Agency. However Mossawa is committed to eliminating Jewish communities, encouraging aliya, and promote Jewish continuity, with Israel as the linchpin.

Watch to whom you are donation your hard earned dollars and if you do donate, watch what they do with it! When a mutual fund adviser does not follow an investment policy that accords with his or her clients' intentions, there is a breach of trust that can bring about a lawsuit.

It is time for Jewish donors who wish Israel to remain a Jewish state as well as a democracy to scrutinize the actions of their investment professionals and their investments.

Just remember: Jews established Israel with Jewish money to be a Jewish State, not multiculturalism state and a branch of Islam!

This was written by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, who is president of the Zionist Organization of America, Greater Philadelphia District. It appeared in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1170359851104&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

Some of the money mainstream Jewish donors think is being used to help preserve Israel as the Jewish homeland is actually being used to undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

Most American and other Jews use Jewish Federations as a kind of mutual fund adviser, which makes decisions about and invests their donors' funds in programs they have vetted and determined to be in accordance with the donors' wishes. In turn, most Federations channel funds designated for Israel programs through the Jewish Agency for Israel.

(A very few, such as the Federation in Philadelphia, independently decide which programs in Israel to fund.) JAFI acts as a second-tier investment adviser for Israel programs.

Three of the principal goals of JAFI are to develop Jewish communities in the Galilee and the Negev, encourage aliya, and promote Jewish continuity, with Israel as the linchpin. All three of those goals, however, would be considered illegitimate colonizing enterprises by at least one of JAFI's grantees -- the Mossawa Center, an Arab-Israeli thank tank. Mossawa seems committed to eliminating every one of them.

Mossawa, which is funded indirectly by the Jewish Agency, disseminated a report declaring that Israel cannot be both a democracy and a Jewish state. According to that document, which represents the view of many Arab-Israeli elites, and of Arab local authorities -- as stated in a separate but nearly identical manifesto -- the Jewish state is inherently illegitimate. It must be recast as a bi-national state.

In addition to purging any identification with the Jewish people, Israel must also make reparation to, and elevate everything about, Palestinian Arabs who are Israeli citizens, their culture, history, language and nationalist desires.

Not sated by demanding such changes as de-judaizing the Israeli flag and national anthem, the document also calls for abolishing the Israel's Law of Return. At the same time, Israel must acknowledge and grant Israeli Arabs (and all their descendants) the "right of return" to the places from which they fled during the War of Independence in 1948.

AND WHO provides financial support to the institution from which the report issued? In addition to the usual suspects, there are some surprises.

The New Israel Fund is a non-profit organization which focuses on eliminating any special role for religion in either Israeli society or government. NIF grants reflect that orientation. One of the largest grants the NIF gave in the latest year for which information is available was to an organization it co-founded: the Mossawa Center.

An NIF document states that organization's belief that efforts should be expended to prevent efforts to "judaize the Galilee and Negev." In other words, there is no part of Israel the NIF thinks should be, or remain, officially "judaized." More than 33 percent of NIF grants go to programs that exclusively serve Arab Israelis, and fully 40 percent of Shatil, NIF's "empowerment center" money is used for assistance to Israel's Arab minority. Those programs actively promote the erasure of any special status for Jews in Israel.

But what about donors to Federations? It is unlikely that many consider the creation of Israel to have been a plot by the Jewish-Zionist elite to further a colonialist policy of "judaization" of Arab land through the "expulsion" of the Palestinian people, as it is described in the Arab Israelis' documents. Nor would many of those donors agree that the creation of the Jewish state was a nakba, or tragedy, that should be rectified through, minimally, the payment of compensation to Palestinian Arabs and the recognition that the Palestinians are "the indigenous people" of Israel; or that Arabic should be elevated to the status of FEDERATIONS, the Jewish Agency and the Joint Distribution Committee base their existence on Jewish support for Jews and, with respect to Israel, a Jewish state and the Jews who live there. Why would those organizations help undermine the birthright of Jews anywhere to become Israeli citizens, or to negate Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people?

Yet a perusal of a recent NIF Annual Report reveals large donations from both the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Joint.

In fact, the Jewish Agency is in the NIF highest-donor category, the one for those giving more than $100,000. The Joint shows up in the donor category of $25,000 to $50,000, as do the Jewish Federation of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and the Jewish Women's Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago.

There are several other Jewish Federations in the $10,000 to $24,999 category, including those from Durham-Chapel Hill, Greater Los Angeles, Greater Atlanta, Greater Houston and that of New Hampshire. The Jewish Women's Foundation of the Greater Palm Beaches appears in this donor category as well.

IN OTHER words, rather than steadfastly working to support the Jewish nature of Israel, the Jewish Agency and other mainstream Jewish organizations, seem to be unwittingly helping to fund those who are undermining it.

In the mutual fund business, when advisers do not follow an investment policy that accords with their clients' intentions, they can be sued for breach of trust. It is time for Jewish donors who wish Israel to remain a Jewish state -- and there is nothing inconsistent with it being a Jewish state and a democracy -- to scrutinize the actions of their investment professionals.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, February 13, 2007.

The writer, Dr. Daniel Pipes, is a distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine University and director of the Middle East Forum. This article is from www.danielpipes.org. The original article is available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/4275

In October 2006, the Brandeis Middle East Review and the Middle East Forum at Brandeis invited me to speak at the University, and I quickly accepted. The hosts and I selected the date April 23 and the topic ("The Islamization of Europe?"), and everything appeared settled.

But on Jan. 23, former President Jimmy Carter visited Brandeis, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz quasi-debated him, and the ensuing contention prompted the University to establish a closed student-faculty committee to monitor speakers on the Middle East. (This committee comes on top of an already existing committee the provost created earlier in response to the "Voices of Palestine" exhibit in Spring 2006.) Oddly, although my talk was to deal with Europe, it was deemed to fall into the Middle East category and is now on hold, pending this new committee's approval.

That's bad enough. Worse was to read in the Justice on Feb. 6 these remarks by University President Jehuda Reinharz:

"I have a fear that these people [Norman Finkelstein and myself] who are being invited are weapons of mass destruction."

Then John Hose, Reinharz's executive assistant, further elaborated:

"These are people who tend to inflame passions, whose mission is not so much discussion and education as it is theater, a show. ... If [students] want theater then it's best to go to Spingold [theater]. ... But if you want serious discussion, there's lots of resources available for that already at Brandeis."

I strenuously object to being lumped in with Finkelstein in any fashion whatsoever. Finkelstein denies the Holocaust as a uniquely evil deed, equates Israel with the Nazis, compares persons he disagrees with to Nazis, justifies Hamas and excuses Muslim antisemitism. For good measure, he adds, "I do not think there is very much genuine grief among Jewish leaders about the Nazi holocaust," for they gained from what he calls "the Holocaust reparations racket." They "blackmailed Europe, got billions of dollars and then stuffed their pockets, bank accounts and organizations with the money." Yoking me to Finkelstein betrays Reinharz's profound moral confusion -- something especially regrettable in the case of the president of a major university whose moral judgment is in steady demand.

The statements by Reinharz and Hose also prompt several questions:

1. How am I, exactly, a weapon of mass destruction, Mr. Reinharz? And what do you mean by this phrase?

2. And Mr. Hose, have you taken a look at just who gets inflamed by my speeches? On Jan. 31, for example, it was a bunch of Islamist goons, and you can see them yourself on the three videos listed on my Web site, at "My Disrupted Talk at the University of California-Irvine." After preventing me from speaking, the leader of this group called for the state of Israel to be "wiped off the face of the earth." Your statement makes me wonder whose side you are on -- theirs or mine?

3. What, precisely, are those scholarly resources available at Brandeis? Might Hose be referring to the University's leading specialist on "contemporary Islamic thought and practice" (the title of her course), Prof. Natana DeLong-Bas (NEJS), an apologist for Al-Qaeda whose depraved thinking was exposed in several recent articles (including "Natana DeLong-Bas: American Professor, Wahhabi Apologist" and "Sympathy for the Devil at Brandeis," from frontpagemag.com)? Or is he referring to Khalil Shikaki, a Crown Center fellow who has been credibly accused of terrorist links and has a second-to-none record in getting it wrong in his chosen field of Palestinian public opinion?

Looking at the larger picture, Brandeis has incurred a sorry record when it comes to Israel in recent years -- staging that "Voices of Palestine" exhibit, hiring DeLong-Bas and Shikaki, granting an honorary degree to the anti-Zionist playwright Tony Kushner, appointing the muddled Prof. Shai Feldman (POL) to head the Crown Center, permitting an Islamist (Qumar-ul Huda) to serve as its Muslim chaplain and setting up the Brandeis-Al-Quds University study-abroad connection.

Over the decades, Brandeis has benefited substantially from the support of those concerned with Israel's security and welfare. Sadly, its record in this arena under Reinharz has strayed so badly that already a year ago the Zionist Organization of America called for "donors to reconsider their support for Brandeis." So long as he remains the University's president, that strikes me as sound advice.

Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by The Reality Show, February 13, 2007.

"We do use books that call Jews 'apes' and Christians as 'pigs'," admits Dr. Sumaya Alyusuf, head of an Islamic school.

The principal of an Islamic school has admitted that it uses textbooks which describe Jews as 'apes' and Christians as 'pigs' and has refused to withdraw them.
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id= 434506&in_page_id=1770

When I read that the principal of a school had admitted that it used textbooks that called Christians "pigs" and Jews "apes".

Pupils aged five 'poisoned' at Islamic school that 'teaches hate' An Islamic school is poisoning the minds of pupils with lessons in hate, a former teacher claims.

Colin Cook, 57, says textbooks used by children as young as five at the King Fahad Academy in Acton describe Jews as "repugnant" and "apes" and Christians as "pigs".

A BRITISH Muslim school is teaching children that Jews are "repugnant apes" and Christians "pigs", a former teacher claims.

Christians still 'swine' and Jews 'apes' in Saudi schools. By Harry de Quetteville, Middle East Correspondent. Last Updated: 1:22am BST 25/06/2006 ...

NPR: Saudi Textbooks Still Teach Hate, Group Says It says that the textbooks instruct students that Christians and Jews are apes and pigs, and warns students not to greet, befriend, or respect non-believers (aka non Muslims) ...

Steven Stalinsky on Saudi Arabia & Textbooks on National Review Online A textbook for eighth graders explains