HOME Featured Stories February 2008 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, February 29, 2008.

SONG OF ASCENT -- Following morning prayers, a trekker admires the view from the Shira Plateau on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa.

Yehoshua Halevi is a Jerusalem-based photojournalist, event photographer, teacher and trekking guide. Contact him at smiles@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website at www.goldenlightimages.com He writes: "I am currently back in Africa leading a group up the same mountain featured here."

To Go To Top

Posted by Louis Rene Beres, February 29, 2008.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. For anyone who can still think clearly, the Annapolis "Peace Conference" in November was merely the latest hallucinatory rendition of a very troubled sleep. It's not that this carefully scripted assembly actually confirmed a catastrophic outcome for Israel. Rather, it underscored America's perilous and persistent preoccupation with a determinably wrongheaded foreign policy.

For Israel, the "Road Map to Peace in the Middle East" remains an unambiguously lethal cartography. Should it still be taken seriously, it could transport Israel from bad dream to nightmare.

Nightmare. According to the etymologists, the root of the word is niht mare or niht maere, the demon of the night. Dr. Johnson's dictionary says this corresponds to Nordic mythology –– which saw nightmares as the product of demons. This would make it a play on, or translation of, the Greek ephialtes or the Latin incubus. In all interpretations of nightmare, the idea of demonic origin is central.

Israel's demons are of a different form. Their mien is not directly frightful (one reason that they are so dangerous), but hidden and ordinary. If they are sinister, it is not because they are hideous but because they are commonplace. Their evil is not always readily identifiable, but the demons that stalk the Jewish State are unmistakably palpable and ultimately final.

Israel's demons are those of a Jewish people who have become accustomed to strive and exist without any serious meanings. These demons prey easily upon a Jewish state without any real direction, an ingathered nation that has largely forgotten its essential and everlasting Jewish purpose in the world. Reducing itself to a "thing" at Annapolis, a tiny, banal and negotiable object in a vast sea of enemies, Israel effectively announced that it was now willing to become a corpse. This unfathomably cadaverous assessment would surely be disputed by the Prime Minister and by the U.S. Secretary of State, but the incontestable facts would certainly suggest otherwise.

Irony of ironies. In matters of war and peace, Israel may take vital lessons in pathos from ancient Troy as well as from ancient Jerusalem. The Prime Minister should recall the solicitous visit of Trojan King Priam to the battle tent of Achilles. Even though Mr. Olmert stopped short of clasping George Bush's knees and kissing the U.S. President's hands, the Palestinians and their allies knew that Israel had already lost. If the 23rd Arab state is born sometime in the next year, virtually the entire world will hail its explosive appearance as a triumph of human rights and "national self-determination."

Irony of ironies. Israeli novelist Aharon Megged once noted, "We have witnessed a phenomenon which probably has no parallel in history; an emotional and moral identification by the majority of Israel's intelligentsia with people openly committed to our annihilation." Whatever the psychiatric origins of such an unprecedented identification, it is a disgusting behavior, a behavior so completely vile and inexcusable that it easily blocks out several thousand years of Jewish wisdom and whole oceans of sacred poetry. Left uncorrected, this grotesque identification could even destroy Israel even before the wreckage generated by state and sub-state enemy attacks.

But not every important lesson for Israel is laced with irony. Some are straightforward and readily apparent. To survive in its always-imperiled neighborhood, Israel cannot continue to treat international relations and diplomacy apart from the essential Jewish fabric of its national existence. From one administration to the next, from Rabin to Olmert, Israel's leaders have remained ordinary and without vision because Israel's people themselves have largely abandoned what is true and meaningful.

The German philosopher Nietzsche understood that "When the throne sits on mud, mud sits on the throne." Israel cannot endure as "mud." Not a thousand Annapolis promises from Washington can ever compensate for a single act of Israeli auto-destruction. There will be no Arab quid pro quos for hundreds of Israeli concessions, none at all, and absolutely no rewards for millions of deliberately drifting Jewish souls.

Recently, The New Jewish Congress was launched in Israel. Professor Hillel Weiss of Bar Ilan University chaired the plenary session. Dr. Gadi Eshel, an indefatigable and heroic fighter for Israel, read aloud from the Congress Charter: "The Eternal People in an Eternal Covenant in the Land of Israel." Said Dr. Eshel, "Every community that we plant throughout the land strengthens the roots of the Eternal Nation's Eternal Covenant here –– while at the same time preventing it from being bound by 'Auschwitz borders.' Let us not fool ourselves. 'Auschwitz borders' invite Auschwitz –– not only for the Jews in Israel, but for Jews everywhere, and for all of humanity."

In The New Jewish Congress and such related movements as Moshe Feiglin's Manhigut Yehudit (The Jewish Leadership Movement) lies Israel's best hope. To champion the indissoluble integrity of the Land of Israel and the Nation of Israel is what Israel must pursue now, immediately, and at all costs. As regular readers of The Jewish Press will easily understand, it is time to finally heed Dr. Eshel's recollection of Joshua and Caleb, when Moses sent them out to reconnoiter: "Let us ascend and inherit the Land, for we can overcome it." The only probable alternative to such a purposeful final acknowledgment would be another final solution.

This was published January 12, 2008 in the Jewish Press

To Go To Top

Posted by Mark Silverberg, February 29, 2008.

After the Lebanon War fiasco, The Winograd Commission was establiished to examine what went wrong. Everyone assumed the Winograd Commision would conclude the obvious –– that Olmert was derelict in his duty and should resign. Instead, surprisingly, the IDF received the brunt of the criticism. Yechezkel Dror, a member of the Winograd Commission, made an astounding admission: the Commission was soft on Winograd because he was involved in a "Peace Process" and if they recommended Olmert resign, Netanyahu would likely become Prime Minister! Either the most honest of men, or a political moron. The feeling that the Commission was as corrupt as the politicians it was to examine has taken away from some less salubrious parts of their conclusions. Mark Silverberg explains the lessons we should learn from an examinition of Israel's conduct in the Lebanon War.

On February 1st, the Winograd Commission issued its long-awaited report in the Second Lebanon War. The Report Summary notes that "the unclassified Report does not include the many facts that cannot be revealed for reasons of protecting the state's security and foreign affairs", yet much analysis over the classified aspects of the Report have since leaked out over the past year and a half. While the Report attacked the mismanagement of the War from both the political and military perspectives, it does not detail the disclosures that could represent an embarrassment to both the Olmert administration and Bush administrations were they to be delineated. In the end, the Commission noted that "the 2nd Lebanon war as a serious missed opportunity" and that "this outcome was primarily caused by the fact that, from the very beginning, the war had not been conducted on the basis of deep understanding of the theatre of operations, of the IDF's readiness and preparedness, and of basic principles of using military power to achieve political and diplomatic goals." The only consolation is that significant military, political and scientific changes and advances have been undertaken in the time that has passed. Should another such confrontation take place in the near future, it can be fairly assumed that both Hezbollah and Hamas will be vanquished.

Israel's war against the Middle East's first true terrorist army has now provided the West with some significant military, strategic and intelligence-gathering insights for future wars that will be waged in the post-modern era. For the first time since the birth of the State of Israel, the Israeli war machine had been challenged by a small, fanatic, well-funded, well-prepared and well-trained radical Islamic army that lived to tell the story when the final bell tolled. Hezbollah's survival, however, was due as much to mismanagement of the war effort (on the part of Israel and America) as to Hezbollah's cunning.

At the beginning of the conflict, it appeared that all the cards were in Israel's corner. On July 12th, Hezbollah's cross-border raid and kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers were broadly condemned across much of the Sunni Arab and Western worlds as being both reckless and irresponsible. Israel's anticipated use of massive force enjoyed broad political support. Even the Bush administration seemed to be giving the Israeli government the time it needed to finish Hezbollah's "state-within-a-state" status once and for all, and there was every reason to expect that Israel would complete the job in short order and that Lebanon would soon be in a position to carry out its international obligation requiring it to assume control of the south of the country and disarm the Hezbollah militia.

But it didn't quite work out that way. To the world's surprise and to the West's chagrin, Hezbollah (which had secretly been converted into the Special Forces unit of Iran –– unlike a ragtag gang like Hamas and the PLO) –– managed to snap victory from the jaws of defeat simply by surviving. Israel should have made these distinctions at the beginning of the war, but it failed to do so –– neither to the world, nor to itself. That failure may well haunt American efforts to "make the Middle East safe for democracy" for decades to come and Israel's hopes for Middle East stability. As Raanan Gissin of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote recently: "The conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon is a testing ground –– like Spain in 1936 –– for weapons, tactics, and doctrine of how Iran is going to fight the war against the West" in future.

So what went wrong?

Air Power and the Media Debacle

From the war's inception, Israeli planners placed overwhelming reliance on air power, firepower and hi-tech weaponry for combating terror. For reasons discussed below, Israel sought to fight a short, virtually casualty-free war on the cheap resulting in a clear failure to achieve its strategic objectives –– freeing its kidnapped soldiers, forcing the Lebanese army to take control of southern Lebanon, disarming Hezbollah and restoring the credibility of Israeli deterrence after the Lebanese withdrawal in 2000 and the Gaza withdrawal in 2005. This error in judgment eventually required a revision to the plan leading to a last minute ground invasion to the Litani River –– a decision that came too late.

Israel's reliance on overwhelming air power should not have come as a surprise given that the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Lt.-Gen Dan Halutz was the first air force general ever to command the Israeli Defense Forces. His strategy, based on his own extensive experience, promised that air power alone could destroy Hezbollah's terror infrastructures and command and control centers both north and south of the Litani, but in so doing, the need to prepare for a ground war and a major land offensive was neglected. Also neglected was the calculation that continual massive aerial bombardments might allow Hezbollah and the Lebanese government to score major propaganda victories.

While it is true that superb intelligence allowed the Israeli Air Force to destroy an estimated 80% of Hezbollah's medium and long-range missile launchers in the first two days of the conflict, Hezbollah's use of the Lebanese civilian population as human shields provided a boon for the media –– Geneva Accords be damned. In the years to come, such flagrant exploitation of innocent civilians for propaganda purposes will have to be addressed by the West if it ever intends to defeat future enemies whose value system and culture differs widely from our own. In Lebanon, Israel wasted its initial ability to get moderate Arab government support against Hezbollah by over-escalating its air assault and, in the end it was unable to convince the world it was controlling collateral damage and civilian suffering.

It appears that our enemies have learned the important relationship between the uses to which propaganda can be put and their long-term strategic war doctrine. We apparently have not. As Anthony Cordesman notes: "Civilians are the natural equivalent of armor in asymmetric warfare and the U.S. must get used to the fact that (future)opponents will steadily improve their ability to use them to hide to deter attack, exploit the political impact of air strikes and exaggerate damage and killings..." By forcing Israel to minimize civilian casualties or to avoid them entirely, our own laws governing warfare have now become a weapon being used against us. In post-modern warfare, civilians have become cultural, religious and ideological weapons that will be used against us if and when we find ourselves at war with different cultures.

Israel should have learned from the experiences of Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq that massive air power alone cannot be a substitute for boots on the ground and human and real time tactical intelligence. Just as the U.S. military learned painful lessons about technology's limits in Iraq, so the IDF received an education in the Second Lebanon War –– that wars cannot be won nor terrorists defeated from the air. As Ralph Peters has written: "A policy of casualty aversion –– in Israel or in the United States –– results in more casualties in the end" and reduces our ability to wage existential conflicts.

Because the IDF was not permitted to carry out a massive land invasion together with overwhelming air power in support of land operations from Day 1 (for reasons noted below), Hezbollah missiles continued to rain down on Israeli cities even as Hezbollah was winning the propaganda war. By relying at the outset almost exclusively on air power, the IDF ignored the most basic military principles of surprise and overwhelming force. Instead of aiming a death blow at Hezbollah by proceeding by land north to the Litani, cutting off Hezbollah's means of rearming and finishing it off, the IDF dissipated its power by engaging in "wack-a-mole" techniques –– striking targets scattered throughout Lebanon –– while failing to strike any of them decisively. In the struggle for a handful of border villages, it added troops gradually and allowed Hezbollah a degree of flexibility that permitted it to determine the manner, time and place of battle. As Bret Stephens wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Israelis have compounded (their) mistakes with an airpower-based strategy that, whatever its virtues in keeping Israeli troops out of harm's way, was never going to evict Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, just as airpower alone did not evict Saddam from Kuwait in 1991".

Olmert's reasoning, in many ways, stemmed from that of his predecessor and mentor Ariel Sharon whose eighteen year experience in Lebanon ended with a humiliating Israeli withdrawal in 2000. The Lebanon experience was a reminder to Olmert that occupying another country to conduct "counter-insurgency operations" was both unbearable (in terms of casualties) and unnecessary (since a separation wall –– so he thought –– could accomplish the same ends over the long run), even in the absence of a political settlement. In his mind, as well as that of Sharon, Israelis were prepared to accept a high level of casualties in a "war of national survival", but they would not accept low-level casualties in extended "insurgency operations" that did not directly involve Israel's survival. In effect, Olmert failed to recognize that what was evolving in southern Lebanon was not simply an insurgency, but a conventional post-modern guerilla war with existential implications.

To Olmert, defeating Hezbollah by an invasion and occupying southern Lebanon was not worth the casualties –– even if Israel was required to endure the occasional missile attack on its northern communities. Therefore, his solution was to empower his air force to accomplish what he believed a ground invasion could also accomplish but without the casualties. However, a lack of tactical intelligence taken together with Hezbollah's massive, sophisticated bunker network effectively blunted the Israeli air attack. As Israeli troops marched forward across the Lebanese border, they encountered a well-prepared enemy that was weakened but not destroyed by the air campaign. Even though Olmert realized that Hezbollah had to be destroyed, he was simply not prepared to commit his forces and accept the casualties such a war would involve. What he failed to consider were the political and psychological consequences of leaving Hezbollah intact on the battlefield.

Command and Control Problems

In the wake of the conflict, charges have now arisen against the top military and political echelons of the IDF concerning the delay in starting the ground offensive, mobilizing the reserves, the absence of a clear plan for victory, and the general lack of logistical preparedness including the absence of emergency evacuation procedures from the north of Israel. Israeli commanders have complained that the armored forces did not have a clearly defined mission and were shuffled in and out of Lebanon to the point that they could not explain to their own officers what was happening. Reservists in the elite Alexandroni Brigade complained about the lack of food, water and basic support equipment just a few miles inside Lebanon. One reservist Special Forces unit had been provided with guns they had never trained on and were rushed through training under conditions unlike those they faced in Lebanon. In some cases, evacuation forces never came and soldiers were required to carry the dead and wounded large distances in order to return to Israeli lines. Unachievable missions were given with impossible time lines. Daytime missions were often ordered when darkness missions would have been far safer and more effective....all of which suggests a major crisis in the leadership of the IDF.

According to DEBKA intelligence sources, both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz lacked the necessary military and foreign policy experience and skills required to manage such a war. It appears that Olmert followed the same failed policies of his predecessor Ariel Sharon. During his six and-a-half years as Prime Minister, Sharon shook up the top levels of the IDF's General Command, Military Intelligence and the Mossad (Israel's international spy network) and appointed officials who subscribed to his political philosophy. As a consequence, Israel's top military and security echelons were chosen based upon their political outlook. Sharon "created a monolithic establishment lacking...the motivation...for developing brilliantly innovative methods of warfare". The result was that in six years of counter-terror warfare against the Palestinians (whose war capability was no where near that of Hezbollah), the IDF focused on perfecting narrowly-defined tactics for controlling local terrorist activities (and did so successfully), but failed to produce a strategy capable of fighting a war against terrorists who operated like Special Forces.

This led to predictable results. The Chief of Staff, although advised in the third week of the war by many senior officers including reserve generals to change the Northern Command in order to restore the IDF's offensive momentum, seemed reluctant to do so in mid-war even though such staff and strategic changes had been made during the worst hours of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. He refused these proposed changes fearing perhaps that the Yom Kippur War analogy might prompt questions about the preparedness of his general staff for the Lebanon war (which subsequently occurred).

In fact, the appointments he approved in the last year and his repeated assertion that he saw no danger of "conventional war" in the IDF's foreseeable future seem to have led to a false security paradigm that ultimately dominated the consciousness of political and military decision-makers and colored his selection of Israel's senior military commanders.

This played itself out in the first weeks of the war. Maj.-Gen. Udi Adam, who was head of Israel's Northern Command and was a trained and talented tank commander in classical tank warfare had never before encountered tank warfare in Lebanon's unique, hilly terrain against a post-modern guerilla army backed to the hilt by Iranian and Syrian sponsors, trainers and weapons.

American Interference

Another major failure in the conduct of the War arose as a result of circumstances that were beyond the knowledge of the Israeli field commanders. According to DEBKA intelligence reports (and supported by George Friedman's analysis in the Geopolitical Intelligence Report): "The lack of clear decisions was manifested...in the failure to act, the non-implementation of operational plans, and the cancellation (in the midst of combat) of missions assigned to the unit. The result was that the unit was deployed too long in hostile country without any operational purpose...and (was) held back from making contact with the enemy." The effect of this has now created a perception of weakness and vulnerability in the minds of Arab nations that had long since sharpened their knives waiting for an opportunity to pounce.

Much of this operational confusion seems to have stemmed from the inordinately large role played in the war by the U.S. Administration. Washington had been looking for an excuse to bring down Hezbollah since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers and the initial missile attacks on northern Israel presented the opportunity for which it was waiting.

Both President Bush and Secretary of State Rice agreed to back Olmert's air campaign plan provided that Olmert received prior American approval for a ground offensive –– which came only after weeks had passed and only after the air war had proven to be ineffective (and, some would argue) even counter-productive. This explains why Israel's land invasion was delayed for three weeks and why the IDF was required to remain on their bases instead of engaging in battle.

When that decision finally came, it was with another stipulation that Israeli forces were not to advance to the Litani River. Again, Washington demanded a halt to the advance. By the time the final decision was made to carry out the Litani operation and to vanquish Hezbollah, it was too late. The ceasefire was effectively a foregone conclusion. DEBKA sources note: "This last disastrous order released the welter of conflicting, incomprehensible orders which stirred up the entire chain of command –– from the heads of the IDF's Northern Command down to the officers in the field. Operational orders designed to meet tactical combat situations were scrapped in mid-execution and new directives tumbled down the chute from above. Soldiers later complained that in one day, they were jerked into unreasoned actions by four to six contrary instructions." The problem with these contradictory directives was that none of the commanders at any level (including the Chief of Staff) could explain what was happening since they had not been privy to any of the "backroom decision-making" in the Prime Minister's office.

But it didn't end there. Olmert had also promised Bush and Rice to spare Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and direct his air campaign to Hezbollah's positions and installations. As a result, Israeli forces were not initially allowed to destroy buildings known to be occupied by Hezbollah teams firing anti-tank missiles because it would have meant destroying Lebanese infrastructure. This decision resulted in a dramatic increase in Israeli casualties as the IDF was required to return again and again to cleanse terrorist bases in Maroun a-Ras, Bint Jubeil and Atia a-Chaab.

Taking all this into account, Olmert's absolute compliance with Rice's directives threw Israel's entire war campaign into disorder. Supply trucks could not locate various units that were left without food and water, the subject of one of the bitterest complaints.

Underestimating the Enemy

The history of the 20th century is replete with military blunders caused by faulty intelligence and incorrect threat assessments. Israel, it seems was no exception in the Second Lebanon War. Despite tracking the activities of Hezbollah for almost a quarter of a century, the recent war began with a string of intelligence failures that included the cardinal error of underestimating Hezbollah's preparedness, armaments, training –– and their fanatical determination to fight to the death. To put it in the words of Assistant Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Kaplinsky: "The IDF was not prepared for the war in Lebanon." Even Israel's eye-in-the-sky –– its Ofek satellite –– was out of position during most of the Second Lebanon War suggesting a lack of coordination between the military and political echelons.

As it happens, Hezbollah's tacticians and their Iranian Revolutionary Guards mentors had learned the lessons of Israel's Defensive Wall Operation against the Palestinian terrorist stronghold of Jenin in 2002. That operation ended with total Israeli military supremacy over the West Bank. Hezbollah studied the strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli operation with meticulous accuracy and using Israel's experience as their own master plan, Hezbollah invented a unique form of guerilla warfare against an army that had not revised its own war protocols in the intervening four years. Not only had Hezbollah devolved its command structure to the unit level (making it impossible for Israel to conduct a decapitation strike), but Israel was caught off-guard by the entrenched and sophisticated tunnel and bunker network it encountered across Lebanon's southern border –– a network so extensive that did not require Hezbollah fighters to expose themselves to Israeli air power and extended their ability to continue combat without the need to re-supply their stocks of food.

Israeli intelligence also failed to detect the nature and extent of the new weapons systems Iran and Syria had provided to Hezbollah over the preceding six years –– from Silkworm anti-ship missiles to longer-range Fajr and Zelzal missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv. Nor was the IDF prepared for Hezbollah's advanced Syrian-supplied and Soviet-built Sagger, Cornet and Fagot anti-tank missiles that were able to penetrate Israel's state-of-the-art Mercava tanks taking a terrible toll on the IDF Armored Corps. Having learned the lessons from each of its previous conflicts, Israel was about to learn one more –– that its modern Mercava tank could not withstand the explosive force of these new anti-tank missiles and, in some cases, lacked sufficient underbelly armor to protect it from Hezbollah land mines. Worse, Hezbollah had come to understand very quickly that these anti-tank missiles could be used in other, more lethal ways. Aware that in close-range combat the IDF had an advantage, Hezbollah set up positions far from Israeli forces and used the missiles against the Israeli infantry. More than seventy IDF infantry soldiers were killed in anti-tank missile attacks on homes they had commandeered in Lebanese villages and as they moved throughout the Lebanese countryside. As the IDF began moving its troops by foot, its infantry became easy prey for this newest generation of anti-tank rocket. In short, these new tactics forced the Israelis to fight Hezbollah's type of war, rather than the war Israel intended to fight when it entered southern Lebanon.

Under the guidance of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah sent up drones on reconnaissance missions, implanted listening devices along the southern Lebanese border and set ambushes using state-of-the-art night-vision goggles. With the financial assistance of their Iranian and overseas benefactors, Hezbollah used global positioning devices to identify IDF movements, thermal protectors to camouflage themselves from Israel's heat sensor equipment, advanced software for aircraft design, gas masks, cutting-edge radio equipment, dozens of rifles, various types of handguns, silencers, helmets, and protective vests. This was no rag-tag guerilla force like those encountered in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel found itself facing the Arab equivalent of the Waffen SS –– a Special Forces army that had been indoctrinated for "martyrdom operations" and were trained in the use of the most technologically advanced equipment in the world. The IDF found computer parts attesting to the fact Hezbollah was acting in an orderly manner and was documenting its operations. It also uncovered a sophisticated command structure that allowed Hezbollah to observe developments outside their bunkers while still hiding inside. The electronic system had been installed inside the bunker, while a special camera had been installed outside.

Newsweek noted that Hezbollah had even managed to eavesdrop successfully on Israel's military communications as its Lebanese incursion began and its command and control systems were state of the art, all of which heightened its advantage as a hi-tech, well-trained guerilla force fighting on its own turf.

Many of the unanswered questions relate to the success of Iran and Hezbollah in neutralizing Israeli wire-tapping and electronic jamming capabilities. How was Iran able to block Israel's Barak anti-missile system resulting in the successful Silkworm missile attack on one of its naval gunboats or was it simple negligence on Israel's part? Why was Israel unable to jam Hassan Nasrallah's electronic communications emanating from his underground bunker in the Iranian embassy in Beirut? Why was Israel unable to block Hezbollah's command and communications links between the Lebanese command and the Syrian-based Iranian headquarters? It appears that both U.S. and Israeli intelligence grossly underestimated the tremendous effort Iran invested in state of the art electronic warfare gadgetry designed to disable American military operations in Iraq and IDF functions in Israel and Lebanon. Israel's electronic warfare units were taken by surprise by the sophisticated protective mechanisms attached to Hezbollah's communications networks, which were discovered to be connected by optical fibers which are not susceptible to electronic jamming. Quite simply, Hezbollah was prepared for war. Israel was not.


There is no escaping the fact that casualties are a necessary and tragic part of war and Israel must recognize that it has just fought the world's first post-modern war against a new type of enemy...and failed to vanquish that enemy. The implications are enormous. On Tuesday, August 22, thousands of supporters of the radical Islamic group Hizb al-Tahrir (Liberation Party) called for an Islamic caliphate in the Gaza Strip as the first stage towards establishing a larger Islamic caliphate throughout the world to challenge the global domination of the infidels, led by the U.S. and Israel. The Party, considered more extreme than Hamas, has increased its popularity following what is perceived as Hezbollah's "strategic divine victory" over Israel. And Gaza is not alone. Jordanian security forces recently foiled a similar attempt by the Party's followers in the Kingdom and arrested most of their leaders. And speaking on the religious satellite network Al-Nas, Cairo imam Safwat al-Higazi issued an edict calling on worshippers to kill "any Zionist anywhere in wartime."

As George Friedman wrote recently: "Hezbollah has demonstrated that total Arab defeat is not inevitable –– and with this demonstration, Israel has lost its tremendous psychological advantage." Thus, the greatest danger posed to Israel as a result of this war has been an end to its aura of invincibility. In the past, there were always certain boundaries that could not be crossed unless an enemy was prepared to accept a crushing Israeli response. It has been this perception of invincibility that has forced the nations of the Arab world to refrain from direct confrontation with Israel since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. That premise, however, has now been challenged and Israel, at some point in the near future, will be forced to restore that "perception of invincibility" lest it find itself attacked on all fronts by specially equipped, trained and indoctrinated radical Islamic guerilla armies funded by Iran and certain of their own invincibility....and in that war, the Israelis had best come better prepared to vanquish the enemy. As the Winograd Report states: "Israel cannot survive in this region, and cannot live in it in peace or at least non-war, unless people in Israel itself and in its surroundings believe that Israel has the political and military leadership, military capabilities, and social robustness that will allow her to deter those of its neighbors who wish to harm her, and to prevent them –– if necessary through the use of military force –– from achieving their goal." The world of jihad is real and it is here and, and for Israel's sake (not to mention the West in general), the lessons of post-modern warfare waged by a post-modern enemy had best be learned quickly.

Mark Silverberg's areas of expertise are U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, Counterterrorism, Post-modern warfare, Islamic Jihadism & Ideology, and Intelligence. He is an authority on American foreign policy in the Middle East, and published on Middle East affairs both in Hebrew and English in the NATIV Journal of the Ariel Center for Policy Research in Israel, Israel Insider, the Israel Unity Coalition, Midstream and Outpost magazines as well as on Arutz Sheva (Israel National News). He is a featured writer with the New Media Journal (Chicago).

Mark Silverberg writes: Special thanks to DEBKAfile for its stream of intelligence reports and critiques relating to the second Lebanon war; Anthony Cordesman, "Preliminary Lessons of the Israeli Hezbollah War," Center for Strategic and International Studies (Working Draft for Outside Comment), August 17, 2006; George Friedman, "Cease-Fire: Shaking Core Beliefs in the Middle East," Geopolitical Intelligence Report," August 15, 2006; Kevin Peraino, Babak Dehghanpisheh and Christopher Dickey, "Eye for an Eye," Newsweek, August 14, 2006; and Hanan Greenberg, "Hizbullah equipment surprises IDF –– Troops discover cutting-edge cameras, gas masks in Lebanon; IDF official: There's no doubt Hizbullah was prepared," Ynet (8/11/06)

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 29, 2008.

This was written by Nidra Poller and it was published on January 18th by Makor Rishon (in Hebrew translation).

President George W. Bush at Yad Vashem, his eyes flooded with tears, turned to ask Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice why the Americans did not bomb Auschwitz. The day before, in Ramallah, he fired hopes for what has come to be known as peace between Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side along slightly modified –– or mollified –– 1967 borders...elsewhere known as "Auschwitz" borders. The irony is clanging, but not everyone hears the same bells. Jerusalem Post readers engaged in Talmudic disputation. The American president is tooling up for a new Shoah by helping the Palestinians get a state that will be a toehold for the destruction of Israel. Versus: How dare we –– you –– deny Palestinian aspirations and flout international law; Israel must end the occupation, whatever the risk. Just do the right thing.

Readers of the French daily Libération, consumed by Bush-hatred, slap the American President up 'side the head. Hmph! Tears for the long ago victims of the Nazis but what about the hundreds of thousands of victims in Afghanistan and Iraq? What about the Palestinians? Bush is the world's worst criminal. We're tired of hearing about the Shoah.

(A little more than a year ago, then MFA Philippe Douste-Blazy, on an official visit in Great Britain, expressed surprise that so few British Jews died in the Nazi death camps. Apparently he had forgotten –– or never knew –– that England, unlike France, had not collaborated and was not occupied.) Condoleeza Rice, the historian, has switched into I Have a Dream mode for Palestinian statehood. I was present at the American Task Force for Palestine gala dinner in Washington D.C. in 2006 when she made her first "I have a dream" speech. ATFP president Dr. Ziad Asali is a very close friend of Rice. His task force is the picture of moderation. Palestinian-Americans in suits and ties working for dialogue, peaceful coexistence and, of course –– it's understandable –– an end to the occupation.

Why didn't we bomb Auschwitz?

It's not too late. And it will do a world of good. The problem is... the landscape has changed. The old landmarks are gone. The railroad tracks have been replaced by a road map. Yesterday's brown shirts are today's moderates, sitting around a table on which the Jewish state is spread-eagled, tortured, and invited to make (more) painful concessions. The Munich famous for appeasement has spread: it's the UN. Its heart beats in Durban where the knives are sharpened. The Nuremberg laws have morphed into international opinion. The Nazis begged for a crumb of lebensraum? The jihadis are sobbing in anguish over the Israel-Palestine conflict.

A Palestinian state is not the solution, it's the final solution. "Palestinian state" is the code word for "kill the Jews." No one is antisemitic; they just hold international opinions. Auschwitz/Oswiecim isn't confined to Poland. It's everywhere.

We are alive and well in Auschwitz.

The problem is how to bomb Auschwitz without inflicting massive collateral damage.

I will be described as an extremist if not a whacko for stating these simple truths that can be backed up with heaps of evidence, concrete details, stone hard facts. Reasonable people say "We all know what the solution will look like: a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel, Jerusalem as its capital, right of return and/or compensation to refugees ..." There is not one shred of rational argument to support that assertion. It does not describe a compromise let alone a viable arrangement; it is a bowdlerized version of maximalist "Palestinian" demands.

Why invent an imaginary bargaining position for a disguised movement when reality stands clearly before our eyes? Real people have been revealing genuine goals by concrete acts...for decades (if not centuries). The Auschwitz we didn't bomb was partially hidden from view. The Einsatzgruppen killing sprees were not broadcast on prime time news; blurry snapshots circulated in confidential circles, the rare escapees were too zonked to be believable. Today's Auschwitz is hidden behind measured phrases, catchy slogans, international conferences. Back then our wealth was wrenched from our hands, extracted from our teeth, pulled out from under us. Today it is collected in taxes and self-righteously donated to shore up the "moderates" who are stocking the weapons to exterminate us.

And the mass murders, visible for all to see, are disguised as isolated incidents committed by a minority of extremists inspired nonetheless by legitimate national aspirations. We shouldn't fight back, we mustn't fence them out...it's not good for the peace process. Why? Because "peace process" is another code word for "kill the Jews."

How did we get from Auschwitz to Auschwitz in one easy go?

The lesson of the Shoah was not "never again" it was "never again count on others to save us from the evil Jew-killers." Not because others are wimps or closet antisemites. The tears of President Bush are sincere, and so is his question. He asked Condoleeza Rice why we didn't bomb Auschwitz. We have to push in front of her and reply. She thinks Palestinians are a replay of blacks in Birmingham Alabama. Allevai!

But they aren't. And they aren't a replay of Nazis. They are something new to be dealt with. Those who stood by and allowed the Shoah to run its course –– they didn't bomb Auschwitz –– abrogated for themselves the right to prescribe for the future. And the Shoah begot the United Nations Organization, and the UN...

After mass murder, mass appeasement. Monumentalized appeasement. Crowned in the olive branch. Draped in sanctimonious white paint. Feeding the hand that feeds it, feeding the sword and staying the outstretched hand by which we try to defend ourselves.

It's not called appeasement it's called peace. "I am against the war in Iraq" is the badge of honor, and millions of those badges make the barbed wire enclosure of the new Auschwitz.

This week, the French president and the American president are traveling, separately but not coincidentally, to a variety of "moderate" and immoderately wealthy Arab-Muslim nations The presidents are selling warplanes, fried chicken, or nuclear power plants; begging for cheaper oil; promising to protect the sheikdoms against a nuclear-crazed Iran. (France will have a military base in Abu Dabi.) Or asking them to protect us? In Israel the leaders of the free world vow they'll never let us down. Then they shake hands with duplicitous sheiks, thanking them in advance for their cooperation. Did they look under the keffieh head-covering to see what kind of jihad-ideas are brewing? Or did they bow their heads and pay the jizya with utter humility?

The shock of watching our leaders kowtow and make absurd declarations about peaceful relations between three great religions. Is Jerusalem being led like a lamb to the slaughter, hacked to pieces and sacrificed on the heathen altar of peace? Who would dare declare, by the light of those glinting swords, that there will be no Palestinian state in any foreseeable future?

Why didn't we bomb Auschwitz? We weren't wimps or closet antisemites, it's just that at the time, under the circumstances, all things considered it didn't seem reasonable.

That's the point.

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, February 29, 2008.

The Bush Administration's search for partners to promote "peace" and "democracy" within the Palestinian Authority (PA) resembles Lord Charles Bowen's "blind man in a dark room looking for a black hat –– which isn't there."

For the first time, the Bush Administration plans to give $150 million in cash directly to the Palestinian Authority (PA) Treasury, as part of a $496.5 million "aid" package, including $410 million for development programs. This added to the $86.5 million for CIA "security training," which Congress authorized in April 2007.

The CIA has apparently assumed the Palestinian terrorist-training role previously held by the former Soviet Union. Since 1994, the CIA armed and trained thousands of Palestinian "security forces," who subsequently joined every Palestinian terrorist organization.

CIA Palestinian training success is best described by a member of the PA's Chairman own security unit, –– Force 17, officer Abu Yusef: "The operations of the Palestinian resistance would [not] have been so successful and "would not have killed more than 1,000 Israelis since 2000, and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without [American military] trainings," he boasted in August 2007.

Since the Oslo Accords, the PA received some $14 billion to $20 billion in international aid, according to a 2007 Funding for Peace Coalition (FPC) report to the British Parliament. Each Palestinian received $4,000 to $8,000 per year. In comparison, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), provided $1 billion in humanitarian aid for 2.5 million Darfur refugees from 2003 to 2006 --only $100 per person annually. Moreover, of the $7 billion pledged international aid, only $5 billion were spent to assist more than 5 million Tsunami victims in more than 15 countries on two continents.

The PA received "the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere," according to former World Bank country director for Gaza and the West Bank, Nigel Roberts. Not surprisingly, hundreds of thousands of Gazans spent more than $300 million in less than two week shopping spree, after Hamas blew up the border with Egypt. Yet, the Palestinian economy is in ruins, Why?

In March 2007, PA Prime Minister and former World Bank official Salam Fayyad, told London's Daily Telegraph: "No one can give donors that assurance" that funds reach their designated destinations. "Where is all of the transparency in all of this? It's gone." Controlling Palestinian finances, Fayyad concluded, is "virtually impossible."

Palestinian violence has escalated since the 1994 PA establishment and PA officials have produced an unbroken record of unfulfilled promises and outright deception. Yet President George W. Bush in his January 28 State of the Union Address, reassured the Palestinians that "America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve...a Palestinian state by the end of this year."

Nevertheless, U.S.-favored PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who in 1957 with Yasser Arafat co-founded the al Fattah terrorist group, assumed the role of his predecessor. Like Muslim Brotherhood, Marxist-trained Jihadist Arafat, neither does Abbas "recognize that confronting terror is essential to achieving a state where his people can live in dignity and at peace with Israel," as President Bush declared.

Abbas remains committed to the organization's reason d'etre -- destroying Israel and expelling the Jewish people from the region. Despite public Fattah-Hamas leadership disagreements, branding one another "murderers and thieves," Abbas arranged on Jan. 30 to give Hamas $3.1 billion of $7.7 billion that international donor community pledged last December in Paris.

Abbas' support for Hamas is not new. In Feb. 2007, He announced, "We must unite the Hamas and Fattah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the intifada." He stated this en route to Mecca to meet with the Saudi King, and Hamas terror chiefs Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh. The Saudis pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in "humanitarian aid " –– which, like previous pledges, they failed to deliver.

Rather than $660 million in annual aid the Saudis promised in 2002, the kingdom donated only $84 million since then, according to World Bank reports. Other Arab League members, who in 2002 promised $55 million monthly to foster PA economic development, gave even less.

Meanwhile, however, the Saudis and the Gulf states funneled hundreds of millions of petrodollars--some raised in government-sponsored telethons –– to reward Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas and Palestinian Jihad suicide bombers and fuel the anti-Israel Jihad. Indeed, "Saudi Arabia remains a source of recruits and finances for ...Levant-based militants," said National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on 5 February 2008.

McConnell should have included USAID on his terror-funding list. A Dec. 2007 USAID audit reported that the mission administering its funds gave money to groups and institutions affiliated with U.S. designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It warned: "Without additional controls, the mission could inadvertently provide support to entities or individuals associated with terrorism."

USAID "failure" to prevent funds from reaching Palestinian terrorist is not surprising given U.S. previous Administrations support for Arafat, and now for Abbas, who repeatedly claims: "We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation," while reiterating his desire for "a political partnership with Hamas."

It is time for President Bush to remove his blinders and stop donating U.S.-taxpayer funds to this murderous partnership. It is also time for Congress to demand a proper monitoring program to oversee the legitimate use of U.S. aid to the Palestinians.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. She is director of the American Center for Democracy and member of the Committee on the Present Danger. Alyssa A. Lappen, Senior Fellow at the ACD, is a former editor for Forbes, Corporate Finance, Working Woman and Institutional Investor.

This appeared February 08, 2008 in FrontPageMagazine.com
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= 1F448DBE-1921-4399-AE0D-686FCD4C378F

To Go To Top

Posted by Olivier Guitta, February 29, 2008.

Last summer, after contributing to the liberation of the Bulgarian nurses from Libya, French President Nicolas Sarkozy profusely thanked Qatar for its help in solving this thorny matter. According to reports in the French media, Qatar allegedly offered to pay for the compensation of the Libyan children infected with HIV (estimated at about $460 million).

The involvement of Qatar in this diplomatic matter is not an exception, but rather the rule. Qatar has been popping up all over the place on the diplomatic and economic stages in the past few years. What is the tiny Gulf emirate up to?

This new strategy really started after the 1995 coup where Sheik Ahmad al-Thani unseated his father. The new ruler's main goal was to put Qatar on the map. One of his close advisers explained to the French daily Le Figaro: "When Sheik Ahmad was traveling to Europe during his youth, he was upset that customs officers asked him where Qatar was."

With huge reserves of oil and gas, only 900,000 inhabitants (of which only 200,000 are Qataris) and a current GDP per capita of more than $120,000 (when accounting only for the Qataris), Doha has the means of its ambitions.

Two major projects that were undertaken at the start of the reign of the new sheik were the TV channel al-Jazeera (launched in 1996) and Qatar Airways (really started in 1997). In just a few years, al-Jazeera has become a household name. Qatar Airways is now a huge multinational with 12,000 employees, 58 planes and 70 destinations and it just ordered 80 Airbus A350s and five A3BOs ? incidentally, a Qatari investment fund was just authorized by French authorities to invest in the European consortium EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space) that manufactures Airbus planes ? and 22 Boeing 777s. Doha has the goal of welcoming 50 million passengers by 2015.

The emir's main ambition for his country is to become a diplomatic superpower.

That is why for example Qatar has been heavily financing the reconstruction of southern Lebanon, mediating at one point between the Palestinian Hamas and Fatah, and also doing the same between the al-Huthi rebels (supported by Iran) and the Yemeni regime.

Qatar is sometimes in a paradoxical situation, befriending enemies such as, for example, Israel and Hamas (its leader Khaled Meshaal is a regular in Doha), or Fatah and Hamas. Right after Hamas' coup in Gaza, Muhammad Dahlan, Fatah's ex-security chief accused: "Qatar also gave Hamas $400 million that was used to slaughter Palestinians."

Also Qatar is at the same time home to many ex-Iraqi Baathists and Saddam Hussein's widow, Sajida, and the largest U.S. base in the Middle East.

But this strategy has been hampered by Qatar's most famous creation ? al-Jazeera ? a fact that has created many enemies for Qatar in the Arab world, from Saudi Arabia (that actually broke diplomatic relations with it) to Jordan and Tunisia. These regimes are upset over the fact that al-Jazeera criticizes them and/or gives airtime to "dissidents." An Arab diplomat quoted by Le Figaro sums up quite well the feeling of Qatar's fellow Arabs: "Qatar loves to give us lessons, but it would be more credible if it cleaned up its own backyard." In fact, censorship in the Qatari press is high and Qatar does not have an elected parliament.

To prevent the risk of an Islamist upheaval, Doha is hosting a who's who of Islamists from Abassi Madani, the leader of the ex-FIS (the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front) which fought a bloody civil war against the Algerian regime in the 1990s, to Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader (incidentally one of al-Jazeera's superstars) who justified suicide bombings against Israeli children and U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The reason for this frenetic activity might be the emir's obsession with keeping its independence. According to a European diplomat quoted by Le Figaro: "The emir has long had the Kuwait syndrome vis-à-vis Iraq, he is scared to find himself one day with Saudi troops occupying his country and no one would say anything about it."

In light of this fear and of Tehran's threats to attack Qatar in case of a U.S. attack on its nuclear facilities, one can easily understand why Qatar has been handling Iran carefully. For proof, Qatar was the only country to reject a U.N. Security Council resolution against Tehran. Another reason for this policy is that 30 percent of Qataris are of Iranian descent.

But will this strategy of modernizing the country and trying to befriend everyone work?

Nothing is less sure. First, Qatar is trying too hard: being friendly with everyone is impossible. For instance, back in March 2005 in Doha, a suicide bomber (most likely linked or inspired by al-Qaida) killed one Briton and wounded 12 people in an attack at a theater frequented by Westerners. Then in June 2006, the Kuwaiti daily al-Seyassah reported that Qatar had foiled a destabilization plot against the regime and that Qatari authorities had arrested about 100 Syrian workers and five Syrian intelligence officers. This while Qatar is the only country, besides Iran, heavily investing in Syria.

Last but not least, the emir is changing his country while his people still remain very religious and conservative. Qatar is a devout Muslim country where most women wear the niqab (veil showing only the eyes) and where there is a prayer site every 150 meters (about 164 yards). The clash between modernity and tradition is bound to have unhappy consequences.

Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter, The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).

This appeared in Middle East Times February 25, 2008.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, February 29, 2008.

Only 120 years ago, most parts of the Middle East, including Palestine and entire Sinai Peninsula, were a desolated, arid, land mass which did not belong to any country. It was a no man's land with which for 2000 years Jews had an unbroken spiritual and historical bond!

The creation of a Mandate system after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the World War 1 and the grid of the new masters, Britain and France, laid the foundations of the current Arab-Israel conflict:

Trans-Jordan was the part of the Palestinian mandate, which was allocated for creation of a Jewish state by the League of Nations in 1922, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration. Therefore, its separation from Palestinian mandated land was an illegal act. Unfortunately, the dominant imperial powers, Britain and France, controlled the League of Nations which they used to rubber stamp their shady deals at the time.

As a result of the deal, in 1922, in order to secure Britain's financial interests in the Suez Canal, Sinai was illegally given to Egypt by the British with the permission of King Hussein of Hejaz and Nejd, now Saudi Arabia. In return, Britain transferred control of the land east of the river Jordan to Hussein's son, Abdullah. Control of the Golan Heights were transferred to the French-run Syrian Mandate in exchange the United Kingdom got control of newly discovered oil fields in Kirkuk.

Since its independence, Israel has fought many wars with its implacable Arab neighbours, signed numerous cease-fires, so-called Hundas and even peace agreements. But all those efforts have not brought about any permanent solution to the endless terror Israeli society has been enduring daily.

The solution that can bring permanent peace to Israel and let Arabs live with dignity in their own country was proposed over 100 years ago. It has been deliberately ignored and disallowed by the United Nations.

It is the Sinai option –– the transfer of all of the Arab population from the land that used to be called the "Palestinian mandate" to the Sinai Peninsula, an area of contiguous land which is comparable by size with the entire Palestinian mandate: Israel, Gaza, Judea, Samaria, Golan Heights and Jordan! This plan presents the real opportunity for a permanent peace:

1. It will separate the two entirely incompatible communities and will create an environment conducive to the development of a new Arab entity totally independent from Israel.

2. It will provide Arabs with a contiguous landmass. Isn't that what the PA is demanding?

3. It will give Arabs full territorial, financial, military, political and religious control over the land, natural resources and population. There will be no dependency on Israel!

4. The new entity will be accountable for its actions in accordance with international law.

5. Israel will be able to securely control its border with the new Arab entity and keep it accountable for any terror activity.

6. All anti-Israel terror-inclined elements will be removed from the Jewish lands.

And, this plan is relatively easy to implement because:

1. The new entity can be either part of Egypt or become another independent Arab state.

2. There are only around 250,000 people living in Sinai today, predominantly Bedouins.

3. The SINAI OPTION will resolve the so-called Palestinians refugee question as they can easily be settled in the Sinai. Note: Over 70% of Jordan's population are so-called Palestinians others are decedents of the refuges from Saudi Arabia.

4. Every year the International community has been wasting/spending billions of dollars merely on conflict maintenance in the region. The SINAI OPTION offers the opportunity for investment in the permanent resolution of the conflict and it will free up billions of dollars that can be used to alleviate the suffering of people the world over.

5. Population transfers were successfully implemented before and after the adoption of the fourth Geneva Convention resolution. In fact, Israel is the only country this resolution targeted in order to prevent the transfer of the Arab population from Israel after the war of Independence!

6. It will create investment opportunities and would be of great benefit to Egypt, as well a financial bonanza for the Arabs who are currently living in Judea-Samaria, Gaza and Jordan.

7. It will improve the lifestyle and living conditions of millions of Arabs and will bring peace, stability and prosperity to Jews in Israel.

8. The plan can be implemented humanely and gradually under supervision of the International community or it can be implemented by force, unilaterally by Israel, when the Arab enemies of the Jewish state start the next war or perpetrate the hideous act of terror against the Israeli population. Israel must be ready to implement the SINAI OPTION at any time!

This is the only way toward permanent peace in the region and fulfillment of the 2000 year old commandment and inspiration of Jewish people –– the return to the G-d given land of our ancestors!

The International community, Arab and Muslim countries insist that they want peace in the Middle East! Therefore, why don't they even want to hear about this alternative plan? And the fact that during the breakout through the Sinai border with Egypt, instigated and planned in advance by Hamas, half of Gaza's population were able to cross the border during the first two days is a proof that the Sinai Option easy to implement and the practical way to start the process of ending Arab occupation of Jewish land and establishing true and permanent peace in Israel, free of Arab terror.

Footnote. Traditions and customs of all nations or indigenous people are greatly respected by a kind and politically correct international community. At the same time, any inconceivable excuse is used to negate, brush-off or dismiss a 3300 years old spiritual and historical connection of Jewish people with the Land of Israel. Eretz-Israel!

Steven Shamrak lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jake Levi, February 29, 2008.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg wrote: "Please do not support any of the organizations listed below. Urge organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI) to publicly denounce any so-called Jewish organization that endorses the perfidious two-state solution advocated by Saudi Arabia and every other genocidal Arab regime. The members of the organizations listed below should resign in protest, lest they aid and abet traitors to the Jewish people. To all those who advocate the establishment of an Arab state on Jewish soil, may they suffer ten-fold the miseries of Jews expelled from Gush Katif."

The news item below is from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency

FYI: Members of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs

American Jewish Committee http://www.ajc.org
American Jewish Congress http://www.ajcongress.org
Anti-Defamation League http://www.adl.org
B'nai B'rith http://www.bnaibrith.org
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life http://www.coejl.org
Hadassah http://www.hadassah.org
Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Life http://www.hillel.org
Jewish Labor Committee http://www.jewishlabor.org
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation http://www.jrf.org
Jewish War Veterans http://www.jwv.org
National Conference on Soviet Jewry http://www.ncsj.org/
National Council of Jewish Women http://www.ncjw.org
National Jewish Coalition for Literacy http://www.njcl.net
ORT America http://www.ortamerica.org
Union for Reform Judaism http://www.urj.org
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America http://www.ou.org
United Jewish Communities http://www.ujc.org
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism http://www.uscj.org
Women's League for Conservative Judaism http://www.wlcj.org

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs endorsed for the first time a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At its annual plenum Tuesday in Atlanta, the body, an umbrella organization representing 14 national Jewish groups and 125 local Jewish community relations councils, resolved that "the organized American Jewish community should affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states –– the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine s –– living side-by-side in peace and security."

The resolution also included compromise language reflecting American Jewry's "diverse views about current and future policies of the Israeli government towards settlements," and blamed the standstill in the peace process on Palestinian intransigence. It appeared to pass unanimously, though the Orthodox Union, which has been outspoken in objecting to any deal to share or divide Jerusalem, had considered abstaining. According to one of its officers, David Luchins, the O.U. was satisfied with the final text, but still felt it represented an attempt to "micromanage" the peace process.

The resolution came about in response to recent events like the seizure of Gaza, the "reconstitution" of the Palestinian Authority and the latest U.S.-backed peace initiative, said the JCPA's senior associate executive director, Martin Raffel.

Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, February 29, 2008.

There are times when you (I) think you've seen everything. And then something new pops up and you (I) pinch yourself, trying to discover if it's real or just a dream.

I've been pinching myself a lot lately, and each time I'm shocked to discover that it's not a dream.

Let me preface the forthcoming story with three short introductions.

First, every once in a while I receive letters asking why I post such items. I can only go back to the first article I recall having written, following the murder of Nachum Hoss and Yehuda Partuche just outside Hebron in March, 1995. I remember writing then that it's important that people KNOW – that events shouldn't be the inheritance of the few – that they should be public knowledge, on the table for everyone to see, to judge, and to do something about. I still believe that, even more so today.

Two: Despite what I am going to write, yes, I still believe in the sanctity of the State of Israel, in the Land of Israel. The State is, in my opinion, (and I know there are many who disagree for various reasons), a Divine gift for which we waited for over two thousand years. The State isn't at fault for all the problems we have, rather it's us, the people, who are screwing it up. (In short.)

Three: I'm frequently asked, 'what can we do?' OK – we all know the standard answers: make phone calls, write letters, etc. etc. (Again, in my opinion) there are two major activities people can partake in today to make a difference, and I'm sure this isn't the first time you've ever heard this. First, you can give money, making contributions and donations to whatever interests you (like Hebron). The battles we are facing today are unbelievably expensive ($20,000 a month to heat Beit HaShalom and literally tens and more tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees). Very simply, we cannot afford do it without mucho dollars. And that means people like you, because we don't have a monopoly on money.

However, if people REALLY want to make a difference, they have to come here to Israel – not for vacations, but to comeLIVE here, breath here, work here and 'change the way it is.' And it really can happen – it can be done. I know people don't like Aliyah speeches, but what can you do – sometimes the truth hurts. If you really believe in something, act upon it. Do it.

After you read the next paragraphs you may ask (if you already haven't, at least a million time) why would anyone want to go live there? I relate to that as 'the Spy's question – the same thing asked by 10 of the 12 spies Moses sent to search out the land following the exodus from Egypt. They looked around and asked themselves, 'why would anyone want to live here?' We know what happened to them and the damage they caused us, up through today. We are here in Eretz Yisrael because G-d gave us this land, it is our homeland, He created to Jewish people in order that we should live here and fulfill here His commandments. Need more be said?

OK – that was just an introduction. Now on to the good stuff.

By this time you're probably familiar with the famous, or infamous Beit HaShalom windows. A couple of weeks ago, following a fierce snow storm, Minister Eli Yishai from Shas started banging on the cabinet-room table, demanding to know why Jews in Hebron had to live without windows. Barak finally gave his okay. Then, the fun started.

One of my colleagues here received a call from the local Chief (named Taryk) of the Civil Administration, a branch of the defense ministry. This was a couple of days before another expected snow storm. He informed us that we could install, in Beit HaShalom, 'wooden frames with plastic' to protect its residents from the cold and rain.

"Ha," my friend answered, "you think they're living there without any protection at all. That's what we already have there."

So a couple of hours later Chief called back and said, "you can install aluminum window frames WITHOUT glass windows."

My friend: "Do me a favor. I'm busy. In another day or so it's going to start snowing again. So either issue me the permits I need for windows, or leave me alone."

A few hours later Chief called back and finally agreed to installation of windows – period.

Wow, great – a real victory. The windows were ordered and arrived in record time. The simplest windows in Israel were ordered, in order not to upset Chief or any of his bosses. Installation began. And then the fun started. Again my friend received a call, an hysterical call, from Chief.

"What are you doing there?"

"Installing windows."

"But you are also installing 'trisim' – plastic shades. You didn't get a permit to install anything made of plastic – only aluminum frames and glass windows."

"OK, so we'll change them from plastic to aluminum."

"But then they won't be the simplest windows, which you promised to install."

... – " Look, the standard for the simplest windows, set by the Ministry of Housing, demands that all windows come with shades. We are only following that."

One of the reasons the Chief and his bosses allowed the windows was a result the community's agreement to post bond, guaranteeing not take advantage ofthe window installation in order to make other earth-shattering changes in the building. A creature named Ronit Levy, a left-wing activist dressed in military garb who works as a prosecutor for the IDF, wrote a letter to the court saying that they should consider demanding payment of our bond guarantee because we had violated the agreement and installed plastic shades.

So, all the shades that had been installed were removed, and today the families live with glass windows in very sunlit rooms.

Behind the scenes, or as we say in Hebron, behind the windows.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 29, 2008.

The Israeli city of Ashkelon, located 17 kilometers (11 miles) from Gaza, was hit by several Iranian-made Grad (Katyusha) rockets on Thursday fired by Hamas militants in Gaza. One hit an apartment building, slicing through the roof and three floors below, and another landed near a school, wounding a 17-year-old girl.

After Thursday's rocket attacks on Ashkelon, Israel activated its "Code Red" rocket warning system there. Israel hesitated to activate the system because officials didn't want to send 120,000 people running for shelter every time a rocket was launched in the direction of the city. The army is now considering installing more radars near Ashkelon so that the system will be able to better analyze the course of an incoming rocket and warn only the residents of the target neighborhood, rather than the whole city, defense officials said Thursday.

Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defense mister, said Friday, "We're getting close to using our full strength. Until now, we've used a small percentage of the army's power because of the nature of the territory." Israel does not intend to launch a major ground offensive in the next week or two, partly because the military prefers to wait for better weather, defense officials said. But the army has now completed its preparations and informed the government it's ready to move immediately when the order is given. (AP/International Herald Tribune)

Ten Palestinian Rockets Hit Ashkelon – Shmulik Hadad

Ten Palestinian rockets hit Ashkelon on Thursday. Many parents said they will not be sending their children to school in the near future. Most educational institutions in Ashkelon are not fortified

Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 29, 2008.

This was written by Etgar Lefkovits and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204213983542&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FS

An ancient seal bearing an archaic Hebrew inscription dating back to the 8th century BCE has been uncovered in an archeological excavation in Jerusalem's City of David, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Thursday.

Photo: Shalem Center/Carla Amit

The seal excavated in the City of David bears the name of a public official from the 8th century BCE.

The find reveals that by 2,700 years ago, clerks and merchants had already begun to add their names to the seals instead of the symbols that were used in earlier centuries.

The state-run archeological body said the seal, which was discovered near the Gihon Spring in the City of David outside the walls of the Old City, bears the Hebrew name Rephaihu (ben) Shalem, a public official who lived in the Jerusalem neighborhood during this period.

The excavation, which is being carried out by Haifa University Professor Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron of the Israel Antiquities Authority, also uncovered pottery shards that date back to the Iron Age 2 (8th century BCE), which they used to date the seal, as well as fragments of three bullae, or pieces of clay that were used to seal letters or goods.

The discovery revealed an interesting development in the ancient world: whereas during the 9th century BCE letters and goods were dispatched on behalf of their senders without names, by the 8th century BCE the clerks and merchants had already begun to add their names to the seals, the archeologists said.

"In contrast with the large cluster of bullae that was found two years ago, in which all of its items contain graphic symbols [such as a boat or different animals – fish, lizards and birds] but are of an earlier date [end of the 9th-beginning of the 8th century BCE], the new items indicate that during the 8th century BCE the practice had changed and the clerks who used the seals began to add their names to them," Reich said.

The excavation, which is being conducted together with the Nature and Parks Authority and the support of the City of David Foundation, is one of several digs taking place in the City of David.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 29, 2008.

Well, the Olmert Pussilocracy is all upset that Ashkelon was hit by Hamas rockets this week and is meowing that this really is intolerable and crosses all the red lines. Translation: firing thousands of rockets into Sderot is tolerable and was never crossing red lines because who the hell cares about those backward blue-collar workers in Sderot?

Olmert's people are saying that if the blitz on Ashkelon does not end, then Israel will hit back really really hard. Of course Israel has been making empty threats to hit back really really hard for 25 years.

For those who have forgotten, I reprint here an older piece on the RRH doctrine:
"Sharon Renews the RRH Doctrine"
First appeared October 2, 2005
by Steven Plaut

(IsraelNN.com) I've long suspected that it is the Israeli grand strategy to defeat the Palestinians by forcing them to laugh themselves to death.

That seems to be the only possible way to understand the latest resuscitation of the RRH Doctrine, which has dominated Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and the Arab states since the early 1990s.

The RRH Doctrine was invented in the early days of Oslo and stands for Really, Really Hard. Israeli governments would make deals to hand over most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the PLO, while reassuring Israelis that there was no reason for worry – if the Palestinians misbehaved, Israel would hit back at them Really, Really Hard.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf was a far more credible strategist.

Even if, perchance, anyone ever took the RRH threats seriously, by the mid-1990s the RRH was little more than an overly-long-running joke. Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres had threatened it during the early days of Oslo. Later, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, after each and every act of terrorism, would loudly invoke RRH, but then did little, if anything, to retaliate. After Netanyahu came Ehud Barak, who once again threatened RRH regularly. But his only implementation of it consisted of chopper attacks on empty Palestinian buildings – and only after the PLO was given advance notification, so that all humans and terrorists could be evacuated.

RRH was also used by Barak (and other prime ministers) to threaten Hizbullah in Lebanon and their Syrian puppet masters. After each Hizbullah attack on Israeli towns and on Israeli forces inside southern Lebanon, Israel threatened the most serious RRH. But, in the end, the only manifestation of RRH implemented by Barak consisted of a panicked unilateral capitulation and withdrawal from southern Lebanon, which left Hizbullah sitting smack dab on Israel's border, with thousands of its rockets aimed at northern Israel, with Haifa in range.

When Ariel Sharon first revealed his Gaza-Samaria Disengagement Plan, after winning the last Israeli election, it too was accompanied by empty threats of RRH. Israel could not get the PLO to make any concessions in exchange for surrender of the Gaza Strip and the eviction of the Jewish population there, Sharon nevertheless decided to implement the Mitzna Plan, against which he had campaigned, and withdraw without any quid pro quo. He would just go ahead with unilateral capitulation, whether the PLO liked it or not. And if the PLO failed to contain Hamas and prevent terror attacks against Israel after the withdrawal, why, then, Sharon's government would order the Israeli Defense Forces to respond with serious RRH.

Yeah, sure.

Hours after the Gaza capitulation was completed, and all Israeli troops and settlers had been removed, the rocket and mortar attacks on the Negev began. The PLO was calling Sharon's bluff.

Almost as old as the RRH Doctrine is the Who-Could-Have-Ever-Predicted-That Syndrome. Since Oslo, every new Israeli concession resulted in escalated Palestinian violence. And the Israeli chattering classes would sigh and ask rhetorically, "Who could have possibly foreseen this?" Likewise, after each violation of the Oslo Accords by the PLO, the media and the left-wing politicians would pout, "Who could have predicted that?"

After years of daily proof that the entire Oslo concept was unworkable, its advocates were still responding to each new failure as if it was total serendipity.

The Israeli media could not foresee any failures of the Oslo capitulations and appeasements because the media are by and large the occupied territories of Israel's radical Left. The overseas media were even less capable of foreseeing the consequences of Oslo because they were far more interested in bashing Israel than understanding anything about the Middle East conflict.

The answer to the rhetorical question of "Who could have foreseen the failures of Oslo?" is, "Anyone not blinded by ideology." A few weeks after the handshake on the White House lawn in 1993, I published my first article predicting the complete failure of the Rabin-Peres Oslo initiative; in fact, it was the first such article published in North America. I predicted that the PLO would simply use any territory turned over to it by Israel to build terror infrastructure and launch attacks on Israel. I wrote of future rocket attacks and sniper fire against Israeli towns from the PLO-controlled areas years before they actually began in earnest. And I was hardly alone in 20/20 foresight.

It was not particularly difficult in 1993 to see why Oslo would fail. It is even easier now, with 12 years of disastrous "peace process" experience, to understand why Sharon's Gaza disengagement will result in an enormous escalation of violence, not in any relaxation of tensions.

Let's give the Arabs some credit. Israel has been making so many threats of RRH ever since the Oslo "peace process" began that a Palestinian leader would have to be learning-disabled to take any of them seriously. If I consider them a joke, why should Abu Mazen believe them?

The Oslo Accords produced the greatest escalation in Palestinian terrorism and atrocities in modern Israeli history. At their most severe, Israeli retaliations took the form of some targeted assassinations of Hamas and PLO terror leaders. More often than not, Israeli retaliations consisted of meaningless gestures like bombing the aforementioned empty buildings or making sonic booms over terrorist concentrations, and of course the ever louder empty threats of RRH. On Israel's northern border, virtually no retaliations against Hizbullah took place, even after Hizbullah kidnapped and murdered three Israeli army officers and fired rockets into Israel.

All of this brings us to the latest rocket attacks by the PLO on Sderot a few days ago. The main effect of the Gaza capitulation is that the PLO can now import unlimited supplies of weaponry from Egypt, with no ability of Israel to interfere. Israeli troops are no longer on the ground inside the Gaza Strip.

We already see the results and we can clearly foresee the "unexpected" consequences that will be taking place in the near future. The PLO and its affiliates now have all the freedom they need to upgrade their rockets. The new, improved Kassam rockets will be able to hit Ashkelon from Gaza. Sharon's Gaza capitulation will turn the Negev town of Sderot into Israel's Stalingrad. The PLO has already converted an abandoned synagogue building in Gush Katif into a weapons facility.

When the latest rockets hit Sderot after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, Sharon and his people responded mainly with a new round of RRH. The laughter from Ramallah was deafening. Let's note that back before 1993, when Israel held Gaza tightly with on-the-ground military rule, there were no Kassam rockets in Gaza. The Palestinian savages threw stones at Jews because real weapons were hard to procure.

The PLO knows what we all know; namely, that Sharon is afraid to take the only action that, in the end, can end the shooting of Kassam rockets into Jewish homes . R&D, or Re-Occupation and DeNazification. Let's hope his successor will be less

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 at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, February 29, 2008.

Part 1  Galileo Galilei paid a heavy price to the Catholic Church for his support of heliocentrism. He was forced to recant and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition. How ironic that the future Arab Galilean nation will reap the benefits. My point is that some 3 or 4 years ago someone in Israel wrote an Op-Ed for the JP, suggesting the Galilee should be given away because it has many Arabs. Creating new nations out of little or no land is not just plain stupidity, but in Israel's case they would all want to annihilate the Jews.

Part 2  If the nation of Palestine is Jordan the sequel, the Galilee would be Palestine the sequel and so on, but not ad infinitum, because the land is tiny. As Sarah pointed out, the Kosovo example shows how the world operates cynically. Milosevic annoyed so many that this is the price Serbia paid. But for the Palestinians, the more they kill the more they deserve a state. Serbia has no oil. Kurdistan does, but because the neighboring states have more and are more powerful they ain't going to be free. Don't count on the West.

Part 3  Basques and Catalans won't fare much better, because EU countries would be shooting themselves in the foot. Transylvania would be Europe's Galilee, a would be nation run by descendants of Count Dracula. But the difference is that only in Israel we see so many Jews favoring the split of their own tiny country to people who have no right to one there and want to massacre those who do. The voluntary giveaway of Judea and Samaria and the division of Jerusalem is all the the proof the world needs that Israel has to go. The fools think that by acting first they will prevent the worst.

Part 4  That's a good definition of suicide. The fantasies of Shimon Peres and his disciples lead to all Jews being blamed for anything bad that happens anywhere. The anti-semites smell Jewish blood. At least Dracula was not so particular about it. But Dracula doesn't run Israel, Olmert does. Here is how. The First Law states that if one tosses a live cat in the air, it always falls standing up on its feet, never on its back. The Second Law states that if one spreads butter on a piece of toast and drops it by accident, the buttered part always hits the floor.

Part 5  No exceptions have ever been found to these two laws. Then comes Olmert. He combined the two laws. He got hold of a cat, spreaded a lot of butter on its back and tossed it in the air. First Law states it must fall standing. Second Law implies it must fall on its back, because that's where the butter is. The actual result? Well, to satisfy both Laws the cat can never fall, it must always float. Olmert is making Israel float...towards nonexistence.

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Honestly Concerned, February 29, 2008.

This is by Tom Gross and it appeared today on Media Blog, National Review Online
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q= ZjkyYzg4NjI5YWI0OTE4OGJmYTAxNGU1ZTBhYzRlOWM

A Reuters mistranslation of remarks by Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai this morning has triggered an international news libel against Israel.

Among the news outlets jumping on the bandwagon are those that have previously been accused of deliberately attempting to stir up anti-Semitism through false and inflammatory coverage of Israel.

They include several British-owned or British-based media. For example, at the present time the following headlines can be found on these websites:

Reuters: Israel minister warns Palestinians of "shoah"
The BBC: Israel warns of Gaza 'holocaust'
The Guardian: Israeli minister warns of Palestinian 'holocaust'
The Times (of London): Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza

In fact Vilnai said this morning in off-the-cuff remarks made on Israel Radio that: "The more the Qassam rocket fire [on Israeli civilians] intensifies and increases its range, the Palestinians are bringing upon themselves a bigger disaster because we will use all our might to defend ourselves."

Vilnai used the word "shoah" (meaning disaster), which Reuters mistranslated as "Holocaust," which is "HaShoah" in Hebrew. It is like confusing a "white house" with "The White House."

Given the virulently anti-Israel (and many would say anti-Semitic) track record of some of the news organizations who have jumped to prominently headline these mistranslated comments on their home pages, one wonders if they are making this mistake in innocence?

Contact Honestly Concerned at post@honestly-concerned.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 29, 2008.


Russia shipped Syria extensive weaponry. Iran has upgraded Syrian missiles. "The problem is that their missiles are being transformed from less-effective weapons into precision weapons that will enable their use against military bases, airports and military depots, which is a very worrying development." Having thousands of missiles, Syria can strike every part of Israel (IMRA, 2/8).

The Muslims can blanket Israel with missiles, thanks to Israel's governments.

Instead of spreading its people out, Israel has been shedding strategic depth and letting the enemy come nearer. The IDF left Lebanon and let Hizbullah build up an army there. Israel fought another war against Hizbullah, but let Hizbullah rebuilt its forces and get into a position to take over Lebanon.

Israel supposed that Syria, whose planes were inferior and whose tanks were rusting, would remain backward militarily. Wasn't the Soviet Union gone? Israel has been slow to catch on that the Soviets are back and Iran has become another sponsor of Syria's military. Israel never should have made its partial withdrawal from the Golan and certainly should not have let Hizbullah survive and Syria be unpunished for having helped Hizbullah.

Israel lets Iran build nuclear facilities. So does the U.S..

Thus Israel, whose government talks about more withdrawals, and which failed to crack down on its enemies, has lost its deterrent and earned the contempt of the Muslims. The Muslims are eager to arm more. They must be intending to make the final war soon. That is the real failure of the Olmert-Livni war in Lebanon.

It also is a failure of the US, Democrats as well as Republicans. They have let the evil axis grow and are letting or making an ally shrink. The victors over Israel would rally the faithful against the US. The State Dept. may not like the Jews, but the Jews don't want to kill them. The Muslim axis does.

I don't see how a weakened Israel can survive a blitz by a strengthened Arab-Iranian axis, unless it exercised its nuclear option. Not a likely prospect.


Israel plans to exert economic, diplomatic, and military pressure on Hamas (IMRA, 2/8). Israel talks big, but doesn't take into account outside factors and actors, which put such pressures on it. It backs down from its economic and military threats and has no diplomatic clout (partly because it always backs down). It doesn't see past a possible ceasefire that it must eradicate Hamas.


Two of the terrorists wanted by Israel, and who had turned themselves over to the P.A. for protective custody, have escaped (IMRA, 2/8).

The appeasement-minded government of Israel never made the P.A. adhere to its signed obligation to extradite wanted criminals. It let Arafat defy that agreement so as to uphold terrorism as a legitimate form of warfare. This is one of the consequences.

Arafat used to let prisoners out, after getting credit with the West for arresting them.


Iran seems to have learned how to make all sorts of weapons and support materials. Sometimes its claims are exaggerated but not denied. I think it is an advanced country militarily.

The industrialized countries made a great mistake in educating certain other countries' citizens and in selling them dangerous technology just to make some money immediately. In the long run, those countries menace their former tutors and suppliers. Just as Lenin said, the capitalists sell enemies the rope with which to hang them. By "capitalists" we now should include Russia and China.

Israel, like the US, has let its enemies build up a menacing force. For Israel, the danger is more immediate and, even without nuclear weapons, dire. An acquaintance, who objected to the Iraq war, because he (mistakenly) thought it unprovoked and pre-emptive, misunderstands modern warfare. Fanatical enemies build up forces that can be launched at a moment's non-notice. There is little defense against it, only retaliation. They are too fanatical to care much about it. The insane must be stopped before they get the arms to destroy the sane. The longer action is put off, the harder it becomes and the greater the risk of under-estimating enemy readiness for Armageddon.

Let's have Hillary-Obama placards reading, "Democrats For Armageddon."

It isn't just future strife that allowing an enemy build-up permits. It also permits a war by attrition. Thus we find an increasing volume of rockets being launched at Israel, which fails to send sufficient force into Gaza to capture the terrorists staffing the launchers. When or if Israel does, the enemy might launch so many rockets as to inflict high casualties. That may deter an expeditionary force.


On vacation, I met an American who was hired by Israelis to teach them other ways of thinking about their situation. I told him that what they most need to learn is how the enemy thinks, and that appeasement doesn't work. He agreed.


If anybody who reads what antisemites write knew anything about history, or would, or could, think about what they read, they'd be amused at how nonsensical it is. The antisemites have a different story for almost every aspect of history and current events. To them, it's always being manipulated by "the Jews" for "the Jews." We Jews get expelled from one country after another, persecuted in one country after another, but the antisemites say we are running the world. Not that I ever noticed, especially not when all the great powers arm the Muslims.

What do they mean, "the Jews?" They make it seem as if we are monolithic, loyal only to ourselves and disloyal to others. Not at all. For that to happen, there would have to be a uniform, stern, widely disseminated ideology and little of the soaring intermarriage. Jews are divided into various degrees of religious observance. Some sects are not nationalistic. Many Jews are non-observers, non-believers, and antisemites. Many are not Zionistic, and the Jewish Establishment long opposed Zionism, just as the State Dept., which antisemites claim is a tool of Zionism, long opposed Zionism and still does. How do antisemites account for the State Dept. record of opposing the Israel's formation and demanding territorial concessions by Israel? They don't. They don't account for anything that would disprove their prejudice. Sec. of State Baker employed "Baker's Jews," who assisted State Dept. machinations against Israel.

American Jews, including my liberal friends, who quarrel more with the US government than I do, are grateful to live in a country that now tolerates them and in which people can live well. It would be crazy to do anything to harm this country. A few fellow Jews are warped, as are some gentiles.

Antisemites claim that the Israel lobby controls Congress. That lobby, among others, has some influence, but not enough to stop aid to the Arabs, get Israel's debt to the US forgiven as was Egypt's, stop arms sales to the Arabs, or change US policy against many Israeli measures of self-defense. Other lobbies have bigger budgets than does AIPAC, now being persecuted by the FBI.

Occasionally, I review what antisemites are writing on Internet. Their venting of Ignorant, or is it propagandistic spleen, is more distorted than a blind person's view. At least their computer reduces the taxes spent on lunatic asylums.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, February 28, 2008.

On February 12, 2008 I met with Russell Robinson, CEO of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), at the JNF offices in Manhattan. Joining me at the meeting were Tsafrir Ronen, a founder of the Coalition for the Land of Israel (an Israeli grassroots protest organization), and a free-lance writer/pro-Israel activist from New York. Joining Russell were Jodi Bodner, JNF's Director of Communications, and Rabbi Eric Lankin, JNF's Chief of Institutional Advancement and Education.

The agenda of our meeting was "everything Israel." Although issues specific to the JNF were discussed, we focused on the perilous state in which Israel finds herself and our demands to Russell that he speak out against the tragedy in Sderot, and publicly oppose Prime Minister Olmert's suicidal plans to give away Judea and Samaria and to divide Jerusalem.

At the beginning of the meeting Russell quoted from the Bible (Parshat Lekh-lekha) and affirmed that the Jews' claim to the Land of Israel goes back to Biblical times when G-d promised the Land to our forefather Abraham and his children. It was most encouraging to hear Mr. Robinson make such a strong, Bible-based declaration. However, this statement directly contradicts the policies of Olmert and his cohorts, who advocate "peace" strategies that call for the giveaway of the very land we were promised by G-d. Unfortunately, Russell refused to question or even discuss this or related issues.

Throughout our discussion, Russell's tone and words were extremely positive. He predicted that the best days lie ahead for the Jewish People in Israel and spoke glowingly of JNF's plans to develop the Negev. He stressed the importance of building, which he claimed was the most effective deterrent against Israel's enemies. Building and development are certainly important. However, one must not lose sight of Israel's reality, which includes a daily barrage of missiles striking into the western Negev, and existential threats surrounding the Jewish State.

It became apparent that Russell's positive, optimistic posturing was little more than a tool in his salesmanship arsenal when he said that he does not mention the current dangerous situation in Israel because it would dissuade potential visitors from traveling there. Doesn't he think that these potential visitors are owed the truth…that they should have sufficient information to determine for themselves the possible risks of traveling to Israel, and to various locations within the Jewish State? Even more importantly, he is ignoring the horrific plight of the Jews of Sderot and throughout the western Negev for the sake of a banner year of Israeli tourism! Finally, who is going to want to move to the Negev, as more and more of it falls within range of Israel's enemies' rockets and missiles?

At least twice during our meeting Russell mentioned the pressure he receives from those who believe the JNF is not doing enough for the Arabs. He uses his experiences with those groups (no matter how delusional their views may be) to justify making decisions that fall 'safely' somewhere in the middle. However, it is the test of a true leader to use one's knowledge, sound judgment and strength to make tough, correct, reality-based decisions. Russell, what are you waiting for???

During the meeting, Russell made it clear to us on several occasions that he would not say anything controversial because he knew that I write mass emails, and that I would probably share the details of our meeting with those on my vast email list. After Mr. Robinson refused to answer a question about Sderot, I attempted to force any sort of comment out of him. I asked: "Russell, can you at least say that you would like Hamas destroyed?" He replied, "You may quote me on this: In the uniform I am wearing, I cannot answer that question."

Despite this self-censoring, the JNF CEO did offer two other unsolicited, telling comments. Towards the end of the meeting, Russell said to us: "I respect you; keep doing what you are doing." Would he have made this statement if he were opposed to our activities? Hopefully not. Would he have said the same thing to members of Americans for Peace Now, after they explained to him that they had prevented the IDF from carrying out a critical security operation? Again, hopefully not.

At the conclusion of our 90-plus minute meeting, when I was literally halfway out the door, Russell said to me: "You're in a good position." (By that he meant, I may say or write whatever I'd like without facing any consequences, because I am unaffiliated with any Jewish organization.) I responded, "Join me; I'll give you half my desk." Thinking more deeply about his off-the-cuff remark, I realize that he views this as some sort of political game. How about the bigger issue, Russell? Am I "in a good position" as I helplessly watch you and most other mainstream American Jewish "leaders" do nothing to steer Israel away from her path towards suicide, and the Jewish People away from a second Holocaust?

Russell's statement – "You're in a good position" – may imply that he is not in a good position. I hope he finds the moral courage expected of him in his role as one of the top Jewish leaders in America, so that he may speak out loudly and clearly for Israel's best interest. Then, he, too, will be in a good position, and he will help save Israel in the process.

Russell: Be a hero to the Jewish People – SPEAK OUT! I promise that if you do, you will have the passionate, dedicated support of throngs of us who truly love Israel!

Most sincerely, with much hope,
Buddy Macy

Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by K_Hallal, February 28, 2008.

This was written by Anwar Sheikh January 12, 2006. Anwar Shaikh, "a great mind of 20th century, whose grim discoveries about Islam shook the world, passed away on November 25, 2006. " [when young] "his religious conviction was akin to that of a typical Muslim Jihadist, of the sort we see today." ... "at the age of 25, Anwar saw the light of humanity and left Islam."

Man is born with a moral sense which enables him to differentiate between right and wrong. Without subjecting behavior to a common standard of vice and virtue, social evolution is not possible. This is the reason that even the primitive societies had words which denoted difference between good and bad.

All societies did not practice universal standards of vice and virtue, yet it is well known that almost all communities knew what was good and bad. For example, mutual fidelity of consorts, speaking the truth, keeping promises, respecting family ties, helping the poor and weak, were considered signs of good morality. Of course, morality cannot be coded but its rules are well understood. From this attitude arose the famous maxim: "Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself."

It means that you must wish others what you wish for yourself. Since every one desires security of person and property, liberty to worship, fair trial, freedom of speech etc., these facts, over a period of time, rose to become what is called Human Rights. He who violates these rights is held the enemy of humankind.

When Islamic morality is judged by universal standards, this Arabian religion fails to qualify as the friend and guide of humanity. In fact, it constitutes a major threat to the survival of human race. I have no doubt that the Muslims will protest against this point of view, and as usual, will produce far-fetched and irrational evidence to prove that Islam advocates love and brotherhood of mankind. This type of sorcery has worked wonders for Muslim fundamentalists in the past, but with the dissemination of knowledge, it is difficult to cloud the truth with the magic of misinterpretation, marvel of memorization and mysticism of meaninglessness.

Islam has become a set of fundamentals which preach social segregation, hatred of non-Muslims and elimination of dissenters through dominance, death and destruction. These conclusions, no matter how true, cannot be palatable to the Muslims and therefore rank as fabrications, from their standpoint. I can do no better than quote from the Koran to decide the issue. Examine the following for yourself:

1. "Do not let non-Muslims enter mosques. They will go to hell."( Repentance: 17 )

2. "O ye who believe! The non-Muslims are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship."(Repentance: 28)

3. "O ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers .... and let them find harshness in you."(Repentance: 123)

4. "Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute."(Repentance: 29)

5. "O believers, do not treat your fathers and brothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief, whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are evil-doers."(Repentance: 20)

6. "Certainly, God is an enemy to the unbelievers."( The Cow: 90 )

7. "God has cursed the unbelievers, and prepared for them a blazing hell."( The Confederates 60 )

8. "Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends.... whoso does that belongs not to God."(The House of Imram: 60)

9. "O believers, do not make friends with the Jews and Christians; ..whoso of you makes them his friend is one of them."(The Table: 55)

10. "The believers indeed are brothers."( Apartments: 10 )

11. "Moslems are hard against the unbelievers, merciful to one another."(Victory: 25)

A Muslim naturally believes in all such Koranic verses, which determine his social outlook and he becomes a narrow-minded sectarian. This psychological approach is the fountain of fundamentalism. It is a myth to say that Islam advocates good relationship with the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and Christians. What I have said at 9 above supports this statement. If this were not enough, one could refer the matter to HADITH, the sayings of the Prophet: Chapter LXXI of SAHIH MUSLIM clearly states that since Islam is the religion for the entire humanity, it abrogates all other faiths. To illustrate the point further, the hadith no.285 asserts that any Jew or Christian who has heard of Muhammad but does not believe in him, will become "one of the denizens of Hell-Fire."

The Islamic fundamentalism has become the foundation of Islamic morality. What makes it a threat to human survival is the fact that it is not a passive approach but advocates active aggression to impose itself on the unbelievers. Why? It gives several reasons for this. Let me quote two:

1. "Muslims are the best of all nations."(House of Imram: 110). Obviously, the best nation is superior to other people, who must wear the yoke of discrimination.

2. The Prophet Muhammad has been sent by God with "the religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions.."(Private Apartments: 28)

Simply stated it means that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and have the birth-right to dominate them. This is why Islam calls itself DIN-E-GHALIB, the religion of dominance.

As every student of psychology knows, the purpose of any fundamentalism is to secure blind following from its adherents. This is possible only when they are conditioned to a certain object or goal which begins to rank as the sole purpose of their lives. As a result, the purpose begins to overrule the method of acquisition; whatever secures it is good and whatever obstructs it is bad. In a nutshell, people must stop thinking for themselves, especially in terms of morality. As the Marxists brainwashed people in the name of proletarianism and what it stood for, the Muslims have been conditioned to the person of the Prophet Muhammad, who is projected as the Saviour of his followers, having complete power to find them permanent residence in paradise, which is the abode of luxury, love making and lasciviousness. Since Muslims, in most countries are deprived, depressed and desolated, they are prepared to do anything to uphold the honour of the Prophet. For total obedience, they are at liberty to indulge in the most convenient morality such as mendacity, rape, murder, theft and treason without losing their chance of entering the paradise which has been absolutely guaranteed by their faith in the Prophet Muhammad.

A corollary of this belief is the oppression of non-Muslims by the Muslims, who deny human rights to the unbelievers for upholding the Islamic precepts in relation to the infidels. As a result, non-Muslims are discouraged to live in the Muslim countries even if they have originally belonged to their ancestors. It is justified on the precedent that the Prophet Muhammad expelled all Jews and unbelievers from Arabia. The modern example is that of Pakistan, the original home of the Hindus. There were millions of non-Muslims in this land before partition of India but as Pakistan came into being they all were thrown out through malice, mutilation and massacre. On the contrary, over 100,000,000 Muslims live in India and demand human rights! In Islamic countries, the non-Muslim minorities are either non-existent or very tiny indeed. This strangulation of human rights has become a part of the Islamic morality.

Since Islam is the Din-e-Ghalib i.e. the religion of dominance by God's will, Muslim minorities in non-Islamic countries do everything possible to harass, humiliate and harangue the host countries to practise their faith and culture. The "Muslim Parliament" of Great Britain is an example in point. In fact, this coterie of a few hundred Muslim fanatics, is a mockery of the British tolerance and hospitality. Its major role is to collect donations from its adherents, forbid Muslims to seek identification with Great Britain and practice all rules of Islamic intolerance towards the host community. There is no concept of parliamentary government in Islam, whatever, yet these hatred-mongers have set up this association in the Land of Magna Carta, dedicated to liberty. It is only a matter of time before the British government take notice of its evil influence on the British culture, causing problems also for those who have adopted the British ways and are proud to be sincere citizens of this land.

Use of violence for securing worldly goal and terrorization of non-Muslims are the pillar of Islamic morality. It is done through:

1. secular laws which are made in the name of Islam, and

2. the laws which Allah has framed and require no legislative authority and procedures.

Now, let us ponder over these two points:

1a. Islam declares Muhammad the greatest of all prophets and therefore reserves the highest reverence for him. This has become an article of faith. A Muslim, unwilling to force it on others, is considered deficient in belief. As a result, every Muslim looks for an opportunity to demonstrate the magnitude of his faith by molesting non-Muslims, and even fellow-believers who express less bigotry in this field. Politicians have seized upon this emotional condition of the Muslim mind to enhance their grip on power. For example, Pakistan has passed TOHEEN-E-RASUL ACT (Contempt of Prophet's Act), which prescribes death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Such an Act has never been passed in the world of Islam during the last fourteen centuries; nor is there any religious justification for it. In fact such a law in itself is a gross contempt of the Prophet, who wanted to be known as the Blessing for mankind. A person who is so conscious of himself cannot be the Blessing for lacking tolerance and understanding of the human behavior. Yet they have done it to terrorize the dissidents and non-Muslims. The treatment of the Qadiyanis and Christians in Pakistan, speak for itself. In fact, it is an ambassador of moral perversion which is an echo of the European Inquisition conducted by the Christian clerics to defend the holiness of their savior, Jesus Christ.

This Islamic exploitation of the believers has led to their moral bankruptcy, and this fact is well demonstrated by what happened in Pakistan during the middle of April, 1994:

Hafiz Sajjad Tariq of Gujranwala in Pakistan, accidentally dropped a copy of the Koran in a fireplace. As it caught fire, people of the locality became aflame with rage. Not caring that Sajjad was a pious Muslim devoted to exalt holiness of the Scripture (Koran), they alleged that he had desecrated the Word of God. As mullahs of the area heard of it, they instantly issued Fatwas of apostasy against Sajjad. Like hawks, the fundamentalists swooped down on him, each hoping that his blow would dispatch the victim to hell assuring him (the assailant) a seat in paradise. As they were hitting him, someone shouted that he was being dished out an un-Islamic punishment because he must be stoned to death. By then, they had broken his ribs and he was not able to walk. A gallant police officer intervened and locked him up with a view to saving him from mob-violence. As the news spread, a large crowd of frenzied Muslims appeared before the local police-station demanding his immediate release. The Police Inspector, instead of enforcing the law, fell for the temptation of establishing himself as the champion of Islam and handed Sajjad to the attackers. They started stoning him mercilessly and thereafter set his body on fire. If this were not enough, they tied his corpse to a powerful motor-cycle and dragged it through the streets for two hours! After a pious show of Islamic morality, they felt that they had done enough to avenge the honour of the Prophet whom the Koran had been revealed.

This type of Islamic morality is rampant, not only in the Islamic countries, but also in the lands where the Muslims have settled in sufficient numbers. To explain this point, I may quote Britain where I live. I wrote and published a book: "Eternity" in 1990. It challenges the basic concept of revelation, the foundation of prophethood. As the Muslim organizations heard about it, they individually and severally issued a fatwa condemning me to death. Neither have they given me a chance to explain myself before a properly constituted tribunal of justice nor have they accepted my challenge for a public debate. Its consequences have been painful to me and my family.

What I have stated above roughly delineates the Islamic morality in relation to legislated law. Now, I may briefly touch upon the second part of the issue i.e. the direct commands of Allah which are so evident that they need not be legislated:

2a. Jehad is one of them, and forms an integral part of the Islamic morality. It is an open behest of Allah to murder, pillage, rape and create widows and orphans for imposing Allah's will on the unbelievers, who are considered His worst enemies just for the "sin" of unbelief. Yet, Allah calls himself the Independent (SAMAD), All-Compassionate, All-Powerful and Creator of the whole universe!

If Allah does possess all these qualities, how can He sanction the destruction of innocent people? If He were so desperate for worship, being the All-Powerful, Compassionate, Creator, He would have created humankind in such a way that everyone was born with the belief suited to God.

Instead of delving into this mystery, I hasten to add that Jihad or violence is considered holy by Allah, who, in return for persecuting, pillaging and paralyzing the infidels declares: "Allah has bought from the faithful themselves and their belongings against the gift of paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill and are killed.."(Repentance: 110)

A HADITH ( the saying of the Prophet Muhammad ) declares: "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."(Sahih Bokhari, Ch. 22: 73 )

What is paradise? The Muslim scholars are usually embarrassed by this question and pretend that it is not physical but a condition of the mind. The above Koranic verse clearly states that it is a definite exchange i.e. offer of paradise for killing a non-Muslim or getting killed in the process of obeying this divine command. The paradise is the main temptation for practicing Islam. This is the reason that the Koran explains it well. Paradise is the description of the luxurious surroundings dwelt in by Houris and Ghilman. Houris are the most beautiful ever-young virgins with wide, flexing eyes and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade an embellished with bracelets of silver.

Allah shall give every believing man no fewer than seventy houris and many ghilmans. To make sure that the lucky fellow can cope with them, Allah will increase his virility a hundred-fold! This is the ultimate goal of the Islamic morality, and it is why that the Muslims, who are usually depressed, are ready to practice convenient morality based on violence. Even more potent factor in this field is their staunch belief in the intercessory powers of the Prophet Muhammad, which means that he has the authority to accommodate his followers in paradise irrespective of what they may have done. I shall deal with this point in the next issue of "Liberty."
Source: http://www.humanists.net/alisina/islamic_morality.htm
Posted by urbanadder22 at 8:38 PM 0 comments


A Letter to the Germans from one who cares for the well-being of the German nation and of all of Europe:




Some of you might not be too comfortable with what happened to the Jews of Europe some sixty years ago. You are perhaps concerned about offending the sensibilities of another group in your midst– let me warn you: Don't be! Do not bend over backwards to accomodate Islamics. They will eat you alive!

You see my dear German friends: The MOSLEMS ARE NOT LIKE THE JEWS. Islam is NOT A RELIGION like the one the Jews practice, quietly without infringing on anybody's rights.

Islam is an ideology that demands all othes knuckle under to it. They – the Islamics (I like that term it's sort of a contraction of Islam and clerics – get it? Islamics) – the Islamics are not like Jews. Islamics make demands: they want this, they want that, they want head scarves obligatory for all females, not only Islamic ones. They want mosques everywhere, blaring out the muezzin's call to prayer to the faithful, so foreign to European ears.

Islamics would prefer pork were not sold or eaten, it offends them. They do not want women wearing revealing clothes (it might excite the oh-so-pure-in-thought Moslem males and cause them to lose control and well, you know what they do then).

But they demand. They are insulted. Their prophet is insulted. Their pride is insulted.

German, do not feel bad about not giving in to any-to all-of their demands for apologies for not observing Islamic customs yourselves.

Stand up to them. These are not Jews that you may want to handle with kid gloves because of memories that are not quite comfortable yet.

Do not coddle the Islamics to make up for what was done by prior generations to the Jews.

No. Islamics are not Jews and you can – you should stand up to them. Refuse their demands. Who are they, these foreign "Asylum seekers" and what have you, to make demands on the citizens of the country that took them in?

They should be grateful for what you have done for them, but they are not. They threaten, they whine, they rage, they want you to cringe,

You see, my dear Germans, they are not Jews. What Jews would have tried to intimidate the citizen of their host country?

Islamics want you to be afraid of them, to fear their rage, their threats of throat slittings and head off-choppings (abzuhacken). They want you to fold up and let Eurabia become the reality not the goal. Eurabia now! They want. "We will get it, never you fear. We will outbreed you. we will have you living under our 'protection.'" (or not at all.)

Germans, don't you see: These are not the Jews about you might have an uneasy conscience. Don't worry, you can resist them. Do not let them play on your perhaps subconscious feelings

By being so sensitive to the sensibilities of the Islamics, you are not being kind to the memory of the Jews that not only made no demands, certainly did not try to strike fear in your hearts, spoke your language fluently, contributed to your literature even, your music, your art, and did not insist that their laws and customs be followed by Germans.

Whence comes your reluctance, Germans, to stand up to those who refuse to be part of you but want you to become part of them or be their "Untermenschen?"

Well, from a Moslem himself you might be surprised to learn. A Moslem who dare not use his name nor reveal himself in the country that accepted him and treated him as a human being: one of your fellow European countries, Holland.

Here is what he writes:

"There they stand, the Dutch with their completely justified and without doubt noble striving to dissociate themselves as far away as possible from Hitler's ideology. Completely blind to the fact that their path circles back to the other end at the Jews (with all due respect). The poor devils continue to misunderstand that a choice isn't necessarily between the Nazis or the Jews, predator or prey, oppressor or victim, but that there is an alternative, a third road, which is save yourself and guarantee the continuance of your own culture and your own country. It's simply this one, tiny misunderstanding, that will make the Dutch go down in history as the people who thought so deeply about a nightmare from the past that they ended up becoming that nightmare."
Mohammed Rasoel
vom dem Buch
The Downfall of the Netherlands
['De ondergang van Nederland']

Land of the Naive Fools
by Mohammed Rasoel [or Rasool]
Translation courtesy of Faust

So, you see, my dear Germans, do not make the mistake that he accuses the Netherlanders (die Hollaender) of having made. Do not make amends for what happened to the Jews of Europe of yesteryear by knuckling under to the Islamics of today.

[Please, my Dear Germans, remember the valiant Mohammed Rasoel's admonition:

["save yourself and guarantee the continuance of your own culture and your own country"]

Remember what the Danes said to the Islamics that threated and demanded after the cartoons appeared in Denmark.

If you cannot recall, let me refresh your memory:

After the Mohammed Cartoons, the Danes begged the Islamics's pardon for having offended them. Their apology is non pareil – without parallel – in the annals of European-Islamic relations. And here it is in all its simple beauty:

The Excuse of the Danes for the Cartoons that offended the sensibilities of the Islamics in Denmark first and of course of all Islamics in the world, who apparently are always waiting for an incident that they can pounce upon and give vent to their inborn rage.

(If you have seen this before, bear with me please. Reread the the abject apology of the Danes to the Islamics.)

Here it is:

We're Sorry

(Auch gut fuer die muslime der ganzen Welt die in unsern Laendern uns das Blut aussaugen)

We're sorry we gave you shelter when war drove you from your home country....
We're sorry we took you in when others rejected you....
We're sorry we gave you the opportunity to get a good education....
We're sorry we gave you food and a home when you had none....
We're sorry we let you re-unite with your family when your homeland was no longer safe...
We're sorry we never forced you to work while WE paid all your bills....
We're sorry we gave you almost FREE rent,phone,internet,car and school for your 10 kids...
We're sorry we build you Mosques so you could worship your religion in our Christian land...
We're sorry we never forced you to learn our language after staying 30 years!...
And so....from all Danes to the entire Muslim world, we just wanna say:
F**K YOU!!

(This apology also applies to all the Islamics of the world that have been sucking the life-blood from the nations that gave them asylum, or shelter, and welcomed them as "new citizens.")
– from the Book Hurra, wir kapitulieren by Henryk M. Broder

To be certain that all Germans, whether they are proficient in English or not understand this abject apology from the deeply sorry Danes, it is reprinted in their native language, in German, here:

Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch aufgenommen haben, als andere euch ablehnten...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch die Gelegenheit gaben, einen gute Ausbildung zu erhalten...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch Essen und ein Zuhause gaben, als Ihr keines von beiden hattet...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir eure Familie nachkommen ließen, als eure Heimatländer nicht mehr sicher waren...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch nie zur Arbeit gezwungen haben, während wir alle eure Rechnungen bezahlt haben...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch in unseren Sozialwohnungen wohnen ließen, euch Telefone, Internet, Autos und Schulbildung für eure zehn Kinder gaben...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir Euch erlaubt haben Eure Moscheen in unserem christlichen Land zu bauen, damit Ihr Eurem Glauben nachgehen könnt...
Es tut uns leid, dass wir Euch in den 30 Jahren die Ihr bei uns lebt, nie gezwungen haben, unsere Sprache zu lernen...
Deshalb, ...von allen Dänen an die gesamte moslemische Welt, nur ein einziges: F**K YOU!!

[es ist schwer die letzten zwei Worte auf Deutsch zu uebersetzen. Villeicht kann mir jemand damit helfen. Danke sehr.]

Posted by urbanadder22
Monday, February 11, 2008

ATTACKING MECCA, MEDINA, AND THE DOME MOSQUE Posted by urbanadder22 at 12:01 AM 0 comments Tuesday, January 8, 2008

. . . of Islam

What are you willing to do if it appears that Islam will conquer our nation?

Will you support with your earnings the idolent Moslems lolling about the streets, raping your wives, daughters, and girlfriends at will? Will you willingly pay the tax required of the non-believer? Or will you just as soon convert to Islam, to save yourself humiliation and the tax?

Will you "brave the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" or do the as yet unthinkable? It has been done before, in history. You would not be the first nor the last to think, to ponder, "Would I rather live as a slave or feed the Tree of Liberty with the blood of the enemy?

Right now, we still have a Bill of Rights, and its second amendment, to keep the government from forcing its will upon the people.

Remember though, once the Constitution has been subverted and replaced by shariah as the highest law of the land its protections and guarantees are gone, whatever you do to reclaim your country will no longer be in danger of being branded as sedition or treason.

Do not accept the Moslem as your superior. Do not accept Islamic demands with bowed heads. There is that foreign element amongst us (Islam and its adherents). Do not take it into your bosom.

There might be treason at the top, but do not throw up your hands and say that there is nothing that can be done.

As long as there are those with the will to do what must be done, we will not bow to the invisible idol worshipped by our enemy.

Edited and amended from a Post by: unicorns62000 January 5, 2008 1:56 AM


Be careful for whom you vote – those who promise a drastic change may take us further into that dark night that is poised to swallow us.

CHANGE – 'the sought-after solution to all our problems," what is it? Placating the Moslems, diplomatic overtures to try and mollify those who want only to destroy us. You can take the boy out of Islam, but can you ever take Islam competely out of the boy?

*Anything less than ALL THE WAY is asking for disaster (defeat).

Do not expect anything but defeatism from . . .

The Useless Bastards of the 60s

Pacifists, "lovers of all cultures, religions, and ideologies," cowards at heart who want more than anything "peace at any price."


As to our sworn enemies . . .

Kill them before they kill us



We, who have become so disgustingly (what we believe to be) "civilized" that we appear to have forgotten the basics of waging war to win – by letting our all the stops.

Means "terror" in Greek.
This was one of the sons of the Greek god Ares.

Pronounced: FO-bos (English)
Means "fear" in Greek. This was one of the sons of Ares in Greek mythology.

Both of these techniques of warfare – terror and fear – were employed by our side during World War II – using terror to bring fear into the hearts of the enemies' populations, e.g. Dresden and its "Firestorm" and the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Racial and "religious'" (ideological) hatred played no part in the decision to use these two techniques to defeat the enemy. They were used to assure the survival of OUR side.

We must use these twin boys of Ares against our most determined enemy. He is determined to destroy us. We MUST destroy him first.

No matter how much they squeal "Islamophobia!" or "race" crime! Remember the enemy is neither a race nor one ethnicity. The enemy is an ideology. This ideology consists of killing or enslaving all those who do not BELIEVE in it. It is an ideology of evil. Destroying it – utterly – can be done with a clear conscience.

Now, an ideology is not something that float about the ether. It resides in the minds of men (and women). To destroy the ideology, we must destroy the men (and women0 in whose minds the ideology resides.

Here's where the squeamish start shying away from what must be done.

If you have a child (or more), whom would you rather see die: your child or the enemy? It is a decision that you will have to make. Your children or theirs? Your women or theirs?

You must decide. Do it or die.

Posted by urbanadder22 at 11:22 PM 0 comments
Friday, January 4, 2008

Contact K _Hallal at 7khallal@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 28, 2008.

Saying "Damn them all" is not enough. It provides a brief catharsis, perhaps, and lets people know where we stand with regard to what's going on here. But by itself it's sorely insufficient. What must follow is action. And that I will address today.


In an interview today with the Jordanian paper al-Dustur, the "moderate" PA President Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen), our "peace partner" said he doesn't rule out returning to the path of terrorism (known as "resistance"):

"At this present juncture, I am opposed to the armed struggle because we can't succeed in it, but maybe in the future things will be different." There is, you see, no final renunciation of terrorism, no moral condemnation of it. If it would help his cause, he'd gladly use it.

This, by the way, was precisely the position of his mentor, Yasser Arafat, during the Oslo years. As then special negotiator Dennis Ross later noted, Arafat never dispensed with the "terror card." This is the default position: Try negotiations and if they're not successful, fall back on violence.


Abbas additionally admitted here something that those of us who are familiar with his background understand well, but which is denied by those eager to embrace him as a "moderate." He not only tells us that he has his own terrorist credentials, but that he is proud of this:

"I had the honor of firing the first shot in 1965 and of being the one who taught resistance to many in the region and around the world; what it's like; when it is effective and when it isn't effective; its uses, and what serious, authentic and influential resistance is.

"...We (Fatah) had the honor of leading the resistance and we taught resistance to everyone, including Hezbollah, who trained in our military camps."


Is this not incredible? Who dares to say Abbas is a moderate after this? A rhetorical question, still, I'm afraid, because many will dare.

But we can make it as difficult as possible for those who would continue to embrace Abbas. And I ask each of you to do your part, and to pass this message along for others to do the same.


First, this question needs to be asked of the White House and the State Department: How can you ask Israel to negotiate with and make concessions for Abbas who says this– and quote from Abbas.

President George Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Fax: 202-456-2461
Comment Line: 202-456-1111 TTY/TDD Comment Line: 202-456-6213

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Fax; 202-647-2283 or 202-647-6434
Phone: 202-647-5291 or 202-736-4461 TTY: 1-800-877-8339

Remember, a fax or phone call is best.


Then, contact either the Israeli Embassy or your nearest consulate and ask, in essence, the same question: How can you negotiate with the man who says this. Please stop! It puts Israel at risk. My information is that the Foreign Ministry notes American public opinion, so this can have an effect if it is done in solid numbers.

Use this link to find contact information for the Embassy or appropriate consulate. (Thanx Doris M.) If you navigate within the selected site you will find fax numbers and the rest.


Contacting the US government would be appropriate in any event, but what makes it even more critical now is that Rice is coming next week to help "move the negotiations forward." Negotiations with the man who made the above statement. Incredible!

What is more, while Rice gives lip service to our right to defend ourselves, there is concern that the situation shouldn't "get out of hand" while she's here. This merely increases or reinforces Olmert's reluctance to do that ground operation, even after the outrages of yesterday and in spite of the intense pressure on him from many quarters here. It has been suggested that action will come after she leaves, but there's been so much stalling I'll believe that when I see it.


Olmert did meet with Rice in Tokyo, where he told her that "The Palestinians are testing our patience to the limit." This could be read as a veiled declaration of intention to act very soon.

And Rice, being Rice, expressed understanding of our position and then launched into an expression of concern about the humanitarian conditions in Gaza. (Hint to Olmert: Don't think of making those conditions worse.)

She said she believes that the only solution to the "cycle of violence" (an inappropriate term of moral equivalency) is a negotiated peace. But she conceded that this seems less and less likely to happen any time soon.


Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministry has issued a statement saying that we will continue to defend ourselves. What is happening is a ratcheting up of the limited operations– missile strikes on those launching the rockets and their launching bases– that have been on-going. Today 18 Palestinians in Gaza were killed. This time a strike was done near Haniyeh's home, likely as a message, as he is assumed to be in hiding.

The problem, as I've noted before, is that these operations are not effective against what we're facing.


I end by citing in total a JTA news release concerning the Jewish Council for Public Affairs:

"The Jewish Council for Public Affairs endorsed for the first time a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"At its annual plenum Tuesday in Atlanta, the body, an umbrella organization representing 14 national Jewish groups and 125 local Jewish community relations councils, resolved that 'the organized American Jewish community should affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states– the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine – living side-by-side in peace and security.'

"The resolution also included compromise language reflecting American Jewry's "diverse views about current and future policies of the Israeli government towards settlements," and blamed the standstill in the peace process on Palestinian intransigence. It appeared to pass unanimously, though the Orthodox Union, which has been outspoken in objecting to any deal to share or divide Jerusalem, had considered abstaining. According to one of its officers, David Luchins, the O.U. was satisfied with the final text, but still felt it represented an attempt to "micromanage" the peace process.

"The resolution came about in response to recent events like the seizure of Gaza, the 'reconstitution' of the Palestinian Authority and the latest U.S.-backed peace initiative, said the JCPA's senior associate executive director, Martin Raffel."


Before I comment on this state of affairs, let me add that the OU has put out its own release elaborating on its position, which it felt was not fairly represented in the JTA release.

See http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/article/37398 for the OU explanation. Apparently OU abstained from the final vote and, among its actions, "succeeded in defeating a proposed amendment to the resolution text which would have stated that the American Jewish community views the establishment or expansion of Israeli settlements as an 'impediment to peace.'"


Now, as to the position of the established Jewish community: There are multiple reasons for this resolution, only one of them being an ideological bent. We're looking, as well, at a reluctance to cross the government of Israel and the US government. And yet, it takes my breath away. From here in Israel, it feels as if we've lost the established American Jewish community to a considerable extent. They just don't get it.

Perhaps this also takes your breath away. And perhaps you are associated with or active in one of the national Jewish groups that belongs to this umbrella organization. A number of big groups is involved– ORT, Hadassah, Bnai Brith, etc. See
http://tools.isovera.com/organizations.php3?action=printContentTypeHome&orgid= 54&typeID=135&sortField=alpha for the list. Perhaps you donate money to one or more of these groups, which increases your leverage.

Raise your voices. Let your distress be heard. This is not a time for remaining passive.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 28, 2008.

1. Nizar Hassan is Safe!

A 47-year old Jewish father of four was murdered yesterday by a Qassam rocket launched at Sderor by the Olmert government. It hit the Sapir College, where the man studied.

You will all be relieved to hear that the Sapir College Arab lecturer, Nizar Hassan, who prohibits Jewish students from entering his class wearing a Magen David or wearing an IDF uniform was not hurt.

There is only one viable solution: R&D = Re-Occupation and Denazification!

2. Prof. Amnon Rubinstein (Meretz) denouncing Israeli radical academics.
"Homemade Israel-bashers"
Feb. 27, 2008
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204127193588&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Shortly after I began teaching at Columbia University, I was taken aback to hear that the Iranian ruler Ahmadinejad had been invited to speak on campus. There was hardly any time to organize a protest against the event. Despite this, three kipot-wearing students from Hillel House worked day and night to distribute posters and pamphlets featuring a choice selection of the guest's hate-filled, genocidal invective. They organized a demonstration in front of the hall where the Iranian president was to speak, and all without any outside help.

I spoke at the demonstration, where I discovered that almost all the participants present were local Orthodox Jewish students. The number of secular Israeli students could be counted on the fingers of one hand – with fingers to spare.

Inside the hall sat an Israeli student who applauded Ahmadinejad. I asked another Israeli who witnessed this behavior to tell me about her. I asked: How can she applaud someone that wants to exterminate her?

His matter of fact reply: "She's known to be a leftist."

In other words, "leftists" applaud a tyrant, a Nazi, a persecutor of minorities, oppressor of women, stoner of "adulterers," and executioner of homosexuals. If he protests the oppression of the Palestinians, then he must clearly be a member of the "left" and should therefore be cheered.

Later, I encountered other Israeli academicians at Columbia who added more fuel to the fire of hatred against Israel – all belonged to what is known as the radical Left.

WHEN THE semester ended, my wife and I were invited to a Shabbat meal on Friday night prepared by the organizers of the demonstration.

I am a professed and impassioned secular Jew. My Judaism is national and cultural. I believe that my approach is in no way inferior to the Orthodox or haredi one. It contains neither temptations of paradise, the punishment of hell, nor the revival of the dead. It is filled with a rich, multifaceted and wondrous Jewish-Hebrew culture. I also believe that secular humanism is the right answer for us as individuals and as a nation.

But if I had to choose between the kipa-wearing Jews at Columbia and the representatives of what is known in Israel as the radical Left – I know where my heart is.

That is the entire story.

No, it is the end of the story.

It is also the end of the story of the anti-Israeli squadrons in the Israeli academia.

FOR SOME time, I have been waiting for a hysterical outburst from this direction, one that would bring their claims to such an absurd point, that they would be finished. I always believed that their "post-intelligent" anti-Israeli claptrap would eventually climax in an paroxysm of extremist mumbo-jumbo lunacy, after which there would no longer be anything to argue about. They'd be exposed.

Ben-Dror Yemini provided me with just that evidence (Ma'ariv, January 11), in an article in which he tells of a research project carried out by graduate student Tal Nizan at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research question was: How is it that, contrary to the accepted practice among other occupation armies, the Zionist occupation army does not rape?

The researcher had two explanations: First, IDF soldiers do not rape Palestinian women because for them, these women have been dehumanized, and "consequently, a sexual act cannot be carried out with someone that is perceived as less than human." Second, the soldiers refrained from raping the Palestinian women in the service of a higher, demographic goal, because the rape could cause pregnancies that would subsequently increase the numbers of our enemies. In other words, not only are there no rapes, there are no condoms either.

The significant aspect is not this surreal research project. It is not unusual. Incitement against Israel can be found on the lowest level in some of the social science departments in Israel's universities. A well-known philosopher in Tel Aviv University called Israel the dustbin of Europe – and students, as we know, are influenced by their teachers, even when the latter are seized by a frenzy of hatred toward the state that provides their livelihood, and at the expense of which, thanks to their attacks on it, they make their names.

The interesting thing is that this "research" project won a prize from a sociology association, with a number of distinguished professors voting in favor of granting the researcher a prize.

It would be interesting to hear how these professors propose that Israel amend this serious flaw, that IDF soldiers are not serial rapists. Does that fact that female tourists are not raped mean that they too have been dehumanized?

These professors are wrong. It's not true that there is no rape. There is – the rape of the academia, of science and of the students forced to listen to these professors' drivel.

The writer is a professor of law at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, a former minister of education and MK, and the recipient of the 2006 Israel Prize in Law.

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 at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, February 28, 2008.

In eloquent speeches presidential candidate Obama has made copious promises, understandably to attract voters. He talks about "change," without really spelling out change from what to what. It just sounds good: "change." A great sound bite, indeed. Change is exciting, while status quo is viewed as stagnant and boring. It is all part of the political game of telling people what they want to hear, getting elected, and worrying about delivering later.

The electorates are both short on memory and long on forgiving. So, the farce of empty high-sounding promises fills the air at campaign times. But there are instances that a promise during vote-gathering can later haunt the person. This may indeed be the case with at least one of Barack Hussein Obama's promises.

Obama boasted that he would embark on a personal diplomacy to solve our foreign policy problems with countries such as Syria and Iran. He said that he would meet their leaders without any preconditions to settle our disputes. Doesn't that sound like change, a real change of great relief to us all? Never mind the fact that he has about zero experience in foreign policy matters, he is foolish enough to aim to negotiate with the ever-conniving Assad of Syria and masters of deceptions such as the Mullahs of Iran.

Okay Obama, don't claim that no one warned you. If you get elected President and you receive an invitation from your fellow Muslim brother Ahmadinejad to make good on your promise and visit him in Tehran for a tête-à-tête, don't you do it. BBC's recent report ought to be enough for you to recant your foolish and naïve promise:

"The European Union has criticized the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam...Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia or "Islamic – law." But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code. An EU statement expressed deep concern about what it calls the ongoing deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. It singled out Section Five of the draft penal code currently before the Iranian parliament, imposing the death penalty for apostasy. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law. If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalized in the country's criminal code."

Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life. Islam is Ummehist. Islam doesn't recognize nationalities and national boundaries. And these Islamist zealots are very serious and have no sense of humor. Some say they have no sense at all, and they may be right. What they certainly have is a thirst for blood, particularly for the blood of infidels and apostates.

My advice, Obama: Elected President or not, don't you hazard a trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, don't you go anywhere near where the crazed Islamists can get their hands on you. You don't even rate a fatwa from one of the many bloodthirsty crafty Ayatollahs or Moftis asking for your head. Your fate is already sealed. You are on automatic, so to speak – a person who was given the gift of Islam and who ungratefully turned his back to the one and only faith of Allah, so the Muslims believe. The punishment for this kind of betrayal is prescribed as haad (most severe), meaning death.

You may protest that you are free to choose your religion and that you have chosen to be Christian. Nothing doing! You are stamped as Muslim at conception because your father was Muslim. Further, you have been doubly-stamped by your middle name Hussein. Muslims name their sons Hussein in honor of one of Islam's most revered saints. Hence, the Muslims want what is theirs and you either repent and return to the fold or prepare yourself for the ultimate punishment: Death.

The only time that these inveterate liar killers of Allah mean what they say is when they threaten violence and killing. So, please be careful. Stay close to home where a whole platoon of Secret Service at the taxpayers' expense is shielding you from the thugs who would be just too happy to slash your throat while they joyously scream: "Allah is the greatest."

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist living in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, poet, and novelist, who speaks out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran.

This appeared on Amil Imani's website
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task= view&id=99&Itemid=2

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, February 28, 2008.

With billions of "aid" dollars in their coffers and an American trained military force the PLO-PA has indicated that it is time to open a third front against Israel. Drunk with the success of their Kosovo crime the Administration and their loyal peasantry can see their vision of a Jew-less Middle-East by 2009 fulfilled! Once again, Israel stands alone against the internationally backed Arab Brigade. 'Armed conflict may resume'

Roee Nahmias wrote in Ynet (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3512417,00.html) that a Jordanian newspaper interviewed Palestinian President Abbas, and quotes him as boasting about past activities in PLO, expressing vague support for possibility of Palestinians resuming armed conflict with Israel

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday that he does not completely rule out the possibility of resuming the armed conflict with Israel.

In an interview to the Jordanian newspaper al-Dustur, Abbas said that he is against an armed conflict at this time, but things may differ in the future.

Abbas, a leading figure of the Palestine Liberation Organization, was quoted as boasting about the fact that he was the one to "fire the first bullet of the resistance" back in 1965, adding it was the PLO that taught many around the world "how to resist, when resistance is most effective and when it is not."

"I had the honor to lead... we taught everyone, including the Hizbullah, the ways of resistance. They were all educated in our training camps."

According to al-Dustur, Abbas does not demand of Hamas to acknowledge Israel, but rather wants it to join a government which will negotiate the recognition.

"I demanded that a unity government be formed, to negotiate with Israel... that is what I told Syrian President Bashar Assad – and he backed me up.

"Hamas entered an election based on the Oslo Accords, which recognize Israel. I am not the only one pushing for such recognition, the Arab initiative – which is a consensus in the Arab and Muslim world – calls for it as well."

The Palestinian president also said he objects to Israel's definition as a Jewish State: "We negated the concept in the Annapolis peace conference and it almost ended because of it... they wanted us to state we recognize Israel as a Jewish State in the closing statements, but we wouldn't hear of it."

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jock L. Falkson, February 28, 2008.

This is a response to Gerard Michaud's "A matter of choice", 'Up Front', Jerusalem Post, Feb 8, 2008.

Gerard Michaud's essay on the Palestinian's claim to the "right of return" is interesting and easy to read because the anecdotes he presented put a human face on the Arab side of the problem.

However, it seems clear the writer was already of the opinion that the refugees had been hard done by, and that Israel was to blame. Thus his odyssey was a journey to seek evidence to support his view.

In a key passage Michaud writes: "Driven from their homes during the 1948 fighting that gave birth to the Jewish state – expelled according to the Palestinian account or a panicked flight according to the Zionist narrative."

But while Michaud accounts for the Arab narrative well enough he does nothing of the sort for Israel. In fact he completely overlooks the Israeli narrative which claims that the majority of the Arabs exited the Jewish areas voluntarily. That they were motivated by Arab leaders to get out and escape injury while allowing the Arab armies to annihilate the Jews. (Extermination and obliteration of the state were the Arab war aims. Nothing less.)

Here then are 17 references (sequentially from 1948 to 2006), quoting Arab sources which support the Israeli narrative that the Arab exodus was almost entirely voluntary:

1. Research reported by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut. . . .

"the majority" of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled," and "68%" left without seeing an Israeli soldier."

2. Report in Jaffa newspaper Ash Sha'ab, January 30, 1948.

"The first of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."

3. Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, speaking to the United Nations Security Council. Quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14.

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."

4. From a memorandum by The Arab National Committee in Haifa to the Arab League Governments. 27 April 1948.

"... when the delegation entered the conference room it proudly refused to sign the truce and asked that the evacuation of the Arab population and their transfer to neighboring Arab countries be facilitated."

5. Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph, Sept. 6, 1948.

"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."

6. Jordanian daily newspaper Falistin, Feb 19, 1949.

"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."

7. Radio broadcast by the Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus. April 3 1949.

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."

8. Statement by the Arab National Committee of Haifa in memorandum to the Arab States, April 27, 1950. Cited by Peter Dodd and Halim Barakat, "River Without Bridges. – A Study of the Exodus of the 1967Arab Palestinian Refugees". Beirut 1969. p. 43.

"The removal of the Arab inhabitants ... was voluntary and was carried out at our request ... The Arab delegation proudly asked for the evacuation of the Arabs and their removal to the neighboring Arab countries.... We are very glad to state that the Arabs guarded their honour and traditions with pride and greatness."

9. Report by Habib Issa in Lebanese newspaper, Al Hoda, June 8, 1951.

"The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean.

"Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

10. The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.

"Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it."

11. Nimr el Hawari, the Commander of the Palestine Arab Youth Organization, in his book Sir Am Nakbah (The Secret Behind the Disaster, published in Nazareth in 1955), quoted the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said as saying

"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

12. The Egyptian daily Akhbar El Yom, Oct 12, 1963.

"The 15th May, 1948 arrived... on that day the Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab countries were about to enter and fight in their stead."

13. Nuri Said, Iraqi Prime Minister, cited by Myron Kaufman, "The Coming Destruction of Israel" The American Library Inc., 1970 pp. 26-27.

"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

14. Khaled al-'Azm, who served as Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, wrote in his memoirs, Beirut 1973 that among the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948 was

"the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them...Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave...We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business..." (Part 1, pp. 386-387).

15. Fuad Abu Higla, columnist, writing in PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadida, March 19, 2001. He quotes a prisoner from the 1948 generation. (Per Palestinian Media Watch)

"To the [Arab and Muslim] Kings and Presidents, Poverty is killing us, the symptoms are exhausting us and the souls are leaving our body, yet you are still searching for the way to provide aid, like one who is looking for a needle in a haystack or like the armies of your predecessors in the year of 1948, who forced us to leave [Israel], on the pretext of clearing the battlefields of civilians... So what will your summit do now?"

16. Journalist Mahmud Al-Habbash, in the official PA paper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, in his column "The Pulse of Life" December 13, 2006.

"The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the "Catastrophe" [the establishment of Israel and the creation of refugee problem] in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave only until they put their trust in those "Arkuvian" promises made by the leaders and the political elites. Afterwards, days passed, months, years and decades, and the promises were lost with the strain of the succession of events."

17. From Asmaa Jabir Balasimah Um Hasan, who fled Israel in 1948. Quoted from Al-Ayyam May 16, 2006 per Palestinian Media Watch.

"We heard sounds of explosions and of gunfire at the beginning of the summer in the year of the Nakbah [1948]. They told us: The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return, after the battle is over. And indeed there were among us [who fled Israel] those who left a fire burning under the pot, those who left their flock [of sheep] and those who left their money and gold behind, based on the assumption that we would return after a few hours."

Israeli negotiators should stand fast on the true narrative of the causes of Arab flight in 1948. The Arabs harkened to the exhortations of their leaders and the leaders of the Arab nations who had readied their armies to attack the nascent Jewish state.

They intended to annihilate the Jews. They urged cis-Jordan Arabs to get out and allow them to carry out their planned genocide. They even threatened them with death as collaborators if they did not. They promised them a goodly share of the Jewish wealth that would be theirs after they had finished their killing spree.

The Arab nations were responsible for a war they had initiated with the most evil of intentions. The consequences were their responsibility. If anyone should compensate the so-called refugees, the responsibility is theirs. Israel owes them sweet Fanny Adams.

To be put on Jock Falkson's email list, contact him at falkson@barak-online.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 28, 2008.


American university centers of Middle Eastern studies promote Islamism and appeasement of it. Its professors write history and cultural textbooks for lower education that favor Islam, denigrate other religions, and promote Islamist views.

Prof. Ayad al-Qazzaz is one such author. He works for a proselytizing organization and supports Islamic and Arab causes. He misleads students by describing jihad only as a struggle within one's personality and not holy war. He claims jihad is violent only in self-defense.

He accuses Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes of equating Islam with terrorism. They emphasize that only certain Muslims adhere to a terrorist ideology. (MEF News, 2/5).

That kind of personal defamation is par for Islamists. It shows their dishonesty.

The review should have given more examples of distortion of history by the textbooks. Why do states adopt such textbooks, and why don't the denigrated religions protest?


Hamas has gained full control over Gaza and great prestige from it. It continues to transform itself into a regular army that's also uses terrorist tactics. Like Hizbullah, it is a proxy for Iran. One should no longer think of it as a rag-tab organization but as a state and as an army (IMRA, 2/5).

PM Olmert told the Knesset he takes full responsibility for the criticisms of the Winograd commission, but will not resign. Besides, other members of the Cabinet were responsible, too (Arutz-7, 2/5).

How is that taking "full responsibility?"

The government of Israel, which let this transpire in full view, still thinks it can get help from Egypt. Egypt, however, is complicit with Hamas.


Israeli TV new anchor Haim Yavin claims as his career's accomplishment the institutionalization on Israeli news broadcasting an anti-settler stand (IMRA, 2/5).

Meanwhile, the government is getting the country into trouble because of its anti-settler stand, when it should have an anti-jihad, pro-Zionist, pro-settler stand.


The Israeli government long has opposed Egypt's argument that it needs more and better armed troops on the border with Gaza, to stop arms smuggling. Such troops would pose more of a danger to Israel than to the smugglers. Egypt easily could stop smuggling, if it intended to.

The Foreign Ministry broke ranks with security officials on this. The Ministry realizes that the breakdown of the border fence requires more policing. It now approves of Egypt's request to double the number of troops and to enhance their equipment (IMRA, 2/5).

The border does need more policing now, because Israel left the job to enemies, and Egypt didn't do the job. What makes Foreign Min. Livni think that Egypt, which has been working against Israel for years and is insulting about it, suddenly would try to do the right job? What makes her think that getting more and better equipped Egyptian commandos on the border would no longer pose a danger to Israel? Does she think?


The report, which focuses on the end of the war, omitted altogether how the war started. It failed to mention the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The initial IDF investigation found that the IDF could have aborted the kidnapping. An IDF unit had the kidnappers in their gun sights, but while the IDF unit awaited higher-level permission to open fire, the assailants got away.

Also omitted, writes Barry Chamish, is the question why the war initially was fought only from the air (Chamish, 2/8).

It was fought from the air because the Chief of Staff was from the air force and had an exaggerated sense of air power, as is typical. The political leaders were too ignorant about life to realize that and the limits of air power.

Israel used to win because its troops exercised initiative. Israel suffers needless casualties, because it no longer leaves initiative to the commanders in the field. The militarily ignorant Cabinet runs wars for political effect and to avoid criticism. They are ignorant about public relations, too, so Israel suffers defeat in public relations. Troops know their every action will be second-guessed if not reviewed in advance by lawyers. They are liable to be sued or punished for zeal. The troops still are good, but the government and society put excessive restraints on combat and exert negative motivation. The IDF and Israeli government goal no longer is victory. The government prefers to make deals with the enemy or have foreign troops protect Israel. The foreign troops detest Israel.


Iran has designed its own, advanced machinery for processing uranium. After trying out the machinery, processing can proceed at a much faster pace, diplomats and officials reported (NY Sun, 2/8, p.5 from A.P.).

That is what the CIA and appeasement-minded politicians failed to anticipate. They should have anticipated. Formerly backward countries have good scientists. Some of the have gotten the best, Western, technical education, subsidized by the universities.

Estimates that Iran won't produce any bombs for many years are under-estimates. The politicians found it more comforting for themselves and perhaps more popular with constituents to imagine there is plenty of time, and somehow the menace may go away. The lesson is not to wait to knock them out.

I am afraid that we are in a prolonged period of warfare against nuclear proliferation. This makes it all the more important to defeat the enemy ideologically, eliminating their control of governments and making all countries inhospitable to them. Too bad we have to waste our resources on this. Too bad that our economic rivals haven't the decency to back us up and contribute money and effort. Aggravating that many fellow Americans carp about American policy as if we are the devils who threaten to blow up the world and as if we are the devils' accomplices who provide the nuclear plants, the way Russia, China, and formerly European countries and companies did.


Abbas condemned the terrorist attack on Dimona (and also an Israeli raid on terrorists). Abbas' media, however, described the terrorists killed at Dimona as "glorious martyrs," Islam's highest honor (IMRA, 2/6).

What are we to think of Bush and Olmert, Rice and Livni, who call Abbas a moderate who wants peace? This is another case of wishful thinking.


(IMRA, 2/5.) They did so in a forthright manner. I was surprised.


Terrorists strive to enter Israel through a 10 kilometer gap in the fence, in Judea-Samaria. Foundations for it were built, but the work somehow has stalled (IMRA, 2/6).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, February 27, 2008.

Criticism leveled at Israel for her response to terrorist attacks by Hamas in the Gaza says more about those who criticize Israel than it does about the legality of the reprisals.

Can Israel response to Hamas' attacks? In what strength? By what means? These questions are traditionally answered in the salons of international legal debate, by an examination of the status of the combatants.

We therefore ask: What is Gaza? What is Hamas? Answer these questions honestly, and there is little room for discussion or debate about the legality or legitimacy of Israel's military responses to date...or her options in the future. Answer these questions honestly and you will have taken a long step toward resolving the endless criticism of Israel's military response to the endless stream of rockets cascading into Israel from the west. (In fact, more than 5000 since Israel ceased her occupation of the Gaza.)

Gaza is not a formally-defined, internationally-recognized state. It is, at best, a protectorate or a territory...but certainly it does NOT enjoy the status of international "statehood" that would entitle such an entity to claim sovereignty over her national borders and the land within.

Hamas, of course, is the Islamic Resistance Movement, which became active in the early stages of the intafada. It operates primarily in the Gaza (and also in Judea and Samaria). Its stated goal: the eradication of the Israeli people and the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel. Hamas, of course, has the outright backing of Iran in its genocidal efforts to murder Israelis.

What Hamas is NOT, is a recognized armed force operating under the aegis of a duly-elected state; it is not a signatory to any of the Geneva Conventions; it is not a member of either the United Nations or the Security Council; it does campaign openly under a national flag and it's operatives don't wear recognized badges of nationality or military rank. In the legal parlance of the "Law of War," Hamas, as an entity, is not a recognized "combatant" and, hence, not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The latter cannot be strongly enough emphasized: Hamas, and the people who support or conceal its efforts, are entitled to NO special protections under any aspect of the Law Of War, of which the Geneva Conventions are but a part.

By contrast, those nations, armies or entities who DO ascribe to and respect the Geneva Conventions; who DO campaign under a national flag and chain-of-command ARE entitled to the special protections of the Conventions!

As the Olmert government has repeatedly said, Israel will not negotiate with entities that do not recognize the legitimate demands of the international community, as voiced through the United States, European Union, the United Nations and Russia! Hence, Israel's use of force against Hamas.

The United Nations Charter, Article 51, clearly and plainly provides Israel with the necessary legal armor to pursue and rout Hamas. "Nothing in the present Charter," Article 51 reads, "Shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Other than a few weak-worded Resolutions, the Security Council has failed to take action to protect Israel's safety and sovereignty – hence, she is free to act as she will militarily! And, in my opinion, she is free of many of the traditional limitations on the use of military force – at least where Hamas is concerned.

The oft-misunderstood "rule of proportionality" is usually cited, wrongly, by the left in critique of Israel's operations against Hamas in Gaza.

One must recognize that the "rule" is, in fact, no rule at all. It is not clearly defined in any statute or treaty. Rather, it can best be described as the resulting synthesis of "customary international law" which is derived from a reading of the ancient Hague Conventions (written in an era when warfare was defined as set-piece battles, conducted by brightly-clad armies amassed on the sunlit fields of Europe) and the 1949 Geneva Conventions which, in part, proscribe armed reprisals against civilians. Sadly, the "rule" is frequently bent or twisted to meet the ends of the particular sophistry at hand.

In its simplest application, the "rule" generally means that an army cannot inflict collateral damage upon an enemy combatant (or the surrounding civilian populace) in excess of the legitimate military advantage conferred upon the attacking army. In other words, a nation's military response must be necessary and proportional to the injury suffered.

"Legal scholars" frequently say, "If someone punched you in the nose, you don't burn their house down." To be sure, those are seductive words, rationally attractive, and intellectually inviting...but utter hokum in the face of reality. Taken to its logical absurdity, such a definition of the "rule" would prevent an army from EVER amassing superior firepower against an enemy, lest that army be accused of a disproportionate use of force! The fact is, wars are won when one side utilizes a disproportionate amount of force to defeat an enemy...otherwise, the Third Reich would still sit in power with the Allied armies resting somewhere near the Seine River.

The "rule" is often manipulated in the court of public opinion, particularly in the era of "asymmetrical warfare," the current buzz-term which describes the conflict between western nations who possess large standing armies and billion-dollar gadgetry and terrorist groups who employ simple, terroristic, and patently illegal means of waging armed conflict.

The world's (leftist) academic "elite" and media sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism almost always focus on Israels' response to terrorism! No doubt, leftist apologists are motivated by some misplaced, misguided sense of "unfairness" that a well-organized, well-trained and well-equipped IDF would pursue and kill Hamas terrorists who intentionally clad themselves in civilian attire and hide their operations in schools, hospitals and Mosques.

The simple fact is that the "rule" of proportionality shrinks to near inapplicability when Hamas uses civilians as shields or when it purposely attacks the innocent—the central most effective tools in the terrorist's arsenal.

Another common misstatement in the public discourse surrounds the killing of civilians. Of course, NO one would countenance murder and nothing in this essay should be construed as a brusque dismissal of civilian deaths ...but a distinction in the Law of War regarding civilian deaths is frequently and intentionally ignored. The Law of War proscribes the INTENTIONAL targeting of civilians, not the inadvertent and unfortunate loss of civilian life in an armed conflict. Yet, whenever inadvertent civilian deaths DO occur in the Gaza or in the West Bank or in Baghdad, the left immediately and uniformly decries those deaths as "war crimes" – which they most certainly are not!

Such is the nature of public debate, particularly in the wake of 9/11.

In short...Israel's defense forces are entitled to use whatever means is at her disposal to search out and destroy terrorist operatives. Nothing in international law precludes a vigorous, intense and effective military campaign to destroy terrorist operations. That means, Israel may use air and ground-artillery resources – as she will – against those Hamas operatives (I hesitate to us the word "military" – since Hamas is NOT a recognized military force.) which are used to inflict casualties upon Israel.

That means Israel may use her army in large or small measure to attack any place or person that attacks Israel. That means Israel can bombard Hamas targets as militarily necessary to render it impotent against a subsequent wave of Israeli soldiers. Although politically preferable, nothing in international law absolutely requires Israel to use "smart" munitions in its operations against Hamas.

If Hamas attempts to shield its operations with truly innocent civilians or children—it is Hamas and not Israel, who has committed an atrocity – an actionable war crime – of the most heinous proportion!".

In sum: Israel is free to employ ALL munitions, tactics, equipment and personnel in her arsenal to defend herself against the outlaw Hamas terrorist organization. Short of the intentional targeting and murder of truly uninvolved and innocent civilians, Israel can (and should) operate as freely as she desires to protect her territorial sovereignty and the lives of her citizens.

So, it is not international law that Israel is concerned about. The Government of Israel is more concerned about the cries of the international community than the cries of its children and mothers. It is more concerned with the lives of Arabs than the lives of its own citizens including its soldiers.

Israel has the right to bomb Gaza and use artillery. Its about time they did.

If Israel invades instead with the loss of many of its own soldiers, I submit it would be guilty f a war crime against its own people. At a minimum Israel would be guilty of criminal negligence if it sent the IDF soldiers to their death rather than to bomb.

It is morally repugnant to sacrifice your own soldiers to save the lives of your enemies. Forget about world opinion.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gary L. Bauer, February 27, 2008.

In recent years, we have periodically raised concerns over various accommodations of Sharia law in America, the Islamic infiltration of academia and the multitude of ways political correctness is undermining our homeland security.

While the U.S. government has taken some good first steps in the aftermath of the September 11th atrocities to crack down on jihadist fundraising in America via various Palestinian "charities," little has been done to investigate what is being taught in American mosques.

There is, undoubtedly, a certain sensitivity on this subject regarding freedom of religion. As I have said before, however, it is a gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment to suggest that it gives anyone, especially in a time of war, a right to preach hatred of America, Western Civilization and to instruct followers to "kill the infidel."

European governments are aggressively investigating Islamic hate preachers, and it would seem prudent for us to know exactly what is going on here.

For example, my good friend Chuck Colson has been sounding the alarm on Wahhabi infiltration in our prisons for years.

The Islamic Saudi Academy here in Northern Virginia, run by the Saudi government, has come under fire for using textbooks that promote religious hatred.

Late last year, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended that the State Department consider shutting the school. It would be foolish to assume American mosques are free of radicalizing elements.

I am pleased to report that someone has finally stepped up to the plate. Frank Gaffney, my friend and colleague from the Reagan Administration, recently launched a new project at the Center for Security Policy called, "Mapping Sharia in America."

The project trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents to conduct surveillance at mosques, Islamic centers and schools across America for evidence of anti-Western extremism. Gaffney stressed that the survey results have not yet been formally published.

But he and others familiar with a preliminary review confirmed to WorldNetDaily that, of the first 100 sites surveyed, "75 should be on a watchlist" due to sermons, literature, videos or other publications that promote radical Islam, jihad and martyrdom."

We will keep you posted as more details of the "Mapping Sharia in America" project are released by our friends at the Center for Security Policy. In the meantime, we will be stepping up our efforts to pressure policy makers for decisive action in view of this disturbing information. Gaffney and his investigators have done America a tremendous public service for going behind the shroud of secrecy where jihad hides in American mosques. Now we must lift the veil of ignorance that still hangs over our politically correct Congress. The consequences of inaction could be tragic.

Gary Bauer is also the president of American Values. Contact him at gary.bauer@mail.amvalues.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 27, 2008.

This was written by R. John Matthies, assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. He can be reached at Matthies@MEForum.org. This appeared February 25, 2008 on the Middle East Forum (http://wwww.meforum.org/article/1860). The original article has live links to additional text material.

Not long ago a list of "unique issues affecting Muslim Americans" was posted at the Muslim Americans for Obama '08 website. This describes a number of "recommendations" drafted to advance the discussion of lawful Islamism and exceptional accommodation in the United States. These suggest both that "Islamic" comportment is beyond reproach, and that one is always correct to press the case for inviolable "Muslim" space.

The "recommendations" described are neither fantastical nor improbable. In fact, if the United States has by this time failed to enact the variety of accommodations embraced by our Western allies, it is clear that, on the ground and across the United States, private institutions and local governing bodies have taken the lead in obliging Islamist groups. This is simply to say that the present list of wishes (untouched for spelling and grammar) has become very real for many.

QUESTION: What are issues and recommendations for solutions that are unique to Muslim Americans?

1. A Law against harrassment of Muslim women wearing Hijab at the Airport, DMV and other public arenas.

2. Institute a Law to allow Muslim Employees to take a hours off from work for Friday Jummah [congregational] Prayer.

3. Make the 2 Eid's [holidays to mark the end of Ramadan and the Festival of Sacrifice], recognized National Holidays on Calendars with days off from work.

4. Optional Halal meals in federal buildiings, public schools and colleges.

5. Provide prayer areas suitable for Salah [ritual prayer] and Jummah, in public and private facilities. (i.e. Malls, Airports, Universities and government buildings.)

6. Organize a Muslim American group to assist in recommendations for US foreign policy affecting majority Muslim countries.

Consider the first example, which concerns hijabs (headscarves) at the DMV. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has long been active on this front – and in 2004 produced a document titled Religious Accommodation in Driver's License Photographs. Here one reads that: "South Carolina, Michigan and West Virginia allow veiled women privacy in taking a full-faced picture; Kansas, Pennsylvania and Indiana allow veiled women a no-photo driver's license; [...] and that Nevada allows photos with 'drastic alteration of appearance.'"

CAIR has also celebrated several victories recently: first in San Diego, California, where a sheriff's department employee was allowed to re-shoot her identification card to include hijab; and in the states of New York and Ohio, which now allow for partially obscured driver's license photographs.

The second recommendation has become a reality for many. In Nebraska last year, for example, Swift & Co. agreed to "tweak" break times to accommodate the daily sunset prayer. This was decided to allow dozens of striking workers, who complained their right to worship freely was denied them, to return to work. And in Pennsylvania, Muslim employees who quit work at Arnold Logistics, following a "misunderstanding" as to the five minutes' break allocated to employees, are back on the job, with a 15-minute accommodation for their daily prayers. Dell, Tyson Foods, and Whirlpool claim similar experience.

The third has not yet become a national priority, although it is not uncommon for observant Muslims to stay home the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. And a growing number of schoolchildren (in New Jersey, for example) are finding they are not required to attend class on Muslim holidays, or that the days are classless altogether. And New York State Senator John D. Sabini, hoping to deliver Garden State equanimity to his constituents, introduced a bill into the state senate that would require the city school district of New York City to recognize the Eid holidays as it does those for other faiths.

As for the fourth: Halal meals, you say? These are available at a number of American colleges and universities, including, claims the Halal Digest, Harvard University, Syracuse University, University of Connecticut, Cornell University, Boston University and Dartmouth College. But one is most likely to discover halal optional in federal prison, where access to these and kosher platters is required. Add to this that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January that prison officials in Arizona must demonstrate "real hardship" before they can deny halal meals to Muslim inmates.

Fifth: Prayer areas suggested or retained for exclusive Muslim use at the airport at university (or at the hospital) have become more common. But as for a federal mandate requiring prayer facilities at retail outlets like the Mall of America, for example, and across the private sector, it appears one will (for the moment, anyway) have to do with ecumenical or shared-use facilities.

Sixth, and finally: where it's a question of Muslims advising foreign policy decisions, one only has to consider the appointment of U.S. "special envoy" to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The individual, who has yet to be named, will be tasked to "maintain formal contact with the OIC Secretariat, the Secretary General, the chairing country, plus other member countries, to follow OIC affairs and activities, understand the views of OIC members and leaders, seek ways for the U.S. and the OIC to cooperate, and seek to promote U.S. views on important policy matters that may come before the OIC." This represents a first-ever appointment to the body on the part of the United States government.

But domestic matters also press: Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum recently agreed to establish a Muslim community advisory group, tasked to offer educational programs on Islam and Muslims to Justice staff. The decision, which the Attorney General reached after consulting with members of CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the ACLU of Florida, and the Florida Muslim Bar Association, appears a means to make good for allegedly directing staffers to view "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West."

The examples supplied above are by no means the only of their kind. These represent a sampling – limited to the United States, for obvious reasons – from among those making news most recently. The fact is that the issues associated with lawful Islamism and outsized accommodation are well more advanced in Western Europe (in Great Britain, notably) and in Canada than they are in the United States.

But it's clear that accommodation does not, in every case, portend disaster. Private employers are free to change or stagger break times as they see fit, to accommodate employee worship, provided they do this of their own free will, and that the change does not disrupt staff and operations. Likewise, in districts where schoolchildren are granted leave for ritual holidays, it makes no sense to deny the same right to Muslims – provided student enrollment makes this meaningful. Similarly, one cannot disallow halal meals where one already offers confessional platters, or where demand makes this reasonable.

On the other hand, to suggest that government allow for partially veiled-user identification cards, which can only trouble law enforcement; impose exclusive-use facilities for Muslim faithful; or commission faith-based advisory boards, is to admit to ignorance of the Constitutional separation of powers, the American democratic tradition, and the idea, finally, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." One might also allow that a program like this has for goal to smash the bedrock foundation of civil society, breach the American social contract, and/or promote a regime of auto-segregation and exception.

American Muslims enjoy the rights and responsibilities available to every other citizen, as well they should. Muslims are also invited to conduct their faith in view of the rule of law, as are members of every conviction. One has long invited Muslims to fold their faith into the American melting pot; for a wish to fashion the existing order into something "Islamic" is unacceptable to Muslims who eschew Islamist orthodoxy and reject the influence of Saudi-funded lobbies, and offensive to all who have found a home in the Constitutional regime.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Phillips, February 27, 2008.

The Knesset event in Israel last month marking the 100th anniversary of the birth of Avraham Stern was a highly significant event for several reasons. The participants, the subject, the timing and especially the headline generating remarks from Prime Minister Olmert are all cause for reflection.

Stern, often remembered by his underground name, Yair, was a leader of the Irgun, also known as the Etzel, and a member of its high command before he broke with it and created the organization that was to be eventually known as the LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel or FFI). The group was called the Stern Gang by the British and its soldiers were hunted by the British and often by the Jewish Agency's establishment. The LEHI were perhaps the first armed organization in the Middle East labeled as terrorists by Western newspapers and governments. This, even though the Arabs had been terrorizing Jewish communities in Hebron, Safed and Jerusalem in organized campaigns since the 1800s.

This unique Knesset observance brought together members of Likud, Kadima, United Torah Judaism and Moledet parties to commemorate Yair, his life and ultimate sacrifice. Stern was assassinated by British soldiers, specifically shot in the back while handcuffed, after he was arrested in 1942. Prime Minister Olmert, Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu and MK Aryeh Eldad of the National Union / National Religious Party's Moledet faction all addressed the gathering and honored Stern on his 65th yahrzeit, the 25th of Shvat.

The special Knesset session for Stern came just a day before the release of the results of the Israeli government's official inquiry into the 2006 War in Lebanon.

After the release of the report Eldad stated that "Today Ehud Olmert enters history as the most failed leader in Israel."

Eldad's criticism of Olmert must be noted in context. Eldad is the former Chief Medical officer of the IDF, a medical doctor, a brigadier general in the reserves, a successful author and newspaper columnist and a longtime university professor. In the previous, Sixteenth Knesset he chaired the Knesset Ethics Committee. Eldad was both the originator and the organizer of the Stern event. Eldad's father was Dr. Israel Eldad. Israel Eldad was a member of the triumvirate that shared command of the LEHI after Stern's assassination. Eldad's co-commanders were Yitzhak Shamir and Nathan (Friedman) Yellin-Mor.

Olmert at the Stern event stated: "There is something that doesn't leave me every time I think of this extraordinary man and that is the terrible loneliness. Alone and solitary in hiding... What did he think about? We will never know. How did he deal with it, waiting for the moment that the ruthless murderer would come? What did he hope and pray for?"

Yediot Ahronot commented on Olmert's remarks stating: "Many parts of the prime minister's speech appeared to characterize his own feelings of loneliness, particularly one day before the release of the Winograd report into the failures of the Second Lebanon War."

Olmert was wrong in saying that we will never know what Yair Stern thought about. On the contrary, we knew what Stern believed and what he thought. We know what he felt. We know what he prayed for. He told us. As Shamir has written Stern was "the poet who wrote first with pen, then with sword." Yair left a body of poetry and ideological works that explain what he lived, fought and died for.

Stern would not have fought the War in Lebanon the way Olmert did in 2006. Stern would not have supported Sharon in his decision to retreat from Gaza and destroy the Jewish communities there. Stern would not arm a Palestinian police force. Stern would not allow Jew hating invective to be freely preached from the mosques on the Jewish Temple Mount. One can scarcely imagine that Stern would have allowed the mosques to stand at all after 1967. And further, Stern would not allow foreign pressure or world opinion to delay his stopping of Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

What has caused this situation where a prime minister of Israel can state inaccurate things about a national hero such as Yair and there is almost no public outcry?

For the first thirty years of the State of Israel's existence, the LEHI, and also to a large extent the Irgun, were deliberately written out of Israel's history books and distanced from official celebrations marking Israel's creation. Its veterans were marginalized by the establishment and were frequently the target of official discrimination by the Israeli government.

When Menachem Begin was prime minister he launched a rehabilitation of the treatment by scholars and the establishment of the Irgun and the LEHI. Similarly, Yitzhak Shamir when he was Prime Minister worked on correcting Israel's history and paying proper respect to the heroes of the pre-state underground and their remarkable accomplishments. Shamir's focus in this regard was skewed. While Begin was able to transform the Irgun into the Herut party and keep his movement intact, the LEHI did not undergo a successful move to politics.

The LEHI was always a complicated organization during its war against the British. Once the state was established, the LEHI's fragile alliance between its secular and religious wings and anti-imperialist leftist and right wing nationalist elements was broken and erupted into a full-blown split. Israel Eldad led the nationalist wing and Nathan Friedman Yellin-Mor, who had been political head of the triumvirate, led the leftist wing. The LEHI never recovered from the split. There was no LEHI left to preserve the LEHI's history, ideas or protect their legacy.

Shamir had been the LEHI's operational commander and was unable to find a career outside of the underground, he eventually he joined the Mossad. Upon retirement from the intelligence service he joined Begin's Herut party. Israel Eldad, who had been the LEHI's chief ideologist and propagandist, had been banned for many years from teaching in Israel's universities by Ben-Gurion himself. Eldad busied himself with producing a journal called Sulam, which academics have called " the most important intellectual periodical of the right at the time," and other publishing projects. Eldad did not concentrate on preserving the LEHI's history. Instead he dedicated himself to inculcating the next generation with Stern's ideas. Yellin-Mor meanwhile fully broke with Yair's legacy and became an outspoken advocate for territorial compromise.

In 2001 several colleagues and I decided to create a website called www.SaveIsrael.com in order to publish, preserve and encourage the study of the English translations of the works of Stern, Jabotinsky, Dr. Israel Eldad, Rabbi Moshe Segal and many other LEHI and Irgun heroes. We received early encouragement from Dr. Arieh Eldad.

Arieh Eldad has done his father, Israel Eldad, and the LEHI's veterans and martyrs a great service by sponsoring a Knesset memorial for Yair. Hopefully he helped to open many young minds in Israel to explore the valiant deeds and inspiring words of the LEHI. Let the LEHI's ideas – poetic, fearless in the face of seemingly impossible odds, and reminiscent of the heroes of the times of our Prophets – be restored in the hearts and minds of the People of Israel. Stern described the 1930s as having "nights that are dark with despair" in his underground anthem titled Unknown Soldiers. The prospect of a nuclear Iran and an Israeli political leadership that is prepared to hand over Jerusalem and the lands of the Tanach to its sworn enemies – enemies that work every day to destroy Israel – is enough to cause despair just as dark. Yair's message is one of hope, of strength and of courageous action and there is no better message for Israel in these times.

Moshe Phillips is a member of the executive committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel / AFSI. The chapter's new website is at: www.phillyafsi.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, February 27, 2008.

A funny thing happened at the funeral of Imad Mugniyah. Those who had for years been denying any connection with him and his international terrorist activities – Iran, Syria, and Hizballah – suddenly admitted that he was one of their favorite people.

At the same time, other critical points came out. Mugniyah's critical position as the link between those three allies, in their conduct of terrorism and subversion, stood out clearly. In addition, Mugniyah's career as an international terrorist, who often operated against Western targets, showed how Hizballah – along with its backers in Tehran and Damascus – were second only to al-Qaida in their global operations of violence.

Let's first look at the record of the man who Iran, Syria, and Hizballah were so eager to praise and ready to revenge. Mugniyah, a Lebanese citizen, first worked with the PLO and then with Hizballah, leading the latter group's main terrorist operations. During the 1980s alone, Mugniyah was involved in killing 340 American and French soldiers in a peacekeeping force, 63 civilians in bombing the U.S. embassy in Beirut; kidnappings and sometimes executions of Westerners living in Lebanon; attacks on the U.S. embassy in Kuwait; hijacking an American airliner in which a U.S. citizen was murdered; killing two U.S. officials in Lebanon; and hijacking two Kuwait Airways' planes.

In 1994, he organized the bombing of a Jewish Community Center in Argentina, killing 86 civilians. The official Argentinean investigation concluded Iranian intelligence had hired Mugniyah and his unit for this job.

As a result of his activities, Mughniyah was on the U.S. list of ten most wanted terrorists, with a $25 million reward on his head. Interpol had an extradition warrant against him due to the Argentina attack. But traveling between Lebanon, Iran, and Syria – protected and often working for the latter two governments – Mugniyah continued his career of violence up to the day of his death.

With the exception of the September 11 attack, Mugniyah was probably responsible for more terrorist violence and killings than any other individual over the last quarter-century.

How did Iran's rulers respond to his demise? They all praised him. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called him, "An example for the young generation to follow." Powerful former president and current Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani referred to Mugniyah as a "great figure" whose actions Iran did not consider terrorism. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad eulogized him as, "An outstanding leader from Hizballah," though up to his death that organization denied Mughniyah held such a post.

Hizballah's own leader, Hassan Nasrallah, used his funeral oration to threaten to wipe out Israel, paralleling what many Iranian leaders say. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons that threat becomes most plausible. But Hizballah hopes to achieve the same end through lower-level violence. Nasrallah declared "open war" on Israel and boasted he would launch attacks anywhere in the world, presumably against anyone he deemed to be standing in the way of his destructive dream.

As for Syria, where Mughniyah was repeatedly given help and safe haven, he was being protected in a highly secure area under government control. An Iranian television station reported he was killed near a Syrian intelligence base at a time a major meeting of Palestinian groups was taking place, including Hamas leader Khalad Mishal, who is based in Damascus. Two respected Arab newspapers claimed Mughniyah was the guest of top Syrian leaders and had been meeting with them and Hamas chiefs to plan the kind of bloody deeds he was so good at doing.

Revenge was also threatened by such pro-Mugniyah groups as Hamas, the Muqtada Sadr forces in Iraq, and Fatah's al-Aqsa Brigades. Not all Arabs reacted in this way. In Kuwait, for example, it was pointed out that Mugniyah had been involved in the murder of many Arabs and Muslims, in Kuwait, Lebanon, and Iraq

A Lebanese newspaper backed by Syria and Hizballah noted that Mughniyah's Death was the hardest blow to Hizballah ever. Ironically, however, many in the past had refused to condemn Hizballah as a terrorist organization – including the EU – because they said there was insufficient evidence of such involvement.

As one expert on Hizballah, Magnus Ranstorp, retorted, too many had "allowed themselves to be misled" about Hizballah use of international terrorism and its use by Iran and Syria. "And so Hezbollah was allowed to have its cake and eat it too" since it could carry out terrorism without any significant international price or punishment.

When Iran, Syria, and Hizballah embrace such a person as a great hero and role model they are:

* Openly admitting their association with many past acts of terrorism.
* Making clear that they favor murderous attacks deliberately designed to kill civilians.
* Showing their past denials of involvement to be lies.
* Urging people to commit many more such attacks in future, include genocide against Israel and its people.

Now that Hizballah, Iran, and Syria have "taken credit" for Mugniyah's past killings and urged many more in the future, the world should confront the fact that these groups are engaged in a systematic terrorist policy and react accordingly.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 27, 2008.

Over 40 Kassams were launched from Gaza today. Hamas has claimed credit for this barrage.

One rocket hit in Sderot near Sapir College, killing student Ronnie Yechiya, who was the father of four. Yechiya, who died of massive wounds to the chest, had had a kidney transplant five years ago.

Two other students on the campus were lightly wounded.

I already said "Damn them!" last time. What is there left to say now?


At least four rockets today went into Ashkelon, one near Barzilai Hospital. A couple of rockets came down on or near factories. One man was wounded when a rocket landed in the street.


David Tal (Kadima) knew what to say: "I think we're nearing the limit of the IDF's patience, the army is obligated to defend the citizens of this country."

But then there is Yossi Beilin, who insisted that the way to stop the rockets was to negotiate a long term "cease fire" with Hamas. Beilin, I swear, is a menace to the nation. A cease fire – need I say it again? – would give Hamas the opportunity to continue to arm without interference from us. Getting them to stop launching is not sufficient in and of itself.

And our vaunted prime minister? From Japan he declared, ""There is an ongoing war in the south. We regret that it once again cost human life." Note the passion in this message, the furious indignation. If there is a war in the south – and there is – it's time for him to start fighting it for real.


Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni of Central Command yesterday declared: "Without the massive IDF presence in the West Bank, Hamas would take over the institutions and apparatuses of the Palestinian Authority within days." That's even faster than I had thought them capable of doing it; they're gaining strength.

Shamni said that Hamas is working continually to gain greater influence in the region. While rockets attacks are not emanating from Judea and Samaria, some are manufactured in the region. While the PA was working to maintain order, said Shamni, it was not making serious efforts to stop terrorists.

That is so important it merits a repeat: The PA is not making serious efforts to stop terrorists.

And it's the IDF, which is doing an incredible job, that continues to stand between us and terrorism. All hell would break loose in a matter of days if we were to pull out.

Surely Olmert knows this. Perhaps this is why, also from Japan, he indicated that we might not achieve a full "peace" agreement in 2008, even though he really really wants to.

Just days ago I mocked the idea of international forces in Judea and Samaria to take over from the IDF "until the PA was strong enough to do the job." And here we see it: It ain't gonna happen. Not ever. The PA is going downhill.


Off the record, Israeli officials now admit that Egypt has quietly upped the number of troops it has on the border with Gaza.

Our peace treaty with Egypt from 1979 gives them permission to have no more than 750 troops there, as the Sinai is demilitarized, and now they have 1,500. We've permitted it with a wink and a nod. To deal with it officially would require making adjustments in the treaty.

There are Israeli officials sympathetic to the situation Egypt is contending with, who see this increase as no threat to us. And others who are simply not eager to take on Egypt right now.

But, warns MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud) – who, with solid reason, is ever mistrustful of Egyptian intentions – it's a slippery slope: who knows how many troops will be in the Sinai in short order now that we've permitted them to go over the limit. And it's Aaron Lerner of IMRA who keeps pointing out that there are many things Egypt could do to control the border, such as bulldozing a no man's land, that would not require an increase in forces.

And, once again let us consider Olmert's words from Tokyo: Egypt, he told reports, is not violating the peace accords by increasing their troops as they have. He cannot be that ignorant. In point of fact, he is wrong.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Phillips, February 27, 2008.

As Israel rapidly approaches the 60th anniversary of its creation this May there is no better time to examine the ideas and deeds of the thinkers, leaders and soldiers from her past. The Jabotinsky Institute in Tel Aviv published Zev Golan's book titled The Shofars of the Revolt in Hebrew last year. Unfortunately, this book did not receive the attention it should have in Israel or the United States. Golan is American born Zionist historian and he has written a book full of important lessons from Zionism's untold history.

The Shofars of the Revolt is Golan's third book. His God, Man and Nietzsche: A Startling Dialogue between Judaism and Modern Philosophers was also published in 2007, by I-Universe. His translation of the late Dr. Israel Eldad's memoirs of Israel's fight for independence – The First Tithe (Ma'aser Rishon) is forthcoming. The Shofars of the Revolt revisits some of the same stories that Golan wrote about in his 2003 book Free Jerusalem: Heroes, Heroines and Rogues Who Created the State of Israel which is available in English and should not be missed by those who want to know more about the time of the Zionist pioneers before Israel was a modern state.

With this body of work Golan has done more to preserve the history and ideas of the brave men who fought to free Israel (and free Jerusalem) from the British than perhaps any other writer of this generation.

Golan's work over the last few years has the intensity of a man on a mission. And we are the true beneficiaries of the fruits of this mission.

Men like Rabbi Moshe Segal and Dr. Israel Eldad and their colleagues forged an ideology during the period of the British Mandate that would be a tragedy for the collective Jewish People and the State of Israel to lose.

Rabbi Moshe Segal was the quintessential Zionist revolutionary and was a key figure in the histories of Betar, Irgun, LEHI and Haganah and was the father of the Brit HaShmonaim. Dr. Israel Eldad was the chief propagandist of the LEHI and later a key ideologist of Israel's nationalist camp – think an Israeli Bill Buckley.

Golan knew Segal and Eldad personally and interviewed them many times in addition to attending their lectures and translating their writings. Many of these fine translations are available on www.SaveIsrael.com. He is one of only a handful of Americans who made it their business to seek out the aging heroes of the Irgun and LEHI and get to know them, their stories and the ideology that animated their deeds.

Eldad's philosophy started with Jabotinsky ideas of a Strong Jewish military and devotion to the Land of Israel. He further developed concepts originated by Avraham (Yair) Stern, founder of the LEHI, and remained dedicated to the principles of transfer and the need to rebuild the Holy Temple throughout his life.

Segal's ideology focused on similar themes to Eldad's. However, Segal was an Orthodox rabbi and his outlook is referred by to as "Malchut Israel" by his students, reflects his devotion to Torah. Malchut Israel, a term used by Jabotinsky as well, is a belief that Jerusalem is destined to be the capitol of a new Jewish monarchy and that a Jewish state must be governed Jewishly. A distinction may also be made between Eldad and Segal in that Segal had an extremely strong feeling of love for all Jews and praised acts of retaliation in response to terrorist attacks.

Another difference between Segal and Eldad may be understood from the book Dear Brothers by Haggai Segal about the Jewish Underground that was arrested in Israel in 1984. Eldad scolded the imprisoned underground members during a visit to their prison. Eldad "insisted that blowing up the Dome of the Rock would have caused a national disaster."

Rabbi Segal visited the prisoners often, telling them:

"You are my kind of people. You are the heroes of Israel. You are the kind who do not want to walk with head bowed in the Jewish State. These are the people who want to renew the Jewish nation. So don't speak of regret. This affair should be used as an instrument. If you handle the trial properly, you'll bring about a change, and national history will record your names in gold."

The Shofars of the Revolt is in part a result of Golan's relationship with Segal. In 1930 Segal was the first individual to violate the British regulations against the sounding of the shofar at the Western Wall at the conclusion of the Yom Kippur service. Until 1947 a volunteer of the Irgun, Betar or the Brit HaShmoniam sounded the shofar every year – often after receiving Segal's tutelage.

As Golan has explained Segal and the others who followed in his footsteps transformed the Western Wall from a site of wailing to one of national pride. The book reveals the details of the actual operations at the Western Wall and the full stories of the volunteers who were arrested, escaped from prison, deported to prisons in Africa. Some were involved in the Irgun attack on the King David Hotel and other Irgun or LEHI operations. Many later fought in Israel's wars. The Shofars of the Revolt also covers Arab attempts during the 1920s to drive the Jews from the Western Wall and the Jewish response to the Arab effort.

Some in rightwing Zionist circles may wonder why so much time should be spent on Israel's pre-1948 history when the current crises are so severe. It is a good question.

I agree that while this story is inspirational it must be understood that this history has a further purpose.

The emerging Jewish Underground in the pre-1940 period was a time when the Jabotinsky oriented rightwing suffered the slings and arrows of the leftwing establishment and bravely soldiered on. The light of history has shown that the stances of the Zionist right were correct. If the right had been more successful perhaps the tragedies of the Holocaust and the loss of life in the 1948 war could have been lessened. The historians of the Zionist left and the establishment have always downplayed – and often completely removed – the role of Jabotinsky's movement from their histories. Golan's work has helped to preserve the authentic history and that is a highly praiseworthy thing.

There is, however, a much more important aspect to Golan's books and translations than merely revealing a seldom reported on period in Zionist history.

Other Zionist writers and researchers, of late, have spent much more time and resources than Golan in an attempt to place Hillel Kook / Peter Bergson and his committees in the United States in a proper historical context and have too often failed to do the same job as Golan in also perpetuating the philosophy behind the deeds of the men of the Jabotinsky Movement in the 1930s and 1940s.

Golan has very consistently not simply told the story of the Jewish Underground in the pre-state period but has centered much of his work on helping the reader to understand the ideology that guided these warriors as they fought for Jewish rights and rebelled against the British Empire.

And this is no small thing. The ideology of Jabotinsky, Eldad, Segal and their comrades is just as instructive and relevant now as it was 65 and 75 years ago and probably more so.

Now that the Jewish People possess a sovereign Jewish State the concept of just what a Jewish States should rightly be is of vital importance. We live in a time when Avrum Burg, a former Speaker of the Knesset and former chairman of both the World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency, said "To define the state of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end." in a June 7, 2007 interview with Israel's Haaretz newspaper.

Burg's statements and the radical positions taken by the secular, Zionist left and by former leaders of the modern Jabotinsky Movement like Ehud Olmert and Tzippi Livni must be answered. Tragically the arguments made by the Likud and Jabotinsky's other political heirs are nothing more than old and shallow sloganeering.

For the Zionist right to be truly successful in a way that transcends politics and elections – in a nation transforming way – it must re-evaluate the philosophy of thinkers like Eldad and Segal. These heroes were not only the ideological heirs of Jabotinsky but the men who brought Jabotinsky's ideas to a practical level. Zev Golan has given us the opportunity to study these ideas – and for that he must get high praise.

Moshe Phillips is a member of the executive committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel / AFSI. The chapter's new website is at: www.phillyafsi.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Mark Silverberg, February 27, 2008.

Given that the UN intends to begin planning for Durban II in 2009, I am suggesting that the Conference direct its attention to several of the critical issues confronting Israel and the Palestinians today. Perhaps Durban II can serve as a role model for nations like Israel. With their vast experience on such issues as compensating refugees for property seized from citizens they have expelled, on returning lands conquered in war to the countries they have defeated, and on the matter of how to deal with terrorists, there is much that can be learned from their example.

The French playwright Moliere once wrote that hypocrisy is a vice that often passes for virtue. The 2001 Durban Conference was such an example. Three days prior to 9/11, the first World Conference against Racism (WCAR) organized by the United Nations in Durban, South Africa ended. Its stated intention was to promote tolerance between nations. Instead, it became a festival for promoting hatred of Israel and the West by some of the most repressive, dictatorial regimes in the world encouraged by European and American NGOs.

At that "Conferenc", Yasser Arafat claimed Israel was guilty of a "supremacist mentality, a mentality of racial discrimination" and that "the Israeli occupation is a new and advanced type of apartheid." Disregarding their own historical complicity in the slave trade and the rat holes of Saudi Arabia (one of the world's worst violators of human trafficking), African dictators called for slave reparations from the U.S. At the same time, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International refused to demand that calls for violence against Israeli and Western targets be removed from a common NGO communiqué as violence was sometimes "justified if against apartheid or on behalf of the intifada." Copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well-documented anti-Semitic forgery, were openly sold within the Conference area.

Now the UN has announced its intention to organize Durban II in 2009. Durban II promises to raise the rhetoric to new levels of hypocrisy and to further inflame racial and religious intolerance. Already, there is talk of Arab states asking for an agenda item that would call for a declaration to the effect that our current war against Salafi (extremist) Islam is nothing more than a plot to demolish their religion – a ploy by the West to subjugate Muslims everywhere.

As Victor Davis Hanson suggests, perhaps the delegates at a global conference (like Durbin II) should consider setting an agenda on how best to deal with the issue of compensating refugees expelled from their ancestral homes since that seems to be a hot item in the Israel-Palestinian debate. Perhaps Israel could learn from the vast experiences of the collective assembly of distinguished delegates. After all, they have much more experience than Israel in the matter. In the wake of World War II, millions of Germans were forcibly expelled from their homes in East Prussia by the Poles and the Czechs expelled their German citizens from the Sudetenland as well. In addition, millions of Muslims fled India for Pakistan following the bloody riots of 1947 and India not only stripped them of their citizenship, but barred them in its constitution from ever returning to India. Furthermore, between 1948 and 1953, almost a million Jews were expelled from their ancestral homes in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Egypt and had their property confiscated, and in the wake of the Communist takeover of Vietnam, millions of South Vietnamese fled to the U.S. and other Asian countries, so there is a wealth of valuable precedents out there for Israel to follow if and when the issue of compensating Palestinians for property they lost after 1948 is placed on the table.

And perhaps before forcing Israel to return the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians, Durban II delegates could create a model for returning lands to nations that they themselves defeated in war. They could begin with a large slice of historic Germany that is now part of Poland, or the Russian occupation of the Kurile Islands (in northern Japan), or half of Cyprus that the Greeks lost in 1974 after the Turkish invasion. Or, perhaps they could begin with the Western Sahara which was annexed by Morocco, or the 15% of Azerbaijan that has been controlled by Armenia since 1994 not to mention all of Tibet that has been under Chinese occupation since 1950-1. Taking all this into account, the Durbin II delegates have more than enough collective experience to advise Israel on how best to deal with such territories.

And then there's the issue of setting a global standard for the treatment of terrorists. The Russians and Syrians could really help with this one. During the second Chechnya War of 1999-2000 Russia reportedly sent missiles into Grozny killing tens of thousands of civilians in their search for Chechnya terrorists – explaining why the United Nations later called that city "the most destroyed city on earth." And Syria completely destroyed the northern Syrian town of Hama in 1982, once home to the Muslim Brotherhood. Over 30,000 people were killed or remain "missing." And the Indian government looked the other way in 2002 when hundreds of Muslim civilians in Gujarat were killed in reprisal for Islamic violence against Hindus. The lessons learned from these nations on how to deal with terrorists would be invaluable in reassuring a world that continues to condemn Israel for the deaths of fifty-two Palestinians in Jenin. In fact, Israel could really benefit from the Durbin delegates' collective experiences especially since it is consistently demonized when it retaliates against missile attacks on its civilian population by resorting to targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders (in an effort to reduce civilian collateral damage) and enforces a partial embargo on energy to an enemy dedicated to its destruction. If the above issues can be adjudicated by the delegates attending Durbin II using their own extensive experience in such matters, then resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be a cakewalk.

So let these nations set an example on how to resolve international disputes. The Russians and Syrians could share their wealth of experience with Israel on how best to negotiate with terrorists. Poland, Russia, China, Turkey, Vietnam and Armenia could offer advice on a formula for giving back lands to those whom they have defeated in war, and Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt could become role models on how best to work out a comprehensive resettlement and/or compensation package for the Jews they dispossessed and expelled from their countries after the 1948 birth of Israel.

After a half century of failed attempts to resolve these issues with the Palestinians, Israel could learn much from these other nations at Durban II who have so successfully resolved their own problems that they have never once been criticized by the same body that has somehow always found the time to condemn Israel for "crimes against humanity."

Contact Mark Silverberg at jfednepa@epix.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, February 27, 2008.

Odelya Jacob, a wonderful activist on behalf of the Land of Israel, recently spoke with the aid of Shas MK member Attias. She has learned that it is apparent that Attias is responsible in a large way for Shas not leaving the government. His and other Shas leaders' phone numbers must be circulated so that people can contact them.

It is imperative to strongly emphasize that a government's obligation is to SECURE THE SAFETY OF ITS CITIZENS. This government is responsible for causing death and destruction among its citizens and is endangering the entire State of Israel.


Please get as many people to flood their phone lines as possible.

MK Attias 011 972 2 670 6301
MK Ben Izri 011 972 0 538 7716
Shas spokesperson Roi Racmanovitch 011 972 54 569 9079
Shas leader Eli Yishai 011 972 2 666 2254

Contact Barbara Sommer by email at sommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 27, 2008.

This was posted by Freedom Fighter today on the Joshua Pundit website

Bush at the Islamic Center, 2007

Eight months ago,in the midst of trying to shove amnesty for illegal aliens down America's collective throat, President Bush took some time off to participate in ceremonies honoring a Saudi funded wahabist outpost within spitting distance of the White House, the Islamic Center of Washington D.C.

While he was there, the president made an extraordinary promise to appoint a US envoy to one of the world's most bigoted groups, the Organization of the Islamic Conference "to listen and to learn from them" in the words of the current occupant of the White House.

President Bush has finally named an official envoy, a Texas businessman named Sada Cumber whom I believe is Pakistani in origin (degrees from the University of Karachi). He's in the high tech industry, the CEO of SozoTek, a wireless imaging company.

Mr. Cumber aside, the implications of the US naming such an envoy are astounding.

For those of you not familiar with the OIC, let's revisit a few highlights:

* The conference is the place where Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed received a standing ovation for a keynote speech delivered on October 16th, 2003 that was nothing less than a declaration of jihad against the west. In it he declared that 'Jews run the world' and essentially said in so many words that the destruction of Israel was a goal towards a larger pan-Islamic caliphate, and that essentially, the US and Europe will only accept Islam as their master after their current masters, the Jews, are destroyed.

* In 2004, just after the massacre of children at Beslan, the OIC famously defined Islamic terrorism as 'legitimate resistance' and refused to cooperate with the UN in condemning it.

* In 2005, the OIC called for universal application of sharia and demanded a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

* Also in 2005, Iranian president Ahmadinejad got a standing ovation speaking at the OIC in Mecca, denying that the Holocaust occurred, calling Israel a 'tumor' and demanding that the world 'move the Jews to Germany'. And in 2006 Ahmadinejad called for "the elimination of the Zionist regime," and recieved widespread applause in a speech at the OIC that year. Needless to say, the OIC failed to condemn this is the least.

* In 2006, during the Danish cartoon seethefest, the OIC passed a resolution demanding that the UN pass a resolution bannning 'attacks on religion' ( read `Islam) with sanctions for violators.

* This same organization, the OIC has an office, the Islamic Office for the Boycott of Israel, entirely devoted to enforcing a boycott contrary to US law. And they recentlypassed a resolution condemning Islamophobia and 'insults to Islam' as 'worst form of terrorism'. And they have never unequivocally condemned the terrorism that occurred here in America on 9/11, in Britain, in Madrid or indeed, anywhere else.

* The OIC, as one of the largest voting blocs in the UN has repeatedly obstructed any actions against Sudan for the genocide in Darfur.

* The OIC consistently supports Hamas, and Hezbollah, groups identified as terrorist organizations under US law.

This is the racist, anti-American group our president legitimized and is now sending an official US envoy 'to listen and to learn'.

When asked why it took so long for the president to name an envoy, White House spokesmouth spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters: "He wanted to find the right person and he found that in Sada Cumber."

Incidentally, in his own way President Bush is giving weight to the idea of a global caliphate, something I'm sure he didn't intend.

Spokesmouth Dana Perino, in a statement for the press no doubt vetted by the White House referred to Cumber as our 'envoy to the Muslim world' and to the OIC as "an important organization" with "a constructive role to play in the world."

So we apparently are now dealing with the collective Muslim umma, rather than individual states..just as Mohammed and his successors intended back in the 6th century.

Frankly, if the sort of racist, anti-American and anti-western views embraced by the OIC are now acknowledged by the White House as the official stance of the Muslim world, then we are further apart then even I imagined..and the clash of civilizations is even further in evidence then I thought.

Of course, it's one thing to acknowledge this and an entirely different thing to pander to it.

Editor's Note: Another reader, Orde, added this comment:

Sada Cumber is Pakistani-born according to a Forbes article that says Sada Cumber "could charm a cobra." Here's a link –
http://www.oic-un.org/about/over.htm – to the oic-un page where one can read about its history:
"...the First meeting of the leaders of the Islamic world was held in the wake of the criminal Zionist attempt to burn down the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque on 21 August 1969 in the occupied city of Al-Quds."

and its reasons for existence now:

"2. Coordinate action to:
a) Safeguard the Holy Places;
b) Support the struggle of the Palestinian people and assist them in recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories."

When will people wake up to the fact that Bush's policies have been the swiftest to advance the ummah, the annihilation of Israel, and the dhimmification of the U.S.?

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, February 27, 2008.

This is anews item from Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

(IsraelNN.com) Israeli authorities have placed several signs near the Atarot area in northern Jerusalem recently warning travelers, "You are entering territory under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Israelis are absolutely forbidden to enter!" Approximately 25,000 residents of Jerusalem, some of them Israeli citizens, live in the areas now designated as PA territory.

Jerusalem Forum chairman Aryeh King said Wednesday that approximately 1,200 dunams of property owned by Jews were located beyond the signs. The government violated laws regarding Jerusalem by putting up the signs, King said. The signs prove the government is acting to make its policy of splitting Jerusalem a reality, he said.

King said he plans to lead a tour on Thursday in areas that fall within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem but are in practice controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The tour will begin at the Kalandia checkpoint at 12 p.m. and end in the biblical village of Mitzpa.



Click on each of the following leaders to view his/her contact information.

Prime Minister of Israel – Ehud Olmert
Email pm_eng@pmo.gov.il
Phone +972-2-670-5555
Fax +972-2-670-5475

President of the United States – George W. Bush
Email president@whitehouse.gov
Phone +1-202-456-1111
Fax +1-202-456-2461
Address The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20510

Senate Majority Leader – Harry Reid
Email http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Phone +1-202-224-3452
Fax +1-202-224-7327
Address 528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Senate Minority Leader – Mitch McConnell
Email http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
Phone +1-202-224-2541
Fax +1-202-224-2499
Address 361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

House Majority Leader – Steny Hoyer
Email http://democraticleader.house.gov/contact.cfm
Phone +1-202-225-3130
Address H-107 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515

House Minority Leader – John Boehner
Email http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/
Phone +1-202-225-4000
Fax +1-202-225-5117
Address H-204 The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Speaker of the House of Representatives – Nancy Pelosi
Email http://www.speaker.gov/contact
Email AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Phone +1-202-225-0100
Address H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

UN Secretary General – Ban Ki-Moon
Email inquiries@un.org
Phone +1-212-963-4475
Address Office of the Secretary General United Nations
New York, NY 10017

Your U.S. Senator
Email http://www.senate.gov
Phone +1-202-224-3121
Address United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Your U.S. Congressperson
Email http://www.house.gov/writerep
Phone +1-202-225-3121
Address United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Suggested Message

We suggest that you paste the following text into your message:

Dear _________,

For more than three decades, Jerusalem has once again been the united capital of the State of Israel. During this time, the Israeli government has acted as guardian of its holy sites – respecting the rights of all religious groups and guaranteeing access for all – Christians, Jews and Muslims. Israel's record in this regard speaks for itself. It stands in sharp contrast to the situation that was created in 1948, at the time of Israel's founding, when Jerusalem was forcibly divided as a result of the invasion of Arab armies.

From 1948-1967, Jews could not pray at the Western Wall and Israeli Arabs, both Christian and Muslim were denied access to their holy sites. Religious persecution led to desecration and destruction. This must never be allowed to recur. Israel has upheld its moral and ethical obligations to the people of the world and has earned the right to retain sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, according to the present boundaries. Moreover, Israel's decision, as a free and democratic nation, to designate a united and undivided Jerusalem as its capital, should be respected and recognized by the entire international community.

A Very Concerned Friend of Jerusalem

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 27, 2008.

No doubt, those who track events in Israel will say: "Oh. Really?" in mock astonishment. For example:

It is well-known to business analysts all over the world that corporations and their management are comparable to mountains, where the CEO/Ruler sits atop like a rain cloud. He can rain down good or bad as his influence trickles down to the lowest levels. If he is a petty tyrant, all middle level management will reflect his pettiness and lord it over all others below them. IF he is a good-ethical CEO, all management will follow his lead. Nations are the same.

In Israel the leaders sitting atop that mountain have shown themselves to be increasingly corrupt, incompetent, willing to sacrifice the safety of their people and the sovereignty of the nation for fallible ideas typical of weak leaders who cannot see beyond their own personal welfare. That corruption and incompetence has trickled down to the base of life in Israel.

Year after year of such leadership has reduced the Israeli population to a form of brain-washed slavery. Granted there are those who still think and resist but, the power of a police state in the hands of the politically corrupt can be intimidating. Arresting peaceful protestors and jailing 14 year old girls has been the mark of this government, its judiciary, and its police force. The present government of Ehud Olmert and his collaborators is assuredly the lowest to which Israel's leadership has ever sunk.

I was reading an article by Hilary Leila Krieger of the Jerusalem Post quoting Alon Liel regarding Syria. (1) Liel typifies a man from the Foreign Ministry who tells us that he "likes" what American presidential candidates (read: Barack Obama) are saying about talking to Syria. In this he is referring to Syria – with Israel abandoning the Golan Heights wholly ignoring more than 60 years of virulent Muslim hostility through 6 wars and incessant Terror attacks which continue to this day.

Liel is typical of a line of delusional bureaucrats like Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Binyamin Netanyahu, Arik Sharon, Ehud Olmert... all who engaged in one failed experiment after another trying to pacify Syria and the Arab nations generally. Those "experiments" were no less deadly than Yosef Mengele's experiments on Jews who invariably ended up dead or so maimed they would have preferred being dead.

Liel is merely another bureaucrat who believes that whatever enters his mind and then passes his lips must be a message of exceeding brilliance. The tight cabal of Israel's brain-warped so-called elite leadership believe it's their destiny to ignore all facts of prior hostility and experiment with the lives of the Israeli people.

Even as the European nations who savaged their Jewish population and now reawaken that hatred to join similarly hateful Arabs in their plans to wipe out the Jewish nation, Olmert and the Left offer to assist as a present day "Judenrat".

Such leaders have an inflated arrogance believing they can overcome the deeply ingrained hatred by the Muslim people following the immutable Koranic law that mandates permanent war against all non-Muslims but, especially for the Jewish people.

It's not merely a matter of colossal stupidity to believe they can appease such a dedicated enemy, pledged to murder, to include blood sacrifice of their own children and self-martyrdom. The Israeli leadership has accepted this madness as normative behavior, both by their enemies and the role of groveling in the name of the Jewish people. No amount of accumulated evidence of failures to pacify a society who believes in actual human sacrifice (theirs and ours) is sufficient to stop Israel's leadership from pandering to her irreversible adversaries.

As intelligent, objective readers please think about what constitutes an irrevocable path. The British were awarded the "Palestinian Mandate" which was intended to become a Jewish homeland, to be "closely settled" by the Jewish people returning to their ancient homeland.

Then, in 1922, the British cut off 75% of the Land – the East side of the Jordan River – called Trans-Jordan (now Jordan). Long before the U.N. partitioned the 25% remnant of the original Palestinian mandate, the Arab Muslims have been killing Jews. Ever since the Jews first began to return to their ancient homeland and make the desert bloom, create jobs and improve the health of those Jews and Arabs who came to live there.

We can begin with "Long Before" , in the seventh century when Mohammed and his (rejected) offer to lead the Jews. He gathered the pagan desert tribes to drive the Jews from the Arabian Peninsula. That hatred of the "Infidel" (both Jews and Christians) carried forward through the present and the foreseeable future. It was integrated into the Koran and the Hadith (Oral Law) and so remains to this day. The Muslims cannot abandon their Koran and this will never give Israel a peace of alliance.

Olmert and the Left who reject the national memory of the Jewish people cannot, therefore, understand the national memory of the hate-filled Muslim Arabs from their earliest times.

Some few bits of news today tells us more about the fantasy state of mind lodged in the confused minds of today's Israeli leaders.

First, rockets are slamming into the American safety zone in Baghdad called the "Green Zone". The U.S. Army cannot stop the attacks nor can they count on the Iraqi government despite the U.S. training and weapons poured into their troops. Similarly rockets are slamming into Israel (over 7000 rockets since the year 2000). Those deadly, traumatic rockets are wholly ignored by President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice in their hapless search for an historical legacy.

Second the Olmert Government is experiencing their own monumental mistake of giving the Hamas Muslim Arab Terrorists a firing base in Gaza but, still wish to turn over Judea and Samaria as another firing zone in the heartland of Israel that overlooks Tel Aviv and her suburbs, the Ben Gurion International Airport and the towns around – even to Jerusalem.

Another bit of news is about the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) and Head of the Fatah military wing – formerly Yassir Arafat's companion, partner, financier, co-conspirator in 40 years of Terror. Apparently, Abbas had detailed evidence that Hamas planned to seize Gaza for themselves. Abbas refused to mobilize his Fatah troops to fight against Hamas. His troops ran away from the battle, leaving a mountain of weapons, mostly supplied by the U.S. in the hands of Hamas.

These are the Muslim Arab Palestinians who Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wishes to take over Judea and Samaria in the "Faux Peace Process".

Are you beginning to get the idea that, not only are the Israeli leaders of the failed Left incompetent but, they actually seem to accept a mission to national suicide in their total delusion called a "Peace Process"? Surely, such people should be eliminated by putting them in a lock-down, if nothing more than to save the Jewish nation. At the very least, impeach them and send them out of office – for good!

In the meantime, Israel's current leaders have totally deluded themselves by ignoring centuries of ingrained cultural and religious hatred and their obligation to martyr themselves while killing Jews. Every textbook in Syria, Egypt, Iran and the Muslim Arab Palestinian territories indoctrinate the Muslim children that it's their duty to hate and kill Jews and Christians because they are taught that the Jewish State stole their land. Millions of Muslim children are taught it's their duty to grow up and be martyrs or the equivalent of Manchurian candidates and kill Jews when so ordered.

As all of this saturates their thinking from the youngest to the oldest, while the pathetic leadership of the Jewish Israelis pledges to move forward with the idea that they will re-educate 100 million or more Muslims that Jews can be their best friends. That the Mullahs are to be ignored and the mandate of Koranic Law is to be put aside merely because the Israeli leadership readily puts its people on a sacrificial chopping block as a gesture of appeasement.

All of this is to be ignored because shallow dimwits called so-called Israeli leaders have delusional tiny brains. These leaders cast aside any of their born Jewishness, ignoring the fact that it was this Jewishness down through the ages that kept the Jewish people together along with a national memory which returned Jews to their ancestral Land. All of this is to be ignored by a Chelm-like cabal who learned to speak but were not taught to think.

In conclusion, Israel has what can only be called a "Killer Government", bent on its own destruction. Perhaps they, indeed, deserve the head chopping block intended for them by the Muslims Arab Palestinians but, not the rest of the of the Jews of Israel.


1. Hilary Leila Krieger, "Former Israeli Official Hopes the Road to Damascus Runs through Washington: The obstacle to a peace deal with Syria, says Alon Liel, is not Jerusalem but, the U.S.", Jerusalem Post.

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 K7, February 27, 2008.

This was written by Bret Stephens and it appeared yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. Write to him at bstephens@wsj.com

The Israeli town of Sderot lies less than a mile from the Gaza Strip. Since the beginning of the intifada seven years ago, it has borne the brunt of some 2,500 Kassam rockets fired from Gaza by Palestinian terrorists. Only about a dozen of these Kassams have proved lethal, though earlier this month brothers Osher and Rami Twito were seriously injured by one as they walked down a Sderot street on a Saturday evening. Eight-year-old Osher lost a leg.

It is no stretch to say that life in Sderot has become unendurable. Palestinians and their chorus of supporters – including the 118 countries of the so-called Non-Aligned Movement, much of Europe, and the panoply of international aid organizations from the World Bank to the United Nations – typically reply that life in the Gaza Strip is also unendurable, and that Palestinian casualties greatly exceed Israeli ones. But this argument is fatuous: Conditions in Gaza, in so far as they are shaped by Israel, are a function of conditions in Sderot. No Palestinian Kassams (or other forms of terrorism), no Israeli "siege."

The more vexing question, both morally and strategically, is what Israel ought to do about Gaza. The standard answer is that Israel's response to the Kassams ought to be "proportionate." What does that mean? Does the "proportion" apply to the intention of those firing the Kassams – to wit, indiscriminate terror against civilian populations? In that case, a "proportionate" Israeli response would involve, perhaps, firing 2,500 artillery shells at random against civilian targets in Gaza. Or should proportion apply to the effects of the Kassams – an exquisitely calibrated, eye-for-eye operation involving the killing of a dozen Palestinians and the deliberate maiming or traumatizing of several hundred more?

Surely this isn't what advocates of proportion have in mind. What they really mean is that Israel ought to respond with moderation. But the criteria for moderation are subjective. Should Israel pick off Hamas leaders who are ordering the rocket attacks? The European Parliament last week passed a resolution denouncing the practice of targeted assassinations. Should Israel adopt purely economic measures to punish Hamas for the Kassams? The same resolution denounced what it called Israel's "collective punishment" of Palestinians. Should Israel seek to dismantle the Kassams through limited military incursions? This, too, has the unpardonable effect of resulting in too many Palestinian casualties, which are said to be "disproportionate" to the number of Israelis injured by the Kassams.

By these lights, Israel's presumptive right to self-defense has no practical application as far as Gaza is concerned. Instead, Israel is counseled to allow goods to flow freely into the Strip, and to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.

But here another set of considerations intrudes. Hamas was elected democratically and by overwhelming margins in Gaza. It has never once honored a cease-fire with Israel. Following Israel's withdrawal of its soldiers and settlements from the Strip in 2005 there was a six-fold increase in the number of Kassam strikes on Israel.

Hamas has also made no effort to rewrite its 1988 charter, which calls for Israel's destruction. The charter is explicitly anti-Semitic: "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" (Article Seven) "In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad." (Article 15) And so on.

It would seem perverse for Israeli taxpayers, including residents of Sderot, to feed the mouth that bites them. It would seem equally perverse for Israel merely to bide its time for an especially unlucky day – a Kassam hitting a busload of schoolchildren, for instance – before striking hard at Gaza. But unless Israel is willing to accept the military, political and diplomatic burdens of occupying all or parts of Gaza indefinitely, the effects of a major military incursion could be relatively short-lived. Israel suffered many more casualties before it withdrew from the Strip than it has since.

Perhaps the answer is to wait for a technological fix and, in the meantime, hope for the best. Israel is at work on a missile-defense program called "Iron Dome" that may be effective against Kassams, though the system won't be in place for at least two years. It could also purchase land-based models of the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System, used by the U.S. to defend the Green Zone in Baghdad.

But technology addresses neither the Islamic fanaticism that animates Hamas nor the moral torpor of Western policy makers and commentators who, on balance, find more to blame in Israel's behavior than in Hamas's. Nor, too, would an Iron Dome or the Phalanx absolve the Israeli government from the necessity of punishing those who seek its destruction. Prudence is an important consideration of statesmanship, but self-respect is vital. And no self-respecting nation can allow the situation in Sderot to continue much longer, a point it is in every civilized country's interest to understand.

On March 9, 1916, Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa attacked the border town of Columbus, N.M., killing 18 Americans. President Woodrow Wilson ordered Gen. John J. Pershing and 10,000 soldiers into Mexico for nearly a year to hunt Villa down, in what was explicitly called a "punitive expedition." Pershing never found Villa, making the effort something of a failure. Then again, Villa's raid would be the last significant foreign attack on continental U.S. soil for 85 years, six months and two days.

Contact 7K at 7khallal@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 26, 2008.

Bret Stephens (former editor of The Jerusalem Post), writing in the Wall Street Journal, today addresses the issue of the constraints that the international community attempts to put on Israel with regard to responses to Kassam attacks. Bless him, he has it exactly right:

"...The more vexing question, both morally and strategically, is what Israel ought to do about Gaza. The standard answer is that Israel's response to the Kassams ought to be 'proportionate.' What does that mean?

"...Israel's presumptive right to self-defense has no practical application as far as Gaza is concerned. Instead, Israel is counseled to allow goods to flow freely into the Strip, and to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.

"...But technology addresses neither the Islamic fanaticism that animates Hamas nor the moral torpor of Western policy makers and commentators who, on balance, find more to blame in Israel's behavior than in Hamas's. Nor, too, would an Iron Dome or the Phalanx absolve the Israeli government from the necessity of punishing those who seek its destruction. Prudence is an important consideration of statesmanship, but self-respect is vital. And no self-respecting nation can allow the situation in Sderot to continue much longer, a point it is in every civilized country's interest to understand." (emphasis added)


The head of the Electric Authority of the PA has announced financing from Saudi Arabia intended to underwrite a project to connect Gaza's electric grid to Egypt over the course of the next 12 to 18 months, so that a considerable portion of its electric power would then be supplied by Egypt rather than Israel. There has been, as yet, no comment from either Egypt or Israel. This project, besides reducing Gazan dependence on Israel, would bolster the PA claim to being in charge in Gaza.


Head of Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, reported to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday that during the time that the fence at Rafah was breached, Al Qaida was able to enter Gaza.

He also said that the open border "enabled Hamas to bring back those who had left for training in Syria and Iran, including snipers, explosives experts, rocket experts and engineers." Additionally, large amounts of weaponry were brought in.

MK Tzvi Hendel (NU-NRP) spoke with clear understanding when he then observed that the situation in Gaza now was reminiscent of what happened during the years that we were aware that Hezbollah was building up and did nothing. "We must enter the Gaza Strip" he said, "not [just] in order to stay there for two days or two months, because there is no other solution." And how very right he is!

With regard to a Hezbollah reprisal attack on us because we are presumed to have assassinated Mughniyeh. Yadlin reported that it might come, as is traditional, following a 40 day mourning period.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Elliot and Esther Green, February 26, 2008.

A guy who thought Muslims sincere
Said "There's nothing to fear from Taqiyya!"
But he found out he shouldna
Agreed to the Hudna
The day he got slit ear to ear.

Contact the posters at eil100@zahav.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, February 26, 2008.

Ironic, isn't it, that radical forces threaten a wide range of violence, sanctions, and other behaviors against democratic states while insisting – along with their Western apologists – that any attempt by their victims to put any kind of pressure on them is useless.

Think about it. Every time someone proposes, say, economic sanctions (on Iran or Syria), an international tribunal investigating its involvement in terrorism (on Syria), military operations or killing terrorist leaders (against Hamas, Hizballah, Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaida, the Kurdish PKK, or the Taliban), diplomatic isolation, or even not giving financial aid (Hamas), a chorus of voices says: it won't work.

The extremists, you see, are tough. They believe in their cause. They will not be deterred from their course. So, we are told, we must engage them, hear (and presumably respond to) their grievances. Presumably, thereafter, the West supposedly must give way; Israel allegedly has to make concessions.

The smug, over-"educated," and those trained in "conflict resolution" (who never seem to have resolved any conflict) view the normal procedures of diplomacy, strategy, and power politics with contempt. They maintain that, by correcting misunderstandings, kind words turn adversaries into friends. Pressure only unites the dictator's subjects into unity fueled by patriotic zeal (which sometimes, of course, does happen). But their sole remaining strategy is to give away assets in order to buy (or, more likely, temporarily rent) immunity from imperialist-minded regimes and single-minded revolutionary groups.

Dismissing any attempt to press the Hamas or Fatah governments to reduce incitement or stop terrorist attacks through selective pressure, one veteran architect of failed agreements advocated even more unilateral Israeli concessions, explaining, "Pressure has never changed Palestinian behavior." Unfortunately, there isn't much evidence that concessions have worked any better in this regard.

Even, however, if one assumes radical forces will not become moderate or disappear entirely if subjected to pressure, it nevertheless remains true that sanctions, military operations, aid given only if certain conditions are met, and other efforts can achieve a number of worthwhile goals:

– Weaken radical forces so that they are less able to murder people or destabilize societies
– Discourage states from helping extremists and to be more cautious in their international adventures.
– Undermine their internal base of support, a long-term project.
– Persuade others not to join them.

Costs have consequences, and they are not merely to make people who hate you angrier. This brings us to the new propaganda technique of collective punishment. Radical regimes, Saddam Hussein's in Iraq, for instance, are taught to believe they can continue extremist policies while holding their own people as hostages. "Throw down your weapons or I'll starve my citizens!" Supposedly, the new rules are that Hamas can teach children to view themselves as a master "race" licensed to kill sub-human others and wage war on its neighbor while Israel must provide all of Gaza's needs or be guilty of war crimes. As if that isn't enough, it demands Western governments subsidize that program.

But, guess what? Living under a repressive dictatorship is the most terrible type of humanitarian disaster, helping keep it in power is the worst form of collective punishment, and letting it commit aggression against you imposes both of these states on your own people.

If Western people and governments accept this kind of argument, how can the radicals possibly lose?

Certainly, Middle East states don't hesitate to use every bit of leverage of their own, especially when it is totally cost-free. For example, there's the revelation that high-ranking Saudi officials threatened not to provide intelligence warnings about future terrorist attacks on Britain unless that country stopped investigating their personally stealing hundreds of millions of dollars through bribes. Britain acceded, no doubt fearing retaliation or loss of future trade more than preserving a democratic system of laws.

Why should we believe sanctions only work in one direction, against the West?

In contrast, economic pressures on Iran regarding its nuclear program, are really biting. In a report for MEMRI, economist Nimrod Raphaeli analyzes the statistics and concludes that Tehran is doing very badly. Even Chinese banks have joined "almost all" Western and Japanese banks in cutting business relations with Iranian counterparts. The central bank of Iran admits that "no direct foreign investments are coming into Iran."

People in Iran can see that the ultra-radical policies and hysterical threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have a cost. "Operating under the weight of UN, but more potent, U.S. sanctions, Iran is going through hard economic times despite the quintupling of oil prices in the last three years," Raphaeli concludes.

There are costs for Iranians in this situation, "Inflation was running at more than 19 percent in 2007 compared with 12 percent in 2006; unemployment is high in general...50 percent of the population is poor and more than 20 percent live below the poverty line."

This does not mean the regime or its policies will change, but they are far more likely to be weakened and reconsidered than if no such sanctions were in place. At any rate, it is one of the best ways to combat "collective punishment" committed by Iran on other countries.

On another front, Syria's apologists say that economic and political sanctions won't work so we might as well give up and let them devour Lebanon. Yet Syria itself uses economic sanctions as part of its campaign to take over Lebanon.

The U.S. government has just put restrictions on Rami Makhlouf, President Bashar al-Asad's cousin and Asad-in-chief for corruption. Here's just one of his tricks: Mercedes was barred from bringing spare parts into Syria until it made him sole agent. The regime isn't interested in reforming the economy, only in looting it.

On February 21, the U.S. Treasury "designated" him and other Syrian economic gangsters and their Lebanese accomplices, meaning he cannot do any business or have accounts in the United States. The Syrian regime and its lackeys insisted this was meaningless – though the loudness of their howls shows just how much it hurts them.

But if radicals disregard Western pressures, it is due to optimism, not bravery. They think the West has no guts or staying power. Muhammad Habash, one of the Syrian parliament's sleaziest members (competition for that title is intense) mocked: "We are expecting a lot of such measures in the next six months, but this will not affect Syria's policy. There is no solution with this American administration, and we have to wait for the next president."

They seem to expect that the next U.S. president will keep all his powers locked up in the barracks; that they don't need to gain victory but only have to await surrender. That strategy fails much of the time yet there are all too many cases where it has worked and will work.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, February 26, 2008.

The independence of Kosovo is ill-timed and ill-conceived particularly because of the fact that in the contemporary world, separatism and terrorism have become interlinked. The Albanians who constitute a majority in the erstwhile province of Serbia have decided to break away from the latter and form a separate state.

By encouraging the Kosovo Albanians to secede by terror bombing Serbia into submission, the Western Powers have chosen to create another "Ulster Plantation" in the heart of the Balkans that have witnessed considerable bloodshed through centuries of foreign occupation and external interference, the result of which has been the redoubtable "Eastern Question," the kind that rebounded on the West itself.

The creation of Kosovo is reminiscent of the crisis that nearly came to war between Russia and England in the wake of the Treaty of San Stefano following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877. Bulgaria was partitioned and the Ottoman Empire preserved to serve the interests of the interfering Westerners. It is not for nothing that the English Poet and freedom fighter for Greek independence warned the Greeks to "Trust not for Freedom to the Franks, they have a King who buys and sells." In the twenty first century, Serbia has been similarly sold out to blackmail and intimidation buttressed by western bayonets and bombs.

The secession of Kosovo from Serbia and its de-jure as well as de-facto recognition by the NATO led coalition is a bad precedent, something that would serve to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of multi-ethnic states. Back in 2000, East Timor had been a case in point whose Christian majority chose to opt out of Muslim Indonesia. The most vulnerable states threatened by armed groups and their sponsors are India, Israel and Turkey. In the former two (India and Israel), Islamic extremists and their secular counterparts have chosen to tear the states apart through terrorism, while in the latter (Turkey), the Kurdish insurgency has literally compelled cross-border military actions into an already volatile Iraq thereby escalating a local conflict into a trans-territorial crisis. Israel in the 50s and 60s as well as the late 90s has experienced such problems. India is still doing so and would probably have to wait another generation to eliminate terrorism from its soil. Faced with such prospects, its little wonder that both India and Israel have adopted a cautious stance with regard to the independence of Kosovo. Turkey, which shares ethnic affinity with the predominantly Muslim Kosovar Albanians and has historic ties,[1] has kept silent on the issue. If India, Israel and Turkey agree to Kosovo's independence, then they would have to surrender their sovereignty to the various militant outfits that are trying to de-stabilize each of the countries concerned.

By creating the State of Kosovo, the West has practically whetted the ambitions of local big wigs like Hashim Thaci who would go on demanding more concessions, the unfulfilment of which would serve to perpetuate the Balkan problem and its various fall outs.

[1.]   Albanians fought as soldiers in the Ottoman Army and the influential Kruiprilu family served the Turkish Administration

Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email at kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 26, 2008.

The Knesset Audit Committee held a session on Monday regarding the unauthorized Jewish neighborhoods in Judea and Samaria, and voted not to request a State Comptroller review of the situation. Meretz MK Avshalom Vilan protested the vote.

MK Vilan, aided by former senior State Prosecution attorney Talia Sasson, demanded to know why the government was not fulfilling its own decisions to evacuate and destroy Jewish outposts (new development communities) on Judea and Samaria hilltops. Vice Prime Minister Chaim Ramon, who heads a ministerial committee on the outposts, said that during the period of the Disengagement, in the years 2004-5, "the government decided not to open up two fronts, and therefore nothing was done to remove the outposts."

Sasson, who authored a detailed anti-outpost report for the Sharon government three years ago, strongly condemned the Justice Ministry's plan to allow some construction in and around some of the outposts.

MK Demands Approval for Jewish Towns

MK Nissan Slomiansky (National Religious Party), however, took the opposite approach, saying the Jews of Yesha should not be discriminated against: "If the Bedouin, who clearly took over lands that were not theirs, and who certainly did not have any government help in doing so, are now about to have their communities regulated and legalized, then all the more so – and the very comparison is demeaning – we should also have a government authority for the purpose of regulating and legalizing the communities in Judea and Samaria."

"Instead of talking about evacuating and destroying these communities," Slomiansky said, "– I don't even want to call them outposts – we should be expanding them."

"The Jews in Judea and Samaria have rights, and these must be respected," Slomiansky said. "Just like all other towns in Israel, they must be recognized and approved, period, so that people can live normal lives. Afterwards, if Olmert want to negotiate with the PA and make agreements and concessions, we can have our big argument [over this] then."

"All Towns in Israel Were Built This Way"

Another participant, Gush Etzion Regional Council Chief Sha'ul Goldstein, told Arutz-7's Hizky Baruch after the session that the Jewish towns in Yesha must be treated no differently than all the others in Israel: "We did a study of 200 towns in Israel, out of 1,000, and we found that every single one of them was first built, and only years later received final approval. Every single one! And this was true for towns built not only before the State was established, but even for towns built in the 1980's."

"To accuse us of building illegally, when a host of government offices helped us, and when this is how the entire State of Israel was built, is simply to lie and deceive," Goldstein said.

Ramon's Position

Ramon, an outspoken proponent of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, said that not a single unauthorized outpost has been established in Yesha since 2005. "No monies are transferred to the existing outposts without the approval of a committee headed by the Deputy Attorney General," he boasted.

Ramon lamented that caravans had been added to some of the outposts, and claimed as fact that "the construction in Judea and Samaria is not the result of a lack of housing, but from a desire to create political facts on the ground that will make it hard for Israeli governments to [give up the land]."

He admitted that adding a classroom or building another floor onto an existing building in Yesha need not require governmental approval, but "to add 20-30 homes to a community of 100 families has political significance and therefore requires government approval."

A Third Can be Legalized

Ramon said that out of 100 outposts that he checked, "a third of them can be easily legalized, a third cannot, and regarding the rest, there is what to talk about." He said that he would be happy to reach an agreement with "the settlers" on all the outposts in order to avoid violence, but said, "If there is no choice, I believe that in the end, the government must fulfill its legal and political obligation."

Ramon further said that 26 outposts were built after March 2001, when then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised the Americans that he would not allow new Yesha neighborhoods. "This is a promise that will be very hard to violate," Ramon said.

Committee Chairman Zevulun Orlev said that Sharon made this promise without informing his coalition partners – of which he was one at the time.

Migron in Danger

Eitan Baroshi, the Defense Minister's Assistant for Settlement Affairs, said that in any event, "the outposts cannot be removed immediately... We are in contact with the Yesha Council," noting that Migron – 43 families in a strategic spot in Binyamin, north of Jerusalem, is a good example of an outpost whose future fate can be negotiated, "since it is built [partially – ed.] on privately-owned land... No one wants to have another Amona [where heavy violence accompanied an expulsion two years ago – ed.]. In the coming months, we have a Supreme Court decision coming up on this issue, and the Yesha heads know that we have to reach an agreement."

Vilan's Complaint The session was originally initiated by MK Vilan of Meretz for the purpose of investigating why the government's decisions to remove unauthorized Jewish neighborhoods in Judea and Samaria have not been implemented. His objective was to have the committee vote to have State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss investigate the matter. However, he later withdrew his proposal in order to wait for a report being prepared by the ministerial committee on outposts.

Later in the session, Committee Chairman Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party) submitted an opposite proposal, namely that the committee vote not to ask Lindenstrauss to investigate the matter. The Committee voted to approve this notion – and MK Vilan said he would complain to the Knesset Legal Counsel over Orlev's behavior.

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Israel National News.

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, February 26, 2008.

Eat the Danes

Hamas children's TV dedicated a program to hatred of Denmark, the West and Israel, climaxing with a statement about the West by the co-host, a giant rabbit character named Assud:

"If they repeat it we will kill them ... I will bite them and eat them!"

The program focuses on the demand to boycott Danish and Israeli products. Denmark and the West are targeted because of the cartoons featuring Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper. Israel is targeted because it exists. Saraa, the young TV hostess, describes the publication of the Muhammad cartoons as "the West's attack against the Messenger [Muhammad]."

Palestinian children phone into the program to condemn the "cowardly infidels" and vow to fight them.

The children's program, Tomorrow's Pioneers, has used its previous animal character co-hosts, the Mickey Mouse lookalike Farfur and the bee Nahul, to champion violence, promote hatred of Israel and preach about world Islamic supremacy. To further reinforce its anti-Israel message, Hamas has killed off both characters and blamed Israel.

Click here to view: from Hamas children's TV program: Tomorrow's Pioneers

The following is the transcript:

Saraa: Did you see the West's attack against the Messenger [Muhammad]? What do you have to say about this?
Amaani, 10 year old girl by phone: I say to the cowardly infidels...
Assud: Criminals.
Amaani: Criminals.
Assud: Do you boycott Israeli and Danish products?
Amaani: Yes
Assud: You don't eat them at all?
Amaan: I don't eat them at all.
Assud: Great! Keep it up!
Saraa: We will all boycott Danish products, and Israeli products first.

* * * * * *

Saraa: What can we do for the Messenger?
Inaas, 10 year old girl by phone: We can fight them because they cursed Allah's Messenger.
Saraa: 'Tomorrow's Pioneers' army will redeem the Messenger, with their possessions and their blood, Assud, and will not let them repeat this attack.
Assud: If they repeat it we will kill them, by Allah.
Saraa: In His will.
Assud: I will bite them and eat them!
– [Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas) Feb. 22, 2008]

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 Richard H. Shulman, February 26, 2008.


As PM Olmert puts off an offensive to recapture the Gaza border and clear the terrorists out of Gaza, Hamas grows stronger and Olmert grows more reluctant to authorize invasion even as it is more needed. I know of a way to persuade him.

Ehud Olmert is a politician who likes to do favors. Many of his favors bring remuneration. At least the police think so. Then let the arms tunnel smugglers, put out of business by the breach of the border, donate a large sum to that good fellow. He'd seal the border again, and the smugglers could resume their lucrative tunnel smuggling, and without having to pay taxes to Hamas.


Like Israeli politicians, American ones try to conceal their real views. For some, that's easy, they don't have views.

Whom do you prefer to win the Democratic primary, Mr. Hope or Mrs. Change? I hope she changes herself.

Rarely do Presidents steer an independent policy on the Arab-Israel conflict. Sen. McCain seems to favor, as a guide on foreign policy, appeasement-minded Brent Scowcroft and anti-Israel James Baker. He thinks they know a lot. What is important is their poor judgment.


Israel is proposing temporary borders for another Arab state carved out of the Mandate for a Jewish national home. Abbas demands permanent borders. He's right. If there is to be a state, it should be defined. Its very borders should not become the first problem and contention with Israel.

If the borders can't be defined, then the issues between the two sides must be too dire to resolve. Then there surely would be strife. Don't start off with strife.

Of course, many countries are long established but maintain territorial claims upon others. Islam itself is imperialistic, so conflict is built in to the establishment of another Palestinian Arab state. That is why granting Abbas' gang sovereignty over some territory (which he promptly would lose to Hamas) wouldn't resolve the problem but would give the Muslims sovereign powers to arm better for pursuing their goal of conquest.

Do Western officials fail to think through the consequences of what they propose, or, worse, have they thought them through and prefer conflict that kills Israel?


On the Gaza border, "The matter was not discussed in an orderly fashion, nor were the professional echelons consulted. The cabinet was nearly not part of the process, and the broadening of the cuts to fuel supplies was done through a broad interpretation of the Supreme Court decision."

"For their part, Israeli intelligence missed the meaning of the preparations carried out by Hamas for breaching the border. On the eve of the breakout, the defense establishment in Israel described their policy on the blockade as "trial and error." It seems that it was mostly error."(IMRA, 2/4.)

Israel's war in Lebanon was stumbled into, rather than prepared for. That is the weakness of governments that feel the need constantly to appease public opinion. Israeli governments feel such a need, because their policies usually flout public opinion. They look for ways to recoup support.


The Winograd Commission recommended that Israel not make lopsided prisoner exchanges. It leads to more terrorism. It also motivates terrorists to kidnap more Israelis, so they can get more prisoners back.

The secret service advises against releasing 450 more hardened terrorists, as PM Olmert is about to do, in exchange for 1 Israeli. It believes that many of them would resume terrorism (IMRA, 2/4).

Olmert released hundreds of terrorists before, as a goodwill gesture and to strengthen the regime of Abbas. Does anybody think Israel got goodwill from it, as P.A. broadcasts continue to call for murdering Israelis? Israel did get terrorists attacks from released prisoners. Does anybody think that the Abbas regime got stronger, dependent as it remains upon Israeli troops to keep Hamas from overthrowing it? Why strengthen Abbas, who has the same ideas about jihad as Hamas? Why didn't Olmert ask for the Israeli back when he released the earlier hundreds?


Palestinian Arabs increasingly have been shooting at Israeli motorists and throwing stones at them in Judea-Samaria (Arutz-7, 2/5).

The government of Israel treats severely – Israelis who shoot at attackers.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, February 25, 2008.

This is called "Holy Land in Escrow"and was written by Roni Shaked. It was published in Ynet

East Jerusalem stands in midst of heated real estate race, as various Jewish, Arab, Christian associations bid on every available piece of property

After years in which various Jewish associations have bought up scopes of land in east Jerusalem, with the declared intention of maintaining the city's Jewish nature – they now find themselves bidding against various Muslim and Christian associations wishing to get a hold of land in the city's east.

As reported in Yedioth Ahronoth Monday, wealthy West Bank-based Palestinians, funded by Persian Gulf benefactors, have been attempting to buy as much land as possible in east Jerusalem, concentrating their efforts in the Old City, in order to push out the Jewish associations – doing exactly the same.

Backed by private millionaires, Muslim foundations, Arab banks, the PLO's Orient House's Housing Division and even several affiliates linked to Hamas, these Arab associations offer twice, even three times, the property value compared to their Jewish counterparts. Many

Arab associations offer mortgages in favorable rates to any Muslim buying property in Jerusalem. Arab associations, said the report, have bought 12 apartments in the Old City in the last four months alone, with four more apartments in the Muslim Quarter in escrow.

These associations have also bid on property located in Jerusalem's Shoafat and Beit Hanina neighborhoods, on the Mount of Olives; and have recently purchased a five-acre stretch of land in south Jerusalem, with the intention of building a new Palestinian neighborhood.

Palestinian sources claim Turkey has also become involved in the land venture, aiding Arab associations by denying the Jewish ones access to Ottoman land records – which may prove historical Jewish ownership of the land.

A bidding war

The various Christian associations found in the mix have reportedly been concentrating their efforts in buying land near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Jerusalem's Christian Quarter.

Right-wing activist Arieh King, funded by Jewish billionaire Irwin Moscovitch, has recently formed the Israel Land Foundation, in an attempt to stop Arab associations from acquiring any more land in Jerusalem, by outbidding them.

"If the Jewish National Fund would have done its job and buy these lands for the Jewish people, my work would be redundant," said King, "but the Palestinian associations are pouring tens of millions of dollars on lands in east Jerusalem, while not even one of our efforts is government funded."

King has recently submitted a 180-page report titled "The Palestinian's strategic use of illegal construction in Jerusalem, in their fight for east Jerusalem", to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee's sub-committee on Judea and Samaria.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, February 25, 2008.

The future of Israel rests in the hands of only a few members of the Knesset. We applaud MK Netanyahu's statement asking Shas to resign from the Olmert government. (Please see the article below for details.) Join Netanyahu in his call for Shas to make this historic decision and prevent the dismemberment of Israel.

Please read the sample letter below. It is a letter that you can send with one click "as is," or you may edit the text as you see fit.

This Urgent Action Alert will go to MK Eliyahu Yishai and all members of the Shas Party with copies to Prime Minister Olmert, Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon, MK Rabbi Benyamin Elon, MK Dr. Arieh Eldad, MK Benjamin Netanyahu, MK Avigdor Liberman, Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Send this Urgent Call to Action

Dear MK Yishai and All Members of the Shas Party,

As we read the shenanigans of Israel's "negotiating team," friends of Israel in the US are shaking our heads in disbelief while the dismemberment of Israel is now under way.

US friends cannot stand silently by watching this travesty take place. We call upon the Shas party to save Jerusalem and save Israel from its own folly by resigning from the Olmert government, thus interrupting this impending disaster.

What other country is being asked to participate in its own demise by submitting to those who ignore history and falsely lay claim to Israel's God-given land?

Should not the "negotiating team" demand recognition of Israel as a Jewish state?

Should they not mention the need for Jews and Christians to live freely (now mostly denied) in any kind of Arab state, particularly a proposed Palestinian state?

Should they not stand up for the rights of nearly a million Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries in 1948?

Should they not state and restate that Jerusalem was, is and should remain the eternal united capital of the Jewish people? What other country would even consider sharing its rightful capital with another nation, particularly a hostile one openly calling for its destruction?

The "secret negotiations" are almost too painful to consider by those who truly love Israel.

Israel now thrives on 22 percent of the land given to it by the British Mandate. 78 percent was already given to Jordan, whose population is 70 percent Palestinian. Now Israel is being forced to divide that 22 percent.

We applaud Likud Leader Netanyahu's statement asking Shas to resign from the Olmert government. We urgently join him in his call for Shas to make this historic decision and prevent this impending catastrophe.

People of Israel WAKE UP! The people of the Diaspora are waiting to help you. We cannot again go like lambs to the slaughter.

(Your Name Here)

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 25, 2008.

I cannot say that it's beyond what's acceptable now, because it's been beyond acceptable for a long time.

Today a ten year old boy, Yossi Haimov, who ran for cover when the alarm sounded but did not make it into the shelter, was badly wounded by a Kassam – one of several that has fallen on Sderot today. He was hit in the shoulder and his arm was partly detached from his body. The first news was that he might require amputation, but now it is being reported – thank G-d! – that the arm seems to have been saved in surgery.

Again? Again?

We are a powerful nation. We have the ability to protect our children. And we don't.

And so, damn them, I say. Damn those who launch those Kassams – the Popular Resistance Committees have taken responsibility on this occasion – and all those who have it in their power to protect these children and do not for perverse reasons and political reasons and every reason except the one that matters.


In another attack an infant girl and her mother were lightly wounded.

And a number of people were hospitalized for shock. I have never written specifically about shock, although scores of residents of Sderot have been hospitalized for this reason over time. It sounds relatively minor. No amputations, no gaping wounds in the body. But a gaping wound in the psyche, let me assure you. People who live constantly with heightened anxiety, who go over the edge, screaming, crying, trembling.


The very same Resistance Committees who claimed responsibility today also claimed responsibility yesterday for launching of Kassams. And do you know why they were launched? To protest against the "occupation," for sure. But now we're being given a new reason: "In response to the cartoons published in Denmark degrading the memory of Prophet Muhammad. " If this is so, the number of excuses for launching Kassams is nearly inexhaustible. Will there be anything that's not our fault?


And consider this: Mahmoud Abbas today, after meeting with King Abdullah in Amman, warned the Bush administration that if it didn't "make 2008 the year to broker peace, then there will never be any future chances to achieve this goal." A rather audacious statement, designed to pressure the US to pressure Israel.

One must assume he means that there won't be another chance for him, and perhaps not another chance for his Fatah party. That's because they're losing ground. But if they are, how can they be legitimate "peace partners"?

What he told reporters is that the US "must understand it is to play an active role, not just as a supervisor, by intervening directly to help make peace."

And he called upon Israel "to stop escalating the situation in the Palestinian territories and stop all attacks in the Gaza Strip, including firing missiles there."

Excuse me?


Note that he didn't call upon Hamas and the other terror groups, including his own Al Aksa Brigades, to stop launching missiles. That's because it's Hamas he's losing ground to, and he would never challenge them directly.

Never mind that in his heart of hearts he undoubtedly approves of what they do to weaken the "enemy," even as he gives lip service to moderation. Yesterday I provided an overview of the PA textbooks, which promote jihad and martyrdom and speak of Israelis as colonial occupiers.

So damn him too.


As to those negotiations that Abbas is so eager to see advanced – quick quick while he's still here – there has been an announcement by our Foreign Ministry of "progress." Three committees have been set up to deal with civic affairs such as water and economic issues. If there were to be a true peace, ultimately these things would need to be discussed. But as it is, I see these discussions as a way of treading water, or giving the impression of moving ahead, and little more. For if the major issues such as borders and refugees and the status of Jerusalem are not resolved, then the rest is meaningless. And on those issues there is next to no progress.


On the other hand, Kaddura Faris, chief of the PA committee on negotiating prisoners affairs, submitted his letter of resignation to Abbas yesterday, citing as his reason lack of coordination between the committee, the head of the Palestinian negotiations team, Ahmed Qurei, and the PLO chief negotiator, Sa'eb Erekat.


At least one potential crisis dissipated today. Hamas had announced for this day a protest against the siege of Gaza – a human chain of perhaps 30,000 people who would link hands from the north to the south of Gaza. Our military was greatly concerned that the intention was to have the crowds breach the fence and come streaming into Israel, as they had into the Sinai so very recently. Large numbers of troops were brought to the border of Gaza. Contingency plans were laid with talk of non-lethal techniques and possibly shooting people in the legs. It was determined that under no circumstances would this mob be allowed to advance.

But, as it turns out, there was no mob advancing. I like the headline in the Post: "human chain a few links short." About 5,000 people came, many school children who had been released early. There was no storming of the fence even attempted.


Olmert is in Japan, and in his absence 11 members of his Kadima party met in the Knesset today to discuss the negotiations. In the main, according to a YNet report, they were distressed about the fact that Jerusalem was being discussed with an eye towards dividing the city.

MK David Tal: "Jerusalem cannot be touched, and making concessions on this issue are not part of Kadima's platform. When the public elected us, it did not know that we plan to make concessions in Jerusalem."

MK Otniel Schneller: "I can consider conceding a number of isolated neighborhoods, but Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people."

MK Yoel Hasson: "[Kadima's] platform speaks about a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Those who say otherwise are causing damage to Kadima."

OK, guys. You don't like what's going on? What will you do about it beside complain behind the prime minister's back? There has been much talk about Kadima members leaving the party, but so far no one's moved.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 25, 2008.

On January 29, 2008, Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, writer for Arutz-Sheva wrote: "Encouraged by their success in breaking through the Egyptian border with Gaza last week, a Hamas spokesman has threatened to gather 500,000 Palestinian Authority residents of the region for a similar assault on the perimeter fence dividing southern Israel from PA-controlled Gaza." As it turned out, because Israel – for a change – wasn't playing patsy, only a few thousand Arabs showed up. I saw this on TV – don't remember if it was BCC or CNN (hard to differentiate) – and what was interesting was that the TV guys did all they could to make this seem a big deal. They had closeup shots, focusing on a few people – so you couldn't tell that the whole thing was a bust. Just another contribution towards peace from the MainStreamPress.

This was written by Hana Levi Julian and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) The human-chain demonstration staged by the ruling Hamas terrorist organization on the Gaza side of the separation barrier was quiet for most of the event and expected to end by early afternoon, according to a Hamas spokesman quoted by Voice of Israel government radio.

By midday, however, Hamas gunmen had begun shooting in the air in an effort to keep protestors from reaching the Erez Crossing in northern Gaza. No injuries were reported.

Only several thousand people joined the demonstration instead of the crowd of tens of thousands of Gaza residents that had been predicted to show up. Hamas made an effort to keep the protest non-violent, hoping to gain maximum positive media exposure.

"People will not break across the border, but they will show the world that the siege must be broken," said Jamal al-Khudary, one of the organizers of the protest. He added that Hamas police were keeping protestors several hundred yards away from the fence.

Israeli security forces were prepared to face a massive crowd of Gaza Arabs who threatened they might breach the barrier in much the same way they did with Egypt last month.

Some 50,000 Gaza residents, including many women and children were expected to be waving flags and presenting a perfect "photo op," after being recruited by the terror organization to line the Gaza side of the barrier, from Rafiah in the south all the way north to Beit Hanoun. The northern Gaza town is a favorite Kassam rocket launching spot for terrorists whose constant attacks on nearby Sderot have traumatized both children and adults in the western Negev city for seven years.

Schools in Gaza were closed in order to enable thousands of children to join the adults massing along the barrier.

In a joint statement issued Sunday night by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the two leaders said, "Israel will defend its territory and prevent an infiltration of its sovereign borders." Livni heads the country while Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is on a four-day visit to Japan.

The Prime Minister told reporters en route to the Asian nation that he has not received any intelligence warnings that Hamas plans a massive breakthrough of the barrier.

Israel Police deployed 6,500 police officers along the border area. The IDF reviewed its rules of engagement with soldiers and also moved a large number of troops into the region. An artillery battery was moved to the area and IDF soldiers were ordered to shoot at the legs of terrorists if they began to open fire.

Hamas blew up the border barrier between Gaza and Egypt on January 23, sending hundreds of thousands of PA Arabs rushing into the country through the formerly sealed border. Several attempts by Egyptian police to begin to close the holes in the barrier earned them attacks by Hamas terrorists hurling rocks and in some cases shooting at the security forces.

Gaza residents were given three weeks in which to shop – and in some cases, find places to hide in order to avoid returning to their former homes. It was also estimated that more than a thousand terrorists, also managed to escape into the Sinai Peninsula before Egypt resealed the border.

Officials were unmoved by pleas from Gaza residents who had last -minute regrets about leaving their homes, nor were they impressed by Hamas terrorists who threatened to again open the border.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit bluntly warned the terrorist organization that security forces would "cut off the legs" of anyone who tried to repeat the breach.

After several fruitless meetings in which Hamas tried to negotiate a way to keep the Egyptian border open, or at least under terrorist control, the group decided to follow up its breach of the Egyptian border with a similar event at Israel's Erez border crossing.

The terrorist group later backed down from its threat and instead planned a massive turnout of tens of thousands of Gaza residents strung along the 40-kilometer border with Israel to protest the ongoing blockade.

Nonetheless, some Hamas sources said Sunday a human surge that would include women and children might indeed become a charge toward the sealed security barrier instead.

Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai warned Hamas during an interview on Voice of Israel government radio that Israel would operate "as we did in the first intifiada against mass demonstrations; we know how to deal with it." Echoing Livni and Barak, Vilnai said that under no circumstances would Israel allow Gaza residents to cross the separation barrier.

"I hope the Hamas regime, which is bringing a Holocaust upon its people, will eventually understand what it can and cannot do," said Vilnai. "They are trapped in their crazy ideology that commits them to Israel's destruction. They know it's not practical. They know they can't do it."

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 25, 2008.

This is by Hana Levi Julian. It appeared in Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) As Palestinian Authority Arabs in Gaza were transporting, unpacking, and preparing to distribute Monday's shipment of humanitarian aid from Israel, local PA terrorists said "thank you" by launching two Kassam rockets at Israeli citizens whose taxes helped pay for the aid shipment.

The two Kassam rockets were fired at Israel from northern Gaza at the same time 60 trucks of goods and supplies were passing through the Sufa Crossing for Arab civilians in the Gaza region.

Bags of flour, sugar and other supplies slowly made their way into the region despite the dismal driving conditions caused by the pouring rain, along with other humanitarian supplies from Israel.

Thousands of other Gaza residents meanwhile were lined up against the separation barrier, exhorted by the ruling Hamas terrorist organization to crowd the separation barrier in a massive protest against Israel's closure of crossings into the region.

As did Egypt, Israel sealed off crossings into Gaza after Hamas terrorists took control of the region in a violent coup last June. The crossings have been opened sporadically since that time, primarily for deliveries of humanitarian and other supplies into Gaza from Israel. Recently IDF and security forces tightened the closures in response to the constant attacks on Israeli civilians in the western Negev.

While Hamas terrorists hid among the women, children, disabled, elderly and other civilian adults massing for a protest at the Gaza-Israel separation barrier, their colleagues continued the attacks on Israel.

One of the rockets exploded in southern Ashkelon. Gaza terrorists have increasingly targeted the coastal city since increasing the range of their rockets; a number of strategic installations are located there.

The other rocket missed the mark and landed within Gazan territory.

Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion D.S. Dreyfus, February 25, 2008.

The most valuable natural resource in the 21st century is brains. Smart people tend to be mobile. Watch where they go. Because where they go, robust economic activity will follow." – Rich Karlgaard, publisher, Forbes Magazine

This is from Shariah-Risk Due Diligence Newsletter, 10-24 February 2008.

Equal-Opportunity Arrests in Saudi Arabia

According to Associated Press reports about recent goings-on in the "holy city" of Mecca, some 57 men have been arrested during the last week of February for "flirting" with women outside, to the music of "blaring popular music" issuing from car radios, according to a local Saudi newspaper. Mecca, as one of the two holiest cities of Islam (the second is Medina), does not permit non-Muslims entrée to the city. After arresting the Heinz-variety-pack of men in front of a shopping mall, Saudi moral police, began to interrogate the men over their alleged dancing to pop music and the "wearing of improper clothing."

Disposition: The men can be released, according to the religious-morals police, mutaween in Arabic, only if they can prove they were not flirting with any unrelated women. Should the nearly five-dozen men be unable to prove the negative, they will be transferred to court, arraigned and stand trial for their misdeeds. Locating any of the women present is acknowledged as impossible, as they all look precisely alike in their all-of-a-piece body-coverings known as abaya-with-hijab tentings.

Hummus lining: This may represent among the very few examples where men, and not women, are hauled before magistrates for imprudent public behavior. If it starts a trend, women arrested for being assaulted and raped by their coreligionists in Saudi cities might be matched by men being charged with casual attitudes toward Western-style relaxation and entertainment as well as unspecified inter-gendered behavior in public.

Net-net: So far, the Koran seems to proffer no shari'ah edicts or especial hadith on dance-flirt-a-thons in shopping malls, in public, to piped-in rock music. In "Holy Cities" or out.

Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at mdsdm@rcn.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 25, 2008.

Students of the Mei HaShiloach Yeshiva High School in the Jordan Valley, together with leading scientists, are researching new possibilities for growing strawberries – on 15 dunams of land.

Mei HaShiloach is the first scientific/agricultural yeshiva high school in Israel. It is located in Hamra in the Jordan Valley, less than ten miles east of Shechem (Nablus) and about halfway between Jericho and the Sea of Galilee.

Leading agricultural researchers, among them Dr. Nir Dai, a world-famous biologist of the Agriculture Ministry's Vulcani Agricultural Research Organization, work with the students to choose their field of research and relevant experiments. The scientists then check the students' research, and even plan to use it for their own work if feasible.

At present, the students are investigating the effects, both qualitative and quantitative, of seaweed-produced hormonal materials on strawberries. The strawberry season began this month, and will continue until May.

Mei HaShiloach was granted 15 dunams of area (nearly four acres) on which to carry out their experiments, such that they are not limited to laboratory conditions. "We have a special advantage," says Mei HaShiloach's Director Gilad Yisrael, "in that our studies take place in nature's laboratory. The experiments are affected by natural phenomenon such as changes in weather, bugs, and more – things that cannot easily be checked in a lab."

Because this is the Shemittah year, when the land is Biblically required to lay fallw, the strawberries are raised inside special bags of gravel, well above and not touching the nylon-covered ground. School principal Shimshon Rafael explained to Arutz-7 that the hope is to develop this manner of raising strawberries even in non-Shemittah years. "In the meantime," he said, "this gravel has the advantage of being more airy than dirt, but also the disadvantage of having to be watered more often."

In addition to high-level agricultural and science studies, the yeshiva also offers an intensive Torah studies curriculum. A natural outgrowth of the combination is an emphasis on the agricultural precepts of the Torah and Seder Zera'im [the agriculture-related Tractates] in the Talmud. "The Jewish people were always an agricultural people," Rafael said, "very connected to the ground, weather and nature – and therefore also with G-d. We hope to revive this culture once again... Agriculture most certainly has a future in Israel."

The yeshiva can be reached at telephone 02-586-2335, or +9722-586-2335 from abroad.

Alternative Medicine in Otniel

In other yeshiva high school news, the high school in Otniel has announced that it will be offering a course in alternative medicine. For information, call 02-996-0182 (from abroad, replace leading zero with 972).

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Israel National News.

To Go To Top

Posted by Neal M. Sher, February 25, 2008.

In a leap of logic, the State Department has been forced to reveal by leap year day whether an important element in the "war on terror" – The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990, which enables victims of terror to sue in federal court – has teeth or is little more than a sound bite.

Much is at stake.

By Feb. 29, the State Department must advise a federal court if it will succumb to Palestinian pressure – read: blackmail – and take the side of murderers by sabotaging a final judgment of $174 million against the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization.

The judge overseeing the case, which was brought in 2003 by the widow of a man killed by Palestinian terrorists in Hadera, Israel, has asked the State Department to declare whether or not it intends to file a Statement of Interest to the effect that enforcing the judgment would be harmful to U.S. national interests. It's something the Palestinians feverishly have been demanding.

Let's hope our government has the courage to do the right thing, as it would be an utter perversion of justice to allow the terrorists literally to get away with murder while getting the administration to give the back of the hand to Lesley Knox, who brought the case. It would be even more unseemly to do so after the matter has been in court for nearly five years.

The case was brought under The Anti-Terrorism Act, which was designed to hit terrorists where it hurts: in the pocketbook. As a reflection of how serious Congress was, the law even allows for the award of treble damages.

Until now the Bush administration has taken no position in the Knox case, apparently satisfied with the matter being handled through the judicial process, as intended by the act. Recently, however, with new high-profile attorneys in tow who have filed papers seeking to vitiate the judgment – extraordinary relief that is not lightly granted – the Palestinian Authority and PLO have been lobbying hard for the Statement of Interest.

Enforcing the judgment, they claim, would effectively bankrupt and weaken P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas at a sensitive time in the Middle East. (When, by the way, is it not a sensitive time?) Implicit in this is the all too common threat that going against the terrorists and their protectors would be to awaken the "Palestinian street." We all know what that means: Don't fight the terrorists because that will only make them angrier and more violent.

The chief PLO representative in Washington has even boasted that there has been a "rethinking" at the State Department, suggesting there might well be receptive ears in Foggy Bottom. What's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes, appeasement.

It is worth noting that Statements of Interest are not unknown commodities. They have been used of late to resolve private litigation involving thorny and sensitive issues that bore upon our national interests.

For example, these statements were invoked in lawsuits brought by Holocaust survivors against German companies that exploited slave laborers during the Nazi era. After lengthy negotiations involving the German government and companies, representatives of the survivors and the U.S. government, a financial settlement was reached. In return, German industry received assurances that in any litigation involving relevant claims, our government would submit a Statement of Interest to the effect it was in our nation's interest to resolve these claims through settlement rather than litigation.

The point here is obvious and most significant: the Statement of Interest procedure was the result of a serious negotiation among all interested parties. That is not what the Palestinians are proposing; they want to vacate the judgment.

Abbas is essentially putting a gun to the head of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He is threatening that to satisfy a duly rendered judgment under a law enacted precisely to cover a case such as the one brought by Knox would be to derail any chance of progress in the so-called "peace process" and by implication foment bloodshed.

Moreover, there is no provision in The Anti-Terrorism Act for the issuance of a waiver by the executive branch to override the courts in the name of the national interest, which in this case would mean not offending the Palestinian Authority. However, waiver authority is contained in other legislation, underscoring that if Congress intended to grant executive authority to overrule any of the terrorism act's provisos, it could have and would have written it into the act. It chose not to do so.

In other words, it would be a mighty stretch for the State Department to submit a Statement of Interest in the Knox case. If it does, there is always the hope that the judge will not defer to it.

For those in the State Department whose hearts bleed for the downtrodden and misunderstood terrorists, I'm sure they could find a way to allow our anti-terrorist laws to be enforced without harming our legitimate national interests.

The bankruptcy argument is hardly persuasive. In the past the United States has given billions to Palestinian leadership, only to see it squandered through widespread corruption and mismanagement. If the Palestinian Authority is looking for a way to satisfy the court judgment, perhaps Abbas should track down the widow of Yasser Arafat before she goes on her next shopping spree.

Neal M. Sher, a New York attorney, has served as the executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the director of the Office of Special Investigations in the Justice Department. He can be reached at nealsher@gmailcom

To Go To Top

Posted by Bob Kunst, February 24, 2008.

A friend in Israel asked me why I use the term 'Nazi' in my description of the Islamic threats out there and I am enclosing my statement regarding this for it is definately related to this issue in Kosovo.

However, before that, I want to state that there were two major events in WWII that prevented us all from speaking German.

1. The Warsaw Ghetto fighters, though only in the hundreds, after 400,000 Jewish men, women and children.... were shipped to the gas chambers....this small band of resisters managed to hold off Hitler's army for 6 months and where the 'Molotov cocktail' was invented.

2. The Serbs who fought Hitler also held up the Nazis for 6 months. Croatia and Kosovo/Bosnian Muslims were in support of Hitler. In fact the Mufti of Jerusalem, in bed with Hitler to finish off the Jews, had two SS divisions and one of them was here in Bosnia/Kosovo. Anyway, the Serbs holding Hitler back for 6 months and the few Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto held back Hitler for those 6 months and between these two major events, the Germans lost valuable time in their 'blitzkrieg' onslaughts and were caught in the Russian 'winter', which destroyed Hitler's army in the East along with the massive fighting of the Russian Army and resisters there. Then faced with the US/Allied invasion in the West, Hitler couldn't fight on two fronts.

The historical battle between Serbs and Kosovo Muslims goes back for hundreds of years and the story and history below, doesn't cover the suffering of the Serbs in WWII... at the hands of these people, who were with the Nazis and that payback has been going on ever since.

Meanwhile, the death camp, where so many thousands of murders took place was destroyed to avoid a visible evidence of what happened there. Of course, many thousands of Jewish Serbs were also destroyed in all of this.

No one supports genocide, but the media has, as usual, done the one-sided politics that also perpetuated the crisis in not telling the whole story. The murders have been going on with all sides. The Croatians destroyed many thousands of Jews and Serbs during WWII and their fighting went on during the Clinton Admin. as well.

So when Kosovo declared its 'independence' from Serbia, with U.S. support, demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy and have been demonstrating against this ever since in the last week.

The Russians, Chinese, Venezuelans and others also oppose this 'independence' and perhaps that is why Bush is pushing it. Of course, in WWII, the Serbs and Soviets were allies against Hitler then.

So the 'cold war' goes on, but it is deeper than that.

Now the Islamic threat is embedded inside Europe with a real base and every country in Europe is faced with the threat of 20million Muslims, while these very countries who participated in the Holocaust, grand theft and allowed the murderers to go free, now face this identity crisis, threats and fear that is pushing a new right wing movement in Europe again and again attacking both the death camps, our holy cemeteries and what's left of the Jews themselves.

Again, Jews and Christians are being attacked and our political leaders are AWOL on it all.

Bush, again dropping the ball, in catering to the Saudi/bin Laden efforts behind global terrorism and oil blackmail, is doing everything possible to play this very dangerous game in giving the Islamic Nazis everything they want and more. He is only following what Clinton also was doing and the US State Dept. has been doing even before WWII in being anti-semitic and pro-Arab/Muslim oil and Saudi Arabia.

Bush ignores history on every level and the tensions and strife that has been going on for centuries and thousands of years, payback for the crimes against humanity in WWII and all the new terrorism that is part of it since and Bush is allowing... in supporting and arming with high tech,($20Billions) the Saudis responsible for 9/11 and global terrorism.

The pattern here is extreme in that Bush/Rice are doing the same treachery to the Serbs as they are to the Jews and Israelis.

Bush blames Israel as 'occupiers' of Arab land that has been Jewish for 5000 yrs. and wants to divide Jerusalem, Jewish for over 3000 years and all in the name of giving the Islamic Nazis the whole shooting match, control and ruling the planet with the threats and oil blackmail of the world's economy.

Did I mention Bush and oil and his family and oil and Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden connections?

Did I mention Turkey attacking the Kurdish terrorists in Iraq this last week?

In failing to see the 'Big Picture', we keep repeating the mistakes and horrors of the past, while a nuclear Holocaust is looming ever closer with Iran.

Then there is the potential of the Obama factor, as possible President,to possibly further the Bush treachery in all of this.

If the picture is grim, the stupidity of Olmert and Livni and Shas and the Kapo Knesset of sell outs... is mindboggling.

If they aren't on the money take, they've lost their senses or are so ego-driven with all the perks, that nothing is going to stop their suicide mission...while still playing the fools that they've become....and are being USED in this effort to cater to the Islamic jihad facing the world.

There isn't anything nice to say about any of these characters who are only interested in themselves and to hell with the rest of the Jewish world, our "Covenant", any meaning of anything that really matters....and another war with the Islamic Nazis, looming perhaps before the May 14, 2008, 60th anniversary of the modern state of Israel....is also a major reality we all face and are denying as much as how Bush has betrayed Israel and Serbia.

Bush has sold out Israel/Serbia....Jews and Christians and all victims of the Islamic Nazis, including Hindus, Bhuddists and all 'infidels'.

We are in a jam of biblical proportions. Hillary wants to talk about Obama's plagerism and flyers. The NY Times wants to talk about McCain's 'affairs' of 8 yrs. ago and lobbying conflicts and Obama keeps talking about 'hope' when the situation has already reached 'hopelessness'.

Meanwhile, what is anyone doing about the genocide in Darfur of Muslims attacking blacks? Bush et al, are only concerned about Muslims being attacked, but not about Muslims attacking everyone else.

How do you spell 'scream'?

We are leaderless in America, in Israel and all over the world, where they are catering to and collapsing under the Islamic threats, fears and denial of the very Holocaust they participated in and want to finish.

It don't get much dumber.

The article below is called "Bush Administration Unites With Al Qaeda In Kosovo" and it was written by Paul L. Williams, Ph.D., who is author of Day of Islam.

Yours in Shalom,

America's war on terror has come full circle.

By pledging his support of Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia, President George W. Bush has sanctioned the genocide of thousands of Serbian Christians in the Balkans and the creation, thanks to al Qaeda, of a radical Muslim state at the doorway to Europe.

After announcing their independence from Serbia on February 16, thousands of ethnic Albanians (Muslims) took to the streets waving American flags and singing patriotic songs.

While the national press provided glowing coverage of these demonstrations as proof that the "Kosovars" were adamantly pro-America, few media outlets took notice that the demonstrations were preceded by the sacking of Christian churches and the burning of thousands of Serbian books.

But book-burning is the least of the sins of our new friend and ally. The Kosovars have also sacked churches, raped nuns, and mass-murdered approximately 4,000 Christian Serbs in and around the town of Srebrenica and its adjoining towns and villages (Bratunac, Skelani, Milici, et al) as well as the town of Gorazde.

In a letter to Fatmir Sejdui, the president of the new "republic," Bush wrote: "On behalf of the American people, I hereby recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state. I congratulate you and Kosovo's citizens for having taken this important step in your democratic and national development." He also pledged to increase the amount of foreign aid to the Balkan state from $77 million in 2007 to $335 million in 2008.

Kosovo had formally remained a part of Serbia even though it has been administered by the United Nations and NATO since 1999, when strategic NATO bombings ended the Serbian crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists.

Ninety percent of Kosovo's two million people are ethnic Albanian and Muslim – and they see no reason to stay joined to Christian Orthodox Serbia.

Despite calls for restraint in the wake of the announcement of Kosovo's independence, tensions flared on February 19 in northern Kosovo, home to most of the territory's 100,000 minority Serbs. An explosion damaged a U.N. vehicle outside the ethnically divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica, where thousands of Serbs chanted, "This is Serbia!"

The crowds in Kosovska marched to a bridge spanning a river dividing the town between the ethnic Albanian and Serbian sides. They were confronted by NATO peacekeepers guarding the bridge, but there were no outbursts violence.

Another 800 Serbs staged a noisy but peaceful demonstration in the Serb-dominated enclave of Gracanica outside Pristina.

The Serbs were not alone in their protests.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton maintains that the creation of an independent Kosovo "will give a boost to Islam extremism." Bolton voices his agreement with Alekandr Botsan-Kharcenko, Russia's ambassador to the Balkans, who said: "Any unilateral declaration of independence by Pristina [capital of the new nation] would not be legal and could trigger separatist movements in the world and could undermine international order and the structure of international relations."


The turmoil in Kosovo began in 1989 when Slovodan Milosevic, president of Serbia and the Free Republic of Yugoslavia, set out to create a greater Serbia by annexing Kosovo. When the Kosovo assembly approved this measure, ethnic Albanians (the sanitized way of saying native Muslims) rebelled. In 1990 Milosevic dispatched troops into Kosovo to squelch the rebellion and restore order. In 1992, the ethnic Albanians responded to this military measure by establishing their own government in Kosovo – the Republic of Kosovo – with self proclaimed pacifist Ibrahim Rugova as its president.

With two governments in one tiny country, the situation quickly became downright ugly. In 1993 Milosevic ordered the arrest of thirty ethnic Albanians for planning an armed uprising. In 1995 a Serbian court sentenced sixty-eight members of Rugova's government to prison for setting up a parallel police force.


To aid in the struggle for independence, the ethnic Albanians turned to Osama bin Laden and the mujahadeen. Muslim warriors from Chechnya, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia traveled in droves to Kosovo. By 1995 more than sixty thousand holy warriors, including members of al Qaeda, had made their way to the Balkans to prepare for the struggle against Milosevic and the Christian Serbs.

Bin Laden visited the area three times between 1994 and 1996. In the wake of these visits, al Qaeda training camps popped up in Zenica in Bosnia and Malisevo and Mitrovica in Kosovo; elaborate command and control centers were set up in Croatia, Macedonia, and Bulgaria; and a central headquarters for the mujahadeen was established in Tropje, Albania, on the property of Sali Betisha, the former Albanian premiere.

In addition, Bin Laden provided seven hundred million dollars to establish the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The purpose of the KLA was to drive Christian Serbs from Kosovo, to topple the government of Milosevic, to undermine the peace initiatives of Ibrahim Rugova, and to unite the Muslims of Kosovo, Macedonia, and Albania into the Islamic Republic of Greater Albania.


By 1997, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen came to view the KLA as "freedom fighters." Millions in U.S. aid began to flow to the Muslim rebels. America, unbeknown to its citizens, was now in league with the terrorists who were intent upon the destruction of western civilization. Human history, going back to the tree-swinging apes, does not get much crazier than this.

By 1998, the KLA became a formidable army of 30,000 highly trained troops with sophisticated weaponry that included shoulder-launched antitank rocket launchers, mortars, recoilless rifles, and antiaircraft machine guns. From Tropje, the KLA began to conduct hit and run terror attacks throughout Kosovo. They bombed police stations, killed scores of police officers and government workers, and desecrated Christian cemeteries.

Milosevic, in outrage, responded by burning homes and killing dozens of KLA foot soldiers in the Drenica region. A full-scale conflict erupted, culminating in the infamous massacre of January 15, 1999, when the bodies of forty-five ethnic Albanians were discovered in a gully near the small village of Racak.

Confronted with the crime of genocide, Milosevic insisted that the bodies had been planted by the KLA to implicate the Serbs and to justify Western involvement in the conflict. Milosevic's claims were supported by investigative journalists from Le Figaro and Le Monde, who discovered that the bodies had been placed in un-natural positions; that the site of the so-called "massacre" was devoid of cartridge shells; and that the villagers were unable to identify a single victim.


Convinced that Milosevic was engaging in ethnic cleansing, President Clinton summoned his NATO allies and began a bombing campaign that reduced Kosovo to a heap of rubble. At the start of the campaign, Secretary of Defense Cohen said that 100,000 ethnic Albanians of military age were missing and may have been deported by the Serbs to Albania and Macedonia. "They may have been murdered," Cohen added.

Between March 24 and June 10, 1999, 37,465 bombing missions took place, destroying 400 Serbian artillery weapons and 270 armored personnel carriers, and causing 1.4 ethnic Albanians to flee for their lives – the greatest mass migration of refugees since World War II.

Milosevic and the Serbs were forced to toss in the towel. The accord of June 21, 1999 ended the air strikes, eliminated the presence of a Serbian government in Kosovo, and authorized a NATO force of 1,700 police officers to establish law and order until democratic elections could be held.

But the situation in Kosovo was far beyond the capability of 1,700 police officers. The ethnic Albanians who had fled for safety from the Serbs now returned with a vengeance. A pogrom got underway in the Balkans, and neither Bill Clinton nor the United Nations uttered a word of protest.


The Muslims wasted no time in exacting their pounds of flesh. More than two hundred Christian churches and monasteries were destroyed before the NATO peace-keeping force. Some of these Christian shrines, including the Devic Monastery, the Cathedral of St. George, and the Monastery of the Holy Archangels, had been built in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Reports surfaced of mass executions of Serbian farmers, the murders of scores of priests, the rape of nuns, and "granny killings" – the drowning of old Christian women in bathtubs.

Of the two hundred thousand Serbs who lived in Kosovo before the conflict, only four hundred remained after Kosovo became a NATO protectorate. The vast majority of the Christians had gathered their belongings and fled for their lives. The 400 Serbs who remained in Kosovo were sequestered in three gloomy apartment buildings, where the international police stood guard day and night.

In the aftermath of the war, hundreds of Wahhabi mosques and schools, thanks to the contributions of wealthy Saudis, now appeared in every town and hamlet throughout the country. The back-door to Europe had been pried open by bin Laden and the mujahadeen for the drug trade and the movement of weapons of mass destruction.


In 2000, NATO dispatched forensic teams from fifteen countries and eight human-rights organizations into Kosovo to find the killing fields and evidence of Milosevic's crimes against the ethnic Albanians. Mass murder is difficult to hide. One need only recall the entry of war-crime inspectors into Nazi Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda to understand that the execution of thousands of people leaves behind massive and undeniable evidence for the world to see. But the bodies of the ten thousand victims of Milosevic's "reign of terror" were nowhere to be found.

The claims of the Clinton administration were based on flawed intelligence from the CIA.

Despite the failure to uncover mass graves, Milosevic was accused of crimes against humanity and placed on trial in February 2002 before an international criminal tribunal in The Hague. There was scant chance that he would receive a favorable verdict. The United States, in an unprecedented move, demanded and received the right to censor all evidence. Slobodan's goose was cooked. He was found dead in his cell on March 11, 2006, after court officials denied his request to seek medical treatment at a cardiology clinic.

Revelers celebrate Kosovo's declaration of independence, as they gather near a sculpture spelling out the word 'Newborn,' in Kosovo's capital Pristina.


The real genocide in Kosovo, i. e., the killing of Christian Serbs, continued under the collective noses of the George W. Bush Administration. In March 2004, the ethnic Albanians, in a last ditch effort to eradicate the remaining Serbs, torched Serbian homes and destroyed almost all of the remaining Serbian Orthodox Church sites, and even the UN facilities. But no protest came from the White House.

Instead, President Bush visited Albania on June 11, 2007 and declared: "At some point, sooner rather than later, you've got to say, 'Enough is enough – Kosovo is independent.'"

On February 17, 2007, enough became enough. Kosovo declared its independence and the mujahadeen dream of the Islamic Republic of Greater Albania began to crystallize into a reality.

Small wonder.

George W. Bush has always been a staunch defender of the faith.

"Islam is a religion of peace," he assures us.

Bob Kunst is president of ShalomInternational, a pro-Israel activist group. Visit www.defendjerusalem.net and contact him at shalominternational@minespring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 24, 2008.

PA-produced textbooks, that is.

The questions are fairly straight-forward: What is the Palestinian Authority teaching its young people with regard to peace with Israel? And what does it teach them about Jews?

To get some answers, one week ago, on behalf of the Center for Near East Policy Research, I interviewed Arnon Groiss, Chief Researcher for The Institute for Monitoring the Impact of Peace and Tolerance in School Education (formerly known as CMIP).


In the early years after its establishment, the Palestinian Authority continued to use for children in its schools in Judea & Samaria and Gaza books that had been produced by Jordan and Egypt respectively. In 2000, the PA began producing its own texts, releasing books for two grades each year. Textbooks for grades 1 through 10 were published by 2004. CMIP analyzed all of these texts.

In 2005, texts for grade 11 were released, and in 2006, texts for grade 12. Only now is the analysis of these texts about to be released.

Dr. Groiss, in his interview with me, provided an overview of what was found not just in these latest texts, but in all the texts, complete with some comparisons and important background information.

What is significant about this latest report is that it is being supported by the American Jewish Committee for the first time. More about this below.


The review of the texts makes clear that Palestinian youngsters are not being taught to prepare for peace, but rather for on-going war.

There is no legitimacy accorded the State of Israel, or Jewish people. Jewish holy places such as the Kotel, Rachel's Tomb, and the Machpelah, are all identified as exclusively Arab. It is made clear to the students that all of the land is "occupied," not just the land beyond the Green Line.

Martyrs and jihad are praised. One seventh grade book declares: "Hearing weapons clash is pleasant to my ears. And the flow of blood gladdens my soul."

In addition, Jews are represented as evil and responsible for just about everything bad that happens. From an eighth grade text: "Your enemies kill your children, split open women's bellies..."

Please, take the time to read my report at: http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/textbooks/ It's detailed enough to make an impact, but short enough to be readily digested.

AJC will release the full report – with details about various texts – shortly, and then, I believe, it will go up on the website of the Institute for Measuring the Impact of peace, at www.edume.org


What I describe above is one part of the story. Yet, there's another: The government of Israel, sadly, infuriatingly, pays scant attention to the contents of the PA textbooks. While the government is actively involved in other issues of international anti-Semitism, the PA is not on the radar screen.

Why? It's all part of the syndrome I've been describing in recent days. The government of Israel, pathologically, does not wish to attack the entity that is supposed to be our peace partner.

And, I'm sorry to say, most mainstream Jewish organizations (with a handful of exceptions such as the American Zionist Organization) would rather not cross the Israeli government on this issue, and so they, too, are mute regarding what's in the PA schoolbooks.

In fact, rumors are afloat in several quarters saying that the books are now improved. It is my understanding – from a top notch source – that a top correspondent for a major US anti-Israel paper, speaking at the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, made just such a claim, in the hearing, presumably, of representatives of most of those organizations – and was not countered.

Well, I'm here to tell you that the books are still denying our existence as a Jewish state and promoting violence. And the participation of the American Jewish Committee in spreading the word on this is much to be applauded.


And so, here's a way in which all of the Israel supporters reading this can be of assistance. Use the material in my report. (When the full report is available, you'll be able to draw on that.) Inform people as you can, and write letters to the editor.

Ask the basic question: How can Israel make peace with an entity that promotes violence among its children and teaches them that Israel has no legitimacy?

It's most important that the information in my report should also go to all of your Congresspersons and Senators – provide the link – with these or similar questions posed. Tell them that rumors regarding the improvements in the texts – which indicate that we have no need to be concerned – are not accurate, and that there can be no peace in the Middle East until this sort of issue is honestly addressed.

You can find contact information for Congresspersons and Senators here:


Remember that faxes or phone calls are most effective.

Lastly, if you belong to a major Jewish organization, vigorously raise this issue with the national leadership. Don't accept answers such as that they are also concerned – find out what they are doing in terms of contacting Congress, publicizing the issue, etc. If you are a donor, use that leverage.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 24, 2008.

Judge Matz is quite correct. When Professor Friedmann completes his reforms of the judicial system the 3% of the population that constitutes the fanatic, left-wing ruling elite that has dominated this country by way of a judicial coup de tat will finally be out of power. As for any other minorities, they will do just fine. No one is going to persecute the Arabs or CHILLONI in Israel.

The true goal of the Friedmann reforms is to restore the rule of law in Israel. Today we have rule by arbitrary decree of the Supreme Cult. It is no longer possible to approach law on the basis of the laws of the Knesset or legal precedent. That is because adjudication is no longer based on laws and precedents but on the "social conciseness" of the Supreme Cult. The previous Grand Master of the Supreme Cult, Aaron Barak, established the principle that he and other Superior Beings like himself have a type of Divine Right to adjudicate based on how they feel about an issue. This mystical ability is unencumbered by such minor issues as what the law actually says or even if there is a law at all involved. The Superior Beings of the Supreme Cult know all, understand all and can adjudicate all.

This type of judicial system is not entirely unique to Israel, however. Recently the world was astonished by the actions of a Judge in Quraiyat, Saudi Arabia. He convicted a woman of witchcraft and sentenced her to death for her crime. The only problem being that there is no law in Saudi Arabia against witchcraft and therefore no death penalty for such an action. This of course was of no interest to this Superior Being judging this inferior woman. His Divine Right to adjudicate based on his superior and mystical social conciseness is all he needs to murder, excuse me, to judicially execute this woman.

Nice to know what we can look forward to if Professor Friedmann is stopped.

This is a news item from Arutz-Sheva.

(IsraelNN.com) Supreme Court Judge (ret.) Eliyahu Matza Sunday joined the chorus attacking Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann and his planned reform of the courts. He said Friedmann was appointed to serve someone's interests ("mita'am" in spoken Hebrew).

"Friedmann was inserted into the political system because the person who appointed him knew that his agenda is to damage the Supreme Court," Matza said. "If his ideas are accepted, the minorities in Israel need to be worried," he added.

Matza spoke at a conference in Tel Aviv University.

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 UCI, February 24, 2008.

This is by E.B. Solomont and it appeared Feb 22, 2008 in New York Sun. It is archived at

A report on Israel produced by the United Methodist Church is "distorted and mendacious,"the Anti-Defamation League has charged.

The 225-page report, "Israel-Palestine: A 2007-2008 Mission Study," likens Jews to "monsters" and compares the actions of Israelis to Nazis, the group said. The group also criticized the report for using the word "terrorism" to describe Israeli actions, while the actions of Palestinian Arabs are described as "activism."

In a statement, ADL officials called on the church to repudiate the report. The study "repeatedly twists history and employs inciteful language to denigrate Israel and Jews," the group's national director, Abraham Foxman, said in a statement.

Last night, church officials defended the study.

"The United Methodist Church is not neutral on the question of military occupations," officials said in a statement. "The mission study's perspective is in keeping with the thoughtful, informed, and consistent position of the United Methodist Church on the occupation of Palestinian territories," read the statement, which was signed by the interim general secretary of the church's General Board of Global Ministries, Bishop Felton May, and the deputy general secretary of the Women's Division, Harriett Olson.

The 11 million-member church is expected to take up the issue of divesting from companies that do business with Israel at its quadrennial national conference in April.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, February 24, 2008.

The Reality

"We are tired of fighting the religion of peace."
– George W. Olmert

The political, security, and diplomatic situation of Israel remains delicate as 2008 starts.

Internally the coalition still survives, although the end seems near. Meanwhile the Prime Minister continues a process that is totally irrelevant to peace. Typical of the country there are conflicting news, no one seems to know what is being negotiated, promised, given or taken. Sderot is being attacked as usual, its security neglected in order not to create a precedent. The invasion of Gaza is up in the air, and if the intent is to simply have the IDF take it over, suffer casualties, and then surrender it to the UN or NATO, a lot more could be accomplished faster by simply rebuilding Gush Katif.

Externally the Islamic threat remains unabated. Iran's plans have not been stopped, weapons continue to be smuggled to Hamas and Hizbullah and formally supplied to the Palestinian Authority. Anti-Semitism flourishes in Europe, makes inroads in the US and Canada, while in the UN is business as usual against Israel. America is more dependent on Saudi oil as ever, and the Saudis use the proceeds to undermine the West. Sharia law slowly expands in many countries, since few leaders dare take a stand against it. The Diaspora remains divided and most Jews really don't know, don't care, or both.

With the US backing Olmert's policies, real support for Israel must come from elsewhere.

The Dream

"War is an evil thing, but to submit to the dictation of other states is worse...Freedom, if we hold fast to it, will ultimately restore our losses, but submission will mean permanent loss of all that we value...To you who call yourselves men of peace, I say: You are not safe unless you have men of action on your side."
– Thucydides

Whenever most UN member countries vote against Israel, there are a very small number of nations that side with her. Among them are the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, all members of the South Pacific Forum, an organization comprising thirteen states including Australia and New Zealand.

These island nations, impoverished and with few natural resources, have decided to take a more pro-active role at the UN in support of Israel. They feel America has let her down. Although not part of the Security Council at the moment, as UN members each has the right to convene the General Assembly and present proposals and push for resolutions. They can, by taking turns and with the support of other Forum members, oppose and offset the Arab League countries that do exactly the same thing against Israel. Furthermore, they are safe and far away from Islamic terrorism.

In his speech to the General Assembly the Micronesian ambassador shocked everyone when he reminded the diplomats that the original League of the Nations Mandate actually mandated the creation of a Jewish homeland from the sea to the Iraqi border. He demanded that Jordan be made part of present day Israel, the resignation of its king, and an apology by the British for their almost successful efforts in preventing the establishment of a Jewish state in the region. He proposed a committee be formed to implement this vision before the end of the Bush administration.

The Arab states could not believe their eyes and ears.

When her turn to speak came, the Marshall Islands representative directly addressed the Arab ambassadors. In her no-nonsense way she chastised them for pushing for the creation of a nation that never existed before, only in order to destroy a non-Muslim country. She heavily criticized the US for aiding this effort and demanded compensation from the Arabs to the families of Jews expelled from these countries in 1948.

The Arab states could not believe their eyes and ears. The Iranian ambassador, however, wrote on the toilette door: "Those infidel islanders are sons of beaches".

Finally, Palau's ambassador silenced everyone when he strongly attacked the government of Israel for the treatment of its Jewish majority. How, he asked, can a so-called democratic country act against its citizens inhabiting the historical Jewish areas of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Sderot? How can its political and legal institutions behave in such a barbaric way? He called on the General Assembly to condemn Israel for these actions. He demanded that all Muslim nations support a resolution to the Security Council stating that Post-Zionism is racism. After all, how can they not vote against Israel?

The Arab states could not believe their eyes and ears. This time the Iranian representative found a pig's head in the toilette.

But what about Israel? What was the reaction of the Israeli government?

The Nightmare

"If a Palestinian state is hell for Israel, then Israel's political system is every Jew's purgatory and the devil is in the media."
– Boris Celser

Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, met with his three counterparts and thanked them for their effort. He made clear, however, that his boss, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, would not understand things their way. In Dan's own words: "As far as foreign relations are concerned, Livni believes that Rice is to be eaten, "Blare" is a blast, Sarkozy a type of cancer, Melanesia another type of cancer, Putin is a Latin swearword, and 'cojones' is Fidel Castro' s favorite cigar."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not mince words: "Who needs them? I refuse to accept ideas from islands that do not qualify as tax havens for people like me."

In fury, Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated: "If this Micronesia thing is a joke about my height, it's not funny."

Meanwhile the pro-Arab French, angry at those nations, played politics by cynically forgetting about Mururoa while warning the Americans to keep out and not to repeat the tests at Bikini.

"Bikini tests? Where? Where? Count me in", said former president Moshe Katsav.

"Not so fast, Moshe. I'm still a minister so I get to choose first. You get the ones in sarong", replied Haim Ramon.

"This whole thing is absurd. What about me, my newspaper, my country, we want..." screamed outgoing Ha'aretz chief editor David Landau.

"Not now, David", interrupted Ramon. "The Americans are too busy to rape anyone now. Consider writing Op-Eds for the Jerusalem Post. They like to hire former Ha'aretz editors."

Watching the whole scene president Shimon Peres asked to speak: "I feel vindicated. For most of my long and distinguished career I've always supported the creation of a Palaustinian state."

Eventually it fell to George Bush to show leadership and calm down the nervous Israelis. "My fellow Olmericans, I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous peaceful islands to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons...Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on beaches and in skimpy underwear – you will not escape the justice of this nation...The Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau...three island states and their sun drenched allies, assembling secret canisters containing mysterious fluids with SPF 30 or higher, constitute an atoll of evil, threatening the peace of the world."

The British, always on the alert, saw the opportunity to court favor with the islands and regain some of their prestige as a maritime power. The UK decided to offer a large aid package to the three nations, however, to generate envy in order to divide and conquer, it named it only "The Marshall Plan". As usual they had no intention of delivering anything in the end. Always treacherous, it was up to Tony Blair to summarize the strategy: "Oh Betraynnia, Betraynnia rules the waves. Britons always, always, always shall be snakes."

Meanwhile in Israel the debate continued unabated:

Tzipi Livni: "The islanders' behavior can be easily stopped. I will allow Macronesia to take over Micronesia. Indeed, tomorrow I will contact the Macronesian Foreign Minister."

David Landau: "But there isn't...."

Livni: "Of course there is. Do you think I'm stupid? My friend Phil Bates runs Macrosoft from there."

Landau: "I hope she is only 50% right. Maybe there is a Macronesia, but I hope the company's name is Macrohard, for my own gratification."

At this particular time the situation on the islands is still volatile. The United States decided on direct intervention to offset the British. In order to convince the islanders not to support Israel, the UK offered a skimpy European Meal Plan, with a meager breakfast of tea and porridge. The Americans, far wealthier, retaliated with an All Inclusive package. London also offered the two main peace partners free upgrade to the honeymoon suite. Washington counterattacked with discounts for all couples willing to sleep side by side in peace and prosperity.

The issue of forcefully linking the three groups of islands and making them contiguous via a series of bridges and causeways has not been seriously addressed. On the other hand, for reasons thought to be related to climate and location, a large number of UN and NATO troops have volunteered their services, including the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, February 23, 2008.

This was written by David Horowitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1203605149065&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Sir Martin Gilbert doesn't rant. He doesn't pound the table to hammer home this or that perceived parallel between the rise of the Nazis and that of Iran's fundamentalist regime. He doesn't raise his voice to suggest frustration at this or that failure to learn the lessons of history. He doesn't even stridently insist that Iran's agenda, and its march toward a nuclear capability, constitute a grave and serious threat.

What Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill and prolific World War II historian, does do, in soft, almost diffident, but thoroughly articulate tones, is emphasize that the mistakes of 70 years ago cost the free world a terrible price. He explains how those mistakes came to be made. And in so doing, he provides a historian's context for today's challenges, a guide to today's perplexed leaders that we had all better fervently hope they follow.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post this week ahead of a lecture on Churchill that he's giving at Jerusalem's Moreshet Avraham synagogue on Sunday, the London-born Gilbert's first, and most important historical lesson about the Allied failure to thwart the Nazis until they were almost unstoppable is: Take your enemies seriously. Because when it came to the Nazis, people didn't. And by people, Gilbert means the Allied leaders who needed to have known better.

"A grave mistake was made in the 1930s in finding all sorts of reasons for not regarding the Nazi threat as being a serious threat. Therefore, when you're working out your thoughts on the current situation, about fundamentalism, just remember that it is very easy for highly competent, educated, civilized, sophisticated people to find excuses and benign explanations for everything that happens," he says.

Compounding that failure in the 1930s, as the Nazis' rapaciousness became ever-more stark and should have become ever-less possible to explain benignly, Gilbert goes on, was the refusal nonetheless – of German Jews, of the British government, of most of the watching world – to acknowledge what was unfolding before their very eyes, and thus confront it effectively.

"The main argument towards the [Nazi] threat was: 'It must modify; these are extremes which surely will modify.' Of course, many German Jews took the same view as the British government on this... But when the dangers actually worsened, the people who had argued 'it will surely modify,' didn't say, 'Wait a minute. My premise is now destroyed.' Instead, they said, 'This can't really be that grave a threat. This can't be truly an evil force,' and, 'Well, it's not really what it seems."

The "German Jews" reference strikes personally home. At once very Orthodox Jews and very German, my own family wanted for a long time to believe that their fellow Germans would come to reject Adolf Hitler, that Nazism wouldn't last, before the daily evidence – including the suicide of one of my lawyer grandfather's Jewish clients, an innocent man unjustly jailed – belatedly persuaded them that there was no longer justice for Jews in the fatherland.

And listening to Gilbert, my mind flashes from the Horovitzes in 1930s Frankfurt to the present, to the unmistakable evidence of Iran's genocidal aspirations for Israel – its delegitimization of our state, its public incitement against us, its manufacture and display of missiles geared towards us, and that relentless nuclear program – and to what often seems like willful international determination to say precisely what Gilbert recalls the apologists saying of the Nazis: This can't really be that grave a threat.

Gilbert offers specifics from the 1930s, examples when honest internalization of what Hitler was up to should have necessitated the robust response that would have thwarted him at so reduced a price: First, the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, hailed risibly in a Times of London headline as "A Chance to Rebuild." Next, the annexation of Austria, "which was seen somehow as the natural evolution" even though Austria and Germany had never been one country. Then, Hitler's assertion at Munich in 1938 that he didn't want to rule Czechs even as he was seizing the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, "which was disastrous for the survival of Czechoslovakia and the security, basically, of the West. He was taking this great industrial zone, these great industrial resources, and [destroying] Czechoslovakia's defenses."

But again, "people rationalized. They didn't acknowledge how far things had moved from 'A Chance to Rebuild.' Hitler was taking the territory of another country, and still was producing a reason for so doing which was accepted as plausible."

The ostensibly "alarmist" Churchill (who was to take over as prime minister in May 1940) had been warning all through this period that by the time the apologists woke up and belatedly recognized the need to "take a stand," the means to mount an effective fightback would be much reduced. And so it proved: When the bitter truth of Nazi ambition could no longer be apologized away, with the invasion of Poland in 1939, says Gilbert, "you'd lost your allies, you'd lost territory, you'd lost raw materials. You were in the weakest possible position."

GILBERT DOES NOT UNDERESTIMATE the challenges that face leaders down the ages in assessing the potency of a threat, and the weight of responsibility in choosing to ignore, contain or confront it. Indeed, he faults Churchill with a reluctance to tolerate loss of life in the 1944 Normandy landings – a misjudgement that, had the British prime minister not been overruled by President Roosevelt, would have had "desperate consequences."

In the two months ahead of the landings, Gilbert notes, in order to avoid being driven straight back into the sea, the Allies had to destroy all the German railway junctions, munition dumps and airfields within a 200-300 mile radius of both Normandy and, because of the elaborate deception of the Nazis, within a similar radius of Calais as well. The projected loss of French and Belgian soldiers' lives was in the order of 20,000-40,000 "and Churchill didn't want to go ahead" with the bombings. But Roosevelt insisted his troops be in "the minimum of danger" when they landed and so the preparatory attacks proceeded, with what turned out to be 7,000-8,000 French and Belgian fatalities.

Thus leaders have to grapple with questions of human cost when confronting threats, questions of "how many people you can ask your society to lose. You have to make a calculation..."

And that dilemma carries the risk of leaving it too late – as is feared with Iran today, and as certainly happened with the Nazis.

The Nazis' eventual defeat, indeed, was feasible only after Hitler's "foolish mistake" of declaring war on America. "There were four days in world history" – December 8 to 11, 1941 – "when the United States was at war with Japan and not with Germany and had no intention of going to war with Germany," Gilbert points out. Four days when "the situation for the Western World and Britain was desperate. They were certainly the four worst days in Churchill's life."

But the root failure, he stresses, "was that when Britain and France went to war in September 1939, they had already so neglected their defenses as a result of appeasement" that what unfolded was "a six-year war rather than a six-month war."

Look at the German records, he says. Hitler's generals were saying in 1938 that if Britain and France declared war, "there's nothing we can do. We can't win. We don't have the resources." In this light, the historian observes with dry understatement – implying but not verbalizing a parallel dismal procrastination in the face of evil – it would be "interesting" to hear the internal Iranian discussions today. "Essentially," he goes on, "appeasement gave the Germans time to create a war machine which was virtually impregnable," and which could not be overthrown or even seriously weakened for the first three years.

Which facilitated the Holocaust?

"Which facilitated all the evils that came with the German Nazis."

To give just one example, Gilbert asks: Would 55,000 members of [the Royal Air Force's] Bomber Command have been killed if we [Britain] had prepared our air force properly in 1936, 37, 38, 39, instead of pursuing this extraordinary belief that you could do a deal with Germany; that you could even have some sort of disarmament; that it was 'only fair' to allow Germany to build up to your level because they had been 'so cruelly and wrongly disarmed at Versailles'? All this loose thinking arose from the basic premise that Germany wasn't a threat."

THE "OTHER PART OF THIS equation," Gilbert says, is the question of allies. Britain's two late-1930s prime ministers, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, were firmly set against bringing in the Soviet Union as an ally. Churchill, second to none in his opposition to Communism, argued nevertheless that the Nazis were effectively the only enemy, and that alliances needed to be constructed with everybody who was threatened. Under parliamentary pressure, Chamberlain did send a mission to Moscow, but with instructions to stall. Yet had British policy been to create an alliance of threatened states, Gilbert stresses, "Poland could not have been conquered. Hitler was only able to conquer Poland via the Nazi-Soviet pact by basically partitioning the country. And the Holocaust, of course, was a Holocaust of Polish Jewry..."

Now Gilbert allows himself to foray into the present. "When you are looking today at the role of the United Nations, of NATO, of the various forces that can combine [to deal with Iran], the Soviet analogy may be quite good here: if you can't get Russia on line, China, then you're already in a terribly weak position. Then you're in the same position as Britain and France were..." And so, regarding the Iranian nuclear threat, "it is absolutely essential that you tackle it with everybody who is in danger. And presumably everybody is in danger.

Staying with Iran, Gilbert's concern is precisely over the gulfs between key players that are preventing more effective concerted action. "What alarms me is that Russia and China are moving forward to new 'great power' status. They see the world very differently. They see the rivalry with the United States, the European Union, Western values, as [offering] a way to get their client states back – you know, the old days when the Soviet Union had its client states in Africa, its client states in the Middle East.

Still, Gilbert says he derives comfort from the fact that the Iranian threat is high on the global agenda. He's impressed that Israel has been "taking a lead on this," and says Israel is "gaining credibility" as a consequence, as European states increasingly internalize that they have deep domestic problems with Islamic fundamentalism.

As a believer that much of history "comes down to the personalities of the leaders," furthermore, he's optimistic, where Iran is concerned, "that the leaders are capable of doing the right thing."

But in a week when the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner airily told me, basing himself on the (misleading) American National Intelligence Estimate of Iran's nuclear weapons progress, that "for the time being, we are not in a hurry," I have to ask Gilbert whether he thinks today's leaders truly understand the potency and urgency of the threat.

"Do I have faith that the leaders know what the situation is?" he echoes. "Yes. If they don't, then we're in real trouble."


Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 23, 2008.
(IsraelNN.com) The Jerusalem Conference concluded Wednesday night with a packed-house lecture by Bernard Lewis, a world-renowned expert on Islamic history and the relationship between Islam and the West. An author of 30 books, Lewis coined the phrase "clash of civilizations" in his work The Roots of Muslim Rage, written 11 years before 9/11.

Lewis, who was present throughout the two days of the Conference, provided, in his lecture, a general survey of the geo-political situation in and regarding the Middle East. Among the leading external factors, he first named Europe – "instead of asking what role Europe will play in the Middle East, we now have to ask what role the Middle East will play in Europe." Then the United States: "Some complain about American imperialism, but this displays only ignorance... When they complain, they are really complaining that US does not fulfill its imperialist role well enough."

US and Iraq

Obviously we cannot know what the upcoming US elections will bring, Lewis said, but noted there are two possibilities regarding Iraq: Either the US will finish the job it started there, or, based on a false comparison with Vietnam, will leave as quickly as it can," even though it might mean the betrayal of a few hundred thousand people, but that doesn't bother [those who are calling for a US withdrawal]."

"A third external factor of importance is the UN and the international community, where we have found an incredible level of discrimination against Israel ever since its foundation and even before that. For instance, compare the way the world treated Israel's involvement in Sabra/Shatila and later in Jenin – whereas in 1982, the world basically ignored Syria's massacre in Hamra of tens of thousands of people..."

Russia, India, China

Other external factors of some importance, Lewis noted, are "the problematic role of Russia, which cannot be expected to remain a passive observer of the Middle East... and also India and China, which will inevitably become more and more involved – particularly India with its very large Muslim minority – the 2nd largest Muslim population in the world, after Indonesia."

Iran Doesn't Mind Getting Nuked Back

He then turned to the "regional factors shaping the course of events here. First is Iran. It's not an Arab country, but rather a Muslim country, ruled now by a Muslim theocracy, which calculates its policies not by Iranian national interests, but by what is good for Islam. It is actively pursuing nuclear power; even a non-nuclear Iran is dangerous for Israel, and it must be carefully watched."

But with these people in Iran, Mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent factor, but rather an inducement.

"Iran's leadership comprises a group of extreme fanatical Muslims who believe that their messianic times have arrived. This is quite dangerous; though Russia and the US both had nuclear weapons, it was clear that they would never use them because of MAD – mutual assured destruction. Each side knew it would be destroyed if it would attack the other. But with these people in Iran, MAD is not a deterrent factor, but rather an inducement. They feel that they can hasten the final messianic process. This is an extremely dangerous situation of which it is important to be aware."

He also negated the school of though that says that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the root of all strife: "In fact, we see that wherever you have Muslims, you have violence, such as in the Balkans, Russia, central Asia, Kashmir, Timor... Nearly 30 years ago, Bin Laden issued a directive saying Americans should be killed, and he gave three reasons. The two major ones were the American presence in Saudi Arabia and in Iraq at the time – and then he added two and a half lines saying that it was also because of the 'petty little state of the Jews.' This shows how unimportant he felt Israel was as an issue for them. Since then, of course, he has adapted his strategy..."

Nationalism Into Patriotism

"A couple of other developments that should be noted: Some Arab countries have undergone or are undergoing a process of nationalism transforming to patriotism. Nationalism is more applicable to countries in the making, while patriotism is when the citizenry truly feels it already has a country. Turkey, Iran and Egypt already have patriotism, and these tend to be less hostile to Israel... In addition, women are becoming more of a factor in Moslem countries; these could, in the future, become important factors for better communication and understanding in the future."

Israel's Edges Being Eroded?

"Now let us turn to Israel: It is, and is likely to be in the future, surrounded by enemies. Its survival depends on its qualitative edge in military superiority. But this edge is being eroded, as we see when we compare the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, and the last war in Lebanon. Something must be done about this. Also, regarding Israel's technological edge – I hear many complaints from my Israeli friends about Israel's declining educational standards and the gradual lowering of the school system; teachers must be better paid." [Applause from the audience]

Wherever you have Muslims, you have violence.

Electoral Reform

"The third aspect in which Israel has an advantage is in its democracy. With all its faults, it is vibrant and active and thriving; the Arabs here have better rights than even majorities do in the Arab countries – and the Arabs in other countries know this. But Israeli democracy, like its other edges, is in danger – and here I would like to put in a word for electoral reform. There is no direct election here, and therefore the representatives are not held accountable to anyone other than their party leaders and directorates. In addition, minor splinter groups are granted more importance than they deserve proportionally, and the entire system encourages corruption."

On the Positive Side

Lewis concluded by noting two positive features of the present situation. "The first is what I call the Sadat gambit. The late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, made peace with Israel not because he suddenly saw the merits of Zionism, but rather because he realized Egypt was becoming a Soviet colony... There are signs that some Arab countries are making similar calculations regarding the growing strength of Islamic extremism and of Iran. Some Arab countries were actually quietly disappointed when Israel did not defeat Hizbullah in 2006. In addition, there is a slow, small-scale, tentative rise of democratic ideas in the region. An increasing number of Arabs in the region even see Israel as an example and a model to be followed in developing their own democracies."

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Israel National News.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 23, 2008.

Unfortunately, we have a paucity of wise people in charge in Western nations.

David Horovitz, Editor of The Jerusalem Post, did an interview with Martin Gilbert, Churchill's biographer, on Friday. It should only be that Gilbert's words would make people sit up and take notice.

Gilbert, a noted historian, in describing the mistakes that were made before WWII, draws potent lessons for today:

When Chamberlain first met Hitler, he declared that "In spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I saw in his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word."

In 1938, Hitler's generals were saying that if Britain declared war, "there's nothing we can do. We can't win, we don't have the resources." However, says Gilbert, "appeasement gave the Germans time to create a war machine which was virtually impregnable," and which couldn't be...even seriously weakened for the first three years [of the war]. The British weren't even building up their military in the years from 1936 to 39, because they were busy talking about dealing with Germany, seeking a disarmament, and being "fair." Thus ultimately what might have been a six month war became a six year war.

Says Gilbert, "A grave mistake was made in the 1930s in finding all sorts of reasons for not regarding the Nazi threat as a serious one. When you're working out your thoughts on the current situation, about fundamentalism, just remember that it is very easy for highly competent, educated, civilized, sophisticated people to find excuses and benign explanations for everything that happens."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203605149065&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


The obvious and most potent parallel is with regard to Iran, of course. But I think it also applies to what we are dealing with here in Israel and issues of taking out terrorist infrastructure (say via a serious ground operation in Gaza) before the existing Hamas war machine has a chance to grow even more sophisticated and powerful than it already is.

And how about all of the "benign explanations" offered for what Fatah does?


National Infrastructure Minister and Former Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor) gave a perfect example of just how deluded some purported leaders can be (not that I'd exactly call him sophisticated and highly competent): He suggests that we cannot have peace with the PA as long as Abbas is in charge because he's too weak. We need a strong leader and thus should release Marwan Barghouti from prison. This is not the first time this has been suggested, of course, and it never fails to astound me. That there are people so very eager to have that "peace accord" that they would deal with a terrorist and murderer of Jews, assuming that this is someone who could be trusted. (Never mind the immorality of releasing a murderer of Jews and according him respect.)


Another Barghouti, by the name of Majed, who was a Hamas activist and preacher in Samaria, has died in a PA prison in Ramallah of a heart attack after allegations of abuse. Tensions between Hamas and Fatah have been fueled by this incident and Hamas is saying the PA prisons have "become worse than Israeli occupation prisons with regards to prisoners' rights." Not "have become," but always were – there is no comparison. It's just that Hamas is only willing to say this now.

(I have no information on Majed's relationship to Marwan, if any exists, but more often than not the same Arab family name, especially among people from the same region, indicates some extended family link.)


I close with a link to an unsettling – indeed, alarming – article regarding a virulently anti-Israel children's book out by the United Methodist Women's Division. This will open eyes to what we're up against not only in Arab nations, but in certain quarters in the US.

A teachers' guide that accompanies the book advices teachers to tell their students "to gather a pile of stones. They are to be told that in 'Palestine,' stones can represent the rubble left when Israelis have bulldozed Palestinian homes for having done 'something' against the Israeli government. Stones can 'also be the means by which a young person resists the presence of Israeli soldiers in the town.' Palestinian youth 'sometimes throw stones at the soldiers.' Likewise, in ancient times, the stones could 'mark a holy place,' the teacher's guide recalls."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= F25F6DEA-B3D3-4BFB-960D-DA94B95B2EB8

We need to be aware that this sort of material exists, and vigorously challenge it whenever possible.

And my thanks to Leif Thorvaldson for calling this to my attention.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), February 23, 2008.

Just like in Kossovo and just like in Afghanistan in the '80s: some terrorists live on US Aid.

This is entitled "US plans new aid to Gaza, West Bank" and is a Reuters news item from yesterdays Ynet

Officials say US will announce tens of millions of dollars in new aid next week to ease humanitarian crisis in Palestinian territories. Exact figure not provided; funds to be channeled through UNRWA

The United States plans to announce tens of millions of dollars in new aid for the West Bank and Gaza next week to ease the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories, US officials said on Friday.

The funds will be channeled through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, which handles US and other aid for food, health, education and other areas, said US officials, who would not give an exact figure as the announcement will be made on a trip to the region next week.

A large chunk of the funding will go to Gaza, where an economic blockade has led to a worsening humanitarian crisis, culminating in hundreds of thousands of people crossing over into Egypt last month after the border was breached.

"The timing is right," said Samuel Witten, acting assistant secretary of state for the bureau of population, refugees and migration. "We are acutely aware of the challenges facing the people of Gaza and these contributions that we are making are a response to that," he told Reuters.

Witten declined to provide details of the amount the United States plans to announce, but made it clear the funds would be subject to strict US oversight regarding aid to the Palestinians.

The Islamist group Hamas, which Washington brands a terrorist organization, is in charge of the Gaza Strip and controls are in place to ensure no US funds are channelled directly to Hamas, he said.

In fiscal year 2007, the Bush administration gave about $154 million to UNRWA to support Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Separately it has also put about $86 million over the last year into reforming security forces loyal to pro-Western President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah movement dominates the West Bank.

Boost to Abbas

One goal of the new US humanitarian aid is to boost Abbas' standing among Palestinians.

Abbas and his government have complained loudly in recent weeks that not enough is being done by the international community to improve the situation on the ground and Israel is not easing military checkpoints and other restrictions as promised in peace talks brokered by the United States.

The United States hopes to get a peace treaty between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert by the end of the Bush administration's term in January, 2009.

But talks so far between both sides have been going at a slow pace, with uncertainty over Gaza, security concerns and other thorny issues clouding the discussions that are ultimately aimed at creating a Palestinian state.

When Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was in Washington last week he complained vociferously that Israel was not doing enough to improve the situation on the ground and that the pace of negotiations needed to quicken.

A senior US official, who spoke on condition that he was not named, said he hoped the new US aid for the West Bank and Gaza would help the Palestinian Authority.

"There is a battle here for public opinion," he said.

He said the United States was acutely aware of the problem of rockets being fired constantly from Gaza into Israeli territory, but he urged the Israelis to "lighten up a little" and start easing some restrictions.

While he understood Israeli arguments over retaining checkpoints to prevent attacks on the Jewish state, he said Fayyad was suggesting "improving" their functioning rather than removing them entirely.

"They need to work out a balance here," added the official.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be in the region early next month to try and push along the peace talks and help find solutions to security problems on the ground.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Devolin, February 23, 2008.

It was reported in the Globe and Mail recently that Mr. Justice Edmond Blanchard of the Federal Court of Canada refused to grant a warrant to CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) which would have enabled them to "carry out overseas electronic intercepts". Apparently the Federal Court of Canada is now become predominantly expert on the issue of Islamic terrorism abroad, as though Islamic terrorism without Canada is in no way connected to the threat of Islamic terrorism within Canada. In the same insouciant manner the Liberal government disdainfully rebuffed the advice of CSIS on the matter of an insidious Tamil Tiger presence in the City of Toronto, now the Federal Court has rejected the prudent designs of our intelligence service and its efforts to thwart the threat of Islamic terrorism – or at the very least, its efforts to be cognitive of the threat of terrorism – before it reaches our shores, our streets, our homes.

T. S. Elliot wrote, "Human kind cannot bear very much reality." I believe Canada's justice system is not determined enough to deal with what has always been Islam's prevalent reality – its violence and hatred. For example, two of the 17 terrorist suspects arrested June 2nd and 3rd 2006 were released on the condition that they report to the police twice a month and (get this) that they seek counselling from their respective Imams. This is justice? Sending suspected terrorists to receive counsel from a cleric of the very religion that served to animate them to violence? Salman Hossain, a University of Toronto student, was identified and visited by the RCMP for advocating on an internet blog page the murder of Canadian soldiers in Canada – before they leave for Afghanistan! What is his punishment? None. He is still attending classes, the last I heard, a free man and an avowed enemy of the Canadian Armed Forces. The above examples are indicative of a democracy and a justice system as yet unconvinced of Islam's malefic nature – further proof that Canada is still sleep-walking into the teeth of a religious ideology that has spawned terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

I remember shortly after 9/11 a New Yorker angrily remarking to a TV reporter, "We have to go after these mother-f---ers!" Efraim Halevi, former head of Israel's Mossad, justifies Israel's targeted assassinations of Hamas leadership by clarifying to those who decry such methods, "This is a wartime situation, and in war you need to take drastic measures to defeat the enemy." Sam Harris writes (The End Of Faith), "Subtract the Muslim belief in martyrdom and jihad, and the actions of suicide bombers become completely unintelligible, as does the spectacle of public jubilation that invariably follows their deaths; insert these peculiar beliefs, and one can only marvel that suicide bombing is not more widespread. Anyone who says that the doctrines of Islam have 'nothing to do with terrorism' – and our airways have been filled with apologists for Islam making this claim – is just playing a game with words."

In other words, Canada's Federal Judiciary, and Justice Edmond Blanchard in particular, is making a fatal mistake by disallowing CSIS to "keep tabs" on Muslim terrorists operating outside Canada; a fatal mistake simply because it is logical for CSIS to assume – post 9/11 – that these "jihadists", whether in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Bangladesh, are designing to attack Canadian (or American) targets inside Canada. Remember that bin Laden has placed Canada on his hit-list of those nations he deems deserving of Islamist justice. Islamist terrorists half a world away will not be placated because here in Canada our unctuous human rights commissions pander to the whims and wishes of litigious Muslim apologists like Prof. Elmasry and Syed Soharwardy. Canada's weakest link is our Federal Judiciary's foolhardy assumption that concentrating on Islamic terrorists within Canada is the circumference of our salvation from those terrorist who operate outside Canada. Such an assumption is grossly negligent, a negligence that invariably imperils the average Canadian citizen.

What we need from our Judiciary is conviction and punishment of those potential terrorists already living here in Canada, who shamelessly proclaim their disloyalty to our nation and our soldiers; we need from them a more tangible form of justice, something that will prevent these madmen from committing the acts of terrorism their religion demands of them; and finally, we need the Canadian Judiciary to grant CSIS the necessary license to thwart and deny those Muslim jihadists beyond our borders the opportunity to realize their malevolent objectives within our borders. If Justice Blanchard is not equal to these tasks, then he needs to be replaced by someone who is. His timidity in the face of Islamic terrorism is presently Canada's weakest link in the war being waged against it.

Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. He is Director of B'nai Elim Canada. Reach him at devolin@reach.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, February 23, 2008.

NATO member Turkey asserts its right under international law to hit PKK rebels taking shelter in northern Iraq, reacting to their deadly attacks on Turkish troops. The Turkish military indeed bombed Kurdish rebel positions 02/21/2008, in self-defense, without objections from human rights groups, without objections from worldwide media outlets, without shrill accusations of a disproportional response against refugees yearning for an independent Kurdistan. Yet, when Israel dares to blockade Gaza because its Hamas government allows Arab terrorists to shell peaceful Jewish citizens residing in Sderot and neighboring towns with deadly missiles on a daily basis, responding less aggressively than the Turks do to their tormentors, the Arab League, European Union, various human rights groups, and bleeding heart pro-Palestinian media outlets yell foul, accusing Israel yet again of in effect an inhumane disproportionate response, much like they did when Israel entered Lebanon in 2006 after justified provocation. How dare Israel attempt to defend her citizens by inflicting economic pressure on a hostile dysfunctional Arab neighbor, in fact using a peaceful but punitive strategy, when the Jewish state could indeed 'turn the other cheek', tell her traumatized citizens to just continue dodging the missile barrage, in effect not react at all! What right do Jews have to live in peace? Why should they have the same rights of retaliation the Arab League, the European Union, various human rights groups, and bleeding heart pro-Palestinian media outlets afford to say Moslem Turks?

"The real problem is the Israeli military occupation. And, Israel as an occupying nation has a responsibility to protect the rights of the people of the occupied land," bloviates Amr Moussa, the Arab League secretary- general, calling the blockade a "war crime". Somehow, Moussa cannot accept the obvious fact that Gaza is a 100% Arab enclave fully under Hamas control, not one Jew has dwelled within its borders since former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally evicted its relatively small number of Jewish citizens, thus referring to Gaza as an occupied land is incredibly absurd. Further insulting rational discourse, Benita Ferrero Waldner, external relations commissioner of the European Union, accused Israel of carrying out "collective punishment" against Gaza's 1.5 million people, asserting "only a credible political agreement this year... can turn Palestinians away from violence." Hello Waldner!!! Jewish citizens are the continuous targets of insane missile launching Arab savages and Israel cannot punish the state that houses these criminals, allowing them to act with impunity? I suppose, using that logic, the United States had no right to use a collectively punishing 'shock and awe' strategy on Afghanistan, a nation that housed the Arab criminal Osama bin Laden, a homicidal maniac who orchestrated the world changing events of 9/11. Yet, no civilized nations objected to that response. On the other hand, in the real world where so many nations object to the mere existence of the state of Israel subtly and not so subtly, even a much less than 'shock and awe' blockade by the Jewish homeland for continuing deadly crimes against her citizens, albeit collectively not comparable in historical significance to the one time earth shattering sinister event perpetrated in New York City, yet ever traumatizing to thousands of Jewish citizens, apparently is still unacceptable to many anti-Semitic popinjays with heft as Jews are always held to a different standard than everybody else, indeed a standard that if followed would lead to the demise of the Jewish homeland?

Let the United States economically boycott Caribbean neighbor Cuba for four decades, exhort other nations to do the same, over time exacerbate the poverty levels on that poor island, while the collective world reacts with a yawn. Let Russia threaten to raise fuel prices five-fold to neighboring customers, former Soviet states reliant on subsidized rates for their economic survival, retaliating in part for turning away politically from a Putinesque dictatorship, while that same extortionist nation hypocritically condemns Israel for blocking fuel supplies to Gaza never mind in an effort to halt deadly missile attacks, in step with a morally confused world that chooses to castigate Israel only. Most despicably, let the sadistic racist Arab government of oil-rich Sudan perpetrate genocide on hapless Muslim Black Africans within its western province of Darfur, an act of inhumanity infinity greater than any boycotts, economic sanctions, or blockades, while the outer world does little to stop the bleeding, indeed even having rewarded that government with the dubious honor of squatting on a seat, reduced to the dignity of a toilet seat, within the 'hallowed halls' of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Unbelievably, there are far greater outcries and threats by many nations aimed at Israel's justifiable blockades against her hostile Arab neighbor than against that oil-rich genocidal Sudanese regime, perhaps oil-rich being one enormously potent operative motivating factor for such blatant hypocrisy. Considering all this, Israel must be the master of her fate, the captain of her soul, attempting to please no other nation. No matter what the Jewish homeland does, she will be condemned by other nations. If intermittent blockades of Gaza do not succeed in thwarting terrorists from attacking her with missiles, she must follow in the footsteps of Turkey, using more aggressive strategies. There is no such thing as a disproportionate attack upon any nation that refuses to let you live in peace. Furthermore, there are no humane strategies when fighting an enemy that only wishes to annihilate you. The sooner Israel accepts those facts, the sooner she realizes that overwhelming force may be her only option against an enemy with as much restraint as a rabid dog, the better off she will be. Indeed, if that rabid dog decides to someday sharpen its teeth with nuclear warheads, Israel's citizens will pay a most heavy price. Think about it!

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant. 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 larose@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, February 23, 2008.

Would it really serve Israel's interests rely on the deployment of a collection of foreign forces in the Gaza Strip to facilitate an Israeli exit after the conclusion of a major operation there?


Proponents see the mandate of such a multinational group as an anti-Palestinian terror force, but the members of the force wouldn't come from Mars. They would be from nations with their own international (and for that matter domestic) interests and concerns. As such, this force would be careful to avoid the "Israel's Policeman" label.

Deployment of such a force would be predicated on significant, substantial and immediate Israeli concessions that contributing countries could point to in order to justify their participation to the Arab world.

By the same token, the force would take great care to avoid either embarrassing or ostensibly offending the "moderate" Palestinian leadership they are helping to pick up the pieces after the operation.

  • Security and inspection arrangements at passages and the Gaza seaports and airport would sacrifice effectiveness for Palestinian "pride".

  • Operations against terrorists would be effectively restricted in sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, mosques, etc.

  • Operations against terrorists aligned with the ruling authorities and official Palestinian locations restrained: Historically, many terrorist operations are carried out by forces associated with the ruling Palestinian factions. In fact, many of these gunmen also serve within the Palestinian security forces as their day job while they moonlight as terrorists. Illegal weapons have also been stored in official PA armories (for example the rockets and other equipment that Hamas seized when it took control in Gaza). Multinational force ground commanders would weigh operations against these terrorists against the repercussions, in terms of its impact on relations with both their Palestinian interlocutors and third parties.

  • The political need for encouraging – if not glowing – progress reports would take priority over accurate and realistic assessments of the situation on the ground.

  • Paradoxically, the presence of the force – seeking quick and dirty "progress" – would ultimately lead to the build up of a larger and more dangerously armed Palestinian army in the Gaza Strip than there would be in the absence of a multinational force.

Deploying a multinational force in the Gaza Strip means stripping Israel of the ability to act to protect itself from terror attacks.

At best the operational goals of the commanders on the ground would be to try to prevent the launching of terror attacks during their tour of duty while avoiding casualties (and bad press) to their own forces, an approach that lends itself, at best, to the "hudna" concept that it is acceptable for the terrorists to gain strength as long as they don't use it. Yet.

It might be appealing to suggest that someone else bear Israel's security burden – but it won't work.

It would only put the Jewish State in a situation that it faces an even more dangerous enemy that skillfully exploits the human shields a multi-national force would become.

This is by Dr. Aaron Lerner and comes from today's IMRA (imra@netvision.net.il). Dr. Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis); its website address is http://www.imra.org.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Hana Levi Julian and Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, February 22, 2008.

In encouragement and support the residents of Sderot, a caravan of Israeli shoppers set out from communities all over the country for the rocket-battered Negev city on Friday morning to both show solidarity with countrymen currently under attack and to give local hard-hit businesses an infusion of much-needed cash.

Calling it "the largest single social welfare action carried out for Sderot," organizers of the unique effort reported that caravans are coming to the battered city from as far north as Nahariya, from the Jordan Valley in the east and from Be'er Sheva in the south.

Organizers also noted that the number of people who were planning to join had exceeded all expectations. Among the organizations currently officially represented in the caravan were the National Students Union, the National Organization of Handicapped People, the Yachad School of Modiin, synagogues from around the nation, several municipalities and city youth centers, as well as a large number of charity organizations.

Palestinian Authority terrorists have launched more than 400 rockets at Jewish communities since the start of 2008 alone, and over 6,000 since 2001. The unceasing attacks have led to a collapse of local industry and emptied the town of thousands of residents.

'A Personal Example of the Highest Order'

In May 2007, the first caravan of solidarity shoppers made its way to Sderot with 100 people, spending a total of approximately NIS 5,000. Less than two months later, in July, the second shopping trip brought 1,000 people and some NIS 500,000 into Sderot. In the August caravan, 4,000 people spent approximately two million shekels in the Negev city.

The long-distance shopping trip is the brainchild of Ilan Cohen, the head of the Modi'in Chess Club, who said Israelis show support for Sderot through personal example.

"We have a tremendous opportunity to prove that the citizens of Israel have not forgotten the residents of Sderot," the organizers of Friday's trip said. "We have a tremendous opportunity to set a personal example of the highest order."

Participants in the caravan were provided with a map of Sderot marked with the locations of shopping centers in the city. Shoppers were asked to divide their expenditures among several businesses and to specifically strengthen the smaller shop owners. "Just travel in the city," organizers said, "get to know it and its residents, and in that way you'll find more places of business [to patronize]."

Solidarity for Sderot in North America

The Los Angeles and Toronto communities have also planned rallies to support Sderot.

A much-publicized event in Los Angeles next Tuesday will feature "the creme-de-la-creme of the Jewish and Israeli communities," according to the Los Angeles Jewish Journal.

A benefit concert under the title "Live for Sderot" is being billed as the first of a series of events to celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary in May. Proceeds from the concert will go to fund educational programs in Sderot.

The Greater Toronto Jewish community is holding a rally for Sderot in Monday, featuring civil liberties lawyer Prof. Alan Dershowitz. The event will include a live satellite video from Sderot, with residents describing how they cope with the daily rocket attacks.

This appeared in Arutz-Sheva today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, February 22, 2008.

Yes, I watched the last hour of the debate in Texas last night. I noted that neither candidate addressed the key issues which face our nation and which will determine our destiny. How will our next President deal with the potential Islamification of America? What are his or her views about fundamentalist Islam, jihad, terrorism, Muslim (not Hispanic) immmigration as well as the way in which some Muslim-Americans are using American civil rights and liberties in order to safeguard Islamic gender and religious apartheid on American soil?

Will we keep funding the Saudi Wahabi war against America and the West? Will we continue to buy their oil and continue to allow their Princes to buy up American real estate, universities, and mass communication outlets? Will President Obama launch friendly United Nations-style "talking" sessions with Saudi Arabia and Iran that will outlast even this never-ending Presidential election? Will President Clinton focus on mandatory, universal health care coverage even as we are being bombed back into the seventh century?

Of course, both candidates "scored" debating points and the audience cheered as if the debate was merely an extention of American Idol – which I fear it is. This is not a football game and such applause should have no place in so serious a discussion. I am so Old School – actually, I'm not, this is precisely how our old Mother Country, Britain, conducts the public airing of issues.

Psychologically speaking: I also noted that in general, Barack either looked down, or away, or into the middle distance when Hillary spoke. Or, he glared at her. In turn, Hillary often "gazed" at Barack as he spoke in a "girlish" or political wifely fashion. And, several times, Barack came too close to Hillary's personal space in a way that suggested that if he could, he might have meant to touch her arm. Such "touching" is a male-to-female statement of power over and containment of the woman. Endless research about body language over the last thirty five years has confirmed that this is true.

My conclusions? That Barack was raised as a man and Hillary was raised as a woman and that both will have to wrestle with certain features of their gender-conditioning if they are to deliver on their various promises to the nation.

Folks: I am very worried. Are people voting for Obama because they were hooked on the television series 24 in which America had a black President? Are "angry white men" voting against a woman, any woman – or merely against this woman? Are women incapable of voting for another woman – someone who is not themself? Do young people merely want someone young and new, like themselves, in the White House? Are all Americans, including African-Americans, thrilled to finally be able to vote for a black candidate? Is everyone voting narcissistically?

Will people vote for Senator McCain because he "looks" like the kind of authority figure we once revered – or because of his track and voting record and because of his position on Islam? Will the battle to come be that between a traditional and no longer young military hero and that of a new kind of candidate with Kennedy-style glamor? And by the way, I hope that the Kennedy annointing of Obama does not condemn him to their tragic history of assasinated sons.

I am worried on all counts.

Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 21, 2008.

Before returning to current news items, I would like to refer back to one of the themes of yesterday's posting, regarding the inability of some Israelis (some Jews) to defend the Israeli narrative.

Every so often I receive communications from people in the US who are staunch supporters of Israel that are essentially laments – expressions of frustration, perhaps, or confusion. How can I speak out, I am asked, when the prime minister doesn't? How can I tell people that a two-state solution is a disaster when Olmert is pursuing it vigorously? Bottom line: How can I contradict the government of Israel?

My response has been that it is important to support the people of Israel, not the government. But I think yesterday's discussion examines another, and very important, dimension of that same issue. Olmert and Livni may have lost the ability to tell Israel's narrative. They may have forgotten how to defend Israel because they are committed instead to a two-state solution, which leads them to believe that they must actually defend our enemy's goals.

But their position represents a pathology. And if your thinking is not pathological, if you clearly understand Israel's narrative, then it is your responsibility to tell it, and to defend without hesitation Israel's rights, even if this contradicts the goals of Oslo and what Olmert and Livni are about.

Very simply: Olmert and Livni may believe they are doing what is right. But they have lost their way, and what they promote is a danger to Israel. You want to tell a different story.


Orient House, a building owned by the prominent Palestinian Husseini family, has in the past been utilized by the PLO to conduct business in Jerusalem. An Orient House website, somewhat dated, refers to the establishment as "the Palestinian national gathering place for Palestinians in Occupied East Jerusalem. As the PLO Headquarters in the occupied city, the Orient House aspires to develop Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of the emerging Palestinian state..."

It was closed down in 2001 at the time of the Intifada because of political activities in Jerusalem forbidden by the Oslo agreement.

This past Monday, Maan, a Palestinian new agency, reported that the PLO has now again employed 30 – 40 people to work in Orient House. A Palestinian leader, Hatem Abdul Khadar, of Fatah, was quoted as saying that he and others were meeting with foreign dignitaries in the building. This is precisely what is forbidden – using it as an unofficial embassy.


According to the latest news from the Post, however, Israel has renewed the order to keep Orient House closed tight. In fact, a Jerusalem police spokesman says that the site is checked regularly and there's nothing going on there.

The Palestinians, claiming that Olmert had promised to open Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem, are bemoaning that "This is not a good sign for the peace process." They have asked the US consulate in eastern Jerusalem to intervene, but were told there would be no quick resolution.


Brig.-Gen. (res.) Shalom Harari, a former senior adviser on Palestinian affairs at the Defense Ministry, has offered comments on this situation, explaining, according to the Post, that the closure had led to a dramatic reduction in anti-Israeli activity and an increase in security in eastern Jerusalem.

"Since its closure, the Palestinians have been mourning the loss of Orient House, and say they have lost the center of their revolutionary zeal in Jerusalem. I don't know if such a promise [by Olmert to the Palestinians] was made, but if it was, it was made secretly, because nothing has been made public about such a commitment."

During the Oslo peace process, Orient House acted as "an organizing factor" for riots and demonstrations. "We allowed the PLO to operate in Jerusalem during the 1990s, but not the Palestinian Authority. However, Orient House was quickly infiltrated by PA elements who turned it into a kind of 'extraterritorial embassy.'

"It...became an institution. Police were afraid to enter or search it, and Orient House enjoyed an informal diplomatic immunity status.

"The shutting down of Orient House was the end result of a long effort by right-wing Knesset Members, led by [then-Public Security Minister] Uzi Landau, who said that Orient's use as a PA base was a violation of Oslo...

"After a major suicide bombing, Landau effectively forced the police to close it down." Harari explained that the police at first did not wish to raid the center due to fears of a violent backlash. But it never materialized. [Note: police fear of acting against illegal Palestinian behavior because there might be violence.]

After the raid, the center's records were confiscated; they vindicated the demands of the Knesset members who had wanted it closed down.

"I can say that closing down Orient House was one of main acts that caused a reduction in open anti-Israeli activity in Jerusalem," Harari said.


And an enlightening side observation: According to the Post, "[Hatem] Abdel Khader said the Palestinians had given the necessary assurances to the Israelis, adding that the office was to be used for cultural, economic and social projects."

But this is the same Abdul Khadar who told Maan, a Palestinian news agency, that he was meeting with foreign dignitaries in the building.


US Special Envoy Gen. James Johns is floating the idea of bringing in NATO troops for Judea and Samaria for an interim period between when Israel would pull out and the PA would be able to secure the area. It's just an idea at this point and Israel has not signed off on it. If our government does agree – G-d forbid – it's even more lost than I think it is.

Allow me to enumerate all the things wrong with this: First, the PA isn't supposed to get territory until it is ready to administer it. If other troops are necessary, they should be given nothing. What is clear here is that the US, which truly has lost its way completely, is so damn eager to put an agreement in place that they would turn it over to an incompetent PA and then attempt to bolster it from outside. What craziness.

Foreign troops would interfere with our ability to secure intelligence or do operations to take out terrorists or stop planned operations, as necessary. It is not even clear that we'd be able to do hot pursuit of those who have committed terrorist acts and are seeking refuge.

Does anyone – including Johns or Rice – remotely believe that NATO forces would do what we've been doing, with night operations, intensive intelligence work, and all the rest? Clearly, if territory were to be turned over to an incompetent PA, this means a situation in which the terrorists would not have been eliminated, arrested or disarmed. Actually, some of them would still be in the PA security forces. What would result is a free ride for terrorists, with international forces standing between them and our troops, and the terrorists actually able to strengthen themselves.

Johns, it should be noted, served as a commander in NATO. Just a few days ago, the American ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, hinted at the same thing.


The precedent is there with UNIFIL in Lebanon (about which more below), which has allowed Hezbollah to rearm while protesting that we are "violating" the truce if we do flyovers to monitor what is happening.

I do think, however, that this is all moot, because I don't believe any European countries will want to get in the middle of this. Hamas has made it clear that they would shoot at any international forces placed in Gaza (where a similar suggestion has been made), as they would consider it an occupation. International forces in Judea and Samaria might be similarly vulnerable. And there certainly would be no guarantee, after NATO troops were in place, that the PA would ever be ready to assume responsibility. What we're looking at here is an assignment with – as it's put – no exit strategy.


Reports are that Israel would like to predicate its exit strategy from Gaza, in event of a ground operation, on being replaced by international forces. But I think the same international reluctance to be involved would apply here, and more so because of Hamas threats. Some sources say that the IDF will go in if it's deemed necessary, even if there are no international forces in place.

It's time to wake up, I think, to the fact that when we go back in, we will not be exiting any time soon (and preferably never).


Olmert made a statement earlier this week that was a serious misrepresentation (lie) and requires response. Said he: "Despite the [continuing] Kassam fire, [the "disengagement"] was a very good move since there are no longer 30,000 soldiers protecting 1,200 citizens."

First of all, it was 8,000 citizens, not 1,200. But more significantly, the soldiers were not there just to protect them. They were there to protect Israel, by securing areas from which Kassams might be fired, going after tunnels through which weapons might be smuggled, and stopping terrorist operations. Anyone who is ready to be honest about the situation will admit that the pullout was a security disaster. But it's clear Olmert isn't ready.

We haven't even received the approbation of the international community for this pullout, as promised by Sharon; we've met instead with condemnation because of how we're "treating" Gaza.


As to UNIFIL: Spain may be thinking of pulling its troops out of that operation, and there is concern that this will influence others to follow suit. Matters are, shall we say, greatly unsettled in Lebanon right now with the prospect of escalating Hezbollah violence. A weakening of the UNIFIL force would further destabilize Lebanon and allow Hezbollah to move down into the south of the country unimpeded.


We have deployed a battery of US made Patriot air defense missiles in the vicinity of Haifa, as a precaution against an attack by Hezbollah.

At the same time it has been announced that the Iron Dome system against short range rockets such as Kassams is in an advanced stage of development.

Regrettably, it has also been announced that the government is going to fortify only 3,600 homes in Sderot instead of the 8,000 originally announced. Homes within a range of 4.5 kilometers from the Gaza border are being targeted, as the Iron Dome system will not have enough time to respond to rockets launched from a distance of less than 4 kilometers. The plans call for building safe rooms over the course of the next two years.


Abbas came to town a couple of days ago, to meet with Olmert, after which Olmert declared, "We didn't talk about Jerusalem!" while Saeb Erekat said they did.

Progress in negotiations is reportedly slow or non-existent, with Fayyad declaring that an agreement cannot be reached in 2008. All sorts of plans are in the works now for (shudder) "speeding things up," with more frequent meetings.


Abbas, however, has vetoed the suggestion of Yasser Abed Rabbo that the PA follow Kosovo's example and unilaterally declare independence.

However slowly, said Abbas, negotiations are still going on and that's the path to take at present. If matters stalemate entirely, it would be time to consider other alternatives.

A pragmatic Saeb Erekat opined that what the Palestinians need is "real independence" and not just a declaration. "We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence." In other words, it wouldn't play here. Nor would the US be supportive.

What their strategy will be (other than more violence) when negotiations stalemate remains to be seen.


A bit of humor: Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, in an attempt, I assume, to motivate us to move more quickly, has now said, "We hope that Israel responds positively to the strenuous efforts we are making, so that we do not despair and think about taking back our offer."

Strenuous efforts? Despair?

The offer: If we pull back to the pre-67 lines, which means giving the Palestinians the Kotel and the Temple Mount, allow a Palestinian state to be established with Jerusalem as its capital, and then permit four million "refugees" to "return" to Israel, the members of the Arab League will "normalize" relations with us. What this means with regard to full diplomatic relations has not be specified.


Not so funny this week was a statement made by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who said that Israel absolutely must reach a cease fire with Hamas to halt the "cycle" of Kassam attacks and responses. Israel responded to the implied moral equivalency with anger.

What angered me the most however was Kouchner's statement that he knew Israel was concerned that Hamas would use a ceasefire to build its strength, but Israel had "to take a chance..., to take a risk."

Really now. How nice of him to decide this for us.


When Olmert returned from his recent trip to Germany, there were reports coming from Der Spiegel that he was going to declare Goldwasser and Regev officially dead. The decision of the government has been not to do so, however, because there is no solid evidence of this (although there has been no sign that they are alive, either).

For some days there were hints that a deal was close for bringing Shalit home, but that now seems not the case. Apparently there was agreement on 240 prisoners to be released, but now there is contention about an additional 120.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 21, 2008.

Part one of the Jerusalem Conference's Hasbara Session:

"Well, was that a good panel, or what?!" So concluded moderator Caroline Glick, at the end of the Jerusalem Conference session dealing with Israel's efforts – or lack thereof, according to the speakers – at explaining and defending its policies abroad.

Glick, a columnist and deputy managing editor at the Jerusalem Post, began by explaining that there are three chief elements to any country's hasbara (public relations) efforts: The desire to explain, the specific objectives and strategies of the hasbara campaign, and the style in which the hasbara is delivered.

Ever since Oslo, she said, "when we recognized the PLO and accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state as our goal, our hasbara efforts have basically collapsed – for we have given the other side veto rights over everything we do." Glick said that given these opening conditions, everything Israel does that appears to impede the formation of a Palestinian state appears to be our own fault. "We are essentially saying that our goal is to advance the interests of our enemies."

As an example, she discussed the famous case of the video clip of 12-year-old Muhammed Al-Dura, broadcast around the world by France-2 television. France-2's narration and selected clips led the entire world to believe that the IDF was responsible for killing an innocent boy as his father tried desperately to protect him.

Why did Israel not defend herself? Why did a top IDF general immediately accept responsibility for the boy's death? Why did Israel not take a more offensive posture against this onslaught? "Because of Oslo!," Glick answered. "It was because Ehud Barak was in the middle of trying to conclude a deal over the Temple Mount with Arafat – so how could he come out against the PLO? How could he blacken the name of those to whom he wanted to give away Gaza?"

"And so," Glick concluded, "when we hear of learned discussions about our hasbara policies, we just have to ask ourselves if these are at all relevant. Do we really want hasbara altogether? The answer appears to be: No."

She then introduced the panel's speakers: Tzafrir Ronen, chairman of the secular nationalist Nahalal Forum; Isi Liebler, Chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' Diaspora-Israel relations committee; Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, founder and director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center; Kiryat Arba ideologue and former MK Atty. Elyakim HaEtzni; and leading British columnist and commentator Melanie Phillips.

Darshan-Leitner provided additional enlightening details about the Al-Dura case before proceeding to analyze the problem more broadly: "Way at the beginning of the intifada [Oslo War], there was a battle at the Netzarim junction [in Jewish Gaza]. Many photographers were there, including a Palestinian one who decided that this was a good opportunity to stage events and scenes against Israel and the IDF. He took Arab children and put them on ambulances, and showed the ambulances evacuating lots of 'injured' children, and the like... He also staged the incident of Muhammed al-Dura. Everyone saw the boy with his father, but no one saw him get shot, or any blood...

"The pictures were offered to CNN, but CNN suspected something and did not take the pictures. But Charles Enderlin, France-2's Israel correspondent, saw that he had a treasure in his hand – and without checking, and without having been there, he took the pictures, trusted the Palestinian photographer, and disseminated the clip with his three-sentence narration: 'Look at what is happening to the boy... Look how the IDF is shooting at the boy... Here I see the boy already now dying in his father's arms. Here, he is hit! He is hit! The boy is dead.' We don't see the boy get hit or die; we only hear the correspondent, who wasn't there, say that he was dead."

Darshan-Leitner said that once the IDF took responsibility for the incident, before even investigating it, "there was nothing Israel could do afterwards to dispel the impression that had been broadcast all around the world that Israel was guilty. Even when IDF Southern Command O.C. General Yom-Tov Samiyeh later carried out an investigation showing that the boy could not possibly have died from IDF fire, based on angles of fire and the like, it was 'too little, too late.'"

She said that about a year ago, she asked Danny Seaman, the Director of Israel's Government Press Office, to revoke the press credentials of Enderlin and the Gaza photographer: "

We said that those who fabricated an event of this type should no longer have the right to work as journalists in Israel. Danny Seaman took nine full months, and finally came back with this answer that we were right, that Enderlin apparently did fabricate the item, and that there truly was a blood libel against Israel and the IDF, and that all the studies – by the IDF, and by Landes, and by American researchers, and by the Wall Street Journal – all showed that this was fabricated. But, he said, this is a public legal struggle, and it's not in my hands, and I can't take away Charles Enderlin's press credentials. And so, even today, seven years later, the State of Israel refuses to come straight out and say that this was a fabricated lie... We appealed to the Supreme Court, and a session is to be held in the coming days, but the State of Israel remains steadfast."

"And the question is, Why? Is this a failure in hasbara? The answer is that it is not a hasbara failure, because there is no hasbara. Rather, it's because the government always wants to show that it is ethical and to show that it takes responsibility for everything that happens in its borders – even without checking... The same thing with the cluster bombs we used in southern Lebanon during the last war; immediately afterwards, the IDF came on its own and took responsibility for it, as if it were guilty of something – even though cluster bombs are permitted according to international law! And the Winograd Commission [that investigated the war] found, of all things it could have found about the IDF, that the IDF had committed a crime by dropping these bombs...

"And this phenomenon is also in the Supreme Court, which has issued many long, detailed, scholarly rulings on the partition fence showing how it wants to be fair to the Palestinians and not hurt their rights – and then in the end, when this issue reached the International Court in the Hague, the court told us, 'Very nice, but we're not really interested in your opinions on Palestinian rights. We will determine what is right and ethical, not you' – such that all the efforts of our Supreme Court justices had been in vain."

The conclusion must be, Darshan-Leitner asserted, that "the State of Israel need not strive to appear ethical, but rather work to secure the safety of its citizens. It must set a policy, stick to it, and ensure that there is security. Forget about our honor; maintain national security, and then the honor will come of its own accord."

Tzafrir Ronen began with a fiery speech accusing the promoters of the Oslo process of trying to erase the Jewish People's identity and identification with the Land:

"Our country will fall not in battle, but in a print shop – where maps will be printed with the word Palestine instead of Israel!... The Romans, when they captured our country, simply renamed it – and that signified our total defeat... 'Israel' belongs to us – but not Palestine – and when we use that term, we are saying that the land is not ours! ... If, during our long years in Exile, a rabbi had gotten up and said he no longer needs the Land of Israel, he would not have remained the rabbi for another minute! But now, we have a government that has been saying for 40 years that they are just 'waiting for a phone call' – from Hussein, or from Arafat, or whomever – to give away parts of our land... Even Bibi [Netanyahu], who is famous for saying, 'If they give, they will get' – what he means is that if they give us a little quiet, they will receive our land! ... We returned to our Land, built up a State – and lost our identity!"

Ronen concluded that the "true war being waged today is not for peace, but to cause us to lose our identity. That's why Barak doesn't want to allow the Jews of Hevron to put windows on their new property – because he wants to erase our connection with the Land... I once was interviewed by a CNN reporter who asked me, 'So when will you end your occupation?' I said to him, 'Before you ask such a question, first open up a Bible and then come back to me.' He put down the camera and said, 'More power to you, that's the way people should talk about their land.'"

Isi Liebler said he wanted to take a less fiery and offensive approach, and in fact provided a historical overview of the deterioration of Israeli information campaign efforts:

"We always were seen, and took pride in being, the People of the Book... We always promoted our case with passionate, moral justification. Zionist leaders recognized the 'war of ideas' as a critical front, with books, articles, debates – and we never had any doubt as to the justice of our cause. Foreign Ministry personnel felt that their main goal was to articulate Israel's case; there was certainly no issue of doling out Foreign Ministry jobs as political favors, or based on seniority...

"In 1967, things changed. I wrote at the time that it must be remembered that the world was not used to seeing us as victors rather than victims, and we must redouble our information efforts, or else its sympathies would soon turn to antagonism... Unfortunately, the Sabras [the new born-in-Israel generation] made light of hasbara efforts, and felt that military strength was all we needed. Only Bibi [Netanyahu], who spent some time in the U.S., saw it differently... But the real change came with Oslo [1993], when the government became obsessed with portraying Arafat as our peace partner, and Israeli diplomats began babbling about two states for two peoples...."

"I remember seeing a debate between MK Melchior of Labor and Saeb Erekat of the PLO. Erekat lied a lot, and instead of Melchior contesting his points and setting the record straight, he said he agreed with some of the things Erekat said but that now was the time to move forward... I saw this as a turning point in Israel's campaign of apologetics and refusal to fight their lies... Rabin, as Prime Minister, with the help of Yossi Beilin, purged the Foreign Ministry of ambassadors who promoted the Israeli narrative, and brought in new people who saw their job as promoting the peace process...

"And the final straw came with the appearance of the Haaretz English edition on the internet, on which articles were published throughout the whole world that prior to that would have been considered downright anti-Semitic. Thus, instead of Israel's case being trumpeted to the world, radical and post-Zionist articles from Haaretz were cited by Israeli ambassadors around the globe. Its editor even boasted that he would suppress news that would harm the peace process, and made other comments... The world became convinced that Israel was born in sin... I remember discussing, at different times, hasbara efforts with three different Prime Ministers – Rabin, Barak and Sharon, and I remember their physical reaction of rolling their eyes. They just didn't get it...

"Next was that there was no coherency: Every minister began saying his own thing, without any coordination among them – while the Arabs were making their case in a professional and effective manner. But our biggest failure of all was in not showing the murderous nature of our enemies – how the suicide bombers' mothers took such pride in them, their kindergartens that educate towards killing Jews, and how they named their streets and football teams after the murderers, and the like... Then Sharon started talking about occupation – and then came Olmert at Annapolis taking up the enemy's position and speaking about the Arab right of return... In short, what we need is a new government, because they're leading this campaign. Replacing our government is more important than theoretical discussions about hasbara."


Part 2: More Efforts to Diagnose Israel's Hasbara Problem

Elyakim HaEtzni

Following speakers Caroline Glick, Isi Leibler, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, and Tzafrir Ronen, former MK Elyakim HaEtzni presented his thesis that the simple explanation for Israel's failure at effective PR is "pathological. Israel is sick, with a condition called 'Jewish self-hatred,' and this phenomenon must be investigated... For 2,000 years, the world has been telling us that we're no good – so finally, like a child who receives only criticism, he naturally begins to believe he is no good! In addition, there is something in the Jewish religion that is very noble, but that if taken too far, can be dangerous. Other nations, when they are hit, blame the hitter – but we always blame ourselves; we ask what we did wrong. We originally thought this was just an Exile-mentality phenomenon, but that's not true; there are Jews abroad who are much prouder than many born-in-Israel army officers.."

"For instance, in the Yom Kippur War [in 1973], we were taken by surprise. Generally, when a country is taken by surprise, it loses – such as when France was surprised by Germany and was conquered, or when Russia was sneak-attacked by Germany and nearly lost Moscow and St. Petersburg. But when Israel was taken by surprise, just 17 days later we were at the gates of Damascus and Cairo, and we could have destroyed Egypt's Third Army – yet we declared defeat! Every year, the Egyptians celebrate 'The October War,' and they have museums commemorating their great victory – and all because we announced that we had lost. Kissinger told us we should declare victory and quickly leave – yet we did the opposite!"

Only a quarter of the land, including Hevron and Shechem, originally designated for the Jews by the League of Nations, was left for us – but ut all this is not known by our Jewish youth!

HaEtzni bemoaned the fact that though we have modern political rights dating back to the First World War, Jewish youth in Israel are not taught them: "After World War I, the borders and countries that today make up the Middle East were created – Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. Modern Israel was created the same way! The countries of the world charged Britain [in the San Remo Resolution of 1920, based on the League of Nations and Balfour Declaration – ed.] with creating a 'national homeland' for the Jewish People, based on the 'historical rights' of the Jews, and calling for Jewish immigration and settlement here. But do Jewish youths know this? Are they taught this?!

"The Jews were to be given all of what was called Palestine, all the way up to the border of Iraq. The world had decided to carry out 'affirmative action' on behalf of the Jews, despite the fact that, around World War I, there was an Arab majority here. And all this, even before the Holocaust! ... Later, three quarters of this land – what is today Jordan – was given over to those who today call themselves Palestinians. Only a quarter of the land, including Hevron and Shechem, was left for the Jews – the people for whom this whole re-division was made, and without whom the Arabs here never would have 'discovered' that they are Palestinian! But all this is not known by our Jewish youth!

"Instead, we have the Arabs going around the world claiming their historic rights, while we claim the right to security! And then you have Arafat citing the example of King Solomon with the two mothers, and claiming that he is the real mother who refuses to split the land! Everything has turned upside down, and our youth doesn't know this!"

Melanie Phillips

Dry-spoken but hard-hitting right-wing British commentator Melanie Phillips next addressed the audience, saying she hails from "Londonistan." People in Israel, she said, "have no idea of the depth of the venom in Great Britain against Israel. The British basically feel that Zionism equals fascism, and openly say that it would have been better had Israel never been created. The mainstream media often publish pieces about the world Zionist conspiracy, Jews who defend Israel are invariably portrayed as 'Holocaust shroud wavers,' while British Jews who defend Zionism are accused of dual loyalty... When you look at British society, you see that the higher you go up the ladder of education and wealth, the more Israel is viewed negatively and the more the Palestinians are seen as the supreme moral cause of our time..."

Israeli Left Does Great Damage

"It was not always this way," she said. "The big change occurred around 1970, when Israel was no longer seen as a tiny underdog surrounded by enemies, but as an oppressive imperialist regime. This poison began with the universities, which were fed, in turn, by Israeli revisionist historians who have created the narrative that Israel was born in sin – a narrative which has done and continues to do untold damage to the Israeli and Jewish cause...

"The media then followed suit, barely reporting on Israel's victimization, but only on the measures it takes in self-defense. The Kassams, for instance, have barely been reported; only when Israel takes some retaliation in Gaza does the media mention the Kassams in passing...

"The reasons for this are many and varied, and they even pre-date Britain's problems with its growing Muslim minority. They include it now being 'payback time' throughout Europe to the Jews for the Holocaust, the crime for which the Jews will never be forgiven; the specific history of the British Mandate; the left-wing intelligentsia grip; the sympathy for multi-culturalism (bi-nationalism in Israel); and the BBC."

"There is also much ignorance in Britain. The British widely believe there that Israel was created in 1948 because of post-Holocaust guilt, bringing Jews who had no connection to Palestine over from Europe to take over land in which Arab Palestinians had lived from time immemorial, and that they now continue to violently oppress them... Very few Brits have ever met a Jew; there are only some 280,000 self-identifying Jews, out of a total British population of more than 60 million...

British Jews – A Frightened People

"The Arab narrative is presented on the media, and no alternative narrative is being presented, such that there is no reason for the average Brit to believe anything else... Why is no alternative version being presented by the British Jews? One reason is because British Jews are very frightened people. They are frightened of increasing anti-Semitism, they are frightened of not getting professional preferment, they are frightened of losing their fashionable friends, they are frightened of losing their influence with government, they are frightened of not getting their knighthoods and peerages, and in general, British Jews are just frightened; that's the 'minhag Angliyah [custom in England].' ...

Britain sees Israel as the principle reason why the West is under attack – instead of seeing it as the front line of the defense of the West.

"The other reason is that Israel has abandoned the hasbara [public relations] front. Shimon Peres said after Oslo that hasbara is no longer necessary in Europe...

"[In any event,], we are all now in a much bigger game. All of us – the US, Britain, Israel and Europe are all conscripts in a war of ideas. If Israel, Heaven forbid, were to go down, then they would be next. But no one sees this. Israel doesn't see this, preoccupied as it is with the military aspects of its struggle. And Britain sees Israel as the principle reason why the West is under attack – instead of as it should, as the front line of the defense of the West.

"Israel is reacting defensively. When interviewed on the international media, its spokesmen answer questions as if talking to their domestic media, instead of taking a pro-active, aggressive approach . They should see their job as educational, putting the facts out. Why don't we react to Pallywood, and to other distortions? We are a nation of lawyers, for Heaven's sake, yet we are all struck dumb! Why don't we tell them simple basic truths such as that the Jews are the only ones who ever had a nation-state here, and that in 1920 the world recognized our national rights to this land, and that 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries, etc. The answer is that Israel, believing it has no choice but to accept the world's position, allows itself to be boxed into a corner. ....

"The bottom line is that the global Islamic jihad is threatening the entire free world, and it is succeeding, and we don't even know what has hit us! Britain is sliding into Islamicization, because of a strategy outlined decades ago by the Islamic Brotherhood, which says: You set up your institutions, you then use the mores of your designated country to give you more and more, you Islamicize the country, and then you take it over.

"The central point of this strategy is the demoralization caused by the intellectual confusion brought on by the psychological warfare, the essence of which is that the victims have no idea of what is being done to them. Britain doesn't get it, at all. Israel doesn't get it. We must fight against their verbal fire – and realize that if our minds are enslaved, then our bodies will be next. Israel is obligated, using our traditional skill with words, to retake the battlefield of ideology and of the mind – and win."

What About G-d?

Speaking from the audience, Dr. Hagi Ben-Artzi, a Professor of Bible Studies and brother-in-law of Binyamin Netanyahu, made the following point: "I have heard the speakers here try to address the question of our current national weakness, yet not one of them gave an answer. One speaker said it is because we are sick; what kind of answer is that? The true answer is something that no one has said – and that is that a Jewish national existence that is not founded on a connection with G-d, or with Torah, or with the commandment to settle the Land, can simply not last! Rav Kook said it clearly, and has been proven to be right. Religion without nationalism – we saw how it ended in the Holocaust; nationalism without religion – we see how it ends with Oslo. What we need is the constructive combination of true Jewish spirituality, belief and observance, together with genuine nationalism."

Moderator Caroline Glick responded: "The Jewish People have always been made up of different kinds of Jews. We have to make every effort to explain to all Jews that the Land of Israel is their home. Some of them may want to become religiously observant, and some may not – but if this Land cannot be the home of all Jews, then our State will not be able to last."

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Israel National News.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, February 21, 2008.

Please, everyone, write a letter of protest.

Thank you MATTOTARIM@eretz.org for sending this out.

18 year old Tsvia from Elon Moreh has been in an Israeli prison for more than 2 1/2 months.

Her story: 2 IDF reps, one Arab and one Jewish, escorted 3 Arab men into her hometown, Elon Moreh, to harvest olives. 3 girls, among them Tsvia, were shocked and angered at this disregard of Elon Moreh's safety: only 3% of Judea and Samaria is reserved for Jewish towns (although fully 15% of the total Judea/Samaria population is Jewish). So, why allow the Arab men to harvest olives right in the middle of the Jewish town, instead of finding them a land alternative outside of the slivers of land allocated to Yesha's Jews. This was not a racist concern but a safety concern – in view of the fact that a recent Pew Research poll found fully 70% of Palestinians supportive of homicide bombings against Jews.

Tsvia had no-one to turn to, since the authorities (via the 2 local IDF reps) were themselve plainly siding with the 3 Arab men. She pushed and pulled at the 3 Arab men in a vain effort to get them to leave Elon Moreh. She was charged with trespassing (how does this make sense if the indictment does not even claim that the land the 3 men were given access to, is actually theirs?), with "assaulting" (pulling and pushing) the 3 men, with "frightening and insulting" the men, and -- with saying she would throw stones at them. In contrast, just this week, the Shomron Regional Council chairman Gershon Mesika told Army Radio that dozens of stoning incidents per day have been occurring lately, in which Palestinian men and boys throw rocks and cement blocks at Jewish drivers and their families. These potentially fatal attacks have NOT resulted in arrests of the Palestinian Arab perpetrators nor does the State provide an IDF escort to the Jewish drivers – as opposed to the 2 IDF reps assigned to escort the 3 Arab men.

Write to the following email addresses to make the following 3 points (exactly as written here or – BETTER! – in your own words):

Dear Sirs, I would appreciate your prompt response to the following:

(a) It is absurd for someone to be in jail for minor offenses: When does the State plan to free Tsvia, the 18 year old girl from Elon Moreh?

(b) It is hard for us to detect criminal intent in Tsvia's actions: It is indeed dangerous for the State of Israel to insist that Arabs can penetrate Jewish communities, so as to harvest olives right there, since the Palestinian Arab affinity for suicide bombings has been determined to be as high as 70% of the general Palestinian population. For the small number of Palestinians who are truly able to prove they own property inside otherwise Jewish communities, offer similar property elsewhere.

(c) Equality before the law: One Jewish girl talks about throwing rocks and is jailed for 2.5 months (so far). Dozens of Arab men throw rocks (not just threaten to throw – actually throw) daily, not one of whom is ever arrested. This is not equality.

Write to the following senior Israeli officials and embassies (do not worry if a few of the addresses don't work): sar@justice.gov.il,sar@mops.gov.il,sar@moit.gov.il, sar@moc.gov.il, pm_heb@pmo.gov.il,rani@mops.gov.il, yhadar@mops.gov.il, shukil@justice.gov.il, menim@justice.gov.il,livnat@justice.gov.il, shain@justice.gov.il, inbalr@justice.gov.il, yehoshuas@justice.gov.il, tovas@justice.gov.il, rachelschieber@justice.gov.il, moshes@justice.gov.il, women@pmo.gov.il, meitan@knesset.gov.il,oschneller@knesset.gov.il, rabbis@rabbinate.gov.il,rabbia@rabbinate.gov.il, bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il, yor@knesset.gov.il, roi.lahmanovitz@moital.gov.il, zelkin@knesset.gov.il, mgafni@KNESSET.GOV.IL, nzeev@knesset.gov.il, ithakl@knesset.gov.il,drotem@knesset.gov.il,zorlev@knesset.gov.il, nachum@nachumsegal.com, Emb-sec3@israelemb.org, ashariv@newyork.mfa.gov.il, info@philadelphia.mfa.gov.il,atlanta@israel.org, contactus@chicago.mfa.gov.il, consular.dep@houston.mfa.gov.il,info@miami.mfa.gov.il

Field trip to Har Eival 21 February, from Shavei Shomron. Helkat Sadeh Field School at Elon Moreh, 052-8119875 02-9973106
Private Car Convey to Sderot, Friday morning, 22 February from TA, Haifa, Jerusalem, Modiin, Raanana, Rishon Lezion and Yad Mordechai. Do all your shopping in Sderot. Call 0526493828 0508670982 0545664981 0544905357 0528967117

Call or email the Public Affairs Dept. of Agudath Yisroel of America and other rabbinical leaders (contact information below) and r e s p e c t f u l l y ask them to speak out!

* From Odelia Jacobs, E"Y activist: "I just finished speaking with Rav Kook, Chief Rabbi of Rechovot. Rav Kook told me that he met personally with Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shteinman and ... Rav Perlow and they all urged us to do our hishtadlus in tefila and actions on behalf of Eretz Yisrael. They mentioned that these are dangerous times, worse then pre-Holocaust!"

What has already been done: A crucial statement on behalf of Jerusalem in the Agudah convention in November: http://theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/12165/contact: "NOW, THEREFORE, the delegates to the 85th national convention of Agudath Israel of America hereby resolve that Agudath Israel of America, under the direction of its rabbinic leadership, should communicate to appropriate government officials the organization's strong belief that, for the reasons set forth above, Israel should not relinquish parts of Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty, and the American government should not pressure the Israeli government into doing so."

What still needs to be done: R e s p e c t f u l l y ask major rabbis to please end the Silence regarding Judea and Samaria and the establishment of a Terror State Chas Vechalilah right next-door to Jerusalem, Bnei Brak and Ben-Gurion airport.

Example letter (even better: write your own):


Dear Distinguished Rabbonim, Please consult urgently with Rav Steinman Shlita and Rav Eliyashi Shlita and other prominent Rabbanim and other Jewish leaders and organizations as to whether to publicly support Israel retaining Yehuda and the Shomron in addition to all of Jerusalem because;

(a) These are all integral parts of Eretz HaKodesh as explained in the very first Rashi in the Chumash and not "occupied" lands as our enemies contend

(b) Parshas Masei inter alia says that it is G-d Himself who delineates the Holy Land's boundaries which include Yehuda and the Shomron

(c) Abandoning Yehuda and Shomron, G-d forbid, would put the Jews in the remaining Israel in a real and present existential danger on a much larger scale than the Jews today in Sderot, Ashkelon, etc. who are faced with daily rocket attacks.

(d) This is not a "political" or "Zionist" matter. It is a matter of Israel's survival and, perhaps in turn, the survival of the Jewish people.

(e) What is at stake goes to the essence of retaining our connection as Am Hashem to Eretz Hakodesh, a holiness we witness and experience every day and even more so now during this Shmitta year.

Through your efforts now, Jewish lives and deaths being literally at stake, may Hashem bless your efforts with success to reverse the evil decree "in those days at this time" and to restore to the Jews in Israel and everywhere "Orah VeSimcha VeSasson Vicar".

BeChavod Rav, (YOUR NAME)

The relevant rabbis to contact r e s p e c t f u l l y in this connection are: * Rabbi Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Rabbi Avi Shafran, and Rabbi Gertzulin – Public Affairs Department, Agudath Yisroel 212-797-9000 * Rabbi Pesach Lerner at The Young Israel 212-929-1525 * Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb of the OU 212-563-4000 * Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, Chabad Headquarters 718 774.4000 / fax 718 774.2718 By email: plerner@youngisrael.org, dzwiebel@agudathisrael.org, shafran@agudathisrael.org, execthw@ou.org, hq@lubavitch.com
Please cc or bcc all correspondence to faigerayzel@aol.com

Shavei Shomon Field School Weekend: 11 – 12 April. 400 NIS/person (kids 180 NIS till age 15, 250 NIS over age 15. Call 9935133-02

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), February 21, 2008.

This was published in Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) Former Israeli Consul General to the US Yoram Ettinger revealed at the Jerusalem Conference Wednesday that Israel prevented a move that would have relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

"The US Senate was ready to do away with the waiver that allows the president to defer the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem," Ettinger said during a round-table discussion at the Jerusalem Conference. "There were over 80 senators – enough to override any [presidential] veto."

It was the Israeli government, Ettinger said, who intervened on behalf of leaving the Embassy in Tel Aviv. "The problem is that both houses of congress have been firmer on Jerusalem than any Israeli government since 1993."

Ettinger did not elaborate which Israeli government it was that told Congress to stand down.

History of the Act and Waiver

US Congress overwhelmingly approved the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act in 1995, mandating that the Embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 1999 and that the US recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Currently, all the nations with which Israel has diplomatic relations refuse to recognize Israel's Basic Law designating Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State.

Former US President Bill Clinton, who promised in both of his presidential campaigns to move the embassy, signed successive six-month security waivers, thus passing on the "hot potato" to his successor.

During the 2000 election campaign, US President George W. Bush pledged that if he was elected, he would "begin the process" of moving the embassy to Jerusalem on his "first day in office." He has not done so, however – invoking the waver for the 13th time on December 12, 2007.

After the failed Camp David talks in July 2000, Clinton suggested in an interview with Israeli television that he was considering moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. "I have always wanted to do it. I've always thought it was the right thing to do. But I didn't want to do anything to undermine the peace process ... But it's something that I have taken under review now because of the recent events," Clinton told the Israeli public. In reaction, Hizbullah terror chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah threatened the US that he would "turn your embassy into rubble and return your diplomats in coffins."

Ettinger: Defiance Sometimes Needed in US-Israel Relations

"[Israel's first prime minister, David] Ben Gurion defied the UN, the US and Europe by building on the Green Line in Jerusalem," Ettinger said. "[His successor] Levi Eshkol decided to build satellite neighborhoods, knowing full well that they included Arab neighborhoods within the future municipal boundaries."

The true demographic threat in Jerusalem is the freezing of Jewish building and the limitations placed on the natural growth of the capital by diplomatic initiatives, Ettinger explained. "[Eshkol] realized that unless you expand the border of Jerusalem, including Arab neighborhoods – you wont have the area required to allow Jerusalem to expand. Without building to the east, it is impossible to reverse the trend of Jewish emigration from the capital."

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), February 21, 2008.

What did I say since 1999 about Kossovo being NATO's general rehearsal for Israel? How many fell into the trap?

Now, after Yasser Abed Rabbo, i"s, said EXPLICITLY yesterday that Kossovo is the example to follow for the palestinians, is it becoming a bit clearer which side we, as Jews, should have been VERY VOCALLY on, not only in the name of historical truth and justice, but also in the name of self-preservation??...

This was written by Israel Harel and it appeared today in Haaretz

Kosovo's declaration of independence has sparked concern in certain circles in Israel. The day may not be far off when the Arabs of Galilee start clamoring for political independence, too. In recent years, many of them have been cutting themselves off, psychologically and physically, from the Jewish-democratic State of Israel.

The Muslims of Kosovo constitute an absolute majority of the population, and the same is true for the Galilee Arabs. Quite a few Jews have been leaving the Galilee, especially since October 2000, and not many are joining the sparse Jewish population there, despite an array of financial incentives. The events in Kosovo have triggered memories of the thousands who took part in the violence in Wadi Ara in 2000, blocking major traffic arteries and cutting off access to Jewish communal settlements in an outbreak of rioting that coincided with Yasser Arafat's war of terror.

Memories come rushing back on the use of live ammunition in some cases, and the operation of an underground and terror cells alongside the suicide bombers dispatched from Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

Demonstrations where the Palestinian flag is raised in protest – on the anniversary of Arafat's death, for example – have become commonplace on campuses in Israel, especially at the University of Haifa. In the Galilee and Haifa, Arab intellectuals and public figures have compiled documents known as "The Vision," in which they reject Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.

Before the Annapolis summit, delegates of all the Israeli Arab organizations convened in Nazareth and reached a unanimous decision to call upon Mahmoud Abbas not to cooperate with Ehud Olmert and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. A delegation of Arab Knesset members was sent to meet with the Palestinian negotiators to ensure that the message had sunk in. If the Arab citizens of Israel vehemently oppose recognizing Israel as the Jewish homeland, said MK Ahmed Tibi to Abu Ala (Ahmed Qurei), how can you, the representatives of the Palestinian people, even consider such a thing?

Israeli governments have resigned themselves to the blatant, unconcealed separatist actions of the Galilee Arabs, and this only perpetuates the phenomenon. Shimon Peres, who was appointed by several governments to oversee measures ultimately aimed at increasing the Jewish presence in the Galilee, talked a lot but did little. Political correctness, such as halting the campaign to "Judaize Galilee," was his guideline.

All the authorities, including those in charge of law enforcement, have resigned themselves to criminal acts ("juvenile delinquency," the police chief of the Northern District calls the phenomenon of stones thrown at Jewish vehicles, especially near Hamovil Junction), such as encroaching on state land and illegal construction that has reached the scope of tens of thousands of buildings.

Kosovo is already here, even without a formal declaration of independence. Looking at the government's mode of conduct in the periphery, and even its response to the Qassam rockets in the south, one realizes the futility of expecting it to wake up and fight against those who are challenging Israeli sovereignty in the Galilee.

The leaders of this separatist policy in the Israeli Arab community know very well that apathy and lack of self-confidence also characterize the approach of the agencies of the state – the police, the courts, the Israel Lands Administration, the tax authorities and the Ministry of the Interior - in their dealings with the Arab public. This only increases the motivation to gnaw further at Israeli authority and sovereignty.

Unlike the Kosovars in the Balkans, who are satisfied with their separatist province and do not claim ownership over all Serbian territory, the Arabs of the Galilee, and certainly the northern wing of the Islamic Movement, claim ownership – political and territorial – over all of Israel. The "salami method" pays off.

In the Negev, the Bedouins are taking over large stretches of land almost without hindrance, while Israel's do-nothing government responds by establishing committees to "sort out" the land issues. The most recent of them is the committee chaired by Judge Eliezer Goldberg, which is now convening.

This inertia will probably continue, with the Zionist state financing, via education, health, national insurance and other state monies transferred to citizens, a population that is de facto establishing a Palestinian state within the sovereign State of Israel – separate, of course, from the Palestinian state that the Arabs are pushing for in Judea and Samaria.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 21, 2008.
1. "Cool Hand Abu-Luke" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/2591

While the whole country, except for the Olmert government, is concerned about the daily rocket attacks on Sderot, I think we have all been overlooking the obvious solution.

The way to fix things occurred to me while watching a rerun of that Paul Newman film classic "Cool Hand Luke." After making "Exodus," Newman went on to assist the Jewish people when he made "Cool Hand Luke," about prisoners in chain gangs. They are chained to one another by the ankle, and do terrible manual labor, like building roads and moving earth by hand.

Now Sderot has become the Israeli version of Guernica, thanks to the Kadima unilateral capitulation, expulsion, and removal of Israeli control over the Gaza Strip. But the Olmert people do not care a fig because they do not have any friends or relatives who live there. After all, Sderot is nothing but a backward town of low-income blue-collar workers from Morocco, not the sorts with whom the Kadima people fraternize and sip brandy. We might dub this "Failure to Communicate," for those who have seen the movie. And even Amir Peretz, who was once mayor there, lost interest in Sderot when its people voted against him.

So here is my idea. Let's take all those jailed "Palestinian" terrorists and security prisoners, those Olmert considers having "blood on their paws" and those he does not, and create chain gangs like those in Cool Hand Luke, employing them around Sderot. Then whenever a Qassam is fired at Sderot, the townies can seek shelter and the chain gangs can stay out on the streets and go on working. We will see how long it takes for the Hamas to resolve Israel's dilemma of what to do with all those jailed terrorists! And if that does not work, we can also employ some chain gangs of leftist post-Zionist professors around Sderot!

Then Israel can solve the problems in Gaza once and for all by setting up large pumping stations to pump sea water into Gaza. Once the entire Gaza Strip is under two meters of sea water, I bet the Qassam firings will end!

And when the bleeding hearts complain, Israel can just blame the flooding on global warming!!

2. "Taking On The Israel Bashers"
Barbara Kay
National Post,
January 30, 2008

Both Judeophobes and Judeophiles agree that Jews are smart, but when it comes to thwarting anti-Semitism, Jews can be pretty dumb.

In 2004, Israeli Cabinet minister Natan Sharansky attempted to convene the heads of Israeli universities to devise counter-strategies to the then-temporarily subdued movement to boycott their scholars and campuses. Immured in their ivory towers, they were so oblivious to the gathering threat that it took Sharansky six months to facilitate the meeting, where they insouciantly dismissed his concerns: "When [the boycott movement] gets stronger again, we'll get organized."

By contrast, rabid enthusiasm always dominates the annual internationally co-ordinated Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW), the fourth of which unfolds on six Canadian university campuses Feb. 3-10.. More ominously, IAW 2008 will include the founding conference of "High Schoolers Against Israeli Apartheid."

Tonight, I am speaking to the Jewish community of London, Ont., about academic bias against Israel. I will have with me my review copy of Academics Against Israel and the Jews, for which Sharansky wrote the foreword, including my column's opening anecdote. Holding it aloft, I will declare, "Everything you need to know about global campus anti-Zionism and how – and how not – to fight it is contained in this book. If this Jewish community cares about Israel's survival, you will read it and act on it now."

A collection of essays by knowledgeable scholars and pro-Israel activists, Academics Against Israel and the Jews is an important new information resource, for it is the first comprehensive analysis of this subject extending beyond a single country.. The essays are sobering but reader-friendly, and written with a view to education, not retaliation. Amongst other fascinating facts, we discover in these pages why only one university in Spain (Navarre) is friendly to Israel; why United Kingdom academics are particularly boycott-obsessed; and why Jewish students in North America are far better placed to combat anti-Zionism than those in Europe.

In a particularly distressing probe by Palestinian Media Watch directors Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, we see scarifying evidence that revisionist history and open anti-Semitism of the vilest kind is common currency amongst "scholars" in Palestinian universities. If only shameless historical lies and routine classroom incitement to hatred were criteria for collegial shunning.the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a standard "text" for Palestinian students.rather than trumped-up charges of a non-existent "apartheid," Palestinian universities would be instant pariahs. Alas, thanks to our postmodern intellectuals' weakness for moral inversions, it seems even university-sanctioned incitement to literal genocide is no barrier to acceptance in the West's Islamophilic groves of academe.

Canada holds the dubious honour of providing material for two chapters: an overview of the Canadian campus scene in general, and a chapter on the ferment leading to the 2002 Concordia Netanyahu riot, an often-cited case study in appeasement and a primer in how not to deal with ideological scofflaws.

Manfred Gerstenfeld, the book's editor and chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a prolific, authoritative writer on the subjects of anti-Semitism and world Jewish communities. Gerstenfeld is also a canny activist. If the cumulative effect of so much of the book's bad news is demoralizing, Gerstenfeld's bullish emphasis on remedies, and abundant proofs that the smart activism of a few can be effective in pushing back, are re-moralizing..

Gerstenfeld's summary chapter is an education in itself. Here, an uninformed reader can assimilate the essentials: how to distinguish criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism; the nature and effectiveness of various present and past boycotts; contemporary Arab anti-Semitism and the recycling of old motifs; anti-Semites' contradictory images of the Jew; and Israel's plight as a paradigm for the West's future.

As universities are a feeder system into the elite cultural ranks of the general population, campus anti-Semitism is more than a threat to Jews alone. Widespread anti-Semitism is always a symbol of decline in a society.. Cultures in which anti-Semitism becomes the reigning ideology, like Nazi Germany and most Arab states since 1917, are by definition failed cultures.

At York University in 2003, a Jewish student told Sharansky, "For me as a Jew, the existence of Israel is a big problem. I want to be a normal person ... If Israel did not exist, I would feel much easier." If a Jewish student can't feel "normal" on a university campus because Israel "exists," is he not already studying in a failed culture?

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 at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 20, 2008.

Back to the second, and final, day of the Jerusalem Conference. And today I want to look at some very different aspects of the difficulties we face, beginning with what is called the new anti-Semitism and the specter of Durban II.

For those who do not remember, Durban I, held in 2001, was an international conference under UN auspices that was supposed to combat racism, but which morphed into an incredible anti-Semitic nightmare, setting the tone for much that followed such as boycotts against Israel.

Part of what happened in Durban is that NGOs, many ostensibly concerned with human rights but in reality virulently anti-Semitic, co-opted the conference with a vengeance.

Rabbi Abe Cooper, of the Wiesenthal Center, who was at Durban, described a scene in which all the NGOs had gathered to approve a document. One woman raised her hand and said, "Paragraph 11, clause 3, deals with anti-Semitism" (it was a very obvious statement that should have been automatically accepted, such as one disapproving attacks on synagogues). "I don't understand this," she continued. What does anti-Semitism have to do with racism?" And the representative of NGOs agreed and deleted the clause.

Coming up in 2009 will be Durban II. It's important now to examine the environment we're dealing with and to know how to handle what lies ahead.


Gerald Steinberg, who founded and directs NGO-monitor, out of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, spoke about the way in which many NGOs, under the guise of protecting human rights, have established positions designed to prevent us from defending ourselves. They level broad and sustained attacks on us, and they rely on big funds for the demonization of Israel. Many of you may be familiar with this approach – the speed with which "human rights" groups run to attack Israel for killing children in Gaza, for example, even before facts are known.

Steinberg's group several things. It monitors and exposes the bias of these groups. It communicates with donors who often have no clue what their funds were actually used for and withhold further donations once they learn. What is significant is that large amounts of EU money go to such groups; for the first time a report is about to be released that tracks precisely where the EU money goes. And it communicates with NGOs, eliciting information about their intended Durban II participation.

He is optimistic that progress is being made and that we've moved beyond where we were in 2001.


Prof. Robert S. Wistrich – Director, Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, Hebrew University – explained that anti-Semitism that was peripheral years ago has become mainstream today, in part because leftist students of a generation ago now hold positions of power.

But he addressed another problem as well – one that I will come back to: There is a Jewish/Israeli contribution because of anti-and post-Zionist arguments that are exported to the rest of the world. In certain quarters there is a lack of conviction as to why Israel exists and what it represents.


Anne Bayefsky, of the Hudson Institute, who founded Eye on the UN, spoke about the disinformation campaign, utilizing a UN platform, that followed Durban.

In an immoral inversion, Israel has been fashioned as the racist element in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The UN criticizes Israel twice as often as it criticizes Sudan. And it was someone associated with the UN who declared that there must be a "distinction between mindless terror and acts that are part of a liberation movement," concluding that Israel cannot expect a cessation of violence.

Bayefsky offered this very useful term: "humanitarian racists." Simply, it refers to groups that are ostensibly humanitarian, but hold only white people responsible for their actions. Colored peoples are only victims. (Starting to sound familiar?) But the refusal to hold colored peoples responsible for actions is racist at its core, for it relegates them to a lower moral level.


Charles Jacobs, who founded and directs The David Project in Boston, observed – right in line with Bayefsky's term – that what motivates human rights groups is the identity of the oppressor and not of the oppressed. People who are victims of non-Westerners are abandoned. Jacobs, who has done work on this issue, pointed out that in Mauritania and Sudan there are slaves owned by Arabs, but the world pays little attention. Just as the human rights groups are enraged about perceived Israeli mistreatment of people in Gaza, but pay scant attention to the human rights suffering in Sderot. Jacobs suggest we ally with others and go on the offensive.

Jacobs also offered this insight: There is a Muslim idea that the act of Jews ruling over themselves puts the world out of joint because Israelis (as Jews) are Dhimmi. (Dhimmi is a concept in Islamic law that relegates to certain non-Muslim groups, notably Christians and Jews, second class, subservient status.)

The goal of The David Project, I will add, is to populate campuses in American with students who are articulate and informed with regard to Israel.


The final participant on this panel was Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. I recently attended a very informative lecture by Dr. Gerstenfeld on anti-Semitism, its nature today and how to combat it, and would like to save his comments for another posting.


And so I will turn now to the subject of hasbara (alternately defined as information or propaganda). Journalist Caroline Glick, who chaired the forum discussing this subject, defined it thus: information dispensed in the public arena in order to advance the national interest.

What is necessary for hasbara, she says, is the national desire to advance in the public arena, a goal that is logical or rational, and an appropriate style.

I ask that you follow the ensuing discussion closely, as it is exceedingly important:

Glick maintains that Israel's hasbara has collapsed because we are saying that the solution to the situation we find ourselves in is two-states (i.e., the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside us). This puts the onus on us, and we have no way to explain ourselves.

What we have actually said is that we want to advance the interests of our enemy. This leads to a covering up of truth because the truth works against the declared two-state goal.

Caroline Glick is absolutely correct. Think about the bind in which we've put ourselves.


Others participating in this forum carried this theme further. Isi Liebler, who chairs the JCPA Diaspora-Israel relations committee, asked what went wrong. His assessment was that the change – which led to doubts about the justice of our cause – came most significantly with Oslo. Israel had declared herself ready to accept Arafat as a "peace partner" and so the obsession became one of promoting him as such.

This led to a refusal to defend ourselves. PM Yitzhak Rabin, at the start of the Oslo, told AIPAC to stop defending us. I've heard in other contexts stories about how Shimon Peres, as Foreign Minister, gave orders that nothing negative was to be said about Arafat.

We began defending "peace" instead of promoting the Israeli narrative.

What other nation, it was asked, minimizes the sins of its enemies?

It has gone so far that Olmert has essentially adopted the Palestinian narrative. And if you look back to what I wrote, with despair, about Livni yesterday, you see that she fits the same mold – so eager to pursue "peace" that she has lost the ability to stand up for who we are.


But Elyakim HaEtzni, lawyer and former MK, didn't accept that things fell apart with Oslo. For this doesn't explain how we got to Oslo.

His conclusion is that this is pathological, that we (as a nation) are sick. And this is something that I have suggested many a time. HaEtzni, citing other thinkers, offered a couple of reasons as to how we got this way. The first is that we were beaten down in galut (diaspora) and have internalized the hatred of our oppressors. I concur. We need more than 60 years on the land again to get past this, after 2000 years of being subservient to others around the globe. There is an eagerness to please that is a result of needing to please when we were powerless.

Another suggestion HaEtzni offered comes out of our religion, which leads us as Jews to be self-critical. The Temple was destroyed – our tradition didn't ask what did others do to us, it asks what we did to bring this upon ourselves.

Self-critique, to a point, is a moral virtue and a strength; it allows us to be responsible for ourselves rather than think like victims. But beyond a certain point it is decidedly unhealthy and counterproductive. There is the example of the Al Dura case (about which I wrote not long ago). Israeli soldiers were accused by devious plotting Palestinians of having shot the Al Dura boy during a gun battle. Before a serious analysis of the situation was done (which would have shown that, because of the angle of the shooting, etc. etc. we couldn't have done it), IDF officers were apologizing.

Yet another thought offered during this discussion was that our people to a considerable degree have lost touch with our religious traditions and who we are, which makes us unable to defend ourselves or share our narrative. Truth lies here, as well.


Last, British journalist Melanie Phillips addressed this issue from a British perspective. There is, she informed us, incredible venom against Israel in Britain today. There is, of course, Muslim influence, as well as a variety of other factors at play. But part of it, she explained, is ignorance. The British truly believe that Israel was created after the Holocaust so that European Jews (who had no previous connection to the land) could be brought, displacing Arabs who had been on the land since antiquity. This, of course, is the Arab narrative.

But the British don't receive the Israeli narrative.

She said people's jaws drop when she tells them about our ancient connection to this land, and the fact that no other people ever had a nation here, as well as about the legal foundations of the Mandate for Palestine, giving Jews a promise of a homeland well before the Holocaust. People just don't know.


And so, my concluding thought is this:

It's difficult not to be deeply pained and depressed by what is discussed here. But it seems to me that what matters is that we right matters however and wherever we can.

What we see is that there is Gerald Steinberg doing a great job with NGO-monitor, and Anne Bayefsky with Eye on the UN, and Manfred Gerstenfeld, who has a very effective blog on anti-Semitism, and Charles Jacobs doing The David Project, and Melanie Phillips in Britain. And Professor Richard Landes, also a conference participant, who took on the Al Dura case, and on and on. It's an effort we all need to join, each in his or her own way. This is essentially why I write these posts.

We're not all pathological, and some of us know our narrative and believe in who we are.

I turn to each of you reading this, if you care about Israel staying strong in this world: I suggest that each of you needs to be a messenger – informing yourselves and telling Israel's narrative wherever you can. Don't imagine that it doesn't matter. It does.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, February 20, 2008.
This was written by Father Raymond J. DeSouza, and it appeared yesterday in the National Post.

JERUSALEM -Here with an item from last week's news that you might not have heard about: Unidentified gunmen blew up the YMCA library in the Gaza Strip on Friday morning. While no one was hurt, two guards were temporarily kidnapped while the offices were looted, a vehicle stolen and all 8,000 books destroyed. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, although Fatah accused Hamas of being behind it. Hamas, for its part, strongly denied any responsibility and condemned the attack. Meanwhile, confidential sources in Gaza told the Jerusalem Post that the attack was in response to the reprinting of the Muhammad cartoons in Danish newspapers last week.

The supposed motivation for the attack, and the fact that it was not big news, illustrates the dire situation faced by many Christians living in the Palestinian territories.

There are only some 3,500 Christians, mostly Greek Orthodox, in Gaza. Over the past two years, al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have claimed responsibility for attacks against Christian figures and institutions with the stated goal of driving Christians out of Gaza.

If indeed the attack on the YMCA was motivated by the latest wave of violence in Denmark over the cartoon controversy, it shows how precarious the Christian position is. The Young Men's Christian Association in Gaza is open to Muslims and includes a school, sports club and community hall. It is not a centre of Christian proselytism. But if events in Denmark which have nothing to do with Christianity can produce anti-Christian violence in Gaza, then it is clear that there is nothing Christians can do to avoid such violence.

The problem is not their behaviour but, in the eyes of the violent Islamist jihadists, their very presence. They must simply live in hope that some faraway event does not inflame the anti-Christian wrath of their neighbours. Is it any wonder that Christians in such situations desire to emigrate? Could anyone judge harshly the few thousand Christians in Gaza if they were to leave entirely?

A second noteworthy dimension of the Gaza YMCA bombing is, well, how un-noteworthy it was. It was treated in the Israeli press as a sort of news brief. After all, there was the continuing story of the assassination in Damascus of Hezbollah's chief of terror operations, Imad Mughniyeh. And just hours after the YMCA attack, eight Palestinians in Gaza were killed in an explosion at the home of Ayman Fayad, a senior Islamic Jihad official. All Palestinian organizations blamed the Israeli Defence Forces for the blast; Israel denied any involvement.

So how can the destruction of a library, or the firebombing of a school, or the desecration of a church be reported against the daily toll of political violence elsewhere, to say nothing of the international stories? On the same weekend, the French foreign minister arrived for a visit, and a German newspaper reported that Israel was preparing to declare dead the two soldiers who were kidnapped in 2006, the incident which gave rise to the Second Lebanon War.

Even then, who would do the reporting? There is no free press in Gaza. Outside reporters, whether Israeli or foreign, cannot move about freely and pursue such stories. Foreign reporters in particular need extensive handlers, as they do not know the local language, the local geography or the local leaders. It is much easier to stay in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and rewrite press statements about the visit of the latest foreign dignitary.

Even if the reporters came, what would they be told? It is well known that Christian Palestinians who have been subject to firebombings, seizures of homes and businesses, assaults and death threats still tell foreign visitors that they have excellent relations with their Muslim neighbours. After the foreigners go home, these Christians must remain, and are loath to give any reason for jihadist extremists to think that they are stirring up trouble.

And so it goes – news trickles out about one outrage or another, but it gets lost if it gets noticed at all. Meanwhile, Christians in Gaza and the West Bank try to live quietly, never knowing whether a newspaper in Denmark or a papal speech in Germany or nothing in particular might be the pretext for violence coming to their doors.

It is an awful way to live. It is more awful still that so few know, or care about it.

Simon McIlwaine is with Anglican Friends of Israel (www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact him at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, February 20, 2008.

Harry Fisher was in the American Army when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. He served as a drill sergeant bringing the troops up to fighting skills and then he headed to Normandy where he participated in the liberation of France and then the liberation of the concentration camps. He lives today in Jerusalem. This is his story.

I was a sergeant in World War II. I landed at Normandy and fought the Nazis all the way up with General Patton's army up to and into Germany. I was there when we 'liberated' the concentration camps.

I learned from the greatest generals how to fight a war and how not. I saw the results of being hard and not giving in. We pushed through the mud and we pushed through the rain. We never stopped pushing.

Before we would come into a town that the Germans had been in, we would shell them, just to let them know that we weren't sissies. When we found some Germans, we hit them hard and did not stop firing until nothing moved. Patton was tough, he was there to win a war against a tough enemy who knew how to kill you and liked to ambush you.

Patton was clear. The enemy is afraid of our bullets. Don't put your head down in a ditch and wait for the fire to clear. The enemy loves that. They will find you with their mortar shells, so get up and shoot, shoot, and keep shooting.

Patton was tough. He said things that his superior officer General Bradley had to censor. But I was there. I heard him say "if some one has a gun and doesn't use it (meaning firing it) well, he is about as useless as the "------" on the pope."

He was not big on taking captives. He did not want any one standing Germans up against the wall and shooting them. Hell, he said, kill the bastards before you get them to a wall.

Patton's philosophy was simple. "Attack, attack and keep attacking." Never give your enemy a chance.

One time we came into a German village. They put out white flags to surrender. When our boys walked in and came close to the village buildings, they started shooting at them – an ambush. They retreated quickly. Patton gave the order to bring up the artillery and told them to level the whole damn village. Hell, he didn't care who was there, men, women or children. He leveled it and left it as a lesson to them if they were going to pull the same trick again what to expect.

Today Israel is being attacked daily from the Gaza strip. She ignores it and it only gets worse. I want to tell you that building thicker roofs for the people in S'derot is not the answer; the Arabs will only get bigger bombs. How thick can you make a roof to protect people? What happens if they walk outside? Will the Israeli government build them tunnels under the street so that they may crawl to the market and to their jobs?

I believe that the Israeli government is making a mistake in being so lenient with Hamas. It is hard to send men into a war knowing that some of them won't come back. But the more Israel waits, the worse the situation will get.

One time General Patton was talking to the men. He told us that one of his friends, General Scott, was a short, small man, but he said that he would be willing to get into a boxing ring with heavy weight champion Joe Louis if Louis would promise to be defensive. That was Patton's was of telling us that being defense is a sure way to loose.

Here is what I think that Israel can learn from this much decorated hero. Warn the Gaza government and the peoples in the cities from where the missiles are shot that if they do not stop the shelling, their city will be destroyed. Then when some one shoots a missile, shell that city relentlessly until every one in it has either moved out or is dead. Completely level it. It may take a week, it may take longer. Israel has the guns, let them use it. Probably the UN or the USA or one or two of the European countries will cry that we are beasts, but, who the hell cares. It is not their ass being shelled daily from Gaza. Everyone knows that – if one Arab country would shoot one missile at the US or other European country, they would be attacked ten fold in return. What are we, shooting targets because we are Jewish?

It pains me to see a good state like Israel that wants to treat everyone in a humanistic manner being taken advantage of by their own leaders who care more what is written in the New York Times than what happens in S'derot.

Isn't it time to begin to respect your own people who are suffering and stop giving support to the enemy? Only if we crush Hamas, will they begin to respect us. As long as we apologize for every 'innocent' civilian that get killed or injured, as long as we feed them and give them electricity to produce bombs, we are not being humanitarians. We are causing harm to our own people so that the goyim will think we are 'nice' people.

Who cares what they think? We must defend ourselves and the only way to do it is to be on the offensive. Remember, if you want to live in peace, you must be willing to fight for it, and fighting means just that.

Just remember, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. This is not a time to turn the other cheek, this is a time to turn their cheeks. And if the world yells and hollers, just say the hell with it, just keep on driving!

Contact the Ceders at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 20, 2008.

"When there is an agreement with a Palestinian government that is this weak, it signals to Hamas and to Iran that Israel is leaving and that Iran can fill the vacuum," he continued. "If we withdraw from Jerusalem, Hamas will go in. It will turn into a haven for global terror. If you want peace in Jerusalem, leave it united."

This was written by Sheera Claire Frenkel and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203343712771&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Olmert government is taking steps to divide the capital, opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday, and Shas must immediately leave the coalition to avoid contributing to the "destruction of Jerusalem."

"This weak government is actively preparing to give away Jerusalem," Netanyahu told the fifth annual Jerusalem Conference in the capital. "It is attempting to deny and whitewash the issue, but we know what is truly happening."

Netanyahu accused Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of duplicity, saying that despite claims to the contrary, core issues, including Jerusalem, were being discussed in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

"The prime minister said that we are not talking about Jerusalem, and that we are leaving it until last. But I say, if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, then they are carving up Jerusalem," Netanyahu said.

Officials in the Prime Minister's Office said the issue of Jerusalem was not raised during discussions between Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas this week.

Olmert has repeatedly said he did not plan to cede parts of the capital, and that the issue of Jerusalem would not be raised at this point in the negotiations.

The Palestinian leadership, however, has said that "all key issues," including Jerusalem, were currently on the table.

Shas says Jerusalem is a "red line" for them and that if a future division of the city is raised in talks with the Palestinians, its 12 MKs will leave the government.

While Netanyahu said he believed Shas's commitment to "guarding Jerusalem" was sincere, he questioned its continued participation in the coalition.

"Why are you still in the government? Why are you laying a red carpet for Olmert so that he can cede Jerusalem?" Netanyahu asked. "You say you are waiting for a signed document. But in the current situation, you will not be able to disavow yourself from what Olmert is doing.

"I repeat: Shas, what are you doing there? Get out of the government and save Jerusalem."

Negotiations focusing on a divided Jerusalem must be halted, as such a move would only create a vacuum that would be filled by Hamas and Iran, Netanyahu said.

The Likud chairman pointed to past Israeli withdrawals to demonstrate the dangers posed by a divided Jerusalem.

"Two of our withdrawals brought Hizbullah and Hamas to positions of power - the withdrawal from Lebanon [in 2000] strengthened Hizbullah, and the withdrawal from Gaza [in 2005] strengthened Hamas," Netanyahu said.

"When there is an agreement with a Palestinian government that is this weak, it signals to Hamas and to Iran that Israel is leaving and that Iran can fill the vacuum," he continued. "If we withdraw from Jerusalem, Hamas will go in. It will turn into a haven for global terror. If you want peace in Jerusalem, leave it united."

Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 20, 2008.
This comes from the Sultan Knish website
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/02/ 5-lies-about-israel-fatah-hamas-and.html.

Lie #1: Fatah and Abbas represent a moderate Palestinian faction we must negotiate with while Hamas represent an extreme faction we must alienate.

Since Hamas came to power, the vast majority of terrorist attacks on Israelis have come from Fatah. The last several terrorist attacks including the twin suicide bombing in a cafe in Dimona was carried out by Fatah. Hamas has been shelling Israel from Gaza, but it is Fatah which has been waging a terrorist campaign inside Israel.

Hamas has been concentrating on Egypt meanwhile because it is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood which hopes to come to power in Egypt. That is why America views Hamas as dangerous and extremist, because it represent a regional threat to America's Arab allies, while Fatah is considered to be a threat only to Israel. That is why America has taken a hard line against Hamas but continuously forces Israel to negotiate with Fatah. Hamas is viewed as regional Islamic while Fatah as nationalistic Palestinian, when Israel is told that Fatah must be propped up against Hamas, this is not in Israel's interests, it is in Mubarak's interests.

As far as Israel is concerned, the only substantial difference between Fatah and Hamas is that Fatah is willing to engage in blackmail at the negotiating table while Hamas has no interest in playing the negotiating game at this stage.

Lie #2: Only negotiations can bring peace, even in conflict, negotiations are the best path to bring about an end to the hostilities.

Peace negotiations only work when both sides are prepared to end the fighting because they recognize that it isn't working. But the fighting is working for the Palestinian Arabs and has been since Day 1. The refusal to understand this is at the root of every single lie told about the fraudulent peace process. Terrorism has been the only negotiating tool the Fatah side has ever used and it is the only one that they ever put on the table. There is no reason for them to give up terrorism because it is their best card and it keeps working and they have never been continually penalized for playing it.

Peace works when two weary adversaries decide to give it a rest in their own best interest. But contrary to the media portrayal, this is a struggle between one weary adversary and one deluded and vicious adversary. That is why the negotiations continue to go nowhere. The Palestinian Arab side has never concluded that it is in its own interest to stop the violence. That is why the violence continues, often cloaked by completely implausible denials and self-victimization. The peace process has always led nowhere because Israeli demands for an end to the violence as a precursor to negotiations have been discarded even by Presidents like Bush who once gave lip service to them.

You cannot bring an end to the violence when one part has nothing to lose and plenty to gain by continuing the violence. For 15 years it hasn't worked and it never will work.

Lie #3. A negotiated settlement is possible if we work hard enough to achieve one based on territorial concessions

A negotiated settlement in a zero sum game simply isn't possible. Since 1948 the struggle between Israel and the Arabs has been a zero sum game with the Arab side set on the destruction of Israel. Despite that fact Israel has made repeated territorial concessions, even though Israel's own territory is the smallest piece carved out of the territory of the Palestine Mandate that had been set aside after WW1 for the creation of Israel.

Despite numerical superiority and vaster land and populations and a record of starting wars with Israel, at no point in time has any Arab state ever ceded land to Israel. By contrast Israel has ceded land to Egypt and Jordan, proposed to cede land to Syria and it has ceded a sizable portion of the land within its territorial borders to the terrorists who had been attacking it and it has proposed to cede even more land to them, including portions of its capital.

To gain peace Israel has ceded land equivalent to 3 times its own current size (not counting the Palestine Mandate which was 6 times Israel's current size.) And the Arab world demands that Israel continue giving up land even though over 7 million Israelis live on a piece of land smaller than New Hampshire with a population density that is the 37th largest in the world, barely behind Japan at 32nd, Rwanda at 37th and denser than Haiti at 42nd. When eliminating islands, city states and principalities from the list, Israel actually has the 10th highest population density in the world behind India, Japan and Rwanda.

Twice Israel has expelled its own populations in acts of self-ethnic cleansing virtually unparalleled in history. These precarious withdrawals have put more of Israel's own population on the firing line than ever resulting in Hizbullah and Hamas shelling Israeli towns from Lebanon and Gaza. Rather than bringing peace, these withdrawals have only made the situation more dangerous and unstable and Israel is running out of land to give up. Israel can only carve itself up for so long before nothing is left.

Bush has made it clear that the return of refugees, the classic Arab demand, is now on the agenda, which means forcibly creating an Arab majority in Israel, the ultimate conclusion of the zero sum game.

Lie #4 – A solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict will stabilize the rest of the Middle East

The middle east is a stew of tribal, ethnic, political and religious conflicts, the vast majority of which do not involve Israel. Israel represent an infinitesimal portion of the region in both land and population and has virtually no political influence in the Middle East.

Sunnis are not about to embrace Shias, Islamists will not embrace secularists, tribes will not cease their blood feuds, dictators will not become democrats, Muslims will not learn to tolerate Christians, countries will not cease squabbling over their borders regardless of what happens in Israel. The Middle East has only been unstable when it has been ruled by a strong leader or strong leaders.

Israel does not cause the Middle East's instabilities, they predate the modern State of Israel by many centuries. The inherent cause of domestic instability is a lack of strong central governments that can control the instability within their own borders and the cause of regional instability comes from strong central governments with an eye on their neighbor's territory. This paradox makes the Middle East along with much of the world, inherently unstable. Browbeating Israel will not change human nature of move the Middle East ahead in time by three centuries.

Lie #5 – America's support for Israel has caused resentment and terrorism toward America which Israel is obligated to address

America's role as a superpower is what causes resentment toward America, of which its support for Israel is only a subset. America did not fight Saddam for Israel but for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Israel only got the blame for for a war that began when Saddam invaded a bunch of Sheiks with ties to the Bush Administration. At no point in time has America ever fought a war in defense of Israel. It has however fought two major wars in defense of Arabs and American soldiers continue dying every week to keep Iraqis safe.

Israel cannot make Arabs and Muslims like America, especially when even America can't make them like America. Europe, which is generally hostile toward Israel, is suffering from a terrorist epidemic greater than that suffered by the United States. Dozens of countries are facing serious Muslim terrorist problems, some of which don't even have diplomatic ties to Israel.

Arab hostility toward America is multifold and would exist even if America had never developed close ties with Israel. Indeed the reality is that America had developed close ties to Israel because it was unable to develop close ties with any major Arab country. Arab government after government that the US has tried to befriend has either been overthrown or like the Saudis have continually stabbed America in the back. None of this is Israel's fault and the diplomatic frustration that is being directed at Israel will not fix the problem until the US takes a long hard look at the Middle East and the Arab nations it is trying to befriend.

As a Non-Muslim superpower unwilling to simply hand out weapons with no questions asked, the way Russia does, the US will never be popular in the Middle East. But Russia's popularity nor even its hostility to Israel has not kept its citizens and cities from being blown up by Muslim terrorists either. It would seem that being popular still won't keep the terrorist wolf away from your door .

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, February 20, 2008.

Someone important finally saying what needed to be said about out leftist controlled country, which I have been referring to as inmates. This place we call our country is run by not just incompetents, but lunatics, and madmen, and women, who would be better off in their padded cells.

Everyday something hard fought for in the past, is given away, constantly sending the wrong message to enemies who've stated their aim to destroy us. This process, labeled PEACE, is a mockery of the word, and doesn't do anyone, except out enemies, any good. It's been going on for over a decade, and must be stopped, before it's too late.....

This was written by Avi Tuchmayer and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). It is archived at

(IsraelNN.com) Israel has emerged in recent years as a world leader in a variety of industries, from technology to outsourcing to homeland security and more. But one US-based investor told the Jerusalem Conference Tuesday the country's economic success has come despite an alarming level of governance.

"Israel boasts many advantages for foreign investors," said Ken Abramowitz, Managing Partner and co-founder of NGN Capital, "including terrific universities, a wealth of experienced managers, quality engineers and scientists, well-trained physicians and more. But I have never seen a lower caliber of government than you have in this country. Your foreign ministry is staffed with low quality people and a low quality leader (Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni). The Supreme Court is a collection of far-left activists who then appoint more far-left activists to join them on the bench. It feels like all the smart people in the country have started their own companies, and the rest have been left to run the country."

In spite of government hindrances, Abramowitz praised Israel for what some have called a "vibrant business climate" and said the country is one of the top three countries in the world for new pharmaceutical companies, start-ups that successfully list on international stock exchanges, and added that Israel boasts one of the world's highest ratios of start-up investment per capita. He also told the packed audience his firm plans to raise $350 million by the end of 2008, and that the fund plans to raise its investment in Israel from two percent to ten percent, in a range of start-up companies that will include medical firms and more.

While heaping praise on Israel, Abramowitz cautioned that too much venture capital money comes from abroad, and he encouraged wealthy Israelis and pension funds to do more to cement the local economy. In addition, he said there are too few local giants ready to purchase start-up companies for what he called "big money."

He also called for Israel to push annual growth rates from five to ten percent, saying the additional cash would help prevent exorbitant gaps between rich and poor, and would ensure appropriate funding levels for social and military programs.

United Jerusalem

Jerusalem's role as the undisputed capital of Israel and the Jewish people also played a role in the session. A majority of Israelis and Jews around the world may oppose the re-division of Jerusalem, but Session Chairman Harvey Werblowsky, cautioned that economic development in the capital is the surest way to ensure the city remains united under Israeli sovereignty.

"It's simple, really: The stronger Jerusalem is as an economic center, the harder it would be to divide the city," he said.

Werblowsky also said foreign businesspeople such as IDT chief Howard Jonas have looked to remove economic barriers for Americans who want to make aliyah while at the same time securing top-notch employees for a global market. He said the trend would continue in Jerusalem and the rest of the country, and that the technology and outsourcing sectors have made Israel a major force in the global economy.

Hareidi Women: Driving Employment and Growth

A major focus of the session concentrated on developments in the hareidi-religious community. Eli Kazhdan, CEO of Citibook Services, said his company has built outsourcing plants in hareidi-religious towns such as Modi'in Ilite (Kiryat Sefer) and Beitar Ilite, providing hundreds of jobs for observant women in an atmosphere that conforms to hareidi-religious sensibilities and expectations.

"We've got separate seating for men and women, work hours that are compatible for women with large families, and other conditions that make it comfortable for religious women to work for us," he said.

Since Citibook began operating in Kiryat Sefer in 2003, Kazhdan said there has been a quiet revolution in hareidi-religious circles: Whereas there were virtually no businesses in the town in 2003, nine companies now operate there, employing representatives from approximately 900 families.

Kazhdan credited important developments in Israel for the change – reduced child welfare benefits by the National Insurance Institute, and the quiet but definite trend for leading rabbis to suggest married women start to work to support their often large families. He said there are several reasons that outsourcing to religious communities is a winning proposition for foreign companies.

"We cannot and don't want to compete with India," he said. "Even if we wanted to, we could never match them in price. But Israel offers many things that India doesn't – American, mother-tongue English, fine cultural points, superior industry proficiency in a range of sectors.

"In addition, cultural norms in the religious community are uniquely suited to business success. The work ethic for a hareidi-religious woman is so strong that we also people ask us to dock their pay because they stepped out of the office to make a personal phone call. These are not women who are popping out of the office every half-hour to talk on the phone or have a smoke. They take the issue of gezel zman – time theft – very seriously and you can be sure they are working hard from the minute they sit down until the minute they leave," he said.

Kazhdan predicts the hareidi-religious sector will emerge as a major player in Israel's economy, and will become an integral part of the country's work force. It is a long process, he said, but one that will not reverse now that it has started.

"Look, the global outsourcing market is a $300 billion market," he said. "We've got highly educated, highly motivated people who want to support their families and have the skills to do it. It's what I'd call a win-win situation."

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Warren Manison, February 20, 2008.

Still more sad appeasement by Israel.

This is by Michael Freund and it appeared in Israel Insider.

Another day, another affront. For all the talk of peace and reconciliation, the Palestinians seem to be keeping themselves quite busy these days by finding ways to undercut, undermine, and even insult Israel and its sovereignty.

On Monday, Israel Radio reported that Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority has chosen to defy the law, which bars it from operating in Jerusalem, by reopening the Orient House.

The century-old structure, which a decade ago came to embody our neighbors' attempts to gain a political foothold in Israel's capital, was closed down by the police in 2001 after it had become a hotbed of illicit Palestinian activity.

But now the Orient House is apparently playing host once again to official Palestinian functions, such as diplomatic meetings. As its Web site states, "the Orient House aspires to develop Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of the emerging Palestinian state."

This is nothing less than a clear Palestinian slap in the face to the Israeli government, which only recently reaffirmed the ban on PA activity in Jerusalem, something to which the Palestinians themselves had agreed in the Oslo Accords.

More importantly, though, it is a slap in the face to the people of Israel, the overwhelming majority of whom cherish Jerusalem and are against re-dividing the Holy City.

And that is precisely why the Palestinians are doing it. They understand the power that symbols have to influence, shape and yes, even to alter reality.

Indeed, for years our foes have been methodically focusing on Israel's icons, doing their utmost to tear them down – both literally and figuratively – as a means of advancing their agenda.

Take, for example, Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus), the resting place of the Biblical figure revered in Jewish tradition as "Yosef HaTzaddik," or "Joseph the righteous."

It was nearly eight and a half years ago that a Palestinian mob seized control over the tomb, ransacking the Jewish holy site and setting it ablaze. Despite repeated promises to restore it over the years, the Palestinians wantonly desecrated it at will, dumping garbage on its grounds and periodically setting it on fire.

Last month, dozens of Knesset members from a broad range of parties wrote a joint letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert demanding that Joseph's Tomb be repaired. "The tombstone is completely shattered, and the holy site is desecrated in an appalling manner, the likes of which we have not seen in Israel or anywhere else in the world," they wrote.

The premier duly conveyed the request to the Palestinians earlier this month, and their response was not long in coming: last week, they reportedly vandalized the tomb and set fire to it again.

This kind of outrage can not be allowed to pass quietly. It would be a grave error for Israel to ignore the Palestinians' wanton attempts to assault the national symbols and collective heritage of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

And yet that is what our leaders seem only too happy to do. Time after time, they choose to ignore the Palestinian onslaught, which of course only invites still further abuse. Thus, the government has largely stood by and watched as the Palestinian-controlled Muslim Wakf digs up the Temple Mount in broad daylight and destroys priceless Jewish religious and archaeological relics.

There are other examples as well. Two months ago, Palestinians desecrated the tombs of the Biblical Joshua, his father Nun, and Caleb ben Yefuneh, all of which are located in the Samarian village of Kifel Haress, near Ariel.

The gravesites, which Jewish pilgrims have visited for centuries, were reportedly smeared with animal and human feces and covered with garbage. The vandals also painted Nazi symbols and anti-Semitic slogans on the holy sites.

Yet this disgraceful act was also allowed to pass unanswered.

It is time for Israel to stop looking the other way whenever the Palestinians assail everything we hold dear. If it is a war of symbols they want, then Israel should not hesitate to respond. A good place to start would be to tear down the Orient House in Jerusalem, raze the site, and close it once and for all.

Similarly, the Muslim Wakf must be held accountable for the damage that it causes to the Temple Mount, site of the ancient Jewish temple. If the Wakf is unwilling to cooperate, their authority can and should be taken away.

We simply can not afford to allow the Palestinians to continue to spit in our faces, and then call it rain.

Our foes understand well the importance of symbols. They realize that despite their name, symbols are not merely symbolic, but have substantive value too.

The question is, when will we?

Contact Warren Manison at wmani@juno.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, February 20, 2008.

Who owns the Palestine Card?

In the course of Hizballah's threats against Israel, following the assassination of that group's international terrorism director, Imad Mugniyah, there was an extremely important point that speaks to the Middle East's future.

The statement came from General Muhammad Ali Jafari, head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards, the Tehran regime's main military force (and future guardians of Iran's nuclear weapons). He predicted, "In the near future, we will witness the destruction of Israel, the aggressor, this cancerous microbe Israel."

But that's not the important part. What's interesting is who will do the destroying. According to Jafari, Israel will be wiped off the map by...Hizballah.[1]

One could just take that as bluster and propaganda. Yet, wait a minute; it reveals a major shift from what has been true for the last 60 years or more.

Jafari, and other Iranians, don't want to say that Iran itself is going to do the wiping out. After all, such hints in the past strengthened international resolve against Iran getting the nuclear weapons that it might use to destroy Israel. Such a posture also justifies an Israeli attack on Iran, since that country is openly threatening genocide against it.

In effect, though, Jafari is erasing all the historical actors in the conflict: Arab states, Arab nationalist groups, Sunni Muslims, and – most remarkably of all – the Palestinians.

The battle is being waged by the heroes of today and the victors of tomorrow – Shia Muslims, and Lebanese ones at that. It is not even a Muslim-Jewish battle (which is in general the Islamist line), because the great majority of Muslims are also not included.

Of course, Hizballah has always maintained that it would fight and defeat Israel, though it was mainly interested in retaking the south of Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s. But to talk about Hizballah, and only Hizballah, as fighting and defeating Israel is a whole new theory of the conflict.

Weren't the Palestinians supposed to be the vanguard? Isn't this battle supposedly being waged on behalf of them?

Now, however it is a Shia cause – not an Arab or Muslim one – to be used to promote Iranian hegemony in the region. The Arabs are left out, the Sunni are left out, and the Palestinians are left out.

It is possible for Sunni and Shia to cooperate – the best examples are the Syrian regime's popularity with its Sunni majority, and Hamas being a client of Iran – but this is not easy. More often they are in competition, even shedding each other's blood, their forces split.

Consider a point that everyone always ignores: there is not and has never been any Hamas organization among Palestinians in Lebanon. Why? Because the Iranians, Syrians, and Hizballah didn't allow anyone to function except their own puppet groups. Syria supports Hamas but that is not their real favourite client.

Of course the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, Iraqis, and 10 other Arab states – at least as of now – are not directly involved in fighting the conflict. They have dropped out in an active sense, whatever propaganda they make on the issue. But how do the Egyptian Muslim Brothers and Fatah (or even Hamas) feel about this new definition in which they are not important?

This is, of course, an Iranian and Shia chauvinist ploy (which includes Syria which has a Sunni majority but a regime which claims to be Shia and is Iran's ally): we now own the Palestinian card.

If, however, the Palestinian card is used as a partisan tool by Tehran, why should Sunnis and Arab states support its efforts? If a minority in Lebanon wants to use the conflict to support its own ambitions – and links with foreign powers – why should the Lebanese majority consent to suffer and die by making their country a battlefield?

And why should the West think that the issue is about the Palestinians when it is increasingly obvious – though this has always been true – that it is about power struggles for control of the region.

This next essay is a follow-up on "Who Owns the Palestine Card." It is called "The War Of Muslims Against Muslims; Arabs Against Arabs". It is archived at

The previous essay discussed a high-ranking Iranian official who claims the battle against Israel as a Shia and non-Palestinian monopoly. Now comes a Hamas statement which also indicates the deep divisions among Muslims and Arabs. At the same time, in contrast to the bragging (or is it whistling in the dark?) of Iran and Hizballah, it shows the high sense of despair among radical forces.

The statement came from Fathi Hamad, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and spokesman, on the Hamas television station, al-Aqsa, in late January but is still very timely.[2]

On one level, this speech is all heated rhetoric but it contains some very important points.

He complains that while martyrs are sacrificing themselves "in defense of the honor of the Arab and Islamic nation, and in defense of the holy places," that most Arabs and Muslims do nothing to help. Hamad attempts to appeal to them by claiming that they must destroy Israel in self-defense – he knows that appeals to help the Palestinians in their own right have no effect – since Israel supposedly wants to conquer them also. "The Jews want to invade Egypt and Iraq, to destroy Saudi Arabia...." Hamad knows, of course, that far from a romanticized view of Arab or Muslim solidarity that the Egyptians have been blockading the Gaza Strip, Iraqis are busy killing each other, and Saudis are focusing on making money and fighting the Shia Muslims (including Hamas's ally, Iran).[3] Clearly, they are not going to be persuaded to go to war because they fear an imminent Israeli invasion of their own territory.

And so Hamad – like Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his key speeches – simply accuses Arabs and Muslims of being wimps. Bashar's claim to machismo on this subject is undercut by his carefully avoiding any attacks on Israel from his own territory. He lets Lebanon pay the price for his clients' cross-border raids.

Hamad simply loses it:

"Where is your valor? Stop being such cowards. The time has come for you to awaken from this deep slumber. The time has come for your honor, dignity, and valor to awaken. Where are you, Muslims?...As a sign of your love for Allah and the Prophet, you should sweep away the borders, which were created by imperialism. We are in need of weapons, we are in need of food, we are in need of moral support, as well as support by the media, economic support, medical aid, and support in weapons."

Note that his request for aid has brought no response. The Arab states are not interested in helping Hamas because they recognize it as part of a radical Islamist threat to them. And they are not very much interested in confronting America or fighting Israel either.

Of special interest, though, is his reference to sweeping away borders. Far from being Palestinian nationalist, Hamas is pan-Islamist. Calling on Arabs to abandon being Egyptians, Iraqis, or Saudis is not only going to fail in 2008, it also makes the existing regimes (always with the exception of Syria) even more antagonistic toward Hamas. Note also that since Hamas is against the existence of states it isn't going to make peace in exchange for a Palestinian state. Think about it: anyone who is a good Muslim must destroy all the existing states. Not a great incentive for Arab governments to help Hamas.

Then comes the key line:

"Oh Arabs, who number 300 million, you cannot allow yourselves to be ruled by four million brothers of apes and pigs.... Where are you, oh Muslims, who number one and a half billion, yet you are ruled by four million brothers of apes and pigs?"

Why he chose the number four million is not clear, presumably to indicate a ruling elite of about one percent of the total. At any rate, a brother of an ape or pig – terms often applied to Jews by Islamists – has to be himself an ape or pig. Like other radical Islamists, both Hamad and Hamas are ready to strip others of their right to call themselves Muslims. This is against traditional Islamic practice but quite common among Islamists.

Yet it isn't very good tactics to admit that very few Muslims and Arabs are supporting you and then say that this means they are not Muslims at all. If you define people as enemies unnecessarily they will view you as an enemy.

And that is the point, for Hamas, all non-Islamists are evil and, there is a strong implication here, deserve to be killed. Hamas is not only at war with Israel but it – along with Hizballah, Iran, and Syria – are at war with pretty much all the other Muslims and Arabs. Iraq, where insurgents daily murder other Muslims and Arabs, is the clearest example of this situation. Algeria's civil war and Hizballah's tactics in Lebanon might also be cited as similar cases.

Hamad continues with Hamas's – here far more traditional – view of gender issues: "You stand there like women and do not lift a finger."

A lot of this kind of rhetoric is somewhat reminiscent of PLO efforts to get the Arab states into war with Israel. One result of this strategy was the PLO's defeat and expulsion by Jordan, which refused to be drawn into this game, in 1970. Another was the Arab states' 1973 defeat. They have learned some things since then.

Finally, he concludes, addressing the Arab regimes:

"Your armies, tanks, and planes have become rusty."

Not rusty at all. They are being kept in good shape for use against your friends and counterparts in Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and other places. Be careful who you call "apes," they might just bite your guerrillas.

End Notes

[1.]   From an AFP dispatch, cited on:
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/ A926D230F60830BBC22573F300354766?OpenDocument

[2.]  MEMRI TV, #1688, January 22, 2008, http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1688.htm. In a similar statement, Ahmad Yusouf, a key Hamas official, claimed Arab intelligence organizations were providing intelligence information to enemies in order to help assassinate Hamas leaders.

[3]  On February 19, Al-Horeya, a Saudi liberal website, compared the situation of Arabs under Israeli government and those in the West Bank and Gaza. It argued that Arabs are better off under the Israelis,

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press, August 2007). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, February 20, 2008.

This was written by Dr. Udi Lebel, senior lecturer in political psychology in the Sapir Academic College and the University Center in Ariel.

This article was distributed by the Academia Monitor organization, a watch group exposing anti-Jewish academics. It was translated from an article, published in

I can calm Mr. Hassan. The Israeli academia is not persecuting you. On the contrary, I predict for you very good days of respect and appreciation. I have no doubt that your name is already mentioned in this forum or the next as a candidate for heading a human rights center, even the flight tickets for prominent conferences in Pisa, London, and Brussels are already being issued.

I envy Nizar Hassan, the filmmaker, who teaches at the Sapir Academic College. He won a name for himself; apparently, with the organized provocation he planned and executed. I am really jealous. I do not know him, but I know very well the college I teach in as a senior lecturer. As such, I can decisively determine: No, it is not possible that the lecturer was carried away by a sudden and uncontrollable emotional act when he threw out from the classroom a student in uniform. Students in uniforms are not a rare sight in Israel. On the contrary, it is rare not to run into them. So it is in Sapir College.

A lecturer who wishes not to run into students in minimal clothing should not offer his teaching services to a secular institution. A lecturer that himself insists avoiding modest dress and the requisite to wear a yarmulke will not send his resume to the admission committees of a religious college, and a lecturer who cannot stand teaching students wearing uniforms – should avoid teaching in Israel. What can be done?

In Israeli society, the army is the people and the people are the army. This did not occur suddenly, certainly not in the morning of Nizar Hassan's lecture. This is how it has always been. In Israeli institutions, the students wear uniforms. Some, because they arrived during reserve service. Others, because they are themselves professional soldiers or armed forces personnel. That is how it is in Israel, as well as in Sapir College, since many of its students belong to special courses for army and police officers.

Mr. Hassan was not surprised. Sapir College is not a pacifist or a Swiss or a Dutch institution, where the uniformed are indeed rare. Sapir is an Israeli institution, and its president is a senior reserve officer. As in Sapir – so it is in the rest of the Israeli higher education institutions.

If the lecturer chose to send his resume and seek employment in Sapir College, and even resolutely avoided from apologizing and putting the embarrassing incident behind him – the question is asked: what did he aim for? The rational person aims, in most cases, to improve his condition and not deteriorate it. But here, this lecturer insists on pretending to be "surprised" by being exposed to fatigue dress among his students. He is also refusing to back down from his stance, even leading to his own removal from the institution that he wished to join in the first place. The answer to this question points to a grim Israeli reality. As far as I can prophesize, it is clear that Nizar Hassan, in a provocation he bothered to produce – won a name for himself. I have no doubt that, faster than we can imagine, he will receive a prize from some European academic association for equality, a chair in an American faculty for human rights, an appointment in an international foundation for civil rights, and tributes and grants from a variety of post-Zionist foundations engaged in the study of the Zionist militarism and all its shades. I am truly jealous.

I wish for the day when routine Zionist expressions gain attention, demonstrations of support, and assured careers among patriotic circles. But in a period when the academic fashion is the mobilization of faculty members to initiate a variety of mitigations for the dissenters of the Left who sat in military prison (as happened during the Al-Aqsa Intifada) and the invitation of reserve pilots who refused to serve in the "army of selective assassinations" (as happened in Ben-Gurion University), it is clear that the academic bon ton dictates a different line. This line teaches you that your chances as a lecturer and a researcher to gain publicity, sympathy, invitations for conferences, and accessibility to prestigious stages, will increase if you make an effort to demonstrate an anti-Zionist line – all the more if you show the international academic community that you, the pacifist, are being persecuted by the militaristic Israeli academia.

I can calm Mr. Hassan. The Israeli academia is not persecuting you. On the contrary, I predict for you very good days of respect and appreciation. I have no doubt that your name is already mentioned in this forum or the next as a candidate for heading a human rights center, even the flight tickets for prominent conferences in Pisa, London, and Brussels are already being issued. There, you can get a reinforcing hug for your courage in promoting the values of world peace in front of the Zionist-belligerent occupier.

You yourself intentionally concocted this provocation. Sapir is a campus steeped in multiculturalism. Total secularists, alongside yarmulke wearers. Jews and Arabs. The uniformed alongside the veiled. This is well known, and he who fears it does not seek employment there to begin with.

The college did well in its moderate and sober reaction, teaching its students that a student is not examined here according to his dress. You did well, for yourself, when you insisted on inflaming the crisis and ensuring a brighter future than academic anonymity for yourself. Who heard about you before this? What is left for me, as a Zionist-patriot, is only to feel sorrow and envy.

One last word for you – the students of Sapir. Here is a testimony for the multicultural "state of all its citizens", destined to replace the Jewish one. Signs of the Israeli-national sovereignty, such as IDF uniforms, will be then asked, with due respect, to leave the classroom.

Contact Israel Academia Monitor at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, February 19, 2008.

Recently, I forced myself to attend a debate called "The Israeli-Palestinian Debate," which is the continuing diatribe of a former Israeli now based in Los Angeles, Josef Avesar. When I said 'forced,' it's because I knew I would return home with my blood pressure substantially elevated after another one of Mr. Avesar's events. These are usually composed of group of individuals of various backgrounds meeting to ''discuss how creating a confederation through private election is the way-to-go to achieve elusive peace in the Middle East.

Their premise requires a set number of delegates representing the population of the entire area of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, to be elected from the district in which he or she resides. Of course, it also presumes that the electorates are rational citizens of a democratic nation.

I knew that those who usually attend these meeting are the very same leftists who will continue to advocate for democratic socialism up to the point where they are marched into the ovens or be-headed. They don't have a clue as to what is happening in the real world. I didn't plan to subject myself to the aggravation. That was until I read that one of the panelists was Michael Dukakis. This is the man who might have been elected president in 1988. Recently he said that he not only believed in a two state solution to secure peace in the M.E. but that he also felt that the way to keep these two states apart was to build a high-way between them. He obviously learned xx this during his one trip to Israel.

I almost bit my knuckles while hearing the very liberal Rabbi and "activist" Neil Comess-Daniels discuss his feelings regarding the "Palestinian government." I wondered which one was that? Did he believe the government to be Hamas or the other terrorist group, Fatah, they seem to covet so much as friends? What rabbinical seminary teaches that the security wall, which, to this date has saved so many Jewish lives by preventing the savages from sneaking into Israel and bombing Jewish schools, hotels and restaurants, be referred to as a "Wall of Shame?" How many jails will have to be opened and murderers released to keep this kind of mentality happy?

I truly believe that the moderator and sponser of these debates, Josef Avesar, to be a good person although, his naivety, in my opinion, is completely Don Quixotal. Maybe he ought to take a trip back to his homeland to see how good Palestinians "want to drive every last Jew into the sea". Those are the people he is trying to secure a homeland for by carving territory out of Israel.

We, as a nation, are in a trance. Everyone seems to be caught up in the Obama cult craze. No one seems to have a clue as to the background of this man or his Muslim upbringing in schools where he was taught strict Shar'ia law until the age of twelve. He attended such schools in Jakarta underthe guidance of his step father.

Maybe it's where I live in Southern California but all of the Hollywood crowd are poo pooing the real facts. When I mention my fears, friends here tell me, "Stop picking on the man! I know you have a problem with Muslims and that is something you ought to get over." The people here in Liberal LA turn a deaf ear to Obama's Muslim background and current church affiliations. "Picking on him?" He's a Christian now but how about his formative years?

If all that I've read about the man isn't enough, his choice of future staff and present clergy is enough to send chills down my back.

My momma, Queen Mollie, used to tell me that when she married my father, she told him, "Aaron, if you want to have a happy marriage don't ever even give me the appearance of evil in what you do with another woman. Meaning, don't ever let me catch you in anything. Or even let me think that I might. And, darling, your daddy and I had a very happy marriage. He never even gave me a thought he was thinking of even doing anything that would make me unhappy. "

In other words, the Presidency is too important to take a chance that even a tenth of the information that I, as a member of the media, am receiving is true. I remember the last time I felt this dread was when Jimmy Carter was running for President. Everyone at that time was caught up in the Kennedy legacy. He had that big Kennedy smile and like Obama today, people were comparing them. Even JFK's daughter wrote an article in the New York Times citing the fact that he reminded her of her dad. What does she know? She was six years old when he died.

And, speaking of that. I have seen posters in Obamas headquarters, lionizing Che Guevara. A man who was a known sociopath yet somehow conveyed a romantic image. An image which Berak Hussian Obama ( catchy name) has managed to glorify with posters. Maybe this is the revolution that he means when he speaks of 'change.' I do know though that someone ought to remind JFKs daughter and brother, Ted, that he never felt anything but anger and contempt for dictators such as Chevara and Castro and would find the comparison painful.

It seems as though I'm not the only one who uses the Manchurian Candidate analogy. Joseph Farah wrote in a recent column, "This guy could actually become the president of the United States. If he does, it would be like the Manchurian Candidate backing into the highest office in the land. If Barack Obama wins the White House, the communists will have gotten their man the conventional way – through and actual election, working through the system. There is an old Chinese proverb: "May you live in interesting times." It's actually a curse. Indeed, we are living in extraordinary times. While it may be good for journalists, I'm sure it's not good for the American way of life."

Think about it! Before the election; not on November 9th, the day after.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, February 19, 2008.

At Santa Clara University this past Tuesday, during a class in "international law and the peaceful resolution of armed conflict", a young lady, who claims to be the grandchild of Arab refugees driven from their home by Israel in the 1948 war, asked me the following question:

"Why is it that a Jew from Brooklyn can go to Israel and live there, but I, whose parents were born there, and whose ancestors are indigenous to Palestine, cannot?"

Perhaps some of you will find my answers helpful. Feel free to offer additional thoughts and/or corrections (God forbid, but it could happen).

There are 9 answers to this question.

1.) The Arab side lost the war. Tens of millions of refugees were created in the last century. All except the Arab refugees have been resettled elsewhere. Moreover, when an aggressor, especially a genocidal aggressor, loses a war because the victim country successfully repulses the aggression, and in doing so captures some of the aggressor's land, the refugees of the aggressor country have recourse only in the context of the peace treaty to be agreed upon by both countries. Most Arab leaders have refused to make peace. Those who did intentionally excised the Arab refugee issue from the terms of the treaty.

2.) The Arab leaders lost the peace. At the Rhodes Armistice talks, Israel offered reparations, resettlement assistance, and repatriation – in exchange for peace. The Arab leaders refused. Had there been peace, there could have been repatriation.

3.) The Arab leaders caused the war. Had there been no war, not only would there have been no refugee problem, but also there would have been a Palestinian state since 1947. Israel accepted the UN resolution, wanted peace, offered peace, and fought only when attacked by a vastly outnumbering Arab army from 8 Arab nations. The tragedy for the Arabs of Palestine was caused by Arabs, not Israel.

4.) The Arab leaders caused most of the refugees. Comprehensive documentation (see my book Big Lies) proves that Arab leaders urged, and in some cases even forced at gunpoint, the flight of most of the Arab refugees. Israel caused at most only about 10% of that flight.

5.) All but one Arab host country held them hostage. Except for Jordan, Arab host countries denied citizenship to the refugees, used barbed wire and armed guards to keep them in the refugee camps, and legislated laws against them.

6.) Arab leaders rejected all Israeli offers of repatriation and reparations: At the Lausanne conference of 1949, Israel offered unconditionally and unilaterally to repatriate 100,000 Arab refugees, even without peace. The Arab leaders refused. Israeli offers of reparations continued until 1967. Arab leaders rejected all offers.

7.) Israel did repatriate >127,000. Between 1949 and 6/2005, more than 127,000 Arab refugees have been admitted to Israel in the context of marriage, family reunification or where refugees or their descendents seek refuge in Israel due to persecution in the host country (mostly cases of homosexuals and Christians). Israel ended this policy in 2005 when it was discovered that Palestinian terrorists were using this policy as a way to enter Israel legally, get citizenship and ID cards, and then travel freely in Israel to perpetrate acts of terror.

8.) No refugee status for 2nd generation etc. International law is clear on this issue. The status of refugee does not extend to the children and later generations of refugees once they have resettled elsewhere. Children of Arab refugees who grow up elsewhere, and their children who are born elsewhere, have no status as refugees and no rights and no claims to their ancestors' property.

9.) The war has not ended. Some unascertainable portion of Arab society actively and vehemently and enthusiastically seeks Israel's destruction. No country invites potential hostiles to enter while the war is still raging.

So Israel, as any and every other sovereign country, creates its immigration laws to suit its national goals and needs.

In addition, it is important to note that there is a great likelihood that your grandparents were not indigenous to Palestine. Between 1855 and 1947, the Arab population of Palestine nearly quadrupled (from c. 350,000 to 1,400,000 after 400 years of stasis) as hundreds of thousands of Arabs in-migrated to the region from surrounding Arab countries, thanks to the economic improvements to the region because of British and Zionist activity. How far back does one need to go in order to be "indigenous"? Legally speaking, you, a native born American whose parents are naturalized Americans, are indigenous to the USA.

Lastly, note the difference between "crown land" and private ownership. The region of Palestine was under Turkish sovereignty until world war 1. Then it came under British sovereignty. Then it came under Israeli sovereignty. It was never under Arab sovereignty since the early middle ages. So, it was never "Arab land". Your grandfather's claim, had he ever made one, could have been only to the plot of land to which he held demonstrable private ownership. Neither he nor any other Arab in the world can make a claim to any part of Israel as "Arab Land" because it has not been Arab land for centuries.

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 Gabrielle Goldwater, February 19, 2008.
This is by Thomas Landen and appeared yesterday in the Brussels Journal
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2988 The original article has live links to additional material.

Today, one day after Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, the United States and the major European countries rushed to recognize Kosovo's independence. George Bush hailed Kosovo's "bold and historic bid for statehood." Five years ago, Mr Bush invaded Iraq and began "operation Iraqi freedom." He toppled Saddam Hussein in order to get rid of a rogue regime, one of the members of the "axis of evil." Five years later, Mr Bush is saddling Europe with a new rogue state.

Surely, Mr Bush knows that al-Qa'eda fighters were involved in driving the Serbs from Kosovo in the late 1990s. The Jerusalem Post reported in 1998 that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was "provided with financial and military support from Islamic countries," and had been "bolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters or mujahedin [some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan." There is more proof of involvement of the KLA of the (then and current) Kosovar leader Hashim Thaçi, nicknamed 'the Snake,' with al-Qa'eda than there was of the Iraqi Ba'ath regime of the late Saddam Hussein.

Yesterday, thousands of ethnic Albanians were celebrating their independence in the Kosovar capital Pristina, shouting "KLA! KLA!" and waving American flags alongside the Albanian and the new Kosovar national flag. Is America now in league with al-Qa'eda and the Albanian mafia? What is the point of fighting Islamism in Iraq while at the same time one creates a free haven for Islamists on the European continent?

Surely, Mr Bush knows that "the KLA [...] is tied in with every known middle and far eastern drug cartel. Interpol, Europol, and nearly every European intelligence and counter-narcotics agency has files open on drug syndicates that lead right to the KLA, and right to Albanian gangs in [Kosovo]. Furthermore, the KLA was involved in sex slaves. Furthermore, they were supported by Osama Bin Laden."

Only last week, General Fabio Mini, the Italian general who commanded the NATO troops in Kosovo in 2002-2003, warned that the recognition of Kosovo's independence would turn out to be a "fatal mistake." This new state, the general said, will only benefit the clans who currently rule Kosovo: i.e. the clans of the current Prime Minister, Hashim 'the Snake' Thaçi "who is in business with the oil companies," of his predecessor Ramush Haradinay, who is standing trial for war crimes in The Hague, of former Prime Minister Agim Ceku "who wants to become a generalissimo" and of Behgjet Pacolli, a billionaire "who needs somewhere to stack the money of his empire." "What these clans want," General Mini said, "is a place in Europe where they can open new banks, a free haven for the money that flows in from the East."

Sadly, Mr Bush is not the only one making a "fatal mistake." Many of the 27 European Union (EU) member states have done so, too, including the big three – Britain, France, Germany – and the Franco-German poodle, multinational Belgium. Others, however, have serious misgivings. Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia oppose Kosovo's independence. The Italian government is divided on the issue.

In a statement issued in Brussels the EU foreign ministers say that Kosovo's history of "conflict, ethnic cleansing and humanitarian catastrophe" in the 1990s by Serbia exempts it from the rule that international borders can only be changed with the agreement of all parties. The EU countries that recognize Kosovo's independence admit that they are doing so in violation of the rule of "territorial integrity" of nations under international law. They want to 'punish' Serbia for its misbehaviour in the 1990s, but fail to see that they are 'punishing' the whole of Europe by saddling it with a state run by criminal gangs.

Russia refuses to accept Kosovo's independence. So does China. Moscow has called on the United Nations to annul Pristina's decision. It will be interesting to see which countries will back Russia in the UN. Moscow's allies in the Organization of Islamic States definitely will not. They applaud the establishment of a new Muslim state in Europe. Will Russia now become the leader of the Europeans who resist the Islamization of their continent? Or will the crisis in the Balkan trigger a new world war, just as the Great War was triggered in the Balkans in 1914?

Indeed, what will Russia do if the 16,000 NATO "peace keeping" troops in Kosovo attack the Serbian army when it attempts to recover its breakaway province? If Russia intervenes, then 2008 might become the year that war broke out between Russia and NATO. America, the EU, Europe's immigrant "youths" and Osama bin Laden would find themselves on one side, and Russia, with China and the Europeans who resist Islamization on the other.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, February 19, 2008.

I lived in Kabul nearly fifty years ago. It was enchanting and dangerous. I lived on a wide and gracious street lined with trees. We had electricity, phones, hot and cold running water, and marble bathrooms. There was a movie theatre and an American-style cafeteria restaurant. Bazaars flourished, mosques shimmered, a thousand (all male) tea-houses thrived. Barefoot boys scurried bearing tea for businessmen all day long.

It is gone, all gone – mainly due to the Arab jihadis, (bin Laden's boys), the Soviets, and the native reactionary Islamists. They all bear enormous responsibility for this tragedy as do all the Arab and Muslim regimes who failed to stop bin Laden and who instead spent all their time and resources scapegoating Israel. America? First, we mainly neglected Afghanistan, then we funded what became the Taliban as part of our titanic struggle with Soviet Russia. Finally, after 9/11, we went in to rid the country of the Arab jihadis. That battle is still underway.

Here's a verbal snapshot of Kabul today. It was written by an American businessman who wrote to a friend of mine who forwarded his words to me. He has a dry and ironic wit and a keen eye. His information is accurate and utterly heartbreaking.

"First of all, the roads aren't paved. Also, there are no street lights. Not a lot of trees. That's because almost all of the trees in the country have been cut down for firewood. They're digging up the roots now. That's in Kabul.

Second, there must be something strange about the gene pool there because there aren't any women. I was there six days and there are 100 men in the streets for every woman. And most of them are completely covered. I didn't see one Afghani couple on a date. In fact, I didn't see anybody on a date. The restaurants have guards with Ak47's and double sets of walls to avoid the car bombers. In case you don't speak Pushto or English, there are big signs with pictures of AK47s x'd out in red just so everybody understand the dress code if you want to eat.

Third, nobody can read. And there is not a lot of room for improvement there because I saw an awful lot of kids in the street begging or working. It was reassuring that none of them were younger then 5. Well, I'm not sure, some of them might have been 4."

Fourth, no one in the American Embassy is allowed to leave. To eat, to go shopping, even to fool around – assuming that there was anyone to fool around with or someplace to go. They can go to a private house if there is enough security.

Fifth, the Army allows it's personnel to leave to go out, but they have to be in an armored vehicle. The part about that is that the tactics seem to be completely different from the Petreaus handbook which is a work of genius. Even the soldiers say they are going out of their minds. Its really hard to stay fit and alert in a compound.

Sixth, there may be some infrastructure improvement or improvement in living conditions but even in Kabul, electricity is intermittent for most of the population and even running water is not completely available. Absolutely no one thinks that there is a significant improvement in the standard of living and the rural areas are probably worse because of the war.

Seventh, everyone agrees that the situation is much worse then it was two years ago.

I did like a lot of the people I met, very polite. I love the little ritual they have of going A Salam Alechem and put their hand over their heart. I bet you didn't know that praying five times a day is a great way to keep limber. They have these small bananas which are excellent when they're ripe. There is a great history of rug weaving in the country – pretty much the exclusive work of women. The new rugs are magnificent. I bought so many rugs that I have probably supported almost as many women over there that I have over here.

The only two businesses in the country are war and drugs and if you are in one, you're probably in both.

People do hate the Taliban and our support is not based on money. People want money from us but they want their daughters to have lives. The Taliban destroys things just because they're beautiful. Buildings, gardens, pictures. Their strategy is very well thought out, their power base in Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan is viable economically because of drugs and has great geography for their purposes. Their leadership is resolute, innovative, and completely dedicated."

I was told by someone who has now asked me to remove his comments that many Afghan officials are "Marxists" and "Maoists." If so – even if this is true a little bit – why has the Western media not focused on this? Have they done so and did I miss it? Did you all know this? What can this mean? Perhaps there are radically different analyses out there; please share them with me.

We still have no word about the kidnapped American woman, Syd Mizell. The warlords continue to terrorize. The young Afghan blogger still sits in jail, condemned to death. Western support is viewed as only endangering him further.

Quo vadis?

Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko , February 19, 2008.

From WND'S Jerusalem Bureau
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
"It's official: 'Security agents' work to divide capital"

WND first reported Palestinian intel apparatus to thwart property sales to Jews

JERUSALEM – The Palestinian Authority has formed an intelligence apparatus to halt Jewish construction and property ownership in eastern sections of Jerusalem, a PA official announced this week.

WND first broke the story last month that the PA recently established an intelligence apparatus in Jerusalem to clamp down on Israeli Arabs selling property to Jews in eastern sections of the city, quoting informed security sources.

Palestinians seek to create a capital in eastern sections of Jerusalem. The area has large Arab neighborhoods, a significant Jewish population and sites holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

On Sunday, Hatem Abdel Khader, a member of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party and a former member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, released a statement to the media saying the PA was unilaterally opening institutions in Jerusalem to further its goal of creating a state there.

Khader said among other activities in Jerusalem, the PA formed a security and intelligence apparatus currently working in the city to "help resolve certain problems and collect information about the construction of Israeli settlements in [eastern] Jerusalem."

Khader also said the Palestinians, aided by international donors, will attempt to open other official institutions in Jerusalem within weeks. Khader's release stated the World Bank and other international donors provided $150,000 in initial seed money to launch PA activities in Jerusalem and that more aid was expected.

While Israel has not officially approved the PA's presence in Jerusalem, Palestinian diplomatic sources said there is an unwritten agreement in which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office has agreed not to interrupt some PA activities in Jerusalem.

Following U.S.-backed negotiations started at November's Annapolis conference, Olmert and PA President Mahmoud Abbas pledged to aim at creating a Palestinian state by the end of the year. Olmert is widely expected to attempt an evacuation of eastern sections of Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank, handing the territories to the Palestinians.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six-Day War. About 231,000 Arabs reside in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods with tens of thousands thought to be living illegally without building permits. The city has an estimated total population of 724,000, with a Jewish majority.

A contingent of Jewish groups, including an organization called Ateret Kohanim, work to strengthen the Jewish presence in Jerusalem by purchasing properties from Arabs, primarily in eastern neighborhoods, including in Jerusalem's Old City. Some of the purchased properties were formerly Jewish until Jews fled during Arab riots in the early 1900s.

According to security sources who spoke to WND last month, the PA's Preventative Security Services in recent months re-established an intelligence arm in Jerusalem originally formed in the 1990s by the late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat to work at frustrating Jewish attempts at purchasing property from Arabs.

The intelligence arm consists of activists who work in Jerusalem to identify Israeli Arabs willing to sell land to Jews, the sources said. A potential Arab seller is warned against doing business with Jewish groups. The sources did not specify particular measures the PA might take against any Arabs working to sell property to Jews, but in the past, cases have been made public in which Arabs have been killed or tortured for such activity.

According to security sources, to ensure against land sales, the PA put together a list of wealthy Palestinian and Arab donors willing to purchase property from Jerusalem Arabs who must sell their land due to financial desperation.

The PA's purported move to clamp down on Arab sales to Jews in Jerusalem follows recent statements by top Israeli officials, including Vice Premier Haim Ramon, about conceding Jerusalem.

Ramon, a top Olmert deputy, stated that Israel "must" give up sections of Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state, even conceding the Palestinians can rename Jerusalem "to whatever they want."

"We must come today and say, friends, the Jewish neighborhoods, including Har Homa, will remain under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods will be the Palestinian capital, which they will call Jerusalem or whatever they want," said Ramon during an interview last month.

Stances held by Ramon, a ranking member of Olmert's Kadima party, are largely considered to be reflective of Israeli government policy.

Ramon said that due to the city's demographics, Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem "should not be under Israeli sovereignty, because they pose a threat to Jerusalem being the capital of a Jewish Israel."

Olmert to blame for dividing Jerusalem?

Ramon listed population statistics as the reason Olmert's government finds it necessary to split Jerusalem.

But WND broke the story that according to Jerusalem municipal employees, during 10 years as mayor of Jerusalem, Olmert instructed city workers not to take action against hundreds of illicit Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem housing over 100,000 Arabs squatting in the city illegally.

The workers and some former employees claim Olmert even instructed city officials to delete files documenting illegal Arab construction of housing units in eastern Jerusalem.

Olmert was Jerusalem mayor from 1993 to 2003. As mayor, he made repeated public statements calling Jerusalem the "eternal and undivided capital" of Israel. Jerusalem municipal employees and former workers, though, paint a starkly contrasting picture of the prime minister.

"He did nothing about rampant illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem while the government cracked down on illegal Jewish construction in the West Bank," said one municipal employee who worked under Olmert.

She spoke on condition of anonymity because she still works for the municipality.

One former municipal worker during Olmert's mayoral tenure told WND he was moved in 1999 to a new government posting after he tried to highlight the illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem. He also spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for his current job.

Aryeh King, chairman of the Jerusalem Forum, which promotes Jewish construction in Jerusalem, told WND an investigation by his group found Olmert's city hall deleted files documenting hundreds of illegal Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem. He said he forwarded his findings to Israel's state comptroller for investigation.

King also claims Olmert told senior municipal workers not to enforce a ban on illegal Arab buildings.

"Ehud Olmert gave the order not to deal with the problem and not to put Israeli security forces to the duty of taking down the illegal Arab complexes," said King. "Senior municipal workers told me Olmert said not to bother with the illegal Arab homes because eventually eastern Jerusalem would be given to the Palestinian Authority."

King's report alleges Jerusalem municipal officials erased the files, which detail over 300 cases of Arab construction in eastern Jerusalem deemed illegal starting from 1999. The illegal buildings reportedly were constructed without permits and are still standing. According to law, they must be demolished.

Local media reports investigating King's charges alleged the files were erased by Ofir May, the head of Jerusalem's Department of Building Permits, with the specific intention of allowing the statute of limitation on enforcing the demolition of the illegal construction to run out.

The Jerusalem municipality released a statement in response to the allegations claiming the threat of Arab violence kept it from bulldozing the illegal Arab homes.

"During the years of the intifada, the municipality had difficulty carrying out the necessary level of enforcement in the neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem due to security constraints," the statement read.

King said the hundreds of buildings allegedly detailed in the deleted municipal files house more than 20,000 illegal units.

"We're talking about perhaps 100,000 or more Arabs in eastern Jerusalem living in illegal homes with the government doing nothing about it," King said.

Arabs squat illegally on Jewish-owned land

WND's OWN INVESTIGATION last year found hundreds of acres of key properties in Jerusalem purchased by a Jewish group for the stated purpose of Jewish settlement instead were utilized for U.N. facilities and the illegal construction of dozens of Arab apartment buildings housing thousands.

The lands, purchased by the Jewish National Fund, or JNF, are under the management of the Israeli government.

The properties in question include over 200 acres in the northern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Qalandiya and Kfar Akev, located near an old Israeli airport, and about 50 acres in a north Jerusalem suburb known as Shoafat, which is adjacent to the Jewish neighborhood of Pisgat Zeev.

The two neighborhoods were specifically mentioned by Olmert as up for possible Israeli evacuation.

The lands were legally purchased on behalf of JNF using Jewish donations in the early 1900s, immediately after the organization was founded in 1901 with the specific charge of repurchasing and developing the land of Israel for Jewish settlement.

A tour of Qalandiya and Kfar Akev found dozens of Arab apartment complexes, a Palestinian refugee camp and a U.N. school for Palestinians constructed on the land.

According to officials in Israel's Housing Ministry, Arabs first constructed facilities illegally in Qalandiya and Kfar Akev between 1948 and 1967, prior to the 1967 Six-Day War during which Israel retook control of the entire city of Jerusalem.

Qalandiya, still owned by JNF, came under the management of the Israeli government's Land Authority in the late 1960s.

Ministry officials say the bulk of illegal Arab construction in Qalandiya took place during Olmert's tenure as mayor, with construction of several new Arab apartment complexes still taking place this year.

Neither the Olmert municipality nor JNF took any concrete measures to stop the illegal building, which continues today with at least one apartment complex in Qalandiya under construction.

Jerusalem's Shoafat neighborhood, which has an estimated value of $3 million, also was purchased by JNF in the early 1900s and fell under the management of the Israel Land Authority about 40 years ago. Much of the illegal Arab construction in Shoafat took place in the past 15 years, with some apartment complexes built as late as 2004.

In Qalandiya, Kfar Akev and Shoafat, Israel's security fence cordons off the Arab sections of the JNF lands from the rest of Jewish Jerusalem.

Internal JNF documents obtained by WND outline illegal Arab construction on the Jewish-owned land. A survey of Qalandiya summarized on JNF stationery conducted in December 2000 and signed by a JNF worker states, "In a lot of the plots I find Arabs are living and building illegally and also working the JNF land without permission."

The JNF survey goes on to document illegal construction of Arab apartment complexes and the United Nations school under the property management of Israel's Land Authority.

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 Asher Eder, February 19, 2008.

Kimchi's article appeared February 15, 2008 in the Jerusalem Post.

Mr David Kimchi responded very enthusiastically to that "outstretched hand" of the Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal. Did he substantiate that enthusiasm of his (and of his colleagues mentioned in the article)? What does the Prince mean by "Peace" – "Sulh" (Shalom in the true sense of that term); or mere "Hutnah" (kind of armistice) which could be followed up by the next round of hostilities as soon as the situation seems to be favorable?

In case he meant Sulh/Shalom, what about the "Jihad" against Israel propagated first by Mufti Amin el-Husseini (in 1943 in a broadcast from Radio Berlin!!), and then widely adopted in the Arab/Muslim world? Would the Saudi Royalty, the "Guardians of Mecca", be ready to outlaw that Jihad against Israel as plainly contradicting the teaching of the Koran; and thus even as criminal?

True, officially there is no "Jihad" against Israel, not only as it contradicts the Koran, as said. Besides, there is no Caliph, or Caliphate, which could declare Jihad officially. But the idea predominates, and poisons the minds of millions of Muslim peoples, especially youngsters.

Or, is that "outstretched hand" another attempt to implement the advice of Mr. Gromyko (then Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs) at the "Geneve Conference" of 1974? There, he told the Arab delegates: "First, you should try by all means to retrieve the territories you lost [in 1967] – the rest will be easy".

That brings us to the quest of the "occupied territories" – an Arab propaganda slogan adopted even by Israeli politicians (the term "occupied" depicted and used willfully in the sense of lands illegally invaded and possessed by Israel). Israel took these "territories" in the wake of a war initiated by Arab hostility, hence there is no illegal occupation, neither from the point of international law; nor from the point of the Koran: the latter complies with the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) also in regard of Israel and her land*).

What is more, in case the Arabs' interpretation of "occupied territories" should become international standard, Germany would be entitled to demand from Russia and from Poland to return "occupied" Eastern Prussia, and Silesia respectively!

Even if Israel would return those "territories" (to whom: to Transjordan? to "Palestine"?) – would that satisfy the Arab/Muslim world; and end the Jihad?

Apparently it is difficult for social-democrats; liberals; "peace-nicks"; etc, to understand the Arab/Muslim mindset, but without doing so, we would run from trouble to bigger troubles (as evidenced by "Oslo"; "Gaza"; etc), instead of achieving trustworthy and lasting peace based upon our respective "Holy Scriptures": The latter could and should be understood toward that end, for the benefit of both sides; and consequently for the rest of the world.

Let's test the "outstretched hand" of the Saudi Prince; and, if proven true and trustworthy, accept it gladly.

Dr. Asher Eder

(*) Details in "Peace is possible between Ishmael and Israel according to Koran and Tanakh", in http/www/rb.org.il

Dr Asher Eder is Jewish Co-Chairman of the Islam-Israel Fellowship – A Division of the Root&Branch Assoc. Ltd, Yerushalayim/Israel Contact him at avrasonnetvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), February 19, 2008.

The continuous talks about dividing Jerusalem and abandoning our heartland (Hebron, Shchem) to Arab terrorists and invading muslim populations; the calls for international troops to get involved in OUR affairs repeated by some of our highest and most idiotic politicians, should give us a pause in regard to what happened in Kossovo: same mass manipulation, same distortion of reality, same perversion of justice as I said ten years ago (check especially the second piece below).

The continuous talks about dividing Jerusalem and abandoning our heartland (Hebron, Shchem) to Arab terrorists and invading muslim populations; the calls for international troops to get involved in OUR affairs repeated by some of our highest and most idiotic politicians, should give us a pause in regard to what happened in Kossovo: same mass manipulation, same distortion of reality, same perversion of justice as I said ten years ago (check especially the second piece below – by Serge Trifkovic).

What is all this talk of US military intervention in Yugoslavia?

Did we forget that Kossovo is part of a sovereign State called Yugoslavia? Or that Kossovo is to Yugoslav Serbs what Gettisburg is to Americans?... Do people know that Yugoslavia's independence day is on the anniversary of the Battle of Kossovo – which is mentioned also in their national anthem – when they LOST to the invading Muslim Turks 400 and some yars ago, and that the so called Albanians in Kossovo are the descendants of the invading Turkish occupiers?... Do people know that Tirana, Albania's capital, means "little Istambul"?...

Are we sure that we want to help fundamentalist Islam to have another foothold in Europe, after the one created in Bosnia with the help of the Iranian Army and Pasdaran (Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards) who fought in Bosnia side by side with other arab volunteers?

What business of the US armed forces or any other is to intervene in the internal armed struggle between two historical enemies? IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT'S CALLED AN INVASION!!!

The Yugoslavs have every right to resist with their powerful popular militia army, the same way they did against the nazi invaders, that were at the time supported by the Bosnian and Albanian Muslims in the south -some of whom had become "palestinians" and went to illegally settle in the land of Isarel-, and by the Croats in the north.


Human rights are a poor excuse: we don't invade the Sudan, where thousands of Christian s are BEING SLAUGHTERED and where BLACK SLAVES ARE SOLD TO THE ARABS...We dont invade Burundi, Ruanda, Sierra Leone, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, ecc., ecc., where human rights of minorities or majorities are trampled upon daily and blood is spilled profusely!

In Yugoslavia there are secessionist armed forces engaged in armed struggle against a legitimate government, and oftentimes in terrorist acts against what remains of the Serbian local population and police.


(1) "Kossovo: Do Words Still Have Meaning?"

The beginning of NATO's bombing raids on Yugoslavia and the explanations of the rationale behind the military strike given by the politicians and their spokespersons, must give us pause.

We have been hearing words as "peace agreement", "aggression", "refugees" and "human rights violations". Conspicuously absent are words as "secession", "military uprising", "sovereignty", "defence of territorial integrity" and many others. Let's examine the said words first, and let's relegate what's left unsaid to the end. An agreement exists when two or more parties achieve a position that is acceptable to all the parties in question.

The Kossovo province "peace agreement" is NONEXISTENT and was always nonexistent, since one of the two fighting parties (the Serbs) never agreed to, or signed any document, containing the proposals that the other party (the Albanians) is alleged to have considered acceptable. So, since an agreement never existed, and we hear all the media using that term, are we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?

Aggression occurs when one party attacks another while unprovoked (1).

The almost total "ethnic cleansing" between 1974 and 1989 of over half a million Serbs from a region as the Kossovo province, the historic heart (2) of the Serbian People, is not something that can be defined as an "act of goodwill" on the part of the Muslim Albanians to their Christian Serb neighbors. The constitution of a full-fledged armed force (not exactly a guerrilla force, given the state of the arts German military equipment they use) – called terrorists by the Serbs and freedom-fighters by the Albanians – a force that is responsible for the killing of uncounted – and often unmentioned – Serb civilians and policemen, can maybe satisfy the definition of provocation.

It sounds rather strange, moreover, to hear the political echelon and the military commanders of a "defensive" military alliance speak about "aggression", while leading a massive military attack against one of the two warring parties (on the side of the "guerrilla"), within the territory of a sovereign state whose army is party to the fighting.

So, if the word aggression is used in a very "slanted" way, and we hear it and read it used that way all over the media, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?

Refugees are autochthonous populations expelled from their land. Hundreds of thousands of Serbs who populated the Kossovo province for tens of generations have been forced to leave the Kossovo province in the last twenty five years because of political persecution and physical attacks. In the meantime, especially since the demise of the Albanian Maoist regime of Henver Hoxa, hundreds of thousands of Albanians have crossed over the Yugoslavian border, changing the ethnic balance within the Kossovo province (3). So, since we are hearing and reading the word "refugee" used ONLY in reference to the Albanians, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?

Human rights include the right to live safely – IN PEACETIME – without being targeted with discrimination, expulsion, job loss, physical aggression, because of one's belonging to a group rather than another.

The Serbs had their human rights clearly violated during peacetime between 1974-1989, when the Albanians had autonomy in Kossovo. The autonomy of the Kossovo province was rescinded by the Yugoslavian Government, Serbian rights to employment and residence became again possible, and then a military insurgency against Yugoslavia started, with the support of part of the Albanian populations, who became active part of the fighting against the Serbian population, Police and Army, and subject to military reprisals.So, since we are hearing and reading "victims of human rights abuses" used ONLY in reference to the Albanians, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?

Meanwhile, where did the principle of non intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state go, all of a sudden, since it has been used until now to justify military non intervention to stop the massacres in Algeria (over 400,000 dead, mostly civilians), the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi (over one million slaughtered), the massacres of Christians in Lebanon, Egypt and Sudan (over a million killed or displaced), the slaughter of Chinese in Indonesia, etc., etc., etc.???

Where did the principle (no value judgement expressed about its validity) of opposing secessions and promoting the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, used to justified Saddam Hussein's permanence in power and the non help to Kurds in Northern Iraq, Syria and Turkey and to Shiites in Southern Iraq... where did it all of a sudden go??? Why aren't Ms. Albright & Co. in Europe telling us why it does not apply to Yugoslavia?

I would like, last but not least, to point out that no comparison can be made with a situation in which one armed part attacks an unarmed part who has no way to defend itself. NO DISGUSTING COMPARISON WITH PRE WW-II NAZI GERMANY CAN BE ALLOWED AND TOLERATED. The Jews were not attacking, terrorizing, unarmed Germans and threatening their territorial integrity with armed movements of secession (independence?). Clinton's disgusting use of the Holocaust as a consequence of a precedent of inaction and appeasement should be protested by all decent people. It is disgusting that someone might use the Shoah (4) as a cover for serving one's political and economic interest with the Arab world, by helping those who were allied with the Nazis during WW-II (Muslims and Croats in Yugoslavia).

"This is a DIRTY WAR" is an expression that we probably won't hear or read too often about the NATO attack against Yugoslavia.

(1) Israel attacked Egypt militarily in June 1967, but certainly not unprovoked (Egyptian blocking of the Red Sea at the Tiran Strait, massive military mobilization at Israel's borders after general military draft). Israel was certainly not the aggressor.

(2) [Kossovo is in the Yugoslavian national anthem and is the focus of Yugoslavian Independence Day, the day having been picked on the anniversary of Serbia's historic defeat to the invading Muslim Turks, of whom the so called "ethnic Albanians" are the descendants]

(3) Striking similarities exist with the situation in the Land of Israel, where Arab populations coming from outside settled in the course of the 20th Century in what had been almost a desert, and had been set aside by the League of Nations to become again the "homeland" of the People of Israel (previously expelled from there); all that while Jews were de facto and de iure kept forcibly out by the British. The Arab illegal immigrants from Syria, Hejaz (Saudi Arabia), Egypt, Sudan, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Morocco, etc. in many cases "expelled by massacre" entire Jewish communities (i.e. the Jews of Hebron in 1929) who had lived there for millennia, and then became "the refugees" by excellence for the hypocritical world media after they left or were expelled at the birth of the State of Israel.

(4) See the many references to Israel as today's nazis, in relation to their conflict with the Arabs, while it was exactly the Arabs who were allied with the nazis and ACTIVELY participated in the designing and execution of the "final solution" also through their then chief butcher the Jerusalem Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, uncle of today's butcher Arafat.

And here, an exchange with someone who years later was skeptical about my positions...

At 14:08 -0800 7-02-2004, J.J. Surbeck wrote:

Can someone clarify this for me? How could anyone have pro-Israel and pro-Serbian views at the same time? I don't quite understand how anyone with even a minimal knowledge of recent history could have pro-Serbian views in this day and age after the atrocities they committed in Bosnia_Herzegovina. They belong to the same heap of mass murderers as the current homicide bombers do. They targeted civilians intentionally when they surrounded Sarajevo and bombed at random for over TWO years! Their sharpshooters killed any civilian they could target, irrrespective of race, gender or age. They massacred in cold blood 8,000 defenseless mena and teen agers. 8,000! The parallel between their primitive savagery and that of the Palestinian factions directing homicide bombers are in order. There is none between them and the defensive war conducted by IDF. Who is this guy? Maybe you should give him a closer examination before hailing him a a victim. Israel does not need supporters of mass murder.

J.J. Surbeck

A University of Pennsylvania assistant professor, Francisco Gil-White, has publicly claimed that his university administration intends to dismiss him from his post – all because of his pro-Israel, philo-Semitic and pro-Serbian views.

May be a little history will help...

The Serbs were probably the only REAL allies of the Jews during W.W.II.

The German puppet Ustasha in Croatia (whose flag is NOW the Craotian flag) and the Hitler-Mussolini allies of the SS Kossova Brigades, made up of Albanian Muslims under the auspices of Haj Amin Al Husseini, massacred over 1.5 million Serbs and Jews during W.W. II.

The Jews fought since the beginning side by side with the Serbs in the Yugoslavian Partizan forces. I had more than one family member fighting there.

There was neither de jure nor de facto discrimination against the Jews on the part of the Serbs. How many other peoples can say the same?...

The Jewish communities in Yugoslavia survived until the Muslim hordes, helped by the US and NATO destroyed most of them, including the Pristina community, in Kossovo, that had stood over 1,000 years, and where the rabbi had to leave, last with his Torah scroll, after the US sponsored ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Jews took place in the heartland of Yugoslavia, to give a state to Albanian illegal immigrants that had flooded the area, and to please Saudi Arabia. Why do you think that the Chief Rabbi of Yugoslavia volunteered into the Yugoslavian army to fight the invaders?...

Don't you see that having the Luftwaffe bomb Belgrade and creating a Muslim state in the heart of Yugoslavia was the FIRST posthumous victory for Hitler?... And he will have more with the creation of more JUDENREIN lands even here in the Land of Israel! It's the revenge of all the reactionary and ultra-conservative forces who favoured Mussolini and Hitler, brought them to power and then HAD NO CHOICE but fight them when it was too late.

Do you seriously believe the version given by the apostate Madeleine not-so Allbright, who gave orders to bomb the village where she had been protected during W.W. II??? A Jew who can KNOWINGLY betray her own ancestors, by converting to Catholicism, why would she not lie about the whole thing, including the NON EXISTENT MASSACRES, while ignoring the REAL ONES committed by the Muslim hordes of the TERRORIST KCA, the fascists of Izerbegovitch, etc?????? Even the TV series on the CIA start telling some truth about who REALLY made the massacres...

As far as Serayevo... I remember when the Muslims forces bombed the market there, and the Western media, starting with Israel hater Christiane Amanpour, a Pakistani, accused the Serbs – who could not have shot from that direction that was under Muslim control!!! And remember when there was a massacre of "Muslims" and then – to demonstrate the facts – the Western media showed freshly dug graves with the Orthodox Crosses... Are you surprised that in Russia they did not like that?... But the Western media rightly thought: "What do people know, anyway?..." In fact in the West and in Muslim countries they watch British-made propaganda movies depicting Serb brutalities and sharp-shooters... "

I rarely read more BALONEY than on the Yugoslavian issue 1992-2000...! Look at who was in Kossovo and is NO MORE... Which includes over 1,500 churches more than 1,000 years old and over 90% of the X-tian Orthodox Serbs!!!

Check this piece by a Serb who is also pro-Israel. It will help to understand what really goes on beyond CNN true-speak...and give some background on the Nazi-Muslim connections...

(2) "Islam's Nazi Connections"
By Serge Trifkovic
December 5, 2002

An essay adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic's new book The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam.

One of the good things one can truthfully say about Islam is that there has never been any love lost between Moslems and Marxists. Sadly, the opposite end of the totalitarian political spectrum is quite another matter. SS chief Heinrich Himmler was known to remark that he regretted that Germany had adopted Christianity, rather than "warlike" Islam, as its religion, and there is a disturbing amount of twisted but very real logic in his remark. Beyond the obvious dislike of a certain other religion, we have the plain fact that both Nazism and Islam both openly aim at world conquest. Both demand the total subordination of the free will of the individual – the very word "Islam" means submission in Arabic. Both are explicitly anti-nationalist and believe in the liquidation of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community: in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism the herrenvolk or master race. Both believe in undemocratic leadership by a privileged knower of an absolute, eternal, and ultimately mystical truth: the caliph or fu"hrer respectively. To be fair, in strict Nazism Arabs are racial Semites and thus subhumans, but as Robert Locke has written, the Nazis did not really believe in their racial mythology when they found it inconvenient, and they exploited their commonalities with Islam for all they were worth. If the British army had not stopped Rommel in the sands of El Alamein in 1942, preventing him from conquering the Middle East, the consequences for world history might have been dramatic. What did happen was quite ugly enough.

The Nazis began by attempting to exploit Arab resentment of the British and French colonial rule that they were under during the 1930's, colonial rule which, in light of the subsequent bloody and tyrannical history of the region, it is hard to condemn today as worse than the likely alternative. The promised the Arabs "liberation" from the French and British, a promise which the nai"ve Arabs, not grasping the character of a Nazi regime that would likely have reduced them to slaves in its own empire, took at face value. This gave rise to a curious Arab ditty rendered in English thus:

"No more monsieur,
No more mister.
In heaven Allah,
On earth Hitler."

Hitler himself was even given an Arabic name: Abu Ali. But Hitler's Germany went further and sensed the demonic potentialities inherent in the mythology, reliably emotionally satisfying to persons crazed with resentment, of radical anti-Semitism. It made a concerted, and remarkably successful effort to plant modern anti-Semitism in the Arab world.

The founding of Israel helped further this project. As Bernard Lewis has written,

"The struggle for Palestine greatly facilitated the acceptance of the anti-Semitic interpretation of history, and led some to attribute all evil in the Middle East-and, indeed, in the world-to secret Jewish plots."

Thus even before Israel was created the struggle to create it was turned into an existential battle of identity, with the complete denial of the legitimacy of Jewish existence as a central component of Moslem aspiration.

The Nazis managed to recruit some Moslems directly. Several Moslem SS divisions were raised: the Skanderbeg Division from Albania, the Handschar Division from Bosnia, and smaller units from throughout the Moslem world from Chechnya to Uzbekistan were incorporated into the German armed forces in one capacity or another. This was only taking the first step in Heinrich Himmler's planned grand alliance between Nazi Germany and the Islamic world. One of his closest aides, Obergruppenfu"hrer Gottlob Berger, boasted that

"a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East."

What an image: a Nazi-Moslem alliance to conquer the world! Naturally, totalitarian ideology (as shown by the Sino-Soviet and Iran-Taliban splits, for example) is a notoriously weak glue, so it is questionable how far this could have prospered. But the thought is chilling enough.

Major Nazi sympathizers of this era include Ahmed Shukairi, the first chairman of the PLO; Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, future presidents of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba'ath party, currently ruling Syria and Iraq. One Ba'ath leader has since recalled of this time:

"We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading their books and sources of their thought. We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf."

Many of the Nazi sympathizers of this era have never repudiated their beliefs; some still openly parade them.

In 1945, one name was missing from the Allies' list of war criminals, that of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti or supreme religious leader of Jerusalem and the former President of the Supreme Moslem Council of Palestine. In May 1941, the Mufti declared jihad against Britain and made his way to Berlin after the British put down his attempt to establish a pro-Nazi government in Iraq by a coup d'etat. When he met Hitler, on November 21, 1941, he declared that the Arabs are Germany's natural friends, ready to cooperate with the Reich with all their hearts by the formation of an Arab Legion. Hitler promised that as soon as the German armies pushed into the Southern Caucasus the Arabs would be liberated from the British yoke. The Mufti's part of the deal was to raise support for Germany among the Moslems in the Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East. He conducted radio propaganda through the network of six stations, set up anti-British espionage and fifth column networks in the Middle East.

In the annual protest against the Balfour Declaration held in 1943 at the Luftwaffe hall in Berlin, the Mufti praised the Germans because they "know how to get rid of the Jews, and that brings us close to the Germans and sets us in their camp is that up to day." Echoing Muhammad after the battle of Badr, on March 1, 1944 the Mufti called in a broadcast from Berlin:

"Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor."

In 1941, he had pledged "to solve the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine and in other Arab countries as required by national interests, and in the same way as the Jewish question in the Axis lands is being solved." Bernard Lewis writes that in addition to the old goal of a Jew-free Arabia "he aimed at much vaster purposes, conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a Holy War of Islam in alliance with Germany against World Jewry, to accomplish the Final Solution of the Jewish problem everywhere."

According to German officials who knew him, The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem. Perhaps "the Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation," as he was later to claim, but the foremost Arab spiritual leader of his time did all he could to ensure that the Germans did not waver in their resolve. He went out of his way to prevent any Jews being allowed to leave Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, which were initially willing to let them go: "The Mufti was making protests everywhere – in the Office of the (Foreign) Minister, in the antechamber of the Secretary of State, and in other departments, such as Home Office, Press, Radio, and in the SS headquarters." In the end, Eichmann said, "We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more."

The contemporary heirs to the Nazi view of Judentum are not the handful of powerless skinheads and Aryan Nation survivalists. They are schools, religious leaders, and mainstream intellectuals in the Moslem, meaning primarily Arab, world. Quite apart from the ups and downs of the misnamed "peace process" in the Middle East, quite apart from the more or less bellicose posture towards the government of Israel, the crude way they actively demonize all Jews as such is startling.

The most prominent and influential daily newspaper in the Arab world is Al-Ahram, a semi-official organ of the Egyptian government. In June 2001 it carried an op-ed article, "What exactly do the Jews want?"--and the answer was worthy of the Nazi newspaper the Vo"lkische Beobachter six decades earlier:

"The Jews share boundless hatred of the gentiles, they kill women and children and sow destruction Israel is today populated by people who are not descendants of the Children of Israel, but rather a mixture of slaves, Aryans and the remnants of the Khazars, and they are not Semites. In other words, people without an identity, whose only purpose is blackmails, theft and control over property and land, with the assistance of the Western countries."

The second most influential Egyptian daily is Al-Akhbar, which went a step further on April 18, 2001: "Our thanks go the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However, we rebuke Hitler for the fact that the vengeance was insufficient."

It is hard to imagine hatred more vitriolic than that which reproaches the Nazis for not completing the Final Solution more thoroughly. What is remarkable is not that such sentiments exist, but that they are freely circulated in the mainstream media and internalized by the opinion-making elite throughout the Moslem world. In the same league, we find the claim that the Holocaust in fact never happened and that the Jews and Israelis are the real Nazis is regularly made. The Jewish-Nazi theme is a favorite of Arab caricaturists, some of whom use the swastika interchangeably with the Star of David, or juxtapose them. Graphic depiction of the Jews appear to have been lifted directly from the pages of the notorious old Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer (The Stormtroooper.)

A final tidbit: it is no accident that a number of Nazi war criminals found refuge in Moslem nations. Take the notorious Otto Skorzeny, an SS officer who led the rescue of Mussolini from captivity, was described by the OSS, predecessor to the CIA, as "the most dangerous man in Europe," and later found service under General Nasser in Egypt. There were others.

Thankfully, the Nazis of course lost WWII and the abortive alliance between Islam and Nazism never panned out. Sadly, there exist Moslems today, not on the fringes but in the mainstream of their nations, who still view this as a great lost opportunity based on profound natural affinities.

Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His past journalistic outlets have included the BBC World Service, the Voice of America, CNN International, MSNBC, U.S. News & World Report, The Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Times of London, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Joanna Whitney, February 19, 2008.

I wrote the following after reading an Arutz Sheva article by Gil Ronen entitled "Gaza Refugees Suffering from Rain, Mice" (1/31/08).

"Is This Why?"

Is this why G-d reinstated Israel? So the sons and daughters of Zion would live in caravillas which are gnawed through by mice?

Is this why generations of Jews drained the swamps and worked & revitalized the land so that their descendants would be forcibly expelled from their farms & lands by unfeeling government officials?

Is this why a free independent Jewish state was established? So that Jewish politicians could show they too are capable of corruption within and of kowtowing to enemies from without?

Is this why the G-d of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob restored the children of Israel to their Biblical Heartland in 1967? So their secular politicians could hand it back, while cowering in fear, to the murderers of Jews?

Is this why Israel's people and leaders celebrated "The Temple Mount is in our hands!" only to sit back while the Waqf is desecrating the site of the Temple of God and the Holy of Holies?

Is this why there's an IDF? So the government can use them to evict productive, patriotic Jews from their beautiful homes instead of using them to utterly destroy the true enemy – the murderers and terrorizers of Jews?

Is this why generations of Jews yearned and prayed for "Next Year in Jerusalem"? So that Israel's leaders can even think about, much less speak about, dividing that Holy City?

As a Christian living in America, I ask these and many other questions of myself. Now I ask them of the people of Israel. And I have more to ask:

When are you going to unapologetically stand up and fight for your safety, your security, and your land? When are you going to remove your corrupt leaders? When are you going to reassert your G-d given rights and authority over Jerusalem, Yesha, and all of your holy places? When are you going to tell the goyim that you will defend your nation, your land, and your people?

And when are you going to stop trusting in Bush, Abbas and these other "leaders" and start trusting in Almighty G-d?

Contact Joanna Whitney at z4zion@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 19, 2008.

I am referring to the words of Foreign Minister Tzipni Livni.

Today was the first day of the Jerusalem Conference – an all-day affair with many speakers examining issues such as retaining a united Jerusalem and ensuring Israeli security. I'll share here what several people said, starting with Livni.

Livni was attempting to explain why the government was negotiating now. If I had read her words somewhere, I might have been uneasy about repeating them, suspecting that she had been misquoted. But I heard her with my own ears.

"We have to write down the principle of two states," she told us. Israel as a homeland for Jews, and Palestine as a homeland for Palestinians. If we don't write this now and establish the principle, we might not have another chance. For we are facing people who want us gone.

Got it? She is so afraid of forces that would destroy us, that she's willing to accept what may be less than we are entitled to, just for the opportunity to get it in writing that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. And she believes that if we are to do it, it must be "today," because another chance might not come.


There are so many things wrong with this approach it's difficult to know where to start. It is, first of all, appeasement, which never works: giving to the Palestinians so we won't be destroyed. Second it conveys a message of incredible weakness, and this is absolutely the last way who should go into negotiations. Why should the Palestinians even think of conceding anything when she makes it clear how hungry she is just for that piece of paper? "Write it down."

But worst of all is her shameful lack of Israeli pride and sense of entitlement. Why should our right to exist depend on a piece of paper arranged with the Palestinians? We are a sovereign state, with an ancient tradition on the land and a host of international legal precedents behind us. We are also a powerful nation, fully capable of defending ourselves. We have diplomatic and commercial relationships with a growing number of nations, and we make huge contributions to the world via our hi-tech development and medical science.


And there's still more, as a later speaker, Dore Gold, now head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, pointed out. First, there is the fact that the negotiation plan calls for setting the parameters for the agreement now but not enacting them until certain stipulations on the other side have been met.

Warns Dr. Gold, just as I have warned here many times, once that paper is signed there may well be pressure from the international community to "take it off the shelf" before those stipulations have been met. You don't sign a piece of paper giving certain things away until the conditions are right. We have in this regard the precedent of the Road Map, which called for dismantling of terrorism by the PA before we moved to discussing a state. But this has been shoved aside as too cumbersome and now we're talking about a state even though stage one was not realized.

Dr. Gold further points out that "You have to assume that the other side will violate the agreement." We have the precedent of years of Palestinian violations.


I would add to this the fact that insisting that we won't have another chance puts unreasonable and undue pressure on us to negotiate. It's an act of desperation.


Moving past what Livni said, I want to turn to discussion by a panel on the subject of "Regional and Global Strategic Threats to Israel." Distinguished participants touched upon issues that are exceedingly somber, providing perspectives that are important.

Dr. Rafi Yisraeli, Professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Hebrew University, reminded us of what an error it is to speak of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is, rather, the Israeli-Arab conflict, or, perhaps more accurately the Jewish-Islamic conflict as non-Arab Muslim states such as Iran and Pakistan are involved.


The conflict, says Dr. Yisraeli, is not a quantitative one, involving interests or assets, which allows for give and take until a resolution is reached. It is a qualitative conflict, which is about religion and values and is not amenable to compromise. It's take it or leave it.

There was a time when there was a Christian geographic continuity in eastern Europe. But the Iranians have been involved conflicts in Serbia, Albania, Kosovo, so that this is no longer the case. And here, since Oslo, we have been in a process of retreat.


Maj. Gen. (res) Yaakov Amidror concurred, pointing out that you cannot deal with a values conflict the way an interest conflict is responded to. Such a conflict is resolved historically over a long haul and we had best be prepared for this.


MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud), former chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee reminded us that the so-called "moderate" Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have not encouraged the Palestinians to settle the conflict with us. For we represent western values that are challenged by Islamic values. Egypt, for example, discouraged Arafat from accepting Barak's offer in 2000.

While Israel has enormous strengths and has achieved a great many things in the last 30 years, we are facing grave threats in the next two or three years and are not currently doing enough to meet them.

MK Steinitz sees four developments with regard to Israeli defense and security:

1) Unquestionably, the specter of Iran developing nuclear capability is paramount, with the possibility of this, indeed, leading to WWIII. The NIE assessment is behind us now and there is solid communication between the Knesset and Congress, which is clear on the threat.

2) There has been very rapid development of new advanced weapons systems in the area – in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.

3) If the US withdraws from Iraq before too long, it may be possible for Iran to enter into Iraq. In this case, we might see Iranian troops moving into Syria and might be confronting them one day on the Golan.

4) The Arabs are using missiles and rockets as a means of attacking us indirectly, without full scale ground war. The concern is that their range and their accuracy are increasing. Thus missiles may become a threat to our military headquarters.

There are ways to counter this via the development of missile defense systems and interception systems for medium and short range rockets. Additionally we must develop massive fire power with regard to our own missile capacity.

We must do everything we possibly can.


Dr. Meyrav Wurmser, Director, Center for Middle East Policy, Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, provided a significant understanding of the way in which the Iranian threat to us has changed via its involvement with Hamas, which has developed in stages over some 20 years. Iran, which provides money, weapons and training to Hamas, may even have masterminded the Hamas coup in Gaza.

It is a mistake to think of the conflict with Hezbollah and that with Hamas as separate – they are all part of the same war with Iran.

The accepted wisdom on the nature of the Islamic world – as divided into Shiite and Sunni camps violently at odds with each other – no longer applies. We see Haniyeh of Hamas, which is Sunni, speaking of Iran as the defender of the faith.

What Iran now has is a Levant strategy for an Islamic Caliphate. To that end Iran is actually seeking Sunni clients to help in the fight against the West. Hamas, which has global aspirations, fits well into Iran's scheme. So much is this the case, that Iran even allow Hamas to invite Sunni Al Qaeda into Gaza.

The implications are vast. Terrorist organizations are cooperating. Iran is most interested in importing radical Islam (of either kind) in order to further the Islamic Revolution.


On a more positive note, several speakers addressed the absolute necessity of keeping Jerusalem united eternally as Israel's capital. It is broadly understood that Jerusalem possess a special sanctity for the Jewish people and is at the heart of what we are all about.

Nir Barak, a member of the City Council of Jerusalem, is seeking documentation of the fact that Haim Ramon is negotiating a secret third track on Jerusalem, so that action can be taken.

MK Gidon Saar (Likud) spoke about the bill, which has passed its first reading, that will revise Jerusalem Law so that a majority of the Knesset would be required for any concessions on Jerusalem.

He is deeply concerned about the renewal of activity at Orient House (about which I hope I will write more in coming days) and the freezing of construction.

He points out that the argument for division of the city along demographic lines is deceivingly dangerous. The case is made by persons such as Haim Ramon for giving the PA areas that are primarily Arab. This is generally represented as referring to outlying neighborhoods. However, from the time of the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem, when the city was made Judenrein, there are important areas such as Ir David (The City of David, the ancient area that was the original Jerusalem and lies just outside of the Old City) also have heavily Arab population.


I anticipate sharing more tomorrow. Other news will have to wait.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, February 19, 2008.

Dear Mr. Cohen:

We have been reading your columns ever since 9/11 in the Washington Post and we are impressed with your half-hearted support of Israel during this tiny's country's darkest hours. And not in a good way.

We wonder if you, like many other Jews, are afraid of being called a traitor to your country if you express total, committed support of Israel, a tiny beleaguered nation? We don't see Catholics roaring for the destruction of the Vatican, so we wonder why jews like yourself are so ashamed of your heritage as embodied in the tiny Jewish nation of Israel.

Unlike Jews, we are the NON-evangelical, politically incorrect Christians for Zion. We express opinions that US jews such as Tom Friedman and yourself, and the Jewish owners of the NYT apparently are afraid to say: "Restore Jewish Palestine from the ocean to the sea the way tiny Israel was orginally intended and promised to be."

The NYT should have been an honest witness to the invasion of Israel by hordes of Arabs who filtered into Israel's territories with murder on their minds. The NYT should have published the FACT that over a million Jews were forced to become refugees by the arrogant Islamic Arabs states during WWii and ever after. Why haven't you, as a Jew, spoken up about this? Don't you realize that it is your silence that imparts approval to this abhorrent Islamic bigotry?

The NYT should have published the relationship between the Egyptians and Hitler during WWII in order to shed light upon Yasser Arafat's affiliations with the fascistas in Egypt and Yemen and Syria. But instead of being an honest witness to the groundwork being laid against Israel and the USA, the NYT postured as a "peacemaker" to the Saudis, and uncritically published every word fashioned against Israel that was ever uttered by Yasser's paid propagandist, Hanan Ashrari, and by Reuters and the Arabists lodged in the British Foreign office.

In short, appeasers such as Tom Friedman and yourself have not only weakened Israel's rightful claims to its lands, it has also lent credence to the preposterous allegations uttered daily by the ersatz Islamic "Palestinians" who, under their skins, still think of themselves in terms of their origins in their homeland, Egypt.

Lending support to such fantasists as Shimon Peres, who secretly schemed with Yasser Arafat for to skim prospective "riches" from Israel's Gaza territory through their respective Cayman Islands tax haven NGOs operations, not only weakened Israel as a nation, but also gave the Saudis a reason to despise the US even more.

And anyone who still thinks the Saudis are US "allies" are fools. At best, some Saudis are vendors doing business with US corporations, but in truth, the Saudis use the trillions we pay them for their sludge under their sand for to purchase advanced weaponry and to support madrassas that teach hatred and war in the name of God.

When will you stop looking for common ground with the fascists? We must ask this question of you as a person who publishes his opinions in the WP and the NYT: Would you, as a Jew, have urged peace-talks and "road-maps" with Hitler? Would you have clung to your fantasies about "peace" with these bloody fascists all the while knowing full well that this murderous tyrant was gassing Jews in his torture camps? No? Well then, why in heaven are you such a defeatist when it comes to supporting the Patriots of Israel who are valiantly struggling to defeat Israel's defeatist politicos? Why is it that you cannot bring yourself to realize that these Patriots are the finger in the dyke that so far has kept the Saudis from bursting through Israel in their march toward Europe and the Islamic reclamation of Spain?

Viva Israel from the NON-evangelical Christians for Israel.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 18, 2008.


The IDF said it needed at least 90 hours for a certain offensive, towards the end of the Lebanon War. The Prime and Defense Ministers asked about a 60-hour offensive. The commander said that it could not succeed. Nevertheless, those Cabinet officials ordered the reduced offensive.

The Winograd report called the order "reasonable." Reasonable to start what the IDF said would not succeed? Sounds more like a whitewash (IMRA, 2/1).


"UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour last week praised the ratification of an agreement called the Arab Charter on Human Rights. Arbour called it 'an important step forward' in strengthening the protection of human rights in the Arab world.

"UN Watch, which is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, quoted a clause in the Arab Charter on Human Rights 'rejecting all forms of racism and Zionism, which constitute a violation of human rights and a threat to international peace and security.' Another part of the charter, ratified by seven Arab states, calls for the elimination of the Jewish State, saying that 'all forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination constitute an impediment to human dignity.... All such practices must be condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination.'"

"The letter from UN Watch said: 'A text that equates Zionism with racism, describes it as a threat to world peace, as an enemy of human rights and human dignity, and then urges its elimination, is blatantly anti-Semitic. Even if the Arab Charter may contain other, constructive provisions, nothing can justify any endorsement of a text with such hateful language.'" (IMRA, 1/31.)

The Muslim Arabs, who gravely violate human rights of people of other religions, nationalities, of employees, and of women, and who dominate other nationalities, manipulate words to seem moderate while retaining the inhumane policies. Unfortunately, the UNO favors them because they are against Israel. Thus the very unit of the UNO charged with fostering human rights fosters denigration of Jewish rights.


Hamas said it wants Gaza to become independent of Israel's economy, by getting utilities and goods through Egypt. The government of Israel expressed delight with that prospect (IMRA, 2/2). That would remove Israeli leverage over Hamas (and the opportunity to encourage Muslims to emigrate) and harden Gaza as a terrorist state. The delight would be short term.

Who's never won?


A Fatah branch claimed that its men were the ones who attacked Israelis in to places, killing two Israelis and getting two of themselves killed (Arutz-7, 1/25).

Israel's Foreign Min. Livni keeps proclaiming her policy to make peace with the Abbas part of the P.A., because, she alleges, he and his group are moderates. Fatah is his organization. He often has lauded terrorists and strives to get them released from Israeli prisons. What does she mean, he is moderate?


The head of US national intelligence admits that his NIE misled people about Iran's nuclear weapons development. He acknowledged that the report overlooked Iran's more significant advances in its civilian program that easily could be integrated into its military program (Eli Lake, NY Sun, 2/6, p.1).

Will Pres. Bush seize upon that admission to take up the effort to stop Iran?


She complained that roadblocks keep Israelis from coming to the Temple Mt. to pray (IMRA, 1/30). Israel, not roadblocks, forbids Jews from doing so.


There is an Arab parliament. It doesn't have governmental power. It passes resolutions for propaganda. That is how it dealt with the Arab-Israel conflict.

It claimed an Arab right under international law to fight against Israel, as an occupier. It denounced Zionism as racist and as an aggressor; demanded investigation of Israel for committing genocide; asserted a right of return, under UN Resolution 194; and urged a boycott of Israel (IMRA, 2/2).

S. Arabia pledged no boycott, as a condition of joining the World Trade Organization. The PLO/P.A. has signed peace agreements with Israel, ending any right to combat, but as defined by international law, Israel is not an occupier. Resolution 194 does not confer a blanket right. Most UN resolutions state conditions that the Arabs don't meet, such as making peace. The Arabs often commit aggression against Israel rather than the reverse; imperialist aggression is a key part of Islamic doctrine. The Arabs expelled most of their Jews, but Israel lets Arabs in, so who is racist? Israel attacks a few terrorists at-a-time, killing fewer than the high Arab birth rate replenishes, whereas P.A. propaganda cites the Koran as calling for the murder of Jews, in other words, genocide.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, February 18, 2008.

The Middle East is a region where so many things seem to happen, so little appears to change, and far too much is said about it all.

Partly this is due to the area's turbulence; partly to obsessive hyper-reporting in an era when everyone claims to be a Middle East expert and the most basic exercise of logic is often absent. Yet, at the same time, silly ideas and policies often also correspond to real needs.

Here's a list of examples.

* Israel-Palestinian talks and the "peace process" occupy the attention of world leaders and media when they go, and will go, absolutely nowhere.

* Lebanese politics are absolutely deadlocked over the election of a new president because Syria, Hizballah, and Iran demand control over that country's government and will paralyze the balloting until they get it.

* Endless speeches, investigations, proposals, and conferences discuss Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons yet do between little and nothing about it.

* Billions of dollars go to the Palestinian Authority supposedly to help it raise Palestinian living standards and build a stable polity when this entity makes not the tiniest step toward reform and fighting corruption, much less battling terrorism.

Mechanisms for change do exist. The problem is that, like the above items, they usually don't function.

For example, in March there will be elections in Iran. These are conducted along the lines once declared by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro: within the revolution, everything; outside it nothing. Most reformist candidates are disqualified from competing. Still, there is an element of pluralism since the ruling elite itself is so fractionalized.

An election could shift more power away from the ultra-extremist president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, making Iran marginally less dangerous. But it cannot turn Tehran toward a new course in which it would give up its regional ambitions, sponsorship of terrorism, or drive toward nuclear weapons. The most important component, international pressure, is far weaker than it should be.

In the Palestinian case, the internal factors for positive change are even more limited. Fatah has talked about having a party congress in March, which might or might not happen. The existing PA leadership lacks either the power or interest for clamping down on incitement to terrorism or an anti-corruption drive. The wider Fatah leadership actually embraces extremism and looting. Neither seems inclined to share power with a "young guard" leadership which might be more honest but is also, if anything, more radical. Not much hope can be expected there. The most important component, international pressure, is far weaker than it should be.

As for Hamas, while factions seem to exist there are no moderates in sight. Outside observers are determined to credit Hamas with a victory in the Gaza Strip. Yet it is typical of most such radical "triumphs," not gained by themselves but given by those who should be their adversaries.

In fact, the Egyptian border is again closed, with the Cairo government more determined (if still not determined enough) to control its own territory. Hamas's policy is merely running Gaza into the ground a bit more slowly. Still, the most important component, international pressure, is far weaker than it should be.

Regarding Lebanon, a key ingredient of any solution is to frighten the Syrian government by moving ahead on the international tribunal investigating Damascus's involvement in murders there of peaceful politicians and journalists. With little publicity, this effort is advancing slowly, yet is largely overshadowed publicly by outspoken testimonies from too many naïve Westerners about how moderate the Syrian dictatorship claims to be.

In one memorable case, two U.S. members of Congress went to Damascus, publicly bragged as to how Syrian President Bashar al-Asad promised them he would release liberal dissidents, then remained silent as he jailed even more such people. Syria has good reasons to believe that the next U.S. president will reverse course and appease – I mean, engage – the regime. The most important component, international pressure, is far weaker than it should be.

One of the biggest developments is the assassination of Imad Mugniyah, arguably the most single important international terrorist outside of al-Qaida, in Damascus. Amidst all the coverage and analysis, it should be remembered that Mugniyah's personal importance was that he linked together Hizballah, Iran, Syria, and Fatah. He also embodied the nexus between anti-Israel and anti-American terrorism.

Particularly amusing was Syria's explanation for his presence there. According to the state-controlled al-Thawra, February 14, Mugniyah had snuck into the country unbeknownst to the omnipresent dictatorship. No doubt this also applies to the Iraqi insurgent and Lebanese Fatah al-Islam terrorists who operate there. (The regime is more openly proud of its sponsoring Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizballah.)

Still, the Syrian government does not seem worried by all these people getting in and out so easily, the article concluding, "There is nothing in that area warranting [special] precautions and vigilance."

In the Middle East, there are all too many things warranting precautions and vigilance – but only of the right type.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press, August 2007). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Olivier Guitta, February 18, 2008.

February 12 marked a point against radical Islam. The killing of Hezbollah's mastermind and legend, Imad Mughnieh, in Damascus should be considered a great victory. The death of one of the most sophisticated and bloody terror masters that had been in "business" for 25 years makes the world a much better place, commented a U.S. State Department spokesman. The question remains: who is ultimately responsible for this?

Increasingly, it seems that maybe Syria was behind the attack. Indeed, on Feb. 17, Mike McConnell, the director of National Intelligence, told Fox News: "There's some evidence that it may have been internal Hezbollah. It may have been Syria."

Let's review the chronology of what allegedly occurred on Feb. 12.

First, according to the well-informed Kuwaiti daily al-Seyassah, Mughnieh was reported to have attended a high-level meeting called by the head of Syrian security services and Syrian President Bashar Assad's brother-in-law, Assef Chawkat. The other participants to that meeting included top Syrian leaders, representatives from Hamas (including its top leader Khaled Meshaal), Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. The purpose of that meeting was allegedly to select the potential targets to strike in Arab countries, if the latter refused to participate in the Arab summit set for the end of March in Damascus. It was purportedly during that meeting that Mughnieh's car was booby-trapped.

Second, and interestingly enough, initially, al-Arabiya TV reported that the victim was allegedly a Hamas top leader.

Third, what is most troubling is that the Syrian authorities were silent for nine hours after the explosion. They then finally announced the victim's name.

Fourth and foremost, what makes also Syria a potential suspect is that security is very tight inside the country and even more so in Damascus. Furthermore, Mughnieh was famous for being rather paranoid about his security detail, so there is only a very slight possibility that foreign security services could have managed to approach and booby-trap his car.

Now, why would Syria "sacrifice" one of its allies? Lebanese analysts are offering a few suggestions:

First, since Mughnieh, as a top Hezbollah operative working for both Syria and Iran, was suspected of having a hand in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, thus the Syrians might have found it convenient to eliminate him and in the process, sever any link to Damascus. Three years after Hariri's murder, it now seems as though the international tribunal established by the United Nations will finally be hearing the case.

Many in Washington, Paris and Beirut have been frustrated by the fact that it is taking so long to judge Hariri's killers, especially in light of how far the investigation of the first prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis, progressed during the first few months following the assassination.

Assad has been trying to prevent the international tribunal getting underway because, analysts believe, the killing of Hariri possibly involved some of his close entourage. The fear in some circles, particularly among the Lebanese, is that a deal may be in the making, whereas the West would agree to call off the international tribunal in return for Syria clamping down on Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Time will tell is this theory holds any water.

While Mughnieh's involvement in various attacks have been quite documented ? mostly in Lebanon in the 1980s (including the bombing of the U.S. Marine and French military barracks in Beirut in 1983), and then in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Argentina ? one should not forget his alleged role in setting up Hezbollah offices in Iraq as early as 2003 and training Iraqi insurgents (mostly from Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army), and his alleged role in the Hezbollah-Israel war in the summer of 2006.

It is quite interesting to note Israel's recent stance on Syria starting with the 2006 war. Leading Israeli government officials made a point over that summer of repeating time and again that Syria was not the enemy, at a time when Israeli soldiers were fighting Syrian-backed Hezbollah. Numerous reports of "secret" negotiations between the two countries have emerged, and just last week Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak was in Ankara to talk about improving relations with Damascus (among other things).

Could Mughnieh's death be the first sign of Assad's fulfilling his side of the deal?

Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com). Contact him at olivier@thecroissant.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Abramowitz and Jeremy Gimpel, February 18, 2008.

As the sun peeks over the snowcapped hills of Samaria, the red-roofed homes of Shiloh begin to glow. We've just spent the night protecting these Jews from the hostile Arab villages surrounding them, and despite the freezing wind whipping at our exhausted bodies, there is nothing we would rather be doing.

Serving in the first Jewish army in almost two millennia, one can't help feeling a part of Jewish destiny. Before departing for our nightly mission, we gathered with weapons slung over our shoulders to pray ma'ariv (the evening prayers), and while these prayers are no different than those whispered by our fathers and grandfathers before us, we say them with a spirit that has been lost for ages. We are living a Judaism stripped of the fear, distortions and complexes that resulted from living in strange lands, at the mercy of the merciless. It's the Judaism that God originally intended, "to teach you the statutes and ordinances that you should do in the Land which you go over to possess" (Deut. 4). Not an exile Judaism, but a biblical Judaism.

For almost 2,000 years, Jews would read the stories of Joshua, Samson, Gideon and King David; feeling disconnected from these biblical heroes – lion-hearted men who walked with God while protecting their homeland. How could a Polish Jew, gaunt and pale, trembling at the thought of yet another pogrom, identify with David, a psalm-composing warrior king?

Today, as Israel faces tens of millions who seek our annihilation, we read David's psalms with helmets on, and feel for the first time as if the king's words are our own. "All the nations surround me; in the name of God, I cut them down." Instead of cowering in fear, the Jews of Israel once again stand proud.

While we were scattered among the nations, without a country of our own, all the laws of government and statehood, which are an inseparable part of God's Torah, were regarded as irrelevant. All the concepts of people and nationhood, of leaders and wars, of normal, natural life were filed away. Today with every 18-year-old serving in the army, the laws of war, celebrating the Sabbath in times of combat, and all other issues of Jewish statehood are being revitalized. Finally, Judaism is returning to its true status, not only as a religion but as a nation. New dimensions of Torah and godliness are being revealed every day.

The Jewish dream is being realized: "To be a free people in our land" (from the Israeli national anthem). Every Jew serving in the Israeli army, no matter what background or religious view, is a fulfillment of that dream. Although there are many pious and observant people in the exile, every soldier in the IDF is on the front lines of Jewish destiny, and that collective national bond can only be experienced in the Land of Israel.

On guard duty last night, we had a conversation with a soldier named Shachar. He has long hair, a few earrings, and is scheduled for another session of meditation in India when our service is over. After a heated debate about the political situation in Israel, a debate which lasted as long as our two-hour patrol, Shachar concluded with an idea that has changed us. He said: "No matter who is here doing reserve duty – religious, non-religious, left, right or center – all of us are ready to give our lives for the Jewish people and the Jewish state, and that is a unity and a love you can't find anywhere else."

The State of Israel and the army which protects her has forced us, as a nation, to reassess what constitutes the true spirit of Judaism. The question we must ask ourselves is whether a kippa-wearing, Sabbath-observing Jew in New York is indeed more religious than a "secular" tattooed Tel Avivian who is ready to give his life defending the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.

Ari Abramowitz and Jeremy Gimpel, soldier and commander in the IDF reserves, are the founders and directors of Ohr Olam – The Center for Biblical Zionism. In cooperation with Ohr Torah Stone and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin chief Rabbi of Efrat, Ohr Olam is an organization dedicated to inspiring the world, ingathering the exiles, and empowering the Jewish people. Contact them at info@thelandofisrael.com Visit their website: www.thelandofisrael.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Herbert Zweibon, February 18, 2008.

In The Jerusalem Post (Jan. 18) Caroline Glick has presented a formidable indictment of the Olmert government along with possible scenarios for bringing it down and forcing new elections before they are scheduled in 2010. This is something that many Knesset members, fearful of losing their comfortable seats, have thus far resisted, despite Olmert's single digit approval ratings. However, Glick overlooks the fact that the Olmert government can be brought down without the need for new elections.

As Glick says, "in every sphere of government, the Olmert government is capsizing the country." Olmert is overseeing the demise of the educational system, as strikes topple high schools and universities. On the security front, he is negotiating an agreement that would render Israel indefensible. He does nothing to stop rocket assaults on Israel, stands by as Hizbullah, under the UN nose, has rebuilt its arsenal and reasserted its control over southern Lebanon, and vainly hopes the U.S. will take care of Iran.

Now that Israel Beiteinu has finally left the government, Glick looks to defections by Shas (now the coalition's lonely "right wing" member) and the growing possibility that 11 members of Kadima's 29 member Knesset faction might bolt to form a new independent party. In that event, writes Glick, "the opposition would have the requisite 61 votes to pass a no-confidence measure and move to early elections."

But the opposition can come to power without new elections. Under Israeli law, if there are 61 Knesset votes for a no-confidence vote in the government, a petition can be presented to the President for a new Prime Minister to be appointed. The new candidate must be named and, given that the support of the Likud would be essential to assembling those 61 votes (former Kadima 11, Ichud Leumi 9, Israel Beiteinu 11, Shas 12, Aguda 6, Likud 12), it would have to be the Likud's leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

There are several virtues to going this route, rather than to new elections. It would prevent Olmert from serving as head of a caretaker government in the period – a minimum of three months – prior to elections, in which time he could still do serious damage. Ehud Barak, in similar circumstances, made what were then unimaginable concessions to Arafat at Camp David – Israel was saved only when Arafat (despite Madeleine Albright famously chasing him through the building) refused to take them. Going this route would also prevent Olmert from preemptively restoring his coalition by wooing Meretz and the Arab parties on the basis that supporting his government was a small price to pay for securing the division of Jerusalem and the hand-over of Judea and Samaria.

The promise of avoiding new elections would also be an inducement for wavering Kadima members. If a third of its Knesset members split from a party (10 members in this case) they keep all the advantages of their party position, the government benefits etc. They would be assured of their Knesset seats for another two years during which time their options would remain open – to rejoin the Likud (from which most of them had originally split), join with yet another party or go to the elections as a new party, if they feel their support is growing. They would come strong out of the gate, basking in the glory of serving as those who saved the country from the existential threat posed by the Olmert government.

There would be another great advantage to this method of replacing Olmert. Netanyahu's freedom of action would be constrained by his narrow majority. Given Netanyahu's tendency for the voice to be the voice of a proud nationalist leader and the actions to be those of a weak and supine Labor capitulationist, it is very important that his freedom to follow what to him, once in power, might seem the easier course – giving in to the demands of a bullying American administration – be limited by his coalition partners.

Idle talk, reckless talk

Herbert Zweibon is Chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI).

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, February 18, 2008.

oh my goodness! This is nuts!

This is called "Bush preventing the IDF from routing Hamas" and it is a DEBKAfile Exclusive Report from February 16, 2008. Israeli Military up in Arms over Bush-Olmert Plan for Major Operation in Gaza on Behalf of... Palestinian Authority

Israeli Military up in Arms over Bush-Olmert Plan for Major Operation in Gaza on Behalf of... Palestinian Authority

President George W. Bush gave Israel the nod for its long-delayed military operation against Hamas in the Gaza before he ended his 50-hour visit to Jerusalem and Ramallah on Friday, Jan. 11 – except

1. Israeli forces must limit their invasion to two or three strips abutting the Gaza-Israeli border of the 365 sq. km square Hamas-ruled territory on Israel's southwestern border. Those sources identify those strips as the northern pocket of Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahiya and the fringes of the Jebalya camp; the southern areas east of Khan Younes up to the Sufa and Kerem Shalom crossings; and sections of the Philadelphi border strip with Egypt, up to and excluding the Mediterranean coast.

Operationally, this means the Israeli army may push back the Qassam missile launching sites from the border and distance this harassment from the Israeli population, but may not destroy terrorist arms and missile caches and their means of production.

Israel is also enabled to deal only partially with the smuggling system for the weapons, explosives, fighters and cash, which nourish the Gaza Strip's Palestinian terrorist groups through Sinai.

2. The IDFIDF must operate only in sparsely-populated areas and desist from actions that may cause extensive Palestinian civilian casualties.

3. The IDFIDF will not capture the main cities, e.g. Gaza City, Rafah and Khan Younes.

4. After clearing captured areas of Hamas, Jihad Islami and other Palestinian terrorists, the Israeli army must pull out and hand the cleansed territory to the forces of the Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel must enable the passage of those forces from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip and allow them to establish military bases for launching their offensives to recapture the entire Gaza Strip, thereby reversing Hamas' success in forcing their retreat six months ago.

Point 4 was tagged onto the list during the US president's talks with Abbas in Ramallah Thursday, Jan. 10.

The Palestinian leader proposed that Bush's assent to an Israel counter-terror operation in the Gaza Strip be exploited for the IDF to prepare the ground for his Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority to regain its control of the lost territory.

It was agreed between Bush, Abbas and Olmert, that the details of this plan be worked out after the US president returns home at the end of his Middle East tour.

The Bush-Olmert understanding entrusted defense minister Ehud Barak with leading and charting the Gaza operation, determining its timeline and being responsible to Washington for the IDF not stepping out of the above preset boundaries.

It will also be up to Barak to decide whether to pursue the objective in phased offensives.

DEBKAfile's military sources report that the Olmert government's acceptance of this plan has stirred outrage in the IDF high command, general staff, southern command and the security establishment.

For the first time in its 60 years of independence, Israel's national army is being pressed into service to capture a territory on behalf of a foreign entity. They ask by what authority did the prime minister and defense minister sign off on a plan which is an immoral distortion of the IDF's longstanding mission.

The notion that members of Israel's people's army, which is duty bound to defend the state, may be ordered to fight and lay down their lives in the service of the Palestinian Authority, presents every serviceman with an irreconcilable dilemma.

It might be easier if they were permitted to eradicate the Palestinian missile threat and war machine, stock, lock and barrel. But this is ruled out by Bush.

The IDF found it difficult enough to recover its equilibrium from the political task to forcibly evict Jewish communities from the Gaza Strip foisted on it by the Sharon-Olmert-Livni government in 2005. Today, Israeli policy-makers, the United States and the Palestinian Authority are contemplating saddling the soldiers with another political undertaking: to turn around the Fatah's defeat in its internecine war with Hamas.

Israeli generals and security chiefs caution the government against accepting this perilous and self-destructive adventure and point to its glaring flaws.

Its very conception has distorted the peace process so that the burden of its success rests on the IDF's shoulders. If a military campaign succeeds in gaining control of parts of Gaza on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, peace talks will resume with Abbas' standing much enhanced. But if the results are mixed, like in the 2006 Lebanon War under Olmert's direction, the Palestinian leader will drop Israel and the United States like hot coals, turn coat and seek an understanding with Hamas for a re-united front against Israel.

Already, since the plan was floated, Israel-Palestinian talks have petered out and become irrelevant, while negotiations for the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit have been put on ice. Hamas will on no account discuss terms for his release with a large-scale Israeli offensive hanging over Gaza. Another of the plan's fundamental flaws is that the Palestinian Authority is in effect leaderless, rudderless and is bereft of the professional security strength for following up on the deal.

The Bush-Olmert-Abbas plan would have the Israeli military pull their irons out of the fire when it is common knowledge that once inside Gaza, PA security forces will quickly disintegrate and be swallowed up by the far more resolute Hamas. It was therefore proposed in Bush's talks in Ramallah and Jerusalem that the Israeli Air Force and artillery provide support for the Palestinian takeover of the Gaza Strip, a tactic the US army employs for local forces in Iraq.

Contact Dave Nathan at davenathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 18, 2008.

This comes from Aussie Dave at the Israelly Cool website
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/02/17/ palestinians-stranded-in-egypt-well-kill-ourselves-again/

The thing I don't understand about the suicide person is the people who try and commit suicide for some reason they don't die and that's it. They stop trying. Why? Why don't they just keep trying? What has changed? Is their life any better now? No. In fact it's worse because now they've found out one more thing you stink at. Okay, that's why these people don't succeed in life to begin with. Because they give up too easy. I saw, pills don't work, try a rope. Car won't start in the garage, get a tune up. You know what I mean? There's nothing more rewarding than reaching a goal you have set for yourself. – Jerry Seinfeld

A week ago, I brought you the story of palestinians threatening to set themselves on fire if they weren't allowed to return to Gaza by that afternoon.

Well, apparently they didn't have any matches or gasoline on hand, since they are still with us, this time threatening to kill themselves using less fiery methods. The Egyptians response? Would you like any help (killing yourselves)?

A group of Palestinians rounded up by Egyptian security forces are threatening suicide if they are not soon released either to the Gaza Strip or a life of dignity in Egypt.

About 500 Gazans are still being held as prisoners in a sports complex in the border city of Al-Arish. Egyptian police arrested them after they did not return to Gaza when the border was resealed earlier this month following a brief period of unrestricted cross-border movement.

Several of the detained Palestinians have called Ma'an's office in Gaza, claiming that conditions in the sports center are appalling, lacking basic medical supplies, food, and clean water.

The Egyptian security officers reportedly responded to the suicide threat, "Do whatever you like; we have orders to gather you then transfer you back to the Gaza Strip." However, the transfer has not yet taken place.

One of the stranded Gazans, 21-year-old Khalid Abu Hasira asked in a telephone call to Ma'an, "Will the death of one of us end our suffering?" He also inquired critically about the absence of intervention on the part of the Palestinian embassy in Cairo.

He added that yesterday he threatened to jump from the roof of the building, and an Egyptian officer told him that he will get an ambulance to evacuate him. The man said he suffered an injury in his knee, and needed to replace the bandage in a hospital, but that he would not be allowed to go to hospital in Egypt.

To add insult to injury..

He also added that he was interrogated in an Egyptian detention center along with five other people, including an elderly man, and that they underwent very rough treatment and that 6,000 US dollars were stolen from one of them.

A 23-year-old Gazan called 'Adil Atallah said that he was captured at Nasser governmental hospital one day after he was operated on. He said that he was treated badly by the security forces, while he was urgently in need for rest after the operation. He is supposed to undergo another operation, which he would prefer to skip if he is allowed home.

Thirty-five-year-old Ayman Ash-Sha'ir from Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip said his cell-phone was stolen when he was brought to the sport club in Al-Arish.

Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 18, 2008.

Thanks to blog reader and friend Danny for this eye opening video...

Danny asked, "Where do they get those rifles from?" The answer is, these were provided by the US to the Palestinian Authority. 3 times the US has demanded Israel permit the transfer of weapons and ammunition. The total amount of rifles transferred is over 100,000, and over 1,000,000 rounds of rifle ammunition. The last request, umm, demand included over 30 Russian armored personnel carriers.

This video was shot in Shechem (Nablus), currently under no one's control (technically under Palestinian Authority control). All US weapons previously delivered to Gaza were taken over and are in current use by Hamas.

Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Michael Goldblatt and Dr. Daniel Mandel, February 18, 2008.

If you think that one side in a conflict is under no moral or legal obligation to send supplies to the population of the other, you have not heard what the New York Times or Human Rights Watch's Joel Stork have been saying about Israel's duties towards Gaza. Both have claimed that Israel has been "collectively punishing" Gazans when in, recent days, Israel has not cut electrical power at all and only reduced fuel supplies. Stork has also claimed that Israel is an "occupier" of Gaza and such responsible for the welfare of its people.

Consider the absurdity of this sort of argument. Israel has been assaulted continuously from Gaza, which is run by Hamas, an organization committed in its Charter to the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7). Gazan Palestinians largely support Hamas which declares itself to be in a state of war with Israel.

In particular, Gazan Palestinians voted Hamas into office in Palestinian legislative elections in 2006. Similarly, Hamas could not have seized Gaza last year without at least the tacit support of a large segment of the local population. By what logic, then, can Gazans expect to be insulated from the consequences of a war being waged by Hamas on their behalf?

It is absurd to suggest that withholding supplies from Gaza is a form of collective punishment. The only people who are being targeted collectively are Israeli civilians in Sderot and other neighboring towns near Gaza who are subject to incessant rocket barrages.

It is also simply a flat-earth statement to say that Israel is an occupier of Gaza. Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states that a foreign power is only considered an occupier "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory." Yet Israel withdrew from 80% of Gaza in 1994, and the remaining 20% in 2005. Its writ no longer runs there, nor does it any longer maintain law and order in the territory. By no stretch of the imagination can Israel be said to be occupying it.

Therefore, the responsibility for Gaza's civilians and their well-being lies with the controlling power, which is Hamas. Why have Palestinians failed to build an infrastructure and functioning economy to maintain their well-being? After all, Palestinians have been the highest per capita recipients of international aid for years. The answer is that Palestinians' elected leaders, Fatah in the past and Hamas today, have been too extreme and corrupt to devote themselves to building up the Palestinian infrastructure and economy. Instead, funds have gone on buying arms and lining pockets.

Why, then, should Israel, or the international community, be responsible for the welfare of Gazan Palestinians? In particular, why should Israel be obliged, as the New York Times claims, to provide supplies to Gazans? Did the United States supply electricity and other goods and services to Germans, North Koreans and North Vietnamese when we were at war with those peoples?

In fact, in these instances, Germany, North Korea and North Vietnam were fighting U.S. military forces. They were not targeting American civilians. Palestinians, in contrast, have gone out of their way to murder and maim as many Israeli civilians as possible. They celebrate each bloody suicide bombing with parties, cheers and the handing out of sweets.

In these circumstances, Israel is well within its legal and moral rights to use military measures to target terrorists in Gaza, even if civilians may be inadvertently harmed in the process. Hamas, in permitting, supporting and often perpetrating these rocket attacks, is responsible for any Gazan Arab harmed by Israel's consequent efforts to stop the continuing rocket fire into Israeli towns and cities.

Israel is also fully within its rights to impose economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip, including more wide-ranging measures than those it has actually adopted. Since Israel is under no legal obligation to engage in trade of fuel or anything else with Gaza, or to maintain open borders, it may withhold commercial items and seal its borders at its discretion. After all, without Americans being shelled or bombed by Cubans, the United States has maintained a decades-long embargo on Cuba. Israel surely has at least as much right to maintain an embargo on trade with Gaza as the United States has with Cuba.

The criticisms that have been leveled against Israel for cutting off supplies to Gaza are both false and absurd. Israel and its allies should categorically reject them, but this will only happen when Palestinians are actually held accountable for their deeds and choices. It will not happen if they are instead indulged and treated as people with a permanent claim on everyone else's purse and sympathy regardless of what they do.

Dr. Michael Goldblatt is national chairman of the board of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Dr. Daniel Mandel is a Fellow in History at Melbourne University and director of the ZOA Center for Middle East Policy.

This was published February 13, 2008 in the Jewish Press
http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?mode= a§ionid=56&contentid=30046&contentName= Gaza's%20Palestinian%20Civilians%20Are%20Not%20Israel's%20Responsibility

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, February 17, 2008.

Rather than unite in the face of the Hamas challenge and the task of gaining support from the West Bank's people, Fatah seems to be collapsing.

Or perhaps the feuds are not only over power but who gets to control the almost $7 billion scheduled to be given the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) over the next three years. A contributing factor is that Fatah has said it will hold a congress in March, the first full such meeting in almost 20 years.

There are at least five factions operating in Fatah today, and even that is an understatement. While PA "president" Mahmoud Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad enjoy Western support, they have very little from their own organization. These two are relative moderates who have no internal base of support. Even the very tiny group of those who can be called moderate is split since, for example, Ahmad Khouri (Abu Ala), is quarreling with Abbas.

Then there are the cronies of the late head of Fatah and the PA, Yasir Arafat, who have not developed any moderate tendencies but are using Abbas to cling to power. A typical example of this group is Hakam Balawi who was the PLO ambassador to Tunisia when Arafat's headquarters were there, a particular favorite of Arafat. These people are basically careerists who simply stick with whoever is leader.

A third group are the hardliners, like Abu Ali Shahin, who views himself as a revolutionary fighter. Other powerful figures in this group include Farouq Qaddumi, the actual head of Fatah; Sakhr Habash (Abu Nizar), chief of the Fatah Revolutionary Committee; and Salim al-Zaanoun, head of the Palestine National Council (PNC), the PLO's legislature. These people want a continuation of armed struggle against Israel and believe that total victory is still possible.

A fourth faction can be called the "young guard," but this is also split among different contenders for leadership. Muhammad Dahlan, formerly the leading Fatah security (i.e., military) commander in the Gaza Strip is one candidate; Marwan Barghouti, the head of Fatah in the West Bank and now imprisoned by Israel, is another. Dahlan and Barghouti are also very much at odds.

Recently, Shahin has called Abbas a failed leader who should resign. Balawi claimed Dahlan was plotting against Abbas, and Dahlan in return accused Balawi of being an Israel spy.

As if this isn't enough, the "young guard" knows that the current leaders will not give it any meaningful share of power in Fatah. The group, for instance, does not have a single member on the Fatah Central Committee.

In short, PA and Fatah politics are a mess. This has long been true but few noticed and it didn't matter when Arafat was alive since he kept the lid on everything, while playing off his subordinates against each other, and provided unity.

Now, however, things are different. It is amazing that since Fatah and the PA are the West's candidate to make good use of almost $7 billion, beat Hamas, establish a Palestinian state, and make peace with Israel, few observers take note of this disastrous situation or factor it into their policies.

Unless Fatah changes its ways, and there is no reason to believe it will do so, one can only wonder if Hamas will be controlling the West Bank, too, within five years. Certainly, one can expect the aid money to disappear without helping the Palestinian people much and be sure that this divided, quarreling leadership will not be able to make peace with Israel.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press, August 2007). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com This is archived at
http://www.gloriacenter.org/index.asp?pname= submenus/articles/2008/rubin/2_18.asp

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 17, 2008.


HRW denounced Israel's partial embargo on Gaza without denouncing Hamas rocket attacks that brought about the partial embargo. It minimizes those attacks and attributes them to other groups, although Hamas runs Gaza tightly. It ignores Israelis' human rights, calling them a mere pretext for Israel's embargo. (As if Israel were looking for war when the government craves peace.)

HRW mistakenly calls Israel an "occupier," which serves to make Israeli self-defense seem improper. HRW does not cite international law, which clearly does not support the label. Besides, HRW claims that Gaza's international border is controlled by Israel, whereas it is controlled by Egypt.

Israel reduced Gaza's supply of electricity. Fuel sent to a particular hospital was seized by Hamas and used for its militia, without objection by HRW. HRW falsely accused Israel of shutting off electricity entirely. HRW failed to acknowledge that Israel supplied much fuel to hospital generators.

Most people came to realize that Hamas staged the "humanitarian crisis." For example, Hamas ordered bakeries closed, and then claimed that Israel withheld so much food as to leave the people without food. The Gazans bought luxury goods in Egypt, such as TVs. HRW omitted all that from its report. It omitted or lied about facts that would exculpate Israel in incriminate Hamas (IMRA, 1/29).

The Hamas web site said that its militia fired 540 rockets at Israel in January (IMRA, 2/2). But HRW doesn't name it as the culprit. Hamas also gives its rockets to other groups

HRW is a terrorist auxiliary. Its reports are unfair, false, and inflammatory.


"Many convoys of humanitarian aid which left from various locations in Egypt drove to Rafah to relieve the blockade in the Gaza Strip. They were not permitted to enter northern Sinai, forcing most of them to return. The largest convoy was sent by the Arab Doctors' Association and included food and drugs worth $1 million (Muslim Brotherhood Website, January 25)." (IMRA, 1/30.)

HRW did not condemn Egypt's barring of humanitarian aid to Gaza nor acknowledge Israel's letting such aid through to Gaza.

Inasmuch as Egypt can bar trucks carrying humanitarian aid, why couldn't they have barred trucks carrying weapons to smuggle into Gaza?


Climate change has reduced rainfall. Excessive drilling of the coastal aquifer has enabled more sea water to penetrate the aquifer, which supplies 30% of Israel's water. Agricultural chemical runoff also pollutes the aquifer.

More Arabs can be expected to drill into the mountain aquifer of Judea-Samaria. Israel had better drill it less. That water is of better quality, but some areas of it are getting polluted, especially from the P.A..

The Water Authority recommends more desalination and agricultural conservation measures (IMRA, 2/7).

The conservation is to be by decree. Not considered is changing the pricing of water, which favors extravagant usage. Also not considered is requiring organic farming, which would eliminate most of the chemicals from agricultural runoff.

Visiting Israel? Bring your own water, but not in plastic.


The P.A. tells the West in English that it wants peaceful co-existence. The P.A. tells its people in Arabic that it wants to conquer Israel (IMRA, 2/4).

Sec. of State Rice is pleased with the message in English. Too bad she does not know about the message in Arabic. Shouldn't she know of it? Or does she?


Israel announced the U.S. ship's arrival, which is not new for Haifa, and speculated that this kind of ship could be used to help defend Israel (IMRA, 2/4).

It also could be used to help attack Israel. Wouldn't put it past the State Dept.. Israel must defend itself.


We all thought the government of Israel a fool, outmaneuvered by Hamas in breaching the Gaza border. Now Deputy Defense Min. Vilnai admits that the government anticipated the breach and knew that Hamas was hacking at the border fence for months. He thinks telling the public that the government was not surprised comforts it (IMRA, 2/4). But since the government did nothing b ut play into Hamas' hands and let world public opinion run against Israel, his news it proves the government too incompetent to be trusted with national security.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Eugene Narrett, February 17, 2008.

The entire debate on when Shas should leave and topple the Kadima-Labor regime is misconstrued by being couched in negatives: "when they begin negotiating alienation of parts of Jerusalem, then..." We need to be positive, to leave "politics" and other Hellenistic terms and approaches in favor of Jewish teachings and the deep, root-spark wisdom of Hebrew language about Am Yisrael, the Am Segula [1].

The matter of language is central for Israel's survival and to attain the joy promised for the world [2]. Consider the damage done to Israel, all Jews and humankind by failing to reject, refuse and dismiss the imperial Roman name, "Palestine" that the British and then the League of Nations applied to Israel, the Land promised by the Creator to the Children of Israel forever. This is but one salient example of an entire culture, a world of imperial and alien Greco-Roman terminology that buries or distorts understanding of the words, concepts, commandments and unified way of being of derekh Yehudi. Politics, oligarchy, diplomacy, globalism, democracy, all are Greco-Roman terms that reflect their culture and its values. This difference is not a topic for philosophers but intrinsic to the geopolitical and cultural burial of Israel by the oligarchs and their media in our days. This choice and change of vocabulary, a choice that would have retrieved history and memory, should have accompanied the renewal of Hebrew as a living language for society. We will return to this point in closing. For now note that the use, the example and insistence on using Hebrew words and concepts, the root sparks of existence are fundamental to the basic mitzvot, both positive and negative that involve affirming, unifying, loving, fearing, sanctifying and praying to the Eternal One and to suppress rather than encourage, however implicitly the world to descend into idol worship and following strange gods and practices. In Israel, instead of Hellenist elections there should be Beit HaBechirah and the honor of being bakhor [3].

Back to our misplaced political debates which actually are a disintegrative spiral, an undoing of creation, a darkening: For more than a year there has been increasing pressure on two ostensibly "right wing" parties, Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu, to quit the expulsion and surrender government. Polls in the late summer and fall of 2006 showed that elections then would have given the Likud about 35 seats and Yisrael Beiteinu, twenty-two. But the leaders of those parties and of Shas preferred to remain with Olmert, Kadima and Labor. About 6200 rockets have been shot into Israel from Hamastan since then and numerous Jews murdered and wounded, traumatized body and soul, not least by the failure of their government to protect them thus violating the prohibition against standing idly by the blood of one's fellow Jew as well as the requirement to destroy Amalek.

It is clear that the Likud prefers not to lead during this end game/checkmate period; perhaps it is waiting to broom up the debris: this after all is "a generation with the face of a dog," of pols who pretend to lead while turning back for approval and instruction from their foreign masters [4]. Even if Shas had left this terrible regime of amgushai and gazirpatai before yesterday the discourse is all wrong: we should think positive, should be talking Jewish and Judaism, – about positive duties and deeds, about bed-rock basics of our identity, shaleim, as Jacob was when he returned from Charan to Shechem where the tomb of his beloved Joseph again stands scorched by the enemies of Israel. That is, the direct line from the glory of Jacob, the evening prayer of Israel and gateway to the Apple Orchard to his foundation has been unbalanced; the chariot and throne, so to speak cannot illuminate and invigorate the world as they should. "When the foundations are destroyed, what has the righteous man accomplished?" (Psalm 11:3). "Hashem is in the abode of His holiness" which is not only the heavens but the mikdash, as it states, "they shall build me a dwelling and I shall dwell among them" and, "you shall make a Sanctuary for Me" (v'oseh Li Mikdash, Exodus 25:8) [5]. How can we not interrupt the watch around the Temple, transgressing negative commandment sixty-seven and many others when we do not build it to guard and serve in it? How can we prevent the planting of trees on the Temple Mount when dog-faced politicians, Hellenists, forbid that Jews be sovereign or even pray there, much less build the Temple [6]?

Let's be positive; let's be Jewish; let's report something in the name of him who said it (Avot 6:6), a very great master of Torah. Let's talk about what we should do regarding the Temple, as suggested by the masters and then Jerusalem and Israel will be fine.

Shimon haTzaddik, one of the last survivors of the Second Temple that the Romans destroyed about 1940 years ago, "used to say, 'upon three things the world is based: upon the Torah, the Temple Service, and upon the practice of charity" (Avot 1:2). The Jews of Gush Katif were great in charity but their homes and livelihoods, and thus their lives were crushed and there is little national charity, much less justice for them. "For this, the land shall mourn" until rectification is made [7].

Because this essay focuses on talking and doing positively regarding the Hub of Israel and the World, the Temple, consider Rav Shimon's emphasis on the Torah, much of which focuses on the Temple Service and the latter via another Mishna: Rav Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rav Shimon bar Yochai said, "five possessions the Holy One, Blessed be He made especially His own...the Torah, heaven and earth, Abraham, Israel and the Beit HaMikdash" (Avot 6:8). When the Ancient of Days gives dominion to the "high holy ones," Israel, the fifth kingdom "they will inherit" (vayachsenun) their inheritance (Daniel 7); this will be an "end," the simple gematria of "they shall inherit" for it will be a cessation of war to the ends of the earth. Hashem alone will be exalted on that day and the gentile nations will learn to live in peace with Israel (Melachim 12:1-2). The terrible end game of the powers who are drunk but not with wine at least has focused the attention of the world on what is most important, dear and foundational, the "five possessions of the high holy one whose mitzvot show that "all Your works are made with wisdom and Your accomplishment fills the earth" (ibid); Torah will go forth from Zion and from Jerusalem, the world of Hashem, the God of Jacob (Isaiah 2, etc).

In the capstone and crown of his magisterial Mishneh Torah, the Yad ha Chazakah, Rambam begins by putting first things first: upon entering the Land, Israel shall appoint a king, annihilate Amalek, and build the Temple" [8]. He then specifies that "the appointment of a king should precede the war against Amalek" and that "Amalek's seed [descendants] should be annihilated before building the Temple [9]. Rambam is the master teacher who explains that Torah is both metaphysical and practical, that it contains all things and ways of knowing and doing. He shows us, immediately that a king and destruction of the enemies of Israel will precede and enable construction of the Temple and thus full and fitting renewal of the Temple Service, i.e., of Judaism.

Many people might interject, 'but in the early twentieth century, who would "appoint a king"?' But the British (and many other peoples have royalty) so perhaps they would have been less hostile during the mandate. 'Besides,' they might add, 'Rambam says that seventy-one elders must appoint the king. Who will designate them? This is the era of politics, political wrangling, big-power imperatives' ("necessity, the tyrant's plea" or apologia, Milton called it), of oligarchic scams. Well, Rav Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook, Chief Rabbi of pre-State Israel had enormous prestige with all parties, the hostile British included, and he had consequent abilities. He could have named a council of seventy-one, a de facto Sanhedrin to appoint a king who may initially have seemed like a figurehead but would, in due course, thanks to the perennial designs of Edom and Ishmael have been able to act like the king Rambam describes. Leadership like that would have made the events of the 1940s, and since, very different. Think about leaders committed to ingathering the exiles while quoting Torah and Rishonim; think about a near-total victory in 1948, a total triumph in 1967 and peace thereafter with a full ingathering and the Temple. There would be no end game "war of terror"; think about it.

Man has free will and the power of choice that interacts with the environment and other people's will in myriad ways [10].

As noted, a king shall be appointed by 71 elders, a nascent or existing Sanhedrin and officially empowered to fulfill all the mitzvot specified in this book and in Yesodei HaTorah, "Foundations of Torah" and the entire Sefer Avodah, "the Book of the Temple and its Service" which includes almost twenty categories of Halacha including, first and foremost, those that honor the Eternal One [11]. Sovereignty and identity are stressed: "You may not appoint a foreigner [as king] but to any of the positions of authority in Israel...all appointments shall be only from your brethren." Let's be positive...

Bearing in mind the teaching of Rabbi Shimon haTzaddik about the intertwining of Torah and Temple, upon opening Sefer Avodah and Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah one notes that seventy of the first ninety-one positive commandments of the Eternal One to Israel involve building, revering, guarding, and serving in the Temple; so do about one hundred of the negative mitzvot [12]. Israel is to build the Temple, "keep watch around the Temple" and "not to nullify the watch around the Temple" [13]. This is the true platform for discussion of national issues in Israel because "national issues" are also issues of identity, history, culture, labor, charity, economics and governance, indeed, the entirety of life. The Torah into which the Highest Wisdom and Creator looked to create His creation with wisdom is a Torah Shleimah, as Israel, to exist must strive with all its being to be Yisrael shleimah on every dimension: of souls, of the Throne, and throughout this world; "strategy" too is a Greek word; Israel has mitzvot upon which true freedom and joy are based, as the shofar blast on Yom Kippur in the Yovel should remind [14].

Rambam also shows that in order properly "to tend all the offerings from the diaspora [and] bring them to Eretz Yisrael" they must be brought to God's chosen House (L'Beit HaBechirah) [15]. All Jews everywhere, Canada, Africa, India, America, France, "from the diaspora" everywhere have a duty and right to see that their offerings to Israel are tended and brought to the Temple for distribution or use. This is vital, the life, the Chai of the Yesod that will be repaired when the Temple Mount is repaired, the Temple rebuilt, and the light – root of Kever Yosef repaired and settled, integrating the sulam of energy and blessings, the chayot and chashmalim, the "life energy," the "fiery beings that communicate," binding the bond of life, the essential DNA that Israel brings [16].

Thus we should be talking positively about observing and doing the mitzvot pertaining to Eretz Zion, Yerushalayim. To do so we must use Hebrew words and the related concepts, categories of thought and ways of thinking. A Jewish vocabulary appears immediately in Yesodei HaTorah, the material and spirit the 'big bang' dispersed throughout creation, forming time, space and matter. As to Torah and the Temple Service at its core, at the core of the nation and all the worlds, this means word-concept-deeds like building, revering, guarding ("l'shamor Beit zeh tamid..."), to serve, to sanctify, to bless, to offer, to sustain and, encompassing all these, to remember not only by "guarding" in one's mind so that one can do, but "with your mouths" by speaking about it with your fellows [17]. In Judaism, remembrance includes speaking and doing and is an individual choice – duty that constitutes a national imperative and identity: "like a single man with a single heart." And to "call out" – "and you shall call out freedom in the land" [18].

As for relations with neighboring peoples and states, because for so long Israel has failed to convene a learned Torah council of seventy-one, appoint a king and fight the wars of God, but rather has engaged in political jostling for a place at the table, its spin masters "calling out, 'peace, peace,' when there is no peace," it is now a time for war as there is a set time for everything needed to balance the world for abundance and peace [19].

When a Torah Jewish vocabulary is used, as in Rambam and sages going back to Moshe and the Avot the greatness of our history will be intelligible to and honored by the world that will gradually learn how dearly they need Torah blessings, those that come foundationally from the Temple Mount and Temple Service; and they will know how beautiful they are: that truth is beauty. They will learn coherence and balance in a Torah vocabulary and mindset that includes Shabbat, Shmittah, Yovel, tamid, serving, offering, celebrating, rejoicing, sanctifying and remembering. Humanity will leave the garish nightmares of Hellenism and Kedar behind and rejoice in the balance and integrity that brings peace to all seventy nations of the world and to all human beings, endowed with soul and splendor and the "specific service assignments" deriving from free will [20]. They will ascend on the flow of healing light that streams from the House of the God of Jacob. With this renewed vocabulary and direction, the policy options and games will yield to positive (and negative, safeguarding) mitzvot, peoples will acknowledge the God of Jacob, the Creator, "and the earth will yield its produce" (Psalm 67). For "the sages did not yearn for the Messianic era in order to have dominion over the world, to rule over gentiles...or to eat, drink and celebrate; rather to be free to immerse themselves in Torah and wisdom... thus in this era good will flow in abundance and all delights will be as common as dust. The work of the whole world will be solely to know Hashem whose wisdom will fill the world with tranquility as the sea fills the ocean bed" [21]; that's a positive foundation, the cornerstone and capstone of the only new world with a humane future (Psalm 118:22-3).


1. Exodus 19:5-6, "an intimately treasured people," Mamlekhet Kohanim v'goi kadosh, "a dominion of Priests and a holy nation." "The root purpose of this service [Torah-mitzvot] is to make man always conscious of God," Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato ("Ramchal"), Derekh Hashem 1.4.6. On "the roots of all physical things," ibid. 1.5.2 passim

2. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 11:4 on Zephaniah 3:9; cf. Melachim 12:5: "the occupation of the entire world will be solely to know Hashem."

3. Rambam, Yesodei HaTorah #1-9, positive (p.38), and Sefer HaMitzvoth Rabbi Shraga Silverstein (Moznaim 1993), negative commandments 1-45; negatives 39-40 show how sexual perversion is a social, moral and above all, theological matter, a form of idolatry.

4. Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin III (Mesorah 2004, Daf Yomi edition), 97a2 with note from Rav Elchanan Wasserman in Ikvasa DeMeshicha in the name of Rav Yisroel Salanter on 'dog-like' politicians. HaRav Shlomo Eidels infers hypocrisy while Yad Ramah and Chida infer insolent and brazen politicians. This reading accords with discussion of the time of the amgushai and gazirpatai discussed in 98a3.

5. Yesodei HaTorah, positive commandment 20, cf. Beit HaBechirah 1; like Jacob when he returned to his inheritance and father, Moshe alone stood shaleim before Hashem in receiving clear knowledge, the form of the soul (see note 16, below), "standing in a composed state" [omeid al amdo shaleim] "to know and comprehend ideas above matter" and "not material," ibid. 7:6, 4:8-9.

6. ibid. 20, negative commandment 13

7. What the forces corrupted by the oligarchs have done in destroying beit midrashim, however modest and, by expelling Jews to permit Amalekites and worshippers of alien gods to destroy so many is to transgress many positive and negative commandments including "not to destroy the Temple, synagogues, or houses of study," ibid. negative 65. Noted supra is the desecration of the tomb of Yosef, the righteous foundation and the earthquakes and loss of blessing that results, war, plague, loss of fertility...

8. Hilchot Melachim 1:1a-c (Moznaim 1987), trans. Touger; all the commandments pertaining to the Temple which in turn pertain to the foundational mitzvoth of sanctifying Hashem depend on building the Temple; similarly negative commandment 67, "not to interrupt the watch maintained around the Temple" on Numbers 18:5, "and you shall keep watch over the holy articles," Sefer HaMitzvoth.

9. Melachim 1:2; Yesodei HaTorah, positive commandments 188-89: "exterminate the seed of Amalek" and "blot out the memory of Amalek." One notes that while Israel fails to do this, the resulting vacuum fills by modern day Amalekites threatening, boasting and striving to do this to Israel from classrooms to boardrooms to kassams. Failure to observe these positive commandments in effect violates the negative commandment "not to forget the wicked deeds which Amalek committed against us," ibid. #59, negative

10. Ramchal, Derekh Hashem (Feldheim 1977, Aryeh Kaplan; 1997 corrected edition), 1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.5.4 passim: "God willed that man should be able to choose freely between good and evil...and arranged things so that not only man's deeds but even his speech and thoughts in indeterminate ways affect transcendent forces... and when the highest forces are influenced by man's free will they in turn influence the physical things that are linked to them" [1.5.5-6]. "Man is therefore an active, moving influence and not merely acted upon" even "though the manner in which this occurs is beyond our ability to comprehend." "The challenge to bring about the Perfected community is the specific service assignment for each individual" as understood "and arranged by the Highest Wisdom" [2.3.3 passim].

11. Rambam, Melachim 1:3-4; Yesodei HaTorah, (Moznaim 1989) translation and notes, Rabbi Eliahu Touger, 39, 114-22

12. ibid. 39-45, 63-74, negative mitzvoth 13, 65-165 almost all of these pertain to the Temple and right service, including prohibitions of forms of idolatry.

13. Beit HaBechirah 1:1, 5, 6

14. Sefer HaMitzvoth, positive commandments 136-8, pp. 182-4 on Vayikra 25:9-10

15. Yesodei HaTorah, positive mitzvah 85 on Devarim 12:26 and our sages.

16. ibid. 2:7; moreover, the "image" or "shadow" (primary meaning, tzeil) in which man was made is the nefesh and ruach, the incorporeal soul-form "enabling man to comprehend ideas that are not material," that is concepts, principles, abstractions; "knowledge is the form of the soul," the genetic material, "it is not a combination of the four elements...but is from God in heaven," a precipitate of the holy chayyot: ibid. 4:8-9, cf. 2:7, "life energies." This daas of the nefesh and ruach "knows and comprehends knowledge which is above matter" (haglamim), on Ecclesiastes 12:7, "the ruach returns to God" (on Kohelet 12:7).

17. "The entire nation said, 'everything that Hashem has spoken, we shall do'" (Exodus 19:8, 24:3, "the entire word that Hashem has spoken, we shall do"). Melachim 5:5 "remember – with your mouths"

18. Sefer HaMitzvoth 137, supra

19. Kohelet ("Ecclesiastes"), 3:1-8

20. Derekh Hashem, free will and providence, 1.3 passim

21. And all these positives as we say, with modern slang veering toward Jewish wisdom, are based on our recognition and stance toward the Eternal One, Hashem: "to know, to unify, to love Him, to be in awe, to pray to Him, to imitate His love and generosity, to sanctify His Name" and for Jews to teach gentiles the "light yoke" of the Noahide laws with the caution "that they are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions" (Melachim 10:9, 11:4). "They should be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot only" categories which include dozens of mitzvot; Melachim 8-9, 12:4-5 and see Sanhedrin 55-59.

Professor Eugene Narrett is the author of hundreds of articles, columns and reviews on politics, American culture and the arts. He writes often on subjects relating to Israel and Judaism. His new book is WW III: the War on the Jews and the Rise of the World Security State, (www.lightcatcherbooks.com 2007). Contact him by email at culturtalk@aol.com and visit his website at www.israelendtimes.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Jones, February 17, 2008.

Rabbi Wolpo Presents the Frightening Truth about Security in the Holy Land and why Olmert is a traitor.

They destroyed the lives of 1800 families from Gush Katif. Now they want to repeat it with 250,000 in Samaria and Judea.

SEE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRzxsoAUVR0


'Everyone' knows an extremist is someone you do not have to listen to. By labeling Rabbi Sholom Dovber Wolpo an extremist, those who wish to destroy Jewish life in the Biblical homeland are hoping the public will not listen to his message.

In January 2008, Rabbi Wolpo announced that Prime Minister Olmert should be hung! Voices screamed in opposition to the politically incorrect statement. No one dared say Rabbi Wolpo was actually wrong. His logic is simple. His facts are correct. According to the laws of the land, aiding terrorists is an act of treason. Treason carries the death sentence.

Rabbi Wolpo has one agenda. He wants to prevent another Holocaust. There are now approximately six million Jews living in Eretz Yisroel. If the government carries through with its plans, all six million lives will be in grave danger.

Come face to face with Rabbi Wolpo in this video and decide for yourself is his message is valid. In contrast to other prominent personalities, Rabbi Wolpo is an extremist. He is extremely sincere, moral and correct.

Rabbi Wolpo is not interested in bringing Olmert to the gallows. He is interested in seeing the government save Olmert's life by refusing to give funds, weapons and land to enemies who want to destroy Jewish life. By declaring that Olmert deserves the death penalty Rabbi Wolpo is illustrating how bad the situation has become. Like the boy in the fable who announces that the King has no clothes. That boy was not politically correct. But he was correct.

Rabbi Wolpo has many innovative projects that strengthen the campaign to save Jewish lives in Eretz Yisroel. Donations can be made to his organization through his website SOS-Israel.com


Yehuda and Shomron = Areas of Biblical land which is commonly referred to as the West Bank. Yehuda is to the south of Jerusalem and includes the Biblical city of Hevron. The Shomron is to the north of Jerusalem. Major Jewish population centers can be seen with the naked eye from the hills of the Shomron. Both areas are strategic military locations and have significant relevance to the Jewish people dating back more than two thousand years before Mohammad.

Sderot = A town not far from the former Gush Katif. Since the Disengagement, terrorists have launched rockets non-stop on this town.

Sirena = Siren. There is an early warning system in Sderot that gives people 15 seconds to run to shelter before the next missile lands. The siren is a very frightening sound and can traumatize children and adults in addition to being a warning that danger is imminent. It sometimes happens that people become hysterical and unable to run to shelter at the when they hear the screech of the siren.

Gush Katif = A cluster of prosperous Jewish towns located within Gaza Strip which were evacuated in the summer of 2005 in what was named the Disengagement Plan.

Neve Dekalim = The largest town in Gush Katif.

Tyrah = Usually spelt Torah, Rabbi Wolpo's traditional pronunciation varies from what most English speakers are accustomed to hearing.

Second Lebanon War = During the summer of 2006, Jews living in the northern portion of Eretz Yisroel ran for their lives, leaving the area deserted due to attacks from Lebanon. The Jewish army was ineffective in combating and uprooting the danger.

Kalkila = Although it has a funny sound in English, it is the name of an Arab town near the Green Line.

Kfar Saba = A Jewish town very close to Kalkilya.

Girush = Disengagement. The expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif and the total destruction of all that was there.

Gittin = Divorces. Rabbi Wolpo mentions the sharp rise in divorces amongst the once industrious but now idle families formerly of Gush Katif.

Galil = The northern part of Eretz Yisroel known to English speakers as the Galilee.

Parnosa = Livelihood

Hillul Hashem = Disgracing that which is holy. Rabbi Wolpo says that Rabbis who do not speak up are disgracing what is holy.

Kiddush Hashem = Sanctification through glorifying what is holy. Rabbi Wolpo says that the Rabbis who speak the truth are the ones who are glorifying that which is holy.

Brachot = Blessings Of Torah;

See also:

Contact Bill Jones at billjones822@earthlink.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 17, 2008.

This is from MEMRI. It's Special Dispatch Series No. 1845 and is archived at http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD184508

In a 30-minute video posted February 14, 2008 on the Islamist website Al-Hesbah (hosted by NOC4Hosts Inc. in Florida), Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, commander of the Al-Qaeda-founded organization Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), presents his position on "winning the war against the Jews." In it, he calls Israel "a malignant germ that was implanted in the heart of the Islamic nation and must be eradicated," and stresses that liberating Al-Aqsa mosque is a duty incumbent upon each and every Muslim. He also accuses Hamas of treason for entering into the political process with Israel while turning its back on jihad fighters around the world.

Addressing the Palestinians, Al-Baghdadi calls on them to embrace the path of jihad, and to make no distinction between the infidel Jews and the Palestinians who betray Islam. He advises them to establish a special Salafi organization to train the children of the stones in noble jihad goals, and urges them to eradicate Shi'ism, which has begun to spread in Palestine in the guise of "resistance." He also calls upon all Muslims to strengthen the existing jihad fronts – especially in Iraq and Afghanistan – and to establish new jihad fronts in order to take some of the Israeli-American pressure off the Palestinians. Finally, he offered the Palestinians economic aid as well as help in training fighters and in manufacturing rockets.

Following are excerpts from his address:

"Israel is a Malignant Germ... The Jewish Traits, as Described in the Koran, Have Persisted through the Ages, and Are Passed from One Generation [of Jews] to the Next"

"Today, I will devote my address to my perception about how to prevail in the struggle against the Jews... Before discussing the solution, let me state some facts that I believe to be true: The [duty of] liberating Al-Aqsa is incumbent upon every Muslim [around the world], just as every Palestinian Muslim has a duty [to participate in] liberating Iraq, Chechnya and other Muslim countries... Israel was founded on a religious basis. It is a religious state, and anyone who calls it a secular state is lying... Israel is a malignant germ implanted in the heart of the Islamic nation, and it must be eradicated, even if the traitors sign a thousand capitulation agreements with it. There is no difference between Zionism and Judaism... since the traits of the Jews, as described in the Koran, have persisted through history, and are passed from one generation [of Jews] to the next...

"The nationalist Arabs and their wretched revolution had a hand in the establishment of Israel... The [various] Palestinian organizations... are the root of the problem... Allah has brought disaster upon them and has exposed their shame... The armed organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and especially Hamas – with the exception of the loyal ['Izz Al-Din] Al-Qassam Brigades – have betrayed Islam and the [Islamic] nation, and have renounced the blood of the martyrs..."

"The Leadership of Hamas has Betrayed Islam and Has Turned Its Back on Jihad Fighters Everywhere"

"The treason of the Hamas leadership is characterized by the following: Its joining the political [process] within the framework of a constitution written by man and on the basis of the Oslo Accords, which surrenders three fourths of Palestine; its implicit recognizing of Israel; its announcement that it will honor the international agreements...; its forming a suspect alliance with Israel and with the regimes that have betrayed Islam, particularly with Egypt and Syria...; its turning its back on jihad fighters [everywhere]...; its announcing, in Moscow, that the issue of Chechnya is an internal [Russian] affair; [its announcing] that [Hamas] has had nothing to do with the jihad in Iraq and has not fired a single shot there; its announcing that [Hamas] is not interested in Islamization of [Palestinian] society... and its not demanding that the political process be in accordance with shari'a as well as its not implementing shari'a once it gained full control of Gaza; its [display of] overt hostility towards jihadi Salafism [the Islamic creed followed by Al-Qaeda]...; and its violating the [religious] prohibition on spilling Palestinian blood..."

"Jihad is the Solution; There Is No Distinction Between Olmert... and 'Abbas"

"Our brothers in Palestine must know that jihad is the solution, and that under the pure flag of monotheism, there is no distinction between war against the Jewish infidel and [war against] the Palestinians who have betrayed Islam. Thus, there is no distinction between [Israeli Prime Minister] Olmert, with his [band of] criminals, and [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] 'Abbas and his gang...

"Another sector that must be dealt a heavy blow is the Shi'ites, and particularly their leaders. This cancer has already begun to spread among our brothers in Palestine, taking advantage of ignorance and poverty. [It is being spread by] a group of traitors who are collaborating with the Iranian Shi'ites, under the guise of 'resistance [fighters]'... Allah's warriors know that Shi'ism is not the [true] Islam revealed by our Prophet Muhammad, but is based on polytheism...

"What would help our brothers in their jihad against the Jewish attack... [is] the establishment of a Salafi organization, which would embrace the [Salafi] ideology... would maintain active ties with the [religious] scholars, the sheikhs, the mosques and the leaders [of Palestinian society], and would train Palestinian youth to wage noble jihad... [Also,] the loyal [fighters] of the ['Izz Al-Din] Al Qassam [Brigades] should announce that they are severing ties with Hamas and with its corrupt and deviant political leadership... "

The Islamic Nation Should Establish New Jihad Fronts To Ease Pressure on the Palestinians

"The role that the [Islamic] nation must play in liberating Al-Aqsa is manifold. It must open new jihad fronts in order to take some of the Jewish and American pressure off our brothers in Palestine. At the same time, it must make sure to strengthen the existing jihad fronts – especially [where there is] a direct confrontation with [U.S.] troops, as in Iraq and Afghanistan... [The Islamic nation] must also break down the despicable checkpoints that encircle our brothers in Palestine: the Palestinians in Jordan must breach the [Jordanian] border in order to lift the economic siege off the West Bank... while the Egyptians must breach the border separating them from their brothers in Gaza...

"In this context, I suggest that every Muslim put aside two dollars of his monthly income; half [the money] will go to our brothers in Palestine and the other half will go to the other [jihad] fronts. Virtuous people should establish secret charities... to collect this money and hold it until it can be sent on to its destination... Religious scholars must break down the barriers of fear... and inform [everyone] of the danger posed to the faith and to the [entire] world by the regimes that have betrayed Islam. [They must] support the jihad fighters and advise them by issuing fatwas... [In addition,] the media must truly support the jihad fighters by emphasizing their virtues and ignoring their flaws..."

The ISI is Persecuted Because It is the Key to Liberating Jerusalem

"As for the role of the ISI in liberating Palestine... we hope it will be the key to restoring [Muslim control over] Jerusalem. The Jews and the Muslims have already realized [its crucial importance], and have tried to prevent us from [attaining] this goal in every possible way. The vicious attack on the Al-Anbar [district] was motivated only by their realization that medium-range missiles fired from Al-Anbar can reach Israel, as demonstrated by Saddam [Hussein in the first Gulf War]... They know that some of [his] missiles are still around, and that new ones can be manufactured...

"The crimes perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq, and especially by Hamas-Iraq, by the [Iraqi] Islamic Party and by Al-Jaysh Al-Islami – [namely] the establishment of the Awakening movement and their continuing attempts to drive us out of Al-Anbar, with direct [collaboration] with the Americans – were aimed solely at preventing us from helping you [i.e. the Palestinians], even if [this help was] only from afar. But know that with Allah's help, the future will be bright, [for] we will never [let] the collaborators and the traitors stand in our way...

"We are willing to help you with the little money we have, and to train your fighters [in everything], from preparing explosive charges to manufacturing rockets...

"[Signed] your brother, Abu Omar Al-Quraishi Al-Baghdadi."

Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 17, 2008.

This is by Sultan Knish and it was posted yesterday on his website

American liberals have traditionally bemoaned the idea of creating a constitutional amendment against flag burning, arguing that freedom is more important than the flag. The death knell of that argument came however when Muslims rioted against the Danish cartoons of Mohammed and the liberal American press, all but unanimously refused to display the cartoons. The decision had been made, the Koran was sacred, the American flag was not. It was not about freedom, it was about a matter of priorities and the media has chosen the Koran over the flag.

Choosing the Koran over the Flag has become a pattern across the world and in the wake of that pattern follows the persecution of those who choose the flag. Selling toilet paper with the Koran on it caused a man to be indicted in Germany. There is no crime of course involved in printing the Jewish Torah or the Christian Bible on toilet paper. In Israel a young woman named Tatiana Soskin found herself in solitary confinement and served a prison term for drawing a cartoon of Mohamed as a pig. By contrast leftists in Israel are free and even encouraged to defame Israel itself. Across Europe, Canada and Australia criticizing Islam runs the gamut from mortal danger to criminal act, yet there is no crime or danger in attacking the countries themselves or their right to exist.

This pattern of Koran over Flag repeats itself across the civilized world and where the Koran is raised higher than the Flag, terrorism thrives and national defense and national culture falters.

Through acts of violence Islam draws a line in the sand. The cartoon riots were such a cultural line in the sand as Muslims demonstrated the penalty for criticizing Islam. To the extent that the world went along with it, Islam rose triumphant. The cartoon riots demonstrated once again that despite what the European Union and Congress and the Knesset might believe, laws are not made by bureaucrats and politicians but by those willing to enforce them with civil sanction or violence.

Those who believe in the sanctity of the Torah or the Bible by the very nature of their faith resist the Koran. Those who no longer do anything but give lip service to vague principles like the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot do anything but graciously yielded to the colonization of their own religion.

Those who believe that their countries must endure natively form a cultural resistance to the Jihad, but at the same time face condemnation for their extremism from those same liberals whose sacred principles are not rooted in religion or state but in a vision of some vast borderless utopia, to which the Muslim was supposed to be a contributor and yet is swiftly becoming a conqueror.

In Israel, the war on Religious Zionism continues, a political, cultural and economic campaign of demonization, violence and expulsion. In America, the entire cultural establishment seems geared toward diminishing the terrorist threat and demonizing and ridiculing those who speak out against it. Across Europe, the elites are determined to tear down borders, never realizing or realizing all too well, that in doing so they are also tearing out souls.

In Australia, the new nose picking Prime Minister issued an apology for his country's existence. The leaders of America and Israel prodded along by their own elites have spent decades apologizing for their own country's existence. And the more apologies were issued, the more their flags drooped, morale fell and the Koran and the sword of Jihad rose high.

A people must select what it is they value, their faith and their nation or a borderless tolerance unbroken by the darkest of crimes, the most terrible of explosions, the most brutal rapes and even the prospect of their own annihilations.

Either the Flag or the Koran must rise high for it cannot ever be both.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nadia Matar, February 17, 2008.

Denial is a well-known psychological mechanism. A threatening problem is created. The individual denies the problem for a certain amount of time, but it eventually explodes in his face.

The people of Israel are in total denial regarding the problem of Israeli Arabs. After watching a video recording of a demonstration by Israeli Arabs in Haifa, I decided that the time has come to raise this issue, knowing full well that this is a subject that many people are afraid to touch.

The video recording, that appears on the "Netnet" web site, shows a recent demonstration in Haifa.(See link to the video at the end of the article).We see in the video scores of Arabs waving flags of Palestine and chanting anti-Israel slogans. Here are a few quotes from the report by Boaz Golan that accompanies the recording:

"The Jews who live in the German Colony in Haifa are in shock. Their ears do not want to hear, and woe to the eyes that see ... Here in Haifa, under the Bahai gardens, right next to the Haifa Municipality's Tourist Association – here, in our home, in a state that is talking about its 60th [anniversary] celebrations, right here, we live as if in a prison. Here, in our home, the Arabs are raising their heads ... This infuriating demonstration lasted for days. A Palestinian demonstration against the state, against the public at large, against the Jewish people. Against me and against you. Flags of Palestine fly in the face of passersby. Gaza is here in Haifa, in our very home! Jewish drivers pass by, honk their horns, and call out to them: "Go to Gaza," but scores of Arabs continue to chant their slogans against the state, and are not afraid to shout out loud: "Beirut," "Damascus," "Palestine"! ... This is how the State of Israel is ... in a country in which corruption runs wild and Arabism flourishes."

The demonstration in Haifa is, of course, only one of the many examples of the dramatic rise in the nationalistic extremism of Israeli Arabs, that is expressed not only in chanting anti-Israel slogans, but also in acts and in violence against Jews. Naturally, in all these instances, the "Israeli law enforcement" system, does not lift a finger.

In Akko and in Jaffa Israeli Arabs attack Jews. No one says anything, True, a few Members of Knesset came to show their shock before the cameras. Dozens of young couples have moved to these cities, in order to strengthen the Jewish residents. This positive initiative is to be applauded, but, at the present time, there can be no doubt that this act is like giving aspirin to a cancer patient.

Recently we hear of stone throwing at Jewish vehicles by Israeli Arabs in Galilee. This hardly makes the headlines. Just imagine what the media would have done if Jews had thrown stones at Arabs! Jewish girls walking about in malls in the north where there is an Arab majority suffer sexual harassment, and take their lives in their hands if they just go shopping. Does this bother anyone? Is anyone willing to say, right out loud: "In Israel in 2008, Israeli Arabs are attacking Jews"? No, everyone remains silent and denies the problem.

Last year, dozens of Jews celebrated Yom ha-Atzmaut (Israel Independence Day) in the forest of Megiddo. A group of Israeli Arabs arrived, with flags of Palestine, riding on horses, and forced the Jews to flee from the city. Except for the Arutz 7 web site, did anyone cover this subject? Not to mention that the police did not arrest even a single Arab rioter.

And what about the quiet and nonviolent Arab conquest that is being conducted in many places in Israel? Anyone who visits the Hadassah-Mount Scopus and Hadassah-Ein Karem hospitals could mistakenly think that he was in Ramallah. There are countless Arab doctors, and hundreds of Arab patients and Arab clans in the corridors. The situation is the same in the universities, the courts, and so on...

Jewish children no longer play in the Liberty Bell Garden, between the Inbal Hotel and the King David Hotel. It has been "conquered" by hundreds of Arab families, and Jewish mothers fear to bring their children there. Make no mistake. Unlike other countries, in which minorities act with respect and submission to the host country, a considerable portion of the Israeli Arabs act as if they were the lords of the land, while we Jews seem to them as causal visitors who bother them!

I ask: is this the "Jewish State" of which its founders dreamed?

The government of Israel relates to this issue from a quite interesting direction. A few days age we were informed that Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit is acting to establish a new Arab city, apparently in the Galilee. "No New Arab City Has Been Established Since the Establishment of the State," cry out the newspaper headlines in favor of a new Arab city. Truly, there is no better way to portray the Israeli government that is celebrating 60 years since the establishment of the Jewish state: a government that freezes all Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria, and even in the capital Jerusalem, and instead of this channels its resources and money into the establishment of an Arab city. I don't know whether to cry or laugh bitterly.

The left and the Arab street, of course, are full of joy and elation. But why does the national camp remain silent? Where is the outcry? Where are the rabbis who are supposed to remind us that, on account of "show them no quarter" (Deuteronomy 7:2), we must not allow non-Jews to encamp in Israel? This means: it is forbidden to sell them a house, it is forbidden to rent them a house. And it certainly is forbidden to build them a city.

And just what is the meaning of an "Arab city"? Will they put a sign at the entrance to the city: "No Entry for Jews"? Is there actually any "Jewish city" in the State of Israel? Israeli Arabs can live in any city in Israel. Arabs live in Haifa, Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Jerusalem, and after the anti-Zionist ruling by Aharon Barak, Arabs also moved to Katzir and Harish.

If Jews, in contrast, would dare to buy in Umm el-Fahm, Daliyat al-Karmil, Baka el-Garbiye, or any other Arab village in Galilee or the Negev, it is clear to all that they would be subject to a pogrom, just as the Druze did to make the city of Peki'in free of Jews a few months ago.

As you remember, in late October 2007, Druze used the pretext of a new cellular antenna to riot against the Jewish families in the town. Jewish houses and cars were torched down; tens of Israeli policemen were wounded; one policewoman was held hostage.The end result: all Jewish families left Pekiin and have not returned yet. (see links to articles about Pekiin riots at the end of the article).

And if we continue to be silent about this topic, what will happen in another twenty years? Will anyone relate to these questions? The left tells us that we must "separate ourselves" from Judea and Samaria in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. This, however, is the false propaganda of the anti-Jewish left, that dreams of the destruction of the Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, for no reason other than hatred for the settlers, and that attempts to advance its dream by spreading empty slogans. The Arabs of Judea and Samaria do not constitute a threat to the State of Israel. They are not citizens. It is specifically Israeli Arabs who threaten Israel as a Jewish state. Why is no one in our camp willing to propose a solution to the issue of Israeli Arabs in a country that wants to be a Jewish state? Rabbi Benny Elon's Israel Initiative relates to the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, while Avigdor Leiberman's "exchange of territories" idea should be categorically rejected, since it speaks of handing over parts of the land of Israel to Arabs.

The only one who dared to broach this subject was Rabbi Meir Kahane of blessed memory, may G-d avenge his blood. In 1980, when he was in the Ramle prison, he wrote a book entitled They Must Go (the Hebrew title means "Stings in Your Eyes," from the verse in the book of Numbers [33:55]: "But if you do not dispossess the inhabitants of the land, those whom you allow to remain shall be stings in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land in which you live").

Based on the Jewish halakhah, and supported by dozens of historical examples of other peoples who struggled with hostile minorities that lived in their midst, Rabbi Kahane proposed that we separate ourselves from the Arabs. Only in this way will Israel be able to survive as a Jewish state. The details of the plan and the ways to implement them are set forth in his book. Despite its having been written in 1980, it is still extremely relevant.

We can either accept or reject what Rabbi Kahane wrote, but one thing is clear: we cannot continue to ignore this question. If we continue to bury our heads in the sand, one day we will wake up after elections and hear the broadcaster announce in the news: It's an upheaval! After Arab mayors were elected in Haifa, Beersheva, and Jerusalem a few years ago, today an Arab Prime Minister has been elected in Israel! Mabruk and Salaam Aleikum!"

And what will we do then?

True, many people are afraid to touch the issue, for fear of being accused of "racism." But we cannot lose the Jewish state out of "fear of racism."If an Israeli government minister is not accused of racism for establishing an Arab city free of Jews, and if all the members of the Sharon government, who expelled our brethren from Gush Katif and northern Samaria just because they were Jews, were not accused of racism, then I an certain that the charge of racism will not be raised against those who propose deposing the present government and replacing it with a government that will advance the idea of a truly Jewish state – which means: Jewish sovereignty over all of Eretz Israel and Jewish control of its future. Since the hostile Arab minority will not be pleased by this, everyone will eventually understand that separation is the only solution: The Jews in Eretz Israel, and the Arabs in the Arab countries.

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

This article was published in Arutz Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerusalem Viewpoints, February 17, 2008.

This was written by Zalman Shoval, a member of the Board of Overseers of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, served as Israel's Ambassador to the United States from 1990 to 1993 and from 1998 to 2000. A veteran member of Israel's Knesset (1970-1981, 1988-1990), Ambassador Shoval was a senior aide to the late Moshe Dayan during his tenure as foreign minister in the Begin government, including during the first Camp David conference. He is currently head of the Foreign Relations Department of the Likud party.

  • In the past, including under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, one often heard of concessions or compromises on the territories Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War referred to as painful. According to Sharon, Israel was to give up something that was ours, not return something to which we have no right.

  • The Israeli government has in effect relented on the Roadmap demand that the Palestinians first stop all the violence and destroy the terrorist infrastructure. Yet if one should raise in this context the question of Israeli settlements, it will be difficult to convince most Israelis that building a house or a kindergarten should be equated with suicide bombings and the killing of women and children.

  • In an unimplementable "shelf agreement," Israel will be seen to have committed itself to certain far-reaching steps that it has not implemented. On the one hand, this will be seen as the starting point for any future negotiations, and on the other hand, it will invite increasing pressure on Israel, with the added element of ongoing terror.

  • When Israel originally accepted the Roadmap, it was stipulated that there would be no negotiations on the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza (Phases 2 and 3) until the Palestinians first fulfill their security commitments in accordance with Phase 1. If those pre-conditions for negotiations from 2003 have already melted away four years later, then why shouldn't Annapolis pre-conditions for implementation of the "shelf agreement" melt away four years from now?

  • Wasn't Annapolis touted primarily as a way to create an effective front against Iran? The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published a few days after Annapolis made nonsense of that intention. In fact, one actually sees a rapprochement between Iran and those "moderate" Arab regimes, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

A Defining Moment?

There is a big question whether the Annapolis Conference held on November 27, 2007, should be seen as a "defining event" or even a "defining moment" in the political process between Israel and the Arab world and the Palestinians. It may have looked like a defining moment in the eyes of American policy-makers, but perhaps more in connection to other reasons – like Iraq, or domestic politics, or legacies – than to Arab-Israeli peace.

A few years ago there was a fierce debate, mainly in the U.S., about whether the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad – or the other way around. In retrospect, both views were wrong – though perhaps had the U.S. been more successful in Iraq, the first assumption, the road to Jerusalem leading through Baghdad, might have been correct. Today, President George W. Bush still speaks about his determination to build on the Annapolis meeting as one of the pillars of his foreign policy. He spoke about a "peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state" being achieved in his January 28, 2008, State of the Union address.

President Bush's visit to Israel earlier in January was welcomed by most Israelis, but with regard to Annapolis, there has been a considerable degree of skepticism about the administration's approach from across the Israeli political spectrum. Anyway, President Bush has said he was not going to impose a timetable on the parties, perhaps with a reawakened sense of realism, and awareness of the unpopularity of both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and also of the distinct possibility that by the end of the year Israel could be in the midst of elections.

Why Are Concessions "Painful"?

It is not necessary to dwell here on possible changes in attitude on the part of the Bush administration, but no less importantly, there has been a dramatic change, not always noticed, in official Israeli attitudes under the current government. In the past, including under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, one often heard of concessions or compromises on the territories Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War referred to as painful, although as perhaps necessary political decisions. In other words, according to Sharon, Israel was to give up something that was ours, not return something to which we have no right. In contrast, the attitude of the current government has forgone with Israel's basic moral, historic, or legal claims to the territories.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), at and before Annapolis, had raised all of the most extreme and unbending Palestinian demands, and the question is if this was intended merely for domestic Palestinian consumption, or whether, perhaps egged on by the Saudis, the Arab League and others, he believed that in view of the political weakness of the Israeli government and the overall aims of the U.S. in the region, there was actually a chance that Israel would be forced to accede to many of the Palestinian demands, and if not, be blamed for holding up the process.

If one looks back all the way to Oslo, one cannot escape the conclusion that Israeli compliance led not to more Palestinian compliance, but rather the other way around. This includes the "Roadmap," in connection with which the Israeli government has in effect relented on the demand that the Palestinians stop all the violence and destroy the terrorist infrastructure. Yet if, as we are used to, one should raise in this context the question of Israeli settlements, it will be difficult to convince most Israelis that building a house or a kindergarten should be equated with suicide bombings and the killing of women and children.

There are more than a few views about Annapolis and its consequences, but, in general, one can point to at least the following reactions: those who don't think that the necessary ingredients for peace, including suitable leaderships, are there yet; those on the Israeli side who oppose it for either ideological or pragmatic, especially security-linked, reasons; on the Palestinian side there are those, also for both ideological or pragmatic reasons, who have either not given up their dream of eliminating the Jewish state altogether; or those who doubt whether the proposed Palestinian mini-state has much of a chance to be "viable" or to survive in the long run.

The Importance of Process

Opposed to the above are the supporters of Annapolis, on both sides, including the not too many who genuinely believe that Annapolis has generated a process which could actually lead to peace at some time in the future, and others who are much less confident but for reasons often linked to domestic politics, especially in Israel but also in the Palestinian Authority and perhaps also with an eye towards Washington, will declare their undying support for it. On the Israeli side, if you fine-tune what Mr. Olmert says, this means in effect: what I really need is the process, the talks, not necessarily the outcome, so that I can present myself to the public as the leader who has to be kept in power in order to give peace a chance. And then there are those, maybe the majority, who say, "the talks don't really matter one way or another, nothing will come out of them anyway."

In the meantime, talks have started on the core issues – Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements – headed on the Israeli side by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and on the Palestinian side by Abu Ala. But even if there could hypothetically be agreement on all these points – which means, for instance, Abu Mazen declaring that the "right of return," including UN General Assembly Resolution 194, is dead and buried, or recognizing Israel as the state of the Jewish people; or Olmert agreeing to withdraw completely to the "Green Line" and to divide Jerusalem, etc. – implementation is not imaginable under present circumstances.

Still, paradoxically, one cannot rule out altogether that, in spite of all this, by the end of this year the two sides – urged on or "steam-rolled" (as reportedly Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice so elegantly put it) by the U.S. – could indeed agree on a document which will include all sorts of references to some, though not all, of the so-called core issues, although almost nothing will or can be implemented. Actually, if you listen to Defense Minister Ehud Barak or even Prime Minister Olmert, that's what they say.

Even less likely is there any possibility of implementation on the Palestinian side, for instance on the question of refugees. It is also a near certainty, in view of Hamas' control of Gaza, that without the continued presence of the IDF and Israel's other security organs in the West Bank, Hamas would take over there too.

A "Shelf Agreement" Will Be the Starting Point for Future Negotiations

The inevitable outcome of this scenario of an unimplementable paper agreement, however, will in all likelihood be that in the eyes not only of the Palestinians and the Arab world, but also in the rest of the world including the U.S., Israel will be seen to have committed itself to certain far-reaching steps that it has not implemented. On the one hand, this will be seen as the starting point for any future negotiations, and on the other hand, it will invite increasing pressure on Israel, with the added element of ongoing terror.

In other words, the scenario that the advocates of the Annapolis process have in mind is the completion of a "shelf agreement" – an Israeli-Palestinian accord that sits on a shelf and is pulled down at a later date when political conditions on the ground permit it to be implemented. The idea behind the "shelf agreement" is that the Fatah movement, armed with this new treaty, will supposedly be placed in a better position to draw Palestinians to its side of the political fence, and hence assist, theoretically, to strengthen Palestinian moderation.

In the meantime, Israel is supposed to be reassured that the "shelf agreement" will not be implemented until all of its security concerns are addressed through strict implementation of the first phases of the 2003 Roadmap for Peace.

In reality, this entire scenario is highly questionable in terms of its implementation, and is dangerous for Israel. For example, Israel should be extremely concerned that once it signs a "shelf agreement," international pressures will grow for it to be implemented even before the Palestinians fulfill their Roadmap commitments in the area of security.

After all, when Israel originally accepted the 2003 Roadmap for Peace, it was stipulated that there would be no negotiations on the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, that appear in Phases 2 and 3, until the Palestinians first fulfill their security commitments in accordance with Phase 1 of the Roadmap. If those pre-conditions for negotiations from 2003 have already melted away four years later, then why shouldn't Annapolis pre-conditions for implementation of the "shelf agreement" melt away four years from now?

Moreover, the "shelf agreement" will already affect the situation on the ground even before it is implemented. In the areas assigned to come under Palestinian sovereignty in the future, a struggle for influence will accelerate in anticipation of the coming vacuum, leading to more widespread clashes between Hamas and its competitors, as well as a diminution of any residual Israeli security-related authority. If Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are today in power in Ramallah because Israeli forces are in a position to intervene in the event that Hamas tries an armed West Bank takeover, then what will happen to them if Israeli authority begins to erode even before the "shelf agreement" is officially implemented?

In any case, Israel already saw in the 1990s during the Oslo process that progress in the peace process did not automatically undercut the influence of Hamas and build up the strength of a moderate Fatah. Hamas in fact gained strength because Fatah looked increasingly corrupt to many Palestinians. Today, Fatah is still viewed the same way and, in addition, it has become a highly fragmented organization, with multiple centers of power. In short, Fatah is not in a strong position to displace Hamas, Annapolis notwithstanding. And segments of Fatah are still involved in terrorism against Israel, in any case. Nor, it should be remembered, are Abbas' views all that different from those of Yasser Arafat.

The de facto Peace Option

In other words, the emergence of an Israeli-Palestinian "shelf agreement" does not mean peace. Conversely, de-facto peace can be achieved under certain circumstances, even on a long-term basis, without a final, comprehensive written agreement, and there have been examples of both all through history. A real, permanent peace agreement must have the support of a substantial majority on both sides – and this is not the case today. What the late Moshe Dayan said almost thirty years ago still holds true: it will be difficult to have a written document that both Israelis and Palestinians can live with.

What's more, such a virtual peace may abort or at least delay possible concrete progress, including in the economic sphere, which could eventually create an environment of real, as opposed to virtual, peace – and make it clearer to Israelis and Palestinians what and how Palestinian self-governance could actually look like.

The Paris donors' conference could have been a positive development in this connection, but it remains to be seen if it will promote real economic ventures, primarily through the private sector, or if, once again, it will just be subsidizing the Palestinian Authority with all that this incurs – waste, inefficiency, corruption – everything but an improvement in the economic situation of the Palestinian population. The very term donor's conference was wrong – it should have been called a business or economic conference.

If one wants to be practical, several supposedly axiomatic premises should also be looked at anew. One is that "everyone knows what the solution will look like" – really? Or that "unless a two-state solution is quickly arrived at, Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state." There will have to be disconnection of some sort (the exact term is unimportant), but there could be more than one way to arrive at it. Statehood is one option, in the eyes of many perhaps the only option, but options – unless they are backdated – by definition are something to be exercised in the future, and only if the price is right.

What Happened to the Annapolis Anti-Iran Coalition?

We have short memories, but wasn't Annapolis touted, including in Israel, primarily as a way to create an effective front against Iran? The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published a few days after Annapolis made nonsense of that intention. In fact, in the last few weeks one actually sees a rapprochement between Iran and those "moderate" Arab regimes, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

It should be clear that Iran is still the paramount concern, but using it as a pretext in the Israeli-Palestinian equation is not helpful, either in confronting Iran's ambitions or in trying to promote peace between Israel and the Arab world. Realistically, if Israel is pressured to implement a "shelf agreement" that strips it of defensible borders and compromises its position in Jerusalem, then the strategic outcome of such a situation will actually serve the interests of Hamas and Iran who will be better positioned to exploit Israel's new vulnerabilities. Indeed, Israel's 2005 disengagement from Gaza was also touted as an initiative that would strengthen moderation, but it led to a Hamas takeover and to the entry of Iranian-trained Palestinian terrorists into the Gaza area. In fact, Hamas is now adopting many aspects of the military organization of Iranian-backed Hizbullah.

In any event, Bush's meeting with the Saudi leadership doesn't look to have been too successful – not with regard to oil prices and not with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. This supposed "coalition of moderates" has not brought about a more moderate stance with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In fact, it may mean the opposite, namely, an effort to show Arab, including Palestinian, public opinion that not only are those "moderates" as tough on Israel as the best of them, including Iran, but contrary to them, more effective, perhaps with the help of the U.S., in forcing Israel to make concessions.

As Bloomberg's Janine Zacharia, accompanying President Bush on his visit to Riyadh, reported, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal has said that his country wouldn't normalize ties with Israel, while another senior Saudi official, Prince Turki al-Faisal, offered Israel "cooperation," but only if it withdrew "from all occupied Arab territories." He also superciliously said that Arabs "would start thinking of Israelis as Arab Jews(!) and agree to the "integration of Israel into the Arab geographical entity."

This article appeared as a Jerusalem Viewpoint No. 561 25 Shvat 5768 / 1 February 2008. It is archived at Jerusalem Viewpoints, which is published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in Jerusalem. Write them atjcpa@netvision.net.il and visit the website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Ellen Horowitz, February 17, 2008.

This was written by Philip Klein and it appeared yesterday in American Spectator

Here is a transcript of my exchange with John McCain regarding James Baker. I think McCain was overly defensive, because it must have come across to him that I was questioning his support for Israel, when in reality, I was questioning how Baker could be considered somebody capable of helping implement the kind of pro-Israel foreign policy that McCain supports. Anyway, I'll let you be the judge:

PK: Hi Senator McCain, I just wanted to clarify something. I know that you've always been a strong supporter of Israel, but I was disappointed to come across an interview I had seen with you in 2006, where you mentioned James Baker as someone who you might want to send over to Israel to micromanage the Middle East conflict. Even if you don't accept some of the disparaging comments that James Baker reportedly made about Jews, looking at his foreign policy public statements, clearly he is of the view that American foreign policy is too pro-Israel, and as recently as the Iraq Study Group report, he called for pressuring Israel into giving up land to Syria as part of an arrangement to pacify Iraq. I guess I was wondering if you still stand by those comments, if you can clarify them, and give me any indication as to how you reconcile supporting Israel with wanting to send James Baker over there?

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, in all do respect, I have a very clear record of 24 years of support of Israel. Ask Ehud Barak. Ask Olmert. I'm sorry that you didn't get the chance to ask Shimon Peres. Ask any Israeli...

PK: No, I'm not questioning your record on Israel, that's why I was kind of confused when I read the statements about James Baker.

SEN MCCAIN: I respect James Baker, and I respect him a great deal. And so all I have to tell you is that I will stand on my record of support for the state of Israel. I mentioned his name in a group with a number of others, and I also have great respect for James Baker, even though we may have a disagreement on a specific issue. I have consulted with many people across the board, I continue to visit the state of Israel, I continue to dedicate my efforts to the independence of the state of Israel, and if it bothers you that I mentioned James Baker's name, then I apologize for that, but I will stand on my record, no matter who I mention, in any context. My not only support for the state of Israel, but knowledge of the issues, players, and knowing how to get the issue resolved, maintaining the integrity and independence of the state of Israel. Okay?

Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter and columnist for Israelnationalnews.com. email: ellenwrite@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 17, 2008.

This was written by Daniel Pipes and appeared February 12, 2008 on Front Page Magazine. Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers).

Professor Pipes speaks to the on-going process of Islamic conquest of Europe. Britain, France, the Netherlands (among others) are already reaching a "critical mass" of in-migrating Muslims. Too many of the countries in Europe are already at an advanced stage of converting from Christianity to Islam. Regrettably, this conquest is aided and abetted by pacifistic governments and a Media who refuse to take their own governments to task over their loss of identity. Muslim clerics in Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have plainly proclaimed that Europe will be Islamic in 10 to 20 years. A Muslim America is also on that agenda.

The Muslim goal, as dictated by the Koran and Mohammed's teachings, is Global Domination for a World Caliphate of Islam.

Beneath the deceptively placid surface of everyday life, the British population is engaged in a momentous encounter with Islam. Three developments of the past week, each of them culminating years' long trend – and not just some odd occurrence – exemplify changes now underway.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith describes terrorism as "anti-Islamic."

First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term "war on terror" would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds "shared values as a means to counter terrorists." By early 2007, the European Union issued a classified handbook that banned jihad, Islamic, and fundamentalist in reference to terrorism, offering instead some "non-offensive" phrases. Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with terrorism. In January, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went further, actually describing terrorism as "anti-Islamic." And last week the Home Office completed the obfuscation by issuing a counter-terrorism phrasebook that instructs civil servants to refer only to violent extremism and criminal murderers, not Islamist extremism and jihadi-fundamentalists.

Second, and again culminating several years of evolution, the British government now recognizes polygamous marriages. It changed the rules in the "Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003": previously, only one wife could inherit assets tax-free from a deceased husband; this legislation permits multiple wives to inherit tax-free, so long as the marriage had been contracted where polygamy is legal, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, or India. In a related matter, the Department for Work and Pensions began issuing extra payments to harems for such benefits as jobseeker allowances, housing subventions, and council tax relief. Last week came news that, after a year-long review, four government departments (Work and Pensions, Treasury, Revenue and Customs, Home Office) concluded that formal recognition of polygamy is "the best possible" option for Her Majesty's Government.

Third, the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, endorsed applying portions of the Islamic law (the Shari'a) in Great Britain. Adopting its civil elements, he explained, "seems unavoidable" because not all British Muslims relate to the existing legal system and applying the Shari'a would help with their social cohesion. When Muslims can go to an Islamic civil court, they need not face "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." Continuing to insist on the "legal monopoly" of British common law rather than permit Shari'a, Williams warned, would bring on "a bit of a danger" for the country.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says that Islamic law in Great Britain "seems unavoidable."

Prime Minister Brown immediately slammed Williams' suggestion: Shari 'a law, his office declared, "cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor can the principle of Shari 'a law be used in a civilian court. ... the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values." Criticism of Williams came additionally from all sides of the political spectrum – from Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory (Muslim) shadow minister for community cohesion and social action; Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats; and Gerald Batten of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Secular and Christian groups opposed Williams. So did Trevor Phillips, head of the equality commission. The Anglican church in Australia denounced his proposal, along with leading members of his own church, including his predecessor, Lord Carey. Melanie Phillips called his argument "quite extraordinarily muddled, absurd and wrong." The Sun newspaper editorialized that "It's easy to dismiss Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as a silly old goat. In fact he's a dangerous threat to our nation." It concludes acerbically that "The Archbishop of Canterbury is in the wrong church."

Although widely denounced (and in danger of losing his job), Williams may be right about the Shari 'a being unavoidable, for it is already getting entrenched in the West. A Dutch justice minister announced that "if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Shari 'a tomorrow, then the possibility should exist." A German judge referred to the Koran in a routine divorce case. A parallel Somali gar courts system already exists in Britain.

These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life.

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 Arlene Kushner, February 17, 2008.

You'll find no enormous credence given in these postings to what the Palestinians have to say; frequently their statements are best reviewed with a jaundiced eye. But every now and then what they say makes sense, even if their positions are antithetical to ours.

What do you mean, negotiate on Jerusalem last? PA leaders asked late last week. We're discussing core issues. One of those issues is borders. How can we finalize borders without discussing what part of Jerusalem we'll have? And another issue is settlements. For us, Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Gilo and Ramot are settlements. How can we not also discuss these?

And you know what? It's difficult to argue with this. Everything has to be on the table at once (or, preferably, nothing, but that's another story).

The point here is simply that in spite of this argument, Shas continues to pretend that Olmert is straight with them when he says Jerusalem is not being discussed. That, my friends, is the charade.


According to YNet, a Gaza ground operation is in the works. It has not yet been put into action as preparations are not complete.

Details are being kept quiet in order to ensure maximum surprise. But this time the goals have been clearly defined.

The short terms, tactical goals are:

-- Speedy facilitation of intelligence-gathering capacity (which will make everything else possible).

-- A drastic reduction in firing of Kassams and mortars, achieved quickly.

-- Destruction of military infrastructure, arsenals and weapons manufacturing sites belong to all the terrorists groups.

-- Blocking of smuggling at the Philadelphi Corridor.

-- Avoiding a humanitarian crisis for the Palestinian civilian population.

All of this will take time, will be painful, and is very necessary.

According to this report, the strategic objectives are:

-- Removing Hamas from power and establishing a stable Palestinian regime with international assistance.

-- Demilitarizing Gaza for a period of time.

-- Achieving effective Israeli security and monitoring for years to come.

It's the first strategic objective, if it is being accurately reported, that I have problems with. First, because we should do this to benefit our security situation and NOT for the sake of Mahmoud Abbas. This would be short-sighted objective that is not in our best interest.

And then, it is still, in my opinion, pie-in-the-sky to imagine there can be a "stable Palestinian regime." It's time to get real. This operation is frequently compared to Operation Defensive Shield of 2002, in which we went into Palestinian areas of Judea and Samaria after horrendous terror attacks. But it has been a great success only because we've retained a presence in these areas for the last six years and do regular operations there. Had we pulled out, there would have been chaos. Remember? Abbas is afraid to leave Ramallah. Who is going to constitute that "stable regime" in Gaza? (There is talk of Europeans doing it but this would be a real disaster, and, I do not believe will ever happen.)


On Friday, 14 gunmen blew up the library in a YMCA in Gaza. This is the latest in a series of attacks on Christians. Thousands of books were burnt in the ensuing fire.


American citizens who were victims of PA terror, or who lost family to PA terror, and have been awarded monetary payments by US courts, went to Washington last week to meet with officials of the State Department and Justice Department. But apparently they did not come away convinced that what they said would ultimately make a difference.

One of those who went was Shayna Elliot, who was shot in the chest while waiting for a bus on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem in 2002. She lost a lung and is in constant pain. "It's obscene that they would get in involved in our case," she said. "It's obscene that they could be against the terror victims."

Before the visit, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack gave a statement for reporters: "We are absolutely committed to defending the rights of our citizens. We are also fully committed to pursuing our national interest and defending our national interest. At this point, I don't have anything to offer in terms of a decision one way or another on this particular issue."

What does it say when the "national interest" and the "rights of citizens" are in conflict? The US government has until February 29th to decide whether to get involved.


Aides of Mahmoud Abbas are charging in strong terms that Mohammad Dahlan is trying to oust him as head of Fatah. The attack on Dahlan was approved by Abbas, who is feeling threatened by the young guard, headed by Dahlan. There is much argument as to who was responsible for the failure to defeat Hamas in Gaza: Abbas, as President, or Dahlan, as former head of Fatah security in Gaza.

From my perspective, the in-fighting provides a bit of diversion. There are no good guys here, you see; there is no one to root for. The young guard is absolutely right that when they complain that they've been frozen out by the old guard, which has not mended its ways. Abbas and company are knee-deep in issues of corruption and incompetence. You get a bit of the picture when you learn that the last time Fatah held a General Conference to elect new central committee and revolutionary council members was in Tunisia in 1987. (There's talk of holding such a conference now.)

But Dahlan? They don't come any lower than this man, and I never miss the opportunity to remind people of this. Corruption is not the only issue. There is also terrorism, and this the young guard is not adverse to. Never mind that Dahlan was directly involved in the Karine-A weapons ship. The other day I wrote about the Cohen family, whose three children collectively lost four limbs in a school bus bombing. It was Dahlan who ordered that school bus to be bombed.


Speaking of young children who have lost limbs, doctors now feel that Osher Twito's remaining leg is no longer at risk. Osher had been maintained in a coma, but has now been allowed to regain consciousness; he is on very heavy painkillers. While breathing on his own, he has not yet spoken. He has not yet been told that he has lost a leg.


Egypt is in the process of building a new wall along the Egypt-Gaza border that will be made of concrete and reinforced to withstand the sort of explosions that brought down the previous wall made of metal and barbed wire. Hamas is threatening to shoot at anyone building the wall unless Rafah is opened. They have already shot over the heads of Egyptian workers.

A Hamas delegation led by Mahmoud Zahar went into Egypt, to El Arish, reportedly at Egyptian request, on Friday, to discuss the Rafah opening. The Egyptians were responding to reports that Hamas was planning to forcibly open the border again at the end of the month. The message to be given to Hamas: Our period of self-restraint is over; our guards have orders to shoot.

This does not mean, however, that a mechanism for allowing crossings of persons and goods will not be negotiated in the end between Egypt and Hamas.


Caroline Glick, in her Friday column, writes about the strong possibility that Mughniyeh was killed not for what he had already done but rather for what he was about to do.

Says Glick:

"On January 30, French security services raided a Paris apartment and arrested six Arab men. Three of the men – two Lebanese and one Syrian – were traveling on diplomatic passports. According to the Italian Libero newspaper, the six were members of a Hezbollah cell. Documents seized included tourist maps of Paris, London, Madrid, Berlin and Rome marked up with red highlighter to indicate routes, addresses, parking lots and "truck stopping points." The maps pointed to several routes to Vatican back entrances.

Libero's report explained that the "truck stopping points" aligned with information the French had received the week before from Beirut. There, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah had convened a conference of his senior terror leaders where he ordered them to activate Hezbollah cells throughout Europe to kidnap senior European leaders.

"...All of the feared terror attacks against French and European targets have the classic earmarkings of Hezbollah operations chief and Iranian Revolutionary Guards officer Imad Mughniyeh. Mughniyeh was the pioneer of embassy bombings and high-profile kidnappings."


The Sunday Times (London) had a different take today, but also focused on what he was going to do: It alleges, according to "informed Israeli sources," that the Mossad took out Mughniyeh because he was working with the Syrians to plan an attack against Israel to avenge the IAF strike on a Syrian site in September 2007.


The connection Mughniyeh had with Iran, and the degree to which he operated at the behest of the Iranian regime, brings us around to focus on the Iranian nuclear issue. This is not something that we can ever afford to lose sight of. Less than two weeks ago, head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, delivering an assessment to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, declared that Iran would have nuclear weapons within three years and remained Israel's chief strategic threat.

According to Dagan, the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) made it harder to impose sanctions on Iran. It "pulls the rug out from under" diplomatic efforts,"leaving Israel to face the threat alone."


But just about a week after Dagan's report, Vice Admiral (USN Retired) Michael McConnell, United States Director of National Intelligence, testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, backtracked on the NIE for which he had been responsible: "I think I would change the way that we described [the Iranian] nuclear program."

What he now says is that the weapon program that the NIE judged "with high confidence" was halted in 2003, really constitutes "the least significant portion" of a nuclear weapons program. For uranium enrichment is continuing apace.

Damn him, is all I can say. The damage that has been done is enormous.

Please, see Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz on this, "What We Meant to Say Was..." It is critically important.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203019385690&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. Or click here.


Meanwhile, last week Sami Alfaraj, president of the Kuwait Centre for Strategic Studies, said that Persian Gulf States believe that Israel will strike Iran rather than permit it to become nuclear. He maintains that states in the region will not become nuclear themselves, but will instead rely on a "nuclear umbrella" – even if it meant appealing to Israel.

"I believe in something on the same Iraqi [Osirak reactor] model... We are assuming in the Gulf that Israel will take it out."

Oh irony!

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, February 17, 2008.

For France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, blood is thicker than wine, refreshingly observing Israel can bank on this outstanding Roman Catholic leader with a Jewish grandfather to promote policies that, unlike many European nations, are in the beleaguered Jewish homeland's as well as worldwide Jewish culture's best interests. Recently, President Sarkozy yet again roiled French secularists, including left leaning teachers' unions as well as some academics, enacting an edict mandating that every fifth grade student in France's public school system study the life of one of 11,000 French children murdered by Nazis in the Holocaust. President Sarkozy asserts, "Nothing is more moving, for a child, than the story of a child his own age, who has the same games, the same joys and the same hopes as he, but who, in the dawn of the 1940s, had the bad fortune to be defined as a Jew." Kudos to this terrific European leader who indeed gets it, much like he gets it when recognizing and proposing to act against the dire threat of Iran's Holocaust denying psychopathic jihad junkie Mahmoud AhMADinejad in his quest to develop a nuclear infrastructure and "wipe Israel off the map", as well as perhaps all 'infidel' nations including France, no doubt through lunatic proxies such as homicide/suicide bomber launching Hizbullah, yearning for the nuclear vests, God forbid, that Persian Shiite oil rich, thus financially enabled, regime one day might provide!

Yet, President Sarkozy's perspicacious mandate is castigated by French academics, fearing its enactment might create resentment among France's Arab and African populations if they felt their own histories were being ignored. No doubt, those pundits inexcusably ignore one reason for the ongoing Darfur genocide, a despicable history in progress, perpetrated by sadistic Muslim Arabs on Muslim Black Africans, engendering but lip service by a world on the sidelines precisely because its movers and shakers yet again refuse to absorb the most potent lesson of the Jewish Holocaust, which indeed included many other ethnicities; that "Never again" transcends Jews, applying to all human beings, impelling world leaders to do whatever it takes to insure the scourge of genocide will afflict this planet "Never Again"! Might a prescient President Sarkozy's academic policy then be viewed as a plan to emotionally as well as intellectually inculcate youngsters to be better stewards of the dysfunctional genocidal world they inherit from their parents, willing to truly make genocide a contemptible corpse of humankind's past rearing its ugly head only in Holocaust museums?

It boggles the mind that presumed French intellects, gifted with a leader who attempts to enhance the moral values and judgments of impressionable youngsters by putting them in the shoes of individuals they can relate to; alas destined to be victims of the darkest side of mankind, despicably deprived of the opportunity to experience life; would so stupidly interject misplaced egalitarian notions to thwart that effort. Yet, we cannot exclude the possibility that at least some of those critics, afflicted by their own anti-Semitic dark side, resent the truly honorable President Sarkozy's declaration that he is a "friend" of Israel, thus by inference France's Jews, previously walking the walk by being the first French president to address the annual dinner of his nation's Jewish community. Other critics denounce their ambitious president for publically expressing his religious beliefs in a mostly secular society heretofore holding religion to be a private option, proudly professing his Catholicism and Jewish grandfather, yet do not consider the fact that tolerant Judeo Christian values are now threatened by a growing intolerant Islamic fundamentalism extolling misogynistic sharia laws and among the more radical adherents jihad, no doubt influencing President Sarkozy's persona which he uses perhaps as a counterbalance.

If more world leaders would emulate France's dynamic thoughtful president, a man that does not hesitate to do the right thing, century twenty-one's emergence would be less troubling. Israeli leaders surely should ally ever more closely with Nicolas Sarkozy, perhaps their nation's best friend within a not so friendly continent.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant. 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 larose@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 16, 2008.


After most of the Arabs in Israel abandoned their homes to escape the war of extermination they waged against the Jews, their villages were turned into parks. On those parks and other former Arab areas are a dozen commemorative plaques.

Zochrot, an organization advocating bringing the descendants of Arab refugees into Israel, has gotten the Jewish National Fund, which administers public lands, to commemorate another 31 former Arab sites. Zochrot said it wouldn't harm Israel to admit that it expelled Arabs (IMRA, 2/3).

Such an admission would be misleading and it would be harmful. I suppose that is why the organization wants it admitted, to seem to justify its plan to bring the descendants in. The newcomers would combine with the other Arabs inside and out to overthrow Israel. Israel expelled only a small number of Arabs, most fled on their own. Had Israel expelled the rest, it would have prevented the fifth column it now has, dangerous during this state of war.

Israel is the Jewish state. Let it tell the story of the Jewish people and how the Muslims tried to wipe them out.


Human Right Watch (HRW) finally admitted that more Arabs kill themselves in civil strife than are killed by the IDF. It accused Hamas of torturing and otherwise abusing Arab prisoners. It does not explain why it holds Hamas responsible for crimes against Arabs but not for crimes against Israelis. Its report blames unnamed groups for firing rockets against Israel, though Hamas fired many of them (IMRA, 2/3) and gave others to allies to fire.


The P.A. condemned both the suicide bombing in Dimona, Israel, and an Israeli ambush of two terrorists in Qabatia, P.A.. Since Abbas' regime equates combat against terrorism with terrorism, how can he be the moderate that the Olmert regime depicts him as? Why doesn't Israel demand he recant? (IMRA, 2/4.)


The IDF still is devising plans to retake the Gaza border. The need for doing so long has been apparent. Why no plans yet? They say the plans would be approved sooner if rockets go further. First they go further and kill more people, then Israel would react? (IMRA, 2/4.) The P.A. is developing better rockets.


While PM Olmert is lauding his policy on the basis of the absence of attacks from across the northern border, with Lebanon, his western border with Gaza, has exploded. Hamas caught Israel unprepared, getting hundreds of thousands to bring in all the supplies and weapons Hamas wants and getting terrorists into position to attack Israel from elsewhere in the Sinai. Israel has no solution ready; it just begs a hostile Egypt for help.

Olmert says he learns the lessons from the Lebanon War. Now he has to learn the lessons from the Hamas war (IMRA, 1/26 from Haaretz).

Why does Haaretz continue to support him overall?


PM Olmert depicts his failure as a virtue by maintaining that he has learned and implemented the lessons from the investigation into the Lebanon War failure. But it was a failure of judgment, and he remains a person of poor judgment.

Worse, he has latched onto negotiations with the P.A. as his way of seeming to be needed in office. He persists in pursuing negotiations, despite overwhelming evidence of their futility and the counter-productive concessions involved. He has set up a conflict of interest between keeping power (and himself out of jail) and Israeli national security and national development. He presents the spectacle of smearing protesting families that are mourning relatives killed because of his weakness towards the Arabs. He calls them political tools, whereas his policy is a tool of his cling to power (IMRA, 1/26 from Jer. Post) and of the leftist prosecutor, who can indict him at any time.


Arab commentators outside of the P.A. are criticizing Hamas for putting their people into a position of having to suffer. They find no purpose to Hamas' war. They do not say this out of any consideration for Israel, whose retaliation against Hamas bombardment they call criminal (IMRA, 1/29).

Unlike the Israelis, they don't care about the suffering Muslims inflict upon innocent infidels. Resistance to Islamic war crimes is considered improper by Islam. It is a kind of arrogance not seen in the West in a long time.

Pro-Israeli commentators look upon events in Gaza as a failure of Israeli policy. They accuse the Israeli government of letting Hamas get away with much and making fools of PM Olmert and Foreign Min. Livni.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, February 16, 2008.

That's where Hamas and Gaza's inhabitants are send missiles /mortars /rockets, almost daily. It's a town of civilians, yet the world turns away from it's responsibilities, and the worlds biased media shows civilians only when they're Muslims.

Ashquelon has a power plant, supplying electricity to Gaza, while they shoot at it. The media of the world, tells of the sad situation of the people in Gaza, that are deprived of electricity.... if the plant is hit the entire region is likely to be without electricity.

We're completely mad for allowing things to reach the point where we are now.

We continue to allow our inmates, called a government, to do foolish things which hurt our citizens, and future generations.

Sad, Bad, Mad mad world....!!

The faded yellow lines in the top center are already Egypt....port Said.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by 7K, February 16, 2008.

This was written by Elisabetta Povoledo and it appeared yesterday in the International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query= By%20Elisabetta%20Povoledo&sort=publicationdate&submit=Search

ROME: The decision to select Israel as guest of honor at this spring's International Book Fair in Turin has set off a furious debate among Italian, Israeli and Arab authors and intellectuals, including calls to boycott the event.

Critics of the choice say that offering such an honor at the opening of the fair in May, when Israel will celebrate its 60th anniversary as a nation, ignores its policies toward the Palestinians.

"A prestigious event like the book fair can't pretend it doesn't know what's happening in that part of the Middle East," said Vincenzo Chieppa, a local leader of the Italian Communist Party, who was the first to raise objections.

The calls to boycott the fair – coming both from far leftist political activists and prominent Italian and Arab intellectuals and authors – have produced a wave of newspaper articles, some raising concerns about censorship, others extolling the need to place art above politics.

"The aim of culture and literature is not to build barriers among people, but to open up to others," wrote the novelist and playwright A. B. Yehoshua in the Turin daily newspaper La Stampa.

On Thursday, three dozen members of the Italian Parliament drafted a letter of apology to the state of Israel, and invited Israeli authors to visit Turin, "a tolerant and open city." President Giorgio Napolitano of Italy is scheduled to inaugurate the fair on May 8.

On Thursday, Mercedes Bresso, president of the Piedmont region, whose capital is Turin, said that Napolitano's presence "puts an end to the polemics."

"It's not about foreign policy," she said. "It's about inviting the literary world."

Now in its 21st year, the fair is not usually the setting for strife.

"We've never had polemics before," said Rolando Picchioni, president of the Foundation that runs the fair. "Some years ago we honored Catalonian writers and they essentially presented themselves as an independent state, but Spain didn't protest."

But it took little to fuel the controversy here, plunging the Middle East conflict into the Italian political debate, and splitting moderate and far-left political parties. Last week, for instance, a small group of demonstrators stormed the book fair offices in Turin demanding that the invitation to Israel be rescinded.

"We are appalled to see the world of culture take the side of those who methodically operate to annihilate Palestine and the Palestinians," read a pamphlet distributed during the demonstration.

The protesters, associated with a local pro-Palestinian group, say they plan further demonstration as well as a "counter-fair featuring editors open to the Palestinian struggle," and "acts of disturbance at the fair." Last week, anti-Israeli graffiti was spray-painted on the walls of the fair site and in a Turin tunnel.

Chieppa's suggestion: Why not ask the Palestinian Authority to send some authors, and become a second special guest? "It would be good to use the fair as a moment of dialogue and reconciliation between the culture of Israel and Palestine," Chieppa said.

But organizers say they will not be swayed.

"A country has to be able to come to the fair without being counterbalanced by another country," said Picchioni. "What's next: If we honor Russia, do we also have to invite Chechnya? Or what about China. Do we bring in Tibet?"

Similar protests have yet to appear in Paris, which is also honoring Israel at its book fair, which runs March 14 to 19.

In the Arab world, though, the reaction has been strong.

The Muslim scholar and activist Tariq Ramadan and the Anglo-Pakistani writer Tariq Ali are among those endorsing the boycott. Mohamed Salmawy, president of the Writer's Union of Egypt, wrote to the Italian writers union to say that "writers all over the Arab World" had been "shocked" by the Turin fair's decision and that the writers unions in Jordan, Tunisia and Egypt had all officially condemned the choice. The book fair's decision, Salmawy wrote, "has antagonized Arab public opinion."

"I know there are hostilities against Israel, but I never thought it would come down to a boycott of art and literature," said the author and columnist Meir Shalev, who was in Italy presenting the Italian translation of his novel "The Pigeon and the Boy." "I am also critical of the policies of my government, but a boycott is wrong to begin with."

Israeli literature is popular in Italy, and about 70 Israeli authors are translated into Italian. Two dozen writers are expected to attend the fair, which will also feature Israeli music, architecture and cuisine.

With the threat of more protests, some concerns have been raised about security, but the mayor of Turin, Sergio Chiamparino, said there was no cause for alarm. "We guaranteed security for the 2006 Olympics, we can handle the book fair," he said.

Shalev said he had been having second thoughts about coming to Turin, fearing that the fair "could become a political instead of a literary event. I don't want any part of that."

Contact 7K at 7khallal@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Spencer, February 16, 2008.

Saudi rulers threatened to make it easier for jihadists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted

This ought to be front-page headline news all over the world. Why isn't it?

And is the State Department looking into the implications of this? Or will Bush return hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia, in the spirit of his recent (rejected) request for a lowering of oil prices, and ask, Please, Sir, will you ease up on the global jihad?

Can there really be any further doubt about which side the Saudis are on?

Friend and Ally Update: "BAE: secret papers reveal threats from Saudi prince," by David Leigh and Rob Evans in The Guardian (thanks to Davida)

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.

Lord Justice Moses, hearing the civil case with Mr Justice Sullivan, said the government appeared to have "rolled over" after the threats. He said one possible view was that it was "just as if a gun had been held to the head" of the government.

[Editor's Note: One comment noted that "a paper trail set out in court showed that days after Bandar flew to London to lobby the government, Blair had written to the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and the SFO was pressed to halt its investigation."]

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch Contact him at director@jihadwatch.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, February 16, 2008.

the 4th in a series on Root Causes of Anti-Western Islamic Terrorism. The previous three parts of the series on the "Root Cause of Anti-Western Islamic Terrorism" are issues #197, 199 and 201 of the "Jerusalem Cloakroom." To read them, please visit

1. The 60 year old Palestinian "Claim of Return" has always been top heavy on Muslim rhetoric but very low on Muslim commitment. It has been dwarfed by the 516 year old Moslem "Claim of Return" to Andalucia (Spain), which constitutes a universal-mainstream Moslem ethos, commemorating the 1492 "Injustice" and "Expulsion" from the "Abode of Islam" (Dar-a-Salam) in Europe.

2. The arena of Islam's Golden Era was not between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean; it was – according to Moslem ethos – in the area conquered by Moslem invaders of Spain, highlighted by 9th century Granada's Alhambra Palace. In 714 AD, Moslems – originally from the Arabian Peninsula – occupied the Iberian Peninsula, southern France, Sicily and the coast of Italy, declaring it the Abode of Islam. In 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella defeated the last Moslem bastion in Spain, Granada. Since then, Moslems have mourned the loss of "Al Andaluz," which they consider an eternal "Islamic Trust" (Waqf) – as is any area once governed by Moslems.

3. The March 11, 2004 Madrid Bombing – 191 murdered and 2,050 injured by 10 bombs on 4 trains – was executed primarily in revenge for the "injustice of Andalucia."

4. "The cell that carried out the [March 11, 2004] attacks began planning them as much as a year BEFORE the war in Iraq began...The legend of 'the last sigh of the Moors' is often repeated in cassette tapes and pamphlets of militant Islamic clerics like the Moroccan Sheik Mohammed al-Fazazi...Investigators say a purported Al Qaeda splinter group based in Morocco may have provided theological and perhaps financial backing to the "sleeper cell" that carried out the Madrid train bombings on March 11. Spain's top counterterrorism magistrate, Baltasar Gazon, has outlined those cells in an indictment that suggests cells in Spain were central to the plot to carry out the 9/11 attacks in the US" (Boston Globe, Charles Sennott, March 28, 2004).

5. Bin Laden: "Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalucia would be repeated in Palestine" (Washington Post, Oct. 21, 2007).

6. Andalucia and Bosnia – as parts of the "Greater Moslem Homeland" – feature in the children's website of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Plans are underway – funded by Saudi Arabia – to construct the second largest mosque in the world, a 'European Mecca' in Córdoba, which was the capital of Al Ándaluz.

7. Al-Qaeda deputy Ayman Al-Zawahiri on imperial Islamic ambitions: "Strive to establish the Caliphate; fight until the word of Allah [reigns] supreme...aspire to liberate every inch of Islamic land from Andalucia to Chechnya (December 16, 2007, the Islamist website http://www.ek-ls.org). Bin Laden and other Moslem terrorists demand the "restoration" of the Muslim caliphate from Andalucia to the Philippines.".

8. The July 7, 2005 London bombing – 52 murdered and 700 injured – was carried out in order to advance the goal of global Moslem domination, not just Iraq. Moslem aspirations have been undermined by the US and its allies, most notably Britain and Israel.

9. The preoccupation with Iraq or with the Palestinian issue – as a supposed root cause of anti-Western Islamic terrorism – diverts Western attention away from the strategic goal of rogue Moslem regimes. Thus, it rewards these regimes and advances their agenda in Europe and elsewhere, while undermining the national security of western democracies.

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 (http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il). Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Judith Apter Klinghoffer, February 16, 2008.

Supporters of Islamic party Jamiat Tulba-e-Arabia burn an effigy of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen during a protest to condemn the republication of a controversial caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammed, in Multan Pakistan 15 February 2008. Leading Danish newspapers on 14 February 2008 published the cartoon, a day after police said they had averted an alleged plot to kill Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. Kurt Westergaard's cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb as a turban was one of 12 cartoons published in September 2005 by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. The cartoons sparked violent protests in 2006 and Danish companies were boycotted in many Muslim countries. (EPA/MK Chaudhry)

Watching Danish flags burn in Pakistan and Gaza as a response to the republication of the Mohammed cartoons, it is easy to conclude that nothing has changed since the original publication. But that would be wrong for lessons have been learned. This time the Danes are more united and more determined to defend their own freedoms. This time the Danish press acted as one. 23 newspapers reprinted the cartoons on the same day. The message of defiance was clear and inhibited the ability of politicians to kow tow to Muslim "sensitivities."

Iranian failure to take this into account led to its humiliating rebuff. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Danish parliament was about to visit their Iranian counterparts. The Iranian Parliamentarians notified their future guests that they will refuse to meet with them unless an apology for the republication of the cartoons precedes the Danish MPs. The Danes responded by canceling the visit. Cultural understanding, they insisted, is a two way street.

"The Iranian Parliament wanted our delegation to present an official apology to Iran. We said 'absolutely not'...We cannot do that, it would be a violation of freedom of expression," the committee's deputy chairman Jeppe Kofod said.

The nine members of the foreign policy committee were to visit Iran from Monday to Wednesday to discuss human rights and Iran's nuclear program.

"They told us they would not meet us unless we apologized. And they knew we would not present any apology, they know our democracy doesn't work that way," Mr Kofod said.

According to my Danish friend, they were even more empathetic:

The committee unanimously refused to deliver an apology for what Danish free media prints, and has canceled the planed trip to Iran, and has on public TV said that the Iranians must be nuts (Yes, these were the words), to come up with such demands, and that there's no way Danish politicians are going to visit the country under such conditions.

Further more a dictatorship should not impose demands on a free democracy such as Denmark.

Danes have also began to figure out novel legal ways to deal with young Muslim arsonists who continue to riot for the sixth night.

Some common Danes take out their digital cameras and film the youngsters (mainly second generation disaffected immigrants 13 to 18 years old). They, then, mail the pictures to the police, who more and less then can drive home to the criminals and pick them up.

It is easy to write off free people. The democratic diffusion of power makes it more difficult to organize. Still, given a bit of time they do and when they have always won. The behavior of little Denmark gives us hope that they will continue to do so.

Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com This article appeared in

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 16, 2008.

This is from the Joshua Pundit website

The current occupant of the White House put in a good day's work on behalf of the Palestinians today signing two waivers that have become routine when it comes to subverting the wishes of Congress.

The first one was yet another six month waiver of a law which bans the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington, D.C.

That law dates from anti-terrorist legislation dating back to the 1980's, but has been routinely waived by Bush and Clinton since Oslo back in 1993.So once again,the United States will continue to host a terrorist organization.

The second one is more recent, and another Bush tradition. That six month waiver violates US law and postpones relocating the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Israel thus remains the only country with diplomatic relations with the US that has no embassey in its capitol.

Now, George W. Bush campaigned on the promise that he would move the embassy back in 2000,when he was still trolling for Jewish and evagelical votes but once he got elected, a funny thing happened to that promise....

In less than a month after Bush entered the White House, then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell reneged on Bush's campaign promise, citing tension and violence in the area. Powell rejected attempts to pin him down on exactly when the embassy would relocate to Jerusalem. The new Bush administration's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also stalled, saying the new administration was still committed to the move, but could not say when it would take place. On June 12, 2001 President Bush issued the second of what would become a series of semi-annual "routine" waivers to delay the embassy's relocation to Jerusalem.

What this does,of course is to send a message to the Arabs that the Bush Administration agrees with them that Jews have no right to sovereignity over their holy places or even the right to live in half of Jerusalem,let alone the right to having a united Jerusalem as their capitol.

Speaking of the Palestinians, in an update of a story I covered previously, a bi-partisan group of 8 US Senators,led by Chuck Schumer signed a letter to US Secretary of State Condi Rice on the proposed State Department interference with judgements against the Palestinians in US courts for the murder of American citizens said they opposed any "government interference with the victims' legal rights."

"We are concerned that as courts render judgments holding terrorists and sponsors of terrorist acts accountable," the senators wrote. "Political efforts to have our government intervene and unduly influence the courts may undermine verdicts imposed by independent arbiters."

In other words, they're asking the Bush Administration to support legally awarded compensation to victims of Palestinian terrorism instead of supporting the terrorists.

The Bush Administrationhas until the end of February to make up its mind.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, February 16, 2008.

This was written by Charles Krauthammer and it appeared in www.JewishWorldReview.com.

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns – boat, shoe, clock – by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity – salvation – for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country – nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

And believe they do. After eight straight victories – and two more (Hawaii and Wisconsin) almost certain to follow – Obama is near to rendering moot all the post-Super Tuesday fretting about a deadlocked convention with unelected superdelegates deciding the nominee. Unless Hillary Clinton can somehow do in Ohio and Texas on March 4 what Rudy Giuliani proved is almost impossible to do – maintain a big-state firewall after an unrelenting string of smaller defeats – the superdelegates will flock to Obama. Hope will have carried the day.

Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.

ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience – to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."

That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

I've seen only one similar national swoon. As a teenager growing up in Canada, I witnessed a charismatic law professor go from obscurity to justice minister to prime minister, carried on a wave of what was called Trudeaumania.

But even there the object of his countrymen's unrestrained affections was no blank slate. Pierre Trudeau was already a serious intellectual who had written and thought and lectured long about the nature and future of his country.

Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war – with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.

Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 15, 2008.

Somebody finally orchestrated justice for a deliberate mass murderer of civilian men, women, and children the other day. Among his numerous other exploits, some four hundred of the latter were killed, maimed, and wounded in an Argentine Jewish Community Center in 1994.

Imad Mughniyeh, a chief honcho in Hizbullah, now gets to indulge in the pleasures of his own personal seventy-two virgins awaiting him in Muslim Paradise after being blown apart in Damascus. Israel is blamed as his dispatcher.

Hizbullah's #1, Hassan Nasrallah, rallied thousands of supporters at Mughniyeh's funeral in Beirut and warned that Jews everywhere (like in Buenos Aires earlier), as well as the Jew of the Nations, would pay dearly.

For Nasrallah – as well as the vast majority of his Arab brethren – Jews are still expected to play their age-old, subjugated, dhimmi role. Dhimmis were not allowed to defend themselves if attacked by a Muslim. They could just beg for mercy. Dhimmis could not bring charges against Muslims, had to pay a "protection tax," etc. and so forth.

So, no great surprise that when Israel refuses to act like the Muslim East's or the Christian West's proverbial ghetto Jew, the Arabs have a hissy fit. I mean, Jews are supposed to just let Arabs butcher them and their kids and not set up check points, build barriers, or search out and destroy their disembowelers...don'tcha know?

Note some obviously nauseating differences here...

When innocent Israelis are killed by Arabs who deliberately target them (i.e. they're not victims of being used by their own people as human shields like Arab non-combatants sometimes are), are Islamic Centers and mosques subsequently threatened or targeted around the world? The reality is, Jews wouldn't even think of it.

But such is the Arab idea of justice...

Attack Jews, blow up their kids, destroy their homes and businesses – and then claim the role of victim when it's payback time.

Rather than giving Nasrallah's comments any further attention, let's just say that whoever paid Mugniyeh a greeting call the other day needs to be ready to do the same en masse to his colleagues.

Surely, "Whoever" knows that Jews will be targeted as a result of that recent hit, as they were after earlier ones. I'm hoping this means that Israel will have much better tricks up its sleeve than it did in its last encounter with the Iranian mullahs' proxy, Hizbullah, a few summers ago.

Tit for tat won't work in a conflict in which one party's very existence is on the line.

Paradise must face a shortage of virgins from now on.

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 Emanuel A. Winston, February 15, 2008.

"You can't kill our killers!", so sez Nasrallah (head of Hezb'Allah), Mahmoud Abbas (head of Fatah/Palestinian Authority), Ismail Haniyeh (head of Hamas), Bashar Assad (head of Syria), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (head of Iran) – and other in the Muslim Arab world. "We have the right (and duty according to Islam) to kill Jews but, you have no right to Kill our Killers."

Israel is on full alert as if this time was somehow different from all the other times Muslim Jihadists tried to kill Jews and themselves were killed.

The Arabs and/or Muslims, be they Iranians and Egyptians (Muslims but not Arabs), Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese (Muslim Arabs), etc. have this philosophy that, because they are obligated by Koranic Law to kill "infidels" (non-Muslims), that they should be invulnerable to retaliation.

In every war the Arab Muslims mounted against Israel, they always swore vengeance when they were killed. When Egypt used to mount their Triple A (anti-Aircraft) guns in school yards or on top of hospitals, they screamed to the world that any retaliation was inhumane.

When the Arab Muslims Palestinians, Hezb'Allah, Hamas used their own people as "Human Shields" they screamed that Israel was killing their innocent women and children.

I recall how Yassir Arafat armed 10 year olds with shoulder-fired missiles who were called the RPG kids. The objective was to rely upon Israeli soldiers who were hesitant to fire on children and it worked. Many Israeli soldiers were killed because they hesitated to fire on armed children.

Since that time all Muslim Arab Terrorists have trained and used children to be killers. Teen-aged girls were recruited to carry suicide bombs into crowded restaurants and supermarkets in Israel. More recently, a Palestinian doctor was arrested for providing Hamas with names of mind-impaired girls who could easily be recruited to carry suicide bombs – all in the name of Allah.

In brief, the Arab Muslims are a savage primitive society that thrives on a war-like religion. Human sacrifice has always been part of their culture from the ancient of times through today. The only difference are the arms provided to them by the greedy arms manufacturers – mostly in the Free West. From the knife to decapitate, cut off their victims' heads, to atomic bombs, their death cult is thriving in the so-called civilization of Islamic culture.

When one of their killers is hunted down and killed, their rage goes ballistic. They see no problem in defending those who kill for them and their anger when that killer is himself killed. Their killers are beyond reproach (according to them) and are considered great martyrs to be eulogized in mosques.

When Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) of Fatah and President of the Palestinian Authority spoke abut this great hero of Islam, he saw no contradiction in his role as a "moderate" as described by President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the U.S. State Department. Since Abbas himself was a high ranking Terrorist and was companion, financier, co-conspirator, partner of Yassir Arafat for 40 years, on can see why he eulogized Imad Mughniyeh.

Until the West is fully attacked by Islamists, we will continue apologizing and making excuses for a radical Islamist "Jihad" that is intended to destroy the Judea-Christian world.

So (they would say to you): "You can't kill their killers."

Clearly, it is past time for the civilized world to gather and confront all their killers!


1. "Hezbollah mourns; leader vows to strike at Israelis" by Raed Rafel & Jeffrey Fleishman & "FBI: Jewish facilities on threat alert" Chicago Tribune February 15, 2008

2. "Hezbollah Threatens Attacks on Israeli Target" by Robert F. Worth & Nada Bakri & "Israel Heightens Its Security After a Threat of Revenge" New York Times Feb. 15,2008

3. "Syria Vows to Strike Back At Israel for Imad Mughniyeh's killing in Damascus and 'repeated encroachments' " DEBKAfile Feb. 15, 2008

4. "Nasrallah: If Israel Wants Open War, So Be It" DEBKAfile Feb. 14, 2008

5. "Imad Mughniyeh is Dead" by Katherine Curtis Stethem (sister-in-law of Robert Dean Stethem who was brutally murdered in the 1985 TWA hijacking for which Mughniyeh planned and executed.

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 Avodah, February 15, 2008.

This was written by Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University Law School, where he teaches international and constitutional law.

This article appeared in New York Sun

In the wake of President Bush's recent trip to Israel, the administration has put great emphasis on the issue of Israeli settlements. Most controversial are the "unauthorized settlements." Mr. Bush declared that the "illegal outposts ... must go."

Unauthorized settlements are communities that have been created against the wishes of the Israeli government. They may violate Israel's building or zoning rules, and thus are sometimes called "illegal" settlements.

One might think from the controversy that these communities represent a gross affront to international norms. The opposite is true: whatever one may think of the legal status of Jewish communities in the West Bank in general, the "unauthorized" settlements raise no issues under international law.

The international law said by Israel's critics to prohibit Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank is the Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The article provides that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies." The dispute over the legality of Israel's West Bank settlements mostly turns on the interpretation of this provision.

"Occupation," as used in the treaty, seems to mean seizing territory belonging to another country. The West Bank, however, was not part of Jordan's territory when Israel took it in 1967. At the time, the area was not the recognized as the territory of any nation.

Regardless of these arguments, what is clear is that the Convention specifically bars action only by the "occupying power" – in other words, the government and public authorities of the country. It does not apply to the movements and real estate decisions of private individuals. Various other parts of the Convention distinguish between "nationals of the occupying Power" and "the occupying power" itself; the prohibitions of Article 49 fall exclusively on the latter.

This makes sense given the convention's purposes and background. The Geneva Conventions are treaties between nations outlining their legal responsibilities during war and its aftermath. The obligations they create apply only to nations and individuals exercising public power.

No one has ever suggested that the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan banned American citizens from moving there.

Certainly the Geneva Convention is not a zoning law, or a Jim Crow ordinance preventing people of a certain nationality from living where they choose. Sixty years ago, in Shelley v. Kramer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government could not participate in any way in racial discrimination in housing. Yet in Mr. Bush's interpretation, if an American Jew with Israeli citizenship were to buy a house from an Arab in a voluntary transaction, it would be an "illegal settlement" since not approved by the Israeli government. Apparently the administration does not feel the philosophy of Shelley has general applicability.

The "illegal" Jewish outposts exist despite the government's best efforts, not because of them. They were created by private individuals, with the government often repeatedly destroying or threatening their homes or blocking their access. Residents continue to live in trailers and even send their children to classrooms built in the backs of trucks because the government would demolish permanent homes.

It is puzzling that international opposition to settlements begins with those that are illegal if at all, only under Israeli law. The international community is an unlikely champion of Israeli's complex housing code – it certainly does not complain of the extensive illegal Arab construction.

Perhaps it is because the unauthorized communities represent the persistence of Jewish efforts to live in the area regardless of the government's plans. The Palestinian Authority insists that the price of any deal be not only the withdrawal of Israeli sovereign force, but also the expulsion of all Jews from the area. Thus the outposts challenge the vision of a Jew-free state.

The Geneva Convention was designed to protect against governmental efforts to forcibly change the ethnic make-up of an area, efforts of the kind that occurred in World War II. It would be a bitter irony if it were misread as requiring that any territory be kept free of Jews, or any ethnic group.

Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 15, 2008.


"The latest anti-Semitism is also now mouthed by world leaders and sophisticated politicians and academics. Their loathing often masquerades as 'anti-Zionism' or 'legitimate' criticism of Israel. But the venom exclusively reserved for the Jewish state betrays existential hatred."

"Israel is always lambasted for entering homes in the West Bank to look for Hamas terrorists and using too much force. But last week the world snoozed when the Lebanese army bombarded and then crushed the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, which harbored Islamic terrorists."

"The world has long objected to Jewish settlers buying up land in the West Bank. Yet Hezbollah, flush with Iranian money, is now purchasing large tracts in southern Lebanon for military purposes and purging them of non-Shi'ites." The Jews once again are the scapegoats.

"That our State Department is at the mercy of a Jewish lobby is the theme of the "Mearsheimer-Walt book...". Yet when the United States bombed European and Christian Serbia to help Balkan Muslims, few critics claimed American Muslims had unduly swayed President Clinton. And charges of improper ethnic influence are rarely used to explain the billions in American aid given to non-democratic Egypt, Jordan or the Palestinians, or the Saudi oil money that pours into U.S. universities. The world...seems to care little about the principle of so-called occupied land, whether in Cyprus or Tibet, unless Israel is the accused. Mass- murdering in Cambodia, the Congo, Rwanda and Darfur has earned far fewer United Nations' resolutions of condemnation than supposed atrocities committed by Israel. A number of British academics are sponsoring a boycott of Israeli scholars but leave alone those from autocratic Iran, China and Cuba."

Some critics of Israel are motivated by anti-Americanism, perceiving the US as an ally of Israel. (Israel is an ally of the US, but the US undermines Israel.) It's safer to criticize Israel than to criticize Muslims, who reply with assassins (Victor Davis Hanson in Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/18).


An Israeli decision to cut off electricity from Gaza is said to make Gazans turn to terrorism. As if then they would start "firing Kassams at Sderot? ... It's insane. From the moment we ran away from Gaza, the Palestinians (Muslims) stubbornly insist on trying to fire rockets at the electricity plant that supplies them with electricity – while we announced that no matter what they did, we would continue to give them electricity." "Never...has...a country supplied electricity, bought produce and supplied work to its enemies during a war."


We reported the bid for tenure at Barnard College by an Arab woman having poor academic credentials that rely upon authorship of a book of falsehood and propaganda against Israel, such as that Jews fabricated the archeological record of a Jewish past in Palestine. (That would mean that the Christians, whose savior lived in a Jewish society, and the Roman historians, also fabricated it.)

Her bid invoked outside criticism. Calling the controversy internal, some professors deny any legitimacy to outside criticism. I disagree.

Arabs are entering US universities to propagandize as part of war, not to educate. They pervert our society's education and subvert our society. Our colleges are not means for Muslim conduct of jihad against us.


Syria is having assassinated Lebanese members of Parliament who oppose the Islamists. Al-Qaeda just assassinated the sheikh who was leading the liberation of Anbar province from it. The Taliban had assassinated the charismatic leader of the Northern Alliance. Muslims assassinate opponents in Holland and threaten other European and American critics with death. Indiscriminate assassination is part of Islamist war strategy.

By contrast, Congress bans assassination, even in wartime. I think its self-righteous statute is misguided ethics.


No matter who says what against Israel, Internet antisemites adopt the assertion and their followers accept it. The notion of Jewry running the world is an old one. It is gaining a following among supposed educated, mainstream Americans. None question it or think about it, though it is not logical. They argue that Israel's rulers direct US policy in behalf of Zionism and seek to take over the P.A..


The Israeli government publicly authorized but didn't direct officials to stop distributing utility services to Gaza, while Gaza attacks Israel. Israel often just makes a decision to make a decision, but doesn't make the decision. As a result, opponents have time to mount a public relations campaign against the effort and to give Israel bad publicity. It'!s the prelude to Israel backing down. But hey, the government did sound tough for a while. Fooling the people is its real objective.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 15, 2008.

This article is at

A RESPECTED think-tank warned Britain is a soft touch for Islamist extremists who target the country's fragmenting, post-Christian society.

The Royal United Services Institute said the country is crippled by a lack of cultural self-confidence, fuelled by misplaced deference to multiculturalism that leaves it vulnerable to threats from home and abroad.

The government rejected the report, saying Britain has a detailed and robust strategy for countering international terrorism.

But the think-tank, an internationally recognised authority on defence and security issues, called for a comprehensive rethink of security stategy, including the creation of a new powerful Cabinet committee.

"The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and its political identity.

"That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate," it said in a report.

"The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy ... We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without."

The report called for the creation of a new comittee of senior ministers, officials and defence chiefs to co-ordinate security policy for government.

As well as terrorism, the report also highlighted the mounting economic threat of China and India, the risks of climate change and the resurgence of Russian nationalism.

A government spokesman said the findings did not stand up to scrutiny. "The government rejects any suggestion that Britain is a soft touch for terrorists," he said.

"We have a detailed and robust strategy for countering international terrorism and by establishing the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism we have ensured that our policy is better co-ordinated than ever."

"The government firmly rejects the claim that the United Kingdom is a fragmented society," he said.

Britain, the main ally of the United States in the anti-terrorism strategy launched after the September 11 attacks, has been on high alert ever since suicide bombers killed 52 people on the London underground in July 2005.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 15, 2008.

This is by Spengler and it appeared in Asia Times

Violence is oozing through the cracks of European society like pus out of a broken scab. Just when liberal opinion congratulated itself that Europe had forsaken its violent past, the specter of civil violence has the continent terrified. That is the source of the uproar over a February 7 speech by Archbishop Rowan Williams, predicting the inevitable acceptance of Muslim sharia law in Great Britain.

Not since World War II has British opinion been provoked to the present level of outrage. Writing in the Times of London, the editor of the London Spectator, Matthew d'Ancona, quoted former British

Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell's warning that concessions to alien cultures would cause "rivers of blood" to flow in the streets of England. Times columnist Minette Marin accuses the archbishop of treason.

Coercion in the Muslim communities of Europe is so commonplace that duly-constituted governments there no longer wield a monopoly of violence. Behind the law there stands the right of the state to inflict violence, and the legitimacy of states rests on what German political economist and sociologist Max Weber once called "the monopoly of violence". Once this right is conceded to private groups, the legitimacy of government crumbles. No one appreciates this more than the British, whose tradition of protecting individual rights under law is the oldest and strongest in the West, excepting the United States, which inherited English Common Law.

By proposing to concede a permanent role to extralegal violence in the political life of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury pushed his phlegmatic countrymen over the edge. No one is better than the British at pretending that problems really aren't there, but once their spiritual leader admits to an alien source of coercion and proposes to legitimize it, they understand that a limit has been reached.

Williams' exercise in what might be termed the Higher Hypocrisy shows how deeply Europe has descended into the Dar al-Harb, or the "House of War" in the Muslim terms for all that lies outside the "house of submission", or Dar al-Islam. Europe's governments refuse to rule, that is, refuse to enforce their own laws because they fear violence on the part of Muslim immigrant communities who refuse to accept these laws. "No-go" zones proliferate that non-Muslims dare not enter. In the United Kingdom, according to evidence presented by respected journalists and public-interest organizations, Muslim community organizations, Muslim police officers and medical personnel collaborate to stop women from escaping domestic violence.

The erring spiritual leader of the Church of England persuades me that Europe's Man of Destiny is the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who for two years has lived in hiding under constant police protection for the crime of criticizing Islam. It is a measure of the degradation of Europe's body politic that is only one means to expose the motives of Williams and his ilk, namely to draw fire from Muslims who overtly threaten violence against any public figure who questions the authority of Islam.

Contrary to his critics, Wilders is not provoking violence. The violence is already there, a matter of workaday fact in Muslim enclaves throughout Europe. In an act of great personal courage, Wilders is enticing violent elements out of the tall grass in order to expose them to public opprobrium.

It is triply hypocritical when Williams, the spiritual leader of the Church of England, speaks of sharia law as if it were a private matter of conscience between consenting parties, rather like the use of rabbinical courts by Orthodox Jews. First, he admits outright that Muslim communities combine to coerce women but pretends that this is not relevant to sharia. Secondly, he offers concessions to sharia in the first place to appease the threat of social violence on the part of Muslims. As a final insult to conscience, he cites as his authority on sharia Professor Tariq Ramadan, who notoriously refuses to condemn the stoning of women for adultery, precisely because Muslim legal rulings specifically endorse such violence.

There is overwhelming documentation that Muslim entities in Britain wield the threat and fact of violence against dissenters, particularly the most vulnerable, namely young women. The fact is so scandalous that in his February 7 address, Williams felt compelled to address it directly, in order to insist that the subject fell entirely outside the issue of law – a conclusion he must know to be false.

Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the bishop of Rochester, warned on January 7 of the spread of "no-go" zones in England that non-Muslims dare not enter. As a result, Nazir-Ali has received death threats against himself and his family and requires protection.

The British authorities will take measures to protect bishops from the threat of violence, but they leave to their own devices thousands of Muslim women. According to a February 2008 report by the Center for Social Cohesion, Islamist groups and individuals frequently link ideas of honor with the welfare of the Muslim world. By using words such as Ird and Namus in a political context, they imply that by protecting the chastity of Muslim women, the security and collective honor of Islam and Muslim states and individuals can also be defended. This politicization of women's bodies helps create an environment where the abuse and control of women is tolerated.

Muslim communities, the report documents, terrorize women who refuse arranged marriages or otherwise break with social norms:

Almost all refuges dealing with Asian women report on the existence of informal networks which exist to track down and punish – with death if necessary – women who are perceived as bringing shame on their family and community. In many cases, women fleeing domestic violence or forced marriages have been deliberately returned to their homes or betrayed to their families by policemen, councilors and civil servants of immigrant origin.

Muslim coercion against women extends to psychiatric hospitals, the Times of London's religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill reported on February 7 (cited in Rod Dreher's indispensable Crunchy Con blog – http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/.) Glenhill quoted a women's rights advocate as follows:

The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing Western clothes. There can be many reasons. The women are sent for assessment to a hospital. The GP [general practitioner] referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned (committed to a psychiatric ward). She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?

That brings us back to the archbishop of Canterbury, who acknowledged the fact of coercion of women in his February 7 address, but insisted that because it belonged to "custom" rather than "religious law", he preferred to change the subject:

Recognition of "supplementary jurisdiction" in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women. The "forced marriage" question is the one most often referred to here, and it is at the moment undoubtedly a very serious and scandalous one; but precisely because it has to do with custom and culture rather than directly binding enactments by religious authority, I shall refer to another issue.

That makes a lurid lie out of Williams' bland assertion that adherence to sharia "assumes the voluntary consent or submission of the believer":

Sharia depends for its legitimacy not on any human decision, not on votes or preferences, but on the conviction that it represents the mind of God ... while such universal claims are not open for re-negotiation, they also assume the voluntary consent or submission of the believer, the free decision to be and to continue a member of the umma.

Williams was lying. His authority in matters of sharia is Ramadan, whom the Department of Homeland Security prevented from accepting an American university appointment. Ramadan set off a scandal In 2003 when he refused to condemn violence against women (calling instead for a "moratorium," that is, a temporary cessation) precisely because Islamic law sanctions such violence. The Westernized Ramadan will twist himself into a pretzel rather than disagree with Islamic jurisprudence.

Six million Frenchmen watched Ramadan defend the stoning of women for the crime of adultery in a televised debate with the present President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, then the Interior Minister. As quoted by Paul Berman in The New Republic of June 4, 2007, the transcript reads as follows, Ramadan refuses outright to say that he is against stoning adulteresses:

Sarkozy: A moratorium ... Mr Ramadan, are you serious?

Ramadan: Wait, let me finish.

Sarkozy: A moratorium, that is to say, we should, for a while, hold back from stoning women?

Ramadan: No, no, wait ... What does a moratorium mean? A moratorium would mean that we absolutely end the application of all of those penalties, in order to have a true debate. And my position is that if we arrive at a consensus among Muslims, it will necessarily end. But you cannot, you know, when you are in a community ... Today on television, I can please the French people who are watching by saying, "Me, my own position." But my own position doesn't count. What matters is to bring about an evolution in Muslim mentalities, Mr Sarkozy. It's necessary that you understand ...

Sarkozy: But, Mr Ramadan ...

Ramadan: Let me finish.

Sarkozy: Just one point. I understand you, but Muslims are human beings who live in 2003 in France, since we are speaking about the French community, and you have just said something particularly incredible, which is that the stoning of women, yes, the stoning is a bit shocking, but we should simply declare a moratorium, and then we are going to think about it in order to decide if it is good ... But that's monstrous – to stone a woman because she is an adulterer! It's necessary to condemn it!

Ramadan: Mr Sarkozy, listen well to what I am saying. What I say, my own position, is that the law is not applicable – that's clear. But today, I speak to Muslims around the world and I take part, even in the United States, in the Muslim world ... You should have a pedagogical posture that makes people discuss things. You can decide all by yourself to be a progressive in the communities. That's too easy. Today my position is, that is to say, "We should stop."

Sarkozy: Mr Ramadan, if it is regressive not to want to stone women, I avow that I am a regressive.

"You should have a pedagogical posture that makes people discuss things" such as stoning women, Ramadan insisted, which is to say that were he to condemn violence against women outright, he would be unable to speak to Muslim communities.

That is Williams' source. Coming from the leader of a major Christian denomination, this depth of hypocrisy is satanic, if that word has any meaning at all.

Unlike his Church of England colleague, Bishop Nazir-Ali, Williams does not require a security detail. But it appears that every European journalist and politician who attacks Islam requires personal protection, starting with the stout-hearted Dutchman Wilders. In the cited New Republic report on Tariq Ramadan, Paul Berman reported:

When I met Hirsi Ali at a conference in Sweden last year, she was protected by no less than five bodyguards. Even in the United States she is protected by bodyguards. But this is no longer unusual. Buruma himself mentions in Murder in Amsterdam that the Dutch Social Democratic politician Ahmed Aboutaleb requires full-time bodyguards. At that same Swedish conference I happened to meet the British writer of immigrant background who has been obliged to adopt the pseudonym Ibn Warraq, out of fear that, in his case because of his Bertrand Russell-influenced philosophical convictions, he might be singled out for assassination.

I happened to attend a different conference in Italy a few days earlier and met the very brave Egyptian-Italian journalist Magdi Allam, who writes scathing criticisms of the new totalitarian wave in Il Corriere della Sera – and I discovered that Allam, too, was traveling with a full complement of five bodyguards. The Italian journalist Fiamma Nierenstein, because of her well-known sympathies for Israel, was accompanied by her own bodyguards. Caroline Fourest, the author of the most important extended criticism of Ramadan, had to go under police protection for a while. The French philosophy professor Robert Redeker has had to go into hiding ...

So Salman Rushdie has metastasized into an entire social class, a subset of the European intelligentsia – its Muslim wing especially – who survive only because of their bodyguards and their own precautions. This is unprecedented in Western Europe during the last 60 years.

Postscript: I had not intended to mention James J Sheehan's silly book on Europe's postwar conversion to pacifism, Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?, the object of many glowing reviews by soft-headed liberals, most recently by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the February 8 New York Times. Sheehan admires modern Europe for abandoning war; it does not occur to him that Europe also has abandoned being European. Abysmal non-immigrant fertility rates condemn most of Europe's peoples to effective extinction during the next century or two. It deserves a one-word review by Homer Simpson, namely, "Doh." If there are to be no future generations, what soldier will lay down his life for them? The word "demographics" does not appear once in Sheehan's plodding account, which liberal reviewers praised as if it were a roadmap to the millennium.

Sheehan is woefully misguided. Europe may not have war, but it already has violence: its political authorities cringe and scurry and evade and lie in the face of actual or threatened violence by its Muslim communities. If its duly-constituted governments abandon their monopoly of violence to self-appointed religious leaders, the likelihood is that a river of blood will flow, just as Powell warned in 1968.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 15, 2008.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said publically that, eventually Israel will have to give half of Jerusalem to the Terrorists. He said that, discussions on Jerusalem will only take place as the last issue. Which just means that there will be enormous pressure built up to give up parts of Jerusalem as "just the last issue to be resolved".

The U.S. State Department directed "peace" process inevitably leads to giving up parts of Jerusalem to the Terrorists. They will then be able to launch missiles at the rest of Jerusalem.

No one is even bothering to mention that the "given" of giving Judea and Samaria to the Terrorists will allow them to more easily launch missiles and rockets at any cities left there, assuming that they cities are not evacuated as was Gaza – as well as at Israel's major cities.

The only way to break the State Department's momentum (they want an agreement before President Bush leaves office), is to bring some Congressmen and other influential figures to Israel who will call for a FREEZE on all negotiations (until Israel has a real partner of "Peace". Abbas is pathetically weak and Hamas is just waiting for the right moment to take over) and that Jerusalem will be recognized as belonging to Israel – as a pre-condition for any negotiations.

Just because members of the State Department want a "feather in their caps" so they will receive higher paying position when they leave their current jobs after President Bush's term – as thanks from Arab Muslim oil money – is no reason for Israel to rush to commit national suicide. The whole "peace" process is corrupt. It is based on fantasy, wishful thinking and anti-Semitism on a grandiose scale.

If some are worried about international pressure against Israel, how much worse could their demands be, than giving up parts of Jerusalem and giving the Terrorists another State in Israel's heartland.


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 Emanuel A. Winston, February 15, 2008.

A director for U.S. National Intelligence back-peddled Admiral McConnell's later admission of a flawed NIE (U.S. National Intelligence Estimate) which virtually ignored by the national and international Media. In fact, the New York Times which splashed the original incompetent NIE across page one on Dec. 4th did NOT feature McConnell reversal, instead buried it in a few paragraphs, deep inside the paper without a headline.

However, David Horowitz, Editor of the Jerusalem Post, re-caps McConnell's testimony on February 5th in the following – which should be picked up by every journalist and editor who is dedicated to the facts. This below is by Horowitz and it appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1203019385690&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

What We Meant To Say Was....

Michael McConnell, the man responsible for the US National Intelligence Estimate that two months ago essentially cleared Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb, backtracked last week.

In testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 5, the admiral vouchsafed that, in hindsight, "I think I would change the way that we described [the Iranian] nuclear program."

Here's the very first sentence of that immensely ballyhooed NIE, which was greeted rapturously by Iran and with horror in Israel when it was published in early December: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Teheran halted its nuclear weapons program."

What McConnell is now saying amounts to the very opposite: Yes, runs the amended narrative, we think the Iranians may have halted what we narrowly, foolishly and misleadingly defined as their nuclear weapons program four years ago, we're not sure if they've restarted it, but the fact is that we led you all astray with our definition of that program in the first place.

You see, the new line continues, weapon design and weaponization – those narrow aspects that might have been halted – really constitute the "least significant portion" of a nuclear weapons program. In retrospect, we should have relied on more than a footnote to make that clear. The "most difficult challenge" is actually "uranium enrichment [to] enable the production of fissile material," and, as we probably should have stressed more prominently, work on that is proceeding apace.

Citing the "persistent threat of WMD-related proliferation," McConnell told the Committee that "Iran continues to pursue fissile material and nuclear-capable missile delivery systems." He then elaborated: "Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons. Iran continues its efforts to develop uranium enrichment technology, which can be used both for power reactor fuel and to produce nuclear weapons. And, as noted, Iran continues to deploy ballistic missiles inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and to develop longer-range missiles."

Or, to put it another way: Whoops. We meant to say that Iran is closing in relentlessly on a nuclear weapons capability, but we didn't express ourselves very effectively, and wound up making you believe the reverse. Sorry. But we're fixing that now, so we're all back on the same page. No biggie, right?


Typifying the American media's top-of-the-news coverage of the original, incompetently phrased NIE, The New York Times splashed it across page one on December 4, complete with numerous substories and sidebars, under headlines hailing the "Major Reversal" in the Iran threat assessment and the likelihood that the "New Intelligence May Force a Reshaping of Bush's Policy."

Typifying the American media's entirely indifferent coverage of McConnell's volte face last week, the Times did not so much as headline it at all – not on page one, and not on any other page, either. Rather, it buried what it called McConnell's belated "calibration" of the NIE's thrust, encapsulated in a few paragraphs, deep inside an article that headlined comments he made in the same Senate appearance about al-Qaeda's improving ability to strike within the US.

When the original, exculpatory NIE was published, Iran's would-be-Israel-eliminating President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hailed "victory," the international sanctions effort stalled, Russia began shipping fuel to the reactor it had built for the Iranians at Bushehr and Ahmadinejad's regime merrily intensified its declared centrifuge installations and operations at Natanz. Meanwhile, President Bush found himself accused by political rivals and other critics of having unwarrantably, even dishonestly, over-hyped the threat posed by Iran. Some of the more hysterical voices went so far as to charge that his administration had been deliberately skewing the intelligence on Iran's nuclear drive to justify thrusting the United States into another unnecessary war.

McConnell's barely noticed reversal has changed none of that. It has done nothing to dent Ahmadinejad's public confidence that nobody is going to stop the Iranian drive now, and nothing to suggest to Iran that it need halt what McConnell acknowledged last week was the range of dual-purpose activities that daily bring it ever-closer to a nuclear weapons capability. The admiral's climb-down has injected no new urgency, and no stronger teeth, into the weak and snail-paced UN-centered sanctions effort. It has prompted no rethink by Moscow about assisting Teheran's "peaceful" nuclear programs. And with this US administration now counting down its final months, his "recalibration" has restored no credibility to Bush's efforts to thwart Iran – credibility that was swept away when the shattering original NIE essentially removed his administration's military option.

SOON AFTER the NIE was released, I happened to attend a seminar at the Hebrew University on "The Interface between Law, Intelligence and Terror." One of the scheduled speakers at a morning session had dropped out, and the last-minute replacement was Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, the former head of IDF Military Intelligence.

Palpably furious over the NIE, Ze'evi-Farkash used the unexpected platform to deliver one of the most impassioned lectures I have ever witnessed – an overview of the Iranian nuclear program and its apocalyptic dangers, complete with caution-free explanations of how it was that Israel had come to obtain some of the intelligence on which it has based its dire predictions.

Essentially, the NIE had undone much of Ze'evi-Farkash's professional work, and speaking from the gut with a fervor quite alien to the rarefied academic atmosphere, he took the opportunity to punch great big holes in its unjustifiably sanguine assessment.

In contrast to the NIE's headline-making opening assertion, Ze'evi-Farkash said flatly, "The Iranian clandestine military program is continuing." Furthermore, he said bitterly, the NIE's "distinction between military and civilian programs is artificial," since the open, undisputed enrichment of uranium "is critical to both." As for the massive ongoing funding of Iran's missile program, he stressed, that could only bespeak the darkest of intentions, since "no other country would invest so many billions of dollars in surface-to-surface missile programs without nuclear military intentions."

His furious conclusion: The NIE had done nothing short of clearing the path "for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions."

WHEN I interviewed Quartet peace envoy Tony Blair last week, he suggested that the diplomatic effort to deter Iran's nuclear drive was now back "in balance" following McConnell's amended testimony.

It is not.

Precious months of potentially concerted international economic and diplomatic efforts to force Iran to change course have been lost. Critically, the entire momentum of sanctions has stalled. And all the time, Iran is closing in on its goal.

If, as Ze'evi-Farkash is by no means the only observer to assert, the initial NIE was a function of the politicization of American intelligence, a report deliberately oriented to deprive Bush of the legitimacy for last-resort military intervention, it would appear to have achieved its goal. Indeed, whatever the motivation for that astonishing inarticulacy, the result has been the same: Iran off the hook, the US hamstrung, and Israel left to look after its existential interests with time running short and without so much as a supportive international climate.

Iran, state sponsor of the late, unlamented Imad Mughniyeh, is moving serenely toward the bomb, directly threatening Israel, on the point of remaking not just the regional but the global balance of power, and potentially threatening all American and free-world interests.

No biggie, Admiral McConnell.

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 7K, February 15, 2008.

This is called "A warning that cannot be ignored" and was written by Melanie Phillips. It appeared today in The Spectator.

The stark warning published today by the Royal United Services Institute about Britain's catastrophic failure to deal with the issue of terrorism and extremism is of the highest importance. Written by group of former military chiefs, diplomats, analysts and academics for a body which is an internationally recognised authority on defence and security issues and which has been described by Gordon Brown as 'leading the debate about homeland security and global terrorism', it is an absolutely devastating condemnation of the government's failure to even conceptualise the problem let alone deal with adequately. It argues that

The UK presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society which is increasingly divided on its history, national aims, values and political identity. That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate. This is principally caused by a lack of leadership from the majority, which, in misplaced deference to 'multiculturalism', failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism...The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy, within and without. We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without. In addition, Britain has only a bare-bones defence and security establishment relying on a weakening UN, Nato and EU which leaves it open to threat.

The government has issued a furious response claiming that the RUSI report is out of date and citing all the great things it is doing. But as Professor Gwyn Prins, one of the report's authors, said this morning on the Today programme, such claims are utterly spurious. Both in allowing and even exacerbating the progressive fragmentation of British society and the appalling weakening of our military and defence infrastructure, the government and British establishment have left this country wide open to the pincer movement of cultural colonisation and terrorist attack being mounted against it by the Islamic jihad. In the wake of the Archbishop of Canterbury's shocking remarks and this week's perverse Court of Appeal judgment which rewrote and emasculated the Terrorism Act 2000, the RUSI warning could not be more timely – and more chilling.

Contact 7K at 7khallal@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, February 15, 2008.

One does not hear that declaration too often anymore: the most powerful, gut-wrenching two words that defined a generation; the simple, yet all-inclusive outcry of the Jewish People following the Shoah: Never Again!

We were told by our leaders: Never Again would a Jew be hunted down, exposed and destroyed for being Jewish. And that: Never Again would a Jew be de-humanized. And, finally: Never Again would the Jewish People be the target of genocide.

There is a tragic reason one does not hear those words these days ..."Again" is happening at this very moment – again, Jewish men, women and children are being collectively and purposefully targeted and attacked. The Arabs in Gaza are launching hundreds of rockets into Israel, with their goal being the indiscriminate killing of as many Jews as possible. This tragedy is being committed while the world, including, most notably, our mainstream Jewish leaders, does almost nothing to protest or even report the onslaught. In fact, Israel was condemned for ceasing its export of electricity to her attackers whom it continues to supply with food, water and fuel! Our leaders do not protest.

A second Holocaust is beyond its initial stages. The comparisons to the 1930's are glaring. Jews are being attacked and killed because they are Jewish; the world appeases and funds the determined, deranged attackers while condemning the victims; and, American Jewish leaders remain silent justifying their compliance by claiming to fear a backlash of anti-Semitism in the United States. But their silence fans the flames and arrogance of the attackers while the "leadership" in fact protects their comfortable lives in the Diaspora and their 'place at the table'.

The situation this time around

  • The 2008 version of the war on the Jews features 6,000,000 Jews in a very concentrated area, Israel; in Europe Jews were spread over thousands of miles and behind numerous borders. One of the Jews' most vile enemies pointed out publicly this frightening fact. On October 22, 2002, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah told Lebanon's Daily Star, "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.")

  • The current fanatics possess a seemingly unlimited supply of deadly weapons, killing mechanisms that are constantly becoming more advanced and accurate in their destructive capabilities as the powers of the West assist their development. This is evidenced by the dramatically increased range and frequency of their deadly missile and rocket attacks of Israel.

  • Leading Jewish politicians in Israel, acting as virtual agents for foreign powers committed to the "peace process" continue to embrace fantasy and are desperately attempting to bring their enemies closer to them. They release hundreds of murderers from prison to help bring this to fruition, though it has been proven time and again that many will kill Jews again (several hundred have died this way: see Victims of Arab Terrorism), and that these and similar actions only embolden the enemy population. Yet the political leaders, as if serving the State Department, suppress the nationalistic feelings and actions of their most loyal fellow citizens.

  • Although they do possess superior weaponry and technological prowess (at the moment), the current Jewish leaders refuse to defeat their enemies; they are careful not to injure enemy civilians rather than damage the "war process" destroying Israel and leading to another kind of holocaust.

Israeli leaders have lost the will to prevent the State's destruction while simultaneously emboldening her fanatical enemies with 17 years of fantasy-filled appeasement and unilateral retreats.

Am Yisrael and the Jews of the Diaspora must immediately re-discover their Jewish identity, pride and self-respect, and shout: "Never Again." And, they must act to show they mean it!

With grief and shame at our "leaders," here, and in Israel, and hope for the inner strength and courage against odds of the Jewish People,

Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, February 15 2008.

I've been saying for ages that world terrorism will never be stopped until the victims admit that it all starts with the Arabs who are trying to murder me and destroy the State of Israel. They are connected to Bin Laden, of 9-11 infamy.

Instead of recognizing that they're all the same, the world, led by the United States' Bush and Rice, wants to give them another state, at the expense of the State of Israel.

I was happy to see an article in Newsweek online
(http://www.newsweek.com/id/110937/?rf=nwnewsletter), which at least touches on the American missreading of the situation, even though it doesn't really cut to the quick.

NEWSWEEK: Why did you write this new book?

Michael Scheuer: Because I think our country is in trouble. The enemy we are facing, Osama bin Laden and the movement he heads, is much more dangerous than anyone gives him credit for. Much smarter, much more talented, and now increasingly recruiting a new generation that's better educated, not just in school terms but in operational and especially technological ways. We defeated the swashbucklers. The Errol Flynns of the jihad are gone; they're about to go on trial in Guantánamo. Now we have the gray-suited fellows who are quiet, don't draw attention to themselves, but are tremendously savvy.

Have we underestimated Osama bin Laden?

I think there is tremendous racism in our response to bin Laden. He wears a beard and a robe and lives in a cave. (I doubt that's true, by the way. It's the made-for-Hollywood version.) So we dismiss him. But it is just extraordinary to treat your enemy as an idiot, especially when you are losing two wars to him, and when our director of national intelligence is warning that Al Qaeda is rebuilt, refitted and stronger than ever.

To give you an idea of how the United States is actually helping terrorists, nothing is better than seeing the movie, The Siege, which never got the publicity it deserved. And that's not because it's Bruce Willis's worst ever performance.

Most worrying is that Israeli politicians are getting more and more dependent on the Unitied States "experts" who are the very ones Michael Scheuer is ranting against. The truth is that when it comes to understanding Arab terrorism, the United States doesn't know bupkes.

How long will it take for Israel to wake up and understand that Olmert and his American "advisors" are leading us to Hell and destruction?

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website It is archived at
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Judith Apter Klinghoffer, February 14, 2008.

Copenhagen suffers 5 nights of "youth" riots. A JP photographer is injured. Fire fighters are stoned and police has to use tear gas and arrest rioters. It seems to follow the French pattern.

The placard wording demonstrates determination to avoid past excess but it is the exception rather than the rule.

KARACHI, Feb 14 (Reuters) – Chanting "Death to the cartoonist", dozens of Islamist students burned the Danish flag in southern Pakistan on Thursday after the republication of a caricature of Prophet Mohammad.

In Kuwait, several parliamentarians called for a boycott of Danish goods. "The government has to take action against Denmark," said Waleed al-Tabtabai, a member of parliament. "The sons of dogs published drawings that are offensive to the Prophet." Kuwait's deputy prime minister Faisal al-Hajji said the Gulf Arab country would make an official complaint.

What is most striking is the failure of the Muslim voices who condemn the republication to even mention the murder plot which triggered the republication. See for example the op ed Dr Haroon Junaidi, From Edinburgh in the Scotsman.

For more pictures see
http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/1655-RAGE-BOY-SIGHTING!!!!!!- Anti-Denmark-Day-of-RAGE;-NOW-WORLDWIDE!.html
and http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/ riots-in-denmark-muslim-youths-go-on.html

Femming Rose about Kurt Westergaard.

For the past three months Kurt and his wife have been moving from house to house. In early November, they had a few hours to collect their most necessary belongings before they were driven to a safe location. They had to leave their car at home because the police wanted to create the impression that Kurt and Gitte were still living in the house. The mail was collected, garbage was removed, and an agent who physically resembled Kurt was installed in the house. This was done in case the plotters were to execute their plans to kill Kurt.

In the middle of December Kurt and Gitte returned to their house for just one day to celebrate Christmas with their family.

Still, not a word from the Organization of Islamic Conference about his troubles and no call on Muslims to stop rioting. They have plenty of words to say about the reprinting of the cartoons:

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (IOC) denounced on Friday the reprinting of a Danish cartoon of the prophet Mohammed, warning it could lead to confrontations between Muslims and Christians.

"By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals," OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turk, told AFP in Istanbul.

"It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred," he said. "This is a very wrong, provocative way – unacceptable."

Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com This article appeared in

To Go To Top

Posted by Morris Sadek, February 14, 2008.

[Editor's note: There are various SIOE groups in Europe. See, for example, Pat Condell's very sensible talks on You Tube. See http://www.sioeengland.blogspot.com/. SIOE England is at http://sioeengland.wordpress.com]

This comes from SIOE. It fights back against sharia takeover.

* Muslims demand respect, whereas they do not treat non-muslims with respect.

* Female muslims refuse to be treated by male doctors.

* In Amsterdam cars were set on fire after Bilal near-lethally knifed 2 policewomen. Although the damage was enormous nobody received payment for damages, and the perpetrators have not been caught (and where is the news of how the two policewomen are fairing?)

* The imam of the As-Soenah mosque, said that this mosque can now be built larger than it already is, and he suggested that Theo van Gogh had deserved "sentence" he received.

* On 17 November 2007 muslim students in Amsterdam tried convert others to Islam.

* The photographer Sooreh Hera cannot show her photos of two men wearing masks of Mohammed and Ali. She was threatened and was forced into hiding.

* Geert Wilders, Eshan Jami and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are not able to walk the streets without bodyguards. Several times they have been threatened.

* Islamic students become angry because they are refused time off from studies so that they can ritually slaughter animals for their religious feasts.

* An anti-Wildersb group has been set up to silence Wilders, the only politician who dares to point out the dangers of Islam. The group demands he remains silent.

* Hizb ut Tahrir distributes leaflets saying "stop badgering islam".

The leaflet which the Dutch department of Hizb ut-Tahrir these spreads week, asks for signatures to place under a petition against the 'offence of Islam and the Moslems.' Islam is continuously badgered and that must stop, says spokesman Okay Pala.

* Moslems have been offended before even seeing the film of Geert Wilders and threaten violent action (see here to a small film from end courts, where it is suggested that Geert Wilders is decapitated. With thanks to none style)

* Our SIOE colleagues were victims of an assassination attack before attending a demonstration against islamisation. (all of their wounds have meanwhile healed)

* SIOE Netherlands members have been threatened (we have made an official report)

* Homosexuals are threatened and beaten up.

* Jewish people, families, are chased out of Amsterdam.

We can mention many things about what appears in the news. We can all say that muslims are offended every time we say the tiniest thing about the islam. They demand more respect, more tolerance. Our politicians do nothing about it and, indeed, ourpolitically correct politicians from The Hague invariably side with muslim demands. Even our queen (read

SIOE Nederland has enough of this, more than enough and it's time that we all stood together to it make clear that enough is enough.

We won't submit, we won't let them take our freedom away, they will not tell us what to do.

We don't want to live by the rules of islam, in other words Sharia law.

We do have a culture, a culture of tolerance and mutual respect. Nederland is a country founded on freedom. Why should we be forced to give up this hard-earned freedom? Why should we live under the fear of the dhimmis?

Islam is a dangerous ideology which is full of hate and intolerance, hate towards the west, hate towards the non-believers, apostates, Christians, homosexuals and Jews.

We demand our hard-earned our freedom back!

We call for individuals, gay-organisations, human right organisations etc. to come to our demonstration to make a protest together:

* Freedom of speech

* Freedom of expression

* Stop political correctness

* No politically correct dictatorship

* Stop mosque building

* Democracy not theocracy!

* No Sharia here!

* Stop islamisation of the Netherlands, and of Europe




SIOE Netherlands Amsterdam

SIOE Nederland is a movement that's proud of our muliculturalism, we are proud that everybody can be who ever he or she wants to be. We are proud that everybody, Native Dutch, immigrants, homosexuals, you name it can live free in Holland. There is just one idiology, called islam, who beat up homosexuals, calling our womean whores for not wearing a headscarf and who are chasing away the Jews from Amsterdam. We, the people will not accept this. Holland is radicalising very fast and politics is doing nothing about it. That's why SIOE Nederland is founded. We are an organization by- and for the common people.

The National American Coptic Assembly in USA support SIOE


Morris Sadek, Esq. is an Egyptian attorney and a special legal consultant to DC Bar. He is with the National American Coptic Assembly. Contact him at morrissadek@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, February 14, 2008.

The article below was written by Dr. Louis Rene Beres. It appeared February 6, 2008 in the Jewish Press In this article, Dr Beres clearly disinguishes between the tactics of war and the underlying causes that have created the conflict.

Louis René Beres is author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism, war and international law. Among these was one of the earliest books on nuclear terrorism (Terrorism and Global Security: The Nuclear Threat, Westview, 1979).

We must ask each Presidential candidate:

What is your understanding of all the implications of the Islamofacist revolution? Are we engaged in an ideological confrontation or simply dealing with individual elements of military strategy?

How do you view the war and how does it impact your foreign policy position?

Contact the Presidential candidates:
Senator Hillary Clinton – Democratic Candidate
Senator Barack Obama – Democratic Candidate
Mike Huckabee – Republican Candidate
Senator John McCain – Republican Candidate

From a national survival standpoint, the candidate debates remain pretty much beside the point. Not a single presidential aspirant has answered (or even attempted to answer) a very important question:

Are we Americans now involved in a merely tactical struggle against particular terror groups and individuals, or are we, instead, embroiled in something much larger? Should we now be focusing on assorted political, military and logistical issues (the effective position, more or less, of all candidates), or upon the much wider religious and cultural context from which our principal terror enemies are spawned?

These questions are politically sensitive, to be sure, but the answers will determine precisely which security measures we should adopt. Here are some preliminary answers: The roots of past and still-impending anti-American terror lie deeply embedded in civilizational hostility, in a partial but widespread Arab/Islamist hatred for Western values and post-Enlightenment modernity. This constructed and codified hatred extends primarily to Judaism, but also to certain parts of Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. Although it is true that the greatest portion of Arabs and Muslims strenuously reject terror violence as a means of fulfilling Islamic expectations, the remaining minority portion numbers in the tens of millions. Literally millions of Jihadists are still unhesitatingly prepared to enter "paradise" at a moment's notice. For them, there can be nothing better than an obligatory "martyrdom."

The current "War on Terror" should not be based solely upon the operational eradication of "extremists." This is not a truly military matter. Rather, our war must be founded upon the grim but correct understanding that, for the most part, Arab/Islamist terror is simply the most visible and painful expression of an enraged civilization. Steeped in fundamental hatreds, this fragmented community is not coextensive with the entire Arab/Islamic world, but it does explicitly affirm a perilously primal union between violence and the sacred.

More than anything else, it is this portentous union that now threatens America. Our War on Terror must confront a far-reaching enemy effort to usher in a new Dark Ages. We must wage a genuinely civilizational struggle against a resurgent seventh-century medievalism that seeks to bring fear, paralysis and death to whole legions of "unbelievers." In the next several years, a preferred terrorism tactic in this war is apt to involve chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons – a dire but informed prediction that should be more openly affirmed by all presidential contenders.

Our truest war is not against Osama Bin Laden or even those Arab/Islamic states that nurture and encourage his program for mass murder. Even if Bin Laden and every other identifiably major terrorist were apprehended and prosecuted in authoritative courts of justice, millions of others in the Arab/Islamist world would not cease their planning for an impassioned destruction of "infidels." These millions, like the zealots who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon, would not intend to do evil. On the contrary, they would mete out death to innocents for the sake of an imagined divine expectation, prodding the killing of Israelis, Americans and certain Europeans with steadfast conviction and pure heart.

Sanctified killers, these millions would generate an incessant search for more "Godless" victims. Though mired in blood, their search would be tranquil and self-assured, born of the altogether certain knowledge that its perpetrators were neither evil nor infamous, but "heroic."

For our current enemies, terrorism is fundamentally an expression of religious sacrifice. For them, violence and the sacred are always inseparable. To understand the rationale and operation of planned terrorism it is first necessary to understand these particular conceptions of the sacred. Then, and only then, will it become clear that most Arab/Islamist terror is, at its core, a distinct manifestation of worship.

All civilizations hope for immortality. Political scientists may prefer to identify global power with guns, battleships and missiles, but the most sought after form of power in this world is always power over death. In essence, Arab/Islamist terrorism is a longstanding form of sacred violence oriented toward the sacrifice of both enemies and martyrs. It is through the presumably indispensable killing of Americans, Jews and many others that the "Holy Warrior" embarked upon Jihad can buy himself free from the unendurable penalty of dying.

It is only through such sacred killing, and not through compromise or diplomacy, that divine will can actually be done.

Forget the so-called "Road Map" or shortsighted plans for durable economic ties with Saudi Arabia. Everywhere in the Arab/Islamic world, America is routinely characterized as a pathology. A recent and very typical article from an Egyptian newspaper speaks characteristically of the U.S. as "the cancer, the malignant wound, in the body of Arabism, for which there is no cure but eradication." Such inflammatory references are more than a vile metaphor. They are profoundly theological descriptions of a despised enemy that must be lanced, cut out, excised. Where this liquidation can be accomplished by self-sacrifice, possibly even terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, it would be life-affirming for the killers. Naturally, most Arab/Islamic governments and movements would deny this zero-sum, end-of-the-world thinking, but such denials would be dishonest.

The unvarnished truth of the terrorist threat to the United States and the West still remains widely misunderstood. We face suicidal mass killings with unconventional weapons in the future not because there exists a small number of insane terrorist murderers, but because we are embroiled – however unwittingly – in an authentic clash of civilizations. While we all wish it weren't so, wishing will get us nowhere. Our only hope is to acknowledge the relentlessly bitter and primal source of our existential danger, and then proceed to fight the real war on terror from there.

Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 14, 2008.

This comes from the Terror Finance website

Mohammed Waleed Kadous, a senior research fellow at the University of NSW,Sydney, Australia in the school of computer science and engineering, has been offered a two-year contract by Google to work in software engineering, reported The Australian in November 2007

Dr Kadous has dedicated his spare time to civil rights. In 2001 he founded the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network which, in conjunction with the University of Technology, Sydney, released a 2004 booklet ASIO(Australian Security Intelligence Organisation), the Police and You, detailing anti-terror laws. The booklet is essentialy a guide to getting around anti-terror leigislation.

Dr Kadous has told The Australian that civil rights work helped further his career." My volunteer work has improved my ability to communicate ideas, especially under a lot of pressure," he said. " I'm hoping to volunteer for several civil rights groups ... and when I come back to Australia use both the skills I learn from volunteering and from working for Google. Lobby groups in the US have done some amazing work for civil rights."

He is active in the UNSW Muslim Students Society. In one of his Friday sermons he said:

Now, as far as I can see, these are three of the pillars of Western Society. The problem is that these three are Great Lies.

The First Great Lie is that if a majority of people say something is right, then it is right. This Lie is called democracy...anyone who looks, who reads, who pays attention and applies the Islamic filter – those "green-coloured glasses'' can see that Western Society is falling to pieces. The idea that I said earlier about the three great lies: I'm not the first person to see these problems – Western intellectuals have been discussing the problems for a long time. All three issues are being discussed right now, but it looks like all three are on a downhill slide, and the West doesn't seem to have anything to slow down these society-breaking developments. So we've got to be here to offer them the right alternative, that is Islam. How many more years do you think Western Society will survive before collapsing? 30 years? 40 years? If it's lucky. I'm telling you now, that there is very little doubt in my mind that within our lifetimes, something is going to happen. And we have to be ready to fulfill our Islamic responsibilities when that happens.

Full article at
http://isoc-unsw.org.au/main/index.php?option= com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=73

WALEED KADOUS WAS INTERVIEWED on Channel Nine's SUNDAY programme, aired on 16/10/2005.
(http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1891.asp )

His exchange with reporter Adam Shand:

ADAM SHAND: But there is also ambiguity and political orthodoxy inside the Muslim community on the question of home-grown suicide bombers.

WALEED KADOUS: I'm sure that there are some in the community who are involved in terrorism, but it is important not to exaggerate either the threat or the number. I would – actually, can I retract that. Let me just think of a way to phrase that better. If they do exist – and I'm not sure that they do exist – we only have ASIO's word to say that.

See also the article by Sharon Lapkin at

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 14, 2008.

This was written by Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief. His newly released book is Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans ? to a Jew! Contact him at aklein@worldnetdaily.com

This article is archived at

Palestinians make astonishing claim, deny they'll help restore burned tomb

In the wake of an attempt by Palestinians to burn down Joseph's Tomb – Judaism's third holiest site – Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction issued a statement denying it will help restore the shrine, referring to both the shrine and the biblical patriarch as "Muslim."

"Pay no attention to the rumors that we will work with Israel to restore the burial site of the holy Muslim Joseph," said the statement, issued from Nablus, the biblical city of Shechem. "We are going to guard this holy Muslim site."

Joseph's Tomb is the believed burial place of the son of Jacob who was sold by his brothers into slavery and later became viceroy of Egypt.

Palestinian security officials in Nablus said Monday they were called to the tomb to find 16 burning tires inside the sacred structure. A Palestinian police official who inspected the site told WND there was some fire damage to the tomb.

He said the Palestinian Authority, fearing embarrassment, immediately formed a joint committee from the PA's Force 17, Preventative Security Services and Palestinian intelligence, to find out who was behind the fire.

The move comes after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced last week he would ask Israel's Defense Ministry to work with the PA to reconstruct and restore the tomb, parts of which were destroyed in 2000 by Palestinians, including known PA security officers.

Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, which granted nearby strategic territory to the Palestinians, Joseph's Tomb was supposed to be accessible to Jews and Christians. But following repeated attacks against Jewish worshippers at the holy site by gunmen associated with then-Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat's militias, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak in October 2000 ordered an Israeli unilateral retreat from the area.

Within less than an hour of the Israeli retreat, Palestinian rioters overtook Joseph's Tomb and reportedly began to ransack the site. Palestinian mobs reportedly tore apart books, destroying prayer stands and grinding out stone carvings in the Tomb's interior. A Muslim flag was hoisted over the tomb.

Israel first gained control of Nablus and the neighboring site of Joseph's Tomb in the 1967 Six-Day War.

The Oslo Accords signed by Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin called for the area surrounding the tomb site to be placed under Palestinian jurisdiction but allowed for continued Jewish visits to the site and the construction of an Israeli military outpost at the tomb to ensure secure Jewish access.

Following the transfer of control of Nablus and the general area encompassing the tomb to the Palestinians in the early 1990s, there were a series of outbreaks of violence in which Arab rioters and gunmen from Arafat's Fatah militias shot at Jewish worshipers and the tomb's military outpost.

Six Israeli soldiers were killed, and many others, including yeshiva students, were wounded in September 1996 when Palestinian rioters and Fatah gunmen attempted to over take the tomb. Eventually, Israeli soldiers regained control of the site.

Gravestone at traditional burial site for biblical patriarch Joseph after it was ransacked by Palestinian mobs

The Palestinians continued to attack Joseph's Tomb with regular shootings and the lobbing of firebombs and Molotov cocktails. Security for Jews at the site increasingly became more difficult to maintain. Rumors circulated in 2000 that Barak would evacuate the Israeli military outpost and give the tomb to Arafat as a "peacemaking gesture."

In early 2000, the Israeli army began denying Jewish visits to the tomb on certain days due to prospects of Arab violence. Following U.S.-mediated peace talks at Camp David in September 2000, Arafat returned to the West Bank and initiated his intifada. During one bloody week in October 2000, Fatah gunmen attacked the tomb repeatedly, killing two and injuring dozens, prompting Barak to order a complete evacuation of Judaism's third holiest site Oct. 6.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, February 14, 2008.

This is from today's Johannesburg Mail and Guardian
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=332195&area= /breaking_news/breaking_news__national/. It was written by Michael Hamlyn, Cape Town, South Africa.

Former leader of the Democratic Alliance Tony Leon, who now speaks for the party on foreign affairs, has launched a scathing attack on South Africa's plan to host a second World Conference against Racism in Durban next year.

Leon told a meeting of the Women's International Zionist Organisation in Cape Town on Wednesday that last Friday President Thabo Mbeki announced that Durban would be the site for a review conference to evaluate the implementation of the decisions of the World Conference against Racism held there in 2001.

"Quite what good will come of this exercise remains open to serious question," Leon said.

He told the Zionists that Canada, one of the countries most supportive of human rights, announced that it would boycott the Durban 2009 conference, saying it would likely "degenerate into expressions of intolerance and anti-Semitism".

Canada has already concluded that "2009 Durban" will not remedy the mistakes of the past, but on the basis of its preparatory committee will simply see a ramping-up of the 2001 conference.

"You will recall at the original 2001 Durban conference [that] the American and Israeli delegation stormed out, citing anti-Semitic attacks outside the official meeting, which included the leaflets saying, 'Hitler should have finished his job'," Leon said. "You will recall that at that conference, it was Israel that was singled out almost alone among the human rights violators of the world."

He said that the preparatory committee for the conference is chaired by Libya, and its members include Iran, Pakistan and Cuba.

The United States voted against a United Nations resolution concerning the conference, and the 27 European Union countries have also expressed profound reservations about the fact that some of the most rights-delinquent countries in the world will sit in judgement on how the other states implement anti-racism measures.

It appears likely, Leon suggested, that many other Western nations will soon follow Canada's lead.

"The question then arises how South Africa hopes to steer the conference in a direction of balance and probity, rather than leading it to degenerate again into a hate fest of intolerance and imprudence."

He added that the South African taxpayer forked out R100-million for the last World Conference against Racism. "The results have been dismal and in terms of the advancement of the real fight against racism, almost non-existent."

He asked: "Are we again going to witness, host and pay for a slanted, sectional and sectarian conference, or will we use our best endeavours and our foreign policy credentials to steer it in the right direction?" – I-Net Bridge

Contact Maurice Ostroff at maurice@trendline.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gary Bauer, February 14, 2008.

Cindy And The Islamists

Late yesterday afternoon, the Associated Press ran a story that immediately caught my attention. Anti-war radical Cindy Sheehan has taken her demonstration road show overseas once again. You may recall that she previously cavorted with Venezuela's anti-American dictator Hugo Chavez. Now, she is evidently in Cairo, Egypt. I'm sure she will find time to see the sights, like the Great Pyramid of Giza, but the purpose of her trip was to demonstrate her solidarity with Islamic extremists.

According to the Associated Press report, Sheehan joined "50 heavily veiled wives and children of 40 senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood" to protest outside of the office of Egypt's first lady, Suzanne Mubarak. Sheehan told reporters, "I am here to protest the trial of civilians in front of a military tribunal as this is a violation to international law. As a mother of a son who was killed in the war, I presented a letter to Ms. Suzanne Mubarak to realize how those women and children are suffering."

I really want to be sympathetic to the mother of one of our soldiers who gave his life for our country. Out of Christian charity, I will assume that there is some terrible psychosis at work here, something akin to the Stockholm Syndrome.

But for those who don't know, the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist front group that one expert described as the "parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda." The Egyptian government has been fighting the Muslim Brotherhood since the 1940s and officially banned the organization in 1954.

It has, however, in recent years made a comeback as a political party, but its agenda has not changed. Instead of taking power by force, it now tries to subvert the political process to achieve the same goal: the imposition of an Islamic state in an Egypt ruled by Sharia law. Among its members was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the al Qaeda terrorist who orchestrated the atrocities of September 11th.

That Cindy Sheehan would protest in support of the Muslim Brotherhood is unconscionable. The Muslim Brotherhood is indistinguishable from the thugs who attacked us on September 11th and those who killed her own son. Her common sense has been utterly consumed by her grief, and her actions now border on sedition.

Speaking Of Common Sense

The following blog entry appeared yesterday on the "Best of the Web" section of OpinionJournal.com. It provides additional information on the horrific bombing in Baghdad recently that involved two mentally disabled women, and it makes a point I believe is worth repeating.

Too Evil for Words

From London's Times:

The acting director of a Baghdad psychiatric hospital has been arrested on suspicion of supplying al-Qaeda in Iraq with the mentally impaired women that it used to blow up two crowded animal markets in the city on February 1, killing about 100 people.

Iraqi security forces and US soldiers arrested the man at al-Rashad hospital in east Baghdad on Sunday. They then spent three hours searching his office and removing records. Sources told The Times that the two women bombers had been treated at the hospital in the past.

"They [the security forces] arrested the acting director, accusing him of working with al-Qaeda and recruiting mentally ill women and using them in suicide bombing operations," a hospital official said.

Read that again: The head of a mental hospital (allegedly) provided women under his care to al Qaeda to use as human bombs, for the purpose of murdering as many innocent people as possible. We are at a loss for words to characterize the depth of this evil.

Yet, Big Media and radical leftwing activists continue to denounce America rather than our enemies, who have told us repeatedly that they love death more than we love life. This enemy has no respect for "diplomacy," and will not stop until it is crushed on the field of battle.

Gary Bauer is also the president of American Values. Contact him at gary.bauer@mail.amvalues.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 14, 2008.

This was written by Winfield Myers and appeared today in Front Page Magazine
http://www.meforum.org/article/1853. Winfield Myers is Director of Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

The U.S. Department of State has awarded a grant worth $494,368 to University of Delaware political scientist, Brookings Institution fellow, and Pentagon consultant Muqtedar Khan, who last fall objected to serving on a panel with a veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces. According to a UD press release, the grant is to be used, "to initiate a dialogue on religion and politics between key members of religious and community organizations in the Middle East and the United States."

The press release continued:

Under the grant, participants from Egypt and Saudi Arabia will be on campus this summer for a brief period before traveling to other locations, including New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Later a group of American scholars will travel to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to take part in similar activities in those countries. A documentary film is planned of the visit to the U.S.

The choice of Khan to oversee a program dedicated to expanding dialogue between religious communities is beyond parody, as Khan himself has a record of thwarting dialogue, at least with Israeli veterans. Moreover, his award is part of a larger pattern of coddling Islamists within the bureaucracies of the State Department and Pentagon.

Last October 23, Khan objected to the presence of IDF veteran and Campus Watch associate fellow Asaf Romirowsky on an academic panel at UD. Organized by students to discuss "Anti-Americanism in the Middle East," the panel was set to go when Khan – writing from Washington, DC, where he had delivered a workshop at the Pentagon – sent the following email to undergraduate Lara Rausch, one of the key organizers of the event:

Laura, I have to speak at the Pentagon tomorrow. My workshop is from 12-4. I hope to catch the 5 pm Acela from DC and will be back in town by 7 pm. I will come directly, but may be late. I am also not sure how I feel about being on the same panel with an Israeli soldier who was stationed in West Bank. Some people see IDF as an occupying force in the West Bank. I am not sure that I will be comfortable occupying the same space with him. It is not fair to spring this surprise on me at the last moment.

Romirowsky, contacted via email, was asked what he thought of the State Department's action of singling out Khan for a substantial award to encourage dialogue, was taken aback.

"I seriously question the type of dialogue this will promote given the fact that he wouldn't share space with me on an academic panel," Romirowsky replied.

"Dialogue is good if you have something to dialogue about – starting with accepting the others' right to exist," he continued. "Yet, by not sitting on a panel with me due to my IDF service, he basically questioned Israel's right to exist within safe and secure borders."

"That itself should throw into question the integrity of any dialogue he might initiate."

In the two months following the story's October debut, Khan offered no fewer than three additional explanations for why he acted as he did. I documented these in December, and concluded that the reasons he gave in the October 23 email above rang truest: IDF vets are off-limits on panels in which he participates. The other excuses were little more than a smokescreen, set off in a vain attempt to reduce the embarrassment his intolerance had brought to himself and the University.

Khan's large grant from the State Department, coupled with his role as a Pentagon advisor, further exposes a troubling trend within those federal departments of coddling Islamists and turning a blind eye toward intolerance.

Hesham Islam, special assistant for international affairs in the office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, has made news lately for allegedly calling Joint Chief analyst on counterterrorism Major Stephen Coughlin, who also reported to England, a "Christian zealot with a pen" and pressing for his removal.

Coughlin is widely celebrated as one of a small number of Pentagon analysts who are consistently tough on Islamism – a stance that has made enemies within the Defense bureaucracy. His thesis from the National Defense Intelligence College, titled "'To Our Great Detriment': Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad," is celebrated by terrorism experts as a clear-sighted warning that too few in Washington care to heed.

Although the Pentagon took Hesham Islam's biography off its web site, stories of his fate, along with that of Coughlin, are mixed. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), who investigated the matter, wrote on February 5 that Coughlin told her there was never a conspiracy to remove him from his job. Some reports claim that Islam himself is on his way out, but Claudia Rosette, who investigated the matter closely, says on her blog that a call to the Pentagon produced a denial of that story. Steven Emerson has detailed Islam's past relationships with Islamists.

One thing, however, is certain: by entrusting Middle East studies specialists such as Muqtedar Khan with huge grants to bring Saudis and Egyptians to America, the State Department and Pentagon are remaining true to form. From former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes's stated fondness for the works of Wahhabi apologist John Esposito – a man who shares Hesham Islam's predilection for Christian-bashing – to Khan's previous work for the Pentagon, our federal departments entrusted with protecting America from Islamists are in fact employing them.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

The original article has live links to additional material.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 14, 2008.

It's a balagan (a confused situation) and could make you crazy if you try to make sense out of what you read in the press:

-- Olmert has denied that Jerusalem is being discussed in negotiations; Qurei doesn't set the agenda for talks, he insists.

-- Shas, which is eager to remain in the government, has accepted this denial, and is staying "for now." The charade of staying in a government that wants to divide Jerusalem eventually, even if (a big if) perhaps it is not doing so at the moment, is breathtaking.

-- Nir Barkat, a member of the Jerusalem City Council, says that he has evidence from "secret sources" that in secret meetings Israel and the PA have already agreed on dividing Jerusalem. Livni, he says, knows about this secret channel and thus is complicit. In correspondence with Livni, Barkat has written that ""I would like to remind you that if this is true, it constitutes a complete deviation from Kadima's basic principles, a blatant violation of Basic Law: Jerusalem, a breach of the voter's trust and an undermining of the Knesset's sovereignty."


And so, I have now gone to my own very knowledgeable "secret source," who is happy to share information with me provided that his name is not used. Some of what he says many of you will already have intuited or understood from various public sources; what he does is provide confirmation. But he also offers details, perspective, and additional information that is likely to be new to most.

There are, says my source, three channels of negotiations:

First there is the Ehud Olmert-Mahmoud Abbas channel. They are establishing basic principles only and not dealing with details. They do not write anything down, they simply talk. And thus they have deniability. There is no question that they have discussed Jerusalem and have agreed in principle that it will be shared. Abbas makes no compromises; in all instances where agreement is reached, it is because Olmert has acceded to a PA demand.

Then there are the day-to-day negotiations of teams headed by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qurei, former PA prime minister. These negotiations involve written notes and so both sides are fearful of committing themselves prematurely. For this reason, there has been no progress on major issues; it is with regard to this level that it is said that talks are frozen. The teams are restricting themselves to discussing "pragmatics." As far as Jerusalem is concerned, they are talking about such matters as building in various neighborhoods and the possibility of re-opening Orient House. But my observation is that as much as this is called "pragmatic" it is ultimately political: To give Fatah a presence in Jerusalem, for example, is to concede that part of Jerusalem will belong to Fatah.


Finally, there is the back-channel, which is what Barkat was alluding to (and he has details correct). It is also what Palestinians I've cited in recent days were referring to: on the table and under the table, open and secret meetings, etc.

The person representing Israel in these meetings is Deputy Premier Haim Ramon. He began these meetings in Rome, shortly after Fatah lost Gaza. At that time he met with Salam Fayyad, who was named PA prime minister when Abbas reconstituted his government after the Gaza rout. But the Fatah powers objected to this, because Fayyad was willing to make some compromises and they want NO compromises. What sort of compromises was Fayyad willing to consider? Maybe half a million refugees returned to Israel instead of all four million. Maybe the PA would get all of eastern Jerusalem except for the Kotel, which would remain Israeli. Fayyad was not powerful enough to withstand Fatah objections.

And so now strong man Mohammad Rashid is negotiating with Ramon.


Rashid was a trusted confident of Arafat and was deeply involved in financial shenanigans of the PA (as was Qurei, incidentally). And Rashid and Ramon are business partners. What is more, Haim Ramon has a direct connection with South African/Austrian multi-millionaire businessman Martin Schlaff, who is shoulder-deep in issues of corruption in this country. Or, as Gidi Weitz and Uri Blau describe him in Haaretz in a recent major expose on these issues, Schlaff plays "the role of the omnipotent Jewish gvir [patron] who wants to manage the affairs of the Middle Eastern shtetl."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo= 948291&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14

Anyone familiar with the investigations of Ariel Sharon will know the name Schlaff. More recently there are corruption investigations involving Schlaff with Olmert and Lieberman. Schlaff won't set foot in Israel now, for fear of being immediately arrested. For a summary of this, far briefer than the very extensive Haaretz article, see:


My source tells me that whatever Ramon and Rashid might come up with in terms of an agreement will not be accepted by the PA because of the intransigence of Fatah with regard to any compromises. Remember that Farouk Kadoumi, who was opposed totally to Oslo, has huge influence on the Central Committee of Fatah.

And from our side, dear Heaven, do we need to clean house!

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Hebron Jewish Community, February 14, 2008.

This was written by Yossi Baumol, executive director of the Hebron Fund.

The Israeli government's siege of 20 young families living in Hebron's Beit HaShalom cracked for the first time recently. Shas minister Eli Yishai, struggling to justify his continued participation in a morally bankrupt government, pressured Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who then gave the Military Appeals Court its marching orders. Shamelessly, the court "suddenly" perceived the drastic humanitarian needs of the residents and allowed them to install windows in the unfinished building.

No less brazen was the behavior of Winograd Commission member Prof. Yechezkel Dror, who unabashedly explained that the commission's rulings were formulated on the premise that support "of a prime minister who would further the peace process was a decisive factor."

What a waste of time and money. Instead of the two heavy volumes published by the Winograd Commission, all we had to do was quote Olmert's almost prophetic words at the Israel Policy Forum Tribute Dinner in June 2005 – more than a year before the Second Lebanese War: "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies!"

Who can expect to win a war with such leadership?

A leader like George W. Bush speaks differently: "The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength, and we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose and faith in a loving God who made us to be free."

Every nation in the world knows this. After all, was it a Jewish settler who said, "Give me liberty or give me death"? Or how about: "I regret I have but one life to give for my country"? Only one nation forgot this lesson – a nation that lost its land and independence almost 2,000 years ago, and after 60 years of renewed independence still hasn't figured it out.

The Jews of Hebron are neither tired of fighting nor tired of being courageous. As a non-Jewish visitor once told us: "Don't worry – we read the end of the book already and you guys win!" We know that in the end we will win, because we know the secret of Jewish power and deterrence.

"When the nations of the world shall see that the name of God is upon you, then shall they fear you" (Devarim 28). No nation can win when it acts against its own self-interest, when it denies its own heritage, when it undermines its own self-confidence – when it tortures and punishes its own true heroes who defend its borders the way the men, women and children of Beit HaShalom suffered the court's "freeze order" in the most cruel, literal sense possible.

In a recent talk I gave at a New York-area elementary school, a young girl asked me, "What is more important – Jerusalem or Hebron?" I told her that I had a unique perspective on this question.

For the past 25 years I have been living in Efrat, halfway between the two holy cities. For the past 25 years I have dedicated my life to these two holy cities – first as director of Talmud Torah Hebron, then as director of Yeshivat Ateret Cohanim when it was part of the Jerusalem Reclamation Project, and back again in Hebron again as executive director of the Hebron Fund.

We must understand our role as Jews if we are to understand the role of these two cities. Our mission statement, as Hashem told Abraham in Parshat Lech Lecha, has two parts: 1) I will make you a great nation; 2) Through you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Jerusalem is the second stage, where someday all the nations of the world will receive their sustenance through our rebuilt Temple. Hebron is the first stage – the place where we learn to become a great nation.

The Torah is split into two parts. The second part of the Torah, from Parshat Bo onward, is filled with commandments and laws, mysticism and miracles, a story defined by divine choice and coercion. This part of the Torah corresponds to Jerusalem. The first third of the Torah barely has any commandments, describes no miracles. It is the story of a small group of heroic people whose belief in God transforms them from a small family into a great nation. Their struggle is a natural one, a physical one, where commerce, agriculture, war and overcoming adversity play an important part. This saga takes place mainly in Hebron.

The redemption of the Jewish people also comes in two stages: The second stage, the spiritual redemption called Mashiach Ben David, is symbolized by Jerusalem. The first stage, the physical redemption, called Mashiach Ben Yosef, is more connected to Hebron.

Traditionally there are two spots on earth that are the gateways to heaven. Adam's soul came down from the heavens to Jerusalem and his body was formed by God from the earth of the Foundation Stone on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. He returned his soul to his maker and was interred in Hebron at the Gates of Eden.

When we talk to God, when we pray, the Zohar tells us our words ascend up to the heavens through the Machpela Cave in Hebron. When we listen for God's answer by learning Torah, his answer comes from Jerusalem – "For from Zion does the Torah go forth and the word of God from Jerusalem."

So the answer is simple. Like our e-mail programs, Heaven has an outbox and an inbox. Hebron is the outbox, corresponding to the first part of the Torah, where we express our human choice and human endeavor, where our prayers go up, where, after a lifetime of toil, our souls ascend to Paradise.

Jerusalem is the inbox, where the answers come from – "You will be blessed from Zion and see the good of Jerusalem."

Someday, hopefully soon, we will enter the days of Jerusalem. The splendor of God will be so apparent that our free choice will be taken from us. In the meantime we are in the days of Hebron, the days of proactive human choice and initiative – but the window of opportunity may be closing soon.

Many of us dedicate this valuable time to politics, complaining about our leaders and saying, "If only Bibi/Eitam/Feiglin were in power." We seem to forget that we actually won several recent elections – somehow, though, the fruits of those victories were stolen from us again and again.

Our rabbis tell us, "The hearts of ministers are in the hand of God." They have no free will. They are on autopilot, playing a veiled role in God's cryptic plan.

When will we understand that it is all up to us? That with such brave, steadfast representatives as the Jews of Hebron, we could accomplish so much if we only stood with them?

Each and every one of you should make it your business to stand with them. Visit Hebron. Support Hebron. Please go to www.hebronfund.com to see how you can help right now.

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 14, 2008.


"The latest anti-Semitism is also now mouthed by world leaders and sophisticated politicians and academics. Their loathing often masquerades as 'anti-Zionism' or 'legitimate' criticism of Israel. But the venom exclusively reserved for the Jewish state betrays existential hatred."

"Israel is always lambasted for entering homes in the West Bank to look for Hamas terrorists and using too much force. But last week the world snoozed when the Lebanese army bombarded and then crushed the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, which harbored Islamic terrorists."

"The world has long objected to Jewish settlers buying up land in the West Bank. Yet Hezbollah, flush with Iranian money, is now purchasing large tracts in southern Lebanon for military purposes and purging them of non-Shi'ites." The Jews once again are the scapegoats.

"'That our State Department is at the mercy of a Jewish lobby' is the theme of Mearsheimer-Walt book...". Yet when the United States bombed European and Christian Serbia to help Balkan Muslims, few critics claimed American Muslims had unduly swayed President Clinton. And charges of improper ethnic influence are rarely used to explain the billions in American aid given to non-democratic Egypt, Jordan or the Palestinians, or the Saudi oil money that pours into U.S. universities. The world...seems to care little about the principle of so-called occupied land, whether in Cyprus or Tibet, unless Israel is the accused. Mass-murdering in Cambodia, the Congo, Rwanda and Darfur has earned far fewer United Nations' resolutions of condemnation than supposed atrocities committed by Israel. A number of British academics are sponsoring a boycott of Israeli scholars but leave alone those from autocratic Iran, China and Cuba."

Some critics of Israel are motivated by anti-Americanism, perceiving the US as an ally of Israel. (Israel is an ally of the US, but the US undermines Israel.) It's safer to criticize Israel than to criticize Muslims, who reply with assassins (Victor Davis Hanson in Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/18).


An Israeli decision to cut off electricity from Gaza is said to make Gazans turn to terrorism. As if then they would start "firing Kassams at Sderot? ... It's insane. From the moment we ran away from Gaza, the Palestinians (Muslims) stubbornly insist on trying to fire rockets at the electricity plant that supplies them with electricity – while we announced that no matter what they did, we would continue to give them electricity." "Never...has...a country supplied electricity, bought produce and supplied work to its enemies during a war."


A thoughtful analysis by Shlomo Brom of The Institute for National Security Studies in INSSIGHT September 17, 2007, No. 30, like all the others, misses the point of the negotiations between the P.A. and Israel, as the US and other vultures circle for a piece of the action.

INSSight is shallow. Limited to superficial aspects, it implies that the point is whether the two sides can reach agreement. It doesn't even define the sides properly. The sides are not Israel and the P.A., as it thinks, but includes the Zionists, which excludes the Israeli government and has no official spokesmen, and the anti-Zionists, which includes the the Israeli government, jihadists.

The difficulties of negotiating with people whom one is suspicious of are considered. That is as far as the thoughtfulness goes. Omitted is that this whole process is a charade. All the official diplomacy is an exercise in finding some verbal formula, under perhaps temporarily calmer circumstances but perhaps not, so that the parties to the negotiation can seem to compromise or make peace but save face. For the Arabs to save face, their purported compromise must be vague and easily broken. For Israel and the US to save face, Israeli concessions must not be seen as a descent into its demise. That takes deceit.

The real purpose of the exercise is to undermine Israel so it cannot defend itself. That has been the State Dept. goal from the outset of Jewish sovereignty. The Israeli government is run by corrupt politicians hating Judaism, doing the bidding of agents of the US and Europe, and imagining that they can appease the Muslims, and by politicians having an irrational ideology that concessions automatically bring peace.

Concessions to unscrupulous totalitarians of ill will bring war.

Nobody still asks, why give the Palestinian Muslims more sovereignty, when their doctrine is that that would be the springboard for more successful jihad? Why reward their terrorism? Why at the expense of the Jewish homeland? Why not try to destroy their power, instead?


Israel declared Gaza a hostile entity and the other part of the P.A. a friendly entity. Friendly? Its whole culture, including its media, schools, camps, mosques, and militias promulgate bigoted terrorism against Jews and Americans. No wonder they attempt terrorism daily! Abbas, to whom Israeli leaders wish to make concessions, controls some of those agencies. Friendly?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Manhigut Yehudit, February 14, 2008.

The Shas party of Israel has stated publicly that it will leave ruling government coalition should Prime Minister Olmert make any concessions to the Arabs about the status of Jerusalem. Should Shas leave Olmert's government, this action very well could take down the coalition, bring about new elections and end the ongoing "peace process" charade.

In Israel, though, things are not always as they seem.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has assured Shas that Jerusalem will not be discussed until the end of the negotiations. Olmert is using the loophole that Shas handed to him to enable him to further his concessions to the Arab enemy which will be suicidal for Israel.

It appears that Shas is willing to sit in the Olmert government until G-D forbid it is too late, just as Bibi Netanyahu sat in the Sharon government until it was too late to save Gush Katif and northern Samaria It is clear to all observers that Sharon's Expulsion has been a disaster for Israel on all levels.

Netanyahu voted in favor of Sharon's "Disengagement" plan in the Knesset. He constantly threatened to resign his post which probably would have ended all chances of Sharon being able to achieve the necessary approvals. In a crass political maneuver, Netanyahu finally resigned his post one week prior to the plan's implementation – after it was already too late to stop the plan by legal means.

Manhigut Yehudit would like to make it clear to Shas that by keeping Olmert in power, they share in the responsibility for the harm that the government is causing and for the coming Jewish bloodshed due to this government which makes decisions without Jewish values.

Shas has had every opportunity to leave this coalition. Why do they remain?

The Labor party's chairman, Ehud Barak, just reneged on a promise to pull Labor out of the coalition after the issuance of the Winograd report on the 2006 Lebanon War. Why does Labor remain?

Moshe Feiglin, head of the Manhigut Yehudit faction in Likud stated that he suspects that "the deal was closed with Shas and the Labor party before [Yisrael Beiteinu] was forced out of the government. Shas received its hush money and the Labor party got the war against the [settlements], creating more pressure on Barak to stay in the government. That suits him well, because he prefers to stay. When all the elites want the government to remain in power, that is exactly what will happen."

Moshe Feiglin says he can see no justification for the actions of the Shas party, but hopes that its voters will draw the correct conclusions. "Our goal," he said, "is to create a Jewish leadership alternative for the Nation of Israel so that all the people disenchanted from their previous political allegiances will have a political home on election day."

Feiglin added that it is time for the Religious Zionist camp to lead the country. "When we flee the call to lead, neither Shas nor the conventional Likud politicians will lead as we see fit. No matter who wins, the Left's policies will continue to rule. It is our obligation to lead Israel with fear of Heaven in our hearts."

Manhigut Yehudit officials point out that the practice of courting religious parties – like Shas – with major financial incentives and promises in exchange for supporting policies that endanger all Jews is tantamount to bribery by those offering the incentives, and at best, an error in judgment on the part of those who accept them. It comes as no shock that those who brought about and/or continued the suicidal Oslo Accords would employ such methods.

Much more problematic is the acceptance by religious parties of "benefits and protexia" from the above mentioned sources. The land-for-peace formula has proven to have cost in Jewish blood. The direct correlation between the amount of land that Israel cedes and the amount of Jews who are murdered is a fact that can not and must not be ignored by any of us.

The Torah is clear about Israel's Biblical borders. Therefore it is a matter of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) NOT to use our Land as a bargaining chip.

How will the leaders of Shas explain to the future grieving mothers that it was worthwhile to take this money from Olmert?

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, February 13, 2008.

This was written by R. John Matthies and it appeared today in Front page Magazine and is archived at http://www.meforum.org/article/1852.

If the practice of stoning (lapidation) exists across the Islamic world – most visibly in Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates – it speaks much to Western forbearance that this same penalty, though reviled, can make the fortune of one who commends the practice. Consider the case of Hani Ramadan and the state of Geneva.

Hani Ramadan – director of the Islamic Center of Geneva (CIG), grandson to Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, and brother to Islamist superstar Tariq Ramadan – was dismissed from a public teaching post in suburban Geneva in 2003 for publishing a defense of stoning in France's Le Monde. (Brother Tariq, who sought to distance himself from his brother on this point, lamely proposed a "moratorium" on the practice.)

This was not his first brush with the teaching establishment and the civil authorities: Ramadan's colleagues blasted him for tasteless remarks on the place of women in 1996 and 1998; and Hani and brother both were refused passage to France for alleged ties to terror groups (in 1997 and 1996, respectively; Hani was also denied an Egyptian visa in 1999).

But the most recent affaire Ramadan began in the Fall of 2002, when the teacher drafted an opinion editorial on stoning, punitive amputation, and AIDS for the September Bulletin (posted to and since removed from the Islamic Center's website) of the Committee for Respect of Muslim Rights (CRDM).

In it the author (1) claims "the punishment fits the crime: the severed hand for theft, stoning for illicit pleasure. This represents not only retribution, but a form of purification" and deterrence; (2) he demonstrates an odd compassion, writing: "While it's true that stoning is a difficult spectacle [...], reports reveal that the condemned is not long to suffer: the hail of stones dispatches the individual in the space of several seconds"; (3) and finally, he admits that while AIDS is certainly spread through transfusions of contaminated blood, "only those guilty of deviant comportment expose themselves to contagion."

Also curious were his assertions that "the penalties that govern theft and adultery may only find application in a society respectful of Islamic practice and principle." For example, he writes: "It is forbidden to remove the thief's hand in a state that does not deliver [...] the means to lead a dignified existence."

An abridged version of the same document appeared shortly thereafter in France's Le Monde (edition dated September 10, 2002), under the title La charia incomprise, or "Misinterpreting Shari'a."

The saga continues as follows:

* October 11, 2002: Geneva's Department of Public Instruction (DIP) suspends Ramadan. The following day, in a reply to researcher Albert Levy (which Le Monde refused to publish) Ramadan asserts that real democracy "will never thrive under Islamic skies."

* February 5, 2003: Ramadan is terminated for reason that his role as Islamic Center chief and statements are "incompatible" and "clearly at odds" with the mission of public education.

* March 15, 2004: An administrative tribunal orders the state to return Ramadan to his post. The state refuses, but offers Ramadan any number of jobs away from children, which Ramadan refuses.

* April 4, 2004: Ramadan again commends stoning, in Geneva's Matin Dimanche: "I'll say it again, that [stoning] concerns not only females, but adulterous males, as well; this should refute the feminist case against me." A new investigation is launched April 8. * May 2005: The courts again demand the State to return Ramadan to his post. Geneva ignores the request, but agrees to disburse his regular salary ($9,700 per month in today's dollars) to cover the period of his inactivity, and throughout the foreseeable future.

* January 16, 2008: Ramadan agrees to abandon his wish for reappointment, in exchange for two years' salary, or about $230,000.

Geneva admits it made the largest allowable payout, for reason that the state was eager to close the case on "Mr. Stoning." And to sweeten the pot, Geneva further agreed to reimburse his legal costs, of $80,000. Add to this five years' wages, of $633,000, and one describes a settlement of some $1 million. News of Ramadan's reward caused Geneva's Matin to gush: "it pays to praise stoning."

Such are the spoils of "lawfare" (legal wrangling designed to punish opinion). And such are the goals of lawful (or non-violent) radical Islam: to hinder efforts to query the faith, and establish a regime wherein nothing "Islamic" is subject to censure.

The city of Geneva offers guests the spectacle of the Reformation Wall, constructed a century ago. Here one reads the phrase that sings Geneva, the Reformation, and the confidence of the age: Post Tenebras Lux, "After Darkness, Light." It may well be that Ramadan's guiding phrase, as published in a clarifying remark, instead reads: "Human Rights are relative to culture." A phrase that speaks both the diversity we prize and the censure we reject – and testifies to the squishiness of our time.

A wise man remarked: "If all values are relative, then cannibalism is a matter of taste." Another dish, like Ramadan's, we'd do well to return to the kitchen.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arieh King, February 13, 2008.

This was written by Dan Izenberg, and it appeared 2 days ago in the Jerusalem Post

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742130570&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Registrar of Nonprofit Organizations has decided to withdraw the certificate of proper administration from the organization that provides funding for Peace Now, a Justice Ministry official said Monday.

According to the official, the registrar, Yaron Keidar, recently conducted an in-depth examination of the nonprofit organization, known as Sha'al Educational Enterprises.

The official added that Keidar found several problems involving the organization. The most serious was the fact that the aims of the organization, as it defined them, did not tally with the activities of Peace Now, which is a political-ideological activist movement calling for a two-state solution along the 1967 Green Line boundaries. This is problematic, as it may lead to misrepresentation regarding what the money of Sha'al's donors would be used for.

The official added that unless Sha'al Educational Enterprises corrects the faults that Keidar discovered in his investigation, the organization would be dismantled.

Peace Now Director-General Yariv Oppenheimer told The Jerusalem Post in response to the report that "we have been operating for 30 years under these arrangements, and no one has ever found fault until now. Everything is transparent and nothing has changed. It seems that someone in the registrar's office, for political reasons, has decided to cause us harm. I hope the matter will be resolved quickly."

It is possible that the investigation of Peace Now by the registrar was sparked by a petition filed in November by Aryeh King, a member of the Moledet Party and head of the self-styled Office for Public Complaints Regarding East Jerusalem.

In his petition, King demanded that the High Court cancel petitions filed by Peace Now because the movement is not a legal entity. The petitions he referred to call for dismantling the illegal outposts of Migron, Hayovel and Haresha.

King wrote in the petition that "Peace Now is a brand name used by the public and the media. It is not now, and never was, a legal entity. As a result, it should never have been allowed to have its day in court. It should furthermore be clarified that distinct from Peace Now, there is a registered nonprofit organization called 'Sha'al Educational Enterprises.'"

King charged that in the petition, Peace Now identified itself as "Peace Now – Sha'al Educational Enterprises," an entity that does not exist. He said Peace Now used that name to cover up the fact that it did not have the right to petition the court.

In its response to King's petition, Peace Now said it had added its own name to that of Sha'al so that everyone would know who was behind the petitions regarding the illegal outposts, as the name Peace Now is universally recognized.

Peace Now's lawyer, Michael Sfard, also pointed out that the High Court had already rejected similar petitions filed by King in other cases involving Peace Now.

Contact Arieh King at kingshir@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Judith Apter Klinghoffer, February 13, 2008.
Editor's Note: To see "Muslims March Over Cartoons of the Prophet" for the original story and the cartoons themselves," click here.

Sammenhold is the Danish word for solidarity. It has taken two years and a murder plot but the Danish mainstream media finally got it. Today 11 Danish papers reprinted the famous Mohammed cartoons as an act of defiant solidarity with the 73 year old Jyllands-Posten (JP) cartoonist. When the Islamist world exploded in organized rage against a series of Danish cartoons published months earlier, the many members of the Danish media failed to do what it is doing today. With relatively few exception, neither did the rest of the free media.

Consequently, Jihadists and their supporters learned that they may demand both official and self media censorship as well as attack, kidnap and kill reporters with impunity. Indeed, the more outrageous their demand, the more eager the MSM will be to do their bidding. What is their bidding? Aiding and abetting their war against the free world by holding it responsible for the Islamists acts of terror. If Theo Van Gogh is murdered in broad daylight, it is because he deserved it. No, I am not writing in jest.

In early September I attended an invitation only EU co-sponsored conference entitled "Religion and Democracy in Contemporary Europe" held at the Van Leer Institute in Israel. It was a third in a series organized by the EU in response to the kind of value clashes between democratic and Islamist values brought to the fore by the Mohammed cartoon imbroglio. Not surprisingly Fleming Rose was there too. The most revealing moment came during the question and answer period which followed the presentation of Harvard professor Jocelyne Césari. Her talk was entitled "Islam and Globalization: Is radicalism the only path?" She posted the pictures and discussed the choices of a number of radicals including Theo Van Gogh's murderer Mohammed Bouyeri.

A young Dutch woman (protege of Peter Van Der Veer of Utrecht University), raised her hand and demanded to know why Dr. Césari failed to post Theo Van Gogh's picture too or take time to explain the unsavory and provocative character of the victim. Some members of the audience expressed their approval by clapping and nodding. Dr. Césari cooly assured the young woman that she was aware of Van Gogh's background. She was much too savvy to be surprised by the young woman's insistence on the moral equivalence between the murdered and the murderer or by the implication that Van Gogh deserved his fate.

"No problem" was the conference central motive. Neither Amsterdam nor Europe, Peter Van Der Veer assured me, have an Islamist problem for the simple reason that they are so few. Those who worry believe they are dealing with an elephant when in reality they are dealing with a mere mouse. The only serious dissent came from previously optimistic Giles Kepel though only on the last day of the conference when he could no longer keep silent in the face of the "naive" feel good rhetoric which permeated the conference. Solidarity with the victims of Islamist extremism was no where to be found.

It appears that this has finally changed in Denmark:

An editorial in left-leaning Politiken called the murder plot "shocking and troubling."

"Their plans to kill Kurt Westergaard ... are not just an attack on Westergaard but an attack on our democratic culture," the editorial said.

"Regardless of whether Jyllands-Posten at the time used freedom of speech unwisely and with damaging consequences, the paper deserves unconditional solidarity when it is threatened with terror," it said.

"That is why Politiken today ... prints the drawing, even though at no time have we sympathized with Jyllands-Posten's provocation."


"Freedom of expression gives you the right to think, to speak and to draw what you like...no matter how many terrorist plots there are," conservative broadsheet Berlingske Tidende wrote in an editorial.

Berlingske Tidende had not previously printed the caricature despite the massive controversy that engulfed Denmark for months in 2006.

Is the Danish media act of solidarity a sign of a new trend or merely a singular gesture? Will the rest of the free media follow the Danish lead? Sometimes I think yes; then, no. Today I dare hope so. A Danish museum expressed it's wish to purchase the cartoons.

Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com This appeared on

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, February 13, 2008.

The man who master-minded a string of massive car-bombings against U.S. and Israeli targets on behalf of Iran's radical Islamic government reportedly was killed on Tuesday in a car-bomb attack in Damascus.

Imad Mugniyeh, a Lebanese Shiite who went to work for Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps shortly after the 1982 Lebanon war, was 46.

"He's gone to the other side," a U.S. official with access to ongoing U.S. government reporting on the reported assassination told Newsmax.

Before the September 11 attacks, the FBI considered him the most wanted terrorist in the world, since he was responsible for hundreds of American deaths in repeated car-bomb attacks against the U.S. embassy in Beirut, against the U.S. Marines compound in Beirut, and elsewhere.

He was formally identified by U.S. intelligence for his personal involvement in the kidnapping and torture of CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley in 1984, the murder of USMC Colonel Rich Higgins, and the kidnapping of Associated Press reporter Terry Anderson.

Interpol issued an international arrest warrant for him last year for his involvement in the July 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that killed 86 people.

As I revealed in Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, Mugniyeh also was identified in top-secret National Security Agency intercepts obtained by the 9/11 commission shortly before they released their final report in July 2004.

The intercepts identified Mugniyeh as traveling on board several Iran Air flights from Damascus to Tehran between October 2000 and February 2001 that carried eight to ten of the "muscle" hijackers who would later carry out the 9/11 attacks on America.

In the 9/11 commission report, Mugniyeh is merely identified as a "senior Hezbollah operative." But sources who reviewed the documents told me there was no ambiguity whatsoever that Mugniyeh was the person on board the planes, several of which made a quick stop-over in Beirut where some of the hijackers came on board.

A former Iranian intelligence officer, now living in exile in Germany, told me this morning that he recalled Mugniyeh's role in convoying the al Qaeda hijackers to Iran.

The former Iranian intelligence officer, who knew Mugniyeh personally when he was in Iran, says the Lebanese terrorist had been dispatched from Tehran to meet the hijackers, but never got off the plane.

"He was on the airplane as a security officer. I remember that," the former Iranian intelligence officer told me today.

Mugniyeh burst onto the international scene in 1985, when the FBI found his fingerprints in the rear toilet of TWA flight 847 that a group of Hezbollah operatives had hijacked to Beirut.

Mugniyeh and the his fellow hijackers are wanted by the FBI for their cold-blooded murder of U.S. Navy diver Robbie Stethem, who was traveling home from an assignment in Greece on board TWA 847.

The terrorists shot Stethem and dumped his body out on the tarmac, in front of television cameras.

After that attack, Mugniyeh never appeared in public again, and is said to have undergone multiple plastic surgery operations in Iran to significantly alter his appearance.

One of his former colleagues in Iran told me three years ago that he now looks like "Richard Gere with a potbelly."

The photograph that was released by Hezbollah's al-Manar television today when they announced his death bears little resemblance to the Hollywood actor. But the bearded man wearing glasses and army fatigues certainly has grown a pot belly.

For more than two decades, Mugniyeh ran Hezbollah's international terrorist and security operations.

According to a childhood friend I called this morning in Dearborn, Michigan, "everyone is crying" over his death.

"There is no doubt. That was Imad," he told me.

In Lebanon, the childhood friend said that Mugniyeh was known as "Haj Radwan. Nobody says 'Emad' in Lebanon."

Hezbollah suspects that Syria may have played a part in Mugniyeh's killing, Newsmax has learned from sources close to senior leaders in the terrorist organization.

"He was killed as he was going to meet Roustam Ghazali, the head of Syrian military intelligence in Beirut," a Newsmax source in close contact with the Hezbollah leadership told me this morning.

Ghazali is wanted by the international tribunal investigating the car-bombing assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri on Feb. 14, 2005. His office is located in a luxury high-rise in the Kfar Soussa area of Damascus, where Mugniyeh's car was blown up by an explosive charge.

Hezbollah plans to hold a massive public funeral for Mugniyeh tomorrow, which also is the anniversary of Hariri's death.

The anti-Syrian Cedars Revolution, also known as the March 14 movement, plans to hold a rival demonstration to commemorate Hariri's assassination at the same time.

Just yesterday, a key leader of the March 14 movement, Walid Jumblatt, warned Hezbollah and their backers in Syria and Iran that if they wanted war, "we are ready."

Jumblatt said that pro-government militias were prepared to disarm Hezbollah, if that became necessary.

Sources in Beirut tell Newsmax that two days before the car-bombing that killed Mugniyeh, an 8-man team of U.S. paramilitary officers landed in civilian clothing at the Beirut airport and was whisked away to the U.S. embassy compound in the hills overlooking a Christian suburb of Beirut.

"We obviously can't comment on that," a U.S. government official said.

Hezbollah sources warned that they would retaliate for Mugniyeh's killing. "Very soon, they we release information on who killed him," a source close to the Hezbollah leadership told me.

"And after that, watch out. This is a very very big loss for Hezbollah. They will strike back, and it could be anywhere in the world."

Contact Ken Timmerman at timmerman.road@verizon.net This article appeared in Newsmax.

To Go To Top

Posted by Binyamin Lemkin, February 13, 2008.

Today's ascent to Har HaBayit was truly inspiring. We were joined by an enthusiastic group of fellow Jews from Kiryat Arba who ascend every Wednesday and the ascent was accompanied by divrei Torah and uplifting words. It was wonderful among other things to meet a young Jew who moved to Israel from the Ukraine about a year and a half ago as a result of his return to Judaism, already speaks fluent Hebrew, and speaks of his deep feeling of connection to Har HaBayit. Baruch Hashem, the atmosphere was a very spiritual one, and the experience is far calmer than what might imagine.

Anybody interested in coming on the next 7th or 8th of Adar Bet for RBS's monthly ascent please contact me.

Binyamin Lemkin

Contact Binyamin Lemkin by email at lemkinrealty2@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Spyer, February 13, 2008.

The ancient city of Damascus received another mark of recognition last week. Following in the wake of Liverpoolwhich was recognized as the European Capital of Culture, and Stavanger in Norway, which was named the non-EU European Capital of Culture, UNESCO last week designated Damascus as the Arab Capital of Culture for 2008.

In a speech celebrating this decision, Syrian President Bashar Assad chose to highlight a very specific element of his capital city's culture – namely, Damascus's self-appointed role as the center of Arab 'resistance.' "Damascus is the capital of resistance culture by symbolizing Arab culture" he declared, and went on to define 'resistance culture' as "the culture of freedom and defending freedom."

A closer look at what exactly President Assad means by 'resistance culture' might lead one to ask whether the type of activity designated by the term really deserves the acclaim and recognition of an august international body such as UNESCO.

UNESCO's Cultural Capitals Program was launched in the Arab world in1998. It aims to promote the cultural aspects of development and increased international cooperation.

The new Arab Capital of Culture has a unique approach to "international cooperation." Damascus serves as the headquarters of a long list of designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), and an alphabet soup of smaller organizations similarly committed to the practice of violence against civilians. This particular approach to encouraging international cooperation brought the Assad regime to international recognition even prior to its latest accolade from UNESCO. Syria has successfully defended its position at the top of the USA's list of "countries supporting terrorism" since 1979.

Since the mid-1990s, Damascus has served as the operational headquarters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and as a nexus for the transfer of external funds to operatives of these organizations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Seized documents revealed a series of direct financial transactions from Syria to the two terrorist organizations. Syria, who was quick to recognize the Hamas Government in Gaza (despite the objection of the Palestinian Prime minister) also announced a public donation campaign to support it.

According to the State Department, Syria gives the Lebanese militia Hizballah "substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid". Iranian arms bound for Hizballah regularly pass through Syria which effectively occupied and controlled neighboring Lebanon between 1990 and 2005, and which is currently engaged in attempting to regain control in Beirut.

Hizballah's July 2006 missile strikes on Israeli cities – another expression, presumably, of the "culture of resistance," prompted allegations that Syria and Iran were using the group to deflect international attention from other issues, such as Iran's contentious nuclear program.

Syria is also active in Iraq. David Satterfield, Co-ordinator for Iraq at the State Department, recently noted that the US had received 'no Syrian cooperation' in attempting to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. Rather, he continued, "Syria still allows foreign fighters and suicide bombers to pass across its territories into Iraq." A recent US media report estimated that 90% of foreign fighters entering Iraq to take part in insurgent activity come via Syria.

In Lebanon, Damascus is thought to be behind the wave of killings of anti-Syrian political figures which began with the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. Syria is doing its utmost to prevent the emergence of a new president and a stable government in Lebanon. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner last week told Arab reporters in Paris that "Syria wants to appoint the prime minister in Lebanon, the ministers, the distribution of ministries and the governmental plan of action through its allies in Beirut."

The new Capital of Culture and Resistance also, according to U.S. defense and intelligence reports, maintains an active chemical weapons program. Other reports suggest that Syria was clandestinely working on a nuclear program when these efforts were halted by a successful Israeli attack in September, 2007.

Thus, the 'culture of resistance' means acts of terror against civilians, the deliberate subversion of the governments of neighboring countries, the assassination of political opponents and the apparent attempt to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. One wonders if this is what UNESCO – which describes its own goal as 'to build peace in the minds of men' had in mind. The title of 'Arab capital of culture' is currently held by the capital of one of the most brutal and lawless regimes in the world. Arab culture – which has given so much of lasting beauty and value to humanity – surely deserves a better representative.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Milt Fried, February 13, 2008.

This was written by Daniel Pipes and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post

Beneath the deceptively placid surface of everyday life, the British population is engaged in a momentous encounter with Islam. Three developments of the past week, each of them culminating years' long trends – and not just some odd occurrence – exemplify changes now underway.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith describes terrorism as "anti-Islamic."

First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or is even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term "war on terror" would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds "shared values as a means to counter terrorists." By early 2007, the European Union issued a classified handbook that banned jihad, Islamic, and fundamentalist in reference to terrorism, offering instead some "non-offensive" phrases. Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with terrorism. In January, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went further, actually describing terrorism as "anti-Islamic." And last week the Home Office completed the obfuscation by issuing a counter-terrorism phrasebook that instructs civil servants to refer only to violent extremism and criminal murderers, not Islamist extremism and jihadi-fundamentalists.

Second, and again culminating several years of evolution, the British government now recognizes polygamous marriages. It changed the rules in the "Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003": previously, only one wife could inherit assets tax-free from a deceased husband; this legislation permits multiple wives to inherit tax-free, so long as the marriage had been contracted where polygamy is legal, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, or India. In a related matter, the Department for Work and Pensions began issuing extra payments to harems for such benefits as jobseeker allowances, housing subventions, and council tax relief. Last week came news that, after a year-long review, four government departments (Work and Pensions, Treasury, Revenue and Customs, Home Office) concluded that formal recognition of polygamy is "the best possible" option for Her Majesty's Government.

Third, the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, endorsed applying portions of the Islamic law (the Shari'a) in Great Britain. Adopting its civil elements, he explained, "seems unavoidable" because not all British Muslims relate to the existing legal system and applying the Shari'a would help with their social cohesion. When Muslims can go to an Islamic civil court, they need not face "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." Continuing to insist on the "legal monopoly" of British common law rather than permit Shari'a, Williams warned, would bring on "a bit of a danger" for the country.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says that Islamic law in Great Britain "seems unavoidable."

Prime Minister Brown immediately slammed Williams' suggestion: Shari'a law, his office declared, "cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor can the principle of Shari'a law be used in a civilian court. ... the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values." Criticism of Williams came additionally from all sides of the political spectrum – from Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory (Muslim) shadow minister for community cohesion and social action; Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats; and Gerald Batten of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Secular and Christian groups opposed Williams So did Trevor Phillips, head of the equality commission. The Anglican church in Australia denounced his proposal, along with leading members of his own church, including his predecessor, Lord Carey. Melanie Phillips called his argument "quite extraordinarily muddled, absurd and wrong." The Sun newspaper editorialized that "It's easy to dismiss Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as a silly old goat. In fact he's a dangerous threat to our nation." It concluded acerbically that "The Archbishop of Canterbury is in the wrong church."

Although widely denounced (and in danger of losing his job), Williams may be right about the Shari'a being unavoidable, for it is already getting entrenched in the West. A Dutch justice minister announced that "if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Shari'a tomorrow, then the possibility should exist." A German judge referred to the Koran in a routine divorce case. A parallel Somali gar courts system already exists in Britain.

These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life.

* Other items in category Dhimmitude
* Other items in category Islamic law (Shari'a)
* Other items in category Muslims in the United Kingdom

Contact Dr. Milt Fried by email at docmiltfried@mindspring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 13, 2008.


"Under international law, Israel is considered an occupying power in Gaza, even though it has removed its troops and settlers from the territory. Denying civilians access to the necessities of life is considered collective punishment and a violation of international law under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, although the amounts of resources like electricity considered essential could be subject to dispute."

B'Tselem stated, "It doesn't really make a difference whether it' s cutting off the supply from Israel or bombing the power station." (Steven Erlanger & Helene Cooper, NY Times, 9/20, A12.) B'Tselem ignores the Jewish right to live.

Yes it does make a difference. Bombing a power station actively interferes with someone else's power. Withholding commercial supply, for which the Arabs often don't pay, is within Israel's right. It would be done in self-defense, so as not to succor and empower an enemy population at active war against Israel. It isn't fair to call "civilians" those people, who support terrorism, and who, when they see an Israeli, try to lynch him.

The enemy makes collective decisions and actions. If the prospective Israeli action were collective punishment, it would be warranted. But it isn't collective punishment. The Times is demanding that Israel help a people at war with it. That is not reasonable, but the Times is hopelessly anti-Zionist to be reasonable. Why doesn't it chide the Palestinian Arab Muslims for their bigoted imperialism?

The first paragraph I quoted is not attributed to any expert, therefore seems like objective background information. It is not objective. The reporters failed to acknowledge that experts disagree about whether Israel is an occupying power. The US government said it isn't. The Israeli government used to say it isn't, but fell under the spell of the Left, which is not objective but distorts facts to favor the Arabs. I have read the Conventions on the subject of occupation, along with the opinion of experts in international law, such as Douglas Feith and the late Dr. Paul Riebenfeld. They explained that the Conventions defined occupation as referring to sovereign countries taken over by foreign countries. The Territories, however, were not sovereign and are not foreign. They are the unallocated part of the Palestine Mandate for a Jewish national home. Israel, as Mandate heir, has the best claim to them.


"Syria was appointed deputy chairman of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency's General Conference Monday." (IMRA, 9/19.) It seeks the bomb. People think the agency protects them, but it protects nuclear proliferators.


Private US security companies guard supply convoys in Iraq and protect US diplomats, etc. The US has outsourced much of its military police duty to them. A photograph shows a guard holding a machine gun in a helicopter.

These security personnel are noted for aggressiveness. They have to be, where approaching Iraqis, appearing to be civilians, may attack them at any moment. Their aggressiveness, however, is not accountable to the US military, to which they are not attached, nor to the Iraqi government. Iraqis resent this. The US refuses to explain by what authority they are in Iraq and to what authority they are subject.

The matter came to a head, recently, when the guards shot some Iraqis in an incident they claimed was reasonable but Iraqis claim was wanton (Robert H. Reid, NY Sun, 9/19, p.6).

The Sun did not get the whole story. That may be due to both sides finding it embarrassing. Muslim Arabs tend to make up stories. On the other hand, unchecked power invites abuse and cover-up.

Ideally, the anomaly should be regularized, so everybody knows where they stand. There should be no legal hiatuses.


The Arab Gulf states informed the US that the proposed conference on Israel and the P.A. would not involve the Iraqi war. The Arabs hinted that they would not reward the US for making Israel take suicidal steps (IMRA, 9/19).

One of the explanations for US pressure on Israel to make suicidal concessions to the belligerent Palestinian Arabs was that the State Dept. (as Jamaes Baker proposed) hoped that in return, the Arabs would help the US in other Mideastern policies. That would be a cynical and foolish hope – definitely sacrificing a faithful and strong ally to jihad, for dubious and unreliable help elsewhere against jihad. But the Muslim Arabs don't reciprocate.


If the Jews rule the world, then the rest of the world is stupid. Ridiculous! There are many other flaws in that notion of Jewish supremacy, really bigotry. One is that Hollywood Jews have yet to make a movie condemning Islamo-fascism and favoring the war in Iraq (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/19). Another, is that all-powerful people wouldn't get mass-murdered, but the Jews do.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 12, 2008.

It was supposed to be that Shas would resign if Jerusalem was on the table for discussion. Now the Shas leaders are suddenly deaf when Tzipi the Giveaway Hostess announces she's having secret talks with the enemy. Now they add more and more conditions before they bolt. And they dismiss what's going on as talk. Can you imagine! Rabbis not taking TALK seriously! Do they have to see a signed contract before they act. And what good will it do then?

Moreover, they've shown no concern that Israel may compromise Biblical Israel.

Every day Olmert stays in power means Israel isn't readying its population for war – which will come when the Arabs have compiled their weaponry and trained their men (some with American trainers).

It's true that they might lose some perks and income if they resign from the Gov't now. But on the other hand, there'll still be an Israel in 5 years. Their staying in the defeatist Olmert government while the Arabs build up strength is not good for Israel. And it is bad for them. If – G-d Forbid! – they contribute to Israel's defeat, then people – even their own constituents – will blame them retroactively.

This is from yesterday's YNET news It was written by Neta Sela.

Chairman Eli Yishai says haredi party will resign from Olmert's coalition if negotiations with Palestinians carried out while rocket fire from Gaza continues. Netanyahu to Shas: Do the right thing

Shas chairman Eli Yishai said Monday his party would resign from the coalition "if the current negotiations (with the Palestinians) progress beyond the current point while Israel continues to sustain Qassam rocket attacks".

Speaking to faction members, Yishai, who also serves as vice premier and minister of industry, trade, and labor, said violent occurrences in the West Bank would also prompt the haredi party to quit the Kadima-led government.

Following last week's suicide attack in Dimona, which left one Israeli dead and several others wounded, Yishai called for the immediate suspension of the ongoing peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

'It's all talk at this point'

Shas has been reducing the government's freedom of movement in negotiations with the Palestinians and it seems that signals from Olmert's haredi coalition partner are becoming sterner and indicate that the political hoops are getting tighter. At first, Shas would not allow core issues to be discussed with the Palestinians. Later, the party's leaders clarified that no compromise would be made over Jerusalem.

The matter even came up in a conversation between Yishai and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice four months ago. "With us, a groom under the wedding canopy says 'if I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand lose its cunning.' I am telling you unequivocally, there is nothing to speak about concerning Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not no the table for discussion," Yishai told Rice.

Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu also addressed the fragile coalition on Monday, telling Likud faction members that "in light of reports regarding the negotiations on Jerusalem, I feel obliged to turn to our friends in Shas and say: 'You share our concern over Jerusalem and (the state of Israel's) security, and I call on you to do the right thing – and that is to thwart these dangerous steps and resign from the government'."

A Shas official told Ynet that "currently there is no progress in the negotiations (with the Palestinians); it's all talk at this point. But, if (Foreign Minister) Tzipi Livni tells us that progress has been made on the core issues, meaning Jerusalem, the refugees and the permanent borders, while Qassams are still fired at Israel, then Shas will resign.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, February 12, 2008.

The information here comes from several sources. All of them want to save Israel by making sure Olmert and Co. don't cut away Israel's heartland.

If you have not yet written to Shas, please do so.

If you have already written to Shas, please do so again!

Here are the simple steps:

1.) Open a second email window 2.) Copy and paste the following email addresses to the address line:
eyishay@knesset.gov.il, aatias@knesset.gov.il, eamsalem@knesset.gov.il, amncohen@knesset.gov.il, izchakec@knesset.gov.il, dazulay@knesset.gov.il, slomob@knesset.gov.il, ymargi@knesset.gov.il, amichaeli@knesset.gov.il, mnahari@knesset.gov.il, yvaknin@knesset.gov.il, nzeev@knesset.gov.il,

3.) Copy and paste the following to the Subject line: Israel is Discussing the Division of Jerusalem – Leave the Government Now!

4.) Type your name, city and state (in the U.S.) or name, city & country in the text of the message. Then send it.

5.) Forward this email to everyone on your list, and urge them to do the same.

Please Note: If you have already written to Shas, but have not received a thank you from me, please send me an email with your name, city & state/country, so I may add you to the growing list of pro-Israel activists.

Buddy Macy
Little Falls, NJ

FaigeRayzel@aol.com wrote:


Communication Minister Ariel Atias, the number two man in Shas, said Tuesday morning that he believes the Jerusalem Post report that secret talks have been taking place between the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams on the issue of Jerusalem. Shas Chairman Eli Yishai had said that if the Post story was true the party would leave the government. Now is the perfect time to ACT to influence SHAS!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202657414830&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



Tel: 02-675-3550
Fax 02-649-6543

Current Composition
Chairman Yakov Margi
Number of Seats 12

Shas Members of Knesset:

1. Chaim Amsellem Tel: 02-649-6457 02-675-3474 fax 02-649-6527 eamsalem@knesset.gov.il

2. Ariel