HOME Featured Stories February 2012 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom of this page.

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, February 29, 2012.

"I have gained some new insights into Man
through having looked deeply at Nature."
— Hiroshi Hamaya


I wanted more order and less debris, but nature has its own path. This image does three things to overcome that feeling: it captures the romantic glow of early morning, it hides the chaos by disguising the trees in near blackness and it shows off the carpet of kalaniot. The entrance to the forest is just opposite the community of Ruchama on Highway 334.


Nikon D300, tripod mounted, manual exposure, evaluative metering mode, f11 at 1/320th sec., ISO 200. Raw file converted to Jpeg. Lens: Nikon 28-105 mm zoom at 44 mm. Date: Feb. 21, 2012, 8:11 a.m. Location: Ruchama Forest, Western Negev, Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Greenfield, February 29, 2012.

After September 11 the reasonable thing to do would have been to take steps to save ourselves from Islamic terror, instead we went on a crusade to save Muslims from themselves. The latest stop on that crusade is Syria, where the foreign policy experts responsible for decades of horrifying misjudgements tell us that we are duty bound to save the Syrian people from their dictator.

Rarely do we ask why it is that Muslims so often need saving from their dictators. Or why a party that campaigned on improving America's reputation by promising not to bomb Muslims anymore, is now improving America's reputation by bombing so many Muslims and so often that it makes George W. Bush look like a tie dyed hippie.

The Obama Administration has had a role in regime change in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya all in one year. Along with the other "Friends of Syria" it would like to bomb its way to regime change in Syria. The point of all this regime change is to replace totalitarian Muslim regimes with democratically elected totalitarian Muslim regimes on the theory that will make everyone happier.

The reason why Muslim countries end up with dictators can be seen in the streets of Libya, where militias run wild and former members of the regime and anyone with black skin is dragged off the street for torture sessions and a bullet in the back of the head. Peel away the presidents, colonels and other suit wearing tyrants fronting for an oligarchy and that is what every Muslim country will be reduced to.

To understand the problem with Syria, one only need look at neighboring Lebanon where every attempt at coalition building between different religious and ethnic groups has gone badly over and over again. The ruling Alawites have to hang on to power because the alternative is to be an oppressed minority. The Sunnis have to strive for power because the alternative is to be an oppressed minority. This pattern repeats itself across the region.

To the extent that Western multiculturalism works, it does so because Europeans and their descendants have agreed to cede some power and privileges to minority groups while maintaining confidence in the rule of law to protect equal rights for everyone. Such a state of affairs is ridiculously inconceivable in the countries that we are assuming will adopt that same value system.

The only form of protection for a minority in the Muslim world is to either seize power or form a coalition with the ruling party. Such coalitions are inherently fragile because tribal instincts of race and religion always end up overriding agreements. Mohammed's treaties weren't worthless just because he was a duplicitous power-mad figure, but because all treaties are worthless in the region. After his death, Islamic succession wound up being settled with assassination and civil war among his own family members and allies.

Muslims look to Islam as a central unifying principle of universal allegiance, but it's nothing of the sort. It's actually an excuse for constant internecine violence. Islam adds another layer of allegiances and another excuse for infighting that did not exist previously. Underneath the robes and beards and Korans is yet another oligarchy with family mafias clutching their ill gotten gains, as is the case in Iran and as will be the case in Egypt, where the Brotherhood has already gotten a head start.

Under conditions like this how can democracy exist as anything other than a temporary state of affairs? When there is an overwhelming majority in favor of one religion, it becomes nothing more than a rubber stamp for tyrants, as was the case in the Egyptian elections. When the country is sufficiently divided along religious lines, as is the case in Iraq, it becomes a prolonged struggle with both sides marking their positions and building their coalitions in preparation for a civil war.

Acting as if all this can be resolved with a few lessons on democracy is absurd, especially when such problems linger on even in the countries doing the teaching, just ask the Flemish or the Basque. Nations can only overcome such divisions when they have shared higher values to strive for. The only "higher value" there is Islam and it is only another source of sectarian strife.

The modern state did not emerge overnight in Europe and while the colonization of the Middle East has left behind the facades of modern states which employ some of the ritual and custom of their colonizers, they are not modern states. Often they are not even states at all. They are clans operating in cities built for them by foreigners, using technology sold to them by foreigners and going through the motions of a republic built for them by foreigners.

Behind the facade, the clan trumps the state, religion trumps the state and the state exists mainly as a vehicle for the ambitions of influential families who run the whole thing for their own benefit while providing some subsidies to the rest of the country. Overthrow one family and another rises in its place. Some will be more horrid than others. Saddam was a monster even by the standards of the region. The Assads are worse than some, but better than others.

Taking down Assad will not save Syria, it will transfer power from the Alawites, a Shiite splinter sect, to the Sunnis and the Muslim Brotherhood. This won't just be bad for the Alawites, it will be bad for the Christians and the other minorities still in Syria. In Egypt, the ethnic cleansing of the Copts has already begun, though the media won't comment on it. In Syria there have already been some militia attacks. And it will only get worse.

Only one calculation should be used to determine whether we remove Assad from power and that is whether removing him from power will be good for us. It has been amply demonstrated to us that we cannot save Muslims from themselves, we cannot drag them a thousand years ahead in time just because they use cell phones and have prime ministers. Externally imposing progress does not work. Especially across cultures which have to make their own adaptations and their own journey upwards.

The misbegotten crusade to save Muslims from themselves, to act as missionaries of democracy has cost us more lives than September 11 and to no purpose. There was something noble about the belief that we could march our troops in, liberate a people from their tyrant and their spirits would open up and a new world would be born. That belief however was rooted in a secularized religious ideal that was layered over with American exceptionalism. But the whole point of exceptionalism is that it is not universal. America is not the inevitable outcome, it is a series of accommodations and experiments that derive from a particular set of histories. It cannot be generalized or universally applied.

We cannot save Muslims from themselves, we can however save ourselves from their turmoil, their religiously influenced violence and their cultural instability. The more we try to reach out to them, the more we are at risk of importing their violence and instability.

The job of governments is not to sell our way of life to others, it is to protect that way of life from others. It is about time that we stopped being the world's benefactor, psychiatrist and policeman, and began looking after our own interests first. That doesn't mean isolationism, it doesn't rule our friendships with other countries, but those friendships should be in our interest.

Like the homeowner who kicks out his family and fills his living room with drug addicts from the street, for too long the United States has pandered to the violent dysfunction of troubled countries and peoples, while neglecting its interests and allies. It has all but abandoned its traditional ties and become obsessed with fixing trouble spots. These bouts of social work have been expensive and they have not worked.

It's time that we stopped trying to save people from themselves and began trying to save ourselves. While we have been teaching good government to others, our own government has become rotten. While we have spent money on others, we are running out of money. While we have taken in the huddled masses of the world yearning to take us for all we've got, our own lives and families are in danger.

A new age of terror is here. It's time to face up to it. To stop saving Muslims from ourselves and to work to save ourselves and our kin from them.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century. He blogs at

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters, February 29, 2012.

Is President Obama's socialist history fully understood by the American public?

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership" and "Political Establishments and the Culture of Dependency". He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com


The Republican establishment is fully aware that Barack Hussein Obama is surrounded and protected by a fraudulent personal narrative.

Despite constantly ranting and railing about the dire need to defeat Obama in the 2012 election, Republicans and conservative pundits, because of fear or complicity, withhold their most potent weapon against Obama — the truth.

And that approach will guarantee an Obama victory.

In his brilliant book, "Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism," Stanley Kurtz wrote:

"From his teenage years under the mentorship of Frank Marshall Davis, to his socialist days at Occidental College, to his life-transforming encounters at New York's Socialist Scholars Conferences, to his immersion in the stealthily socialist community-organizer networks of Chicago, Barack Obama has lived in a thoroughly socialist world."

Obama's socialist activism, however, represents only one portion of a lifetime dedicated to philosophies antithetical to the survival of the Constitution and the American republic.

"Frank Marshall Davis was introduced to Barack Obama by his maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who was a close friend and saw Davis as a potential role model and father-figure to his grandson. Davis was also a Communist Party member (number 47544) and became Obama's mentor in Hawaii during the 1970s, right up until Obama left for college at Occidental.

Dr. John Drew describes himself as a "missing link" between Obama's introduction to communism by Frank Marshall Davis and his later exposure to the extremist beliefs of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

Drew was a contemporary of Obama at Occidental College and himself a Marxist. Drew was already a well-known campus communist when Obama was introduced to him as "one of us." Drew claims that Obama "was a Marxist-Leninist in his sophomore year of college from 1980 to 1981."

Obama's first public speech was at an Occidental College anti-apartheid event on Feb. 18, 1981 sponsored by the Students for Economic Democracy, a group affiliated with the 1960s far left militant group the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) led by Tom Hayden, former husband of Jane Fonda; Ayers; his wife Bernadine Dohrn and Columbia University's SDS chairman Mark Rudd. The SDS was the precursor to the violent Ayers-led Weather Underground movement.

In 1981, after two years at Occidental, Obama presumably transferred to the Columbia School of General Studies, one part of the Columbia University system that does not have rigorous Core Curriculum and transfer constraints as the elite Columbia College.

Columbia University has long been known as a hub for leftist philosophies and political activism. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, protests were aimed at convincing the university trustees to divest all of the university's investments in companies that were seen as active or tacit supporters of the apartheid regime in South Africa; most notably the 1978 and 1985 occupation of the Business School and Hamilton Hall, respectively.

A 2008 New York Times article states that Obama transferred to Columbia to "test my commitments" to social justice causes such as apartheid and poverty in the third world.

Yet Obama later claimed that his two years at Columbia "were an intense period of study," when he lived like a "monk" and was only "somewhat" involved with the Black Students Organization and participated in anti-apartheid activities.

As one account notes:

"What's so odd about Obama's near-silence concerning his time in New York is that he said he transferred from Occidental to Columbia for the specific purpose of getting more involved in political consciousness and activism at a larger and more engaged school... And yet we are asked to believe that once Obama arrived in New York, the epicenter of activism, he suddenly stopped being politically active...Why the strange glossing over of what should be the culmination of the activism which got its start at Occidental? Could it be not that he abandoned politics altogether, but rather that he became so radicalized that it would be an embarrassment now that he's trying to present himself as mainstream?"

In contrast to his account in "Dreams from My Father", Obama stated in a now expunged interview with "Politically Black" that he was "deeply involved on my campus," that is, in the anti-apartheid divestment efforts at Columbia.

In fact, Obama's years in New York City, 1981-1985 solidified his socialist beliefs, black identity politics and may be when he first crossed paths with life-long Marxists and domestic terrorists Ayers and Dohrn.

According to a fellow student, who attended Columbia at the same time as Obama, Bill Ayers was then extraordinarily active on campus leading rallies and marches ever day to drive clerical workers into the Teamsters union.

When Obama was at Columbia, Ayers was a student at Bank Street College of Education, which was located about a quarter mile from the Columbia campus.

Kurtz proved that Barack Obama attended the Democratic Socialists of America - Socialist Scholars Conferences at Cooper Union in New York City in 1983 and 1984, a conference that Ayers very likely also attended.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Obama studied under then Columbia professor and the Yasser Arafat apologist, Edward Said, who later wrote a glowing dust-jacket blurb for Ayers' 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," an arrogant polemic against America and a haughty defense of his criminal past.

The relationship between Obama and the anti-Israel Said was a persistent, not a passing one. There is a photo showing the then little-known Obama seated and having an intimate discussion with the leftist, Islamic superstar Said at an Arab American community dinner in Chicago in 1998, where Said was the keynote speaker.

There is also a report claiming Obama visited the Chicago home of Tom and Mary Ayers, parents of Bill Ayers, in the mid-1980s.

So, what is the truth? Did Obama first meet Ayers in 1995, "at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper" as the Obama-owned mainstream media claim or was it over ten years earlier in New York City?

They were in the same city at the same time. They lived and attended schools near each other. They had the same political interests and their circles of friends and associates intersected.

Is it also a pure coincidence that, a decade later in Chicago, they lived near each other; they had the same political interests and their circles of friends and associates intersected?

It was Obama's friendship with Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour and his sponsorship of Obama as a prospective Harvard law student, however, that probably helped harden Obama's Islamic, leftist, black-nationalist and anti-American views.

It is likely that Obama became closely associated with al-Mansour as early as age 25, when al-Mansour, a friend of Edward Said, lectured at Columbia. Formerly known as Donald Warden, al-Mansour, an American, was a mentor of Black Panther founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in the early 1960s. He changed his name after studying Islam and learning Arabic. He is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker and an outspoken enemy of Israel. His writings and books are packed with anti-American rhetoric reminiscent of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's disgraced former pastor. Al-Mansour has close ties to Saudi Arabia and is a personal advisor to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the world's 19th wealthiest person.

Percy Sutton, the former borough president of Manhattan and lawyer for Malcolm X, was asked by his former business partner al-Mansour to write letters of recommendation to Harvard Law School in support of Obama's application

Sutton said:

"I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama."

It has never been clear, who paid for Obama's Harvard education, but it is possible, if not probable, that the money came from Saudi Arabia.

As Kurtz notes in his book, the socialist and radical Muslim networks around Obama in Chicago overlapped:

"Obama's ties to University of Chicago professor Rashid Khalidi are part of a broader web of connections between Obama, Ayers, and Chicago's leftist foundations...To make sense of the ties between this prominent Palestinian activist and Obama's radical world, keep in mind that Obama was a frequent dinner guest in the Khalidi home. At the same time, Bill Ayers was a friend to both Rashid Khalidi and his wife, Mona ... In 1999, Obama brought Ayers onto the board of the Woods Fund. In 2000, the Khalidis hosted a fundraiser for Obama's congressional run against Bobby Rush. Soon after, Obama and Ayers began channeling Woods Fund money to the Arab American Action Network, a group founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi."

Remarkably, all of the above represents only a small slice of Obama's relatively unreported connections to radical socialists, Islamists, black nationalists and violent anti-American extremists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

In addition, Obama's fraudulent personal narrative is buttressed by an alleged fraudulent identity in the form of a forged Certificate of Live Birth, a forged Selective Service registration and the use of a Social Security Number (SSN) not issued to him. The SSN Obama uses does not pass a check with E-Verify, the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has created to verify whether or not prospective employees have the required authorization to work legally in the United States.

Yet the Republicans and the conservative media remain silent and refuse to fully vet Obama. They hide their cowardice by pretending to occupy the high ground — defeating Obama "on the issues." Unfortunately, Obama has no intention of running on the issues.

The Republican vapid strategy will inextricably lead to a second Obama Administration.

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, February 29, 2012.

Rabbi Kahane warned us about the dangerous trap that we are in today. Part 1 and Part 2 of the article below will give you the understanding of the rise of hatred and violence against the Jewish State which we are witnessing today.

Beyond Words
Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane,
Volume 3

If you did not receive this article personally and would like to be on my weekly Rabbi Meir Kahane article e-mail list, contact me at: BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

Previously sent articles can be viewed on:



Excerpts from: Israeli Arabs: Fathers and Sons (and Daughters)


Part 1:

Israeli Arabs. Fathers and sons-and increasingly daughters. For the Israelis have liberated the Arab woman, too, in order that she may also vote for anti-Zionists and teach anti-Israel hatred. Thus, when the prime minister's office boasts that "the expansion of the educational system has helped to raise the standard of education of the younger generation of women"and "the fact that Arab women are coming into closer contact with the Jewish population is opening up new horizons," one gropes for an explanation for the smug satisfaction. The most that can be said for Israel's liberal policy is that it has created a new generation of Jew haters with due care to ensure that the source of the hate is equal, with discrimination because of sex..

The generation of the fathers is dying destroyed by the Israeli government's "head-and-stomach" policy. The father is dead; long live the son and daughter, whom Israel created. They will do their best to destroy the Jewish state, and, of course, the Jewish state will continue to produce them. The first generation of Israeli Arab university graduates immediately produced the El Ard anti-Israeli movement in the 1960's.

Indeed, even then there were those who saw and understood-and those who did, terrified by what they saw, put it out of mind. In the Midstream magazine (December 1962) Nissim Rejwan, an Israeli writer, said: "One of the more alarming aspects of the Israeli problem is that the new generation of Israeli Arabs generally shows even less willingness, not to speak of eagerness, to accept the fact of Israel's existence than do their fathers and grandfathers. The so-called Arab 'intelligentsia' in Israel which seems to embrace every literate person from university graduates to those who finished a few secondary classes, are in the majority of cases swayed by the heady talk...about 'settling scores with Israel.' Many of them, it would appear, cannot reconcile themselves to their status as a minority in a Jewish state and keep hoping for some sort of savior." Was anyone listening?

The rise of the new generation of educated Israeli Arabs who did not know the bitter taste of defeat and who openly moved toward confrontation with Zionism and the Jewishness of the state was itself given enormous impetus by the Six-Day-War.

Again, ironically, it was Jewish military victory that the Jews turned into yet another political defeat. For the first time in nineteen years the Arabs were able to meet and talk with other Arabs who were not Israelis, who called themselves "Palestinians," and who openly spoke of the day when the hated Jews would leave. The Israeli Arab suddenly realized that he was neither meat nor milk, fish nor fowl. He was not an Israeli, but now he was struck by the awesome realization that he had not been a "Palestinian" all those years either? He was looked upon by the West Bank "Palestinians" as a traitor who cooperated with, and accepted, Israeli citizenship from the Jews who had stolen the land from his people. In one fell swoop, all the factors that went into creating the new radical Israeli Arab came together. Things could never be the same.

Not only were there new contacts with the West Bank "Palestinians," but this was also the beginning of joint cooperation. Thus, Israeli Arabs participated in a "Palestine Week" held in 1978 at the Universities of Bethlehem and Bir Zeit. They helped organize it, and they printed and distributed a leaflet calling for the support of the PLO. In defiance of the law several Israeli Arab students have begun studying in schools in the liberated territories.

The opening of the borders between the State of Israel and the liberated areas was seen by the incredibly obtuse Israelis as allowing the better-fed Israeli Arabs to demonstrate the benefits of Israeli occupation. Of course, a child could have known that the exactly the opposite would occur. The Israeli Arabs were suddenly given the opportunity to meet, regularly, with their own people who were struggling for what the Israeli Arab understood to be a common goal: freedom.

The mayor of Hebron, Fahd Kawasma, said (January 22, 1979): "The Israeli Arabs have remained foreigners and their lot remains ours. There is no possibility of blurring the fact that they and we are part of the same people, and the fact that they live in Israel does not make them less Palestinian."

In his newspaper interview, Bir Zeit President Nasir added: "The destiny of the Arab College at Bir Zeit is to be the nucleus around which is built the Palestinian State." Indeed, the Arab students being trained in the Jewish universities of Israel see themselves in the same light. They are the seed of the future "Palestine" leaders in the area of "Palestine conquered in 1948." They give leadership and examples to high school students and are the PLO leaders of tomorrow.

The irony is that the most extraordinary rise in the brazenness has taken place under the supposedly tough Begin government. Maariv reporter Yosef Tzuriel commented on this as long ago as April 26, 1978. "The rise of the Likud to power created a certain amount of tension in the first months among Arabs of Israel and the territories who expected a firmer policy against them. but after a short while it became clear that the new government was as liberal as its predecessor, if not more so."

What is the real result of the millions of dollars poured into higher Arab education and the hundreds of millions spent on secondary (high school) training? Consider: In December 1979 the Progressive National Movement (PNM) won the election for control of the Arab Student Committee at Hebrew University. In its platform the PNM called for:

  • acceptance of the Palestinian Covenant (which calls for the elimination of Israel)

  • the creation of a democratic, secular "Palestine" in place of Israel
  • acceptance pf terrorist activities as part of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.

And indeed, in 1979, students and visitors at the university were startled to find mimeographed copies of the Palestinian National charter being distributed.

And should one have any doubt, the immensely frank interview with Mahmud Muhareb would dispel all of them. Muhareb, an Israeli Arab citizen of Lydda and at the time chairman of the Arab Student Committee at Hebrew University, presented his views to Maariv, Israel's largest newspaper (January 20, 1978): "We, the Arab students in the university, constitute and indivisible part of the Arab Palestinian nation, and we struggle in its service in order to achieve its goals."

"As for me and my personal lot, I am first and foremost a Palestinian, resident of Lydda. Israeli citizenship was forced upon me. I do not recognize it and do not see myself as belonging to the State of Israel. The law requires me to carry an Israeli identity card and passport. As a Palestinian, I would prefer Palestinian ones."

There is nothing new or startling about this. The signs of Arab intellectual hatred of Israel and deep desire for the dismantlement were obvious to all who wished to see.

Part 2:

Between 1978 and 1980 we have seen an inevitable rise in Arab hostility toward the state. After winning the elections of leadership of the Arab students at Hebrew University, the Progressive National Movement opened an office in the student dormitories on Stern Street, hanging out an eye-catching sign: "Progressive National Movement." How a group such as the PNM was allowed to run for office or its members remain as students rather than to be prosecuted for sedition would seem difficult to explain. Bear in mind however, that this is a university that allowed an Arab student Fares Saur, a member of a terrorist group that planted a bomb in the school cafeteria, to continue his studies after finishing his jail sentence. The school explained that the criterion for acceptance to the university was purely academic.

In its publication Tachadi for December 1978 the PNM wrote of its opposition to "any settlement with recognition of the Zionist entity in any part of Palestine." The student author called for a war "beginning with leaflets and demonstrations and concluding with armed military struggle." Above all, the PNM made this point crystal-clear: "The struggle is not limited to the 'occupied territories.' We must widen it to all parts of the Arab motherland."

The PNM, running for control of the Arab student body, had distributed literature outlining its program and goals in which they demanded that "the right of national self-determination for the Palestinian people also included the masses in [Israel's] Galilee and the Triangle." And so in January 1979 several Arab students distributed a pamphlet calling for support of the PLO and the disappearance of the "Zionist entity." Moreover, some Arabs fired off a cable to the Damascus meeting of the Palestine National Council to voice their support of the PLO's struggle against the ever-present "Zionist entity."

A furor arose in Israel; more "shock", more demands for expulsion of all PLO-supporting students from the school. The universities did nothing, but tough General Avigdor Ben-Gal issued "stay-at-home" orders to six of the students. The orders kept them limited to their villages and were to be in effect for three months — enough time to make them heroes and thus allow them to return and continue their incitement.

The six came from six different Israeli villages: Tamra, Araba, Kfar Yasif, Musmus, Sandala, and Umm al-Fahm. It is instructive to look at two of the students so that we may get a clear picture of the insanity of the Israeli policy, as reported by Yosef Valter in Maariv (February 16, 1979).

Masoud A'jabria, twenty-four, is completing his M.A. at Hebrew University in international relations while going to law school. Besides Masoud, there is his brother, Sa'id, learning chemistry at the Mizrachi-religious-sponsored Bar-Ilan University; a sister, studying at a teacher's seminar in Hadar Am, and five younger brothers and sisters are attending high school. Naturally, someday they will go on to university. Yosef Valter visited the family and reported: "from a brief conversation you find that all of them think and speak like Masoud, the older brother." That is a starkly frightening sentence when one remembers that Masoud A'jabria said: "In order to achieve a Palestinian revolution we must shed rivers of blood."

Jamal Mahajana, twenty-one, comes from Umm al-Fahm. Mahajana is products of the integration Israeli myopics teach. He studied in the mostly Jewish Afula high school and says, "I was not discriminated against." And so, having received the same education his Zionist neighbors received, and having been accepted into Hebrew University while 50,000 poor Sephardic Jews remain outside, Mahajana says in his telegram to the PLO in Damascus: "We emphasized that we are Palestinian Arabs living in the State of Israel and, like others, we claim that the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestinian people... The Zionist regime is an oppressive regime..."

The total lack of any coherent and consistent policy on the part of Israel toward the Arabs was seen two weeks later, when the National Arab Student Union announced that it, too, saw the PLO as the exclusive leader of the Palestinian people. No one was arrested, no one placed under house arrest. Little wonder that in the year that followed Arab boldness increased.

Arab students held an unauthorized demonstration at Hebrew University in November 1979 to protest the planned expulsion of Shechem's PLO mayor Bassam Shaka. The Arabs shouted, "We are all Arafat," and "The state is ours," a fight broke out involving chains, rocks, and knives. Three Jewish students were injured. A Jewish student group was formed called Students Who Are Disgusted.

At Haifa University, on May 4, 1980, 50 Arab students marched through school buildings, disrupting classes and shouting against "Israeli fascism." Three days later a swastika and the words "Death to the Jews" were painted on doors at Haifa's Technion.

At Haifa University, the Arab students published a paper called Bian, in which, among other things, they said: "We are an indivisible part of the Palestine Arab people and the PLO is our sole legal representative...Zionism is a racist, colonialist movement..."

The young Arabs of Israel. The fathers are dying. The sons remain, and they will have sons and daughters-many. The young, educated, modern Arab. The Golem of Israel, created by Jews who believed that by caring for his body and expanding his mind, they would lead the Arab to accept being a permanent minority in a Jewish state.

If examples of Israeli blindness were not so prevalent, no one would believe them. But consider:

"In January 1979 Knesset Education Committee chairman Ora Namir paid a well-publicized visit to the schools of Umm al-Fahm, one of the centers of Israeli Arab hate. Passing a wall on which had been painted "Long live Fatah," she told the Arabs that "we are committed to doing everything we can to make Arab schools equal to Jewish schools," despite a government decision to freeze and cut spending levels for Jews."

And then Mrs. Namir, a Knesset member and a leader in Israel, said: "The fact that you do not have enough latrines in the schools is, for me, even more tragic than not enough classrooms. You will have the budget. But you will have to promise me that the latrines will be first."

Not by latrines does an Arab live, and he will never trade his national passions for them. The latrines we give him he will take. But the education he receives from Israel he will use to bring closer that day when Jews will be a minority and he can generously offer them the latrines.

[We can see that the power that the Arabs have today, was a long-time in the making. bg]


Contact Barbara Ginsberg at barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, February 29, 2012.

Violent altercations in Havat Maon, too, as Arab intifada becomes ever more brazen.


The flames of the newest Arab "intifada" uprising reached two Jewish farms in Judea and Samaria Tuesday. Arabs burned down a home in Havat Gilad, in Samaria. They apparently come from the nearby village of Farata, and made their escape after setting the isolated structure on fire. Residents of the Jewish farm gave chase and there were physical altercations between them and Arab villagers.

News agency "Hakol HaYehudi" reported that Havat Gilad residents tried to put out the fire but the home burned down completely. A dog that was tied next to the home died in the blaze.

Havat Gilad residents have issued a call to Jews in the area to come assist them in safeguarding the community.

Security forces arrested three Arabs as suspects in setting fire to the home. They will be taken to interrogation at the Judea and Samaria police station.

There have also been clashes between Jews and Arabs Tuesday at Havat Maon, in the southern Hevron Hills. The fighting was over pasture land. An Arab was lightly hurt when Jewish residents threw rocks at him. He was evacuated to a hospital by the Red Crescent. Arabs also threw rocks at Jewish residents. Army and police forces arrived on the scene.

Arab attacks against Jews have become increasingly brazen and frequent in recent weeks, in what nationalists say is a new intifada born of the Arabs' perception of Jewish weakness in the wake of the Shalit Deal.

The Shomron Liaison Office immediately opened a web page to help the family raise emergency funds to rebuild their house .

Please see the following link :
http://www.yeshuv.org/about-our-towns/havat-gilad/ havat-gilad-fire-emergency-fund

We will appreciate any support from AFSI and it's members and supporters.
Yishar Choach and hope to hear from you soon .

Oshri David
Shomron Liaison Office
Tel: +(972) 3936-8146
Fax: +(972) 153-393-68146
Cell: +(972) 523-772-883

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, February 29, 2012.

This comes from the Dr. Rich Show website. It is archived at
http://www.drrichshow.com/blog_post.cfm?BlogID=735 and was posted by Robert Heller.


Anti-Semitism around the world based on untrue and vile propaganda is on the rise. In many countries in Europe and particularly in Britain its virulence is appalling. This is an immense challenge for Jews and decent people everywhere. The Jewish peoples' only defense is truth which is in short supply.

Propaganda Works

Anti-Semitism and Jew Hatred although irrational, is rampant and rising in the media and the intelligentsia in various Western countries and has risen to a level that may be considered a mass pathology of hate. It is reminiscent of Jewish hatred that existed in Nazi Germany in the 1930's. In the past this hatred applied to people within a religious group. Now it has mutated and applies to the nation of Israel "a people". Now Jews as "a people" are identified as being genocidal, war criminals, women and children killers; cruel and bloodthirsty; practitioners of apartheid; and pigs and monkeys, all of which can now be wrapped up in a tidy Jew hating package called — Israel. It is not unusual to hear the lie that the "Jewish Lobby" controls the world including reference to the "Zionist or Jewish conspiracy". All of these accusations are a modern day version of the mendacious blood libels contained in — The Protocols, of the Elders of Zion, generated by the Czar of Russia to promote pogroms. Anti-Semitism has never disappeared but has now found a more convenient target.

Don't sit back— the Essence of Humanity is Truth.

A lie can be more dangerous than a bullet and when repeated often enough it takes on the aura of truth. It is more important than ever to expose the lies and half truths spread in our Universities, schools and media about Israel. Truth is our only weapon.

The Truth Is:

Israel is and always had been the ancient homeland of the Jewish people dating back at least 2,000 years before Islam came into being; and the Arabs who lived there came from all parts of the Middle East, and did not assert themselves as a "Palestinian people" until after the State of Israel was created.

Israel has only engaged in war to defend its citizens constantly under attack and its record with regard to civilian casualties is the lowest in modern history.

Israel is the only democracy in the region and does not practice apartheid, racial or religious discrimination, and all its citizens both men and women under the law are treated equally regardless of race, color or creed.

Israel hungers for peace provided the Palestinians will accept Israel as a Jewish nation with defensible borders. Israel is interested in a Palestinian State and a Jewish Israeli State, where the people can live side by side in peace, while the Palestinians are interested in peace without a State of Israel.

Israel has provided medical services to the Palestinians over many years and tens of thousands of Palestinians are alive and healthy today because of Israel. Israel provides more humanitarian aid to the Palestinians than all the Arab nations combined.

Israel has provided clean water and sewer services to the Palestinians over the years except when the Palestinians refuse to accept it. Currently Israel is trying to connect sewer lines to 22 Palestinian villages to avoid contamination of the underground aquifer and 21 villages have unbelievably rejected the offer.

The standard of living for all Palestinians is the highest in the Arab world and their lifespan is also the highest and infant mortality is the lowest.

Israel's technological, medical, and agricultural contribution in relation to its size and population is the highest in the world.

Nevertheless Israel is the only nation in the world that is told they do not have the right to exist. The Arab Lobby Propaganda Machine is huge and well funded. They have infiltrated our Universities, Media & Government and are Spreading Lies. IT IS UP TO EACH OF US TO SPREAD THE TRUTH.

Host of Dr. Rich Show is Dr. Richard M. Swier, Ed. D., LTC, US Army (Ret.). Swier holds a Doctorate of Education from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. He is a 23-year Army veteran and was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service. Additionally, he was awarded two Bronze Stars with "V" for Heroism in ground combat, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry while serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. He is a graduate of the Field Artillery Officers Basic and Advanced Courses, and U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

Swier was the Founder/CEO of Sarasota Online, a high technology company that was sold to Comcast Cable in 1996. He helped start Backsoft Corporation an enterprise software development company in 1997 whose clients included Coca-Cola, Anheuser-Busch, Hyundai Electronics, Volkswagen, Moen and Goodyear. Backsoft was sold in 2001.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Behind the News, February 29, 2012.

This was written by Edwin Black, author of IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation, newly released in the Expanded Edition. It is archived at
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/328-121/10198- and at


Auschwitz survivor Leon Greenman displays his number tattoo. (photo: Ian Waldie/Getty Images)

Newly-released documents expose more explicitly the details of IBM's pivotal role in the Holocaust — all six phases: identification, expulsion from society, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination. Moreover, the documents portray with crystal clarity the personal involvement and micro-management of IBM president Thomas J. Watson in the company's co-planning and co-organizing of Hitler's campaign to destroy the Jews.

IBM's twelve-year alliance with the Third Reich was first revealed in my book IBM and the Holocaust, published simultaneously in 40 countries in February 2001. It was based on some 20,000 documents drawn from archives in seven countries. IBM never denied any of the information in the book; and despite thousands of media and communal requests, as well as published articles, the company has remained silent.

The new "expanded edition" contains 32 pages of never-before-published internal IBM correspondence, State Department and Justice Department memos, and concentration camp documents that graphically chronicle IBM's actions and what they knew during the 12-year Hitler regime. On the anniversary of the release of the original book, the new edition was released on February 26, 2012 at a special live global streaming event at Yeshiva University's Furst Hall, sponsored by the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists together with a coalition of other groups.

Among the newly-released documents and archival materials are secret 1941 correspondence setting up the Dutch subsidiary of IBM to work in tandem with the Nazis, company President Thomas Watson's personal approval for the 1939 release of special IBM alphabetizing machines to help organize the rape of Poland and the deportation of Polish Jews, as well as the IBM Concentration Camp Codes including IBM's code for death by Gas Chamber. Among the newly published photos of the punch cards is the one developed for the statistician who reported directly to Himmler and Eichmann.

The significance of the incriminating documents requires context.

Punch cards, also called Hollerith cards after IBM founder Herman Hollerith, were the forerunner of the computers that IBM is famous for today. These cards stored information in holes punched in the rows and columns, which were then "read" by a tabulating machine. The system worked like a player piano — but this one was devoted to the devil's music. First designed to track people and organize a census, the Hollerith system was later adapted to any tabulation or information task.

From the first moments of the Hitler regime in 1933, IBM used its exclusive punch card technology and its global monopoly on information technology to organize, systematize, and accelerate Hitler's anti-Jewish program, step by step facilitating the tightening noose. The punch cards, machinery, training, servicing, and special project work, such as population census and identification, was managed directly by IBM headquarters in New York, and later through its subsidiaries in Germany, known as Deutsche Hollerith-Maschinen Gesellschaft (DEHOMAG), Poland, Holland, France, Switzerland, and other European countries.

Among the punch cards published are two for the SS, including one for the SS Rassenamt, or Race Office, which specialized in racial selections and coordinated with many other Reich offices. A third card was custom-crafted by IBM for Richard Korherr, a top Nazi statistician and expert in Jewish demographics who reported directly to Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler and who also worked with Adolf Eichmann. Himmler and Eichmann were architects of the extermination phase of the Holocaust. All three punch cards bear the proud indicia of IBM's German subsidiary, DEHOMAG. They illustrate the nature of the end users who relied upon IBM's information technology.

In 1937, with war looming and the world shocked at the increasingly merciless Nazi persecution of the Jews, Hitler bestowed upon Watson a special award — created specifically for the occasion — to honor extraordinary service by a foreigner to the Third Reich. The medal, the Order of the German Eagle with Star, bedecked with swastikas, was to be worn on a sash over the heart. Watson returned the medal years later in June 1940 as a reaction to public outrage about the medal during the bombing of Paris. The return of this medal has been used by IBM apologists to show Watson had second thoughts about his alliance with the Reich. But a newly released copy of a subsequent letter dated June 10, 1941, drafted by IBM's New York office, confirms that IBM headquarters personally directed the activities of its Dutch subsidiary set up in 1940 to identify and liquidate the Jews of Holland. Hence, while IBM engaged in the public relations maneuver of returning the medal, the company was actually quietly expanding its role in Hitler's Holocaust. Similar subsidiaries, sometimes named as a variant of "Watson Business Machines," were set up in Poland, Vichy France, and elsewhere on the Continent in cadence with the Nazi takeover of Europe.

Particularly powerful are the newly-released copies of the IBM concentration camp codes. IBM maintained a customer site, known as the Hollerith Department, in virtually every concentration camp to sort or process punch cards and track prisoners. The codes show IBM's numerical designation for various camps. Auschwitz was 001, Buchenwald was 002; Dachau was 003, and so on. Various prisoner types were reduced to IBM numbers, with 3 signifying homosexual, 9 for anti-social, and 12 for Gypsy. The IBM number 8 designated a Jew. Inmate death was also reduced to an IBM digit: 3 represented death by natural causes, 4 by execution, 5 by suicide, and code 6 designated "special treatment" in gas chambers. IBM engineers had to create Hollerith codes to differentiate between a Jew who had been worked to death and one who had been gassed, then print the cards, configure the machines, train the staff, and continuously maintain the fragile systems every two weeks on site in the concentration camps.

Newly-released photographs show the Hollerith Bunker at Dachau. It housed at least two dozen machines, mainly controlled by the SS. The foreboding concrete Hollerith blockhouse, constructed of reinforced concrete and steel, was designed to withstand the most intense Allied aerial bombardment. Those familiar with Nazi bomb-proof shelters will recognize the advanced square-cornered pillbox design reserved for the Reich's most precious buildings and operations. IBM equipment was among the Reich's most important weapons, not only in its war against the Jews, but in its general military campaigns and control of railway traffic. Watson personally approved expenditures to add bomb shelters to DEHOMAG installations because the cost was born by the company. Such costs cut into IBM's profit margin. Watson's approval was required because he received a one-percent commission on all Nazi business profits.

Two telling U.S. government memos, now published, are remarkable for their telling irony. The first is a State Department memo, dated December 3, 1941, just four days before the attack on Pearl Harbor and as the Nazis were being openly accused of genocide in Europe. On that day in 1941, IBM's top attorney, Harrison Chauncey, visited the State Department to express qualms about the company's extensive involvement with Hitler. The State Department memo recorded that Chauncey feared "that his company may some day be blamed for cooperating with the Germans."

The second is a Justice Department memo generated during a federal investigation of IBM for trading with the enemy. Economic Warfare Section chief investigator Howard J. Carter prepared the memo for his supervisors describing the company's collusion with the Hitler regime. Carter wrote: "What Hitler has done to us through his economic warfare, one of our own American corporations has also done... Hence IBM is in a class with the Nazis." He ended his memo: "The entire world citizenry is hampered by an international monster."

At a time when the Watson name and the IBM image is being laundered by whiz computers that can answer questions on TV game shows, it is important to remember that Thomas Watson and his corporate behemoth were guilty of genocide. The Treaty on Genocide, Article 2, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." In Article 3, the treaty states that among the "acts [that] shall be punishable," are the ones in subsection (e), that is "complicity in genocide." As for who shall be punished, the Treaty specifies the perpetrators in Article 4: "Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals."

International Business Machines, and its president Thomas J. Watson, committed genocide by any standard. It was never about the antisemitism. It was never about the National Socialism. It was always about the money. Business was their middle name.

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 29, 2012.

This was written by Evelyn Gordon, JINSA Visiting Fellow. She is a journalist and commentator writing in The Jerusalem Post and Commentary.


Amid the din of debate over a possible Israeli strike on Iran, perhaps it is unsurprising that Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor's press conference on February 20 attracted so little international attention. But in a world that claims to view an Israeli-Palestinian deal as a top priority, it should have sounded alarm bells. Israelis, warned Meridor, may never again sign another land-for-peace deal if Egypt unilaterally alters or abrogates its treaty with Israel.

Meridor is not the first Israeli to issue this warning in recent months, but he is one of the most prominent. Moreover, despite serving in a government usually dismissed overseas as "hard-line" or "right-wing," he is a politician far more popular on the left than on the right, an outspoken advocate of an Israeli-Palestinian treaty who even supports freezing construction in the settlements (outside the major settlement blocs). When someone like that warns that the entire land-for-peace paradigm is in danger, it is worth paying attention.

Meridor was responding specifically to threats by Muslim Brotherhood leaders to "review" the treaty if America cuts aid to Egypt over Cairo's harassment of American-backed nonprofits. But this is hardly the first time Egypt's new ruling party has issued such threats. In December, for instance, a senior Brotherhood official declared that parliament should reconsider the treaty. In January, another senior official advocated putting the treaty to a popular referendum — where it would almost certainly be rejected. Indeed, the treaty is one of the few things virtually all Egyptians agree on. The secular opposition group Kefaya and the head of the liberal Ghad party, Ayman Nour, also advocate either scrapping it or at least substantially revising it. The result is that for the first time in almost 35 years, Israelis no longer see war with Egypt as unthinkable.

It is hard to overstate the significance of this, because for decades, the treaty with Egypt has been the sole pillar propping up the land-for-peace paradigm. Every subsequent experiment in ceding land proved a dismal failure.

Territorial handovers to the Palestinians under the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, for instance, produced not peace, but a massive increase in terror. In the first two and a half years after Oslo was signed in1993, Palestinians killed more Israelis than in the entire preceding decade, while the first four years of the second intifada (2000-2004) produced more terror-related casualties than the entire preceding 53 years.

In May 2000, Israelis expected their UN-certified pullout from every inch of Lebanon to eliminate Hezbollah's motivation for war. Instead, Hezbollah escalated, committing its first ever cross-border kidnapping just five months later. In 2006, another such kidnapping sparked the Second Lebanon War.

Similarly, Israel's unilateral pullout from Gaza in mid-2005 produced nothing but a dramatic escalation in rocket and mortar fire on southern Israel. Rocket launches alone jumped from 475 in 2001-04 to 5,765 in 2006-10, or from about 120 a year to about 1,150 a year — an almost tenfold increase.

And while the peace with Jordan has held, that treaty was not a land-for-peace deal. Since Jordan had previously relinquished all claim to the West Bank, it entailed no Israeli territorial concessions. Rather, it merely formalized a de facto peace that had existed for two decades already.

But through all this, the treaty with Egypt served as the shining counterexample — the proof that land for peace could work, given the right partners and the right conditions. Though never more than a cold peace, it consistently provided Israel with the one great good it promised. a secure southern border. And it survived despite repeated tensions, including two Palestinian intifadas and two Israeli-Lebanese wars.

Now, however, it looks increasingly likely that what made the Egyptian peace succeed was not any intrinsic merit in the land-for-peace paradigm, but merely the remarkable longevity in office of one man, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, whose 30-year tenure encompassed most of the treaty's lifespan.

And that in turn is leading a growing number of Israelis who previously supported land-for-peace to wonder whether it may not be an inherently unworkable paradigm, due to the fatal flaw encapsulated in its very name. In any land-for-peace deal, only one party actually considers "peace" a value worth trading for. What interests the other party is not peace, but gaining strategic assets such as land.

This fact is not exactly a secret. The New York Times, for instance, explained the Muslim Brotherhood's threat to "review" the treaty if U.S. aid were cut by baldly admitting that "Egyptians have long considered American aid as a kind of payment for preserving the peace despite the popular resentment of Israel." In other words, unlike Israelis, Egyptians do not see "peace" as a good in itself; they merely see it as a profitable protection racket — a way to wrest the Sinai from Israel and $1.3 billion a year from America. So if the payments dry up, "peace" has no more value.

The obvious problem with this from Israel's perspective is that the land traded in exchange for peace is unrecoverable, even if the peace proves ephemeral. Israel did not reoccupy Lebanon or Gaza when those withdrawals went sour, and it will not reoccupy Sinai if Egypt abrogates the treaty. It will merely be left facing the next war in a far worse defensive position, without the generous territorial buffer that Sinai once provided between the Egyptian army and the Israeli heartland. Hence if the peace can not be counted on to last, land-for-peace is a terrible deal for Israel.

Given this, it is mind-boggling that Western leaders are still obsessing over bilateral Israeli-Palestinian issues, like settlement construction or reviving the stalled Jordanian-sponsored peace talks, while simply ignoring the looming Egyptian threat. Another few hundred houses in the settlements will not preclude a land-for-peace deal in the future; neither will the failure of yet another round of Israeli-Palestinian talks. But the collapse of the Israeli-Egyptian treaty would doom any land-for-peace deal for generations to come.

Perhaps, given its inherently problematic nature, the land-for-peace paradigm deserves to die. But if Western leaders are serious about wanting to preserve it, they need to realize that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is a sideshow. Preserving the Israeli-Egyptian peace is far more important.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il. Visit his website at www.truthprovider.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, February 29, 2012.

This was written by Gil Troy, who is a professor of history at McGill University and a Shalom Hartman Research Fellow in Jerusalem. He is the author of Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today and The History of American Presidential Elections. Follow Gil on Twitter: @Gil­_Troy. This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/abbas-masquerading- moderate-caricatures-hellish-jerusalem


Reading the news, you would think that Mahmoud Abbas's real first name is "The Moderate" and Benjamin Netanyahu's real last name is "the Extremist." Googling the words "Abbas" and "Moderate" yields 4.47 million hits, while "Netanyahu" and "Moderate" get 2.53 million hits. "Abbas" and "Extremism" yield 2.45 million hits while "Netanyahu" and "Extremism" produce 12.8 million. Although Googling is a gross indicator, it seems that the media is at least twice as likely to dub Abbas a "moderate" rather than Netanyahu, while Netanyahu is accused of "extremism" five to six times more frequently than Abbas is.

Yet sheer repetition of an assertion is not enough to make it true. Mahmoud Abbas is to moderation what moldy oranges are to penicillin. If purified properly, the product could be healing; but as it now stands, it is putrid and possibly toxic.

Rather than responding positively to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech and President Barack Obama's multiple attempts to restart the peace process, Abbas the Masquerading Moderate has been the Great Obstructionist, far more accommodating of his Hamas rivals than his American bankrollers. Admittedly, his touch is lighter and less lethal than his predecessor Yassir Arafat. And thanks to Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, many Palestinians have been doing what they most need to do, which is building an independent, stable Palestine rather than trying to destroy neighboring Israel.

But again and again Abbas has been Dr. No — blocking progress when Netanyahu implemented a settlement freeze, and now demanding a settlement freeze as one of his many preconditions for negotiation. So far, the settlement freeze demand is President Barack Obama's most memorable contribution to the Middle East, an amateurish gift to Palestinian obstructionists, made-in-America. Every time Abbas demands a settlement freeze, he further undermines the most pro-Palestinian president since Jimmy Carter.

This week, Abbas traveled to Doha to participate in an "International Conference on Jerusalem," with representatives from 70 countries. Anti-Zionist discourse in that part of the Middle East was as ubiquitous as Muzak is in elevators in the Midwest, intensified by the added volatility of the Jerusalem issue, with a dash of anti-Americanism thrown in. Among the many presentations caricaturing Zionism as racism and Israel as an apartheid state, one activist, Ken Isley, introduced himself as "an American" then added: "no one is perfect."

When Abbas spoke, rather than injecting a note of responsibility into the proceedings, providing a reality check, he joined the anti-Israel pile on. He claimed Israel wants to "carry out continued excavations that threaten to undermine the Al-Aqsa Mosque, in order to extract evidence that supports the Israeli version of Judaism." He said Israelis wanted to "Judaize" the city and "were preparing models of what they call the Temple in order to build on the ruins of Al Aqsa."

Any one of these three incendiary ideas would earn an extremist street "cred" as a flamethrower. Few Israelis are proposing a Third Temple. Claiming "the Jews" wish to replace the Al-Aqsa Mosque with their own structure is a demagogic call for Arab rioting in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Second, mischievous phrases like "the Israeli version of Judaism" and "what they call the Temple," try to rob Jews of our history, our legitimacy, our nationality. Abbas's words echo longstanding Palestinian claims that Judaism is a religion with no peoplehood component, that the Temple never existed, and that the whole Zionist, meaning Jewish nationalist, project is a fraud.

Finally, Abbas's allegations about "Judaizing" Jerusalem ignore the fact that Jerusalem is already Jewish and Muslim and Christian. Abbas's implication, that Jews are engaged in ethnic cleansing, would require us to characterize modern Israelis as incompetent not just evil. Today's Jerusalem has 800,000 residents, including 268,000 Arabs. In the nearly 45 years since the 1967 Six Day War, the Arab population has grown by 200,000, and many Arabs today appreciate their Israeli rights and services. The number of Arab Jerusalemites granted Israeli citizenship quadrupled from 2006 to 2010. If Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing, Israelis would have to admit to being the worst — meaning the most ineffectual — "ethnic cleansers" in history, having triggered a population increase due to higher quality of life including more freedom.

Once again, Abbas missed an opportunity to play the statesman. He overlooked Jerusalem's potential as a platform of unity welcoming the religiously minded, the spiritually seeking, the historically attuned, the peace loving. He played the Jerusalem card, riling his audience, and alienating Israelis. That he nevertheless passes for a moderate, demonstrates just how extreme other Palestinian voices are, such as Hamas, and just how indulgent world opinion is when it comes to coddling the Palestinians.

In the last few weeks I have greeted four groups of non-Jews visiting Jerusalem. All of them were struck by how peaceful, how functional, the real Jerusalem is, rather than the terrifying Jerusalem of the headlines they expected. Jewish lore teaches about the heavenly Jerusalem — Yerushalayim Shel Ma'alah — and the earthly Jerusalem — Yerushalayim Shel Matah. There is a third Jerusalem in play too — Yerushalyim Shel Gehennom — the Hellish Jerusalem. This is the construct of reporters and political activists who only see the violence, the hatred, the ugliness without acknowledging the loveliness or the sheer normalcy for the overwhelming majority of the city's residents, the overwhelming majority of the time.

Propagandists use the deep emotions the Heavenly Jerusalem stirs to further anger people while painting their distorted portrait of the Hellish Jerusalem. True moderates acknowledge complexity, see multiple dimensions, using the messiness of life to humanize and compromise rather than polarize. By ignoring the earthly Jerusalem, the mundane Jerusalem, day-to-day Jerusalem, Mahmoud Abbas once again failed to live up to his press clippings — disproving so many policy makers' false perceptions of him as a peacemaker.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sanne DeWitt, February 29, 2012.

This was written by Jonathan Tobin, editor of Commentary Magazine. It appeared in http://www.JewishWorldReview.com.


What will it take to convince supporters of Peace Now the imperative of their organization's name depends on the Arabs rather than the Jews? After 18+ years of Arab terrorism and rejection of peace offers since the Oslo Accords, it's hard to say whether anything the Palestinians could do or say would cause them to rethink their myopic view of the world.

But give Americans for Peace Now's Lara Friedman a little credit. After schlepping to an Arab League conference on Jerusalem, she at least had the wit to notice that just about everybody else there was focused on delegitimizing Israel, denouncing its existence within any borders and denying thousands of years of Jewish history.

However, it's hard not to chuckle a little bit at the indignant tone affected by Friedman in her op-ed published in the Forward as she conveys her shock and dismay to discover the Arab world believes Jews have no rights in Jerusalem or any other part of Israel. She and her group had so convinced themselves all it will take to create peace "now" was for Israelis to support a two-state solution and negotiate, it appears they never took the time or effort to realize the other side has little interest in peace, now or at any other time. This gives her piece the tone of a parody worthy of The Onion even though it was written in deadly earnest.

Indeed, it must be considered in writing such an article she has demonstrated the utter cluelessness of her group better than anything the group's critics could have come up with.

What is so touching (as well as more than a bit comical) about Friedman's piece is that much of what she says in it is true. For example:

If President Abbas cannot acknowledge Jewish claims in Jerusalem, even as he asserts Palestinian claims (a problem Yasser Arafat suffered from), he should not be surprised if it is more difficult for Israelis and Jews, wherever they are, to believe that he can be trusted in a peace agreement that leaves Jerusalem sites precious to Jews under Palestinian control.

If representatives of the organization that sponsored the Arab Peace Initiative cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the legitimacy of Jewish equities in Jerusalem, they should know that they discredit their own professed interest in peace. ...

All throughout the day, it was unfortunately the same story. Participants talked about Jerusalem as if Jewish history did not exist or was a fraud — as if all Jewish claims in the city were just a tactic to dispossess Palestinians.

Friedman is quite right about all of this. But does it really need to be pointed out that she needn't have traveled to Doha to figure this out? The Palestinians and their cheerleaders have been making this clear for decades. That is why Peace Now in Israel has been discredited by the events that have transpired since the Oslo Accords were signed, and their political supporters in the Knesset have been trounced in election after election.

The traditional left in Israel, at least as far as the Palestinian issue is concerned, is barely alive, though you wouldn't know it from the way many on the Jewish left in the United States talk. The conceit of groups like Americans for Peace Now and J Street — that Israel must be pressured to make peace by the United States for its own good — makes no sense once you realize the Jewish state has repeatedly tried and failed to trade land for peace and the Palestinians have little interest in a two-state solution no matter where Israel's borders would be drawn.

Friedman archly compares the Arab hate fest she is attending to Jewish conclaves where only pro-Israel speakers participate. This is a bit much as is her insinuation no one who cares for Israel's future can possibly oppose a partition of Jerusalem that would place Jewish holy places in the tender care of Abbas and his Hamas allies. As she has discovered to her consternation, Palestinians don't care about Jewish sensibilities, let alone Jewish rights.

Her failure to draw any rational conclusions from what she has heard in Doha tells us all we need to know about the irrelevance of Peace Now to any serious discussion about the future of the Middle East.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, February 29, 2012.
Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award-winning book, A Time to Betray. He is a senior fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense's Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

My sources inside Iran tell me that President Obama, seeking to protect the recovering U.S. economy and bolster his chances of being re-elected in November, apparently has entered into an informal agreement with Iran that he believes will defuse the nuclear weapons crisis and keep Israel from attacking the Islamic regime.

The agreement calls for the United States to acknowledge that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and for Iran to hand over its highly enriched uranium, which is necessary for nuclear weaponization.

Iran, for its part, though engaging Obama, has no intention of abiding by the agreement and is stepping up its nuclear enrichment program clandestinely, even as it prepares for a war it believes it can win.

When Obama took office in 2009, he threw out the Bush administration's aggressive posture in negotiating with Iran and instead sought a new approach, one of diplomacy and friendship. He had a golden opportunity to support millions of Iranians who took to the streets over Iran's fraudulent elections that June, but instead turned his back on freedom and democracy while believing that negotiations with the Islamic regime would yield results.

Once the protests had died down, the Iranians, after months of promises, announced that a proposed agreement by the West that limited their nuclear activity was no longer acceptable and that they had successfully enriched uranium to 20 percent, which is nine-tenths of the way to nuclear weaponization.

The Iranians have now expanded their nuclear program to the point where they not only have enough low-enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs but also have doubled their stock of highly enriched uranium of 20 percent. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently reported that Iran has added 3,000 more centrifuges to the Natanz facility, bringing the total to 9,000, and has started enriching to 20 percent at the previous secret site, the Fordow facility, which is deep within a mountain and secure against any attack. Such production could give Iran weapons-grade uranium for nuclear bombs within weeks.

Obama knows that Israel is losing patience with the lack of progress over Iran's unabated continuation of its illicit nuclear program despite four sets of U.N. sanctions and other sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union. He also knows that any confrontation between Israel and Iran will drag America into an unwanted war and therefore destabilize the American economy and harm his chances of re-election.

Iran knows that its best chance to delay any attack on its nuclear and military facilities and its best opportunity to be in a win-win situation is to once again engage Obama, believing he is weak, that Iran holds the key to his re-election and that a Republican win in November could mean direct confrontation

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/27/obama-iran-in-secret-nuclear-deal/#ixzz1ni4NAh00

As revealed in January, Obama sent a message to the Iranian leaders through three different channels. Part of it, disclosed by the Iranian officials, reflected a message by the U.S. president asking for cooperation and negotiation based on mutual interests, but more importantly, it assured Iran that America will not take any action against the Islamic regime.

Sources within Iran reveal that Khamenei, in a secret meeting with his top officials and military commanders, has issued a directive to push for a step-by-step Russian proposal to defuse the crisis in which Iran would only hand over its 20 percent enrichment stock while keeping all low-enriched uranium stock (enough for six nuclear bombs) and cooperate more with the IAEA (all the while continuing its enrichment activity). In exchange, the West would ease up on the sanctions as each step is taken.

The U.S., for its part, had to announce that Iran is not after the nuclear bomb, backing Israel into a corner and pressuring it not to take any action.

In the same meeting it was decided that if the West did not take the offer, then a limited war in the region could help the Iranian leaders further consolidate power at home, incite further uprisings in the region, become the leader of the Islamic movement by attacking Israel and still save some of its nuclear facilities, which are either at secret locations or deep underground. And that would justify their pursuit of the nuclear bomb.

The Obama administration responded positively. First, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsy, publicly announced that Iran is a rational actor and that it is not after a nuclear bomb. Then, just as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to arrive in Washington for talks with Obama over Iran's nuclear program, the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said Iran has already stopped efforts to build a bomb.

This despite the most recent IAEA report clearly indicating the military aspect of the Iranian nuclear program and last week's announcement by the U.N. nuclear agency that Iran has ramped up by 50 percent its production of highly enriched uranium, well beyond what is normally needed for peaceful nuclear energy.

In response to the Americans meeting Khamenei's demands, the Iranian supreme leader responded by publicly announcing that Iran has never sought and will never seek nuclear weapons as it regards possession of such weapons a great sin.

Other Iranian officials did their part by announcing that the cooperation with the IAEA will continue to once again show the world that claims of Iran wanting a nuclear bomb are unfounded.

In this high-stakes game, Iranian leaders believe Obama is hamstrung by politics, and even if war comes, ultimately Russia and China will intervene to support Iran, demanding a cease-fire and therefore giving Iran a victory similar to the outcome of the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war.

Though an election year, Obama must know that radicals ruling Iran, if given time, will obtain nuclear weapons, changing the world as we know it forever, no matter who is in the White House come 2013.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shavei Israel, February 29, 2012.

She started life with the name "Jin Jin." Today she goes by "Yecholiya" — Hebrew for "G-d is able." And that has certainly been the case for this brave young woman, one of just a few Chinese Jews who, with Shavei Israel's help, have been able to immigrate to Israel.

Six years after making aliyah, Yecholiya is fully integrated into Israeli society: she speaks Hebrew, loves to eat shakshouka (a Middle Eastern dish), and works as the first Chinese Jewish tour guide in the Holy Land.

It's quite an accomplishment for a Jew growing up in the hinterlands of China, far from the major population centers. Still, for a thousand years, the Jewish community of Kaifeng, once one of the capitals of imperial China, flourished. Jewish merchants from Persia or Iraq first settled the area. At its height in the Middle Ages, there were as many as 5,000 Jews in Kaifeng, with rabbis, synagogues and various communal institutions.

But, in the last 150 years, the community has been decimated by a series of floods (which destroyed the last remaining synagogue), poverty (by the middle of the 19th century, the community was forced to sell its Torah scrolls and remaining assets) and, ultimately, assimilation. While today there are only 500 to 1,000 identifiable descendents of the Jewish community in Kaifeng, an awakening has been taking place and many Chinese Jews are reclaiming their heritage.

Yecholiya, 25, was one of them. It was her father who initially set her on her path to Israel. "When I was very young, my father always told me that I was a Jew and that one day I will get back to Israel," Yecholiya says. She fulfilled that vision and moved here in 2006 to study for a formal conversion. "The more I learned about Judaism, the prouder I became. This is the land that G-d promised us. I know now that it was the right decision to come back to Israel."

Her father, sadly, is not in Israel with Yecholiya. Her parents want to come, she explains, "but they don't know Hebrew, not English either. It's very difficult at their age to study a new thing." Her parents and even her six-year-old baby sister Hadassah have visited Israel, however, spending time with Yecholiya here in 2010.

In 1996, the Jews of Kaifeng were stunned when the Chinese government suddenly changed their identity cards, which had formerly read "Jew," to "Chinese," Yecholiya says. "At the time I didn't understand what was going on, but deep in my heart, I was opposed to having my nationality changed."

Despite this bureaucratic setback, life for the Jews of Kaifeng has improved remarkably in the last ten years. While before then about the only traditional practice kept was not eating pork, Yecholiya says, today the community gathers each week to celebrate Shabbat. "We do it in a simple way. We eat together; we sing together."

The community also celebrates Passover (in this case, "we do everything," she says) and Rosh Hashana ("I love to eat bread dipped in honey and to feel all the people together").

Yecholiya's family have become leaders among the Kaifeng Jews. Their home functions as a sort of Jewish "visitors center" and her mother knits and sells hand made scarves, shawls and even kippot (head coverings). Each has a combination of Jewish symbols — a menorah, Torah, Star of David — and writing in English and Hebrew.

She holds up one of the scarves and points to the Magen David. "This is a very strong symbol for me. It's full of courage. It always brings me back to the history of the Jewish people and what we went through to be in our country."

It took courage, too, for Yecholiya to arrive in a strange land and jump in feet first. Immediately from the airport, she was driven to Jerusalem to pray at the Western Wall. "I was crying and thinking, finally, I am home," she says. She studied for her first year at a girl's seminary south of Jerusalem, then learned Hebrew at Kibbutz Sde Eliyahu in the north, before joining the tour guide course at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where she now lives.

She is passionate about her role as a tour guide to serve as a "bridge" between two countries that are increasingly intertwined. She is well placed to serve as an informal Israeli diplomat.

"China is my home. Israel is also my home," she says. "Last year, 10,000 Chinese came to Israel to tour. More and more are coming each year. But only certain things reach them through the media. Much is still secret. They want to come to know more, to understand the people and the environment here. And once they do, they will go home and tell other people what Israel looks like through their eyes."

Yecholiya made aliyah with three other girls from Kaifeng. Here they are at the Western Wall

Yecholiya hasn't been entirely alone as a Chinese Jew in Israel. She arrived with three other Chinese women and the four studied together. One has since gotten married and moved to the U.S. where she has a new baby; the rest, like Yecholiya are still single. Yecholiya was joined last year by seven young Jewish men from Kaifeng. We wrote about them here [link]. And, after six years in the country, she has no lack of native Israeli sabras as friends.

Yecholiya would never have made the journey to Israel without the help of Shavei Israel. "In the beginning they found us" in Kaifeng, she explains. "They helped us get from China to Israel and they gave us all the support we needed to study after we made aliyah."

Does she miss anything from China? "The noodles!" she laughs. "Israeli noodle soup is too soggy." But she makes up for it with Israeli staples — falafel and (even more) schwarma (meat off a skewer stuffed into a pita). "I like meat!" she jokes.

Israelis are not sure entirely what to make of Yecholiya. "They will stop me and ask if I'm from the Philippines or Thailand," she says. "When I tell them I'm from China and that I'm also Jewish, they're very surprised, but after that they will say kol hakavod and welcome!"

So, what does Yecholiya think of Israelis? "They are really funny and nice and warm. When they are inside a synagogue, they are pretty strict, but at a celebration or festival, they will sing and dance like a child. If you are crying on the street, they will stop to see what happened to you and ask if you need help. It's something I really love."

With a name meaning, "G-d is able," we asked Yecholiya what she prays for. She cites the famous verse in the Bible where it is prophesized that the Jewish people will return from the four corners of the earth on eagle's wings. "That's it in one sentence. It's what I really want, and I hope that it will come true." And she adds: "that my family can come back soon."

To see "Chinese Jews from Kaifeng arrive in Israel 2009" — a moving documentary. Click here.

This article is archived at http://www.shavei.org/communities/kaifeng_jews/personal-stories- kaifeng_jews/shavei-profile-from-%E2%80%9Cjin-jin%E2%80%9D-to- %E2%80%9Cyecholiya%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-a-chinese-jew %E2%80%99s-journey-to-jerusalem/

To Go To Top

Posted by YogiRUs, February 28, 2012.

I have been waiting for a peg on which to hang additional information about the Quakers (Friends) and their bitter anti-Israel activities for a long time. Now Alan Dershowitz has given me that news peg. Please read the attached story, especially the last paragraph. Highly enlightening.

One of the best kept secrets about anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activity in the U.S.Congress concerns the Quakers, who have this carefully created and polished image of peaceful, gentle people who are only interested in humanitarian causes, and uninvolved in power politics.. When I first came to work on Capitol Hill in Washington, there were virtually no anti-Israel, anti-Semitic elements who could claim respectability and dare to lobby Congress. It was a given that just about everyone was pro-Israel. Memories of the Holocaust were quite vivid in the middle sixties. Until...

Until I was approached in my Senate staff job by a lobbyist for the American Friends Service Committee; the name the Quaker lobby works under. To my amazement, as the man presented his case, instead of a plea for refugees in Africa or famine relief, he was smilingly and quietly condemning Israel and its policies towards the Arabs. Fascinated, I listened to his presentation and then asked a number of probing questions. Gradually the picture filled out, and I realized that this man and his colleagues...his office and his church...were hard left advocates for the Palestinians and the Arab cause. They indicated that Israel should never have been created.

They offered virtually no critiques of Arab dictatorships. It was all Israel's fault, they argued, and if Israel made concessions (which would have been fatal ones), all would be well and peace would prevail.

Afterward, I queried some of the elder representatives of Jewish organizations, who affirmed my suspicions. Amazed, I asked why they did not spread the word, only to be told that I should not make noise about this and that the Friends made common cause with other Jewish and human rights groups in other areas of common political concern. Make no mistake. The Quakers are on Capitol Hill daily, spreading the worst kind of anti-Israel criticism and never being publicized as to what they are doing. One of the reasons several mainline Protestant denominations have come to echo their anti-Israel criticism and lobbying is because the Quakers have been missionaries for the Pelestinians to other liberal, faith-based groups in Washington.

Over the years, whenever I mentioned what the Quakers were doing to Jewish people/friends of Israel, they uniformly expressed amazement and total ignorance of the situation. Almost all the Jewish people I have known over the years have been flabbergasted by receipt of this information. The Friends are very careful not to let it be widely known as to what they are doing.

Major Jewish lobbying organizations in Washington refuse to "out" this situation and inform the greater national Jewish community about this state of affairs. People need to ask why, starting with Reform Judaism's Religious Action Center in Washington, which, to the best of my knowledge, knows all about this and has never uttered a peep to inform its constituency. Rabbi David Saperstein has headed that office for many years. Surely he knows. B'nai B'rith surely must know...and AJC.

Dershowitz has done the friends of Israel and the American Jewish community at large a signal public service by opening this dirty little closet, and it is my hope that all who receive this will spread the word. Take a few moments and pass it on. Start asking questions.It is impossible for anyone to deny that this is what they believe, this is what they are doing, and that it has been going on since the 1960's. Comments are welcome. Spread the word and just watch the reaction you get.

Franklin Silbey

From: alanbergreen@sbcglobal.net

Remember all the pretentious mileage the Friends Service Committee got during the Vietnam era by posturing as "witnesses" for peace (and all the misty-eyed anti-war-niks who lapped it all up)?

I recall George Orwell had some trenchant remarks to make during WWII about the objective effects of pacifists vis a vis the Nazi war effort (they helped it).

Now it appears the Quakers have abandoned any equivocation as to which side they're on. Well, nothing like clarity!!

— A.B.

Friends Seminary plays bait, switch on anti-Semitism
By Alan M. Dershowitz 02/24/2012 00:42

Friends Seminary of New York backed out of an agreement to invite Alan Dershowitz to talk to students about the evils of anti-Semitism.

The Friends Seminary of New York, which invited the notorious anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon to one of its classes, and assigned its students to read his hate-filled writings, has now backed out of an agreement to invite me to the school to talk to the students about the evils of anti-Semitism.

The headmaster of the Friends Seminary, a school which is supposed to be committed to honesty and integrity, has broken his solemn promise to me, and to members of its own community, to allow its students to hear both sides of an issue that really has only one side: namely, the illegitimacy of bringing hate-mongers into high school classrooms.

After I exposed the original invitations to Atzmon — who justifies the burning down of synagogues as "reasonable" response to Jewish efforts to "control the world" — the headmaster agreed to several things.

First, he would speak at an assembly to the students about the evils of anti-Semitism; second, he would assign my essay to the students who were assigned Atzmon's essay; and third, he would invite me to address the students. He has now broken each of these promises.

Students who were at the assembly have confirmed that the speakers only made things worse. The teacher who invited Atzmon talked about what a great musician he was. The headmaster was defensive about how his words were manipulated and justified bringing Atzmon based on Quaker principles.

Apparently the word "anti-Semitism" was never once mentioned during this meeting. My article was not assigned to the students; a citation was sent to them saying that I wanted students to read it.

When I wrote to the headmaster complaining about these breaches, they used my letter as an excuse for canceling my appearance. The real reason was almost certainly pressure from hard-left members of his faculty and others.

Let's be clear what this means. The school was unwilling to cancel Atzmon's appearance, even after learning that he was a virulent anti-Semite who questions the Holocaust but believes that it may be true that Jews kill Christians to use their blood for religious purposes. But they canceled my appearance because they didn't like the tone of a private letter that I wrote to them that was critical of the headmaster's failure to comply with his promises. I ended my letter with the following words: "Please assure me that I am wrong about my judgment about you. I really would like to see this move forward in a positive direction, but you are not helping.

"The ultimate sufferers are your students, who are being taught the wrong values that will serve them poorly in college and in life."

The values that Headmaster Bo Lauder is imbuing to his students are deception, breach of promise, toleration of anti-Semitism and an unwillingness to present all sides of an issue. In the end, the headmaster is showing tremendous distrust of his students by refusing to allow them to hear another side of the issue, by canceling my promised appearance, by not assigning my essay and by continuing to be defensive regarding the dreadful mistake in judgment he made in allowing Atzmon to teach his students.

The headmaster may believe that by breaking his promises, he has ended this issue. Let him be absolute certain that, as I wrote in my letter to him: "This issue will not go away, and nor will I. Misled once, shame on you. Misled twice, shame on me."

Unless I am invited to address the students inside the school, I will appear outside the school, where I will hand out my essays to those students who are willing to read them and will address those students who have an interest in hearing a response to anti-Semitism. I am also considering inviting parents, students and other members of the Friends Seminary community to an event, in a venue outside the school, where these issues can be discussed openly and candidly.

Headmaster Lauder may be able to keep me physically out of his school, but he will not be able to stop my ideas from reaching his community. The truth does not respect artificial boundaries.

The Friends Seminary, like other elite schools around the United States, teaches our future leaders. Many Friends Schools around the country have espoused strongly anti-Israel policies for years. The Friends Seminary in New York has a rabidly anti-Israel history teacher on its faculty, who propagandizes his students against Israel in the classroom, and who has a picture of Anne Frank wearing a Palestinian headdress on his website. The school has and is again planning to take its students on trips to the Middle East that present a one-sided perspective. Now it has crossed the line from preaching anti-Zionism to tolerating anti-Semitism. I will not remain silent in the face of the Friends Seminary's double standard and neither should you.

Contact YogiRUs by email at YogiRUs@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Narvey, February 28, 2012.

There are a number of Jewish holidays that specifically celebrate our great religion and memorialize those events in ancient times when K'lal Yisrael — our Jewish community at large, managed through faith in and help from God and by our own efforts, to free ourselves from slavery, to save ourselves from extinction and to, for a time at least until the next crisis befell us, to live free as Jews in peace, unity and harmony.

Holidays such as Pesach, Chanukah and Purim celebrate such pivotal events that assured our right to live free as Jews and to pull us back from the brink of extinction where we otherwise would thereafter have existed only in the world's memory, as a footnote in history.

We Jews come together as families during Pesach and Chanukah at synagogue, but more particularly in our homes to celebrate, honor and recall with our families, these existentially important events in our history as we feast on traditional foods and engage in appropriate traditional observances and ritual prayers.

Unlike the aforesaid Jewish holidays, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, considered the two most sacred Jewish holidays, are strictly religious. These High Holidays fill our synagogues to capacity and feature our Rabbis' perhaps most inspirational sermons and our Cantors leading us in traditional ritual prayers, chanted to the most inspirational, memorable, rhythmic and appealing melodies, either upbeat or soulful.

All these holidays, however serve in some way, to remind us of our interdependent connection with each other — K'lal Yisrael and with Israel.

These holidays are also a time when families come together in their homes to celebrate with traditional ritual observances and prayers, traditional foods, drink and a heightened sense of Jewish identity and the joy of being together as a Jewish family.

With these holidays passing however, most Jews return to their everyday ordinary lives where for some, Judaism, Jewish values, Jewish identity, K'Lal Yisrael, Israel or any one or more of them, continue to hold at least some significance, but for far too many, that significance is lost until the next holiday is upon us.

For us Jews and Israel we again are in a number of ways, living more in the worst of times, then the best of times.

These worst of times are bound up in rampant Jew and Israel hatred throughout most of the Muslim world supported by a great many 3rd world nations, resurgent antisemitism throughout most of the EU that also finds expression in antipathy towards Israel, countless global organizations, Muslim and otherwise that have as their sole purpose, to advocate and act against Israel, the United Nations that has largely become a tyranny of the undemocratic nations against Judeo-Christian and democratic values in general and against Jews and Israel in particular and fellow democratic nations being conflicted between sympathy and support of Israel's right to exist and their national perceptions of self interest being served by accommodating and appeasing anti-Israel sentiment as far as their stomachs will allow.

We Jews and Israel are existentially threatened by these external forces, reminiscent of historical threats we faced in ancient times such as our enslavement in Egypt or by plots of our evil ancient enemies to destroy us as a people, such as by Haman of ancient Iran (Persia), which events we survived as a people and which survival we have ever since celebrated in our Pesach and Purim holidays.

We are however, today also existentially threatened by multi-faceted external assimilative forces that so many Jews are increasingly, not only failing to resist, but are willingly embracing which concurrently weakens or destroys their Jewish identity, their sense of being part of K'Lal Yisrael and their interdependent connection with Israel.

There was a time we faced and overcame these assimilative existential forces. That event is the story of Chanukah that we have celebrated each year for over the past two millennia.

There are today so many existential forces buffeting and battering K'lal Yisrael and Israel, as if they have come together like a perfect storm.

It is trite, but true that unity breeds strength, while divisiveness breeds weakness

Instead of us Jews coming together to rise up, resist and defeat these many diverse enemies and forces threatening to once again consign us and Israel to the dustbin of history, so many of our number, both religious and secular are focusing on fractiously arguing with each other over their often antithetical views, over what Jews and Israel are, what they should be and what forces arrayed against us, are threatening or not.

Divisiveness is thus increasingly fracturing and weakening our K'Lal Yisrael as too many, devote far greater energy to advocate and act in furtherance of their opposing views than to unite us to fight against the forces that have already breached our gates and which threaten our very existence.

If those antisemitic/anti-Israel forces win this time, it won't matter a tinker's damn which of these divided Jewish camps were right in their views, be they religious or secular.

It is against this background reality check, that it is herein proposed that our Rabbis and leaders come together to craft a desperately needed new ritual prayer to be recited in Hebrew and the lingua franca of every Jew, as an important part of our ritual prayers recited in both our synagogues and our homes in celebration of our Jewish holidays.

That new ritual prayer should be a passionate powerful statement that compellingly inspires us all, at all times, to keep in the forefront of our minds:

1. The singular importance to us of our Judaism and heritage, K'lal Yisrael, Israel and our Jewish exceptionalism;

2. to lead Jewish lives in freedom and security, regardless of how far each of us may have strayed in that regard;

3. To make a personal commitment to restore and strengthen our Jewish identities, connections between K'Lal Yisrael and Israel and

4. That we must make survival our top priority and thus put our differences aside in order to enable and empower us to stand united against those forces, external and internal, that threaten to tear us apart and bury us forever.

This plea to our Rabbis, leaders and community at large to create a new ritual prayer as herein described, thus concludes with the following prayer:

In these troubled times when grave existential forces assail us and Israel from all sides and from within, God please give our Rabbis and leaders the wisdom, courage, strength and motivation to create a new powerful inspirational ritual prayer, now and for time immemorial, that imbues us all with courage and resolve to fight to assure our right to live as Jews in peace, freedom and security hereafter and to that end to fight against all the forces that work to harm or destroy us.

Contact William Narvey at wpnarvey@shaw.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, February 28, 2012.

This was written by Joy Brighton, a former Wall Street trader and an expert on Shariah-compliant finance. This is archived at
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/02/ oldman-sachs-caught-sharia-catch-22/283801#.T0EGSFVUTig.email


In September 2011, Goldman Sachs announced it would issue a $2 billion Shariah Compliant Islamic Bond derivative known as a "Sukuk" to finance its current business operations.

However, by Feb. 15, 2012, despite Goldman Sachs' many acts of obeisance in the service of capital, Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank's Shariah scholars decided that Goldman Sach's Islamic bond program was "noncompliant with Shariah."

Why? Because Middle East petrodollar funding must be used to strengthen Middle East petrodollar goals.

According to an article in the Arab News, Shariah-committed imams declined to issue its religious approval (fatwa) for the Goldman Bond derivative because the "use of proceeds" to fund Goldman's non-Islamic business is forbidden, according to Shariah finance laws.

Goldman Sachs is the victim of a Catch-22 business deal — it can legally raise $2 billion in the Shariah-based Islamic market, but it cannot legally apply these funds to its business operations.

Stringent requirements placed on Western banks wanting to engage in Shariah banking were created to pull Western and American dollars out of free capital markets and divert into imam-controlled financial markets.

This explains why one of the first official mandates of Ayatollah Khoemini of Iran in 1983 was to install Shariah banking, and outlaw that nation's existing Western banking system.

Today, Iran controls 36 percent of all Shariah assets. It is not unrealistic that taxes and fees paid into this Shariah market will fund anti-Western activity.

Wading thru poorly disclosed Shariah requirements that Goldman Sachs must fulfill to receive a "Shariah compliant blessing" reveals an opaque financial system, with a kind of hidden taxation scheme.

In order to receive the necessary fatwa, a bank must pay and hire Shariah-committed imams as bank board members to help oversee the business, and they are often also made to pay a tax to Shariah governments like Saudi Arabia.

In addition, they must invest in Middle East economies; and they must not invest in "Western" business ventures that threaten the supremacy or undermine the defense or moral sanctity of Islamic-majority countries. (Other requirements such as the "ban" on interest are not relevant here.)

How will Shariah-law financial practices influence and regulate financial deals that occur outside of Islamic majority companies?

Here's an example: If Goldman were to agree to Shariah requirements, the firm would have to withdraw as underwriter of the upcoming Facebook initial public offering.

After all, many Facebook members post photos of themselves engaged in "anti-Islamic activities" such as drinking beer or posing with scantily dressed women.

And, many Facebook advertisers, which accounted for 90 percent of Facebook's $3.8 billion revenue in 2011, engage in anti-Islamic activity, such as the Hollywood advertisements for the new "Act of Valor" movie that shows real active-duty U.S. Navy SEALs training to fight Islamic Jihadists.

In fact, Facebook enables people globally to engage in all kinds of "un-Islamic activity" such as free political speech and debate, including the criticism of Islam.

So why would Goldman be willing to comply with Shariah law principles in the first place? How could Goldman fully disclose the risks of Shariah finance to potential pension and mutual fund investors, when their own due diligence department didn't figure out the "use of funds" snag? What other Shariah-finance risks might be overlooked?

In search of short-term profits, will Goldman Sachs and fellow Wall Street firms try to tap into Shariah dollars, and expand imam-controlled Shariah businesses in the United States? Who will suffer the long-term loss of economic and political independence?

You and me.

Dr.Rachel Ehrenfeld and Ken Jensen of the Economic Warfare Institute distribute a set of articles each issue. This article is in EWI Digest Posting No. 140, February 28, 2012.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, February 28, 2012.

People are asked to send letters and also emails to President Obama, especially this week, asking him to free Jonathan Pollard. The President's contact information is included below, together with a sample letter.

Tizku lemitzvos.

Lee Caplan


Sample Text: Send a Letter to President Obama for Jonathan Pollard

Justice4JPnews — February 10, 2009

The following is a sample text that can be mailed or faxed to President Barak Obama requesting that he commute Jonathan Pollard's sentence to time-served and send him home to Israel.

When President Bush left office, he did not turn down Jonathan's petition for clemency, he passed it on to President Barak Obama for a decision. It is important that President Obama receive as many cards and letters about this matter as soon as possible. Please fax or mail your letter. No emails please; emails don't count.

Send a FREE FAX to President Obama from faxzero.com

White House Fax number: 202-456-2461
Mailing Address:
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Comment Line: 202-456-1111


The text below can be copied and adjusted from singular to plural to allow for more than one person to sign. Remember to add the date and signature information.

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:

As a President who has expressed his strong determination to restore honor to American democracy, I would like to call your attention to the case of Jonathan Pollard and to request that you exercise your power of executive clemency to commute Jonathan Pollard's sentence to time-served.

Jonathan Pollard has served over 26 years, even though the median sentence for the offense he was indicted for is 2 to 4 years.

Jonathan Pollard never had a trial. He entered into a plea agreement, which spared both the U.S. and Israeli governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial. Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution.

Jonathan Pollard was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally without intent to harm the United States. There were no additional charges dropped by the plea agreement.

In spite of his plea agreement and in spite of his cooperation, Pollard received an unprecedented, grossly disproportionate life sentence.

It is unjust that Pollard has been punished much more severely than all others who committed similar offenses on behalf of other US allies. It raises concern about why a Jew who spies for Israel is treated far more harshly than those who have spied for other allies, or even enemies of the US.

After more than two decades in the harshest of prison conditions, Jonathan Pollard is ill and his health is rapidly deteriorating. Furthermore, it should be noted that Jonathan Pollard has expressed remorse for his actions.

I, therefore, strongly urge you commute Jonathan Pollard's sentence to time-served. This request is supported by former CIA Director James Woolsey and former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee U.S. Senator (ret.) Dennis DeConcini, as well as a cross section of other notable Americans, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this urgent matter.

Yours truly,



City, State or Country, Zip/Postal Code

Contact Lee Caplan by email at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Frank J. Gaffney, J., February 28, 2012.

As we witness surging Muslim violence against non-Muslims in Afghanistan, Egypt and even here, the response seems increasingly that the victims must apologize to the perpetrators. In particular, the United States government — from President Obama on down — has been assiduously seeking forgiveness for giving offense to Islamic sensibilities after accidentally burning Korans. This was felt necessary even in a case in which the books had been defaced by captured Afghan jihadis as a means of encouraging their comrades to further acts of violence against us.

It seems that Christians are also widely considered to be at fault for having churches, Bibles and religious practices that offend the ascendant Islamists in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Certainly, no apologies are forthcoming when the Christians are murdered or forced to flee for their lives, their churches and sacred texts put to the torch.

In America last week, a Pennsylvania judge felt the need to dress down a man assaulted for parading in a Halloween costume he called "Zombie Muhammad." Far from punishing the perpetrator, a Muslim immigrant, Judge Mark Martin sympathized with him for the offense caused, noting — seemingly without objection — that it was a capital crime to engage in such free expression in some countries.

Worse yet, the judge suggested that the victim in this case had exceeded the "boundaries" of his "First Amendment rights." Such a view seems to track with the Obama administration's collaboration with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in fashioning international accords that would prohibit "incitement" against Islam.

This is a short step from — and en route to — the OIC's larger goal of banning and criminalizing any expression that offends Muslims or their faith. As such, it poses a mortal peril to the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.

What is going on in country after country, in international forums such as the United Nations Human Rights Council and even in some American courts, is a calculated effort, backed by terrifying violence or its threat, to make us "feel subdued," as the Koran puts it. The idea is to use Western sensibilities and civil liberties — notably, respect for the free practice of religion — to deny the rest of us our fundamental freedoms. These include the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and, yes, freedom of religion.

The trouble is that when we accommodate such demands, it is seen by Islamist enemies of liberty as evidence of our inevitable submission. According to the doctrine of Shariah, they must, under such circumstances, make a redoubled effort to achieve their ultimate triumph, including through the use of violence.

So, far from alleviating the threat posed by Shariah's adherents when we accommodate, apologize and appease, we actually are exacerbating it, at home as well as abroad.

In short, we find ourselves in what is, properly understood, the civil rights struggle of our time. Those who stand up for freedom against Shariah are quite literally protecting the rights of women, children, people of faith and other minorities sure to be abused by its misogynistic, intolerant and domineering doctrine. That means protecting, as well, Muslim-Americans who have come to this country to escape the long arm of Shariah law. In due course, though, Shariah's repressive strictures would not simply be a threat to these communities. They would be a toxic blight upon all of us.

Ironically, today, it is defenders of our freedoms who are being denounced as "racists," "bigots" and "Islamophobes." Such terms are, in truth, being used in much the same way and for precisely the same purpose as the Ku Klux Klan's members reviled an earlier generation of civil rights activists for loving blacks: to defame, threaten and isolate their opponents. We cannot, and certainly must not, tolerate the Islamists' intolerance.

Muslims are, of course, free to practice their faith in America like anyone else — provided they do so in a tolerant, peaceable and law-abiding way. What they are not entitled to do, in the name of religious practice, is subvert our Constitution, deny us our rights or engage in sedition without facing concerted opposition — if not prosecution.

Today, every bit as much as in the civil rights struggles of the past, there are those who are prepared to go along with what they know is wrong in order to get along. Now, as then, the few who recognize that any such accommodation makes more certain the ultimate triumph of evil, may be vilified and even harmed. But now, as then, more and more Americans are emerging who see the danger posed by our time's totalitarian threat — Shariah — and will do their part to secure freedom against it, both here and, as necessary for that purpose, elsewhere.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy in the Reagan Administration, heads the Center for Security Policy.

To Go To Top

Posted by Melanie Phillips, February 27, 2012.

By chance, I happened to read William Shawcross's new book Justice and the Enemy: Nuremberg, 9/11 and the Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed straight after finally catching up with Deborah Lipstadt's The Eichmann Trial, which was published last year.

The congruence between these two fine books is striking. Both consider the impact and challenges of trying to administer civilian justice to people accused of crimes whose very nature and scope lie well outside the confines of normal democratic societies. Separated by some five decades, the question of how to confront evil through justice remains problematic — but attitudes have sharply diverged.

Everything about the iconic 1961 trial in Israel of former SS Lieutenant Adolf Eichmann was controversial. In a cloak and dagger operation described by Lipstadt (who also shows how inattentive Israeli officials nearly scuppered the whole thing), Eichmann was captured in Argentina by Israeli agents and spirited away to Jerusalem where he stood trial.

It is hard now to appreciate the sensational impact of this trial. The post-war Nuremberg Tribunal had been about the perpetrators of genocide; the Eichmann trial was about their victims. The dramatic testimony of the survivors was the first time the world — including the population of Israel itself — was exposed at length to such personal testimony about these unspeakable events, delivered only yards away from a man who had dispatched hundreds of thousands of Jews to be murdered. The trial cemented the word Holocaust into the global imagination.

But could such a trial be fair? How could Eichmann not have been found guilty? Was the main purpose of the trial not so much to administer justice to one individual but to etch these events into the world's collective memory? The performance of the prosecuting lawyer Gideon Hausner was also controversial, with a theatrical style many found inappropriate. But Lipstadt argues he had an impossible task-to 'shine the spotlight on Eichmann while simultaneously calling to account a world that solemnly acquiesced to the horrors under way'.

William Shawcross, whose book considers the difficulties and dilemmas of bringing al Qaeda terrorists to justice, picks up where Lipstadt leaves off, even referring to the Eichmann trial in his introduction. Like Lipstadt, he explores the imperfections and ambiguities of administering justice to those accused of crimes that break the boundaries of convention. And he has more than a passing interest in this particular problem, since his father, Hartley Shawcross, was the chief British prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal where leading Nazi war criminals were put on trial.

Nuremberg, whose shadow dapples this book, was itself problematic, with accusations that this was 'victors' justice'. Articulating the concern which resonates to this day, the Nuremberg chief prosecutor Robert Jackson emphasised that the whole point of a trial was to entertain the possibility that the accused might not be found guilty; 'the world yields no respect to courts that are merely organised to convict'. But he also said this:

'Civilisation can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive'.

And indeed, how they do now survive — far from precariously but with terrifying ferocity in those who have taken up where the Nazis left off, al Qaeda and its Islamist associates who, as Shawcross notes, share with the Nazis a totalitarian mindset with Jew-hatred at its core, and waging world war to establish not a 'thousand year Reich' but a global Islamic caliphate.

The problem, however, is that the post-Nuremberg rules of war in the Geneva Conventions and other legal instruments were not designed to cope with the new kind of war waged by the Islamists, who are largely stateless actors who do not conform to the recognised criteria of an army and thus cannot be treated as prisoners of war. Al Qaeda terrorist suspects thus occupy an existential no-man's land, neither ordinary criminals nor soldiers.

Shawcross charts the excruciating difficulties that beset the Bush administration as it grappled with these dilemmas, and the way it was hindered at every turn by the global army of 'human rights ' lawyers and activists — not to mention political enemies of the Bush administration and of America itself.

He records how, although following early abuses Guantanamo transformed itself into arguably the best equipped prison, and the most respectful of inmates, anywhere in the world, it remained portrayed as a 'gulag' and a cruel and illegal hellhole. He observes that the military commissions — proposed by the Bush administration to resolve the justice dilemma — afforded prospective suspects rather more rights than has been provided at Nuremberg; yet these were struck down by the US Supreme Court on the basis that they had been set up without the explicit authorisation of Congress.

Shawcross also notes how President Obama, who came to power promising to shut Guantanamo and lambasting the military commissions that were eventually set up, had been forced to change his tune. The realities of the terrorist war against the free world are just too complex, and far too dangerous, for such ideological inanities. So Guantanamo remains open.

But Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, still decided to put Khaled Sheikh Mohamed, the senior al Qaeda operative, 9/11 plotter and beheader of Samuel Pearl, on trial in a federal court in New York — raising the ghastly prospect of a jihadi circus. He happened to announce his decision, however, just days after the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, when shouting 'Allahu akhbar' Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a murderous shooting spree, killing thirteen and wounding thirty others; and a few weeks before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a plane over Denver with a bomb in his underpants.

For fifty minutes after his arrest, Abdulmutallab reportedly divulged important intelligence about his training in Yemen. Then some genius in the Obama administration decided he was not an ordinary criminal suspect, and he was read his 'Miranda' rights and provided with a lawyer — whereupon he promptly clammed up.

There is no mistaking Shawcross's passionate belief that, through such vacillations, the west is paralysing itself in the face of a ruthless and very focused enemy. But he also fully acknowledges the sharp dilemmas in trying to reconcile justice and security. Both he and Lipstadt, indeed, restrain their obvious emotions to write fairly and judiciously about one of the greatest questions of our times — how a society should respond to immense evil without, on the one hand, compromising its principles or on the other committing national suicide.

Contact her at melanie@melaniephillips.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, February 27, 2012.

The End of Arab Palestine
by Michael Freund

I never thought I would say this, but those of us on the Israeli Right owe a debt of gratitude to Mahmoud Abbas. By forging a unity agreement with Hamas earlier this month in Doha, Qatar, the Palestinian Authority president has inadvertently corroborated one of the central tenets of our political philosophy: the Palestinians cannot and must not be granted a state.

Ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, we have warned against the establishment of a Palestinian entity alongside Israel... Repeatedly, we have pleaded with the public to recognise the dangers inherent in dividing the land of Israel and placing the heart of the country within our foes' artillery range. Time after time, we have insisted that an independent Palestine would be swept up by the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism and become an outpost for Iranian-style extremism.

It has often been an uphill battle, as much of the media and the international community has prodded and pressed to give the Palestinians a state of their own, seemingly without regard for the consequences.

But earlier this month, Abbas delivered decisive and irrefutable corroboration of everything the Right has been saying for nearly 20 years.

...However dangerous this development might be on the ground, it does present a significant opportunity in terms of Israel's public diplomacy. Simply put, Abbas's embrace of Hamas should be used to make a strong case against the prevailing notion that a "two-state solution" can bring about peace.

After all, the mirage of moderation surrounding Fatah and the Palestinian Authority is now unambiguously on display as little more than a figment of the Left's imagination.

We must make the case that this is the end of Palestine, the death knell of the delusion that the Palestinian leadership was interested in reconciliation, compromise and peace. If Abbas and his cohorts truly wished to see an end to the conflict, they would not have joined hands with those who advocate endless confrontation. By affixing his signature to the unity deal, Abbas has therefore settled the argument once and for all.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Israel is the only country where the ruling national majority, Jews, actively disallowed by their own government to take position of the properties owned by their families. After six decades of independence Israeli government is still living the life of a 'ghetto Jew' in fear of offending enemies and fake friends!

Jews are Almost Lynched in Jerusalem 

Two Jews were travelling to Mount Scopus in Jerusalem when they accidentally made a wrong turn and ended up stuck in a traffic jam between two Arab cars a week ago. A crowd of Arab youths then showed up and began throwing rocks at them. In recent months, Arabs have attacked Jewish motorists with rocks, in what is starting to again become a common phenomenon on the roads of Judea and Samaria. (Jews are terrorised and living in fear in their own country. When will the Israeli government end this idiocy?)

Apology is a Pathetic Display of Defeat

The US has apologised for inappropriate treatment of religious material in Afghanistan, after hundreds of angry Afghans protested over reports that US forces burned copies of the Quran, even before investigation. Hundreds of protesters earlier besieged the Bagram airbase, about 60Km north of the capital Kabul, chanting calls of "death to America," and firing slingshots and petrol bombs at the gate of the base. Preliminary information showed that Quran copies had not been burned! (Inmates used copies of the Quran for passing messages and Islamic propaganda. No protests against these acts of desecration! Christians are systematically killed and abused by Muslims. Even transit passengers in Arab countries' airport are not immune. Have you even heard an apology?)

Hevron Survivor Died Without Seeing His Land Returned

Yaakov Castel, one of the last remaining survivors of the 1929 Hevron massacre, passed away. His dream of restoring his family's home in the city remained unfulfilled. Castel survived the brutal massacre of Hevron's Jews at the hands of an Arab mob as a young child. Survivors of the massacre were expelled from Hevron by the British. When Jordan seized control of the city in 1948, their homes were given to Arab families. Castel owned a book detailing his family's rich history, which has included more than 500 years living in Gaza and then Hevron following the expulsion of Jews from Spain. At the time of the Hevron massacre the family had been in Hevron for generations.

Time to Take Sinai Back

The Islamist party that leads the new Egyptian Parliament is threatening to review the 1979 peace treaty with Israel if the United States cuts off aid to the country. The Obama administration and Congressional leaders have already warned Egypt that the United States might cut off its annual aid to the country, which in the most recent budget came to $1.3 billion in military supplies and about $250 million in other subsidies. Egyptians have long considered American aid as a kind of payment for preserving the peace despite the popular resentment of Israel.

UN is not in Rush to Condemn Iran

Three Iranians detained after accidentally setting off explosives in Bangkok. Citing the similarity of bombs used in New Delhi and Tbilisi, national police chief Gen. Prewpan Dhamapong said that Thai authorities now "know for certain that (the target) was Israeli diplomats." Israel's UN ambassador said the Security Council should condemn the attacks quickly. (The UN is too busy to adopt pro-Islamic, anti-Syrian resolutions)

Nuclear Iran: Words and Action

Tehran hardened its nuclear and military policies in defiance of tougher sanctions and ahead of international nuclear talks. The threat by Iran's armed forces deputy chief Gen. Mohammad Hejazi of a preemptive strike against its "enemies," was accompanied by its refusal to allow UN nuclear watchdog inspectors to visit the Parchin facility. Western and Israeli intelligence experts have concluded that the transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to the underground Fordo site near Qom has shortened Iran's race for the 90 percent (weapons) grade product to six weeks.

Protect Us or We'll Protect Ourselves

Attacks by Arabs on Israeli drivers have been on the rise since last year. At least three Jewish women were the victims of violent carjackings in the last seven days alone. Each of the women was forced off the road when it was blocked by armed PA Arabs, then dragged roughly from her vehicle by the attackers and thrown down on the road, while they made off with her car. Dozens of residents of the Shomron town of Kedumim responded by blocking PA drivers from merging onto Route 55. "We expect the army and police to focus on preventing these kind of incidents." " If they do not," protesters added, "we know how to defend ourselves."

Quote of the Week:

"As long as Nazi violence was unleashed only, or mainly, against the Jews, the rest of the world looked on passively and even treaties and agreements were made with the patently criminal government of the Third Reich... The doors of Palestine were closed to Jewish immigrants, and no country could be found that would admit those forsaken people. They were left to perish like their brothers and sisters in the occupied countries..." — Albert Einstein

Boy May Never have been Shot in the First Place

Jamal al-Dura, whose 12-year-old son Muhammad was purportedly killed in 2000 in an exchange of fire between Israeli and Palestinian forces in Gaza and who became a symbol of the Second Intifada. sued French-Israeli Dr. Yehuda David for libel, and ultimately lost...

At the start of the Palestinian uprising in 2000, a French television network broadcast a minute-long clip of the boy purportedly being shot in an exchange of fire between Israelis and Palestinians in central Gaza. The voiceover indicated that the boy was killed by Israeli soldiers, but an investigation later suggested that Palestinian fire had killed him. Many others claimed the entire event was staged and the boy was never shot in the first place. In an effort to bolster his claim that Israelis had killed his son, Jamal al-Dura, the boy's father, presented his own bullet scars, which he claimed were sustained during that same incident. But Dr. Yehuda David refuted al-Dura's claim, saying he himself had operated on al-Dura in 1992, eight years before the incident, and al-Dura already had been scarred then (allegedly as a result of Hamas attacking him over suspicions he had cooperated with Israel)...

David said that he believed that the damage caused by those famous images of 12-year-old al-Dura supposedly being shot as his father holds him can be repaired, despite the global storm surrounding the incident. "There is always room for repair," he said. "Someone once told me something that I think is true: The Dreyfus trial wouldn't have been remembered if he had lost on appeal. It is remembered because he won. That's how this will be. With this victory we have turned over a new leaf in public diplomacy with the Palestinians"...

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated David, saying "You are a shining example of Israel's battle for truth and of our nation's confidence in our righteous path. You have done the people of Israel a great service." (Several years ago I was confidentially told that Israel's government knew that Muhammad al-Dura was alive and living with his relatives. The government of Israel needs to start fighting the anti-Israel propaganda war in order to lift the moral of Jewish people and their belief in reunification of the Jewish national homeland, Eretz-Israel!)

Note: Three senior French journalists who saw the raw footage in 2004 said it was not clear from the footage alone that the boy had died, and that France 2 cut a final few seconds in which he appeared to lift his hand from his face. France 2's news editor said in 2005 that no one could say for sure who fired the shots, but other commentators, including the director of the Israeli government press office, went further, saying the scene had been staged by Palestinian protesters.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 27, 2012.

1. Zionism's Greatest Achievement (re-posting)

In some ways it is a depressing period in Jewish history. The American Jewish Diaspora community, or at least the non-Orthodox bulk therein, is in the process of committing cultural/national/religious suicide. Most American Jews are indifferent to their Jewishness; intermarriage is close to and may be above 50 percent; and the dominant "religion" of the American non-Orthodox Jews is the pseudo-religion of Liberalism-as-Judaism, its chief tenet being that Judaism is nothing more nor less than the political agenda of the American Left, never mind that this agenda is totally bankrupt intellectually on its own demerits. The Reform movement, the Deconstructionist Reconstructionists and many Conservatives (as in Conservative synagogues) are simply religious liberals, with political liberalism as their dogma.

The "defense" organizations, American Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith, et al, are also largely devoted to the practice of political liberalism as pseudo-religion.

And then we have the chattering classes in Israel — the media and intelligentsia and literati — devoted to seeing Israel weakened and dismembered.

In these days of frustration, I think there is one idea that we should bear in mind. And that is that the Zionist movement has many fantastic accomplishments under its belt, one of the most important of which is that Zionism forced a major change in the nature and expression of anti-Semitism.

Not that anti-Semites are really any different when they hide behind the mask of anti-Zionism. These are the same gutter bigots, the same people who refuse to acknowledge that Jews are humans, that Jews are entitled to rights and equality. But they have been forced to express their bigotry differently.

This should be obvious any time you observe the campus anti-Semites of the Left, the Arab fascists and the self-hating leftist Jewish anti-Semites demonstrating against Israel.

For centuries, the slogans of the anti-Semites were that Jews were racially inferior, intellectually inferior, cowards, money-grubbers, killers of God, sub-humans.

But observe the main slogan of anti-Semites today: The Jews are mean. They are mean to the poor Palestinians. Ooooh, soooo mean.

What a marvelous transformation! The main calumny thrown at the Jews is that they are bullies, meanies. What greater accomplishment of Zionism could be imagined?

Of course, this does not mean that the anti-Semites really think that the Jews are mean or cruel to the "poor" Palestinians. The anti-Zionists do not give a damn about the Palestinians, and the last thing they care about is Arab human rights. This is why they have absolutely nothing to say about the treatment of Arabs in Arab countries or by the Palestinian Authority's Gestapo.

When Saddam Hussein ordered Kuwaiti civilians to be forced to drink gasoline and then had his troops shoot into their bellies to make them explode (to the cheers and laughs of his stormtroopers) there was not a single anti-Zionist who expressed disapproval or concern. The anti-Zionists know perfectly well that Arabs are treated a thousand times better in Israel (and this would be so even if one were to believe all their accusations and allegations of mistreatment) than are Arabs in Arab countries.

The anti-Semites lament supposed Israeli mistreatment of the "poor" Palestinians because they think this is an effective way to delegitimize and undermine the existence of Israel. In other words, they are motivated by hatred of Jews and not by any compassion for Palestinians. They seek to see Israel destroyed, not the Palestinians enfranchised, or rather their only interest in Palestinian enfranchisement is as a tool to endanger Israel's existence. Of the enormous Arab territories of the Middle East, almost twice the land mass of the United States, the only place where they suddenly are concerned for the welfare and civil rights of Arabs is in Israel. The other Arabs, as far as they're concerned, can go to hell.

And if they can accuse Israel of violating Arab civil rights (never mind that their accusations are false and invented) then they can pretend to be compassionate and interested in peace, not gutter bigots who hate Jews.

The anti-Semites have lost their ability to march about and accuse the Jews of ritual murders and similar medieval libels (at least outside the Arab media and Counterpunch magazine). Such things would make them laughable in the West. No one outside the Arab world takes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as anything other than an embarrassment for anti-Zionists. Hence they have seized onto a new propaganda tactic, complaining that the Jews are oh, so mean and cruel — and bullies to boot.

At long last — after two millennia of exile — to be accused of being bullies! To leave the anti-Semites with no more effective weapon than heaping invective upon the mean Jews! For this one must say a blessing of thanksgiving, a shecheyanu. And often.

It is Zionism's greatest achievement!

2. An Adar Thought:

As you know, there has been some ruckus in Israel in recent weeks over gender separation among the ultra-Orthodox, or what the media are calling "HADARAT NASHIM" — meaning exclusion of women.

Well, a film crew wondered into a bank in an ordinary Israeli neighborhood, meaning one with ordinary modern Orthodox and secular Israelis, and saw there a case of reactionary gender separation, with all the men in one line and all the women in another. The crew asked the manager how he can tolerate this HADARAT NASHIM and wasn't this just the worst example one can find of Ultra-Orthodox religious coercion and theocratic bullying.

No, you do not understand, said the bank manager. All the men are waiting in the line for depositing money and all the women are in the line for withdrawals.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 27, 2012.

From Sunday 26th to Monday 27th February, 2012, the Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas-Abu Mazen and his delegation participated in 'The International Conference for the Defence of Jerusalem' that took place in Doha, the capital of the State of Qatar.

The Conference was held under the auspices and attendance of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, and attended by General Dr. Nabil Al Arabi, the Arab League Secretary, Arab foreign ministers, heads of international and regional organizations and bodies, organizations and federations advocating human rights, clerics, as well as intellectuals, legal, political and history figures. All the participants gathered to express solidarity with the Arab-Palestinian people in the city of Jerusalem and their claim to have legitimate rights in the city.

The Conference was held under the slogan "support the steadfastness of Jerusalem."

On Sunday evening, Abbas-Abu Mazen, the Fatah and PLO leader, delivered a speech that attempted to deny the ancient Jewish roots of Jerusalem. Abbas had the Chutzpah and ruse to tell the Arab leaders that the Israeli occupation authorities are using the ugliest and most dangerous means to implement plans to erase and remove the Arab-Islamic and the Christian character of east Jerusalem. In 1967, shortly after the Six Day War, Moshe Dayan, at that time the Minister of Defence of the State of Israel, ordered the Israeli flag to be removed from Har-Habayit-Temple Mount, and handed over administrative control, effectively gave over the keys, of Temple Mount, to the Waqf, the Supreme Moslem Council and an Islamic Trust.

The truth to be said is that, since the Waqf was entrusted with the keys to Har-Habayit-Temple Mount, the Waqf's authorities have been doing all they can to remove any and all evidence, and there are mountains of them, that the First and Second Jewish temples stood where the al-Aqsa Mosque now stands, thus attempting to remove any and all evidence that Har-Habayit-Temple Mount belongs to the Jews from time immemorial. In April 637 CE, the Caliph Umar traveled to Jerusalem, in person, to receive the submission of the city to the Moslem conquerors. In 705 CE, the Moslem conquerors built the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as a statement of conquest.

Abu Mazen went on to state that visiting "occupied Jerusalem" was the goal of every Muslim, Arab and Christian, "forgetting" to mention that only since the Israeli authorities took control of Jerusalem, the whole, all religions' worshippers are welcome to the city to worship. He also "omitted" that in 1948, the Arabs expelled all the Jews from Jerusalem, thus made the city Judenrein-cleansed of Jews, and they desecrated all the Jewish sites, synagogues and cemeteries in the city. From 1948 to 1967, Jews were not allowed to enter the city that was under the control of the Jordanian government and were denied worshipping their holy sites there.

The world needs to acknowledge and be proud that Jerusalem, under Israeli sovereignty, has been and will continue to be open to believers of all faiths. Israel allows freedom of worship for all, which was lacking when Jordan was in control of Jerusalem, and Israel will continue to carefully respect and maintain the holy places of all religions.

Abu Mazen carried on and accused Israel of surrounding Jerusalem with "an apartheid wall and a band of settlements in order to isolate the city from its surroundings in the West Bank." He however, "forgot" to mention, that Arab jihad and intifada forced Israel to build a separation wall to protect its innocent civilians from the ongoing onslaught of Arabs' murderous intentions. As for apartheid, Abbas has no idea what is the real meaning of the term Apartheid. In South Africa, where the Apartheid system was invented, the system separated the black people from the white people and it treated the black people as second class citizens. All the black people wanted was to abolish the Apartheid polity and gain equality in their citizenship, which finally took place in 1974. The black people in South Africa did not strap themselves with explosives and blew themselves up in the midst of white civilians' gathering. They did not wish the genocide of the white man. In Israel, the Arabs, who hold an Israeli citizenship, are equal citizens to the Jewish citizens. We do however hope that the Arabs living under the control of the Abu-Mazen-PA gang enjoy the same human rights as the Arabs, holding an Israeli citizenship enjoy. So where is the Apartheid Mr. liar Abu-Mazen?

In his speech Abbas alleged that Israel had made it "almost impossible to obtain" permits for PA Arabs to enter Jerusalem, forgetting to state that each day thousand PA-Arabs enter Jerusalem, weather for religious purposes, personal or commerce.

As part of their war to end the existence of the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab-Moslems, the archenemy of the Jewish state, simply omit Jewish history facts and deny the connection of Jews to the Land of Israel as a whole. The Arabs deny the fact that since King David declared Jerusalem the capital of his kingdom, for thousands of years, thereafter, Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish People and no other people.

In his speech, the host of the Jerusalem Conference, Qatar's Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani called on the UN to investigate the 'Judaization' of Jerusalem. The term 'Judaization' is often used by the Arabs in order to demean the Jewish character of Jerusalem and as one of the anti-Semitic terms they often used against Israel.

In response to Abu-Mazen poisonous rhetoric, the Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu had accused Abu Mazen-Abbas that he knows well that there is no foundation to his contemptible remarks, including his baseless and irresponsible claims regarding the al-Aqsa Mosque. Netanyahu said that the citizenry of the state of Israel expect from the one who supposedly champions peace, to prepare his people for peace and coexistence and not disseminate lies and incitement. "This is not how one makes peace," Netanyahu hollered, and told Abbas that the time has come for the Palestinian leadership to stop denying the State of Israel Jewish past and distorting reality. It is worthwhile noting here that Abbas belongs to the Holocaust deniers' camp.

Though Prime Minister Netanyahu replied to Abu-Mazen with fiery words, he was wrong. Abu Mazen's speech is entirely consonant with the Oslo "peace" process. In the context of Israel and the Arabs, the world has adopted the Arabs' definition of "peace," which means, the destruction of the state of Israel. This process inscribes the death of the state of Israel by a thousand cuts. Anything that tends to reduce Israel, dismember Israel, demonize, delegitimize and demoralize Israel, or defeats Israel outright, is therefore a positive part of the Oslo "peace process." Anything that strengthens Israel is an "obstacle to peace."

That is why the world is outraged by every Jewish home built in land that the entire world recognized, in 1922, as the Jewish homeland but was illegally conquered and occupied, by Jordan, for 19 years. Same "righteous" world could not care less about Jews murdered by terrorists. For this peace seeking world, Jewish blood is Hefker- of no value and consequence. That is why the security wall is an "obstacle to peace" but Arab terrorist atrocities against Jews are not. Killing Jews is making "peace." Preventing it is an "obstacle to peace."

The Israeli leadership must stop whining about "no way to make peace" and deal with the Orwellian meaning that it has been invested with. "Peace process" is today's exact counterpart of "Arbeit macht frei. The slogan arbeit macht frei, is the German phrase that was posted at the entrance of some of the Nazi Concentration Camps, during the Holocaust of WWII, in which 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazi killing machine. This includes the most infamous Camp, Auschwitz, where the slogan was posted on the camp's entrance metal arch that was made by prisoners with metalwork skills and erected by order of the Nazis in June 1940.

The slogan' arbeit macht frei' literally means work makes (one) free, or, work sets you free, or work liberates you. However, the slogan was a deceiving facade for the Jews, the Nazis gathered from all parts of Europe and shipped, in cattle cars to these Camps, to believe they are entering a labor camp, not a death camp. Just like 'arbeit macht frei' camp was nothing more than for a factory of death to all Jews, the Oslo "Peace process" is a facade, its real statement is to kill all the Jews and destroy the state of Israel.

Deal with it.

Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet Jewish Refusenik and prisoner, an Israeli politician, human rights activist and author once said:

When do attacks on a country become anti-Semitic? When the 3D's appear:

Delegitimize the country,

Double standard is applied when dealing with the country,

Demonize the country.

It is obvious that the Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas-Abu Mazen and his cohorts at the 'The International Conference for the Defence of Jerusalem' apply to and practice the 3D's toward the State of Israel.

Deal with this one too.


Mr. Golbert contributed to this article

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at nurit.nuritg@gmail.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 26, 2012.

There is no leader with a record that matches that of Prime Minister Netanyahu with regard to recognition of the dangers of Iran. He was addressing this issue in various forums — again, and again, and again — at a time when most world leaders were paying no attention.

Source: Inquisitr

And there is no question in my mind that he understands what must be done. Sanctions — instituted late and half-heartedly — have not deterred Iranian leaders. "Negotiations" are nothing but a pitiful joke. But Iran cannot be permitted to achieve nuclear capability.

This week Netanyahu is scheduled to travel to North America, and, on March 5, will be meeting President Obama — who does not exactly see eye-to-eye with him on this issue. For all the public declarations by US officials meant to assuage concern and demonstrate that the US and Israel are on the same wavelength regarding Iran, it is clearly is not the case. The US does not want Israel to attack Iran.


Just how far apart on Iran the US and Israel appear to be is demonstrated by an article in Israel Hayom today. A "deeply troubling" International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) quarterly report released on Friday indicated "Iran had increased the pace of its uranium enrichment program in recent months at the Natanz facility in central Iran and the Fordo underground facility near the ancient holy city of Qom."

In response to this, the prime minister's office released a statement:

"The IAEA report provides more proof that Israel's estimations were accurate. Iran is continuing with its nuclear program unchecked and is enriching uranium to a high level of 20 percent while blatantly ignoring the demands of the international community."

This sheds light, at one and the same time, on what Iran is doing and the failure of the community to stop it.


However, "according to US media reports over the weekend, US intelligence officials stated that there is no definitive proof that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon." On January 19, at a press conference in the Netherlands, Netanyahu stated unequivocally that Iran had already decided to build a bomb. But in any event this intelligence statement is meaningless: For it has been explained repeatedly that the concern is that Iran will develop the capacity to build a bomb, such that it will be able to do so in six months to a year once that decision is made. And evidence makes it quite clear that the capacity is being developed — Iran has gone well beyond anything that would be needed for peaceful purposes. This US intelligence statement feels like an attempt to downplay the danger. And the Secretary of State? In a statement to Reuters TV from Tunisia, she offered one of her classic observations that tends to make you want to bang your head against the nearest wall: "We continue to urge Iran to abide by its international obligations, and that is something that countries everywhere do, and we want to see them do it, and we hope that they will be listening." http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=3266 No wonder the Iranians think they can proceed with impunity.


As much as Netanyahu is to be given credit for his clear-eyed position on Iran, however, he also has a reputation for caving under pressure from the US. (Consider, for example, the 10 month freeze he imposed on building in Judea and Samaria.) And there is no doubt that Obama will apply every possible pressure when they meet. To date, Netanyahu has given no indication of caving, and it may well be that this existential issue is a genuine red line for him. He has made public statements in response to international pressure — "stop telling us what to do," etc. — that are encouraging. And his most recent release today is in line with the others. Nevertheless, the situation is worrisome.


For this reason, I ask every one of you on this list who agrees that Israel has a right to defend herself as her leaders see fit — without interference from the US — to please write to Prime Minister Netanyahu now. A short, succinct and positive message, please. Something like this, in your own words:

You are to be congratulated for recognizing the dangers of Iran as other world leaders have not. It is clear that you understand that Iran cannot be permitted to become a nuclear power. I implore you, do not let President Obama pressure you or dissuade you from your path.

If you are Israeli, tell him you count on him, as your prime minister, to keep this nation safe. If you are American, tell him that you do not agree with the position of your president.

E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses

Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)


As I have mentioned before, the question of timing of an attack is critical — and there is disagreement between Israel and the US regarding how long it is possible to wait before attacking. Obama and Netanyahu will likely focus on precisely this issue.

The US maintains that sanctions can work but need more time. On this see Dore Gold, who says precedents of other nations against whom sanctions were levied indicate that it would take some nine to 12 years in the case of Iran, while it is predicted that Iran will be nuclear in somewhere between several months and two years.

Israel sees a closing window of opportunity for attack because Iranian nuclear facilities are in the process of being hidden deeper underground in very highly fortified bunkers, which will make it more difficult to hit them.

Totally aside from military considerations, there are peripheral political issues in play, and they should not be discounted either.


From YNet, we have this:

"...the prime minister's associates are engaging in contacts vis-à-vis the White House, aimed at drafting a joint Israeli-American declaration on Iran, to be issued in the wake of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting." This is particularly important to the US in order to demonstrate that the two nations are on the same page.

Netanyahu, says this report, is seeking a commitment from the US to "further tighten sanctions," which the Americans are considering. If the goal is to stop Iran without resorting to military action, it would seem to me that this should be a given. But the US, reportedly, would do this only as quid pro quo: the Obama administration wants a commitment from Israel not to strike Iran in the "near future" (however this is defined).

Please keep in mind that whatever reports such as this indicate, we will not actually know what goes on in discussion between Netanyahu and Obama. Only they and a very small cadre of insiders will know. We simply cannot predict how this will play out. As unlikely as it seems to many observers here, it is possible, for example (and this is purely speculative), that Obama will tell Netanyahu that if he waits absolutely as long as possible to give sanctions a chance, and it then becomes necessary for Iran to be attacked anyway, the US will provide back-up and additional weaponry for Israel.


Netanyahu has apparently ordered his ministers to deliver no public statements about Iran prior to his visit to the US. This is absolutely as it should be. There has been entirely too much talk already at official levels.

The prime minister has also temporarily halted all construction beyond the Green Line so as to not risk incurring the anger of the US while he is the midst of sensitive discussions.
See: http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=55849

That the situation should be this tenuous is regrettable: we have a right to do this building. But, if the halt is truly temporary, I would say that it is understandable, in light of the weight of the issues to be discussed in Washington.


Before moving on, I want to clarify one additional point:

Those Americans who are opposed to an attack on Iran not infrequently voice concern that America is about to be involved in an extensive ground war in Iran — something that would not be sustainable in light of similar recent US experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But this is simply not the case.

No one is suggesting that Iran be conquered and its regime overthrown! No one wants to go looking for the mullahs in hiding or the Revolutionary Guard leadership. That, indeed, would require ground troops battling for a lengthy period. All that is envisioned is a massive bombing operation that would take out key nuclear installations and, most likely, other military installations (launching sites, communications centers, whatever) to prevent a major Iranian response. What had to be done would be accomplished by planes and missiles.

Nor is there reason to think that the US would have to send troops into Iran to deal with any possible response from Iran. Simply not the case.


Here I want to call the attention of my readers to an article by Lenny Ben David, "Syria's Arsenal of Unconventional Weapons Must Be Destroyed":

"Public reports claim that Syria has hundreds of long-range Scud B, C and D (the Korean No-Dong) missiles, and dozens of launchers — - one of the largest ballistic missile forces in the Middle East, according to the CIA. Some of the missiles are equipped with cluster-bomb warheads suitable for dispersion of chemical weapons. The reports list the bases where the missiles are stored as well as those bases where chemical and biological weaponization is carried out. Indeed, some of the chemical warfare activity is done in cooperation with Iran, which provides training and the equipment. (Emphasis added)

"A CIA study released in 2010 stated, 'Syria has had a CW [chemical weapons] program for many years and already has a stockpile of CW agents, which can be delivered by aircraft, ballistic missiles and artillery rockets.'

"Persistent reports over the last decade suggest that Saddam Hussein smuggled elements of his WMD programs to Syria before he fell."

The major concern, Ben David explains, is that in the current climate of extreme instability in Syria these weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists.

"...In Libya, the controlled destruction of WMD and missiles was conducted with Qaddafi's reluctant cooperation. In Syria, the destruction of the stockpiles will only occur if they are obliterated and incinerated by Western missiles, warplanes, and cruise missiles. The blowing up of mustard and nerve gas stocks may result in local 'collateral damage,' but the outcome would be far less than a container of Sarin being sprayed in the Washington Metro, VX dropped from a London office building, or an Igla shoulder-fired missile bringing down a passenger plane near Heathrow. (Emphasis added)

"More importantly, the destruction of Assad's WMD and missile arsenal, which today threaten Turkey, Israel and ships in the eastern Mediterranean, would be a powerful signal to the ayatollah regime in Iran to 'cease and desist' its nuclear weaponization program. It would be proof that indeed 'all options are on the table' — including wiping Syria's table clean."
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/syrias-arsenal-of- unconventional-weapons-must-be-destroyed/


I believe this to be a proposal with genuine merit, which requires traction. As you are able, please share this with your Congresspersons and others in government.

Lenny Ben-David, now a public affairs consultant, served as deputy chief of mission of Israel's embassy in Washington.



-- Last week, a bomb, which had been hidden in a bag and thrown over the border from the Sinai to southern Israel, was intercepted. There seems little doubt that this bomb, which was to be remote activated, was intended to be picked up and utilized for a major terror attack in a mall, bus, or other site. When it was detonated, shrapnel flew from its interior, indicating how serious was the intent to do injury.

-- The Hamas-Fatah "unity" is on hold, with each side accusing the other of being the stumbling block. Not a huge surprise, but a bit of a disappointment, truth to tell. If Fatah does not "merge" with Hamas we're going to be pushed, once again, to sit at the table with Abbas and to make "gestures" to him. People will conveniently forget that Abbas was willing to join forces with Islamist terrorists.

-- In Haifa on Friday night, two off-duty soldiers in civilian dress were brutally attacked by a group of Israeli Arabs, at least one of whom was drunk. The attack took place near the entrance to Rambam Medical Center, where they had gone because one of them was ill. There was no provocation. "Are you Jews?" they were asked, before being attacked by clubs, rocks and planks of wood. They have both been hospitalized, one with spinal injuries and the other with head injuries. Four men have been arrested in connection with this attack, which the police call "a very serious incident."


Last night I attended a major program on Har HaZeitim (Mount of Olives), at the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem. The issues regarding Iran and Syria that I wrote about above had precedence today. I simply want to mention the program here, with a promise to devote a major part of my next posting to this subject.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 26, 2012.

"America's Alibis for Not Helping Syria" is Fouad Ajami's contribution to a campaign for foreign intervention in Syria in behalf of the rebels (Wall St. J., 2/24/12, op-ed). "Alibi," here, implies a criminal's false excuse.

Who needs a formula for acceptable intervention against "the Assad regime's assault on its own people?" The U.S., the Europeans, and most Arab governments, who abhor Assad "barbarism."

Who unhesitatingly supports Assad? Russia, Iran, Hizbullah, and China. They feel their stakes are high [apparently referring to perceptions by: dictators fearing examples set by overthrowing others; commercial interests of Russia and China; ideological alliances of Iran and Hizbullah; and wanting to neutralize U.S. strategic forces].

"Syria is not Libya," say U.S. officials who had favored intervention in Libya. In Syria, Intervention would be premature. We do not know who the opposition really is [i.e., its ideology]. Our arms could end up in the wrong hands. But Assad's hands already grasp the heavy weapons.

Non-interventionists also worry that moving forces into Syria would spill the war beyond it and into Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, and Israel.

Still another problem: President Obama is campaigning partly on having drawn U.S. forces out of their existing two wars. Pushing U.S. forces into a new one would neutralize his point. Besides, U.S. strategic power is retreating. Turkish and other foreign opinion makers explicitly note that.

Intervention would yield a strategic advantage for the U.S.. Removing Syria from Iran's axis would deny Iran [and Russia] easy access to the Mediterranean. "The democracies would demonstrate that regimes of plunder and cruelty, perpetrators of terror, have been cut down to size."

Nor can Assad pretend any longer that his regime is not of a sectarian minority. Indeed, the calls for Sunni jihad against him are rising. It's partly Assad's fault for having release Muslim Brotherhood prisoners into Iraq to fight against Shiites and Americans. The region still needs the U.S. rudder. Otherwise, Syria will descend deeper into religious contention.

There is no mystery over who would take over in Syria, Mr. Ajami contends. It's just the people, encouraged by popular uprisings elsewhere. We should recognize the Syrian National Council as the country's rightful leaders. The Arab states would subsidize it.

U.S. intervention could be accomplished by delivering arms and training, without U.S. ground troops. Given arms and training, and perhaps opportunities to regroup beyond the borders, the defectors could divide the demoralized Syrian Army and bring it down.

President Obama, who had campaigned before on a plank of making the U.S. decline militarily, and declaring U.S. guilt in past foreign policy (which, was denied by Paul Krugman, as I wrote in a prior article), now disassociates himself from advocacy of U.S. decline. Mr. Ajami suggests taking Obama at his word [i.e., at his current word and not his past words and acts], and end our passivity over Syria.

COMMENTS: President Obama can't be taken at his word, because he takes both sides of issues as public opinion shifts.

Calling thoughtful doubts "alibis," without evidence is tendentious. Citing Arab disgust with Syrian barbarism is amusing, considering how barbaric most Arab societies are. (A more recognized writer would call that disgust "risible," to show he has a high class vocabulary.] Their interest in Syria is not humanitarian. I think they object to which faction is being liquidated. When Assad is overthrown, the "right" faction will be liquidated.

European and U.S. abhorrence of barbarism does not extend to genocide or ethnic cleansing by Sudan, Saddam, Kosovo, and against Hindus, Christians, and Jews, nor imposed famine in North Korea and Zimbabwe. Principles invoked to motivate support do not always motivate the invokers. For 40 years, the Assads perpetrated imperialism and oppression, while Westerners "engaged" is being humiliated by them. Suddenly the West has a conscience?

Referring to intervention in behalf of democracy, Mr. Ajami would crown the rebels as the government, without an election. I did not realize that is how democracy works. Neither did I realize that the Europeans and U.S. favor democracy abroad, as they support many non-democracies and finance movements to undermine Israeli democracy and encroach on their own people's liberty.

I do not understand why Russia and China think that they couldn't sell to successor regimes. Could U.S. diplomacy prove to Putin that his country and he would gain more by cooperating with the U.S. against rising new enemies than by pretending the old enemies remain enemies, just as Western Europeans still hate Jews while Islam rises to conquer Christianity?

The example of Libya is peculiar. U.S. intervention there was premature. We did not know who the rebels were. Now we know that some of the militias are Islamist. No wonder Qatar sent military forces there! The defeated Khadafy's arms have been flowing to Islamist rebels in the region. Mr. Ajami cannot say he knows who will command a new Syria regime, nor what would happen to Assad's arms. The U.S. should be concerned what may happen to Syria's weapons of mass-destruction. Mr. Ajami brushes off that concern.

Might the war spread? That could occur no matter what we do.

In some cases of U.S. intervention or approval, Islamists have won elections in Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco, and have become a strong faction in Yemen and Jordan. U.S. intervention costs money we don't have and uses forces we can't spare. Mr. Ajami should suggest increased but better focused U.S. military spending and a doctrine for when to intervene and when not to.

U.S. intervention in Libya involved U.S. forces more than intended but less than in Iraq. The U.S. is preparing for Iranian attacks. Would it be wise or foolish to divert arms to Syria? Certainly Iran's axis would be weakened by losing Syria as an ally. Suppose, however, that axis is replaced by a Sunni axis led by an aggressive Turkey? Would that help the U.S. strategically?

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 John R. Cohn, February 26, 2012.

A striking picture of a large concrete and steel wall separating a village of boxy houses from hardscrabble wilderness nearly filled the Travel Section's first page, a virtual duplicate of Israel's defensive barrier as it winds through the Judean desert. Perhaps, the Times had recognized Palestinian Arab "statehood", now referring to it as "The Country Just Over the Fence".

See also the slide show of the fence.

But the photo that looked so familiar was of the wall constructed between Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Mexico. A visit to Israel was last reported in the Travel Section in January by Matt Gross, who observed that of roughly 200 countries in the world, Israel was the only one he had "absolutely zero interest in ever visiting". While Gross described Israel's defensive barrier as "the sinuous, ominous West Bank separation wall", Paul Theroux reports from the Mexican side of the border no calls for UN intervention, just sorry recognition that security concerns since 2001 made that wall necessary. It is not such walls that are the problem, but the need for them. The story is archived at

Paul Theroux is the author, most recently, of "The Tao of Travel: Enlightenments From Lives on the Road." His new novel, "The Lower River," will be published in May by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.


The Country Just Over the Fence

by Paul Theroux.

A SIMPLE painted sign on a wooden board — "To Mexico" — was propped near the door in the fence, but it was the fence itself that fascinated me. Some masterpieces are unintentional, the result of a freakish accident or an explosive act of sheer weirdness, and the fence that divides Nogales, Ariz., from Nogales, Mexico, is one of them.

In a lifetime of crossing borders I find this pitiless fence the oddest frontier I have ever seen — more formal than the Berlin Wall, more brutal than the Great Wall of China, yet in its way just as much an example of the same folie de grandeur. Built just six months ago, this towering, seemingly endless row of vertical steel beams is so amazing in its conceit you either want to see more of it, or else run in the opposite direction — just the sort of conflicting emotions many people feel when confronted with a peculiar piece of art.

You can, of course, also go through it, which is what I wanted to do. And there was the entryway, just past J. C. Penney and Kory's clothing shop — a door in the wall at the end of hot, sunlit Morley Avenue.

After leaving my car at a secure parking lot ($4 a day), I showed my passport to the United States border guard, who asked about my plans. Business?

"Just curiosity," I said. When he made a disapproving squint, I added, "Don't you go over now and then?"

"Never been there," he said.

"It's 10 feet away!"

"I'm staying here," he said, his squint now suggesting that I should be doing the same.

I pushed the turnstile and stepped through the narrow door — no line, no other formalities — into the state of Sonora, Mexico, where I was instantly, unmistakably in a foreign land. The roads were bumpier, the buildings vaguely distressed; I was breathing in the mingled aromas of bakeries, taco stands and risen dust.

Glancing back a moment later, I could not see Arizona anymore, only the foreground of Mexico — small children kicking a ball, men in sombreros conferring under a striped awning, steaming food carts.

I TREASURE border crossings, and the best of them are the ones where I've had to walk from one country to another, savoring the equality of being a pedestrian, stepping over the theoretical line that is shown on maps, from Cambodia into Vietnam, from Pakistan into India, from Turkey into the Republic of Georgia. Usually a frontier is a river — the Mekong, the Rio Grande, the Zambezi; or a mountain range — the Pyrenees, the Rwenzoris. It can also be a sudden alteration in topography, a bewildering landscape transformation — hilly Vermont flattening into Quebec. But just as often a border is a political expedient — irrational yet unremarkable — creating a seamless no man's land, just a width of earth, bounded by fences.

I am nattering on about this border fence, partly because it is a visual marvel, something like a stockade, and also because, as the guard demonstrated, it calls for a decision. Do you go through, or stay home? It used to be a more casual proposition. Nogalans remember when it was a modest enclosure known as la linea, the line, when the main street between the two towns was more or less contiguous.

"We had a parade every spring," Nicolas Demetrio Kyriakis told me. Nicolas, from an entrepreneurial family of Greek immigrants to Mexico, is a regidor, a Nogales town counselor and one of the advisors to Nogales's mayor. "Floats went down the street and into Nogales, Arizona. A coronation was held on a platform on la linea, and the Fiesta de Mayo Queen was crowned. Both towns celebrated."

That was 30 years ago. Back then Nogales, Mexico, was still a destination for servicemen from big, busy Fort Huachuca, a United States Army post about 25 miles as the crow flies to the northeast. Visitors from Tucson and beyond would pop over for a break from the routine, an opportunity to buy clay pots, sombreros, drink a world-class margarita, and visit a taqueria or sample local food. In the 1940s, cowboy films were made in the area. Hollywood actors crossed the border to eat and raise mild hell in La Caverna, a well-known club run by Nicolas's cousins.

Such was the bond of the two border towns that when the old elegant Hotel Olivia on the Mexican side caught fire in the 1960s, and the situation became desperate, water hoses were tossed over the fence by the fire brigade in Arizona to help the local bomberos put it out, an act of neighborliness that is still fondly remembered by the Nogalans.

But everyone I spoke to agreed that conditions have changed. They said that when soldiers from Huachuca stopped visiting after 9/11 and guards started asking to see passports, the influx of visitors slowed to a trickle. And there was another theme: since the emphasis across America was on scrutinizing aliens, why would anyone wish to become an alien oneself? The repeated news stories of cartels taking over didn't help: cross the Mexican border and risk dying like a dog.

"After the bombing of the World Trade Center, things went down," Juan Cordero, the director of the Department of Economic Development in this part of Sonora, told me. "But it was massage parlors and bars on Canal Street, and curio shops downtown, an old-fashioned business model. Sure, we still had lots of American factories in our industrial area — thousands of people are employed there — but we have just a few tourists."

And yet, here I was, a tourist, savoring the satisfaction of having eased myself into another country to enjoy the difference, with the tourist's presumption that I deserved a good time. And I had the instant gringo's assurance that my country, and my car, were just behind the tall fence at the frontera.

So what can you do with a couple of days in Nogales? Take advantage of its nearness, first of all. Buy cowboy boots, or pots, or folk art. I came away with a hand-carved set of dominoes, some silver coins and cleaner, whiter teeth.

On my first day I had a margarita at the Salon Regis. I asked the bartender about events in town. He thought a moment, then said, "Super Bowl on Sunday."

Dinner at La Roca, which is just minutes from the fence, was pleasurable for my being in the hands of the sort of knowledgeable dark-suited old waiters that have disappeared from most of the world's restaurants. Many have worked at La Roca since it opened (its 40th anniversary was celebrated this year). These men were the stalwarts at the restaurant at my hotel too, the Hotel Fray Marcos. At La Roca I had tortilla soup and as an entrée a Mexican mélange of fresh shrimp from Guaymas on the Sonoran coast. Elsewhere in town, even the smaller places such as Leos or Zapatas offered plates of dried shredded beef known as mochomos and delicious tacos.

I found the Nogalans courtly and easy to meet, grateful to have a visitor to the point where one demonstration of neighborliness was an offer of a swig of bacanora, a drink made from agave and Sonora's gift to the world of drinkable rocket fuel — stronger than tequila.

It is obvious from the empty streets of downtown Nogales that very few visitors stay the night, but I found that overnighting simplified my experience of the place. The Hotel Fray Marcos has mixed reviews but I found it excellent (my suite went for around $80). It was also conveniently near the office of Dr. Jose Saturno, who on successive days worked on my teeth — the full limpieza ($54) y blanquiamento ($250).

There have always been inexpensive dentists in Nogales, but the combination of rising health costs in the United States (and the fact that many retiree health plans don't include dental) along with the availability of cheap real estate in Nogales has created a dentistry boom here, which is expanding to include spa and other services as well.

At Laser Tech over on Obregon Street, Dr. Francisco Vazquez enlarged his dental practice a year ago to include a dermatology unit, and his wife (and mother of three), Martha Gonzales, opened a spa with treatments that included not only massage and steam baths but also "ancient rituals" inspired by the Aztecs, and for good measure hired Dr. Angel Minjares, whose specialties are theology and psychology, for "assessments."

Their businesses are among the approximately 60 dental "wellness" practices here, mainly concentrated in a three-block area all within easy walking distance from the border gate. Most of the patients are American retirees nipping over for the day from Tucson or nearby Green Valley.

Gerd Roehrig, an older Tucson resident originally from Germany, was seeing Dr. Ernesto Quiroga about an implant. What would have cost him $4,500 in his hometown of Tucson, he said, was about a third of that in Nogales. Creating a further enticement, Dr. Quiroga recently invested $150,000 in a 3-D scanning machine for CAT scans.

"I guess Canal Street could now be called Root Canal Street," I said to Juan Cordero, after my treatment.

He sighed. "People are worried, " he said. "They think Nogales is dangerous. You know the expression poner salsa a los tacos?"

Slather sauce on the tacos — exaggerate.

To try to get a handle on just how dangerous my visit was, I asked to meet the Secretary for Public Safety in Sonora and was introduced to Ernesto Munro Palacio, a 6-foot-3 businessman and former pitcher for the Monterrey Sultans, who, since 2009, has been responsible for security in the state.

"Prior to [2009] there was very little investment in security," he said. "But within the past two years Sonora had invested $100 million in helicopters, armored cars and surveillance planes, to find the landing strips of organized crime and the marijuana farms."

Murders are a problem all over Mexico, and they have devastated cities like Ciudad Juárez, which is a cartel battleground. But Secretary Munro said that in Nogales the murder rate has declined from 210 in 2010 to 83 in 2011 and that they are almost exclusively drug related.

"Ask your people if they know the name of one American who's been killed in Sonora," he said. "No tourist has ever been killed in Nogales."

The State Department said that in the two years from Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2011, there were 21 reported homicides of American citizens in Nogales and advises that visitors to Sonora travel on main roads and only during daylight hours. Meanwhile, the Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, who earlier this month said that she should be an "ambassador for Sonora," enthusiastically promotes tourism in the area. I heard even more robust testimonials about Sonora, and Nogales in particular, from the Americans I met seeking dental care, who remarked on the hospitality of the city.

The Bianchis, a retired couple from Tucson I met in a waiting room, were content. "We come here all the time," Mr. Bianchi said. "I got bridgework. And, hey, people are nice."

Nogales is a border town trying to save itself, and I think succeeding. I was struck, walking the city, by the distinct air of foreignness mingled with a pleasing ordinariness — children at play on school playgrounds, shoppers, churchgoers — the pleasures and routines of Mexico. The visible absence of travelers gives the city a greater feel of difference, as do the brightly painted houses that dot hillsides, the result of a scheme by the Nogales mayor, José Ángel Hernández Barajas, who created an Urban Image Department, which provides free paint for any who wish to spruce up their home. He has also created schools and sports programs, as well as teams of street cleaners.

The streets of Nogales are as tidy as any on the American side, and full of surprises. On my way to see the boomtown that lies beyond downtown and the dental clinics, I passed a two-story sculpture of a muscular naked youth spearing a winged reptilian figure sprawled at his feet. Officially known as "The Defeat of Ignorance" ("La Derrota de la Ignorancia"), the statue (designed by the Spanish sculptor Alfredo Just, in the late 1960s) is fondly referred to by Nogalans as mono bichi — "the naked guy" in a local phrase that is partly Yaqui. (Nogalans scatter their speech with Yaqui words that are incomprehensible elsewhere, like buki for child and yori blanco for white man.)

I was to discover that the neighborhoods just across the fence are not representative of the town at large, which is a lesson in how to know another country: stay longer, travel deeper, overcome timidity. Tourists usually stick close to the fence, which accounts for the density of curio shops, and now the density of dental practices. But that downtown of Nogales is misleading.

DRIVING a few miles south with Juan Cordero I saw how Nogales sprawled, with newly built and modern subdivisions near more modest ones, all comprising Nuevo Nogales. "This is the main economic engine driving Nogales," Juan said. The majority of the 32,000 people employed in Nogales work in the Industrial Area in factories making cellphone components, semiconductors, air ducts for jumbo jets. Most of the names are familiar — Otis Elevator, Black & Decker, Chamberlain garage door openers, Rain Bird Sprinklers, General Electric, Watts Water Technologies, Flextronics, B/E Aerospace. Some companies like Kimberly-Clark and Motorola have been here since the late 1960s. The lives and working conditions of such employees are well described in William T. Vollmann's "Imperial," an exhaustive account of an area that encompasses California and Mexico, which in its complexity and conflict resembles the Nogales border.

These are skilled workers. Those without education or manufacturing skills, the so-called campesinos, look elsewhere for work, and often cross the border to find it. Many who end up in the United States without papers are caught, jailed for a period, and bused to the border. This, too, is a revelation from the other side of the high fence.

Nogales is where they are dumped. Peg Bowden, a retired nurse, brought me to El Comedor, a shelter run by American Jesuits near the Mariposa gate just about a mile west of downtown Nogales. Ms. Bowden told me she was so shocked by the savage attack on Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in January 2011 that she decided to do something humane: "I needed to connect with something positive." She joined a group of Samaritans — "a bunch of renegade senior citizens whose mission is to prevent deaths in the desert," and she volunteered at El Comedor, working a few days a week, crossing the border from Arizona.

As a trained nurse she is useful, treating bullet wounds and severe hypothermia and the effects of starvation and exposure — common among border crossers. "Last week we had a girl who'd been lost in the desert for three days. She was 14."

It was another day in Nogales, another revelation for me, and by far the most melancholy. In El Comedor, 160 lost souls, most of them adults, and four small children, were seated on benches, at communal tables, eating breakfast in an open-sided shelter at the side of the road.

Some had been longtime residents in the United States — Alejandro, a restaurant worker in North Carolina for 13 years, Arnulfo a carpenter for 11.

"I spent 20 years in Napa picking strawberries," Maria, an older woman in a long black dress, told me. "My husband and children are there. I came to Mexico for my father's funeral." She was wearing her funeral dress. She couldn't return to the United States, nor did she have a home in Mexico anymore.

They were soft-spoken, humbled and hopeless. A woman in her 20s, Rosalba, had spent four days in the desert. She had blistered feet, a deep wound from a cactus thorn and a severe infection. Some had been caught making their first crossing. Others had been sent home after years in the United States.

The saddest case to me was a woman from Oaxaca. Abandoned, with no money, no prospects and no hope of making a living in Oaxaca, she left her three children in the care of her mother and crossed the border with four other women, in the hope of finding work. Somehow separated from the other women, she was found in the desert.

"It's like 'Sophie's Choice,' " Peg Bowden said.

She accepted her fate, but I will never forget the sight of her alone at the table, a plate of food before her, eyes tightly shut, hands together uplifted in prayer.

I was just a tourist. The fence, which I discovered is less than three miles long, had hidden all of this — the downtown, the factories, the restaurants, the residential subdivisions, the mall, the migrants, sad stories, happy stories.

It's there for anyone to discover, and so simple. It was as illuminating to me as any foreign travel I have taken anywhere in the world. In some ways, being so near home and taking less effort, it seemed odder, freighted with greater significance, this wider world at the end of Morley Avenue, just behind the fence.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, February 26, 2012.

Violence by Arabs from Haifa to Be'er Sheva has grown into new full-blown Intifada, but so far the IDF is holding fire despitedeaths. The increasing violence is forcing the IDF to heighten its presence on the highways, and terrorists, already used to de facto control, may escalate their attacks.

Dozens of daily rock-throwing attacks on highways in Judea and Samaria were recorded the past week, causing massive damage to cars, light injuries and near death. In Haifa, two solders in civilian clothes narrowly escaped with their lives in a brutal attack that police are claiming was not nationalist and was a case of "mistaken identity."

However, the assailants asked the two men if they were Jews before they began viciously assaulting them with clubs.

In the area of Be'er Sheva, the village of Tel Sheva has become a Hamas enclave where Israeli police rarely dare to enter. The government provides armed escorts for Jewish social and health workers who enter the Bedouin-populated area.

In Judea and Samaria, Palestinian Authority Arabs have terrorized women drivers by staging fake car accidents and then stealing their cars.

Two more Jewish residents narrowly escaped death Sunday morning when a rock ambush cut off the highway under the eyes of IDF soldiers in a "pillbox" tower on the side of the road.

The soldiers fired bullets in the air at the rate of only one minute and without any effect, Rivka Nir told Arutz Sheva. She was in a car driven by another woman on their way from Beit Haggai, immediately southwest of Hevron, to Efrat, the largest community in the Gush Etzion bloc along Highway 60.

Faced with the alternative of being attacked while standing in a lane of other cars whose drivers did not want to take the chance of failing to succeed to pass harmlessly through the maze of boulders, the two women decided to "run the gauntlet."

Nir said she encouraged the driver to try to escape, and "she pressed the gas pedal and zig-zagged her way to safety, when an IDF jeep finally approached from the other direction."

Rock-throwing attacks, intended to cause fatal accidents, are the most violent since the Oslo War, also known as the Second Intifada, which began in September 2000, with over a thousand Israelis killed by terror acts. It never really ended, with sporadic violence that has worsened since the Palestinian Authority has failed to force Israel to accept its diplomatic and political demands. These include surrendering large areas of Jerusalem, all of Judea and Samaria, declaring Jerusalem as a divided capital, sovereignty over the Temple Mount and Old City, and the immigration to Israel of five million foreign Arabs.

The IDF's former policy of keeping a low profile in order to avoid provoking Arabs has left a vacuum that terrorists have exploited, particularly on Highway 60, a main artery which stretches from northern Samaria to Gush Etzion south of Jerusalem, and to Hevron-Kiryat Arba and the southern Hevron Hills. Another hot spot has been the main highway connecting Kfar Saba, on the northern edge of metropolitan Tel Aviv with central Samaria communities.

The writing was on the wall late last year, when rock-throwing terrorists scored a direct hit on the windshield of Kiryat Arba resident Asher Palmer, who lost control of his car and crashed on to the shoulder, causing his own death and that of his baby boy.

The police initially concluded that the deaths were due to a routine traffic accident until Arutz Sheva published photographic evidence proving that the car had come under attack by rock-throwing terrorists.

The IDF apparently has carried out of strategy of minimal interference, allowing virtual anarchy on the roads, which already are dangerous due to wild driving by local villagers. Many of them drive without licenses and with cars that have no permit to be on the roads.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu writes for Arutz Sheva, where this item appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 26, 2012.

1. Friends, Comrades, Fellow Inciters!


I believe I have at long last found a formula for ending the Middle East strife and bringing pace to Israel. All we need to do is make thousands of copies of the column from today's Haaretz by arch-Israel-hater columnist Gideon Levy and distribute it in Afghanistan! The article is entitled "Allah is NOT Akbar," although the web version of the article distorted the title to read "Allah is NOT Akbar in Syria," (Haaretz's web coward weenies at work!!), which you can read in Hebrew here:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/1.1650340. The Haaretz English web site has evidently not posted it lest any Afghans see it.

Sure, what Levy meant is that things are not pleasant in Syria, and it is largely Israel's fault because Israel alienated Turkey when it refused to allow its unarmed soldiers to be murdered by Turkish flotilla terrorists, thus undermining the ability to collaborate with Turkey to fix things in Syria.

So there is something of an innocent explanation for Levy's headline, just as there was for those accidental burnings of the Koran in Afghanistan. But several murdered GIs later, we know how much the Afghans care about such excuses.

Therefore I say, let the Afghans know all about Gideon Levy and Haaretz, and maybe invite a few plane loads of Afghans to go visit the Haaretz headquarters in Tel Aviv.

I can see peace breaking out within days thereafter!


2. Meanwhile it is always nice to see Israel's loyal patriotic Arab

citizens displaying their political allegiances. This weekend a group of them held a rally in Haifa to support and defend Bashar Asad. The rally was led by Said Nafa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Said_Nafa), a Druse Knesset Member and chairman of the Israeli (Arab) Communist Party, a party that never quite got around to repudiating Stalin. The rally was one of several to be held by the Committee to Support Syria, a communist party front.

Probably not coincidentally, at around the same time not far away, two young Jews walking in Haifa were approached by ten Arabs who asked if they were Jews and then beat them.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, February 26, 2012.

For obvious reasons, sometimes Jewish pundits feel a need to talk too much such that they end up concocting the case that will be used against Israel. For instance, there's no good reason for Mr. Moshe Dann to pontificate so excessively as this [Dann, The myth of 'private Palestinian land',
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=251330] :

"The question, however, is what constitutes "private Palestinian land" and who decides what is and what is not private Palestinian land? If it is true that Jews are stealing land, this violates Jewish and Israeli laws and values and justifies calls for boycotts, sanctions and even the elimination of the state, since it applies to areas acquired after 1948 as well as in 1967. A devastating moral and legal indictment, it would undermine Israel's moral foundation, its raison d'etre."

First of all, Jewish morals are not the basis of the state. As you, Mr. Dann, recognized, the San Remo Resolution, subsequent treaties recognizing the San Remo Accords, the League of Nations, and the UN ratification recognize the legal basis for the state of Israel. The so-called "devastating moral indictment" your fertile mind imagined will never affect Israel's raison d'etre nor will it serve to "eliminate the state of Israel."

We are the Secular Christians for Zion and we have some sound advice for you: Beware of trapping yourselves on a pedestal for this is precisely what the thieving arabs desire dumb Israelis to do so that they can better topple the Israeli Jew, who, for the sake of talking, enthusiastically confesses his possible fall from grace.

If a Jew steals back land stolen from him, we say more power to him or her! But what is more important for you to understand is this: if a Jew steals back land stolen from him, this will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the right of Jews to take and hold tight to the Jewish Homeland.

Israel's Fathers of Failure set the stage for sharing what was not theirs to share: The Jewish Homeland. Some have referred to these old men as traitors. It's a crying shame that there are so many Jews who are afraid to think such words, let along utter them aloud. But it was the stupid magnanimity of the Fathers of Failure who set the stage for today's warfare and so it has come to pass that the blood of innocent Jews is also on their hands as well as on the bloody claws of the arab invaders.

Funny how non-Christians know this, and some over-talkative Jews don't.

---- SC4Z

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Howard L. Dyckman, February 26, 2012.

This was written by Charles Jacobs and it appeared February 17, 2012 in the Jewish Advocate. It is archived at


Last June, President Barack Obama began to openly court Egypt's anti- Semitic Muslim Brotherhood. Yet, with few exceptions, American Jewish leaders are keeping quiet.

The Brotherhood's spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusef Qaradawi, makes things perfectly clear:

"Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. ... Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

The sheikh who — by the way — was a trustee and fundraiser for the Boston mega-mosque — explains the Jews to his followers around the world thusly: "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption. ... The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. ... even though they exaggerated this issue. ... This was divine punishment for them. ... Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

Obama sees the situation more broadly: Not to engage the Brotherhood, a senior administration official explained, "would be impractical." Besides, he said, since winning the parliamentary election, the MB has been "very specific about conveying a moderate message — on regional security and domestic issues, and economic issues."

It's been a persistent fantasy of Western diplomats that by governing — or even participating in elections — radicals are transformed into pragmatists. Facts show otherwise: Radicals and Islamists across the Middle East, as they vote or govern, have not lessened their virulent hatred of Jews, their antipathy toward democracy, or their horrid treatment of Christians, women and gays. As Professor Barry Rubin points out: The radical nationalist PLO — given money, guns and power — has not moderated; Hamas won an election in Gaza, yet still wants to commit genocide on Jews; Hezbollah won an election in Lebanon and has not moderated; Turkey's Islamists, now in power, adopted an anti-Western foreign policy that backs radical Islamists; and Egypt itself seems set to violently return its Christian minority to pre-colonial "dhimmi" serfdom. "Where," Rubin asks, "is the renunciation of past extremism, the reinterpretation of Islamic texts to justify a totally different worldview?"

The Muslim Brotherhood is unlikely to moderate because its core doctrine is Islamic supremacy: Democracy is not in its DNA. Sayyid Qutb, the Brotherhood's chief ideologue, saw the collapse of the world's last Muslim empire in Turkey. He taught that Islamic civilization had crumbled because it had strayed from its original path. His solution — and the foundational principle of the MB — is a return to the flawless, unspoiled beliefs and practices of the Prophet Muhammad.

Since its founding in 1928, the Brotherhood has spawned practically all modern jihadist movements. Hamas is its branch in Palestine. The Muslim American Society- the organization that runs the Boston mega mosque — is said by federal authorities to be its front group in the United States. The Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Qaradawi, says it must destroy Israel and then conquer Europe and America. The Brotherhood's ultimate goal is to impose Sharia law worldwide and create a global caliphate.

The Brotherhood is not "only" out to destroy Israel: It has from the start expressed genocidal intention toward the Jewish people. During World War II, the organization distributed Nazi-funded Arabic copies of "Mein Kampf " ("My Struggle" is uncannily close to "my jihad") throughout Palestine to inspire the Arab troops to slaughter Jewish immigrants.

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first defended working with the MB, she promised that in any contacts with them, "we will continue to emphasize the importance of and support for democratic principles and especially a commitment to non-violence, respect for minority rights, and the full inclusion of women in any democracy."

Clinton's support for these principles went unnoticed in Cairo on Oct. 9, 2011, when Christians were massacred by Islamist thugs. And it goes unnoticed every time Qaradawi calls for killing the world's Jews. Instead the Administration has recruited this would-be genocidaire to mediate its negotiations with the Taliban.

Since the Obama Administration seems intent on working with today's Hitlerites, it's not surprising that US aid continues to flow to the Palestinian Authority after the PA announced a unity deal with the Brotherhood's Hamas branch. Preventing American dollars from funding Hamas is clearly a national Jewish issue. Yet so far, the only national Jewish organization that has challenged Obama on this betrayal of the Jewish people has been the valiant Zionist Organization of America.

But Obama's outreach to Muslim anti- Semites is no less an issue right here, for Boston's Jews.

It is Massachusetts Senator John Kerry who has become the point man for the president's push to build ties with the MB in Egypt. In December, Kerry met with the top officials of the Brotherhood's political party. The senator said he "welcomed the results of Egypt's first democratic elections," which gave 40 percent of the vote to the MB and another 24 percent to the even-more radical Salafi al-Nour Party. Then he urged the International Monetary Fund to fund the MB. US dollars ($55 billion) account for nearly 20 percent of IMF's worth. So now, a Massachusetts senator is helping to send US dollars to people religiously committed to killing Jews — yet I am not aware of any Jewish leader here lodging a protest against him.

And of course, there is that still simmering issue of the Saudi-funded megamosque in Roxbury, built in part with funds raised by Qaradawi, who - because he was banned from setting foot in America by President Bill Clinton — had to raise money for the mosque among Boston Muslims via video broadcast to a gathering at the downtown Sheraton. Since then, thinking about his own end time, he's expressed this delightful wish: "I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus I will seal my life with martyrdom." Here too, there is silence from our local Jewish community and religious leaders.

Contact the poster at dyckman@dyckman.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, February 25, 2012.

The Egyptian Gama'a al-Islamiyya plans to sue the Egyptian Interior Ministry because members of the organization were "tortured by the State Security Bureau in the last three decades," according to a statement this week by Alaa Abul Nasr, secretary general of the Gamaa's new Building and Development Party.

Gama'a al-Islamiyya, or the Islamic Group, one of the original affiliate groups of the al Qaeda network, was responsible for a wave of terrorism both inside Egypt and abroad in the 1980s and 1990s that elicited a sustained and brutal response from the Egyptian security services.

In his statement, Nasr added that some of the Gamaa members rounded up in the government crackdowns have gone "missing until this moment." He further noted that many of the interior ministry officials involved in the sweep "are still in power."

The Gamaa emerged as a loose grouping of independent Islamist organizations in Upper (southern) Egypt in the early 1970s. By the end of the decade, Gamaa's groups united under a single banner, and were led by Asyut-based cleric Omar abd ar-Rahman. Rahman was first known for his involvement in a 24-man cell responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. Ayman al-Zawahiri, now the

commander of al Qaeda, was also a member of that cell.

After Sadat's assassination, the Gamaa launched a violent uprising in the Egyptian town of Asyut. New Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak responded by arresting thousands. He cracked down on unlicensed mosques and implemented a state of emergency that remained until his ouster last year.

In 1984, the Gamaa published a radical manifesto titled The Program for Islamic Action. The group launched a sporadic campaign of violence that targeted Christian Copts, liquor stores, theaters, and government mosques throughout Upper Egypt.

By 1992, the terror campaign had expanded to include attacks on prominent Muslim moderates and tourists, in addition to bank and train robberies. There were also several higher-profile attacks over the span of a few years, including a 1992 attack on a tour bus full of Germans in Qena, the first of several attacks designed to debilitate Egypt's tourism industry.

But the Gamaa's activities were not restricted to Egypt. On Feb. 26, 1993, three men affiliated with the group attempted to destroy the World Trade Center in New York. The men belonged to a New Jersey mosque where Omar abd al-Rahman had been preaching. Abd ar-Rahman, who was jailed in Egypt from 1981 to 1984 for his role in the Sadat assassination, was eventually convicted in the US for conspiracy to bomb the United Nations and FBI buildings, as well as the George Washington Bridge and the Holland Tunnel.

While the Gamaa was never definitively linked to the 1993 attacks, its growing ties to al Qaeda were clear. Members gravitated to al Qaeda's new base in neighboring Sudan from 1992 to 1996. Indeed, terror analyst Rohan Gunaratna believes that al Qaeda's "Manual of Jihad," compiled in Sudan between 1993 and 1994, was likely written by Gamaa members.

On Nov. 17, 1997, Gamaa carried out a grisly attack in the southern Egyptian town of Luxor, killing 62 tourists in cold blood. On Feb. 23, 1998, the Gamaa officially announced its affiliation with al Qaeda. Along with Ayman al-Zawahiri (representing the Egyptian group al-Jihad), Gamaa leader Refa'i Ahmad Taha joined Osama bin Laden's World Islamic Front, an umbrella group for al Qaeda affiliates, which publicly declared its goal of waging a holy war "against Jews and Crusaders," imploring all Muslims to "kill the Americans."

With increased support from the West to neutralize its terror problem, the Mubarak regime arrested more than 20,000 terror suspects. Some were detained for long periods of time without due process. Other detainee allegations included torture, beatings, and threats to suspects' families. In the end, the group was defeated to the point that it was forced to concede. The Gamaa's incarcerated leaders called for a ceasefire.

In 2002, the defeated group issued a four-volume set of books entitled Correction of Concepts, criticizing al Qaeda's strategy and tactics. And in June of that year, the group condemned the Sept.11 attacks, in the

government-run al-Mussawar magazine. In the wake of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) attacks on Saudi targets in 2003, the Gamaa called the violence "a series of errors," and implored the faction to "apologize to the parents of the victims." Gamaa member Issam Derbella also published a book in 2003 entitled Al-Qaeda Strategy: Flaws and Dangers.

Former Interior Minister Habib al-Adly, who is now standing trial for killing protesters during the 2011 protests that brought down the Mubarak regime, recently boasted that he had played a positive role in Egypt because he had forced the Gamaa to renounce terrorism. The Gamaa denied that this was the case, however, as Asem Abdel Maged, a Gamaa leader, shot back: "Not even once did the group coordinate with the Interior Ministry or security services."

For Egyptians who recall the war between Mubarak's security services and the Gamaa, Abdel Maged's claims are difficult to reconcile. For that matter, Abdel Maged's claim that the Gamaa "did not kill innocent people" is a tough one, too.

Nevertheless, the former Egyptian arm of al Qaeda now operates under the umbrella of a legal political party that currently has16 parliamentarians and even includes Copts among its members. The Gamaa's historic opposition to Mubarak and its populist Salafi ideology appeal to the public. And in an attempt to harness anti-Mubarak sentiment, the group appears poised to sue for damages stemming from the crackdown against the terror campaign it launched three decades ago.

The Gamaa remains on the US list of terrorist organizations. But like much of the rest of Egypt in the post-Mubarak era, the group is rewriting its history.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and author of "Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine". Contact him at js@defenddemocracy.org. This article is archived at
http://schanzer.pundicity.com/11236/ egyptian-islamic-group-plans-to-sue-interior

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 24, 2012.


CNN had an eight-member news bureau in Jerusalem. Recently it reduced the crew to four, firing four Jews and leaving only one Jewish producer.

Critics perceive the down-sizing as anti-Jewish. CNN claims it merely is moving more resources to the Persian Gulf, as other organs of the media are contemplating.

Critics scoff at the notion that CNN is not anti-Jewish or at least is not pro-Arab. They cite CNN's record:

1. CNN news director Eason Jordan admitted that for exclusive access to news in Iraq, CNN reported mildly about Saddam Hussein;

2. CNN described the massacre of six members of the Fogel family in 2011 as "what the Israeli army calls a 'terrorist attack.'" CNN often minimizes terrorist attacks on Israelis.

3. CNN reporters and commentators made light of Iran's nuclear plans.

4. They depict Arab Islamic terrorism as a minor problem or as like Jewish or Christian terrorism.

5. Chrisiane Amanpour has said that Arab terrorists were like Jewish settlers and Christian preachers.

6. Fareed Zakaria has denied for almost three years that Iran wants atomic weapons. He praised Pres. Obama's original notion of "engaging" Iran and criticized his currently putting pressure on Iranian leaders. Mr. Zakaria thinks that Iranian leaders just want us to talk with them. He denies that nuclear weapons in Iranian leaders' hands would be a big problem, by asserting that Iran's leaders are rational (www.imra.org.il 2/13/12P.

I think that's a crew of eight is too small for concluding anything about CNN policy on Israel. People rush to condemn or apologize without knowing the facts or at least the motives. But they assign motives.

On the other hand, CNN had become so anti-Israel, as to create a vacuum of reporting that Fox News was enabled to fill. Consider the admission about falsely reporting on Saddam.

Consider the minimizing of terrorists attacks on Israelis. I have observed that the New York Times also uses language that treats what the Israeli Army states with skepticism, whereas it seldom treats Arab statements with skepticism. The record proves extensive falsity by Arab statements and extensive probity by IDF statements, allowing for some errors in preliminary military reports. Deception is a fundamental principal of jihad, not that the U.S. media makes that publicly known.

What terrorism by Jews and Christian preachers? Not that all are angels, whereas most Palestinian Muslims approve of terrorism when it advances jihad. To liken Arab terrorists to Jews and Christian preachers is group slander. The differences so far exceed the similarities, that the reporter either is ignorant or mendacious. I believe she simply is biased.

Fareed Zakaria has a good reputation, but apparently prefers make-believe to likelihood. One cannot "engage" with Radical Muslims. They talk in order to deceive. We put off action in order to talk, they talk in order to continue illicit action. This is an old story. With Iran, alone, we have been talking for years, they have been misleading us for years, and they have been violating UN regulations for years. What does it take to convince some media leaders that Iran's ruling class is insincere toward us? Somebody should read that real story to Mr. Zakaria, instead of reading him the fairy tales he repeats. Obviously, CNN does not understand the Mideast.

If Iran's leaders were so rational, would they foster terrorism and would the two top leaders vie for the title of Hidden Imam, who will entice the final triumph of Islam by causing Armageddon?

Mr. Zakaria might want to take notice that Iran fosters attacks on U.S. troops in other countries. That may be rational, but it certainly is evil. Does he understand what evil is and who is evil?


World Vision Australia and AusAID help finance the Union of Agricultural Work committees (UAWC), a division of the terrorist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP). Such aid violates Australian and U.S. criminal law. The subsidizers also incur civil liability to victims of PLFP terrorism.

Both the U.S. and Australia have identified PLFP as terrorist. Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center warned the two Australian organizations to permanently cease subsidizing UAWC and to confirm that it has.

Shurat HaDin uses many countries' legal systems to enforce human rights and represent victims of terrorism. Shurat HaDin finds UAWC a branch of PLFP. It explains that the UAWC executive board is comprised of PLFP members ( http://israellawcenter.org/ from IMRA, www.imra.org.il, 2/15/12).

Watchdog organizations keep finding western governments and organizations financing terrorist organizations. Why do the westerners keep subsidizing their enemies? Are these westerners naïve or negligent?

Organization executives responsible for designating and approving disbursements of charitable funds should be expected to be more diligent about whom they select. Too often they select the most evil recipients. They defraud innocent contributors and undermine western civilization.

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 GWY, February 23, 2012.

The world's apathy-cum-enmity toward Jews hasn't disappeared, it has simply mutated.

This was written by Sarah Honig and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=259161. Visit her website at www.sarahhonig.com.


Exactly 70 years ago — on February 24, 1942 — 19-year-old David Stoliar terrifyingly clung to bobbing debris in the Black Sea. At first he heard screams in the frigid waters but the voices died down. It eventually emerged that Stoliar was the sole survivor of the Struma, an un-seaworthy vessel chuck-full of frantic Jewish refugees.

World War II was already in fever pitch. Against the enormity of the then-unfolding Holocaust, the loss at sea of 768 Jewish lives (103 of them babies and children) was at most blithely overlooked as a marginal annotation.

Moreover, although these Jews fled the Nazis, in the pedantic literal sense they weren't executed by Third Reich henchmen.

This atrocity was the coldblooded handiwork of Great Britain (committed while it combated the Germans but remarkably without compassion for their Jewish victims), supposedly neutral Turkey (whose so-called nonalignment didn't extend to outcast Jewish refugees), by the Arabs (who were openly and unreservedly Nazism's avid collaborators and who pressured London into denying endangered Jews asylum in the Jewish homeland) and, finally, by the Russians (who targeted the immobilized sardine can that carried Jews to whom nobody would allow a toehold on terra firma).

The entire world seemed united in signaling Jews how utterly unwanted they were anywhere.

Such apathy-cum-enmity hasn't disappeared.

Only its form and context had mutated but the essence is still ultra-relevant to the Jewish state.

We're still threatened with annihilation. Nonetheless, unmistakable harangues from Tehran notwithstanding, the international community worries about an Israeli preemptive strike — not a genocidal strike against Israel.

To put it plainly, our fate today interests other nations just about as much as the fate of the Struma's Jews did back then, which (to resort to understatement) was hardly much.

Today's disingenuous post-Holocaust lip-service is invariably accompanied by hand-wringing about lack of foreknowledge of Germany's fiendish plot to systematically exterminate the defenseless Jewish people (unmistakable harangues from Berlin notwithstanding).

What sets the Struma apart and imbues it with extraordinary significance is that from December 16, 1941, until the afternoon of February 23, 1942, its ordeal was played out before the entire watching but unfeeling world. No country could deny awareness of the impending calamity and yet all countries let it happen in full view.

The Struma, then a 115-year-old Danube cattle barge, was a pitiful peanut-shell of a boat packed with nearly 800 refugees from Romania. Bound for the Land of Israel, they desperately fled Hitler's hell and the horrors of Bucharest's fascist regime.

Pogroms and ghastly atrocities had already sullied cities like Iasi, where thousands of Jews were assembled in the market square and mowed down with machine guns. Venerable old rabbis and Jewish community leaders were impaled on meat hooks in town centers.


THE STRUMA wasn't struck suddenly. It was slowly tortured, accentuating with demonic deliberation how disposable Jews were, just when genocide's monstrous machinery was switched into high gear. This 75-day shipboard melodrama underscored the total helplessness and humiliation of Jews without power.

Struma passengers gathered in the Romanian port of Constanza on December 8, 1941. For four days, Romanian customs officials "examined" their belongings. In fact, they pilfered all they saw — clothing, underwear, jewelry and most important, food. The immigrants left on the perilous journey bereft of provisions and medications. But the Struma did carry 30 doctors, 10 engineers and 15 lawyers.

On December 12, the rickety vessel chugged out to sea. After four hair-raising days (instead of the routine 14 hours) the Struma unsteadily dragged itself into Istanbul Harbor. It couldn't continue. Its makeshift motor had sputtered its last. There was no fuel, food or water.

Several passengers held valid entry visas into pre-independent Israel. All others were "illegals."

The hope, though, was that once in Turkey, they'd all be allowed to proceed to their destination.

After all, with Europe in the throes of war, thousands of Jewish immigration certificates (British Mandate permits) remained unutilized.

But the British authorities refused unequivocally.

The Arabs raged and rallied against giving haven to Jewish refugees. Eager to appease pro- Nazi Arab opinion, Britain chillingly declared that under no circumstance could the Struma's human cargo set foot in Eretz Yisrael.

Furthermore, Britain pressured Turkey not to let anyone off the crippled boat at its end either.

Obligingly, the Turkish premier argued that "Turkey cannot be expected to serve as a refuge or surrogate homeland for people unwanted anywhere else."

Thus hundreds were imprisoned in narrow, unventilated confines. A sign saying "Help!" was suspended over the Struma's side. One of the visa-holders, who after weeks was allowed ashore, described the boat as a "floating coffin."

The freezing hull below reeked, but there wasn't sufficient room on deck. Refugees took turns to climb up for a breath of air. There was no sleeping space for all, no infirmary, no galley, no bathing or sanitary facilities. Minimal food rations, provided by local Jews, were smuggled aboard after enough Turkish palms were greased.

An official Jewish Agency appeal, forwarded to the British on January 19, 1942, stressed that the Struma transported refugees escaping the most tangible threat of massacre. The Mandatory authorities didn't even dignify the Jewish Agency with a reply.

On the next day, the Struma's 35th in Istanbul, the Wannsee Conference opened in suburban Berlin to formally decide on "the final solution for the Jewish problem." Hitler surely hadn't overlooked this latest demonstration of utter callousness toward hapless Jews.

The British didn't bother to answer ensuing emotional Jewish Agency entreaties on January 30 and February 10. Then they acquiesced to the entry of four visa-holders, who only at this point were permitted to disembark. More news of the dreadful conditions on the Struma now came out.

The new British line was that the Struma's refugees were suspect Nazi agents because they came from enemy territory. The assertion that the Germans' most hideously persecuted victims were their tormenters' spies was labeled "Satanic" in embryonic Israel.

In a very long February 13 communication to the Mandatory government, the Agency noted that Britain was helping with much fanfare to resettle in the Mideast thousands of non-Jews — Greeks, Yugoslavs, Poles and Czechs — all of whom came from German-controlled areas.

More than any of them, Jews had reason to be loyal to the Allies.

On February 15, the British announced they'd make an exception in the case of Struma children aged 11 to 16. Wartime rationing was cited as the pretext for barring younger or older kids.

The Jewish Agency guaranteed maintenance for all 103 underage Struma captives. In the end no child was freed.

Meanwhile, Turkey, egged on and emboldened by Britain, threatened to tow the floundering deathtrap beyond its territorial waters.

The Jewish Agency warned that "the boat is in total state of disrepair and without life-saving equipment. Any sea-journey for this vessel cannot but end in disaster."

The Turkish government, however, pitilessly ordered the condemned Struma tugged out to the Black Sea. Hundreds of truncheon-wielding Turkish policemen were dispatched to the Struma on February 23. They viciously clubbed passengers below deck. Despite resistance from the refugees, the anchor was cut, the Struma was towed out and was left paralyzed, to drift precariously without supplies or a drop of fuel.

On February 24, an explosion ripped it apart.

A Soviet submarine, Shchuka-213, patrolled northeast of the Bosporus. Stalking Axis craft, it torpedoed the wobbly barge, which sank in minutes. It's estimated that as many as 500 were killed outright by the blast. The rest flapped feebly in the waves, till they expired of wounds, fatigue and hypothermia. Stoliar alone hung on, semi-conscious.

In pre-state Israel there was shock and grief.

Demonstrations were mounted. For one day all work and commerce were halted and the population imposed a voluntary protest curfew on itself. Posters appeared on exterior walls everywhere bearing British High Commissioner Harold MacMichael's photo and announcing that he was "Wanted for Murder."

The Struma's heartrending end marked the effective end to most attempts to break Britain's anti-Jewish blockade until the conclusion of WWII. A few fishing and sporting sailboats briefly tried to ferry handfuls of refugees. Some of them were sunk. Europe's Jews had no escape left. Embattled Britain took time out from the war to make sure of it.

Stoliar was imprisoned by the Turks for six weeks for the crime of not drowning. He was finally allowed into Mandated Palestine despite MacMichael's warnings that "this would open the floodgates" and "completely undermine our whole policy regarding illegal immigrants."

Today, to most Israelis, Struma is a curious street name in a few towns. Israeli school children barely encounter its esoteric story. Politically correct authors and trendy leftwing filmmakers shun the subject, preferring postmodern portrayals of Arab terrorists as Zionism's prey.

Oblivion is perhaps the greatest sin against the Struma but also against ourselves. If we forget the Struma, we forget why this country exists, why we struggle for its survival. We forget the justice of our cause.

Dimmed memory and self-destructive perverse morality hinder our ability to protect ourselves from the offspring and torchbearers of the very Arabs who doomed the Struma. They haven't amended their hostile agenda. We just don't care to be reminded.

The state the Jews created is threatened with destruction and its population with obliteration.

Yet there's negligible sympathy for Israel and even less practical support to avert tragedy. The Struma's story is seminal in understanding why the Holocaust was possible and why a second Holocaust cannot be ruled out. More than anything, the Struma powerfully illustrates what happens when Jews rely on others' goodwill.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. History, February 23, 2012.

This article is archived at
http://times247.com/articles/fbi-caves-mueller- pulls-islam-material-from-offices


It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed "offensive."

The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered "offensive" but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered "anti-Islam" by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

The February 8 FBI meeting was the culmination of a series of unpublicized directives issued in the last three months by top FBI officials to all its field offices to immediately recall and withdraw any presentation or curricula on Islam throughout the entire FBI. In fact, according to informed sources and undisclosed documents, the FBI directive was instigated by radical Muslim groups in the US who had repeatedly met with top officials of the Obama Administration to complain, among other things, that the mere usage of the term of "radical Islam" in FBI curricula was "offensive" and 'racist." And thus, directives went out by Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Mueller to censor all such material. Included in the material destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were powerpoints and articles that defined jihad as "holy war" or presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization bent on taking over the world — a major tenant that the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly stated for decades.

Contact Dr. History at drhistory@cox.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Uzi Baruch and Chana Ya'ar, February 23, 2012.

"From the moment we entered, the workers stared at us in a suspicious manner, and treated us with contempt."

Elazar Aharoni, a yeshiva student from Ashdod, described for Arutz Sheva's Hebrew news magazine the brutal lynching he experienced at the hands of Arabs on Mount Hermon two weeks ago — an attack that really began with a nice day at a beautiful site, and a ride on the cable car.

"After visiting the site, instead of opening the cable car, one of the inspectors began a confrontation with one of the guys," Aharoni recalled. "After a while we made our way to the bus, but a group of them followed us. We all ran, but I tripped and fell.

"The attackers kicked me and beat me mercilessly until someone arrived and rescued me."

Aharoni required surgery for a broken nose, and suffers from back injuries and insomnia at night. He says that no one from Mount Hermon has contacted him. He added that police have finessed the event, and have not provided his family with updates on the investigation.

The management of the Mount Hermon site responded that the matter has been referred to the police. Police said an investigation into the incident has been launched.

The posters write for Arutz-Sheva, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yisrael Medad, February 23, 2012.

If you read this story from yesterday, about a stoning incident, here's the full first-person testimony:-

What Happened to Me on Tuesday Last
Zehava Weiss, Karmei Tzur

This past Tuesday, 28 Shvat — February 21, I was returning home to Karmei Tzur from Efrat where I work.

At the Gush Etzion Junction I collected a female hitchhiker who got into a back seat since the front passenger seat was where our infant seat was affixed. What luck. While traveling between El-Aroub and Bet-Omar on the ascent I noticed a car approaching from the opposite direction with a damaged front window from a rock that must have previously landed. I naively presumed that that was the result of an old incident that hadn't yet been fixed.

When I came close to the gas station at Bet-Omar (a location that usually requires a driver's attention due to wrongly parked taxis, bypassing and pulling out into the highway in a careless manner), I observed a man running across the road from right to left. I first thought that this was a soldier with a rifle and I slowed down to grasp what was happening. I then noticed dozens of people, old, young and teenagers, congregating on my right. It then became apparent that the "soldier with a rifle" was actually a photographer with a camera. He was seeking a better picture angle to snap away at what was about to happen. On my left were at least two other photographers, waiting for the action. I should emphasize that I was not the first victim and other cars had already been stoned and so these press photographers were well aware what was happening and was about to happen to me. None of them, it seems, thought to call for assistance from the police or IDF none of whom were present.

Knowing I had no choice but to continue and surely not stop for otherwise, if I had slowed down, I would have been trapped and blocked off, the only thing in my mind was to proceed home and not get caught at that crossing. It was difficult to pass through as the rocks came from a distance of just a few feet from the car, 'zero-range' as we say. The rioters clearly could see that the car contained two young females, defenceless. We were struck by many rocks, my view was blocked by the cracked glass and I simply concentrated on getting out of there as quickly as I could. At the time, as well as at this moment of writing, I did not fully grasp the danger of our situation.

It was only when I arrived home that I realized the entire front of the car was covered with shattered glass particles including me, the infant seat, the back seat, everything. There was also damage caused to the sides of the car. At least eight large rocks and blocks had hit my car. I learned the rock-throwing continued for a good few minutes afterwards with the resulting damage to other vehicles as well as psychological damage to the drivers and passengers.

Then I had to tell my children what happened in a normal, non-hysterical fashion so as to prepare them for further conversations that they would hear from grownups talking about the incident.

This is the first time I experienced such a serious and difficult incident as this and pray it is the last. And we have been living in Karmei Tzur for the past eight years. But now I know from first-hand experience with surety that rockthrowings occur all the time, especially on Highway 60 between the Gush Etzion junction and Halhoul. My first-grade son's transportation has also been stoned.

Another point: these terrorists had no qualms about not covering their faces during their attempt at murder.

We try to overcome the fear and to live our everyday life. We are believing people, with faith. After an incident like this we will pronounce the benediction "Blessed is He who Who bestows good things on those unworthy, and has bestowed on me every goodness". We believe in goodness, and that it will overcome evil. We only pray and hope that people in Israel and around the world will finally recognize the truth, that our enemies, the Arabs who fight us wish for evil, they want destruction, while we wish for good and want peace, even with our neighbors. We wish for life.

Yisrael Medad work at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem and lives in Shiloh. He serves as an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish Communities in Judea & Samaria.

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, February 22, 2012.

Breaking news:

Received today Feb 22nd at 12:26pm

Nadia Matar and Yudit Katzover have just been arrested in Netzer

They are in the police van, on their way to the police station being accused of trespassing, while they were attending a shiur in honor of Rosh Chodesh Adar, in Netzer.

Arabs who saw the Jews in Netzer alerted the police, who arrived within minutes.

Sadly, the pressure of Left, the UN and the article by Amira Hess in HaAretz work, and the authorities cave in to their pressure just as they did with the hunger strike of the jihadist.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/rabbi-behind- gaza-museum-suspected-of-bribing-soldiers-1.413856


Rabbi behind Gaza museum suspected of bribing soldiers wing activists questioned by police on suspicion of encouraging soldiers to refuse orders to evacuate illegal outposts by offering them money.
By Talila Nesher

A rabbi suspected of offering financial incentives to soldiers to refuse orders to evacuate West Bank outposts heads the nonprofit association behind the Gush Katif Museum in Jerusalem.

On Gush Katif Day last Wednesday, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar toured the museum, which memorializes the Gaza settlements, evacuated in 2005. The museum is backed by the World Headquarters to Save the People and the Land of Israel (SOS-Israel ), headed by Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpe.

The week before, Wolpe and right-wing activist Baruch Marzel had been questioned by police on suspicion of encouraging soldiers to refuse orders to evacuate illegal outposts by offering them money.

Although the museum's website lists SOS-Israel and Wolpe as being among "the people behind the museum," an SOS-Israel spokesman said on Monday that "there is no connection between the museum, the nonprofit association and the rabbi, other than in the past the rabbi initiated it."

Meanwhile, Peace Now director general Yariv Oppenheimer sent a scathing letter to Sa'ar following a report in Haaretz on Monday that revealed the contents of a curriculum on the evacuated settlements that was taught in nearly 800 schools last week.

Oppenheimer said the phones at Peace Now's offices had been ringing off the hook on Monday with angry callers, "who were shocked to read about the new lesson unit."

Oppenheimer writes to Sa'ar: "In the booklet your ministry is distributing, the story of the settlements in the heart of the Gaza Strip is told in a one-sided fashion, and misrepresents the situation to the pupils. The booklet doesn't make any mention of the heavy price the State of Israel had to pay for remaining in Gaza ... the whole question of the occupation and Israeli control of another people is left out of the lesson plan."

The curriculum, written by the Center for the Commemoration of Gush Katif and Northern Samaria under Education Ministry guidelines, includes a lesson unit called "My Zionism" that uses the Katif Bloc as a test case for Zionism.

The lesson plan calls for students to differentiate between "Zionist activities" and "good deeds," refers to former Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg and veteran journalist Dan Margalit as "extreme left-wingers," and includes an essay by Im Tirtzu chairman Ronen Shoval. No mention is made of the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza except in the context of Palestinian terror.

"Worst of all is the attempt by people in your ministry to revise the concept of Zionism," Oppenheimer wrote. "There is no more fitting way to describe this document than 'political brainwashing' and an effort to dictate a one-sided, right-wing, manipulative narrative."

The Education Ministry said on Monday that Sa'ar "does not know Rabbi Wolpe nor about his connection to the [museum]." The ministry also called Oppenheimer's letter "political and provocative," adding that the curriculum on the Gaza settlements "was formulated by the ministry's professional echelons."

Contact Robin Ticker at faigerayzel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, February 22, 2012.

"In a perfect photograph, there will be as many beauties lurking unobserved
as there are in flowers that blush unseen in forests and meadows."
— Oliver Wendell Holmes


Stroll through a field of wildflowers and there are thousands of picture possibilities. How do I decide where to stop and point my camera? One approach I take is building on what I've done in the past. When I encounter a subject for the second or third time, I look for ways to capture it anew, such as this photo of a Cyclamen in its early growth stages. Cyclamen or Rakefet in Hebrew, are also known as "Solomon's Fire" because they grow like burning fire, their flame-like petals shooting upward, often clustered around rocks or at the base of trees.

If you get out early enough in the season — as in right now — you will see the cyclamen in various stages of growth in forests and fields alike. The biggest difficulty for the photographer is that they grow very low to the ground. This requires a belly-flop shot, lying prone with the base of the camera pressed against the ground, in this case in the vertical mode. It is nearly impossible from this position to see through the viewfinder, so I relied on the camera's autofocus feature to lock on the subject. With my Nikons, I can move the focus point around the frame, selecting the position where I believe the best focal point is located. Composing in the dark is more difficult. I chose an angle which presented the flower with side light and played around with its height so that the petals are framed by the darker greenery in the background.


Nikon D700, handheld, manual exposure, spot metering mode, f4.5 at 1/2000th sec., ISO 400. Raw file converted to Jpeg. Lens: Nikon 28-105 mm zoom in macro mode at 105 mm. Date: Mar. 7, 2011, 8:24 a.m. Location: Ela Valley (south of Beit Shemesh), Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 22, 2012.

Today the news is that IAEA inspectors have left Iran after two days, having declared their mission a failure. This was both because the Iranians refused to engage with the inspectors in addressing international nuclear concerns, and because the mission — in spite of making their request twice — was denied access to a key military site at Parchin.

"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin. We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said.

But "a constructive spirit" is of no value in dealing with these guys, who are playing hardball. Did the IAEA mission really think it would be?

All of this makes me wonder if Secretary of State Clinton would still wax enthusiastic now about the letter sent to Catherine Ashton, EU foreign policy head, by Iran, just days ago, suggesting "step by step negotiations on a principle of reciprocity."


Amir Taheri — author and expert on terrorism, originally from Iran — writing in the NYPost, explains "Why Talks Are Worse Than Futile."

Taheri alludes to the fact that — Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili's letter aside — "Ahmadinejad had already declared last week, as he unveiled the first nuclear-fuel rod manufactured in Iran, 'Our nuclear program is not a subject for negotiations... The Islamic Republic has already become a member of the nuclear club.'"

Ponders Taheri, what would Ashton talk about when meeting with Jalili? In response to his own question, he explains that Jalili, in his letter proposed "a package of measures" focused on matters such as ending poverty.

"According to the Tehran daily Kayhan, published by 'Supreme Guide' Ali Khamenei, diplomatic moves don't alter the regime's strategic goals. In an editorial yesterday, Kayhan recalled that the Khomeinist movement's 'fixed strategic goal' is regime change in the United States. (Emphasis added)

"The editorial said: 'Our late Imam [Khomeini] openly spoke of raising the flag of Islam on top of the palaces of arrogant power, notably the White House ... as the goal and purpose of the Islamic Revolution.' (Emphasis added)

"More: "'have presented the Jerusalem-occupying regime [Israel] as a cancerous tumor that has to be wiped from the world's political map. We have intervened to support Hezbollah and Hamas in their respective wars against Israel.'

"It concludes: 'The final goal, the fixed strategy of Islamic Iran, is the destruction of the capitalist system.' (Emphasis added)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/ iran_rope_dope_0VHQNiNNcTRKtAjuk3B5qM


I hope some Americans are listening! What we need is a critical mass of Americans sufficiently alarmed to push their government into meaningful action.

In an interview with CNBC news, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz revealed that Iran is spending billions of dollars to develop inter-continental ballistic missiles:

"We estimate that in 2-3 years they will have the first inter-continental ballistic missiles that can reach the east coast of America.

"Their aim is clearly not only to be able to threaten Israel and Middle East, but to put a direct nuclear ballistic threat to Europe and to the United States of America."

(Source: Siloworld)


The two experts below examine the efficacy of sanctions against Iran, as currently in place. This material merits a careful reading, and broad sharing.

In "Stopping Iran: Still Too Much Noise and Too Little Action," Professor Eytan Gilboa, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, at Bar-Ilan University, says (all emphasis added):

"There seems to be a lot of psychological warfare at play in the approach of international leaders to the Iranian nuclear conundrum. Public statements of various tones and intensity have of late been made by Israeli, American, European, and even Iranian policymakers. Yet, mixed messages are continuously being broadcast and international powers remain disunited on how to halt Iran's nuclear program. It is unsurprising then that all of this 'talk' has led to no action...

"Ross and other senior American and European officials have argued that the existing sanctions are already working by imposing hardships on the Iranian government and people, thus opening a path for diplomacy. However, their mistake is this: To be really effective it is not enough just to create hardships. To be effective, the government of Iran must conclude that the cost inflicted by the sanctions threatens its survival and is greater than the benefits of becoming a nuclear power. This hasn't yet happened.

"The only thing that might influence the Ayatollahs to alter their nuclear plans is a combination of credible military threats and severe sanctions. But, when the military threat is made to appear very vague — due to mixed and contradictory statements by world leaders — and when the decision to impose tough sanctions on Iran is delayed by months and doesn't include some of the superpowers, Iran can be expected to continue to develop its nuclear weaponry without too much worry or disruption.

"Unfortunately, the West is not yet truly determined to halt the Iranian nuclear weapons program."


In "Sanctions Against Iran — Not An Option," Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger writes (all emphasis in his original e-mail containing this material):

"The term 'effective sanctions' against Iran on the one hand and global political reality on the other hand, constitute an oxymoron, playing into the hands of Iran.

"Effective sanctions require the full cooperation of Russia and China, two strategic rivals of the US...They do not fully cooperate with sanctions invoked against Iran, and assist the Tehran regime, as do some European countries. Furthermore, Japan, India and Turkey have subordinated compliance with sanctions to their trade relations with Iran, as have some countries in Latin America and Europe.

"Each new sanction against Iran requires several months for effectiveness assessment. Thus, it extends the time available to Iran to develop its nuclear capabilities, as well as to acquire critical technologies and systems from North Korea, Pakistan, Russia or China...

"The preoccupation with 'effective sanctions' and diplomacy ignores the gravity and immediacy of the clear, present and devastating threat to the US, posed by a nuclear Iran, independent of Israel's existence and policies.

"Just as Bin-Laden, who had ample opportunities to hit Israel, preferred to hit the US and Western Europe, so does Iran consider the US and NATO (and Saudi Arabia) its top enemies, and most formidable obstacles in the way of assuming domination of the Persian Gulf, and therefore its top targets.

"A nuclear Iran would cause a meltdown of pro-US Gulf regimes through a violent regime change, and/or via a dramatic policy change by the currently pro-US Gulf regimes. Iran's nuclear intimidation of Central Asian (former USSR) countries would tilt them toward Teheran or Moscow and against the US.

"A nuclear Iran would accelerate nuclear proliferation in the Mid-East, the role model of instability, unpredictability and violent regime change — a nightmare scenario for global sanity...

"A nuclear Iran would intimidate Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing Gulf States, threatening the normal operations of their oil infrastructure, dramatically influencing oil quota and price, interfering with — and possibly disrupting — the supply of oil, directly impacting the price at the pump and the level of unemployment in the US and the West.

"A nuclear Iran would bolster its existing beachheads in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Mexico, which host Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran's elite extraterritorial Quds Force...

"A nuclear Iran would provide a significant tailwind to scores, or hundreds, of sleeper cells in the US and Canada, as well as to anti-US global Islamic terrorism.

"The highly exaggerated cost of military preemption — by the US or by Israel — would be dwarfed by the aforementioned threats of a nuclear Iran, in addition to the nuclear threat which would hover above US soldiers in the Gulf and above the US mainland. A regime which sacrificed 500,000 of its own children in order to clear minefields, during the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, is capable of launching nuclear warheads, irrespective of the cost.

"An effective preemption should not be limited to critical nuclear facilities, but should simultaneously devastate Iran's missile and air defense capabilities, thus minimizing the scope of Iran's retaliation. An effective preemption would not include the occupation of Iran, thus distinguishing itself from Iraq's 1980 invasion of Iran, which coalesced all Iranians against the threat to their sovereignty. An effective preemption is a prerequisite to regime-change through domestic opposition, which was disillusioned by the lack of Western support in 2009.

"Refraining from preemption would gravely destabilize the Mid-East and beyond. The only effective way to prevent (Iran's nuclearization and its devastating cost) is to preempt!"

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Rabbi Issamar Ginzberg, February 22, 2012.

Who would have guessed that Anti-Semitism could lurk in the allegedly autobiographical words of a young Jewish woman? But they have, in the memoir of Deborah Feldman and the stories she tells about growing up Satmar.

I don't think that Feldman meant to create this monster, yet the intentions, for good or bad, cannot stop the destruction this creation is causing. Many in our community say we should let it slide, to ignore it because it will go away in a few weeks and is not worth giving a platform to. I vehemently disagree. I think if we don't address this lie we are no better than Ms. Feldman because we allow a lie to spread.

If we allow a New York Times bestseller filled with half-truths, untruths and outright lies to be the uncontested representation of the truth of our lifestyle and a butchery of Halacha, we are doing ourselves a disservice of the highest proportion. The wicked Joseph Goebbels, The Nazi minister of propaganda, used to repeat Hitler's "Big Lie," which paraphrased over time simply says, "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it."

While we ignore Uncensored, and encourage those in our community to ignore it, and say, "Why don't you let it slide into oblivion?" the big lie is repeated and repeated and repeated. Yes. Obviously even negative PR plays into the hands of such a book, because any controversy is good for book sales. But by not contesting the truth and speaking out, a larger evil grows—that of the "Big Lie."

As of today "Unorthodox" is a New York Times best seller, and I'm not surprised. It's a book about us, about religious Jews, with our Yarmulkes and traditional dress, our religiously protective and seemingly mysterious lifestyle. We do seem somewhat mysterious to the general population. Because they don't know the truth, they depend on whatever crumbs of information comes their way. Many of those reading this book already think we are all extremely wealthy. They whisper all kinds of rumors about how we conduct our personal lives, what we believe, how we live—all based on the stories of a young girl who admits she hated, refused and resented everything about her faith, her people and her community. To look for her to deliver a fair and balanced perspective of Orthodox Judaism is to expect an atheist to describe Christianity.

This is not like "kosher yoshke" or another book that we might not like but which doesn't directly impact you and I. This is a direct attack on who we are, on the Torah, and on all that we hold dear.

I do not doubt that Ms. Feldman grew up in a tremendously difficult environment. I do not contest the fact that her decisions and her perceptions in life are hers to make. We must all live with the consequences of our decisions and now it is time for her to understand how her actions have affected all Jews.

I am not attacking Ms. Feldman. I am championing truth. Look around and see how you and your family's beautiful and kosher lifestyle are being put into the average American's consciousness in the most degrading way. If left unchecked, that image of you will change the way practically every non-Jew you come across will perceive you. Is that what you want?

I don't know how I ended up being the person to write this; I'm no great scholar. But someone has to step up to the plate—to take a stand. This is not the time to be reticent.

It was during the lifetime of many of us, or our parents that the first sparks of hatred against Judaism flickered in the darkness—fanned by perceptions, rumors and gossip that the Jews were a super evil and backward cult, both in Europe and in the United States. The coals of the fires of Anti-Semitism have been banked since WWII, but they have never been extinguished. Those who fanned the flames of hatred against the Jews half a century ago, can quickly fan the flames again, intentionally or not.

There are enough well written pieces and reviews about the book and how its author wrote a compelling work of fiction that we should be worried. Uncensored gives a platform to those who envision orthodox Jews with the same paintbrush that allowed the perception of Jews as evil and subhuman "untermentchen". Last time this happened, Hitler herded into the camps and the ovens in Germany and Poland. I am not over reacting.

All mighty oaks grow from small acorns. A liberal media, and a world of readers hungry for criticism of orthodox Jews are watering the acorn this young woman has planted. The well-written and positive reviews of this book are fertilizing an idea, a perception, a fear and a hatred of Jews among nations who do not know us.

This is WHY we need to not bury our heads in the sand and wait for this to just go away. We need to come out and forcefully say, "This is not us at all." It would be even better if Simon and Schuster sees the hullabaloo and call her bluff. If publishers could see that this book is her fictionalized anthology of every camp story she ever heard, along with some salt and pepper added for taste and shock value, perhaps they could see that she is destroying their credibility. The public trusts publishing houses to print the truth as truth and fiction as fiction.

If you and I don't respond by saying (pick yours) "I'm not Satmar, I'm not Chassidic. I'm not Charedi. I'm not Jewish, this doesn't talk about ME!" then let me assure you, the only mark you are making is a mark in the sand that will get washed away the next time the tide comes in.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise. The economy is bad. When people don't have money to spread around they are forced to face the reality of their situation. They create realities for themselves based on the lies of others and of their own fears.

This book has been prepared for publication for a while. Like popcorn, these types of stories and books used to pop once in awhile, and then be forgotten about and become silent. In today's political and economic climate, the popping is not going away.

The sounds of Anti-Semitic stories are being heard more often. The outside world is interested in these stories, and not in a positive way, but in a way they can use to justify hatred, discrimination and attacks upon our faith. With the rise of blogs in which many unhappy (or happy but bored) individuals can share their thoughts, most bloggers understand that unless they post something unusual and attention grabbing, like Ms. Feldman, their aspirations of fame will remain unmet.

They therefore blog, making sure to take a grain of truth (if that) and fabricate an entire story out of it. They then say, with a total straight face, that their fabrication is true, whether it is or not.

When these blogs do take off, the blogger is under increasing pressure to create even more content with even greater shock value. It is the shock value that keeps the readers reading, the media reporting and the comment cravings satisfied. It's how the "Big Lie" gets spread. Say it often enough, say it in enough places, have people who are seen as credible and responsible say it on enough blogs, or on the news and have it go uncontested and pretty soon, it becomes truth to those who don't seek the truth.

I for one, want to be seen and respected for my choices in life. How about you?

Rabbi Issamar Ginzberg is an award winning entrepreneur, business adviser, and public speaker. A scion of multiple Chassidic dynasties and descending from a long line of rabbis, Rabbi Ginzberg straddles the fence of being a member of the insulated Chassidic world and being a public face of a Chassid in the business world. He has been featured in Entrepreneur, Fox Business, CNBC, Israel's Channel One, Mishpacha Magazine, and hundreds of other media publications- all while studying mornings in a Yeshiva and helping to run a Chassidic family. He can be reached at Issamar@issamar.com or via his website at http://www.issamar.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, February 22, 2012.

This comes from the Elder of Ziyon website.


Over the past week, there have been dozens of news stories about the power plant in Gaza City that ran out of fuel. A typical one is this from AP:

Palestinian energy officials say fuel shortages have forced them to shutter the Gaza Strip's lone power plant, causing blackouts in the impoverished territory.

Gaza's energy authority has until recently relied on fuel smuggled from Egypt to circumvent an Israeli blockade. But shortages in Egypt have halted the smuggling.

There is only one problem: The story is entirely wrong. There was no Israeli blockade on fuel.

Israel at first sent fuel to Gaza through the Nahal Oz crossing. After terrorist attacks on that crossing, Israel moved the transfer of fuel to the Kerem Shalom crossing, and even doubled its capacity.

Israel continued to transfer fuel to Gaza, with one week in November 2010 seeing some 1.7 million liters transferred via Kerem Shalom. The only limitations on both power plant fuel and fuel for cooking gas and other needs was Palestinian demand.

Suddenly, in January 2011, that demand disappeared. Hamas started refusing shipments of fuel from Israel. The main reason was that smuggled fuel from Egypt was cheaper — because Egypt subsidizes fuel costs, and the smugglers passed on that savings to Hamas. Hamas, in turn, imposed a 150% tax on the smuggled fuel, turning it into a very lucrative business.

In recent weeks, Egypt started cracking down on fuel smuggling, because there were local shortages of fuel and butane cylinders in the Northern Sinai that were leading to serious unrest among the locals. Egypt, reasonably, cracked down on the smuggling business — a business that Hamas had by now come to rely upon for basic services to work in Gaza.

Even after the current crisis started, Egypt offered to transfer fuel to Hamas through the pipeline at Kerem Shalom, as the Rafah crossing does not have the capacity to handle massive daily fuel shipments. Hamas refused, insisting instead that the fuel come straight from Egypt, bypassing Israel.

Now, Hamas is holding its own citizens hostage, using the specter of hospitals and water treatment plants going dark as emotional blackmail to get a reliable supply of cheap fuel from Egypt.

And during all this time, Israel has been ready and available to send over any amount of fuel that Gaza needs.

It is not only news reporters who are getting the story wrong. Human rights NGOs have completely swallowed the Hamas narrative that Israel is somehow at fault for the shortages as well. Al Mezan said "This shortfall is a result of the Israeli Occupation Forces' (IOF) continued suspension of delivery of industrial fuel" and Oxfam was quoted as saying "Since Israel put Gaza under total blockade in 2007, only limited amounts of fuel for Gaza's power plants were allowed to enter the enclave, prompting the government in Gaza to procure fuel from Egypt through the Rafah tunnels."

Meanwhile, the only reliable source for electricity in Gaza comes from Israeli power lines.

The meme that Israel is at fault for the Gaza fuel shortage is pervasive — and completely wrong. Yet very few journalists and Palestinian Arabs are telling the truth, that Hamas has created and cynically manipulated an artificial crisis to pressure Egypt to provide inexpensive fuel to the enclave, to be taxed handsomely by the terrorist leadership of Gaza.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 22, 2012.


Detained without charges, a Palestinian Arab is hunger-striking for a trial. His lawyers and NGOs deemed human rights organizations have appealed to Israel's Supreme Court to rule against preventive detention before the prisoner succumbs.

Fellow Palestinian Arabs have identified the detainee, Khader Adnan, as a leader of Islamic Jihad. Islamic Jihad has carried out suicide bombings and has fired rockets into Israeli civilian areas from Gaza. The newspaper article describes the organization as "extremist."

An Israeli military spokesman explains that administrative detention is used when sources too sensitive to be revealed inform the government of people who threaten regional security.

The lawyers retort that without hearing the charges, they cannot render a proper defense (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 2/21/12, A8).

The controversy is complex, whereas the newspaper treats it simply, omitting most of the issue. Let's make sense of this.

Islamic Jihad is not just "extremist," it is terrorist. The newspaper does a disservice in minimizing the menace. Hunger striking was a tool of innocent people. Its use by a terrorist perverts the process.

Administrative detention is a wartime measure. Is Israel at war? Yes. Palestinian Arabs have been warring on it since the 1920s. Several Arab states have committed aggression against Israel more than once. Some of them have not made peace even officially. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has made peace on paper but wars in reality.

Not only do Muslims make war on Israel militarily, often by means of war crimes, but they and others, including leftist Israelis, also try to destroy Jewish sovereignty by many other methods. They boycott, defame, engage in lawfare, abuse student rights, seek to censor patriots, and stage unnecessary flotillas.

It is true that administrative detention can prevent legal defense. One has to know the charges and evidence, to mount a defense. That is one down side of the practice.

Administrative detention permits governmental abuse. Does Israel abuse that discretionary power? Probably not against the Arabs, considering how concerned Israel is about being criticized and that it has convicted thousands of terrorists — not relying upon administrative detention. Against right wing Jews in the Territories, however, the government has abused the practice. Dealing with Jewish civilian suspects, often innocent, does not require the military and emergency measure of preventive detention that dealing with Islamic terrorists does. Using that power with them is abusive.

One reason the lawyers appeal to the Supreme Court is that the Court has arrogated to itself the right to overrule anything the government does simply because the judges have different likes and dislikes. Judgment by whim! Most of the judges are far leftists, who generally prefer the Arab side.

Let's elaborate on the government's reason for reliance upon preventive detention. In a trial, the government can be asked to produce its evidence and to name its secret sources. In Israel, the terrorists and their sympathetic lawyers may well reveal the sources and methods to terrorist organizations. Exposing them ends their usefulness. Going further, the P.A. then would arrest, torture, and murder the sources and learn to counter-act Israeli intelligence methods. How does that protect innocent people? Indeed, Israeli national security would be compromised.

Although the defense lawyers in Israel claim they are interested in justice, they would thwart justice. Some defense lawyers in the U.S. also become like Mafia lawyers, using legal forms to thwart justice, but there is much less of it. Therefore, in some U.S. military courts and even civilian ones, the judges could close the proceedings to public view when sensitive evidence is to be presented, without as much concern that the government would be alerting enemy forces. But still there is some concern, and it is legitimate. Some terrorists can evade being tried and get themselves released, by making clear they would fish for sensitive intelligence in a trial.

President Obama assisted terrorist organizations when recently he revealed some details of raids on terrorists. Terrorist organizations can infer much from such revelations. They learn counter-counter-intelligence from it.

There is another alternative. That alternative is to execute captured terrorists other than the most peripheral participants, preferably when capturing them. Remember, terrorists do not fight by the rules of war, they are war criminals, and they do not have the rights of POWs. As a result of executions, there would not be thousands of them to be released and murder again. Execution would remove the incentive for their organizations to capture Israelis to trade for a thousand at-a-time, and it would deter much terrorism. Terrorists gain much of their bravado from knowledge that they may be released and return to a hero's welcome.

Being at war, Israel would have a right to slay terrorists during raids and to execute those captured later. But in the guise of being humanitarian, the world would be aghast at numerous executions. Executions it leaves to terrorists to do. The world does not much care about the victims of terrorists.

For example, Sudan once again is committing terrorism as a form of jihad and ethnic cleansing, now against the Nubians. What do Senators McCain and Graham care about those innocent victims! They propose that the U.S. arm Syrian rebels, lest Assad purge a smaller number than in Sudan. But the rebels surely include Muslim Brotherhood members. If the Brotherhood takes over Syria, much more blood would flow. So our Senators propose rescuing people of questionable innocence and express little interest in the innocent people of Sudan. That is perverse humanitarianism.

I find many New York Times readers naïve about these issues. That paper does not report the whole story. It omits the significant part from which one can make sense out of the story.


Israel scheduled the release of the terrorist hunger striker, who has ended his fast. Unless additional evidence against him is discovered, he will be released for time served just short of the originally stated period. This means that his fellow Palestinian Arabs will not riot over his self-induced death, for which they would blame Israel.

The government decision also avoids having its policy reviewed and possibly overturned by the Supreme Court. Qadura Fares, president of the Palestinian Prisoners Society was skeptical that the Court would reject the policy, because it did not do so during previous reviews.

Arabs are calling the decision a victory for him, though Israeli policy remains unchanged. They are lionizing him and comparing him with real victims elsewhere.

On the other hand, Israel is concerned that more prisoners would fast for release (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 2//22/12, A6).

Active terrorist leaders whose cell killed people and sought to murder other innocent civilians deserve unceremonious capital punishment. To have let him live was immoral. To release him is dangerous. For Israel's existential NGO enemies and for him to claim a moral cause worth a hunger strike is a travesty.

The behavior of the NGOs and of the people who call him a hero is hypocritical. Hypocrisy governs the whole Palestinian Arab cause, as in today's NY Times op-ed in which an Arab leader talks about getting freedom from Israel. Both halves of the Palestinian Authority curb their people's freedom and aspire to deprive the Jewish people of theirs.

Also hypocritical about jihad is the American expression of hope for negotiations with Iran, which uses negotiations to stall while its centrifuges spin. This notion about Iran may be instead a combination of extreme naivete uninformed by the record and rationalization for an ideological framework conceived with a sort of religious ardor.

It doesn't take much for Palestinian Arabs to riot, when it advances their cause. They are not being humanitarian about this. They torture and murder prisoners, including Arab prisoners. This hunger strike is an excuse for them to protest, and their fanaticism and intolerance resents any defeat for their religious imperialism. They think themselves lords of the earth. But on the whole, they approve of terrorism. Doesn't that make them among the scourges of the earth?

The government of Israel often caves in to pressure. Some people think Israel should bow to public opinion, so as not to be beaten by public opinion. Think again! Israel's fanatical and existential enemies are not reasonable people who acknowledge Israel's good will. They are Western bullies who exploit each concession to demand another, and they are Muslims who consider such concessions a sign of weakness. Israeli concessions encourage its enemies to exert more pressure.

Nor is that the only problem with its decision. Its decision reinforces the propaganda that Israel is the oppressor and Arabs are the victims. Israel should have reviewed the crimes committed under the prisoner's command. It should have made sure that the Westerners would have no excuse for defending what is a menace to innocent people.

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 FSM, February 22, 2012.

This was written by Cliff Kincaid and it is archived at
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11456/ pub_detail.asp. Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.


Fareed Zakaria of CNN has written a column for The Washington Post that serves as an excuse for letting Iran develop and acquire nuclear weapons.MJ Rosenberg, Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network and contributor to Al-Jazeera, was absolutely ecstatic, saying Zakaria had done "a terrific job destroying some arguments for war with Iran," and that he had done so by "citing history." But Zakaria's "history lesson" gets an "F."

Touting the theory of mutually assured destruction, which prevented the U.S. and the Soviet Union from annihilating one another with nuclear weapons, Zakaria suggested that Iran could be deterred from using nuclear weapons. He quoted Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, as saying that deterrence "is less disastrous than preventive war." Rose is a former National Security Council official in the Clinton Administration and a prominent official of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Zakaria said that "While the Iranian regime is often called crazy, it has done much less to merit the term than did a regime such as Mao's China. Over the past decade, there have been thousands of suicide bombings by Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Pakistanis, but not been a single suicide attack by an Iranian."

This is deceptive to the point of dishonesty. Why would he go back in history to the time of Mao's China, but only examine suicide bombings over the last ten years?

The answer is that the facts about Iranian suicide bombings do suggest a craziness on the part of the regime. The strange formulation of "over the past decade" enabled him to ignore the fact that, on October 23, 1983, Iran ordered and carried out the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel. An Iranian drove the car bomb into the barracks.

I attended and covered the 2003 trial in which the detailed evidence of the Iranian role in this bombing was presented in detail.

As I reported for AIM at the time, the trial involved a case brought against Iran by attorneys Steven Perles and Thomas Fortune Fay on behalf of the families of the Marines who were killed. Under a U.S. law passed in 1996, victims of terrorism can sue state sponsors of terrorism and collect damages from the assets that the terrorist regime may hold in the U.S.

The trial featured a videotaped deposition of a former terrorist insider named "Mahmoud," who described in detail how Iran ordered the terrorists to attack the U.S. Marines and French troops in Lebanon, and revealed that the driver of the truck carrying the bomb was himself an Iranian.

In a videotaped deposition, former CIA officer Robert Baer testified that there was no doubt, based on the best intelligence information, that Iran was behind it. Baer said this bombing, and a previous bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, were "acts of war."

Dr. Reuven Paz of Israel testified via videotape that before the Marine barracks bombing Israel had intercepted a message from the government of Iran to its Ambassador in Syria, calling for military attacks on the foreign forces in Lebanon, including the Americans. Paz, who worked for the Israeli security service known as Shin Bet, said the intercepted message was provided to the CIA.

Admiral James Lyons, who was Deputy Chief of Naval Operations at the time, testified that he received a copy of the message, which described the need for a "spectacular action" against the Marines. But he received the message two days after the bombing.

Sergeant Steve Russell, who was guarding the embassy on that fateful day, said he had been warned about a possible car bombing of the barracks literally hours before it happened. He warned others, and stayed alert. But, as a "peacekeeper" under restrictive rules of engagement, he carried an unloaded gun and the compound was surrounded only by concertina wire. The car bomber drove through all of this into the barracks.

This evidence was accepted by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who found Iran liable for billions of dollars in damages.

Not only did Zakara ignore all of this, he stated previously, in a Newsweek article, that "Iranians aren't suicidal." This seems to be a common theme of his, in order to justify a do-nothing approach to the Iranians developing nuclear weapons. He wants us to believe that the regime can be rational and calm.

Ironically, the article carried the title, "Everything You Know About Iran Is Wrong."

The author of The Post-American World, Zakaria seems eager to usher in this state of affairs by permitting the rise of dangerous regimes such as Iran with nuclear capability. Interestingly, Obama was photographed in 2008 carrying a copy of Zakaria's book.

Frighteningly, his bio promotes Zakaria as "the most influential foreign policy adviser of his generation" and one of the top 100 global thinkers in 2010. Not surprisingly, he addresses hedge fund billionaire George Soros, funder of Media Matters and other left-wing causes, on a first name basis as "George."

In a February 2011 interview that covered Iran and other issues, Zakaria asked Soros about the survival of the Iranian regime, which was being challenged by pro-democracy demonstrators. Soros said he was "convinced that the regime will not survive."

Zakaria asked if the U.S. could do anything to challenge the regime internally. Soros replied, "I think Obama did actually there also a very good job by refusing to get involved and to be instigating regime change. This—this attempt to impose a regime change from the outside is counterproductive, because then the regime can accuse its opponents as being in the pay of a—of a foreign power, right?"

Zakaria replied: "Right."

Not only has the regime survived, but there are numerous reports that Iran is preparing to use suicide-bomb boats to disrupt shipping in the Gulf.

However, Zakaria assures us that the Iranians are not crazy and don't engage in such things—at least over the last decade.

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, February 21, 2012.

This was written by Essam Abdallah and appeared February 16, 2012 in The Cutting Edge News
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article= 53331&pageid=44&pagename=Slices. Dr. Essam Abdallah is an Egyptian liberal intellectual who teaches at Ain Shams University and writes for the leading Arab liberal publication Elaph.


The most dramatic oppression of the region's civil societies and the Arab Spring is not by means of weapons, or in the Middle East. It is not led by Gaddafi, Mubarak, Bin Ali, Saleh, or Assad. It is led by the powerful Islamist lobbies in Washington DC. People may find my words curious if not provocative. But my arguments are sharp and well understood by many Arab and middle eastern liberals and freedom fighters. Indeed, we in the region, who are struggling for real democracy, not for the one time election type of democracy have been asking ourselves since January 2011 as the winds of Arab spring started blowing, why isn't the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?

Months into the Arab Spring, we realized that the Western powers, and the Obama Administration have put their support behind the new authoritarians, those who are claiming they will be brought to power via the votes of the people. Well, it is not quite so.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Nahda of Tunisia, the Justice Party of Morocco and the Islamist militias in Libya's Transitional National Council have been systematically supported by Washington at the expense of real liberal and secular forces. We saw day by day how the White House guided carefully the statements and the actions of the US and the State Department followed through to give all the chances to the Islamists and almost no chances to the secular and revolutionary youth. We will come back to detail these diplomatic and financial maneuvers which are giving victory to the fundamentalists while the seculars and progressives are going to be smashed by the forthcoming regimes.

In the US, there are interests that determine foreign policy. And there are lobbies that put pressure to get their objectives met in foreign policy. One of the most powerful lobbies in America under the Obama Administration is the Muslim Brotherhood greater lobby, which has been in action for many years. This lobby has secured many operatives inside the Administration and has been successful in directing US policy towards the Arab world. Among leading advisors sympathetic to the Ikhwan is Daliah Mogahed (Mujahid) and her associate, Georgetown Professor John Esposito. Just as shocking, there is also a pro-Iranian lobby that has been influencing US policy towards Iran and Hezbollah in the region.

One of the most important activities of the Islamist lobby in the US is the waging of political and media wars on the liberal Arabs and Middle Eastern figures and groups in America. This battlefield is among the most important in influencing Washington's policies in the Arab world. If you strike at the liberal and democratic Middle Eastern groups in Washington who are trying to gain support for civil societies in the region, you actually win a major battle. You will be able to influence the resources of the US Government to support the Islamists in the Middle East and not the weak democrats. This huge war waged by the Islamist lobbies in America started at the end of the Cold war and continued all the way till the Arab spring. The two main forces of this lobby are the Muslim Brotherhood fronts and the Iranian fronts. According to research available in the US, the Ikhwan fronts such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), led by Hamas supporter Nihad Awad, as well as the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, and others waged their political war to block the representatives of Arab liberals and Muslim moderates from making their case to the American public. The Iranian lobby, exemplified by the National Iranian American Committee (NIAC), led by Trita Parsi, has been hitting at Iranian exiles.

Since the 1990s CAIR and its allies have attacked Copts, Southern Sudanese, Lebanese, Syrian reformers, Assyrians and Chaldeans, and Muslim dissidents in the United States. The Ikhwan of America demonized any publication, book, article, or interview in the national media or local press raising the issue of secular freedoms in the Middle East. The Islamists wanted to eliminate the liberal cause in the Arab world and replace it with the cause of the Islamists. What is also shocking is that CAIR and its allies stood by the oppressive regimes and visited them, claiming they speak on behalf of the peoples. CAIR and the Brotherhood fronts in America destroyed systematically every project that would have defended the seculars and liberals originating from the Middle East. The notorious and well-funded Islamists of the US allowed no book, documentary, or show on the liberals in Arab civil societies to see the light.

Thanks to this powerful lobbying campaign, the American public was not given a chance to learn about the deep feelings on the youth in the region. Americans were led to believe that all Muslims, all Arabs and all Middle Easterners were a strange species of humans who cannot appreciate freedom. Instead, the American Islamists, helped by apologists on the petrodollars payrolls, convinced the mainstream media that the Arab world has authoritarians and Islamists only.

Dr Shawki Karas, president of the American Coptic Association, told me in the late 1990s how he was harassed by Islamist activists for speaking up against the Mubarak regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in America. He was threatened with losing his job at the college where he taught. Reverend Keith Roderick, who has assembled a coalition of more than 50 group rights from the Muslim world, was severely attacked by the Islamists and was threatened to be removed from his church position. Muslim American leaders who are conservative and secular, such as Dr Zuhdi Jasser, were crucified by CAIR and the Brotherhood for daring to challenge the Party line of the Isl.amists in America and claiming that the Jihadists are the problem in the region. Muslim liberal dissidents such as Somali Ayan Hirsi Ali, Saudi Ali al Yammi, Syrian Farid Ghadri, Iranian Manda Ervin, and many others were trashed by the Islamist lobbies to block them from defending the causes of secular liberty in the US. Egyptian liberals as well as seculars and democracy activists from Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and other countries have been attacked by CAIR and allies. The pro-Iranian lobby targeted most Iranian-American groups and tried to discredit them, particularly with the rise of the Green Revolution in Iran. By smearing the Muslim liberal exiles, the Islamists were trying to destroy their causes in the mother countries. In the 1990s and the years that followed 9/11 the region's dictators supported the efforts by Islamist lobbies to crush the liberal exiles. The Mubarak, Bashir, Gaddafi, Assad, and Khomeinist regimes fully supported the so-called Islamophobia campaign waged by CAIR and its Iranian counterpart NIAC against dissidents for calling for secular democracy in the region. The dissidents were accused of being pro-Western by both the Islamists and the dictators.

The Islamist lobbies also severely attacked members of the US Congress such as Democrats Tom Lantos, who has since passed away, Eliot Engel, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, and Joe Lieberman as well as Republicans Frank Wolfe, Chris Smith, Trent Franks, John McCain, Rick Santorum, and Sam Brownback for their efforts in passing legislative acts in support for democracy and liberty in the Middle East. CAIR and NIAC heavily savaged President Bush's speeches on Freedom Forward in the Middle East, deploying all the resources they had to block US support to liberal democrats in the region. Islamist lobbies in Washington are directly responsible for killing any initiative in the US Government to support Darfur, southern Sudan, Lebanon, the Kurds, liberal women in the Muslim world, and true democrats in the Arab world and Muslim Africa.

In the think tank world, CAIR and its allies aggressively attacked scholars who raised the issue of persecution against seculars or minorities in the Arab world and Iran. Among those attacked were Nina Shea and Paul Marshal from the Hudson Institute and the founder of an anti-slavery group, Dr Charles Jacobs, who was exposing the Sudan regime for its atrocities. Last but not least is the Islamists' relentless campaign to stirke at top scholars who advise Government and appear in the media to push for democratic liberation in the region. The vast and vicious attacks leveled against Professor Walid Phares—initially by CAIR's Nihad Awad and then widened by pro-Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood operatives online—has revealed to Arab and Middle Eastern liberal and seculars how ferocious is the battle for the Middle East in the US. Phares's books, particularly the latest one, The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East (2010), hit the Islamist agenda hard by predicting the civil society revolts in the Middle East and then predicting how the Islamists would try to control them. Phares was attacked by an army of Jihadist militia online like no author since Samuel Huntington in the 1990s. As a freedom activist from the Middle East, Mustafa Geha, wrote, Phares is a hero to Muslim liberals. Along with dissidents, lawmakers, experts, and human rights activists, Phares is a force driving for a strategic change in US foreign policy towards supporting secular democracies in the region. This explains why the Islamists of America are fighting the battle for the forthcoming regimes with all the means they have.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Doreen Topper, February 21, 2012.

I agree how ever there is even more....................Egypt is holding American hostages, refusing their release after commanded to by the US. Egypt basically thumbed their nose at us and later said if the US stops the annual gift of $1billion in aid.....they will join Iran in an attack on Isreal. Obama needs to CLEARLY INFORM Iran, Egypt and every country we so generously give to every year in aid...SEE YA! We will ony support allies of the USA, if you don't stand with us and are against us, we will no longer help in the sustanance of their nation. That's it! NO NEGOTIATION. Get real Obama, stop asking, begging our enemy to come negotiate something out with us. We lost the minute you said this Dude.

From Doreen's neighbor....who for the last 2 years has been waiting for Obama to set up the middle East to go after and attack Isreal...the US's most loyal and important Ally.

On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:38 PM, K wrote:


The Obama administration has strongly urged (warned) Israel to hold back from taking military action to derail or destroy the Iranian nuclear project. Israel, which has a much shorter and earlier window of opportunity than the U.S. to act militarily to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, is being asked to sit on the sidelines while the U.S. pursues sanctions and diplomatic outreach.

There are reports that Israel has asked Pres. Obama for assurance that if sanctions fail, he will use force against Iran. Pres. Obama's has refused to provide that assurance, which has damaged the long-standing trust and cooperation between the two countries. In addition, Pres. Obama's 2013 budget request, released yesterday, calls for a sharp cut in U.S. military aid for Israel's critical missile defense programs. Cutting critical funds for missile defense at a time when the threat from Iran has never been greater is extremely dangerous, worrisome and reckless.

Obama's actions are at odds with his words. His expectation that Israel should withhold action against Iran to meet an American policy timetable, while Iran moves demonstrably closer to the ability to annihilate Israel.

WASHINGTON — Two leading Republicans chastised US President Barack Obama for cutting missile defense funding to Israel in the 2013 budget, in a letter obtained by The Jerusalem Post Wednesday.

"We are deeply concerned that at a time of rising threats to our strongest ally in the Middle East, the administration is requesting record-low support for this vital defense cooperation program," wrote Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Buck McKeon, chair of the House Armed Services Committee.


The Obama White House has earmarked $800 million additional aid for... soon to be...Moslem Brotherhood ruled Egypt. The Brotherhood has repeatedly pledged to scrap the peace treaty with Israel.


Contact Doreen Topper by email at doreentopper1@att.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Behind the News, February 21, 2012.

This was written by Efraim Karsh and is archived at
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2669/haaretz-newspaper. It also appeared February 16, 2012 in Israel Behind the News

Efraim Karsh is director of the Middle East Forum (Philadelphia), research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College, and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed.


Of the countless threats of Arab violence in the run-up to the November 29, 1947 Partition Resolution and in its wake, none has resonated more widely than the warning by Abdul Rahman Azzam, the Arab League's first secretary-general, that the establishment of a Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades."

Unfortunately, the longstanding failure to trace the original document in which the threat was made has given rise to doubts regarding its veracity, and by implication — the murderous Arab intentions: not least since the historical truth has been erased from public memory by decades of relentless pro-Arab propaganda.

Small wonder, therefore, that when the missing document was recently found, with an annotated full translation published in the Middle East Quarterly,
-- www.meforum.org/3082/azzam-genocide-threatww.meforum.org/ 3082/azzam-genocide-threat -- which I edit, Haaretz columnist and self-styled "new historian" Tom Segev, who had spent a good part of the past two decades turning the saga of Israel's birth upside down, went out of his way to whitewash Azzam's threat and downplay its significance. "There is something pathetic about this hunt for historical quotes drawn from newspapers," he wrote, without disputing the threat's contents or authenticity. "Azzam used to talk a lot. On May 21, 1948, the Palestine Post offered this statement by him: 'Whatever the outcome, the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like.'" He then quotes Ben-Gurion's alleged description of the League's Secretary-General as "the most honest and humane among Arab leaders."

Azzam might have talked a lot, but there was no contradiction whatsoever between his public threats and private assertions. He privately told his Jewish interlocutors that their hopes of statehood would meet the same calamitous fate as the crusading state, and he reiterated this prognosis in the newly-discovered document. A week before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel on May 15, Azzam told Sir Alec Kirkbride, the powerful British ambassador to Amman: "It does not matter how many [Jews] there are. We will sweep them into the sea." Even the actual Palestine Post report, from which Segev chose to bring a misleadingly truncated quote, had Azzam describe the Arab-invaded State of Israel as "a bridgehead into Arab territory" (that is, a crusader-like alien implant) that must be fought and destroyed for "otherwise they will be fighting us here, in Transjordan, and elsewhere in the Arab State."

It is true that Azzam was prepared to allow survivors of the destroyed Jewish state to live as Dhimmis, or second-class citizens, in the "Arab Palestine" that would arise on its ruins (after all, his statement was made in a memo to the UN seeking to justify "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [Second World] War," to use the words of first UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie). But this can hardly be considered an indication of moderation. If anything, it affords further proof, if such is at all needed, that the gap between "the most honest and humane among Arab leaders" and the basic Jewish aspiration for national-self determination was as unbridgeable in 1948 as it is now.

But the story doesn't end here. For Mr. Segev didn't content himself with distorting the contents and significance of a key historical document but also sought to besmirch those who brought it to public attention by claiming that they lifted it from Wikipedia, to which it had supposedly been uploaded by one Brendan McKay — a professor of computer science at the Australian National University in Canberra.

This claim is not only false but the complete inversion of the truth. There was no trace of the newly-found document in Azzam's Wikipedia entry at the time of the document's publication in the Middle East Quarterly. On the contrary, noting the long-misconceived May 14, 1948, as the threat's date — it was actually made on October 11, 1947, in the run-up to the partition resolution — the Wikipedia entry (accessed October 3 ) questioned its very existence:

One day after the State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation (May 14, 1948), Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Egyptian, and Transjordanian troops, supported by Saudi and Yemenite troops, attacked the nascent Jewish state, triggering the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. On that day, Azzam is said to have declared: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". However, Joffe and Romirowsky report that this "cannot be confirmed from cited sources". Benny Morris, who had previously quoted it in his books, refrained from using it in his book 1948 "after discovering that its pedigree is dubious".

In other words, rather than upload Azzam's original threat to Wikipedia (or to any other publication for that matter) as falsely claimed by Segev, Mr. McKay, who on September 22, 2010 informed fellow Wikipedia discussants of having obtained a copy of the original interview in which the threat was made, failed to share his important discovery with the general public so as to keep Arab genocidal designs on the nascent Jewish state under wraps.

Why Mr. McKay agreed to pass a copy of the document to the evidently pro-Israel David Barnett, an American international politics student who had been chasing the document on his own, thus enabling it to see the light of day at long last — including, eventually, in Wikipedia — is not entirely clear: in a private communication, he declined my offer that his name be added as co-author as he didn't "have a good opinion of MEQ".

It is clear, however, that instead of minimizing Azzam's threat and patronizing him in the worst tradition of the "white man's burden" approach, Mr. Segev should have marveled at an important discovery that lays to rest one of the longest running debates on the 1948 war and helps his country reclaim the historical truth after decades of relentless distortion. But then, some journalists simply cannot handle the truth.

Nor, so it seems, can their editorial colleagues.

On October 24, three days after the publication of Segev's article, I emailed my response to Aluf Ben, Haaretz's editor-in-chief, and was informed that the paper's op-ed editor would be in touch. Yet it was only six weeks later (on December 5), after much haggling during which I agreed to cut the article's length by half, that a Hebrew translation was (almost invisibly) published in the inside pages of the op-ed section. When I kept insisting that the original English-language article be also published I received the following response on December 12:

I'm afraid that we will not be able to publish this piece due to space limitations in the English edition of the newspaper. Our paper is considerably smaller than the Hebrew edition and we give priority to pieces published on the main editorial page of the Hebrew paper, which is why you were passed over last week. I had hoped to find a spare slot this week, but this has not been possible.

I would be pleased to be in touch with you directly next time one of your pieces is published on our opinion pages, so that I can receive the original English version in time to consider it for the same day's newspaper.

It is doubtful whether the editors believe their own words. Not only are space limitations wholly irrelevant in the case of an online publication, which is what Haaretz.com essentially is, but the editors have had my article for seven weeks, which should have given them more than ample opportunities for a timely publication.

Worse: the fact that Haaretz took the trouble to have Mr. Segev's Hebrew-written piece translated to English, and to have my response translated to Hebrew, while refusing to post an English-written article on its English-language website — where the main defamatory damage to my professional reputation was intended to be done — cannot but be seen as a blatant cover up of a professional misconduct by one of its most senior columnists.

While there is nothing new or surprising in a paper's refusal to own up to its misreporting or publish facts and analysis contradicting its political line, it is ironic that "the paper for thinking people," as Haaretz habitually flaunts itself, would engage in the shoddy business of truth suppression and mouth shutting at a time when it self-righteously fights an alleged attempt by the Israeli government to do precisely that.

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Mattot.arim, February 21, 2012.

This entire email is full of links showing recent Arab attacks on Jews, on Israeli roads. Please can you forward this entire email to Avigdor Liberman, head of Yisrael Beytenu party.

The Ministry of Police is in the hands of one of Mr. Liberman's ministers! Mr. Liberman needs to quickly get together his people and do something about this terrible situation.

Forward to: sar@mfa.gov.il, aliberman@knesset.gov.il. Preferably cc the following: dazulay@knesset.gov.il.

Links to recent examples of Arab attacks on Jews, on Israeli roads:

Yet Another Carjacking: 'Arabs Targeting Women'
First Publish: 2/20/2012, 11:46 AM
by Gil Ronen

Following the exclusive report Sunday on a recent carjacking in Samaria, yet another eyewitness account of a carjacking incident has reached Arutz Sheva.

Yaakov Gonen, a resident of Karnei Shomron, described a carjacking that he witnessed last week, in the early afternoon.

He was on his way eastward from Rishon LeTzion toward Karnei Shomron. A short distance after the Tzofim Junction, he looked leftward and saw a parked car, and "some kind of struggle" going on inside it.

"I saw the car standing but moving, and I saw the door opening and a woman being pushed out of it, and shouting 'help!' as she was being pushed... As I am running, I see an Arab Subaru vehicle getting nearer in reverse. The driver is looking backward and driving toward us."

A few seconds passed and the woman who had been struggling with the attacker was thrown out of the vehicle. Her hand was caught in the seat belt, though, and she was dragged on the ground for a few meters before she could free it.

The Subaru driver got out of his car and ran into the bushes, leaving his car behind. But a short time later a third man got into the Subaru and drove away with it. Gonen realized that the three were working as a team.

All the while, cars were driving by — mostly driven by Arabs — and no one stopped.

After 25 minutes, a military force arrived but did not even try to give chase to the thieves, who were probably already in Kalkilya. Gonen wrote about the incident in his community's email group and called on all those who do not possess gun permits — to get them, "or take along a baseball bat."

He also noted that the Arabs prefer to attack women and suggested that women avoid driving alone, especially in the evening and nighttime.

The police's Judea and Samaria District said in response to a query by Arutz Sheva: "The subject is known and is on the District's agenda. Following the events, the police are carrying out an intensive investigation and also carrying out operational moves, both visible and undercover."

Two Jews Nearly Lynched in Jerusalem http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/152856

Two civilian employees of the Defense Ministry are recovering from a near lynch attempt on Monday.

The two were traveling to Mount Scopus in Jerusalem when Arab youths began throwing rocks at them.

At one point the rock throwers slammed a large stone into the windshield. The rock struck the driver, Yehuda Attias, in the head. Attias was since hospitalized several times because of the severe head injuries.

In recent months, Arabs have attacked Jewish motorists with rocks, in what is starting to again become a common phenomenon on the roads of Judea and Samaria, as it was in the days of the 2002 Second Intifada.

US Cops Witness Ineptitude on Terror

A group of U.S. law enforcement professionals witnessed feebleness by Israeli security forces against Arab terror at the Mount of Olives Cemetery. One of them, Marc Kahlberg, is a former Israeli police officer and spokesman.

Kahlberg: I heard glass shattering behind me. Instinctively I went to the parking lot — and I saw two Jewish guys — one in his 70s, and the other in his 60s, their car has been smashed and one of them is bleeding."

Police were slow to respond to his call. There is no permanent police presence at the holy site despite the almost routine attacks on Jews there.

"Attacks at the cemetery are ongoing and it doesn't matter how many cameras are there," he said. "There has to be something proactive over there. It needs to stop."

The victims (Marc Kahlberg)

Susie Dym is Mattot Arim Spokesperson. She can be reached at sddym@bezeqint.net. Or write to mattot.arim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Hand, February 21, 2012.

Yesterday night (Monday, February 20, 2012) policemen arrived at the home of Nadia Matar of Women in Green and hung on the door an order demanding to immediately evacuate trees on a piece of land that was planted by Women in Green. The following was written in the order: "Warning about the obligation to immediately evacuate land". They added: "If you do not evacuate it by yourself by 22-2-2012 at 2:30pm, the authorities will evacuate it and you may be charged for the fees of their work."

A map was attached to the order. The map shows that they are talking about the area of land in Netzer where Arabs, connected to anti-Israeli organizations like the UN, Ezra Nawi and Amira Hass, have been active. That area of land was till recently, according to all maps, state land, and that is why Women in Green planted there, to safeguard them from Arab take-over. But it seems that when there is pressure by organizations like the UN, Ezra Nawi and a huge article in Haarets by Amira Hass...the same area of land all of a sudden becomes "private Arab land", the Jews become the "invaders" and they receive eviction orders.

Women in Green leaders Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar immediately contacted Attorney Doron Nir Zvi who sent, during the night, a letter to the head of the Civil Adminstration, Motti Almoz, and to Attorney Koby Avitsan of the prosecutors office at the Civil Administration, claiming that since Women in Green has been holding on to that land for more than 30 days, they have no right to implement evacuation order 1472 against his clients.

This argument is of course not the main argument. The problem is much more painful and deeper. As was written in numerous articles in Makor Rishon, the Civil Administration is "infected" with leftism. Look, for instance, at the Migron example, in which Arabs are pushed to claim ownership on lands that are not theirs and in order to keep the quiet, the Israeli authorities capitulate to the Arabs. The Civil Administrations job is to safeguard the state lands and not to safeguard the quiet, quiet that the Arabs use to steal the land. It is simply outrageous that the Civil Administration can overturn the status of lands and decide, because of outside pressure, that lands that belong to the People of Israel, all of a sudden are declared private Arab land!

If the pressure by anti-Israeli organizations brought the Civil Administration to cave in; it is important to have counter pressure. Women in Green call upon all lovers of Israel to contact, today, the Civil Administration and demand that they do not capitulate and do not uproot the trees in Netzer; urging them to safeguard the lands that belong to the Jewish People.

Fax number of Motti Almoz head of the Civil administration, 972-2-9977341

Faxes are very important. You can write in English, too.

Tomorrow, Wednesday February 22nd, at 2:30, the hour by which the police told us we need to evacuate the trees, we will go to Netzer and show a Jewish presence at the site. The public is invited.

For details:
Yehudit Katsover 050-7161818 Nadia Matar 050-550834

Contact Robert Hand by email at borntolose3@att.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, February 21, 2012.

For all of you who are doing your part in the Mitzvah of Al Taaamod Al Dam Reiacha, not standing by idly as your brothers blood is being spilled, a big Yasher Koach. To everyone else, it seems to me the following Pasuk from Megillat Esther applies.


From: Ehud Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:28 PM

90 minutes ago (around 8 pm, 16 Feb 2012), a good friend of mine, Julie, that leave in Neve Daniel, drove near Beitar. A stone was throne at her car, and the window blast. She called the Army, and they told her they are not interested in the case. UNBELIEVABLE! She called the Police, and they told her its approximately case number 100 this week. Make sure that the relevant people will get the right awareness and hopefully will act to change things. Todah, Ehud. Engineer. Petach Tikva.

From: Julie Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:42 PM

At 7:35 I was driving to Beitar from Neve Daniel and was surprised by a rock that hit my car and the window smashed. I kept driving till the gate of Beitar and stopped to tell the Shomer. He did not even get out to see if I was Ok. I pulled over. He called the moked who barely asked whether I was ok and then told me to go to the police — we don't need to see you. The Police told me the same thing. The fact that I could've been traumatized and unable to drive didn't occur to anyone — how would they feel without their weapons being attacked by a deadly weapon. When I asked them whether they were coming they said no. When I expressed surprise that they weren't coming (somewhat hysterically) they put the phone down on me. I then called the police, by then I was sobbing, who also didn't bother to send anyone. (whereas ravshatz from Neve Daniel called and asked if I needed him to come and get me....).

I am horrified by this lack of concern. In Beitar there were numerous attacks on that road in the last week (near Husan). On the way home I did not see one army jeep or police car 1/2 an hour later, nor 20 minutes after that, when my dentist (also from Neve Daniel) drove back. We both thought that was odd — to say the least. This is the second time I was hit by a rock recently — the last night of Chanukah we were hit by a rock. Missed my daughter's head by about 10 cm. My daughter is 3 1/2.

Contact Robin Ticker at faigerayzel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Donna Robinson Divine and Asaf Romirowsky, February 20, 2012.

This appeared today in YNet News and it archived at


The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement more commonly known as BDS is the new abbreviation stalking American campuses. But at least for the University of Pennsylvania, the immediate crisis has presumably passed. The BDS Conference arrived and left the campus without untoward incidents.

Passions were inflamed and rhetoric heated up, but University President Amy Gutmann and Chair of the Board of Trustees, David L. Cohen, announced they would not be moved by the call to boycott Israeli educational institutions or divest the university of its securities in companies that do business with the Jewish State even as they wrapped the decision to host the conference as a commitment to academic freedom.

Does this mean the Conference failed in its proclaimed strategy of mobilizing the campus around a set of actions to end what they call Israel's occupation of Arab lands? With its stated objectives rejected even before the conference began, one might be tempted to dismiss this movement as marginal despite the relatively large numbers of students and faculty attending its workshops and lectures. And its calls for one state of Palestine presumably in accordance with what was proclaimed as a clear and universal consensus on international law might be described as either utopian or wildly out of touch with reality and most especially, with the terms of the rulings so glibly but selectively cited.

While the notion of a single Palestine is not new and has been rejected not simply by most Israelis but also by almost all officials trying to broker an agreement, it has been resurrected to provide a common stock of references and allusions primarily to delegitimize the idea of the Jewish state as illustrated now by the forthcoming conference at Harvard University entitled "One State Conference: Israel/Palestine and the One State Solution."

Radically recasting the language conventionally deployed to talk about Israel and the conflict, BDS leaders remove words that might engender a favorable view of Israel or promote the kinds of compromises that take Israel's interests as seriously as those proclaimed by the Palestinians. How can one be reconciled to a Jewish state that is described — wrongly — as practicing apartheid?

Holocaust manipulated

Long forgotten are the original beliefs that brought many progressive academicians to their support for a Jewish state as a refuge for the persecuted and as a model for humanity to repair some of the defects of past societies. In presenting their one state of Palestine, advocates are not asking people to measure how far Israel has strayed from its own original promises, but rather to discard past judgments about the national rights of the Jewish people as wrong-headed the legacy of an unjust imperial order thoroughly discredited but not yet totally destroyed.

For academic supporters of Palestine, Israel has become shorthand for all manner of evils. The language and imagery of the Holocaust is invoked not to remind people of what happened to Jews when they had no power but rather to focus attention on Palestinians as the rightful subjects of collective suffering. Moreover, equating the Holocaust with the Nakba (the phrase Palestinians use to describe the catastrophe of Israel's creation) is aimed at making Palestinian suffering motivate political action and provoke outrage at Israel as the alleged source of Palestinian distress.

This distorted view that the Palestinians are the true victims of the Holocaust, now suffering under the hands of what Palestinians call the "victim's victim," has become one of the more pervasive false "facts" commonly found on North American campuses.

The Holocaust imagery conjures up the misguided notion that the Jewish state was part of a compensatory deal struck to pay for the genocidal murder of European Jewry and thus is derived the false conclusion the state can be disestablished for the sake of redeeming the Palestinians, another abused people. Never mind that the analogy makes no historical sense; it is not created for the sake of clarity but rather for the purpose of hinting at some hidden correspondence to justify radicalizing the vocabulary deployed to discuss the conflict that would warrant a strong indictment against Israel as the emblem of evil.

To listen to some of these so-called appeals to conscience by the academicians supportive of the boycott movement is to conjure up an Israel as a Nazi-like state. But to hear what they say echoed in classes on campuses across the country allows views once labeled extreme that call for the destruction of Israel, not by might and not by power but by bad analogies and misguided adjectives to become part of the mainstream.

The University of Pennsylvania may properly congratulate itself for protecting academic freedom, but it should be honest enough to acknowledge its failure to sustain any recognizable standard of academic integrity. Now will Harvard and other institutions that host such one-sided debates continue to masquerade their advocacy as scholarship?

Donna Robinson Divine is a Morningstar Family Professor of Jewish Studies and Professor of Government at Smith College and a Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) board member. Asaf Romirowsky is the acting executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME).

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 20, 2012.


Fouad Ajami urges a U.S. war on Syria, to oust Assad ("A Kosovo Model for Syria," February 10, 2012, op-ed). Otherwise Assad will purge his opponents. Mr. Ajami suggests limiting the U.S. role to aerial bombing, as Pres. Clinton did in Serbia, keeping U.S. casualties almost nil. We got Serbia to abandon its province of Kosovo, where it had been ousting Muslims.

The discussion of Kosovo omitted likely consequences there and in Syria. A more recent analogy is to the U.S. aerial bombardment of Libya, also to prevent an anticipated purge of rebels.

The command authority of our Presidents permits national defense without formal declaration of war. But Ghadafi had not attacked the U.S.. No U.S. interest was involved. Therefore, the President violated the Constitution.

Although Obama started a war in Libya, of no concern to our country, he refuses to tackle Iran, which kills Americans and which fairly soon may fire nuclear missiles at us from South America.

Obama started the war blindly. There was no public mention of who might take Ghadafi's place. Ironically, Obama had complained that Pres. Bush started wars without careful planning! Gradually Islamists were found to be leading some of the rebel militias. We bombed on.

If the Islamists take over there, as they seem to be doing in Egypt after Obama undermined Mubarak, one can imagine massive purges of non-Islamists. Fighting one some desperados to rescue others wastes our resources for needed self-defense, becoming scarcer as Obama taxes and spends more but shrinks our military.

As for Kosovo, when Muslims took charge, they ethnically cleansed Serbs. So to stop ethnic cleansing, we made a war that permits other ethnic cleansing. Brilliant!

How did Pres. Clinton minimize U.S. casualties? He sent bombers up so high, that they could not discern their targets. They bombed Serbian civilians perhaps more than soldiers. Our forces may have slain thousands of civilians wantonly. And how the UN and the U.S. complain when the IDF attacks just military targets, and a few civilian bystanders get killed, mostly because Arab terrorists illegally use them as human shields!

Surely the criminally negligent bombing of Serbian civilians, already victims of dictatorship, was a war crime. The war, itself, was illegal. For campaign contributions, Pres. Clinton released sensitive U.S. nuclear secrets to China. To boost sales, he let the military industry transfer U.S. rocket secrets to China. Why wasn't he impeached and imprisoned for those deeds, instead of being lauded by Mr. Ajami?

Kosovo was bad precedent for Constitutional violations of democratic rule. It erodes our checks and balances and lead to more unwise, crowd-pleasing politics. President Obama has been systematically increasing rule by decree and oppressing the rights of individuals and states.

To those who believe that the ends justify the means, the ends in Syria are not clear. Yes, Assad boosts the Iran axis. But his likely replacement by the Muslim Brotherhood would boost the Sunni axis probably led by Turkey. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.


The New York Times reviewed Israeli military justice by generalizing from one case in one village. No general statistics shown.

The tone of the article is set by mostly quoting Arabs, without ascertaining the facts. Why should readers believe what is quoted? The tone leaves negative emotional impressions about Israeli military justice without any basis, absent the facts. I find that type of presentation the rule at that paper.

A youth named Islam Dar Ayyoub was a good student, "according to his father." Was he or wasn't he? The newspaper bases praise and accusations about the parties involved on the word of interested parties. How often we find that parents either did not know their children became terrorists or lied. The mother of a murderer of a Jewish family finally admitted she lied!

Israel's military court system is described as an arm of "occupation." It was established "After Israel conquered the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war." Loaded terminology; history for Israel always starts with 1967 for the New York Times. Starting earlier, the newspaper would have to admit that Jordan conquered Judea and Samaria in a war of aggression aimed at exterminating millions of Jews. It also would have to admit that there was no country of Palestine, no Palestinian people, and therefore there is no occupation in a legal and moral sense. Neither is there an occupation in view of the fact that most of the land is under control of the Palestinian Authority except for military matters, and Israelis use only about 6% of the land, though under the Palestine Mandate, Israel has the most right to it. Under international law against aggression, countries have a right to annex land needed for security.

An example of vague and unsupported condemnation of Israel is the statement that the military court system "has come under increasing scrutiny for its often harsh, unforgiving methods." This statement refers to "human rights organizations." Actually, most organizations that call themselves "human rights organizations" use that designation as cover for warring on Israel through the courts. However, one won't find that fact, which I have written about extensively, acknowledged by the newspaper. Anti-Zionists seek every means they can to war on Israel, not just military ones. The so-called human rights organizations, heavily subsidized by the anti-Zionist EU, send lawyers to rescue terrorists. Except for one or two NGOs in the P.A., they almost never complain about the extensive persecution in Arab countries, except when there is a political interest in a country, such as Libya or Syria. This is the article's missing context. Imbalance!

One of those organizations is B'Tselem. I have reported often about its pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias. Peace Now has been sued successfully for defamation of "settlers."

Perhaps Israel uses some improper means on Arabs. Focus on those means would be fair. But the newspaper uses general condemnation as part of its fulcrum for levering out of the country the Jewish people. After all, a Times publisher formed an anti-Zionist organization in about 1920, to oppose Jewish sovereignty.

This article, like so many others, concentrates on Israel. Why doesn't it write a lot about the Palestinian Authority courts, which either don't operate or find someone guilty within a minute? Why doesn't it denounce the P.A. law that considers selling land to a Jew a capital offense? What about P.A. oppression of Christians, murder of dissidents, censorship of newspapers, theft of land, torture of prisoners — now that's "harsh" behavior!

In discussing harshness, the article refers to an Arab hospitalized from a hunger strike for not having a prompt trial. I believe in prompt trials. Often, Jewish dissidents are held without trials for months, too. The Times doesn't tell its readers about that. Neither does it inform readers that terrorists are taught to make false accusations against their captors. The false impression is left that there is something anti-Arab about Israel.

A denunciation of the system is made by defense counsel. Trial by publicity? Why doesn't the article interview the prosecution on all of the same matters? I got both sides, when I reported for Our Town, the Manhattan weekly.

Arrests in the middle of the night are condemned as if wrongful timing. Only later, after readers have been led into indignation, does the government get quoted explaining that night raids prevent resistance that would lead to many casualties. If there were casualties, the usual critics of Israel probably would condemn Israel for that. What they don't condemn are terrorists.

Being left outside in the cold does sound cruel. However, we have just the lawyer's word for it. How come the Times, which has staff in the area, never reports the facts? Did that exposure to night air occur and was that policy or blunder? The implication is policy, but we do not know. I do know that Israeli police have treated right-wing Jews harshly; they rarely treat Arabs as harshly. By harsh I mean beating non-violent Jewish protestors, even when operating legally, dragging women by the hair and therefore bumping them along rocky ground, and manhandling minor girls. I have never seen the newspaper reporting Israeli mistreatment of Jews, so I wonder how sincere their concern for Arabs is. They don't report P.A. injustice to Arabs.

After all the sympathy expressed for the youth, we find that he did throw stones and knew who else did that and who organized it, etc.. Stones can be large rocks, capable of killing people. Remember, P.A. children are raised to covet violence. Be careful about hastily sympathizing with them.

Indeed, some villages are known as centers of terrorism. The villagers have a collective mentality about that. Terrorists sneak into Jewish areas, commit crimes, and then return to the protective haven of their villages. And we readers are supposed to take their word as evidence and feel sorry for them? Their Jewish victims are the innocent ones, deserving our sympathy. Those civilians are attacked not for having done something to Arabs but for not being Muslims.

The convicted protest organizer claims his protests were peaceful and did not involve rock throwing. Did they or didn't they? Again, no facts. Half way through the article, an Israeli prosecutor was quoted as explaining that the riot organizers notoriously exploit children, not that the eminent NY Times has informed readers about that fact. It is a fact. I have seen many reports of it and photos outside of the Times.

The NY Times' pro-Arab propaganda techniques often are subtle. Many readers are not aware of them. I believe in freedom of the press, but let's have some honesty from the media!


The (Winter 2011-12 ) Jewish Political Chronicle contained a debate over President Obama's policy on Israel and what it is. Mostly the disputants avoided getting personal about it. Americans see too much personal animus n politics. Real debate is a neglected aspect of journalism we polarized Americans need more of.

My own comments reference domestic issues as well as foreign ones, when evaluating Obama's ethics, sincerity, and ideology.

1. Mr. Goldberg lit the match in The Atlantic on 11/08/11. He cites instances in which Pres. Obama kept promises: to kill bin Laden and then al-Awlaki, to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, and to focus the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Conclusion: Obama will keep his promise not to let Iran get nuclear weapons.

Poor relations with PM Netanyahu would not interfere with that promise, because, Mr. Goldberg explains, Iran threatens the U.S., too. Besides, Obama has a deep understanding of Jewish history and detests Iranian antisemitism. (No evidence offered for Obama's views.)

Iran has been seeking to diminish U.S. influence in the Mideast. Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would be one way. Mr. Goldberg sees no signs that Obama is coming to accept a nuclear Iran. Indeed, Obama wants a world without nuclear weapons. Once Iran got them, its rivals would. That would negate Obama's policy of non-proliferation P.27).

MY COMMENTS: Assassination of particular enemy leaders, as promised, is no criterion for judging Pres. Obama's integrity. Jihadists, themselves, such as former heads of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and Pakistan, willingly sacrificed some agents, or transferred some intelligence, to maintain a façade behind which they worked on a big scale for jihad or secured U.S. subsidy for jihad.

The promise to withdraw U.S. troops may not show integrity but leftist appeasement of jihad. After all, Obama has no plan for combating jihad, whose ideology he does not mention. As for Afghanistan, he is withdrawing from there, too, which is not as Mr. Goldberg said Obama promised.

I find that Obama has exceptional lack of integrity. On almost every issue, he has reversed himself and betrayed promises:

(1) He promised non-partisanship, but launches withering partisan darts.

(2) He opposed the surge and hydrocarbon extraction, but when the surge and extraction succeeded, he took credit for them.

(3) He has denounced private fundraising, until advantageous.

(4) He made deals for support of hospitals and Catholic officials on medical insurance, passed his measures, then reneged.

(5) From public funds, he subsidizes big campaign contributors.

(6) He and his Party try to restrict campaign contributions by corporations but not by unions, which contribute many billions, and although union abuses are bankrupting the country.

(7) He uses regulatory to curb dissent, as by doctors, and to dictate business details.

(8) He has insulted or betrayed U.S. allies and apologized or made concessions to U.S. enemies. His agencies and prosecutors and State Attorney Generals use regulations as excuses for extorting large sums from business on false grounds. Example: clerical errors in processing foreclosures committed almost no injustices, but the governments pretend they did.

(9) Prosecutors wage class warfare against businesses for the financial crash prompted mostly by excessive government regulations and lack of enforcement of proper government regulations.

(10) He campaigns for higher taxation of "millionaires and billionaires," who turn out mostly to be people earning over $200,000, and fails to acknowledge that they don't earn enough to resolve the deficit.

(11) Much of what he called "stimulus" funding subsidized his constituency and did not and could not promote economic growth. He calls his plans one thing, but they are another.

(12) Obama's ideology would turn millions more Americans into a sort of welfare dependency and another constituency for the Democratic Party.

(13) The Democratic class warriors propose onerous regulations that many big companies welcome, because their small business competition cannot afford it.

(14) Although Americans oppose bank bailouts the Dodd-Frank law requires more bailouts in future, making additional "moral hazard," i.e., encouraging big institutions to be less prudent, because the government takes the risk at taxpayer expense.

(15) The government is continuing the decades-long moral hazard that inflated the housing bubble. It insists that its agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac¸ whose risks it guarantees, still grant subprime mortgages

That was just a partial list!

A guest at my party heard someone mention the need for ethics in politics. She declaimed, "Tell that to the Republicans!" That remark was undeservedly partisan.

As the preceding list demonstrated, government sleaze is non-partisan and widespread. But the incipient fascism of what my friends like to call Obama's "socialism" surpasses that of President Nixon. Obama squeezes freedoms of speech and of religion and seeks to dictate what Americans buy. He violates Constitution, law, court orders, and American custom in order to rule by decree, as by setting up a consumer agency with unauthorized funding and unauthorized powers.

Obama and his Party seriously endanger our freedom and way of life. My friends' partisanship and one-sided ideological "information" keep them from realizing that.

As for detesting antisemitism, for 20 years, Obama attended the radical Rev. Wright's church, where sermons were antisemitic among other phobias. The unwarranted nasty remarks and tone of the Obama administration toward Israel, contrasted by the Administration's excessive patience and non-demanding mellowness toward the P.A., show where Obama's sympathies lay. His proposals would undermine Israeli viability and empower the jihadists, not make peace. His statements about boundaries and "occupation" display anti-Zionism.

Obama may say he wants a world without nuclear weapons. What a child-like sentiment in a world containing rogue states. After Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, and India developed a-bombs secretly, some in violation of treaty, anyone who proposes nuclear disarmament is foolish. Obama has been arranging to reduce our arsenal and perhaps Russia's, without considering China. Our enemies are rising up, but he is paring down our military.

Obama keeps degrading U.S. influence. It is as if Obama were promoting dominance by his former religion.

Does Obama care about threats to the U.S. and its influence? He is the first anti-American President. His ideology is for the U.S. to abandon world leadership, to reduce its powerful military capability, to tie U.S. sovereignty to hostile international organizations, and to submerge the U.S. economy in over-regulation and over-spending. Remember his recent radical past.

2. Jeffrey Goldberg again, p.27,from Bloomberg.com, 11/14/11. Here, Mr. Goldberg admits that Obama detests Netanyahu. Goldberg rationalizes that this detestation is personal and not anti-Israel. After all, the Administration opposes unilateral UN recognition of the P.A. as sovereign.

Goldberg considers Netanyahu disagreeable, too, as when he gave a "condescending public lecture" to Obama. But Netanyahu also "bent to Obama's will."

The U.S. "is Israel's main benefactor, weapons supplier and diplomatic protector." "'No surprises' has been the rule governing U.S.-Israel relations for some time." Nevertheless, Israel may strike Iran's nuclear facilities without warning. If Israel does, Goldberg cautions, Iran would retaliate against the U.S.. Hence an Israeli strike could rupture relations with the U.S., leaving Israel alone.

MY COMMENTS: Yes, the State Dept. opposes unilateral UN recognition of the P.A. as sovereign. But the State Dept. also has opposed the existence and extension of Jewish sovereignty for reasons of historical prejudice and appeasement, despite Americans' support for Israel. The State Dept. acts as if it wants Israel to agree to national suicide, so the State Dept. can claim that it is not to blame. Meanwhile, the State Dept. under Obama and predecessors have demanded that Israel abandon its territorial claims and cease various means of self-defense against Arab encroachment, terrorism, and war. Mr. Goldberg's supposition that the Administration is not anti-Zionist because of some, and only some, of its UN actions, is a weak rationalization.

I think that Netanyahu does not sufficiently present the Jewish people's case, refute the P.A.'s case, and expose the hypocrisy of State Dept. policies. But he does act professional. The personal affronts against him by Obama and the Administration's orchestration of a phony grievance against Israel for announcing one step in a phased building program is shameful. It also is hypocritical, because the P.A. violates its agreements in mortal ways without rebuke. Pleasant and patient with the offending Arabs, but unpleasant and impatient with the Jewish victims of the Arabs. That is the State Dept. way, exacerbated by Obama.

On p.45 of the Jewish Political Chronicle, Isi Liebler writes that from the start, Obama was "personally offensive" toward Netanyahu (from Jerusalem Post, 11/16/11).

If anyone should be detested for his personal conduct, it is Obama, who springs insulting surprises and snubs his Israeli visitor, tries to dictate existential policies to Israel, and ignores prior U.S. agreements with Israel. Mr. Goldberg is not fair to blame Netanyahu for finally asserting Israeli independence from Obama's imperialist-style arrogance.

I agree that, if attacked, Iran would retaliate against whomever it disliked, including the U.S.. However, Iran already has been attacking the U.S., especially in Iraq. Iran has been setting up terrorist cells in Latin American, where it may be trying to emplace missiles that soon may carry nuclear warheads. What is the U.S. waiting for? Bush was beaten down, so perhaps that is why he hesitated. But Obama proposes watered down sanctions against Iran, some of which he waives, and some of which China and Russia ignore. Each time that Obama proposes harsher sanctions, while Iran draws closer to nuclear weaponry, ask yourselves why weren't those harsher sanctions proposed out the outset.

I believe that sanctions and negotiations have been excuses for not taking military and political action against Iran and North Korea. Obama has some temerity to suggest that Israel risk survival to let phony sanctions work, after decades of trying diplomacy and sanctions that do not work!

When ordinary liberals make such suggestions, they are willfully deceiving themselves. When President Obama does, one wonders whether he has another motive.

It is misleading to call the U.S. "Israel's main benefactor, weapons supplier and diplomatic protector." The State Dept. is a leading diplomatic foe of Israel, asking Israel to make dangerous concessions to induce the P.A. to negotiate. Obama and company use harsh words when Israel doesn't cave in, and expresses only "hope" that the P.A. will "try harder" to negotiate and to stop terrorism. The P.A. encourages bigotry and violence against Jews, in violation of its U.S.-sponsored agreements. What can be said in behalf of U.S. silence about the P.A.?

The U.S. a benefactor and weapons supplier of Israel? The U.S. lent Israel money at such high interest rates, that its current subsidy of Israel just pays the interest. The U.S. canceled Egypt's debt to it but not Israel's. The strings attached to U.S. military funding for Israel crimp Israel's military industry. Israel would be wise to repay the loan and get out from under baleful U.S. Executive branch influence.

Israel's military industry provides the U.S. with more effective and less costly arms. Israel also provides the U.S. with valuable intelligence, although the U.S. secretly withheld valuable intelligence from Israel. The U.S. arms some of Israel's enemies. Mr. Goldberg omitted those facts, more important as they are than his assertions and assumptions.

3. Jennifer Rubin responded to Mr. Goldberg, on p.29, from WashingtonPost.com, 11/16/11. She finds President Obama's public displays of enmity to Israel's head of government unacceptable. Nor should Mr. Goldberg make excuses for it. Obama "condemned" Israel for letting Jews build in its capital. The anti-Israel tantrums by Obama, V.P. Biden, and Sec. Clinton are unique and revealing. "Obama publicly undercut Israel's bargaining position on borders (without an equivalent demand for the Palestinians to give up the right of return)."

Ms. Rubin derides the extensive hedging in Mr. Goldberg's claim that the U.S. would help Israel out over Iran. Actually, Obama and aides keep denigrating military action against Iran as destabilizing and disrupting.

Although Mr. Goldberg suggests it is Israel's obligation as "junior partner" to repair the U.S.-Israel relationship, Ms. Rubin suggests that Netanyahu already has taken such steps.

She concludes that Israel cannot rely on the U.S.

MY COMMENTS: "Right of return" falsely implies a non-existent right and that the people who come in would be returning, like refugees. Actually, most of them never lived in Israel.

The U.S. does not treat Israel like a partner but like a satellite. It really is not the obligation of one party, Israel, to repair a breach maneuvered by the other party, Obama. Nor can Israel do anything to overcome enmity by both the Obama administration and the State Dept., based as they are on taking the side of jihadists against Israel. Only Israeli withdrawals enabling jihadists to conquer it would satisfy the "senior partner," meaning the Executive branch, not Congress nor the American people. Let Mr. Goldberg ask why Obama is so anti-American as well as anti-Zionist.

4. Rich Richman further responded to Mr. Goldberg on p.30, from Commentary Magazine, 11/17/11. In discussing Obama's antagonism toward Israel, Mr. Richman cites: "failing to honor prior U.S. understandings on settlements; ignoring the 2004 Bush letter; slurring Israel in the Cairo address; repeatedly failing to visit Israel even while in the region; telling Jewish leaders the U.S. had been too close to Israel; vilifying Israel for announcing more Jewish homes in longstanding Jewish areas of the capital of the Jewish state; demanding pre-negotiation concessions from Israel but not from the Palestinians; repeatedly humiliating Israel's prime minister during U.S. visits; failing to visit Israel after telling the prime minister a year and a half ago he was "ready" to go; having the UN ambassador castigate Israel at the UN in extraordinarily harsh terms, adapting a new U.S. position on Palestinian negotiations without notice to Israel and announcing it while the prime minister was traveling to the U.S. to meet with him; and complaining to the French president about having to talk to the Israeli prime minister all the time."

MY COMMENTS: Sec. of State Marshall tried to rescind Israeli statehood. The U.S. repeatedly armed Arab states and blocked thorough Israeli defeat of Arab aggressors. It pressed Israel to let the Arabs attack first in 1973, enabling the Arabs to almost conquer Israel and perhaps slay millions. When Israel saved the U.S. untold future casualties by destroying Saddam's nuclear reactor, the U.S. condemned Israel.

Therefore, U.S. foreign policy against Israel precedes the current Administration, and is strong though not total. The Obama Administration is standing down against jihad even while the jihadists are rising up. Thanks to Obama Administration help, Radical Muslims are taking over more countries than they might have. On the other hand, the normally realistic and patriotic Wall St. Journal thought that the Arab uprisings were democratic and benign — naivete is not an Obama monopoly.

The problem is not a single political party or President. It won't be enough to change Administrations. The State Dept. must be cleared of biased officials and unpatriotic, ideological activists. The whole government and media must come to realize that the current threat to civilization by a bigoted, violent, imperialistic, and antisemitic movement comes from Radical Islam.

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 Errol Phillips, February 20, 2012.

Carl von Clausewitz, writing in the early 1800s posited that "Politics is war by other means." That being the case, it seems to me that the radical Communists worldwide and in the United States have been playing this "War Game" to win in earnest ..... to overthrow us.... began some 60 years ago. Their strategy has been and is long term — and has been a winning plan of action up until November 2010. If you remember, Nikata Khrushchev pronounced way back in November of 1956 "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in."

Like I have said before, The Communists are very patient — They are like the Japanese who like watch trees grow.

Everyone with some degree of intelligence knows that the Communist Progressives, and their supporters and sympathizers have taken over our Education System, and Public Sector Unions and the Press in order to control and indoctrinate our children in believing that the State is more important than personal responsibility and freedom.

How did they do it? How did we let allow such a thing? Easily explained — They play for first downs — using all four — gaining little by little — almost unnoticeable — until we, the opposing team finally have finally realized that our deadly opponents got to within inches of the Goal Line. Unfortunately, the Republican strategy has been and still is a losing strategy.

Rather than going for first downs, they utilize the Hail Mary Pass. Everyone in the stands knows that Hail Mary's seldom, if ever work. And our Communist Opposition knows that as well and they stack their defenses accordingly.

Until the Tea Party exploded into existence in 2009, our so called Republicans on the field have been playing to a losing Game Plan for 60 years. Thankfully, reinforcements have come onto the field and finally stopped the Blues on our own inch line.

Here an example of how insidious and patient our opponents are:

Let's say the Progressives want a certain Program costing 50 million dollars (This might be at any level (Local-State-National). They get their Democratic allies to request some legislation. The Republicans are adamant that the request is unwarranted and useless. The supporters yell, scream, picket, and threaten that they need the funding. They use their contacts in the biased Press to advance their cause. A few weeks later, in smoke filled room somewhere, a deal is worked out that the Republicans will come aboard and support publicly and not object to the Proposal if the Funding Request is reduced to 10 Million.

All parties are happy. The Republicans claim to be the winners. What they don't know, is that the Progressives are more than satisfied. They will come back later for one absurdity or another for 50 Million — get 10 Million .... on and on and on and on. Like I said previously, first down after first down yields long term results. And the Republican Suits inside the beltway haven't a clue.

Yet the hard working Citizens have finally woken from a coma and have demanded that brakes be applied — no more comprises and that "no" means "no."

Tea Party Patriots see two opponents: the deadly Blue Progressive Team and the Incompetent Red Republican Team.

We, the Tea Party Patriots want the ball. We want to name the coach, the offensive coordinator, the defensive coordinator and most of all — we want our Ownership Rights restored.

And a few more first downs .........

Contact Errol Phillips by email at ep@pinehurst2.com

To Go To Top

Posted by One Jerusalem, February 19, 2012.

A British terror trial sheds new light on the origins of the February 17 anti-Qaddafi uprising.

This was written by John Rosenthal and it appeared in National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291316/ islamist-plot-untold-story-libyan-rebellion-john-rosenthal>


Today is the official anniversary of the "February 17th Revolution," the Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi that — with a massive helping hand from NATO — eventually led to the fall of the regime and the death of Qaddafi. Although the rebellion was initially presented in the Western news media as a "protest movement," it is clear from both video evidence and firsthand accounts that the "protests" were extremely violent from the start. Before long, columns of armed "protesters" — as some media continued incongruously to call them — were marching toward Tripoli.

In virtually every city or town where unrest broke out, police stations and other government buildings and installations were attacked and set on fire. Such attacks were recorded in Benghazi, Derna, Tobruk, al-Bayda, and al-Zawiya, among other places. In Derna, according to the testimony of pro-rebellion "activist" Amer Saad, Qaddafi loyalist forces were locked in the holding cells of a local police station, and the building was set ablaze.

The violence of the "protests" is hardly surprising, given what we now know about the involvement of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in the rebellion. At least three al-Qaeda-linked militants who had at one time or another been in U.S. custody played leading roles in the anti-Qaddafi uprising. Following the fall of Tripoli, one of them, the historical leader of the LIFG Abdul-Hakim Belhadj, would emerge as the military governor of the Libyan capital. (In Western media, Belhadj is frequently confused with Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi. Al-Hasadi is a different al-Qaeda-linked militant who played a leading role in the early stages of the rebellion in eastern Libya.)

Moreover, little-known evidence cited in a British court case indicates that there was nothing spontaneous about the violence. By the middle of the last decade, the LIFG had in fact elaborated a plan for destabilizing the Qaddafi regime by using many of the same tactics that would be employed at the outset of the rebellion in February 2011. The plan was discovered on a CD seized by British police during an October 2005 raid of the home of a Libyan political refugee in Birmingham. In a 2009 British court ruling, the man is merely identified by the initials "AV." (See Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AV, April 30, 2009.)

The ruling notes that AV was a member of the LIFG's governing Shura Council and that his name was added to the United Nations list of al-Qaeda-linked individuals and entities on February 7, 2006. These and other biographical details make clear that "AV" is Abd Al-Rahman al-Faqih. According to both the British ruling and information collected by the U.N. Security Council, al-Faqih/"AV" was convicted in absentia by a Moroccan court for complicity in the May 2003 suicide bombings in Casablanca that took the lives of more than 30 civilians and injured many more.

The U.N.'s summary of reasons for al-Faqih's inclusion on the al-Qaeda sanctions list notes, furthermore, that he is "assessed to have had connections to the terrorist network in Iraq which was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." In British court proceedings, al-Faqih tacitly admitted his links to al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda in Iraq, claiming that he had sent a message to the captors of Kenneth Bigley in an effort to persuade the latter to spare Bigley's life. (See §17 of the above-linked ruling.) Bigley, a British civil engineer, was beheaded by al-Zarqawi's group in October 2004.

The author of the plan discovered on al-Faqih's CD was LIFG chief ideologue Abu al-Munthir, a.k.a. Sami al-Saadi. Like LIFG leader Belhadj, al-Munthir/al-Saadi was transferred to Libyan custody in 2004 after having been reportedly detained by American intelligence in Southeast Asia. A certain Abu Munthir has, incidentally, been cited in British court proceedings as an al-Qaeda operative who encouraged young Muslims in Great Britain to conduct terror attacks at home following the invasion of Afghanistan. Libyan government communications with Western intelligence services, which were discovered following the fall of Tripoli, suggest that the Abu Munthir in question was none other than al-Saadi. (For reproductions of the documents, see here.)

Other files found on al-Faqih's CD included a bomb-making manual and what British judge Colin Mackay, in sentencing remarks, has described as "lurid anti-western material."

According to the 2009 ruling, the LIFG plan:

includes a call for mujahedin to train in the handling of weapons and the preparation of explosives and for them to inflict destruction and damage on "the headquarters of the revolutionary committees, the centres of the intelligence and the places of the revolutionaries and corrupters."

The references here to "revolutionaries" and the "revolutionary committees" concern Moammar Qaddafi's so-called al-Fateh Revolution. The "revolutionary committees" were a permanent feature of Libyan society under Qaddafi: a form of institutionalization of the al-Fateh Revolution.

Contact One Jerusalem by email at info@onejerusalem.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Patrick Dempsey, February 19, 2012.

As a formative belief system God has many champions. Not least amongst these are the Jews of Judaism. If we take our own Bible as a precedent, then Biblically speaking, we owe our God to the God of the Jewish People. With that in mind, all that the Bible states is owed to the scribes of the Jews, whose record of the commands and demands of our God has brought us to the belief system we now recognise as the Catholic Church. After faith had been restored to such a 'christian' ideologue, we begin to see the rise of other Faiths, whose adoptive system mirror's our own, and the Jewish model in many particular ways. Within Islam, the prophet Mohammed took careful aim at what had risen from both Judaism and the early Christian Churches and delivered to the Arab peoples what we know as the Muslim Faith.

With all of this, centred around the Middle Eastern Territories, rivalry has proliferated and the Jewish People have been damned for ever making the awareness of God real to so many People. The land of the Bible, the State of Israel, that now stands there are owed by covenant to a People God has recognised as the rightful heirs to this land. All that comes after, our Churches claim to the Holy Sites of Jerusalem etc., cannot deny what we believe God has demanded. Nor can Islam claim any precedent which, in Biblical terms stretches back a further 3,000 years before Islam was born. Herein lies the quandary for the modern state of affairs which seeks to usurp the will of God and place Man before Godliness and restrict the Jewish Covenant we are duty bound to honour. That Covenant, it must be remembered, despite the political sanction that seeks to gain property rights over the State of Israel, which would deny Gods very word.

So today, as we seek to define what our own belief system must acknowledge, we all too often find time to ask, who are and what is a Jew? We seem to ignore that God gave all existing rights to the Jewish People, over the lands now resided in by them. But to give definition to what is a Jew, a Jew is classed within the State of Israel's Law of Return, as both 'national' and as a 'religious'. By interpretation then, though nationality is decided by birth, a Jewish Mother gives her Child to Judaism under Halacha! That said, religion also decides the status of the Jew, whether born to or converted to the Faith! With that we enter the region fought over, and as an overview we give Palestine a Brief History.

But I do tire of the same question, though I constantly answer it with regard to the 6,000,000 Jews who were taken from us. All Jews have a right to existence and not one Muslim has any right to deny that. There can be no God who would condone the taking of a life, and in defence of all life, no God would give the right of one over the other to commit murder. Well it appears that we did not learn from History, and that the truth is the factor which teaches us what was honest and what has been fabricated. Any history of the Gaza Strip has been slanted recently and slightly biased, and always against the Jewish People. It is a great disservice to writers and history and is disingenuous not only to the Jews of the region, but to the Arabs as well. Journalism should tackle each and every issue with an integrity that appears lacking in this era of wider news availability. Firstly, one million Arabs were not expelled from Israel, while 700,000 to 800,000 Jewish refugees were forced to flee Arab lands, and with barely the clothes they were wearing, they then settled into a besieged land, their land, the State of Israel.

Secondly, and this is very important to the absence of all historical foundation, Muslims are not a disenfranchised people in the State of Israel, whereas Jews are an oppressed People in their own land. Circled as they are by an Arab ring of hatred, the threat exists for all those who live within Israel's borders, Muslim's included. There are too many one sided points to dispel a double sided argument. While the ordinary working class Palestinian scrapes around for a living, an average smuggler can extort £2,400,000 per annum from fleecing their own people.

On your own assessment this substantial sum would keep nearly 500 Palestinians in gainful employment, per year. Assuming there are many others, of these smugglers, stealing from the very lifeblood of a Muslim people, how many proper jobs does this then steal from the local economy? Basic economics would have taught us that the struggle is overseen by those who wish to extort power, make profit and shield this all behind a rabid hatred of the Jewish People. There are some very telling exercises here. Why is it that Egypt, a Muslim Country, seeks to prevent this urgent aid from getting to those of their own faith? History can fully detail the struggle for the Jewish People, their very existence under constant attack since the declared State of Israel was created in 1948. That truth, however, will never acknowledge that Hitler had clearly set a precedent which many in the Muslim world would seek to emulate and continue. That fundamental truth, brought about the creation of a State on the back of the worst ever genocide mankind could ever have conceived of, and with a delivery of 6,000,000 Jewish Murdered, could ever expect to achieve again! As a sop to the remnants of European Jewry, we allowed the Jews a State which was swamp, uncultivated and lacking in 'oil'!

Here, in 1948, the Arab World set before the alter of history its own ambition to outdo Hitler and let the Jews of the World sink permanently without trace. As to the million displaced Arabs that are so wrongly identified with expulsion, these were Arabs whom the Jewish Sate were happy to incorporate. Remember, Muslims have as equal a treatment under Jewish Law as Jews do! The Arab world more or less ordered these, now Israeli Arabs, if they so chose, to exit the land of Israel or face the same annihilation planned for the Jewish People. Ever since then, the Palestinian people have been the rod with which the Muslim world uses to whip the Jews of Israel into an under siege, threatened and assailed People. Israel has a history, a truth that is quite fundamental to all of democracy. It is now also a memory of what was allowed to happen to their own People, which might blur the judgement of lesser people and a forgiving nature that lives carefully with the knowledge of what we allowed to happen, over 70 years ago. That very thought, that their history and truth must bolster them more solidly as a People, and more readily as an assaulted Nation, is to shore up a resistance that has been a daily ritual for them ever since the terms of The Holocaust became known to the free world.

There is also a very salient point to be made in all of this, it is that those killed in Israel may well be Jews, but they are just as likely to be Muslims and Christians also. It is also true that while Israel persists in its own defence of its own Land and People, more and more Jews will die, alongside ever more Muslims and an increasing toll upon a Christian community caught in the middle. If Islam is so concerned with the plight of all of its people, their God will understand the placation of a few Jews who seek to live in peace with their neighbours. But it is a stark reminder of our recent past that many Muslim leaders have not only extolled the virtues of Hitler's reach for a final solution, they have resolved to complete this task with an urgency that sweeps aside their own peoples resolve, and ensures their own peoples complete impoverishment. This final act must not be allowed to take precedence over what honest, decent and, those who embrace all humanity, must demand.

Where was the clamour from the Muslim world in 1967 when the Arab League's response to the plight of the Palestinian's was distilled down to the Khartoum Declaration? This declared that no peace would prevail and there would be:-

1) no recognition of Israel,

2) no negotiating with Israel, and more importantly for the Arabs trying to survive in Palestine

3) no peace with Israel.

We must also remember that both Gaza and the West Bank are embroiled in a power struggle, with both Fatah and Hamas still killing each other to gain that brokerage of power that seeks to deny the very peace its own people would demand and seek? Whereby all assistance to a beleaguered Muslim people is denied, in favour of a resolute determination to prevent Israeli existence, more Muslims are denied the truth of their own existence above the rights of the Jews to live in harmony amongst them. The resolve of Islam is a power to see, but their God is beholding to the Muslim world that has declared its own intention to deny Israel coexistence, and thereby deny Jews their God given right to live in peace. This Muslim demand, to declare what they suppose God would demand, must be denied those who would seek to subjugate a world to a limited view of what God intended.

Individuals cannot commit any of us to a lie which hides the fact that despises the right of life to any of the Jewish People. Meanwhile the sponsorship of Hamas and Fatah, and those other groups whose only allegiance is to personal power, needs to be corrected. As much as I remain a Catholic, I clearly identify more with the Jews of The Holocaust, than I do with the so called 'christians' of that period. Power rests in the hands of too few, whether they are a religious or political entity. The Catholic Church, as with many Catholic's, are embroiled in an awful crisis of conscience over what was allowed, what was perpetrated and what has been perpetuated against Judaism, and the Jews within the Holocaust of Europe in particular. Thus stated, could I not invoke the Law of Return as a person of good faith who identifies more clearly with Judaism?

My own identity, from within the study I have undertaken, seeks to not only accuse the 'christian' churches of complicit inhumanity to mankind, but to also enshrine in my own endeavour an acceptance of a wronged Jewish People, holding all the moral credentials we seem to have aspired to and lost! That belief would also recognise the moral right of Judaism to own a God we have so clearly disowned by our actions? That same God of Abraham, a Jewish God, should ensure that we conform to a Jewish tradition, a Hebrew Church that Jesus also belonged to. While not actively following the Jewish Faith, I am as equally committed to ensuring that the faith of my birth more closely adheres to what Jewish tradition dictates, and what moral probity must ensure. Right only belongs to those who remain righteous in the eyes of God! The Jewish statement from the Law of Return, 1958 clearly asserts that:-

"..a Jew is a person who declares in good faith to be a Jew."

Contact Patrick Dempsey by email at pd1010@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Dozens of Arab stoned tourists and police on the Temple Mount Sunday morning, a day after a former Muslim Mufti warned of a possible "break-in" by Jews.

Police arrested three of the stone-throwers, and no one was injured. The holy site remains open to visitors.

Police closed the Temple Mount to non-Muslims one day last week after an apparent political prank that featured posters of Jewish Leadership faction leader Moshe Feiglin calling for the destruction of Arab mosques on the Temple Mount and building the Third Temple.

Sunday's violence may have been prompted by a sermon on Saturday by former Jerusalem mufti Ekrema Sabri, who warned that alleged Israeli extremists "might implement their threats to break into the Al-Aqsa mosque tomorrow (Sunday) morning."

He urged all Arabs and Muslims to save the Al-Aqsa mosque and support the people of Jerusalem in dealing with what he called the "Israeli conspiracy against the city and its holy places."

Ekrema Sabri was appointed by former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat as the Mufti of Jerusalem and also served as the supreme religious authority in the PA.

During the Al-Aqsa or Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War that began in 2000, Sabri expressed support for terrorist suicide attacks, and police questioned him a year layer after he met in Lebanon with Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Anti-Jewish incitement by the Palestinian Authority has increased markedly in the past year as the PA continues to try to claim sovereignty over the site, the holiest place in Judaism.

Many Muslim clerics have preached that Jews have no connection to the site and that the First and Second Temples never existed.

The Palestinian Authority has removed tons of dirt from the Temple Mount compound in an effort to prevent discoveries that would reveal artifacts from the era of the Jewish Temples.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a writer for Arutz-Sheva, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, February 19, 2012.


Well maybe a mistake has been made,
and maybe the
powers that be
should no longer remain???


The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), which criticized the Obama Administration this week for its refusal to condemn or penalize Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) for its alliance with the terrorist organization Hamas, has pointed to a troubling, long-term pattern of the Obama Administration refusing to condemn PA pro-terror, anti-peace acts.

March 2011: Five members of the Fogel family, including three children, were murdered in their beds, their throats slit. The very next day, members of Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas' own Fatah party conducted a grotesque and obscene ceremony naming a square near Ramallah in honor of Fatah Jew-killer, Dalal Mughrabi. Pleas by major American Jewish leaders, including the ZOA's Mort Klein, urging President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to condemn the Fatah honoring of Mughrabi were fruitless. Only four days later did a minor State Department official, the acting deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, condemned the commemoration and urged PA officials to "address it" — but didn't condemn Abbas or his ruling Fatah party, under whose auspices this ceremony occurred. (Shockingly, Mr. Toner added that "all parties have an obligation to end any form of incitement" — falsely implying that similar incitement comes from the Israeli side as well).

March 2010: When the PA named another square in honor of the terrorist Mughrabi, the Obama Administration said nothing for days before Secretary Clinton falsely claimed that a Hamas-controlled municipality was behind the naming.

January 2010: When terrorists from Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a recognized terrorist group, murdered an Israeli, Rabbi Meir Chai, in a drive-by shooting, the PA did not condemn the murder but did condemn the subsequent killing of the terrorists by Israel. Abbas himself sent condolences to the families of the three terrorists; PA prime minister Salam Fayyad visited the terrorists' families; and Mahmoud Al-Aloul, member of the Fatah Central Committee, also praised the dead terrorists as heroes. But the Obama Administration said nothing, even when specifically informed of these events by the Israeli government.

November 2009: When pressed by former Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) to investigate the extremist, pro-terror Fatah platform adopted at its August 2009 Bethlehem conference, the Obama Administration pretended that Fatah had done nothing of the kind. Secretary Clinton said falsely in her response to Sen. Specter that the Conference had shown "a broad consensus supporting President Abbas, negotiations with Israel, and the two-state solution."

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "President Obama's refusal to condemn and penalize Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) for its alliance with the terrorist organization Hamas is simply the latest in a deeply troubling pattern of Obama Administration indulgence and neglect of PA pro-terror, anti-peace acts.

"The ZOA is deeply concerned that a horrible message is being sent to Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular that the United States doesn't care about the PA's alliance with genocidal terrorists, or incitement to hatred and murder and glorification of Jew-murderers. The message is that there will be no consequences for these vile acts.

"Not only is this in itself direct and troubling evidence of bias against Israel, but we find that, in contrast, when Israel approved construction of twenty apartments for Jews in eastern Jerusalem, both President Obama and Secretary Clinton personally and forcefully condemned Israel. Had Israel named a public square after a Jew who had murdered innocent Arabs, does anyone imagine that they would have remained silent? Of course not. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have repeatedly condemned and criticized Israeli actions with which they disagree.

"This deafening silence tells us that the Obama Administration does not regard Palestinian anti-peace, pro-terror acts as being important. The Congress, American Jewish and pro-Israel organizations should start demanding to know why this is the case. This question demands an answer."

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, February 19, 2012.

Dr. Salim Mansur's new book Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism has been positively reviewed and endorsed by a handful of mainly conservative reviewers and distinguished intellectuals.

In my opinion, the book has been underestimated. It is a real gem. And, despite a recent spate of other important books on this subject, including Ibn Warraq's Why the West Is Best, Mansur's work is unique. Mansur gives us very valuable information about the history of multiculturalism in Canada, which is important because Canada — where Mansur lives, writes, and teaches — may well be the very first Western democracy to have legally enshrined this policy. We learn, up close, what that policy has done.

In 1971, in an era of "identity politics" rising, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau passed the multiculturalism policy. In 1988 it was further enshrined as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Mansur observes:

Explicit in this idea of multiculturalism was the officially sanctioned view that all cultures are of equal merit and deserving of equal respect.

In addition, Mansur explains and connects a number of important things that no one has previously done — at least, not all in one place.

Mansur teaches us that, historically, the nineteenth and twentieth century Third World and European immigrants who came to North America were very different from late 20th and 21st century immigrants. In the past, an immigrant undertook a long and sometimes perilous voyage to the New World. In order to plan and execute this transition, such immigrants usually began to cut their ties to their native customs, even to their families; they wanted to assimilate and become "Canadians" or "Americans" or "Englishmen." Visits back home were not easy or even possible. Ties were painfully cut — or new lives, far from persecution, were begun.

This is no longer true. What may have taken weeks or months in terms of travel can now be accomplished in a matter of hours. Modern wide-body aircraft means that someone can have their breakfast in central Asia and a late-night dinner in the New World. Satellite television means that an immigrant can continue to watch the news and be entertained in their home country's language.

In the past, assimilation meant that a new immigrant would learn English as well as American or Canadian history and values. Not so today. The well-intentioned policy of multiculturalism now permits, even insists, that an immigrant learn mainly about the customs of the country she has left — and not about the customs of her new home. She or he may spend their entire lives speaking their home country language and socializing mainly with others just like themselves.

How could this have come about?

Mansur explains that Canadians were already sensitized to the demands of the Quebecois who wanted to secede and who ultimately became a bilingual (French and English speaking) province of Canada. Canadians were also so guilty about their own history vis-a-vis the indigenous peoples of Canada and horrified at the Nazi-era racism that led to the genocidal extermination of six million Jews. Thus Canadian leaders vowed to avoid the stench, the heartbreak, and the atrocity of persecuting anyone because they were "different," especially if their skin color was dark, their features not Caucasian, their religion other than Christian, especially if their country of origin had been previously colonized.

According to Mansur, by the mid 1990s, Canadian youth no longer knew much about the history of Canada.

As Mansur puts it: To correct the West's past racism, academics dismissed the Western narrative as essentially "white history" which had to be replaced by "non-white people's history." This led to the so-called academic "historical wars," heavily influenced by the biased but still lionized work of Edward Said. White guilt, balkanization, and the glorification of barbarism began. Tribalism trumped citizenship, group rights trumped individual rights. "Primitive" tribes did not feel any responsibility to reciprocate the interest or respect shown to them by humbled white folk. As Mansur notes, anti-Western peoples did not "respect the individualist-oriented secular values of liberal democracy... the people of minority cultures did most of the demanding for equal respect of their cultural norms."

While this was going on, the same modern communication and transportation that allowed Third World immigrants to never have to leave home also made it possible to internationalize what might have remained a local dispute in an earlier era. For example, the "Palestinians" turned a local dispute about the existence of one small Jewish state into an international matter; they hijacked aircraft, universities, human rights groups, and the United Nations itself. Similarly, Mansur reminds us of a horrifying Sikh terrorist attack upon an Air India flight in 1985 which blew up 329 Indian-Canadians and crew who were returning to Canada.

Mansur is describing the export of Third World religious and territorial wars to the New World. Multicultural Canada did not convict but rather acquitted the prime suspects in the terrorist attack. In Mansur's words:

The terrible story of the Air India bombing...cannot be blamed on multiculturalism. It also cannot be denied, however, that multiculturalism provided the political environment in which the bloody conflict of a distant land, India, found the soil to flourish with deadly consequences.

Mansur understands that, at bottom, multiculturalism is ironically, paradoxically, a racist doctrine. He quotes author Kim Bolan, who believes that Canadians may have underplayed the significance of this crime because "it primarily affected people who weren't perceived to be our own — brown people with accents who we didn't accept as Canadians....But they are our own. Our own victims. Our own terrorists."

Mansur understands full well that politically correct multicultural societies — and societies founded upon "identity politics" — ultimately "chill free speech" and "insist upon conformity of opinion." Mansur then lists the many names of Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents as well as infidels who have been murdered, death threatened, censored, and exiled because they have offended primarily Muslim sensibilities.According to Mansur, by the mid 1990s, Canadian youth no longer knew much about the history of Canada.

As Mansur puts it: To correct the West's past racism, academics dismissed the Western narrative as essentially "white history" which had to be replaced by "non-white people's history." This led to the so-called academic "historical wars," heavily influenced by the biased but still lionized work of Edward Said. White guilt, balkanization, and the glorification of barbarism began. Tribalism trumped citizenship, group rights trumped individual rights. "Primitive" tribes did not feel any responsibility to reciprocate the interest or respect shown to them by humbled white folk. As Mansur notes, anti-Western peoples did not "respect the individualist-oriented secular values of liberal democracy... the people of minority cultures did most of the demanding for equal respect of their cultural norms."

While this was going on, the same modern communication and transportation that allowed Third World immigrants to never have to leave home also made it possible to internationalize what might have remained a local dispute in an earlier era. For example, the "Palestinians" turned a local dispute about the existence of one small Jewish state into an international matter; they hijacked aircraft, universities, human rights groups, and the United Nations itself. Similarly, Mansur reminds us of a horrifying Sikh terrorist attack upon an Air India flight in 1985 which blew up 329 Indian-Canadians and crew who were returning to Canada.

Mansur is describing the export of Third World religious and territorial wars to the New World. Multicultural Canada did not convict but rather acquitted the prime suspects in the terrorist attack. In Mansur's words:

The terrible story of the Air India bombing...cannot be blamed on multiculturalism. It also cannot be denied, however, that multiculturalism provided the political environment in which the bloody conflict of a distant land, India, found the soil to flourish with deadly consequences.

Mansur understands that, at bottom, multiculturalism is ironically, paradoxically, a racist doctrine. He quotes author Kim Bolan, who believes that Canadians may have underplayed the significance of this crime because "it primarily affected people who weren't perceived to be our own — brown people with accents who we didn't accept as Canadians....But they are our own. Our own victims. Our own terrorists."

Mansur understands full well that politically correct multicultural societies — and societies founded upon "identity politics" — ultimately "chill free speech" and "insist upon conformity of opinion." Mansur then lists the many names of Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents as well as infidels who have been murdered, death threatened, censored, and exiled because they have offended primarily Muslim sensibilities.

Some of these names are well known (Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali), but he carefully lists the names of those who are not known, e.g., Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, who was stabbed to death; Rushdie's Italian and Norwegian translators, Ettore Capriolo and William Nygaard, who were both seriously wounded in knife attacks. A Turkish mob, in search of Rushdie's Turkish translator, Aziz Nesin, set a building on fire and murdered 37 people.

Mansur's list goes on and on — and what is important is that he — but not the Western mainstream media — is focusing upon the high price being paid for truth telling, especially when Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents are paying it in Muslim-majority countries.

Mansur does this so that he can set the stage for the very high-profile cases in Canada of "offended" Canadian Muslims Syed Soharwardy and Mohamed Elmasry. Soharwardy filed complaints with three separate Canadian human rights commissions against Canadian publisher and writer Ezra Levant, who had dared to reproduce the Danish "Mohammed" cartoons, and against writer Mark Steyn.

For two years, Levant was embroiled in "defending his constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of expression." The investigation cost the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission $500,000.00 and it cost Levant nearly $100,000.00. Elmasry, of the Canadian Islamic Congress, also filed his complaints with three separate Canadian groups. He was "offended" by an article Steyn had published in Maclean's. Ultimately, all six complaints were dismissed.

Imagine the self-censorship that must exist among lower-profile truth-tellers who know they cannot afford to fund a battle against the Canadian state.

Mansur's conclusions? That multiculturalism really amounts to a form of "soft bigotry," or as Pascal Bruckner has phrased it: "A racism of the anti-racists; it chains people to their roots." Immigrants are kept confined to their "group" and not encouraged or expected to become "individuals" and "citizens" of a modern democracy.

Even as Canadians are busy patting themselves on the back for having created a fair, just, tolerant, and multicultural society — guess what? After more than 40 years of a multicultural policy, Canadians recently voted their still existing prejudices. While "72 percent of Canadians thought favourably of Christianity, only 28 percent viewed Islam favourably. Only 30 percent viewed Sikhism favorably (the figures for Hinduism. Buddhism, and Judaism were, respectively, 41 percent, 57 percent, and 53 percent)." From 62 percent to 74 percent of the Canadian population now believes that "laws and norms should not be modified to accommodate minorities."

Mansur rejects multiculturalism, not only because it has failed to work but because it has — and can only — lead to a "tyranny of the majority" which will threaten the freedom and "security" of the "individual." Mansur views the "individual" as the "ultimate minority of one against the majority that can turn into a mob." This freedom and security is what defines a "liberal democracy" and should not be relinquished. He closes:

"The worm inside the doctrine of multiculturalism is the lie that all cultures are worthy of equal respect and equally embracing of individual freedom and democracy. The concerted assault by the Islamists on the essential and life-affirming values based on individual rights and freedom is proof of this lie."

European and North American governments should be consulting with Mansur and with other Muslims, ex-Muslims, and infidels who share his views. They will soon have no other choice.

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/

This article appeared February 17, 2012 in PJ Media and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 19, 2012.

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey gave an interview to CNN yesterday. No surprise that he said an attack on Iran would be "destabilizing," "imprudent," and fail to achieve "long term goals." We know the US administration is against a military attack.

Martin Dempsey Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey testifies before the House Committee on Armed Services on Capitol Hill on October 13, 2011 in Washington, DC. The hearing focused on the future of national defense ten years after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

But then he declared, "We are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor...."

Come on! Can the top military man in the US, along with his cohorts, military and civilian, really believe this? Have they totally ignored all of the experts who attest to the irrationality of the Iranian leadership, which founds its actions on fervent Islamic fundamentalism? The analysts who proclaim Iran exceedingly dangerous precisely because its leaders are not rational?

Just days ago I wrote a piece on Islamic ideology
(http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/17/islamists-for-palestine/), in which I quoted the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Following years of exile, he had returned triumphantly to Iran, in 1979, when the Shah was overthrown. Shortly thereafter, he declared, "I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke. We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah."

This perspective is "rational" if the global spread of Islam is the ultimate goal. And only if. It would accept an economically weakened Iran (with its suffering people promoted as "martyrs") as long as it were possible to secure the bomb that would advance Islamic hegemony in the world.

But this is not the "rational" that Dempsey had in mind. He was alluding, most certainly, to a logical national self-interest that would convince the Iranians that it's too damaging to the country, because of the impoverishment being imposed upon it by sanctions, to continue to pursue the bomb. But we see no sign of this, in spite of the increasing deprivation. As of now, they are defiantly continuing their nuclear pursuit in spite of everything. Because the caliphate and shari'a (Islamic law) trump nationalism.

Short of a military attack, only a stringency in sanctions well beyond what the world has been willing to impose is likely to have the effect of stopping Iranian nuclear development. A stringency that would bring Iran to its knees and render it unable to function, or bring it to the cusp of successful revolution. But consider... Not only are China and Russia resistant. Such an ally of Israel as India continues, as I write, to receive Iranian oil and to trade in commodities such as rice.


On the other hand, Dempsey may really know better, but may be espousing this position to bolster the argument that Israel should not hit Iran. If this is the case, I would suggest that Dempsey and company are also irrational.

Dempsey further said:

"We also know, or we believe we know, that the Iranian regime has not decided to make a nuclear weapon."

"...we believe we know..." Interesting. A Freudian slip? Seems he's admitting that what they "know" is based more on wishful thinking than hard Intelligence.

In any event, he's skirting the main point: The prevailing opinion among experts is that Iran is working to have the capability to build a weapon, so that when its leaders decide to do so, they can achieve this goal speedily. Whether the Iranians have yet decided becomes moot. For it is surely not prudent — not "rational" — to allow Iran to reach that point of having the capacity, in the expectation that they can be coerced or convinced never to actually develop a weapon. That would constitute very foolish risk-taking.

The greater wisdom would be to ascertain that a religiously fervent Iran, which espouses values antithetical to all the West stands for, does not achieve that capability.


US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon has arrived here in Israel and will be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu this evening. The major subject on the agenda, quite obviously, is Iran — with all possible pressure to be brought to bear on us.

In his interview yesterday, Dempsey acknowledged, "I wouldn't suggest, sitting here today, that we've persuaded them [the Israelis] that our view is the correct view and that they are acting in an ill-advised fashion." To that I say, Baruch Hashem, and may we ever remain strong. But obviously Donilon's task is to try to convince us that the US is correct.

The White House released a statement regarding the visit of Donilon, claiming it was "part of our unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."

Yea, sure...


Nor is this the end of on-going US delusions:

Over a year ago, Iran conducted ultimately fruitless negotiations with the international group known as P5+1 — China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the US. The talks broke down in January 2011. In October 2011, the EU reached out to Iran in an attempt to restart negotiations.

Now, four months later, on February 14, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, responded in a letter to the EU's foreign policy head, Catherine Ashton:

"We voice our readiness for dialogue on a spectrum of various issues which can provide ground for constructive and forward-looking cooperation," said the letter, according to a translation on Bloomberg. Talks on the nuclear issue, which should begin as soon as possible, in a mutually acceptable venue, should be approached "on step-by-step principles and reciprocity..."

Yesterday, after meeting with Ashton, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called a press conference at which she said, "We think this is an important step and we welcome the letter."

Thus we see that the top foreign affairs official in the US may actually believe that Iran might be brought, via negotiations, to a place of ceasing its nuclear development. Or else, adopting Obama's line for pragmatic internal political reasons, may pretend to believe it.

In any event, not a good scene. Surely Clinton knows that all previous "negotiations" with Iran were utilized by its regime as a method for buying time while proceeding with nuclear development.


And what sort of "reciprocity" does she imagine they are seeking?

Just days ago, Iran threatened to cut off all oil supplies to Spain, France, the Netherlands, Greece, and Portugal. This is not exactly a sign that a chastened Iran is becoming more conciliatory — as the recipients of the letter from Iran would like to imagine. Rather, this is a sign of a somewhat beleaguered Iran showing defiance and determination to fight back. It is likely not an accident that the letter was preceded by the threats. The "constructive cooperation" alluded to in that letter may be a veiled reference to this mind set.


Clinton and Ashton may convince themselves that the letter signals that sanctions are working and thus Iranians are prepared to talk about curtailing their nuclear program. I would suggest that sanctions are causing Iran to hurt and so its leaders are amenable, at best, to the ploy of holding talks in order to curry Western favor, forestall further damage and secure time.


It is possible that neither Ashton nor Clinton is familiar with taqiyya — the Islamic principle of lying or deception in certain circumstances, sanctioned by the Koran.

As Raymond Ibrahim writing in the Middle East Quarterly in 2010 described it:

"Regarding Qur'an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), [a] prime authority on the Qur'an, writes,
'Whoever at any time or place fears ... evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.'

As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's close companion Abu Darda, who said,

'Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.'

Westerners, to the detriment or their interests, have trouble wrapping their heads around this.


While we are on the subject of the Obama administration, we have this from the new Internet source, The Times of Israel, founded by David Horovitz, recently editor of the JPost:

"The Obama administration formally announced its intention to ask Congress to waive a ban on funding UNESCO over its recognition of Palestinian statehood.

"'The Department of State intends to work with Congress to seek legislation that would provide authority to waive restrictions on paying the US assessed contributions to UNESCO,' says a footnote in the budget that the White House submitted to Congress this month.

"The footnote was quoted in a press release issued Wednesday by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the chairwoman of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, who says she plans to oppose such a waiver...

"US funding for UNESCO, the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, was stopped late last year because of laws banning US funding of any international organization that recognizes Palestinian statehood in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel.

"The Palestinians launched a bid last year to achieve statehood recognition through the UN and its affiliates.

"The bid's virtually only success was with UNESCO, which granted the Palestinians membership. But after the US stopped funding for the body, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned against Palestinian efforts to push for recognition in other UN bodies.

"At the time, State Department officials had suggested they would seek a waiver on the funding ban.

"Ros-Lehtinen said that waiving the provision could start the statehood ball rolling again.

"'Any effort to walk back this funding cutoff will pave the way for the Palestinian leadership's unilateral statehood scheme to drive on, and sends a disastrous message that the US will fund UN bodies no matter what irresponsible decisions they make,' she said in a statement."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-seeks-waiver-to- unesco-funding-ban/ (Thanks to Chana G.)


What was that about Obama as the most pro-Israel president ever?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, February 19, 2012.

This was written by Fresno Zionism and is archived at
http://fresnozionism.org/2012/02/ conquering-the-land-piecemeal/


Vandalism at Jerusalem's Mt. of Olives Cemetery

Recently, a car occupied by two Israeli Jews was attacked by rock-throwing Arabs in a Jerusalem neighborhood. Luckily, they escaped, one with minor injuries. Sometimes the victims are not so lucky, as in the case of Asher and Yonatan Palmer, murdered last year when a huge rock came through the windshield, striking the driver in the face and causing their car to veer off the road. Here is what I wrote then:

Every single day, hundreds of rocks, blocks, stones, etc. are thrown at Jewish vehicles in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Arab towns or neighborhoods inside the Green Line. Sometime photographers are informed in advance that there will be exciting opportunities to view the heroic resistance to occupation. Throwing 'stones' (sometimes as big as a person's head) is what Palestinian Arab adolescents do for entertainment. Even the great Columbia University 'scholar' Edward Said symbolically threw a stone across the Lebanese border at Israeli soldiers.

In the recent case, the driver was also struck in the face, but managed to control the car and get away from a crowd of 'youths' who would certainly have torn the two apart if they had been able to. Last October, a woman in labor on her way to Hadassah Hospital and her husband were attacked in a similar fashion; they also managed to escape.

Sometimes the Arabs throw gasoline bombs at cars, and sometimes people are dragged out of them and beaten.

Although the initial stone-throwing is often done by pre-teens or young teenagers, a crowd of older and more dangerous youths quickly gathers. In some cases, the lives of the victims have been saved by older Arabs who have not had the full 'benefit' of a Palestinian education.

The fact is that there are places in the Jewish state, in its capital and on both sides of the Green Line, where a Jew may not go for fear of losing his life.

This is not what Herzl intended when he called for a Jewish state as the answer to antisemitism.

Apologists for Arab violence will tell you that they are just reacting to the theft of their land, etc., and that we simply have to give them 'justice' and the problems will go away. With all due respect, this is rubbish.

The so-called 'theft' did not happen, and the righteous indignation of the Palestinian Arabs at their treatment has been manufactured and carefully nurtured over the years, to create 'reasons' to justify and promote the primitive racism that animates the young terrorists to commit murder.

There is no 'justice' that can satisfy the Arab leadership short of the removal of the Jews from the Middle East, killing them if need be. Just ask them (in Arabic). It's not a secret. What is happening increasingly is that every Palestinian Arab is being asked to do his own part in the ethnic cleansing that is their heart's desire.

Am I exaggerating? If you think so, read this 2005 Palestinian Media Watch report:

...the [Palestinian Authority (PA)] teaches an ideology of virulent hatred of Jews and Israel that mandates the killing of Jews solely because they are Jews. The murder of Jews is presented not only as beneficial to Muslims and Arabs, but as necessary for all humankind. These findings are based on a thorough study and analysis of eight years of official PA television and PA-controlled daily newspapers. This report documents how this hate ideology has been taught for years, well before the war started in September 2000, and continues even after the death of Yasser Arafat...

Incitement has gotten worse since then, not better. Official Israel — the government, the police, even the army — often seems to ignore the violence. But when it is ignored, it is in fact condoned, and Arabs are becoming more and more bold in acting out their racist beliefs.

Unfortunately there is no 'liberal' solution. The answer is not to protect the rights of Arabs in the PA areas, or reduce discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel. It is not to withdraw from the territories or provide more aid to the racist and terrorist PA leaders. It is not to provide funds for organizations working to weaken or 'de-Zionize' the Jewish state, as the New Israel Fund and the European Union are doing.

The real answer is that the Jews of Israel have to push back, to take over the neighborhoods in Jerusalem where they can't go, or at least to police them so that they will be safe. Roads must be patrolled, and the response to violence and vandalism must be swift and effective. The police, poorly paid, poorly trained, underfunded and under-equipped, need a total overhaul.

I am in Israel right now and the contrast between the opulence displayed on TV and the lack of public resources devoted to ensuring the security of the Jewish population is shocking. But there also seems to be a lack of will, an attitude that "nothing can be done, so why try?" in so many problem areas. For example, consider the Mt. of Olives Cemetery in Jerusalem:

Mourners are still stoned frequently near the cemetery and headstones are regularly defaced and smashed. This on the mountain slopes where Jews have been interring their dead for over 3,000 years. Its proximity to the Temple Mount, as well as the traditional proscription against burials within Jerusalem's walls, made the Mount of Olives hallowed as far back as First Temple days...

The preferred target of the vandals, who recurrently raid after sundown, is enigmatically the Gerrer Rebbe's grave, but Begin's has also been damaged. Vandals have smeared human feces on tombs and deluged them with household rubbish and construction debris. Markers have been daubed in tar and paint. Hate-graffiti has been scrawled and gravestones have been hammered and shattered.

This is not accidental. It is well-understood by the Arabs that crime and vandalism can be a form of warfare. They are pushing as hard as they can to conquer the land piecemeal. Every Jewish cemetery vandalized, every Jewish driver who is afraid to venture on the roads, every no-go neighborhood or road is a victory for them.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, February 18, 2012.

This was written by Jonathan s. Tobin and it is archived at
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/15/new-york- times-jerusalem-bureau-chief-jodi-rudoren-bias/#more-784035


When I wrote yesterday I hoped the incoming New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief wouldn't be any worse than outgoing chief Ethan Bronner, little did I know that within 24 hours we would learn those hopes were already in vain. As Alana wrote earlier today, Jodi Rudoren had begun exhibiting not only questionable judgment but also an overt bias against Israel even before she landed in the country. Her praise of extremists like the Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunimah and her laudatory references to Peter Beinart's book trashing Israel indicated that she saw no reason why the public should have to wait until she started filing slanted stories to understand where she stood on the issues.

In an attempt to do some quick damage control, Rudoren submitted to an interview today with Politico's media reporter Dylan Byers to explain herself. But it did little to repair her image or to undermine the notion she has already made up her mind about how to report the conflict. Instead, she demonstrated the same naïveté about what constitutes bias on Israel as well as showed herself woefully unprepared for the political maelstrom in Jerusalem.

First of all, Rudoren claimed her tweet to Abunimah was meant to be private, not public. But the Anthony Weiner excuse doesn't cut it. No matter what her intentions, the idea that she considers Electronic Intifada "important" already shows her frame of reference about Israel. It is one thing to say, as she does, a reporter must talk to all sides. It is quite another to make nice in this manner with advocates of economic warfare on Israel. Her promise to reach out "to extremists on all sides" hardly makes up for the fact that she has already put herself on record as thinking well of one group of anti-Israel extremists.

Even worse is her insistence that her praise of Peter Beinart's tendentious attack on Israel isn't an indication she supports his point of view. Indeed, she doubles down on her praise for Beinart:

In terms of Peter Beinart's book, I will absolutely not apologize for thinking that this is a good book. Peter is someone I've known for 20 years, he's a journalist, he's written a really interesting book. I don't agree with everything in the book, I don't even have an opinion about the arguments in the book, but it's really well-written, it's really provocative, there's tons of reporting in it with things people don't know. I think people should read it. I think hard-right Zionists should read it and Palestinian activists should read it. And young American Jews, who are really the audience for the book, should read it.

I will not apologize for tweeting about the book at all. Will I tweet about books written by people more closely aligned with Netanyahu? Absolutely. I'm reading one book at a time. I expect to have a long and robust and diverse reading list, and when the spirit moves me I may tweet about it.

The very fact that she thinks Beinart's book filled with left-wing clichés contains original reporting demonstrates that she has a poor grasp of what constitutes good journalism but also that she has come into this post knowing little about the conflict or the literature about it. Moreover, her claim she doesn't agree with everything in the book is a weasel-worded excuse that will convince no one. You don't give a gushing endorsement to a polemic such as Beinart's if you are neutral about its thesis.

As for her claim she is reading "one book at a time," that reminds me of Herman Cain's similar pledge to read up about foreign policy after he was called out for being an ignoramus on the subject.

The Times has clearly made a mistake in appointing someone to this post with a clear bias against Israel. But the fact that she has been so indiscreet about her bias ought to alert her editors to not only her lack of political savvy but also her complete unsuitability for such a delicate position. But given the drift of the paper towards an openly anti-Israel editorial position and its unbalanced opinion pages, perhaps the editors have come to the conclusion there is really no need to even pretend to be objective on their news pages anymore.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Roger Bodle, February 18, 2012.

This was written by Ruth King and it appeared yesterday on the CJNews website
http://www.cjnews.com/british/british-muslim-zionist- pulls-no-punches


WINNIPEG — Kasim Hafeez has seen the truth and, in an address to a largely Jewish audience at the Asper Jewish Community Campus on Feb. 6, he pulled no punches.

Wahhabism, the Saudi Arabian version of Islam, is little different than Nazism, Hafeez said. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas should be facing war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, he said.

Anti-Zionism is code for antisemitism, he said.The Islamic concern for Jerusalem is purely political, he said. Until the creation of Israel, Jerusalem was unimportant to most Muslims.

And often, he noted, those who claim to be pro-Palestinian are just anti-Israel.

Hafeez, 29, a British-born Muslim of Pakistani origin, knows of what he speaks.

Until just a few years ago, he was part of that Jew-hating Muslim world. He was even ready to go to Pakistan to train as a terrorist.

His worldview began to change after stumbling across a copy of Alan Dershowitz's book, A Case for Israel. "I figured it was just Zionist propaganda," he said of the book. "I thought I would read it and be able to refute it all."

Instead, Hafeez found that Dershowitz's arguments challenged all of the myths about Israel and the Jews that he grew up with. And, he said, he couldn't find any Muslim sources who could refute Dershowitz's points.

He decided pursue this new line of research and read books by Sir Martin Gilbert and other pro-Israel authors. Then he decided he had to go to Israel to see this "apartheid, fascist" and "racist" country for himself.

Not surprisingly — considering where he was coming from ideologically — he was immediately detained after landing at Ben-Gurion Airport. "Although I was held back for eight hours, I was treated with respect," he recalled. "The guard kept apologizing and offering me coffee and pastries. I understood that he was just doing his job."

After leaving the airport, he found that people were friendly and helpful. He contrasted his reception in Israel with the religious pilgrimage that he and some members of his family had made to Mecca some years earlier.

"I had never faced such racism before," he said of his Saudi experience. "Because of our skin colour, we were purposely ignored. At checkpoints, our group was held up in the heat longer than others. My aunt was pushed away from an ATV machine by a Saudi woman who told her that Pakistanis can wait. And, if we had had Pakistani passports, our treatment would have been worse."

In Israel, Hafeez's epiphany came when he stood before the Western Wall. "I watched Christians, Muslims and Jews peacefully and freely going to their places of worship and I burst into tears. I finally realized what Israel is all about — the only Jewish state in the world. It is about the survival of the Jewish People, their religion, culture and heritage.

"I fell in love with the place."

It's far from easy being a Zionist Muslim in England. Hafeez said he's been marginalized by his community, and most of his family won't talk to him any more (his sister, an aunt and his mother being the exceptions — although, he added, his mother is embarrassed by him).

Nonetheless, he feels compelled to speak the truth and cut through the lies. That truth is that of the two narratives concerning Israel/Palestine, one is the truth and the other is a pack of lies, he said.

"It was the Arabs, not the Jews who rejected partition in 1948," he said. "It was the Arabs who attacked the new Jewish state. While I have sympathy for the Palestinian people, you can't take their expressions of peace seriously when they are constantly showing maps of the land of Israel as greater Palestine."

He urged his audience to get the facts about Israel out, especially on university campuses, to be proactive rather than reactive. "Hold regular events that promote Israel in the best possible way," he said. "And show people that Israel is much more than just the conflict. Show all the ways that Israel is helping humanity. Be proud of Israel, not apologetic."

Contact Roger Bodle at rjbodle@xtra.co.nz

To Go To Top

Posted by Sacha Stawski, February 18, 2012.


We have been monitoring the Israel coverage of the Aachener Zeitung for some time. Sadly, the coverage has reached an ultimate low point in its reporting about the honorary award given to Henryk M. Broder, by the German Israeli Friendship society (DIG) in Aachen. Prior to the award the president of the DIG Aachen, Axel Holst, had sent out a press release outlining their reason for having chosen Broder: i.e. for his unequivocal strive to strengthen the acceptance of the State of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State in peace and freedom with internationally recognized borders and the capital Jerusalem. They emphasized how he pleads for mutual tolerance [between Israelis and Palestinians] and for a fair and close relationship between Germany and Israel. They also mentioned his courageous fight against anti-Semitism, race-hatred, discrimination against foreigners and against any form of extremism from the left or right. Not one of these reasons ever made it into the Aachener Zeitung. Instead they dwelled on Broder's "polarizing" character, his "provocative" ways and accused him of being an "executioner" of anyone whom Broder "assumes" to be an enemy of Israel or who — according to Broder — is an anti-Semite. This in itself is one of the most common accusations levelled against friends of Israel — most commonly by anti-Zionists and anti-Semites: the supposed swinging of the "anti-Semitism bat". The accusation being made here is that friends of Israel intimidate Israel-critics by accusing them of being anti-Semites, thereby supposedly trying to squash any criticism of the Jewish State. The "anti-Semitism-bat" accusation in itself discredits any and all criticism being brought forward by the supposed "executioner" and is an ideal way to avoid having to divulge into any facts. And it is precisely this method, which the Aachener Zeitung used from its opening to sentence about the award to Broder to everything since then. Since according to their description Broder is nothing but a hypochondriac and troublemaker, there is no longer a need for the paper to deal with any of the contents being brought forward by Broder or by any of the people who speak on his behalf. Likewise, the paper devoted an entire article to the views expressed by mayor Scheidt, who cancelled her DIG membership because she could not accept the democratic decision made by the board of the DIG, when they chose Broder as their award recipient, which included the nastiest accusations of "race-hatred-incitement" and more, the paper has not once so far given Broder himself or anyone else really room to express themselves. And there were certainly sufficient people to choose from: the renowned author and holocaust survivor Ralph Giordano, who was also at the award ceremony; Vera Langsfeld, a member of the German parliament (Bundestag), who held the award speech in Broders' honor; or anyone from the DIG for that matter, which has issued at least two press releases since the award ceremony, which were both completely ignored by the one-sided and highly opinionated Aachener Zeitung. Instead the paper chose to devote — in line with the inciting opening paragraph — the closing paragraph of its supposedly "neutral" coverage of the award ceremony to note that "members of the Jewish community in Europe" have supposedly also chosen to distance themselves from Broder, "people like the Israel-critics Abraham Melzer and Evelyn Hecht-Galinski" — both of whom are outspoken Israel haters and anything but representative of the Jewish community in Germany; and finally closing with a quote from the "great French politologist" Alfred Grosser — another outspoken Israel hater — who closes the article by questioning whether people like Broder, with their "uncritical position of Israel" really help the country. Even worse, though, is the aforementioned interview with mayor Scheidt, which is highly inciting and which is left without a corresponding rebuttal or any critical debate; an article which, as mentioned, prompted a formal rebuttal press-release by the DIG, which was once again completely ignored by the Aachener Zeitung. Thus, overall, we have to conclude that the coverage of the Aachener Zeitung — at least in this case — is not only not factual reporting, but instead highly opinionated and one-sided. And even worse: not only against Henryk Broder, but in actual fact an incitement against all friends of the Jewish State!

The article below was written by Benjamin Weinthal, Jerusalem Post Correspondent.

Sacha Stawski


Pro-Israel activists slam Germany's Green Party mayor in Aachen who has waged a media campaign against Israel.

BERLIN — Pro-Israel German NGOs have ratcheted up their criticism of a Green Party mayor in Aachen who has waged a media campaign against Israel and prominent German Jews.

The German-Israeli Friendship Society (DIG) in Aachen blasted Mayor Hilde Scheidt last week, saying her political and media actions were designed to damage the reputations of DIG and German Jewish authors Henryk M. Broder and Ralph Giordano.

It is absurd when a mayor attempts to discredit the circle of Aachener friends of the State of Israel as a rightwing organization, according to DIG.

The mayor contends that Broder divides and brings conflict and lives from that' because that statement recalls the unspeakable anti-Semitic rhetoric of past times, DIG continued.

Broder, widely considered the leading authority on contemporary anti-Semitism in the Federal Republic, wrote to The Jerusalem Post on Friday that Aachen is a disgusting jerkwater town, half-green [a reference to the Green Party] and half-brown [a reference to Nazi storm troopers].

Sacha Stawski, the head of the Frankfurt-based NGO Honestly Concerned, told the Post on Saturday that local press coverage has enabled Scheidt to mount a hate campaign against Jews and Israel. His media watchdog group has concluded that the coverage of the Aachener Zeitung and the Aachener Nachrichten — at least in this case — is not only not factual reporting, but instead highly opinionated and one-sided. And even worse: not only against Henryk Broder, but in actual fact an incitement against all friends of the Jewish state.

Dr. Nathan Warszawski, a prominent member of the Aachen Jewish community, told the Post on Friday that reports in the jointly owned Aachen papers are "rather anti-Jewish."

Alexander Drehmann, a spokesman for the Aachen Jewish community, told the Post that it has stopped communicating with some Aachener Nachrichten journalists because of their coverage of Israel and the Jewish community.

When asked about his and his colleagues' press coverage, political reporter Peter Pappert wrote the Post that the 'accusation that our paper is running a campaign against Israel and Jews' is false and absurd. The position of our paper and our articles are clearly against anti-Semitism and for Israel.

Pappert wrote an article last week attacking Broder.

Stawski and Warszawski said Pappert's article was filled with falsehoods. Drehmann, who was misquoted in Pappert's anti-Israel article, told the Post that he could not remember if he said that Scheidt's criticism of Israel was "not smart."

Critics argue that in a series of articles authored by Pappert, Joachim Zinsen and Matthias Hinrichs, the Aachener Zeitung has enabled Scheidt to fan the flames of anti-Semitism. Zinsen quoted fringe Jews who frequently equate Israel with Nazi Germany and the former apartheid South Africa.

Sacha Stawski is with the Honestly Concerned organization. Contact him at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 18, 2012.

Please see my most recent piece, "The Genocidal Quest for 'Palestine'" — it went up yesterday:


On Thursday evening, I attended a showing here in Jerusalem of UNMASKED — JUDEOPHOBIA, The Threat to Civilization. Produced and directed by Gloria Greenfield under the umbrella of Doc Emet Productions, it is a stunning documentary. As the UNMASKED website explains, this is "a meticulous examination of rising anti-Jewish ideology."

The film covers "this phenomenon from all angles, including historical Christian and contemporary Islamic polemics against Jews, the proliferation of anti-Israeli bias in academia and cultural institutions, misinformation campaigns and state-sanctioned denials of Israel's right to exist. Wide-ranging interviews include such eloquent and respected voices as Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, Senator Joe Lieberman, former UN ambassador John Bolton, human rights activists Natan Sharansky and Irwin Cotler, British attorney Anthony Julius, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, Middle East senior fellow Caroline Glick, British journalist and blogger Melanie Phillips, and Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, among many others."


In the final analysis, UNMASKED: JUDEOPHOBIA is a call to action and urgent reminder that anti-Semitism is a menace not only to Jews, but to the human condition itself."

The battle then does not fall only to activists, academics and journalists such as those listed above. It falls to all of us, if we consider ourselves to be decent human beings. We cannot step aside in the face of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and threats to human civilization. Nor should we be content to register a moment of distress, shrug, and move on.

I urge you to go to the website http://www.unmaskedthemovie.com/. There you will be able to read more about the film and see a 2.5 minute trailer.

Please, consider following through by ordering the DVD of this 80 minute film, via the website, so that you can be informed. And, once you are informed, then become an activist:

Urge others to order it, or invite them to your home to see it.

Arrange to show it in public forums — in synagogues and churches, at various other organizational gatherings. Information on hosting a screening can be seen here: http://www.unmaskedthemovie.com/screenings_media/host_a_screening.html

(You have to secure legal permission for this: contact ggreenfield@docemetproductions.com .)

See the list of future public showings here: http://www.unmaskedthemovie.com/screenings_media/screenings.html and inform people of showings in their area.

All this, and more, because everyone must be informed.

Speak publicly of the issues raised here. Write op-eds in local papers and letters to the editor. Refuse to hide from truth, no matter how ugly it may be.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by The Lawfare Project, February 17, 2012.

Despite being aware of Saudi Arabia's apostasy laws, the Malaysian government extradited Hamza Kashgari to Saudi Arabia for tweeting allegedly blasphemous statements about Islam's Prophet Muhammad. The tweets at issue would more accurately be characterized as the innocent questioning of a 23-year-old of the faith he was raised in.

Kashgari tweeted: "I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don't understand about you."

"I will not pray for you," he added.

The request for extradition reportedly came from Interpol, an accusation that Interpol has denied.

It is interesting to note that no country offered Kashgari asylum as a prisoner of conscience, a protected class under the UN Charter, considering the successful passage last year of the UN resolution against the defamation of religion by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is headquartered in Saudi Arabia.

More men and women like Kashgari are likely to be accused of blasphemy in not only Muslim majority countries but in western democracies given the United States's perceived softness on the issue. Defenders of the State Department's engagement with the OIC may believe that with time they will be able to fuel a paradigm shift in countries like Saudi Arabia from feeling threatened by deviant public opinion to appreciating it as a contribution to the intellectual development of its citizens.

This isn't likely. Especially when most Islamist governments believe human rights is a western concept that western governments use as a pretext to influence what would otherwise be their sovereign autonomy.

Although a death sentence is unlikely if Kashgari repents in court, Saudi Information Minister Abdul-Aziz Khoja has called for his ban on any future journalism career in newspaper and magazine publications in the country.

In the latest news cycle, it appears that Saudis in support of Kashgari may also be prosecuted.

Human rights groups have further criticized Malaysia for deporting Kashgari since there was no extradition treaty between Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Malaysia has defended itself in the media by stating that it did not want to be viewed as a safe haven for terrorists. Implying Kashgari is a terrorist seems quite a reach.

Contact The Lawfare Project by email at brooke@thelawfareproject.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Hand, February 17, 2012.

This was written by Melanie Phillips and it is archived on her website.


An invitation to appear as a Question Time panellist always sees your columnist dusting off her tin helmet, not to say donning full body armour and making her last will and testament.

Its audiences have been known to be less than universally friendly, and never more so than when Israel crops up. Indeed, the words "baying" and "mob" come to mind.

My most recent appearance was three weeks ago in Plymouth. The audience was notably less aggressive than others I have encountered: more benign and "Middle Britain"-ish.

Yet the last question was a bouncer. A woman asked whether, "since Israel has many more nuclear weapons than Iran", we should agree with President Obama's statement that no option (in other words, war with Iran) should be ruled out.

The question was based on an astonishing premise. In presenting such symmetry between Israel and Iran, it equated aggressor and victim.

For the reason Israel possesses nuclear weapons is to defend itself against attempted genocide. And one reason why Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons is to fulfil the aim it repeatedly announces — to perpetrate genocide against Israel.

The premise was thus an odious one. Yet the audience cheered the absurd assertion that we couldn't believe anything said about the menace of Iran since we'd been told lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The question is how "Middle Britain" has come to nod along with such a disgusting symmetry.

And behind that lies the deeper question of how, with all evidence pointing to an imminent nuclear Iran, and with the Iranian terrorist-supporting regime waging a self-declared war against the west, people remain seemingly oblivious to the threat it poses not just to Israel but to the world.

One reason is that many just aren't aware that the regime is dominated by apocalyptic religious fanatics, who want to bring about the end of the world — and so don't even care if Iran is destroyed — because they believe this will bring to earth the Shia messiah, the Mahdi.

Instead, dear old empirical Britain believes that the Iranians are rational folk who will always ultimately act in their own interest.

Plus there's the natural tendency to react to a terrifying threat by pretending it doesn't exist and blaming someone else, which brings us back to the odious symmetry of that Question Time contribution. I think there are several reasons for it.

First, the relentless demonisation of Israel as illegitimate and bloodthirsty oppressors has had the effect intended by those behind this infernal propaganda (assisted by the Jewish Israel-bashers who have also bought into this rubbish) of softening up the west for a second genocide of the Jews.

But I think there's also a troubling cultural shift involved. This is the doctrine known as "consequentialism", which holds that the consequences of an action matter rather than the action itself.

We see this all around — for example, in the argument that the poor should receive benefits regardless of their behaviour because the only thing that matters is that they are poor.

The same thinking seems to apply to nuclear weapons. Thus the fact that Iran wants them in order to attack Israel, which by contrast only wants them to protect itself, makes no difference.

This focus on consequences renders quite irrelevant the moral choices people make. It is, in short, a doctrine for an amoral age.

And so Israel, in its ghastly predicament, which elicits from the west merely monumental indifference, finds itself once again playing the role of canary — but this time in the moral mine where the air has turned so foul.

Contact Robert Hand by email at borntolose3@att.net

To Go To Top

Posted by FSM, February 17, 2012.

Dr. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He is also a contributing editor at PJ Media and at National Review Online.


Lee Smith's outstanding article [1] about American journalists, producers, and "distinguished citizens" who groveled at the bloody feet of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad shows once again the ease with which citizens of democracies become "accomplices to evil." [2]

It's an old story, and we should not be surprised to see the likes of former Ambassador Martin Indyk cozying up to the Damascus regime's equivalent of Saddam Hussein's "Baghdad Bob" in an effort to drag a crowd of donors — and Bill Clinton — to the throne of the great man. It is even less surprising, but no less depressing, to see producers for the major networks' "stars" (Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, Bob Simon) wooing the Assad regime in a scramble for an interview with the great man (Barbara Walters famously won the blue ribbon), or to find an admiring reference to Charlie Rose, who was apparently generous in his remarks about the recent unpleasantness in the streets of Syria.

It's not only about Americans. Mr. Smith quotes extensively from the fawning emails from a reporter for Rome's La Repubblica, a left-wing newspaper that recently paid me a hefty fine, having been found guilty of criminal libel at my expense. Assad had no such complaint.

Why does this happen? First of all, because of the cult of celebrity. The news business has an insatiable need for "famous people" with which to stuff its pages and broadcasts, and this acts as a multiplier for our instinctive curiosity about other people, whoever and wherever they are. The great anthropologist Lionel Tiger neatly called Facebook's entrepreneur, Mark Zuckerberg, "the world's richest primatologist," [3] and explained the great success of Facebook by our lust to know ever more about our fellow humans.

The need to fill blank pages and empty broadcast hours is at least partially satisfied by information about all sorts of people, from the rich and famous to the murderously insane. Inevitably, everyone wanted to become part of this, and, thanks to social media, we can now all become celebrities, posting and tweeting around the clock, telling anyone who's interested — and there are plenty of folks out there who ARE interested — just what we're up to. Even the little things most of us do most of the time.

We're even more interested in the powerful. Sometimes really, really interested. Henry Kissinger was undoubtedly right when he said that power was the ultimate aphrodisiac, so that even ugly men and women became sexually attractive when they got a suitable title. His own experience seems to have provided the raw data for that theorem.

So it's quite understandable that the reporters and their producers would scramble to get next to a Middle Eastern potentate, regardless of his murderous activities. Indeed, the mass murder going on in Syria today makes Assad even more interesting to the bigtime celebrity hunters. Just think back to the glory days of Saddam Hussein, or the enthusiasm with which interviewers and college students and faculty pursued Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This human proclivity has a distinct dark side, however, and it is the fascination of tyrants for a certain kind of intellectual, the kind that wants to be a ruler himself or herself. That sort of intellectual finds modern democratic politics unbearably messy and the masses of voters insufficiently admiring of intellectuals. How much better it would be, many of them believe in their dark hearts, if people like themselves could simply make decisions. The right decisions, mind you, the sort that only a brilliant intellectual like themselves can make.

So they are eager to get close to the tyrant. They want to be his consiglieri. They love to be in his presence, both because he emanates power — the power they crave — and because just being there gives them the chance to guide his actions, even if only for a few minutes.

If you read the literature on Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and the other monsters of the twentieth century, you will find no end of admiring books, articles, and interviews. Some of this is recounted (at blessedly short length) in Accomplice to Evil [2]. It's not a pretty picture, but then most of human history isn't very pretty.

Lee Smith says that the American elite personalities that cozied up to Assad should have known better. I would put it ever so slightly differently: they should have been better. But they're corrupted by the culture of celebrity, and by their fatal attraction to the tyrants.

Just as those who watch them, and wish to be like them.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, February 16, 2012.

This was written by Mark Tapson and it appeared February 13, 2012 in Front Page Magazine


The dismissed court case involving a Jewish student attacked by a Muslim student last year at the University of California at Berkeley is still alive. Jessica Felber, 21, was injured by Husam Zakharia, leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), during a rally while holding a sign that said, "Israel Wants Peace." Zakharia rammed her from behind with a shopping cart. The case was dismissed at the end of December when U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg ruled, astonishingly, that the assault was "an act of protected free speech."

In her suit, Felber alleges that UC Berkeley did not effectively deal with the harassment and intimidation of Jewish students by the SJP and Muslim Students Association [MSA], leading to "a dangerous and threatening environment." The groups staged mock "checkpoints" on campus, where they waved imitation weapons around and demanded of passing students, "Are you Jewish?" Jewish students were allowed to pass (although some were verbally harassed) while Muslim or Arab students were "detained." The checkpoints were meant to mimic the Israeli Defense Force's security measures against Palestinian terror attacks.

The suit lists other instances of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hostility at Berkeley and other California campuses. It notes that Zakharia and two other SJP activists were cited in 2008 for battery after disrupting a college rally by a campus Jewish group and assaulting a Jewish student. SJP members also heckled Mideast expert Daniel Pipes and author Nonie Darwish when the two came to speak at UC Berkeley in 2004 and 2007 respectively. The hecklers allegedly shouted "Death to Zionism," "Zionism is racism," and the infamous Nazi salutation "Sieg Heil" during Pipes' presentation.

UC Berkeley administrators had been warned that growing Muslim extremism on campus was putting Jewish students at risk, and that the excessive and violent on-campus actions of the SJP and the MSA clearly constituted "hostile environment" harassment. The suit charges that the administrators were well aware of this and could have prevented the assault but did nothing, and that their duty to do so arises from the fact that the SJP and MSA are on University of California property and are subject to the Regents' control and discipline.

Indeed, the suit alleges, UC Berkeley's policies "fostered and encouraged" pro-terrorist incitement, "turned a blind eye to the perpetrators of illegal activities," and "failed to effectively discipline the MSA and SJP for their pro-terrorist programs, goals and conduct; despite having ample notice that such violence was foreseeable." By failing to provide security to Jewish and pro-Israel students, UC Berkeley "condoned and allowed the MSA, the SJP and MSU [Muslim Student Union] to threaten, harass and intimidate Jewish students and to endanger their health and safety."

In an interview with FrontPage managing editor Jamie Glazov, Felber's attorney Neal Sher, former head of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and of the Justice Department's Nazi prosecution unit, noted that the University seems to be a slave to political correctness. And, I suspect that there is an element of intimidation stemming from the actions of the anti-Israel crowd, who have been loud and persistent in pushing their agenda. And, some university officials might have mistakenly bought into the deceitful propaganda being spread by those who seek to de-legitimize the Jewish state and her supporters.

In his dismissal, Judge Seeborg left the door open for an amended complaint. Now, in new documents submitted to him in the Northern District Court, San Francisco Division, attorneys for the plaintiffs Felber and Brian Maissy asserted that, just as other minorities have received protection under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds), so should Jewish students in this instance. "The content of the 'checkpoint' demonstrations," the attorneys claim,

is hate speech, equal in legal odiousness to use of the "N" word, or similar racist and sexist expressions. The Defendant does not deny that the entire MSA/SJP "checkpoint" presentation is a racist passion play of the worst sort, which like the notorious anti-Semitic performances of Oberammergau, Bavaria: "portray Jews as bloodthirsty and treacherous villains..."

The reference is to the famed performance of the Passion Play put on in Oberammergau, Germany every ten years since 1634. Over the centuries, countless visitors there have witnessed the dramatic recreation of the suffering, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. But the performance — praised by Hitler — is also notorious for an anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews conspiring to kill Jesus.

However, unlike the Oberammergau Passion Play, which is performed on a traditional pay-to-view stage setting, the Regents have allowed the MSA/SJP to present their racist performance in the midst of an important public campus crossroads, and to include interaction, confrontation and violence against students who like these Plaintiffs, did not choose to "buy a ticket" in order to experience the performance.

The defense attempted to belittle the plaintiffs' claims by arguing that their religious beliefs were not impacted by the mock checkpoints, assaults, and verbal harassment. Plaintiffs' attorneys countered that MSA's and SJP's offensive and hostile actions "go to the heart of unlawful religious and racial endangerment and interference":

To be free from violence and harassment based on their Jewish identity, while lawfully on a UC campus, are rights guaranteed by the rights to freedom of religion and to the equal protection of the law.

A hearing on the amended complaint is scheduled for March 15.

In a separate interview with attorney Sher, Glazov pointed out that, if the situation were reversed and a Jewish student had assaulted a Muslim, there would be outrage in the media and the university would not have hesitated to take stern disciplinary action. Sher agreed:

There is no question that if the shoe was on the other foot, immediate and decisive action would be taken by the powers that be. It's time that we demand an end to the hypocrisy and double standards which have gone on far too long and which will be exposed in this lawsuit. The silent majority should remain silent no longer!


[1]http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ assadaxisofevilcom_626642.html?nopager=1

[2]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312570694/ ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pjmedia-20&linkCode=as2& camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0312570694

[3]http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748703421204576327443487322026.html

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 16, 2012.

On Tuesday — the day after the attack in New Delhi — there were two explosions in Bangkok, the capital of Thailand. One explosion tore through a house (pictured below) from which three Iranians, one of whom was wounded, fled. Apparently, this was a "work accident."

(Source: Globalpost)

A second explosion took place when a man of Iranian descent, who has been identified as part of the same terror cell, threw a bomb at police who were trying to arrest him; he blew his own legs off in the process.

Thai police are now saying they know with certainty that this cell had been planning to attack Israeli diplomats in the city. "Their plan was to attach bombs to cars," said one intelligence official.

This comes as no surprise, but signals ever more clearly that Israeli installations abroad must be on high alert everywhere. That includes in the US.


In India, five suspects have been arrested in connection with the bombing of the Israeli diplomatic car (picture below) in which Tali Yehoshua Koren was riding. Identification was not difficult: the attack took place in the Khan Market area, which utilizes security cameras because it is considered a "hotspot" for foreign nationals. Footage showed the suspects "loitering around" the embassy car. Most significantly, cameras picked up the face of the man — "well-trained" police are saying — who attached the bomb to the car and the explosive that was stuck to the car.

Police have also located an abandoned red motorbike and are trying to verify if it was the one utilized in the attack.

A team from Israel is on its way, to help with the investigation.

(Source: AP)


Tali was actually hurt more seriously than first reports indicated. The shrapnel injured not just her legs but the lower and mid part of her body including her liver. She suffered partial paralysis but is said to be improving at a rapid rate, is comfortable, and is expected to be brought home to Israel before long. Right now her mother is on the way to be with her.

(Source: Haaretz)

From what I'm reading, she was quite something at the time of the attack. She managed to get out of the car, make her own way to the hospital via a rickshaw, and to call the embassy to let them know what had happened.


One potentially positive effect of this attack in New Delhi is that Saudi Arabia has now offered India additional supplies of crude oil to replace oil currently being supplied by Iran. The more India is weaned from commercial interaction with Iran the better.


As to the Iran situation more broadly, tensions are escalating.

On the one hand, Iran is flagrantly continuing its pursuit of nuclear capability — including the unveiling of a new centrifuge and the loading of the first domestically made fuel rods into a reactor. Said one Israeli official: "Anyone who still thinks Iranian efforts are peaceful also probably believes in the Easter bunny."

On the other hand, there are reports that sanctions are starting to weaken Iran. Ilan Berman reports that Iranian currency is plummeting, that half of the population is below the poverty line, and that the Iranian government has recently defaulted on payment for foreign commodities — such as rice that had been supplied by India.

But there remains the question as to what this means or what it's worth if Iran is continuing its nuclear advances.

Says Berman, "the United States and its allies haven't bothered to send that message [to the populace that the nuclear ambitions of their government are an economic and political liability]. And because they haven't, Washington and European capitals run the risk of squandering a signal strategic opportunity. Without a potent countervailing message, Iran's leaders are sure to cast the current economic hardships being experienced by ordinary Iranians as a product of overbearing Western pressure — and their population's resistance to them as a sign of patriotism."

And, I will add, what Berman is referring to doesn't even include the further message to the Iranian government that all options, including the military, truly are on the table. From what I'm reading, Iran considers the words of the Western world to be just bluff.


With regard to this issue, it feels very much as if it's Israel against the world. From an assortment of international sources come messages about how it would be unwise for us to act "prematurely."

The question is how to define "prematurely." The US and Israel are at odds on this — with Israel concerned about the point at which Iran has hidden equipment too deeply into bunkers to reach, and the US saying there might be other things that could be hit later that would still disable Iranian efforts.

Dennis Ross, former US envoy, has just written in a NY Times op-ed about how it's important to still give diplomacy a chance. Give diplomacy a chance??? Precisely what does he imagine has been happening until now? The problem is that the world didn't start to get even semi-serious until very late into the countdown. And somehow that's our fault — even though our prime minister has been delivering warnings for years.

"Many experts doubt that Tehran would ever accept a deal that uses intrusive inspections and denies or limits uranium enrichment to halt any advances toward a nuclear weapons capability...But before we assume that diplomacy can't work, it is worth considering that Iranians are now facing crippling pressure and that their leaders have in the past altered their behavior in response to such pressure. Notwithstanding all their bluster, there are signs that Tehran is now looking for a way out."

I wouldn't count on that. Ilan Berman surely wouldn't, given the current situation.

The problem is that once it's too late, then it's too late. And Israeli officials are mindful of this.


Defense Secretary Barak commented, with regard to the Iranian announcement about its latest achievements, that, while Iran remains a threat, part of this is a "show," "presenting a situation as better than what it really is."

While the Iranians are most certainly capable of this, I cannot help but wonder if Barak's comments are not designed in part to reassure the international community that we are not rushing to attack on the strength of this.

For coupled with this we have a statement from Defense Secretary Panetta, that he doesn't think Israel has decided yet about a military strike. What is this man's game? (And why do his prouncements and Barak's seem to coincide?) Just recently Panetta announced that we were probably going to hit Iran between March and June. Personally, I believe that we'd all be better off if he just kept what he thinks to himself.


Switching to the subject of Israel's relationship with the PA:

Exceedingly important right now, in my opinion, is Israeli strength in defending her sovereignty — relinquishing neither rights nor territory. And I'm not happy at all about certain things that I'm seeing.

I will deal here with one issue: that of Joseph's Tomb, which is near Shechem (Nablus). More will follow in due course.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the PA has rejected a request by Israel that its security forces on the site of the Tomb not carry AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles. It is entirely unclear why the PA should imagine such weaponry is necessary at a holy site where Jews come to pray — unless it's to "stick it" to Israel, deliberately defying what we request. Or worse.

Seems the PA has no problem asserting its administrative rights over this site, which is in area A — an area designated by Oslo as being under PA control. But this situation is not as it should be and I am unsettled.

With thanks to Aaron Lerner, who put it up on IMRA
(http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=55718), I cite the 1995 Interim Agreement of the Oslo Accords, which stipulates that even though the site is under PA control, Jewish forces should be in the area "to ensure free, unimpeded and secure access to the relevant Jewish holysite [Joseph's Tomb being mentioned specifically]." What is more, "Israeli plainclothesguards may be present inside such sites." None of this is happening. Previously, there was an Israeli armed guard that accompanied Jews going to pray at the site. Now, under a new agreement, it is being left entirely to the PA.

What is more, the PA is permitting once a month visits to the site, rather than the unimpeded access by Jews that should be possible day in and day out.


Last April, a trigger-happy PA security policeman at the Tomb killed Ben Yosef Livnat and wounded four others as a group was leaving the site after prayers. Admittedly, they had gone in without IDF clearance, but they had gone to pray and were known by the PA security people. I have never seen anything that "explains" how this could have happened. I don't believe there is anything that could explain it. They were not a threat, and there was no reason to shoot at them.

And so, the JPost report explains, the IDF has worked on improving coordination with the PA security forces. And now a new understanding has been reached with the PA, which will keep 10 police officers — who will be provided with strict rules of engagement — stationed at the Tomb at all times.


I write this, but do not pretend to understand it. The PA police have been given new rules of engagement, and they'll be carrying assault rifles. So we no longer have to worry — they'll never shoot a Jew there again. Right?


And there's more: The IDF is allowing the PA to expand its security control to additional parts of Judea and Samaria. Of particular note is that they are being given permission to operate in Sebastia, which is in Area C, designated as being under full Israeli control.

And last month, Israel decided to ignore the establishment of two PA police stations outside of Jerusalem in Area B, which is under PA civil control and Israeli security control. The State is not demanding the removal of these stations, located in Arab villages — for Israel is just as happy not to have to deploy police and IDF there.

NOT a good scene...


What makes this all the more maddening is that we are not on the cusp of anything good with regard to the PA. Hamas — whether it will eventually or not — has not split, and Abbas and Mashaal are scheduled to meet in Cairo in one week to work on to unity issues.

The unity arrangements were to put a stop to all pretense of "peace" negotiations or gestures to bring Abbas back to the table.



Let's end, before Shabbat, with briefs in the "Good News Corner":

Scoliosis, a deformity of the spine, has now been addressed by an Israeli company, ApiFix. It has developed a unique implant, with a technique for minimally invasive corrective surgery that will change lives.


Wow! According to the Wall Street Journal, Tel Aviv beats all European cities as a technological city. It hosts 600 early stage companies; access to venture capital is double that of the USA and 20 times that of Europe.


The Delek Group has announced the discovery of yet another large deposit of natural gas, 120 km northwest of Haifa. This site, Tanin-1, may become Israel's third-largest natural gas field. They're talking about 1.2 trillion feet of natural gas.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, February 15, 2012.

Beyond Words
Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane,
Volume 3

These articles came from 1978 Quotes, vol 3.
[Rabbi Kahane warned us about the dangerous trap that we are in today. bg]

If you did not receive this article personally and would like to be on my weekly Rabbi Meir Kahane article e-mail list, contact me at: BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

Previously sent articles can be viewed on:


"An Interview with Rabbi Meir Kahane,"

Kahane Magazine, April 1978, p.22

There is a truth, a Jewish truth that no one speaks today. The Jewish Idea has been corrupted and silenced. There must be one person who is prepared to speak the entire truth in the truthful way. No one else speaks about the holocaust that must grip the Galut; no one else speaks about the need to remove the Arabs from Eretz Yisroel; no one else says that to depend on the Americans will not bring salvation but rather Divine punishment; no one else ways that if the government of Israel will not annex the lands, Divine Punishment will again strike us; no one else says that we must defy the government if it defies Jewish law; no one else speaks as a Jew, and with the Jewish Idea. That is my obligation. If I have support and if I have followers, well and good. If I am able to build an organization, so much the better. But if I have to be alone and shout out the lonely truth in that way — that will be my role.


"On A Hill Near Shchem,"

Jewish Press, October 13, 1978

Conversation between Rabbi Kahane and the soldiers of Israel

"Why do you have to give us such a hard time?" asked one soldier. "I am not the only one who gives you a hard time," I replied, "you are the ones who are breaking the law. The law says that a Jew must live in Eretz Yisroel and settle everywhere, and you prevent it." "The only law that we have is the government, and you are violating it. Besides, we want peace and you are destroying the chances for peace." "And you really believe that by giving up Sinai and giving the Arabs Judea and Samaria, you will have peace? Don't you remember how they went to war when they had the Sinai and Judea-Samaria?" The soldiers had now gathered around me and one said: "But things are different today!" "How do you know?" I shot back, "Why do you risk the state by trusting an enemy that started four wars?" "We have to gamble! It is impossible to keep on fighting. I am willing to take the risk." It was clear that this was the view of most of the soldiers, almost all of whom were irreligious.

"I'll tell you," I said. "If you really want to gamble, trust me — not the Arabs. I tell you that if you will all put on tefillin for a month, the Messiah will come. And if you gamble on tefillin and the Messiah does not come, what have you lost?"

... Tomorrow would be Friday, Begin was coming home. At the airport he would be greeted by thousands of cheering Israelis and he would cry out to them: "I have brought you peace!" Voices. Voices. Voices. From yet another airport; from yet another Prime Minister; to yet another cheering crowd. "I have brought you peace in our time ..." It was Chamberlain coming home from Munich. The bus started up and the settlement had come to an end. This time there was no singing.


"The Second Revolution,"

Jewish Press, October 20, 1978

While no other Prime Minister used the name of G-d, Begin mouths it and then gives away Jewish rights because Jimmy Carter, in his eyes, is more real. Fear of being isolate? Trembling at the fact that no newspapers supported Israel? Worry over the loss of allies? The redemption of the Jewish people will come with the greatest grandeur precisely when Israel is isolated! And these are the words of the Prophet Isaiah as he envisioned the final redemption, words we read in the synagogue on the week before Rosh Hashanah; words that were mouthed without listening to them or understanding them. The Prophet speaks of the anger and vengeance of G-d against Israel's enemies:

"I have trodden in the winepress ALONE, and of the nations THERE WAS NONE WITH ME... For the day of vengeance is in My heart, and the year of My redemption is come. And I looked and there was none to help ... therefore has My own arm brought salvation ..." (Isaiah 63:3-5)

Not through Jimmy Carter are we saved, and not through allies and gentile salvation. Begin, who gave into pressure, is no better than all the others whom he so bitterly criticized when he was in opposition. Fear of the gentile has taken precedence over the awe of G-d. That is the heart of the problem. That is why Begin brought home, not peace, but war. For peace will only come when He who creates and grants peace will agree. That agreement can never come in response to violation of Torah and to Hillul Hashem.

Perhaps a final note. All that I have written would have been bad enough. But there might have been some mitigation had Begin, at least stood before the people gravely, sadly, in sorrow and said: "This is a black day for us. But we had no choice." I would have differed with him then, too, and been angry. But at least we would have been spared the sight of a huge and happy welcome at the airport — so strikingly similar to the return of Chamberlain. At least, Begin might not have pretended that he had brought us good tidings and peace. At least, he would have been honest.

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Norman Berdichesky, February 15, 2012.


The Left is Seldom Right

by Norman Berdichevsky

Publisher: New English Review Press

First edition (June 10, 2011)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0578080761

ISBN-13: 978-0578080765



The purpose of this book is threefold:

  1. To further document cases in both the United States and abroad that verify Jonah Goldberg's thesis that a considerable segment of the American public is misled by the use of the terms "RIGHT vs. LEFT," which are cliché ridden, and often erroneous in their presentation of the most essential relevant facts and the conclusions drawn.

  2. To demonstrate that it is primarily the Political Left that has a vested interest in the continued use of this terminology due to the considerable inroads made by the liberal media on public opinion. Many political pundits have drawn on the prestige of major writers and Hollywood celebrities whose work was shaped by a critical view of American culture as the epitome of alienation, hypocrisy and crass materialism in modern society. Their assumptions are that other cultures and societies are more authentic, "holistic," integral and devoted to a sense of solidarity and community. These views have been reinforced in popular culture, especially in film and popular song as part of the counter-culture that arose in the 1960s.

  3. To show that antisemitism was not inherently a part of many nationalist "right-wing" movements and that it is generated today overwhelmingly from the Far Left under the encouragement of the wealth and power of militant Islam.


ALTHOUGH NO OLDER than the French Revolution, the political terms "Right" and" Left" have become banal and stale clichés. They are often misleading guides that offer no clear indication about intentions, motivations and conflicting policy choices of political personalities and parties under changing circumstances yet not a day goes by in our current electoral cycle of nominating and electing president without the use of the terms 'right' and 'left' that are used as a modern "Mark of Cain" to ostracize, banish and condemn our political opponents. We use them today as the equivalents of the "good guys" and the bad guys". This is the case even though there is little or no agreement on what these terms mean exactly on any given issue beyond "Big" vs. "Little" government. Any other criterion often will produce startling paradoxes and anyone willing to dig deep beyond clichés knows that "Politics makes strange bedfellows".

The Left is Seldom Right" lays bare the century long manipulation of the terms LEFT and RIGHT in political "science." There is an inherent bias in this terminology that favors the Left, a view enhanced continually by most of the mass media and the impact of most of our writers, film producers and academics in American literature and film. Those on the Left typically create a straw man, misleadingly confusing conservative and traditional values in favor of individual rights and limited government with the "extremist", "racist", ultra-nationalist, religious, anti-Semitic, traditionalist and "anti-popular" or "Fascist" forces that they call the RIGHT.

The mindless support of the American and European Political Left for radical and "revolutionary leaders" in non-Western developing countries has preferred to ignore or "explain" the enormous contradictions between those regimes and leaders they have supported as "progressive" and the accepted jargon of political science discourse that "LEFT" means enlightened, beneficial to the working class, liberal, secular and internationalist.

The dichotomy of LEFT vs. RIGHT obscures the basic similarities uniting them at their extremes. Both glorify and deify abstractions such as The Nation, The Working Class, The Race, The King, The Church and worst of all, "The People" promising ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE, albeit in the form of a demagogic leader who promises to wipe away all the humiliations of the past as well as the privileges of the "ruling class" once in power.

What is of no concern to both the Far LEFT and the RIGHT are real individuals and their inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as defined in our Constitution. These individual rights thrive best in a society under the rule of law and that means restraints on the power of the leader, party, race, church or class for whom they are impediments to "progress." For the political extremes there are no restraints on power.

The book reflects my own thinking on diverse political issues as it evolved from my years of graduate study (1969-74) at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. My five years there brought me into close contact with the serene landscape of a beautiful nature as transformed by the generations of pioneers from Central and Northern Europe, many of them of German, Scandinavian, and Polish ancestry with family names of ten and twelve letters like mine who had played such a formative role in the development of the American Midwest and American character.

It was here that I came to realize not only the beauty of America but the basic goodness and generosity of its people in the heartland — not the superficial and trite caricature of leftwing propaganda displayed so often by unthinking critics on both coasts who were as mindless then of the inhumanity of the Vietcong as they are today towards the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

It consists of 25 case studies of major domestic and international crises, wars, alliances, conflicts, issues, personalities and elections that have been the subject of considerable media opinion and comment and most often by the use of the Left-Right terminology. Why do we continue to use it? Many students and observers of political affairs are aware that a single left-right axis is insufficient in describing variations in politic al beliefs. No simple diagram is sufficient to take into account social, cultural and economic issues, historical factors and the potential benefits and disadvantages of intended alliances and their consequences.

Take the most cherished belief (illusion) of those who call themselves Marxists today that the means of production and distribution divide the population into those who benefit (the capitalists, or the 1% of "millionaires and billionaires") or are oppressed economically (the working class" or as typically preferred by the Democrat Party spokesmen "working families" or the 99% in the latest rhetoric) yet statistical surveys consistently bear out the analysis that most blue collar workers in the United States identify as conservatives, although, of course, this is modified or intensified by many factors such as region, ethnicity, education, gender, marital status, and so on.

Right Wing Dictators Oppose the Axis

The Left versus Right metaphors abound in foreign policy issues and they are frequently the most distorted of all. Six chapters in my book analyze the character of regimes often branded as reactionary and Rightwing and ipso facto "Fascist" and "Far Right". On the eve of World War II, various so called "Right Wing" authoritarian regimes of the conservative, traditional, national and religious type, namely Ethiopia's Emperor Haile Selassi, Austria's "Clerical-Fascist" regime of Engelbert Dollfuss and Kurt Schuschnigg, Poland's President and great military leader General Jozef Pilsudski, Yugoslavia's General Simovic and his supporters in the armed forces and Greece's leader Ionnas Metaxas, all opposed the expansionist ambitions of Hitler and Mussolini. Even among Hitler's temporary allies, Finland's Marshall Mannerheim, and Bulgaria's King Boris III, as well as Spain's leader, General Francisco Franco, there was no sympathy for anti-Semitism and each of them was instrumental in protecting their own Jewish citizens or allowing refugees to pass through their territories unharmed.

Fascist Italy and Austria hand Hitler His First Defeat. Two Right Wing Fascist dictators (Dollfuss and Mussolini) openly confront and challenge Hitler. The Spanish Civil War is consistently misrepresented as a simple struggle of Right vs. Left instead of the complex conflict it was, involving regional issues, language, religion, land reform, anarchism, and the interventionist policies of the Great Powers. The Falange, portrayed as a "Fascist" party was in many ways an expression of workers and farmers opposed to big business interests, apathetic towards the Church, critical of the land owning classes and even schemed at one point to assassinate Franco. Moreover, the ultra-conservative and devout Catholic Spanish leader made Spain available for the refuge and survival of at least 30,000 Jewish refugees.

The "Reactionary" King Boris III had a crucial role in the salvation of Bulgaria's Jews in (almost 50,000), while the puppet King of Denmark, Christian X, who has been the object of an enormous myth claiming that he identified with his Jewish subjects by threatening to wear the Yellow Star (never introduced into Denmark) and or that he helped organized the flight of the country's 6,000 Jews in War II is an example of the media and Hollywood's enormous influence (the book and film "Exodus"). The Danish 'Far Right' (Dansk Samling) actually initiated the resistance against Nazi Occupation but is never mentioned on dozens of websites devoted to the Holocaust. Finnish-Americans and Canadians volunteered to help defend Finland against the Soviet Invasion and its Nazi Allies in the Winter War of 1939-40 but have similarly been a forgotten "International Brigade" while those volunteers who took part on the side of Republican Spain have been immortalized as heroes yet these same veterans placed a full page ad in The New York Times calling on Americans not to show any sympathy (under the banner "The Yanks ARE NOT Coming) for the Finns under attack by Stalin's Red Army. Ionnas Metaxas, was an autocrat, monarchist, 'fascist" and Germanophile yet he led the Greek struggle Against the Axis in World War II

Masquerading the first sixty years of the party's history, The Cuban Communist Party and Castro regime pretend that ex-President Batista was always a stooge of American and "right wing business interests" rather than their earlier line (1935-58) as the "popular" leader supported by the masses and Party. Another example of Latin-American Populism that can be equally classified as Far-Right or Far Left is the regime of General Juan Peron (attacked by an alliance of The Catholic Church, Liberal Opinion — La Prensa, and intellectuals but defended by "Workers' Militias"). No greater reversal of sympathies can be found than in Israel that went from Darling of the Left to International Pariah. Fervent Left wing and "progressive" support for the Partition of Palestine and aid to the Israelis in 1948 has been totally forgotten by the willful amnesia.


THE LEFT IS SELDOM RIGHT by DR. Norman Berdichevsky

Table of Contents

Theory and the American Scene

1. The Origins of the Right-Left Metaphor

2. The Leftwing Tilt in Culture in Literature and Film

3. The Sixties Revisited; The Age of Aquarius

4. Can It Happen Here?

5. The Gods That Failed But Still Enjoy a Favorable Press — The New York Times and the BBC

6. Abraham Lincoln — Hero of the Left and/or the Right?.

7. The Religious Left as Potent as the Religious Right

8. 'Freedom of Religion'; Not an Absolute Right

9. The Stalinist and Daniel Webster

10. The Anachronistic American Jewish Affection for the Left

11. Collective vs. Individual Rights; How the Constitution Has Been Assaulted and Balkanized by Multiculturalism/Affirmative Action

EUROPE — Right Wing Dictators Oppose the Axis

12. Fascist Italy and Austria Hand Hitler His First Defeat

13. Franco, Fascism and the Falange; All the Far Right?

14. The "Reactionary" King Boris III and His Crucial Role in the Salvation of Bulgaria's Jews in World War II

15. The Soviet-Nazi Honeymoon, September 1939 — June 1941; Allies for one-third of the war.

16. The Danish 'Far Right' (Dansk Samling) Initiated the Resistance Against Nazi Occupation

17. The Two International Brigades; One Glorified (Spain) and the Other Forgotten (Finland)

18. Ionnas Metaxas, Autocrat, 'Fascist", Monarchist and Germanophile Who Led the Greek Struggle in World War II AGAINST the Axis


19. The Cuban Communist Party Support of Both Batista and Castro

20. Peronism; Argentine Populism of both the Left and the Right.


21. How Israel Went from Darling of the Left to International Pariah

22. Support for JIHAD on the RIGHT & LEFT from the Kaiser through Hitler to the Soviets


23. Marx, Stalin and Opportunism on The National Question

24. Case Closed: The Utter Failure of Marxism-Leninism Three Courageous Women Who Battled the Left and the Right:

25. Sigrid Undset, Oriana Fallaci, Pilar Rahola


Norman Berdichevsky is the author of "The Danish-German Border Dispute, Nations,Language and Citizenship", "Spanish Vignettes; An Offbeat Look into Spain's Culture", "Society & History" and "An Introduction to Danish Culture". He is the author of more than 200 articles and book reviews that have appeared in a variety of American, British, Danish, Israeli and Spanish periodicals and is a contributing editor for New English Review.

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth Frantzman, February 15, 2012.

Marketing professionals often speak of "not reinventing the wheel." It seems that when it comes to selling the need to critique Israel, this concept has not been well understood.

The latest manifestation is Peter Beinart's The Crisis of Zionism, due to be published in late March.

The buzz is already starting.

Roger Cohen profiled the book in a New York Times column on February 13. Employing words like "important," "timely" and "new". Mr. Cohen hit all the important notes in his laudatory remarks.

What is important to understand is that this latest polemic is navigating familiar waters. Remember The Israel Lobby by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt of the University of Chicago and Harvard respectively, initially published as an essay in the London Review of Books in March 2006?

The essay itself garnered a huge amount of attention, with spots devoted to it on National Public Radio and The New York Review of Books. A year later it appeared as a book and was again treated as if it was some new idol-smashing research. In a similar twist Beinart's essay-to-book odyssey began at the New York Review of Books in 2010.

The problem with this story is not the method by which a well received article becomes a book. Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air began as a wonderful story in Outside magazine before becoming a best seller. But unlike Krakauer, who detailed a tragedy on Everest, Beinart's banal, brooding book is merely parroting a well-known critique.

So why is it considered "new" and "important"? In his initial essay Beinart wrote, "in the world of AIPAC, the Holocaust analogies never stop, and their message is always the same: Jews are licensed by their victimhood to worry only about themselves."

Cohen writes, as if he has just had a Road-to-Damascus moment, that this "new book rejects the manipulation of Jewish victimhood in the name of Israel's domination of the Palestinians."

That's all well and good, except former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg wrote precisely the same thing in his 2008 book The Holocaust is Over: "We have become a nation of victims, and our state religion is the worship and tending of traumas, as if Israel forever walks down its last path." He also wrote that American Jews are guilty of "raising the Shoah banner high to the sky and exploiting it politically."

The victim argument is used to set up an Israeli straw man. Israel is accused of manipulating the Holocaust and the Jewish people's status as a victim to justify its suppression of the Palestinians. It is a convenient and clear claim, since what better stereotype is there than the villain who was initially abused. But it isn't true.

It is not typical that an IDF commander tells his soldiers to be cruel because of what happened in the 1940s. Israeli leaders don't say that the checkpoints must be extra stringent because Jews were victims 65 years ago. But these words are put in the mouths of Israelis so that some intellectual can easily demolish the fake argument.

It is easy to be misled, since those reading books in the West often don't live in Israel, so they assume that if an "expert" tells them that "Israelis use the Holocaust to excuse the Occupation," then this must be true.

Another "new" argument is that American Jews are naturally progressive, universalistic humanists who simply can't identify with an Israel that is antithetical to them. Beinart claims that American Jews are "supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel" and become "bodyguards" for Israeli leaders that "threaten the very liberal values they profess to admire." J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami in A New Voice for Israel repeated this assertion that "our community will suffer greatly if we refuse an open and honest discussion of how those same values manifest in the national home of our people."

The solution proposed by Ben-Ami, Beinart, and many others is that American Jews must critique Israel at every possible opportunity. They accuse American Jewish leaders of not being critical of Israel and claim the establishment is thus out of step with the "liberal" Jewish youth who are walking away from Zionism. This is the "crisis" they refer to. To bring Jews back into the tent, the tent must be one that is critical of Israel, bashing it just enough so that people can feel comfortable.

None of this makes much sense. Why is Israel one of the few causes people are encouraged to embrace primarily through offering "constructive criticism"? The young liberal Jews who supposedly abandon Zionism in order to campaign for something else don't often need to have a deep, nuanced discussion about whatever other cause they joined. If they are involved with fighting global warming, the umbrella organization is not usually involved in "constructive criticism" of the very thing they are fighting for. Those active on behalf of unions or immigrants don't spend an equal amount of time examining how their, in the words of Ben-Ami, "policy and behavior are at times wrong."

So why must AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents or other Jewish organizations be up to their knees in the appropriate amount of castigating, so as to supposedly win back a few Israel-critical students here and there.

The Zionism of Israel is not synonymous with the Judaism of America.

Oddly, the critical voices are asking that one fit neatly into the other. They claim that once upon a time these two cultures meshed, but that now they are being pulled apart by Israel's ultra-Orthodox, Avigdor Liberman or the policies of Binyamin Netanyahu. The reality is that the two largest population centers of Jews in the world were never hand-in-glove. Jacob Blaustein, president of the American Jewish Committee in the 1950s, famously told David Ben-Gurion that he would only advocate financial support for Israel if the country agreed to a whole series of compromises in its relations with the Americans. In that sense, there is no "crisis of Zionism," but an ongoing crisis of criticism, one which continues to bedevil the Diaspora.

Contact Seth J. Frantzman at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website:
http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com These essays appeared in Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=258003) and are archived on his website.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, February 15, 2012.

"Do you control the camera or does the camera control you? If you're not shooting on manual mode, you are nothing but a human tripod!"
— David Huffines

Coralling color into a visual whole


I feel compelled to tell this story, because it speaks so much to the challenge of living and working in Israel and how often there is more to a photograph than what meets the eye. I made this image on the Golan Heights in northern Israel about four years ago. Travelers to the Golan are familiar with warning signs marking areas where explosive mines buried in the ground may remain from the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Seeing just a single sign makes one wonder how anyone really knows which fields are safe and creates a deep sense of anxiety when going off road there, even in unmarked, presumably safe areas.

I shot this photo from a viewpoint along a secondary road. Across from where I stood was a battered, barbed wire fence strung with numerous, yellow "Danger Mines!" signs. They are not merely a bitter reminder of the past, but an ongoing obstacle to our enjoyment and utilization of the land. To get this image, I kept my feet firmly planted on the pavement. The challenge in this photo was working the composition to offset the monochromatic color display. Everything is green, albeit in different tonalities and textures that ultimately merge together quite nicely, even though the photo lacks a center of interest. More subtly, the metal fence posts that enter from the photo's bottom left corner combine with the foreground rock to lead the eye into the photo. I utilized my elevated position on an embankment to shoot down, thus capturing the different height levels to full effect as well. A nice document of early spring, Israel's most glorious season.


Nikon D-200, mounted on a tripod, manual exposure, evaluative metering mode, f11 at 1/125th sec., ISO 400. Raw file converted to Jpeg. Lens: Nikon 28-70 mm zoom at 46mm. Date: Mar. 3, 2008, 7:09 a.m. Location: Golan Heights, Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, February 15, 2012.

This was written by Ehud Yaari and it appeared yesterday in Times of Israel. Yaari is the Middle East Commentator of Israel Television Ch. 2 and a Lafer International Fellow of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He is the author of eight books on the Arab-Israeli Conflict -- three of them with the late Zeev Schiff. His latest policy papers were "Sinai — A New Front," published by The Washington Institute (2012), and "Armistice Now," published in Foreign Affairs (March 2010).



  • Since there seems to be an agreement in Israel that we prefer the devil we do not know to the one we have come to know so well in Syria, there are certain measures that should be seriously contemplated:

  • Israel has to scream from the rooftops that we fully support the transformation of the Syrians from mere obedient subjects to real citizens; that we sympathize with the popular desire to see the collapse of the hated internal security organizations; that Israel would be willing to contribute to any international effort to offer humanitarian assistance to the destroyed cities of Homs, Idlib, Zabadany, etc.

  • Since there seems to be an agreement in Israel that we prefer the devil we do not know to the one we have come to know so well in Syria, there are certain measures that should be seriously contemplated: Israel should establish quiet channels to some different factions and personae among the fragmented opposition groupings. Having maintained for years contacts with quite a few of them, I have reached the conclusion that unlike Egypt or Tunisia, Syria is not necessarily destined to fall under a Muslim Brotherhood regime, although Islamists are certainly key players in the current uprising.

  • Since there seems to be an agreement in Israel that we prefer the devil we do not know to the one we have come to know so well in Syria, there are certain measures that should be seriously contemplated: Using its long-standing contacts to the Druze community, Israel could try to encourage the inhabitants of Suweida Province (the Druze Mountain) in southern Syria to throw their lot against Assad. So far the Druze have been hesitant to pick sides, but once they do, it will have an enormous impact on the attitude of other important minorities — Christians, Kurds, Ismailis, Circassians.

  • Since there seems to be an agreement in Israel that we prefer the devil we do not know to the one we have come to know so well in Syria, there are certain measures that should be seriously contemplated: Israeli intelligence agencies possess huge amounts of detailed quality data on the Assad killing machine — they know who gives orders to whom and how; they know what the instructions are and how are they carried out. This is information that is highly incriminating and embarrassing to Assad.

    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 Tom McLaughlin, February 15, 2012.

What happens when the lead dog, the lead bull, or the lead stallion weakens? Fighting — until a new one emerges. That could happen quickly or it could take a while. If the United States is perceived by the rest of the world to be in decline, we can expect fighting to increase worldwide.

Perception is reality in politics, especially in a democracy because people vote based on their perceptions of candidates or issues. Americans perceived Barack Obama as a brilliant, articulate leader who would bring Americans together to solve common problems here and in the rest of the world. That resulted in his election. Perception is indeed reality in politics, and its also true that war is an extension of politics by other means. When the rest of the world perceives President Obama as weak, America is going to be challenged. It's already starting. Expect it to escalate this year.

Most historians point to periods of relative peace over the past two millennia starting with "Pax Romana," or the "Peace of Rome," which lasted about two centuries from the time of Augustus in 27 BC to the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD. Why? Because most of the world knew Roman legions were so strong that to challenge them was futile. There were uprisings, sure. Jewish Zealots rebelled in Israel, but they were put down so thoroughly and decisively their uprising became the exception that proved the rule. Others watched and heeded as Rome killed more than a million Jews and scattered the rest across the empire in the Great Diaspora. Then came "Pax Brittanica," which lasted about half as long — 1815-1914. The world knew it was futile to challenge British rule as enforced by its navy. Then came the "Pax Americana" which began in 1945. How long will it last? As long as the world perceives it's futile to challenge the United States. My guess, sadly, is that it won't last much longer.

The 52% of Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 believed he would charm the world as he had charmed them, as he (at first) charmed Europeans. So, when Iran continued to develop nuclear weapons, President Obama said in January, 2009 that he would talk to them without preconditions. It looks like he really believed he could simply charm the mullahs into giving up their ambitions. This is a country that declared war on the United States back in 1979, that calls America "The Great Satan," that brings together millions of its people year after year to chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" in the streets of Tehran. Again and again, the Iranian president promises to "wipe Israel off the map." They've amassed proxy armies in Gaza and Lebanon that shoot rockets at Israel regularly. What was Obama thinking? What hubris.

Strait of Hormuz

The mullahs now threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of the world's oil passes. Just the threat caused prices to jump 2%. An actual attempt could be catastrophic to an already-precarious world economy. Using fast "suicide bomb boats" with warheads would invite swift and deadly response from the US Fifth Fleet. Imagine what shooting and/or bombing in the Persian Gulf would do to oil futures? We're already looking at $5-a-gallon gas in just a few months, and that's only if things stay calm.

Then there's the inevitable Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expects it within the next four months. Remember — modern Israel was founded to prevent a repeat of the Holocaust. Iran denies there ever was one but promises another.

Israel knows talk is cheap. They know appeasement didn't work with Hitler when Chamberlain tried it and it won't work with Iran's mullahs either. Israel cannot and will not stake its survival on lyrical speeches by Obama. One thing it shares with Iran is the perception that Obama is a weak commander-in-chief — all talk and no action — and that makes war a virtual certainty. Just imagine what all this will do to the world's economy when oil prices skyrocket and even the availability of oil becomes spotty. Rationing anyone? With all this looming, what did Obama do? Caving to the environmental whackos in his party, he shut down construction of the Keystone pipeline. What is he thinking?

Barack Obama portrayed himself as the harbinger of "Hope and Change" when he said: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person ... We are the ones we've been waiting for." The 66 million Americans who voted for him had probably that many perceptions of what the changes he effected would look like. I suspect that by the end of this summer, reality will not resemble any of those perceptions. Neither will it be what any had hoped for when they cast their ballots in 2008.

However, another "Change" will be manifesting in voter perception come November — when Obama becomes "The one we've been waiting to get rid of."

Tom McLaughlin is a teacher and columnist who lives in Lovell, Maine. Visit his website at http://tommclaughlin.blogspot.com and email him at tommclaughlin@fairpoint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, February 15, 2012.
This Book can now be downloaded for free at: http://www.jcpa.org/text/Manfred.pdf

The Post-Holocaust Origins of Today's Anti-Semitism
by Manfred Gerstenfeld

A war criminal had better survival chances in twentieth century Europe than a Jew. This sad assessment underlines the gravity of the Holocaust bloodbath, as well as the Europeans' leniency toward the murderers in the post-Holocaust period.

Europe's Crumbling Myths explores how developments in post-Holocaust Europe already prefigured the adversities Israel and the Jews face there today. It shows how 'new' anti-Semitism is more a continuation and development than an innovation. Few people realize how rampant anti-Semitism and discrimination of the Jews were in post-Holocaust Europe, and how the legacy of that period laid the basis for today's resurgence of European anti-Semitism. When exposing the persistent anti-Semitic character of many current European attacks on Israel, examples taken from Europe's recent history must play a major role.

This book provides an analysis of Europe's moral attitude toward the Jews in the post-war period. In an introductory essay, the author defines various criteria for assessing this attitude: How were the Jews' received into society after returning from concentration camps or hiding? How did European countries deal with economic restitution and its moral aspects? How much of an effort was made to bring war criminals to trial? How is the Holocaust remembered? What do European countries recount about their own post-war history? And how is today's generation educated about the Holocaust and its aftermath? Vignettes from various countries illustrate the above issues.

In the second part of the book, 15 interviewees refer to the above major issues concerning the post-Holocaust period.



Introduction and Acknowledgments

Emil Fackenheim: Foreword

Manfred Gerstenfeld. From the Aftermath of the Holocaust to Today's Anti-Semitism.



David Bankier: Wartime Jews in Post-War Europe: A Cool Reception at Best.

Ephraim Zuroff: Filling in for Governments: Chasing War Criminals.

Yehuda Bauer: From Propagating Myths to Holocaust Research: Preparing for an Education.

Deborah Lipstadt: Denial of the Holocaust and Immoral Equivalence.

Nathan Durst: Europe: From Guilt to Repackaging anti-Semitism.

Aharon Lopez: Jewish-Vatican Relations: The Possible Beatification of Pius XII and other Unresolved Issues.

Michael Melchior: The Israeli Government: Holocaust Issues and anti-Semitism.

Yair Sheleg: Israeli Media Attitudes toward the Shoah.

Avi Beker: Restitution Issues Destroy National Myths.

Ronald Zweig: Restitution: Why did it Take 50 years or did it?

Isaac Lipschits: The Dutch Government: Discriminating against the Survivors through a so-called Egalitarian Approach.

Naphtali Lavie: Fighting for Crumbs: Financial Restitution in Eastern Europe.

Laurence Weinbaum: Poland: Changing Holocaust Perceptions.

Shmuel Trigano: France: Memory Versus Truth.

Irwin Cotler: Discrimination Against Israel in the International Arena: Undermining the Cause of Human Rights at the United Nations.


A must read for anyone interested in understanding how contemporary European antisemitism is connected to post-War European attitudes of Jewish exclusion which set the stage for the moral, judicial, and educational failures that followed in the wake of the Shoah.
Alan L. Berger, Raddock Eminent Scholar Chair of Holocaust Studies, Florida Atlantic University.

Widespread manifestations of anti-Semitism in Europe (and elsewhere) since the turn of the millennium have shocked Jews (and many non-Jews), who assumed the ancient hatred lay buried in the ashes of the Holocaust. Europe's Crumbling Myths shows how wrong that belief was. Manfred Gerstenfeld and his interlocutors shed light on the dirty secret of enduring animus everywhere in Europe towards Jews. The book is a call for further scholarly research, for honest self-scrutiny by Europeans, and for immediate policy review by governments, NGOs, and Jewish communities.
Michael Brown, Professor, Former Director of Center for Jewish Studies, York University (Toronto)

This well-informed and exceptionally well-written book takes the format of an introductory essay and 15 interviews with prominent experts. Gerstenfeld convincingly argues that there is a new common ground on which right-wing Holocaust deniers, leftist European intellectuals and influential Arabs stand united: in their criticism of Israeli policy, and in their hatred of the Jews. This book deserves the widest possible audience.
Johannes Houwink ten Cate, Professor for Holocaust and Genocide studies, University of Amsterdam

In a comprehensive and thought-provoking introduction, Manfred Gerstenfeld ties together a timely and incisive set of interviews with leading scholars, officials and journalists. It examines the relationship between the recrudescence of anti-Semitism in Europe and the recent resurfacing of unresolved and troubling political, economic, psychological and moral issues stemming from the Holocaust and its aftermath.
Professor Peter Y. Medding, Chairman, Political Science Department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Manfred Gerstenfeld's book is an excellent analysis of contemporary anti-Semitism. It describes — and it explains. For the understanding of the ongoing hatred of Jews as well as of the changing faces of this hatred, the book provides provoking insights. It gives country-to-country description and an overall systematic explanation.
Anton Pelinka, Professor of Political Science, University of Innsbruck; Director of the Institute of Conflict Research, Vienna


(Copyright Joel Fishman)

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld is chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He has been an international business strategist for forty years. His background is in chemistry, economics, environmental studies, and Jewish studies.

Gerstenfeld is a former director in an international business consultancy whose other shareholders included four of the world's largest banks. He has worked in twenty countries and his clients have included the boards of several of the world's largest multinational corporations, as well as governments. He has also been a board member of several public companies including a large investment firm.

Gerstenfeld has authored fifteen books and edited five. Books of his have been published in seven languages, including the Italian bestseller Revaluing Italy. His recent book, The Decay: Jews in a Rudderless Netherlands, has sparked a major public debate in the country and has had an international impact as well. Gerstenfeld has also published articles in leading newspapers and journals in various countries on political, economic, DEenvironmental, religious, and historical subjects.

Contact the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs by email at phasmail@list-jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Jonathan Rynhold, February 15, 2012.

This was written by Dr. Jonathan Rynhold and is archived as
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 165, February 15, 2012 Dr. Jonathan Rynhold is a senior lecturer in political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israel has emerged as an important issue in the Republican primaries. In fact, it has become an important issue for a much wider public than just American Jews and evangelical Christians — a public that views the Jewish state as a crucial ally confronting common threats, especially the specter of a nuclear Iran. Consequently, support for Israel in the strategic sphere has become an acid test of presidential credibility on national security. As such, Israel could play an important role in the presidential elections, especially in the event of a major confrontation between Israel and Iran before then.

Israel has been one of the central issues in the US Republican primaries. Candidates have been falling over themselves to establish their own pro-Israel credentials while attacking President Obama for what they view as his lack of such credentials. As Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney bluntly declared: "President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends."

The media has largely declared this an attempt to capture the Jewish vote. American Jews constitute about two percent of the US population, though their electoral importance is magnified by their high turnout rate and geographic concentration in states that are particularly important in a presidential election. However, since the 1920s, the majority of American Jews have preferred the Democrats over the Republicans in presidential elections. The maximum swing in the Jewish vote is about 25 percent, and not all voting decisions will be based primarily on Israel. A Democratic candidate does not have to be considered the most pro-Israel candidate to maintain his share of the Jewish vote; he only needs to be perceived as sufficiently pro-Israel.

Jewish dissatisfaction with Obama's polices towards Israel grew significantly in 2011, but until recently, it was still possible to claim that Obama was considered sufficiently pro-Israel. The level of Jewish support for Obama was falling, but the drop was proportionate to that seen among the general public. However, a Pew poll has now indicated, for the first time, that Obama's numbers are falling among Jews at a higher rate than the national average. The poll did not explain why this is the case, but it would seem that increased concern over Iran is part of the equation.

Still, with all due to respect to the Jewish vote, it is not the main reason that Republicans are focusing on Israel. To win the Republican nomination, a candidate must capture the party base, and in the last decade Israel has become of central importance to that base. A poll conducted by Professor Steven M. Cohen prior to the 2008 presidential election indicated that for just over a quarter of non-Jewish Americans — the majority of them Republicans — Israel is an important factor in determining their vote. The usual assumption is that these are conservative, evangelical Christians who make up the largest chunk of the Republican base. Indeed, the rhetoric of candidates like Rick Santorum resonates with this demographic.

Yet, while religion is significant, it is not the most important factor in determining Republican support for Israel. Until 9/11, Republicans sympathized with Israel over Palestinians by only slightly higher margins than Democrats. However, in the last decade the margin between the parties has doubled, with Republican sympathy for Israel surging ahead by 25 percent and the Democrats remaining more or less unchanging. The number of evangelicals has not increased by a quarter over the last decade, so the Republican surge is not a matter of theology, but national security — American national security.

Polling by Public Opinion Strategies from 2010 indicates that the top reason that Republicans support Israel is because they perceive it as America's most important ally in the Middle East. The belief that God gave the land to the Jewish people was the fourth most popular reason, though the data shows this fell way behind shared democratic values and partnership in the war against terror.

At the same time polling by Pew and Gallup over the last few years demonstrates that for Americans in general, the most critical perceived threats to the US are terrorism and the military power of Iran. (The threat posed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perceived to have diminished). Indeed, Iran is considered America's greatest enemy, followed by North Korea and China. These countries also make up three of the top four countries where developments are considered 'vitally important' to American interests.

The fourth country on that list is Israel — considered by Americans as their most important front line ally. It's not simply that they are sympathetic to Israel's security concerns; it's that they view much of Israel's security concerns as their own. Thus, supporting Israel and keeping it strong is important for the US itself. This is not just the Republican position, either. A majority of Democrats also view Israel as a crucial ally. What this means is that support for Israel in the strategic sphere (though not necessarily on all aspects of the peace process) is an acid test of presidential credibility on national security. How a president handles Israel will have implications for his standing as commander-in-chief.

The conventional wisdom is that the economy, not national security, will be key issue in the election. However, some forecast an upturn in the economy before November, which may cause the Republicans to focus attention on other issues. Republicans might be hesitant to take up foreign policy since Obama's standing on this issue is reasonably good. Yet, national security may force itself up the political agenda because of unfolding events in the Middle East. Some key figures in the Israeli government believe that Israel should strike Iran and that the window for action may close before November. In other words, Israel and Iran may become an election issue whether Obama or the Republicans like it or not.

On these issues, Obama can point to the fact that he has increased strategic cooperation between Israel and the US during his term. He can also highlight the lead that his administration has taken it ratcheting up sanctions against Iran. But the question is: If there is a serious crisis, will this be regarded by the American public as enough? While Americans today are more inclined to cut back overseas commitments than at any time since Vietnam, this does not mean that they are prepared to countenance a nuclear Iran. Recent polling conducted by The Hill and The Wall Street Journal indicates that a clear majority of Americans would approve using force against Iran if it were clear that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon.

In other words, the Iranian nuclear program is not only a major strategic issue in the Middle East; it may also turn out to be a major political issue in the American presidential election. For American Jews, it is already an issue, and President Obama appears to be paying a price.

Contact the BESA Center by email at Besa.Center@MAIL.BIU.AC.IL

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, February 15, 2012.

Somalia Transitional Government on Monday reported in a statement that the Islamic terrorist groups Al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda officially enacted a merger that's sure to create more violence and suffering for the already war-weary and starving Somali people.

The Somali government statement came after the al-Qaeda terror network claimed that the Somali Al-Shabaab was officially joining al-Qaeda after years of being close allies.

Al-Qaeda's top commander Ayman Al Zawahiri and the chief of Somalia's Al-Shabaab group Abu Zubayr (a/k/a Ahmed Abdi Godane) were seen in a video posted on Islamist websites announcing the merger.

"We (the Somali government) also believe that their union will increase the insecurity in Somalia, East Africa and the rest of the world and that Somalia risks becoming an al Qaeda base in East Africa as the al Qaeda leader said in his statement," the Somali government statement said.

The Al-Shabaab group, which controls much of south and central Somalia, is fighting Somali government forces as well as troops from the African Union. They have also fought troops from Ethiopia and Kenya.

A U.S. intelligence source told the Law Enforcement Examiner that he never doubted that Al-Shabaab had always been "a branch of al-Qaeda," as evidenced by past pronouncements of the two groups' respective leaders.

The Somali government called on the international community to stand by it and the Somali people, and asked for a UN arms embargo on Somalia to be lifted, saying it wanted to "defend the country and complete the achievements of the Somali army and African Union forces."

The war-torn country requested help in the reinforcement of the Somali National Army and direct assistance to the Somali government to help it "fulfill its obligation to bring back peace and stability to the country."

The Somali government stated that it was giving the Al-Shabaab fighters 15 days "for them to lay down their arms and live peacefully."

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, February 14, 2012.

BHO will send the arab-springers an additional $800 million on top of the billions we already send Egypt.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/ us-usa-budget-foreign-idUSTRE81C1C920120213

Read it. And remember to vote.

Ain't that bow-down man jus' a wunnerful peace-lover?

Yep. He goes and slashes US defense spending so he can send the "savings" to arab-springers and middle-east muzzies who are sincerely promising the US a blood-bath iff'n we don't do as they say.

O yes, ol' Hill is up to her neck when it comes to arming the Sods and the rest of their muzzie-buddies. But what the heck. She's gonna be outta there real soon and living large on her huge pension benefits and her profits from inside-trading.

Ain't our demo-cray grand?.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ben Gedalyahu, Tzvi, February 14, 2012.

Two Gaza terrorists have been indicted for plotting to kill IDF soldiers and then expecting to be jailed so they could "earn" PA salaries for terror.

The two men, Salam Alsufi and Ra'ami Tayima were charged in a Be'er Sheva court on several counts of terrorist activity, including manning a terrorist outpost in Gaza to maintain surveillance of movements of IDF soldiers and kill them if they entered Gaza.

They also were charged with weapons violations, plotting to murder, holding membership in illegal terrorist groups and maintaining contact with enemy agents.

The terrorists worked with Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and wanted to be arrested in Israeli after carrying out an attack so they could collect the monthly stipend provided by the Palestinian Authority for prisoners in Israeli jails. The PA maintains its budget with the help of funds from the United States and the European Union.

They were arrested after being caught when they cut through the Gaza security fence.

Alsufi had maintained surveillance of IDF troop movements at a terrorist outpost near a Gaza crossing.

Tayima was indicted for participating in terrorist training camps and digging tunnels in Rafiah, which straddles the border with Egypt, with the intention of smuggling weapons into Gaza.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu writes for Arutz Sheva, where this item appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, February 13, 2012.

Betrayal in the Shadow of the Arab Spring

With its latest acquisitions from Washington and Europe, the Saudi Air Force will have more fighter-bombers of more advanced models that the Israeli Air Force...

Last month, the US agreed to sell Saudi Arabia 84 advanced F-15SA fighter-bombers worth $29.4 billion. First deliveries are due in 2015. The package included the upgrading of 70 F-15 planes of the Saudi air fleet. Riyadh is also buying 72 advanced Eurofighter Typhoon fighter bombers. All in all, the oil kingdom will have the largest and most sophisticated fighter-bomber fleet in the Middle East.

Israel leaders reminded the Obama administration of its standing pledge to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge in the region. The aircraft supplied to the Saudis will place that edge in doubt.

They voiced two additional causes for concern:
1. One fine day, Saudi Arabia, which has never agreed to peace relations with Israel, may be moved to attack the Jewish state from an air base very close to Israel's shores. That proximity and the size and quality of its air force will allow dozens of warplanes to penetrate Israel's air defences and drop bombs on southern and central Israel.

2. Israel also fears that four or five Saudi pilots or hired Islamist fliers may one day form an al Qaeda cell inside the Saudi Air Force and conspire to carry out a suicide attack on Israeli cities on the model of al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, most of whose participants were Saudis.

...Israel has brought its concerns to the notice of the Obama administration without making specific requests to hold up delivery. Israel is conscious that the Gulf region is on tenterhooks over its security and the Saudis are deep in military preparations to beat back potentially aggressive Iranian moves in the wake of the oil embargo approved by the US and the European Union against Tehran's nuclear program.

Jerusalem also takes into consideration the importance to the flagging American economy of the huge warplane transaction with the Saudis which will support 50,000 jobs in the US air industry and 600 American contractors of aircraft parts. (Too much understanding and consideration is complacency. It undermines Israel' s security!)

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Sometimes I am asked to make my letters more positive and balanced. What does it mean? Must I ignore the ugly nature of Islamic terrorism and the intent of international anti-Semitic hypocrisy to destroy Israel? There are many 'balanced' publications about Middle East conflict. Their politically correct approach only facilitates the demise of Israel. This editorial is not one of them!

Iran's Nuclear Arms Program is Complete

"Iran has completed the development of a nuclear weapon and is only waiting for a sign from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to start assembling its first nuclear bomb", said Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi on Thursday, February 2. By the end of 2012 or early 2013 Iran may have a single nuclear bomb. (There is no time left to waste)

'Friendly' Meeting after 18 Month Freeze

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman met in Washington. The visit is the first face to face meeting between Lieberman and Clinton in 18 months. There has been widespread speculation that Clinton has been intentionally ducking a meeting with Lieberman. It is well-known in Washington and Jerusalem that the Obama Administration does not approve of the hard-line Lieberman whose own policy positions vis-à-vis the 'Peace Process' are not conducive to US (Arab pleasing) strategic goals.

Madonna Starts Her World Tour in Israel

Fresh off her Super Bowl halftime show performance, Madonna is going on a world tour. The Material Girl will hit the road on May 29, starting in Tel Aviv, Israel. The tour will stop in 26 European cities, including London, Paris, Milan and Berlin. (Barack Obama only visited Israel during his presidential election campaign to fool gullible Jewish voters and gain their financial support! Since then, Israel has endured only political humiliation from Obama administration. Obama is not friend of Israel, Madonna is!)

Aid Delivered without Fuss and Media Coverage

Twenty months after the Mavi Marmara incident, a Turkish ship carrying medical aid for Gaza has arrived at Ashdod Port in Israel. The ship will unload its cargo at Ashdod, and Israel will then transfer the supplies into Gaza. Turkey had submitted a request to the Israeli Defence Ministry, to allow safe passage for the aid ship in October last year.

Sarkozy: Military Action is Not the Solution — Why?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned on Wednesday that military action was no way to deal with nuclear-minded Iran. "The solution is political, the solution is diplomatic, the solution is in sanctions," Sarkozy was quoted as having said. "We want the leaders of this country to understand that they have crossed a red line, and to reassure Israeli leaders so that the irreparable is not carried out." (After helping Islamists to take over Libya, Sarkozy is so eager to change the regime in Syria, but not in Iran? Is it because of Iranian oil flow to France or the threat that nuclear Iran poses to Israel's existence?)

Only Strength Ensures Survival of Jewish People

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the "only thing that ensures our existence, security and prosperity is our strength." The Iranian regime recently announced that it has the ability to wipe out Israel in nine minutes. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaimed that the "Zionist regime is really the cancerous tumor of this region and it needs to be removed and will be removed." (First of all, Jewish political leadership must exercise strength and Israel's sovereignty! Secondly, any independent country, with the military superiority of Israel, would destroy the cancer of PA's terror and threat by Arabs to Israel's existence long ago!)

PA Unity Government "Need Not Recognise Israel"?

Fatah official Nabil Shaath on Monday said the new interim PA government to be headed by Mahmoud Abbas "need not recognise Israel." "It is the PLO, not the PA, that recognises Israel," Shaath insisted in an interview with the Hamas-affiliated Arabic-language Al Quds. Shaath was attempting to justify forming a unity government with Hamas, which continues to call for Israel's destruction. (This statement completely negates the Oslo Accords and all others agreements with the PA. Israel must free itself from the illusion of the peace process, reunite Jewish land and remove enemies from it!)

Disgraceful Honour of a Traitor

The State of Israel has awarded the nation's highest honour to elder diplomat Henry Kissinger. The awards were presented at a news conference at the Presidential Residence in Jerusalem. Kissinger, who was born to Jewish parents, received the award for his "unique contribution to Israel and his peace-making efforts in the Middle East." (It is a matter of public record that Kissinger was not a friend of Israel — In late 2010, a set of audio tapes came to light revealing shocking comments between the veteran diplomat and President Richard Nixon. Kissinger was heard telling the American leader, "And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern...")

Rats are Leaving a Sinking Ship

According to the report in the London-based Al-sharq Al-awsat, Mashaal has decided not to return to Damascus, where Hamas has been based for decades, because of the likelihood that President Bashar al-Assad, with whom Hamas has thrown in its lot, will fall. In addition, the report says, Mashaal has ordered all suspension of remaining Hamas activities in Syria. Mashaal is currently in Qatar where he is opening his terror shop.

Quote of the Week:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie." — Josef Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda — The second sentence is less known, but much more important to understand! Many governments had been using this principle!

Israel is Admired for the Enemies it has Made by Rachel Hirshfeld

New Jersey governor Chris Christie, speaking to an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) group in New York, emphasised his commitment to Israel.

"America should stand by its friends and its democratic allies, even, and sometimes especially, when it's unpopular to do so," Christie said. "And you know I know, that it may not be fashionable in some of the chancelleries, the foreign ministries, and salons around the world to talk about why America stands with Israel — but thats no excuse not to be saying, and saying it loudly."

Christie went on to quote President Franklin Roosevelt, "Please judge me by the enemies I have made." The governor affirmed, "In that same spirit, I would like to say to all of you tonight: I admire Israel for the enemies it has made."

Christie addressed the issue of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons by stressing that both "Americans and Israelis believe — we know deep in our bones — that if the Islamic Republic of Iran acquired a nuclear weapons capability, it will be an existential threat to Israel, to America, and to world civilization itself."

He continued by stressing, "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability must be a top priority of the United States of America. Any president, Republican or Democrat, who allows such a thing to occur on his watch, would be acting in a way that is profoundly against the national security interests of the United States and the security interests of our friends in Israel."

"It's only by speaking the truth boldly, or by speaking the truth to power that we will prevent this from happening," Chrisite continued. "It is only by decisive actions by leaders who truly understand that a threat to Israel is a threat to America. A threat to the Israeli way of life is a threat to the American way of life..."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, February 13, 2012.

This was written by Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5WPR, one of the 25 largest PR Agencies in the US, and author of "For Immediate Release: Shape Minds, Build Brands, and Deliver Results with Game-Changing Public Relation


In recent days, we have seen an intensification of the Syrian regime's attacks on its own people. If reports are correct, more than 5,000 Syrian civilians have been slaughtered on President Bashar al-Assad's command since the effort to bring the so-called Arab spring to Syria began late last spring. The dead include hundreds of women and children, people who just wanted freedom from a tyrannical regime. Supply lines have been cut; medical supplies are running out, and the United Nations admits that it can neither provide a reliable accounting of the number of dead, nor stop the killing.

This regime is the extension of one begun in 1970, when Hafez al-Assad seized power and which was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrian, including one of the most gruesome massacres in Middle East history, the destruction of the Sunni rebel stronghold of Hama, in which between 10,000 and 20,000 people were killed by government forces. Bashir al-Assad has ruled since his father's death on 2000 and has been able to maintain his stranglehold on Syria's people largely because of world indifference, lack of commercial resources, and because of its proximity to Israel.

Curiously, perhaps, Israel has consistently received much worse media coverage than Syria. The Jewish State's every move is scrutinized, while human rights violations have occured every day in Syria since the al-Assad family took the reins of power. Yet, until very recently you would never know that from the media reports and international proclamations. Only now, with Syria in the midst of a revolt, do we see extensive media coverage of the country. Even so, the world continues to be more exorcised by Israelis pouring concrete in the West Bank than by Syran soldiers raining deadly shells onto the people of Homs.

Now look a little deeper. Recently, a hacker group released hundreds of e-mails from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's office. One document revealed the methods for preparation of Assad for his December 2011 interview with ABC's Barbara Walters. Unlike the Israelis, the Syrians actually listen to the communications professionals.

Professor David Lesch of Trinity University, someone who regarded the Syrian president with hope, urged Syria to hire a U.S. PR firm for a two-year engagement at $150,000 per month. Lesch believed that the firm could "improve the image of Syria and President Bashar in the United States, and help with other forms of cooperation."

Syria later hired an international public-relations agency, Brown Lloyd James to coordinate a Vogue magazine profile and photo shoot for Asma al-Assad, Syria's first lady. The glowing profile, and stunning one-page picture entitled: "Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert" was published at the same time as the Syrian government's crackdown on anti-regime protesters.

As David Kenner, an associate editor for the magazine Foreign Policy noted: "The article does not once mention the protests currently under way in the Middle East, including scattered evidence of demonstrations in Syria. Instead, the article focuses on Syrian first lady Asma Assad — the 'freshest and most magnetic of first ladies,' endowed with '[d]ark-brown eyes, wavy chin-length brown hair, long neck, an energetic grace."

This same company, Brown Lloyd James, worked in the past to boost the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. They said, "...we assisted the Libyan government in its efforts to reach out to the international political community through the United Nations and to the U.S. political and university community."

Terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as certain Arab nations have hired public relations agencies to lobby for them in the media and on the world stage. Terror groups have engaged reporters and journalists, share meals with them, drink with them, and win their favor.

Fenton Communications, a New York City — based firm, signed two contracts with the Arab state of Qatar to develop a campaign to essentially delegitimize Israel by orchestrating an international anti-Israel campaign aimed at breaking the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Fenton Communications also works for "Al Fakhoora," a Qatar-based pro-Palestinian initiative that "launched an advocacy campaign to file legal charges against Israel and change the public perception in the West about its actions."

The Palestine Liberation Organization Mission in the United States hired Bell Pottinger, a leading International P.R. agency, to provide "advice on strategic communications, public relations, media relations, and congressional affairs."

The European office of U.S. industry giant Burson-Marsteller, in reaction to Israel's request for a meeting, said: "We will not deliver tender to such a project....We are running a commercial venture. If we accept this project, this will create a great amount of negative reactions....Israel is a particularly controversial project." This from a firm that sought to handle the Bhopal disaster in India in which over 2,000 people were killed, and which represented Blackwater USA in 2007 after it was revealed that some of its employees were involved in the shooting deaths of 13 Iraqis in Baghdad.

So here, representing Israel will cause negative reactions among their client base, because it is a controversial project, but for a firm to take on the role of painting Syria's first lady as glamorous amidst the bloodshed of the people right outside her palace windows is mainstream and acceptable.

Or, staging the deadly flotilla off Gaza is just a routine job, but helping Israel appear as a modern country at the height of medical and technological breakthroughs that benefit the world could blight the agency that does it. These illogical answers alone are indicative of the PR success that Arabs have had. Israel attempted to hirePR firms in ten countries throughout Europe, and many responded as Burson-Marsteller had. While many pay lip service to the awful state of Israel's image, Israel does not use public relations agencies in the United States — and it is not a coincidence that the Arabs receive better media coverage than Israel, because they use communications professionals.

As Syria brutally murders its citizens, and Hamas targets Westerners, public relations pros will help them sell their story. There are millions to be made in sugar-coating terror and brutality. My firm, I am glad to say, will not make any of those millions. No firm should. That there are firms that are willing to cast decency and morality aside for an improved bottom line is sad. That these firms are prepared to help paper over the deaths of tens of thousands of average Syrian citizens for the sake of holding on to a prestigious account is a travesty of monumental proportions — so much so that when the role of these public relations firms is revealed as being complicit in the deaths of scores of thousands of liberty-seeking Syrians an entire industry will see its reputation dragged through the media in the manner they believe supporting Israel may do to them.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Devolin, February 13, 2012.

Doctor Michael Phelps once said, "The trouble with heart disease is that the first symptom is often hard to deal with: sudden death." Likewise it is difficult for Israel to deal with what is always the first symptom of war with her Muslim neighbors: their intended genocide of every living Jew residing in the Middle East. Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently had his "strategy specialist" Alireza Forghani compose a document declaring that it would be a "jurisprudential justification" for the Iranian military to wipe out the nation of Israel and all its Jewish inhabitants. Aside from even touching on the subject of Islamic-incited, anti-Jewish hatred and genocide as being somehow connected to any type of "jurisprudential" philosophy other than the various kill-the-Jews themes found in the Koran, one has to wonder at how the Jews of Israel, especially women and children, go about their daily business after hearing the news that their Persian neighbors are keen to stomp their guts into the sand. And this is not a new thing. Israel's Jews hear I'm sure every other day from some Arab-Muslim sage how it should be the dream of every devout Muslim to kill Jews and to remove the "cancerous tumour" (Khamenei's words) Israel and all her Jews from off the face of the earth. Same old, same old for Jews living in the Muslim Middle East.

The thing I find most bizarre about this peculiar Islamic constant (Islamic death threats against Israel and her Jews) is that Western journalists continue to exculpate Islam the religion as being innocent of such malefic proclamations. The UK tabloid Daily Mail even referred to the Iranian web-site (Alef), from whence the document was first released, as "conservative." Conservative? If issuing genocidal death-threats against the Jewish people and the nation of Israel is "conservative," then a majority of Western journalists are not to be trusted when it comes to their take on any subject relating to the Jewish people and the State of Israel. A website that insouciantly releases a document justifying the extermination of the Jewish people and the destruction of their sovereign state is a racist or "extremist" website. Period. It is not "conservative." Not as we understand "conservativism" in the Western world.

But even conclusive evidence on a variety of subjects can be grossly transmogrified when observed through the dark lens of Islam. On January 26, 2004 Israel's Representative to the Fourth Stockholm Conference On the Prevention of Genocide remarked that "we must be prepared to honestly report that which will be invariably evident. States which respect themselves cannot and should not evade the obvious by requiring field reports to be phrased euphemistically." The "Arab Spring" has been sweeping though the Middle East, and the Western media to this day is reluctant to call it what it really is: a resurgence of Islamic extremism. Darfur has in recent years been in the news because of the atrocities committed there by Arab militias. The UN was sent there to find for certain whether or not genocide was being committed. The UN? That's like sending a fox on a fox hunt. And this blatent posturing only after the Western world had seen tv images of smouldering desert dwellings and charcoaled human remains laying nearby. The UN could have saved a lot of time and money by reading Gerald A. Honigman's brazingly honest summation on the issue: "The atrocities committed in Darfur are Arab racism and chauvinism, pure and simple, being conducted by those very same folks who like to lecture the rest of the world about 'racist Zionism'." I've never read the UN report. Why would I? The world knew already that there was a genocide happening in Darfur, only the world chose not to recognize it as such. The same psychopathic quiescency sealed the fate of the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust, but on a much larger scale. An immeasureably larger scale.

How can the State of Israel therefore, a second time around, expect such a wilfully blind and callous world to publicly recognize the stark reality of the religiously-inspired genocide being impatiently dreamed about by her Muslim neighbours? Israel would be imprudent and foolishly naive to entertain such an expectation. At this time in history, Israel's Jews remember, as do probably most Jews outside of Israel, that when things cannot get any worse for the Jews, it's almost always because things cannot get any better. This is an exclusively Jewish impasse. Ask the Jewish fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Ask the Jewish Partisans of Eastern Europe. Ask any Jew who survived the death camps. This impasse is situated on the brink of total extermination. Where the Jews of Israel exist today.

So please don't talk to me about "disproportionate response." Don't talk to me about "Israeli aggression." When your country exists proximate to an enemy whose first symptom of war is a complete and infrangible genocide, there can be no trust, no abatement of military deterrence. The unenviable conundrum facing the Jews of Israel today is that if at first they don't succeed, they are dead. All of them. Simple as that.

Regardless all the excoriations hurled at her, Israel has no choice but to survive. There is no other path of resistance for her Jews. Gershom Gorenberg and all unctuous fools like him can pretend Israel is nothing but an "accidental empire," but the Jew who remembers correctly and deeply enough into history knows that the State of Israel is no accident. It was a necessity become a life-saving reality. Jews did not survive all their horrors by making themselves door mats for madmen. They survive today because they know how to deal with the first symptom most commonly displayed by their enemies, which is the threat of genocide. Israel can be peaceful and diplomatic better than any other nation on the planet. Read the news. Think "land for peace." What other country gives away conquered land for the sake of peace? I know Canada doesn't. But this peculiar type of diplomacy is maintained only until she's pushed to the edge of extinction, where she now dwells. It's then that Jewish experience comes to the fore. Enter the Israeli Defense Force. Or as Damon Runyon wrote long ago: "The race may not be to the swift nor the victory to the strong, but that's how you bet."

Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. Contact him at devolin@reach.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 13, 2012.

The attack took place in New Delhi, the capital of India, today, while there was a second attempt in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. In both instances explosives were utilized in cars connected to the local Israeli embassies.

In New Delhi, Tali Yehoshua-Koren, wife of the Defense Ministry representative to India was on her way to pick up her children from school when a blast occurred in her car, causing moderate injuries from shrapnel in her legs.

She was brought to the hospital for surgery, and two Israeli doctors who just happened to be in the areas were able to assume responsibility for her care.

It is believed that an assassin on a motorbike attached the bomb to the car; it is unclear whether he was attempting to kill Tali Koren or believed her husband was in the car.

A local Indian resident, as well as the driver of the car, may also have been injured. The car caught fire in the street, not far from the Indian prime minister's residence, and ultimately was gutted.


In Tbilisi, a local employee of the Israeli embassy had dropped his children off at school when he heard a strange ticking in the car. He got out of the car and located an explosive device; Georgia police sappers dismantled it and there were no injuries.


We must be thankful that it was not a great deal worse. In each instance, a parent was involved in either dropping off or picking up children, and yet no children were injured.


In a press conference following these incidents, Prime Minister Netanyahu indicated that there have been similar attempts in recent months, including in Azerbaijan and Thailand:

"In each instance we succeeded in foiling the attacks in cooperation with local authorities....

Iran and its proxy Hezbollah were behind all of these attempted attacks. Iran is the world's largest terror exporter."

As is the case each year, Israeli embassies have been placed on alert, in any event, because Hezbollah is about to mark the fourth anniversary of the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, one of its senior terrorist operatives. There is always concern about retaliation at this time of year. What gives pause is the fact that these two incidents seem to have been coordinated.


Our prime minister indicated that actions would be taken to prevent future attacks. Foreign Minister Lieberman will be holding a meeting with senior officials this evening to assess the current situation and provide new security directives, as needed, to Israel's diplomatic missions around the world.

India has pledged ample security for the Israeli embassy and has promised to try to find those responsible and bring them to justice. India and Israel have exceedingly cordial relations, evidenced by a call placed to Lieberman by Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna. Krishna, who visited Israel just last month, expressed "shock" and offered words that reinforced the friendship.
Krishna Source: Ekantipur

Meanwhile, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague released a written statement on these incidents indicating that he was "shocked and appalled."


You may have heard the rumors about CNN firing all the Jews on its staff in the Jerusalem bureau. Close, but not 100% accurate. See the story by Michael Widlanski:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/02/ cnn_tilts_east_fires_4_jewish_journalists_in_jerusalem.html


If you will be in Jerusalem or environs on February 25 (a Shabbat), please note this significant meeting to be held Motzei (after) Shabbat — at 8:30 — at the Great Synagogue at 56 King George Street. Doors open at 7:30 and it is best to arrive early.

An emergency public forum to be held in English on the problems confronting Har HaZeitim (Mount of Olives) cemetery.

I've written before about what's happening at Har HaZeitim regarding the Arab desecration of graves, Arab violence directed at mourners, and illegal expansion of a mosque on the cemetery grounds just meters from the grave of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

This cemetery, the oldest and largest Jewish cemetery in the world, is a national treasure that is at risk. Israeli sovereignty must be unequivocally established here and the issues are serious.

For this reason, the International Committee for the Preservation of Har HaZeitim has called this meeting. Its goal is the restoration of the cemetery and its preservation.

Keynote speakers: Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Executive Vice Chair of the Conference of Presidents Malcolm Hoenlein are keynote speakers, several members of the Knesset will be participating.


The good news today is that Mekorot, Israel's national water company, has told the Knesset Economics Committee that within a decade Israel will have a water surplus. Anyone familiar with Israel's water situation will recognize what astounding news this is.

We are having a good winter, with more rain than we've seen in several seasons. But the Mekorot report was based, not on this, but on projections regarding desalination plants. Israel has six desalination facilities, which produce 600 million cubic meters of water a year; a new desalination plant is being constructed in Ashdod that will supply 100 million cubic meters of water annually. It is to be completed in 2013; by then, it is estimated, 75% of households will be using desalinated water.

While Israel is currently lacking 2 billion cubic meters of water, once reliance on desalinated water becomes greater, the natural sources of water — notably the Coastal Aquifer and Lake Kinneret, will be replenished.

Here you can see the Kinneret at a diminished water level:

Long-term plans are in the works for a second national water carrier (pipeline system) that would carry only brackish and desalinated water to agricultural sites.

Incredibly, it is anticipated that by 2014 Israel may become an exporter of water.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, February 12, 2012.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, February 12, 2012.

In case you thought the title was referring to the Palestinians living in Gaza, or even Judea and Samaria, you'd be wrong. From my vantage point, these Palestinians have it pretty good, whether in relation to Palestinians living elsewhere, even in Jordan, or to Arabs generally, living in Egypt or Turkey.

"Palestinian" is a name given to Arabs after the '67 War, who lived or did live in the area known as Palestine during the Palestine Mandate and afterwards right up to the present and includes their descendants even if such descendants never set foot in the area known as Palestine.

Whereas United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR) has resettled over 10 million refugees since WWII, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is a relief and human development agency, providing education, health care, social services and emergency aid to 5 million Palestine refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, as well as in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. UNRWA was specifically created to maintain the refugee status, not to end it.

Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. It also includes their descendants.

The world is focused excessively on the "poor Palestinians" living in Gaza or Judea and Samaria and ignores the Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon, Syria or Jordan where they number in excess of 400,000, 450,000 and about 2,000,000 respectively. To add to the picture UNRWA had listed in 2010 in excess of 775,000 refugees in the West Bank and 1.1 million in Gaza.

As of January 2010, UNRWA cites 1,396,368 registered refugees in camps and 3,370,302 registered refugees not in camps". And of course there are millions of Palestinians who are not refugees.

The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees (or their descendants) "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland".


"Palestinians are deprived of certain basic rights. Lebanon barred Palestinian refugees from 73 job categories including professions such as medicine, law and engineering. They are not allowed to own property, and even need a special permit to leave their refugee camps. Unlike other foreigners in Lebanon, they are denied access to the Lebanese health care system. The Lebanese government refused to grant them work permits or permission to own land. The number of restrictions has been mounting since 1990"

According to a major report titled, Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon by Sherifa Shafie:

"There is a lot of poverty and the unemployment rate is very high. The area of land allocated to the camps has remained the same since 1948. Thus in the more populated camps, the refugees could only expand upwards. Construction is not controlled and buildings do not conform to international safety standards.

"Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have the worst socio-economic situation in UNRWA's five areas of operations with the highest percentage of Special Hardship Cases (SHCs).

"..since the early 1990's, Lebanon has placed immense restrictions on the Palestinians in the form of legislation: Palestinian refugees have no political, social or civil rights (UNRWA, 2002). Any question of granting them rights is seen as a step towards permanent integration (USCR Report, 1999: 2). Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are discriminated against and harassed on a daily basis. They are liable to be arrested, detained and harassed by security forces, as well as by rival Palestinians."

Lebanon: Exiled and suffering: Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, published by Amnesty International in Oct 2007 was summarized by them as follows:

"This report deals with the appalling social and economic conditions of these refugees, most of whom live in war-torn camps. The discrimination and marginalization suffered by the Palestinian refugees contribute to high levels of unemployment, low wages and poor working conditions. The resultant poverty is exacerbated by restrictions placed on their access to state education and social services."


Palestinians are treated much better in Syria than in Lebanon or Jordan.

According to a study titled Palestinian Refugees in Syria by the same Sherifa Shafiel: Palestinians in Syria have the "same duties and responsibilities as Syrian citizens other than nationality and political rights." and are "granted freedom of movement in all parts of Syria.". They "do not require work permits, they may work in the government, and men must undertake military service (in the Palestine Liberation Army under the Syrian Command). They have the right to own businesses. They also have the right to join labour unions."

Nevertheless, Shafie reports

"In most of the UNRWA camps, house constructions remain very basic (UNRWA 2002): houses are of mud or crude concrete blocks (Brand 1988: 625). UNRWA is responsible for sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, and control of infestations. The Syrian government provides the basic utilities in the camps; however, the water supply is not constant, most streets are unpaved, and the water and sewage systems, where they exist, are in need of upgrading and repair (UNRWA 2002) ."

In August 2011, the Guardian reported Syria assault on Latakia drives 5,000 Palestinians from refugee camp as "gunships blasted waterfront districts on Sunday in Ltakia, and his ground troops and security forces backed by tanks and armored vehicles stormed several neighborhoods,


In Jordan, less than 20% of the refugees live in camps. This is because when Jordan purported to annex the West Bank after the '48 War, it granted all the Palestinians living there and in Jordan proper, citizenship. After the '67 War in which Israel regained Judea and Samaria, many more Palestinians fled to Jordan and over the years since, many Palestinians from the West Bank emigrated there. It is estimated today that the number of Palestinians in Jordan total in excess of 5,000,000 of which only about 2 million are registered refugees. They constitute about 75¾ of the total population of Jordan. Given this fact and the fact that the West Bank has approximately 1.5 million Palestinians, one might rightfully argue that Jordan is the Palestinian homeland.

According to Wikipedia, Former UNRWA chief-attorney James G. Lindsay says: "In Jordan, where 2 million Palestinian refugees live, all but 167,000 have citizenship, and are fully eligible for government services including education and health care."

Palestinians who moved from the West Bank (whether refugees or not) to Jordan, are issued yellow ID cards to distinguish them from the Palestinians of the "official 10 refugee camps" in Jordan. Since 1988, thousands of those yellow-ID card Palestinians had their Jordanian citizenship revoked in order to prevent the possibility that they might become permanent residents of the country. Jordan's Interior Minister Nayef al-Kadi said. It is estimated that over 40,000 Palestinians have been affected in the preceding months.

Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian of Palestinian origin, has in the last year written a number of articles which describe the plight of the Palestinians in Jordan. In Jordan is Palestine, published by the Mid East Quarterly, he writes;

"In most countries with a record of human rights violations, vulnerable minorities are the typical victims. This has not been the case in Jordan where a Palestinian majority has been discriminated against by the ruling Hashemite dynasty, propped up by a minority Bedouin population, from the moment it occupied Judea and Samaria during the 1948 war (these territories were annexed to Jordan in April 1950 to become the kingdom's West Bank).

"As a result, the Palestinians of Jordan find themselves discriminated against in government and legislative positions as the number of Palestinian government ministers and parliamentarians decreases; there is not a single Palestinian serving as governor of any of Jordan's twelve governorships.[3]

"Jordanian Palestinians are encumbered with tariffs of up to 200 percent for an average family sedan, a fixed 16-percent sales tax, a high corporate tax, and an inescapable income tax. Most of their Bedouin fellow citizens, meanwhile, do not have to worry about most of these duties as they are servicemen or public servants who get a free pass. Servicemen or public employees even have their own government-subsidized stores, which sell food items and household goods at lower prices than what others have to pay,[4] and the Military Consumer Corporation, which is a massive retailer restricted to Jordanian servicemen, has not increased prices despite inflation.[5]"

"Decades of such practices have left the Palestinians in Jordan with no political representation, no access to power, no competitive education, and restrictions in the only field in which they can excel: business."

Palestinians in Jordan have also developed an intense hatred of the military as they are not allowed to join the army; they see Bedouin servicemen getting advantages in state education and health care, home taxes, and even tariff exemption on luxury vehicles.[29] Wikipedia amplifies this:
"There is discrimination against urban areas which consists predominantly of Jordanians of Palestinian origin. This point is argued by Ryan [17] who maintains that the parliament has been dominated by conservative tribal leaders through the manipulation of electoral districts. He has described the institution as a gerrymandered parliament. Jordanian electoral districts are unequal in size, with electoral law over-represents rural conservative districts whilst under-representing urban areas which tend to be the historical base of Palestinian or Islamist support. Some constituencies have seven times as many constituents as others yet have the same number of parliamentary seats [18]. The strategy has resulted in a parliament overwhelmingly representing people from ethnic Transjordan and conservative background governed by tribal affiliations.

West Bank

The Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have the right to form a government and govern themselves within the confines of the Oslo Accords. Their government known as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has full autonomy in all matters save for a limitation on matters of security affecting Israel. How they govern themselves is up to them. In effect the Palestinians elect Palestinians to govern them. Whereas in Jordan, the Palestinians are severely underrepresented in the Chamber of Deputies where the minority Bedouin hold sway. If that wasn't bad enough, all executive power is vested in the King.

The Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have the right to form a government and govern themselves within the confines of the Oslo Accords. Their government known as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has full autonomy in all matters save for a limitation on matters of security affecting Israel. How they govern themselves is up to them. In effect the Palestinians elect Palestinians to govern them. Whereas in Jordan, the Palestinians are severely underrepresented in the Chamber of Deputies where the minority Bedouin hold sway. If that wasn't bad enough, all executive power is vested in the King.

It can safely be said that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are the authors of their own misfortune. In their past elections, they choose parties, whether Fatah or Hamas, that are wedded to the "resistance" which is a euphemism for terrorism. The result of this "resistance" whether in the form of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into civilian areas in Israel or the deployment of suicide bombers by Fatah in Jerusalem and Israel generally, Israel has placed restrictions on them such as a legal blockade of Gaza and travel restrictions in the West Bank. These restrictions are for security purposes only and not intended as punishment. Nevertheless, in the last three years, Israel has been easing these restrictions, and as a result, the Palestinian economy in the West Bank is experiencing an astounding 7% growth rate.

The PA could at any time compromise their demands and have a state of their own but this they refuse to do. As Gov Romney recently said "It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution; they want to eliminate the State of Israel,"

But the Palestinians living in Jordan who have citizenship have no say in their present condition or in their destiny. Their fate is dependent on what the PA chooses to do yet they have no vote in PA elections. Nor do they have a say equivalent to their numbers in Jordan due to the gerrymandering above noted. In cables released by Wikileaks, the U.S. Embassy was talking about a deal to integrate the Palestinians into the political system in Jordan in exchange for them abandoning their illusory right of return. Needless to say, the King went ballistic.

It is the Palestinians in Lebanon and Jordan who are the poor Palestinians.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 12, 2012.

Abbas told David Hale, U.S. envoy to the Middle East, that the PLO committed to peace and its related pacts Abbas further denied that his organization's contemplated unification with Hamas contradicts those commitments.

He also demanded that Israel release all its prisoners who come from the Territories.

Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA notes the contradiction between those peace agreements and the weapons deployed in the Gaza Strip. Dr. Lerner asks when they are going to be removed (IMRA, 2/8/12).

The UN Secretary-General welcomed the proposed amalgamation as making this a good time to negotiate peace. The Washington Post criticized the proposal a likely to lead Israel to withhold funds from the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) (IMRA, 2/10/12).

Unity between the two terrorist organizations should cause all Western donors to withhold funds from the P.A.. They always should have withheld funds from that jihadist autonomy.

Dr. Lerner's question is fair and necessary. Why wasn't it asked by the U.S. envoy, by the whole Quartet, by Human Rights Watch, and by most Jewish organizations? Why are they letting the amalgamation of two terrorist organizations, the PLO, which the world pretends wants peace, and Hamas, which the world is beginning to pretend wants peace, is consistent with making peace?

In the Islamist spring, commentators expressed great hope that the rising Islamists, who pretend to be moderate, mean it. They are beginning to pretend that Hamas is moderating its stand. Actually, we are witnessing the rise of extremism.

Abbas' demand that Israel release convicted terrorists means he favors their war crimes. How can anyone expect anything good from him?

Most of the world still realizes that Hamas is terrorist. Remember, Hamas won the legislative election in the Palestinian Authority, the last time one was held. Hamas likely would do so again. It would take over the PLO, too. So how can Abbas, who honors Islamist war makers and dishonors his peace agreements, say with a straight face that the amalgamation would not interfere with peacemaking? That is another question that the major media, world powers, peace and humanitarian organizations, U.S. Jewish organizations except ZOA and a few others, and critics of Israel fail to ask.

You want to know how Abbas can say such nonsense with a straight face? The answer is that his Islamic code of ethics permits dissimulation in behalf of religious war.

As terrorists unify, and as Islamists gather strength, and as war is forecast a few months away, we could use a sane leader of the UN, not the daft on we have.

If the PLO were challenged by those various parties listed and more of the major media, the public might understand the issues and the stakes.

I think that the American people are weary of phony diplomacy, phony journalism, and phony electioneering, based on pretense. Newt Gingrich finally aired the truth about there not being a Palestinian people, but for that he was criticized.

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 Roberts, February 12, 2012.

There's never been a Bar Mitzvah teacher who didn't loudly declare that he learns from his students — a slogan of our profession; a pious protestation that advertises our humility — our open mindedness. And occasionally, it's true. We Bar Mitzvah teachers have said it for years — a half truth. But I did learn from Betsy Silverstein — at our lunch lesson — that mustard on a Swiss cheese sandwich wasn't half bad. Her mama had run out of mayo. She also taught me that the Haftorah blessing could be sung to the tune of God Bless America and nobody but the rabbi and Irving Berlin, spinning in his grave, noticed.

But that's before I met Sophie, the student you dream of when your real-life student tells you he's converting to Buddhism because his folks have agreed to sponsor a three-month vacation in Tibet and Buddhists have no Haftorah requirement.

Sophie was a whiff of pure oxygen to a fatigued, over-age Bar Mitzvah teacher on his last gasp. Girls are always better students. Rarely do their athletic interests compete with their studies. And they're not strong enough to snap the ropes you've used to bind them to the dining room table with the Haftorah open in front of them. Girls are better. Most young ladies prefer mall to football, which though more expensive doesn't demand two hours of practice five days a week.

Besides, Sophie had a talent all too rare among teenagers. She was obedient to her teacher as Rabbi Akivah was to Torah. Five lines of her Haftorah by Tuesday? A done deal. You could bet on it.

But her greatest attribute was her birthday, which in the complicated world of synagogue programming, landed her Bar Mitzvah smack on the 7th of August. So what, you ask. Well, the Haftorah for that day is Isaiah 49. So you might say that this 12 year old, diligent achiever introduced me to Isaiah. Oh, I knew him before, but not as well as Sophie — who due to my insistence — repeated Chapter 49, in Hebrew, ten times on tape. And obligated by my sense of responsibility, I listened ten times.

Like I say, after several similar assignments, she knew him better that I. Well, Isaiah is her Haftorah, not mine. Why shouldn't she know him better than me? (Besides, she was nowhere near my level of expertise on Amos and Jeremiah.)

"Ted," she says, "did you see those beautiful metaphors that Isaiah uses?" (I prefer "Ted" to "Mr. Roberts, my teacher and persecutor".)

Sophie had an ear for beauty. Isaiah 49:14 makes Wordsworth, Keats and even our own Hayim Bialick sound like jingle writers. The prophet who wrote almost 3,000 years ago (only a heartbeat away considering the breadth of eternity) is as fresh as Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. Naturally, he retains his charm and currency. Why should that be surprising since prophets can see over the rainbow. They know the language of every tomorrow. Shakespeare, Chaucer, even the English sonneteers of the Elizabethan Age sound rusty to our ears, but not this troubadour of Israel who wrote in a 3,000 year old lingo.

Isaiah speaks to you as though this morning you personally signed the covenant with the God whom Isaiah variously symbolizes as Mother, Father, lover, bridegroom, Feudal Lord; the awesome, but merciful magistrate that looms over your personal world. He makes the ultimate case for your acquiescence to the covenant. He has a knack for talking solely to you, as though the Book of Isaiah began, "Dear Ted" or "Dear Sophie". The prophet's song reminds us of that old love affair of God and Israel; whose Ketubah is the covenant.

This brought on a unique thought. Why couldn't the liturgy for the Holidays and Sabbath match the inspiration of Isaiah? We all have trouble coping with the length of the services and our short attention span and the dreary repetition (yes, I know it's traditional) of Amidahs, Kaddishes, and other prayers. The Amidah, gray with age; it's cluttered and clumsy language has no power after all these years. We've worn it out like a comfortable, but ragged shirt. Likewise, the Kaddish goes flat after three or four recitations. And even if the Mosiach, himself, arrived after the second hour of prayer, we might not notice. Who can stand on spiritual tiptoes after the second hour?

In my humble view, the overwhelming, stifling length of our service is a major attendance wrecker. Even the Baal Shem Tov had to stop his spiritual exaltation to chop wood once in a while. And who knows how many times Maimonides looked up from his prayer book to worry about that patient with the festering wound on his forearm? We are all far too human to spend hours in elevated ecstasy. A conversation with our Creator cannot be measured in earthly minutes. Two hours of prayer may not be as good as a microflash of heartfelt inspiration.

On a practical level, guess how many more Jews will come home to temple and synagogue if the service is halved?

I know an unconventional rabbi in Memphis, Tennessee who bows to tradition with a teasingly simple solution to this problem. "Cut nothing," he says. "Don't amputate the service, just jiggle your arrival time." He sees many levels of stamina in his congregation. Some come promptly at the beginning and stick it out, with joy. Others straggle in late like reluctant school boys. Finally, there's my friend, Herb — an extremist — who shows up about kiddush time. "I rarely miss Adon Olam," he claims.

I say — give 'em more of Isaiah and his prophetic colleagues instead of repetitive Kaddishes and Amidahs and their like. I'll consult Sophie, who like her teacher, adores Isaiah. I think I know her answer.

Ted Roberts is a syndicated humorist. His essays appear in the Jewish press, web sites, and magazines. He is author of The Scribbler On The Roof, a book of short stories and commentary. Visit his websites at
http://www.wonderwordworks.com and

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 12, 2012.

Ben Gurion famously referred to "oom shmoom," which is a derisive reference to the UN that cannot quite be translated. ("Oom" referring to the United Nations and "shmoom" being a nonsense putdown.) Well, attitudes have changed here in Israel since then, but I fall back on this Ben Gurion reference every so often because it remains so fitting at one level.

I bring it up now because Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the UN, visited this region recently, at which time he urged Netanyahu to make "goodwill gestures" to advance peace. On returning to NY this past week, he delivered a talk to the UN Security Council in which he discussed his visit. According to UN radio, as reported by the official Jordanian news agency Petra (Jordan having been intimately involved in recent negotiations), Ban says, "the right moment has come for the peace process in the Middle East."

Say what?

It would be easier to dismiss this with "oom shmoom," if it weren't for the fact that the UN is part of the Quartet. And what Ban also said was that the Fatah-Hamas unity agreement does not conflict with Abbas's negotiations with Israel. This is worrisome, although not unexpected. Anything can be rationalized where there's a will to do so.


I would gladly take up a collection to provide Ban with immediate retirement (along with a couple of other "deserving candidates"), except for the fact that whoever replaced Ban would echo the same line and there would be no net gain. The UN is that sort of institution, sort of like the US State Department.


But what of that Fatah-Hamas agreement? It's looking increasingly shaky as divisions within Hamas are being made public.

I continue to find this drama of real interest. Thinking seems to be that other divisions being observed within Hamas reflect the disagreement over the advisability of forging unity with Fatah. But I have begun to wonder if it's not the other way around, with the disagreement over "unity" reflecting deeper policy differences.

What we're seeing is that politburo chief Khaled Mashaal and company, who have broken with Iran, will be ensconced in Qatar. But Ismail Haneyeh who is headquartered in Gaza, arrived in Iran on Friday at the invitation of Iranian president Ahmadinejad.

My best information to date was that Iran closed the door to Hamas because of Hamas's refusal to support Assad in Syria. But it seems it's more complex than this. Mashaal in Syria did refuse to support Assad, but Haniyeh, at a remove from Syria, hopes to sustain that Iranian connection.


The readiness of Haniyeh to continue to relate to Iran makes the situation more problematic for Mashaal. But Haniyeh — who hopes to replace Mashaal as Hamas politburo head — may be provoking a break within Hamas because of his discontent with Mashaal's determination of how Hamas should conduct itself. Right now Haniyeh is sounding like the more bellicose of the two. In a speech from Tehran, he declared:

"They want us to recognize the Israeli occupation and cease resistance but, as the representative of the Palestinian people and in the name of all the world's freedom seekers... we will never recognize Israel... The resistance will continue until all Palestinian land, including al-Quds [Jerusalem] has been liberated and all the refugees have returned."

In no way am I suggesting that Mashaal is now ready to cease "resistance" and recognize Israel. But he undoubtedly hoped to skirt on the edge of these matters in signing that agreement with Abbas, creating an appearance of less bellicosity in order to gain the upper hand in elections, secure control of Judea and Samaria and ultimately of the PLO. He's been playing a different game.


What fascinates me is that I had long perceived that Mashaal, up in Syria, was the more radically Islamist of the Hamas leaders, while Haniyeh, facing Israeli attacks in Gaza, was less ideological and more of a realist. Turns out that it is not necessarily the case.


As you consider all of these complex dynamics, remember that the Sunni Gulf states both fear and detest the Shia Iran. It would be a victory for them — not only Qatar bit also the likes of Kuwait and Bahrain — if Iranian influence over Hamas were curtailed, thus reducing the Iranian power base. Hamas unity with Fatah, while frowned upon by Iran, would be more to the liking of the Gulf Arab states.

Just to further complicate the picture, I will add that Hamas, which has been supported by Iran, is itself Sunni. This has been an anomaly that Iran was content to ignore because of the way Hamas served its purposes. Assad, who provided the home for the Hamas politburo until very recently, is part of the minority Alawite sect, which is Shia-allied.


Today, in Tehran, Haniyeh met with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared: the Palestinian issue to be "an Islamic cause."

This is worthy of comment. The Palestinian cause is "a nationalist cause," isn't it? That's what we are told: Palestinian Arabs want a state. The Islamic cause, as promoted by Iran, is something very different indeed — advancing not national states but an international Islamic caliphate.

In theory, Fatah is nationalist and Hamas Islamic. But the difference between the two groups is less than Abbas and company would have us believe. Connect the dots. Abbas signed with Mashaal. If the Palestinian issue is an Islamic cause, what does this mean?

And keep in mind, please, that when Haniyeh pronounces himself for "resistance," he's not interested in securing a sovereign state for Arabs in Palestine, but rather eradicating Israel so that the caliphate can be advanced.


Meanwhile, Abbas is acting as if there has been no agreement signed with Hamas and he is in control of the situation.

Prime Minister Netanyahu had already let it be known that Israel will not negotiate with a PA that is allied with the overtly terrorist Hamas. This is a genuine red line for him and he is beyond playing the game.

Having been thus rebuffed, Abbas — feeling pressure from the likes of Ban to return to talks — is now letting Netanyahu know what Israel has to do if the PA is to come to the negotiating table: freeze settlement construction and agree to the '67 line as the basis for negotiations. Yup, that again.

Neither of these are conditions that Netanyahu would agree to in any event. But his response in this situation is even simpler: Abbas has already chosen. He chose terror instead of peace.


What I see as a real problem is that the international community is not alarmed by the emergence into the equation of Hamas and is not prepared to take Netanyahu's word here. They still prefer to delude themselves that it can all be taken care of and "peace" can still be promoted.

A major task of the Israeli government then, as I see it, is vigorous promotion of our position regarding no negotiations with Hamas in the picture. And, needless to say, concomitant with this, resistance to all pressure to do some sort of low level talks in spite of Hamas involvement in a unity government.

As much as I cringe, as much as the game playing by Netanyahu has made me uneasy, I confess that in this context I can see potential advantage to what he has been doing. For now — having, thank Heaven, avoided that slip down the slope — he can state that he was willing to come to the table without preconditions, and begged Abbas to do so, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Thus, there is no reason to believe that Israel is using Hamas as an excuse. This is a situation that is totally and legitimately untenable for Israel: There can be no negotiations with an entity that includes terrorists overtly advocating the destruction of Israel.

This works as long as the red line holds fast.

(If Hamas falls apart and there is no unity deal, matters will have to be dealt with in other terms.)


Abbas's next step, after giving Israel ultimatums, is to reinvent the Palestinian Arab wheel.

Key leaders of the PA are now in Cairo to meet with the Arab League. According to Fatah Central Committee member Mahmoud al-Aloul, cited in Ma'an, Abbas will seek the Arab League's support for his position not to return to the table.

Another Fatah official, Azzam al-Ahmad, quoted by AFP, says Abbas will ask the League to back the idea of an international peace conference. (Read, conference that will back PA demands at Israel's expense.)

Abbas himself has said he is sending Israel a letter outlining his demands. If the response is negative, he will return to the UN to seek recognition as a state.


NBC has issued a report linking the Mossad directly to the assassination of five Iranian nuclear scientists, and possibly to the bombing of a missile research and development site. The Mossad allegedly works with a dissident group known as The People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), supplying funds, training and logistical support.

Information for this report comes, first, from Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to the Ayatollah Khamenei. Not a source known for veracity.

More disturbing, however, is the fact that, according to NBC, US officials "speaking anonymously" confirmed this report. There are two likely reasons why they would have done this. The first and most obvious is to be able to say, See, it's not us! So great is the desire in the Obama administration to appear non-threatening to Iran.

But the second possible reason is to sabotage Israeli plans with regard to Iran.

In any event, the only proper response from the Americans would have been "no comment." And I find the fact that this was not the way they chose to handle matters more than a bit disturbing.

In light of the overt threat that Iran presents to Israel, it is not that there is anything wrong with such an operation, but that such operations, if they do exist, are best carried out in secret. The Israeli response — that intelligence matters are not discussed — is the most appropriate.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Billy Mills, February 10, 2012.

That is what I have been saying for 3 years! Except, Dr. Jack Wheeler is far ahead of me on knowing all he does about India, Pakistan, all the variations of Islam and (his word) Islamism, all the braking ups and re-orderings of people along "Clan" lines, rather than the 19th Century straight lines that serve as borders in the Middle East now. Comments are by Victoria and are enclosed in parentheses.

"Dr. Jack 'predicted the collapse of the former Soviet Union, ten years before it came about — and explained exactly how it would take place. He won a bet with a top-expert when the Berlin Wall fell. In To The Point, he'll tell you about the plans the Chinese U.

He received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Southern California, where he lectured on Aristotelian ethics. In the 1980s he conducted a series of extensive visits to anti-Soviet guerrilla insurgencies in Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Laos, and Afghanistan, and to democracy movements in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, becoming an unofficial liaison between them and the Reagan White House. Based on his experiences with anti-Soviet insurgencies, he developed the strategy for dismantling the Soviet Empire adopted by the White House known as the 'Reagan Doctrine. ' It worked. He has traveled to over 180 countries and all seven continents, leads 2 to 3 expeditions a year, is a consultant to a number of international corporations on geopolitical strategy, and to a number of Congressional offices on issues regarding political and economic freedom throughout the world and in the United States."

This below was written by Dr. Jack Wheeler and published October 14, 2011. It is archived at


Dr. Jack Wheeler writes:

I've been asked by friends of a particular candidate to provide him with a private briefing on the most critical foreign policy issues America faces. What follows is not the usual HFR but a condensed summary of that briefing, which contains much of my "Map of the Future" talk at Rendezvous XI last weekend.


Putin is an ersatz macho-man, all hat and no karovi. Russia's navy is made of rust. Russia's ill-trained army of drunkards couldn't conquer Romania. Russian male life expectancy is lower than that of Bangladesh. Russia is a mafiacracy with a doomed economy dependent on oil & gas exports that fracking in Europe & the US will make uncompetitive. Do svidanya. (comment by Victoria: Means goodbye)


No wives, no water, no banks — and a hyper-dangerous military. Much of China is uninhabited — deserts, mountains, and wastelands. Habitable China is about the size of the US east of the Mississippi, with over a billion people squeezed into it. Northern China is turning into a waterless dust bowl. Scores of millions of Chinese men will never get married due to the Chicom's idiotic one-child policy and resultant mass female infanticide.

100 million bachelors are explosively dangerous. Chinese state banks are insolvent after going on a post-2008 loan binge with debt and credit in China now (according to the IMF) above 200% of GDP. A sharp economic contraction (increasingly likely) plus all those angry unmarried men equals war, the history-honored scapegoat diversion of tyrants.

The obvious Chicom choice for war would be Taiwan. But the Formosa Strait is 100 miles wide and China has no amphibious capacity. Taiwan is on the northern rim of the South China Sea, rapidly becoming one of the most jeopardous flash points in the world. Bordered by Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, and China, over 50% by value of the world's shipping traverses it — and China claims all of it, the entire South China Sea, as its own territorial waters.

This cannot stand. China must be publicly informed by the next president that the South China Sea is international waters, period, there will be no discussion or negotiation. What is to be negotiated is the cooperative exploitation of what resources, such as oil, it may contain. No amount of Chicom bullying and saber-rattling will do any good. Every other country on the sea will join the US in this — and so will India and Japan.

Further, the Chicoms need to grasp that any aggression of theirs in the South China Sea will be naval only, and thus does nothing to occupy all their angry young bachelors. They need to go some place, a place with lots of water and lots of room for them, a place where the women prefer them to the local men who are drunks and beat up their wives, ideally a place once belonging to China but stolen by a foreign aggressor — so to get it back would give them a mission. Maybe even a wife.

There is such a place. It's called Siberia — specifically what China called its Maritime Provinces and Russia, after it seized them in 1860, calls the Russian Far East.

It's only a matter of time, at most a decade or two, before Beijing converts most all of eastern Siberia into Chinese Siberia. There is simply no way a dying Russia can hold on to it. Might as well divert the Chicoms toward it and away from Taiwan and the South China Sea.

North Korea.

The Norks have no nukes. The half-kiloton yield in their tests means they failed to make weapons-grade plutonium. So they are no threat to us. They are a threat to South Korea with 11,000 artillery tubes aimed at the 17 million people of Greater Seoul. There is no need for American soldiers to be hostages to this. South Korea is a rich country with a powerful military capable of taking care of itself. We do not need to be there any longer. (comment by victoria: Wow that makes Ron Paul right)


The world's largest democracy is prickly, but the only country in Asia capable of standing up to China. The Chicoms are building naval bases in India's Indian Ocean neighbors such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Burma, which they call their "String of Pearls" around India's neck. India is countering with a growing alliance with China's ancient neighbor enemy, Vietnam.

The next president should build on President Bush's initiative for military and economic ties between the US and India. That could include a joint India-US naval base in Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam on the South China Sea. The Vietnamese would welcome us. Among nations, there are no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

The Great Game of the 19th century was between the Russian and British Empires colliding in Asia. The 21st century players of this game are China and India. It's in our interests to be on India's side.


Both are make-believe countries with no legitimate rationale for sovereignty. The key problem in both is Pakistan's "government within a government" spy agency, the ISI-Inter-Services Intelligence. It is radical hate-America jihadi Islamist. It created and is in the heroin business with the Taliban. The first necessary condition towards any solution in this region is its dismantlement.

The other key problem is our State Department's anaphylactic allergy to regime and border changes. The best solution for Afghanistan would be for it to cease to exist as presently constituted. Actually, the same for Pakistan.

The Baluchis of southern Afghanistan and southwest Pakistan want their own Baluchistan (they have a marvelous harbor and the biggest gold deposits in the world according to BHP Biliton). They'd be joined by the Baluchis of southeast Iran and most likely by the Sindhis of adjoining Sind in southern Pakistan with the big city of Karachi.

The Tajiks of northern Afghanistan do not want their lives run by Pushtuns. They'd much rather secede and join Tajikistan — which wants our help to stabilize and protect it from Russia. The Pushtuns straddle the Af-Pak border. They dream of being united in a separate Pushtunistan. Pakistan's ruling group, the Punjabis, would retain the Punjab.

But basically, as with the Koreas, this no longer should be our problem to solve. Af-Pak should be India's problem to solve — Pak nukes, after all, are aimed at India, not us. There is no real nation to build in Afghanistan, and our troops have no purpose dying for it. Terrorist threats are the business of the CIA and spec-ops teams, not the Marines or Army. (wow Ron Paul right AGAIN!! (Comment by Victoria: OBVIOUSLY!)

Again, we need to ally with India and assist them in what is their problem, not ours, to solve.


This week we learned that Iran's government planned an act of war against us in our own capital. (this was the attack of the Saudi Ambassador ~victoria) It is hard to overestimate the number of problems in the world that would be solved with this government gone. And that's the solution: regime change. Apply a straightforward Reagan Doctrine strategy to overthrow Iran's mullah regime by sponsoring — with money and weapons — insurrections throughout the country.

Of Iran's 78 million, over 20 million are ethnic Azeri — almost three times the number of Azeris in Azerbaijan next door, whom they would love to join in a Greater Azerbaijan. There are at least eight million Kurds, who would fight tooth and nail against their Tehran oppressors if we gave them support. There are three million Ahwazi Arabs who populate Iran's oil patch, Kuhzestan, across the border from southern Iraq.

And of course there are the Persians themselves, some 33 million, whose mass street protests have been so brutally suppressed (and which the current president did not lift a finger or say a word to support).

A president determined to effect regime change in Iran would succeed quickly. The world's main state sponsor of Islamic terrorism would be no more. Iraq would be free to flourish, Syria would be quickly liberated, the threat to the Saudi and Gulf oil fields would be removed, and of course, Iran's nuclear program would be destroyed in the process (Israeli spec-ops would see to that).

It's a long list of positives and few if any negatives. All it needs is a president with the courage of Ronald Reagan.


The pre-1967 demarcations our current president demands Israel return to were not borders — they were cease-fire lines where Israel was able to stop the Arab invasions after declaring its independence in 1948. The Six-Day War recaptured Israel's legitimate territory, and that territory, including Golan and Judea-Samaria (the so-called "West Bank") should remain so.

The Palestinians need to be told to STFU, that they no longer will be coddled and treated like spoiled children. They will recognize the state of Israel as legitimate and Jewish, or they can move to the Sinai, where Egypt will give them a Palestinian State since the Egyptians love Palestinians so much (the dirty secret is that the rest of the Arab world despises Palestinians and calls them rafida, Arabic for the N-word). Arabs and Euroweenies who object can shove their Nazi Anti-Semitism up their noses.

That's the way a pro-American pro-Israel president would deal with Israel and the Arabs. Then there's Turkey.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (air-doh-wan) is an Islamist megalomaniac fantasizing about recreating the Ottoman Caliphate. He is constantly threatening Israel, pretending his high school navy is a match for Israel's NFL navy. Yet he has gutted the Turkish officer corps and filled it with incompetent stooges.

Erdogan needs a US president to explain to him that any duke-out between Turkey and Israel will result in his total humiliation, causing his overthrow and Turkey's expulsion from NATO. (Well I think STFU explained that mostly to a T except maybe Bring it on Turkey and the Palestine cause all I can say is Netanyahu will issue this statement ONCE: BOAKYAG!!! (Bend over and kiss your ass "Goodbye"!! ~victoria obviously)


In addition to the above re: Israel and Iran, the next president should make a clear and public distinction between Islam the religion and Islamism the political ideology masquerading as a religion. That Islamism will no longer be accorded the respect due an actual religion but treated with the contempt due any fascist ideology such as Communism or Nazism. (Well it's about time someone manned up to Islam! ~victoria)

The next president should draw a distinct line between all variants of Islamism, such as Wahhabis, Deobandis, Khomeini Shias, and other forms of Jihadi and Sharia Islam, with peaceful and tolerant forms of Islam such as practiced by Sufis and Ismailis. It is with the latter that the future of Islam lies.

And for any Moslem in the US who agitates for Sharia law, he is welcome to do so — in a country that practices it, not in America. As for Islamic terrorism, its practitioners should receive a drone strike -a policy of the current president that should be continued.

The current president has, however, utterly failed to champion the rights and religious freedom of Christians in the Moslem world. A truly American foreign policy would do so.


It's Old Europe, now known as the Eurozone, serving as an object lesson of the scam of the welfare state versus New Europe, the liberated former colonies of the Soviet Union who learned the hard way the evils of socialism and the virtues of capitalism.

A new president would focus attention on the Baltics, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Croatia, and Slovenia. And he would politely educate the lands of Old Europe on welfare state socialism as a religion of envy. Ireland is already figuring this out and is recovering thereby.


As Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty significantly helped bring freedom to Soviet Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the next president could institute a Radio Free Mexico (including satellite television and web sites) teaching free market and small business economics to Mexicans.

Mexico is the land of crony corrupt corporate fascist capitalism. As a result, most Mexicans live in medieval poverty while the richest man in the world is a Mexican — Carlos Slim — whose wealth was gained with state-protected monopolies. A true free market economy would enable Mexicans to become prosperous in their own country. (oh, those state protected monopolies are coming here they are renamed Private Public Partnerships oh yeah; all part of Agenda 21! (Don't know Agenda 21 go to you tube and google Agenda 21 for dummies ~victoria)

The only real solution to the US illegal alien problem is for those aliens to want to stay in or go back to their own country where they are free to prosper.

In the meantime, the next president can use the National Guard, seriously armed, to secure our borders. And if drone strikes are so good at killing terrorists, they should be equally good at killing leaders of the Mexican drug cartels. (Wow, I couldn't say that any better except the 30,000 drones that Congress just authorized to spy on Americans starting in 2016 will those be eventually ARMED? Hey, I am JUST asking?? ~victoria)

America and the World.

The next president's foreign policy should be based on the opposite of the current president. ( No Sh-- Sherlock Really??!!! ~victoria)

The current president is embarrassed to be an American. The next president should be bursting with pride to be an American. The current president has a compulsion to apologize for America, a compulsion to appease those who envy America and her historically unparalleled success. The next president should feel America has nothing whatever to apologize for, and could not care less about those who envy her.

The next president, as opposed to the current one, should have no qualms in laughing at the lunacy of Warmism, the theory of human CO2 production causing global doom. Warmism is the Fascist Left's replacement for Marxism as a rationale for their seizure of power over our lives.

CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas (95% of the world's atmospheric greenhouse gases is water vapor), and our human production is a trace of that. One tenth of one percent of greenhouse gases are made by man. Humans do not cause global warming, period. (DID YOU JUST READ THIS!!!! OMG, my LIFE HAS BEEN DEDICATED THE PAST THREE YEARS TRYING TO EXPLAIN, PROVE AND SCREAM THIS!!! He calls it warmism I call it ecoism you know like Fascism, Nazism, Communism! Get the book ENIRONMENTAL OVERKILL by Dixi Ray Lee (published in 93) it's ALL IN THERE!! Al Gore and all his schemes!!! I am about to cry I am so overwhelmed by this part! ~victoria)

Explaining and rejecting this removes the obstacles to the world's most game-changing technology today — hydraulic fracturing or fracking of shale gas and shale oil deposits. Once the political shackles on this technology are removed, America will not only be fully energy independent, but a major energy exporter to the world. The crony capitalist scam of "renewable energy" will be dead -no more Solyndras, wind farm boondoggles, and ethanol subsidies. (OMG OMG OMG the TRUTH IS OUT! Did you know ETHANOL was composed to do only TWO THINGS Kill our engines in our car and KILL US yes KILL US cause it's using up our FOOD SUPPLY (corn) and it's driving the cost up of raw corn costs that even farmers can't afford to buy it to feed their livestock (which is food too!) ~victoria )

Oh, Russia's energy stranglehold on Europe will disappear and Israel will be an energy exporter. Exposing the Fascist Left's hoax of Warmism and fully utilizing fracking technology will enable America and much of the world to live in an era of cheap and abundant energy — providing the material foundation for an ever-growing widespread prosperity. (OMG I am just about on my knees the TRUTH is coming out by someone other than a tinfoil hatter. the TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS! ~victoria)

Lastly, the next president needs to explain that America really does need to be the world's policeman. As America apologizes and retreats from the world, the wolves emerge from the forest, from China to Iran. Only America can keep the world's wolves at bay.

We do not need to nation-build. We do not need our soldiers in Afghanistan. We do not need our soldiers in South Korea. We do not need our soldiers in Europe — Russian tanks (however many can still run) are not going to charge through the Fulda Gap. Once we effect regime change in Iran, we will not need our soldiers in Iraq.

We do need a strong, well-equipped and trained military, an army, an air force, and coast guard. But what we need most of all is an immensely strong navy, along with special forces — Marines, Rangers, SEALs, Delta, et al. Without that, the world's wolf packs run wild and unchecked. ( Can someone please explain this to the American people that this is WHAT Ron Paul has been saying except he doesn't know how to word it like this man!!! Someone get this to Ron Paul this IS his Foreign Policy said correctly! Paul puts it in the Cuisinart and it comes out BADLY! ~victoria)

The American Economy and Foreign Policy

A strong America obviously requires a strong and flourishing economy. This can only be achieved by getting the government out of the way of it.

This cannot be done by a smooth-talking sophist who believes in Warmism (thus renewable energy crony capitalist scams), and whose health care program served as the model for the abomination of Obamacare.

This cannot be done by a Johnny One Note who can only talk about his tax reform plan that will take years to implement (if ever), and thus will do absolutely nothing to immediately revive the economy and create massive job growth.

This cannot be done by anyone pretending his business experience can be applied to running a government. Governments and their bureaucracies are the opposite of a for-profit business and cannot be run on business principles. Governments, the federal government in particular, can only be run on Constitutional principles, which means eliminating all federal activities, programs, agencies, and departments not enumeratedly authorized by the Constitution. (Not all at once but in an orderly manner — Rome wasn't torn down in a day.)

This can be done only by someone with successful executive government experience who is committed to those Constitutional restrictions, most particularly those embodied in the 10th Amendment.

I wish that person well in the debate next Tuesday and in the months of campaigning to come. The 2012 GOP nomination campaign will be a test of endurance. It will not, and mathematically cannot, be won quickly.

30 states hold their GOP primaries before April, which are by new RNC rules proportional. A candidate who wins a majority or plurality of votes in these primaries only gets his proportion of the delegates — it's not winner-take-all. 55% of the votes, say, gets you 55% of the delegates, no more.

Further, because they are in violation of RNC rules for insisting on ridiculously early primaries, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona, and Michigan will be penalized with a loss of half of their delegates. Iowa is a non-binding caucus so it's just a pr show.

The race will not be won until deep into April — and thus will be won by the best funded, best organized, and most determined never-give-up persistent candidate. For America's sake, let that candidate be also the most Constitutionally principled.

Contact Billy Mills at rewrite@suddenlink.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, February 10, 2012.

This picture has appeared on several Arabic websites. Based on the caption that accompanies it, these dogs appear to be victims of the teargas the Egyptian military has been using against protesters. The caption reads: "Stray dogs passed out all over the streets from the effects of the teargas [or literally, "gas-bombs"] thrown at protesters. Despite being used to living around refuse, streets, car exhausts, etc., these dogs passed out from the lethal gas. What about humans?"

Incidentally, there is no surprise that the dogs have been left like vermin on the streets: deemed najis, or unclean, dogs are outcasts in Muslim societies. As one anti-dog fatwa concludes: "We must ensure that Muslims continue to be averse to dogs, even in the midst of what the kuffaar [i.e., Western infidels] are used to do and what some Muslims have adopted of their habits."

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com. This article was cross-posted from Jihad Watch

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, February 10, 2012.

Persian Shiite anti-Semitism is deep-seated and points to genocide.

This was written by Andrew Bostom and it appeared today in National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290715/ iran-s-final-solution-israel-andrew-bostom/ Andrew Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (2008), and the forthcoming Sharia Versus Freedom, with a foreword by Andrew C. McCarthy.


Reza Khalili (pseudonym), a former CIA operative in Iran's Revolutionary Guard, has reported the latest restatement of the Iranian Shiite theocracy's Jew-annihilationist jihadism:

Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove "this corrupting material. It is a 'jurisprudential justification' to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm."

The article, written by Alireza Forghani, an analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei's camp, now is being run on most state-owned sites, including the Revolutionary Guards' Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.

Putatively (and perversely), these genocidal pronouncements are a "response" to Israel's own planned efforts to thwart Iran's longstanding, repeatedly expressed desire to destroy the Jewish state and "Zionists" (i.e., non-dhimmi Jews) in general. Shiite Iran's obsessive calls for the destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews are driven by a deeply rooted theological Islamic anti-Semitism.

Past as Prologue

The Mujtahids [authoritative interpreters of Islamic law] and Mulla are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics.

The Persianophilic scholar E. G. Browne wrote those words in the 1920s about the entire pre-Pahlavi period of Shiite theocratic rule, from the ascension of the first Safavid shah, Ismail I, at the outset of the 16th century through Reza Shah Pahlavi's installation in 1925, at the end of the Qajar dynasty. These Shiite clerics emphasized the notion of the ritual uncleanliness (najis) of Jews in particular, but also of Christians, Zoroastrians, and others, as the cornerstone of relations toward non-Muslims. The impact of this najis conception was already apparent to European visitors to Persia during the reign of Ismail I. The Portuguese traveler Tome Pires observed (between 1512 and 1515) that "Sheikh Ismail ... never spares the life of any Jew," while another European travelogue notes "the great hatred [Ismail I] bears against the Jews."

The writings and career of Mohammad Baqer al-Majlisi elucidate the imposition of Islamic law (Sharia) on non-Muslims in Shiite Iran. Al-Majlisi (d. 1699) was perhaps the most influential cleric of the Safavid Shiite theocracy in Persia. For six years at the end of the 17th century, he functioned as the de facto ruler of Iran, making him the Ayatollah Khomeini of his era. By design, he wrote many works in Persian to disseminate key aspects of the Shia ethos among ordinary persons. In his Persian treatise "Lightning Bolts Against the Jews," Al-Majlisi describes the standard humiliating requisites for non-Muslims living under sharia, first and foremost the blood-ransom jizya, or poll-tax, based on Koran 9:29.

He then enumerates six other restrictions relating to worship, housing, dress, transportation, and weapons, before outlining the unique Shiite impurity or najis regulations. It is these latter najis prohibitions which lead anthropology professor Laurence Loeb — who studied and lived within the Jewish community of Southern Iran in the early 1970s — to observe, "Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims." According to Al-Majlisi:

And, that they should not enter the pool while a Muslim is bathing at the public baths ... If something can be purified, such as clothes, if they are dry, they can be accepted, they are clean. But if they [the dhimmis] had come into contact with those cloths in moisture they should be rinsed with water after being obtained... It would also be better if the ruler of the Muslims would establish that all infidels could not move out of their homes on days when it rains or snows because they would make Muslims impure.

The dehumanizing character of these popularized "impurity" regulations fomented recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence, including pogroms and forced conversions throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, which rendered areas of Iran Judenrein — free of Jews. For example, the preeminent modern historian of Iranian Jewry, Walter Fischel, provides these observations based on the 19th-century narrative of Rabbi David d'Beth Hillel and additional eyewitness accounts:

Due to the persecution [by] their Moslem neighbors, many once flourishing communities entirely disappeared. Maragha, for example, ceased to be the seat of a Jewish community around 1800, when the Jews were driven out. ... Similarly, Tabriz, where over 50 Jewish families are supposed to have lived, became Judenrein towards the end of the 18th century through similar circumstances. The peak of the forced elimination of Jewish communities occurred under Shah Mahmud (1834‒48), during whose rule the Jewish population in Meshed, in eastern Persia, was forcibly converted, an event which not only remained unchallenged by Persian authorities, but also remained unknown and unnoticed by European Jews.

The Khomeini "Revival"

The so-called "Khomeini revolution," which in 1979 deposed the secular, Western-oriented regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was in reality a mere return in full (including najis regulations, etc.) to oppressive Shiite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Iranian governance during four centuries. Conditions for all non-Muslim religious minorities, particularly Jews, rapidly deteriorated. Historian David Littman recounts the Jews' immediate plight:

In the months preceding the Shah's departure on 16 January 1979, the religious minorities ... were already beginning to feel insecure ... Twenty thousand Jews left the country before the triumphant return of the Ayatollah Khomeini on 1 February ... On 16 March, the honorary president of the Iranian Jewish community, Habib Elghanian, a wealthy businessman, was arrested and charged by an Islamic revolutionary tribunal with "corruption" and "contacts with Israel and Zionism"; he was shot on 8 May.

Indeed, the demographic decline of Iranian Jewry after the creation of Israel was dramatic even before the revolution — from nearly 120,000 in 1948 to roughly 70,000 in 1978. The current Jewish population is perhaps 10,000, or less.

Ayatollah Khomeini's views were the most influential in shaping the ideology of the revitalized Shiite theocracy, and his attitudes towards Jews — both before and after he assumed power — were particularly negative. Khomeini's speeches and writings invoked a panoply of Judenhass motifs, including orthodox interpretations of sacralized Muslim texts, and the Shiite conception of najis. More ominously, Khomeini's rhetoric blurred the distinction between Jews and Israelis, reiterated paranoid conspiracy theories about Jews (both within Iran and beyond), and endorsed the annihilation of the Jewish state. The pillars of this continuous modern campaign of annihilationist anti-Semitism are the motifs from traditional Islamic Jew-hatred, including Islamic eschatology, grafted seamlessly to jihadism. These deep-seated Islamic theological motifs are further conjoined to Holocaust denial and the development of a nuclear-weapons program intended expressly for Israel's eradication.

The writings and speeches of the most influential religious ideologues of this restored Shiite theocracy — including Khomeini himself — make apparent their seamless connection to the oppressive doctrines of their forebears in the Safavid and Qajar dynasties. For example, consider the "Islamic perspective" on the U.N.'s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written in the mid-1960s by Sultanhussein Tabandeh, the Iranian Shiite leader of a prominent Sufi order. According to Professor Eliz Sanasarian's important study of religious minorities in the Islamic Republic, Tabandeh's tract became "the core ideological work upon which the [post-revolution] Iranian government ... based its non-Muslim policy." Tabandeh begins his discussion by lauding as a champion "of the oppressed" Shah Ismail I, the repressive and bigoted founder of the Safavid dynasty, who, as per contemporary accounts, "bore hatred against the Jews and ordered their eyes to be gouged out if they happened to be found in his vicinity." It is critical to understand that Tabandeh's key views on non-Muslims were implemented "almost verbatim in the Islamic Republic of Iran."

In essence, Tabandeh simply reaffirms the sacralized inequality of non-Muslims relative to Muslims under sharia:

Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim ... then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain ... the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed... .

The conception of najis or ritual uncleanliness of the non-Muslim has also been reaffirmed. Ayatollah Khomeini stated explicitly: "Non-Muslims of any religion or creed are najis." Khomeini elaborated his views on najis and non-Muslims, with a specific reference to Jews:

Eleven things are unclean: urine, excrement, sperm, blood, a dog, a pig, bones, a non-Muslim man and woman, wine, beer, perspiration of a camel that eats filth. ... The whole body of a non-Muslim is unclean, even his hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body ... The body, saliva, nasal secretions, and perspiration of a non-Muslim man or woman who converts to Islam automatically become pure. As for the garments, if they were in contact with the sweat of the body before conversion, they will remain unclean. ... It is not strictly prohibited for a Muslim to work in an establishment run by a Muslim who employs Jews, if the products do not aid Israel in one way or another. However it is shameful [for a Muslim] to be under the orders of a Jewish departmental head.

Ayatollah Khomeini's 1942 speech "Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists" is a modern vision of classical, authoritative formulations on the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad. It states plainly:

Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [Allah's law; the Sharia]. ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

And among non-believers, Iranian Shiite theology reserves a special hatred for Jews. Besides returning the small remnant of the Iranian Jewish community to a state of obsequious dhimmitude through execution and intimidation, Khomeini's Iran has embraced jihad "as a central pillar of faith and action," seen most notably in its unending campaign of vilification and proxy violence against the "Zionist entity," Israel. For current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the destruction of Israel is an openly avowed policy driven by his eschatological beliefs. Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, a representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, summarized this annihilationist eschatology, redolent with Koranic Jew-hatred, in 2006:

The Jew is the most obstinate enemy (Koran 5:82) of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. ... The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia.

As characterized in the canonical hadith (collections of Mohammed's words and deeds), Sunni and Shiite eschatology highlight the Jews' purported supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjal, the Muslim equivalent of the Antichrist. Other traditions state that the Dajjal is Jewish himself, and that at his appearance, he will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in robes and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjal is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered — even rocks and trees (except for the so-called gharkad tree) will deliver them up. Thus, according to a canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985), if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: "There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!" And the notion of jihad "ransom" extends even into Islamic eschatology: On the day of resurrection, the vanquished Jews will be consigned to hellfire, which will expiate Muslims who have sinned, sparing them from this fate.

Professor Moshe Sharon recently provided a very lucid summary of the unique features of Shiite eschatology, its key point of consistency with Sunni understandings of this doctrine, and Iranian president Ahmadinejad's deep personal attachment to "mahdism."

Since the late ninth century, the Shiites have been expecting the emergence of the hidden imam-mahdi, armed with divine power and followed by thousands of martyrdom-seeking warriors. He is expected to conquer the world and establish Shiism as its supreme religion and system of rule. His appearance would involve terrible war and unusual bloodshed. Ahmadinejad, as mayor of Teheran, built a spectacular boulevard through which the mahdi would enter into the capital. There is no question that Ahmadinejad believes he has been chosen to be the herald of the mahdi. Shi'ite Islam differs from Sunni Islam regarding the identity of the mahdi. The Sunni mahdi is essentially an anonymous figure; the Shiite mahdi is a divinely inspired person with a real identity. However both Shiites and Sunnis share one particular detail about "the coming of the hour" and the dawning of messianic times: The Jews must all suffer a violent death, to the last one. Both Shi'ites and Sunnis quote the famous hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985) attributed to Muhammad.


The much ballyhooed "Green Revolution" demonstrations on the streets of Iran in the summer of 2009 were predominantly a fight between two ugly options — the Rafsanjani/Mousavi faction and their mullahs versus the Ahmadinejad/Khameini faction and their mullahs. Both favor Iranian nukes and the jihad genocide of the Jewish state of Israel. Unless there were a civil war between these two dominant jihadist factions that debilitated each enough for some truly secular and Western faction to emerge from the power vacuum, Iran will remain what it has largely remained since 1502 (barring the period of more secular Western leaning, albeit rather brutal rule, from 1925 to 1979 under the Pahlavis) — an oppressive Shiite theocracy.

Iranians as a whole — let alone the Mousavi versus Ahmadinejad factionalists — are very far removed from honestly addressing the conundrum posed by the Iranian secularist and historian Reza Afshari, a decade ago, regarding whether official Islamic authorities reflect the views of the Iranian people:

Who is more culturally and religiously authentic than the Ayatollahs? Who is more credible to say what relevance Shiite culture has or does not have for the major issues of our time? The issue is not Islam as a private faith of individuals. It is about what state officials claiming Islamic authority might have to say about the state's treatment of citizens... In Iran, liberal Muslims or any other new interpreters of Islam did not come to power. When and if they do, we will have their record to examine. What we have from liberal Muslims today are only ideological claims punctuated by expressed good intentions.

Given the ad nauseam expressed genocidal intentions of the current ruling Iranian theocracy, Israel — with U.S. assent, if not direct assistance — must destroy Iran's nuclear arms production facilities by whatever means necessary.

Doris Wise Montrose is with Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. Contact her at doris@cjhsla.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Terry Jones, February 10, 2012.

The healthcare reform law, ObamaCare, is unconstitutional and a violation of our First Amendment rights. It is also, by design, a political gift for Muslims in America, while Christians in America are further marginalized. Barack Hussein Obama is an appeaser. He favors Islam an anti-American force with an openly political agenda.

"Appeasement is like feeding the crocodile, hoping that it will eat you last." -Winston Churchill

Sharia (Islamic Law) is, in fact, already being instituted on the national level by Obama himself. Muslims are exempt because a strict interpretation of Sharia forbids Muslims from participating in public or private insurance which is considered to be like "gambling". Being compelled to participate in such a healthcare program offends Islamic sensibilities. Islamic belief excludes Muslims from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in ObamaCare.

American Muslims who pay Social Security taxes and receive Social Security benefits will be forced to accept the insurance provided by ObamaCare. However, Muslims can be exempted from ObamaCare if they are part of a "health-sharing ministry," — a religious non-profit organization in which members contribute money to cover the medical expenses of those in need. Alternately, if Muslims have or purchase Sharia-compliant insurance which is available in all 50 states, and have Sharia-compliant insurance, then they would not be required to pay for the insurance provided by ObamaCare. They would be exempt from any taxes, requirements, mandates, or penalties of ObamaCare.

Some other groups are exempt from participating in the health plan. American Indians are exempt based on the fact of financial hardship meaning they cannot afford to pay. That is a long standing 'special relationship' the US government continues out of historic quilt and penance. The religious sect of Christian-scientist is exempt because they have a moral conflict with insurance, and had strong lobbying in Congress to include them. The Amish are also exempt from ObamaCare because as a whole they have opted out of social security and any type of insurance. They are exempt because they take care of their own needs and elderly, and have done so consistently for generations.

Christians and Jews are NOT exempt. What argument will Christians be able to make for exemption? Will they be able to claim exemption due to a moral conflict with publicly funded abortions? It seems unlikely. ObamaCare will force Catholic churches, charities, schools, universities, and hospitals — to provide services they consider immoral. Those services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception. What of other difficult moral issues, care for the aging and terminaly ill, for instance? These have nothing to do with a moral problem with insurance.

We will be told what care we need and must be provided by a government plan signed in to law by lawmakers who bow to Islam and have no courage to defend the First Amendment. The hypocrisy is obvious. Christians, Jews and their Hospitals loose their freedom, while Muslims will use the First Amendment to continue to make their demands for special privileges and concessions at the American taxpayer's expense.

Special foot baths, special favor for prayer breaks and pilgrimages, special exceptions to dress codes, textbooks in schools elevating Islam over other faiths, High School football practices at night for Ramadan, Halal served in public schools at great expense..... and add ObamaCare. We protest.

Terry Jones is a Presidental Candidate for 2012. CONTACT: 352-371-2487 or info@standupamericanow.org

To Go To Top

Posted by John Trudel, February 10, 2012.


Harrier jets fly past in special salute to Obama to a select few.

ENJOY the Brits' humor on Obama's last visit. They will never forget nor forgive! The Brits may be prim and proper, but they still get their point across. Harrier jets' fly past (fly-bys, flyovers) over Downing Street in an air show salute to Obama. It's good to see the RAF have a sense of humor.

Look at it from an angle or lean back in your chair, and squint; squinting works best.


Contact John Trudel at mail@trudelgroup.com

To Go To Top

Posted by John R Cohn, February 10, 2012.

A military attack on Iran's nuclear program is fraught with hazards, as Trudy Rubin correctly notes ("Israeli strike on Iran: Why we should worry," Sunday). But assertions by American officials that "the most important thing is to keep the international community unified" are mistaken. The "most important thing" is keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran before nuclear devices explode in American cities, or a high-altitude nuclear explosion severely damages our electronic infrastructure.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 10, 2012.

A brief posting today, before Shabbat, focused on Hamas and the "reconciliation" with Fatah. As predicted, it is shaky at best, and by the time I write again who knows how the situation will have shifted.

Word is coming from multiple sources now indicating great dissatisfaction with the agreement on the part of Hamas leaders in Gaza. Apparently, which was not what I was reading at first, Haniyeh is among those voicing objections.

The key source of those objections is the fact that Abbas will be prime minister of the interim unity government. This, they point out, contravenes Palestinian Authority Basic Law, because Abbas is president and one person is not permitted to hold both positions. In fact, this principle was written into the law because Arafat had absolute power; this was a move to mitigate that power and, ironically, Abbas was a key figure in pushing for that adjustment. Abbas, it should be noted, already has enormous power as head of the PLO and Fatah — in addition to being president of the PA.

And so, there are questions as to how well this new unity agreement will be held up. Very little is certain when it comes to the very volatile Palestinian Arab politics.


Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost yesterday, indicated that while a Gaza faction — which consists of many of the movement's prominent leaders and legislators — objected to the agreement, Hamas leaders in Judea and Samaria issued a statement supporting it. This, says Abu Toameh, represents a split in Hamas that is more public than anything seen to date.

Those supporting the agreement, even while conceding that it may conflict with PA Basic Law, see it as a vehicle for the more important goal of bridging the gap with Fatah. They are not concerned because Abbas as interim prime minister would be charged with nothing more than arranging for elections and working on building in Gaza. Abu Toameh reported on this attitude among some members of Hamas, as did Yonaton Halevi, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (http://www.jcpa.org/). Hamas activists and officials certainly don't truly see Abbas as a leader, and expect to move beyond this situation to one that is more advantageous for them.

Halevi refers to this agreement as "Opening the Gates to the Trojan Horse," as it is "intended to enable Hamas' official entry into the PLO in the framework of new elections for the Palestinian National Council and to pave the way for presidential and parliamentary elections." Clearly, Hamas has confidence it will win those elections.


The first question, then, is how serious the Gaza Hamas officials opposed are with regard to their objections. Will there be a split in Hamas, as some are suggesting? Or, we can turn this around — will the threat of a split cause Hamas to abandon the agreement?

From the point of view of Abbas, an agreement with a truncated Hamas that does not include Gaza would be worthless. His major point to the international community, when defending this agreement as "a necessary step towards peace," is that the "people" would then be united. But if they were not united and yet Hamas garnered further control in his domain of Judea and Samaria. Oy v'voy, as we say. But that won't happen. Hamas aside, Abbas would not let this happen.


One other item of news to be factored in here is that Mashaal and his Hamas politburo leadership have found a home: Qatar. Not exactly a surprise. The Doha Declaration, which is based on an earlier agreement reached in Egypt, was forged under the patronage of the emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani


And so now we wait and see...


The Zionist Organization of America has put out a release that expresses expressed dismay and chagrin "that major American Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, AIPAC, Bnai Brith, the Orthodox Union and others have not issued statements condemning the Fatah/Hamas unity government agreement reached in Doha in recent days...Hamas calls in its Charter for the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7), and has launched over 10,000 missiles on Israeli civilians."

President Morton Klein said, "At a minimum, these organizations should be condemning this development, which demonstrates starkly the falsity of the Fatah /PA as a peace partner for Israel and conspicuously exposes the true face of the PA's goals and ideology, which has always been — whether under Arafat or Abbas — to destroy Israel and murder its Jewish population."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, February 10, 2012.

As Iran's threat to destroy the State of Israel and to remove the Zionist Entity from the map of history are resonating louder throughout the world, let us visit, one more time, Israel's distinctive bravery and her military might to defend herself. More so, it is an amplifying reminder that Israel can only rely upon herself to defend herself.

On June 7, 1981, a bunch of brave Israeli Air-Force pilots took off from military airports in Israel, in a squadron that consisted of eight F-16As, each loaded with two unguided Mark-84 2,000-pound delay-action bombs, escorted by a flight of six F-15As, assigned to the operation to provide fighter support. These pilots were assigned to Operation Opera its final goal, after flying 1,100 kilometers over Saudi Arabia, was to bomb, and heavily damage, the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.

Operation Opera, also known as Operation Babylon — Mivtzah — (Operation Opera-Mivtzah Tammuz), was a surprise Israeli air-strike that on June 7, 1981 destroyed a nuclear reactor that was under construction, 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Bagdad, Iraq.

In November 1975 France and Iraq signed a nuclear cooperation agreement and in 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France. Construction for the 40-megawatt light-water nuclear reactor began in 1979 at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Center near Bagdad. The French named the main reactor Osirak (Osiraq), blending the name of Iraq with that of the reactor's Osiris class. Iraq named the main reactor Tammuz 1, from which Israel took the name Operation-Mivtzah Tammuz and the smaller reactor Tammuz 2. Tammuz, which is the 10th month in the Jewish calendar, was the Babylonian month when the Ba'ath Party had come to power in Iraq, in 1968. In July 1980, Iraq received from France a shipment of approximately 12.5 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to be used in the reactor. The shipment was the first of a planned six deliveries totaling 72 kilograms. It was reportedly stipulated in the purchase agreement that Iraq cannot have more than two 24 kilograms HEU fuel loadings at any time.

Discussions on which strategy to adopt in response to the Iraqi reactor development were taking place in Israel as early as 1974 — 1977, when Yitzhak Rabi served his first term as Prime Minister and, reportedly, planning and training for the operation began during this time. After Menachem Begin became Israel's Prime Minister, in 1977, the preparations for the operation intensified; Begin authorized the building of a full-scale model of the Iraqi reactor, on which Israeli pilots could practice bombing. Israel's Foreign Minister, Moshe Dayan, initiated diplomatic negotiations with France, Italy — Israel maintained that some Italian firms acted as suppliers and sub-contractors — and the United States over the matter, but failed to obtain assurances that the reactor program would be halted, and was not able to convince the French governments of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and François Mitterrand to cease aiding the Iraqi nuclear program.

Like the Iranians, Saddam Hussein consistently maintained that the Osirak was intended for peaceful purposes. Begin for his part, considered the diplomatic options fruitless, and worried that prolonging the decision to attack would lead to a fatal inability to act in response to the perceived threat. According to Karl P. Mueller, the associate director of the Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources program at RAND Arroyo Center and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, in the spring of 1979, Begin had reached the conclusion that an anticipatory attack was necessary.

Anthony H. Cordesman, a national security analyst on a number of global conflicts, wrote that Israel conducted a series of clandestine operations to halt construction or destroy the reactor. In April 1979, allegedly, Israeli agents in France planted a bomb that destroyed the reactor's first set of core structures, while they were awaiting shipment to Iraq. It has also been claimed that Israel bombed several of the French and Italian companies it suspected of working on the project, and sent threatening letters to top officials and technicians. Following the April 1979 bombing, France inserted a clause in its agreement with Iraq saying that French personnel would have to supervise the Osirak reactor on-site for a period of ten years.

At the onset of the war, Yehoshua Saguy, the director of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate, publicly urged Iran to bomb the reactor. Shortly after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War, on September 30, 1980, Iran attacked and damaged the reactor's site with two F-4 Phantom planes. This was the first attack on a nuclear reactor and only the third one on a nuclear facility in the history of the world. It was also the first instance of a preventive attack on a nuclear reactor, which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon.

Trita Parsi, the current president and founder of the National Iranian American Council, and author of the 2007 book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, writes in the book that a senior Israeli official met with a representative of the Khomeini regime in France one month prior to the Israeli attack. At the alleged meeting, the Iranians explained details of their 1980 attack on the site, and in the case of an emergency, they agreed to let Israeli planes land at an Iranian airfield in Tabriz.

The distance between Israel's territory and the reactor site was significant — over 1,600 km (990 miles). The Israeli planes would have to violate Jordanian and/or Saudi airspace in a covert flight over foreign, hostile territory, making a mid-air refueling unfeasible. The Israelis eventually concluded that a squadron of heavily fueled and heavily armed F-16As, with a group of F-15As to provide air cover and fighter support, could perform a surgical operation strike to eliminate the reactor site without having to refuel.

The decision to go through with the operation was hotly contested within the Begin's government. Moshe Dayan, Israel's Defense Minister at that time and until late 1980, Defense Minister Ezer Weizman and Deputy Prime Minister Yigal Yadin were among those who opposed the operation. According to Mueller, "the principal difference between the hawks and doves on this issue lay in their estimation of the likely international political costs [to Israel] of an air strike." Those oppose, feared that the operation would derail the fragile Israeli-Egyptian peace process, fuel Arab anxieties about Israel's profile in the region, and damage Israel-French relations. Begin and his supporters, including Ariel Sharon, were far less pessimistic than their opponents about the political allout. Yehoshua Saguy argued to continue efforts in trying to find a non-military solution, as it would take the Iraqis five to ten years to produce the material necessary for a nuclear weapon. In the end, Begin chose to order the attack, based on a worst-case scenario estimate, where a weapon could be created in one to two years time.

It has been claimed that Israel felt it necessary to destroy the reactor before it was loaded with nuclear fuel, in order to prevent radioactive contamination.

In October 1980, the Mossad reported to Begin that the Osirak reactor would be fueled and operational by June 1981. This assessment was significantly aided by reconnaissance photos, supplied by the United States, specifically using the KH-KENNAN satellite. French technicians installing the reactor later said it was scheduled to become operational only by the end of 1981. Nonetheless, in October 1980, the Israeli cabinet, with Dayan absent, finally voted 10-6 in favor of launching the attack.

While Iraq and France maintained that the reactor, the French named Osirak, was intended for peaceful scientific research, the Israelis viewed the reactor with suspicion, and claimed that it was designed to make nuclear weapons.

While the agreements between France and Iraq excluded military use, in 2007, the American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote that the reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing plutonium for a weapons program."

The attack squadron, which consisted of eight F-16As panes, each with two unguided Mark-84 2,000-pound delay-action bombs, eight pilots were Ze'ev Raz, who was later decorated by the Chief of Staff for his leadership, Amos Yadlin, Dobbi Yaffe, Hagai Katz, Amir Nachumi, Yiftach Spector, Relik Shafir, and [Later Astronaut] Ilan Ramon.

On June 7, 1981, at 15:55 local Israel time (12:55 GMT), the operation was initiated. The Israeli planes left Etzuin Airbase, flying unchallenged in Jordanian and Saudi airspace. To avoid detection, the Israeli pilots conversed in Saudi-accented Arabic while in Jordanian airspace and told Jordanian air controllers that they were a Saudi patrol that had gone off course. While flying over Saudi Arabia, they pretended to be Jordanians, using Jordanian radio signals and formations. The Israeli planes were so heavily loaded that the external fuel tanks that had been mounted on the planes were exhausted in-flight. The tanks were jettisoned over the Saudi desert.

En route to the target, the Israeli planes crossed the Gulf of Aqaba. Unknowingly, the squadron flew directly over the yacht of King Hussein of Jordan, who was vacationing in the Gulf at the time. Taking into account the location, heading, and armament of the Israeli planes, Hussein quickly deduced the Iraqi reactor to be the most probable target. Hussein immediately contacted his government and ordered a warning to be sent to the Iraqis. However, due to a communication failure the message was never received and the Israeli planes entered Iraqi air space undetected.

Upon reaching Iraqi airspace the squadron split up, with two of the F-15s escort squadron forming a very close escort to the F-16 squadron, and the remaining F-15s dispersing into Iraqi airspace as a diversion and ready back-up. The attack squadron descended to 30 meters over the Iraqi desert, attempting to fly under the detection of the Iraqi defense radar.

At 18:35 Iraqi local time (14:35 GMT), 20 kilometer from the Osirak reactor complex, the F-16 formation climbed to 2,100 meters and went into a 35-degree dive at 1,100 km/hour, aimed at the reactor complex. At 1,100 meter, the F-16s began releasing the Mark 84 bombs in pairs, at 5-second intervals. At least eight of the sixteen released bombs struck the containment dome of the reactor. It was later revealed that half an hour before the Israeli planes arrived, a group of Iraqi soldiers manning anti-aircraft defenses had left their posts for an afternoon meal, turning off their radars. The Israeli planes were still intercepted by Iraqi defenses but managed to evade the remaining anti-aircraft fire. The squadron climbed to high altitude and started their return to Israel. The attack lasted less than two minutes. According to Ze'ev Raz, the leader of the attack force, the Israeli pilots radioed each other and recited the biblical verse Joshua 10:12 as they were returning to base: "Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies...

In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard University, who, in December 1982, visually inspected the partially damaged reactor, said that "using Osirak to collect enough plutonium [for a nuclear weapon] would have taken decades, not years". In 2005, Wilson further commented in The Atlantic: the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel, in June of 1981, was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit. Elsewhere Wilson has stated that, many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards.

Iraq was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, placing its reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. However, in October 1981, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published excerpts from Roger Richter, a former IAEA inspector, testimony, in which he described to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee the agency's nuclear safeguards weaknesses. Richter testified that only part of Iraq's nuclear installation was under safeguard and that the most sensitive facilities were not even subject to safeguards. The IAEA Director-General, Sigvard Eklund, issued a rebuttal saying that Richter had never inspected Osirak and he had never been assigned to inspect facilities in the Middle East. Eklund claimed that the safeguards procedures were effective and that they were supplemented by precautionary measures taken by the nuclear suppliers. Anthony Fainberg, a physicist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, disputed Richter's claim that a fuel processing program, for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, could have been conducted secretly. Fainberg wrote in argument that there was barely enough fuel on the site to make one bomb, more so, the presence of hundreds of foreign technicians would have made it impossible for the Iraqis to take the necessary steps without being discovered.

Be it as it may, when the Israeli Air-Force squadron arrived at its target, they bombed and heavily damaged the Osirak reactor. Israel claimed it acted in self-defense, and that the reactor had less than a month to go before it might have become a critical issue to Israel's security. It is said that ten Iraqi soldiers and one French civilian were killed in the attack.

Following the U.S 2003 invasion of Iraq, American forces captured a number of documents detailing conversations that Sadaam Hussein had with his inner sanctum. The archive of documents and recorded meetings confirm that Hussein was indeed aiming to strike at Israel. In a 1982 conversation Hussein stated that, "Once Iraq walks out victorious [over Iran], there will not be any Israel." Of Israel's anti-Iraqi endeavors he noted, "Technically, they [the Israelis] are right in all of their attempts to harm Iraq."

The attack was strongly criticized around the world and Israel was rebuked by the United Nations Security Council, United Nations Security Council Resolution 487: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_487 and the UN General assembly.

In debates in the UN, the representative of France stated that the sole purpose of the reactor was scientific research and agreements between France and Iraq excluded military use. The United Kingdom said it did not believe Iraq had the capacity to manufacture fissionable materials for nuclear weapons. The IAEA Director-General confirmed that inspections of the nuclear research reactors near Baghdad revealed no non-compliance with the safeguards agreement.

On September 26, 1981, the IAEA Conference condemned the attack and voted to suspend all technical assistance to Israel. A draft resolution was introduced to expel Israel from the IAEA, but the proposition was defeated. The United States argued that the attack was not a violation of the IAEA Statute and that punitive action against Israel would do great harm to the IAEA and the non-proliferation regime

The attack was also strongly criticized in the United States. Jonathan Steele, writing in The Guardian, described the reaction: "The world was outraged by Israel's raid on June 7, 1981. "Armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified. It represents a grave breach of international law," Margaret Thatcher thundered. Jeane Kirkpatrick, the US ambassador to the UN described it as "shocking" and compared it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. American newspapers were as fulsome. "Israel's sneak attack...was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression," said the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times called it "state-sponsored terrorism"."

But those who first condemned Israel, in public, have gone to their homes and told each other, behind closed doors, thank God for Israel's courage.

Finding themselves with no reactor, Iraq said it would rebuild the facility and France agreed, in principle, to aid in the reconstruction. However, Because of a mix of factors, including the Iran-Iraq War, international pressure and Iraqi payment problems, in 1984 negotiations broke down and France withdrew from the project. The Osirak facility remained in its damaged state until the 1991, Persian Gulf War, when it was completely destroyed by subsequent coalition air strikes, by the United States Air Force. During the war, 100 out of 120 members of the Knesset signed a letter of appreciation to Menachem Begin, thanking him for ordering the attack on Osirak.

The attack took place approximately three weeks before Israel's legislative election of 1981. Opposition leader Shimon Peres criticized the operation as a political ploy, which did not go over well with the electorate. Dan Perry writes that "the Osirak bombing — and Peres' poor political judgment in criticizing it — were crucial in turning the tide of what initially had seemed to be a hopeless election campaign for Likud.". On June 30, Likud was reelected in favor of Peres's Alignment party, winning by just one seat in the Knesset.

In 2009, the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki demanded that Israel compensate Iraq for the destruction of the reactor. An Iraqi official asserted that Iraq's right to redress is supported by UN Resolution 487, adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to the attack. In early 2010, The Siasat Daily, citing an unnamed Iraqi parliament member, reported that Iraqi officials had received word from the UN Secretariat that the Iraqi government is entitled to seek compensation from Israel for damage caused by the attack.

The causes of the raid and its long-term consequences have been the subject of debate. As early as the autumn of 1981, Kenneth Neal Waltz, one of the most prominent scholars of international relations alive today, discussed the fallout from the strike: "In striking Iraq, Israel showed that a preventive strike can be made, something that was not in doubt. Israel's act and its consequences however, make clear that the likelihood of useful accomplishment is low. Israel's strike increased the determination of Arabs to produce nuclear weapons. Arab states that may attempt to do so will now be all the more secretive and circumspect. Israel's strike, far from foreclosing Iraq's nuclear future, gained her the support of some other Arab states in pursuing it. And despite Prime Minister Begin's vow to strike as often as need be, the risks in doing so would rise with each occasion."

In an interview for the 25th anniversary of the attack, professor Charles R. H. Tripp, an academic and author, specializing in the politics and history of the Near and Middle East,described the bombing of Osirak as a variation of Israeli military doctrine, beginning with the premiership of David Ben-Gurion, "advocating devastating pre-emptive strikes on Arab enemies." Tripp asserted, "the Osirak attack is an illegal way to behave — Resolution 487 established that — but it is an understandable way to behave if you are the Israeli military-security establishment.

In 2004, Tom Moriarty, a military intelligence analyst for the United States Air Force, wrote that Israel had "gambled that the strike would be within Iraq's threshold of tolerance." Moriarty argues that Iraq, already in the midst of a war with Iran, would not start a war with Israel at the same time and that its "threshold of tolerance was higher than normal."

In 2006, Joseph Cirincione, then director of non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote:

"Israel had pulled off a remarkable military raid, striking targets with great precision over long distances. But the bombing set back Israel more than Iraq. It further harmed Israel's international reputation, later worsened by the ill-fated 1982 invasion of Lebanon, while making Iraq appear a victim of Israeli aggression."

Israel claims that the attack impeded Iraq's nuclear ambitions by at least ten years.

In contrast, Dan Reiter has estimated that the attack may have accelerated Iraq's nuclear weapons program, a view echoed by Richard K. Betts who is the Arnold Saltzman Professor of War and Peace Studies in the Department of Political Science, the director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, and the director of the International Security Policy Program in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Bob Woodward, in the book 'State of Denial', writes:

"Israeli intelligence were convinced that their strike in 1981 on the Osirak nuclear reactor about 10 miles outside Baghdad had ended Saddam's program. Instead [it initiated] covert funding for a nuclear program code-named 'PC3' involving 5.000 people testing and building ingredients for a nuclear bomb (...)"

These claims are bolstered by Iraqi researchers who have stated that the Iraqi nuclear program simply went underground, diversified, and expanded. In 2003, in an interview on CNN's Crossfire, Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist, made the following statement: "Israel — actually, what Israel [did] is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us — we were 400... scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret, much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium... They [Israel] estimated we'd make 7 kg [15 lb] of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed it out. Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year."

Similarly, in 2003, the Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri wrote that the bombing of the Osirak convinced the Iraqi leadership to initiate a full-fledged nuclear weapons program. In 1997, the United States Secretary of Defense William Perry stated that Iraq refocused its nuclear weapons effort on producing highly enriched uranium after the raid. Its interest in acquiring plutonium as fissile material for weapons continued, but at a lower priority. In 1995, Professor Louis René Beres wrote that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq, Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

In an interview in 2005, former President of the United States Bill Clinton expressed retroactive support for the attack: "Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing." In 2010, squad leader Ze'ev Raz said of the operation: "There was no doubt in the mind of the decision makers that we couldn't take a chance. We knew that the Iraqis could do exactly what we did in Dimona."

In summation, the destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor has been cited as an example of a preventive strike in contemporary scholarship on International law.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera#cite_note-solis-36

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at nurit.nuritg@gmail.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by FSM, February 9, 2012.

This was written by Andrew E. Harrod and Adam Turner. They write for the Legal Project blog. This article is archived at
http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2012/02/ the-osce-yet-another-avenue-for-islamists-to


Although more attention goes to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's (OIC) prominent attempts to police speech in Western nations regarding Islam-related topics through the UN and the "Istanbul Process", Muslim and Islamist desires to restrict critical speech concerning Islam-related topics and promote a positive image of their religion have also played a role in yet another international organization's efforts to address the debate about Islam and Muslims. On October 28, 2011, a conference, titled: "Confronting Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims in Public Discourse," was held at the Vienna headquarters of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The OSCE is an international grouping encompassing 56 states from North America (Canada and the United States), Europe, and the former Soviet Union. At this conference the Danish-Pakistani general-secretary of the Initiative of European Muslims for Social Cohesion (Die Initiative Europäischer Muslime für Sozialen Zusammenhalt or IEMSZ), Bashy Quraishi, called for "guidelines against Islamophobia in public discourse" and stated that "freedom of speech in Europe entails responsibility, something often forgotten by political leaders and journalists." Also, General Quraishi as well as numerous other participants at the conference extolled the civilizational contributions of Islam — and Muslims — to humanity. Perhaps not too surprisingly in this politically correct world, in the end the OSCE seemingly acceded to Quraishi's desire to protect Muslims from insulting speech and promote a positive view of Islam.

This fact is clearly visible in the resulting OSCE booklet titled — Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims: Addressing Islamophobia through Education (available online in PDF format). The OSCE's booklet focuses heavily on fighting "Islamophobia," a problem that even some surprising figures find clearly exaggerated. It claims that the "media" and "some political discourse" has "contributed" to a belief that Muslims are "extremists who threaten the security and well-being of others" and has resulted in a "range of discrimination." The booklet also contains many politically correct, and sometimes undocumented, statements. In countering "recurring stereotypes in public discourse about Muslims" such as "their religion advocates violence" or their being "irrational and violent" and a "security threat," the guidelines recommended a variety of "educational responses." The booklet asserts that there is "much diversity within Islam" and that Muslims have a "great deal in common" with "people with different religious or cultural backgrounds." It also says that "various religious or cultural communities, including Muslims, Christians, Jews and others, can and do have positive impacts on each other, and frequently work and live together in close co-operation and partnership." Finally, it singles out "Islamic cultures and civilizations" for their oft-claimed, yet disputed, "substantial contributions over the centuries to science and technology, the arts and architecture, and law, ethics and philosophy." Meanwhile, the booklet ignores, aside from general references to "radicalism and extremism," the more unsavory issues of Islamist terrorist violence in its various forms and the imposition of radical Islamic norms, such as sharia, making many headlines today in reference to Islam.

Revealingly, the booklet references the OIC, in the section "Resources and Information Tools," as just one institution among others concerned with human rights and freedom of speech. As followers of the LP know, the 57-member state (including, somewhat dubiously, Palestine) OIC has pursued a longstanding international agenda of attempting to legally curb criticism of Islam in general and Islamist groups in particular under the guises of "religious defamation" and "Islamophobia." Further, the OIC contains no developed democracies with protections for human rights and free speech among its member states. Tellingly, OIC-headquarters host Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that bans the proselytization and practice of non-Islamic faiths as well as "blasphemous" remarks against Islam or the Saudi monarchy, punishes homosexuals with death, and prevents women from voting or driving cars. (For specific examples of OIC member nations' poor records of respecting human rights, please peruse the reports of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.) To place the OIC on an equal footing with international institutions committed to equality of all before the law is ridiculous, if not perverse.

But don't worry — there is no need to be concerned about the biased guidelines produced at the OSCE conference. So says Quraishy, who asserts that no Muslims seek a "special status." Followers of the Legal Project might very well be skeptical of his protestations. The one-sided content of the OSCE guidelines and its inclusion of the OIC as a "resource" indicate that this is yet another way for Islamists to advance under the guise of victimization an authoritarian agenda to place Islamic beliefs above reproach in the free market of ideas. The end result of this agenda would be a diminishment of human rights such as freedom of speech and religion.

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Petfa, February 8, 2012.

This is one of the best articles on the dangers of Obama and a possible second term for him. It should be handed out in every mall, synagogue and now, with O's attack on Catholics, in every church. Keep it by your favorite chair or on your bedside table for reading, over and over again. It says it all.

It was written by James Lewis and it appeared today in American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/ how_dangerous_is_obama.html

It's now quite clear that Obama is playing chicken with Israel on Iranian nukes. That is why Leon Panetta came out with a statement this week accusing Israel of planning to attack Iran. If that statement is true, it's the worst kind of sabotage, undermining the advantages of surprise. If it's false, it is intended to place Israel at the focus of Iranian rage. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The goal of Obama's nuclear brinkmanship is to drive Israel into making dangerous territorial compromises. This is a Carteresque policy: blame the victim, and arm her enemy. Jimmy Carter enabled Iranian radicalization starting with Ayatollah Khomeini, heedless of the disastrous and possibly genocidal consequences. Carter recently said that an Iranian nuclear weapon was no big deal, as if a nuke in the hands of a suicide-preaching Khomeinist ideology machine is just fine with him. Well, the Saudis know their Iranian enemies a great deal better than Jimmy Carter does, and they are sending their money to Switzerland.

Obama and Carter represent the dangerous "left of the left wing" Democrat foreign policy establishment, the folks who thought we should surrender to the Soviets, who created the retreat from Saigon, and who rationalized the Iran-Iraq War, which killed a million people after Carter allowed Khomeini radicalism to rise in Iran. The destruction caused by left-leftist foreign policy "thought" from the Democrats is immense. Over the years, they have colluded in hundreds of thousands of deaths abroad — covered up by the mainstream media. They are Lenin's useful idiots, who colluded in 100 million Communist terror victims in the 20th century alone, and they have not changed one little bit.

Such people are dangerous. When they enabled Mao Zedong's "Great Leap Forward" at the cost of 40 million Chinese lives, all the damage was to China. There was no plausible nuclear threat to Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan, because mad old Mao Zedong turned his mass-killing efforts inwards. When Vietnam killed hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese after the U.S. withdrew from Saigon, again, Ho Chi Minh's purges were turned inward. Now that North Korea is again filling its concentration camps and having another major famine, its neighbors feel reasonably safe. Yes, the useful idiots of the West engage in criminal collusion with madmen of the East, as Dr. Thomas Sowell points out in his latest book on Western intellectuals, but our criminal colluders always stay safe themselves.

That is not true with a nuclear Iran, which is really run by a suicide-glorifying cult, just like World War II Japan, or Hitler during the last days in the bunker. For the first time in history, humanity is facing the worst of all possible options: nuclear weapons in the hands of a cult which preaches and glorifies massive martyrdom and which has carried out giant martyrdom attacks during the Iran-Iraq War.

That is why Iranian nukes are different from American or Soviet nukes. The left-of-the-left has always lived in denial of that plain and obvious fact: that the war ideology of one's nuclear enemies has everything to do with the lethality of the danger those enemies pose. Every child in Iran is raised with the daily chant Death to America! Death to Israel! Our useful idiots have preached for thirty years that "they don't really mean it," in exactly the way Western appeasers told the world that Hitler didn't really mean Mein Kampf.

There's bluffing, and there's genuine war ideology. Nazi ideology used bluffing but was perfectly willing to sacrifice a generation of Germans in assaulting France and Russia. Imperial Japan likewise. Khomeinism shows all the signs of a suicidal war ideology, but it is happy to bluff its enemies — which includes all the Sunni Muslims in surrounding countries — to get its way. Martyrdom is glorious, but spreading fear and terror by bluff is also in the war manual.

Obama has failed to do anything about Iranian nukes in order to pressure Israel (and probably the Saudis) into obeying his Napoleonic destiny. The slogan "Audace, audace, toujours audace!" comes from Napoleon and Marshall Ney, who practiced Blitzkrieg on European armies a century before Hitler.

Obama is a reckless gambler. He is gambling with our economy. He is gambling with our first-rate health care system, including your future as you age. He likes to gamble, and he figures to blame everybody else when he inevitably fails. That's the role of the Occupy Mobs during the election: to blame "capitalism" when the economy aches and groans from Obama misgovernment. Obama (like Bill and Hillary) has figured out that misgovernment doesn't matter in the least — not if you have the Big Media on your side, ready to rant and rage to blame your enemies for the chaos you bring.

When Leon Panetta and Hillary come out in public to blame Israel for wanting to defend itself, the same cynical Napoleonic strategy is at work. When Obama called for Hosni Mubarak to resign after thirty years of upholding peace in the Sinai, triggering off a rolling overthrow of Arab regimes from Tunisia to Egypt and Yemen, the same recklessness was at work. Who cares if Muslim radicalism took over the Arab world? Just like Jimmy Carter, who was willing to see Ayatollah Khomeini establish a sadistic tyranny over our ally Iran, Obama loves Muslims so much that he is quite willing to see sadistic, reactionary forces take over in Egypt and elsewhere for the greater glory of Barry.

The bottom line is that Obama is threatening Israel with nuclear genocide if it doesn't obey his Napoleonic orders, which are to retreat to the 1948 ceasefire lines that make Israel look like a gerrymandered congressional district. Such a "solution" doubles or triples the borders to be defended against lethal enemies, while shrinking Israel's small territory by two-thirds. It is a death sentence.

But that is the barely hidden agenda of the left-of-the-left foreign policy establishment the Democrats have cobbled together in the last several decades. These are the same people who approved the fraudulent intelligence estimate at the end of the Bush years, claiming that Iranian nukes posed no danger at all. They are the same people who brought Muslim propagandists into our universities, just as they are the generation of pseudo-historians who brought in the Stalinist Howard Zinn version of American history to propagandize an entire generation of American teenagers. They are taking vengeance on America for defeating Soviet Communism in the Cold War. They are the "declinists" who constantly preach that Pax Americana is dead, and that we will have to rely on China to enforce the peace of the world from now on.

We don't have to guess at their goals, which are on full display in Europe today. Europe can no longer defend itself, because the simple will to survive has been radically undermined by a generation of left-of-leftists. When a Norwegian maniac killed almost a hundred people several months ago, the immediate reaction was to blame the tiny and oppressed democratic minority in Norway.

That is how the left-of-the-left operates. They no longer believe in the nation-state, just as Obama no longer believes in the nation-state. And yet, our safety and security depends crucially on what remains of nationalism. We are ruled by delusional saboteurs who will do anything to destroy our national security on behalf of their dream of international peace — which means international tyranny, of course.

For the first time, the United States is in the hands of an ideological minority that rules our schools and media with an iron fist. We can see who they are every day when they conduct witch hunts against Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and any other ideological opponent. They are out to destroy their enemies, who are ultimately you and me. If they are willing to see the United States go down in defeat, why would anyone wonder that they want to end the State of Israel? The U.S. and Israel are just bourgeois capitalist democracies to the Jerry Wrights and Bill Ayerses of this world.

Obama is a radical leftist. His mind is stuck in ideological delusions. We haven't seen his kind in the United States since the Stalinism of the 1940s, but around the world Obamas are a dime a dozen. The third Kim in North Korea is one. Hugo Chávez is another. Israel has its own suicidal left, like the editor of the daily Haaretz who told Condi Rice that "Israel must be raped" to bring peace and love to the Middle East.

Objectively speaking, these people are mad. Psychologically, they have created a delusional cult, which happens often in human history. Instead of bringing peace, they are a clear and present danger to peace. Ronald Reagan, who understood Stalinists from his time in Hollywood, had a deep sense of who they are. So did Cold-War liberals like Senator Scoop Jackson. Today, with the media penetrated mostly by left-of-left cult members, we can no longer see who they are.

We are therefore watching the most dangerous nuclear crisis in world history since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1964, which occurred when Fidel Castro — also a leftist fanatic — demanded that nuclear missiles be placed a hundred miles from Florida in Cuba.

John F. Kennedy, a Cold-War liberal who recognized the danger, was president in those days. We, for our part, have Barack Hussein Obama, political tightrope-walker, who is willing to risk seven million Jews in Israel to achieve his narcissistic aims.

It is a curse to live in interesting times.

Contact Petfa at Petfa4@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Roberts, February 8, 2012.

When I was a Bar Mitzvah teacher the most common excuse I heard was, "I couldn't do my homework, Mr. Roberts, because I lost your tape with the Trope on it." An often repeated story. That's when I'd solicit advice from my granddaughter; at that time, a ten year old who was three years away from her appointment with destiny. It was my "takes one to know one" theory. It's funny about kids. They're usually severe disciplinarians — when they're the judge, not the accused.

"I'll bet he'd find that tape if he was grounded this weekend," advised Sarah.

If I'd listened to Sarah, I'd have spent my life at the courthouse securing search warrants to ransack Jewish homes for lost tapes. She was a skeptic who believed that the rationale for "lost" tapes lay in a motive to dodge homework.

Thirteen; an age of forgetfulness. Who had decreed thirteen the Bas Mitzvah year? It was the worst of times for the young soul. The body blooms while the spirit is quiescent. There's not enough nourishment to feed both. Boys daydream of athletic glory. Girls — glands bubbling like a witch's brew — dream of boys. Their lives become raging social infernos driven by the winds of the female imperative. And this is when I'm supposed to interest them in an ancient language spoken by a bunch of prophets who never were cool dressers (according to my illustrated Chumash). And not one joined a fraternity or drove a convertible.

I was a patient teacher, but sometimes I lost my temper and shouted constructive suggestions to my students, like, "If you don't get the tune right by next session, I'm going to twist your ear until it looks like a miniature challah". (I had learned that ear twisting was a particular punishment reserved for the use of Bar Mitzvah teachers. The authority for it must be somewhere in the Talmud.)

This kind of tactic shocked my loosely disciplined students and their Dr. Spock loving families. To trembling parents I announced: "To make chopped liver you gotta kill a chicken."

But when my Rachael or Ellen or Lisa confused the tune of the blessing before the Haftorah with their Junior High Fight Song, I thought of the granddaughter awaiting me in Memphis. Someday she would be my able and enthusiastic student. There'd be no competing math tests, no band practices, no Jr. High Proms. Only Haftorah and me.

Like I say, a Bar Mitzvah teacher's life is not an easy one, especially when you make house calls. Brachas and Haftorah "to go" I say and wink at my students. And once in a while you get a break like the time the Israeli family joined our shul. But like I say, G-d makes no one faultless. Sure, the Hebrew was there, but he couldn't carry a tune in a super economy matzo box. Oh well, I thought, life is like a Kneidelach — heavy, but tasty.

The performance on the Bimah, you know, is not a commandment, only a custom. It developed slowly like the pickling of green tomatoes.

"Why couldn't it be like the old days?" wail some of my shortsighted students. "It's your 13th birthday, and bingo, you're a Bar Mitzvah."

I remind them that donors of fountain pens, cameras, watches, and CD players demand something for their money. It's a valuable lesson. A nice warmup for the adult world. Then I tell the sad story of Dan Hershelheiser, one of my mythical students whose Haftorah presentation sounded like a Hebrew-speaking parrot. (I have a head full of mythical students for any performance problem that may arise.) "Dan was so bad, I explained, "the audience left at half time; in the brief interval between his croaking of his Haftorah and the speech."

Current student (eyes wide with fear): "They left?"

"Oh yes. Most of 'em just left with their large, bulky packages in Bar Mitzvah gift wrap. Think he got any camcorders, VCRs, Gucci loafers, from that crowd?"

Then there's Mary Ann Bluestein. One of my favorites, but one who worked on her D'var Torah slowly and unenthusiastically. Her performance sunk steadily like a lead kneidelach in a bowl of chicken soup. She was not doing her homework. I could tell.

"Mary Ann, when I show up next Tuesday, I want you to hand me a) a cuppa tea — with 2 sugars, b) a plate of cookies, and c) most important, a perfect rendition of your D'var Torah."

The baton Mary Ann has been twirling during my speech clatters to the

stone floor of the den. Her face turns the color of a Judaean sunset. "BY TUESDAY? Out of the question." And here follows that long list

of adolescent activities beginning with slumber parties ("I ALWAYS practice my D'var Torah before we go to bed, Mr. Roberts") and ending with band practice — my worst competitor.

I make my "I don't give a fig about John Phillip Sousa" speech and the baton twirler, in tears, runs to her mother in the kitchen. This Jewish mother loves to fan the campfire of happiness for her daughter. Will she, too, shriek at me over the cruel, intellectual burden I've laid on her busy daughter? No. And you know why? Because I've got 40 years on Mary Ann, which means I'm much better at manipulation; I've already called Mama — explained the problem and gained her support. Ah, what it takes to be a Bar Mitzvah teacher.

Ted Roberts is a syndicated humorist. His essays appear in the Jewish press, web sites, and magazines. He is author of The Scribbler On The Roof, a book of short stories and commentary. Visit his websites at
http://www.wonderwordworks.com and

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz Sheva, February 8, 2012.

Michelle Baruch, the photographer who sends these photos yearly to Arutz Sheva has tried to capture some of the diversity and abundance in Israel by visiting the Mahane Yehuda marketplace, travelling to some of the Jewish National Fund parks and kibbutzim in the center of the country and by going to the Judean desert. We hope you will enjoy this year's photo essay! It is the 7th year running.


Olive Tree (Michelle Baruch)

Contact Arutz-Sheva by email at www.IsraelNationalNews.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, February 8, 2012.

Regime change in the Middle East seems to be flavor of the month. Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Bahrain, and the threat to the Arab kingdoms, all are hitting the headlines and, generally, have been welcomed.

One country seems to off the radar in the international discourse of regime change, and that country is undoubtedly the one nation that truly warrants regime change, namely Iran.

All the other countries are minor players compared with the main partner in the axis of evil. Iran is the great regional destabilize. It is the main sponsor of Middle East and global terror. It is, arguably, the greatest human rights abuser. Its record of repression, suppression, torture, rape, and executions against its own people is appalling. It is a real threat to peace and security in the region and the world. Its leaders have, repeatedly, threatened to wipe another nation off the face of the earth. Such a regime has absolutely no legitimacy to continue to remain in power.

It can be said that the world has a duty and obligation to remove the leaders of such an evil and threatening regime. Such a change would make a critical, strategic, difference to the long term stability of the region and the world at large and offer hope for a reduction of terror and violence generally.

The call to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities has been growing for over a decade. The time is rapidly approaching when such an attack in increasingly likely however complicated and tactically difficult it may seem to execute. Any attack to remove or reduce Iran's nuclear capability is perceived to simply delay their overall drive to attain nuclear weapon status, not to remove their ability to threaten the region and the world. Any military attack on their nuclear and weapon assets that will leave their leadership in statu would be detrimental to future regional development.

Given the choice of having a nuclear weapon or remaining in power, Tehran would decisively choose to remain in power, and that would be awful for the Iranian people and bad for the world. Whichever way you look at it, the removal of their nuclear threat would not turn the Ayatollahs into Mother Theresa overnight. The insult of being forced to remove their big ace to regional dominance would lead them to adopt other covert ways of imposing themselves in the region. They would also seek to strike out at their enemies be it Israel, America, the West, Sunnis, or others perceived as standing in their way, such as Turkey. So a non-nuclear Iran would continue to be a threat to world peace and security.

Taking all of the above into consideration, regime change looks the best option. Some equate Iran's contribution to world terror to be greater than that of Al Qaeda and from Saudi Arabia. If it was legitimate to knock off Bin Laden isn't it equally legitimate to "cut off the head of the snake", as the King of Saudi Arabia cutely put it? What he meant was regime change in Tehran.

The benefits of forcing an Iranian regime change, even by force, are huge. The most immediate beneficiary would be the people of Iran. Back in 2009 and 2010 they rose up in their thousands to overthrow their leaders. They failed. The West, full of lip service but zero operational support, failed them badly, and left them victims to the brutal repression of the Tehran theocratic tyrants.

A second beneficiary would be Israel. Israel has been living under the looming mushroom cloud for a decade or more. Only the removal of either the nuclear threat or the Iranian regime would remove that threat for the people of Israel.

A regime change would benefit most of the Arab and Muslim nations in the Middle East. They have been looking with increasing nervousness at the march to nuclear supremacy by a Shiite Iran.

The free world has only recently learned to understand that a nuclear Iran is not solely an Israeli concern. With reports that Iran is developing a rocket fuel capable of carrying a warhead the distance of ten thousand kilometers has been a wake-up call to Europe and beyond.

Iraq would be allowed to get their house in order without Iranian meddling.

So who would be the losers from a regime change in Iran? Clearly Syria, whose regime is on its way out anyway. Syria was the key to Iran's negative influence in the Arab world.

Hizbollah would be a major loser of both Assad and the Iranian regime fall. They would be reduced to a barking dog whose teeth have been pulled. As a result Nasrallah's terrorists would be isolated and contained, even if their huge weapon stockpiles could be used to defend themselves from internal and external threats. The fall of the regime in Tehran could lead to the fall of the regime in Beirut.

Hamas has thrived through three channels. The moral support of radical pro-Palestinian activists give them comfort and encouragement to continue their extremist declarations and deeds against the Jewish state. The misuse of European funds, the work of UNWRA, and Israel opening its border to the flow of good and aid into the Gaza Strip, has allowed Hamas to develop a social economy in Gaza which strengthens their popularity there and removes the last vestiges of Fatah-Palestinian Authority influence in the Gaza Strip. But the main sponsor to the strengthening of Hamas has been Iran. The fall of the regime would put an end to this conduit of financial and weapon oxygen. This is not to say that Hamas would shrivel up and die. They now have a fresh supply source to take up the slack with the newly elected Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian government. They are, literally, brothers in arms.

The Western media pumps out non-stop exhortations to encourage the removal of the Assad regime, just as they did to remove the Mubarak-regime and the Gaddafi-regime, and many others before them. They echo the same message emanating around the Arab and Muslim world.

If regime change has become mainstream then surely it must apply against the mad mullahs of Tehran? To do so by Western forces must not be seen as a war between the West and Islam. It is not. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, must lead the call to their Muslim constituents that a nuclear Iran threatens them all, and a change of regime in Iran is a vital necessity for regional peace and stability. Such a call would head off the false accusation that it is a Western and Zionist plot against the Islamic world. Indeed, Saudi and Gulf forces must join the Coalition forces to head off such an accusation as was done in Iraq. Iran will not turn into another Iraq. The people of Iran will ensure this will not happen. We are not talking about the instability of sectarian and ethnic divisions when considering a future peaceful and non-threatening Iran.

An attack should target the political and military heads of the regime, not the nuclear facilities. It should target all the main bases and weapon storage facilities of the Iranian Republican Guard. It should degrade any retaliatory capability to prevent the Iranians from striking back at Western and regional targets. Calls should be made to the people of Iran to rise up and take control of their country. They should be helped by all mean possible. A militia of the peoples opposition should be armed and trained. If this was legitimate in Libya, and is being spoken about with regard to Syria, so it should be done in Iran.

Everything must be done to ensure that an Iranian peoples' revolt succeeds and that they bring their oppressors to justice.

The world can be confident that, of all the Middle East countries that have experienced an uprising in the last few years, Iran will be the one that will introduce proper democratic institutions and true democratic freedoms to their people. The new Iran can be the beacon of example to other regional nations.

With such a people, the world can be assured that they will be the ones that will dismantle and remove the military nuclear facilities and turn them into peaceful civil use, and the world will applaud and assist them in their efforts on the road back to democracy and prosperity.

Barry Shaw made aliyah from Manchester, England, He writes the "View from Here" columns from Israel. To sign up to receive his emails, contact him at theviewfromisrael@gmail.com. Shaw is author of Israel — Reclaiming The Narrative. (see www.israelnarrative.com.)
http://israeltheviewfromhere.blogspot.com/2012/ 02/which-target-in-iran-nuclear-facilities.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 8, 2012.


Sweden's Migration Board has stopped deporting Syrians. It attributed this policy to deterioration of security in Syria (www.imra.org.il).

The news brief is not specific. Probably it refers to illegal aliens or criminals from Syria. Probably Sweden suspended deportations to Syria because deportees would find it unsafe there, now.

This appears to be another example of misguided and harmful humanitarianism. Sweden, like many other countries that consider themselves decent, now feels itself responsible for the safety of people who sneaked in illegally and may have been responsible for reducing the natives' safety.

From Muslim immigrants to Europe and their descendants come a criminal class, a welfare class, and a jihadist class. The Muslim populace as a whole wants to overturn European civilization. That populace forms protective camouflage for Islamist activists and the raw material for recruits to jihad.

The news brief did not reveal from which ethnic groups the Syrian immigrants came. At present, Syrians are fleeing into neighboring countries, too. They may be minorities fearing the ascension of Muslim Brotherhood fanatics. They also may be supporters of the regime fearing to stay. So now the supporters flee and beg for asylum, but earlier they had persecuted their opposition, who fled and begged for foreign asylum. Sweden and like-minded governments take in those removed from power but who have been oppressors in their time or who share the Muslim Arab culture of violence.

Sure, not every such immigrant causes harm. But in an otherwise serene society that Sweden is, a mass of such immigrants does cause harm.

Rather than protect its own people from violent immigrant society, Sweden prefers to protect the violent immigrant society.

It would be different if the immigrants were not from a violent society. False comparisons will be made between these immigrants, who on the whole endanger Swedish society, and other ethnic groups who were barred because of racial and religious prejudice, although they did not endanger the countries to which they applied for asylum and even usually benefit such countries.

A government's duty is to protect its own people and to figure out how best to do that.


ISLAMIST WATCH: Islamist Watch is a project of the Middle East Forum run by Daniel Pipes. Islamist Watch exposes and opposes Islamists who avoid committing violence all the more readily to abuse our Constitution and undermine American values. Islamists do so by stifling criticism of themselves, intimidating moderate Muslims, depriving women and non-Muslims of their rights, gaining privileges for Muslims and gradually imposing Islamic law, and setting up areas which non-Muslims may not enter (as in Britain, France, Israel, and elsewhere).

JIHAD'S NON-VIOLENT SUPPORT MECHANISM: Jihad does not start with violence but with propaganda, political activism, and financing, to weaken opposition to it. Lawful Islamists have the same goals as Islamic terrorists.

The Islamist Watch website has a full and documented list of the lawful Islamists' successes and attempts. Here are examples from 01/16/12 — 02/05/12 in the U.S. for just three weeks:

"HONOR KILLINGS": Carrying political correctness too far, NBC and AP report on "honor killings" without mentioning that this is a Muslim procedure. [Some other cultures abused women, too.]

A study found extensive family violence against Muslim women in Ireland for being "too Western" in dress, independent minded, and career oriented, and for having non-Muslim friends, rejecting arranged marriages, and separating from abusive husbands.

A Muslim teenager in Britain, Shamima, considered herself western. She did not want to live in the traditional Islamic way. Her sisters, however, called her a whore, kidnapped her, and cut off her hair for kissing a non-Muslim.

MISINFORMING ABOUT ISLAM: The Santa Clara County Office of Education, the Santa Clara County Library, and the San Jose Public Library Foundation share a project called "Silicon Valley Reads." project misinforms about Islam and whitewashes its dangers.

ISLAMISTS REPRESS OUR FREE SPEECH: CAIR got West Point to withdraw Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, an expert on counter-terrorism, from speaking at a prayer breakfast.

ISLAMISTS MAR NATIONAL SECURITY: After getting NYPD Commissioner Kelly to remove a counter-terrorism film from the department, Islamist groups now are trying to stop security agencies from surveillance of radical mosques involved in terrorism.

REPLACING U.S. LAW WITH ISLAMIST LAW: Some states drafted bills that would bar U.S. courts from basing opinions on foreign law, including Islamic law. Virginia's bill does not single out Islamic law. It permits people privately to follow religious law so long as that does not violate constitutional rights or public policy. Nevertheless, critics of the Virginia bill call it anti-Muslim (Middle East Forum, http://www.islamist-watch.org/, 2/7/12).

Some court opinions referring to foreign law do not involve Islam. Finding Constitutional curbs on government, some judges have begun citing foreign law. We Americans have our own law. Judicial activists abuse our law when they try to override it by foreign law.

SELF DEFENSE: When security officials and the media do not mention that certain "honor killings" are done here by Muslims, and that they are rising in number, and that certain attacks on GIs or on other Americans are done for jihad, they keep the public uninformed and less able to address serious policy making. Such policies would involve determining who is at war with us, why, our remedies, military and prison security, whether Islamic law may be imposed here, and even foreign and immigration policy.

Political correctness hobbles our self-defense. How do truth and vigorous defense of democracy become politically incorrect? Political correctness is a major corroder of our freedom.

Perhaps the media thinks it is fostering tolerance. It perceives Islam solely as a religion. It supposes that Islam is like their own religions. However, whereas their religions stick to religious matters, Islam is a way of life. Islamic laws cover almost everything. The media does not realize that Radical Muslim activists invoke the name of religion to conceal attempts to repress non-Muslims' religion. Thus the media fosters intolerance.

ABUSE OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS: Although our country now consciously protects women's rights, the politically correct crowd does not try to protect the rights of Muslim women to live their own lives as free Americans. Muslim women here have the right to be protected from being murdered by their own relatives. Relatives don't even give the poor young women a trial, they act on rumor, on the appearance of things, and for what we and our laws consider trivial matters or for individual to decide for themselves.

An imam in France wrote a book about how to beat wives without being discovered. He considers abusing wives a male prerogative. Already some courts in the U.S. have excused such crimes as "understandable" within the culture of Muslim immigrants. But abuse of women is not "understandable" in American culture and law.

How ironic, that when Muslim youths in France rioted, our media blamed France for not integrating them enough (which was at best a one-sided judgment), but when American young women do integrate, and get punished for it, even murdered, our media represses the motive for the crime. Hence, more women will be murdered, thanks to the media!

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT MULTI-CULTURALISM & LIBERALS: Antisocial Islamist ideology produces jihadists fighting our troops and bombing us. Nevertheless, educators and librarians are campaigning to keep us ignorant about that ideology. Our government and media work with Radical Muslim groups such as CAIR or to meet their demands.

CAIR calls bills "anti-Muslim," but they usually are not. CAIR uses the accusation to shame patriots who want to protect the country. Of course, some bills can go too far. But CAIR makes no distinctions; CAIR does not protect Muslim civil rights, it protects jihad. Some jihadists carry arms and raise funds for buying them, and other jihadists spread misinformation or strive to keep Americans from realizing the danger. My liberal friends are absorbing the false notion that Muslims suffer oppression in the U.S. (or from Israel) and that there is a movement in the U.S. to deprive Muslims of civil liberties.

I think that the kowtowing to Radical Islamic demands is the extremist version of multi-culturalism, not just politics. Any group protesting in the name of its rights has a good chance of taking rights away from others. Our society is divided. These groups contend against each other; some are foes of the others. This multi-culturalism is extremist.

Unfortunately, in several ways, many liberals are intolerant, undemocratic, and destructive or our freedom and national security. "Liberal" is too good a label for them.



"The intersection of culture and violence is a significant marker of Palestinian society as evidenced by the brutal Fatah-Hamas rivalry, the long tradition of blood feuds, and "honor killings" of women;..." (Anat Berko, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya and George Washington University, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2012.)

Other markers of violence in that society, typical of Muslim Arab countries, are hating and persecuting non-Muslims, repressing, beating, and honor-killing women, and political oppression. News of much of that wrongdoing is withheld from consumers of the Western media because of Islamic authorized deceit, journalistic ignorance, political correctness, bias, and intimidation.

And so a friend noted that a novelist who writes about the Mideast has dropped "balanced" sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs. I don't see how an informed and fair person could sympathize with them. Bigotry drives them to try to conquer and commit genocide. Then they pretend to be victims.

The friend put it that the novelist no longer is "moderate." I asked her, "What is moderate" about jihad? I was starting to contend that supporting the Palestinian Authority works against what liberals purport to stand for. She dropped the conversation, responding, "I see I cannot win this argument."

She is the third liberal recently to flee from challenged. The others said, "Let's agree to disagree." What they really mean should be explored. Is debating for winning or for exchanging and re-evaluating information and views? Are they afraid they may become disillusioned? How do they know they cannot win?

The first liberal who ended the conversation calls herself a social democrat. Like other Jewish liberals I know, she opposes U.S. policy when it supports military dictators (as do I), but she does not demand that the U.S. oppose leftist dictators such as Chavez of Venezuela, and she vacationed in Cuba. In Cuba, where democrats are tortured or murdered in prison. Where are liberals' consciences?

Apparently, many Americans who deem themselves liberals and socialists are not democratic minded. They resemble Communist fellow travelers. They also often are Islamist fellow travelers. They have no idea how warped their intellects have become.



Behring Breivik of Norway murdered dozens of his countrymen, including teenagers at a camp. He was angry at the Labor Party for setting up the mass-migration of Muslims into Norway.

We reported earlier that his deranged atta ck was being used as an excuse to curb free speech negative about any aspect of Islam, including jihad. The rationale is that the lunatic had heard such criticism.

In other words, sane people won't be allowed to discuss serious problems, because insane people may go berserk.

In several European countries, it already is a crime to criticism Islam. A Danish writer was fined for discussing, at home, Islamic treatment of women. An Austrian court rendered a guilty verdict against an activist who lectured about Muhammad's marital life — the court did not like the tone of her lecture.

Norway has no such laws yet. But people are being called "racist" and "Islamophobe" for discussing these matters. Without such discussion, secular democracy, women's rights, and freedom in general may not last.

Nevertheless, dozens of prominent Norwegian leftists accused critics of Islam of sharing responsibility for the berserker's crime. They demand "action."

From the one lunatic's action, social anthropologist Thomas Hland Eriksen, in the New York Times, and novelist Jostein Gardner conclude that those who purport to protect the country from Islamist extremism are more dangerous than the Islamists. Other intellectuals also claim that critics of Islam contributed to the lunatic's views. Still others declared the critics engaged in hate speech that should be curbed. They, in turn, rebuked the U.S. for overly protecting free speech, including hateful speech. These Norwegians deny a human right to express oneself in public.

These demands to ban critical discussion of Islam amounts to a campaign, although no one has shown that it was such discussion that prompted the shootings (Bruce Bawer, Wall St. Journal, 2/2/12, A12).

From the acts of one lunatic, leftists accuse all the sane and sober critics of Radical Islam. Poor use of generalization. Leftists may claim to be democratic, but favor repression. In Israel, too, the Left cannot persuade the electorate, so they urge foreigners to pressure Israel to do what the leftist fringe wants Israel to do.

The sane critics of Radical Islam neither express hated nor suggest violence. The urge for violence came from within the soul of the perpetrator.

Since Jihad is at an early stage in Norway, there isn't that much sectarian violence by Islamo-fascists. This does not mean that Radical Islam poses no threat and that the country should not take measures of self-protection now.



Recently we were warned that Muslim Americans would radicalize into active terrorists. Not been borne out, researchers found. In the past two years, arrests and plots declined.

The annual rate of U.S. Muslims accused of jihadist violence remains at 20. Another 46 per year have been charged with non-violent support for terrorism, such as financing it and making false statements. The report's author considers the domestic Islamist menace "miniscule," compared with non-Islamist murders (Scott Shane, NY Times, 2/8/12, A10).

Like IQ tests, crime statistics mean little without interpretation. The report seems to omit interpretation and leave itself open to misinterpretation.

Police have become more vigilant. Islamists know they are being monitored. They may be awaiting better opportunities. But CAIR and other Islamist organizations have been campaigning to relax police vigilance. The Obama Administration is ignoring the menace and even cooperating with some Islamist organizations. Efforts are being made to silence criticism of Radical Islam. Then what, when the restraints come off?

The menace from American jihadists is not just domestic. Islamists use this country for fundraising and organizing. They may not want to jeopardize those benefits by arousing national awareness of their violent side. They may be waiting for a signal to act.

Perhaps the warnings were premature; they were not irrational. This time you did not fall through the lake's ice, but don't keep walking on it confidence that your luck will last. Jihad, however, is more than terrorism. It involves propaganda, political agitation, intimidation, and fundraising and recruiting. Those activities continue.

The danger from terrorist attacks and from unrelated murders are not comparable. Terrorism is war, and wars can ratchet up. When terrorists get foreign help and orders, they may become enabled to commit mass murder.

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 7, 2012.

This was written by Robin Shepherd, the owner/publisher of @CommentatorIntl. You can follow him on Twitter @RobinShepherd1


Of all the bigotries, in the world today, one stands out for special consideration. That is not simply because it is so odious, though it is certainly that. It is because it is the one bigotry that presents a clear and present danger of translating into a genocidal outcome. It is also the one form of bigotry that has been openly accepted and internalised by large sections of a British and West-European political intelligentsia that remains dominated by the liberal-Left.

I am talking, of course, about anti-Zionism — a uniquely discriminatory agenda aimed at delegitimizing the State of Israel and ending that country's existence as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

In the context of Iranian threats to destroy the country, the loss of Turkey as an ally and the new pre-eminence of extreme, anti-Israeli Islamists in Egypt, the rantings of Western anti-Zionists have now acquired a new and more dangerous significance.

Think of it this way: it's one thing to spout abuse about black people to a group of equally bigoted but basically passive racists when nobody else is listening; it's quite another to do exactly the same thing in front of a frenzied, knife-wielding mob of skinheads heading towards a black neighbourhood.

I make no direct analogy, but enter Ben White, author of, "Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide". On Sunday, he published an extensive piece in the leading weekly magazine of the British Left, The New Statesman. Essentially, it's a trash job on Israeli democracy. It, perversely, charges a British pro-Israel grouping, BICOM, with having unwittingly revealed, in a series of recent essays, that Israel is not in fact a proper democracy at all: it's a racist "ethnocracy" run by and for Jews.

You've heard it all before, of course. And I will come to the "substance" (if such a word is appropriate in the circumstances) in a moment.

But let me first re-emphaise the point made above, and make it relevant to the fate of Israel in the Middle East.

For there is nothing new about fanatical hostility to Israel in the British and European mainstream. The Guardian newspaper — the media-intellectual home of the British Left and, effectively, the house journal of the BBC — has been at it for years.

What is new is the context in the Middle East where Israel now looks set to be ensnared in a potentially deadly triangle of annihilationist regimes. On one point on that triangle is Turkey — a country that in little more than a blink of an eye has moved from being an ally to an enemy; a country whose leadership is increasingly using anti-Israeli rhetoric as a rallying cry and which has even gone so far as to threaten sending its warships to protect pro-Hamas "aid" flotillas to Gaza.

Now draw a straight line from Ankara to Cairo for the second point on the triangle. Egypt's parliamentary elections were resoundingly won by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists — both of which combine extreme forms of anti-Semitism with resolute opposition to the existence of the Jewish state. Together, they took over 70 percent of the seats.

Now go to Tehran, drawing the line necessary to complete the triangle from both Ankara and Cairo. (Iranian hostility to Israel surely needs no elaboration.)

That's the neighbourhood Israel has to reckon with: Iran to its east; Turkey to its north and Egypt to its south. There are lots of other unpleasant characters to contend with. But these are the region's big three — each with populations approximately 10 times greater than Israel's.

Now, back to Britain and Ben White's article in the New Statesman. Mostly, it's a re-hash of the old arguments that because Israel is a Jewish state it can't be a true democracy. The fact that it's had an elected parliament for longer than almost half the countries in the European Union — the 10 members from central and eastern Europe plus Spain, Portugal and Greece — is obviously not mentioned. Nor is the fact that it has one of the finest supreme courts in the world. Nor is the fact that Arabs in Israel have a tradition of living in a liberal-democratic environment that has been absent for Arabs living anywhere else in the region. (And the way things are going that is not likely to change due to the so-called "Arab Spring. ")

Instead, there is a list of items starting with the Law of Return which purports to demonstrate White's case by showing that Israel has given a certain, minimum degree of primacy on immigration and citizenship policy to Jews over anyone else.

But since that is also the minimum that was necessary to correct a vast historic wrong done to the Jewish people who were driven out of a homeland to which they have now in large numbers returned, White's argument amounts to nothing more than the tired old mantra that the Jews have no right to self-determination in their ancient homeland and Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state.

It's worth pondering on this for a moment. All democracies have immigration policies which discriminate in one way or another. People from other countries have priority in the immigration queue due to ancestral ties and marriage, for example. People without such ties are often excluded from that queue altogether.

But in other cases the country in question has not had Israel's need to reconstitute and reconnect the people with the land and the state. That need derives from the uniquely painful history of dispersion and persecution of the Jewish people — a point that White, of course, shows no sign in his article of recognising.

Unless you are up against a thoroughgoing anti-Semite who believes that Jews and only Jews are to be denied the right to meaningful self-determination these are easy arguments to win, and the ground has been covered many times.

If you're not Jewish and you get into Israel you will live and work in one of the freest, law-based democracies in the world. You will have opportunities to go to great universities and better yourself. You will have access to a health system that is the envy of much of the world, and certainly far superior to Britain's National Health Service.

It has its downsides, and very particular downsides — just as Britain's downsides are particular to Britain, France's to France, America's to America. But as countries go, the Israelis have made a pretty good go of it by any standards, and they should be proud of themselves.

Which is more than can be said for Ben White and the New Statesman.

Consider this:

"Search BICOM's essays in vain...," he says, "for serious acknowledgement that Israel the 'liberal democracy' was founded on the basis of ethnic cleansing and mass land expropriation; that the only reason there is a 'Jewish majority' at all, is because of the historic fact of the forced exclusion of Palestinians from their homes and lands."

The historical ignorance would be incredible if it weren't so predictable. First, there was no policy of ethnic cleansing. As I have remarked many times before, if Israel had attempted to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians they did a remarkably bad job of it: between a fifth and a quarter of the Israeli population is not Jewish.

The departure of Palestinians in 1948 was due to the dislocations caused by a war started by the Palestinians and the Arabs themselves following their own rejection of the United Nations partition plan which would have formed a Jewish and an Arab state living side by side.

This was not Czechoslovakia after World War II where approximately three million ethnic Germans were expelled, their property expropriated. The German population of Bohemia and Moravia dropped from around a third to around half of one percent. Now that's ethnic cleansing, and I am certain that White writes about it frequently. (Or would the gentleman in question be so kind as to correct me, giving reasons if he does not?)

Second, if the Palestinian/Arab side had accepted the partition plan, the Jewish state would still have had a Jewish majority as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the circumstances of the time should know. White really needs to check out some schoolboy-level facts.

But I return to the central purpose of this essay. White is well known for his extreme hostility to Israel and, sadly for the future of our own liberal democracy, there are many like him.

What matters is that with the emergence of an exceptionally dangerous environment in the Middle East, mainstream media outlets are sending out the message that the deligitimisation of the most defamed and threatened state in the world is acceptable practice.

If the West is looking to calm anti-Israeli emotions as the Islamists take power, how will we respond when they retort that respected magazines in Britain and elsewhere in Europe publish sentiments that are much the same as their own?

In a free society, White and the New Statesman have the right to say what they want about Israel. Their incitement is too indirect to be actionable under any legal provision I am aware of. They are too distant from the object of their hatred for the skinhead analogy above to apply to them directly.

But make no mistake about it. In an interconnected world, the validation of prejudice is no longer something with a purely local character. You do not need to be standing in front of a crowd with a megaphone to have an effect on people.

What White and the New Statesman are part of is a globalized agenda of hate. They won't be the ones to pull the trigger. They'll just help the person who does pull the trigger feel that his victim had it coming all along.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, February 7, 2012.

Al-Qaeda's Three-Stage Plan to Wipe Out Israel

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz (November 2010)

An Al-Qaeda-centered three-stage plan for the encircling and destruction of Israel has been shared and discussed among global jihadists. On Monday, Al-Qaeda's number two terrorist released a lengthy video that also focused, in part, on destroying Israel. The three-stage plan, as explained in the jihadist communication, is as follows:

Phase 1: "Promoting and promulgating the idea that only by way of jihad can an enemy whose goal is undermining Islam be defeated."

Phase 2: Inserting jihadist cells into the ring states (i.e., those entities surrounding Israel — Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and the PA) to carry out attacks aimed at shaking up regional stability. Such actions include rocket fire at Israel and terrorist bombings at Sinai resorts, "which drag the enemy into a long war of attrition," the jihadist communications say.

Phase 3: "Spreading great fear in the hearts of the Crusader enemy" and carrying out attacks in nations currently supporting the United States." Examples given in the jihadist communications include China, Russia, Indonesia, North Africa, and states in the heart of Africa, as well. According to ITRR, this last stage includes recruitment for Al-Qaeda in the secondary ring of states around Israel, such as among Kurds, Africans and Turks. Together with the fear instilled in the West, a multinational jihad on Jerusalem will then be ready to commence.

The purpose of the foregoing plan, jihadist communications say, is "to attack and destroy Crusader interests", to "lift the siege on Palestine", to "exterminate and eliminate the Jews", and to "enforce the reign of Islam."

... just as one leaves the gun, the next is already in place ready to be fired at the target." The "connected" Al-Qaeda source boasts: "We have achieved infiltration into the highest levels of all the nations," claiming that the global jihadist network has information directly from within the American defense bureaucracy, as well as from individual American soldiers. "The next stage, before the all-out war, is a war of attrition with painful strikes against the Jews within and outside (Israel).

... Specifically, the Al-Qaeda-affiliated source says that terror cells must next operate in Syria, in order to hit Western interests in such as way as to destabilize the Assad regime, and in order to strike at Israelis by way of Syria.

... Ayman al-Zawahiri also emphasized the jihad against the Jewish State. "There is no liberation of Palestine but by way of jihad," al-Zawahiri said. "I already told the Palestinians in the past that this is the only proper way and that Israel has many vulnerable interests, making it easy to hit." (We are witnessing this plan in action!)

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Arab-Israel conflict is a Holy war, waged by the Muslim world against Jews! According to Judaic prophesy when all Israelites (Jews) return to the Holy Land and re-unite Eretz-Israel, ie all Palestine, the Jewish Messiah will come. This will discredit the Islamic claim that Mohamed was "the second coming" and will render Islam obsolete, at lease as descendent on Judaic tradition!

Jews Arrested on the Way to Joseph's Tomb

Four Jewish pilgrims from the United States were arrested before dawn on Friday in Shechem as they sought to pray at Joseph's Tomb. The Bratslav Hassidic group were confronted at gunpoint by Palestinian Authority police and taken into custody before reaching the grave site. "It is outrageous that this discrimination and harassment is going on while the PA is supported through funding by the American and EU governments. Joseph's tomb must be reopened for full free access for all Jewish people regardless of their citizenship," said David Ha'ivri of the Shomron Liaison Office.

Israel Among World's Most Educated Countries

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 45% of Israelis completing university degrees. Israel ranks ahead of countries such as Japan (44%), the US (41%), the UK (37%), only lagging behind Canada (50%). The statistic is especially significant considering Israel's relatively low GDP per capita, which at $27,690 ranks the 12th lowest out of all 34 OECD member states.

While West is Playing Games — Iran Already Nuclear

Senior Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said that Iran is already a nuclear state and that Americans have not realised that. "The United States says it will not allow Iran to be nuclear, but it is so blind that it hasn't noticed that Iran has already become a nuclear state."

Austrian Fascists Danced on Holocaust Remembrance Day

Approximately 3,000 fascists "celebrated" Holocaust day at an annual dance while the United Nations remembered its horrors. The annual Wiener Korporationsring (WKR) event took place at the Hofburg palace, the former imperial residence, on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. It was attended by Le Pen, head of the right-wing National Front in France, and Heinz-Christian Strache, head of Austria's far-right Freedom Party (FPOe). Swedish and Flemish right-wing leaders also were present as well as members of Germanys far-right Republikaner party. (The cancer of hate is still alive and must be irradicated!)

Islamic Democracy in Action

1. According to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay "There's torture, extrajudicial executions, rape of both men and women." Former rebel groups are holding as many as 8,000 prisoners in 60 makeshift detention centres around the country. Pillay says she is particularly concerned about sub-Saharan African detainees whom the brigades automatically brand as fighters for the late Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi.

2. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood categorically rejects dialogue with Israel. Mahmoud Ghazlan stated that the Islamist group's position is "clear and not up for discussion." Ghazlan denied his organisation had been contacted by Israel's embassy in Cairo and said it would "reject any request from the Israeli embassy to meet with leaders of the Brotherhood."

200,000 Missiles Aimed at Israel — Nuclear Threat is Real

1. IDF Intelligence head Aviv Kochavi gave a chilling presentation at the Herzliya Conference on Israeli policy, telling listeners that Israel's enemies had 200,000 rockets and missiles pointed at the country. Most of the missiles have a range of about 40 kilometers — the range of Qassam and most Katyusha rockets — but thousands of missiles have ranges of hundreds of kilometers, making every location in Israel within their reach.

2. Iran has completed the development of a nuclear weapon and is only waiting for a sign from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to start assembling its first nuclear bomb.

Quote of the Week:

"Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you're right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." — Mohandas Ghandi

The Biblical Land Titles
by Steven Shamrak

Christianity and Islam insist they have inherited the Jewish tradition and believe in the monotheistic G-d. All three religions include Torah (Old Testimonies) as the written word of G-d. It is considered a great sin to disobey or falsify the words of the Almighty! I would like to present for your perusal two biblical land titles:

"Sarah died in Kiriatharba (Hebron)..." "Avraham weighed-out for Ephron the silver that he spoke of in the hearing of the sons of Cheis, four hundred silver shekel, negotiable currency." "This became Avraham's (possession) through a purchase before the eyes of the sons of Cheis..." (Genesis 23:2, 16, 18)

Abraham made sure the purchase of land at Hebron was recorded as a legal sale, not as a gift.

"Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spoke unto Moses. From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the Great Sea (Mediterranean sea) toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border." (Joshua1:3, 4; Re: Deuteronomy 11:24)

"This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families." "Ashdod, its towns and its villages; Gaza, its towns and its villages; unto the Brook of Egypt, the Great Sea being the border thereof." (Joshua15:20, 47)

Religious people believe that all that is written in the Torah by G-d is purposeful. Therefore, if you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim you must accept the will of G-d and recognise the right of the Jewish people to live on all the land given to them by G-d. Otherwise, you have been living a life of self-deception or hypocrisy.

Dear Friends, the aim of this independent editorial is to present the Jewish point of view on the Arab-Israel conflict and motivate people to support ideals and inspirations of true Zionism, the Jewish National independence movement. We are not affiliated with or sponsored by any government or political party.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 7, 2012.

It pleases me to begin with mention of Tu B'Shvat, which starts tonight. A holiday with religious significance in the Mishnah (as the "New Year of the Trees" with regard to how years are calculated for harvest of fruit), Tu B'Shvat has become very much an Arbor Day here in modern Israel: a day for the honoring and the planting of trees, as well as a day for eating the fruit of the tree — especially the Biblical fruits, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives and dates.

We have been blessed this year with more rain than we've had for several years — rain which still continues. Because of this the landscape is so very green. And, as is expected, the earliest of the blossoming trees, the almond, has begun to flower — the harbinger of spring.
Source: Yael Ruder


How much more lovely to speak of almond blossoms than Fatah and Hamas, but that's our focus now:

Khaled Abu Toameh has reported in the JPost that Fatah and Hamas have reached a unity agreement. This reconciliation accord, signed by Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Mashaal, is being referred to as the "Doha Declaration" — it was mediated by the government of Qatar in Doha.

Under its terms, Abbas — currently functioning as president of the PA, although his term has expired — will be the interim prime minister of a government consisting of "independent figures." There is no mention of whether Salam Fayyad, whom Hamas has consistently opposed and Abbas has just as consistently promoted, will play a role.

The primary function of this government is to prepare for presidential and parliamentary elections and rebuild Gaza. No date has been set for elections, which might be held as soon as in 90 days, or not until later in the year.

Other issues addressed include the release of "activists" on both sides, opening of closed institutions, lifting of travel bans, and permitting members of Fatah to return to their homes in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, which they had fled.

Abbas and Mashaal have agreed to hold a meeting of the (recently selected temporary) leadership of various Palestinian groups on the 18th of this month in Cairo. At that time, implementation of the agreement is to be discussed, as well as incorporation of Hamas into the PLO. After that meeting, the full interim government will be announced.


That's as it is planned now. But the 18th is still 11 days away. And since not everyone in Fatah and Hamas is on board with this accord, it remains to be seen what the ultimate result will be. Both Abbas and Hamas must still convince their respective party members that the agreement is a desirable one. Abu Toameh, in a separate JPost piece, cites Palestinians who think this accord may yet lead to splits in both Fatah and Hamas.


My own initial response, on reading about this agreement, was astonishment at the willingness of Hamas to allow Abbas to hold the position of interim prime minister in the newly agreed-upon government. I am convinced that there was a time when this could not have happened. As I followed prior Fatah-Hamas accords and attempts to reach agreements, it was consistently my observation that Hamas called the shots and Fatah acceded.

Its current willingness to provide the head of Fatah with a key position signals the weakening status of Hamas: This group has lost its funding and walked away from its headquarters in Damascus. No other nation has yet agreed to take them in — not Egypt nor Jordan nor Turkey; they are said to feel that relocation in Gaza would render them too vulnerable to Israeli attack. Politburo leaders seem to be wandering the area.

My guess would be that Mashaal, at least, sees an accord with Fatah as strengthening Hamas's hand and its base. I will note that one immediate advantage is the release of Hamas people being held in PA prisons — Abbas has announced the release of 64 such persons. There have already been reports from the IDF regarding increased Hamas activity in Judea and Samaria; it has long been the Hamas goal to take over this area, just as it took Gaza. Additionally, I suspect that Hamas officials hope for an enhanced image and increased legitimacy in the international community as a result of this deal. The Hamas aspiration to be in control of the PLO is likely a motivating factor, as well — a way to boost its power and influence.

But there are Hamas activists and officials — though Ismail Haniyeh is not among them — who are furious at the idea of placing Abbas in the position of prime minister.


Abbas had long played a game of fluctuating between forging a unity government and negotiating a "peace" with Israel — one day heading in one direction and another day in the opposite. He has come to a dead end on the Jordanian supervised indirect or preliminary talks and declared that he could move no further without specific Israeli concessions. But he is under pressure to continue. Could be that he decided that this was the time to switch gears and shift the dynamic.

At the same time, there are members of Fatah who are not keen to see elections — a key provision of the accord — as there is a good likelihood that Hamas will win at the polls. Just as there are members of Fatah not pleased at the prospect of Hamas entry into the PLO.


Prime Minister Netanyahu has already made it very clear that for the PA it's either negotiations with Israel or an accord with Hamas, but not both. Not that Abbas cares, but it's important to put Israel's cards on the table up front with regard to the international community. Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a Hamas-affiliated PA or to accord it "confidence-inspiring measures."

In his statement Netanyahu pointed out that Hamas has not accepted the three minimal requirements of the international community: recognizing Israel's right to exist, abandoning terrorism, and accepting previous agreements, but instead "continues to arm itself for even deadlier terrorism."

When I read, as I did today, that an Israel official said that "...this agreement would lead to the end of the peace process," I wanted to ask if he was joking — if he thought there was a peace process before this agreement. But this is simply part of the way it has to be played (or they imagine it has to be played): See world, we were ready to continue, but Abbas blew it.

At any rate, it has been announced that Israeli work on putting together a package of economic "incentives" to keep the PA talking at a low level has been put on hold. That's quite fine. These "incentives" were, of course, being developed at the behest of the US and the EU.


The US has no official position yet on this development, as it is still "speculative."

The EU does not have an official position yet either. However, as Abu Toameh points out, at the end of November the EU called for PA reconciliation with Hamas, referring to it as "an opportunity rather than a threat — an important element for a viable Palestinian state, and essential for securing a lasting peace with Israel." Yes, the EU gives lip service to the three requirements of Hamas, as stated above, but you can see where the Europeans are headed. They would turn themselves into pretzels finding ways to legitimize a unity government.


Wow! A veritable genius! Dennis Ross, formerly a US Mideast envoy, speaking at the Aspen Institute, said he believes this is not the right time for a final peace agreement between Israel and the PA: "Right now I don't think the contest lends itself very well to producing a permanent status deal."

Consider the state of affairs, if such a common sense observation has to be noted as something special. What he said additionally was that he believed the situation should be regarded from a position of "humility." By which I understand that he thinks those officials making pronouncements about what they can accomplish would be wise to close their mouths.


Even though the situation is on hold for the moment, I want to call your attention to a cogent analysis by Shoshana Bryen (formerly with JINSA and now with the Jewish Policy Center): "No More 'Peace Talks,' Please."

Bryen points out that the three major assumptions from Oslo have all been proven wrong:

* That Palestinian nationalism could be understood as the mirror image of Jewish nationalism (Zionism);

* That Palestinian nationalism could find its full expression in a West Bank and Gaza Strip state; and

* That there is a price Israel, the United States, and Europe could pay to the Palestinians that would overcome any remaining Palestinian objection to Jewish sovereignty in the region.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/ 2747/no-more-peace-talks-please


And then, a delightful, although ultimately very serious, piece by Barry Rubin, "When the Moderates are Radicals You're in Trouble."

"I'd like to share with you a secret. Every day I read and hear things by people who claim to be experts on the Middle East. I have read them on the land; I have read them on the sea; I have read them in the air.

"And they will never surrender to reality. Here are the two main causes of error:

" — They think the Middle East is just like the West so they can extrapolate from their own experience... You are not Arafat or Khomeini or Saddam Hussein or whatever and unless you have some understanding of how they actually think — and not your own Western pragmatic interpretation of what they should think — there's no sense in discussing it.

" — They think the Middle East is just what they'd like it to be. Peace? Easy. They have a plan. My response: I'd love to hear your plan but I'm all booked up to hear Middle East peace plans for the next three years. I'll put you on the waiting list and get back to you...

"The Middle East is so strange in Western terms, so different — having its own unique history and institutions — that unless you are really aware of those differences please pick something else to be an expert on..."
http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/02/egypt-et-cetera-when-the- moderates-are-radicals-you%e2%80%99re-in-trouble/


Rubin's piece is about Egypt and you can learn by reading it in its entirety. But I love this introduction because it applies to so much I deal with, so much that I have trouble explaining to people. Judging the world, and in particular the Arab world, by Western standards and principles is a huge mistake.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, February 7, 2012.

Beyond Words
Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane,
Volume 3

These articles came from 1978 Quotes.
[Rabbi Kahane warned us about the dangerous trap that we are in today. bg]

If you did not receive this article personally and would like to be on my weekly Rabbi Meir Kahane article e-mail list, contact me at: BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

Previously sent articles can be viewed on:


"A Treaty with the United States," Jewish Press May 5, 1978

As the pressure grows on Israel to commit suicide, the United States — through carefully planned leaks — has begun to wave a trial balloon and a seductive proposal to Israel, and more important, to the Jews there and without, who seek any "reasonable" solution. The seduction is called a formal treaty between the United States and Israel by which the Americans would guarantee the survival of the Jewish state.

Who in possession of even a modicum of common sense would trust the United States to carry out a treaty obligation that would involve the use of American troops and possible heavy losses?

Who will trust the Americans, whose "faithfulness" to their South Vietnamese allies is legendary? Who does not realize that a treaty will only tie Israeli hands as every decision to retaliate against terror raids or wars of "attrition" will be vetoes by the senior partner?

Let the Americans keep their treaties and let the Jews renew theirs with the ALL Mighty. And never were the words of the prophet (Isaiah 30:2-3) more true: "Who go down to Egypt and have not asked of My mouth ... to trust in the shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the strength of Paraoh be your shame, and the trust in Egypt your confusion." The L-rd, only the L-rd.

"Brzezinski: Is He Good for the Jews," 
Kahane Magazine, September 1978, pp20-22

The United States surely acts upon its own interests and this is most legitimate. But Washington conceives of its interest in ways very different from the Israeli ones. The state department and the Pentagon (and there is no basic difference here between Democratic and Republican administrations) look at American interests in terms of oil, potential business contracts and investments in the Middle East, and, above all, to increase American influence in the Arab world. When the presidential advisor says "a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict is in the American interest," what he is really saying is that a solution that the Arabs will find relatively favorable is in the American interest, and if that solution conflicts with Israel's security or moral obligation, that is unfortunate.

The historical record shows an America that refused obstinately to give weapons to the beleaguered Jews in 1948, that attempted to shelve the U.N. plan for a Jewish state in favor of a trusteeship and that pressured Ben-Gurion not to declare a Jewish state. It shows American pressure forcing the Jews to give up the northern Sinai after it was captured from the invading Egyptians in 1948 and to surrender the Sinai and the Gaza Strip in 1956 after Israel had smashed the Nasser noose that threatened to strange it. It shows an America that pledged to keep the Gulf of Aqaba open and the United Nations peace-keeping forces between Israel and Egypt, and that then reneged on its promise in the terrible two weeks that preceded the June 1967 war. It shows an America that refused to sell Phantom jets to Israel all through 1971; that prevented Israel from striking a pre-emptive blow on the eve of the Yom Kippur War (that, not Israeli intransigence, was what cost 2,5000 lives); that held up arms shipments to a bleeding Israel so as to prevent their routing the Arabs; that forced Israel to accept a cease-fire when it was on the verge of wiping out the Egyptian Third Army; and that brutally pressured Israel through "reassessment" — cutting off arms shipments and economic aid — into giving up the vital Sinai passes and all Israel's oil.

... Who believes that America will do better for Israel than it did for its formal ally, South Vietnam? The only reality is American pressure to force Israel to do what is good — in the Administration's eyes — for America, regardless of whether it is suicidal for Israel.

"On Yo-Yoism,"

Jewish Press, February 3, 1978

Let us stop the nonsense of: We will not talk to the PLO but only to other "Palestinians." What madness! To begin with, such talk legitimizes the concept of "Palestinians" when it is imperative to cry out that there is no such concept, that there is no "Palestine" or "Palestinian" people. For if there is indeed a "Palestine" people, surely they have a right to a state of their own. The PLO is no more dangerous than Assad of Syria with whom Begin is willing to meet, and indeed, the Syrians are a great deal more dangerous with their tanks and MIG-25s. The PLO is no more dangerous and desirous of throttling Israel than any of the other Arabs of East Jerusalem or Shchem and Hebron. And end to the differentiation which only puts us into a dangerous trap. Let us place all the Arabs in the same role: that of wanting, through different measures and tactics, to put an end to Israel. There is nothing wrong with sitting with all of them, including the PLO, and saying: NO.

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by John Cohn, February 7, 2012.

Almost giddy with excitement, Ian Lustick chortles in the DP, "Just about everyone benefited from this weekend's BDS conference": the BDS movement, Hillel, the Philadelphia area Jewish community, the Jewish Exponent (whose reporter, he neglects to mention was not allowed to attend), Jewish schools, Zionist organizations, Jewish Voice for Peace, Alan Dershowitz, and "Palestinians" among others. Notably absent from his virtual victory stand were the Israelis, whose country, even Lustick acknowledges, is in "deep trouble", in the crosshairs of tens of thousands of conventional missiles and a growing Iranian nuclear threat. What better evidence could there be that in the world of the BDS movement and its supporters, the survival of Israel and the lives of Israelis do not quite count?

As with a related Daily Pennsylvanian editorial, if the goal is exciting discussion and opportunities to demonstrate solidarity with others who share your beliefs, the past week's events were a wonderful success with lots of interaction, speeches and debate. If the goal is bringing closer a peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, it was a dismal failure. Hillel, the Philadelphia Jewish Community, and the other organizations involved in the process have plenty of other demands on their limited resources. I suspect Arab Palestinians, whose alleged "depravations" are so widely decried, might also find better use for the money the BDS backers spent on their get together in West Philadelphia.

Contrary to Lustick's assertions, Palestinian Arabs have plenty of "friends in the world". What they have lacked for over six decades is a genuine commitment to living in peace in a Palestinian Arab "homeland" alongside Israel. The false promises of this past week's events only take them further from the realization that it does not matter how many conferences or friends they make, it is the Israelis they must negotiate with — not American university students and faculty. If they want there to be peace with their Israeli neighbors, Palestinian Arabs must help make it.

John R. Cohn

Editorial: Behind the rhetoric
"Now that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions conference is over, it's time to engage in real dialogue"
The Daily Pennsylvanian February 6, 2012
http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2012/ 02/editorial_behind_the_rhetoric

In the days leading up to this weekend's Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions national conference, questions about the group's place at Penn prompted additional security measures. Yet, the two-day conference — hosted by Penn's chapter of the pro-Palestine group, PennBDS — took place in an admirably peaceful manner this weekend.

Students, faculty and community members from both sides of the debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict made a concerted effort not to directly confront each other at campus events. Instead, each faction invited an array of high-profile speakers to campus in order to articulate its views.

On Thursday night, students in support of Israel filled Zellerbach Theatre to hear Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz speak. On Friday night, Pennsylvania State Sen. Anthony Williams addressed student leaders at Hillel. On Saturday and Sunday, the BDS conference then kicked into high gear, with keynote speaker, Palestinian-American activist Ali Abunimah likening the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the American civil rights movement and apartheid in South Africa in front of a crowd in Myerson Hall.

While these talks were informative, they were primarily populated by a self-selecting group of students, faculty and community members who were eager to have their views reaffirmed.

Penn BDS can be thanked for reinvigorated debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among students, but the quality of these debates — which took place in closed circles — remains to be questioned.

Financial constraints and the limitations of venues at the University certainly played a part. Although BDS conference organizers encouraged dissenters to ask respectful questions to their speakers, the $20 entrance fee — which helped cover the cost of refreshments and security — may have deterred some from attending events.

But it was only a month ago, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when student leaders on different spectrums of the Israeli-Palestinian debate gathered in a room to share their views in light of the upcoming BDS conference. A member from Counseling and Psychological Services with experience as a mediator served as a third-party moderator at the meeting.

This type of face-to-face interaction is laudable and didn't happen enough this weekend. It involves less rhetoric and more engaged dialogue. It asks students to articulate their views to their opponents and in the process, grants them the opportunity to clarify their thoughts.

Now that the BDS conference has left campus, student leaders should strive to achieve this engaged interaction again. Other students who sat out of this weekend's events, or simply observed, should also consider joining the conversation.

This weekend showed us that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not an abstract event an entire continent away. Rather, it is a real and pressing issue that implicates us — as friends, as students and as taxpayers. As citizens living in an increasingly global community, it is no longer possible to ignore the concerns of our neighbors. That's why it's time to peel back the rhetoric, educate ourselves and address the heart of the matter.

Ian Lustick
"Who benefited?"
Just About Everyone Benefited From This Weekend'S Bds Conference
By Ian Lustick
February 7, 2012
http://thedp.com/index.php/article/ 2012/02/ian_lustick_who_benefited

Political scientists standardly begin their analyses by asking "cui bono?" — "Who benefits?" Now that the brouhaha surrounding the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions conference held at Penn this weekend is passing into memory, we can answer that question. Who benefited from the conference? The answer is surprising: just about everyone.

Since that is an odd outcome in politics, a kind of win-win-win-win-win solution, it is worth examining. First, the BDS movement benefited. It mounted a well-run, well-attended and enthusiastic conference, hosted comfortably, securely and peacefully at a major university. Fierce denunciations of BDS by national and local opponents of the conference triggered front-page, balanced coverage in The Philadelphia Inquirer, and large, and otherwise probably unavailable, donations. Hillel also benefited. A major problem facing Hillel, at Penn and across the nation, is the disinterest of most Jewish students in Israel-oriented activities. Opposition to the BDS conference gave Penn Hillel and its rabbis just the opportunity they have needed to get Jewish students involved with Israel and to attract wider community support and recognition for the work Hillel does with Jewish students and on behalf of Israel.

The Philadelphia-area Jewish community, including the Jewish Community Relations Council and the Jewish Exponent, various Jewish schools and locally based Zionist organizations, all benefited from the opportunity that the BDS conference offered to evoke an increasingly elusive sense of unity on behalf of Israel. Where this unity was not present, in local synagogues and other pluralistic Jewish communities, Jews nonetheless benefited from debates and inquiries into the BDS movement and from study of the questions about Israeli policies that mobilization for or against the BDS movement requires. Of course Jewish Voices for Peace, the most important local Jewish organization involved with the BDS movement, benefited from a substantial rise in its visibility.

To the list of BDS conference beneficiaries we may also add Alan Dershowitz, who can be assumed to have benefited handsomely from his Penn appearance on the eve of the conference; the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which always benefits from opportunities to insult American academics, and The Daily Pennsylvanian, which attracted significant ad revenue and, at least temporarily, a substantial faculty and extra-campus readership. It is worth noting that the University of Pennsylvania itself benefited. Penn, represented by an adroit president, proved that it understands and lives by the values of free inquiry and the contentious search for truth that are the foundations of a liberal arts education.

Finally, it should be noted that Palestinians, who desperately need non-violent and well-informed friends in the world, as well as Israelis, benefited from the conference. Israel is a country in trouble, deep trouble. How deep? So deep that its leaders describe an attack on Iran as perhaps their best option, despite the expectation that it would unleash tens of thousands of missile strikes against Israeli population centers. When a country is in that kind of trouble, non-violent spurs to re-examine its behavior can only be an aid to discovering some way to a better future.

Ian Lustick is the Bess Heyman Chair in Political Science department. His email address is ilustick@sas.upenn.edu.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, February 7, 2012.

"Faith in your photographic abilities is the willingness to venture into darkness without a flash."
— Cliff Hollenbeck


To mark Tu B'shvat, the New Year for Trees, which is celebrated tonight and tomorrow, I bring this image of fig leaves in late afternoon sunlight. It is traditional on this holiday to eat from the seven species that describe the land of Israel in the Bible (Deuterononmy 8:8), which include figs. I found this shot while working with a young student, trying to demonstrate how photography can be an adventure if you're willing to dig beneath the surface, bow under a branch or crawl on your belly in the sand. The tree was thick with leaves and in order to get this vantage point, we had to pull back branches and duck our heads to get under the thick canopy. Once inside, we discovered a world of unusual photo possibilities not visible along the outer perimeter of the tree.

I like this shot because it illustrates perfectly how an artist can use the camera to make a personal statement. An ordinary subject takes on a new identity when seen with the setting sun bouncing around to form a unique play of light and shadow through the layers of leaves. The image is an abstraction from the larger tree, yet the leaves remain identifiable because, with little effort, their unique shape becomes quite obvious to the viewer. May the winter rains continue to replenish the land of Israel for another year of growth, within and without.


Nikon D-700, handheld in manual exposure, center-weighted mode, f4.2 at 1/60 sec., ISO 400. Exposure set to sunlit highlights on the leaves. Lens: 28-105 mm macro zoom in normal position at 64mm. Date: 9/27/11, 4:52 p.m. Location: Efrat, Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 7, 2012.

Almost everything that most people "know" about Tu B'Shvat is totally wrong and completely false. Tu B'Shvat, the 15th day of the month of Shvat in the Jewish calendar, has been deconstructed in recent years and converted into a holiday of ecology and environmentalist political agitprop.

It is waved about by the Tikkun Olam Pagans as a political banner to demand that all Jews support the Green political agenda. The wacko pagan "Eco-Judaism" movement, including its Tikkun dervishes, has made it their holiest of all holidays, a day to hug bushes and worship tree spirits and nature. And Jewish assimilationist liberals in the United States use it as theological ammunition to disarm anyone criticizing environmentalist fanatics.

Tu B'Shvat is not a holiday of ecology, and has nothing to do with environmentalism. It also is not a day on which Jews celebrate pristine forests, national parks and wilderness areas. It is, if anything, the very opposite. It is the celebration of agri-business and the exploitation of nature for human consumption.

Tu B'Shvat is nominally the "New Year of the Trees" (called this in the Talmud), but I doubt if one in 100 liberal, politically active Jews can correctly explain in what sense it is, or what this means; and I doubt that any follower of Arthur "Reb Woodstock" Waskow or reader of Tikkun magazine on the planet could explain these things correctly.

Tu B'Shvat is decidedly not the time when Jews celebrate the blossoming of trees. It is the middle of winter, when, even in Israel, almost no trees are blossoming. (The almond tree is an exception.) The custom of going out and planting trees on Tu B'shvat is a modern deconstruction of the meaning of the day and is, in fact, rather silly. Tu B'Shvat is the worst part of the year in which to try to plant trees and get them to grow. I have no doubt that 80% of the famous saplings planted on Tu B'Shvat by Israeli school children never really take root and grow.

If anything, Tu B'Shvat is the "New Year of Trees" precisely because it is when trees are not blossoming and when it is the very worst time to be planting saplings. Tu B'Shvat is the time when the agricultural year for produce begins, for religious counting purposes.

For example, religious laws having to do with farm produce, such as the sabbatical of the land every seventh year, or the tithes on annual produce donated to the Levites or the Temple, or the counting of growth years to determine when fruit becomes edible, all require a chronological basis for counting. The logical time to start counting is exactly when nothing in nature is happening or growing, in exactly the same way that the time to start counting a New Moon (for the New Month) is when it is not there at all. It makes the division into annual cycles easier and more logical for counting and taxation purposes.

Tu B'Shvat is a happy time simply because farmers are about to begin a new agri-cycle. This is so in exactly the same sense as the "New Year for Farm Animals", also discussed in the Talmud although completely forgotten by almost all Jews, which starts on the first day of Elul in late summer.

Tu B'Shvat is a fiscal-tax New Year, more like April 15 in the US (the day you pay your taxes) than a Save the Earth and the Whales Day. Not only is it not a harvest day, it is a day when most trees are bare, and where dry fruits are eaten because there are so few fresh fruits in season, even in Israel. (Never mind that in Israel these days, almost all the dry Tu B'Shvat fruits come from Turkey.)

Because it is a day in which the annual business cycle in agri-business begins, there is not the slightest smidgen of an environmentalist political agenda in the real meaning of the day. Because it is a celebration of farming, it certainly cannot be used as religious artillery ammunition by those who demand that pristine rain forests and wilderness areas be preserved and their conversion into farms be prevented. In fact, Tu B'Shvat is really no holiday at all in any sense, and does not have any liturgy or prayers of its own, other than the routine blessings over foods one says every day. People who want to preserve national parks and natural areas are free to lobby for these, but they will find no theological support for their position in the real Tu B'Shvat.

So why do so many people think Tu B'Shvat has something to do with preventing greenhouse gasses or promoting animal rights or preserving rain forests? Because the Tikkun Olam Pagans, the assimilationist Leftism-as-Judaism proponents of pseudo-Judaism in the Diaspora and in Israel, have intentionally hijacked and distorted its meaning altogether.

Want to celebrate Tu B'Shvat in the real manner it was intended? Chop down a tree for lumber, slaughter some farm animals for dinner, build a farm in the forest, and fish to your heart's content.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. History, February 6, 2012.

This was written by Niall Ferguson and appeared today in the Daily Beast.


It probably felt a bit like this in the months before the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel launched its hugely successful pre-emptive strike against Egypt and its allies. Forty-five years later, the little country that is the most easterly outpost of Western civilization has Iran in its sights.

There are five reasons (I am told) why Israel should not attack Iran:

1. The Iranians would retaliate with great fury, closing the Strait of Hormuz and unleashing the dogs of terror in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iraq.

2. The entire region would be set ablaze by irate Muslims; the Arab Spring would turn into a frigid Islamist winter.

3. The world economy would be dealt a death blow in the form of higher oil prices.

4. The Iranian regime would be strengthened, having been attacked by the Zionists its propaganda so regularly vilifies.

5. A nuclear-armed Iran is nothing to worry about. States actually become more risk-averse once they acquire nuclear weapons.

I am here to tell you that these arguments are wrong. Let's take them one by one.

The threat of Iranian retaliation. The Iranians will very likely be facing not one, not two, but three U.S. aircraft carriers. Two are already in the Persian Gulf: CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln and CVN 70 Carl Vinson. A third, CVN 77 George H.W. Bush, is said to be on its way from Norfolk, Va....

Picture the scene once described to me by a four-star general. It is not the proverbial 3 a.m. but 11 p.m. in the White House (7 a.m. in Israel). The phone rings.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS): Mr. President, we have reliable intelligence that the Israeli Air Force is in the air and within an hour of striking suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.

POTUS (Obama): Damn. What should I do?

CJCS: Mr. President, I want to recommend that you provide the Israelis with all necessary support to limit the effectiveness of Iranian retaliation.

POTUS: But those [expletives deleted] never ran this past me. They went behind my back, goddammit.

CJCS: Yes, sir.

POTUS: Why the hell should I lift a finger to help them?

CJCS: Because if the Iranians close the Strait of Hormuz, we will see oil above $200 a barrel.

POTUS [after a pause]: Just a moment. [Whispers] How am I doing in Florida?

David Axelrod [also whispering]: Your numbers suck.

POTUS: OK, General, line up those bunker busters.

The eruption of the entire Muslim world. All the crocodiles of Africa could not equal the fake tears that will be shed by the Sunni powers of the region if Iran's nuclear ambitions are checked.

The double-dip recession. Oil prices are on the way down thanks to concerted efforts of Europe's leaders to reenact the Great Depression. An Israel-Iran war would push them up, but the Saudis stand ready to pump out additional supplies to limit the size of the spike.

The theocracy's new legitimacy. Please send me a list of all the regimes of the past 60 years that have survived such military humiliation. Saddam Hussein's survival of Gulf War I is the only case I can think of--and we got him the second time around.

The responsible nuclear Iran. Wait. We're supposed to believe that a revolutionary Shiite theocracy is overnight going to become a sober, calculating disciple of the realist school of diplomacy...because it has finally acquired weapons of mass destruction? Presumably this would be in the same way that, if German scientists had developed an atomic bomb as quickly as the Manhattan Project, the Second World War would have ended with a negotiated settlement brokered by the League of Nations.

The single biggest danger in the Middle East today is not the risk of a six-day Israeli war against Iran. It is the risk that Western wishful non-thinking allows the mullahs of Tehran to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Because I am in no doubt that they would take full advantage of such a lethal lever....

War is an evil. But sometimes a preventive war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don't yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all. It feels like the eve of some creative destruction.

Contact Dr. History at drhistory@cox.net

and as verse 2:282 states

"It should also be known that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man."

In regards to sexual attitudes another cultural norm practiced within Islamic culture and particularly in parts of Africa that is alian to us in the West is the practice of female genital mutilation. When girls come of age in Islamic society it is customary for them to undergo a clitorectomy. It is a brutally hideous practice that removes the clitoris in females and robs the female of the right to pleasure. Islamic apologists often will state that the practice is cultural and does not arise from the Sharia; however, when it comes to female genital mutilation Sharia law is very clear in "The Reliance of the Traveller," e4.3:

"Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad)."

We also differ in the form of punishment meted out to those who transgress. We in the West have evolved over the centuries; thus, so has our form of punishment. For instance, Judeo-Christian doctrine does not condone fornication; however, we also do not believe that it warrants death as a punishment. We may view it with distain, shame, or shunning; however in Islamic culture such an act would warrant the death penalty as illustrated by "The Reliance of the Traveller," o12.6,

"If the penalty is stoning, they are to be stoned, no matter the weather, or if they are ill. A pregnant woman is not stoned until she gives birth and the child does not need to nurse."

While we Westerners pride ourselves for our emphasis on equality and liberty for all, particularly insulting to Western women is the lack of appreciation and worth of women in Islamic culture and based on Bukhari 7, 62, 121 it appears that the most important thing that a woman brings to the marriage is her vagina. The attitudes and values imparted to sons is clearly stated when Mohammed said,

"The marriage vow most rightly expected to be obeyed is the husband's right to enjoy the wife's vagina."

It is safe to state that within Islamic doctrine and culture a woman is the property of the man with no rights of her own. She must obey the man or risk punishment. The punishment can be verbal or it can be violent, both permissible within Islamic law. Many of the women are virtual prisoners within their homes and not allowed to see the light of day. While the practice of chattel would be a felony in the United States, such a practice is sanctioned and practiced today in many parts of Islamic societies throughout the globe. Due to the increase in Islamic immigration to our shores we are now witnessing an increase in arranged child marriages, honor killings, and the practice of chattel in cities with large Islamic populations.

Just last week, a Muslim man by the name of Mohammad Shafia was convicted by a Canadian court in Kingston, Ontario for the "honor killing" of his three daughters and former wife (CBC News 1/29/12). Not only did this man not express any remorse, but he cursed them as "treacherous" for having boyfriends and said even if they came back to life 100 times he would "do the same again."

Another similar case of domestic violence occurred when the victim's husband strangled his wife for having borne him a third child and not a son. (L.A. Times, 1/31/12, page 13) It boggles the mind that these practices are permitted to take hold here as our government officials look the other way.

The verses noted above and codified by Sharia makes it abundantly clear that women in Islamic society are enslaved by their masters and abandoned by Islamic society. It is incredulous that in this present day and age, the enslavement of women is not only practiced but sanctioned by Islamic clerics throughout the globe. It is incumbent upon us in the West to not only shed light on these barbaric practices but to shame those who condone it.

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Neuer, February 6, 2012.

GENEVA — Seventy years ago, President Roosevelt coined a term for the global alliance against Hitlerism, which resonated at once with Churchill: United Nations.

Endorsed by 26 states on January 1, 1942, the Declaration by United Nations made history by elevating human rights and religious freedom as international principles, and pledged a common struggle against "savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world."

By 1945, as war-making gave way to peace-preserving, the alliance developed into the colossal world instrument we know today.

Seven decades later, how does the UN live up to the vision and resolve of its founders?

An event this evening at Stanford University is a sobering reminder that some of what is said and done today in the name of the UN would cause Roosevelt and Churchill to roll in their graves.

The human rights clinic of the law faculty, headed by Professor James Cavallaro, a former Human Rights Watch activist, has decided to give its platform, in the form of a public lecture and reception, to Richard Falk, a UN expert and former Princeton academic.

While he appears highly qualified and is well versed in the language of human rights, the reality is that Falk's twisted moral vision negates the UN founders' dream, recasting tyrants, terrorists and teachers of hatred as heroic victims resisting colonialist oppression.

As the world focuses on Iran's mad race for a nuclear bomb, and its brutal repression of peaceful student activists, Stanford's human right scholars ought to recall that Falk was a key promoter of the regime's establishment.

Days after Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979, Falk reassured the world, in a New York Times op-ed titled "Trusting Khomeini," that "the depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false."

Khomeini's entourage, wrote Falk, had "a notable record of concern for human rights." Indeed, the ayatollah's "new model of popular revolution" offered the world "a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country."

In response, the Times' Anthony Lewis called Falk's assurances "outstandingly silly." Yet folly carries a price, and legions of Iranian men and women — brutalized, tortured and raped by the Islamic Republic — continue to pay it.

Second, Falk is one of the figures responsible for turning the UN Human Rights Council — whose precursor was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt — into a travesty.

In 2008, after Falk claimed Israel was planning a "Palestinian Holocaust," Bashar al-Assad's Syria, Muammar Gaddafi's Libya and other dictatorships installed him as the council's monitor on Palestine.

His mission is so biased that Falk tries to obscure it. He calls himself, as does the Stanford ad, the Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories," implying a regional jurisdiction examining all sides. Yet his actual mandate is to investigate "Israel's violations." Not Hamas, not Fatah, not Islamic Jihad — only Israel.

Third, Falk uses his UN post to legitimize Hamas, ignoring its brutalization of fellow Palestinians, rocketing of Israeli civilians and incitement to genocidal murder of Jews.

Falk's reports whitewash Hamas as the "elected government" of Gaza — never mind that it seized power by throwing opponents off rooftops.

His backing of the terrorist group is so extreme that even the Palestinian Authority urged his removal, viewing him as a "partisan of Hamas."

Fourth, Falk recently published a cartoon showing a dog, with "U.S.A." written on its body and wearing a Jewish headcover, devouring a bloody skeleton and urinating on a female figure symbolizing justice.

UN rights chief Navi Pillay found the posting "anti-Semitic" and "objectionable." Falk was condemned by British Prime Minister David Cameron and many others.

Eventually Falk apologized, claiming it was an error, but only after he initially denied doing anything wrong.

Last but not least, Falk is one of the world's top 9/11 conspiracy theorists, endorsing those who accuse the U.S. government of orchestrating the destruction of the Twin Towers as a pretext to launch wars.

Falk promotes the writings of David Ray Griffin, his disciple and close friend who produced 12 books describing the World Trade Center attack as "an inside job."

Not only did Falk contribute the Foreword to Griffin's 2004 "The New Pearl Harbor" — praising the author's "fortitude," "courage," and "intelligence" — but Griffin credits Falk for getting the book published.

Falk has repeatedly appeared on the "TruthJihad.com" show of Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Holocaust skeptic, endorsing Barrett's "good work," and praising Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Last January, in an unprecedented reprimand, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took the floor of the Human Rights Council to decry Falk's 9/11 theories as "preposterous" and "an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack."

Likewise, U.S. ambassador Susan Rice has called Falk's 9/11 remarks "despicable." His "distasteful sideshow," she said, harms the cause of human rights.

Falk's sideshow also harms the cause of the UN. If the world body's greatest defenders can see that, so should Stanford Law School.

Hillel Neuer is the executive director of UN Watch. To support the vital work of UN Watch, please contribute here.

UN Watch is an independent human rights group founded in 1993 in Geneva, Switzerland, receiving no financial support from any organization or government. We rely on the generosity of charitable donations. Thank you for your support.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 5, 2012.

US President Obama is eager to avoid a military confrontation with Iran. It is clear that his re-election is on his mind with regard to this. And so, in a very recent CBS interview he said:

"Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices..."

Ah, oil prices. Increased prices would adversely affect the US economy, would they not? And economic recovery is a linchpin of his campaign.


But in the same interview, he said that Israel was "rightly" concerned about what will happen with Iran.

Here is his nod to Israel supporters. And he followed this line of thinking with more:

"My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel, and we are going to make sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this, hopefully diplomatically."

Lockstep, my foot. Word is that if we do hit Iran, we won't give the US more than a few hours notice, for reasons that are obvious.


No question that the president of the US must be concerned with US interests first, but he should not pretend to be concerned with Israeli security when in fact this is not the case: There is a wide divergence between what Israeli leaders know clearly to be in Israel's security interest and what Obama perceives to be in America's best interest.

"Perceives" is the operative word here. What Obama perceives is that the US is best served if he is re-elected, and so, to that end, he'll sacrifice a great deal. Including Israeli security interests.


But that's just for starters. Because the fact of the matter is that Obama is also prepared to sacrifice what's best for US security for that "greater good" of a win in the election.

He pretends to address this, saying that he doesn't believe that Tehran has the "intentions or capabilities" to attack the United States. Meaning, of course, that it is just Israel's problem.

A fairly incredible statement.

Just days ago, at a world conference on the "Arab Spring," Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, told a cheering audience that, "In light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty God, the Zionists and the Great Satan [America] will soon be defeated." The Islamic awakening in the region, he explained has delivered several blows to the enemies of Islam. All Muslims remain united in standing against the "evil hegemony of the Zionists and the Americans."

This is hardly a unique statement from an Iranian leader. The Iranian theme of the US as the "Great Satan" is fairly ubiquitous. So much for Tehran not having intentions of attacking the US.

Obama is a fool to pretend these things are not being said. But he seems to exhibit a particular propensity for blithely ignoring the obvious.

Besides which, there are other ways for Iran to hit the US: with terrorist attacks inside the country, attacks on US personnel outside the country, and cyber-attacks of some considerable import.

In particular,

"[On] January 30, 2012, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) stated that, 'When President Ahmadinejad recently toured the capitals of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador, it was not a form of cultural diplomacy; it was primarily to increase the tempo of preparations for the war against America'... (Emphasis added)

"In 2007, a[n]...announcement was made by Ahmadinejad about the opening of Iran Air's new Tehran to Caracas link, except that those flights do not accept open bookings, as transport for entrepreneurs or sightseers surely would. No, these planes are most likely carrying bad actors from the likes of Hezbollah, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Guard's Quds Force...

"Also considered is the possibility that the Tehran-Caracas flights are being used to transport weapons and Pasdaran — Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG) officers — to Venezuela in order to strengthen Chavez's grip on Venezuela and transform it into a potential threat to the U.S. by installing long range missiles in Venezuela that can reach the U.S..." (Emphasis added)
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/06/ latin-america-irans-new-front-against- the-u-s/

And so Obama is a fool twice over.


It has been announced that Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz has chosen Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel to become Commander of the Air Force when Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan steps down in April.

Major General Amir Eshel (IDF Spokesperson)

This announcement has attracted a great deal more attention than would normally be the case because of the role that the commander of the Air Force will play in any attack on Iran.

He would not be charged with making the final decision. However that final decision, to be made at the highest political levels, would depend upon his perception that such an operation is feasible. If the head of the Air Force were to deliver the message that he believes it cannot be done, this would effectively end further discussion. And if the decision is made to go ahead, his role would be pivotal.


In light of this, I was particularly delighted by the following report on Eshel from the JPost:

"On September 4, 2003, Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel served as the lead pilot in one of the Israel Air Force's most memorable missions — a flight over the Auschwitz death camp in Poland.

"Under the agreement with the Polish government, the IAF F-15s were supposed to fly high above Auschwitz, and way out of sight.

"The day of the flight though, Eshel convened the other pilots and announced that they were going to fly below the clouds so they could be seen by the IDF officers who would be holding a ceremony along the train tracks below.

"'We listened to the Polish for 800 years,' Eshel was quoted as telling the other pilots at the time. 'Today, we don't have to listen anymore.'" http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id< =256616

Right on! This is the sort of attitude Israel desperately needs today and I find this story reassuring.

See here the video footage of that magnificent flyover at Auschwitz, which includes the broadcast voice of General Eshel pledging from the skies over the death camp that the Air Force of Israel will be the shield of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

watch this.

Amen v'amen!


A shift now to another issue.

Recently, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar announced a program of tours to acquaint students with sites of Jewish heritage. This curriculum had been available to schools in the Jerusalem school district, but was now being provided across the country. In particular, there was a focus on a on-compulsory program called 'Ascending to Hevron," that would bring students to visit the Machpela (the Tomb of the Patriarchs). To date, some 2,000 secular and 1,000 religious high school students have participated.

Now 260 teachers have drafted a letter saying they would refuse to participate in the program for visiting Hevron — which is in Judea, south of Jerusalem, as "it is a manipulative use of pupils and teachers, who will be forced to become political pawns."


I find this fascinating. Visiting Hevron is conceptualized as a political act, but refusing to bring students to this ancient site is not?

In point of fact, Hevron transcends politics: It is the most ancient of sites connected to Jewish heritage: mentioned in the Torah, the Machpela belongs to the Jewish people by virtue of its purchase by our father Avraham. But these teachers advocate denying Jewish students exposure to it. I can only assume that they fear that such students, once exposed to this sacred place, might think twice about the propriety of relinquishing "the West Bank" to the Palestinian Arabs.


Minister Sa'ar is handling this well. Today he told Israel Radio that the only real critique of this program is that it wasn't instituted 40 years ago.

Minister Gideon Saar (Hebron.com)

What he was referring to is the fact that under the eye of a series of left-wing education ministers over the years, the Jewish connection to the land was shamefully denied or downplayed in secular state schools.

There was a time when secular Israelis knew the Tanach (Bible) and understood the connection of our texts and history to the land. Ben Gurion was a quintessential example of this. But thanks in good part to these left-wing ministers, such is no longer the case. It is nothing short of a tragedy that many Israeli young people just don't know.

"I didn't receive any protest letter, their letter was sent to Haaretz to serve their campaign against us," Sa'ar said, "One teacher charged me of Zionist indoctrination. You see? Being Zionist is now an accusation." (Emphasis added)

And so, bravo to Gideon Sa'ar.

I ask you please to send him a very brief note, congratulating him for instituting the program "Ascending to Hevron." Tell him that you support his efforts to teach the Jewish students of the State about Jewish heritage that transcends political issues.

If you are an Israeli citizen, mention this, and forward this to other Israelis who also might contact him. If you are a member of Likud, share that information as well, please.





There is news regarding the "reconciliation" of Fatah and Hamas. I continue to view this process with a dubious eye. But now there are some new wrinkles. Hopefully tomorrow we'll look at this.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 6, 2012.

This article was written by Gil Ronen. It appeared Israel National News and is archived at:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/152454


MKs Orlev, Katz blast commanders who dismissed cadets who prayed shacharit instead of attending a lesson.

Zionist religious MKs think the IDF mishandled an incident in which religious cadets were dismissed from Officers' Course for missing a lesson because of the shacharit morning prayer.

7The lesson was moved to an earlier time at the last moment, and therefore coincided with the regular time for the shacharit prayer. The soldiers — who are from the Gefen Battalion — prayed instead of attending the lesson.

MK Zevulun Orlev (Jewish Home) said that it was unacceptable that the IDF does not allow shacharit prayer at its proper time. "Only during an operational need or an emergency or during war, should the prayer give precedence to the operational need."

"It is too bad that all those involved — the commanders, the battalion rabbi and the combat soldiers — were not able to solve this problem, and instead turned it into a crisis."

Orlev blamed the IDF top command, too. "I call upon the Chief of Staff and the Head of Personnel Branch to change the atmosphere and create a more placating atmosphere that will allow religious and hareidi soldiers to serve in the IDF, in combat units too, while completely maintaining their religious lifestyle."

MK Yaakov Katz (Ketzaleh) of the National Union also protested the cadet's dismissal. "The enlistment statistics that show that soon, most IDF officers and soldiers will wear kippot — are a fact," he said. "Desperate attempts to change the fact that almost 50% of infantry officers are religious. It will not be possible to keep the most high-quality sector in the state, the religious [Zionists] and hareidim, from flooding the IDF and being an example of delicateness, good soldierly qualities and professionalism."

Ketzaleh added: "The ongoing abuse of kippah-wearing soldiers stems from incitement and jealousy and does not represent the comradely spirit of the IDF. It will only make our youth, the cream of the nation, even tougher."

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 Nurit Greenger, February 5, 2012.

One of Israel's dirty little secrets is that with every Aliyah, large numbers of Goyim hitched a ride out as well. When they arrived here many moved on to greener pastures but many stayed and integrated into Chilloni society. I often wonder how well many of the open haters of Torah Jews could withstand scrutiny of their linage.

The kinds of actions we are seeing in the Army and from the Minister of Defence go way beyond any sort of ideological struggle and are clearly motivated by hatred. So why is this? It is irrational and destructive in the utmost to drive out the best and most motivated element in an Army. Only traitors and psychotics would do such a thing to their own people. However if they are not your people and you feel that at the very essence of your soul, these actions are easy to understand.


Iran's leading evil is Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, his puppet, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the sixth and current president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their supporters, among the citizens of Iran, are very nasty bunch of people, who are very warmly embraced by many nations in the world, as members of the human family.

Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hoseyni Khāmene'i is the Supreme Leader of Iran and the figurative head of Iran's Muslim conservative establishment. In 2010, Forbes selected Khāmene'i as the 26th in the list of the 'World's Most Powerful People', described to be one of the three people having "important influence" on the Islamic Republic of Iran, along with the founder of the republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the president of Iran for much of the 1990s, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

On February 3rd, 2012, during weekly prayers in Tehran, Khāmene'i offered Iran's assistance in attacks against Israel. Additionally, he made a blunt warning that war with Iran would be detrimental to the United States and that Iran is ready to help anyone who confronts "cancerous" Israel. Though the Iranian regime has made it clear that it wants to see the State of Israel, the Zionist entity, removed off the map of the world, with this latest reaffirmation of its intent, by Iran's' supreme leader, the alarm bells were chiming loud and clear in the Jewish State and around the world.

Iran's leading evil's right-hand man is Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an engineer and teacher from a poor background, who is the Islamic Republic of Iran current president.

Ahmadinejad father was a man of all trade and a religious Shi'a, who taught the Qur'an.. His mother was a Seyyede, an honorific title given to those believed to be direct bloodline descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Though Ahmadinejad achieved a PhD degree in transportation engineering and planning, from Iran University of Science and Technology, his supporters consider him to be a "simple man" who leads a "modest" life.

On August 3rd, 2005, Ahmadinejad won 62 percent of the vote against Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei authorized his presidency.

On October 26, 2005, the English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB News), filed a story on Ahmadinejad's speech to the 'World Without Zionism conference' in Asia, entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map. The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, 2005, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech, in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying: "Our dear Imam [referring to Ayatollah Khomeini] said that the occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine ... Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave, that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world...."

Ahmadinejad has repeated his threats to annihilate the State of Israel from many podiums and his mantra varies, but the content is the very same; for him Israel must be eradicated.

The Iranian presidential website states: that "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will, under God's grace, be wiped off the map," and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map." A call for Genocide.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for a referendum in Palestine. In an interview with Time magazine in 2006:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it? Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

On June 20, 2007, the United States House of Representatives called upon the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the United Nations Charter. Congressman Dennis Kucinich attempted to include in the Congressional record independent translations of the speech from The New York Times and the Middle East Media Research Institute that translated the phrase as "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" saying "The resolution passed by the House today sets a dangerous precedent in foreign affairs. A mistranslation could become a cause of war. The United States House may unwittingly be setting the stage for a war with Iran". Members of the House objected and inclusion of the independent translations were blocked.

In July 2008, Gordon Brown, the United Kingdom Prime Minister at that time told the Israeli Knesset: "To those who believe that threatening statements fall upon indifferent ears we say in one voice — it is totally abhorrent for the president of Iran to call for Israel to be wiped from the map of the world."

The day after Ahmadinejad's remarks, Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel called for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations and Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. In that meeting, all fifteen members condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks.

On May 8, 2006, Israel's, Army Radio reported that Shimon Peres told Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."

Iran's leading evils' executioners is The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, often also called Revolutionary Guards, is a branch of Iran's Military, founded after the Iranian Revolution. Whereas the regular military (artesh) defends Iran's borders and maintains internal order, according to the Iranian constitution, the Revolutionary Guard (pasdaran) is intended to protect the country's Islamic system. According to some outside observers, it is intended to prevent internal dissident and military uprisings.

The IRGC has roughly 125,000 military personnel including ground, aerospace and naval forces. Its naval forces are now the primary forces tasked with operational control of the Persian Gulf. It also controls the paramilitary Basji militia which has about 90,000 active personnel, and in recent years has developed into a "multibillion-dollar business empire," and is reportedly the "third-wealthiest organization in Iran" after the National Iranian Oil Company and the Imam Reza Endowment.

Ali Khamenei, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard with atomic arsenal in their hands is a lethal combination the world has never faced. It is a threat to the existence of the entire free world, but especially to Israel.

Hitler's execution material to achieve the Nazis' Final Solution was the Zyklon B gas, a trade name of a cyanide based pesticide, infamous for its use by Nazi Germany to kill human beings in gas chambers of the extermination camps during WWII Holocaust. The "B" designation indicates one of two types of Zyklon. The other was "Zyklon A" — a liquid pesticide which released hydrogen cyanide in a chemical reaction with water. The gas consisted of hydrogen cyanide, prussic acid, Blausäure in German, hence the 'B', a stabilizer, a warning odorant methyl 2-bromoacetate, and one of several adsorbents. Some Zyklon B did not contain the odorant: because either that it was manufactured specifically for extermination purposes or that this was because of supply shortages.

The so called pundits tell us that there is no evidence of the Iranian desire to use the A-bomb! They brush aside, even ignore, what they say in Iran, that Iran's leaders constantly threaten to wipe off the page of history a United Nations' member state-Israel. In 2005 Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the 4th President of Iran, who ran against Ahmadinejad in elections, said that the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, including killing 6 million Jews and 2 million Arabs who are living in the State of Israel.

It took Hitler and the Nazi regime six years — from 1939 to 1945 — to murder six million Jews, many were gassed to death by the poisonous gas Zyklon B. Should Iran obtain the A-Bomb, it will take Iran six seconds to kill the 6 million Jews living in Israel, which means an instant Holocaust.

Iran is still a member of the United Nations Organization — UN and each year Ahmadinejad is allowed to enter the USA soul and deliver his vile speeches from the podium of the UN. Many member countries' representatives remain glued to their seats to listen to his depraved rhetoric and incitement.

Iran is working at full speed to produce an atomic bomb that they will certainly use to wipe Israel off the map of history, as they have been chanting to do for years.

It is time that action, much more impacting than the sanctions, now in place, will be applied to stop the Iranian evil regime from completing Hitler's Final Solution, from its desire to change the order of the world and to turn this world into a beacon of evilness.

The Iranian Nazi regime is building its nuclear capability to replace Hitler's Zyklon B poisonous gas and this is not a vapid statement.

Iran's ambitions to change the equilibrium of world's order with atomic arsenal power must be stopped, right now.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at nurit.nuritg@gmail.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 5, 2012.

A few months ago we reported on the outrage perpetrated by a team of leftist judicial activists on Israel's Supreme Court bench in the matter of Mustafa Dirani (or Durani). The terrorist Dirani had been held in Israeli prison after he had been grabbed/kidnapped in Lebanon by Israeli forces. He is believed to be the terrorist who kidnapped Israeli navigator Ron Arad and who then "sold" Arad to the Iranians. Arad was never heard from again after that. In an anti-terror operation, Dirani was grabbed by Israeli forces in 1994 and held as a bargaining chip. Later in what could arguably be regarded as the most disgraceful decision in Israeli history, the Israeli government released Dirani as part of a wholesale release of terrorists to buy back the corpses of three Israeli soldiers who had been murdered by the Hezb'Allah, plus one live drug smuggler being held in Lebanon but who had oodles of political ties to Israel's politicians (because the drug smuggler had once been a colonel in the military). It was one of the last foolish decisions by Ariel Sharon before he went into a permanent vegetative coma. After his release, the terrorist Dirani rejoined the Hezb'Allah and became the greatest figure of celebration in the Arab world.

Some time after he was back with his Hezb'Allah terrorist friends, Dirani started claiming he had been "tortured" while in Israeli captivity. While I can hardly think of anyone in the world MORE deserving of being tortured, I just assumed that it was a fabrication by Dirani to cover his tuchis once his Hezb'Allah friends found that he had spilt his guts to his interrogators about some things. Dirani invented a story and claimed that he had been sexually "tortured" by an Israeli interrogator calling himself "Captain George," and this George supposedly introduced Dirani to the joys of anal sex, including by inserting a billy club in Dirani's posterior. Having undergone more than one prostate biopsy (I will not go into further detail how it is done or you will not sleep tonight), I can personally attest that having this done to you can be somewhat unpleasant, although I don't believe a word of Dirani and his lawyers. Dirani also claims he was interrogated while stripped down to his skivvies or naked. Well, when I have spent time in hospitals I have also been interrogated while not wearing underwear. Don't worry, I will not email you a photo.

The "evidence" that Dirani was sexually abused by "George" is that Dirani says so. Dirani hired some Israeli lawyers and tried to file "suit for damages" in Israel against the state for his supposedly being "tortured." Now Israel, like most countries, has a rule that enemy citizens of enemy countries or enemy forces are barred from filing suits for damages against the country, and in the first round a Tel Aviv judge tossed it out. (A military lawyer had recommended that charges be brought against Captain George, but these were never filed after the Tel Aviv Court ruled that Dirani had never been sexually abused.) George's reputation was meanwhile dragged through the mud, and Israel is a small enough country such that a lot of people knew his real name. Under the media assault, George retired early from the military. A national loss! Meanwhile Dirani's lawyers appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court, and a panel of Beinisch-clique judicial activists ruled a few months ago that he can go ahead with his suit. The details of Dirani's capture and the Supreme Court ruling are reviewed in an earlier posting, which I paste here below.

There are now some new interesting developments in this case. A lot of these appear in an investigative report by journalist Pazit Ravina, which appeared in this past weekend's Makor Rishon (February 3, 2012). There is indeed an Israeli interrogator nicknamed "Captain George," although his real name has not been published in Israel (on grounds of privacy). Captain George just filed a giant damages suit against the Israeli government for having left him exposed to being sued by the terrorist Dirani and failing to protect and defend him, including from the press, which has been smearing and attacking "Captain George" ever since Dirani started his theatrics. The suit is for 4.5 million shekels. It also turns out that there was a "missing" video made of the interrogations of Dirani and this video tape had been hidden for years but was just leaked to Ilana Dayan, who hosts an Israeli investigative reporting TV show. Just two of many questions about all this are why this tape was kept hidden for so long while Captain George was being vilified in the media and why it was now suddenly leaked. The leaked tape was in addition to 46 other tapes of Dirani's interrogations already provided by the state to Dirani's lawyers.

Captain George was the commander of the IDF intelligence squad that had apprehended Dirani in Lebanon back in 1994. He is a hero. He has claimed all along that all interrogations by him and all interrogations of Dirani were always done "by the book" and with no violations of operating procedures.

The video tape of the interrogations leaked to Ilana Dayan's TV show is important mainly for one reason. It shows that Dirani was not even interrogated at all by "Captain George" but rather by a higher commanding officer under whom George served. So Dirani was lying when he claimed that "George" abused him during the interrogation. In the tape, there are people yelling and cursing at Dirani, but George is sitting at the side quietly. At the very least, if there had really been any "abuse" of Dirani, George's superiors would be answerable for it and not George. In any case, Dirani's "suit" named just George (and the state of Israel).

Thanks to the Supreme Court, Dirani's lawyers can now pursue his "suit" against Israel for six million shekels. Hmmm, we wonder where they picked THAT number from!! The court ruling was written by now-retired far-leftist Supreme Court Judge Ayala Procaccia. The Supreme Court is scheduled to reconvene this coming October with an expanded panel to reconsider the issue of whether terrorist Dirani can really sue the state he terrorized. But from the list of the names of the judges expected to be on the panel, things do not look good and there are lots of Beinisch-clique judicial activists there, although the new conservative Chief Justice Gronis will also be on that panel.

Finally, the "Captain George" affair has been kept alive in the West by a malicious unemployed anti-Semitic semi-literate blogger based in Seattle, named Richard Silverstein. He runs a vile defamatory anti-Semitic blog with the Orwellian name "Tikun Olam." He has already been proclaimed by a Los Angeles court as guilty of libel per se. Silverstein publishes some of his stuff with David Duke from the KKK and on Neo-Nazi web sites and he endorses Neo-Nazis like Norman Finkelstein. Silverstein is also something of an agent for Iran, promoting the Iranian take on just about everything, at least when he is not promoting the Hamas take. Ordinarily no one would pay any attention to such a creature (more than one web site, by the way, has alleged that Silverstein has been involved in pedaphilia!). But because of his venomous hatred of Israel, some Israeli leftists have taken to passing on to Silverstein items to be leaked, items whose publication is blocked by Israeli laws (such as regarding the identity of those arrested but not yet tried). That has earned attention-junkie Silverstein a bit of media attention, when his "leaks" get picked up by others. Even when citing him, several Israeli media outfits have mocked and dismissed Silverstein as a crank. When Israel's Channel Two news mocked Silverstein as someone who thinks he is the Israeli "Wikileaks," Silverstein proudly put that term at the top of his blog page to show how famous and credible he is, boasting that he is now officially "The Israeli Wikileaks." Silverstein may be best know for smearing his own parents on his blog, see this story:
http://kapodickie.blogspot.com/2009/ 03/oh-boo-hoo-kapo-dickie-whines-about.html (Silverstein for a while shared a web site with Larry Derfner, the pro-terrorist fired a few months ago by the Jerusalem Post for cheering on murder of Jews, but then Derfner decided that Silverstein is too much of a scoundrel and ignoramus even for HIM!)

Well fact-free "Little Dickie" Silverstein, which seems to be his nickname all over the Jewish blogosphere, has been the main "news source" pushing the Dirani version of events and smearing poor old "Captain George" in the West, including by leaking his real name. It will be amusing to see if Dickie backs off and apologizes now that it is known that Captain George was not even the interrogator of Dirani. As far as I know, Dickie has NEVER issued any apology for any of the countless things he gets wrong.

For an amusing web site that "outs" Silverstein, go to www.kapodickie.blogspot.com. See also some entertaining exposes of him at the Israellycool.com blog.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 4, 2012.


"Not an Islamist Wave," wrote Amir Taheri (in Jewish Political Chronicle, Winter 2011-12, p.20 from NY Post, 11/28/11). Mr. Taheri is a respected commentator; give him some slack for having typed this piece before Egypt's elections and the Obama administration demonstrated that it would let the Mideast fall to Islamists.

Mr. Taheri noted that the Muslim Brotherhood may win a plurality of the vote in Egypt. Subsequently, it did, but together with another Islamist party, won three-fifths of the vote. Mr. Taheri exaggerates, however, the importance of majority voter sentiment in a region of totalitarianism. A free election in a society unused to freedom is not equivalent to one in an Anglo-Saxon society.

Jihad does not depend on votes. Islamist election victors walk into power and gradually swallow liberty like a boa constrictor swallowing its prey. When an Islamist party loses an election, but has a sizeable following, it shoots its way to power. When it has a smaller following or is repressed down by the dictators whom President Obama conveniently is helping remove for the Islamists, it subverts its way to power, with or without creating anarchy that it then poses as savior over.

Islamist parties mostly screened their Islamist program out of their political campaigns. They nominated technicians and electioneered more on corruption and economic development. Mr. Taheri adds, "Yet Arab Islamists have so far failed to win a straight majority in any election. Nor are they likely to do so anytime soon." (Remember, he wrote that before Egypt's election.) They depend on coalition government, he pointed out.


Four Israeli villages in southern Samaria — Nofim, Yakir, Etz Ephraim and Shaarei Tikva — have been connected to a sewage pipe leading to a treatment plant. Other Israeli village, Maaleh Shomron, soon will be connected. Twenty-two Palestinian Arab villages are not connected. Their raw sewage pollutes the aquifer used by all as a water source.

The government of Israel offered to connect the Arab villages to sewage treatment. All the Arab villages rejected the offer, though one may reconsider. Apparently the Arabs prefer suffering and inflicting suffering over cooperating with Israel for mutual benefit lest they be perceived as recognizing Israel (Sharon Udasin, The Jerusalem Post, 02/03/2012
http://www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article. aspx?id=256320 via www.imra.org.il, 2/4/12)

No sense considering the Palestinian Arabs peace partners. They reap propaganda from false complaints that Israel denies them water, but they deliberately are ruining their joint water supply. They make blood libel against Israel, accusing it of poisoning them, but they deliberately poison the joint water supply. They even have refused free sewage treatment plants offered by Europeans, because it would mean cooperation with Israel. No validity to the contention that they "deserve" a state.

The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and their fellow travelers abroad falsely accuse Israel of operating illegally in the territories, but we have reported the fact that Arabs sink thousands of wells illegally. This interferes with proper exploitation of the resource.

The Arabs and their foreign supporters claim that Jewish "settlers" oppress them, but the facts are that: (1) Israel offers to help them; and (2) They oppress the Jews, partly by pollution and partly by attacking them.

I meet Westerners who sympathize with those Arabs. Would they sympathize if they knew what kind of killers, liars, and saboteurs dominate their society? Western sympathizers do not blame the P.A., which leads the jihad. What kind of ethics and policy of tolerance do those Westerners really have? They soothe the guilty and denounce the innocent.

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 Shraga Simmons, February 4, 2012.

There's a major scandal brewing and it's time to blow the lid off it.

The New York Times is taking an extreme politically-correct stance, working to discredit any and all sources that expose insidious Islamist activities in America.

The latest scandal started when Tom Robbins, a reporter from the Village Voice, wrote an article on how the New York Police Department was screening the film, The Third Jihad, to educate officers on the dangers of domestic terror.

Next up to the plate was New York Times reporter Michael Powell, who last week delivered a front-page snow job against the film. I have not studied The Third Jihad in-depth, so I cannot comment on all its content. But what I do know is that the Times' article, "In Police Training, A Dark Film on U.S. Muslims" (January 23, 2012), is filled with misinformation and bias.

For example, the opening sentence claims that in the film "a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House." The clear implication is that the filmmakers photoshopped this negative image. In truth, the "Islamic flag flying over the White House" is taken straight from an Islamic film. In other words, the image supports the film's concern over radical Muslim groups operating in America — which the Times flips around to attack the credibility of the film!

Another example: The Times tries to discredit the film by portraying it as broadly anti-Islam, alleging that the film declares: "This is the true agenda of Islam in America." Yet the Times fails to mention the disclaimer at the beginning of the film which clearly states: "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical."

After complaints this week, the Times amended the quote to read: "This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America."

Strike two for the Times — that is also a misquote! The actual line from the film is: "This document shows the true agenda of much of Muslim leadership here in America." Thus far, the Times has refused to correct the article, nor print a letter to the editor setting the record straight — using the excuse that "the Letters section won't publish anything that refutes matters of fact and only publishes matters of opinion." Right.

Again, my purpose is not to judge the content of the film. (The Third jihad is now available for free online viewing, so you can judge for yourself.) But if there is to be an intelligent public debate about the film's value, the starting point must be a factual presentation in the media.

Meanwhile, the Times has been hammering this story all week — running two news reports and three op-eds against the film. So what do you think happened when Tom Ridge (former head of Homeland Security) and Jim Woolsey (former CIA Director) submitted an op-ed defending the film? That's right, the Times refused to print it.

This is all part of a pattern in the media toward hiding domestic Muslim threats. As I document in my book, David and Goliath, political correctness has spawned a phenomenon whereby the New York Times dodges the "M-word" whenever Muslims commit heinous crimes. A few examples:

  • When 17 Canadian members of an Islamic terror cell were arrested on charges of plotting to bomb targets near Toronto, the Times managed the remarkable feat of publishing an 1,843-word report without once calling them "Muslims." The only identifying information provided by the Times was that they are of "South Asian descent" and "represent the broad strata" of society. ("17 Held in Plot to Bomb Sites in Ontario," June 4, 2006)
  • When eight people — all Muslims — were arrested in the UK for plotting car bombings, the Times referred to them simply as a "disenfranchised South Asian population." ("Britain at Top Terror Alert After Air Terminal is Struck," July 1, 2007)
  • In 2009, when four New York men were arrested for plotting to bomb synagogues and "bring death to Jews," the Times hid the M-word until the ninth paragraph. ("4 Accused of Bombing Plot at Bronx Synagogues," May 20, 2009)
  • And when Faisal Shahzad was arrested for the failed Times Square car bombing in 2010, the Times ran a 900-word article with no mention of the M-word, even as information was available that Shahzad had admitted to training at an Islamist terror camp in Pakistan. ("Suspects in Terror Case Wanted to Kill Jews, Officials Say," May 12, 2011)

This week, we saw more of these media gyrations with the Third Jihad controversy. Writing in Forbes magazine, Abigail R. Esman observes how the Times is mixing up who are the bad guys here:

Much of what the Times objects to is a group of clips from You-Tube videos in which Islamist leaders speak of taking over the United States, of their dream of flying the flag of Islam from the White House, of the importance of destroying the infidel. The Times, however, in describing the film as "hateful," does not mean that these clips themselves are hateful; no, they mean that allowing the NYPD to see that they exist is hateful. In other words, they have no problem with the video clips themselves; but with those who expose them...

[In the view of the New York Times, the fact] that the NYPD, which is responsible for maintaining public safety in the world's top target for Islamic terrorists, should happen to be provided this information, apparently not only unnecessary, but egregious.

Beyond all the inaccuracies, the Times' advocacy journalism is being used by the pro-Muslim group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) to pressure NYC police chief Ray Kelly to resign. CAIR, as we know, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial, which was shut down by the U.S. government for funding Hamas to the tune of $12 million.

Here's the real irony: While the premise of The Third Jihad is to expose the pressure, intimidation and manipulation tactics of groups (such as CAIR) who are trying to stifle exposure of Islamists operating in America, the "newspaper of record" is now aiding and abetting those very efforts.

Stay tuned. This is bound to get even more interesting.

Shraga Simmons is the author of "David and Goliath", the explosive inside story of media bias in the MidEast. This article is archived at
http://davidandgoliathbook.wordpress. com/2012/02/03/new-york-times-misrepresents- the-third-jihad

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, February 4, 2012.

Just days ago, we learned, via what we were told was an accidental slip by Senator Dianne Feinstein, that Mossad officials were in the US for discussions with officials there with regard to Iran.

Then on Thursday, there were two occurrences in tandem. Here in Israel, Defense Minister Barak delivered a forceful speech at the Herzliya Conference that included these statements:

"Today, unlike the past, there is wide global understanding that it is vital to prevent Iran from going nuclear and that no option must be taken off the table. Today, unlike the past, there is wide global understanding that if the sanctions fail to achieve the desired result of stopping the Iranian military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider an operation...

"Today, unlike the past, the world has no doubt that the military nuclear program is steadily nearing ripeness and is about to enter the 'immunity zone.' From that point on, the Iranian regime will be able to act to complete the program, with no effective disturbance and a time that is convenient for it... "He who says 'later,' may find that it is 'too late.'"

Was he delivering notice to the world? Or letting Iran know that it had better take the threat of a military strike seriously?


In the US, David Ignatius, in his Washington Post column on the same day, indicated that:

"[US Secretary of Defense] Panetta believes there is strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb."

Panetta, when questioned, didn't refute this report — a report that has a different tone from what we've been hearing.


What are we seeing here?

Are we to believe that the timing of these two statements (and the mutual allusion to "a zone of immunity"), coming shortly after a meeting on this issue between Israelis and Americans, is merely coincidental? Could it be that the two heads of the defense establishments of their respective nations are on the same page with regard to Israeli intentions?

Or is Panetta seeking to subvert Israeli plans? What sort of business is this — announcing when it is likely that Israel will strike? A strike is best achieved with an element of surprise. But then again, Barak made it clear that such an attack would have to be soon.

Only questions tonight... a good many questions on a subject of the highest priority.


Before closing, I recommend Yoram Ettinger's piece advocating an Israeli attack on Iran at all costs:

We should pay the price, he says, it will be well worth it.

"Opponents of an attack warn that it could potentially result in a harsh response from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, international anger directed at Israel over higher oil prices, a wave of terror and Persian Gulf turbulence. Yet, these pale in comparison to the deadly cost of a nuclear threat....

"A pre-emptive attack against Iran would exact a non-lethal and short-term cost, but would boost Israel's long-term strategic image."
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/ newsletter_opinion.php?id=1298


An then a link to a video — sent to me by multiple sources — of British commentator Douglas Murray at a Cambridge Union Debate. The issue is Europe's lack of support for Israel, and his position is delivered fearlessly and brilliantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=3dBzslDdQ_g&feature=email


More to follow shortly.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Hand, February 14, 2012.

This comes from the Associated Press


A U.S. judge is weighing whether to hold a woman accused of paying a hit man to behead three witnesses in a North Carolina terrorism case. Nevine Aly Elshiekh made her first court appearance Friday. She was arrested last month after FBI agents tracked her to a meeting with a government informant posing as a hit man's representative.

Agents say the 46-year-old provided the informant with the names of those to be killed and a $750 down payment toward the first hit. Prosecutors say the plot was masterminded by Hysen Sherifi, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison for a conspiracy to attack the Marine base at Quantico, Virginia. Also arrested in the beheading plot is Shkumbin Sherifi, the 21-year-old brother of the terror defendant. Shkumbin Sherifi was arrested after FBI agents tracked him to a Jan. 8 meeting in the parking lot of a Wilmington Food Lion grocery store with a government informant posing as the representative of a hit man. He is accused of paying the informant $4,250 toward the first killing while his mother waited nearby in a Honda minivan. On Jan. 22, prosecutors said Sherifi met with the informant again, this time receiving fake photos that showed the blood-covered witnesses lying in a shallow grave and what appeared to be the man's severed head. An FBI agent testified Sherifi left the meeting and went directly to the New Hanover County Detention Center.

After a meeting with his brother that was monitored by the FBI, Sherifi was arrested as he was leaving the jail with the photos in his possession. The Sherifis are naturalized U.S. citizens who emigrated from Kosovo in 1999 following a bloody sectarian war. Prosecutors allege Elshiekh served as a go-between for the Sherifi brothers and the confidential informant. Those targeted for death, according to the government, were three confidential informants who testified against Hysen Sherifi and his co-defendants during a lengthy terrorism trial that began in shortly after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Hysen Sherifi and two other Raleigh men were found guilty of terrorism-related offenses, while three other accused co-conspirators pleaded guilty.

Contact Robert Hand by email at borntolose3@att.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Sanne DeWitt, February 3, 2012.

This was written by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of Z STREET and chair of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs executive committee. It is archived at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../ 2012/02/how_many_are_thy_tents_o_jacob.html February 03, 2012.


How Many Are Thy Tents, O Jacob?

Given the ideological bedlam often seen even within individual Jewish organizations, just imagine trying to get an entire community of Jewish organizations together to sign a several-paragraphs-long statement reflecting a single position — and to do that within a matter of weeks.

That miracle almost happened recently, when the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia gathered practically every Jewish organization in the Philadelphia community to send a message of strong disapproval to an anti-Israel coalition known as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is holding a three-day conference at the University of Pennsylvania on February 3-5. But the "almost" is necessary because one significant local group refused to join in. Understanding who, and why, reveals important lessons that must be taken to heart.

Penn BDS was thrown together by a single undergraduate student with the goal of luring the BDS conference to the University of Pennsylvania campus. BDS is a global, largely unsuccessful but widely publicized menace with the ultimate goal of demonizing, demoralizing, and destroying the state of Israel. BDS proponents claim that their methods constitute a tool to achieve justice for those oppressed by Israel; they take their cue from the effort to overthrow the racist South African government during the 1980s. But BDS is, in fact, merely a thin mask over enmity against any effective haven for the Jewish people.

Last month, when the Penn Hillel leadership learned that the BDS conference was to take place on their campus, the Philadelphia Jewish leadership was alerted, as was the Israeli Consulate. A broad spectrum of at least nominally pro-Israel local organizations was quickly called together with the goal of creating a strong communal response.

Mainstream local groups such as the Jewish Federation, the Anti-Defamation League, and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East — as well as those on the far left of the spectrum, such as the New Israel Fund and J Street, and those on the right end, such as Z STREET and the Zionist Organization of America — were included in this call to action. Several decisions were reached: there would be a communal statement of solidarity condemning the BDS conference; there would be an event showcasing communal support for Israel just prior to the conference; and, to counter the campaign of boycotting Israeli goods, there would be a concerted effort to encourage people to purchase Israeli products.

The crafting of the communal statement took two rounds of drafts and delicate negotiations with each organization involved. It fell to David Cohen, the senior associate for Israel and Middle East Affairs at the Philadelphia Federation, to ferret out each group's rock-bottom red lines, then artfully craft changes to avoid crossing any of those lines, and finally to come up with a document that avoided all the pitfalls but still clearly condemned the strategy of BDS generally, and the holding of the BDS conference at Penn specifically.

I was present at and participated in the meetings as the Z STREET representative. In response to the first draft, I told Cohen that Z STREET objected to an emphasis on the ubiquitous "two state" mantra. We think the one clear goal of the peace process should be peace for Israel. Z STREET believes that the pro-Israel community disserves that goal by adding an additional goal which may not — and in our view, clearly does not — ensure that such peace will be attained. While disappointed to see the "two states" language as part of the final version of the community statement, we decided that a show of community-wide solidarity is important. More than two dozen other organizations felt the same, with each no doubt making its own ideological compromises so that the Jewish community could say something with one voice.

But there was a conspicuous absence from the Philadelphia Community Statement's list of signatures. Although its representative was present at the community-wide meeting and was included in the community phone calls, J Street refused to be a part of the community and would not sign the joint statement of condemnation. Instead, J Street Philly issued a separate statement — one very different from the community's in title, in tone, and in apportionment of blame. As the local representative stated clearly, J Street wanted to "maintain the integrity of our values" and their "unique position on this issue."

Whereas the Philadelphia Community Statement is officially one of solidarity with Israel and of condemnation of the BDS Conference, J Street's is neither.

The Philadelphia Community Statement unequivocally condemns boycotting Israel, disinvesting from its companies, or sanctioning it. J Street's statement criticizes the BDS tactics but explicitly recognizes, validates, and agrees with the underlying sentiments expressed by those advocating BDS, which include "the ongoing occupation and diplomatic stagnation" and the "legitimate and warranted" and shared "concern about the present and future of the Palestinian people."

Of particular concern to J Street was a broad condemnation of BDS — one that lacked "nuance," such as making exceptions for boycotting goods made in Judea and Samaria. Also, J Street refused to criticize Penn, even subtly, for allowing the conference to be held there. J Street was unwilling to include its voice in stating that "the outrageous claims of BDS campaigns do not stand up to the rigors of academic inquiry and as such, go against the sophisticated civil discourse that is a core element of the University of Pennsylvania."

Worse, J Street seems to have issued even its own tepid statement with not even enough enthusiasm as to post it; the J Street statement does not appear on the J Street Philadelphia website. J Street also refused to be one of the more than thirty co-sponsors of the "We Are One With Israel" event with Alan Dershowitz.

Much has been written about why and whether J Street is allowed in the "big tent" of Jewish communal organizations. The argument in favor, of course, is the desire to expand the marketplace of ideas, to be as inclusive as possible, and simply to give a respectful hearing even to those with whom one disagrees. But we now know what happened when J Street was unquestioningly welcomed into the Philadelphia community tent. When given the first opportunity to stand as one with the community and speak with one voice from one tent, J Street snuck out the back and pitched its own tent instead.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, February 2, 2012.

Rape is a cruel violation of a helpless victim. In addition to the physical torment involved, rape reduces the victim to subhuman status. Under the barbaric rule of the Mullahcracy in Iran, however, sexual assaults have become instruments of policy for extracting false confessions, satisfying the boundless sadisms and sexual perversities of the jailers, punishing the helpless victim and leaving each of them with a sense of dehumanization. These horrors keep playing out, unabated, in the streets, prisons and dungeons of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The 19-year old beautiful Taraneh was not shot with a single bullet to her chest as was the case with Neda Agha Sultan. There were no bystanders in the dungeon with a cell phone to capture the prolonged torture, rape, and sodomy of this teen-ager.

On June 28, 2009, Taraneh Mousavi, a young Iranian woman, was literally scooped off the streets without any provocation on her part and with no arrest warrant. This young woman was taken to one of the Islamists torture chambers where she was repeatedly brutalized, raped, and sodomized by Ahmadinejad's agents and with the consent of the "supreme leader" Ali Khamenei.

Near death from repeated beating, raping and sodomizing, the fragile young woman, bleeding profusely from her rectum and womb, was transferred to a hospital in Karaj near Tehran. Eventually, an anonymous person notified Taraneh's family that she had had an "accident" and had to be taken to the hospital.

The devastated family rushed to the hospital only to find no trace of their beloved daughter because, the gang of Islamic thugs, the foot-soldiers of Allah's "divine representative" Ali Khamenei, decided to eliminate all traces of their savagery. These beasts of Allah removed the dying woman from the hospital before the family's arrival, burned it beyond recognition and dumped her charred remains on the side of the road.

Taraneh means melody in Persian. According to her bereaved family and friends, true to her name, she used to sing with a beautiful warm voice and played the piano with skill. It is beyond imaginable cruelty to have her precious young life extinguished after an extended period of torture and rape.


Like Neda, another young woman, whose chest was ripped by the bullet of a murdering Islamist as she peacefully walked along with a throng of peaceful demonstrators, Taraneh's tragedy gives a glimpse of the true face of Islamic fascism and its brutality. The Taranehs and Nedas of Iran shall remain as eternal testaments to the depravity of Islamic fascism and the horrors it has visited on innocent people. And these young victims of the Islamic tyranny are by no means isolated cases. Tragically, women as a gender bear the brunt of Islamic misogyny. Women are systematically exploited, maltreated and disenfranchised from their God-given rights.

How did Taraneh end up in the hands of the Islamist murderers? According to numerous reports, the 19-year-old Taraneh Mousavi, was among hundreds arrested on June 28, 2009 in Iran's post-election aftermath. She was standing outside her school when she was arrested, along with a group of about 14 others, blindfolded and taken to an interrogation and torture center.

Witnesses present at the scene have reported that the basijis militia — hired government thugs — were giving the exceptionally beautiful Taraneh a particularly hard time. When the other detainees were allowed to contact their families and she was not, she sensed there would be trouble and gave her parents' telephone number to a few of the women there who in turn contacted her family after being released.

Our great Zoroaster, the luminous ancient prophet of Persia, spoke of the ongoing battle between the forces of good under Ahuramazda — God, and the forces of evil directed by Ahriman — the Satan. Zoroaster warned us not to fall for the enticements or be deceived by the machinations of Ahriman. He further informed us that evil can be recognized by the deeds of its people; people who would oppose the precepts of Ahuramazda.

The savage Islamists killed the magnificent child-woman, Taraneh, after a long period of tortuous imprisonment and rape. By killing her, the agents of evil aimed to silence freedom loving Iranians. But assuredly they can never kill freedom. They only kill the body, but the spirit of freedom lives on.

According to the Islamic Sharia practiced by the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is impermissible to execute a woman if she is virgin. A handy excuse for the torture savages to satisfy their beastly lust by arranging a "wedding" ceremony before the eventual execution of the victim. The female prisoner is forced to consummate the "marriage" by submitting sexually to one of the chosen jail-keepers. A virgin woman gets forcibly raped before being hanged. This is yet another gift from Islam to humanity!

Lest reports of horrific mistreatment of innocent prisoners of conscience be taken as baseless rumors and innuendoes, in a letter dated June 12, 2009, a Presidential candidate, Mehdi Karoobi, explicitly states the violations. The letter addressed to the head of the Assembly of Experts on Leadership — the highest body of the ruling gang of clerics — Karoobi demands that an impartial commission be appointed to investigate the torture and rape reports of detainees, both women as well as men.

Mr. Karoobi writes: "I do not think that prisoners in the pre-revolution regime (i.e. the Shah's) had seen or heard of such crimes. Some detained individuals have reported such savage rapes that have left the women victims with physical scars and ruptures in their reproductive systems. At the same time, young imprisoned boys have been raped in such atrocious ways causing them depression, physical and psychological pain, leading to their complete withdrawal from everybody."

For the past 33-years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been denying and violating a long-suffering people of all its human rights. The regime is guilty of beating, torturing, raping, and killing prisoners of conscience — political, religious, intellectuals, artists and others.

Women, chronically oppressed and denied their basic human and family rights, have been the ones most viciously abused by the Islamic system and its hired plain clothes and Basij members. To maintain its suffocating rule, the regime metes out punishments reminiscent of the worst governments in the annals of human history. Amputation of hands and feet, blinding of eyes, hanging, and stoning victims after perfunctory trials in kangaroo courts without legal representation is common-place under the terror rule of the Islamists

The Islamists' ruling Iran — the curse of Allah — heartlessly hang gays on the grounds that same sex relationship is a capital offense according to the Islamic ethos. Yet, these same beasts gang rape innocent young men in their medieval dungeons, after having arrested them for participating in peaceful demonstrations.

The horrors visited on innocent Iranian detainees by the goons of the Islamic Republic with the consent of the head-criminal, Ali Khamenei, and the orders of the brutal "President" Ahmadinejad, make every decent human shudder with revulsion. It is sadly reminiscent of Nazi Germany. The Nazi's use of piano wires for nooses to torment maximally their victims by slow death has been matched by the Islamist Fascists' resort to sexual brutalization that eventuates in death.


Freedom-lovers and decent humans like Taraneh and Neda, like millions of others, did not believe that a murdering Islamist Ahmadinejad was their President. They did not approve of his rabid attacks on Israel, demanding its eradication; they did not condone his largess on Islamist terrorists such as Hizbollah and Hamas; they did not want religious minorities, such as Baha'is, to be deprived of their rights of citizenship simply because they did not believe in his religious zealotry; they did not want to live as second class citizens because of their gender.

Tragically, there are people in position of power who turn a blind eye to these horrors with their sole concern for their own self-interests. When Robert Gibbs, former spokesman for the White House, shamelessly declares that Mahmood Ahmadinejad, the fraud, is the elected President of Iran, one wonders about Gibbs' humaneness. How would Gibbs feel if Taraneh was his daughter and Ahmadinejad had her blood on his hands? Would Gibbs, or for that matter President Obama, call this murderer Ahmadinejad, a duly elected President worthy of shaking his bloodstained hand?

In short, the Islamic Republic of Iran represents devastation and death if not immediately disempowered by all people and nations that value the Universal Human Rights for all. It is timely to bring to mind the warning of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." The Islamic Republic of Iran is indeed a miscarriage of justice, a cruel repressive rule, and an imminent threat not only to Iranians but also to the world at large.

Amil Imani is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad. Contact him at amil_imani@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 3, 2012.

The Zionist Organization of America urges the Justice Dept. to indict, extradite, and prosecute those Palestinian Arabs recently released by Israel who had been convicted in Israel of murdering Americans. Israel exchanged the Arabs for an Israeli not convicted of anything.

U.S. law provides for such prosecution. Some of the released terrorists are in Jordan, with which the U.S. has an extradition treaty.

The ZOA wonders why the Justice Dept. needs prompting. Doesn't it care about Americans whose relatives were murdered by Palestinian Arabs? Is it acceptable to the Justice Dept. that Americans be murdered when perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs [or against Jews]? In failing to pursue those convicted murderers, the U.S. undermines the credibility of its supposed war on terrorism (ZOA Press release, 2/3/12).

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 Giulio Meotti, February 3, 2012.

Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rick Perry, just to name a few, are all Methodists. The Methodist Church is radically anti-Israel


The United Methodist Church is the major mainline Protestant denomination in the United States. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rick Perry, to name just a few, are all Methodists.

During its General Conference in late April in Tampa, Florida, the Church will discuss some divestment proposals targeting companies that profit from Israel's "occupation", such as Motorola, Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard.

The Methodists boycott no other country. But they loudly proclaim a radical anti-Israel policy.

The divestment campaign can have severe consequences for the companies targeted. For example, the United Methodist Church's pension agency reportedly has $5 million in Caterpillar stock out of $15 billion in assets.

Methodist bishops have already opposed U.S. arms sales to the Jewish State.

The Virginia and New England conferences of the Methodist Church just passed resolutions calling for divestment from Israel. The Methodist Church of Britain launched a boycott against goods emanating from Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Last October, the historic Dumbarton United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C., which features a pew where President Abraham Lincoln once sat, also backed an anti-Israel divestment proposal.

In March, three resolutions taking anti-Israel positions were adopted by the Methodist Church's public policy arm, which voted in favor of resolutions seeking boycotts and divestment directed against companies regarded as "complicit in the Israeli presence in the West Bank".

Equating Israel with apartheid South Africa is a recurring theme among pro-Palestinian Methodist groups.

The Methodist Church is not alone in this anti-Israel wave. The wealthiest US Church, the Presbyterian, will also vote the divestment proposal during its General Assembly in Pittsburgh. The Church's Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment urged the General Assembly to fully embrace the boycott movement against some major companies which are based in Israel.

Last November, the Presbyterian Church hold a conference in Louisville and it embraced the "Kairos Document", which rejects the Jewish State and says that Israeli security policies are "a sin against God".

"Liberal" Church efforts to divest from companies doing business with Israel are part of a bigger trend which demonizes Judaism. At the recent Louisville symposium, Eugene March, professor emeritus of Old Testament at Presbyterian Seminary, said the Jewish right to the land is "invalid", while Gary Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, criticized "the territorial worldview of Judaism".

Anti-Jewish eschatology is nothing new in the Presbyterian denomination. When the US Church voted to divest from Israel in 2004, its flagship intellectual journal, Church and Society, ran an essay by theologian Robert Hamerton-Kelly who argues that Judaism has always been "a blood-thirsty, primitive religion".

The well-known Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann, who is professor emeritus at Presbyterian Church affiliated Columbia Theological Seminary and one of America's most influential left-leaning theologians, wonders if any idea of "chosen people" inevitably results in "absolutism" and the "seeds of violence". This is a return to Martin Luther's demonology, since the founder of Protestantism argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people but instead "the Devil's people".

Stephen Sizer, British theologian and leader in these mainline Churches, released a declaration to support the UN Palestinian bid: "The New Testament insists the promises God made to Avraham are fulfilled not in the Jewish people but in Jesus and those who acknowledge him".

Historically these two Churches have occupied the corridors of power and wealth in America. So although liberal Christianity is now declining in the United States, it still is culturally and politically important. Methodists and Presbyterians are the most aggressively anti-Israel among Protestant denominations, but all five of the mainline denominations in the US — Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran and United Church of Christ — have debated and adopted policies intended to bring direct or indirect economic pressure on Israel.

As William van der Hoeven, an Evangelical with extensive Mideast experience put it as early as the 1970s, "The PLO has hijacked the main churches". It's a new form of Intifada "from Heaven".

This article is archived at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Articles/Article.aspx/11223

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, February 2, 2012.

Twenty-eight years ago, intending it to be a joke, the members of a fraternity at the University of Pennsylvania dressed up as ku klux klansmen, in white sheets. The university's president was so outraged by this that she closed down the fraternity house, forcing all the fraternity's members off campus.

Fast forward almost three decades: This coming weekend, the very same University of Pennsylvania is hosting a major national three-day "Penn BDS" (boycott, divestment and sanctions) conference aimed at dismantling the State of Israel. Speaker after speaker will spew non-stop anti-semitism and anti-Israel hatred. From Friday morning (February 3rd, 2012) through Sunday evening (February 5th, 2012), a veritable "who's who" of anti-semites, including radical Muslims, Israel-bashing and Jew-bashing bloggers, far left professors, and some self-hating Jews, will depict Israel as an "occupation" which has no right to exist, falsely accuse Israel of "ethnic cleansing," and urge participants to wage economic war (boycotts, divestment & sanctions), "lawfare" and other war against Israel. The many featured speakers include "Electronic Intifada" website co-founder Ali Abunimah (an old Obama buddy) and Columbia University Iran studies professor Hamid Dabashi, who accuses Israel of "global terrorism" and "a half century of systematic maiming and murdering."

And what is the reaction to this of the University of Pennsylvania's president, Amy Gutmann? So far, she has just made excuses for doing nothing.

Great Neck's brave Jeff Weisenfeld recently attempted to contact President Gutmann. A college official wrote back, babbling about recognizing "student groups," being "content neutral" and the "free exchange of ideas." Free exchange of ideas? Since when is a professionally-organized 3-day hate-fest filled with the world's leading anti-semites an acceptable event at an academic institution? There is a big difference between the "free exchange of ideas" and a nationally orchestrated barrage of outright false propaganda to incite hatred against Jews. Can you imagine the outcry if a university hosted a conference to delegitimize, boycott and ostracize black-owned businesses, or gay-owned businesses, or any other country in the world? Of course, it would never happen. Even a tasteless joke that was hurtful to a racial group was stopped. Yet, declaring open season on Jews and Israel is apparently no problem.

As Mr. Weisenfeld wrote to University of Pennsylvania's officials about the Penn BDS conference: "This is a corruption of academia based on pure and unadulterated anti-Semitism which would not be tolerated against any other ethnic group."

Sadly, the University of Pennsylvania is not the only campus where hate-filled weekends (and week-long) anti-Israel "conferences" have been taking place. Anti-Israel activities on college campuses, organized by national radical Muslim groups, are rampant. A few recent examples: UC Berkeley's "Israel apartheid week"; the "occupation" of a campus building in "solidarity" with Gaza at the University of Rochester; and Brandeis University's "Israeli Occupation Awareness Week." In addition, the same radical Muslims and their co-conspirators who run anti-Israel events also violently stop Jewish and pro-Israel campus events and speakers. Apparently "free speech" does not apply when pro-Israel students and speakers try to say something. This all creates a dangerous and extremely uncomfortable atmosphere for Jewish students studying at the University of Pennsylvania and at other universities throughout the country.

It's time that we start taking America's campuses back from the anti-semites and Israel-bashers. Jews have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the University of Pennsylvania. If a university allows anti-Israel boycott events, perhaps the university should be "boycotted" when the university asks for more contributions. I also hope that readers of this article and their friends (especially the many University of Pennsylvania alumni in the local area) will cut their contributions off to U of Penn (and let President Guttman know why), and contact the University of Pennsylvania to demand cancellation of this weekend's outrageous, malevolent national "Penn BDS" conference. We all know the results of silence in the face of hatred. University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann's telephone number is 215 898-7221, and her email is presweb@pobox.upenn.edu.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Prowisor, February 2, 2012.

The amusement park turns serious....

Just how important is Israel to all of us, to the world? Many a headline has focused on the Iranian threat to Israel, the possibility of a renewed holocaust against the Jewish State... the state, not the nation.

Many can't even conceive of the threat, why should they?

The Internet blogosphere has become a battlefield of for and against, as has many of the speaking events involving Israel. There is no room for dialogue, as choirs gather to be preached to, gathering to show support for their team.

That is pretty much the way it goes today, those that are for, those that are against.

Possible solutions are no longer discussed, either my way or the highway.

There is actually a reason why there is usually no discussion, especially from the side of those that wish Israel to cede into past history.

In pretty much all of the scenarios and solutions regarding Israel and the "Palestinian" Arabs, "they" present, be they "liberal", "post", open minded or just good ole anarchists, their paths lead to a common end, the disappearance of Israel as a Jewish State as we know it. Some of the solutions are quick, some are a drawn out suffering process, but like I said, they all share a common result, if not goal (intended or not). ***

*** (Feel free to visit me when in Israel or in your neighborhood to discuss. To long to write about here.)

Eventually the truth does rear its ugly head as witnessed by some attendees and organizers at the latest "BDS" event happenings at U of Penn in Phila. A promotional video about the conference that was pulled from the web pretty much revealed to all, that the movement is about boycotting all of Israel and that the goal is clearly the "creation of one Arab majority state that would, in essence, eliminate Israel as a Jewish state".

Amusing in my eyes is how the local Jewish "Leadership" is responding. Programs that intend to educate and foster dialogue between students regarding Israeli society. Organized by the Jewish Federation, Hillel, others and speaking there...the savior of the day, Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Yessiree bob, they be pullin' out the big guns!

Sorry, but this deserves a big "Oy"!

The web is flooded with educational articles, events, papers, you name it, anything and everything that shows an alternative view to those that preach against Israel. Yes many of those presenting, speaking are as closed minded as those that "preach" against Israel, but most are not. The owners of the so-called "other view", or anti-anti Israel folk are efficiently kept out of Jewish Federation events, even many Hillels and other supposedly open minded "Synagogues or Congregations", and if they by chance have the door cracked open for them, the welcome is far less than gracious.

And now to jump a little bit...

Throughout my years working as a security professional, I was taught, and also learned, that if you want to prevent terror, you sometimes have to look into the future and even be able to say "what if we...". We have to learn to see warning signs, flaws in our systems, weak links in our chains or fences, in order to prevent possible future scenarios that would cause fatalities.

And now back....

The anti Israel movements, whether they want to call themselves "Rights" Movements, "Democratic" advocacy, or "Occupation or anti-Occupation" groups are being used as tools by our adversaries, and the Jews among them, believing that they are seeing a common denominator within these groups (be it against the Religious, "Pro-Zionist", "Right Wing" or even Republican) are joining, leading, and supporting their efforts. So reminiscent of how Golda Meir thought the other Socialist leaders in the world were ready to come to Israel's aid during the Yom Kippur War, (because of our own Socialist leadership, you know... honor among thieves), only to be disappointed into discovering that they really didn't care if Israel survived or not, and secretly preferred that Israel just disappeared and stopped being a pain in the ass. I might add, definitely not the first time in our Jewish history do we see our own looking towards and assisting an enemy against ourselves.

We are raising a generation of Jews, from all colors of the spectrum, that are not being fed a healthy educational diet regarding Israel (I also wanted to say spiritual, but I know that scares many Congregations and Orgs out there). Yes, I know, we can all blame Israel right now for having lousy PR, lousy leadership, and you would all be right, extra right, and I agree. But that does not give us the right to allow our children and even friends and neighbors to be taken, sometimes even as slaves or Zombies to movements that set them against the only Jewish Country in the world.

Many of our children are denied a look into their own history, both recent and past. They are kept from walking the paths our forefathers took. They are being duped by their own values of freedom, democracy and human rights. Impostors like the Olive Tree Movement, BDS, Peace Now and so many others draw them in, turning them into kamikaze pilots. I use that term simply, because they destroy themselves and their future in the process.

(Bare with me for a moment...)

Who can blame them? They are not shown "Israel", all of Israel, despite their "Zionism" classes. Even the Religious Zionist Groups, are not taught. Israel is the "trip", the "year", the first year spent away from home. Want to know the good Anglo bars in Jerusalem, just ask almost any kids here on their "Shana Alef", many if not most will know.

Birthright? Sure why not, 10 — 14 days of getting to know Israel, well not all of Israel, but at least part. Intense dude! Booze, Babes, Israeli soldiers, seeing the Holy Land, I'm there.

These are great programs!!! I mean it! Many of our young benefit beyond measure, I even say that many are inspired and go far because of these programs. I do not mean to be malicious, these programs need to be used, taken advantage of, expanded upon, but used to the fullest potential.

While this may present a negative picture of these noble works, it covers a lot of ground, just ask for an honest answer, or listen into the conversations of many participants.

There is a war being fought against Israel in the diaspora. The foot soldiers and canon fodder is none other than our own children, and all of us are responsible.

I have had the good fortune and opportunities to speak to many young people, religious, not religious, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, High School, College campuses, all across the board. They are not prepared for the onslaught waiting for them, some are even being conditioned for it in their own synagogues, as being a "Liberal", or voting "Democrat" seems to have become religions. Religious Movements also have been conditioning their flocks, and with that, you must belong to the proper clubs and adopt their ways, sometimes even blindly.

Even the Israel Advocacy Groups are limping in their efforts and strategies to strengthen us.

Arab funded University Middle East programs are proving to be effective spawning grounds against Israel, along side of "Alternative" Jewish movements, Like Jewish Voice of Peace, Rabbis for Human Rights, even the "Occupy" folk to name a few along with a slew of media outlets claiming to be of a "Liberal", Intellectually advanced nature, but simply proving themselves to be as racist and close minded as your average Imam in Mecca or Dearborn.

See some of the results at Irvine, Columbia, and now U of P, along with many other fine institutions of higher learning.

We have one country, one land, that's it. We may live in many, but there is only one country that will stand up to protect Jews wherever they are, and that country is Israel. We are not perfect, lots of problems, lots of challenges, a long way to go. If we let our children be drawn to our enemies, they will be lost, and then gone.

A wise Rabbi, mentioned to his Congregation, who happen to be very Pro Israel, that it is not enough to have a heated conversation about Israel at the dinner table, not enough to send out thousands of e-mails, that we have to act.

That time has come long ago. Do not let your children, friends and neighbors be led away.

The warning signs are quite clear.


Contact Marc Prowisor at marc@friendsofyesha.com and visit his website: http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com This article is archived at
http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com/ 2012/02/amusement-park-turns-serious.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, February 2, 2012.

Editorial Note:

Israel's treatment of the Negev Bedouins has become highly politicized under the doctrine of "indegeneity" developed by ethnographers and some legal scholars. The doctrine states that "native people's self-evident attachment to place is paramount in the articulation of rights to land;" Oren Yiftachel, a critical geographer, and Alexander Kedar, a critical legal expert, have claimed that Israel, a colonial/apartheid state, has violated the indegenity laws. They excoriate the Israeli government for herding the Bedouins into permanent settlements, confiscating their land and otherwise disrupting their nomadic existence. As IAM reported, Yiftachel and his followers have either overlooked or distorted the complex history of the Bedouins to make the case against Israel. The following article sheds more light on this issue.

Seth J. Franztman and Ruth Kark, "Bedouin Settlement in Late Ottoman and British Mandatory Palestine: Influence on the Cultural and Environmental Landscape, 1870-1948,"

The article is archived at

A short summary is provided:

Following the Arab invasion in the seventh century, Bedouins started to make their way towards the Holy Land. These Bedouin resided in an area that was sparsely populated. According to Ruth Kark and Noam Levin, during the Mamluk period from the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries, "the decline of the coastal towns and settlements paved the way for Bedouins to spread periodically into the coastal plain and valleys." The major tribes of the Negev, Gaza, and the Judean Hills have different histories.

Researchers Eliahu Epstein, Gideon Kressel, and Clinton Baily claim that some of the Bedouin tribes came to the Holy Land following Napoleon's invasion of 1799. Wolf Dieter Hutteroth's and Kamal Abdulfattah's historical-geographical study of Palestine towards the end of the sixteenth century provided details regarding the Bedouin tribes that existed in the Holy Land during the beginning of Ottoman rule. According to their research, these Bedouin tribes that existed in the Holy Land in 1596 no longer existed in the area by the nineteenth century. Regardless, a study done by the British Palestine Exploration Fund found that between 1871 and 1877, there were 67 Bedouin tribes, compared to 43 that existed in 1596, resulting in the conclusion that areas dominated by the Bedouins had increased within what was Mandatory Palestine. For example, the Bedouin Ghawarina tribe was a mixture of different ethnic groups who arrived in the Holy Land in the 1830's in connection to the Egyptian occupation of the country.

The Ottomans viewed the Bedouin as a threat to their authority. According to one Ottoman governor, "on many occasions they abused the trust that the state placed in them. They stole state money, and they unlawfully ceased public property, thus they enriched themselves at the expense of the peasantry and the state." In 1867, the Ottomans sent representatives to punish the Bedouin in Jordan who had harassed hajj caravans. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, Sultan Abdulhabid II sought through his agents to establish settlements for Bedouin and to place loyal Muslim immigrants from the Caucasus and Balkans in areas dominated by nomads. Between 1870 and 1891, the Ottomans attempted to pacify the Bedouin of the Negev at least four times, without much success. These attempts led to construction leading to the establishment of Be'ersheva, Baysan, and Auja Al Hafir, in addition to building in Asluj and Fatish. The result of such policies was the strengthening of the settled peoples at the expense of the Bedouin.

Another Ottoman policy to weaken the Bedouins was to purchase large amounts of state land and to bring in non-Bedouins to cultivate the land. This was the result of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, which defined landholdings precisely, abolished the system of tax farming, and restored the state's rights to the land. After this law was issued, almost all of the land in Palestine was defined as state land. Only three percent of what became mandatory Palestine was privately owned land after this law was passed! The results of this policy were that Arab effendis, and subsequently, Jewish organizations began purchasing lands that the Bedouins used, leading to increased cultivation, the foundation of new settlements, and changes in the Bedouin life-style.

In response to these Ottoman policies, some Bedouins adopted a sedentary life-style. Eight Bedouin villages and hamlets founded after 1870 were recorded in the British Mandate's 1922 census. The same census also noted 77 tribal areas, where nomadism was still dominant. Only three of the eight new Bedouin villages constructed in the late Ottoman period were built on the sultan's former land. The Bedouin tribes that adopted the sedentary way of life included members of the Ghazzawiya, Khuneizer, Safa, Um Ajra, and Baniha tribes.

During the British Mandate, colonial administrators, like the Ottomans, engaged in policies biased against the Bedouin nomadic way of life. The Mandatory Authorities found it difficult to fit the Bedouin into their system of governance, which was based on placing a group within a fiscal and administrative district, and believed that Bedouin ideals contradicted their ideal image for Palestine. Furthermore, the mandatory authorities viewed the Bedouins as a nuisance since they operated outside the bureaucracy. For example, in Dalhamiya, the Arab Hanadi tribe was recognized only as cultivators of the land, since "the village of Dalhamiya had disappeared and Jewish colonies had taken its place." Thus, in response to the Bedouins not fitting into the British Mandatory bureaucratic system, the mandatory authorities adopted the Bedouin Control Ordinance of 1942, which sought to impose a settled way of life upon the Bedouins and gave the authorities the power to tell nomadic peoples to "go to or not to go to or to remain in any specified area." The reasoning for this ordinance was to halt Bedouin raiding, stop illicit grazing, and to keep Bedouin off lands that they didn't own.

However, British Mandatory policies towards the Bedouins in practice differed according to regions. In November 1921, the Ghor-Mudawarra Land Agreement was implemented, which gave Bedouins of the Bayson district 179,545 dunams for three Bedouin tribal areas. Yet the consequences were not what the British intended them to be. It took years to process the land transfers and many of the Bedouins who received land in turn sold the land to Arab effendis or Jewish organizations, resulting in non-Bedouins using the land intended for Bedouins for cultivation and settlement projects, with the exception of the construction of several small villages. Most of these Bedouin either became tenants or moved to other areas. Events, however, transpired differently in the Be'ersheva district, where many mandatory ordinances were not applied, making this district unique in its lack of Bedouin sedentarization in comparison to other areas.

It is important to remember that other locations had different results than both Bayson and Be'ersheva. Thanks to demographic pressures and mandatory policies, the Bedouins built lots of new settlements between 1931 and 1945. In Gaza, one settlement was built; in Ramla, three tribes settled down; in Jericho, three settlements were established; in Jaffa, four tribes built settlements; the Hawarith tribe settled in Tulkarm; in Nablus, there was also a Bedouin settlement; in the Haifa district, three tribes settled in the Jezreel Valley, etc. The estimated population of the new Bedouin villages in 1945 was 27,844 living in more than 2,000 dwellings, mainly in northern and central Palestine. While this represented only 2.8 percent of the Bedouin population at the time, it represented a fundamental shift from a nomadic culture to a more settled way of life.


ARE YOU A DONOR TO ISRAELI UNIVERSITIES? Learn about what is happening on Israeli campuses. Be informed about what is being done with your gifts and generosity.

Bear in mind and speak about anti-Israel Israeli academics when you are in touch with University officials. http://www.Israel-Academia-Monitor.com

Contact IAM by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com and visit their website: http://www.Israel-Academia-Monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, February 2, 2012.

Afghan Pedophilia: A way of life, say U.S. soldiers and journalists

As Act for America notes:

As we noted then, "It's common to find Muslim leaders decrying the "debauchery" and "depravity" of the West, and how this "immorality" is "invading" the Muslim world." What's more, these allegations are frequently used as an excuse for the rise in Islamic terrorism against the West.

America is far from perfect, and it's true that many of the world's porn sites originate in America and western Europe. It's also true that no one is forced to access them.

This below is by Jim Kouri, and it appeared in the Examiner.


Apologists say that Bacha Bazi or 'Boy Play' is a very old cultural practice in Afghanistan and part of that nation's mainstream.

Citing the Afghanistan strategy review, Vice President Joe Biden reported "great progress" in the counterterrorism effort that has significantly degraded al-Qaeda and the Taliban, particularly their leadership. Lagging behind, he said, is progress on the counterinsurgency front — eliminating terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and building a stable Afghan government.

However, not once did Biden — nor Defense Secretary Leon Panetta — mention Afghanistan's dirty secret — a large number of pedophiles and pederasts among the Afghan male population.

Pedophilia is a widely-accepted practice in southern Afghanistan, where "boys are given to older men for the sexual gratification of the elder and the sexual education of the child," say many returning U.S. troops.

Afghans say pedophilia is most prevalent among Pashtun men in the south who comprise Afghanistan's most important tribe.

Apologists say that Bacha Bazi or 'Boy Play' is a very old cultural practice in Afghanistan and part of that nation's mainstream.

When U.S. officials such as President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta discuss the war in Afghanistan and make claims of success in that fledgling democracy, one issue that's avoided is the widespread sexual intercourse between Afghan men and young boys. In non-diplomatic terms, Afghanistan is a haven for child rape, according to several American military officers just returning from the frontlines of the Global War on Terrorism.

In a country that is considered overly repressive due to its adherence to the precepts contained in the Muslim religion's Koran, it's difficult for American service members and diplomats to understand the fact that a large portion of the Afghan male population are pedophiles (adults who enjoy sexual contact with prepubescent children) or pederasts (adults who enjoy sexual relations with pubescent or post-pubescent children).

While Muslims in Iraq have on several occasions stoned homosexuals for their sexual activities, not all Muslims believe pedophilia is a violation of Sharia law. Those who believe in the sacredness and infallibility of the Koran adhere to the teaching that women are sub-human and quasi-slaves, and therefore Muslim men will look for relationships — even sexual relationships — with others of their own gender.

According to Reuters, there is a lot of homosexuality going on in Afghanistan, but those engaging in it don't think of themselves as gay, so that makes it okay since Islam officially disapproves of the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

"They regard themselves as non-gay because they don't "love" the sex object so Allah is happy. These are the men who avoid their wives as unclean. Apparently there is very little love of any kind in Afghanistan, which explains a lot," according to Reuters.

"Having a boy has become a custom for us," Ena Yatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. "Whoever wants to show off should have a boy." [...]

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from a perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghans cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle, according to columnist Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the New York Times.

In Kandahar, a city with a population of about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are a popular — often weekly — pastime. Young boys dress up as females, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home.

A recent State Department report called "dancing boys" a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape." If women dressed and behaved in such a way, they would surely be punished by Muslim men.

Even after marriage, many men keep their boy-lovers, according to former U.S. military personnel who served in Afghanistan. That helps explain why women are compelled to wear clothing that hides their faces and bodies and if they "sin" they are stoned to death in accordance with Islamic law. That same law also forbids homosexuality, but the pedophiles explain that it's not homosexuality since they aren't in love with their boys only fulfilling a bodily need.

Paradoxically, the Taliban frown on sexual relations between men and boys and enforce Sharia law to the letter. Are the followers of Islam, who adopt a more "liberal" approach to practicing their religion, perhaps responsible for the widespread rape of male children in Afghanistan?

So, why are American military forces fighting and dying to protect pedophiles and pederasts in a country considered by many to be the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Why is there hesitation on the part of Obama, Clinton, Panetta and others to discuss the widespread sexual assault of male children in Afghanistan? Could it be that it is politically incorrect to discuss any immoral and unlawful behavior on the part of Muslims? It's quite evident that U.S. politicians may bash Christians without fear of adverse effects on their political careers. But these same leaders will behave as if they are walking on egg shells to avoid even the hint of criticizing Muslims.

In addition, there is always a hesitation to discuss man-on-boy sexual relationship for fear of mentioning the obvious: such a relationship is homosexual in nature.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Kushner, Arlene, February 1, 2012.

How long do we play the role of sitting ducks, instead of taking the offensive against enemies?

Yes, this is a recurring theme of mine, and I've asked this question, in one form or another, several times before. Unfortunately, I'm likely be moved to ask it again in the future.

I ask it now because of the focus of the news, and the speeches delivered at the Herzliya Conference, which ends today.

There is, for example, Aviv Kochavi, head of IDF Intelligence, who spoke this morning. He reported that Israel's enemies have 200,000 rockets and missiles pointed at the country; thousands have a range of hundreds of kilometers, which means that every part of Israel is within target range now.

Is that so? And here we sit?

"The warheads on these missiles contain hundreds of kilograms of explosives, not dozens, as in the past. And their firing precision and ability to hit specific targets is also greater. The rockets are largely located in Lebanon and Syria, with a smaller amount in Gaza — and in Iran, as well, which has thousands of missiles that could reach Israel....Every tenth house in Lebanon is now a weapons depot."

I ask again: And here we sit?

I have never seen myself as having a propensity for violence. But confronted with information such as that above, I find that my desire to do very serious damage to these enemies waxes strong. This makes me a realist who takes "Never Again!" very seriously indeed. Concern about collateral damage is all very humane, and perhaps attention to world reaction is prudent to a point, but we simply cannot be inhibited from making the hits that will protect us. I want us to hit them — the rocket storage areas and the terrorist headquarters, etc. etc. — and hit them hard.

Spoken as a layperson...


For with this all, there is also Iran to contend with. And here it's not just a matter of Israelis playing sitting ducks. Incredibly, it is the world that blithely seeks to play this role, oblivious, or pretending to be oblivious, to what's coming down the road.

There may be disagreements as to the exact timing, but all experts agree that we're approaching Zero Hour: The window for doing something about Iran is closing. This is not just because of their technical ability, but also because of the bunkers they are constructing that make it exceedingly difficult to get to their material and equipment.

Kochavi says that Tehran already has over 100 kilos of uranium enriched to a level of 20% — enough for four atomic bombs. The issue is no longer Iranian capacity to build a bomb, but the political will. As yet, they haven't done so; should they decide to, it would take about a year.

And so, the big question is whether we're going to hit them. If we do, it will have to be soon — perhaps by summer.


James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA, and one of the good guys, says it's time for the US to begin military preparations to stop Iran:

"At some point someone is going to have to decide to use force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I'd argue that those who say we can deal adequately with Iran through deterrence are quite naive.

"National survival is at issue. In the near term that's the case for Israel, but in the somewhat longer term it is [the case] for the US, which from Iran's point of view, is the 'Great Satan.' This is a world-class problem, not an eastern Mediterranean or Persian Gulf problem. The politics of the world will change if this regime gets the bomb."
Source: Huffington Post

The man knows what he's talking about. So who's listening?

Israeli Minister of Security Affairs Moshe Yaalon said today that a major explosion that hit a base near Teheran about a month ago was the site at which a solid fuel propellant missile that would have achieved a range of 10,000 km. was being developed; it would have been able to reach the US.

Americans, do we have your attention yet? Why is there not a national outcry that the American president has launched a new effort to dialogue with Iran? Dialogue??

And via Turkey yet. Turkey, says Yaalon, is helping Iran circumvent sanctions by allowing it to use the Turkish banking system.


Yaalon further says:

"Any facility defended by a human being can be penetrated. Any facility in Iran can be hit, and I speak from experience as the IDF chief of staff...

"The Iranians understand the West has capabilities, but as long as the Iranians don't think that the West has the political stomach and determination to use it they will not stop. Currently they don't think that the world is determined."

Woolsey says air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards in Iran would do it. "They're at the heart of everything repressive internally, or aggressive externally."

He recommends that some five carrier battle groups — consisting of an aircraft carrier, escort vessels and bomber support — be sent to the Indian Oceans.

"What these [battle groups] are capable of doing — should the trigger be pulled — is taking out everything related to the Revolutionary Guards. Not the civilian infrastructure, not the electric grid, not the regular army, not civilian institutions."


Ephraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad, sees what is happening in Syria as an enormous opportunity.
Source: Transatlanticinstitute

"If there is a change in Syria, this will have wide international ramifications... The future of what happens in Damascus will impact all of the Middle East.

"The countries of the world..., make the mistake of seeing Iran as a problem of Iran and Syria as a problem of Syria.

"[Instead] we should have a main interest in ensuring that the Iranian interest is booted out of Syria. Look at Syria and see it as the Achilles heel of Iran."


If I have any hope at all with regard to what the US might do, it is because the Americans have now developed a new 15 ton bunker buster — the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or the "Big Blu" — that is ten times as powerful as its predecessor. GPS-guided, it can go 61 meters underground and break through more than 60 meters (200 feet) of concrete.
Big Blu Mockup Source AFP


Last Tuesday night, which is when I last posted, I reported the early news of the Likud primary count with some enthusiasm. That early count was way off, I learned yesterday. And in the end I was most decidedly not enthusiastic. Moshe Feiglin, challenging Binyamin Netanyahu for the leadership of the party, pulled down some 24% of the vote. Many, myself included, had hoped to see a stronger challenge to the prime minister.


Tuesday was also Republican primary day in Florida. With Mitt Romney the big winner there, he's looking increasingly like the man who will challenge Obama come November. Should this be case, I will hope and pray that he will have sufficient vote-drawing power and feisty endurance in taking on Obama to make it to the White House. I will only have positive and encouraging words for Romney, who certainly has a great deal going for him, in line with my ABO — anybody but Obama — policy.


It had been anticipated that a vote would be taken in the Knesset yesterday with regard to what has been dubbed the "Outpost Law." This is the legislation that would prevent the destruction of so-called "illegal outposts" unless Arabs claiming ownership of the land were able to provide documentation of their claims in court. Netanyahu is against it and has been applying pressure to block its passage.

Legislation sponsor Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi) postponed the vote because he saw that the time was not yet right for securing its passage. "I will not abandon this legislation," he has declared. The vote may be delayed two weeks or more; work is being done to garner sufficient support.

In truth, support exists and the legislation would likely pass if all ministers were allowed to simply vote their conscience.

Orlev deserves kudos for his persistence on a significant issue.


What Netanyahu has finally done, belatedly, is appoint a three person committee — former Foreign Ministry legal advisor Alan Baker, former High Court justice Edmund Levy, and former deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court Tchia Shapiro — to examine land status issues in Judea and Samaria. Peace Now has already objected to Baker.

If this committee operates with any seriousness at all, there will be a great deal to say about its findings and legal implications.


Eight rockets launched from Gaza yesterday struck in the Negev yesterday; there were no injuries.

This seemed to be timed for the visit to Gaza of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. Families of people in Israeli prisons were irritated with him because he refused to meet with them: in fact, shoes were thrown at him.


"The Good News Corner"

An Israeli company, Impulse Dynamics, is has developed a revolutionary new device, the Optimizer III, which is about the size of a pacemaker and is implanted much as the pacemaker is. Utilizing electrical impulses, it stimulates diseased heart muscle tissue to contract more strongly so that blood is pumped through the body more efficiently.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Frank Adam, February 12,2012.

I read the Ed Said "Orientalism" in the Penguin "Silver Jubilee" paperback edition a dozen years back and being a retired English teacher and History graduate was on the look out for the hyped revision of methodology. On page 177 he gives away his own game in admitting that all disciplines tend to a received opinion an -ism of the moment that best balances existing knowledge with existing known problems — otherwise, "known unknowns and unknown unknowns."

It is worth reading Thomas Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions. Effectively knowledge proceeds on gathering the information then spotting the patterns in it. These are then used to review the existing knowledge base for gaps and consistencies per the new pattern and the gaps spotted are investigated for new data and amendments to the pattern / paradigm. Then the cycle re-starts. Nobels go to those who crack the knowledge or divine the paradigm or transfer a method or paradigm which moves progress in the new transferee's field. This also applies in war and engineering: Roman infantry effectively operated cavalry tactics of tight intervaled sub-formations and in World War I AA and field artillery both took to the centrally directed methods of warships' separate spotters and gunners. Steam and petrol tech also followed the pattern. The first steam engines were stationary mine pumps and assembled by local smiths bricklayers etc. then they were transferred to ships and rail and their auxiliary machinery transferred between the uses. First petrol gas and diesel technicians came out of the existing steam engineers and designs and in 1914 when airforces had to expand quickly they took their motor engineers literally from the still experimental automobile industry. Then the best tank engines in both wars were adapted aviation engines.

The sensation of the publication of "Orientalism" was a case of the press and media being largely staffed by literature graduates looking for some convenient bolshy excuses to kick over the traditional Western case of interest in the Levant which culminated in the Mandates because the Turks made a mistaken bet on Germany in 1914. The press are not always historians and live off sensations — Don't spoil the story with the details of the truth. Besides in its time context Orientalism made an easy case for sympathy for "poor Arabs" being unjustly misunderstood and in his own text Ed Said evidently knows French but has not looked at the massive German corpus of work neither directly nor in translation — and the Germans in the 19th and 20th centuries were sympathetic to the Moslem World if nothing else to turn it against the British and French.

I hope the above can be of use to pan Said a bit more which he deserves.

He was given undue kudos for method and analysis which he did not deserve, as his book is pure polemic rant with little actual pedagogical "engineering".

Contact Frank Adams by email at ffrankadams@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Edoardo Recanati, February 1, 2012.

Israel is facing an impossible alternative: more painful wars or negotiations in which our enemies want everything and we have nothing to give away... as this Land belongs to our descendants, not yet born. We have to find a third way.

There is an original new theory, based exclusively on the words of the Bible, showing how King Solomon put the Ark of Covenant in a place where it still is, in the Temple Mount. Visit the site www.israelhai.org

I believe that, if this theory will be spread among many people, it would put the Arabs in serious embarrassment. As a matter of fact, they deny our history and claim it is all an invention. So, why did they cemented closed the Golden Gate? What are they afraid of? That the Messiah would go through that Gate? And why did they perform huge illegal works on the Mount, forbidding any control? Why did they throw 400 trucks of rubble... finely ground beyond recognition? Are they indeed afraid of a story they deny? Here comes this theory which exposes how the Ark, containing the Tablets of the Law written by the hand of God, could be under the feet of they children when they play soccer on the Mount every Friday.

Contact the poster at edoardore34@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Louis Rene Beres, February 1, 2012.

Under longstanding international law, every government's most basic and incontestable obligation is the assurance of protection to its citizens.


On January 16, 2003, the "Project Daniel" Group advised then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.

This report, which contained substantial legal and strategic recommendations, urged the prime minister to suitably enhance Israel's deterrence and defense postures; to consider a prompt end to deliberate nuclear ambiguity (if Iran should be permitted to become nuclear); and to appropriately refine pertinent preemption options. It also concluded that Israel should not expect stable coexistence with a nuclear Iran and that active national defense should be increased and strengthened accordingly.

Israel's active defense strategy involves mutually reinforcing the Arrow, Iron Dome, and, in the future, Magic Wand systems. To adequately protect against a potential WMD attack from Iran, however, these advanced elements of ballistic missile defense are not enough. They must be complemented by improved Israeli nuclear deterrence and a capacity for viable conventional first strikes against selected Iranian military and industrial targets.

Under no circumstances, advised Project Daniel, should Israel assume that a safe and durable "balance of terror" could ever be created with Tehran.

Generally, in strategic thinking, deterrence logic must be based on an assumption of enemy rationality. This assumption might not always be warranted in the case of Iran. Any purported analogy between Iran and the US deterrence relationship with the former Soviet Union would be facile, or simply misguided.

If Iran's current leadership could somehow meet the core test of rationality, always valuing national survival over other preferences or combinations of preferences, there could still remain intolerable security risks to Israel. In part, these risks would be associated with Tehran's expectedly problematic command and control of any future nuclear capabilities. For example, even a determinedly rational Iranian leadership could base critical nuclear decisions upon erroneous information, assorted computer errors, or fragile predelegations of launch authority.

The related vulnerability of command and control to violent regime overthrow in Tehran must also be taken into account by decision makers in Jerusalem. Ironically, there can be no assurances that any new or "improved" regime in Iran would necessarily pose a diminished security threat to Israel.


IF ISRAEL'S active defense systems were presumed to be 100 percent effective, even an irrational Iranian adversary armed with nuclear or biological weapons could be kept at bay without defensive first strikes or any threats of retaliation. But no ballistic missile defense system can ever be "leak proof."

Terrorist proxies in ships or trucks, not missiles, could deliver Iranian nuclear attacks upon Israel. In such low-tech, but distinctly high consequence assaults, there would be no security benefit to Israel from its deployed anti-missile defenses.

Israel can never depend entirely upon its anti-ballistic missiles to defend against future WMD attacks from Iran any more than it can rely entirely on nuclear deterrence. This does not mean that active defense is a less than vital part of Israel's larger security apparatus.

It is vital, but it is not sufficient.

Every state has a right under international law to act preemptively when facing potentially existential aggression.

The 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice even extends such lawful authority to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in certain residual or last-resort circumstances. For now, however, any purposeful Israeli resort to "anticipatory self-defense" would surely be non-nuclear.

Nonetheless, it is quite likely that the operational window for any such cost-effective conventional tactic has already closed and that Israel would decline any remaining nuclear preemption option, albeit lawful. For now it seems that any Israeli "preemption" would necessarily be far more limited, perhaps involving the targeted killing of selected enemy scientists or military figures and substantially expanded cyber-warfare.

If Iran should be allowed to become nuclear, in plain contravention of its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, Israel would immediately need to enhance the credibility of its (presumed) nuclear deterrent. This robust second-strike strategic force, hardened, multiplied and dispersed, would have to be fashioned, observably, to inflict a decisive retaliatory blow against selected enemy cities. In military terms, this means for Israel a more openly counter value-targeted nuclear force.

Significantly, the dangers of a nuclear Iran could directly impact the US.

While it might still be several years before any Iranian missiles could strike American territory, the US could still become as vulnerable as Israel to certain nuclear-armed terrorist surrogates.

In this connection, any American plan for a "rogue state" anti-ballistic missile shield, for us, and for our NATO allies, would have precisely the same limited protection benefits as Israel's already-deployed active defense systems.

As long as Iran proudly announces its literally genocidal intentions toward Israel, while simultaneously and illegally developing nuclear weapons and infrastructures, Jerusalem has no reasonable choice but to protect itself with the best means available.

Under longstanding international law, every government's most basic and incontestable obligation is the assurance of protection to its citizens.

The writer is professor of international law at Purdue University. He is the author of many major books, articles and monographs on nuclear strategy and nuclear war. This piece originally appeared on the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies website.

To Go To Top

Posted by Various Readers, February 2012.

1920 San Remo Conference Source of Palestinian Dilemma

From Barbara Sommer (29feb12)

RAMALLAH, April 25, 2011 (WAFA) — Fatah movement considered San Remo Conference in 1920 the root of all Palestinian catastrophes and sufferings, in its statement for the Mobilization and Organization Commission published on Monday marking the 25th anniversary of the conference.

In San Remo conference, the principal allied powers of World War I agreed to entrust the administration of Palestine to the British Mandatory which will be responsible for putting into effect the Belford Declaration of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

"It's not strange that Zionist gangs considered San Remo Conference as the 'Magna Carta' of the Jews; reference to the famous British charter by which most monarchy authority were omitted, which was supported by Britain, France, Italy and Japan, the statement said.

It added that the increase in number of countries recognizing the Palestinian state indicates the righteousness of our cause, and out right in self-determination.

Fatah called on US, Israel's main ally, Britain, the international community and the world's human rights to end Israeli aggression against Palestinians and to recognize the Palestinian state within 1967 boarders before September entitlement.

San Remo

Faces of Israel: From LA to Berkeley University, Lecha Dodi by the Maccabeats, Israel ... Never Let Me Go... and More

From 12 Tribe Films(29feb12)

Faces of Israel: From LA to Berkeley University

Lecha Dodi by the Maccabeats

Israel ... Never Let Me Go ...

History of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebecca - #3

Temple of Esther & Mordechai — Short Film — YouTube

From David Pisanti (29feb12)


Glenn Beck at the Gush Katif Museum event, Feb. 22, 2012

From AFSI (29feb12)

Glenn Beck, Part 1

Glenn Beck, Part 2

Glenn Beck, Part 3

Glenn Beck, Part 4


From Fred Reifenberg (29feb12)

Tsunami viewed from a car

A so called activist attacks an Israeli and steals his precious water

From ElderofZiyon website (28feb12)

thieving activists

How far can we go "New Zealands Fearsom HAKA" performed by Israelis via Video.

From Roger Bodle (28feb12)


My Apology to President Karzai on Behalf of Americans

From Billy Mills (27feb12)

"I'm sorry"

: Music Video — I have no other country, Beautiful Israel, A poignant video message to the UN Secretary General and More

From 12 Tribe Films (26feb12)

I have no other country even if my land is aflame

Beautiful Israel

A poignant video message to the UN Secretary General

Snow on the Hermon - 2012

Why Muslim Student Group Concerned the NYC Police Department, Must watch video

From Jerome S. Kaufman (25feb12)

I Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) News, February 24, 2012 Steven Emerson, Executive Director

II Must watch video. Canadian Muslim, born in Pakistani, tries desperately to wake us up.


Great video! An American woman apologizes

From Dr. History (25feb12)

This is one woman's 'apology' to Afghan President Karzai

The debate

From Fred Reifenberg (25feb12)


Changing the requirements for 'Natural Born Citizen'

From Billy Mills (23feb12)

know Obama is not an American and is serving illegally and unconstitutionally, and the efforts they made are recorded in the Congressional Record, attempting to change the Constitution so he could serve legally.

EVERYONE that cares about and loves this Constitutional Republic, Absolutely MUST watch and

forward this video!!!!!!


Douglas Murray: The Muslim War Against Europe

From Steve Baum (22feb12)

Muslim war against Europe

This is why I did't listen to the 2012 "State of the Union Address

From Dr. History (22feb12)

Words to the effect that: "The security of Israel is one of our major concerns" — 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and to AIPAC, on March 4, 2012 — Just words in comparison to his actions revealing he is the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history.

More rhetoric to the effect that: "We will negotitate and employ meaningful sanctions against Iran." 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 — thus giving Iran four additional years to complete their nuclear weapons program.


"familiar rhetoric, failed record"

The Women of the IDF, Learning about Abraham and Sarah from Top Jewish Historian, The Miracle of Israel and More

From 12 Tribe Film (22feb12)

The Women of the Israel Defense Forces

Origin of Judaism — Abraham & Sarah — #2

Israel: A Remarkable Miracle

Camp Simcha's Mendel asks: Did you put on Tefillin today?

Shavei Israel (info.shavei@gmail.com) in Poland (info.shavei@gmail.com)

From Shavei Israel (21feb12)

Hidden Jews of Poland

Israel Archive: Building the City of Arad, Netanyahu: Israeli Hero Against Al-Dura Lies, From Times Square To Jerusalem and More

From 12 Tribe Film (21feb12)

Israel Archive: Building the City of Arad

Netanyahu: Israeli Hero Against Al-Dura Lies

From Times Square To Jerusalem

World Must Stop Iran Now from Attacking Israel

From Gerald A. Honigman(21feb12)

Video 1

Video 2


From Dr. History (20feb12)

President Obama Announces the 2012 Launch of "African-Americans for Obama."

Can you imagine the outrage if Newt was pushing "Whites for Gingrich"? ... or Romney with "Mormons for Mitt"?

African-Americans for Obama

The Spirit of The IDF, Psalm 23 Desire of Desires, Never Again - And More

From 12 Tribe Films (20feb12)

Psalm 23 Desire of Desires by Shirei HaLevi'im

The Spirit of The IDF

eBay selling Western Wall Stones?

National Victory, Blow to Palestinian Propaganda

From Roger Bodle (19feb12)

Prime Minister: The al-Dura case is a victory for justice and truth — Israel's victory over Arab propaganda's long tale of lies.


Moving "Jerusalem United" Video, Planting Trees with IDF Soldiers and More

From 12 Tribe Films (19feb12)

Jerusalem United

Taglit Birthright Celebrates Tu Bishvat with the IDF

US to cut Israel funding

Caroline Glick at the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem

Worth Reading

From Susana K-M (18feb12)

Rubio at SBA List Gala

More of the iceberg becoming exposed?

From John D. Trudel (17feb12)

"Is it any wonder that we only see innovation when the government is not footing the bill?" Socialism hasn't worked anywhere, but Obama is a hard core leftist and he will not willingly give up his ideological agenda.

It's not just Obama's phony Green Jobs. The same market realities and economic laws also work for homes and for Health Care, and the same human frailties exist. These basics are why capitalism has produced prosperity and jobs consistently, and why central governments over the centuries never have. Our Founding Fathers knew this, and we forget our history and its lessons at our peril.

Corrupted Capitalism

ObamaCare Unconstitutional

Delta flies to a non-existent place

From Yuval Zaliouk (6feb12)

You may have heard that Delta Airlines published the "Palestinian occupied territories" as one of their destinations. Of course there is no airport in the "Palestinian Territories" even if there were such a location to begin with. In order to get to any place in Judea & Samaria, one needs to fly to Ben Gurion Airport which is near Tel Aviv, in ISRAEL!!!!

The following hilarious conversation is a recording of a true call between a Sacha Baron (Borat) kind of imposter and a Delta booking agent. The caller insists on being taken to the "occupied Palestinian territories" as advertised on the Delta site.

Have a big laugh. It is hilarious if not tragicomic.


PS. Since Delta was thus exposed, the airline removed the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" from its list of destinations. Sorry people, you will have to continue to fly to Tel Aviv, in Israel.

Delta retreats.

The Candy Man" & It isn't Sammy Davis, Jr.

From Dr. History (16feb12)

Our current mess, nicely summarized in a great song. Enjoy and pass it on. Most importantly remember the message come election day!!

The Candy Man

Hebrew music — G-d Gave You as a Present, The Jewish People — Unity and Diversity, CNN: Israel is Paradise for Africans. Apartheid? and More

From 12 Tribe Films (16feb12)


Israeli Water Technology

Getting the Facts Straight on Palestine

The Truth About the Refugees: Israel Palestinian Conflict

Maya Plisetskaya was the greatest ballerina that ever lived according to the critics.

From Fred Reisenberg (16feb12)

Maya Plisetskaya was the greatest ballerina that ever lived according to the critics. Born in Russia she was ostracized for years for being Jewish. Her talent and genius made her internationally famous. She retired at 65. This video is beyond amazing.

Maya Plisetskaya, ballerina

Learn Hebrew Phrases — Hotel Check-In

From Jacob Richmann (15feb12)

Hotel Check-In

From 12 Tribe Film (15feb12)

Jewish Music Video: Nachamu Ami

Israel — Not gonna take it

Israel Healing African Terror Victim

50 Strong For Israel!

Anti-Semite speaking at three California state university campuses at taxpayer expense

From Sergio HaDaR Tezza (15feb12)

An anti-Semitic speaker is being featured at three California state university campuses — Fresno State, Cal. Poly San Luis Obispo and Cal. State Northridge — at taxpayer expense (Hat Tip: Amcha Initiative viaTwitter). What — no Berkeley and no Irvine? I'm shocked...

Ian Pappe spewing forth

Israel Healing African Terror Victim — PLEASE WATCH

From Roger Bodle (14feb12)

The only piece of information missing in this touching segment is that Pastor Umar Mulinde is an apostate. As such, Islam demands his death penalty. Pastor Umar Mulinde was viciously attacked in his home country of Uganda in response to his work as a preacher. Friends from Israel's JerusalemOnlineU.com jumped in to help, bringing him to Israel for treatment in Tel HaShomer Sheba hospital's burn unit.

African terror victim in Israel.

Obama puts heat on fox.. scary

From Roger Bodle (14feb12)

Sean Hannity has been trying to show this and has been blocked by the Obama administration. Video.

The Porcelain Unicorn. The best 3-minute film I've ever watched.

From GWY (14feb12)

A heart warming story of human kindness. Enjoy! Legendary British film director Sir Ridley Scott launched a global film making contest for aspiring directors. It's titled "Tell It Your Way." The film could be no longer than three minutes, contain only 6 lines of narrative, and be a compelling story.

The winner was "Porcelain Unicorn" from American director Keegan Wilcox. It's a story of the lifetimes of two people who are totally opposite, yet, very much the same — all told in less than three minutes. I think you'll see why it won.

The porcelain unicorn

What Marxists do to achieve control. It's happening here.

From Billy Mills(14feb12)

A bone-chilling video.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. "Jerry" Boykin

Chazak Amenu — We stand as one with Israel, CNN: Israel is Paradise for Africans. Aprtheid?

From 12 Tribe Films (14feb12)

Chazak Amenu — We stand as one

Israel's Fighting Women

: CNN: Israel is Paradise for Africans. Apartheid?

100% Electric Cars get on the Israeli Roads


From Samuel Levinson (13feb12)


Too bad these are so old that the color and everything aren't the greatest, but still you can have a good laugh.....


Video 1

Video 2

Video 3

G-d Gave You as a Present, Fast Train to Jerusalem is Coming Near and More

From 12 Tribe Films (13feb12)

Hebrew music — G-d Gave You as a Present

Fast Train to Jerusalem is Coming Near

Chevra — Seeking out G-d

Getting the Facts Straight on Palestine

Music Video. The Jewish People — Unity and Diversity and More

From 12 Tribe Films (12feb12)

The Chevra — Yhay Shlomo

The Jewish People — Unity and Diversity

Vanessa Hidary: Hebrew Mamita

"Dry Bones": 40 Years of Zionist Cartooning

Charlie Chaplin's Inspirational Speech

From Hal Rosenthal (12feb12)

One of the most inspirational speeches in recorded history was given by a silent comedian by the name of Charlie Chaplin.

Charlie Chaplin


From Aaron Seruya (9feb12)

Most educated people know this stuff in the video. Unfortunately most of the rest of the world don't. View this short video and get just a small part of the whole TRUTH about the so called "Palestinians" and Israel. I would also recommend a book called "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters.......just to start learning a bit more of the real truth.


Manufacturing hitech trucks IN ISRAEL for the US Army

From YogiRUs(9feb12)


Syria...new analysis and related You Tube...

From Gerald A. Honigman (9feb12)


Thank you' from Japan...to all who helped last year!!

From Arlene Peck (9feb12)

Didn't hear of lot of outcry from the people of Japan following this tragedy. Pretty classy people to put this out. Worth viewing. Never heard of any country doing this.......

Thank you from Japan

From Errol Phillips (9feb12)

Syria Videos Show Tragedy

Obama Blames Founding Fathers for his Failures

Rejoicing Jerusalem, IDF Training Video, Interview with Mayim Bialik Jewish Actor on Judaism and More

From 12 Tribe Film (9feb12)

Music Video — Rejoicing Jerusalem>

IDF 890 paratroopers the end of training

Mayim Bialik Jewish Actor on Judaism


From GWY (8feb12)

If you haven't seen this Brit before, you've missed an extraordinarily erudite speaker. He is serious when he is funny and he is funny when he is serious. And, boy, is he on point! This is his latest, and I think the first of 2012.


Jewbilation — "The Sound of Shabbos", Israeli Water Technology and More

From 12 Tribe Films (8feb12)

Jewbilation — "The Sound of Shabbos"

Israeli Water Technology

New Youth Clubhouse in Efrat

How to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict — Naftali Bennett

Feiglin To Power

From Lemkin Realty (8feb12)

Moshe Feiglin

Pat Condell on "Usefull Idiots for Palestine"

From Fred Reifenberg (7feb12)


Good News from Israel

From Roger Bodle (6feb12)

Good news

Twenty Funny Hebrew Commercials

From Jacob Richman(6feb12)

Funny Videos

Keeping the Faith in Homesh by Ethan Bronner

From Robin Ticker (6feb12)

Please watch this video. The New York Times captured the settlers authentically I believe.


Lock and Load — The Work of an IDF Weapons Instructor, Israel Archive: Video of Golda Meir, For Heaven's Sake! and More

From 12 Tribe Films (6feb12)

IDF soldiers up front and personal

Israel Archive: Video of Golda Meir

For Heaven's Sake!

Israel Building Road in Sinai Desert — Israel Archival Footage

incredible sounds and performance

From Fred Reifenberg(6feb12)

From last night's unforgettable performance both the guest violinist, and conductor. In Haifa with the Israel philharmonic orchestra

Philharmonic 1

Philharmonic 2

how? don't ask me, ask your innards

From Fred Reifenberg(6feb12)

Show this to the grandchildren

Cheap Flights

From Samuel Levinson (5feb12)

For everyone who has ever tried to book a flight......
Only the Irish could pull off the F word so well.

Cheap flights

Music Video: Israel Defense Forces: I Can't Wait ... To See You Again, Israeli Philharmonic Playing Jewish Chasidut Music, San Remo: The Legal Right to Palestine

From 12 Tribe Films (5feb12)

IDF: I Can't Wait .. To See You Again.

Israeli Philharmonic Playing Jewish Chasidut Music

San Remo: The Legal Right to Palestine


From Jerome S. Kaufman (5feb12)

The most frightening video, describing our future, that I have ever seen.

Please watch this.

Controversial artist depicts obama trampling the Constitution

From Fred Reifenberg (4feb12)

Obama and the Constitution


From Dr. History (3feb12)

suprising advocate against the unholy trinity mentioned above. Well worth your 11 minutes to watch and listen.


Truth Guide

From Yuval Zaliouk (3feb12)

Watch a piece of Israeli pride

Latma — what can you say!

From Paul Rotenberg (2feb12)

Peace Now fights Migron

Viewer discretion advised

From Mark Mix (2feb12)

video on union violence.

How to deal with the appeasers of genocide

From Robert Hand (2feb12)

Douglas Murray

Tribute to Israel: A Beautiful People, Land and Promise, Awesome Music Video for Torah Portion of the Week

From 12 Tribe Films (1feb12)

Tribute to Israel

Shira Chadash Boys Choir

Golden Bell — City of David

IDF: We Need Proactive "Hasbara", not Reactive

IDF: Need proactive hasbara

Israel Forever!

Tourists in Israel Singing Havenu Shalom Aleichem

SPECIAL MOVIE: Line Of Fire, The Six Day War

Band of Brothers-Liberation of Concentration Camp

The Truth About the Refugees: Israel Palestinian Conflict

Rick Santorum's fantastic new ad that he is running in Missouri

From Marlene Young (1feb12)

New Ad

Dr. Steve Carol's song for Arizona's Centeniial Feb 14, 2012

From Steve Carol drhistory@cox.net (1feb12)

Happy 100th, Arizona!!

Why Palestinians Want This Video Removed

From Tatiana Mendoza (1feb12)


12 Tribe Films

From avi@12tribefilms.org (1feb12)

Call to return

Yerushalayim by Yaakov Shwekey

Miracle Story of IDF soldier

Huckabee: preserving Israel's safety vital to USA

2nd Lebanon War

You don't LOOK Jewish

From David Ramati(1feb12)

Watch this ... it is great

Watch video.

Brigitte Gabriel focuses on Islamic infiltration into the American education

From KatariaN (1feb12)

Enclosed herewith please find a speech delivered by Brigitte Gabrielle, Founder of ACT for America. In her speech, Ms. Gabrielle says that Islamists are taking advantage of the loopholes in American Constitution and exploiting them to the hilt. She further says that Saudi Arabia is funding millions of dollars to American Universities to destroy America with the help of home grown Islamic terrorism.

Condition of Hindus in Bharat (India) is worse than that in America. In India, Islamists are using Hindu traitors to destroy Hinduism and India from within. When late Arjun Singh was HRD Minister, Saudi Arabia had given more than one billion dollars to him for the spread of Islam.

Ms. Gabrielle is fighting valiantly and logically against Jihad in America. However, it is a matter of great regret that Hindus have so far not produced cogent and courageous speakers like Ms. Gabrielle to protect Hinduism and India from the clutches of Radical Islamists.

Brigitte Gabrielle

To Go To Top

Home Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web