... ...... Think-Israel

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

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, January 31, 2007.
This is called :Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor" and it was written by Patricia Cohen. It appeared today in the New York Times.

The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.

An essay the committee features on its Web site, ajc.org, titled "...Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," says a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.

In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, "Perhaps the most surprising -- and distressing -- feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State." Those who oppose Israel's basic right to exist, he continues, "whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted."

The essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are seeing not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off condemnations of Israel from onetime allies and respected figures, like former President Jimmy Carter, who titled his new book on the Mideast "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.

The essay, written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an English professor and the director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana University in Bloomington, castigates a number of people by name, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in addition to a number of academics.

Mr. Judt, whose views on Israel and the American Jewish lobby have frequently drawn fire, is chastised for what Mr. Rosenfeld calls "a series of increasingly bitter articles" that have "called Israel everything from arrogant, aggressive, anachronistic, and infantile to dysfunctional, immoral, and a primary cause of present-day anti-Semitism."

A historian at New York University, Mr. Judt said in a telephone interview that he believed the real purpose of outspoken denunciations of him and others was to stifle harsh criticism of Israel. "The link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is newly created," he said, adding that he fears "the two will have become so conflated in the minds of the world" that references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust will come to be seen as "just a political defense of Israeli policy."

The essay also takes to task "Wrestling With Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (Grove Press), a 2003 collection of essays edited by Mr. Kushner and Alisa Solomon. Mr. Kushner said that he and Ms. Solomon took great care to include a wide range of voices in their collection, including those of Ms. Rich, the playwright Arthur Miller and various rabbis.

"Most Jews like me find this a very painful subject," Mr. Kushner said, and are aware of the rise in vicious anti-Semitism around the world but feel "it's morally incumbent upon us to articulate questions and reservations."

Over the telephone, the dinner table and the Internet, people who follow Jewish issues have been buzzing over Mr. Rosenfeld's article. Alan Wolfe, a political scientist and the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, said, "I'm almost in a state of shock" at the verbal assaults directed at liberal Jews.

On H-Antisemitism (h-net.org), an Internet forum for scholarly discussions of the subject, Michael Posluns, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, wrote, "Sad and misbegotten missives of the sort below make me wonder if it is not the purpose of mainstream Jewish organizations to foster anti-Jewishness by calling down all who take from their Jewish experience and Jewish thought a different ethos and different ways of being as feeding anti-Semitism."

Others have praised Mr. Rosenfeld's indictment and joined the fray. Shulamit Reinharz, a sociologist who is also the wife of Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University, wrote in a column for The Jewish Advocate in Boston: "Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites. But I disagree, because in a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to endanger Jews."

Although many of the responses to the essay have referred to its subject as "Jewish anti-Semitism," Mr. Rosenfeld said in a telephone interview that he was very careful not to use that phrase. But whatever it is called, he said, "I wanted to show that in an age when anti-Semitism is resurgent, Jews thinking the way they're thinking is feeding into a very nasty cause."

In his essay he says that "one of the most distressing features of the new anti-Semitism" is "the participation of Jews alongside it." Like others, Mr. Cohen of The Washington Post complained that the essay cherry-picked quotations. "He mischaracterized what I wrote," he said. "I've been critical of Israel at times, but I've always been a defender of Israel." He did add, however, that a wide range of writers were named, some of whom have written inflammatory words about Israel. "He has me in a very strange neighborhood," Mr. Cohen said.

The dispute goes beyond the familiar family squabbling among Jews that is characterized by the old joke about two Jews having three opinions on a single subject. Bitter debates over anti-Israel statements and anti-Semitism have entangled government officials, academics, opinion-makers and others over the past year, particularly since fervent supporters and tough critics of Israel can be found on the right and the left.

Mr. Wolfe, who has written about a recent rise in what he calls "Jewish illiberalism," traces the heated language to increasing opposition to the Iraq war and President Bush's policy in the Middle East, which he said had spurred liberal Jews to become more outspoken about Israel.

"Events in the world have sharpened a sense of what's at stake," he said. "Israel is more isolated than ever," causing American Jewish defenders of Israel to become more aggressive.

On this point Mr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Wolfe are in agreement. "It's going up a notch or four or five," Mr. Rosenfeld said in an interview. "One of the things that is clear," he said of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attacks, "is that what used to be on the margin and not very serious is becoming more and more mainstream."

Mr. Rosenfeld, who has written and edited more than half a dozen books as well as other publications for the committee, emphasized that policy disagreements were natural and expected. Opposing Israel's settlement of the West Bank or treatment of Palestinians "is, in itself, not anti-Semitic," he writes; it is questioning Israel's right to exist that crosses the line.

But Mr. Judt said, "I don't know anyone in a respectable range of opinion who thinks Israel shouldn't exist." (Mr. Judt advocates a binational state that is not exclusively Jewish, something that many Jews see as equivalent to dissolving Israel). He contends that harsh complaints about Israel's treatment of Palestinians are the real target.

Last year Mr. Judt came to the defense of two prominent political scientists, Stephen M. Walt at Harvard and John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, after they were besieged for publishing a paper that baldly stated (among other things) that anyone critical of Israel or the American Jewish lobby "stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite."

David Singer, the committee's director of research, said the attention Mr. Rosenfeld's essay had drawn was not unexpected. "We certainly thought that it would raise eyebrows in some quarters," he said.

"I think it's an act of courage" on the part of the American Jewish Committee and the author, he added. "It obviously deals with matters of great sensitivity."

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 31, 2007.

This was posted by Baron Bodissey January 25, 2007 on the Infidel Bloggers Alliance
(http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/01/demonic-convergence.html). The original article contains live links to additional information.

I've written previously about the organization called Al-ikhwan al-Muslimeen, also known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Established in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, its goal is to return Islam to its roots in the Koran and the Hadith, purify Muslim practices, and re-establish Islamic governance under the Caliphate.

The Muslim Brotherhood was (and is) a Sunni organization, but that doesn't stop it from working with other branches of Islam that share a common goal of defeating the infidel and overthrowing secular governments.

And now, according to The Politics of CP, there seems to be a link between the Ikhwan and the Sufi terrorist Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, founder of the Muslims of America and Jamaat ul-Fuqra. CP, as the premier online investigator of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, has discovered the apparent connections:

Ikhwanul Muslimun is, in fact, listed in the IRS online database

This was posted by Baron Bodissey on the Infidel Bloggers Allianceof "Charities & Non-Profits". The organization is also listed on two websites listing presumably charitable organizations accepting car donations [here and here]. Interestingly, the address for Ikhwanul Muslimun corresponds to that of the Muslim Parochial School near Hancock [here and here].

Records listing contact names for both Ikhwanul Muslimun and the Muslim Parochial School were then matched to the address of Islamberg, the headquarters compound of Muslims of the Americas (MOA). Incidentally, another "charity", which isn't listed with the IRS, called Hand-to-Hands Inc. is also based at Islamberg. It purports to be the "humanitarian and social welfare arm" of the MOA. International Quranic Open University is yet another arm of the group based in Hancock. MOA, which owns possibly two-dozen settlements like the one in NY throughout the US and claims several thousand members, is the primary front organization for a Pakistan-based Islamist militant group known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra.

MOA has a long history in Brooklyn. An address history search for the individual connected with Ikhwanul Muslimun showed links to addresses in Hancock, Deposit, and Brooklyn, NY among other locales. Another search linked the principal of the Muslim Parochial School to both Brooklyn, NY and Williamsport, PA where an MOA group used to operate.

There are a lot of links to his original sources in CP's post; you'll want to go there to find them, and also to read the rest of his summary. While you're at it you can browse his archives, which contain the most extensive information about Jamaat ul-Fuqra available on the web.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological engine of modern Sunni Islam. It has codified the visceral anti-Western and anti-modern sentiments of the Muslim Middle East, giving its practitioners a well-developed intellectual base and a sophisticated methodology.

A connection between the Ikhwan and MOA comes as no great surprise. There is ample evidence that Hizbullah -- which is Shiite -- is coordinating its efforts with various Sunni groups, including Al Qaeda. Why not extend the cooperative sphere to include Sufi terrorists? All of them share the common goal of exterminating the kuffar and establishing a worldwide Islamic government.

The Demonic Convergence which has formed in the last few decades is seizing the opportunity posed by Western decadence, weakness, and self-loathing. Sayyid Qutb, the great populizer of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote in his 1963 book Milestones (Ma'alim fi al-Tariq):

The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military power has become weak. The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values, which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.

It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with human nature, which is positive and constructive, and which is practicable. Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of life.

More than forty years ago the premise was made clear: The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values, which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.

To complete the Demonic Convergence, all that is necessary is the passive -- or even active -- assistance of the Left within Western countries. The doctrinaire Socialists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Deconstructionists are only too happy to comply, ready to assist with their own suicide.

Fjordman has pointed out the natural synergy that has arisen between the Left and the Islamists:

[T]he fascination with Islamic movements... is partly based on hatred of the West and a belief that the world must be "liberated" from Western civilization, which is the cause of global injustice.

City on FireCan there be a more poignant manifestation of this trend than Denmark's "City on Fire" project, which visualizes with great longing the incineration of Western Civilization? The useful idiots of our own culture are supplying the fuel while radical Islam provides the oxygen for the great conflagration.

The match may already have been put to the tinder. According to Daniel Pipes:

Significant elements in several Western countries - especially the United States, Great Britain, and Israel - believe their own governments to be repositories of evil, and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins.

The various "purifiers" of Islam are well aware of our weaknesses; they show an uncanny ability to get into our culture and borrow what is useful in order to destroy it. Actual weaponry -- the IED, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. -- are part of the plan, but so are political and cultural strategies. The Islamists appropriate our organizational methods, utilize a party system, and borrow freely from Marxist, Green, and Multiculturalist rhetoric to use against us.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is notably effective in all these activities. I have quoted previously from their website:

The work of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to carry the Islamic da'wah in order to change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society. It aims to do this by firstly changing the society's existing thoughts to Islamic thoughts so that such thoughts become the public opinion among the people, who are then driven to implement and act upon them. Secondly the Party works to change the emotions in the society until they become Islamic emotions that accept only that which pleases Allah (swt) and rebel against and detest anything which angers Allah (swt). Finally, the Party works to change the relationships in the society until they become Islamic relationships which proceed in accordance with the laws and solutions of Islam.

That particular Hizb ut-Tahrir website is no longer available -- authorities keep taking down the site, and the group keeps moving it. The current site for the UK Chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir is fairly innocuous as Islamist websites go, which is probably why it's still extant. Britain is one of the few countries where Hizb ut-Tahrir is still legal.

But don't be fooled by the mild taqiyyah versions of the group's ideology. When you drill down to their non-PR sites, that's where you can find the real red meat. Their latest incarnation seems to be here, where it is clearly stated that Hizb ut-Tahrir is "a political party whose ideology is Islam". According to their "About Hizb-ut-Tahrir" page:

"...Hizb-ut-Tahrir must be a political party that undertakes

This was posted by Baron Bodissey on the Infidel Bloggers Alliancewithin the Ummah this task [Islamic governance] and works towards seizing the reins of power through her; thus Hizb-ut-Tahrir is not a spiritual bloc, nor is it a moralistic or a scientific bloc, but rather a political bloc that works towards the management of the Ummah's affairs as a whole according to Islam."

It's not a spiritual bloc; it's a political bloc.

Its ideology is Islam.

Its intention is to wage jihad until the goal of a worldwide Islamic government is reached.

When the Islamists' goal is achieved, there will be plenty of time to sort out the Sunni-Shiite-Sufi issues. Lots of time to line up the "false Muslims" against the wall and give them the justice of the bullet. Bloodshed in the name of the Prophet can continue indefinitely, even after all the infidels are gone, until Islam is really, really, 100% pure.

In the meantime, the Demonic Convergence is upon us. Radical Islamic groups are working together, sharing information and manpower, planning and executing strategies against the kuffar. The talking heads and PR firms lie and obfuscate, but if you look beneath the surface you can find their goals clearly stated, the agenda laid out for all to see.

And the useful idiots are lining up, falling over each other in their eagerness to abase themselves before the Legions of the Prophet.

Islam, as it is presently practiced by the majority of devout Muslims, is a political ideology. It is about power, about taking it from the infidel and entrusting it to the vanguard of the true believers.

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler are the role models. The Party's purpose is to realize the revolution, enforce discipline, and instruct the people. It requires absolute dedication, absolute ruthlessness, and allows no compromises except for temporary and expedient ones.

Say good-bye to the Worldwide Socialist Revolution. Say hello to the Worldwide Caliphate.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Steve Carol, January 31, 2007.

Again and again one hears and reads ("A Rabbinic Response to President Carter,"Jewish News, Jan. 12, 2007) the often repeated mantra that the (emphasis added) solution to the ongoing 135+ year Arab-Muslim war against the Jewish people in the Land of Israel is a "two-state solution." U.S. policy for a generation has stressed an Israeli and Palestinian Arab state "living side-by-side in peace and security." Would that be the case. Yes, it is a goal of the current Israeli government, the same government that unilaterally retreated from Gaza and for its trouble has received constant rocket bombardment and terrorist threat from that territory. Simply put a "two-state" solution can only occur if both (emphasis added) parties genuinely want that.

This conveniently forgets the historic fact that since 1921 there has been two states formed out of the original British Mandate of Palestine which was to be the Jewish National homeland. The larger of these, 35,468 sq. miles (out of 46.339 sq. miles) - some 77% of the original British Mandate, is now called "Jordan" -- a state artificially created by Winston Churchill in late March 1921. Churchill would boast "I created Trans-Jordan [now Jordan] with the stroke of a pen on a Sunday afternoon in Cairo." At first, Emir (later King) Abdullah I, wanted to call his kingdom "Palestine" but the British discouraged him of that idea stating that the name "Palestine" smacked of imperialism. Some 80% of Jordan's population is Palestinian Arab.

The remaining 23% of the original mandate became the re-established State of Israel and after open Arab aggression, three regions came under Arab occupation: Gaza, under Egyptian military control, and Judea and Samaria, what the Arabs would soon name "West Bank," unilaterally annexed by Trans-Jordan.

Thus, more precisely, the present day calls for a "two state" solution actually mean a "three state" solution. The Palestinian Arabs will have TWO states, Jordan and the yet to be declared "Arab state of Palestine." But is that the final real intention of the Arab-Muslim side in the conflict?

Since its formation in May 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in its covenant has called for a "one-state solution" -- a "Falastin" from "min al nahr ila al-bahr" (from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea). Such a state would encompass present day Israel, Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. It would mean no more Israel. There is strong evidence to support the contention that such a Palestinian Arab state would also encompass Jordan. The events of September 1970 -- "Black September" -- and the subsequent Jordanian civil war came close to a PLO victory over the Hashemite monarchy of King Hussein. The Hamas Charter echoes this desire for a one-state solution, as do the official pronouncements from Hezbollah, Al Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Brigades. They all aspire to eliminate Israel, but they choose different tactics to get the desired result.

Furthermore all Palestinian Arab groups demand as a sine qua non, "haq al-auda" (the right of return). In this manner the Jewish state would be demographically overrun by anyone claiming to be a "Palestinian Arab," ensuring the destruction of the Jewish state.

It is long overdue that talk of a "two state" solution be exposed for what it really is. Two states, one Jewish, the other Arab already exist within the boundaries of the original British Mandate. To promote a "three state" solution for two peoples, especially when the Arabs already have 21 sovereign states in existence, is folly.

Now, there is serious talk of allowing the Israeli Arabs, many of whom consider themselves "Palestinian" Arabs, to have their own autonomy or perhaps join a new Palestinian state. Thus there would be a "three-and-a-half state" solution, with the half being the rump of an ever-shrinking Jewish state. The Arabs have long demanded a return to the June 4, 1967 lines, with calls by some already publicly demanding a return to the 1947 U.N. Partition plan borders. Given a three and a half state solution, Israel would be reduced to the 1937 Peel Commission partition recommendation -- a nation 120 miles long and between 38 and 9 miles wide.

In their eagerness to promote and force a "two state" solution to the conflict, the United States, the European Union, the Israeli left, and many other nations are not going to achieve peace. Rather they guarantee more war as the Arabs -- the Palestinian Authority and its PLO components, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their Arab-Muslim supporters continue their drive -- militarily, politically, economically, and diplomatically -- to achieve their true goal -- a "final solution" -- a one state solution with Israel eradicated from the map!

Dr. Steve Carol is Prof. of History (retired), Official Historian "Middle East Radio Forum" (www.middleeastradioforum.org). He lives in Scottsdale, Arizona. Contact him at drhistory@cox.net

This article was submitted January 16, 2007

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, January 31, 2007.

All I can say about the article below is wow. I don't know how old it is, or if it's been published anywhere, but the author's e-mail address is listed under his name if you wish to contact him and find out. To me, it is a timeless piece of wisdom.

Mr. Haynes, you are a wise man in a world of fools.

I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, I wish to add: I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without paying heed to it, or sending it on, is part of the problem. Lets quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the world and it's citizens. Best we support them.

William Haynes

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Dann, January 31, 2007.

Without a practical and specific alternative agenda all of our analyses and insights are irrelevant.

The "New Paradigm for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is a suggestion. based on the work of Prof Martin Sherman (TAU). It is presented in the hope that people will use and disseminate it, and/or critique it and perhaps suggest even better proposals.

This proposal strikes at the heart of the problem -- the so-called "Palestinian refugees" and the "two-state solution" that is intended to destroy Israel.

This article appeared in Arutz-7 and is archived at

Moshe Dann

Attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by political solutions involving the establishment of a second Palestinian entity in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) have not only failed, they have encouraged terrorism and violence, especially within Palestinian society. An alternative to the "two-state solution," therefore, is essential to achieve peace.

Palestinians are unwilling and incapable of achieving and maintaining statehood.

Palestinian Unwillingness

The Palestinians have rejected every viable proposal that would have afforded them a state -- from the 1947 partition plan to the 2000 proposals by Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Palestinian Incapability

The Palestinian national movement has enjoyed conditions far more favorable than almost any other national independence movement since World War II: widespread international endorsement of their cause; unmitigated and generous support from the United Nations, the European Union and world superpowers; highly sympathetic coverage by all major media organizations; and over a decade of Israeli administrations who have acknowledged (and at times even identified with) the national aspirations of the Palestinians.

In spite of this, the Palestinian national movement has been unable to go beyond terrorism and Jew-hatred. No other national independence movement has brought such failure, privation and penury to its people and disappointment to its supporters.

Paradigm Shift

The reason for these failures is that Palestinian nationalism is driven less by lack of Palestinian self-determination and more by the very the existence of Jewish self-determination; less by the aspiration to establish a Palestinian state and more by the aspiration to destroy a Jewish state.

Rejecting the right of Jewish self determination and attempting to destroy Israel is unacceptable by any international standards and, thus, must be considered illegitimate.

In order to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, therefore, the establishment of a Palestinian State must be removed from the international agenda. The humanitarian predicament of Palestinians residing in Israeli-administered areas must be resolved in humanitarian, not political, terms.

The Humanitarian Paradigm must replace the Political Paradigm. This can only be done if the current Palestinian narrative, which fuels the Political Paradigm is delegitimized. The delegitimization of the Palestinian narrative is a vital prerequisite to any comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue. Proposal

A comprehensive humanitarian solution to the Palestinian issue entails three major elements:

1. The dissolution of UNRWA. This is an essential prerequisite for any comprehensive, durable solution of the Palestinian issue. UNRWA exists solely to assist Palestinian "refugees," while all other refugees in the world are dealt with by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Only UNRWA offers "refugee" status to all Palestinians and their descendants.

This results in a constantly increasing number of "Palestinian refugees"; whereas, in other cases, the number of refugees declines over time. In fact, if the UNHCR's otherwise universal definition were applied to the Palestinian case, the number of refugees would decline from 4-5 million to a few hundred thousand (at most); i.e., by over 90%.

UNWRA is perpetuating the very problem it should have eliminated.

2. The dissolution of UNWRA will end the ethnic discrimination of Palestinians as refugees, most of whom have been living in the Arab countries without rights. They must be allowed to become citizens of the countries in which they now reside or in another Arab country of their choice.

3. Generous relocation and resettlement grants will be offered to Palestinians living in Israeli administered territories on an individual basis, and not via corrupt and terrorist-based official Palestinian organizations. The remaining -- and drastically reduced -- numbers of Palestinian refugees should be placed under the auspices of UNHCR, in accordance with the accepted practice for all other refugee groups.

This will: a) extricate them from their humanitarian plight; b) free them from the yoke of generations of misrule by their leadership; and c) ensure the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews.

A survey conducted among the Palestinians in Nov. 2004 indicates that only about 15% of the Palestinian population resident in Israeli-administered areas would reject such an offer. By contrast, over 70% would accept some form of material compensation as an inducement to emigrate permanently from the areas currently under Israeli administration.

The economic cost of such a policy of humanitarian relocation and resettlement would be far less expensive than any other proposal. It would also eliminate dependence on terrorist groups.

The proposed initiative is a "win-win" initiative that will:

* alleviate, and even eliminate, the humanitarian plight of individual Palestinians;

* ensure the continued security and survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people;

* provide a significant boost to the economies of the developing world; and

* transform poverty-stricken refugees into affluent emigres.

Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, January 31, 2007.

This is on Doris Wise Montrose's website (http://www.cjhsa.org)

now missing for over five months after being abducted by Hamas and Hezbollah, were the primary cause for Israel to take action in Lebanon, and the release of these soldiers still remains a tenet of the UN negotiated ceasefire. This fact seems to have been forgotten by the media and those who continue to work against the best interests of Israel and subvert the policy of the United States and the Middle East. The debate has now degenerated into a prisoner exchange program, which was not part of the wording in UN Resolution 1701, no matter how one might try and read between the lines.

The agony of the families of these kidnapped Israeli soldiers is extreme. They have not heard a word regarding the fate of their loved ones, who are being held captive for political ransom.

It is crucial that you join us on a full-scale advocacy effort to help bring about an end to the inhumanity of captivity and to call for the release of all Israeli MIAs and POWs.


Ehud (Udi) Goldwasser (Age 31)

Udi was born in Nahariya, and is the son of Miki and Shlomo and older brother of Yair (26) and Gadi (23). After dating for nine years, he and his wife Karnit were married last year.

Udi completed his undergraduate studies at the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) and is currently a graduate student in environmental engineering. Udi is a kind, loving and caring person, always ready to offer a helping hand in any situation. He is a man of principles and values, is knowledgeable about many subjects and is an avid photographer.

On Wednesday, July 12, 2006, Udi was abducted and taken to Lebanon after Hezbollah attacked his military patrol.

Eldad Regev (Age 26)

Eldad was born and raised in Kiryat Motzkin. He is the son of Tova (of blessed memory) and Zvi, and brother of Benny, Ofer and Eyal. After completing three years of military service in the elite Givati infantry brigade, he became a law student at Bar Ilan University with the hopes of becoming a law professor. Eldad is loved by and immensely popular among all who know him. He readily offers aid to anyone in need.

Eldad was called up for military reserve duty after completing his exams at Bar Ilan University. Three days before his abduction, he visited his family and participated in the annual memorial for his mother. The following day, he returned to complete the remainder of his reserve duty.

On Wednesday, July 12, 2006, Eldad was abducted and taken to Lebanon after Hezbollah attacked his military patrol.

Gilad Shalit (Age 20)

Gilad was born in Nahariya but was raised in Mitzpe Hilla in the Western Galilee. He is the son of Aviva and Noam and brother of Yoel (23) and Hadas (16). He follows sports teams and tournaments all over the world, from tennis to basketball and cycling. Gilad is a well-mannered, quiet and soft-spoken young man, with a smile that lights up his face.

Gilad began his military service a little over a year ago in July 2005. He followed his older brother Yoel into the armed forces and despite being able to avoid combat due to medical reasons, he preferred to serve in a combat unit. Prior to his abduction, he had been on duty guarding the settlements around Gaza.

Since the attack at Kerem Shalom on Sunday, June 25, 2006, Gilad has been held in the Gaza Strip by Hamas.

Soldier Backgrounds provided courtesy of Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com or visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Obadiah Shoher, January 31, 2007.

This was written by a veteran politician who writes under the pen name of Obadiah Shoher. He can be read on the Samson Blinded blogsite.

TO End The Palestinian Show, Stop Paying For Tickets

Hamas-Fatah polarization is artificial. Their struggle is about the donors' money: which group would embezzle it and whether the funds will pay salaries of Fatah or Hamas militias. In the Palestinian Gold Rush, Hamas relies on popular opinion and rogue Muslim regimes, while the locally discredited Fatah clings to Israel and the West for paternal protection. Hamas tenders to Muslim dreams with anti-Israeli slogans, while Fatah caters to Western dreams with pro-Israeli declarations. When addressing fellow Muslims, Fatah is stringently anti-Israeli just like Hamas. Prostituting Abbas is ready to put his tongue and pen on Israeli TV and the peace treaty, respectively, to remain in charge of the billions of dollars of aid. He stands tall and ready to fight Hamas to death for the aid money.

The best generic prescription in any war is attritting your enemy. That includes economic attrition and fully applies to the Arab enemy. "To stop the civil bloodshed in Palestine," Israel must end her payments to the PLO, and do her utmost to stop and intercept the foreign payments.

With rockets, RPGs, mortars, grenades, and machine guns, Palestinian warriors killed only about three dozens of each other. A formidable enemy, indeed.


Populism is entrenched in the Israeli Finance Ministry. 700 shekels ($164) proposed subsidy to families with three children and two working parents is ludicrous. Such families are the apogee of morality: the parents, hard-working and poor (with meager $1,000 income) still brought up three Jewish children (ugly, the subsidy also benefits Muslim families). They deserve much more from the state.

The Finance Ministry is wrong to push women to work. Jewish mothers are more important to Israeli society than semi-skilled workers. Jewish tradition takes precedence over political correctness, socialism, and feminism.

Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni sounded hopeful in Davos: Palestinian state in Judea "is achievable." A horrible idea of surrendering the core Jewish land is the goal of Israeli Foreign Minister. Livni said that she "voted to uproot Israelis [in Gaza] in order to give peace a chance." Not for a certain peace, not for the peace she was sure of, not based on the rational analysis: just to give a chance, to gamble with the lives of 10,000 Jews in Gaza. Shimon Peres, for his part, amused the serious crowd at the Davos Forum with a comic plan of Jewish economic cooperation with Palestinians, uneducated and lacking the work ethics. Or was he serious? On background of the mad Israelis, Abbas was refreshingly sensible at Davos. He demanded return of six million descendants of the 1948 Arab refugees to Israel -- not to the Palestinian entity, and required Israeli citizenship for Arabs of Judea and Samaria while incorporating their lands in his state.

How could the Knesset discuss the impeachment when the president is yet to go to trial? He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Knesset members want to usurp the judicial prerogative and prejudice the court decision. Lawlessness is so typical of Israel.

It wasn't enough for the Israeli leftists to have Arabs on their election roll, to bring Arabs into the Knesset. Kadima-Labor alliance launched an Arab MK into the government to become a minister. Crucially, a minister. He has no assignment yet, not qualified to do anything, and needed for nothing. That's just a show of brotherly -- or brothel-ly -- fraternity between leftist Jews and Arabs. If you're honest, make Arab a Defense Minister. A Chief of Staff. A Mossad director. Pack and go back to Russian ghettos.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 31, 2007.

This is from the Atlas Shrugs website
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ atlas_shrugs/2007/01/religion_of_pea.html)

Religion of Peace thru Barbarism

It's that time again. Ashoura "Festival." Remember last year? Goto
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ atlas_shrugs/2006/02/muslim_cartoons.html I expect this to be all the rage in Hollywood shortly, cutting in a big way -- Insane Fonda, Penn, Sarandon -- this is one rally they ought to be leading.

The blood stains are seen on the back of an Afghan Shiite Muslim flagellating himself with knives during the Muharram procession in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Pakistani Shiite Muslim beats himself with chains to mourn the

This was posted by Baron Bodissey on the Infidel Bloggers Alliancedeath of his spiritual leader Imam Hussein, grandson of Prophet Mohammad in Lahore.

Afghan Shiite Muslim flagellate themselves with knives during the muharram procession in Kabul, Afghanistan.

"Muslims Across Islamic World Take Part in Ashoura Festival" from January 29, 2007 FOX New.

AP Jan. 29: Iraqi children beat themselves with chains during Muharram, an important period of mourning for Muslims.

Muslims across the Islamic world took part Monday in the religious festival of Ashoura, marked by fasting and bloody mourning rituals for the death of Prophet Mohammad's grandson Imam Hussein.

Speaking at a mosque in the capital, Afghan President Hamid Karzai spoke of the significance of Ashoura: "This day teaches us about resistance and to fight for our rights, even if we are weak and not armed with weapons."

Ashoura, or 10th day of the lunar month of Muharram, is marked by Muslims as a whole with a day of fasting that commemorates the day Noah left the Ark, and the day that Moses was saved from the Egyptians by God.

UPDATE: Maternity wards or bomb factorys? Don't forget the babies --
http://faustasblog.com/2007/01/it-takes-more-than-village.html -- don't ever forget the child abuse

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 31, 2007.

The London Sunday Times of January 28th speaks about the probability of Israel's PM Ehud Olmert, being ousted -- with Tzipi Livni replacing him. However, the Times points out that there are some problems beginning to surface about Livni. While the Times speak of her as a former Mossad agent, most people know that (like the Mafia) once you are an Intelligence operative, you are always on call by that institution. (1) Having an active Intelligence operative as Prime Minister reporting or taking orders from their original Intelligence Organization may make little difference to the average citizen.

For example, Vladimir Putin was a high KGB officer and presumably remains connected to whatever the KGB has morphed into now that he is President of Russia. That might not be probable in America, where citizens expect their elected officials to be advised by Intelligence Agencies but, NOT to be agents themselves.

Israelis are beginning to take a harder look at their Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni as she moves to the front and speaks like a confirmed Leftist and a supporter of the failed Oslo Accords. She was a confidante of then PM Ariel (Arik) Sharon, who seemed to be nurturing her political advancement. Presumably, Sharon knew about her Intelligence background but he would have not necessarily known if she was still active and reporting.

If Livni was and remained an active Mossad agent, being groomed for a higher position in government, who else would she have been reporting to? Certainly to the Mossad Director and likely to Shimon Peres, given the tilt of Israeli Intelligence toward the political Left. It must be remembered that the Mossad and the Shin Bet (Secret Services) were once the most admired and non-political organizations. That all changed -- mostly around the time when Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres politicized those institutions by appointing directors who would task field operatives to work against Rabin's political opposition on the Right. It is hard to forget the use of Avishai Raviv, code named "Champagne", employed by Rabin through Shabak to instigate operations against the political Right.

Planting a mole in the Likud party at the time would have had considerable benefits to the Israel's Labor Left. For example, Oslo would never have happened had either the Mossad or Shabak lifted the cover on the Rabin, Peres, Beilin secret negotiations with Yassir Arafat in Norway. They were just too good as Intelligence Institutions NOT to know what these top Israeli officials were doing in Oslo. Presumably, they are now well-informed about the attempt at secret deals being made in Davos, Switzerland where Livni, Peres and Abbas shared their plans for two states west of the Jordan River. In any case, the trade-craft of Intelligence Agents would not allow them to admit being an agent, if asked.

The question arises: Was Tzipi Livni, supposedly a former Mossad agent deliberately put on the government ladder of advancement as a mole, serving both the Mossad and the Oslo cabal?

Sometimes discovering a mole is like locating what is called a "Black Hole" in the sky. You cannot actually see the "Black Hole" but know it is there by watching the nearby objects being moved around by the sheer gravitational power of the "Black Hole". Oslo, for example, was something like a "Black Hole" until it was pushed in view and became a fait accompli. However, that "Black Hole" continued to exert its power on national policy.

We have observed Livni make common cause with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of the U.S. State Department. Somehow Livni has become an exceedingly satisfying Foreign Minister, serving the interests of Rice, which follows the "Black Hole" scenario demonstrating the control of other objects.

We see Livni at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, well out of the closet, so to speak, as she joins Peres, Javier Solana, Sec. Gen. of the E.U. and Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) making the creation of another State of Palestine her top priority, as she says. There are several stages: Pre-Oslo in the early 1980s, Oslo in its failed state in the 1990s, the resurrection of Oslo August 2005 -- starting with the uprooting of Jews from Gush Katif in Gaza and now the push-through Judea and Samaria = All One State.

We have watched the political Left step-by-step misuse their power of office to politicize the Israeli Military, her Courts and her Intelligence Agencies to keep the Oslo Doctrine moving forward. Israel was not supposed to adopt the ways of nations who controlled their populations by having a politicized Military, Police, Courts and Secret Services who plant moles in the opposition. Israel was supposed to be a nation of laws, votes by her citizens on vital issues and NOT controlled by her elected officials under the cover of being a democratic dictatorship.

If Livni was merely a Mossad agent being nurtured for a high insider position then clearly, she is not worthy of the job nor to be trusted. A Prime Minister is supposed to be objective and to represent all the people. I know that's naive but, some dreams must be kept!

I have previously speculated that Ehud Olmert would be forced to resign with someone else like Livni or Peres to be the backup, running the country with the doctrine of "territorial divestment". It looks like this is well advanced.

At that time I was unaware of Livni's background as a Mossad agent. It makes more sense now in terms of advancing control of the nation with a mix of the Left and Intelligence at the top. Can the Knesset pull itself together and deeply probe Livni's background and her assigned mission to reach the political top?

How did this woman work her way inside Sharon's inner circle, unless Sharon wanted her there? Presumable Tzipi Livni never left the Mossad and was tasked to work inside the government at the highest level possible. It is well-known that minimally, since the days of Rabin and Peres, every effort was made to put figures who were loyal to the Leftist Labor/Meretz Party in charge of the Intelligence Agencies or P.C. (Politically Correct).

The same was true of Labor's effort to control the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) by nurturing P.C.s soldiers like Rabin, Ehud Barak and Dan Halutz, etc. If Livni remained a Mossad or Shabak operative, it would explain her considerable efforts to manipulate the plan first initiated by Rabin and Peres with Oslo and now carried forward by Olmert, Livni and Peres to relinquish Judea and Samaria to the Arab Muslim Palestinians, according to the Bush-Baker-Rice "Road Map" plan.

Why would Livni, as an Israeli Intelligence agent, want to subvert the safety and sovereignty of the Jewish State of Israel? It's a puzzling question but, could be answered with an intense investigation by an independent committee of known honest, non-political jurists - if they exist!

Back-tracking a little further, one would likely find the Saudi royal family and the Washington/Texas oil families in cahoots to move Israel out of the way. Clearly, the more control the Arabists in Washington had within the Israeli government, the easier to manipulate Israeli policy. Recruiting agents in other nations can be accomplished by money, blackmail (threatening to expose misdeeds) or simply appealing to their known ideology which conveniently matches the goals of their foreign recruiter.

The disinformation line is: "The Muslim Islamists would cease their march toward their Global Caliphate under 'Sharia' (strict Islamic) law, if Israel were removed as an irritant to the Jihadis (holy warriors for Islam)". Of course that is illogical but, we underlings aren't supposed to notice. It's their way of eliminating us infidels (non-Muslims): "first the Saturday people and then the Sunday people." Islam is off any leash these planners may have held.

Even if they could succeed in subverting Israel to the benefit of the Saudis and the Arab Muslim, nothing will stop their war with the Free West. But, because they lack the necessary courage to face down Global Islamic Terror, they continue with the Israeli plan, trying to look pro-active and positive. The propaganda story pushed by the Arab Muslims and carried forward by "friendlies" in Washington, the E.U. and the U.N. is that IF the Arab Muslim Palestinians were given a state, Iran and Syrian Islamists would cease attacking the Free West.

Clearly, this is all very speculative but, as is said:"Where there's smoke, there's fire".

However, it would pay to look into Tzipi Livni's background as it relates to her current mission and the Israelis who have adopted the pacification of the Palestinians as the solution to reach the Arab Muslim world. Livni's linkage to Shimon Peres, C. Rice and Javier Solana, Sec. Gen. Of the EU -- in their plan to divest Israel of Judea and Samaria is worth exploring.

But, if Livni remains an agent, then the "Operation Divestment" has been in motion for a long time -- at least since the early 1980s when Rabin and Peres colluded with Yassir Arafat to de-Judaize Judea and Samaria. Given Sharon's early move to abandon Gush Katif/Gaza and Northern Samaria, and Olmert's pledge to do the same with Judea and Samaria, this is then well-advanced and Livni would have many roles to play -- particularly now as that of a stand-in for Olmert if he is indicted for any of the various scandals of which he is being accused.

In any case, someone would have to rush the next stage of Jewish Land Divestment through the Knesset, making a "provisional" second state of Palestine which is intended to replace the 250,000 Jewish men, women and children living in Judea and Samaria.

The Arab Muslim world also demands that the Jews surrender what the Arabs call east Jerusalem so the Palestinians can claim a capitol of a nation that never existed. (Note! Arab Muslim propaganda describes East Jerusalem as all the areas in Jerusalem once illegally controlled by Jordan for 19 years, including Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Gilo, the Temple Mount and Har Zeitim, the Mount of Olives ancient Jewish cemetery and more.)

IF, G-d forbid, Israel ever agrees to this heartless surrender, it will necessitate uprooting another 250,000 Jewish men, women and children from their homes in Jerusalem. If you thought it was difficult and bad for the country to evict 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from Gush Katif/Gaza plus the 4 Jewish communities in Northern Samaria, you cannot begin to imagine the self-destruction of tearing 500,000 Jews out of their homes in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to give that land to hostile Arab Muslims.

Rice is aiming to get Fatah and Hamas to stop killing each other and vent their rage on Israel -- called the "occupier" -- with the weapons supplied to Fatah. Despite the obvious danger and the example of how the Palestinian Authority used donor money in the past, Israel, under pressure from C. Rice just gave $100 Million dollars to Abu Mazen to strengthen Fatah. In addition, the U.S. gave Abu Mazen $86 million American tax-payers' dollars.

Rice has to avoid giving offense to Syria by attacking them for supplying Hebz'Allah with weapons to take down the Lebanese government. Rice must force Israel to give up the Golan Heights to Syria on the off chance they will cease funneling terrorists into Iraq to kill American soldiers.

I believe was Albert Einstein who commented to the effect that man has the tendency to try the same failed experiment over and over, expecting new results. The Israeli Left repeatedly tried to appease the Muslim Arabs with a Jewish Land for Peace formula which not only failed repeatedly but tended to increase the Arab Muslims' expectations and rage for more when their hopes were not fulfilled. Failure never dampened their enthusiasm to repeat the same failed experiment -- namely changing the bedrock religious beliefs of Muslims for Islam, not Democracy. Land for Peace has proven to be a futile effort which is destined for failure and, tragically, Israel's self-destruction.

I wonder. Does Secretary of State C. Rice knows which side she is on anymore? Being a cat on a hot tin roof is hard work.


1. "General's Evidence Could Oust Olmert" by Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, London Sunday Times, January 28, 2007

2. "Professor Aumann: Post-Zionism Greater Threat Than Nukes" Arutz-7 Jan. 28,2007 [Excerpts Prof. Aumann's speech delivered at the Herzliya Conference.]: "...our panicked longing for peace is working against us. It brings us farther away from peace, and endangers our very existence. ...Churchill said, 'If you want peace, prepare for war.'

"Roadmaps, capitulation, gestures, disengagements, convergences, deportations, and so forth do not bring peace. On the contrary, they bring war, just as we saw last summer. These things send a clear signal to our 'cousins' [the Arabs -ed.] that we are tired, that we no longer have spiritual strength... This only whets their appetites. It only encourages them ...not to give up on anything...Capitulations bring about war; determination and readiness bring about peace."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Machlis and Tovah Lazaroff, January 31, 2007.

Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.

The Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe," Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent's Jews, he responded, "The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim." Soon, he warned, the only pertinent question regarding Europe's future would be, "Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?" The growing sway of Islam in Europe was of particular concern given the rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements, said Lewis.

Lewis, whose numerous books include the recent What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, would set no timetable for this drastic shift in Europe, instead focusing on the process, which he said would be assisted by "immigration and democracy." Instead of fighting the threat, he elaborated, Europeans had given up.

"Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their own culture." Europeans had "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism," said Lewis, who was born in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States.

The threat of extremist Islam goes far beyond Europe, Lewis stressed, turning to the potential impact of Iran going nuclear under its current regime.

The Cold War philosophy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which prevented the former Soviet Union and the United States from using the nuclear weapons they had targeted at each other, would not apply to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran, said Lewis.

"For him, Mutual Assured Destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement," said Lewis of Ahmadinejad. "We know already that they [Iran's ruling ayatollahs] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. If they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick, free pass to heaven. I find all that very alarming," said Lewis.

Lewis acknowledged that Ahmadinejad had made the notion of Iran having the right to acquire a nuclear capability an issue of national pride, and that this should be borne in mind in trying to thwart Teheran's nuclear drive. "One should try to make it clear at all stages that the objection is not Iran having [a nuclear weapon] but to the regime that governs Iran having it," said Lewis.

This idea already had support among those Iranians who, on the one hand, believed that their country has a right to possess such a capability but, on the other, feared it being acquired by a government that they do not support.

Israel and the West should work to strengthen moderate forces within the Iranian population, he urged, via an aggressive propaganda campaign including the use of television and radio programs.

"All the evidence is that the regime is extremely unpopular with their own people," he said. "I am told that the Israeli daily [radio] program in Persian is widely listened to all over Iran with rapt attention." Israel and the West should also be looking to reach out to moderate forces within the Arab world, which are equally alarmed by the spread of extremism in their midst, said Lewis. "The Arab governments understand that Israel is not their biggest problem," said Lewis.

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 31, 2007.

Emi Elmaliah and Michael Ben Sa'adon decided to open a small neighborhood bakery when they were released from the Israeli army. Young, married, with children, they had a modest dream, to make a living selling bread in a quiet residential neighborhood in Eilat. They and their only employee, Israel Zamalloa, a Jew from Peru, were murdered when a Palestinian peace partner of Ehud Olmert blew up their bakery. Naturally, the mother of the murderer was ecstatic that her son had died murdering Jewish civilians (see
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/mideastconflictisrael). The three victims became the latest victims of the Oslo "peace process".

A completely unexpected attack, the media are telling us. Who could have possibly known that such a killer could simply walk into Israel across its border with Egypt? How could anyone possibly have known it was so easier to walk across the border?

How indeed. Well, for one, 300 Sudanese knew, as did anyone in Israel who had read a newspaper or watched TV over the past few months. Sudanese refugees from Darfur who entered Egypt simply walked to the border with Israel and then walked across, entering Israel with not so much as a challenge by a border patrolman to show their papers. No doubt the Sudanese chose the wide-open Egyptian-Israel border because infiltrating Libya from Egypt can be a real problem you see, what with the guarded border THERE and all. The Israeli media have been filled with stories about those Sudanese, with public debates as to what to do with them. But after those news stories of the Sudanese simply walking into Israel across the undefended border with Egypt, it seems that the only people left in the entire country who were NOT aware that the border with Egypt was unsecured were Israel's Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and army chief of staff.

Who else knew of the unsecured porous border? Well, every drug smuggler in the country and every prostitute who entered Israel in the past few decades. The latter "working girls" are mostly Eastern Europeans who fly to Egypt and then stroll across the border to practice their "profession". The bomber of Eilat had exited the Gaza Strip into Sinai via one of those countless tunnels that Olmert is too cowardly to demolish because one would have to knock down a few houses of "Palestinians" to get at them. The murderer was driven down the Sinai to a nice place for a winter stroll into Israel.

SO after the atrocity in Eilat (the murderer, by the way, was actually trying to get to Haifa to blow himself up), all the politicians are whining about how expensive it would have been to secure the border with Egypt. You know, barbed wire and "nanny cameras" really cost... 2. Polls here are showing that more Israelis believe President Moshe Katsav about the charges of "rape" and hanky-panky being filed against him by the Prosecutor's Office than the number who believe the Prosecutor's charges. This, despite a year's long media campaign leaking stories about what President Katsav is supposed to have done.

Now Katsav is innocent until proven guilty and here is not the place to state my own subjective take on what he may have done. But the fact that more Israelis disbelieve the leftist Prosecutor's Offices than believe them might just have something to do with the naked leftist bias manifesting itself every day in the behavior of the Attorney General, including the prosecution for manslaughter of farmer Shay Dromi for defending his property from Arab thieves [Editor's note: they poisoned his dog and attempted to steal his sheep] and the long track record of indicting and jailing anti-Oslo protesters under a variety of charges, including teenage girls.

3. When the Texas Jihadniks tried to pull a Neve Gordon: Of course Texas has freedom of speech whereas Israel has a neofascist Left.

"Attempt to Silence Analysis of NGOs such as PCWF Rejected by Texas Judge,"
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ _court_dismisses_frivolous_case_against_ngo_monitor_
January 23, 2007

On January 17, 2007, a Texas Federal Court judge dismissed as "wholly frivolous" and "baseless" Palestine Children's Welfare Fund (PCWF) Riad ElSolh Hamad's defamation suit against NGO Monitor, Frontpage Jerusalem, the Center for Study of Popular Culture and others. Hamad charged the organizations had defamed him and violated his constitutional and civil rights linking him and his charity in newspaper and Internet articles to Islamic fundamentalist terror.

In addition to dismissing Hamad's claims as "groundless", United States District Court Judge, Sam Sparks, leveled Rule 11 sanctions against Hamad and ordered him to pay defendants' attorney's fees and costs totaling almost $60,000 as well as a $1000 fine to each defendant for Hamad's repeated violation of court orders.

NGO Monitor Executive Director Professor Gerald Steinberg noted: "This was a clear attempt to use the courts and intimidation to prevent independent analysis and exposure of the incitement by anti-Israel NGOs. This strategy has now been rejected."

In his ruling, the judge called Hamad's complaint "an unintelligible morass of vitriolic accusations" that had "no basis in law."

NGO Monitor analysis shows Gaza-based PCWF openly exploits children's issues for radical politicized agendas that promote the conflict. These activities are entirely inconsistent with its claims to be a humanitarian organization. Among PCWF's activities, documented in NGO Monitor's report, is a children's drawing contest. The judges rewarded, almost without exception, entries that featured fierce and violent hatred of Israel. The winning picture features a fire, in the shape of a map of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, consuming the Star of David with the word "Israel" written inside the flag. Another entry depicted a Palestinian flag dropping flames on an Israeli flag and burning Israelis standing next to it. Such activities serve only to advance a culture of violence and hatred.

The use of the courts in the attempt to prevent debate and the exposure of the highly politicized activity taking place under the guise of promoting human rights is widespread. The judge in this case rejected the effort to silence NGO Monitor's analyses of such activities.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 31, 2007.

This was written by Gil Troy and it appeared in the Canadian Jewish News
http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=11090. Gil Troy, Ph.D. is Professor of History at McGill University in Montreal. His latest book is Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady.

Dear Shulamit Aloni,

In early January, you supported former U.S. president Jimmy Carter's inaccurate, inflammatory accusation that Israel is guilty of practising "apartheid." You must be pleased with yourself. Your article has been widely posted around the Internet. Googling "Shulamit Aloni" and "apartheid" generates 70,000 hits.

I am, however, appalled. Not only did you fail to make the case, but I challenge you to see how your article is being used. I do not believe that all critics of Israel are anti-Semites. Nor do all critics call for Israel's destruction. But I wonder how many anti-Semites -- how many people devoted to destroying Israel -- will post your article and lovingly quote your words before you take responsibility for fanning the flames of hatred against your people and the country you served as education minister.

You repeated the term apartheid nine times in your nearly 1,100-word article, yet only one paragraph discusses the term. Citing international law, you define apartheid "as an international crime that, among other things, includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights." Having shown that Israeli soldiers disrupt Palestinian travel you ask: "Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?"

That's the wrong question. The relevant question is whether the Israeli-Palestinian clash is a racial conflict and whether the State of Israel has imposed a systematic, racist South-African-type regime. You contradict your title when you say that "we, too, used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state." If Palestinians are fighting "foreign rulers" then how is the apartheid label relevant? Apartheid, with its network of laws separating black citizens from whites, institutionalized white supremacy. Neither you nor Carter have justified that charge.

Unfortunately, this is more than a legalistic debate. By supporting Carter's term, you are advancing a growing worldwide campaign to delegitimize Zionism and expel Israel from among the community of nations, which is the correct punishment for an "apartheid" state. Your article -- and your career -- demonstrate many other eloquent ways to condemn Israeli policies without using an incorrect, destructive analogy.

If you doubt how the apartheid accusation is being used against Israel, I invite you to surf the web and meet your new allies.

When I appeared on the left-leaning American radio and television network Democracy Now to condemn Carter's use of the term, I received a wave of abusive anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic e-mails. Most critics blamed Israel exclusively for the entire Mideast mess, putting Israel's actions and "the Jews" at the centre of all the world's troubles.

I was told that the Jewish state should be in southern Germany, not on Palestinian land, that we Jews thought we were better than everyone, and that as a "Jewish New Yorker" I spoke "Yinglish" not English. Most critics triumphantly referenced your article or other similar articles from Israelis "proving" that Israel practises apartheid -- as if it's impossible for an Israeli to be wrong, too.

You are, of course, free to believe what you wish and write what you wish. That's your right. You live in a free county. But had you lived under South Africa's apartheid regime, you would have had to write such attacks from outside the country or from inside a jail cell.

My question then, is, what is your responsibility? When your words, consistently, are used by others to smear Israel, to delegitimize the state, to rationalize terrorism, and to peddle anti-Semitism, at what point do those actions implicate you?

The time has come for you to stand up and say, "Yes, my anger about the situation in the territories remains but, no, don't delegimitize my state, don't libel my people, and don't use my heartfelt words to advance your despicable agenda." You and many of your comrades on the Israeli left seem to have forgotten that in the Internet age, your words resonate, making you foot soldiers in the "electronic intifadah" that seeks Israel's destruction. I challenge you and your buddies to take responsibility for the anti-Semitic effects of some of your rhetoric. You cannot deny your impact.

The old saw falsely attributed to Lenin still holds -- you don't have to recognize that you're a "useful idiot" to be one.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 31, 2007.

Our friend Jaco has posted another uncomfortable weather report on
http://cuanas.blogspot.com/ regarding the climate of fear that the children of Islam must endure. (And anyone who tells you that it's different for American Muslims is either a liar or a fool.)

More Islamic vileness towards little girls. Note that this comes from University of Rhode Island Professor, Donna Hughes, an expert on the international trafficing of children as sex slaves (thanks to Religion of Pieces):
"An 11-year-old girl was married off to a 27-year-old man. The father, who had seven daughters, received $300 for his consent. The morning after the marriage ceremonies, the girl was taken to hospital suffering from severe lacerations to her genitals."

"According to the penal code, a nine-year-old girl can be punished as an adult by flogging, execution and even stoning. Given the arbitrary punishments and the virtual lack of due process of law, large numbers of children have been executed, in many cases without being officially charged or even having their identities established."

"According to a special "religious decree" issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, virgin women prisoners must be raped before execution to prevent their going to heaven. A Guard conducts the rape the night before their murder. The next day, the religious judge at the prison issues a marriage certificate and sends it to the victim's family, along with a box of sweets."

"...the small children of many young women in Evin Prison are viciously abused ...they are kept "because they are an asset to the prison authorities for gaining confessions." Szimkus ... witnessed several cases where Iranian children were tortured in the presence of their parents.

"One time these guys [torturers] raped a nine-year-old girl. The parents had to watch. The father shook and rattled so badly that he could no longer sign the espionage confession they put before him."

"the Elle magazine reporter wrote in January 1997 about the life of a 9-year-old girl whose destitute parents arranged for her to be a sigheh. The man visits his temporary "wife" every weekend at her father's house, for which privilege he pays her father about $12 per visit. Not surprisingly, AIDS is spreading in Iran at an alarming rate. Despite the serious health and social problems this poses, little is being done to address the crisis."

"The report added that girl children as young as ten, instead of spending their days playing with other children, were being forced to marry men three to four times their age. Meanwhile as "married women," they are banned from attending school. "

And more (from Catholic Resources on the Internet --

"female genital mutilation is normally performed by traditional practitioners with crude instruments, such as knives, razors, blades and broken glass, usually without anesthetics." 1

This report finds that, though some girls are mutilated at birth, "most girls are mutilated between the ages of 4 and 12."

"Young girls who are sentenced to death in Islamic countries present a problem for Islamic authorities. Islamic clerics and rulers, unsatisfied with a mere penalty of death for the accused, wish to ensure that these women will suffer eternity in hell as well. However, quite a number of the accused girls are virgins, and Islam teaches that virgins go to Paradise upon their deaths. As a solution this problem, in order to ensure the damnation of the accused, Islamic authorities will often order the prison guards to systematically rape female prisoners before they are killed.

According to Amnesty International, this practice is widespread in Islamic countries. "During Khomeini's rule, the minimum age for the death penalty for girls was nine years old, and all these girls were systematically raped before they were executed. All this to ensure damnation. All under the sanction of law. All because of the teachings of the Koran.

What this all adds up to is a very unpleasant picture. Those girls who are in prison on fornication charges are actually victims of rape. The remaining female prisoners are raped to ensure damnation. It is no exaggeration to say that Islamic countries are nations of rape victims.

"Partially due to the fact that these girls have already undergone the sexual mutilation of female circumcision, and partially due simply to their juvenile biological makeup, these children suffer immensely when they are married. In Egypt, honeymoon centers have been built outside communities "so that the screams of the brides will not be heard." 11

"There is no nice way to say it: Moslems across the world are practicing pedophiliac rape, a most vicious form of child abuse, and nothing in their behavior contradicts "true Islam." ...Islamists have for centuries preached that the rape of child slaves is perfectly commendable in the eyes of Allah.

"Imagine for a moment the life of a young Christian girl in an Islamic country, such as Sudan. She is abducted from her parents in a slave raid at the age of four. She is given a new Islamic name and, under gunpoint, forced to pray as a Moslem. At age five, she is forced to undergo the torture of mutilation. At age six, she is engaged to a man ten times her age. At age nine, she is married and repeatedly forcibly raped. For the next year, she is beaten daily. At age ten, she is forcibly raped by another Moslem man, and is sentenced to death because of a charge of fornication. The night before her death, she is raped by a prison guard and assured that she will spend eternity in hell. The next day, she is whipped with lashes until she dies."

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Irving Zwick, January 31, 2007.
This is by Jim Kloeppel (kloeppel@uiuc.edu), Physical Sciences Editor, University of Illinois, and is entitled "Alternative energy sources needed to mitigate global warming, scientists say." This prescient article was originally published October 31, 2002, in http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/02/1031globalwarming.html (news@uiuc.edu). What have we done since then?)

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Regulations alone will not stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and curb global warming, an international team of climate and technology experts says. What's needed is the further development of alternative energy technologies that permit worldwide economic development while simultaneously stabilizing carbon dioxide levels and controlling climate change.

In an article published in the Nov. 1 issue of the journal Science, scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and their collaborators evaluate known advanced energy technologies for their capability to supply carbon-emission-free energy and their potential for large-scale commercialization. There are no simple solutions, they say.

During the last century, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from about 275 parts per million to about 370 parts per million. Unchecked, it will surpass 550 parts per million by the end of this century, the article states. Climate models and paleoclimate data indicate that 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide, if sustained, could eventually produce global warming comparable in magnitude to the global cooling of the last Ice Age.

Primary power consumption today is about 12 terawatts, of which 85 percent is fossil-fueled.

"As world population increases and we strive for a higher standard of living -- particularly in the developing nations -- more energy will be consumed, with an attendant rise in carbon dioxide emissions," said Michael Schlesinger, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Illinois and a co-author of the paper. "We must limit the levels of emissions at some point, and that means we will have to replace fossil fuels with alternative sources that eliminate or significantly reduce the amount of carbon emissions."

The most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while continuing to support economic growth and equity is to develop revolutionary technologies for energy production, distribution, storage and conversion, the article states.

Although some alternative energy sources exist -- wind power, solar and nuclear fission, for example -- they are more expensive than fossil fuels and therefore less likely to be implemented on a grand scale. "An effective energy policy would not focus on just one of the many possible alternatives," Schlesinger said. "There is no clear winner at this time that could fully replace fossil fuels."

Another possible approach is sequestration -- where carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels would be collected and stored in trees, oceans and other potential reservoirs.

"While carbon capture and sequestration could eliminate the carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, the technology is still in its infancy, and much work remains to make it viable," said Atul Jain, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Illinois and a co-author of the paper.

The message presented in the article is clear, Jain said. "To reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize the climate, we must switch to alternative energy sources. We need to invest in new technologies and make them cost effective."

The article concludes: "Combating global warming by radical restructuring of the global energy system could be the technology challenge of the century. ... Although regulation can play a role, the fossil fuel greenhouse effect is an energy problem that cannot be simply regulated away."

Researchers collaborating on the project are from Columbia University, Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering Co., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, McGill University in Canada, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Naval Research Laboratory, New York University, University of Arizona, University of California at Irvine and University of Houston. Martin Hoffert of New York University was the lead author of the article. The U.S. Department of Energy funded the project.

Contact Israel Zwick at israel.zwick@earthlink.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 31, 2007.

No one should be surprised by the Fed's lack of interest in protecting Jews.

This was posted by Pamela Geller Oshry today on Atlas Shrugs
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/), quoting from Debby Schlussel's website.

Kill All Kikes"

This comes from Debby Schlussel's website

[...] death threats from four diverse members of the "Religion of Peace," threatening to murder me and my family members, after raping and torturing me. And I take them very seriously.

Last week, one of them--Robert Mustaq John--pled guilty in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of New York, and the previous week, another--Wasil Burki--was indicted in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. I've posted the court documents associated with both, herein, as well as a reposting of their death threats.

It's important to note that justice for me did not come nearly as easily as it comes for American Muslims who get action from the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, upon the whine about a hangnail. Mr. John sent his death threat to me almost 3.5 years ago. And I am only now finally getting justice, after going through a lot of baloney. I also believe that were it not for my having a loud and influential voice on this site and elsewhere in the media, nothing would have happened at all.

I compare this to the lightning speed that FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers moved in indicting and convicting two New York men who sent largely benign, anti-Muslim e-mails to extremist, hate-mongering Imam Hassan Qazwini, on the weekend of Nicholas Berg's televised beheading. Within a month of their e-mails, FBI agents raided both men's homes, and they were indicted shortly thereafter. Unlike my cases, they were not given plea deals. One of the men, Michael Bratisax, is a quadriplegic veteran in a wheelchair. (As I've written, the USDOJ has a special affirmative action prosecution program for Muslim "victims"--you and I aren't equal to them in "Justice"'s eyes.)

The case should have been assigned to the FBI's civil rights agents in Detroit. It was, instead, sent to Ouellet, a lackluster agent in a satellite office.

Agent Ouellet told me that I remind him of his daughter who was in a University of Michigan sorority and who hated the Jewish sororities (for the record, I've never been in one). He elaborated on "the Jews" at Michigan. If I were Muslim, that conversation never would have taken place. Agent Ouellet went on to do nothing. After 6 months of him not investigating the case, he informed me that he gets death threats every day and I should just deal with it, hanging up on me. I guess he was just too busy writing his book about "right-wing" Michigan militias to actually investigate this death threat I took very seriously.

I complained to Agent Ouellet's supervisor, Bill Edwards. Agent Edwards was not much more help. He first told me that the e-mailer was a woman, that FBI agents in Brooklyn had "her" driver's license and located her. Eventually, "she" was a he, and in fact agents really hadn't seen the driver's license or done any work on the case until that point. Then, Agent Edwards called and told me that Robert Mustaq John "didn't really mean it," promised not to harm me, and could I just drop this and move on.

Agent Edwards also told me the case was being overseen by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheldon Light. To date, I've never spoken with Light because he never returned a single phone call (he was too busy prosecuting the men who e-mailed Imam Qazwini). He transferred the case to Brooklyn, where it would languish for over three years, and that was the point.

I since learned that U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy III a/k/a "Abu Porno" personally opposed prosecuting any death threats involving me and recused himself and his entire office from the cases for two reasons: 1) He didn't like what I wrote about him and his strange "liaisons" with the most extremist members of Detroit's Islamic community, including a "former" terrorist; and 2) it would get in the way of his office's relations with Muslims to actually prosecute them for hate crimes. He didn't want to relinquish his role as the Fed's chief Pander Bear to Islamists in town. Incredible.

Justice for Debbie's would be murderers? Good. But and there is a huge but. This is a particularly disturbing story not merely because of the disgusting, vile death threats. We have come to expect that from the savages of religion of peace. No, what is frightening, truly, is the reluctance and downright hostility the FBI exhibited in not pursuing these crimes by Islamists.

Useful idiots over at the FBI

Go over to Debbie Schlussel's blog at
(www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/01/muslim_indicted.html) and check out the new antisemitism and just how far Islam has infiltrated the FBI and the criminal justice system. (hat tip Pastorius)

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 31, 2007.

"CORRECT CARTER'S FALSEHOODS:" That begins CAMERA's full-page ad addressing the publishers of Jimmy Carter's "foundation of lies" book against Israel.

Some of the book's points I took up in earlier discussions, but his actual statements are so flagrant, reflecting thoroughness only in dissembling, as to be worth displaying.

On p.57: "The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the US and recognized officially by the United Nations." P.215 suggests as an option for Israel, "withdrawal to the 1967 border specified in UN Resolution 242 and as promised in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement." Such misstatements about borders occur throughout.

The Resolution and Accords do not require a return to the pre-1967 lines but negotiation. Those were just armistice lines, hence no reason to consider them official. Israel does have official borders with Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan (not with Syria and P.A.).

(Where did Carter come up with the claim of "recognized officially?" He makes assertions without attribution that can be checked. His statements do not reflect those documents. One wonders whether he read them and whether his book admits he and his causes received hundreds of millions of dollars from the Arabs.)

P.51 states, "...important provisions of our agreement (of 1978) have not been honored since I left office. The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians (Arabs)...

Actually, the Arabs violated all their agreements, willfully and imperialistically, but Carter tries to make Israel seem responsible for non-fulfillment. Oslo gave the Arabs "control of political, civic, security, medical, educational and media institutions." Israel withdrew from large areas, to let the Arabs run their internal affairs. Arafat used the opportunity to make war. To stop his attacks on Israeli civilians, IDF troops had to move in, at times. Carter ignores Arab aggression and condemns Israeli self-defense.

Carter claims on p.62 that Arafat told him that the PLO never advocated destroying Israel, and that the Zionists pretended that the PLO wanted to "Drive the Jews into the sea." (The slogan was declared by Arab capitals in the 1947 war and scripted into the PLO Covenant. The PLO called for jihad and waged it. Carter is lying, again.)

He also falsely accuses Israel, on p.190, of building the security fence "...entirely within Palestinian territory, intruding deeply into the W. Bank..." As the UNO confirmed, 45% of the fence actually follows the green line. The rest of the fence is in disputed territory, to be negotiated. Some of the fence is in Israeli territory. The fence has reduced suicide attacks, saving lives noticeably. Carter does not have the grace to give the fence credit for that (NY Sun, 12/29, p.8). Look at the maps. The adjective "deeply" is exaggerated.

It shames our country to have an ex-President so ignorant of a key issue in which he was involved, and to disseminate falsehoods about it, or to be a paid agent of the Arab enemies of our country, or both. He seems to have collected between the covers of one book a host of false Arab propaganda assertions. He makes Bush appear brilliant.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, January 31, 2007.

The media is always telling us that only a "tiny minority" of Muslims support violence and holy war against the West. But just how true is that assertion?

In my column below from today's Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467849587& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), I bring a number of facts and figures that suggest otherwise. Like it or not, the arithmetic of jihad is fairly straightforward, and it is time that we stopped pretending otherwise.

Comments may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly at msfreund@netvision.net.il

It's time we open our eyes and confront reality. Ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the media has sought to reassure us that only a tiny minority of Muslims actually support the use of violence against Israel and the West.

It's just a small fringe, a marginal few at best, they tell us, so don't worry about it all too much. One percent or three percent -- who cares? Just sit back, enjoy your morning eggs and coffee and have a nice day.

But a look at the numbers tells a very different story. The extent of support for global jihad is frightening in its proportions, and the numbers are anything but insignificant.

Consider, for example, the following statistics regarding support for suicide bombings and other types of terror attacks.

In a poll conducted five months ago, and broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 TV, nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London, which killed 52 innocent commuters, were justified. Another 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England's democratic system.

Now, one in four justifying terror may not be a majority, but it certainly isn't a "small fringe" either.

In other countries, the figures are no less unsettling. A survey published in December found that 44% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombing attacks are "often" or "sometimes" acceptable. Only 28% said they were never justified.

According to the annual Pew Global Attitudes Survey, released in July 2006, "roughly one-in-seven Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam." The report also found that less than half of Jordan's Muslims believe terror attacks are never justified. In Egypt, only 45% of Muslims say terror is never justified.

STILL THINK only a "tiny minority" are in favor of violence? In Israel, the percentages are even more alarming. After Cpl. Gilad Shalit was abducted by Hamas terrorists last summer, a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center revealed that 77.2% of Palestinians supported the kidnapping, while 66.8% said they would back additional such attacks.

More than six out of 10 Palestinians also said they were in favor of firing Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and cities.

And lest you think that war fever lay behind the results, consider this: four additional polls published in September, nearly a month after the Lebanese conflict had ended, all found large majorities of Palestinians backing terror attacks against the Jewish state.

Indeed, in various countries around the world, support for Muslim fundamentalist terror groups appears to be widespread.

On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a survey conducted by Al-Jazeera asked respondents, "Do you support Osama Bin-Laden?" A whopping 49.9% answered: yes.

And the July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida.

In Lebanon six months ago, the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah.

And do I need also to mention that a majority of Palestinians backed Hamas in parliamentary elections last year? Sure, there are also places where support for violent jihad is not as high. As Reuters reported on October 15, just 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims said they backed jihad and supported bomb attacks on the island of Bali aimed at foreign tourists.

But Indonesia is home to more than 200 million Muslims, so while 10 percent may sound like a small number percentage-wise, it is actually quite large in absolute terms. It means there are some 20 million Muslims in Indonesia alone who are willing to say out loud that they support the use of violence and terror against innocent human beings.

Since when is that a "marginal few"? The question of whether a "tiny" or "sizable" minority backs the global jihad is far more than just one of semantics. It goes to the very nature of the struggle that Israel and the West now find ourselves in.

The figures above, taken from a variety of nations, continents and contexts, all point in one very ominous direction. They demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the global jihadist movement enjoys a wide and broad base of support that extends far beyond just a minuscule number of supporters.

POLITICIANS and journalists might wish to believe, as we all do, that the backers of violent jihad are few and far between, and that they do not represent large numbers of people with like-minded extremist views. But that is simply not the case.

The arithmetic of jihad is quite straight-forward, and it is time we stopped looking the other way and pretending otherwise.

The threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism to Israel and the West can, and must, be met. With determination and a sense of purpose, victory is not out of reach.

But the longer we continue to underestimate the extent of the problem, the more difficult it will be to defeat it.

So let's put aside all that wishful thinking, and roll up our collective sleeves and get to work. Like it or not, the war on terror still faces a long road ahead.

Michael Freund served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, January 30, 2007.
This was written by Rick Kardonne and it appeared today in the Jewish Tribune. Originally Published in Canada December 28, 2006

Jonathan Pollard should be released from prison, said FOX News foreign affairs analyst and former US Ambassador Dennis Ross, who for more than 12 years played the leading role in shaping US involvement in the Middle East peace process, under the administrations of George Bush and Bill Clinton.

Ross made this statement at a media news conference that preceded the closing celebration of the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto Israel Emergency Campaign 2007, which raised $81 million, $20 million of which was earmarked for the reconstruction of northern Israel on which Hezbollah rockets rained down death and destruction during the July- August 2006 war.

He was the keynote speaker of this event, which took place last week in the George Weston Hall at the Toronto Centre of the Arts.

Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1989 without parole for supplying US military secrets to Israel without US permission, when he worked for Navy Intelligence. Ross told the Jewish Tribune that while what Pollard did was wrong according to US law, that his sentence was excessive. Pollard still sits in a maximum security prison.

Ross said that he told both Bushes, father and son, as well as Clinton that Pollard should be released.

Ross told the Jewish Tribune that the present Bush administration shows no interest in releasing Jonathan Pollard.

"The National Security Council and the CIA strongly opposed Pollard's release," Ross said. "They maintain that Pollard knew facts that would jeopardize national security. But Pollard has been in jail for so long that whatever facts he might know would have little if any effect on national security today."

In his keynote address, Ross, who had just returned from Israel and Ramallah earlier that same day, evoked the most positive audience response when he initially discussed Iran and the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. But Ross provoked some skeptical reaction when he dealt with the so-called "moderation" of PA president Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction, which is currently involved in a civil war against Hamas.

"Iran is a challenge everywhere. When Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only denies the Holocaust, vows to wipe Israel off the map, and says that Israel will disappear soon, this is a major existential threat to Israel. If Iran goes nuclear, then the whole Mideast will go nuclear. We don't want Iran to go nuclear."

Ross skilfully debunked the notion that meaningful sanctions against Iran are being considered by the UN or even the US. "On Aug. 31, Iran was supposed to face a UN sanctions motion for failing to suspend its nuclear enrichment program. One of the proposed sanctions was that there would be no trade with Iran, but Russia would be exempt from this sanction. Another sanction was that Iranian students would not be allowed to study nuclear physics overseas." In other words, the proposed sanctions have to them an element of farce.

To demonstrate that the possibility of a nuclear Iran is not only a threat to Israel in the region, Ross stated that "on Dec. 14, Saudi Arabia announced that it will create a nuclear energy program to be a counterpoint against Iran." Once this happens, Ross feels that Egypt and other Arab states will follow suit. Ross also mentioned that Saudi Arabia "knows that Hamas and Hezbollah are arms of Iran. Saudi Arabia is afraid of Iran. And Saudi Arabia is so afraid of Iran-backed insurgents that it is building a security fence along its entire border with Iraq.

Ross said that while the Baker-Hamilton Iraq study group might have some sound recommendations regarding Iraq, such as that Iraqis should shoulder the brunt of the current internal fighting; its attempt to link Iraq to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict makes no sense. "Iraq's problems are internal. The solution to the Iraq civil war lies within Iraq." He had harsh words for Baker's insistence that Israel must make major concessions for the Iraq war to be settled, and especially condemned Baker's advice that Iran and Syria be brought in to moderate the Iraq war; a recommendation that President George W. Bush has rejected.

Ross drew his most evident audience approval when he declared that "unilateralism (on the part of Israel when it withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005) doesn't work. However, his belief that Israel should "support moderate Palestinians," meaning Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction, against Hamas, did not get the same ringing endorsement.

See Also:

Excerpts from "The Missing Peace" by Dennis Ross

The Wye Double-Cross Page

Terror in The US and the Jonathan Pollard Case by Larry Dub Esq.

Contact Justice4JP at Justice4JP@gmail.com or go to the website

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 30, 2007.


The reward for Abbas allowing arms smuggling, which profited Hamas as well as his own forces, is that Israel approved a shipment of arms to Abbas to counteract Hamas. Likud believes most of those arms would turn on Israel. "It's like a policeman saying, 'No one can have a gun, because you might shoot me -- but because one group has obtained guns, I'll let the rest of you have some as well," (IMRA, 12/26) to even up your rivalry.

Likud PM Netanyahu found that the arms Israel allowed Arafat to maintain order were used against Israel. Olmert is making the same mistake again. No excuse for him.


Trying to maintain his one-sided ceasefire, PM Olmert reluctantly decided to allow a bit of counter-attacking. He said the IDF may attack Gaza crews about to launch rockets or after they have done so. The brass told him that there is very little chance of that succeeding. Therefore, the policy is almost useless. The military situation warrants authorization to open fire on crews moving into position. Often they do so away from population centers, in areas nearer Israel, and are more easily spotted (Arutz-7, 12/28).

With an intelligence system, Israeli security agencies know where many terrorists are, in between missions. It should be allowed, as formerly, to intercept them.


PM Olmert has approved a plan to take down some checkpoints. He has raised the number of Arabs who may enter Israel. He accompanied those concessions with a declaration, "The proposed plan is likely to contribute to an improved atmosphere, to the strengthening of moderate forces and the distancing of the civilian population from the circle of terrorism." He asserted that Israel would fight against terrorism as determinedly as ever. "Terrorists have taken advantage of previous gestures in the past to travel freely and perpetrate attacks." The news brief gave a couple of examples of removing checkpoints, the resulting terrorism, and having to reinstate those checkpoints. Checkpoints serve an anti-terrorist purpose, after all (Op. Cit.).

What can justify removing checkpoints, when experience repeatedly requires their reinstatement. How irresponsible to offer openings for more terrorist attacks! There are no moderate Arab forces. The Arabs support terrorism because it is of their religion.

Olmert's decisions contradict his declaration. The declaration is meant to mollify his people's concern. Polls ought to check whether such declarations do.


Most of the 57 rockets launched at Israel were aimed at the civilian town of Siderot. Residents describe the official ceasefire as, "We cease, they fire." (Bedein, Media@actcom.co.il.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Judy Lash Balint, January 30, 2007.

Sima Abukasis looked on quietly as Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger and Knesset members joined dozens of her Sderot neighbors and friends yesterday at a modest commemoration of the second anniversary of the death of her daughter, Ella, 17, who died of wounds suffered from a Kassam rocket attack on Sderot in 2005. Sima, a slight woman with olive skin and short auburn hair, managed a wan smile as she greeted her daughter's friends and family members who came to take part in the ceremony in the center of Sderot. The pain of the loss of her middle child is firmly etched on the face of this bereaved mother. Ella died shielding her younger brother, Tamir, as the siren sounded on a Shabbat afternoon on a cool January afternoon two years ago.

That day, the Abukasis family was at Ella's grandmother's home celebrating the birthday of one of the granddaughters. From there Ella went with her younger brother Tamir to their Bnei Akiva youth movement activity. They were on their way home when the siren sounded, giving them 20 seconds warning of an incoming Kassam rocket. With no time to take cover, Ella lay on top of Tamir, who escaped with relatively minor wounds when the rocket fell and exploded alongside them. Ella was fatally wounded and died a week later without ever regaining conciousness.

Ella's older brother, Ran, did most of the organizing of yesterday's memorial ceremony. Held just a few days before Tu B'Shvat, the memorial was also a dedication of a new Bnei Akiva building named for Ella. Outside the bright new facility that includes several meeting rooms, a kitchen and main hall, six saplings were planted in honor of Tu B'Shvat and to signify new beginnings. The fresh earth was dug by a few of Ella's male friends who are students at Sderot's Hesder Yeshiva. The young men, who combine Torah learning with army service, include representatives of every ethnic group in Israeli society--Ethiopians, Russian speakers, Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Their cameraderie and cooperation is evident as they greet each other with warm hugs and slaps on the back before they get down to the digging.

Many teachers from the the yeshiva and Ella's AMIT high school show up too, and the respect and warmth they elicit from the students would be the envy of teachers anywhere. Maybe it's the simple solidarity born from the terrifying experiences they've shared over the past six years since Sderot has been under Arab bombardment: several schools in Sderot have taken direct hits from Kassam rockets and now they're commemorating the death of one of their friends.

Chief Rabbi Metzger affixes a large mezuza on the external door of the new building, noting that at the request of the family it's a mezuza that was blessed by Rabbi Kedourie, the centenarian kabbalist who passed away a few years ago.

Inside the main hall, a huge banner with a picture of a smiling, relaxed Ella adorns the wall. At the head table, a single memorial candle burns in front of the seated dignitaries. In addition to Rabbi Metzger there's Rabbi Benny Lau; Knesset members Hanan Porat, Tzvi Hendel, Uri Ariel; former Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai--a family friend; the principal of the AMIT High School; Ella's father, Yonatan and the head of Bnei Akiva for the southern region.

Each of them speaks lovingly of Ella, her brief life and her heroic death. For a change, it's a quiet day in Sderot with no Kassam attacks. But for Yonatan and Sima Aubkasis and their remaining children, Ran, Tamir and Keren as well as the families of the other seven Kassam fatalities in Sderot, there'll never be a quiet day.

Judy Lash Balint is an award-winner investigative journalist and author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen). It is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, January 30, 2007.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, after carefully considering the advice of his military and security experts, rejects proposals for military action, opting not to retaliate against perpetrators of the recent Eliat homicide/suicide bombing resulting in the death of three Israelis and the wounding of many others. How indeed can this politico turn the other cheek on such a blatant attack against innocent civilians by Jihad Islami vermin? Does he not realize that no response will embolden such dregs of humanity to commit further horrific crimes against Israel? Does he not realize that no response will only exacerbate the economic fallout bound to rear its ugly head over a community ever dependent on tourism? Does he not hear the clarion call 'never again' imploring him to avenge this atrocity by deploying troops, shutting down roadways, putting up fences, and in effect inflicting punishment so severe to citizens of the out of control Gaza Strip that movers and shakers within that community will feel the wrath of ordinary Arabs demanding they incarcerate or kill extremist Arabs responsible for the resultant misery caused by Israel's necessary reaction.

Clearly, protestors en masse must condemn Olmert's non-response to a horrendous tragedy. Every day that goes by without a substantial IDF response will cast further shame upon a perceived feckless state, its government, and every Jewish Israeli that will not aggressively express his or her revulsion at the outrage. Furthermore, how can the Prime Minister ignore those families directly affected by this craven act of martyrdom, in effect telling them their nation will not avenge the torment forever etched on their psyches by a cadre of human filth that deserves to be excised from the soil they contaminate much like a cancerous tumor is surgically removed from an afflicted patient.

Moshe Dayan once asserted,"It was in our power to set high price for our blood, a price too high for the Arab community, the Arab army, or the Arab governments to think it worth paying." Might Olmert ponder those words, perhaps unearthing a dollop of courage buried within the catacombs of his stone cold soul? What twisted logic dulls any sensible thoughts that surely should rule the behavior of this 'presumed' rational national leader? Can Olmert truly believe he behaves responsibly? Can he truly believe that passivity will quell those rabid jihadist predators praying to Allah each night that Jewish Israel will be no more? Dayan also observed,"We are a small nation, but strong." These are words that must be heeded now. If the somnambulistic weak Prime Minister of Israel cannot envision the pitfalls in the road he travels, cannot change course and avenge the tragedy perpetrated on the innocent victims of Eliat, let him step aside and be replaced by a highly intelligent intrepid leader who will act in Israel's best interests. This nation cannot afford to bear the consequences of irresponsible stewardship in such troubling times!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 30, 2007.

NOTE! Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipy Livni follows Yitzhak Rabin who once said to Yassir Arafat that 'he has yet to have his Altalena.' Now Livni herself is prepared for her perfidious Altalena.

As a reminder, it was Yitzhak Rabin, on then Prime Minister David Ben Gurion's orders, on June 20, 1948 shelled and sank the Altalena which was carrying Jewish refugees from the Holocaust in Europe as well as munitions for the on-going war pledged by the Arabs.

Ben Gurion knew that Menachem Begin was on that ship. It was well understood that Ben Gurion was adament against sharing political power with Begin. Rabin also ordered his troops to fire on the Jews trying to swim to shore as the Altalena was sinking. Thirteen Jews were killed and 48 were wounded.

Tzipi Livni compares driving honest hard-working Jews out of Gush Katif in Gaza with Terrorist President Authority Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) taking control of Judea and Samaria with a coalition of forces to be assembled in order to drive the Jewish inhabitants out of their Land.

As the slick twisty lawyer, today's Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert is known to be, he spins the story of learning and correcting his mistakes of the Lebanon fiasco that he was responsible for. Like a greased pig, he dashes about making it difficult to get your hands on him. Olmert only wants to stay in power so he can make everything right, now that he knows what to do or -- so he says!

Even Gen. Halutz, Commander of this summer's Lebanon fiasco, has clearly stated in his testimony that, although he accepts considerable blame for the absurd mistakes in the Lebanon fumble, it was Olmert and Peretz who share that blame for directing the policies that ran that war. Halutz properly "took conclusions" and resigned but Olmert and Peretz refuse to do so.

This was written by Alex Traiman and it appeared On Arutz 7 January 26, 2008

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Tzippy Livni, Shimon Peres, and Mahmoud Abbas shared their visions for a two-state solution within the disputed borders of Israel.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzippy Livni made the formation of Palestinian state her top diplomatic priority during her speech at the forum of world leaders. According to Livni, the formation of a state for the Arabs within the biblical territories of Judea and Samaria is "not an illusion. It's there. It's achievable."

"I would like to negotiate, to speak, to meet, to talk," Livni said, signaling an Israeli desire to yet again restart bilateral peace talks. "There is nothing I want more. ... This is part of our dream; this is part of our goal."

While acknowledging that terrorism must be reigned in for a two-state solution to viable, Livni compared any future decision by the Palestinian Authority to stop terror, to the Israeli government's decision to expel 10,000 citizens from their homes during the Gush Katif Disengagement of August 2005.

"There are difficult decisions to take on both sides, and fighting terrorism is one of those decisions, and we cannot afford to put this obstacle aside. I know that it is not easy," Livni said. "I can say it was also difficult for me to vote in favor of the disengagement plan. I voted to uproot Israelis, in order to give peace a chance. So there are difficult decisions, but the best way is to give an answer, and not to say, 'Okay this is too difficult, let's find something else.'"

The Israeli government has already formed a committee to study the ability to remove as many as 100,000 Jewish residents from their homes in the areas considered for the creation of a Palestinian State.

Livni cautioned PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas against compromising with extreme elements within the Authority, labeling Abbas one of the "moderate" forces within the PA. This despite calls by Abbas at a Ramallah Fatah rally last week for arms ostensible received to protect him and his Fatah faction from Hamas "to be turned against Israel," who he referred to as "occupying forces."

Livni added in her address that any Arab refugees currently living in Judea and Samaria should be resettled in an Arab state to be created over those territories, as opposed to the PA demand that refugees be allowed to find homes within the Israeli populace. While Abbas also stressed his commitment to return to the negotiating table, he reiterated long-standing Arab demands that any refugees be resettled in Israel, and not in any newly created Palestinian nation.

"The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of the most serious conflicts that require a solution," Abbas said during his address. "I am fully convinced that despite all the difficulties, an atmosphere conducive to the resumption of the peace process exists. One that could lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state."

He added that a "just solution" must be found to solve the refugee crisis, stating that "refugees wishing to return to their homes ... should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date."

Abbas stressed that a permanent resolution is necessary to end the long-standing conflict, as opposed to any temporary decisions, urging Israel to begin discussing issues of final border status, insisting on the Israeli borders of 1967 as a starting point.

"We have the road map. A road map that includes the Arab initiative as well as President Bush's vision regarding the two-state solution," Abbas said. "What is required now, in all honesty, is for us to trace the beginning and the end of this peace process.

Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres also addressed the forum, expressing a vision of shared economic cooperation between Israel and the PA.

He said Israel and the Palestinians should work together alongside Jordan to stimulate foreign investment in the region.

Peres stated that Israel, Jordan and PA have already agreed in principle "to take the whole length of the frontier," a 500 kilometer-long strip along the current Israeli-Jordanian border, "and convert it into an ongoing economic zone."

"We cannot save the Dead Sea unless we do it together. We cannot build new industry ... unless we do it together," Peres added.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has already announced plans to gather the Quartet of countries committed to Middle East peace (US, UN, European Union and Russia) in Washington D.C. at the beginning of February. She will return to the Middle East for a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA Chairman Abbas, two weeks later.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, January 30, 2007.
To the Editor of the New York Times

Greg Myre's "Suicide Attack [in Eilat] Is First in Israel in 9 Months" (NY Times, 1.30.07) makes a statement that has no basis in reality: "The attack complicated the... Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which have languished for six years". "Languished?"

"Six years" means that Myre is referring to the Camp David 2 negotiations of June, 2000. At that time, Arafat rejected what Saudi prince Bandar bin Sultan described as the most generous offer that the Palestinians could ever expect... Arafat's rejection of which would be a "crime against the Palestinian people". Arafat not only rejected the offer, but began the 2nd Intifada a few months later.

During the ensuing six years, Arafat unleashed the most horrific and lethal terror war in all of Israel's history. More than 25,000 attacks, sometimes as many as 24 per day, with more than 1,000 dead and many thousands more wounded or maimed for life.

But even during this barbaric brutal terror war, President Bush and Prime Ministers Sharon and Olmert made repeated offers for Palestinian statehood once the Palestinian Authority stops the terrorism and sits down to peaceful negotiations. All such offers have been met with renewed terrorism, suicide bombers, truck bombs, car bombs, road-side bombs, drive-by shootings, sniper attacks, tunnel attacks, kidnappings, knifings, and the endless relentless hate-speech and hate-preach and hate-teach which demonize Jews and Israel, and prepare the next generation for endless relentless terror war.

The negotiations never "languished". They were vaporized by the Palestinian terrorist leadership in scores of suicide bomber attacks, and hundreds more attempted attacks, and thousands of qassam rocket attacks; all of which demonstrate the continued commitment of Palestinian leadership to the visionary promise of late Hamas leader, sheikh Akhmed Yassin: "we will destroy Israel, even if we must do it one Jew at a time."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, January 30, 2007.

I wanted to send you this important article that appeared in the National Review Online. the chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander speaks up.

It's time for hundreds of thousands of Muslims to publicly show their outrage to Islamo fascism and to commit themselves to fight the fight to eradicate Radical Islam.

Good suggestion: Muslim-community youth become the Jack Bauers of America. Best way to dispel stereotyping of Muslims is to create new image of Muslims who publicly lead this war against militant Islamists in the domestic and foreign media battlefield.

The way to fight the realities of the series 24 is to create a Muslim Counter Terrorism Unit, a deep Muslim counter terrorism ideology and a national action plan for our security

This was written by M. Zuhdi Jasser, and it appeared January 29, 2007 on National Review Online
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/ ?q=MjlmMTQzN2IxMTFlZTFlNzZiZmEzMjEzY2I2MDkzOWE Zuhdi Jasser is the chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander.

Yet again, the old, tired "major" American Muslim organizations have come out in full force to object to something unobjectionable. This time, they're angry about the storyline of 24, the highly popular TV drama on Fox: When the recent premiere episode ended with a terrorist network detonating a nuclear device in a Los Angeles suburb, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced its fear that "this would serve to increase anti-Muslim prejudice in American society." The show had begun with a depiction of an America gripped in fear after an eleven-week run of suicide bombings, apparently by radical Islamist terror cells, in cities across the country.

The show addresses a real concern. While the U.S. has not been the victim of an attack since 9/11, a vast array of networks have been dismantled around the world -- including a plot run out of London that was targeting the U.S. And, since 9/11, there have been a number of successful attacks upon civilian populations in other parts of the globe -- in Bali, Istanbul, Spain, London, Egypt, Jordan, and other places.

As an American and as a Muslim, I find 24 to be not only a profoundly engaging program, but one whose portrayal of Muslims in quite fair. In the show, the president's sister works for a "leading" Muslim civil-rights organization in D.C.; she is portrayed as a protector of constitutional freedoms. The head of this Muslim organization, who is in detention, reports to authorities on prisoners' terrorism-related conversations that have alarmed him.

The show also shows the darker, extremist side of Islam -- for example, an Arab-Muslim youth, a previously beloved neighbor in suburban L.A., turns out to be a terrorist thug who provides a key part of the nuclear device while terrorizing his friend's family. This is another, undeniable part of today's Muslim reality: While suitcase nuclear devices have yet to be used, the threat is there, and such characters are probably quite true to life in their depiction of members of al Qaeda cells or other jihadist networks in the West.

Any ethnic group can, of course, voice complaints regarding its portrayal in pop culture. From the frequently maligned American Italian community in organized-crime dramas to the Russian community that was the focus of last year's 24, no ethnic group is entirely safe from the silver screen. But the sad reality is that such crime rings or "networks," which exploit ethnic and religious communities, exist; and they do affect our security.

For American Muslims, though, 24 offers an opportunity to address a key question: To the extent Muslims have a bad image on TV, what can we do to change that?

All patriotic American Muslims who watch 24's evil Muslim characters unfold their plot to destroy the U.S. quite naturally are enraged. We have an overwhelming desire to reach into the TV set and let all the non-Muslim characters witness a Muslim leading the nullification of this radical Islamist threat.

But the public face of American Muslim activity against terror -- and the against the ideology that feeds it -- has so far been inadequate. Other than press-release condemnations, there has been virtually no palpable public effort from the greater Muslim community in this regard. If that public movement against Islamism existed, 24's writers would probably have included it in the story line.

So if this drama hits too close to home, perhaps offended Muslims should use this TV program as an emotional stimulus for change. To this point, the Muslim community has been able to completely avoid any real debate over Islamism. In fact, we see now a movement in England and the West to blame the West's foreign policy as a root cause of terror rather than the real root cause -- theocratic Islamist ideology.

It's time for hundreds of thousands of Muslims to be not only private but public in their outrage -- and to commit themselves to specific, verbal engagement of the militants and their Islamism. We, as American Muslims, should be training and encouraging our Muslim-community youth to become the future Jack Bauers of America. What better way to dispel stereotypes than to create hundreds of new, real images of Muslims who are publicly leading this war on the battlefield and in the domestic and foreign media against the militant Islamists.

Condemnations by press release and vague fatwas are not enough. We need to create organizations -- high-profile, well-funded national organizations and think tanks -- which are not afraid to identify al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah by name, and by their mission as the enemies of America.

If Muslim organizations and the American Muslim leadership were seen publicly as creating a national, generational plan to fight Islamism -- rather than searching for reasons to claim victimhood -- then the issues and complaints surrounding such TV shows would disappear. The way to fight the realities of 24 is to create a Muslim CTU, a deep Muslim counterterrorism ideology and a national action plan for our security.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com or visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, January 29, 2007.

"Nothing's new," as King Solomon said so eloquently in Kohelet, Ecclesiastes.

Concerned Jews and non-Jews all over the world are incredulous at the silence here in Eretz Yisrael.

We have a government

which consists of politicians, who consider corruption their right
which is enthusiastically negotiating with terrorists whose public aim is our destruction
which is considers relying on foreign military an achievement
which cheerfully plans on exiling tens of thousands loyal Jewish citizens from their homes
which does not keep its promises to its citizens
which imprisons and prosecutes those who dare to even peacefully protest.

Those concerned Jews and non-Jews all over the world write to me. They send me very troubled letters. They say:

"We want to protest the corrupt and incompetent Israeli Government, but why aren't Israelis on the streets demonstrating? Why have you become the 'Jews of Silence?'"

For me, a Jewish activist during the 1960's, the term "Jews of Silence" relates to Soviet Jewry during the more than half a century of totalitarian Communist control, when they were persecuted and restricted by the USSR. They lived in fear of the "Gulag." They had no religious freedom, no civil rights. They couldn't live as Jews and they couldn't leave their living hell.

Eli Weisel wrote about the pain he saw in their eyes. Their pain and suffering spoke to him. For many of us, the Save Soviet Jewry Movement was our way of being "civil rights activists" but with a Jewish agenda. World Jewry protested for years until Jews were allowed to escape. A sizeable percentage of Jews from the FSU are now living how they wish wherever they wish.

Nobody is hearing cries and protests from Israel. It seems so much like the Parshot Shavua, the Torah Portions of the Week of this season. We're reading from the beginning of "Shmot," Exodus. Bnai Yisrael, the Jewish People have become slaves to Pharaoh. That's after their enthusiastic welcome by the "previous" Pharaoh. Conditions have been getting worse and worse, but there's silence, but a population explosion. It was only when Pharaoh died that the Jewish people showed any visible or conventional sign of concern. Shmot, Exodus II

23 And it came to pass in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died; and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.

24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

25 And God saw the children of Israel, and God took cognizance of them. {S}

G-d sent Moshe to the scene, but his leadership wasn't so readily accepted. And even when they had finally left Egypt, the Jewish People kept trying to get back there at every opportunity, only remembering the "good."

Modern commentators have compared the stages Bnai Yisrael went through in ancient Egypt to the gradual persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany, which culminated in their systematic murder. In Ancient Egypt, G-d interfered and sent Moses to save them. That was because the entire Jewish People was enslaved. During the rise of Nazi Germany there were Jews in other parts of the world, and nationalist Zionist Jews in Eretz Yisrael, who were supposed to save European Jewry, but they didn't. The European rabbis of the time also instructed their followers to stay put, rather than be corrupted by the assimilated life-style in other countries, like the United States and Eretz Yisrael. They waited for the goyim to save them. The goyim didn't have saving Jews, stopping the Holocaust, on their agenda; so Jews continued to be murdered until the war was over. That's why six million were murdered.

We're in Eretz Yisrael, our promised land. How can I be comparing us to Bnai Yisrael as slaves in Egypt, or European Jewry during the Holocaust or Soviet Jewry in the USSR? It's the silence. There's a lack of faith in "democratic" means, in the government and in demonstrations. Even massive prayer vigils have proven disappointing. Those of us who were among the half a million Jews who had massed on the Kotel, including those who couldn't get into the plaza, remember that it didn't stop Disengagement. It was ignored by the international press.

We aren't like the Jewish slaves in Egypt, because whether we meet in mass demonstrations or not, we are crying out in pain to G-d. We are also trying to utilize whatever media we can, yes, including blogs, to let the world know.

And this isn't like Nazi Germany, because we are in Eretz Yisrael, and we're neither leaving nor expecting others to save us. But similar to those days, there is much going on behind the scenes that the world isn't aware of. There was Jewish Resistance to the Nazi brutality. And there were righteous Jews who were willing to give up their limited rations and even lives to live as Jews.

The big difference between today in Israel and Soviet Jewry is in the eyes. The eyes of today's Jewish pioneers are not silent. There's no fear. There's strength and pride in being Jewish and settling the Land.

I've spoken to some of the kids who spent weeks and months in Israeli jails after being arrested for protesting Disengagement. They refused to recognize the authority of the judges to judge right from wrong, since the judges' criteria are anti-Jewish. These brave children were not broken. There's eyes are alive and strong.

When the Israeli riot police came to Amona last year to destroy homes and stop the demonstrations, they expected their armor and horses to frighten the demonstrators. They were enraged at the way the kids stared them down and tried to argue with them. Some of the police brutality was from the frustration of those bullies who expected the crowds to flee. They tried to beat the pride out of the kids.

Those kids were amazing. I remember seeing a couple of young teens arguing with police on the road to Jerusalem afterwards. From the body-language it was clear that the kids were stronger.

In ancient Egypt the enslaved Jews fought back with more and more babies, and today the Jewish birthrate in YESHA is also very high. Has G-d decided that the Moshiach will come when we old people are gone, like the slaves had to die off before Bnai Yisrael could enter the Holy Land?

It's obvious that we adults don't have a solution. The State of Israel is not doing its job for the Jewish People. But living in Shiloh, I don't hear silence, I hear and feel action and protest. We are crying out to G-d. Join our prayer here in Eretz Yisrael! And as Jews say everyday in the Amidah, The 18 Blessing Prayer: "...Blessed art You Hashem who causes the Pride of Salvation to flourish." "...Hamatzmi'ach Keren Yishu'a."

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il This article is stored at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 29, 2007.

1. Well it is now official. Israel has an Arab cabinet minister. The Left of course dismisses it as tokenism. Some on the Right were unhappy with the idea. In particular, Avigdor Lieberman's party was opposed. The appointment passed the cabinet unanimously except for Lieberman's single vote against. The new minister is Ghaleb Majadele (Labor Party), who will serve as minister without portfolio (meaning he does nothing), although he wants to become Minister of science, culture, and sport, which would still mean he would do nothing.

Now, the Israeli Left and the media have been having a field day attacking Lieberman and his party as "racists" for opposing the appointmet of Majadele. Amir Peretz, commissar of the Labor Party, has repeatedly denounced Lieberman as a "racist". You would be almost forgiven if you have been reading the Israeli press and were given the impression that Lieberman and his entire party are little better than Russian-born Klansters.

Well, almost forgiven. To understand the truth, you would have to read the small print in Haaretz in a minor inside story.

Several years ago Israel was subjected to the Ehud Barak 2000 capitulation to the Hizbollah in Lebanon, which as everyone knows created no danger at all of Israel being hit with katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon.

As part of that capitulation to terror, quite a few Lebanese Shiites and Christians who had cooperated with Israel in its erstwhile "Southern Lebanon Security Zone" were granted asylum inside Israel, because it was clear that their lives and the lives of their families were in danger once the Hizbollah took control with Ehud Barak's assistance. Other Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza who had assisted Israel in its war against terrorism were similarly granted asylum, since the PLO militias like to murder them. These were placed in homes in Israeli Arab towns where their kids could attend Arabic schools. Until such generosity became the focus of hatred.

In the early years of the 21st century, a series of demonstrations against these Arab "collaborators" were held in Israel, by radical Arabs and by anti-Israel leftist Jews. Some of these demonstrations were quite violent. The protesters denounced those "collaborators" as traitors and "enemies of their own people" because they were "guilty" of the "crime" of having tried to help Israel fight terrorism. Haaretz at the time was filled with denunciations of these people as "traitors".

At the time, I compared the behavior of the protesters to an imaginary set of demonstrations held in 1945 against German and Japanese informants granted residency privileged in the US as reward for helping the Allies against the Axis powers in World War II, where the demonstrators denounce these people as traitors and "enemies of their own people." Of course, no such demonstrations were held in 1946 because there were no Americans so clearly traitorous as to dare to behave in that way.

One of the organizers of the violent demonstrations against these "collaborators" was allegedly none other than the new Arab cabinet minister himself
(see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818769.html). A number of innocent Arabs were beaten by the pro-terror "anti-collaborator" protesters and at least one was murdered. There have been a number of calls to block the appointment of Majadele due to his role in inciting the violence and a court petition against the appointment was filed by a lawyer, Shmuel Zang.

Majadele also has a long track record of denouncing Israel for supposed "discrimination" against Arabs (see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818769.html)

2. A story that has been making the news in the Israeli media concerns a Jewish farmer in the Negev who shot and killed an Arab Bedouin thief who had broken into his property. The farmer, a religious Jew named Shay Dromi, raises sheep and shot the thief while the latter and three business associates were trying to steal some sheep. The Israeli leftist Prosecutor's Office ordered that the Jewish farmer be prosecuted for manslaugter and jailed for many years, as many as 20 years. The Prosecutor at first considered indicting the farmer for murder. Had the thief been a Jew or the farmer an Arab (or both), it would have been open and shut justifiable manslaughter and self-defense. Dromi also wounded a second thief. A group of 4 thieves in all were trying to break into his property.

In a poll taken this week, 81% of the Israeli public (which is about 20% Arab) indicated they think Dromi was entirely justified in shooting the thief. But Israel's Prosecutor cares not a fig for either natural rights nor for public opinion. 87% of those polled said the cops cannot be relied upon to stop thieves.

Israel's Left is also aghast. How dare a Jew fire at a group of four Arab criminals? After all, Arabs are oppressed so it is their right to steal, right? The Jews owe it to them.

For an excellent legal analysis of this (alas, only in Hebrew), see
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3355718,00.html. Roy Bean, where are you when we really need you east of the Pecos?

3. Suicide Bomber Infiltrated from Gaza
13:16 Jan 29, '07 / 10 Shevat 5767

(IsraelNN.com) The suicide bomber who attacked an Eilat bakery Monday morning is Mohammed al-Saqsaq, 21, of Gaza, an Islamic Jihad terrorist spokesman said.

"Fatah-Jihad Suicide Terrorist Murders Three in Eilat"
by Hillel Fendel
Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNN.com)

For the first time, a suicide terrorist detonated himself in the southern port city of Eilat. After he hitchhiked to the city, the man who innocently drove him called the police -- but too late. Three Jews were murdered, and five people were treated for shock.

Initial reports implied that the explosion inside a small bakery in Eilat around 9:45 AM was caused by a gas canister explosion. However, shortly after 10:30, the police abruptly issued an announcement saying that it was the work of an Arab suicide terrorist. The police announced that the murderer had entered the bakery carrying a large bag and detonated himself. Three dead were reported, in addition to the terrorist himself.

The Al Aksa Brigades of Fatah -- an arm of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization -- and Islamic Jihad have claimed joint responsibility for the murderous attack. In general, Fatah's Al Aksa Brigades has shared responsibility with Islamic Jihad for the terror attacks against Israel over the past two years.

Just three months ago, Fatah was one of four PA terrorist groups that called on Muslims worldwide to attack the United States "with no mercy."

Despite this, Abbas continues to enjoy the international reputation of a "moderate." Earlier this month, the United States pledged $86.4 million to bolster Fatah security forces under his control.

Israel also just recently transferred $100 million in tax monies to the Palestinian Authority. The National Union submitted a motion of no-confidence in the government on this backdrop.

Today's Attack

Around 9:30 in the morning, Eilat police received a call from a man who said he had stopped for a hitchhiker outside Eilat, given him a ride, dropped him off in the Isidore neighborhood -- and that he appeared suspicious. The police sent policemen to the area to investigate, but when they heard the loud blast, they realized they had come too late.

Eyewitnesses questioned by the police said that the bakery was the only store open at that hour. Based on their reports, police surmise that the terrorist was headed for a more crowded spot, but detonated himself in the bakery either because he became scared or accidentally.

The explosion caused tremendous damage, eyewitnesses said, and body parts were strewn over the area.

Israel Police has raised its level of alert throughout the country, as has the Magen David Adom emergency medical service.

Previous Attacks in Eilat

Today is the last day in office for Eilat's Police Chief, Commander Bruno Stein. His first day in the position, Oct. 7, 2004, was the day of the Taba Hilton multiple terrorist bombings in Egypt, just south of Eilat, in which 34 were killed, including 12 Israelis.

On Oct. 5, 1985, an Egyptian soldier fired on Israeli tourists at Ras Burka, just south of Eilat, killing four children and three adults. Both of these attacks were apparently timed to coincide with the anniversary of the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War on Oct. 6, 1973 and the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat on Oct. 6, 1981.

It was reported today that a 17-year-old youth from Alexandria, Egypt was arrested in northern Sinai on his way to enter Israel via the Gaza Strip to carry out a terrorist attack. He left a letter for his family telling of his intention to kill Jews in Israel.

On Nov. 25, 1990, an Egyptian soldier fired at Jewish vehicles at the border near Eilat, killing four and wounding 26. On May 30, 1992, two Palestinian terrorists murdered a man on a beach in Eilat.

Economic Ramifications

Dr. Yoel Mansfeld, head of the Center for Tourism, Pilgrimage and Recreation Research at the University of Haifa, implied that the terrorists were targeting Israel's strong tourism economy in Eilat.

"Just two months ago," he said, "the city hosted a large international conference for travel agents and signs of recovery [from the previous attacks] were emerging, but the effects of today's attack could last at least six months -- assuming it is an isolated incident and not the beginning of a new wave of terror."

"The effect of the attack on internal tourism will be short-term," he said. "Israelis are resilient and they will be back in Eilat in a short time. The problem is with foreign tourism."

4. "Jihadization of youth a 'rapid process'" by Stewart Bell, Canada's National Post.
www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html? id=25e76872-b309-47a7-841b-938bdd9ffd71

TORONTO -- Canada's intelligence service says a "very rapid process" is transforming some youths from angry activists into jihadist terrorists intent on killing for their religion.

Enraged over what they perceive as a Western "war on Islam" and coaxed on by extremist preachers, a few have embraced terrorism with frightening speed, the service warns in a new study. "The transformation from radical to jihadist can be a very rapid process," says the "secret" report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, obtained by the National Post.

The study, released under the Access to Information Act, is the government's latest attempt to understand why a handful of Canadian Muslims are alleged to have become involved in terrorist plots. It comes as a preliminary hearing is underway in Brampton, Ont., for four of 18 suspects charged for their alleged role in a Canadian terrorist group accused of plotting attacks in southern Ontario.

For at least the past two years, CSIS has been studying how some young people have been lured into terrorism. They are particularly interested in what made them radicalized and how they evolved from radicals to violent terrorists, a process known as "jihadization."

The conclusion: It depends on the individual. But analysts have come up with a list of factors they say are leading some Muslims to radicalism. They include the belief in the need to defend Islam from perceived Western aggression, the influence of spiritual leaders and extremist family members, and overseas training, the report says.

"The most important factor for radicalization is the perception that Islam is under attack from the West. Jihadists also feel they must preemptively and violently defend Islam from these perceived enemies.

"They also watch what is happening in the Islamic world and the many conflicts that involve 'Western' or other aggression: Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and others.

"A few will act on these events and support or carry out terrorism in an attempt to change Western foreign or military policy. These individuals take the violent defence of Islam as a personal goal and religious obligation."

Those who undergo this process of radicalization reject mainstream Islam and instead adopt a narrow, literal, intolerant interpretation, CSIS says.

The CSIS report notes that the failure of some Muslim immigrants to integrate into Western society is also a factor, but "this is seen more in European countries where the Muslim communities are more homogenous and there has been less integration than in North America."

Many Canadians were shocked when the RCMP announced last June 3 it had arrested a group of adults and juveniles for allegedly planning truck bombings in Toronto. The group had also allegedly stockpiled firearms and intended to take hostages at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa and behead them unless Canada pulled its troops out of Afghanistan.

Prosecutors allege the suspected terrorists were encouraged partly by an extremist leader who has claimed that Canadian troops are only deployed to Afghanistan to rape Muslim women.

The report notes that younger jihadists are now often getting their inspiration online from spiritual leaders who are "available 24/7."

While most of those allegedly involved in the "homegrown" terror group were arrested, investigators say Canada harbours other pro-al-Qaeda extremists who could quickly escalate to violence.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Professors for a Strong Israel, January 29, 2007.

Just at the time that a suicide bomber, apparently one of Abu Mazen's men, blew up in Eilat and murdered three Jews, a special ministerial committee met in Jerusalem to plan steps against their real enemy: the Jewish one. There is no other way to describe the meeting held by those ministerial failures, Peretz (Defense) and Livni (Foreign Affairs), and others.

Professors for a Strong Israel declares again that ministers who are unfit for their jobs, who cannot understand that there is no cease fire, whose "dream" is to strengthen the enemy -- must be banished from Israel's government.

Contact Professors for a Strong Israel at 050 551 8940 or send an email to Benjamin Svetitsky at bqs@julian.tau.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), January 29, 2007.

Fmr. Cia Director Woolsey And Dennis Ross: Release Pollard

New York -- The former Director of the CIA under President Bill Clinton, R. James Woolsey, and former top US. Middle East negotiator, Dennis Ross, have each recently stated that convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard should be released after having already served twenty years in prison. [J4JP: 22 years!] Mr. Woolsey said, "Now that he has served 20 years of a prison sentence, my view is that a 20 year sentence, I think, is enough and I think the close relationship between United States and Israel as fellow democracies is also a consideration so, at this point, I think Pollard has served a long enough sentence" (Israel National News, January 23, 2007).

Mr. Ross stated that Pollard's sentence was excessive and that he should be released, noting that, "Pollard has been in jail for so long that whatever facts he might know would have little if any effect on national security today." Ross also said that he had told Presidents George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush that Pollard should be released. He said, however, that President Bush is presently showing no interest in releasing Pollard (Jewish Tribune [Canada], December 28, 2006).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "The ZOA welcomes James Woolsey and Dennis Ross' statements recommending that Jonathan Pollard should be released. It needs to be remembered that Jonathan Pollard passed on classified information to Israel, a U.S. ally, not a U.S. enemy. Despite that mitigating fact, Pollard has served a longer prison term than any other person who has spied for an ally. The average term of imprisonment for passing on classified information has been between two and four years, yet Pollard received a life sentence, the same as that handed down to Aldrich Ames, the chief of CIA counterintelligence in Eastern Europe, who passed critical defense secrets to the Soviet Union, an American enemy, during the Cold War. Ames wrought serious harm on the United States, including being found responsible for the deaths of at least 11 U.S. agents.

"It is also wrong that Pollard was shown no leniency, despite having pled guilt as a result of a plea bargain. It is also possible that the harm to American security alleged to have been caused by Jonathan Pollard's actions may well have been caused by the espionage activities of Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, whose actions came to light only after Pollard was sentenced. Pollard has also expressed in writing deep remorse for breaking the law. All these considerations bear out James Woolsey and Dennis Ross' view that the time has come for Jonathan Pollard to be released."

"Most American Jewish leaders have been pleading for Pollard's release, including the ZOA. I myself have spoken with Pollard over 50 times over the years and have found him to be one of the most brilliant people to whom I've ever spoken. In all these many conversations, he almost never spoke about his own plight or release, only about strong U.S.-Israel relations and the survival of Israel. It would be a tragedy if his legacy is only his imprisonment. He has great talent which he could use to benefit society if only given the chance."

James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, told Israel National Radio's Alex Traiman that Jonathan Pollard should be freed. Speaking at the Herzliyah Conference this week (19/01/07) Ex-CIA Director, James Woolsey was asked by Arutz-7's Alex Trainman for his opinion on Jonathan Pollard. Woolsey responded that though he has favored a significant punishment for Pollard in the past, "now that he has served [over] 20 years in prison, my view is that 20 years is enough. I also think that the close relationship between the US and Israel is also of some consideration, and at this point I think he's served long enough. "

Click http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/012307.mp3 to listen. (It's 1 minute & 41 seconds MP3 audio file).

Website: http://www.JonathanPollard.org
RSS: http://www.JonathanPollard.org/rss.htm

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, January 29, 2007.

This appeared in www.jewishtelegraph.co.uk/man_1.html.
(Hat tip: LGF readers.)

IN A move widely seen to be bowing to Muslim pressure, Bolton Council has scrapped its Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) event.

The council is to replace it with a Genocide Memorial Day in June. This is in line with the policy of the Muslim Council of Britain, which continues to boycott HMD and is asking for a Genocide Day, which will also mark "the ongoing genocide and human rights abuses of Palestinians" by Israelis.

The council decision was made in consultation with the town's Interfaith Council.

But Rabbi Joseph Lever of United Synagogue who has participated in the Bolton event for around three years was not consulted on the decision. He said: "I mourn the fact that the Holocaust Memorial Day event will not take place in Bolton this year."

Louis Rapaport, president of the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester, was equally disappointed that the Jewish community was not consulted.

He said: "Bolton, alone of all the local authorities in our area, is not having an HMD event which is a government recommendation." He added: "There may not be many Jews in Bolton but the day is supposed to have an educational message to the whole community.

"I can't help feeling the decision was influenced by Bolton's large Muslim community."

This short item from the blogosphere captures some of the discussion on CoHaV quite nicely

"Why did you kill your grandmother?"

"Questions As Weapons" by Charles Jacobs unmasks a little-noted rhetorical strategy often employed by the jihadists and their allies:
"Why did you kill your grandmother?" That's what Professor Ruth Wisse said to an Arab student at Stanford who asked her, "Why is Israel an apartheid state?"

The student was flummoxed and tried again, "Why is Israel an apartheid state?" Wisse again responded, "Come on now, tell us why you killed your grandmother." A few more rounds of this and the student relented.

According to the Chabad Rabbi who invited Harvard's Wisse to speak, Wisse then explained how some questions are not questions at all, but weapons: If she would have answered his anti-Israel accusation, she would have been trapped, and done damage to her cause. Her "grandmother" riposte was the perfect demonstration of that point:

Having to explain why you're not guilty as charged is a losing proposition.

Yet Jews have allowed themselves to be trapped in a meta-discourse that continuously takes the form: "Israel is bad." "No it's not." Or "It's not as bad as you say."

Indeed, much of the history of hasbara -- Israeli PR -- has been defense against slanderous accusations. The classic handy reference book many students use, "Myths and Facts," a tome fat with expanded revisions to include the evolving set of lies and half-truths hurled at the Jewish state by Arabist propaganda. The formula of the book, which is the formula for much of hasbara training, is to set out the "myth" and then answer it with the true "facts."

Sometimes the "factual" response shows how Israeli conduct is exemplary: "Israel is an apartheid state?" "No," reads the formula. "Apartheid is something very different and cannot be applied to the condition of Palestinians in Israel, who are in fact treated in many ways better than they are in Arab countries." Etc. But even this -- "We are much better than you say" doesn't work, because as long as the discourse focuses on Israeli behavior, we lose.

What to do? Once armed with the realization that the anti-Israel formula accuses Israel of exactly those crimes the Arab/Muslim world has committed, we can work our way out of the corner:

"You say the Jews are guilty of oppression, apartheid, discrimination, expansion by land theft? Not true. What is true is that the Arab world is guilty of every one of these things."

Here's an enhanced "Myths, Facts, and Big Picture" approach:

The Lie: Israel is an apartheid state.

The Truth: That's ridiculous. (See Myths and Facts on why.)

Transition: But I'm glad you brought up apartheid. Christians are fleeing Palestinian-controlled areas due to Muslim violence. Violence against women, especially "honor killings" where male relatives kill females for "improper" sexual relations, are common in Palestinian territories and throughout the Muslim world. Jews are not even permitted to set foot in Saudi Arabia.

The Big Picture: Something similar to apartheid is found in the Arab world, where women and children, gays and lesbians, and Christians and Jews, are controlled, expelled, tormented and killed. That's what we should be protesting.

Contact Simon McIlwaine by email at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk or go to www.anglicansforisrael.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Professors for a Strong Israel, January 29, 2007.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has demonstrated over and over her unsuitability for her job and for the one she is aiming for, that of Prime Minister. When she places the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan at the top of her priorities, together with the resettlement of Arab refugees within it, one sees clearly her detachment from the Zionist vision, from the historical inheritance of the Jewish people, and from vital considerations of security and demographics.

Professors for a Strong Israel observes that a Palestinian state already exists east of the Jordan, on 80% of the area of the Land of Israel according to its ancient and its Mandatory borders. Moreover, any Israeli politician who works to strengthen Abu Mazen, who is after all the senior partner of Hamas, aids the enemy's efforts to eliminate the Jewish State.

We conclude that Tzipi Livni, like Olmert and Peretz, her confederates in political bankruptcy, has failed in her duties and must resign her position.

Contact Professors for a Strong Israel at 050 551 8940 or send an email to Benjamin Svetitsky at bqs@julian.tau.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, January 28, 2007.

The United Nations has identified almost 5000 distinct ethnic groups living in its 192 member countries (see World Ethnic Groups). Almost 300 of these have been identified as Minorities at Risk. There are over 100 national Liberation Movements that are struggling to develop regional autonomy. Yet almost the entire international community is united in its belief that the 3 million Palestinian Arabs should have their own sovereign state carved out of the minuscule State of Israel like a jigsaw puzzle. This solution, they believe, would relieve the "suffering of the Palestinian people" and resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Ostensibly, this appears to be a sensible solution. After all, if two parties can't manage to live together, they should live separately. One will live on one side of the border, the other will live on the other side of the border and all will be fine and well. But is that a realistic expectation? Let's first examine some of the basic geographic and demographic statistics. If one examines the data in the CIA World Factbook, the two states, Israel and Palestine, would have the smallest areas and largest population densities in the region, except for Lebanon. This would allow little room for population expansion. Such two micro-states would not be able to survive without a great deal of mutual cooperation. Neither could be economically viable by just remaining within their own borders. There would have to be a great deal of interdependence and cooperation between the two states on issues of regional concern. These issues include: security, transportation, commerce, agriculture, tourism, natural resources, archeology, and public health. Let's try to take a realistic view of issues that may arise with the establishment of a Palestinian state and how they may be addressed by the nascent state. There are many questions which come to mind, of which the following list is only the beginning:

Mutual Cooperation. Have any of the Palestinian groups given any indication in their words or deeds that they are ready to accept and cooperate with a Jewish State of Israel in any borders at all? Are there any indications that the establishment of a Palestinian State will be followed by the cessation of terrorist tactics against the State of Israel. Can we be confident that terrorism and conflict will replaced by an amicable atmosphere of acceptance, tolerance, and negotiated compromise? Have the Palestinians said or done anything to suggest that? So far they haven't given any indication of accepting a Jewish State of Israel with any boundaries.

Commerce and Currency. Both Israel and a neighboring Palestinian state would depend on an exchange of goods between the two states. That includes manufactured and agricultural goods, as well as human resources. Will the checkpoints that exist now be reduced or could they even be expanded to include both Palestinian and Israeli checkpoints at the borders? Will commercial vehicles be used to smuggle contraband goods and illegal arms? Will there be free trade or a system of tariffs and taxes on the goods. What kind of security will there be at the border crossings? How easy or difficult will it be for merchants to exchange goods between the two states? What kind of currency will be used?

Passports and Visas. An independent Palestinian state will have the ability to issue passports and visas. Can we feel confident that passports won't be issued to trained terrorists who want to export their skills to comrades in other countries? Since the Gaza Strip is so readily accessible by land, sea, and air, can we be confident that the Gaza Strip won't be used as a safe haven for international criminals who are trying to escape from Interpol or the FBI? Today the Gaza Strip has become a haven for terrorists, kidnappers, and arms smuggling. Why should we expect anything different?

Security and Weapons. A sovereign Palestinian state would have the right to purchase weapons for security and defense. Can we be confident that the Palestinians will do that in a responsible manner so that explosive materials and sophisticated weapons don't get into the hands of criminals and terrorists? Will the Palestinians be able to maintain a system of security and justice within their own borders? Who will security officers and judges be accountable to?

Natural Resources. Fresh water and energy sources are scarce in that part of the world. Will the Palestinians and Israelis work amicably together to conserve, develop, and distribute valuable water resources? How will they determine placement of pipelines and cables? How will they ensure that both countries get an adequate supply of water, oil, and electricity? Will they work together to utilize alternative forms of energy? What kind of security will be provided for pipelines, cables, and reservoirs?

Transportation. The Palestinians will probably want to construct airports, seaports, and highways. Can we be assured that they will do that with concern for security and environmental protection? Will the Palestinians show respect for archeological, historical, and religious sites in their construction plans? Let's take an example of a transportation issue that could feasibly arise with the establishment of a Palestinian State. Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport is only a short distance from Palestinian areas. What would happen if an El-Al pilot has to circle over Palestinian airspace in a period of heavy air traffic or poor weather conditions? Is it possible that a surface to air missile will shoot up from Palestinian territory to destroy the plane and kill all 400 passengers? The Palestinians will immediately call a press conference and say, "We're really sorry that we shot down the plane, we didn't mean it. Our radar operator reported a military craft violating our airspace. We dismissed the radar operator and this will never happen again." In the meantime, 400 Jews were killed and travel to Israel will grind to a halt. Let's say the reverse situation occurs. The Palestinians build an airport on the Gaza Strip, a short distance from Tel Aviv. Israeli security officials will probably insist that all take-off and landing patterns be directed away from Israeli population centers. One day, Israeli radar detects a commercial jet over international waters in the Mediterranean heading straight for Tel Aviv. It is conceivable that the pilot had a legitimate need to modify his landing pattern because of air traffic, weather conditions, or a medical emergency on board. Israeli security officials will have only minutes to establish communication with the pilot to be sure that he has no malicious intent. If they can't do that, do they shoot down a commercial jet over international waters and kill a few hundred civilians, or do they allow the plane to continue on a possible mission of enormous death and destruction? That's a decision that not even King Solomon would want to make. Can we really trust the Palestinians to use transportation facilities in a responsible manner?

Tourism. Tourists who wish to visit the Holy Land will probably want to visit Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho, Nazareth, and Tiberias, all within driving distance from each other. Will Palestinians cooperate with Israelis to allow tourists of all faiths to have free access to these areas? What kind of security will be provided for tourist buses? What happens when the bus has to travel from Israeli to Palestinian areas? Will buses be able to travel directly from Jerusalem to Hebron or from Jericho to Tiberias, or will they have to take some lengthy, circuitous route for security reasons? Will it be possible to take a Jerusalem-Hebron-Massada-Dead Sea tour as it is now? Will Palestinians and Israelis work together to encourage tourism and commerce or will antagonistic policies discourage tourists from visiting holy sites?

Public Health. Can the Palestinians be trusted to address the health needs of their own population? Will children receive their inoculations? Will geriatric needs be addressed? Will Palestinian health officials cooperate with their Israeli counterparts? Suppose an atypical epidemic breaks out in Israel. It could be a tropical disease such as West Nile Fever, or it could be bio-terrorism. Will Palestinian officials provide access to Israeli health officials to investigate the source of infection or will they make it more difficult? Will Palestinains cooperate with Israelis to control the epidemic or will Israelis have to examine birds and mosquitoes at checkpoints?

Archeological, religious, and historical sites. Can we trust the Palestinians to respect and preserve the holy sites of all religions? Will there be free and secure access for all religions? Suppose the Palestinians are building new housing in Jericho and come across some artifacts from the biblical era. Will they call Israeli archeologists at Hebrew University and say, "We discovered some materials that may be of interest to you, would you like to come and examine them?" Or, will they attempt to erase any signs of Jewish history in the area?

Agricultural Methods. Both states will probably want to grow the same crops and animals for food. Will there be cooperation in the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides or will there be interference? Will there be proper controls for animal-borne diseases and genetic breeding?

There are many more such questions. Yes, it's true that most of them could be resolved through negotiation and compromise. But if the Arabs would be willing to negotiate and compromise then there wouldn't be a conflict and there wouldn't be any need to develop another Arab state in a region that already has 22 Arab states.

So what are the possible alternatives? A one-state solution wouldn't work either because eventually it would result in the dissolution of the Jewish state by demography and democracy. So that suggests that the only solution for now would be a reasonable compromise between a two-state and one-state solution. That could be accomplished through a federated arrangement, similar to the arrangement between the United States and Puerto Rico. There are few Puerto Ricans that are complaining that they have been "suffering from a lengthy occupation." That's because they are benefiting from their relationship ship with the United States, so there is no need to make significant changes.

The same argument can be made for Palestinians and Israelis. If it can be demonstrated to the Palestinian people, not their fanatical leaders, that they will benefit from a federated connection with the State of Israel, then it could be adopted, even if only as an interim solution. There are many forms of federal government which can be considered. Almost any of them would be preferable to having two separate sovereign micro-states. That would not resolve the conflict or "alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people." It would only create more problems and conflicts.

Those that are really concerned about the "plight of the Palestinians" should abandon the fantasy of a two-state solution and work at developing a realistic federation of an autonomous Arab entity that would operate in a loose union with the State of Israel. It could be based on a model similar to Puerto Rico or other existing forms of federations. Almost any of these would be preferable to a two-state solution and would allow the Palestinian people to benefit from the technical, agricultural, and medical accomplishments of the State of Israel. The Palestinians would only suffer more if they had their own autonomous, fragmented micro-state in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. But if they can't accept being a minority population within a Jewish federation, then they still have 20 Arab Sunni Muslim countries to go to where they can be part of the majority population.

It's time to dismiss the fallacy of a two-state solution and promote a more realistic, sensible solution. American and European diplomats are not facilitating a peaceful resolution to the conflict by promoting deceptive solutions.

Contact Israel Zwick at israel.zwick@earthlink.net or go to his website:
http://cnpublications.net/. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, January 28, 2007.

Financing the Enemy is Treason.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressured Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into giving up to US$100 million to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Now, however, PA Minister of Planning Samir Abu Aisha has stated that the Hamas organization will be fully involved in handing out the cash. Doing so makes a mockery of Olmert's assurances and will help bolster Hamas popularity.

Until now, Arabs never kept their word or honoured any agreement they had signed with Israel. In spite of this, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has reportedly been secretly bargaining away the final and irreversible surrender of most of Judea and Samaria to murderous 'Palestinians'! This mentally tormented and disabled person is in charge of Israel and nothing is being done to remove him from office. Olmert has no self-respect nor respect for the right of the Jews to their ancestral land!

Food for Thought.

Exposing the ugliness of current reality and calling for directional change toward the achievement of original Zionist goals is not disloyalty to Israel. Perpetuation of apathy, not exposing the stupidity of the current Israeli government and not helping some Israeli voters realize their mistake is.

Outcry of a Rabbi. Chief rabbi of Tzfat and son of Israel's former chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, has issued a serious call for 100 "brave volunteers" to lead Israel 's return to Gaza. "We need to take the initiative, we need to return to Gush Katif," Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu wrote. "It's time to save the country from the corrupt ones, the followers of Ariel Sharon."

Protection of 'Palestinians' in Iraq. The UN refugee agency has asked the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition forces to provide protection to about 20,000 Sunni Muslims who claim Israel as their homeland in Iraq. Shi'ite Muslims have killed more than 600 Sunnis. Iraqi police said many of the victims were tortured with electric drills.

PM calls for Katsav's Resignation. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday evening called for the resignation of President Moshe Katsav, who is facing possible indictment of rape. Olmert made the call at the Herzliya Conference (Why, with so many pending corruption accusations, does not Olmert follow the same advice?)

Proposal from Asylum. Member of the Israeli Knesset Parliament, Prof. Shlomo Breznitz of the Kadima Party, a close associate of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has offered a plan that would hand over the administration of Judea, Samaria and Gaza to a European task force until the establishment of a Palestinian state. The plan would involve destroying most of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, as Jewish communities were destroyed in the Katif sector of Gaza. (When has Israel relinquished her independence? When have the Europeans done anything good for Jews?)

Quote of the Week.

"IDF -- which buried its soul in the sands of Gush Katif... In the sands of Gush Katif, Israel completely lost its goal. Without a goal, it is impossible to win." -- by Moshe Feiglin.


The High Level of Government Corruption. Globes business news editor Hagai Golan said at the Herzliya Conference that 86 percent of the country believes that wealthy businessmen control the government. He stated that this "leaves no room for doubt -- we live in a corrupt country." He said that although the wealthy elite in Israel are important for the country's national strength, "they should not be above the national enforcement bodies -- this is the root of much of the problem." "What went wrong is Israel's leadership echelon. The Israeli public is an extraordinary one, but the Israeli elites have lost their way through the decades. Our political elite has become unfit..."

Two-state Solution no Solution. Former IDF Chief of Staff Major-General Moshe Ya'alon said that "two-state solution" championed by the Bush administration is "irrelevant" and will not bring peace and stability to the Middle East. Dr. Dan Schueftan, of Haifa University's, described as "a senior Israeli academic," said that Israeli-Arab leaders recently released a document calling for "nothing short of the destruction of Jewish national state."

Persecution of Jews in Yemen. Yemenite Muslims have terrorised around 45 local Jews into fleeing their homes. A Saudi Arabian newspaper reported that the Jews were accused of "serving global Zionism" and given 10 days to abandon their property or face abductions and theft. (Business as usual -- No international outcry!)

Hiding Political Stupidity. The State Prosecutor said that opening the Winograd Commission, which was established to investigate mistakes made in last summer's war with Hezbollah, findings to the public could create a security risk. (Deportation of 8500 Jews from Gaza was not "a security risk"? Great democracy!)

How Many Goverments does Israel Have? Israel's defense minister, Amir Peretz -- leader of Labor, unveiled his own 3 steps plan for peace with the Arab Palestinians. 1. The sides would declare a comprehensive cease-fire. 2. Abbas would dismantle Palestinian terrorist groups and the sides would move toward an agreement on a Arab Palestinian state within temporary borders. 3. A new permanent Arab state to be established alongside Israel. (Once again, he has shown how delusional and power hungry he is!)

Jewish Contribution to Humanity. Arno Allan Penzias (born April, 1933) is an German born American physicist and a co-winner of the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for identifying the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), the radio remnant of the Big Bang. At age six he fled to Britain as part of the Kindertransport (the rescue mission that took in nearly 10,000 predominantly Jewish children from Nazi Germany, and the occupied territories. The children were placed in British foster homes, hostels, and farms.)

What is in a Name? Jenin central square is renamed "Saddam Hussein" square. The residents have begun collecting donations for the construction of a special monument in memory of Saddam.

Arab Convert Arrested. An Arab who converted to Judaism and moved from the PA to Haifa was indicted for conspiring with the enemy and contacting a foreign agent -- an Islamic Jihad terrorist. Assaf Ben-David, born Hussam Hafez Mahmoud Suafta, converted to Judaism and left the PA-controlled village of Tubas, near Shechem once he received Israeli citizenship. He recently returned to Islam after living for years as a Hareidi-religious Jew and is accused of trying to pass materials for manufacturing explosives. (Not many "Righteous Coverts" are around! Marriage, Israeli citizenship is not the legitimate reasons for Conversion.)

Brotherly Love. Arabs, who the UNHCR refers to as Palestinian -- though most are far younger than the State of Israel, forcibly expelled from their homes in Iraq are stranded in a no-mans land as both Syria and Jordan refuse to accept them.

New Anti-Missile Drone. Israel soon to launch new anti-missile drone, which will be able to identify, intercept and destroy ballistic missiles as they are launched from the ground. (Would it be easier to destroy those sites with ballistic missiles on the ground, instead of creating the feeling of false security?)

NATO in Gaza -- Strategic Planning Minister Avigdor Lieberman raised the idea of deployment of 30,000 NATO peacekeepers in Gaza, during talks with Condoleeza Rice. (As a sovereign country, Israel has long resisted calls for foreign troops to be posted in Gaza and the West Bank, Jewish Land! When Will Idiocy Stop?)

Legacy of 'Useless Nothing'. United Nations peacekeepers in Sudan have been accused of raping children as young as 12. Following an investigation, Britain's Daily Telegraph claims to have gathered accounts of 20 cases of sexual abuse by UN personnel in southern Sudan. It says hundreds of children may have been abused. (Add to it: the undwilliness to prevent genocide in Ruanda, rapes and abuse of civilians in the Congo and the spread of AIDS by UN personal.)

Abolish PA in West Bank as the First Step...

The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority and its prime minister is openly calling for the destruction of Israel, and therefore Israel should dissolve the P.A and ship its leaders off to the Gaza Strip, an Israeli lawmaker is recommending. "After 13 years of incitement and violence and terrorism and agreement violations, one should say that enough is enough. It is high time [that Israel] should abolish the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria [ West Bank] and transfer the leadership (and Arab population) to Gaza," said Israeli lawmaker Yuval Steinitz. Steinitz said that entire West Bank should be under Israeli security control...(...and let them kill each other in Gaza for a while!)

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement. For the last 3 years, he has been publishing internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict -- independently, not as a member of any organization or political movement. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 28, 2007.

By now we have all heard about a repeat of the secret Oslo pact wherein Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, E.U. Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana and the ubiquitous Palestinian Authority secretly met to divest Israel of vital territory. This begins with Judea and Samaria, continues with the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley and ends with all of Jerusalem controlled by Jordan for 19 years til 1967.

As in Olso, these government officials, in secret, met to decide the fate of the Jewish nation and the Jewish people with foreign governments -- Wannsee again.

It has been reported that Mahmoud Abbas met with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres in Davos, Switzerland. (1) For Peres, this is his second act of what most nations call treason (at the least) besides Oslo. Peres is an old hand at representing the Left and subverting Israel to the benefit of Arab Muslim Palestinian hostiles.

Watch for the following game plan: Olmert, under investigation for a series of criminal acts. Hopefully, if he's indicted, he will have to step down in disgrace. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, counseled by Shimon Peres, would then be handed the office of Prime Minister -- unless Peres claims it first. Actually, Peres is probably going to try (again) for the high ceremonial post of President after he (probably) had something to do with smearing and undermining President Moshe Katzav. He's very good at that. Either way the deal arranged with C. Rice and the U.S. State Department is to push through a "temporary" second state of Palestine in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

This, of course, would require at the start, the immediate rolling "displacement" of 250,000 Jews -- much as was done with the Jews of Gush Katif and North Samaria. (By the way, surrendering the four Northern Samarian settlements exposed Israel to total vulnerability from hostile Arab Palestinian Muslims and their Katyushas into her heartland, Ben Gurion Airport, Haifa, Tel Aviv and all the other cities, towns and villages surrounding the Northern Samarian salient.) The fact is that neither Bush, Rice nor Olmert seem to give a damn that Hamas, with an Iranian and Syrian supply, will line Judea and Samaria with missiles -- just as Hezb'Allah has done in Northern Israel from Lebanon.

Once this duplicitous act is on the books, then U.N. Peacekeepers (including the Quartet military personnel) will be introduced to "Keep the Peace". This shall place NATO and Russia in charge of the Middle East and the Jewish State of Israel. Will that do Israel or America any good? What will happen to Israel's sovereignty, security, safety, and refuge for the Jewish people? It will evaporate!

These U.N./NATO Peacekeepers will, as before, offer any number of useless forces who, as in the past, and now in Southern Lebanon, proved to be collaborators with Hezb'Allah and Arab Muslim Lebanese Terrorists.

Presently in Lebanon, Hezb'Allah has ordered UNFIL (United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon) off all main roads and, as expected, those Peace Forces obeyed. A repeat of the time in mid-May 1967 when Gamal Abd' El- Nasser order the U.N. Peacekeepers out of the Sinai. They meekly obeyed as Nasser also closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (again as he had in 1956). In international law this is a Casus Belli, initiating the 1967 Six Days War.(2)

Shimon Peres who lost the election to Katzav for the post of President, is expected to try again for that post. If Peres succeeds, he will turn that largely ceremonial post to one of influence. In effect, Peres will be working with (or for) the U.S. State Department representing a foreign government, to enable either Olmert of Livni to push through the plan for a "temporary" second State of Palestine and the forced removal of the Jewish citizens of Judea and Samaria (continuing Israel's surrender of control to the Muslim Arabs).

There is little doubt that the Leftist Media and their cohorts (the Leftist Supreme Court) are deep into planning this putsch. It's not a matter of overthrowing a Leftist Government but rather keeping it in their grasps by overthrowing the Israeli people and the Jewish nation. It's an unusual coup d'etat but it is a conquest from within by corrupt officials who know how to manipulate the system.

This can be averted IF the Government is overthrown and the plotters are removed. There are many decent candidate for the Prime Minister's Chair who have already shown their honestly.

Please keep in mind when black under-the-table dealings are in progress, there are winners, losers and the victims to be sold for slaughter.

The following outlines what the various side expect:

The State Department and the Bush Administration wish to claim some sort of victory for history by creating the fiction of a "peaceful" two-state solution.

The U.N. and the E.U., never friends of either the Jewish people and the Jewish State, would celebrate an imposed penalty on Israel. The U.N., U.S. and E.U. would hope for improved business flow from theoretically friendly and grateful Arab Muslims countries. Add to that, for this betrayal, the Muslims (hopefully) would lessen their pressures on Eurabia. (Only the Europeans -- perennial losers to any dictatorial force -- would believe or hope the Islamists would withdraw their Muslims or, at least, lessen their incoming migrations.)

Olmert, Livni, Peres, Mazuz, Peretz and the Left would have succeeded in imposing an expanded Oslo across the center of the nation. They would ignore the thousands of missiles fired by Hezb'Allah at Northern Israel as well as the increasing range and accuracy of the Kassam Rockets from the then Judenrein Gaza Strip. By evacuating the center of the country to the Muslim Arab Palestinians, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Fatah would have an easy firing position to reach ALL of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

While Olmert, Livni, the Kadima Party and the Left would deny betraying the nation, after the first salvo into Tel Aviv, nevertheless, the nation (even the Left) would scream treason and, no doubt, demand to hang the perpetrators. Granted, it would be satisfying but, too late for the victims of this treachery.

In the interim, foreign troops would have been invited into Gaza, Judea and Samaria as supposed Peace-Keepers by Olmert or his replacement, Livni. Moreover, through the black, under-the-table deals the government would have relinquished her right to the Land given by G-d to the Jewish people forever. Thus, they would have legitimized permission given the foreign forces to force all Jews out of Judea and Samaria.

Pushing Israel off of the Golan Heights would please the Syrians and give the U.S. leverage to claim the position of Israel's protector from the Heights above from where Syria used to lob missiles and bombs into the Jewish communities from 1948 to 1967.

This would be accomplished by building a super American air and ground base on the Golan, with the permission of the grateful Syrians. Israel's role under Olmert, Livni, Peres and Mazuz has been to negotiate with Syria under State Department supervision and control. They have already made the claim that it will all be just a big "Park". (Yes, I said a big "Park" which is the agreed disinformation title to be used.)

Here again, the Jews, both civilian and military, would be forcibly removed. The Syrians would be grateful to America for removing the Israelis electronic observation posts on Mt. Hermon and Mt. Dov, allowing Israel to monitoring possible Syria's military activity. At the moment, Syria cannot start up a tank, fire up a jet and watch for any loading up of missiles without Israel being alerted. The U.S. says they will keep watch -- on Israel's behalf -- which is why the word "Disinformation" was coined.

President Bush would like to strike Iran's nuclear capability before it becomes operational. There is some hope by the U.S. that Iran will strike at Israel, thus giving an excuse to hit Iran with cruise missiles and tactical nukes. If Israel was eliminated, she would be looked upon as expendable but necessary collateral damage.

But, either way, Bush will attempt to placate the Arab/Muslim nations by forcing Israel to allow the creation of what the State Department knows will be a Terrorist State. Should Olmert and his collaborators, plus the State Department, in linkage with the E.U. and U.N., succeed in divesting Israel of Judea and Samaria, it will create an Islamists' arc from Iran, through Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the Palestinian West Bank, through Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, on to Libya, Sudan, Algeria, Ethiopia. Naturally, the Gulf States of Kuwait, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi would fall into line -- all to create a necklace of the Muslim States' Crescent, which would become a deadly threat to the Free West and the Third World developing countries. That poisonous necklace would also control all Middle Eastern oil.

The Middle East, under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, would become the start of a massive Islamic World-wide Caliphate under Sharia Law as envisioned by the Ayatollahs and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All this is intended to satisfy the historical legacy of one small President and a State Department who hates the Jewish State.

As for Israel, she could save herself but, given the fact her electorate, usually misled by the Leftist Media, most often selects a Leftist dedicated to de-Judaizing the nation, she may not be able to save herself.

Now, let's explore the slogan "Road Map" which brought Israel to where she presently stands. First, there was, of course, the Oslo Accords, where Rabin, Peres and Beilin colluded with the Norwegians to give away 7 Israeli cities to Yassir Arafat's control. Israel's reward was murder from day-to-day while the State Department paid Arafat's Billions. Each of those cities turned into a terrorist base and its perpetrators got away without being hung.

There were the Wye Plantation meetings where a (sadly) weak-spined Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu managed to give up 80% of Hebron which quickly filled up with Arab Muslim Palestinian terrorists.

We jump ahead to an addled, demented Sharon and his shady advisor Ehud Olmert, who gave up Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip, so the divided Palestinians (Fatah and Hamas) could turn it into a fire base growing weekly.

Then we found that the great Sharon allowed Hezb'Allah to build a missile launching area with 20,000 Katyusha missiles for six years. They launched 4,000 into Northern Israel, killing hundreds of Jewish civilians and soldiers, until the U.S. State Department, the U.N. manage to halt the firing. The Lebanese Army and the U.N. Peacekeepers were supposed to disarm Hezb'Allah and pacify Southern Lebanon. But, they didn't! In fact, they were just ordered off all the main roads by Hezb'Allah and they left.

So, what did Rice, Bush, Olmert and Livni learn? Apparently nothing. Well, Hamas and Fatah are in a war to control Gaza -- something like Beirut under Arafat. Hezb'Allah has launched a war against the Lebanese Government and are rioting in the streets -- all this while Rice, Bush, Olmert, Livni are ready to turn Israel into Beirut.

The Bush plans for winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis just didn't work. The Arab Muslim Terrorists (Mujahideen) came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syrian, etc. to kill U.S. soldiers. No hearts and minds won here!

In Afghanistan the Taliban, having subjugated the nation were driven out momentarily along with Osama Bin Laden -- probably into the mountains and across the border to Pakistan. They are presently re-organized and are attacking U.S. and U.N. troops.

Somehow Bush, Rice and even the Saudi representatives have miscalculated the mind-set of the Arab Muslims.

While Israel was the only nation competently fighting Islamic terrorists along comes the Arabist State Department and the Bush family to demand Israel stop fighting terror except with restraint.

Having almost lost in Iraq, Bush has finally allowed the U.S. soldiers to shoot Iranians in Iraq. He still won't bomb Syria for assisting terrorists into Iraq. Perhaps their friend in Washington, James Baker III, just won't let Bush hit Syria. You did know Syria had friends in high places in Washington.

Now C. Rice, in cahoots with Olmert, Livni, Solana are hustling Israel into sacrificing her very life by putting Palestinian missiles quite close to Tel Aviv. In what Israel is supposed to hand over to Abbas (Judea and Samaria). That's called the two state solution under the Road Map or otherwise known as the Muslims' "Final Solution to their Jewish Question."

As this crowd of Arabists in Washington tries to butter up Saudi Arabia and the like, even as the Muslim Islamists are kicking the hell out of the world.

We see the Hezb'Allah and Lebanese are at each other's throats again reminiscent of the killings in Beirut under Arafat where he created a 12 year Civil War in Lebanon which killed 100,000 Muslims and Christians.

Why must we plunge onward, knowing the character of the Arab, the Muslims, the Islamists? Destroying Israel and plunging what remains of World Jewry into despair will not save your legacy, Mr. Bush. You have, as your family before you, chosen the wrong side and, unfortunately, all of America must suffer and pay for your mistakes.


1. "Abbas Meets Israel's Foreign Minister" MidEast Daily News January 26, 2007

2. "Egypt: A Brief History -- From Ancient Times to the Modern Period" MidEast Web

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard (Justice4JP), January 28, 2007.
This was written by Esther Pollard, Jonathan Pollard's wife. It appeared in Makor Rishon
( http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/012607a.htm) January 26, 2007. It was translated to English By Justice4JP.
  • My husband, Jonathan Pollard, is an Israeli agent in captivity, currently completing his 22nd year of a life sentence for his service to the security of The State of Israel.

  • The information that Jonathan provided to Israel included Iranian, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities -- all being developed for use against Israel. He also provided information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on up-coming terrorist attacks planned against Israeli civilian targets.

  • Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding signed by both countries. But the information was deliberately being withheld from Israel as the result of an illegal intelligence embargo implemented by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and former Deputy Director of the CIA Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, whose pro-Arab tilt did not jibe with declared US foreign policy.

  • In the beginning Jonathan volunteered his services and only later did he become a bona fide agent on behalf of the State of Israel. His zeal to save Israeli lives was his sole motivation. Even the sentencing judge -- who was no friend of the case -- recognized that Jonathan was an ideologue, not a mercenary, and therefore declined to impose a monetary fine.

  • From the time that Jonathan was first arrested in 1985, Israel denied all ties to him, and cooperated fully with the American prosecution to secure a life sentence for him.

  • For its own shameful reasons the American Jewish leadership endorsed and perpetuated Israel's lies. On March 10, 1987 -- six days after my husband was sentenced to Life in complete violation of a plea agreement which Jonathan honored and the US abrogated -- the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations sent a letter to the US State Department promising never to interfere on his behalf. The Conference has kept that promise with religious zeal. (A copy of their letter, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, appears on our web site --

  • Despite the passage of 22 years and innumerable opportunities, Israel's lies continue to govern this case, and effectively to keep Jonathan in prison.

  • Israel cravenly handed over to the US all of the evidence that was used against Jonathan. Without this evidence, the US had no case, and would have been forced to set him free.

  • In betraying Jonathan and by handing over the evidence, Israel earned for itself the dishonorable distinction of becoming the first and only country in the history of modern espionage ever to assist in the indictment and prosecution of its own agent!

  • Israel paid the lawyer who secured a life sentence for Jonathan, without benefit of trial. The median sentence for the offense Jonathan had committed was 2 to 4 year sentence -- not Life!

  • This was the same lawyer, paid by the Government of Israel, who failed to file a simple Notice of Intent to Appeal, forever depriving Jonathan of his right to appeal his Life sentence.

  • By contrast, to this day Israel has steadfastly refused to pay a cent to the lawyers who, unlike the above-mentioned lawyer, are trying to help Jonathan to secure his release from prison.

  • Even though Jonathan fought and succeeded in forcing the State of Israel to officially acknowledge him as her agent, the State's attitude towards him and its resolute abandonment of him has not changed at all in 22 years.

  • The State of Israel has never taken the most minimal steps -- legal, moral, or diplomatic to secure Jonathan's release.

  • To this day, Israel has never officially informed the White House, the Justice, Intelligence or State Departments that Jonathan is an Israeli agent and that Israel intends to seek his release. Consequently the American Justice Department continues to regard him only as a common criminal, not as an Israeli agent, and to treat him accordingly.

  • To this day the State of Israel has never sought the assistance of American congressmen or senators on Jonathan's case, and for 2 decades it has calculatedly avoided engaging AIPAC or any other effective lobby organization on his behalf.

  • In 22 years Israel has never done any hasbara for the public in Israel or in the US to explain its position on Jonathan's case or to promote his release -- as it routinely does to explain every other matter of importance to the State.

  • For 22 years, the State of Israel has deliberately attempted to prevent the Israeli public from knowing about Jonathan. A good indicator of the Government's attitude towards Jonathan is reflected in the Ministry of Education's refusal to include his plight in the regular school curriculum. The Ministry of Education Library and Archives (which teachers use for research) contains absolutely no information whatsoever about Jonathan! Not a single reference!

  • When Jonathan's former handler, Rafi Eitan, ran for Knesset earlier this year, it put the lie to the Government's long-standing claim that pressing for Jonathan's release might somehow damage Israel's relationship with the US. Indeed the Government of Israel demonstrated no compunction whatsoever about possible damage to US-Israel relations or to Jonathan's situation when immediately upon his election, it appointed Rafi Eitan as a minister

  • The Government's appointment of Eitan as minister was done with the full knowledge that the Americans regard Eitan as an unindicted co-conspirator in the affair and that he had played a key role in the betrayal of Jonathan Pollard, even providing false testimony to the Americans which had doomed Jonathan.

  • From the time Jonathan was first arrested, the only consistent "plan" Israel has ever had for his release is to bring him home in a coffin. This fact has been confirmed for us over and over again for the last 22 years by various officials and events.

  • Jonathan miraculously survived the first 7 years of his incarceration in solitary confinement, in barbaric conditions in a dungeon cell 3 stories underground at USP Marion and then waged his own battle -- without any help from the State of Israel -- to be moved to open population at FCI Butner.

  • Just shortly after his move to FCI Butner in the spring of 1993, Israel sent a Mossad agent to Jonathan on official business. Instead of presenting Jonathan with a plan for securing his release, the Mossad agent came armed with an official request that Jonathan kill himself. "Committing suicide," Jonathan was informed, would "solve the Pollard problem" for the State of Israel.

  • The Israeli policy which wants to bring Jonathan Pollard home in a coffin, G-d forbid, continues to this day, and illuminates the Israeli Government's calculated consistency in missing every opportunity to secure Jonathan's release.

  • Instead, successive Governments of Israel have routinely exploited Jonathan's name and his plight, using it as a sweetener to sell unpopular unilateral concessions to the Israeli public. But when crunch time comes, Jonathan is always dropped from every deal and painful unilateral concessions to the enemy are made regardless. (Some examples include the Hebron Accords, the Wye Accords, and most recently the Disengagement from Gaza and northern Samaria).

  • In Washington it is an open secret that Jonathan's sentence is grossly disproportionate and purely political. This was confirmed in a 2002 interview with former Secretary of Defense, the late Caspar Weinberger. Weinberger openly admitted that Jonathan's case was a "minor matter" that had been exaggerated out of all proportion to serve another political agenda. The opening that this admission created to secure Jonathan's release was totally ignored.

  • Similarly Dennis Ross, the former US Special Envoy to the Middle East, stated in his book "The Missing Peace" (published in 2004) that Jonathan deserves to be freed unconditionally. Nevertheless, writes Ross, Pollard is far too valuable as a bargaining chip against Israel, so he advised the president at Wye not to release him. Still no response from Israel.

  • In point of fact, Israel has already "paid" for Jonathan's release several times over (including freeing 750 murderers and terrorists with blood on their hands as part of the Wye Accords), but has never bothered to collect its due.

  • In the 22 years that Jonathan has been in prison, he has repeatedly been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and severe affliction. The Government of Israel has been informed of each and every episode of mistreatment of its agent but has never once intervened on his behalf, nor has the Government ever protested.

  • Jonathan's first court appearance in the US in 2 decades took place in the year 2003. Israel did not even bother to send a representative. Instead, on the eve of Jonathan's court hearing, Israel's consular representative in New York who was given the task of officially responding to the media, slandered Jonathan on American national television thus sending a clear message to the judge that Jonathan is "hefker" and that no one in Israel cares what is done with him.

  • Israel's intent never to bring Jonathan home alive, is reflected in the immoral and mean-spirited way that the State relates to me, his wife.

  • As the wife of an Israeli agent, the fact that I remain homeless and penniless speaks volumes about the State's attitude towards Jonathan.

  • Compare this with the case of an Israeli drug dealer, a family friend of a Prime Minister, who was taken captive while pursuing his own illicit interests, and not in the service of the State. Both his wife and his mistress and their two respective families received full support for the duration of his captivity. I on the other hand, receive no help whatsoever and am dependent for my survival on the kindness of a few friends.

  • Moreover, I am cancer survivor. I have no medical insurance and I receive no medical assistance whatsoever from the State of Israel. In fact, when I recently tried to buy basic medical coverage on my own, I was rejected by Kupat Cholim. The manner in which I was rejected strongly suggested that they were fearful that accepting Pollard's wife might somehow jeopardize the Kupah's government funding.

  • Compare this also with the Government's recent gesture to the citizens of Lebanon offering them free medical treatment in Israel in spite of their possible participation in the recent war against Israel. An enemy alien can receive medical assistance in Israel, but the wife of an Israeli agent in captivity cannot!

  • Worse still, the Government brazenly lies to the Supreme Court and to the Israeli public when it repeatedly claims to be supporting Jonathan and me financially. We presented documented proof to State Comptroller Judge Micha Lindenstrauss that in 22 years, neither Jonathan nor I have ever received a cent from the Government of Israel.

  • The bottom line is that for 22 years, the State of Israel has stubbornly denied granting Jonathan any status that would bring him or his wife any assistance, or relief, or the possibility of securing his release.

  • Even though Jonathan fought for and obtained official recognition as an agent, his name does not appear on the Ministry of Defense's list of captives, thus depriving him of all of his rights as an agent in captivity.

  • The State also refuses to grant him status as a Prisoner of Zion, again depriving him of any rights that might accrue and, more importantly, depriving him of the protections this status would afford him.

  • By denying Jonathan status within the official framework governed by the Ministry of Defense (as a Shavui); or by the Internal Affairs Ministry (as a PoZ); the State of Israel has relegated Jonathan to the status of a person who does not officially exist and who therefore, can effectively be ignored to death.

For additional information see also at www.jonathanpollard.org:

  • The Facts Page

  • The Information Page

  • The Wye Double-Cross Page

  • Jonathan and the Judge: A Final Chapter in the Pollard Case? -- Text of Esther Pollard's Speech

  • FOIA Document: Conference of President's Letter to US State Dept

  • What No One Wants to Talk About (Re: Israel's failure to lobby at all for Pollard)

  • Caspar's Ghost -- (Interview with Weinberger admission that Pollard case was exaggerated out of all proportion) -- by Edwin Black

  • Excerpts From "The Missing Piece" by Dennis Ross

  • Terror in the US and The Jonathan Pollard Case

  • The Clemency Page

  • The Bagatz Page

  • Jonathan Pollard's Letter to the Families of the Captive Soldiers

Contact Justice4JP at Justice4JP@gmail.com or go to the website

To Go To Top

Posted by Eye on the Post, January 28, 2007.


We wanted you to see a rare example of a Post reporter overtly expressing the type of thought and opinion that often lies hidden beneath the surface of the Post's agenda driven, anti-Israel reporting. Not only does Mr. Kessler see events through a distorted prism, he selectively emphasizes some facts and culls out others in his effort to influence readers.

According to Washington Post reporter Glen Kessler, President Bush isn't giving Hezbollah the respect it deserves. (President's Portrayal of 'The Enemy' Often Flawed, 1-24-07, A13) A group known to be responsible for multiple bombings, kidnappings, hijackings and murders, including attacks on a US embassy (17 dead), Marine barracks (241 Americans killed), and the 1992 and 1994 car bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires (124 dead between the two bombings) has, in Mr. Kessler's estimation, "evolved." Now, Mr. Kessler says, it's just an "anti-Israeli militant organization:" He wrote:

"Similarly, Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken." Bush is referring to attacks nearly a quarter-century ago on a U.S. embassy and a Marine barracks when the United States intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah strongholds. Hezbollah has evolved into primarily an anti-Israeli militant organization -- it fought a war with Israel last summer -- but the European Union does not list it as a terrorist organization."

Note Mr. Kessler's use of the phrase "nearly a quarter-century ago" to advance his opinion that Hezbollah has been rehabilitated. He even seeks to justify Hezbollah's US embassy bombing and bombing of the Marine barracks by blaming the United States for bringing on the attacks when it "intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah strongholds." What Mr. Kessler mischaracterizes as "intervention" by the US was actually the US's membership in the Multinational Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon in which the US, France, Italy and Britain sent troops to Lebanon in an effort to bring about an end to the civil war. Mr. Kessler forgets to mention that a French army barracks was also bombed by Hezbollah 20 seconds after the US Marine Barracks, killing 58 French soldiers.

The car bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Cultural Center in Argentina were only 12 and 14 years ago, not a quarter century ago, so Mr. Kessler simply ignores them. And he conveniently forgets to mention that this past summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah was started by the unprovoked cross border attack, kidnapping and killing by Hezbollah of Israeli soldiers in Israel.

Mr. Kessler is quick to observe that the European Union has not listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but he fails to inform readers that in a March 10, 2005 Resolution (NOT "nearly a quarter-century ago") the European Parliament voted 473-33 to blacklist the entire Hezbollah organization as terrorist.

Should Post readers trust anything Washington Post reporters say when they advance their agenda with nonsense such as this?

You are welcome to provide the Post with your opinion of the quality of its reporting about Israel.

Bo Jones, Publisher & Chief Executive Officer, The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20071 (email: JonesB@washpost.com).

Donald Graham, Chairman, same street address (email: GrahamD@washpost.com).

Leonard Downie, Executive Editor, same street address (email address: DownieL@washpost.com)

Philip Bennett, Managing Editor, same street address (email address BennettP@washpost.com)

David Hoffman, Assistant Managing Editor for Foreign News, same street address (email address HoffmanD@washpost.com)

Keith Richburg, Foreign Editor, same street address (email address: RichburgK@washpost.com)

Deborah Howell, ombudsman, same street address (email address: ombudsman@washpost.com)

Please BCC feedback@eyeonthepost.org with your letters and email.

Eye On The Post, a grass roots organization monitoring the Washington Post's coverage of Israel and Jews. Their website address is http://www.eyeonthepost.org. To join, write feedback@eyeonthepost.org
To Go To Top

Posted by Zalmi, January 28, 2007.

This weekend the Olmert cabinet approved the appointment of its first Arab cabinet minister.

What a magnanimous and grown-up gesture!

Something to get the doves in every Western legislature fluttering their wings in adulation.

The reward was not long in coming.

This is a picture from the tomb of our prophet Samuel. It and the ancient Jewish cemetery in Hebron were both ransacked and desecrated the same weekend.

Ghaleb Majadle was appointed Minister without Portfolio.

He may not have a portfolio, but his people clearly do.

That is to treat every act of humanity, magnanimity and trust as a sign of weakness and an invitation to kill and maim Jews everywhere and erase every vestige of Jewish existence in the Land of Israel.

We gave them land and rifles in Oslo and they repaid us with an Intifada.

We gave them autonomy and they repaid us with suicide bombers.

We released their terrorists and they sent them right back to kill again.

We withdrew from South Lebanon and they filled it with Iranian missile silos.

We gave up our prize-winning tomato fields in Gaza and they planted Katyushas.

We handed $100 million to Abbas only to see him kowtowing to Hamas's supreme leader.

We shipped Abbas 2,000 automatic rifles, 20,000 ammunition clips and 2 million bullets across the Karni crossing only to hear him repeat the same incitement against Israel.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

With the help of the UN's French peacekeepers, Hassan Nasrallah should easily be restocked with missiles and new human shields by this summer. When the new Iranian missiles start raining down, will our new Arab minister be welcome in the cabinet's bunker?

Contact Zalmi at his website: http://www.zalmi.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Etgar Lefkovits, January 28, 2007.
This article was written by Etgar Lefkovits and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post

Attempting to stem a tide of rising Islamic fundamentalism in Europe, a group of evangelical Christian leaders in Britain hosted a conservative Israeli conference in London on Sunday seeking to rekindle the historic but faded force of Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom.

The first-ever "Jerusalem Summit Europe," which was held at London's "Central Hall Westminster," brought together Israeli right-wing thinkers and members of the Knesset's increasingly influential Christian Allies Caucus with leaders of Britain's small pro-Israel evangelical community who feel increasingly threatened by the spread of radical Islam in Europe and in the UK.

"We are in a critical season and crossroads for Great Britain, which is a test case for the challenge of Islam," said Christine Darg, the head of the UK-based "Exploits Ministry" which organized the event.

"Now is the time to rekindle the almost unique relationship Britain has had with the Jewish people over the last couple hundred years."

The event, which was held nine decades after the landmark Balfour Declaration spelled out the British Government's support for a "national home" for the Jewish people in Palestine, and coincided with worldwide events marking the Holocaust, aimed to bring about a resurgence of Christian Zionism in the UK at a time when growing Islamic extremism is coupled with mainstream political correctness among many Christians, including Evangelicals, in a country still rife with replacement theology.

In an unusual turn of events, Israeli speakers at the event encouraged Christian revival based on Biblical beliefs, while members of the British Jewish community called for coordination among members of both faiths in supporting Israel and in lobbying the British Government on her behalf.

"The Bible is the real bridge between us," said the Chairman of the Christian Allies Caucus, MK Benny Elon (National Union-National Religious Party), the hawkish parliamentarian and rabbi who spearheaded Israel's ties with the evangelical world in his role as tourism minister.

"This basic connection should overcome the mistakes that have soured our historic relations in the past."

"The main message we are bringing is not a request to support Israel, but to support Christian revival in Europe -- not to save Israel, but to save yourself," said Dmitry Radyshevsky, the executive-director of "The Jerusalem Summit," a right-wing Jerusalem-based NGO which debuted four years ago, in an address that was marked by thunderous applause from the group of several hundred in the audience.

Radyshevsky, a Moscow-born Harvard Divinity school graduate, noted the irony that an Israeli Jew was calling for Christian revival in Europe, but said that it was part of a common struggle against radical Islam which required both Jews and Christians to believe in the moral right of their Bible-based values.

"Either it will be a fundamentally Christian Europe or a Europe of Islamic fundamentalists," he opined.

Labor MK Orit Noked, whose political views were 180 degrees to the left of the other participants in the conference, said that she was nevertheless consistently overwhelmed by the outpouring of support for Israel among the evangelical world.

"From a historical point of view, it is especially important that we are having this meeting here in London," Noked said.

The gathering, which received the blessing, if not the attendance, of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who serves as the religious leader of the Church of England, also included a handful of British Jewish leaders who called for greater cooperation between the two communities in making their voices heard among British politicians.

"We are very much aware of your unfaltering support for the State of Israel, and your consistent and unfailing belief in the righteousness and return of the Jewish nation to its ancestral land," said Cyril Stein, a philanthropist and chairman of the non-profit "Go to Israel" tourist Campaign.

"You are not fair-weather friends, but consistent supporters through thick and thin," he added.

His remarks were unusual in that most British Jews, like their American counterparts, have traditionally distanced themselves from evangelical Christians due to conflicting world views on domestic issues, such as abortion and public prayer.

"Today the people of Israel are more aware than ever that it is Christians who have stood by our side through thick and thin, and Christians all over the world are more aware than ever before of what is at the stake...[which] is nothing less than our way of life, and the Judeo-Christian values upon which Western Civilization was built," said Caucus Director Josh Reinstein.

Still, the London event highlighted the major gap that that existed between the two countries, which the rise of Islamic extremism has helped to narrow.

"There is a whole new generation of Britons who have no concept of our heritage and ties with Israel, and all they hear in the popular press about Israel is negative, negative, negative, day in and day out," said Peter Darg, who heads the Christian Broadcasting Network in Europe.

"This is a clarion call to be Biblically-correct and not politically correct," Darg concluded.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, January 28, 2007.

The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial 1963-65

Directed by Rolf Bickel and Dietrich Wagner. Perhaps the most detailed authentic documentary on the Holocaust since "Shoah." Three hours' running time. In German, with English subtitles. Color, B/W.

With such toxic weeds as Iran's Ahmadinajihad making a mockery of the Holocaust in, first, a cartoon "contest" and then a "scholars conference" that has smeared all those who attended (if they were not already tainted by their KKK or denial careerism), this film is a vast clinical salvo that provides documentation upon documentation to the significant archival footage and shelves of literature on this black epoch that defined genocide for all time. "Verdict" opens the eyes of even those deeply acquainted with the horror and unspeakable terrors of the war machine under the megalomanic hitler; it provides 3-hour wall-to-wall coverage of the crime trials of the 22 death generals outliving the "Thousand-Year" Reich, still residing in Germany, most in petit bourgeois lives of luxury and comfort.

The temperature of the screening room descends to subzero when the German defendants icily deny their warped culpability with the barest flicker of emotion. The cumulative effect of so much more authenticating footage and witness testimony cannot be overvalued: As the survivors pass into history, we must be wary of the agenda-driven rat vestiges such as the Iranian grocers and his fell assigns gambling on the ignorance and educational deficits of the newer generations who 'knew not Pharoah.' This is imperative viewing, even in the original German with subtitles.

It is the first German-language lenser this reviewer has seen without getting an initial lightning chill of referred fear at merely hearing the consonants of the language that murdered so myriad many of my people, and destroyed the naive notion that one 'could not' possibly eradicate an entire people in the supposedly modern age. Cartloads of the film should be airlifted to the muslim world and the fevered mullahcracies.

Contact Marion Dreyfus at dreyfusmarion@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Max Yas, January 27, 2007.

Kofi Annan, while Secretary-General of the UN, once said, " No other conflict carries such a powerful, symbolic, and emotional charge, even for people far away."

At the UN, a special commission, the UNWRA, deals only with Palestinian refugees; a single, separate commission looks after the rest of the tens of millions refugees world wide. No other conflict has its own International Solidarity Movement, nor gets as much attention from the media. These are facts that cannot be denied. They are, of course, the product of a vast propaganda machine paid for by Arab oil-billionaires.

To paraphrase Orwell, "All refugees are equal, but some are more equal than others".

The truth is that the Israel/Palestine conflict is a top priority only for Israel and the Palestinians.

Should the conflict end, Shi'ias and Sunis would not stop killing each other in Iraq; the war in Afghanistan would go on, as would the civil wars in Burma and Chechnya. Israel being "Wiped off the map" would not put an end to the persecution of Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines where many are killed and their churches burned. Neither Saddam's attack on Iran, which claimed over a million lives, nor his attack on Kuwait would have been deterred. Tibet would remain occupied by China, which is conducting religious and cultural genocide by shipping in train-loads of Chinese occupiers who may soon become the majority population.

A quick look at Africa: The tragedy of Darfur goes on, despite the numerous resolutions and ultimatums by the U.N. The slaughter and displacements in Uganda, Somalia, Sierra Leone, the Congo, where four million died as a result of the war since 1998 by killings and war-related starvation and disease, and other African states are each of greater magnitude than the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

An entire generation is being killed by HIV; 200,000 children are estimated to have been kidnapped and forced to be soldiers in the civil war; villagers have their limbs amputated en masse and the world is next to silent. Yet when one protester ignores warnings by the Israel Defence Force to get out of the way and gets crushed by a bulldozer, the entire world goes ape, the media has a feeding frenzy, and Israel gets rocketed by all-out propaganda.

Singling out Palestinian refugees for special treatment is counter-productive. While providing space to store weapons and explosives, these camps are producing suicide-bombers and jehadists who grow ever more aggressive

From "The Root Cause of Terrorism" (Joseph Farrah, WorldNetDaily):

"Do you know what I think is the root cause of terrorism? It works. Plain and simple. By that I mean those using terrorism in the world today do it because it achieves their objectives. Simple. And I think beyond dispute."

Terrorism works because the world encourages it by averting attention from the greatest danger in centuries by concentrating on one, rather small scale problem. Mr. Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, has said that Islamic jihadism is "the nightmare of this century."

The real problems the Arabs are experiencing are domestic and economic:

Arabs vs. Israel: A View from Pakistan (Farrukh Saleem, Jang Group-Pakistan)

Of the 330 million Muslims living under Arab rulers, a mere 486,530 [The number of Arab citizens in Israel is 1.2 million -- Mr. Saleem may be quoting the figure of Arab voters.] live in a democracy.

The only parliamentary democracy in the region, with universal suffrage, multi-party, multi-candidate, competitive elections, is Israel.

Knowledge makes Israel grow by 5% a year, while "rates of productivity" [overall] in Arab countries are negative. Israel now has six universities ranked as among the best on the planet, while the 22-member Arab League does not have a single university in the top 400.

In the Arab world, one in two women can neither read nor write.

Roughly 23% of Arab engineers and 50% of Arab doctors emigrate.

Appeasement is not the cure. Peace and hard work on their economy might be.

Shalom from Max

Contact Max Yas at maxyas@shaw.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, January 27, 2007.

A public relations window of opportunity presents itself to Israel, 'chosen' by much of the world, especially movers and shakers of the Middle Eastern Muslim world, to be its convenient scapegoat. Currently, a relative handful of imperiled so-called Palestinians, perhaps 600 or so, attempt to exit dysfunctional violent Baghdad, but 'good neighbor' Syria, for one, won't open its gates for these asylum seekers. "Of all the groups being targeted in Iraq, the Palestinians are the most vulnerable as they literally have nowhere else to flee, and in many cases have been denied travel documents," asserted Andrew Harper, Geneva-based senior Iraq operations manager. "The international community must act now to help these people. A safe haven needs to be found immediately, outside Iraq."

Brotherly love among Arabs apparently has its limits, especially when those 'kindred spirit' brothers wear the scarlet P. Indeed, wouldn't it be lovely if big bad presumed 'Palestinian occupier' Israel demonstrated to the world, especially the Muslim world, that it wasn't such a pariah state after all, and humanely airlifted those imperiled Sunni Arabs out of Iraq and into Israel? Wouldn't it be lovely if Israel showed up all the other Arab regimes by demonstrating that it cared more about so called Palestinian Arabs in trouble then they did? Once in Israel, of course, these newly arrived Sunni Arab visitors could be escorted to Gaza or perhaps their erstwhile homeland Jordan, presuming such Sunni Arab enclaves would welcome them. Even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter might grudgingly have a few kind words to say about an 'apartheid' nation, perhaps even conceding that Israel's citizens no longer deserved to be victims of homicidal/suicidal Arab martyrs.

Israel surely needs all the good publicity it can get, even from sanctimonious world leaders that to this day have not deployed a military force to stop the genocide of hapless Muslim Black Africans in the Darfur region of oil rich Sudan. Did I mention oil rich in describing a nation that happens to be ruled by Islamic sadists as well as happens to be a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? Could oil be thicker than blood in the hearts and minds of those 'humanitarians' who condemn Israel at every opportunity? Never mind that, Israel is still better off when bloviators of benevolence worldwide, except when fossil fuel is an issue, offer kudos now and then. Furthermore, decent nations like Israel ought to engage in humane pursuits for their own sake.

An objective observer might note the aforementioned scarlet P, worn by 'abused' so called Palestinians, indeed abused by fellow Arabs who even refuse to give them refuge when needed, might very well stand for 'Pawns', the appropriate term for exploited Jordanians originally morphed by Yasser Arafat's PLO to an occupied tribe in order to make the Jewish State of Israel look bad as well as make Arafat a billionaire, but that's another story. If this was not so, Arab regimes, especially those rolling in petrodollars, would provide so called Palestinians with funds, and in the case of Jordan, would offer them land within its boundaries, in order to improve the wretched lives of these career refugees. Let us also observe that being a jerked around 'Pawn' can lead to many lapses in judgment, most notably electing the terrorist group Hamas to assume the role of Palestinian Pied Piper, leading that rag tag group of Arabs off the precipice of a cliff it gingerly straddled, crashing down into the abyss of catastrophe canyon below.

The thrust of all this, of course, is to make Israel look good in the eyes of the world, exposing fat-cat Arab autocrats for what they truly are. However, no matter how much hatred there is in the world, no matter how unfairly the State of Israel is treated, if indeed that 'chosen' state values moral behavior above all, it must rise above the rest of humankind if necessary and set an example by doing the right thing. Let the airlift begin!

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

To Go To Top

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

Dear Christian leaders,

The following is for anyone who still believes the Arab propaganda lies which accuse Israel of being the cause for the decline in Christian populations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

As I have pointed out in earlier emails and articles, the Muslim terrorists and their supporters in the PA territories have been waging a low-level war of intimidation and threats agianst Christians ever since Arafat took over after the Oslo Accords in 1993. As Hamas grows stronger, the level of violence and persecution against Christians increases.

Under Jordanian rule, from 1948 to 1967, the Christian population of the West Bank declined slowly, but Christian majorities remained in Bethlehem, Bit Jalla, and a few other Christian villages. After the 6-day war, under Israel, the Christian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip grew and thrived from 1967 to 1994. Shortly after Arafat took over, in 1994, the Christian flight began again, with many Palestinian Christians seeking refuge in Israel, where they could worship in peace and live openly as Christians without threats or intimidation. Today, Bethlehem, which was once 80% Christian, is only 15% Christian.

Unfortunately for the Christians of the West Bank, some of their own leaders have played the 'dhimmi' and provided the validating chorus of "righteous Christian voices" affirming the Arab propaganda claim that Israel is at cause for Christian flight. By regurgitating for western audiences the Arab lies that they themselves knew to be false, these leaders bore false witness against Israel and against their own people, your own brethren in Christ, in order to curry favor with Arafat, with the PLO, and now with Hamas.

And even more unfortunate for the Christians of the West Bank, a plethora of Christian leaders from the USA and UK have traveled to Israel to hob-knob with the terrorists, glad-hand the mass murderers, and press the flesh in obscene photo-ops with terrorist leaders who are directly at cause for the persecution and suffering of the Palestinian Christians. Such public actions by American Christian leaders, and their mendacious but rosy tales of Muslim-Christian amity, are also false witness against Israel and against your own brethren in Christ in the Holy Land.

I don't recall off-hand which of the commandments is "thou shalt not bear false witness"; but I'm sure that it is one of the Top Ten.

It may have been difficult for some Christians elsewhere to discern the truth about the Muslim persecution and intimidation and violence against Christians; especially when Bishops and Patriarchs in the West Bank were assailing Israel and dutifully betraying their own people by supporting the Arab mendacious propaganda. And especially when American Christian leaders came home from 'fact-finding trips' to regale their flock with more regurgitation of Arab lies.

But the article below should be adequate witness to the truth.

When the Muslim terrorists say: "el-yaum es-Sabbat, bas ghanem el-ahad" ("today is Saturday, but tomorrow is Sunday"), they know that the Christians of Bethlehem know exactly what they mean:

When we finish with the Jews, we start on the Christians.

Meanwhile the majority of the Christian world stands idly by (remember Leviticus 19:16), while a small but influencial minority are the cheerleaders for Hitler's little helpers.

This was written by Khaled Abu Toameh and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post Jan. 25, 2007.

BETHLEHEM -- A number of Christian families have finally decided to break their silence and talk openly about what they describe as Muslim persecution of the Christian minority in this city.

The move comes as a result of increased attacks on Christians by Muslims over the past few months. The families said they wrote letters to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Vatican, Church leaders and European governments complaining about the attacks, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

According to the families, many Christians have long been afraid to complain in public about the campaign of "intimidation" for fear of retaliation by their Muslim neighbors and being branded "collaborators" with Israel.

But following an increase in attacks on Christian-owned property in the city over the past few months, some Christians are no longer afraid to talk about the ultra-sensitive issue. And they are talking openly about leaving the city.

"The situation is very dangerous," said Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the Beit Sahur-based private Shepherd TV station. "I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here. This is a very sad situation."

Qumsiyeh, one of the few Christians willing to speak about the harsh conditions of their community, has been the subject of numerous death threats. His house was recently attacked with fire-bombs, but no one was hurt.

Qumsiyeh said he has documented more than 160 incidents of attacks on Christians in the area in recent years.

He said a monk was recently roughed up for trying to prevent a group of Muslim men from seizing lands owned by Christians in Beit Sahur. Thieves have targeted the homes of many Christian families and a "land mafia" has succeeded in laying its hands on vast areas of land belonging to Christians, he added.

Fuad and Georgette Lama woke up one morning last September to discover that Muslims from a nearby village had fenced off their family's six-dunam plot in the Karkafa suburb south of Bethlehem. "A lawyer and an official with the Palestinian Authority just came and took our land," said 69-year-old Georgette Lama.

The couple was later approached by senior PA security officers who offered to help them kick out the intruders from the land. "We paid them $1,000 so they could help us regain our land," she said, almost in tears. "Instead of giving us back our land, they simply decided to keep it for themselves. They even destroyed all the olive trees and divided the land into small plots, apparently so that they could offer each for sale." When her 72-year-old husband, Fuad, went to the land to ask the intruders to leave, he was severely beaten and threatened with guns.

"My husband is after heart surgery and they still beat him," Georgette Lama said. "These people have no heart. We're afraid to go to our land because they will shoot at us. Ever since the beating, my husband is in a state of trauma and has difficulties talking."

The Lamas have since knocked on the doors of scores of PA officials in Bethlehem seeking their intervention, but to no avail. At one stage, they sent a letter to Abbas, who promised to launch an investigation.

"We heard that President Mahmoud Abbas is taking our case very seriously," said Georgette Lama. "But until now he hasn't done anything to help us get our land back. We are very concerned because we're not the only ones suffering from this phenomenon. Most Christians are afraid to speak, but I don't care because we have nothing more to lose."

The couple's Christian neighbor, Edward Salama, said the problem in the city was the absence of law and order. "We are living in a state of chaos and lawlessness," he said. "The police are afraid of the thugs who are taking our lands."

Salama expressed deep concern over the conditions of Christians in Bethlehem, noting that many were leaving the country as a result of the deterioration.

"When I see what's happening to Christians here, I worry a lot for our future," he said. "They are targeting Christians, because we are seen as weak."

The Lamas said they decided to go public with the hope that the international community would intervene with the PA to halt the land-grab. "We will fight and fight until we recover our land," Fuad Lama said. "We will resort to the courts and to the public opinion for help.

"Unfortunately, Christian leaders and spokesmen are afraid to talk about the problems we are facing. We know of three other Christian families -- Salameh, Kawwas and Asfour -- whose lands were also illegally seized by Muslims."

A Christian businessman who asked not to be identified said the conditions of Christians in Bethlehem and its surroundings had deteriorated ever since the area was handed over to the PA in 1995.

"Every day we hear of another Christian family that has immigrated to the US, Canada or Latin America," he said. "The Christians today make up less than 15 percent of the population.

People are running away because the Palestinian government isn't doing anything to protect them and their property against Muslim thugs. Of course not all the Muslims are responsible, but there is a general feeling that Christians have become easy prey."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467807655& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, January 27, 2007.


Another article by Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick, who deserves awards for sheer guts, and for saying the true things that no one else wants to say, or read, or hear. This appeared in the Jewish Press.

Caroline Glick is deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her Jewish Press-exclusive column will appear the last week of each month.


It would seem that American Jewry has lost its sense of honor. In early 1984, as he sought the Democratic nomination for the presidency, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson made a major misstep. In a conversation with African-American Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman, Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies," and to New York City as "Hymietown."

When the remarks were reported, a storm of protest erupted. Jewish leaders and organizations issued uniform demands that Jackson publicly apologize for his remarks. Jackson accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. Appearing on a radio broadcast with the notorious anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Jackson was silent as Farrakhan threatened Coleman and then issued a public warning to Jews: "If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm."

Yet the Jews of America did not relent. And the U.S. media also did not relent. In February 1984, Jackson belatedly issued a public apology to Jews in a synagogue in New Hampshire. But his electoral prospects had dried up by that point. When he ran again for president four years later, then-New York mayor Ed Koch said ahead of the New York Democratic primary, "Jews and supporters of Israel who are not Jewish would be crazy to vote for him." Jackson lost big in New York and shortly thereafter retreated from the race.

Compare the properly angry and unforgiving response of American Jewry in 1984 to the American Jewish response earlier in the month when General Wesley Clark made a similar anti-Semitic slur in remarks to the press. Clark, who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2004 and has made noises about another run in 2008, expressed his anger to popular left-wing blogger Arianna Huffington over reports that the Bush administration may order preemptive military strikes against Iran's nuclear installations.

When asked why he felt that the administration is heading in that direction, Clark responded, "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

Clark's anti-Semitic attack received precious little attention in the mainstream media. Jewish organizations have uttered no significant outcries against him. Clark put the remark behind him by writing an abject letter to Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman, but the ADL's website makes no mention of the incident.

From the perspective of the American Jewish leadership, apparently, Clark's obscene attack on Jews was a non-incident.

Unfortunately, Clark's attack was anything but unique. Indeed, it fits into a larger trend in which politicians and public figures feel an unacceptable level of comfort in attacking Jews and accusing both Israel and its American Jewish supporters of nefariously subverting America's national interest in order to advance Israel's security interests.

These attacks go hand in hand with an overall denial of the existence of the global jihad or of an international campaign of radical Islam that targets the U.S. and its allies throughout the world.

There are a number of those on the right side of the political spectrum, who like former secretary of state James Baker and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, have repeatedly sought to convince the American people that the only reason the U.S. is being targeted by jihadists from Chicago to Iraq to Iran is because Israel has refused to cede Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to Hamas and Fatah and the Golan Heights to Syria. Yet the fact of the matter is that the growing chorus of voices accusing the so-called "Israel Lobby" of subverting America's national interests is largely found on the Left and increasingly in the leadership ranks of the Democratic Party.

In the January issue of Commentary magazine, Gabriel Schoenfeld noted that after the jihadist Hamas terror organization won the Palestinian Authority elections last January and formed the Palestinian government, Congress moved to pass the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act of 2006. The act, which prohibits the administration from funding the PA until the president could verify that terrorist organizations would not be among the aid recipients and the Palestinian government recognized Israel's right to exist, passed handily in both houses. And yet, in the House of Representatives the bill was opposed by 37 members while nine more abstained from voting on the measure.

Of those 46 members of the House who refused to support a bill that denied taxpayer money to terrorists committed to Israel's physical annihilation, 41 were Democrats.

The willingness of Democrats in Congress to oppose anti-terror legislation goes hand in hand with the increased willingness of leading figures in the party to emphasize their hostility toward Jews and Israel. That hostility is most prominently reflected today in former president Jimmy Carter's newly minted anti-Israel screed Palestine Peace not Apartheid and his repeated broadsides against Israel and American Jewry in his public appearances since his book was published late last year.

While Carter has long been suspected of anti-Jewish prejudices, his current willingness risk his reputation as a public figure by openly attacking Jews and Israel shows just how hostile the current intellectual climate on the American Left is toward Jews. The silence of Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, and Illinois Senator Barack Obama in the wake of Carter's anti-Jewish campaign speaks volumes about the acceptability of his sort of behavior in the Democratic Party today.

Unfortunately, to a degree, American Jews share a large portion of the blame for the current state of the Democratic Party. In last November's Congressional elections, exit polls showed that some 88 percent of American Jews voted for Democratic candidates. The Republican Jewish Coalition was the only major American Jewish group to demand that Wesley Clark apologize for his anti-Semitic outburst.

If American Jewry is not willing to stand up for itself by denying electoral support to a party that is increasingly hostile to Jewish interests, there is no reason for the Democratic Party police itself. If American Jews refuse to responsibly reconsider their support for a party whose leading voices either do not hesitate to malign Israel and American Jews or tolerate those who do, then why should the Democratic Party behave responsibly?

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, January 27, 2007.

THE HERTZLIYA CONFERENCE: In 2004 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip at the Hertzliya conference -- Here is this year's bombshell made by Knesset member Shlomo Breznitz, close confidant of Olmert. The conference was not one sided, Moshe Yaalon and Robert (Israel) Aumann represent the view that Judea and Sumaria are a necessary part of Israel.

Even the leaders of Egypt and Jordan have expressed reservations about withdrawal plans, fearing terrorism can spill over into their respective countries.

Clearly, withdrawal doesn't bring peace.

1> Shimon Peres, a speaker at the Hertzliya Conference played the Falstaff in his address. He prattled on and on and at the end came to this: "The agreement of our time with King Hussein was an attempt to create a Jordanian-Palestinian-Israeli free trade triangle. Today, there is no chance of returning to such a confederation unless it is an economic, rather than political, confederation. The plan is to take the border from Eilat to Yarmuch (in the Golan) and turn it into a joint economic area between us, the Jordanians, and the Palestinians. Infrastructure, airports, and roads will be built. We will manage the water reservoirs effectively. This will achieve a number of things including raising the standard of living and bringing global support. " I will spare you the entire address which you can find at:
www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/ _Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1733&CategoryID=223

Some Jews are incurably stupid -- If you want Israel to survive, you've got to accept the possibility that some are just stupid. Gaza was Czechoslovakia. If we allow the turn-over of the disputed territories to our enemies we will surely have reached the tipping point, the point of no return, the beginning of the second Holocaust.

Shimon Peres' Address Can Be Found At:
www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/ _Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1733&CategoryID=223

2>Another Speaker At The Hertzilya Conference, Knesset Member Breznitz: "The only way to get out of the impasse is to transfer the territories, for a limited time, to an international mandate, that will run them until the establishment of a Palestinian state," said Breznitz at the conference. Who can forget the past International control of Jerusalem.

Hertilya Conference 2007: Knesset Member Breznitz's Proposal to transfer control of the West Bank to a European task force until the establishment of a Palestinian state

Jerusalem -- A member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party yesterday proposed transferring control of the West Bank to a European task force until the establishment of a Palestinian state, at which time the strategic territory would be handed to security forces associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The proposal comes after WND broke the story earlier this week that, according to top European and Egyptian diplomatic sources, Israel has been conducting behind-the-scene negotiations to hand over most of the West Bank to Abbas' security forces. The sources said the transfer of security control to Abbas would be coordinated by the European Union and Jordan.

The West Bank borders Jerusalem and is within rocket-firing range of Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport.

At Israel's prestigious Herzliya Conference, Knesset Member Shlomo Breznitz, reportedly a close confidante of Olmert, said yesterday the West Bank should be transferred temporarily to the Europeans and that most of the territory's Jewish communities should be evacuated.

"The only way to get out of the impasse is to transfer the territories, for a limited time, to an international mandate, that will run them until the establishment of a Palestinian state," said Breznitz at the conference.

The Herzliya Conference is attended by Israel's top leadership and regularly maps out the country's agenda for the coming year. In 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip at the conference.

Breznitz told Israel's Maariv daily newspaper the West Bank should be transferred to the European community and not the U.S. because, he said, after the invasion of Iraq, America "lost its status as an honest broker in the view of the Palestinians and the Arab states."

Breznitz said his West Bank transfer proposal received a warm reception from European and Palestinian officials.

"I have reason to believe, and I don't want to expand on this, that the Palestinians will support the proposal. Ambassadors and diplomatic representatives from European countries who were shown the proposal also believe that without international help it will not be possible to resolve the conflict," said Breznitz.

On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said he viewed any Palestinian elements recognizing the state of Israel as a partner for negotiations "even if it is Hamas."

Olmert has made similar comments.

So far, Hamas has refused to recognize Israel but recently offered a 10-year truce with the Jewish state. In a series of interviews this past weekend, Hamas leaders told WND during any 10-year truce period they would build a large Palestinian army and plan for the destruction of Israel.

Israeli leaders previously have denied reports of pending withdrawals only to later carry them out. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, elected in 2001 on a platform against unilateral withdrawal, at first denied media reports Israel was planning to evacuate the Gaza Strip but later announced his Gaza withdrawal plan.

Olmert was elected prime minister on the platform of carrying out a withdrawal from the West Bank, but after this summer's Lebanon war, he has stated a West Bank withdrawal would not occur.

Olmert in August called the policy of unilateral withdrawal a "failure" and said it was "no longer relevant." But he can argue handing the West Bank to Abbas in an agreement is not unilateral.

Contradicting Olmert, Israeli Interior Minister Roni Bar-On of Olmert's Kadima party said last summer, "The withdrawal plan is not dead, though its implementation has been postponed. The plan is now on the shelf or in the freezer, but when the time comes it will be accessed."

Several recent public opinion polls showed the majority of Israelis now oppose a West Bank withdrawal.

3>"Former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon, Israeli concessions will only aid jihadists"

The Palestinian government and Hizbullah are seeking Israel's destruction, not just the end of the occupation, former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said at the Herzliya Conference Monday. He also warned that Israel could not avoid a confrontation with Iran.

"The fact that Israel was attacked last summer from two areas it left strengthens the sense of a dead end, and proves that the root of the conflict is not the occupation of territories," Yaalon said. He added that Hizbullah's aim was not the liberation of Lebanon, but the destruction of the State of Israel, and that the same was true of the Palestinian Hamas government.

"Erase the green line and the '67 borders -- Israeli concessions will only aid jihadists," Yaalon declared. Turning to the Iranian threat, Yaalon said: "We cannot avoid confrontation with the Iranian regime. "The sense of self-confidence in Iran is growing, and they have not paid any price for being a rogue regime. If we do not take political and economic steps, we are actually bringing a military conflict closer," the former chief of staff warned.

"This (Iranian) regime won't last forever," Yaalon said, but added: "I don't see any internal change without a shock coming from outside. "Iran is a rogue government that supports terrorism. It must be punished by the international community," he insisted. 'UN losing authority' Yaalon slammed the United Nations for failing to punish Hizbullah, Syria and Iran during the Lebanon war, saying that the international body "is losing authority in the world" as a result.

He urged cooperation with Sunni elements that "view the Shiite hegemony as a threat to their existence." "The clash of civilizations is also going on inside the Muslim world. Not all Muslims are jihadists," Yaalon emphasized. "They too see what is happening in Gaza, and recognize that the culture of death is destructive. The West and Israel must make contact with them."

In response to a question as to the viability of the two-state solution, Yaalon said: "There is no full program on how it will look in the end. You have to point to the challenges and offer a strategy for the long-term. I don't know what will happen. I know those who talk about a road map or call for pressure on Israel to take steps to solve the problem (are suggesting something that is) irrelevant. Withdrawal will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or solve the jihadi threat."

'Palestinian education is root of terror'

He added that without a drastic reform in the Palestinian education system, which he said brainwashes children to become terrorists, there could be no hope for peace. "We tried to ignore the education in Palestinian society. Eventually we were surprised that (Palestinian) society, educated from kindergarten to become suicide bombers, acted as it did," Yaalon said, pointing to the bomb attacks throughout the slo years of the 1990s.

"The basis of our belief, that the other side wants two states, is false. I think there is deep understanding among the American public over this," Yaalon added. His comments were backed by former CIA Director James Woolsey. "As long as Wahabis are running Palestinian education, and little boys are taught to be suicide bombers, I don't see any reasonable prospects for settlement," Woolsey said.

The former CIA chief added that in Israel one-fifth of the population is Arab, living freely with full rights. He called for Palestinians to be held "to the same standard as Israel," adding that if standards were the same, "something in the order 500,000 Jews would be living in West Bank," with freedom of expression and religion.

Yaalon said, "The fact that Israel was attacked last summer from two areas it left strengthens the sense of a dead end, and proves that the root of the conflict is not the occupation of territories," "The Palestinian government and Hizbullah are seeking Israel's destruction, not just the end of the occupation, former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said at the Herzliya Conference Monday. He also warned that Israel could not avoid a confrontation with Iran.

4> Israel (Robert) J. Aumann, The 7th Herzliya Conference Nobel Prize Laureate; Professor at Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

First of all, I would like to thank the conference organizers for inviting me to speak at this important and central event. I was asked to speak about the existential dangers threatening the State of Israel. One danger known to all of us stems from Iran's nuclear armament program, which threatens to erase the State of Israel from the map. We cannot underestimate the importance of this danger.

However, in my humble opinion, it is less threatening than it appears at first glance.

Iran is a nation like all nations; it has an address-we know who it is and where it is. If the rumors are true-that the State of Israel has according deterrence capability. and no less importantly, means of delivering weapons, then there is indeed a danger, but it is a limited one. The rulers of Iran are often called lunatics, but there is no evidence that this is the case. Iran's rulers act very rationally. They have goals that indeed oppose our goals, but these are their goals, and they advance them very effectively. The destruction of central Iranian cities is not one of their goals. We certainly need to stand guard, but the fear of Iran's direct use of nuclear weapons against Israel seems minimal. I allow myself to speak freely because I don't know anything that's happening in the field-perhaps less than anyone in this hall.

However, unfortunately, there is a different danger in Iran's nuclear armament-more tangible and more threatening, although more indirect. This danger is hidden in the possibility that nuclear technology will be transferred from Iran to terrorist groups such as Al Qaida or others-groups whose identities are indistinct, who have no address. Even these groups are not insane; they act consistently, rationally, and sophisticated in order to achieve their goals. But because they have no address, direct deterrence policy is not effective in their case. Thus, if they succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons, it is unclear how we will be able to deter them from using it against us.

These groups, or some of them, are very close in their goals and ideology to Iran. Therefore, this is a great danger in the transfer of nuclear technology and the necessary materials from Iran to these groups. One possibility is that such a transfer would be intended and approved by the Iranian authorities. Another possibility, which is more likely, is that the transfer will not be intended or planned; this is a case of infiltration of radical terrorist elements into the Iranian nuclear system or of a lack of sufficient caution of the Iranian authorities or of a leak or of deliberate smuggling in the lower echelons of the Iranian system-leaks and smuggling that are unauthorized and even unknown to the higher echelons.

If such a transfer occurs in one of these two ways, then we will in fact be in substantial trouble. We will not be able to directly prevent these groups to execute their schemes. Therefore, we must act indirectly by offering appropriate incentives. In my opinion, there are two ways to do this. One is to create strong and tangible motivation for the government of Iran to prevent at all costs the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to groups that do not function under its auspices. The second and less effective way is to give strong and tangible motivation to these terrorist groups we have mentioned not to use nuclear weapons against Israel, even if they have obtained such weapons. As we have said, this type of deterrence is not easy because these groups have no address, but they have goals and they have an ideological identity, and it is possible to create adequate incentives on this backdrop.

We mentioned two existential threats facing the State of Israel -- the direct nuclear threat and the indirect nuclear threat. As we have said, the second danger is greater, and now a few words about a third threat, which is perhaps the greatest of all. It does not come from Iran, nor from terrorist groups, nor from any external source. It comes from within us. "We have met the enemy, and it is us."

Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, your humble servant makes his living from game theory-among other things, very serious games: games of life and death and of existence and annihilation. The name of the game in game theory is motivation, incentives. Earlier, we discussed the motivations of those standing on the opposite side. Motivating ourselves is the most important thing, and the thing we are losing the most. Without motivation, we will not endure. What are we doing here? Why are we here? What are we aspiring to here? We are here because we are Jewish, we are Zionist, because of our ancient bond to this land; we aspire to realize our 2000-year-old hope of becoming a free nation in our land, the Land of Zion and Jerusalem. Without this profound understanding, we will not endure. We will simply no longer be here; Post-Zionism will finish us off.

About half a year ago in Petra, Jordan, the prime minister said that we are tired. He was right. He was elected by the nation, and he expresses the sentiments of the nation. We are like a mountain-climber that gets caught in a snowstorm; the night falls, he is cold and tired, and he wants to sleep. If he falls asleep, he will freeze to death. We are in terminal danger because we are tired.

I will allow myself to say a few unpopular, unfashionable words: our panicked lunging for peace is working against us. It brings us farther away from peace, and endangers our very existence. I think it was Churchill who said, "If you want peace, prepare for war." The preparation includes material preparation, a fantastic army, effective tools of war, but above all, we are talking about spiritual preparation, about spiritual readiness to go to war.

Roadmaps, capitulation, gestures, disengagements, convergences, deportations, and so forth do not bring peace. On the contrary, they bring war, just as we saw last summer. These things send a clear signal to our "cousins" that we are tired, that we no longer have spiritual strength, that we have no time, that we are calling for a time-out. They only whet their appetites. It only encourages them to pressure us more, to demand more, and not to give up on anything. These things stem from simple theoretical considerations and also from straight thinking.

But it's not just theory: it has been proven and re-proven in the field over thousands of years. I returned today from a trip to India, where we heard about historical stories that illustrate the same. Capitulations bring about war; determination and readiness bring about peace.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must tell our cousins that we are staying here. We are not moving. We have time; we have patience; we have stamina. Understand this and internalize it. And we must not simply say it to our cousins but feel it within ourselves. This and only this will bring peace. We can really live in peace and unity and cooperation with our cousins. But only after they understand and internalize that the Zionist state will be here forever.

Thank you very much.


Israel's expedited expulsion plan. Olmert has deputized Yossi Amrani to 'sell the plan' to AIPAC and the US administration.

Jews for a Jewish Israel correspondents covering the "Israel Illogical concessions" uncovered a vicious underhanded plot by Mr. Olmert and his cabinet to establish a temporary PLO state and unilaterally surrender lands in Judea and Samaria, calling for the expulsion of more than one hundred thousand Jewish Israeli citizens. Jews for a Jewish Israel is further reporting that the team includes high-ranking officials in the Foreign and Defense Ministries, and high-ranking representatives of the Israeli army and Israeli intelligence also involved in the process.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and the director-general of her ministry, Aharon Abramowitz, appointed a high-ranking official who will coordinate the effort -- diplomat Yossi Amrani, the former Israeli consul in San Francisco.

The choice of Amrani could not have been coincidental.

In November, 2003, this reporter revealed that Amrani, despite his official position as the Israeli consul, organized fund raising events for Israeli opposition leader Yossi Beilin, who then led the Geneva Initiative on December 1st, 2003, which called for the unilateral establishment of a palestinian entity within temporary borders, under the unchallenged rule of the PLO.

Now Amrani has been given the task of formulating, within several weeks, an official working paper of the Israeli government which will give a detailed outline of Israel's immediate surrender of land to the PLO Among other things, Amrani will deal with the question of how Israel should sell the plan to AIPAC and to the US administration.

During the Summer 2006 Lebanon War, Prime Minister Olmert was quoted as saying that the war would contribute to his plans for carrying out a withdrawal plan. The statement, which was denied by the Prime Minister's Bureau, aroused a great deal of criticism, mainly because thousands of religious soldiers, many of them inhabitants of the settlements, were risking their lives on the front at that very time.

Olmert therefore had to clarify that the option of unilateral withdrawal was frozen, and even said that it had never been adopted as Israel's official policy. He said that the only policy in effect was that of negotiations with Abu Mazen and the continued boycott of the Hamas government. Olmert is consistent in this position, and has reiterated it several times since the cease-fire in mid-August.

Ironically, a previous commission was established by Israeli Foreign Minister Livni to evaluate the idea of a unilateral withdrawal from most of Judea and Samaria.

That commission's report, leaked to the Haaretz newspaper on August 15th, 2006, concluded that, "Israel has no security solution to the threat of rockets launched from the West Bank against population centers." The report's authors assumed that following any unilateral Israeli pullout from any part of Judea and Samaria, Hamas will takeover and deploy rockets against Israel's population centers on Israel's coastal plain.

The report emphasized that the only solution to the missile threat that the Israel Defense Forces has to offer is its actual presence in the territories and control of the high ground of Judea and Samaria, also known as the "West Bank."

Another conclusion of the report commissioned by the Israeli Foreign Minister is that Israel will not gain international recognition for an end to the occupation if it continues to hold significant portions of Judea and Samaria. Foreign Ministry Director General Aharon Abramovitch, headed that commission.

An Israeli Member of the Knesset has asked for a copy of the previous Israeli foreign ministry report which warned against any unilateral surrender of territory to the PLO. The spokesman of the Israel Foreign Ministry has informed MK Alon's aide that this was an "internal report" that it would not be released.

6> In preparation for surrendering Yesh, with its population of 100,000 Israelis, 32 roadblocks in Yesha have been closed or unmanned this passed week

From a friend who lives in Kedumim beyond the green line, written to Israel Lives January 24th.

As I drive around where I live in Kedumim I physically see that the road blocks at the turnoff to Shaveh Shomrom is now unmanned and appears abandoned. The roadblocks at the edge of Schem turning towards Tapuach Junction is now unmanned and also appears abandoned. Half the time I visit the Settlement of Tapuach the big roadblock there it is unmanned. Spot checks of army roadblocks I haven't seen for over a week. What can do but assume what I hear, read and see is true?

I've seen it on the internet, heard it on radio and maybe saw it in the English newspaper that the order to the IDF to begin dismantling the 32 roadblocks that are daily in Yesh (Jehudah and Shomron) not at the borders or airports.

I know there is no help to be expected from within nor without the State of Israel. As I wrote in the letter that I sent you, the whole leadership of the so called Right has been systematically and methodically eliminated from 1993 according to the directives signed in the Oslo Accords.

It's all a signed, sealed and waiting to be delivered deal. Olmert was just about giving the orders to start dismantling Jehudah and Shomron when the whole process was stopped by the War in Lebanon. Reread the papers 2 or 3 days before. Evidently now from what I saw on television last night everything is put on hold because of the result of the War in Lebanon and the ensuing investigations so they are going to "just" dismember the Jewish Enclave in Hebron to show the Israeli Politician's foreign handlers that they are doing something.

Meanwhile daily the Arabs are receiving weapons, rockets bigger and longer ranges (showing them off on the PA television from Ramallah the other night) and we can do nothing but wait for the onslaught as I tried to portray that is planned for us.

About the diaspora, every major Jewish organization and Jeshivah has been infiltrated and its leaders are each found on the membership list of the Council on Foreign Relations CFR the main thrust of the Globalizationers. Check it on the internet, Weiss, Bronfman both brothers, etc.

Janet I agree with your estimate. There are a lot of storm clouds gathering around us. Keep writing and remember the Chabad saying, "A little lit candle dispels much darkness."

Daniel Baruch

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 27, 2007.
"Islam means Peace" "For he who believes in the Trinity, "the Fire will be his abode ... a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemer." Qur'an (5:72-73) "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims." (Hadith Sahih 4366) [Why has the Church denied Christians these truths?]
* "Fight and slay the pagans [Christians] wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Surah 9:5)

* "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)

This next was posted by Pamela Geller Oshry yesterday in Australia, New World Leader It appeared on Atlas Shrugs website
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ atlas_shrugs/australia_new_world_leader/archives/oldindex.html).

This is rich, Really rich. The rapist claimed to be a victim of "anti-Muslim conspiracy." The victim, racist canard is the established free pass for barbarism. It's only going to get worse. (hat tip Helen)


An Iraqi-trained doctor who claimed to be the victim of an anti-Muslim conspiracy has been jailed for 13 years for drugging and raping a patient. Rafid Alramadan, 55, was sentenced yesterday in the NSW District Court after he was found guilty of giving a woman in the NSW country town of Grenfell an injection of the stupefying drug valium and having non-consensual sex with her.

The victim, a patient of about 12 months, had visited Alramadan in December 2005 when the surgery was closed to pick up a driver's licence and had asked the doctor to give her a cortisone injection for knee pain.

But rather than administer the drug in the affected area, Alramadan gave her two injections in the arm, which left her feeling "hazy" and too weak to fight him off.

Alramadan then kissed and fondled her before raping her.

He was convicted in September of administering a stupefying drug, aggravated sexual intercourse without consent and aggravated indecent assault.

After being convicted at trial, the doctor accused the judge and jury of racism.

"This is because I am a Muslim. This is because I am from overseas. They go overseas to kill people, they want to kill me and my children, this is racism," he said.

No this is because you are a depraved rapist.

UPDATE: On the Atlas Shrugs website

From my blog bro Aussie News and Views

Dear Muslim Unity, I live in a city where there were conservatively in excess of 100 gang rapes comitted by self identified MUSLIM gangs made up of some of Islams finest, some are imprisoned MOST are still roaming the streets of Sydney.

In every case that was brought before the courts appx. 4 to 6 the evidence showed that he victims were selected because they were NOT Muslim and their defilers saw them as been lesser girls and therefore deserved to be raped by these so called brave sons of allah. Dont you come on here lectureing any body with your bull shit Koran inspired Islamic psychobabble and moral equivelance arguments, you would not know if a bus drove up your arse and half a dozen passenger got off.

I live in a city where the investigation of these pigs crimes was deliberately halted by our state Labor Party (Socialist)"Islam friendly" government so as not to have any anti Muslim publicity before and during the Sydney Olympic games of 2000, the facilitators and architects of the running sore of Multiculturalism could not afford to be exposed to the world as their 10,000lb Muslim Gorilla ran amock through the streets of Sydney for all the world to see.

Muslims are not all rapists and criminals but where I live most rapists and criminals are Muslims.

Yours faithfully,

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Magdi Khalil, January 26, 2007.

Muslim reformers of the past century sought and unfortunately failed to modernize Islam, the militants have won this battle.

The call for an international law that restricts individual freedoms is an open invitation for fascism to set roots and take over the world

The cartoons that have greatly offended the Muslim world recently have probably sparked an even greater debate about how the Muslims interact with the contemporary world.

Muslim reformers of the past century -- such as Mohammed Abdu, Refaa Al-Tahtawi, Taha Hussein, Ali Abdel-Razik and others -- sought and unfortunately failed to modernize Islam. The militants, led by Hassan Al-Banna and his partisans, won this battle, and forced their vision to "Islamize" modernity on the people. They created a certain pattern -- a mindset and a lifestyle -- and promoted it as "The Valid Islam," Al Islam al-Sahih. They resorted to seduction and fear to impose this pattern on their societies, and made sure to attach an "Islamic" label to each and every aspect, with the clear implication that other patterns were deemed non-Muslim and illegitimate. An increasingly wide array of things fall under this valid pattern: the Islamic dress, the Islamic banks, the Islamic economy, the Islamic education, the islamization of science, media and the judiciary system, the application and enforcement of Islamic laws, the widespread dissemination of the fundamentalist culture, the promotion of Islamic medicine and the Prophet's medicine, the expansion of Islamic organizations, the marginalization of the national identity of the state in favor of Islamic nationalism, and the islamization of daily vocabulary and political terms (mobayaa, welaya, shura, thawabet al-oma, etc..[pledge of allegiance, governance, counsel, constants).

As a result, the Muslim countries wasted their chance to embrace modernity, opting instead to import a shallow veneer of modernity from the West; and they became idle consumers of the products of civilization, with no contributions to offer. With different factions engaging in a morbid religious bid, intent on proving that they can win the title of the most rigid fundamentalists, it is no wonder that the Muslim societies started to crumble from within under the mounting pressures of regression and strife. However, the damage did not stop there, as some of those bidders developed a terrifying propensity towards violence which left a hideous mark on their societies; then, in a moment that went down in history, the violence spilled out to the outside world, and thus began the Muslims' greatest crisis with the contemporary world, and particularly with the West.

If this horrifying action brought about the initial problem, the crisis became more pronounced as a result of the massive Muslim immigration to Western countries, and the presence of large Muslim communities in Europe, the United States and Australia. These communities are supposed to bridge the modernity gap between West and East as the pioneers of the Arab renaissance once did, but, instead, many of the immigrants are holding firm to the prospect of Islamized modernity, whether because of a long-ingrained belief or one acquired through the influence of the islamized media stemming, in over-abundance, from the Middle East. Many have insulated themselves in their own world, in a form of isolated "ghettos", identified by their particular dress, halal food and special culture. In and of itself, this poses no problem, as the modern Western mind-set greatly values pluralism and respects cultural idiosyncrasies. However, it soon became a problem when some of those immigrants attempted to impose their own values on the western societies in which they lived, or to elevate their values above the laws of the communities in which they lived. United States Vice President Dick Cheney summed up the situation by saying: "Either the Islamist terrorists will succeed to alter the Western lifestyle, or the West will succeed in altering their lifestyle."

On the Islamic side, the European Muslim advocate Tariq Ramadan confirmed without hesitation: "The Muslims should not accept values that conflict with the Islamic faith and values," and "The Muslims are not obliged to uphold the secular French tradition; they have made no historical contributions to this tradition."

But what happens when those values clash with the law? What about spreading hatred in the name of religion, beating women (as the Imam of a mosque in Spain encouraged), female circumcision, the violation of children's rights, polygamy, judging non-Muslims as infidels, deeming the Muslims' enlistment in Western militaries an illegitimate act, abusing the system of social welfare, heaping praise on terrorism and acts of murder, or actually joining terrorist organizations?

A major difference in opinion between the Muslims and the West has to do with the separation of state and religion, including the right to criticize religions, and the right to have a religious belief, or to hold no religious beliefs (atheism). It was this total and clear-cut separation of religion and state that made the members of the European Union insist on not making a single reference to Christianity in the European constitution, though it is the recognized faith of the majority in Europe. There are countless books in Europe that attack religion, God, the prophets and Christianity in particular, and many that proclaim atheism. Karl Marx, the man who whose philosophy depended on the statement that "religion was the opium of the people" embraced atheism as a foundation for his ideology. The famous German philosopher Nietzsche went as far as saying that "God is dead"; the French existentialist Sartre and his rebellious, atheist philosophy comes to mind, as well as dozens of variable atheist schools and philosophies that have spread throughout Europe. People are unlikely to forget shocking novels and movies such as "The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Da Vinci Code" novel,"The Abnormality of Paul" which discredited St. Paul, and even more shocking the book entitled "The Foolishness of God". Yet, there are no reports about anyone losing his life as a penalty for criticizing Christianity, and these philosophies and books did not jeopardize Christianity or Judaism; as a matter of fact, the Eastern bloc countries went right back to their abandoned faith after the collapse of the USSR.

Islamic extremism is a menace to the value of freedom, starting with the hunt of novelist Salman Rushdie, the murder of the Egyptian intellectual Farag Fouda, and the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh; and ending recently with the fatwa (legal Islamic opinion) to kill the Danish cartoonist, and the riots and acts of violence that surrounded this incident. In between the first and the latest, there were dozens of incidents when writers, intellectuals and artists were the target of similar assaults. Following the publication of the cartoons, a fatwa sanctioned the elimination of the cartoonist, and a statement by Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades in Palestine threatened the citizens of Denmark, Norway and France. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the extremist Hezbollah movement, said that people would not have dared to insult the Prothet if the novelist Salman Rushdie had been executed.

Nasrallah's appalling comment echoes that of Omar Abdel Rahman years ago: "If Naguib Mahfouz (Egyptian author nobel-laureate) has been killed, Salman Rushdie wouldn't have crossed the line". Abdel Rahman has thus given his blessings for killing Naguib Mahfouz, who received a serious injury in a failed attempt on his life. The frenzy surrounding this last incident was palpable when an Islamic demonstration went out in London carrying terrorist slogans that incite hatred and murder and defy the basic values of Western civilization: "To hell with freedom", "Slay those who insult the prophet", "Wipe out those who mock Islam", "Europe, you will pay the price: The disaster of 9/11 is on its way to you".

Meanwhile, the Arab media has no qualms about attacking and insulting Christianity and Judaism. Let's take a look at some insulting titles written by "Abu Islam Ahmed", the Egypt Islamic writer, that were displayed in The Cairo International Book Fair in January 2006": "The Church and Sexual Deviation","Pagan Beliefs in Christianity", "The Unholy Book", "A Nation without a Cross"," Oh ye filthy gypsies: a message to the Diaspora Christians"; and a book about Farag Fouda, under the extremely revolting title "Who Killed the Dog?"

The most prominent Arab newspaper Al-Ahram devotes a whole page every week to the articles of Zaghloul Al-Nagar, where, among other things, he openly expresses the contempt he has for other religions: "Judaism is not so much a religion as it is a disease that twists the sane human nature and takes it out of the circle of humanity and into the devils' circle" (Al-Ahram, 22 July 2002), "the infidels and hypocrite unbelievers are mainly those among Ahl-Al-ketab (People of the Book, i.e. Jews and Christians) who have corrupted their religion, the vile Jews, the worst infidels throughout history and until God inherits the land" (Al-Ahram, 15 July, 2002). The insults are not just restricted to the written word, but extend to extremely rude actions as reported by an L.A. Times journalist who saw a number of Palestinians who were hiding in the "Nativity" church use pages from the Holy Bible as toilet paper. However, no Muslims were assaulted due to this incident, and there were no violent demonstrations in the West, a fact that stands in sharp contrast with the Muslims' increasingly frenzied reaction, the excessive threats and the actual violence whenever Islam is involved.

The Muslim states have collectively requested to include the following statement in the proposal to establish a human rights council as a substitute for the UN Human Rights commission: "An offense directed at religions or prophets should be considered a threat to human rights and basic freedoms, and is in conflict with the freedom of expression". If the statement is approved, freedom will be imperiled, mouths will be gagged, and the militants and extremists will be celebrating their victory, while the world will be forced to bow to the values of Islamist Fascism. First, the Muslim countries will not abide by this resolution, just as they did not abide by other UN resolutions and treaties; second, they do not acknowledge other religions (for example Denmark acknowledges 12 religions, while most Muslim states only acknowledge 3 religions and some of them only acknowledge Islam, and realistically, in all of the Muslim countries, the Muslims are the only ones to enjoy religious freedom as defined by the UN); third, followers of religions other than Islam suffer the most persecution in the Muslim states; fourth, while the Muslim states are half-heartedly condemning terrorism, they are in fact backing terrorists, and supporting their tactics. At the end of the road, terrorism will benefit the most from this"protection"; this clause will shield it against criticism since Islamic terrorism resorts to religious texts as a means to mobilize and motivate terrorists.

The call for an international law that restricts individual freedoms is an open invitation for fascism to set roots and take over the world; fascist values were behind the regression of the Muslim societies, and it is illogical to impose those same values on countries which have bravely resisted fascism, nazism, and religious tyranny, and paid the price with the lives of millions of victims.

The shameful silence of the moderate Muslims in Muslim states will eventually make the leadership of those states fall into the hands of the militants, corrupted opportunists, and tyrants; it will also increase the chances of a disastrous collision with the path of progress of humanity. Ultimately, the values of freedom will gain the upper hand, but it seems that humanity is once more about to pay a huge price in order to preserve those values, and this time the face-off is with militant Islam.

Magdi Khalil is a political analyst, researcher, author and Executive Editor of the Egyptian weekly Watani International. He is also a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, London, a free-lance writer for several Arabic language newspapers, and a frequent contributor to Middle East broadcast news TV. Mr. Khalil has also published three books and written numerous research papers on citizenship rights, civil society, and the situation of minorities in the Middle East. E-mail: Magdikh@hotmail.com This article was originally published September 22, 2006.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, January 26, 2007.
This is written by Ahmed Gholam (ahmed.gholam@teol.lu.se).

Mr. Gholam knows what he is talking about. Pakistan is not our ally. Are our FBI and CIA and Homeland Security on top of this issue?

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai

The US intelligence community is now willing to publicly express concern over the use of Pakistani territory by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but still reluctant to criticise Musharraf for it... -- B. Raman / Outlook India

The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held hearings on January 11 and 18, 2007, respectively on Current and Projected National Security Threats. This was the beginning of the annual assessment done by the two committees. John Negroponte, the outgoing Director of National Intelligence, Gen. Michael Hayden, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Randall Fort, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), testified before the Senate Committee. Negroponte, Gen. Hayden, Lt. Gen. Maples, Philip Mudd, Associate Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch in the FBI, and Charles Allen, Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security, testified before the House Committee.

While the open discussion that followed the prepared testimonies in the Senate Committee largely focussed on the situation in Iraq, the members of the House Committee exhibited great concern over the dangers of an act of terrorism in the US homeland arising from the members of the Muslim diaspora in the US. Can the London blasts of July 7, 2005, which were carried out by four home-grown terrorists from the UK-based diaspora -- three of them of Pakistani origin -- be repeated in the US? That was the question preoccupying the minds of many members of the House Committee. Particularly, in the context of the post-9/11 tightening of physical security in the US, which has hopefully made it very difficult for outside elements to infiltrate into the US and carry out an act of terrorism, they were worried that a future 9/11 might come from home-grown terrorists from the diaspora. While indications of radicalisation of some members of the diaspora were noted, the question repeatedly posed was why the radicalisation in the US does not seem to be as serious as yet in the US as it is in the UK.

The answers given by the senior officials of the US intelligence community and the points made by the members of the House Committee showed an inadequate understanding of the nature of the diaspora from Pakistan in the UK and the US. It was pointed out by Robert Mueller that Al Qaeda "has been particularly successful in recruiting individuals from Pakistani and Kashmiri militant groups operating overseas as was evident in the recently disrupted Al Qaeda related airline plot out of the UK."

However, nobody pointed out that most of the radicalised Pakistanis in the UK come essentially from three communities -- the Punjabis, the Mirpuris, who are the Punjabi-speaking Kashmiris from the Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) and the Pashtuns. They are all Deobandis, who are close to the Wahabis, and have been in the forefront of jihadi terrorism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and the UK. The members of the Sindhi, Baloch and Mohajir communities in the diaspora in the UK, who are largely the tolerant Barelvis, have kept away from jihadi terrorism till now. While the majority of the Pakistani diaspora in the UK consists of the Deobandi Punjabis, Mirpuris and Pashtuns, there is a large percentage of the Barelvi Sindhis, Balochs and Mohajirs in the Pakistani diaspora in the US. There has been very little migration of the Mirpuri community to the US. Most of the Kashmiris, who have migrated to the US, are Hindu Pandits from India's Jammu and Kashmir, who were driven out by the jihadis.

Since 9/11, there has been an attempt by bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF) and its member-organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) to encourage their Deobandi/Wahabi members to migrate to the US to work as clerics in the mosques frequented by the people of Pakistani origin in order to radicalise them. The arrests of some Pakistanis, including clerics, in the US during the last two years on various charges, indicated that some progress towards radicalisation has already been made.

One of the members of the House Committee referred to a report carried by the Washington Post on January 18, 2007, about one Khan, a Pakistani, who had allegedly been asked by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist strikes, to explore the possibility of poisoning US water reservoirs and blowing up gas stations. The threat of an act of home-grown terrorism from the Pakistani diaspora in the US has to be taken seriously. It is surprising that this did not receive the attention it deserved in the Senate Committee.

In his prepared testimony before the Senate Committee, Mueller gave the following assessments:

. Al Qaeda is still seeking to infiltrate operatives into the US from overseas, who have no known nexus to terrorism, using both legal and possibly illegal methods of entry.

. "Due to the stark differences in the history, the population and the immigrant assimilation in our two countries (the US and the UK), it is difficult to directly compare our terrorism threat to theirs. We see relatively less defined (home-grown) networks of terrorism and less developed attack planning (than in the UK)."

. It is possible, however, that the strategy for attacking the US homeland includes using the UK as a stepping stone.

. The diversity of home-grown extremists and the direct knowledge they have of the US makes the threat they pose potentially very serious. The radicalisation of US Muslim converts is of particular concern. Converts appear to be more vulnerable (to extremism) and likely to be placed in situations that put them in a position to be influenced by Islamic extremists.

. While Al Qaeda will continue to try to obtain and use, if it can, some form of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) material, it will most likely continue to focus on economic targets such as aviation, the energy sector and mass transit; soft targets such as large public gatherings; and symbolic targets such as monuments and government buildings.

. While there was the usual pro forma praise for Pakistan and its President, Gen.Pervez Musharraf, for what was projected as their commitment to co-operate with the US in its fight against terrorism, the hearings in the two committees clearly brought out that a resurgent Al Qaeda has re-organised its training and operational bases in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan -- particularly in North and South Waziristan -- and in the Anbari Province of Iraq and was now trying to re-organise its bases in Somalia. It is apparent that senior officials of the US intelligence community apprehend that future acts of terrorism by Al Qaeda will, most probably, radiate from these three areas.

To quote Negroponte: "Al Qaeda's core elements are resilient. They continue to plot attacks against our Homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, Northern Africa and Europe.....Many of our most important interests intersect in Pakistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda maintain critical sanctuaries. Pakistan is our partner in the war on terror. It is also a major source of Islamic extremism."

Gen. Hayden told the House Committee: "The immediate threat comes from providing Al Qaeda that which they are attempting to seek in several locations right now -- be it Somalia, the tribal areas of Pakistan or the Anbar Province -- a safe haven to rival that which they had in Afghanistan."

Philip Mudd compared the growing popularity of jihad among large sections of the Muslim youth to the popularity of Pepsi and characterised the global jihad as "the Pepsi Jihad".

From the hearings by the two committees, one could see that there is now a greater willingness in the US intelligence community to express publicly their concern over the use of the Pakistani territory by Al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, there is still a reluctance to criticise Musharraf for it and express doubts over his sincerity.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, January 26, 2007.

All of us who have Ahavat Yisrael -- love for the State of Israel -- do not object to having a "super-duper" good neighbor in an autonomous Palestinian state. Considering the European benchmark for accepting Turkey into the European Union, however, the Palestinians must take the necessary time to become a sovereign nation with freedom and equality for all its peoples and a robust, productive economy. In the case of Turkey, the process requires no less than fifteen years just to be eligible for entry into the European Union. For the Palestinians, the time needed for them to prove themselves worthy and deserving of statehood should be no less.

Until now, though, the Palestinians' record for nation building has been terribly counterproductive. Certainly, a nation building strategy based on the infliction of violence and aggression is not a formula for success. The Palestinians better change their ways immediately and take positive steps to form an acceptable state as opposed to a rogue regime.

Until such time as the Palestinians choose constructive nation building measures over destructive ones, there should simply be no discussion whatsoever about a two-state solution.

We must, furthermore, demand that the administration of the United States stop its fickle policy regarding Israel and the Palestinians. This policy vacillates as often as political opinions change, which is quite often. Enacting policy and then revising it every few months creates enormous confusion amongst the Palestinians (and the Israelis) about what nation building entails. For example, the administration pressed for free and fair elections. When the results of said elections proved unacceptable, the administration did an about face by backing a new policy to topple the elected regime that it had, in great measure, helped bring to power. Such willy-nilly U.S. policymaking does a huge disservice to Israel and to the Palestinians.

The U.S. administration must adopt a policy similar to the one the European Union has taken in regard to Turkey. The policy must be steadfast. It must not waver with every little change in political discourse. In order to achieve statehood, the Palestinians must be held to strictly enforced, high standards that cannot be altered or amended by intimidation, aggression, or violence. Until they are forced to capitulate to a plan in which only positive efforts produce results, the Palestinians will continue to cheat and abuse the process with wanton abandon.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com or visit her website:

To Go To Top

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


A P.A. newspaper quoted the Palestinian Institute for the Study of Democracy : "Bush puts the Medal of Freedom on the racist Natan Sharansky." The Institute is subsidized by Norway's Foreign Ministry (IMRA, 12/26 from Palestinian Media Watch).

Just as a publication is considered obscene for lacking redeeming social value, shouldn't the Left be considered obscene? It has become antisemitic and paralyzes free speech about Islam and defense of freedom from jihad. What could be redeeming about a Left that allies itself with the enemies of freedom and civilization, the most reactionary force on the planet? Can the Left redeem itself?


PM Olmert is being investigated for several cases of corruption. A report is anticipated for the near future (IMRA, 12/26).

The police investigate right-wingers to drive them from power or capture them. It investigates left-wingers for show. It would be an anomaly to convict Olmert for much, unless Vice-PM Peres is behind this and is ousting Olmert in order to replace him.


Prince Hassan of Jordan demanded an apology from Joshua Muravchik for misquoting him and unethically quoting him out of context. The complainant failed to show how he was quoted wrongly. Mr. Muravchik showed he quoted in context. The Prince had accused Israel of one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in history in attacking Lebanon and of inflicting terrorism upon the P.A. every day through an illegal occupation. The prince did not show what is illegal about Israelis' presence nor what it is an occupation, in his extremist piece purporting to be moderate.

Hassan would not prohibit terrorism until it is "defined objectively based upon acceptable international laws and principles." It has been so defined. What he really means is non-objective international "principles" "acceptable" to Muslims who would permit terrorism by redefining it as "resistance" to occupation. They'd exempt Islamic terrorism from prohibition by "definition." The prince is playing the Islamic semantic game (Letter, Commentary, 1/2007) of seeming to be against what they really are for.


The E.U. criticized Israel as acting illegally in approving another settlement. It urged both parties to do nothing to impair the ceasefire in Gaza. P.A. leaders should stop the firing of rockets and Israel should remain passive while blasted. Indeed, they should extend this ceasefire to Judea-Samaria (IMRA, 12/27) so Israel can remain passive while blasted there. The E.U would find that a great achievement for peace. But urging the P.A. to stop the firing of rockets interferes with its program of genocide. The E.U. wouldn't want to do that, would it? Clever of the E.U. to call what Israel does illegal, without citing which law is broken and how! Israel acts within international law.


Iran and Syria signed an agreement to share technical information. Iran said this includes nuclear development, peaceful, of course (IMRA, 12/27).

Just like the strictly peaceful development of nuclear energy that Iran claims it is doing and that it won't let be inspected but threatens to incinerate Israel with?

"Peaceful development?" When a country develops the basis for civilian nuclear industry, it needs work only a little more to figure out how to make nuclear weaponry. By then it is difficult to prevent the sprint to the bomb.


You must have heard of Robert Redeker, a French teacher who had to go into hiding for writing that Islam preaches hatred and holy war. Muslims were insulted, instead of congratulating him for understanding their doctrine. The Left objected to his speaking his mind. The full flavor of a remarkable story and insight is in Christian Delacampagne's treatment in Commentary (1/2007, p.25).

Only one French official and a few intellectuals decried the fatwa issued against Redeker and defended his freedom of speech.

The two, big, Socialist, teachers' unions disassociated themselves from Mr. Redeker. A radio personality invited him to express regrets. Le Monde called his article "excessive, misleading, and insulting," even a blasphemy. It means that a non-Muslim in a non-Muslim country must venerate, not investigate Muhammad. If he had criticized Judaism or Christianity, the intelligentsia would not have objected. Why the exception for Islam?

Why? Muslims showed they can riot and continue to commit violence. In the coming election, many will vote. French Orientalists harbor illusions and make unrealistic predictions, because of their affinity for the Arabs, which colors their perceptions. They think the answer to Islamic hostility is dialogue, not fighting back. They deny danger from the increasing Islamization of French suburbs and affirm danger from Israel. In French academia, ethnic or religious relations are taboo, as is friendliness towards the US. Break the taboo, and you won't find a berth at university. Most important, when France gave up colonialism, it sought good relations with the Arabs, and became pro-Arab to gain them. The French Church always opposed the restoration of the Jewish homeland to the Jewish people. The French Left sees Israel as colonialist and the US as brutal, but itself has become antisemitic.

"A quick look at a world map -- from Chechnya to Israel and the P.A., Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Kashmir, southern Thailand, and the southern Philippines -- reveals that the planet's most devastating wars are now of the jihadist type." France no longer is the country of liberte, fraternite, and egalite.

Formerly, the Left had a large moderate wing. No longer. Now the Left stands for intolerance in the name of tolerance, and blocks speech of which it disapproves. The Left, there, is as unrealistic as we usually think of the Arabs being.


The IDF was given leave to pinpoint counterattacks against rocket crews, but not otherwise track down terrorists. PM Olmert and Defense Min. Peretz urge the P.A. to take stronger measures against the rockets.

Increasingly, Army officers are accusing the government of immorality in its "restraint," as the Arabs wound Israelis with impunity, start to drive Israelis away, and build up a capability for warfare like that of Hizbullah.

Vice-PM Peres told Spain that Hamas has a major role to play in the "peace process" (Arutz-7, 12/27).

"Stronger measures?" What measures? None stated. No Arab effort and certainly no results have ever been shown. The usual phrase, the P.A. "should try harder," if funny, because if implies that the P.A. tries. If Israel is afraid to complain that the P.A. doesn't act against terrorism, why should the P.A. act?

"Peace process," -- and with Hamas? Tell Peres that Hamas' major goal is to conquer Israel. Has he not read its insistence that it will not make peace with Israel?


The media controlled by that supposed moderate man of peace, Abbas, aired a program showing a fictionalized account of Israeli soldiers murdering Arab babies (Op. Cit.).

Arutz-7 shows the contradiction between the Western depiction of Abbas and how he acts. Why doesn't the NY Times? Because the Times prefers to mislead people against Israel, and that means favoring the Arabs where they have an opportunity to weaken Israel?


An Israeli archeologist discovered an ancient Hebrew altar outside Shechem, now called Nablus, exactly as described in the sacred texts. He concluded it was Joshua's, built 3,250 years ago. He makes a good case for that, but even if it weren't Joshua's, it was an early one, attesting to Jewish origins in the country (Ibid.). Nothing early is found there of the Arabs. What do you suppose that means about whose homeland it is?


By developing nuclear weapons in the name of developing nuclear power, Iran has discouraged investment in its oil industry. As a result, its production is declining. It may have to stop exporting in another decade. Iran cites US pressure on other countries not to help that industry (IMRA, 12/27).

I'm surprised that China, flush with a trade surplus, and eager to scoop up the world's raw materials, doesn't furnish the investment funds. Unfortunately for the US, pressure on Iran reduces supply, raises profits, and makes Islamists stronger and the US, weaker.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, January 26, 2007.

This was written by Sarah Honig and appeared today in the Jerusalem Post.

Israel sadly provides the unimpeachably ultimate illustration for Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly. Ours is a folly so extreme as to jeopardize this nation's very survivability.

For more than 13 years Israel's leaders have made folly their yardstick for sanity and prudence. The more their strategy negates the most basic self-preservation instincts and elementary common sense, the more it's hyped as nothing less than the hallmark of sound-mindedness and wisdom.

Tuchman defined folly as policy which is plainly inimical to the self-interest of the collective pursuing it. Moreover, it has to be implemented over time, not just in one extraordinary flash of irrationality. The folly must be espoused by more than a single misguided figurehead and constitute groupthink. Most significantly, Tuchman's definition hinges on the delivery in advance of cogent warnings against the foreseen impending calamitous consequences of the given folly.

Everything that has happened to Israel since Oslo introduced into our midst the incipient Palestinian state (Tuchman's Trojan horse counterpart), fully measures up to Tuchman's folly criteria (and then some). Indeed the initial folly keeps spawning spin-off follies and the offshoot misguided leadership then begets even more irresponsible fantasy-addicted, consensus-skewing successors.

Ehud Olmert's slipshod and bamboozling ways are Oslo's predictable derivatives. They're evolutions of Osloite delusions -- colossally grotesque progressions of the folly Tuchman identified. Were this suicide-scale folly stopped now, Israelis might heave a united sigh of relief at having barely dodged the fatal bullet. But to read our headlines, this is wishful thinking. If the polls are borne out, we may yet acutely miss Olmert -- unreal as that sounds.

Said polls, for instance, show that the one Kadima character still incomprehensibly popular is Tzipi Livni (notwithstanding, obviously, the dire inadequacy of her foreign policy and abysmally bungled advocacy of Israel's cause). So if the rug is irretrievably pulled from under Olmert's wobbly feet (by, say, the Winograd Commission), Kadima's council of sages may opt to avoid elections by crowning Livni instead. Theoretically -- especially given our parliamentarians' penchant for sleaze -- they may actually pull this travesty off.

It's, therefore, not inconceivable that Livni -- after a mere few kowtowing years in public life -- will be meteorically catapulted to the top, with even fewer qualifications than Olmert, and fewer principles (if that's possible).

In other words, the folly as delineated by Tuchman might yet be even more mind-bogglingly exacerbated. We seem inexorably bound to deteriorate from bad to worse, to beyond-belief worse.

During her junket to Tokyo last week, Livni offered insight into her ethical makeup when taking time (from apparently pitching Israel's case) to laud Dan Halutz for "bringing a high standard of values as an army officer, and we can learn from that, and like that our soldiers too, about taking responsibility. I think his action is worth admiring. I have much respect for the chief of General Staff."

The above -- it need be noted -- was uttered in Livni's native Hebrew, so the jumbled sentence-structure cannot be ascribed to the encumbrances (for her) of English syntax. That said, her supercilious gibberish is most telling. With patronizing self-conferred moral authority, she presumes to enlighten us, and "our soldiers too," that it's above and beyond one's obligation to quit in the wake of failure.

Should Halutz -- by her norms -- have done everything to evade accountability? Does one resign only when no other choice remains (just before the inquiry commission lowers its ax)? Is this intrinsically commendable or deplorable? Why does Livni exude such esteem for a commander who did so much harm (or failed to prevent it) to Israel's military deterrence? Wouldn't it have been more honorable to have stepped down sooner, rather than wait it out as a lame duck with a bunch of lame excuses, hoping against hope to limp through a loophole?

Livni, as Ariel Sharon's fawning accomplice, knows better than the plebeians how Halutz became chief of General Staff and why. She knows his predecessor, Moshe Ya'alon, was kicked out on the eve of disengagement because he wasn't a yes-man and couldn't be absolutely trusted to collaborate in perpetrating Israel's single most tragic folly since Oslo.

But Halutz was Omri Sharon's bosom-bud, a Sharon-family crony and a reliable accessory. He indeed performed the task assigned him to perfection and expelled more than 9,000 compatriots from their homes. He excelled at confronting Jews, but, alas, didn't equally excel at confronting the Jewish state's genocidal enemies.

His appointment and record in office are products of the ideological breakdown that, particularly since Oslo, pollutes this land -- and perniciously so the IDF. Folly marketed as pragmatism took over. That's why Livni conveniently shed her convictions. That's why the IDF was run like a business enterprise, where career and personal advancement matter most.

Thus managerial superficiality, accommodating mediocrity and covering rear ends became indispensable in order not to compromise promotion prospects. Halutz isn't the sacrificial offering. This stock-portfolio ditcher (during combat) epitomizes the malaise.

Livni, disengagement's co-conspirator, does as well. Hence, though she admitted that "disengagement was a mistake" -- one for which she too is liable -- her ministry continues to draw blueprints for another whopping unilateral withdrawal. A team she appointed is currently busy reviving and promoting plans to remove at least 100,000 Israelis from Judea and Samaria. Olmert pleads the same ignorance he did regarding Livni's other recent freelance initiatives.

It's hard to let go of folly and Livni isn't about to, especially when for her folly proved so profitable. Where would she be if she hadn't abandoned her once-professed ideals and enlisted enthusiastically in Zion's lucrative march of folly? In our cynical state, folly may yet take her farther than she dreams and others dread.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 25, 2007.

It is great that FOX NEWS undertook old fashioned journalistic research to speak about Muslim Terror Cells embedded into American cities and towns, starting a long time ago. FOX has the muscle to probe how all this started. Many free-lance journalists have been writing for years about the U.S. State Department has been the deaf, dumb and blind gate-keeper in allowing Arab Muslims to enter America in deference to Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. They came in droves, with visas issued by the State Department and even from well-known rogue states.

The investigators stopped short, particularly in Lee Hamilton's mission to study 9/11.

The only one to be questioned was former Secretary of State Colin Powell and that was merely a friendly chat. The matter of State leaning on the FBI to not open investigations into the actions of Arab Muslims was especially notable. I grant you that the Arabist State Department is a fearsome adversary -- something like the FBI Director Herbert Hoover with his blackmailing files on members of Congress and those in the Oval Office.

Please write to FOX News and ask them to pick up their investigations where they left off. Those at State who deliberately opened America's doors for easy entry by Muslim Terror should be pointed out because many are still operating inside and holding the door open for even more Arab Muslim Terrorists. Clearly, the entire lot should be investigated for high treason against the American people. If those Sleeper Cells succeed in blowing up an American city then surely, the death penalty would be applicable to the enablers.

This article was written by David Asman and is called "Hezbollah Inside America: FOX News Tells All in Documentary."

Does any terrorist organization pose a greater threat to Americans than Al Qaeda?

The shocking answer to that question unfolds this Saturday, January 20th, at 8 p.m. EST, as FOX News Channel presents a breakthrough documentary, "Smokescreen: Hezbollah Inside America."

While Americans are still largely focused on Al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden -- who's presumably rotting away in some cave -- the terrorist group Hezbollah has been setting up shop right here in America's heartland. And most Americans don't know a thing about it. But we should know more about Hezbollah -- a lot more.

As tensions with Iran are increasing, it's important to keep in mind that Hezbollah is largely funded by Iran and has operated as its tool in terror operations around the world. As former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte recently reminded us: "Hezbollah's self-confidence and hostility toward the U.S. as a supporter of Israel could cause the group to increase its contingency planning against U.S. interests."

But Hezbollah has been focused on U.S. interests for quite some time. In fact, Hezbollah operatives have been quietly setting up operations in the U.S. for years.

One of those operations is the subject of "Smokescreen: Hezbollah Inside America," anexhaustive FOX News report about a Hezbollah cell that was operating for several years in Charlotte, North Carolina. FOX followed the many tentacles of this cell, which extended far beyond Charlotte -- to Michigan, to the West Coast, to Canada and to Beirut, Lebanon, where most of the members were from. FOX News spent months tracking this story to all these places and more.

At least one member of the Hezbollah cell first came to the U.S. on forged visa picked up in Venezuela. Others overstayed their tourist or student visas. Once here, they began making millions through a combination of tobacco smuggling, credit card schemes, and arranging phony "green-card" marriages. They even succeeded at obtaining a $1.7 million loan from the Small Business Administration.

Even though the team succeeded in gaming our system and making millions of dollars in criminal enterprises, the FBI was on to them almost from the start.

But this was before 9/11 (and before the Patriot Act) when the FBI was prevented from combining its terrorist surveillance with criminal investigations. A "Chinese Wall" separated criminal investigations from terrorist investigations, so ATF that had launched its own probe into the case, knew nothing of the gang's terrorist connections.

This is just one of the many hurdles the FBI, ATF, state and local law enforcement needed to overcome in bringing this cell down. We highlight their heroic efforts and the flaws in our own system that allowed this terror network to flourish.

Initially, the hardest part of the job for FBI terror investigators was convincing their cohorts that Hezbollah was a genuine threat to Americans. There was much skepticism, despite the fact that before 9/11, no terrorist group had killed more Americans in the Mideast than Hezbollah. And Hezbollah extended their killing spree to this hemisphere, with a 1994 bombing that killed dozens of women and children at a Jewish center in Argentina. But the FBI, as much of the nation, was still in its pre-9/11 mindset, refusing to devote the resources or concern that we should have been devoting to the terrorist threat.

The exceptions to that rule are the heroes of this story: An FBI agent who refused to allow the taunts and skepticism of his colleagues to dissuade him from tracking the connections that linked a group of Lebanese illegals operating in Charlotte to terror cells in Canada and Beirut. An alert sheriff's deputy, working part time at a tobacco wholesaler in Charlotte, who spent his own time tracking down a suspicious group of Arabic-speaking customers who were trading wads of cash for tons of cheap tobacco. A young prosecutor willing to bet his reputation on a case that had to leapfrog over terrorist laws that were either antiquated or hadn't even been written yet.

While arrests were made in this case a year before 9/11, the case was tried just after 9/11, and that brought with it a whole new set of questions that we examine.

Were members of the terror cell too readily convicted by a jury that was still caught up in a post-9/11 panic? Certainly that's the contention of Stanley Cohen, the lawyer for the cell's ringleader, Mohammad Hammoud.

FOX News wanted to find out more about the case. So we got Cohen to take us to Beirut to talk to members of the cell indicted in the case. Only by seeing the volatile environment in which the cell members were raised did we get an appreciation of what motivated them. But we also witnessed why the United States needs to stay vigilant in its efforts to stop those who want to do us harm.

We went to Beirut, and our timing was auspicious. Our visit coincided with an explosive power struggle in Lebanon between Hezbollah and its opponents in government. While we were filming in Hezbollah's stronghold in Southern Beirut, a FOX producer rushed to the scene to tell us that cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel had just been shot and killed in an ambush not far from where we were filming. The decision was made to get out quickly.

The night before the assassination, Cohen appeared shaken after a conversation with Sheik Abbas Harake, a man we were supposed to interview the next day.

According to the U.S. government, Harake was a military commander in Beirut and received money from Mohammad Hammoud, Cohen's client. Harake was the alleged conduit connecting the Charlotte cell to the military wing of Hezbollah. Cohen argued that Harake was just a used car salesman, who ran a humanitarian aid group for Hezbollah. But the night before the assassination, it appeared Harake knew that something was up. He called Cohen to say he couldn't make the interview the next day. "Things are about to get ugly," a nervous Cohen told me after speaking with the sheik.

What makes "Smokescreen: Hezbollah Inside America" particularly relevant today is not merely how it connects with the growing conflicts in the Mideast and our growing conflicts with Iran, but the fact that the case in Charlotte is about to be reopened. In February, the leader of the Charlotte cell, who was sentenced to 155 years in jail, is up for re-sentencing. This story will undoubtedly shed more light on the case and help decide whether this man will ever see the light of day outside of a U.S. prison.

A gripping story that's must see television, "Smokescreen: Hezbollah Inside America"
http://www.foxnews.com/specials/) aired( on January 20th. If you missed it, ask FOX NEWS to air it again.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz-Sheva, January 25, 2007.

Editor's note: This is a set of news items in today's Arutz-Sheva. Moshe Katzav, President of Israel, was accused of rape by several women -- some of the incidents going far back in time. It caught the attention of the global mainline media in a way that the corruption charges levied against Prime Minister Olmert have not. Incoming emails from savvy Israelis speculate that -- aside from serving as a distraction from the criminal charges against Olmert and from his announced intention of expelling Jews from Samaria and Judea -- Olmert wants to hand the presidency to Shimon Peres for a final moment of glory. Peres has never been able to be elected to anything on his own.

1. Katzav Rips Into Attorney-General, Media, Police And Prosecution
Hillel Fendel

A first in modern Israeli history: The President of Israel vehemently condemned official national organs, saying they cooperated in targeting him because of his "outsider" status. At times his voice broke, and at other times he was furious with rage, but he showed conviction and firmness throughout his 50-minute speech.

Though the President has claimed innocence ever since the allegations of sexual harassment against him first arose shortly before the summer war with Hizbullah, he has never publicly explained his side of the events. In tonight's dramatic speech, he went further than ever before in doing so.

Particularly noteworthy was his scathing attack against the media, addressing many minutes of his remarks directly to the reporters sitting in front of him.

In addition, he essentially accused Attorney General Menachem Mazuz of lying and double-crossing him. Katzav said that at one point, he and Mazuz held a secret meeting, yet it and its contents were leaked to the media. The President said he called Mazuz to consult with him, and Mazuz said he would neither confirm nor deny the reports. Katzav followed suit, saying publicly that he would neither confirm nor deny - and the next day he heard Mazuz submit a public statement in the Knesset confirming the meeting and its leaked contents.

The headlines blared that the Attorney General contradicted the President's public statement. "He did the opposite of what he had told me on the phone the day before! What was I to do? ... I decided to continue to practice self-restraint and not embarrass Mazuz -- but, I admit, it was not only for that reason; I continued to remain silent so that I would not be accused of interfering with the investigation."

Go to
http://media.iba.org.il/?type=tvRecorded&mediaUrl= http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20040704_IBA_Popup/ iba_video.asp?ai=31ANDSIGNar=ibanews to view the speech.

Excerpts from the speech:

Over the past six months and more, my family and I have faced a poisonous and terrible campaign, with deception and lies reaching every home, trampling me.

Yet despite the humiliation and pressures upon me, for the past six months I respected the law and refrained from responding, in order not to interfere with the investigation... As always in my career, now too, I do not intend to lower my head -- I will struggle until the end; I will wage even a world war, until my soul gives out, to cleanse my stained name.

My wife Gila [voice breaks] is standing by my side, and everyone will soon see the truth.

Citizens of Israel, don't believe the lies that you have heard. I am sure that you too, and Jews all over the world, feel the humiliation...

For the past six months, you have heard the brainwashing from the media. You have heard every day for six months details of the terrible acts of the president of Israel, hair-raising stories as if they are facts. You have seen irresponsible commentators standing and explaining, without fulfilling their basic responsibility of checking the most basic things. You therefore had no choice but to be influenced by them; you couldn't think otherwise.

I know no one else who could have survived this period, but I did - [knocking on table] -- because I know the truth. In Israel 2007, it seems there is no need in this for proofs or for evidence; it's enough just to hear one side; my fate was decreed even before I could say one word. Not one of you [reporters] has seen one shred of evidence against me. There is no evidence against me.

But you in the press did not allow the facts to bother you. You did not stop for a second to ask yourselves if maybe the accusations are not true. Not one of you asked questions; not one of you -- not one radio or TV or newspaper -- did an investigative piece to see if it's true. You transgressed all journalist ethics!

I know what bothered you -- that six years ago I was elected President [defeating Shimon Peres]. You wrote at the time that it was the end of Zionism, etc. I should be ashamed of myself? You should be ashamed of yourselves for writing such things about a democratic vote in the legislature!

---At this point, a Channel Two news anchor interrupted, and Katzav responded furiously:

You have talked for six months, and now it's my turn! No, you won't talk here! If you don't like it, you can get out! I was silent for six months, and now you don't want to hear the truth! Channel Two -- yes, Channel Two, the same station that has been spilling my blood for six months! The same Channel Two that set an interview with the President of Israel for a specific day, and then just a day before the interview, decided to cancel it -- and why? Because it decided that Muhammad Dahlan was more important to them than the President of Israel -- that's the same Channel Two that doesn't like to hear the difficult things I am accusing them of now.

Yes, it's the same media of which one journalist wrote that when I was elected President, he felt as bad as he felt the day that Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin was murdered. Can you understand this comparison, citizens of Israel? If this does not sully the memory of Yitzchak Rabin, then what does? ...

When the truth comes out, citizens of Israel, you will be hit by shock. I wouldn't take a chance on saying this so clearly if I wasn't so confident of the truth that you do not know.

I have been in public service for over 35 years; I have never hurt a single man or woman, my hands were clean, even when my opponents did all they could to besmirch me.

I saw myself as a symbol of all those who do not belong to the elitist, ego-swollen clique of those who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, who see themselves as the only ones worthy of representing the public!

For years, the press looked all over the place for something with which to besmirch me, but thank G-d, they found nothing. They went as far back as my 2nd grade school! But they found zero, they failed; they found nothing. I cannot understand where this hatred comes from, this urge to devour, that takes over the sense of truth and justice.

To my great sorrow, I was unable to stop the urge for vengeance and anger by those who worked with me for many years -- and they waited for the right time to take vengeance.

I never thought that those who were fired by me or who didn't get what they wanted from me would accuse me of acts that are so far from me, from my tradition, from my way of life, and from how I educate my children. I did not do one of the acts of which I am accused.

I am proud of my family for standing by me at this difficult hour. But they are a normal family, and not made of iron.

I promise you, citizens of Israel, that it will never be listed in history that the 8th president is guilty of these crimes.

I admit that I would like to resign now; you have succeeded in taking away the joy of serving in this honorable position. It would be easy for me to quit. I am tired of this witch hunt. But the alternative is to surrender. I refuse to give in to blackmail and lies.

The police set itself a target of convicting a President of the State -- yes, this is true. They did this because the police knew it would be popular in the eyes of the media.

Not one of you -- no journalists, no politicians, not even my lawyers -- have seen the evidence. I know the truth. The evidence is on my side, the truth is on my side.

If the Attorney General decides to indict me -- and he has not yet decided to do so; he wrote that he is open to any decision. But if he decides to do so, I affirm again that I will resign immediately, as I said in court on Nov 27.

I also said that if he says that he is considering an indictment, I will suspend myself -- and that's what I did today in a letter to the Knesset...

But I ask you what should a man do if he knows he's clean, the Attorney General has not decided, and it's all a libel -- should he give up and quit just because of a media lynch? No. I will not cooperate with anyone who wants to execute someone without a trial. You want to execute someone without a trial -- do so; I will not cooperate.

McCarthyism has been revived here in Israel. And one of the worst dangers is the cooperation between the police and media. In any normal country, the media are the last line of defense for a citizen who demands simple justice and basic civil rights. When the police persecute people in a totalitarian country, the media rises to protect him. But here the media and the police work together, leak to each other -- and the civil rights of the citizens are trampled. Where are the bleeding hearts? Why don't they raise their voice against this injustice?

Katzav's Version

I started this whole story last July by inviting on my own volition the Attorney General, without any lawyer or anything else -- because I knew I had done nothing wrong. I went to complain about an attempt to blackmail me. Would a normal person who did something wrong go to the Attorney General and say he is being blackmailed?!

I advised him to place a gag order, so there could be a fair investigation. But this was not done for even one minute -- and there were leaks all the time. There were leaks from the prosecution and from the police and from everywhere -- just one side didn't leak, and that was me -- the President of Israel, Moshe Katzav.

Only Gila and I knew of the meeting with Mazuz, yet within a short time, it was leaked to the press, including the contents of the meeting. I called Mazuz, and told him that the meeting had been leaked. He said he would not confirm or deny -- and I did the same. And then I find that Mazuz releases an official statement confirming the meeting -- the opposite of what he told me the day before. And then editorials appeared accusing me of lying, and calling, "Moshe Katzav, tell the truth!"

Ladies and gentlemen, no charge has ever been filed against me in the police! Not from 12 women, and not from one!

The police actively and ravenously sought out dozens of women to see if they would accuse me of something. They went back to all the women I had ever worked with in the past 30 years. One non-right-wing female MK said that her friend was summoned and asked by the police if she had ever been raped by the president!

Out of dozens that were investigated, three of them raised the worst charges. But those three wanted to work here -- and I didn't think they were worthy of doing so. They wanted the prestige of working with the President, but I had worked with them in the past and knew that they weren't appropriate. All three of them wanted to work here!

And they never filed any complaint against me with the police -- but when the police came to them, they saw it as a chance to get back at me. One of them was the head of an office when I was a minister, and I didn't want her to work here. Another was the one who tried to blackmail me, and when the police asked her about it, she used a disgraceful defense, saying, "He's complaining against me? I'll get him back! I'll accuse him of rape!"

We have evidence against two of them that they said outright they wanted to get me back and that they would take vengeance on me.

Regarding eight women about whom the police leaked to you -- I was not even interrogated about sexual harassment regarding them.

One of them tried to spread terrible rumors about me -- about an illegitimate child -- yes, that's what she said -- and about foreign accounts, and wiretapping my employees, and money for pardons, and affairs with women. But you know how sensitive I always was to the media throughout my career, and they knew that as well, and they knew it would be easy to malign me.

I tell you now: Ten thousand pardon requests passed through my office, and if you can find even one that I did not handle responsibly, I will resign right now.

Against the Police

As early as last October, the police announced that they could open a case against me -- but the investigation has lasted another four months!

The police constantly leaked information, encouraged the media to spill my blood. The press campaign was orchestrated from the first minute.

Against the advice of my lawyers, I told them to transfer to the police all the evidence in my possession. They told me not to, so as not to divulge our defense tactics. But I said that I trust the police, and I forced them to transfer the information to make it easier for the police to reach the truth. What did the police do? Everything they could to tear down the testimonies that could have been used in my favor.

The legal counsel of the President's House -- she was a former Lt.-Col. in the army, and the head of an IDF Military Court -- has been lying sick for four months because of the humiliating police investigation! I cannot agree to such standards! And she says that they looked only to incriminate the president.

Similarly, the Director of the President's House, Moshe Goral, was hospitalized after a humiliating 11-hour investigation that took place even when he was sick.

There was a woman who wrote to me who said, "You don't know me, but eight years ago you fired me, and I know who the woman is who is accusing you -- and I know that she's lying. I talked to her, and I know the truth." We gave the letter to the police and the Prosecution, and what do the police say to her? "We are following you with a magnifying glass, and we will get into your underwear, so watch out." - A hareidi woman with three children! This is how the police talks to a woman who wants to tell the truth?! They threaten her in this way? Is this a democratic state? Are these the standards we want to have here in our country?!

Another witness was told by the police to "watch out for your family." What right do they have to act this way?

I have great faith in the Israel Police, and I don't want to harm it, but these faults must be revealed. And witnesses must also be protected, even if they don't follow the direction set by the police. The police set a goal of convicting the President of the country, because they knew the media would like it.

This media lynch even influenced those who make the decisions. Why did Attorney General Mazuz have to say as early as October to announce that he had "doubts" about my innocence? What made him say that so many months ago, before all the material was ready? He could have been silent and said he's waiting for the end of the investigation -- but no. He was widely quoted about how he doubts my story.

Isn't it obvious that such a statement would influence the investigators? If the Attorney General doesn't believe the president, then why should we? It also influenced everyone else, including the witnesses. After all, the Attorney General already set the tone!

At one point, the police wanted some evidence from my house -- and they came with search warrants and orders. Why couldn't they just come and take what they wanted? Would someone have dared to stop them? But this was just another method of the police to humiliate me and harass me and report to the media that they had "raided the President's Residence."

Those who accused me of sexual harassment wanted just to harass me, and to defend themselves from charges of blackmail. A woman who is harassed doesn't bring the harasser gifts, or write him notes of appreciation, or repeatedly try to come back and work with him, or call the harasser from New York at 3 AM to wish him a happy birthday.

The whole case against me is not supported by any concrete evidence. As High Court Justice Dalia Dorner said, 'I cannot believe that someone has to prove his innocence!' Well, I will prove my innocence.

And those of you reporters who preach at me -- I have succeeded in maintaining my marriage for 37 years. Many of you [reporters] who preach at me have not succeeded in maintaining your family life. I hope that my children and grandchildren have the same marriage relationship, and they wish upon themselves, that Gila and I have...

"O G-d, save me from the evil man, preserve me from the violent man, who devises evil in their hearts and stir up wars every day. They have sharpened their tongues like a snake... The proud have hidden a snare for me." (Psalm 140)

Thank you very much.

2. Media Mounts Counterattack; Public Supports Presidents Speech
By Gil Ronen

Israel's media outlets were quick to mount a counteroffensive against President Moshe Katzav, who sharply criticized them in his speech Wednesday night. The Israeli public expresses its support.

The President's spokesperson, Hagit Cohen, said Wednesday morning that the outpouring of support for the President is unprecedented. "In my three years in this position as spokesperson, I have never seen such a deluge of expressions of support as now. The switchboard at the president's residence is collapsing from calls of solidarity, as is the fax machine."

Cohen further noted that the president's words entered the hearts of the public. "Many citizens particularly identify with President Katzav's criticism of the Israeli media," she noted.

In his speech, Katzav directly confronted Channel 2 -- Israel TV's leading, semi-private channel -- and its newscasters.

Obviously shaken by Katzav's offensive, media anchors made no attempt to feign objectivity, as they launched their counter attack. For close to an hour on prime time TV, the media had been under attack, and they had no way of cutting off the President, ganging up on him or censoring him as is custom on talk shows or pre-recorded reports.

The President, who was in control on his home turf at the official President's Residence, successfully managed to shut up an attempt by Channel 2's lead anchor Sukenik to interrupt his speech. In a dramatic verbal clash, Katzav silenced Sukenik's outbreak and when Sukenik continued interrupting, a member of the President's staff wrestled with the Channel 2 crew over control of their microphone.

Channel 1 TV's lead anchor Geula Even expressed indignation in a prime time panel featuring ultra-leftists Talia Sasson, formerly a top official in the State Prosecution, and MK Zehava Galon (Meretz). Geula Even chastised the President for "terrible incitement against the media" and "talking above the heads of the media for an entire hour and bypassing the journalists and Sukenik."

Geula Even asked Yossi Bar Muha, head of the Israel Journalists Union, if the president hadn't "lynched the media", and expressed shock by Katzav's hints that some of Israel's media members were less successful in maintaining their family life than his "37-year successful marriage." Bar Muha said Katzav was a liar, and declared that he knew for a fact that Katzav was guilty of the sexual charges against him.

The main editorial in the ultra-leftist Haaretz news service calls for the forced removal of the president Thursday morning. Ynet, Israel's most popular Hebrew news site, features a commentary quoting anonymous sources saying the president's speech was "riddled with untruth" and an opinion piece entitled "The Protocols of Moshe" by Guy Banyuvich. "In a horror show presented in broken Hebrew," wrote Banyuvich, "the President laid a row of explosive devices along the avenues of law and justice in Israel and set them off one by one." Banyuvich went on to compare Katzav's speech to the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Baruch Gordon contributed to this report.

3. Knesset House Committee Okays Katzav Suspension, 13-11
By Hana Levi Julian

The Knesset House Committee voted 13-11 Thursday to approve President Moshe Katzav's request for a temporary suspension from his duties. Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik is now acting president. Katzav asked Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik for permission to suspend himself until after the preliminary hearing to determine whether he will be charged on a variety of sexual misconduct and corruption charges.

A two-hour recess called by Knesset House Committee Chairwoman Ruhama Avraham of the Kadima party (pictured) to discuss the matter with faction heads ended abruptly one hour later, however, after failing to convince the members to reach a consensus.

Some of the committee members remained unmoved and insisted that the Knesset should initiate proceedings to have Katzav forcibly removed from office, but others were equally adamant that the president should be given a chance to defend himself rather than suffer a conviction in the media.

Knesset member Yitzhak Galantee (Gil Pensioners Party) argued in favor of Katzav's request, comparing the media campaign against the president to the Dreyfus trial, calling it "intolerable and inhumane."

Galantee said, "Katzav promised that if charges are pressed against him, he will submit his resignation immediately. What more do we want from him? That he should wrap the noose around his neck? His appearance was that of a man who has been hurt to the depths of his soul and who speaks from his heart, not that of a man who seeks a legal fig leaf to cover his private parts."

Galantee reminded the committee members of the serious charge that the president leveled at the police investigators: The president said that a female witness for the defense told him that the police threatened her, saying, "We will get into your underwear" to discourage her from testifying.

"Is this not obstruction of the investigation on the part of the police themselves?" he asked. Galantee said that the only logical conclusion is to accept the president's request for temporary suspension and enable him to have a preliminary hearing after which the attorney general will decide whether to press charges."

Knesset legal advisor Nurit Elstein, on the other hand, told the committee that the most appropriate action would be for the President to resign.

Nonetheless, a slim majority of the committee members agreed with arguments that legislators should not judge the President -- and that he should decide on his own to resign rather than be impeached.

Knesset Members led by Yoram Marciano (Labor) and Zahava Gal-On (Meretz) collected 30 signatures a day earlier on a petition demanding that the Knesset House Committee begin proceedings to remove President Moshe Katzav from office, based on Attorney General Menachem Mazuz's statement that he is considering putting Katzav on trial for rape and other charges.

Katzav, however, beat the MKs to the House Committee, and managed to file his own request for a temporary suspension first, thus pre-empting a committee vote on whether or not to impeach him.

Gal-On called Katzav's request to suspend himself "a slap in the face of the Knesset" and "a poor joke". She said that the crimes that he is being investigated for are so grave that he must be removed completely through impeachment.

MK Michael Eitan (Likud) said in the Knesset committee that the Attorney General has not yet made up his mind whether to press charges against the president. "Who are we, Knesset members who have not seen the evidence and testimonies, to begin impeachment proceedings out of hysteria, when no charges have been brought against the president?"

Eitan said that for such a scenario, in which there is a suspicion of crimes, where the accused president claims innocence, and in which the one person authorized to view the evidence that has mounted and decide if it is sufficient to press charges has not reached a conclusion, we have in the law the measure for temporary suspension.

Among those on the House Committee openly supporting the president's request for a temporary suspension were the three Shas party Knesset members, the three Kadima Knesset members, the two Pensioners Party MKs, MK Nadia Hilu of Labor, the representative of the Arab Democratic Party, the United Torah Judaism Knesset member, and the two Knesset members of Yisrael Beiteinu. Some Knesset members said that they had decided to support the President's request following his emotional speech Wednesday night.

Baruch Gordon contributed to this report.

4. Corrupt Elite Decried at Herzliya Conference
By Ezra HaLevi

The high level of government corruption and the influence of Israel's wealthiest families on the functions of the state were the hot topics on the last day of the Herzliya Conference.

Globes business news editor Hagai Golan told those present that the fact that a Market Watch pole released this week shows that 86 percent of the country believes that wealthy businessmen control the government "leaves no room for doubt - we live in a corrupt country."

Golan said that though the wealthy elite in Israel are important for the country's national strength, "they should not be above the national enforcement bodies - this is the root of much of the problem."

"What happened to us? What has gone wrong?" asked journalist Ari Sharit. His answer was one that previous speakers such as State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss had alluded to. "What went wrong is Israel's leadership echelon. The Israeli public is an extraordinary one, but the Israeli elites have lost their way through the decades. Our political elite has become unfit. It does not need a cosmetic change, but an implant - during the war and since the war. Even the academic elite does not contribute. The legal elite tried to maintain balances and didn't always succeed. The media elite failed, showing the public a false picture in the 90s, improved slightly since then, but still is not fulfilling its duties."

Shavit, who penned a cynical faux-memo on the eve of elections from the "eighteen families" who run most of Israel's commerce and media, spent much of the time lambasting Israel's richest families. "The business elite, which is so impressive in its work with the economy, have failed to grasp the political situation Israel find itself in."

The seasoned journalist, who soured on the Disengagement and became an outspoken critic of the Kadima phenomenon, was not all doom and gloom. "I am an optimistic man. I don't just love this people, I believe in it. I don't just love this crazy country, I believe in it."

Former Knesset Member and founder of the Shinui Party Amnon Rubinstein, speaking on the same panel on Israeli patriotism as Shavit, said that the fact that Israelis don't leave during wartime, despite the relatively low cost of emigration and ease of obtaining a visa, was an example of Israeli patriotism.

Shavit presented a vision of a more passionate patriotism, directing his hope away from the coastal plain and toward Israel's periphery. "The development towns, the agricultural communities and the settlements are where the loyalty lies," he said. "It is amazing that the very people the state neglects most are those who remain faithful to the state. There is a certain type of Jewish identity that cannot be defined that is alive there." Comment on this story

5. Olmert Slams Katzav, Hopes For Sharon Revival and Warns Iran
By Ezra HaLevi

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called upon President Moshe Katzav to resign and addressed the Iranian threat in his address before the Herziliya Conference Wednesday evening.

The prime minister spoke following a panel on government corruption that referred to many specifics of the criminal allegations against him and his government. Immediately preceding his speech, however, was the televised address of President Moshe Katzav, which provided him the opportunity to play the prosecutor rather than the prosecuted.

"I cannot speak tonight without referring to the events of the past day, and the Attorney General's decision to hold a hearing for the President in light of the possibility that serious charges may be filed against him. In these circumstances, I have no doubt that the President cannot continue to fulfill his role and he should leave the President's Residence. This is a sad day for the State of Israel," Olmert said.

He went on to express his hope that Ariel Sharon "would return to us."

Olmert focused on Iran for the remainder of his speech, offering a run-down of diplomatic moves his government has been taking against Iran's nuclear program. He cited his recent visit to China and took credit for the United Nations resolutions aimed against Iran. "We know our efforts had much influence in this regard," he said.

"Those who believe, as we do, that a diplomatic solution is preferable, must exert pressure to bring about change in the near future," he said. "Dragging our feet at this point ... will only make harsher steps more necessary in the future. Iran is vulnerable and susceptible to international pressure in this regard despite its defiant and belligerent public declarations."

Olmert urged the international community to act so Israel does not have to. "At this stage, there is still time -- though not unlimited -- to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power that will threaten its adversaries, first and foremost Israel," he said. "Israel is not spearheading the struggle against this threat. It must be dealt with first and foremost by the superpowers and other key countries. We are working to try to place this on the top of the agenda of world leaders."

The prime minister stressed, though, that Israel would not rely on the world to protect it. "The Jewish people, upon whose consciousness the scars of the Holocaust are deeply engraved cannot afford to ignore those who want to destroy us. In the past, the world remained silent and the results are known. Our role is to prevent the world from repeating this mistake," Olmert said. "When the leader of a country announces, officially and publicly, his country's intention to wipe off the map another country, and creates those tools which will allow them to realize their stated threat, no nation has the right to weigh its position on the matter. This is an obligation of the highest order, to act with all force against this plot."

In a direct message to the people of Iran, who would presumably be negatively impacted by an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites, Olmert recalled past Israeli-Iranian cooperation. "We have nothing against the Iranian people," he said. "Prior to the takeover of Iran we had impressive and warm relations under the Shah."

Olmert concluded with an explicit assurance that Israel will reserve the military option should diplomacy leave Iran with nuclear weapons. "We have the right and freedom of defensive actions in defense of our interests," he said. "Nobody should misconstrue our hesitation for reluctance to defend the State of Israel ...There is no difference between right, left and center in this regard -- and the people stand united as well."

6. Nascant Presidential Campaign Issue: Pardon For Barghouti
By Ezra HaLevi

Candidates vying for the still-occupied position of president are being asked whether the will approve a request to pardon terror chief Marwan Barghouti, serving life-sentences for murder.

MK Reuven Rivlin (Likud), considered a likely winner over Shimon Peres, has already been approached by several foreign diplomats on the matter. "A number of ambassadors from European countries -- separately, and not in coordination with one another -- asked to meet Likud MK Reuven Rivlin," reported analyst Yossi Verter in Haaretz. "All addressed an identical question to Rivlin: 'If you are chosen president, how will you act if you are asked to pardon the prisoner Marwan Barghouti, the leader of the Tanzim?'"

Verter says that Rivlin told the ambassadors "what they had been hoping to hear. 'If the government and the justice minister make a diplomatic decision that this is the individual with whom they want to negotiate, I will not stand in their way. I will sign the pardon.'"

Shimon Peres has declared unequivocally that he would pardon Barghouti. He is lobbying hard to force a public vote after an embarrassing defeat in his race against Katzav, which was decided by secret ballot in the 120-seat Knesset.

"All the candidates are competing as to who will release Barghouti faster," Verter quoted an unnamed leftist MK saying.

The preoccupation with a prisoner serving time for dozens of counts of murder indicates that a deal has already been, or is close to being formulated. The plan would presumably entail the release of Barghouti in exchange for IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit or a promise of Hamas or Fatah moderation. Barghouti might then agree to make an Israeli withdrawal to the lines delineated by the Partition Wall bilateral.

MK Haim Oron (Meretz) has been in regular contact with Barghouti, holding meetings in his jail cell and shuttling back and forth to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office. Olmert's office staff admits that Olmert and his advisers hold regular meetings with Oron but insist that messages to or from Barghouti have never been conveyed.

The Mattot Arim Land of Israel activist group, led by Susie Dym, has begun working to pressure candidates to commit to keeping Barghouti behind bars. "We need to ask all MKs on the right to refuse to vote for Rivlin unless he gives a written commitment not to release Barghouti, convicted for taking part in the murder of at least five innocent people -- and possibly many more," Dym wrote in a recent communiqu?.

She urged activists to fax and call the heads of the Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu parties, urging them to condition their presidential vote on whether a candidate will commit not to release Barghouti. "Shas Chairman Eli Yishai's office can be called at 02 666 2252 or faxed 02 666 2909; Yisrael Beiten'u can be reached at 02-6408388. For more information, email: mattot.arim[at]gmail.com

Hillel Fendel is senior editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNN.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 25, 2007.


There are a limited number of openings between Gaza and Sinai. Why doesn't Egypt station enough police at those openings, and examine the goods flowing into Gaza? It should be easy to detect and confiscate arms that smugglers try to bring in.

Egypt's failure to do that indicates complicity in the smuggling.


One cannot settle disputes with Muslim Arabs and make peace with them. Not satisfied with having gotten from Israel the Sinai, which is several time the size of Israel, some Egyptian officials are claiming Eilat, Israel's only outlet to Africa. Egypt is lucky to have gotten the Sinai. It was not officially Egyptian territory; it was no-man's land. Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty recognizing the boundary between the two countries. But the Muslims keep opening new controversies. That is why it pays not to give them concessions. Concessions in hand, they raise new demands.


We in the West are supposed to have a democracy. But we do not decide critical issues democratically. A democratic ethos welcomes debate, but Western society doesn't. People don't like dissent. The gatekeepers of the mass-media censor views contrary to their own or what they think politically correct (which usually is what liberals value).

Those of us who are familiar with historical events perceive similar conditions now. We have learned about consequences and what works. The rest don't listen to our warnings. They don't question their sources or realize that they all are of a single ideology. Having no idea how biased their sources are, they accept what they are told, rather than analyze it. They don't know what they don't know. They think that having college degrees means they are educated. (Of course, bias goes beyond the liberals.)

They are like the Israeli ruling group before the 1973 war. Clues about a pending Arab invasion were submitted to it. Instead of checking their theory that the Arabs did not want, and could not wage, another war, and not having spies observing newly developed Arab military tactics, they rejected the clues as incompatible with their theory. They should have questioned their theory on the basis of incompatible clues. As a result, they were caught by surprise. Initially, the Arab assault succeeded.

Americans want to believe that all religions are benign, so they ignore facts to the contrary. They contradict themselves, by condemning Christianity and Judaism and exempting Islam. They blind themselves to the Islamic assault, even as Muslims make war in one country after another.

A recently opened front is Somalia. The Islamists had captured most of the country, when Ethiopia, with US encouragement, helped the non-Islamists recapture the country. Will Pres. Bush get deserved credit for playing a role in not letting that country fall to our enemies? Since half the Islamists fled, the eventual outcome is uncertain. The present victory against jihad may be temporary.


The Vatican demanded that Israel turn over parts of Mt. Zion to it. Summoned to the Vatican, PM Olmert was told that if he refused, Italy would remove police protection from Jewish institutions. The Muslims would do the rest. Think that is crazy? That was the policy of Mandatory Britain, that led to pogroms.

Indeed, Italian police that had been guarding Jewish institutions for a decade, after Muslim attacks on some of them, soon were withdrawn without notice or explanation. After protest, they were restored, but the point had been made. (Subsequent news bulletins stated that negotiations over Mt. Zion were proceeding "satisfactorily.")

Olmert refused to object at his meeting with the Italian Premier, because he said, it went well. Upon Olmert's return home, he offered terrorist leader Abbas $100 million and removed most of the subsidy from religious schools in Israel (restored after protest). This seems part of the war on the Jews. Israelis should mount a coup (Barry Chamish).

What good is a Jewish state if it doesn't protect fellow Jews? Worse, it harasses them.


"PM Ehud Olmert approved a proposal to remove 27 West Bank roadblocks...the prime minister said that security officials still must determine which roadblocks would be dismantled and when they would be removed." In that case, asks Dr. Lerner, how did they come up with the number 27, if they had not determined which ones should be dismantled? Seems like an arbitrary number (IMRA, 12/25).


Hundreds of Hamas terrorists have passed through the now unguarded border gates between Gaza and Egypt. They go for advanced military training in Iran (IMRA, 12/25).

Hundreds! Abbas doesn't stop them, though he is given arms by the US and Israel to fight Hamas. Hint: he has other uses for those arms, such as fighting Israel.

Egypt easily could guard its side of the border. Why doesn't it stop the terrorists?


Israeli police in Hebron grabbed a 15-year-old Jewish girl off the street. Without notifying her parents, they interrogated her in Hebron and then in Jerusalem. They were inquiring about her having demonstrated against judicial callousness towards some friends, a year and-a-half ago. When she stopped answering their questions, they let her go. She asked, how is she supposed to get home to another city? They said that's her problem; their duty is simply to release her.

Fortunately, a neighbor was in the vicinity, and took her home. She experienced government harassment against religious Jews or settlers in the so-called Jewish state. It is one of many police state tactics in Israel (Arutz-7).


"Good guy" Abbas asked Israel for a ceasefire, asserting that all P.A. factions agreed to it. Not all did, however. They launched dozens of rockets against Israel, without "good guy" Abbas intervening. The Foreign Minister of Egypt deplored the attacks, and hoped that Israel would continue to restrain itself (i.e., not defend itself).

The government of Israel finally states that it will retaliate. The Hamas government called the decision "aggression." (Steven Erlinger, NY Times, 12/29, A6).

Abbas lies about his territory's factions agreeing to a ceasefire. He requests it in accordance with Islamist doctrine. That doctrine is, when losing, ask for a truce during which the Muslims can rebuild shattered forces. Meanwhile, however, the Muslims have been breaking the ceasefire. That is customary. Israel did not return fire, giving the Arabs time to consolidate the ceasefire. That is customary, too. But the Arabs, as usual, did not consolidate it. They hold themselves above the law and their cause above their word. They keep firing and demanding enemy restraint.

Egypt deplores the attacks, and hopes for continued Israeli restraint. A lot of good Egyptian deploring does, while Egypt lets arms be brought into Gaza and lets terrorists out for training! What good does restraint do Israel? Israel is supposed to suffer bombardment passively. When it doesn't, the rest of the world rebukes it much more strongly than it does the Arabs' aggression. Then the Muslims call Israeli retaliation "aggression."

Abbas serves the Arab aggression. What good has he done? Why bolster him in a pretense that he is a positive force, when like Arafat he builds his military while using diplomacy as a weapon, in this case like handcuffs for Israel? Why does Israel bother discussing matters with Egypt as if Egypt were part of the solution instead of the arms supplier and diplomatic backer of jihad?

Does PM Olmert expect Israel to retain any credibility when he allows a bombardment to go on for weeks, in violation of the ceasefire, boasting of restraint as his country's houses get demolished and the children become neurotic, and threatening retaliation but giving the Arabs weeks fire away and to rearm, and even offers concessions in the name of humanitarian aid for that inhumane people, concessions that facilitate terrorism. Don't pity the people who vote for genocidal terrorists, I say.

Note that Israel didn't surprise the enemy by retaliation. As usual, it stated a decision to retaliate, but doesn't connect decisions with action. It would be wiser to bring up its objections within two days of Arab violations, challenging the world to explain why it should honor an agreement the Arabs are violating by killing its people. Then strike.

It's like this. I, the Muslim don't like you, but shake your hand and agree to stop fighting with you. I punch you and call it "resistance." You make a fist, but I remind you of the agreement not to fight. Your mother tells you not to fight back, show restraint. I slap you. My friend (Egypt) deplores my action, but gives me brass knuckles and hopes you continue to show restraint. When you finally strike back, I call your action "aggression."

The "news" all is nonsense, repeated many times, but still taken seriously without anyone in that newspaper or perhaps in all the major media making fun of it, as I just did.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 25, 2007.

At 3 AM I watched the news. I clicked to a station featuring the Spielberg/Kushner rendition of the Munich massacre and retaliation. Frankly, I was reluctant to watch, given that the writer, Tony Kushner has a reputation for being hostile to Israel but, I watched anyway.

The plot of hunting down the 11 Arab Muslims who created and carried out the massacre of Jews at the Munich Olympics was familiar -- but, the ending where Avner the team's leader questions the logic of hunting down the killers, started me thinking along a broader line.

Why should anyone question the right of Jews to retaliate for the murder of Jews or even pre-empt the planned murder of Jews? We frequently hear the twisted logic of the Arab Muslims who claim they have the right to kill Jews because of what they call the "Nakba" (catastrophe). That refers to the first defensive war the Jews had to fight when the new Jewish State of Israel declared her independence.

The Arab Muslims were offered a "partition" of the land remaining after the British cut off 78% of the original "Palestinian Mandate" which they had declared was a homeland for the Jews to enter and create a country for the return of exiled and oppressed Jews from all over the world. But, the Arab Muslims refused and 5 Arab countries sent their armies to attack and annihilate the nascent Jewish State of 600,000 Jews.

The Jews came to live, farm, make the sandy, rocky soil green. The Arab Muslims pledged outright to "drive the Jews into the [Mediterranean] Sea" and "dance in the blood of the Jews". As is common among the Arab Muslims for generations, they flocked into Palestine where the Jews were developing the land, creating jobs, health care and education for both Jews and Arabs.

They were glad for the work and the money, generally unavailable in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc. But, they still hated the Jews and stole whatever they could. Some were worse than others and they murdered any Jews caught alone and vulnerable. Now the Arabs demand lands they gambled away in 6 wars. In each war they intended to wipe out all the Jews just as they had pledged in the first war. As the Muslim Arab says to Avner, "We can wait to one hundred years to take over all the Lands the Jews occupy ".

Apologists for the Arab Muslims invariably pressed the Israelis to give up their Land to the Arabs as if it were their right to claim. Never did the apologists speak about the thousands of Jews killed in these wars -- each started by the Arabs to recover not only the Land they had gambled away by losing each war but, also their lost pride of losing to those whom they believed to be a contemptible enemy.

Their leaders stubbornly stuck to their doctrine of the "Three No-s". At an Arab Muslim Conference August 1967 in Khartoum. After the armies of 3 neighboring Arab Muslim counties attacked, the Israeli Jews had won the Six Days War, secured Judea and Samaria, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and reunited their Eternal Capital of Jerusalem. The Israelis were already reaching out to negotiate with Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan based on Land-for-Peace. But, Arab Muslims stubbornly stuck by their response at their Summit conference the famous three NO's: "No recognition, no negotiation, no peace." (1)

I thought back to past times where the predatory attitude of non-Jews was virtually identical. Wherever Jews lived, the non-Jewish populace was taught and prodded to attack. That includes the Arab Muslim countries where Jews had lived for hundreds of years as well as Europe. Jews were periodically subjected to murderous pogroms in Europe, Russia and the Muslim Arab Middle East. The concept that Jews in Muslim countries lived in a "Golden Age" with peaceful Muslims from the 7th Century to the founding of the Jewish State of Israel is completely false.

Islamic laws put Jews and Christians into a category of "people of the book" a Dhimmi (second class citizen). Muslim Laws were repressive against "people of the book". Jews had to wear distinctive marks on their clothing, could not have their heads above a Muslim's; their homes and synagogues had to be lower than a Muslim's. If they passed a Muslim on the street, they had to step down into the gutter which was a sewer. if a Jewish child's father died before it was thirteen, the child was taken to be raised as a Muslim. Jews could not be witness in court against a Muslim, therefore, they had no defense against Muslim accusations. Jews could not carry a defensive weapon, even a knife, so they had to pay the Muslim regime for their "protection". This was an onerous "jizya" tax which, when paid, they were supposed to slapped in the face to indicate their lowliness. This then was basically the life of a "Dhimmi", a Jew or Christian in an Arab Muslim country.

Periodically, their leaders incited their people to riot against the Jews. If times were bad, Jews were used to distract the other people. If the leaders were benevolent, times were better. But, the Golden Age? Not really. The concept of containing the Jews and keeping them separate in what came to be known as Ghettos became common in most regimes. Although out of sight in their Ghettos, the people were incited usually by the head of the regimes, kings, dictators of some sort in the Muslim countries -- by the Church in Europe. The people would break into the Jewish ghettos to rage, rape, pillage, and murder.

What exactly had the Jews done to anger the church, the aristocracy and the peasantry in both the Christian and Muslim worlds? What kept this hatred boiling after thousands of years? What had the Jews dared to do that inspired so visceral a hatred? Could it be that is simple and basic as bringing to the attention of the human race that there was only one G-d? That this one G-d demanded that all mankind keep G-d's laws? That this one G-d demanded that all mankind keep laws that restrained their more basic and primitive instincts? That these annoying laws produced a feeling of guilt when they ignored G-d's Ten Commandments and 613 other laws ("mitzvot" -- good deeds)? But, only Jews had to observe these laws while all others were to minimally observe what was known as the Noahide laws of human and humane behavior.

Was being the messenger of G-d's Word perceived by all others that Jews had the inside track (so to speak) with this one G-d? That Jews were the "head-of-the-line" for what all humans hoped for: Life after Death? The Jews never made such a claim nor were they mandated to seek out others to convert into the Covenant which the Jews made with the One G-d. They were, however, obligated to follow the law and, by example, be a "Light unto the Nations".

So presumably, their crime was to first bring a single G-d, to the attention of all men displacing the panoply of gods worshiped at the instruction of priest cults in every land and village in the world.

Then, there were those restraining laws of: "Thou Shalt Not Murder, Steal, Covet thy neighbor's wife" ...no human sacrifice -- a BIG LAW -- which were merely brought to the attention of men. The Jews did not require that others must follow what the Jews took upon themselves seemed to inspire a rage that lasts to this day.

But, as a Light Unto the Nations, this they accomplished but, with bitter results for the messenger. Man mostly did give up worshiping idols -- although subsequent religions managed to work around this but, they did accept the idea of One G-d. Still envy, jealously and rage followed the messenger.

But, the new institutions of religion who adopted the One G-d could not rage against G-d, so they used other methods. Demonizing the Jew was favored so as to diminish what the Jews represented as G-d Chosen Messenger.

Alternate representatives were evolved; books and scrolls were written in ponderous quantities, castigating Jews. Any achievements which the Jews brought to mankind were ascribed to the partnership which Jews had with devils and demons -- many of whom were once worshiped by the Gentiles along with pagan idols. All of this was shifted over onto the back fo the Jews. The new religions borrowed what was necessary from Torah Law and modified it so it was unequally theirs.

Here again, the Jews had no complaints because that was exactly what their role was to be "A Light Unto the Nations".

But, the Gentiles in their evolution to what would have been a higher level, they abandoned the privilege of what they wanted most. You cannot murder and expect rewards of a privileged after-life. They choose to murder G-d's messenger so they might go first on that very narrow bridge to a Heaven which they will never reach. To be sure there are those who didn't engage in either killing the messenger or assisting others to do so. There are those called "righteous" Gentiles who acted to assist and shelter the Jews who they, no doubt, will ascend to Heaven.

Regrettably, the rage continues and great efforts are being made to this day to murder the Jews of the Covenant. It is said by the Prophets that G-d will forgive the evils of men but, will not forgive the spilling of Jewish blood. It is a choice or perhaps a test man must make but at great risk or reward. Is it by this test which we Jews gain and deserve our sovereignty over the Land which G-d promised our ancients, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Joseph and Moses as well as their seed forever.

This is our sovereignty and our right to the Land. No one deserves to take it from us.


1. "Key to Peace in Palestine" by Judea Pearl (father of slain Wall St. Journal journalist Daniel Pearl) on "Naseeb Vibes -- the Largest Muslim E-Zine" Mar.7, 2005

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ruth Matar, January 25, 2007.

Dear Friends,

In my Letter from Jerusalem of January 11, 2007, entitled "The State Department Vs. The Jews And Israel", I included the list of U.S. Secretaries of State since the rebirth of the State of Israel.

This article evoked much interest, especially from Americans, both Jews and Christians. Thank you, dear friends! Your taking time out to reply to my article is reassuring. You do care greatly about what happens here in Israel!

Some of you listed the Secretaries of State who you do not admire - guess who was at the top of this list? Condoleezza Rice! That may be because she so openly shows her animosity to Israel and the Jews!

She lists as her best friends and mentors two former U.S. Secretaries of State, James Baker and Colin Powell. One of these verbalizes crude intentions toward the Jews -- four letter words and all -- and the other one can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter!

But let us proceed to the present situation.

During her recent visit to Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice worked hard to promote Mahmoud Abbas as the poster-boy of moderation.

Standing next to Abbas at a press conference on January 14, she practically gushed with enthusiasm when she said in her opening remarks, "I want everyone to know, particularly the Palestinian people, how much we admire the leadership of President Abbas as a leader of the Palestinian people."

But only three days before that, at the January 14 press conference, Abbas publicly called upon Palestinians to attack Israel! Speaking at a rally to mark the 42nd anniversary of the founding of Fatah, Abbas told a huge crowd in Ramallah, "With the will and determination of its sons, Fatah will continue. We will not give up our principles. We have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation. We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation."

This week I received a letter from a dear Christian Zionist friend of mine, Dr. Jim Vineyard, who heads the Yedidim (Friends) of Israel organization in the United States.

He wrote me that Condoleezza Rice stated, after returning home from her meetings with Abbas, that the U.S. is working with Abbas' Fatah to create a unified Palestinian security force. Rice then announced a United States 86.4 million dollar grant, which will be for the purpose of equipping and training Abbas' Fatah forces!

Mahmoud Dahlan is the Gaza warlord who will be responsible for carrying out this plan. Dahlan's curriculum vitae includes the school bus bombing where two adults were killed, and the three Cohen children were crippled for life, as their limbs had to be amputated.

According to Dr. Vineyard, Dahlan is going to include leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization from Nablus and Jenin and Ramallah.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, along with Islamic Jihad -- both -- have taken responsibility for "every suicide bombing" in Israel in the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

The following is Mahmoud Dahlan's exact quote of just a few days ago. Dahlan said:



The "brilliant" diplomatic efforts of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have landed the United States in an untenable situation. America will be bank-rolling a terrorist and a murderer of innocent people, and the financier of the Munich massacre, where 11 athletes were murdered, including an American, David Berger. He is also a holocaust denier, just like his buddy Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran.

The Arabs are brazenly telling us what they plan to do with the American windfall!

Are you hard of hearing Condoleezza? Don't you understand how Abbas means to use the American money? Does it not disturb you just a wee bit that your "diplomatic" efforts will cause the death of many innocent people?

Dear friends, there you have it in a nutshell. Abbas will not use the generous American grant of 86.4 million dollars to fight Hamas, but for a wholesale killing of the infidel Jews and Christians. You do know, don't you, that the majority of Christians have fled from Bethlehem because they are afraid of the Moslems?

What can you do? Bombard President Bush, your senators and your congressmen with faxes and letters and phone calls with this simple message or a variation thereof:

"I don't want my taxpayers money to end up in the pockets of terrorists and murderers. Don't fund their jihad against all of us non-Moslems!"

Please distribute this Letter from Jerusalem as widely as possible.

Below is an article I wrote a year ago about Condoleezza Rice, entitled "A Ship On Oily Waters." This article might help to explain who Condoleezza is and who she is representing! Is she still representing the oil industry which named a double-hulled 129,000 ton giant tanker "Condoleezza Rice" in her honor?

A Ship On Oily Waters"
February 10, 2005

Dear Friends,

I must confess that I have heretofore been an admirer of the new US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. She seemed to me to be a perfect role model for women, someone who grew up in very difficult circumstances, but pulled herself up by her bootstraps, and reached the very heights of personal achievement. President George W. Bush nominated her to succeed Colin Powell as US Secretary of State in November of 2004, and the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85 -- 13.

Condoleezza Rice was born on November 14, 1954, in Birmingham, Alabama, the only child of Angelena Rice and the Reverend John Wesley Rice, Jr., a minister at Westminster Presbyterian Church.

Birmingham, Alabama, where Condoleezza grew up, is the town where Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King was thrown in jail for demonstrating without a permit. Where black people had to ride at the back of the bus. Where black people weren't even allowed to drink water from public fountains. Where a classmate of Condoleezza, Denise McNair, was among the four girls killed in the 1963 bombing of an African-American Baptist church by white supremacists. But Condoleezza states that growing up during segregation taught her determination against adversity.

I was very pleased, along with many others, that Colin Powell was not going to be the US Secretary of State during the second term of President George W. Bush, as Israeli analysts had predicted that Condoleezza Rice was going to be friendlier to Israel than her predecessor. I became somewhat concerned when I learned that at her Senate confirmation hearing Rice said: "And, if I am confirmed, I will be especially honored to succeed a man I so admire -- my friend and mentor, Colin Powell. He was a great and inspirational Secretary of State."

That was the first alarm bell. Colin Powell was the US Secretary of State, who described Arafat to a US Senate Committee as follows: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I became really concerned about Ms. Rice's attitude toward Israel when I read the newspaper headlines during her recent whirlwind tour of Europe and the Middle East. For instance, the headline in The Jerusalem Post of February 7, 2005 read as follows on the front page: RICE CALLS ON ISRAEL TO HELP, NOT HINDER, ABBAS.

In private meetings and public declarations, visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Israel to do everything possible to support Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, and to refrain from taking steps that would make it more difficult for him to assert his authority... According to diplomatic officials, Rice said that Abbas needed to have tangible results to take to his people....

What exactly does that mean? Should the victim supply the hangman with the rope? Should Israel be on Abbas' side in the negotiations? Does Ms. Rice not want a mutual give and take? Condoleezza also made it clear that the US government was against settlements. Whose settlements? (According to Joseph Farah, Arab-American head of World Net Daily, more Arab than Jewish settlements have been established in the Holy Land since 1948. As a matter of fact, almost twice as many Arab settlements than Jewish settlements have been built since the Jewish State was reborn!) Also, Condoleezza insists that the Disengagement Plan go forward as promised by Sharon. Altogether, Rice made it clear that she wanted Israel to take steps to bolster Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen).

It seems that Rice was not concerned about bolstering Sharon, who had just encountered a massive non-violent demonstration of at least 200,000 people who strongly disagreed with his policies vis a vis the PLO enemy, and his intentions to reward such terrorists with Biblical covenant land.

Condoleezza Rice, in an interview with Yediot Aharonot, said: "I am the daughter of a Presbyterian minister and was brought up on the very moving stories of the Holy Land. They mean a lot to me. When I first visited Mt. Olives, Lake Kinneret, Jerusalem, I felt a very deep emotional experience. I already then felt that I am returning home despite the fact that this was a place that I never visited. I have a deep affinity with Israel."

Sadly to say, the daughter of a Minister of God is hell-bent on promoting the expulsion of 8,000 Jews from their Biblical homeland. During her childhood, Condoleezza must have read the Judeo-Christian Bible. No doubt she must have come across the fact in the Book of Joshua that G-d gave Gaza to the Tribe of Judah. Also, that it is stated in the Book of the prophet Amos, Chapter 9: 14-15, "I will return the captivity of my people Israel, and they will rebuild desolate cities and settle them; they will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will cultivate gardens and eat their fruits. I will plant them upon their land and they will never again be uprooted from their land that I have given them, said HASHEM your G-d."

I decided to do some research through the Internet to find out more about Condoleezza Rice. If you, dear friend, have some extra time, you will be able to find out interesting facts about Condoleezza Rice, her attitude to the Holy Land, and her past associations, which are far from reassuring for friends of Israel. For instance, James Baker of "F__k the Jews" fame, is one of her good friends. They have many common interests and attitudes.

As Condoleezza Rice embarked on her maiden voyage after her appointment as US Secretary of State, it was reported that she departed from America armed with a new policy paper on how to implement the Quartet's Road Map produced by the James Baker Institute For Public Policy At Rice University.

According to Edward Djerejian, the former US Ambassador to Syria who directs the Baker Center, the policy paper, with its detailed recommendations, is a "street map to the Road Map."

The following is part of an article by Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post columnist:

"... the team that composed the report included senior policy makers from the US, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Canada and the World Bank. The US was represented by current Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns as well as by Norman Olsen, the political counselor at the US embassy in Israel. The PA was represented by security strongman Jibril Rajoub and by senior aides to Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat and Ahmed Qurei. Egypt was represented by Dictator Hosni Mubarak's senior adviser Osama El Baz and by General Hossam Khair Allah.

Israel had no official representation. Rather, the Jewish state was represented by none other than Yossi Beilin's Geneva Accord crowd. Amnon Lipkin Shahak and Shlomo Brom, signatories to that subversive agreement where private citizens tried to abscond with the government's sovereign power to determine foreign policy by negotiating the scandalously anti-Israel "accord," participated. They were joined by members of Beilin's EU-financed think tank, the Economic Cooperation Foundation.

Not surprisingly, the product this team produced and delivered to Rice is soft on Palestinian terrorism, soft on Palestinian democratization, and relentlessly harsh toward Israel -- its sovereignty, its right to defend itself, and its ability to claim any right to retain any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

The document makes no clear statement on the need for the Palestinians to dismantle terrorist organizations. Indeed, the term "terror organizations" is absent from the report. Instead, the Palestinian requirement to combat terrorism is reduced to demands on Israel to facilitate the training, arming and operation of the "reformed" Palestinian security services while not interfering with them in any way....

But two questions still arise: Why is the US government sending its officials to participate in a 'working group' which works to undermine the sovereignty of a US ally; and why is the Israeli government not taking legal action against private citizens who travel the world "negotiating" away the sovereign rights of the state while undermining the prerogatives of the Israeli government?"

I have only chosen two items from her background which I feel cast light on the persona of Condoleezza Rice.

1) Chevron is a San Francisco-based multinational oil firm, one of the top ten largest oil companies in the world. Condoleezza Rice served on Chevron's board from 1991 until January 15, 2001, when she resigned after Bush named her as his top national security aide. A double-hulled 129,000-ton giant tanker, part of the international fleet of Chevron, had years before been named "Condoleezza Rice" in honor of her service to the Chevron oil company.

Critics complained that the ship served as a giant floating symbol of the Bush administration's cozy ties to the oil industry. The tanker's name also raised more serious questions of possible conflict of interest for Rice, because Chevron does business on six continents and in 25 countries, and has been sued for alleged human-rights abuses in Nigeria.

Leaving a wave of controversy in its wake, one of the most visible reminders of the Bush administration's ties to big oil -- the "Condoleezza Rice" tanker -- was quietly renamed the "Altair Voyager."

2) There has been widespread concern that Rice's expertise is the Soviet Union and that she is out of her depths in the Middle East. Actually, she was out of her depths in relation to the Soviet Union as well. Rice, who claims an expertise in nothing less than the high-stakes world of global power, has failed spectacularly as the "expert" who was disastrously wrong in her area of expertise -- the US relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev. President George H. W. Bush, Rice, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, James Baker (then Secretary of State) and then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Colin Powell approved supporting the Soviet leader and his vision of a reformed Soviet Union. Dick Cheney (then Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (his deputy), and Lewis "Scooter" Libbey foresaw the break-up of the USSR and wanted to speed it along. "Regime change" in Europe and Asia was what the Cheney crew were after -- with resulting opportunities for American corporate interests if the US got in on the action early.

As it turned out, Bush and Rice prevailed. In one famous incident, Rice physically blocked the door to the Oval Office to prevent Russian leader Boris Yeltsin from meeting with the President. The Bush team was slow to grasp the scope of the changes that were seizing Europe, slow to encourage the unification of Germany, and slow to give up on the Soviet Union. A speech Bush gave with Rice's assistance in Kiev became notorious as the "Chicken Kiev" speech because in it, the US urged the people of the Ukraine, (then clamoring for independence), to remain loyal to Moscow. At the same time, the President balked at giving Gorbachev what he needed -- either at arms talks, or in terms of foreign aid -- and the Soviet leader's domestic currency made a nose-dive. Within months, the Gorbachev era was over. The new post-Soviet Republics broke away one by one and in Russia, Yeltsin rose to power.

The above information gleaned from the Internet certainly made me less starry-eyed about Condoleezza Rice.

Of prime importance to us in Israel is Condoleezza Rice's apparent antagonism to the Jewish People, and their right to live in their entire homeland, as spelled out continuously in the Bible. We must also be aware of her continual attempts to whitewash Mahmoud Abas (Abu Mazen) and his unsavory past.

The next holocaust train has already left the station and is once again hurtling towards the abyss. What will change the US policy favoring the forced deportation of Jews from Gaza and Samaria?

Dear friends, I feel that only a very strong showing of support for Israel by Jewish and Christian Bible believers, and other concerned supporters of Israel, will be able to stop this train.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Edward I. Koch and Rafael Medoff, January 25, 2007.

Edward I. Koch, a member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989. Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. They are coauthors of the forthcoming book,  Confronting Antisemitism
and the Holocaust.

This article is archived at
http://article.nationalreview.com/ ?q=NmE0YWNmOTVhODQ2Y2FiOTg4OWUyNDg4YjQ3ZDExOGM=

Things have improved in France, but not so much as the ambassador to the U.S. would claim.

The French ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Jean-David Levitte, had good news for the congregants at the Bronx synagogue he addressed last October: there had been a "48 percent decrease in reported anti-Semitic incidents [in France] over the past year." As for the anti-Semitism back in 2001-2002, "Yes, we had a problem," he acknowledged, "but it has abated. It's not over, but the trend is encouraging."

In view of the recurring eruptions of anti-Jewish violence in France in recent years, including, most notoriously, the torture-murder of a young Jewish man named Ilan Halimi by an anti-Semitic Muslim gang in February 2006, Monsieur Levitte's announcement was good news indeed.

But how accurate was it?

We decided to write to the ambassador to ask if he would identify the sources for the figures he cited and comment on reports of recent anti-Semitic incidents in his country.

A month passed with no reply. So we wrote a second time, reiterating our original question and pointing out that there had been a number of disturbingly relevant episodes in the previous four weeks:

arsonists attacked and damaged Merkaz HaTorah, a Jewish school in the Paris suburb of Gagny (Nov. 8);

the European Jewish Congress released a report which found that during July and August of 2006, there were 61 anti-Semitic incidents, "an increase of 79 percent over the same period last year." (Nov. 12);

a mob of French soccer fans shouting "Filthy Jew!" assaulted an Israeli man in a Paris restaurant, compelling the police to use lethal force to stop the attack (Nov. 23);

and speakers at a conference held in November by CRIF, the umbrella group of French Jewish organizations, reported that "in many suburbs of Paris, few Jewish young people still attend public school because of violence or threats of violence, mainly from African and North African Arab students. Jewish parents have placed their children in private Jewish schools, many of which were established in the past few years."

We asked the ambassador if that European Jewish Congress figure of 79 percent "is, to the best of your knowledge, correct; and if so, how does this square with your own reported statement of a recent decrease in anti-Semitic incidents?"

At long last, on December 5, 2006, Ambassador Levitte replied to our two letters. Since an ambassador's job is to put his country's best face forward, it is no surprise that he layered the letter with helpful quotations -- a statement by French President Jacques Chirac condemning anti-Semitism, a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert praising Chirac's stance, and a poll showing that most Frenchmen think favorably of Jews. All impressive enough, but not really to the point.

As for the substantive issue, Amb. Levitte wrote: "I confirm what I said in my remarks at Young Israel of Pelham Parkway on October 22." He then quoted statistics that indeed show a 47-percent decrease (not identical, but close enough to the 48 percent cited in the Bronx). The problem, however, was that this number was for a time period earlier than the one about which we inquired.

The dates are critical. It was in late January 2006 that Ilan Halimi was kidnapped by an anti-Semitic Muslim gang and, after being tortured for three weeks in an apartment in a Paris suburb, was murdered. There was substantial evidence that anti-Semitism was a major motive of the perpetrators, and legitimate questions were raised by the Jewish community about what the neighbors may have known about what was happening in the apartment where Halimi was imprisoned for so long. Yet government and police spokesmen at first vehemently denied the attack was anti-Semitic, and none of the neighbors was ever prosecuted.

Thus the year following the Halimi murder can be seen as something of a litmus test: has the government, in response to the murder, taken sufficiently forceful measures to combat anti-Semitism, as it claims to have done?

That is exactly where Ambassador Levitte's letter becomes problematic. When he quoted the figures for the time period that we were asking about -- October 2005 through October 2006 -- his numbers were drastically different from the ones that he had been quoted as citing in his Bronx speech.

"By the end of October 2006," he wrote in his letter to us, "436 anti-Semitic incidents had been reported (compared with 450 for the same period in 2005)." That figure of 436 represents a decrease of only 3 percent. While any decrease is welcome, of course, a 3 percent decrease is a far cry from the 48 percent decrease he had claimed.

So we wrote again.

As politely as we could, we pointed out the contradiction between, on the one hand, the ambassador's statement that there had been a 48 percent decrease and (and his subsequent statement "confirming" it), and, on the other hand, his assertion of a 3 percent decrease. Which is the right number, Monsieur Levitte?

Two and a half weeks later, his reply arrived. This one was much briefer than the first because, he wrote, he did "not wish to go into a point-by-point discussion" of the issues at stake. Instead, he chose to briefly reiterate that "substantial progress" has been made in France in the fight against anti-Semitism "over the last few years." He said that these gains, "which were spectacular in 2005, look like being [sic] confirmed in 2006."

It doesn't look that way to us. It looks like, according to the government's statistics, anti-Semitic incidents decreased by 48 percent in 2005 but by just 3 percent in 2006. And, given the government's p.r. needs, those figures may well be the most optimistic possible.

"Even so," Ambassador Levitte concluded, "the French government is not satisfied with the present situation and remains fully determined to keep up a tireless fight against anti-Semitism."

Decisions on allocating time and resources to fighting anti-Semitism, like other governmental budgetary decisions, are made on the basis of the government's perception of the problem. If French officials really believe that anti-Semitism has already dropped by 48 percent in the past year, will their government commit the resources necessary to effectively fight it? We wouldn't take it for granted.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, January 25, 2007.

A Light Unto the World: Moshe Samucha and Carmel Elazar, representatives of the Persian Jewish community in New York, visited 12 mini-markets in the Qassam stricken town of Sderot, asking the store owners for their list of those in debt. Using the pool of money, the two then paid off the debts in cash. They reported that in total they paid USD 28,000 to all 12 stores. "Sderot's residents are good Jews that got into trouble because of the Qassams," said Elazar, "eliminating their debts is the least we could do for them." Jews for a Jewish Israel Yahoo Group

[Editor's Note: Contrast this with UJF John Ruskay saying in December 2006 he'd be in Israel in February and would meet with some of the leaders of the [Gush Katif] expellees for a few hours. Click here.]

Israel's expedited expulsion plan

Jews for a Jewish Israel
To subscribe jewsforajewishisrael-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Jews for a Jewish Israel correspondents covering the "Israel Illogical concessions" uncovered a vicious underhanded plot by Mr. Olmert and his cabinet to establish a temporary PLO state and unilaterally surrender lands in Judea and Samaria, calling for the expulsion of more than one hundred thousand Jewish Israeli citizens. Jews for a Jewish Israel is further reporting that the team includes high-ranking officials in the Foreign and Defense Ministries, and high-ranking representatives of the Israeli army and Israeli intelligence also involved in the process.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and the director-general of her ministry, Aharon Abramowitz, appointed a high-ranking official who will coordinate the effort -- diplomat Yossi Amrani, the former Israeli consul in San Francisco.

The choice of Amrani could not have been coincidental.

In November, 2003, this reporter revealed that Amrani, despite his official position as the Israeli consul, organized fund raising events for Israeli opposition leader Yossi Beilin, who then led the Geneva Initiative on December 1st, 2003, which called for the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian entity within temporary borders, under the unchallenged rule of the PLO.

Now Amrani has been given the task of formulating, within several weeks, an official working paper of the Israeli government which will give a detailed outline of Israel's immediate surrender of land to the PLO Among other things, Amrani will deal with the question of how Israel should sell the plan to AIPAC and to the US administration.

During the Summer 2006 Lebanon War, Prime Minister Olmert was quoted as saying that the war would contribute to his plans for carrying out a withdrawal plan. The statement, which was denied by the Prime Minister's Bureau, aroused a great deal of criticism, mainly because thousands of religious soldiers, many of them inhabitants of the settlements, were risking their lives on the front at that very time.

Olmert therefore had to clarify that the option of unilateral withdrawal was frozen, and even said that it had never been adopted as Israel's official policy. He said that the only policy in effect was that of negotiations with Abu Mazen and the continued boycott of the Hamas government. Olmert is consistent in this position, and has reiterated it several times since the cease-fire in mid-August.

Ironically, a previous commission was established by Israeli Foreign Minister Livni to evaluate the idea of a unilateral withdrawal from most of Judea and Samaria. That commission's report, leaked to the Haaretz newspaper on August 15th, 2006, concluded that, " Israel has no security solution to the threat of rockets launched from the West Bank against population centers." The report's authors assumed that following any unilateral Israeli pullout from any part of Judea and Samaria, Hamas will takeover and deploy rockets against Israel's population centers on Israel's coastal plain.

The report emphasized that the only solution to the missile threat that the Israel Defense Forces has to offer is its actual presence in the territories and control of the high ground of Judea and Samaria, also known as the "West Bank."

Another conclusion of the report commissioned by the Israeli Foreign Minister is that Israel will not gain international recognition for an end to the occupation if it continues to hold significant portions of Judea and Samaria. Foreign Ministry Director General Aharon Abramovitch, headed that commission.

An Israeli Member of the Knesset has asked for a copy of the previous Israeli foreign ministry report which warned against any unilateral surrender of territory to the PLO. The spokesman of the Israel Foreign Ministry has informed MK Alon's aide that this was an "internal report" that it would not be released.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 24, 2007.


The Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Israel concludes that Iran's nuclear development has gone too far to be stopped by economic sanctions. The Security Council was to vote for such sanctions, as amended (diluted) by Russia.

The Center suggests military attack, which Israel could mount sufficiently to delay Iran's program. (And what then, attack again, to defer it again?)

The Center's military reports are greatly respected (IMRA, 12/22).

Not by me. The Center usually is appeasement-minded. I happen to agree with this assessment, however.

What good is the UNO, coming with diluted sanctions, after Iran has developed diabolic know-how? Do you suppose that Iran's allies on the Security Council will respect sanctions? The problem with the UNO is that it is divided by forces of evil. It dithers with diplomacy. The purpose of that diplomacy is to paralyze action against Iran. It worked. Diplomacy is favored by many in our own country, one of the prime targets of Iran. Our naifs are manipulated by the wicked.

Those who recommended diplomacy should have set a deadline beyond which force would be used. They don't want to use force. They are insincere. They failed to ask, what effect can diplomacy have on Iran? How could diplomacy have an effect, when Iran's allies on the Security Council defend it and dilute economic sanctions? What could diplomats say to the leaders of Iran, who believe themselves destined to prevail in a divinely ordered struggle regardless of casualties? We have nothing to offer them while preserving our freedom, for their goal is to deprive us of our freedom.

It is like dealing with a blackmailer totally without scruples. You pay his price; he pockets it. He still has a hold over you. He demands another price. The only way to deal with him is to fight him.


A far leftist and Arab group have stacked a seminar to discuss the status of Arab terrorist prisoners. The seminar will conclude that, although some of the prisoners have committed murder, and others attempted or supported such efforts, they are political prisoners. The speakers will recommend freeing the prisoners, and may even suggest that such a release be good for Israeli security (Prof. Steven Plaut, 12/22).

There is no end to the proposals by far leftists that would get more of their own people killed. It is too foolish merely to be foolish. I think it is pathological.

In Israel and in the US, the Far Left influences the Left, which influences the government. Therefore, the Left is a danger to self-preservation. I think it is influential beyond its numbers, and that the Right nowadays poses not much danger except to the environment. Liberals who worry about the religious Right should worry about the menace posed by the Left.


Since September, the US has withheld arms supposed to be shipped to Israel. It has acted informally and without announcement (IMRA, 12/23).

Where are those who hate Bush, now that they are needed? Ironic, isn't it, that while the antisemites are claiming that AIPAC runs US foreign policy, the US chokes off arms for Israel, not for the first time. This demonstrates that Israel needs its own arms industry and cannot depend on the US. It also shows that the US mistreats allies. This mistreatment harms American national security.

If Israel had moved large land forces immediately into Lebanon, and had defeated Hizbullah thoroughly before the UNO ceasefire, and had punished Syria for supplying Hizbullah, the US might have retained some respect for its ally. PM Olmert's stupidity and appeasement-mindedness is partly responsible, as is the appeasement-mindedness of many Americans, including liberals and Baker-ites.


Syria is building fortified villages along the Israeli border, in order to trap Israeli forces in war. Some of the villages are not inhabited yet, but they are constructed like the ones Hizbullah prepared in Lebanon, for making Israeli troops abandon vulnerable tanks and fight man-to-man, forfeiting the advantage of a conventional army, in an urban setting.

The IDF supposes it would take another war for Syria to make peace (IMRA, 12/22).

The IDF supposes wrong. Peace cannot be made with Muslims, only truces can. Until they reform their religion, they believe in continuing the struggle to dominate others.

Syria's strategy exploits Israel's humanitarian policy and fear of biased criticism for not being humanitarian. Israel can counteract the strategy by publicly reverting to WWII tactics. That is, when at war, Israel would demolish by long-range artillery such fortified villages. Israel need not respect an Arab strategy based on war crime.


They are Abbas' men (IMRA, 12/23).

The US tells Israel to let the brigade in, to bolster Abbas against Hamas. Olmert thinks this is better for Israel. It doesn't occur to Olmert that Islamist terrorists work against Israel more than against each other. The answer is to liquidate them all.


From Israel's Foreign Ministry: "Even though most of these rockets have fortunately not caused serious harm to the civilians they were aimed at, no country in the world would tolerate any such attacks on its civilian population." But Israel does, though it threatens not to. Israel's relative silence risks censure for "over-reaction" when it finally strikes back. It waits like a sitting duck for the Arabs to uphold the ceasefire (IMRA, 12/24).


After months of declaring that he would release Arab prisoners only in exchange for their releasing their one Israeli captive, who would come home, first, now PM Olmert says he may release some terrorists unilaterally, to "strengthen" Abbas.

The head of Israel's Shin Bet had warned that if Hamas keeps getting paid by Iran and its men trained in advanced warfare, Hamas would dominate the P.A. and present a more formidable challenge to Israel militarily (IMRA, 12/24).

I've disputed the desirability of strengthening the Abbas terrorist faction. What kind of a person is he to support, if his strength comes from rescuing murderers of Israelis? The burden is on those who propose measures that weaken Israeli security to show that this would strengthen him. They don't show it, they just assert it, but Muslims believe that everything is coming to them and that Jews are evil and must be destroyed. Any Jewish concession they suppose due to Muslim strength. They don't appreciate it. Nor is there any evidence that the previous concessions to Abbas strengthened him. His strength steadily dwindled. He is a lost cause. Thank goodness! His combination of diplomacy & warfare made him more dangerous than Hamas and a US rallying cry for concessions.

Olmert is another lost cause. He makes all sorts of strong statements, but then gives in. It is typical of Israeli leadership from Rabin on down, and I mean down.

By now it is clear to the Arabs that Israeli leaders do not mean their threats to the Arabs or assurances to their people. The Arabs and the US keep pressing Israel for concessions. Israel says "No more!," but then offers more.

Israel should not let the two factions build up military capabilities, in the hope that Israeli restraint in the face of their rocket bombardment avoids all-out war and that perhaps the two factions will kill themselves off. Better to invade in force and wipe both factions out. But that should be followed by a policy of recouping unsettled areas of Gaza and Judea-Samaria, with explanations about Israel's right to do so. Israel, like the US, needs a policy for attaining victory. The West should not leave the initiative to the enemy.


Israeli diplomats consider the Security Council sanctions against Iran a first step against Iran's nuclear weapons development. Assuming that Iran does not accept the UNO prohibition and the sanctions do not have great effect, the diplomats say that the "international community" must demand further and stronger action (IMRA, 12/24).

What "international community?" Half the world supports Iran or won't oppose it. What first step? The sanctions are the last step. The Israeli diplomats ought to see that this was the best China and Russia would allow the Security Council to do, after all these years. They came up with a mere nuisance for Iran, too late to stop the weapons development and too minor to impress Iran. To the contrary, this weak compromise demonstrates to Iran that the world really doesn't care enough to do much.


In yet another attempt to please the US and be humanitarian to the diabolic Muslim Arab enemy, PM Olmert said he would have some roadblocks dismantled in Judea-Samaria. Meanwhile, Arabs there fired upon an Israeli car, wounding the driver. This state of war is no time to reduce roadblocks that intercept or deter many terrorists (IMRA, 12/24).

What does Olmert do to protect his people?

The governments of Israel probably have gone through a hundred cycles of: (1) Terrorism; (2) Set up roadblocks and reduce terrorism; (3) Take down roadblocks out of misguided humaneness and criminally negligent US pressure; and (4) Renewed terrorism. When will Israelis stop Prime Ministers from taking down roadblocks?


"Humanitarian" relief for mismanagement by Hamas (IMRA, 12/24).

This relief covers up for Hamas' mismanagement, or diversion of public funds for war. Hamas must welcome it. Without it, the people might grow hostile to Hamas. Not that the people have a better alternative or want a better alternative.


Sen. Obama released his policy agenda. It included: (1) Criticism of the liberal priority for working more closely with allies, I think because that is not a policy but a method; (2) Try harder to make peace between the P.A. and Israel. Sen. Obama usually has been supportive of Israel; (3) Start direct discussions with Iran and N. Korea (Josh Gerstein, NY Sun, 12/26, p.1).

The Senator who would be President doesn't know that the conflict is not between Palestinian Arabs and Israel, but between Islam and Israel. He doesn't know it is a religious conflict that cannot be reconciled, until the aggressor religion, Islam, stops being exclusive. The US can no more reconcile the two sides than it could reconcile with al-Qaeda. He hasn't caught on that although the US can force Israel to make concessions to the Arabs, concessions have a counter-productive effect on the Arabs, thoroughly imbued with hatred, to deem them weakness inviting attack. Nor does he understand that the State Dept. doesn't seek peace but is anti-Zionist, for non-Islamic reasons. He may mean well but doesn't support Israel that way.

Where was Sen. Obama during the years of US discussions with rogue states, during which they stalled while continuing illegally to pursue nuclear arms development? In answer to his Democrt critics, Pres. Bush brought other allies, Russia, China, and the UNO into negotiations. Now N. Korea has nuclear arms and Iran is about to. Obama is too reliant upon negotiations. What can one say in negotiations that a totalitarian, fanatical foe, convinced it can win the world jihad, and gaining ground in it, would heed? Senator, there is a time to talk and a time to fight. The fighting has begun. You still want to talk? I want to fight back hard. While we can.


PM Olmert relayed to his Cabinet Ministers a request from Abbas (contrary to Olmert's pledges to await P.A. return of its Israeli prisoner) to release Arab terrorist prisoners unilaterally, for a Muslim holiday.

Vice-Premier Peres said it would strengthen ties with moderate elements in the P.A.. Defense Min. Peretz said the gesture should not be dependent upon the Israeli's release. Former Defense Min. Mofaz said that since Israel has done so, before, Israel has no reason not to do so, again (IMRA, 12/24).

Israel does have reasons not to do so, again. It is a course of action urged upon Israel by its enemies. Such concessions never confer much strength upon dissident elements. Besides, those elements are not moderate, but Israel's usual enemies. Israel thinks Hamas is worse, but Abbas' greater flexibility, his willingness to make promises in return for concessions, and his false symbolizing of moderation that beings prisoner releases for nothing make him more dangerous to Israel, even as his unwillingness or inability to fulfill his obligations to Israel makes him useless to Israel.

More reasons. Half the released prisoners return to terrorism. Releasing them encourages others. Releasing them dooms the Israeli, by removing a hold Israel has over the P.A.. Nor is it Israel's task to honor Muslim holidays.

To get the Israeli back or eliminate much of the terrorist menace, should Israel announce that unless he were released promptly, Israel would execute a hundred terrorists?


When the US was attacked by Islamists, the Democrats had no strategy for it. When an attack occurred on 9/11, during the Bush Administration, Pres. Bush fought back in Afghanistan, but said the war was broader. He exerted leadership against Saddam, who seemed to be redeveloping nuclear power. For months, he prodded the UNO to act. Finally, he enforced UNO resolutions by arms. During that time, Democrats approved funds for the war. They did not propose or question strategy. Now that the war has continued longer than they anticipated, they condemn the President for it. They try to evade their own share of the problem.


Ancient Rome renamed defeated Judea after the Philistines, a non-Arab people who at first dominated the Hebrews but later assimilated into them. The change in name was a propaganda attempt to disassociate the country with the Judeans, or Jews. The English for the Roman name is Palestine. When the modern Zionists, originally known as "Palestinians," renamed the country after the other Jewish kingdom, Israel, local Arabs, some of whom started invading from about 700 C.E., and most of whom followed the Zionists in, called themselves "Palestinians," to falsely associate themselves with the country as if they were the original inhabitants.

Not knowing history, people suppose that the Jews usurped the country from the Arabs.


The Gulf States spend many billions of dollars on arms. When Saddam attacked Kuwait, however, the royal family fled to S. Arabia, without using its military for defense. The Saudis were so afraid of offending Saddam, that they didn't report the invasion.

Saddam also attacked S. Arabia (but more ominously moved forces up to the border). The Saudis did not move into defensive position their own forces, not their hundreds of planes and tanks. What are their armaments for?

Youssef Ibrahim suggests they are for: (1) Generating billions of dollars of commissions for the ruling families; (2) Supporting the arms supplying countries' arms industry, so that, the Arabs hope, the foreigners will defend them (NY Sun, 12/26, p.5).

Why don't the rulers just pay themselves and the foreigners more? Does the Saudi arms purchase from China mean that Chinese troops will come into the Mideast, too?


The US broached a scheme for declaring unilaterally a Palestinian Arab state in the Territories by the end of 2007, with temporary borders. Israel is considering it.

Israel (and the Road Map) has insisted for years that to make peace and resolve problems, the P.A. must renounce terrorism, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure (and stop inciting to violence).

An Israeli diplomat argued that P.A. chaos renders Israeli demands irrelevant, because no P.A. leader can meet the Israeli (and road map) conditions. "A source close to the P.A. said that such a plan could be acceptable only if America provides assurances that the temporary state does not become a final one and that the border issue remains on the table."

Since the Arabs won't stop terrorism, why give them a state anyway? Crazy! (IMRA, 12/24.) They would use the state for terrorism, as per their doctrine.

The ostensible reason for temporary borders is that negotiation would follow. The real reason, or at least the consequence, is to give the Arabs sovereignty for better fighting Israel and an excuse to keep the conflict open.


Seeking Saudi cooperation in Iraq (which is in Saudi self-interest anyway), the US is blocking arms re-supply to Israel against the P.A. But it also curbs Israeli defense against the expected 2007 war by Hizbullah. The US also has lost faith in Israel's military ability (IMRA, 12/25).

In that case, Israel did lose the war in Lebanon.

Caroline Glick consistently analyzes Israel's policy on jihad keenly. Here is a summary of her piece on Israel's latest appeasement, with some comments of my own.

Foreign Min. Livni argues self-contradictorily that if the IDF responded to P.A. ceasefire violations, Hamas would fire upon Israel. Asked whether Hamas were strong enough to stop the rocket attacks, she answered that Hamas doesn't want to stop them.

For years, the Israeli government has had no long-range planning for defense from jihad. Instead, it reacted, if at all, from day-to-day, governed by ideology rather than study and regardless of what works. The chief outcome is concessions to the Muslim Arabs for nothing in return. Sometimes the government asserts an old rationale about making peace, though that same policy has not brought peace. At present, it explains that it is yielding to US pressure. It need not yield. It actually would gain respect by rejecting US demands as customarily harming Israel and as unable to bring peace with the hardened Islamists who have controlled the P.A. from Arafat's reign forward.

One of the latest, little-publicized concessions, is consent to let back into Gaza 13 terrorists exiled in exchange for ending their 39-day capture of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. In the year 2,000, dozens of PLO gunmen fleeing from the IDF burst into the Church, one of Christianity's holiest, and held an equal number of clergymen hostage. This followed general PLO bullying, beating, raping, extortion, and murder of Christians in what once was, and otherwise would have remained, a Christian city.

Some escaped monks described the terrorists' binge there. They looted whatever looked valuable. They ate and drank alcohol like swine, while starving the monks (and seeking sympathy from the outside world by complaining that Israel was denying them food, which it sent in). They beat the monks and used bibles for toilet paper. Israeli liberation from the PLO was a great relief for local Christians, not that foreign Christians noted. The native Christians must dread the return of those deported terrorists. (Israel treats Christians well, but betrays them. Israel should be condemned for betrayal. The Muslims should be condemned for hate-crimes.)

Israel offers concessions to Abbas to "strengthen him against Hamas," although since he is an enemy, strengthening him would not strengthen Israel. Olmert declares that Abbas is an enemy with whom one can do business. But Israel doesn't do business with him, it just gives him one-way concessions.

Supposedly, Abbas would use augmented forces and popularity to fight terrorism. Nonsense! His PLO exists to destroy Israel (and steal from its people). Besides, his people prefer the more genocidal Hamas. (The popularity that concessions supposedly but never bring him, is based on his people's hatred of Israel, which would hem in any peace-making he might be minded to make, minded to by what miracle is not explained).

If Abbas, the career terrorist, has become anti-terrorist, he would not: demand that Israel release terrorists, permit a brigade in from Jordan, pay funds for terrorist wages, and dismantle checkpoints that restrict terrorists. Neither would he allow arms in through Egypt (nor have his media preach Jew-hate and Jihad). Instead, he would encourage Israel to fight terrorism. His arms would be used to fight Israel. In what way is he not pro-terrorist? How little Israel does to fight Hamas, to help him! (IMRA, 12/25.)


The Defense Minister approved conversion of a military post in the Jordan Valley, originally approved for civilian residency, back to community development. It is designed to accommodate some of the Israelis rendered homeless by their expulsion from Gaza. No sympathy in the Times for their plight. The decision was called a scandal because it was not voted on by Knesset. Reporter Steven Erlanger contrasted this first "settlement" in 10 years with PM Olmert's recent "series of gestures" to the P.A.. Indeed, Abbas' aide complained that it spoils the "atmosphere" of Olmert's concessions. The Arab claims that any land Israel has in Judea-Samaria is stolen from them.

The news was "complicated by" Muslim firing of more rockets into Israel and by Israel's violating the Road Map it pledged to follow. "The road map calls for a freeze settlement building in the first phase and a Palestinian push to dismantle terrorist groups; Israel says that the dismantling should come first and that no such action has taken place."

The same edition's editorial criticized the new decision as complicating the quest for peace. It praised his "gestures" but criticized his turning a fifth of withheld P.A. excise taxes over to the P.A., because the P.A. "legally" is entitled to five-fifths. In the long run, a secure Jewish state needs peace (New York Times,12/26).

Why does the Times call concessions that would finance terrorism, release terrorists, and facilitate their traveling on missions, mere "gestures?" I think it is because that traditionally anti-Zionist newspaper always wants more for the Arabs from Israel.

Yes, building a new Jewish town would cancel any goodwill that the concessions were thought to engender. But what goodwill have any Israeli concessions engendered? The Arabs still make war. Only fools make concessions to an enemy at war.

Should it be just for "atmosphere," that Israel makes such concessions? What does Abbas do for "atmosphere," with his praise of suicide bombers and his media that preach hate-crimes? Why doesn't the Times mention that and feature it until its readers understand what Israel and the US face in jihad?

It hardly is fitting for the Abbas regime to complain that Israel steals land, considering that this regime lost legislative control because of its widespread corruption, including theft of land. Israeli settlements are not thefts of land. The land is State land, the State in charge is Israel, and the Territories are unallocated lands under terms of the Mandate for a Jewish national home in its traditional homeland. Besides, the Arabs were not sovereign there. The Times rarely discusses history, it being favorable to Zionism, but leaves the misimpression that the area was an Arab country before the Mandate.

Note the Times' unfair juxtaposition of news. Israel is said to break its pledge for the Road Map, but the P.A. merely "complicates" matters by firing rockets. War, however, violates Oslo and Map. Nor is the Times fair in making Israel seem wrong now, when the P.A. has violated agreements for years, by promoting terrorism. Why should only Israel have to adhere to agreements already violated?

How ridiculous to claim the P.A. is "legally entitled" to money from Israel on which it wars! Nor is it a legitimate complaint that the Knesset didn't vote for the settlement. The Knesset had delegated such power to the Defense Minister, didn't the Times know?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, January 24, 2007.

Make no mistake about this fact; Holocaust denial or trivialization is a direct attack on the rationale for the existence of Israel! Many nations, including America, have enacted or proposed laws asserting that Holocaust denial is a crime. Yet, many inhabitants of Muslim nations, the Machiavellian targets of this outrageous historical revision, consume the shameful concept ravenously, further fueling their hatred for Jews and Israel, further diverting their attention from exploitative autocratic rulers. Coupled with the false perception that Israeli Jews are abusive occupiers of hapless Palestinian waifs, fury against Israel and all Jews rages through fundamentalist as well as to a lesser degree more secular Muslim streets, ominously forecasting the obvious truth that a State of Israel will never be acceptable to many if not most Muslim inhabitants of today's dysfunctional Middle East, even if land for peace agreements are eventually extorted from Israel by savvy Arabs and their naive supporters. The entire State of Israel is a pariah, illegitimately squatting on Arab land, thus should not exist at all in the brainwashed collective mind's eye of so many Middle East Muslims.

How then can there ever be peaceful coexistence between tiny Israel and its vast surrounding Muslim neighborhood? Ceding land to Gaza Arabs, for one, only intensified the enmity between Arabs and Jews; witness the subsequent democratic election of Hamas, a group that openly refuses to recognize Israel, as well as a continuing barrage of deadly rocket fire into Israel by those less than grateful Arabs. The dominating collective mindset of today's Arabs interprets such a conciliatory gesture as weakness, encouraging predatory instincts to demand more and more in an attempt to someday fully sever the exposed jugular of its bleeding despised prey. Thus, the only hope for lasting peace between Jews and Muslims within this self destructive region of the planet, characterized by Machiavellian exploitation of naïve Islamic populations and a conveniently situated Jewish scapegoat, is a wholesale purging of that insidiously programmed mindset maintaining the status quo for filthy rich Muslim autocrats.

Reprogramming the collective Muslim mindset will require a strategic plan crafted by psychologists, sociologists familiar with Islamic culture, and communications experts. Funding likely will need to be funneled through clandestine channels in order to avoid preemptive counter measures. Exploited Muslim populations must be made to understand that the perceptually manipulated Israeli Palestinian conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of their own daily lives. They must be made to see the manipulated conflict as a diversionary tool, used to maintain a status quo that benefits their autocratic rulers, whose foremost objective is to enhance personal wealth and power at the expense of ordinary Muslims. They must be made to see that violent acts against any defined infidel, especially homicide/suicide martyrdom, are perversions of their theology. They must be made to see their own leaders for what they are, violators of a sacred 'peaceful' interpretation of their Koran. All gospels indeed are subject to manipulative interpretations, much like historical events can be skewed to reflect the predilections of those currently in charge. This fact cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, any humiliation Middle Eastern Muslims now feel is a direct result of thought processes cleverly manipulated by their despotic leaders driven by personal agendas. Once the widely accepted false presumption of Palestinian occupation, a cudgel created by those Machiavellian Muslim autocrats to beat Israelis and indeed all Jews, is debunked, truthfully redefined and successfully disseminated by Israeli strategists to reflect the reality of Israeli troops protecting peaceful Israeli civilians from Arab extremists committing violent acts violating the tenets of their Koran, a kinder view of Israel would likely permeate the Muslim street. This is no easy task, but must be attempted as that one image is perhaps the most damaging albeit skewed empirical evidence maliciously indicting all Jews and their homeland, indirectly supporting all other vicious accusations and perceptions about this 'chosen' people, chosen to be the Middle East's scapegoat of choice. Propitiously altering the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims is a daunting challenge, but ever necessary to avoid someday the likely alternative of another full blown battle between Jewish Israel and a synchronized force of Muslim jihadists. Preemptively disarming such Islamic militants is only possible if ordinary Muslims are smitten with clarifying logic, thus aggressively demand that their leaders rein in the radicals and be committed to peaceful coexistence with Israel. It's worth a try!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, January 24, 2007.

The president's speech last night was more disappointing to those who support and defend his initiatives in Iraq, than to those who oppose him, said Herbert Zweibon, Chairman of Americans for A Safe Israel.

"What is the point of mentioning Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as part of the solution, when in fact, those nations play a duplicitous role as part of the problem. Who funds and abets terror? Who spreads jihad teaching and sermons throughout the Western democracies? Who helps build tunnels and delivers arms to terrorists? Who does not condemn Hezbollah mentioned by the President as terrorists?" Zweibon added.

"Furthermore, why throw them a sop in the form of a delusional pretense that a two state solution in the Arab/Israel conflict is possible? By doing so the President betrayed a loyal democratic ally in the frontline against the war on terror, and those of us who have come to expect real leadership, determination and integrity in the White House."

Israel and America deserve better.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 24, 2007.

Just when it looked like Ehud Olmert could not mess things up any worse than he already had, it was reported that he and his mates had been secretly negotiating a deal with Syria. Allegedly, Israel would reward Syria for 70 years of aggression by basically shrinking itself to its pre-1967 dimensions and returning to what Abba Eban once dubbed "Auschwitz borders."

Under the proposed deal, Israel would abandon the entire Golan Heights, which would be turned into a large "park" under joint Israeli-Syrian management. Israel and Syria would then demilitarize areas on both sides of this nice park, with the Syrian side's demobilized zone larger than Israel's. Israel would get a nice written set of promises from Syria -- one of those being to rein in Hizbullah.

The Syrian state-controlled TV and newspapers are already repudiating and denying the deal. Syrian intransigence may yet save the Jewish people from the mega-stupidity of Israeli political leaders, and not for the first time: a deal for a "return" of the Golan Heights to Syria was almost signed by Ehud Barak in 2000. Had it been concluded, it would have moved Syrian armed forces right up to the shores of the Sea of Galilee.

The Golan Heights are Syrian in precisely the same sense that East Prussia is German. In other words, not at all. Just like East Prussia was once German but was lost forever to the Germans due to German aggression and atrocities, so the Golan Heights are "Syrian" only in the historic sense.

The Golan is certainly far less "Syrian" than the Alexandretta Province, which belonged to Syria before World War II until Turkey decided one day to gobble it up. Syrian maps, of course, show both the Golan and Alexandretta as integral parts of Syria. Today the optimal peace plan that Israel should adopt is the same as that still used successfully by Turkey regarding Alexandretta: every time Syria starts bellowing and threatening, rattle the sabers and watch the Baathists cower.

The Golan Heights are not good for much besides attacking Israel. In fact, that is the real reason why Assad Jr. wants to get them back. Israeli proponents of "returning" the Golan to Syria argue that the Camp David accord with Egypt is a clear precedent for such a deal. After all, Israel agreed to give back to Egypt every last centimeter of Sinai. But the deal with Egypt was (or should be) a "first through the gate" one-time deal that in no way obligates Israel to strike a similar deal with Syria.

Camp David was signed almost 30 years ago, and only after Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem and spoke in a convincing way to the Israeli public about peace. Assad Senior could have followed in Sadat's footsteps in the late 1970's and signed a peace deal with Israel, but he refused. Syria should be made to pay for three decades of foot dragging. It should also be forced to pay for its role in Hizbullah terror.

In other words, "land for peace" should decidedly not be the basis for any deal with Syria, unless it is to be land for peace in the form of Syria offering Israel additional lands east of the Golan.

The other important difference between Egypt and Syria is that Egypt is a large and powerful country, one with which Israel was willing to pay a huge price to end the outright state of war. But Syria, which already has partly lost its hegemony over Lebanon, is a relatively small, backward, poor country surrounded on all its borders (besides Lebanon) by pro-Western regimes friendly to the U.S.

There is no reason to believe Syria would comply with any deal it strikes with Israel. First, the Baathist junta represents a tiny ethnic-religious minority that could easily be toppled and replaced. The younger Assad is a dimwitted leader whose chances of ending up on a gallows like Saddam are not bad. Rather than reward the unstable Assad regime with the Golan Heights, a far better strategy would be to sit back and watch as Syria's economy collapses under its own centrally-controlled deadweight, the same way that Soviet regimes collapsed one after the other in the early 1990's.

All that Israel would get out of any deal with the Syrians would be yet another set of empty promises. Syria would follow up any agreement with a massive escalation of violence against Israel from Lebanon via its terrorist surrogates there. It would ignore all obligations for disarmament, in a Ruhr-Valley-style strategy of defiance.

In addition, Syria would use its presence along the shores of the Sea of Galilee to recruit and arm terrorists from among Israeli Arabs in the Galilee. It would station missiles and arms it receives from Iran on its soil, perhaps also weapons of mass destruction. The missile barrages this past summer on Northern Israel were a pale preview of what would follow.

Even the peace deal with Egypt has been to a large extent a failure. Egypt today supplies all the explosives and arms being smuggled into Gaza, including those used to build the rockets that bombard the Negev each morning. The Egyptian media are at least as anti-Semitic as the Iranian media. Egypt is accumulating huge stocks of military armaments and there is no guarantee it would not join in any future Arab armed assault on Israel.

Kal v'chomer, how much more so should there be reason for skepticism about Syrian behavior after any "peace deal" Syria signed with Israel.

In one of the Godfather movies, the young Don Corleone is asked what his offer is to a corrupt congressman. His answer: "We offer you nothing. Absolutely nothing." I can think of no better Israeli strategy for dealing with Damascus, at least until Syria evolves into a stable, democratic country seriously seeking peace with its neighbors.

(An opposing point of view is at

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, January 24, 2007.

First they succeeded in pressuring film makers in to altering film topics or plots in order to not present a message that they thought would portray Arab terrorists unfavorably. Thus the TV series "24-hours" spent most of its first year chasing rogue Russian bad guys who were doing what the Arab terrorists are doing in real life even though the original plots dealt with Arab terrorists.

Similarly, the Hollywood producers of a full-length feature film about Arab terrorists stealing nuclear missiles (I forgot its name: something like "worst of all fears") changed the plot, under pressure from CAIR, to make the terrorists not Arabs but Neo-Nazis.

Then they enjoyed the spate of films (unclear whether they funded these films or not) such as Munich, Passion, Flight Plan, V is for Vendetta, and a few others, which give subtle anti-Jewish or anti-Israel or pro-Arab or pro-terrorist messages.

Now, the Arab propaganda purveyors have moved on to full-length feature films in documentary formate which shift from subtle to sledge-hammer messages....and now we are on the verge of having to deal with full-blown black anti-Israel propaganda made in to living-room entertainment.

And, to make matters worse, the mega-oil-wealthy sheikhs seem to have bought the loyalty of such luminaries as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, War on Want, Jewish Voice for Peace, and a growing host of professional journalists like Robert Fisk, as well as a large and ever-growing number of college academes...not to mention Jimmy Carter. And when these high-profile champions of human rights condemn Israel, people listen.

What can we do to counter this?

Does anyone know any one who may know some Hollywood moguls who would like to do a re-make of Exodus, brought up to date?

How about a documentary, a la Al Gore, about the threat of Arab terrorism and Israel as the 'canary in the mine shaft'?

If we do not do something to turn the tide of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel messages that are growing bolder and more aggressive and more distorting and more misleading, we will soon end up watching TV news and 'documentary' programs that are a 21st century version of cowboys and indians in which the Arab terrorists are the cowboys and Jews are the indians.

This is a written by Yakov Dov to the Editor of The Jewish World.

On January 23 my wife and I and some Christian friends of Israel, affiliated with Bridges for Peace attended the Palestinian propaganda film "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, How Israel Manipulates and Distorts the Media" at the Albany NY Public Library.

This was a slick,well produced propaganda film, undoubtedly paid for by Arab interests. Its theme was Palestinian victimology, blaming Israel for their poverty and misery, and the terrible Israeli occupation of their lands. We unfortunately heard Noam Chomsky, Neve Gordon, and Michael Lerner of Tikkun, who are opposed to Zionism and the rights of Jews to live in their ancient homeland, speak about the theme of Palestinian victimology; and to downplay Palestinian violence and terrorism as a result of Israeli occupation. I was surprised that they weren't joined by Naturei Karta in this propaganda film.

Amnesty International accused Israel of human rights violations. The American Arab Anti-Defamation Committee further accused Israel of Palestinian discrimination and criticized Israeli checkpoints that are necessary security measures to thwart Palestinian terrorism. Did anyone show how Palestinian schools, media and their religious leaders teach children to become suicide bombers and brainwash them in a cult of death and terror,committing them to Israel's destruction? No they repeated the wanton lies and canards that Israeli repression caused such terrorism.

We saw Alisa Solomon of the Village Voice And Robert Fisk of the British Independent further smear Israel, repeating the occupation victimology theme, as a reason for Palestinan terror. These Israel bashers blame Israel's consular staff for propaganda and media bias favoring Israel, also blaming AIPAC, CAMERA, etc for pro-Israel reporting in our media. This is the big lie as Hitler discovered, repeat it often enough and it will be accepted. The facts are that our media is often biased against Israel and CAMERA, Honest Reporting, etc are constantly challenging NPR,the NY Times, Washington Post, etc to tell the truth about Israel.

These Arabists and anti-Israel critics demonized Israeli settlers and even called Gilo [a Jerusalem suburb],a settlement.

Karen Pfeifer of the Arabist Middle East Research and Information Project, accused settlers of being aggressive to Palestinians and stealing their lands.

We should counter these lies about Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. We can tell how Israel exists on about 20% of the lands of Palestine, and that Jews have lived in Judea/Samaria since Biblical times.These areas were made Judenrein following the Nazi model by Jordan, who destroyed former Jewish settlements. After winning the 1967 defensive war, Jews moved back into their former lands. They are revenants returning to their former homeland.

To speak of Israel as an occupier of Palestinian lands is a big lie. There were never any claims about this when Jordan controlled these areas prior to 1967. Before then there weren't any Palestinians either, as most of these Arabs lured by Israel's prosperity, flooded into these areas, falsely claiming them as their own. Arafat was an emigrant from Egypt.

They called themselves Palestinians after 1967, when Arafat's PLO encouraged them to do so, and to claim that they are victims of Israel. Yes the Palestinians are victims, victims of their hatred, neglect of their leaders, their cult of death and terror, and covenants calling for Israel's destruction.

How can we best reply to these canards and propaganda against Israel? We must stand up and confront these lies and propaganda and insist that Israel's side be presented in our public libraries, like showing Obsession or Relentless, and being pro active about Israel and the Mid East crisis.

I could have stayed to the end of this meeting, asked hard questions, and made strong pro-Israel comments. I've debated Arabs several times. However we were only a few amongst these Palestinian supporters. Had there been at least a dozen more committed Jews and Christians there, we could have made some strong points for support of Israel. However it is sad that some of our communal leaders don't believe in Israel activism.

Lets commit ourselves to stand by Israel more strongly in the public arena in the future.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, January 24, 2007.

Some Jews are stupid -- If you want Israel to survive, you've got to accept the possibility that some are stupid and others might just be venal. If Jewish leaders before and during WWII had not mollified European and American Jewry and misled the governments they advised, the Holocaust could not have happened. Jews, Israel, are facing a second Holocaust today. Gaza was Czechoslovakia. If we allow the turn-over of the disputed territories to our enemies that Olmert and Livni are preparing, we will surely have reached the tipping point, the point of no return, the beginning of the second Holocaust.

Speaking at the 7th Herzliyah Conference yesterday, Shimon Peres completely discounts the psyche of the palestinian in particular and the Muslim in general -- Still pressing benighted peace efforts, he said, after 6 Wars and 2 Intifada, as only a lunatic could, "The plan is to take the border from Eilat to Yarmuch* and turn it into a joint economic area between us, the Jordanians, and the Palestinians. Infrastructure, airports, and roads will be built. We will manage the water reservoirs effectively. This will achieve a number of things including raising the standard of living and bringing global support". [*In the southern Golan, the Yarmuch and Rokad rivers form natural barriers, which is impassable for armored vehicles and even infantry. Therefore with just a few outposts Israeli troops can secure this front.]

The next are excerpts from Francisco Gil-White's Part 2: Historical and Investigative Research

"How mainstream Diaspora Jewish Leaders are failing the Jewish people today." It was written before the death of Arthur Hertzberg (April 2006), who, together with Edgar Bronfman and Abraham Foxman, unfortunately, typified those Jewish leaders who take sides against Israel.

Arthur Hertzberg is a historian and activist. He continued the World Jewish Congress tradition of criminal disregard for the security of the Jewish people, advancing his "equal voice" in the service of sabotaging the defense of Israel.

Consider that for Hertzberg, as Julius Weinberg explains, "it is Israel rather than the Arab countries surrounding it that has to prove its benign intentions to the world." Isn't that remarkable? These would be the same Arab countries that have launched wars against Israel with the proudly and publicly announced purpose of exterminating the Israeli Jews. So why does Hertzberg tell us that the Israelis are the ones who have to prove their benign intentions to the world? They haven't attacked anybody, let alone called for exterminating anyone.

That was 1979, but Hertzberg is consistent. On 19 September, 2003, The Jerusalem Post reported,

"In America, historian of Zionism Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, like philanthropists Edgar Bronfman and Marvin Lender, has also chosen sides by appealing to President George W. Bush to put sanctions on Israel and to view Israel and the PA [the 'Palestinian Authority,' run by the PLO] as equivalents."

Hertzberg "has...chosen sides": he sides with the PLO. Rather passionately, I might add: he wants US sanctions on Israel. And Hertzberg's statements, mind you, were made right as the PLO was murdering scores of innocent Israelis at the height of the Second Intifada.

Now, when we saw Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg lobbying for the Jewish state to be considered equivalent to an organization, the PLO, whose controlling core Al Fatah was created by a leader of Adolf Hitler's Final Solution with the purpose of continuing the extermination of the Jewish people, how shall we characterize this? Would the word antisemitism be too strong? (But one can find Rabbi Hertzberg introduced as "a man of impeccable liberal credentials," so this is how you earn your 'liberal credentials' these days: attacking the Jews.)

Of course, Hertzberg sells his position as supposed compassion for the West Bank and Gaza Arabs (i.e. the so-called 'Palestinians'), and various sources will echo this: for example, Wikipedia refers to his "outspoken criticism of the policies of Israel toward the Palestinians." But this is absurd. It is the PLO that has been oppressing the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, not Israel. The serious problems for these Arabs began when, partly as a result of pressure coming from Hertzberg's World Jewish Congress (more on this below), the PLO was imposed on the Arabs as 'government.' Since then, not only has the PLO been murdering innocent Israeli civilians, but it has also been murdering innocent West Bank and Gaza Arabs, sometimes executing them merely for selling land to a Jew, or for opposing the killings of Jews, when it is not murdering them for opposing the PLO on other grounds. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza were treated infinitely better when the Israeli government was directly administering these territories, so genuine compassion for these Arabs would require Hertzberg to be a vocal opponent of the PLO, not Israel.

What is the political effect of this spectacle -- of Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg on the world stage behaving as if he has a rather special animosity against the Jewish state? Well, considering that the man has been "president of both the American Jewish Policy Foundation and the American Jewish Congress, [and] vice president of the World Jewish Congress," the effect on ordinary people (Jewish and non-Jewish alike), who are poorly informed, is to make them think: "Gee, if a leader of something calling itself the 'World Jewish Congress' says that Israel is the bad guy, then it must be -- because, how can Israel be the good guy if even the Jewish leadership attacks it?" As we saw in Part 1, in World War II Rabbi Stephen Wise had a similar effect on many people who otherwise would have defended the Jews: he confused and demoralized them. It is impossible to know exactly how many lives were lost this way, but given that Peter Bergson's movement managed to save some 200,000 people despite Wise's repeated acts of sabotage, as we saw in Part 1, the cost could be a few million.

More consistency: Since Rabbi Stephen Wise was the enemy of Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook), who was a founder of the Irgun Tzvai Leumi Jewish army, and who did his utmost to save Jewish lives in Europe while Wise sabotaged his every move, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Arthur Hertzberg was an enemy of the late Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, a former leader of the Irgun, and like Bergson a Jewish patriot.

Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress, ...suggested the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank and Gaza] were the key obstacle to peace and echoed [Hebrew University] professor [Ze'ev] Sternhell in advising the Palestinians that they would be wise to focus their terror attacks on settlers."
Source: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.493)

The same year, 1981, that Arthur Hertzberg was sabotaging the effort to understand what Wise and Co. did during World War II, Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress (so, Hertzberg's boss), was working very hard to endorse US President Ronald Reagan's radically anti-Israel policies, which had for goal the creation of a PLO state in the West Bank. In 1982, Bronfman was at it again, using his perch as president of the World Jewish Congress to endorse Ronald Reagan's plan for Middle East 'peace.' Reagan was using Bronfman as a 'Jewish diplomat,' as if all Jews were the same and the World Jewish Congress spoke for them all, including citizens of Israel. American newspapers dutifully carried the headline "Jewish Leader OKs Reagan Peace Plan."

But Bronfman did not speak for the Israeli Jews: "the Israeli government...unanimously and totally rejected the American initiative."

The Israeli prime minister at the time was Menachem Begin, the former leader of the Irgun's military wing.

So there are no surprises here. Edgar Bronfman, like Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann before him, has been busy giving cover to the US government for its anti-Jewish policies. His support for Reagan's anti-Israeli policies in the early 80s was extreme.

Bronfman did the same in the mid-80s, when again as president of the World Jewish Congress, he acted as an informal diplomat for Shimon Peres, at the time Israel's prime minister. The diplomacy Bronfman conducted (mind you, Bronfman is not an Israeli citizen) was meant to do an end-run around Yitzhak Shamir from the opposition party, who was the actual foreign minister. And the point of this diplomacy, according to some reports, was to give away the strategic Golan Heights to the Syrians! At the same time, Peres sent leaders of the American Jewish Congress, another organization founded by Stephen Wise, to be his private diplomats to Arab leaders with whom he wanted to legitimize the PLO as a political player. Peres and Bronfman finally achieved their goals with the so-called Oslo 'Peace' Process, which empowered the PLO inside the Jewish state.

It apparently has not bothered Edgar Bronfman that Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO, was grandfathered by Hajj Amin al Husseini, responsible for one terrorist wave after another against innocent Jews in British Mandate 'Palestine,' and later one of the main architects of Adolf Hitler's Final Solution in Europe. Hajj Amin also mentored Yasser Arafat. And Bronfman, like Hertzberg, has been consistent throughout. In the year 2003,

"Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress, ...suggested the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank and Gaza] were the key obstacle to peace and echoed [Hebrew University] professor [Ze'ev] Sternhell in advising the Palestinians that they would be wise to focus their terror attacks on settlers."

When we see Edgar Bronfman advocating the murder of innocent Jews in order to advance the political goals of the PLO, an antisemitic terrorist organization with genocidal goals, and which traces its origin to Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, how shall we characterize this? Is the word antisemitism too strong?

This time, at least, "Jewish outrage forced [Bronfman] to apologize." Jewish outrage of this sort is healthy -- more of it may yet save the Jewish people.

Defending the Ford Foundation is not out of character for Abraham Foxman. It is not difficult to find this man apologizing for, and giving cover to, the PLO. For example, when Arafat was caught calling for jihad after the so-called Oslo 'peace' process had already begun, Abraham Foxman covered for him by supporting Arafat's oxymoronic expression "jihad for peace," helping confuse the Western public.

"Speaking to an Anti-Defamation League delegation in Gaza, Arafat said his use of the word 'jihad' in his speeches not only meant a holy war involving fighting, but also can be used in terms of peace.

'We asked the chairman to engage as much as possible in words of understanding and reconciliation,' said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman.

'The chairman talked in terms of the jihad for peace so that the word jihad as we know it can be converted into the jihad of peace.'"

Jihad means 'Holy War' -- the slaughter of infidels, as historian Bat Ye'or has documented in detail. But if anybody is suspicious that a Jewish historian may have distorted the meaning of 'jihad,' then we can ask the King of Saudi Arabia what the modern meaning of 'jihad' may be. This will be quite relevant to Yasser Arafat's own use of the word because Saudi Arabia has been a major sponsor of the PLO. As reported in the British daily The Evening Standard:

"In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a clear definition: 'What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring 'Holy War' against Israel, of course, who else?'"

If Abraham Foxman's excuse here will be that he doesn't know this elementary thing -- the meaning of the word 'jihad' for Muslim enemies of the Jewish state -- then he should be fired, because it is the job of the leader of the ADL to know such things. If he does know this, then how shall we characterize the fact that Foxman apologizes for the anti-Jewish terrorist Yasser Arafat when he calls for "a long and untiring 'Holy War' against Israel"? Would antisemitism be too strong a word?

As if all this were not enough, Abraham Foxman can also be found apologizing for the Vatican's antisemitism. Unbelievable.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 24, 2007.


Undermining US foreign policy, the Senators went to ask the President of Syria to help bring stability and security to Iraq (NY Sun, 12/21, p.6).

That is like going to ask Hitler and Stalin how they could bring stability and security to Poland they were about to conquer. Now it is more foolish, because we know how dictators act. They don't cooperate to undo their program of imperialism.

The dictator might promise to cooperate. The resulting newspaper story makes him seem reasonable, when the real story is how to bind him. Those Senators, one of whom wants to be President, do not understand the world war we are in and did not take the time to learn about the enemy.


PM Olmert is following PM Sharon's precedent of offering to release hundreds of terrorists in return for a very few Israelis. Sharon got back three Israeli bodies and one suspected Israeli drug smuggler. Prof. Steven Plaut predicted that this deal would be followed by more kidnappings, in order for terrorists to get more prisoners freed.

In an Israeli trial of drug dealers, the released prisoner testified that indeed he was a drug smuggler. Thus it was to get back a criminal that Israel released hundreds of terrorists, half of whom resumed terrorism and attacked more Israelis than were recovered in the deal (Plaut, 12/20).

Now that PM Olmert indicated he would follow Sharon's lead, Israeli security forces have intercepted terrorists about to attempt to kidnap more Israelis, admittedly in the hope of getting a disproportionate number of their allies released. It is one of the ways by which the Arabs are defeating Israel. Israeli security forces capture many terrorists, but the politicians put them back onto the streets.


Since the ceasefire started, and Israel ordered its forces not to stop terrorist crews from firing rockets, the Arabs have fired rockets at Israel almost every day, often more than once. The government often warns the P.A., there is a limit to Israeli restraint (IMRA, 12/21).

What that asserted limit is, nobody knows. The Arabs are trying to find out. That is why they fire rockets day after day.

Who can respect a government that complies with a ceasefire called by an enemy that does not comply with it? (Even if it did comply, it would be like having honored a ceasefire with the German forces defeated in the Battle of the Bulge, letting Germany refresh its depleted stores.)

Israel should have bombarded the P.A. after the first violation, not let its worry about foreign public relations put its people at risk. Humanitarians who thus try to keep down enemy casualties are, in my opinion, criminally negligent. The immediate object of war is to kill the enemy. When the enemy is genocidal, killing him is virtuous.


Iran is arming Hamas. To counter that, the US is accelerating its training and arming of Abbas's forces. Training would be in counterterrorism and police functions. Some of those forces would be deployed at the Gaza border, through which rockets are smuggled in.

The US also is encouraging Israel to bolster Abbas. Israel is releasing some excise taxes to Abbas (Eli Lake, NY Sun, 12/21, p.6).

Abbas has enough forces to guard the Gaza border, but he doesn't. He gets his cut of the smuggled arms.

Abbas is a long-time terrorist who is different from Hamas, as far as the US and Israel is concerned, only in being more of an opportunist in combining diplomacy with military means. His goals and military means are the same as Hamas'. His media broadcast hatred of the US and Israel and praise for suicide bombers. He talks about peace, but so did Arafat, who made war.

Supporting Abbas is not consistent with the US war against Islamism. US policy in supporting that common enemy of mankind is foolish. Israel should not support that foolishness but expose it.

If the US wants to counteract Hamas, let it arm Israel. Let the US stop demanding that Israel withdraw forces and checkpoints that block terrorists.


The al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya organization of Egypt, which had been violent for some time, has reformed. It apologized for past violence, pledges co-existence with the Egyptian regime, and argues against al-Qaeda's philosophy of violence.

The organization rationalized its change as accepting that non-religious law if humane and consistent with religious law is a satisfactory way of handling daily problems. They won't reject democracy, just because it comes from the West. The Muslim ruler may suspend certain religious laws, such as requiring certain punishments or allowing full pilgrimage to Mecca, if necessary to maintain domestic peace or prevent currency problems. Fatwas, such as the ones originally against the Mongols before they converted to Islam, no longer are realistic. Therefore, they need not be obeyed. Even jihad may cause more force to be leveled against the Islamists, and therefore may be rejected as impractical. Jihad against Muslim countries has been harmful. Violence against infidel civilians and tourists, formerly attacked, is forbidden. All the organization requires is that the ruler not celebrate secular systems as superior to the religious ones.

Other Islamists who relinquished violence did not relinquish to goal of imposing religious law. Some members of al-Gama'a still believe in violence (MEMRI, 12/21).


The more Congress tries to limit campaign spending, the more is spent. Poorly drafted legislation easily gets circumvented. The spending increase enables American voters to "be the best informed in the history of democracy." (NY Sun,12/21, Ed..)

Spending should not be equated with information. Much of the spending increase would be due to an increase in the number of candidates. Much will be spent on polls. Polls enable candidates to fashion appealing sound bytes that mislead voters about candidates' intent. Much of the funds will be spent on brief TV ads that express false sentiment, false logic, and misleading conclusions about opposition candidates.

Negative advertising about opposition candidates is not inherently wrong. But it often is abused. There is much wrong with characterizing a multi-faceted bill only for its negative or its positive aspect, and blaming it on the opponent. Would that legislators draft briefer bills, whose import could be seen as not potentially harmful! New York State legislators pass lobbyists' bills without having read them.

If spending curbs gave major candidates equal access to voters, they would be democratic. The Sun calls a candidate's spending a fortune "free speech." I think it is not democratic when the electorate hears much more from one candidate than from another, and if the big spender got the funds from special interest groups by pandering to them. Voters don't really get a free choice, that way.

As for spending curbs being poorly drafted, that isn't the whole story. The problem is the same as with pornography. Pornography cannot be banned totally, because in the end it cannot be totally defined and censorship becomes political. Spending curbs eventually curb free speech. There may be no solution, though public campaign funding at least could give a candidate sufficient funds to get a message across. The problem is, there may be no message, just sound bytes.

In the last election, the same candidates sent the same leaflets bearing brief and meaningless messages every couple of days. Candidates for one office expressed testimonials for candidates for another office, who returned the favor. How sincere was that? The leaflets promise too much for too many, but state too little about how to accomplish those feats and who would pay for them and how. Sen. Clinton is getting known for assertions of vague principles.

Issues are discussed shallowly and without much debate. There isn't much democratic substance to our elections.


PM Olmert had assigned the Army to block arms smuggling into Gaza, but denied it the means, such as guarding the border. Now Defense Min. Peretz ordered the IDF to stop the Arabs from firing rockets at Israel without breaking down the ceasefire that the Arabs violated by firing dozens of rockets, etc.. It is an impossible task, assigned as if intended to shift the blame for continued firing to the Army and to pretend that only more territorial concessions would stop it (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 12/21).


Wounded in mutual combat, members of Hamas and Fatah can't get treated in certain Gaza hospitals, because of their affiliations. (The brief doesn't say whether hospital personnel would refuse them, whether the hospital lacks security and their fine foes would pursue them right into the hospital, or why a hospital that won't treat Fatah men wouldn't take the Hamas men and vice versa.)

The casualties have been admitted to an Israeli hospital for treatment (IMRA, 12/21).

How humane of Israel! And how inhumane! It is one thing to treat wounded prisoners. It is another thing to suspend border closure to let in enemy troops and restore them for combat. It is a particular Israeli insanity that poses as humanitarianism and contributes to Israel's defeats. Israeli officials probably think this mercy wins public opinion. For all Israeli decency and Muslim brutality, public opinion is anti-Israel. Israel contributes to its own low standing by pretending that some Muslims are moderate and can make peace, instead of exposing them as all wanting to destroy the Jewish state but many also wanting to murder off the Jewish people, but differing in the means and timing.

The hospital policy contradicts Olmert's and Sharon's declared policy of separation of the two peoples (religions). For that policy, they dragged 10,000 Jews out of Gaza, ruining them, and in return got a P.A. military buildup and a rocket bombardment. Like the US, Israel fights in a limited way, and then wonders why it can't get rid of the war.


The government is further subsidizing Haifa and points north, to which it urges Israelis to move (IMRA, 12/21).

That's where Hizbullah rockets will strike, next. This static defense is futile. An effective defense would root out the terrorists.


Hundreds of Land of Israel activists marched on Rachel's Tomb, demanding the right of Jews to travel freely in their own country. They want an end to walls and fences and other restrictions on them, including access to such holy places.

While the procession diverted security guards, dozens of youths dug under the fence and gained entry. Their point was that if they could breach security in a public confrontation, then the fences don't provide security (Arutz-7, 12/21).

They want to treat this unallocated part of the Jewish homeland as part of the Jewish homeland. The government wants to treat it as reserved for the Arabs. The demonstrators are consistent with the Palestine Mandate. The government is consistent with anti-Zionism. The demonstrators have a healthy Judaism. The government has an unhealthy secularism. The demonstrators would preserve Israel. The government gets Israelis killed by prolonging the war, by failing to defeat the Arabs, and by failing to make general war on the P.A..


The Arabs have fired 50 rockets at Israelis, since declaring a ceasefire that only Israel honors. (There will be more, by the time I transmit this.) Why does Israel persist?

News reports indicate that Israeli leaders don't want to announce the end of the ceasefire and be blamed for ending it.

If true, the reason is silly. Israel is blamed for everything, anyway. Israel cannot redeem its reputation in this world of media bias that preserves ignorance and bias. At least, it cannot win over public opinion without a public relations campaign it doesn't have and wouldn't know how to direct or what proper positions to take. The campaign would have to show the evil it is up against. It would have to challenge popular misconceptions. That it won't do, because it is afraid to, and because much of the ruling Establishment shares the anti-Jewish prejudices, and because in its appeasement-mindedness, it clings to hopes for peace with a religion that fights to the death.

Wouldn't it be the simplest thing to show reporters damage from rockets and then explain that the ceasefire never was kept by the Arabs and therefore Israel finds there is no ceasefire for it to honor? It should condemn the Arabs for breaking the ceasefire. A simple history of Arab violations of other ceasefires should given to reporters.

Enemies of Israel want the phony ceasefire to continue. They don't mind Israeli casualties. They don't care that the enemy uses immunity from Israeli retaliation to build up forces for a greater war. They, especially the anti-Zionist State Dept., want to keep up the pretense that there can be peace to negotiate Israeli concessions for. In justice, Israel should demand concessions for not wiping out an evil people.


Although S. Arabia and Israel deny that the two countries are negotiating ("holding talks"), a US ambassador didn't. He cited a statement from Israeli "Indefense" Minister

Peretz that the basis for peace negotiations might be the Saudi plan. Admittedly the Saudi plan is a plan for Israeli concessions after which, the Arabs (falsely) promise, they would recognize the legitimacy of Israel. Israelis say they wouldn't make some of the concessions. The Arabs always propose buy-now/pay-later, and then don't pay.

Israel doesn't derive legitimacy from concessions. It should state that, as the victim of aggression, the Arabs owe it plenty, and it will not make concessions to them. It should ask rhetorically and actually whether the request for concessions is part of Islamic policy of using concessions as the basis for waging stronger war. It should ask how this asserted desire for peace fits in with decades of promoting jihad. It should ask, what concessions does it owe people who attempt genocide against it. It should ask, why don't the aggressors simply cease aggression, if they want peace.

When Israel starts negotiating on the premise that it owes the enemy concessions, it makes concessions, usually more than the public imagined. That is what the State Dept. wants to maneuver it to do. It also is what Israel's anti-Zionist leadership wants to do.


Six Muslim clerics prayed in the public area of a US airport, in November. That made other passengers on their US Airways flight suspicious about them. They complained to officials. Officials removed the clerics from the flight (Arutz-7, 12.21). In a newspaper report, the passengers were quoted as hearing them express hatred of the US.

Hatred of the US is not reason enough. If it were, many liberals would have to be deplaned, too. Unlike US liberals, however, Muslims have translated their hatred into terrorism. Vigilance must be exercised. Prayers, alone, should not make other passengers nervous. That is prejudice.


When Carter was President, his Budget director was old friend, Bert Lance. Lance owned a bank in Georgia that he mismanaged. (Was mismanagement a qualification for becoming Carter's Budget director?)

Enter the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). It was founded by a Pakistani and subsidized by Saudis to spread Islam and fight Zionism. It financed PLO terrorism, Islamist overthrow of the Shah, and the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. BCCI money helped persuade Sadat to sign the Camp David Accords that recognized "Palestinian" rights. It tried illegally to buy the First American Bank, based in Washington, DC ... BCCI was convicted for drug money laundering.

Just in time for Lance, BCCI made him a $100,000 a year consultant. The BCCI or its officials paid off Lance's $3.5 million debt to his own bank, and took secret control of it. When Carter became President, BCCI asserted that it would not take advantage of Lance's closeness to the President. (Judge its scruples over that by its record.)

The Georgia bank, now controlled by Islamists, renegotiated its loan to the Carter family business, at much more favorable terms to Carter. BCCI's founder, Abedi, "gave $500,000 to help the former president establish his center at Emory University. Later, Abedi contributed more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects." Even after the BCCI conviction, "Mr. Carter accepted $1.5 million from Abedi, his 'good friend.'" Saudi and other Gulf sources contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Carter Center.

Soon after taking office, Carter spoke of a "Palestinian" homeland (which it isn't) and increasingly denounced Israeli self-defense as aggression against those Arabs. He went on to uphold the legitimacy of Arafat's corrupt (and terrorist) regime, and now calls (Islamist and terrorist) Hamas the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. He, who has accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from the Arabs, said, "'There has not been any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia,' the New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S. foreign policy." But Carter accuses AIPAC of controlling State Dept. policy and keeping the Palestinian Arabs poor and oppressed (Rachel Ehrenfeld, 12/21) not their representatives who steal their money and waste it on wars and villas. So you see, closeness to Saudis is not a Bush monopoly. Who can have confidence in Carter's avocation of certifying the democratic character of foreign elections?


As of before Christmas, 450,000 Christians crossed from Bethlehem in the P.A. to Jerusalem. Israel is spending half a million shekels to improve the crossing. It is providing gifts and free buses to transport 18,000 Christian pilgrims from Bethlehem to Jerusalem. It knows that tourism is important for the P.A. economy.

At Vatican and P.A. request, Israel's Min. of Tourism also opened up Jerusalem to the pilgrims' tour guides from the P.A.. Problem is, the tourists will get only the P.A. point of view and not Israel's, at a time when tourism is important for Israel's economy and its own tour guides do not have sufficient work.

Israel complains about having poor public relations, yet replaces Israeli tour guides with Arab ones. Israel lacks common sense about public relations (IMRA, 12/22).

Israel acts as if its mission is to help its enemies. It thinks that this treason is a fine achievement. I happen to be reading a story book about Biblical times, and find Judea-Samaria's perverse leadership then like the perversely blind leadership now. Then the leadership pursued foreign gods, now it shuns its own. The parallels are striking.


The New York Times Week in Review of 12/24 carried a full-page ad from the Council for the National Interest Foundation in behalf, not of the national interest, but ostensibly of Christian Arabs. The title was, "Is Bethlehem Dying?" Yes, it averred, the city is being choked off by the Israeli security fence in defense of an occupation.

The ad accuses Israel of fencing properties in half and cutting off the town. The reason for the fence -- Arab terrorism for jihad right near Israel's capital -- and Jewish claims to the Territories were not stated. Neither was any perspective on how many properties were divided and the extensive Israeli re-routing of the fence to avoid that. I don't know whether any of the accusations are true, but I know of several that are false.

"In reality, that 'fence' consists of a 25-foot concrete wall built across 26 miles inside the W. Bank..." No, only a short piece is of concrete. The lie makes Israel seem sinister. "The Wall, paid for with billions of dollars of US tax money." No US funds go for the wall. US funds go for Abbas' forces, which fire upon Israelis. The ad condemns Israel for immuring Rachel's Tomb, without explaining that this is to protect Jewish worshippers upon whom Muslim bigots open fire.

The Christian population of Bethlehem largely has fled, from Muslim attacks. That is what is ending its Christian character. The ad fails to admit this. The ad quotes Christian leaders there, but they are too oppressed by the Muslims to be frank.


The Council used to buy mostly intelligence-gathering systems. Now anticipating war, i is shifting purchases to arms, for active combat (IMRA, 12/21).


(IMRA, 12/21.) The weakness of Israel's parliamentary coalition government is: (a) Officials of different ideologies or rival ambition maneuver against each other instead of against the enemy; and (b) As in the Sharon regime, the Prime Minister won't listen to wiser counsel, though he keeps creating problems for his country and becomes more unpopular.


The Bush administration is considering clandestine financing of Syrian opposition elements. Some critics think the opposition is too weak to matter. Others suggest that the Administration is reluctant to pursue the plan, because regime-change requires Congressional oversight, and some Members of Congress would oppose this plan done in the name of spreading democracy. Some recipients would be Islamists (IMRA, 12/21).

The critics make some good points. Islamists are our enemies. They don't believe in democracy, though they may use an election to gain power.

The article gives the impression that Members of Congress would oppose the plan because it is done to spread democracy. I doubt that would be their reason.

The US made its big mistake in letting its Army diminish in size, so it couldn't invade Syria and Iran along with Iraq, and shut off the Islamist help for wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, etc.. The US should have helped the opposition in Iran and Lebanon, where it is strong. It should have urged Israel to send its ground forces into Lebanon, in strength, earlier, and wipe out Hizbullah and bomb supply trucks bringing arms from Syria to Hizbullah.


Environment Min. Ezra has proposed a ceasefire, giving the Arabs 10 days to adhere to it or Israel should shut off their electricity and water. Weeks have passed, without P.A. adherence. Min. Ezra was asked whether Israel should end the ceasefire and shut off P.A. electricity and water.

Ezra replied that "10 days" was a rough statement and "electricity and water" was a metaphor for action. He suggests that the IDF study what to do (IMRA, 12/21).

Israelis talk big. Their media fails to pin them down, because they share in the charade. The ceasefire is an Islamic fraud. The Arabs are acting in their usual way of violating ceasefires. No more time is needed to demonstrate their insincerity. The government's excessive patience with the Arabs needlessly risks Israeli lives.

Asking for an IDF study is a ruse. It has made studies. It has made recommendations. Its recommendations are rejected by the appeasement-minded government, taking instruction not from AIPAC but from the State Dept..


If Russia lowers the price of its missile defense system for Syria, Syria may give the Russian navy berths in Syrian ports (IMRA, 12/21).

That would make it more difficult for Israel to fight Syria without bringing Russia into it.


Decades ago, a Jewish organization bought land in Hebron. It recently transferred ownership to Hebron Jews. But Arabs had taken over and expropriated property owned by Jews there and elsewhere in Judea-Samaria. (This is a story seldom told.)

Three Jewish families bought a building there from its Arab occupant. (Shouldn't have to pay the recipient of stolen property.) The military and judiciary asked the families to move out while the government prepared a property contract for them.

The Arab sellers suddenly claimed that their property transfer contract was forged (which claim Arabs have made, before.) Instead of honoring the government's agreement, the Attorney-General ruled that the new property contract was invalid. He ordered the families to stay out, and when they attempted to move back in, to be removed. The Supreme Court ruled that they should stay out until the matter was investigated. Two newspapers reported erroneously that the Court had ruled that the property contract was forged. For that, the newspapers had to pay the Jewish families compensation for libel.

In one case, a court noted, the removal is contrary to Israeli law, which allows people to keep a home in which they have been for more than 30 consecutive days. It ruled that that family may stay (Arutz-7, 12/22). The government of Israel acts in bad faith. It is almost Biblical in its injustice to its Jewish people and their religion.


Iran's population has doubled since the revolution. Unemployment and poverty are rampant, despite higher oil prices. Government subsidy of gasoline has raised demand and pollution artificially, requiring imports from foreign refiners. Fulfilling the threat to curb crude oil shipments would hurt its sales and consumers. Its economy would collapse, since hydrocarbons account for most of its income. It needs the oil business at least as much as the oil business needs it.

US sanctions, Iranian threats to nationalize oil companies, and Iranian instability have shut off most foreign investment in Iran. Iran's increase in demand for electricity is so great, that it might need civilian nuclear power. However, its own reserves for nuclear ore would be consumed in only four years (IMRA, 12/22). World reserves are low, too.


Most of the Arabs in Darfur are not involved in the civil war there. Some of them, however, have joined the rebels, decrying the murderousness of the government's Darfur allies as un-Islamic. They now pose a threat to the government (IMRA, 12/22).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, January 24, 2007.

Olmert is a champ at the cup trick. I have no doubt that his "policy changes" are all well-calculated to confuse us.

Olmert knows perfectly well what he wants and what he believes in. The problem is that he masks things and "moves the cups" so quickly that we lose track of what is really transpiring. That's how he has planned it.

Before Olmert was even elected Israel's Prime Minister, he haughtily announced a the Herzilya Conference that Israel was withdrawing from most of Judea and Samaria, just "consolidating settlement in a couple of blocs." The fact that dozens of long-standing, strategic communities would be destroyed and tens of thousands of innocent, law-abiding citizens exiled from their homes, business and educational institutions destroyed, didn't rate in his list of priorities. He was too "high" on the praise of the world, which didn't care when European Jewry was being slaughtered by the Nazis and hasn't become warmer to live Jews since. They enjoy and appreciate their visits to Yad Veshem, but they won't come to Shiloh or the University in Ariel.

Later on Olmert announced that it wasn't a "good time" for a unilateral withdrawal. Some people felt that it meant that he had canceled the plan, but reading his statements carefully just showed that it was a delay for tactical reasons.

And now, he visited the Disengagement Refugee Camps, tsk-tsking about the fact that the "two-year building prediction" is ridiculously far behind schedule. In half a year, we will be mourning the Second Anniversary of the Destruction of Gush Katif and the Northern Shomron Jewish communities. At the same time it has been revealed that Olmert has has agreed in principle to withdraw from most of Judea and Samaria ("Yesha"), in secret talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. G-d forbid!

In the meantime, that "wall" is still going up, cutting us off from the ghetto called the State of Israel. It's not going to keep anyone safe. The politicians are claiming that the "wall" is proving effective. Terrorism has gone down. That sounds nice, but look at those statistics clearly. Where has terrorism gone down? It has going down equally, all over, meaning both sides of that wall. If the wall was the reason, then terrorism would have continued at the same rate or even higher on my side. But it hasn't.

The reduction in terrorism is the result of the Arabs' change in policy. It has nothing to do with the wall at all! The Arabs have more freedom of movement than people think. They aren't strip-searched, either.

Things aren't as they appear.

We can't relax our guard with Olmert in the Prime Minister's Office.

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, January 24, 2007.

Jerusalem -- Israel is preparing for a unilateral realignment in Judea and Samaria that includes the expulsion of tens of thousands of Israel citizens in order to establish some semblance of a temporary Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has formed an special team was to formulate the outline for carrying out an immediate handover of land.

The team includes high-ranking officials in the Foreign and Defense Ministries, and high-ranking representatives of the Israeli army and Israeli intelligence are also being updated about the process.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni and the director-general of her ministry, Aharon Abramowitz, appointed a high-ranking official who will coordinate the effort -- diplomat Yossi Amrani, the former Israeli consul in San Francisco.

In November 2003, this reporter revealed that Amrani, despite his official position as the Israeli consul, organized fund raising events for Israeli opposition leader Yossi Beilin. Beilin had then led the Geneva Initiative on December 1st, 2003, which called for the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian entity within temporary borders, under the unchallenged rule of the PLO.

Now Amrani has been given the task of formulating, within several weeks, an official working paper of the Israeli government which will give a detailed outline of Israel's immediate surrender of land to the PLO. Among other things, Amrani will deal with the question of how Israel should sell the plan to AIPAC and to the U.S. administration.

During last summer's war in Lebanon, Prime Minister Olmert was quoted as saying that the war would contribute to his plans for carrying out a withdrawal plan.

The statement, which was denied by the Prime Minister's Bureau, aroused a great deal of criticism, mainly because thousands of religious soldiers, many of them inhabitants of the settlements, were risking their lives on the front at that very time.

Olmert therefore had to clarify that the option of unilateral withdrawal was frozen, and even said that it had never been adopted as Israel's official policy.

He said that the only policy in effect was that of negotiations with Abu Mazen and the continued boycott of the Hamas government. Olmert is consistent in this position, and has reiterated it several times since the cease-fire in mid-August.

Ironically, a previous commission was established by Israeli Foreign Minister Livni to evaluate the idea of a unilateral withdrawal from most of the West Bank.

That commission's report, leaked to the Ha'aretz newspaper on Aug. 15 concluded that "Israel has no security solution to the threat of rockets launched from the West Bank against population centers."

The report's authors assumed that following any unilateral Israeli pullout from any part of Judea and Samaria, Hamas will takeover and deploy rockets against Israel's population centers on Israel's coastal plain.

The report emphasized that the only solution to the missile threat that the Israel Defense Forces has to offer is its actual presence in the territories and control of the high ground of Judea and Samaria, also known as the "West Bank."

Another conclusion of the report commissioned by the Israeli Foreign Minister is that Israel will not gain international recognition for an end to the occupation if it continues to hold significant portions of the West Bank.

Foreign Ministry Director General Aharon Abramovitch, headed that commission.

Israeli Member of the Knesset (MK) has asked for a copy of the previous Israeli foreign ministry report which warned against any unilateral surrender of territory to the PLO.

The spokesman of the Israel Foreign Ministry has informed MK Alon's aide that this was an "internal report" that it would not be released.

Mashaal-Abu Mazen Meeting Ends In Failure

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, met in Damascus on Sunday with Hamas political bureau director Khaled Mashaal, against the backdrop of the crisis over the establishment of a Palestinian national unity government.

The meeting was held after exhausting negotiations were held in an attempt to bridge the gaps between the two parties. Ultimately, in response to massive pressure from the Syrian mediators, the Iranians and Islamic Jihad, a decision was made to hold the meeting despite the differences. Mashaal arrived at Abu Mazen's hotel suite, which was where the meeting was held. At first, the parties held an expanded work meeting that was attended by delegates from Fatah and Hamas, after which Abu Mazen and Mashaal sequestered themselves for a one-on-one meeting that lasted an hour.

Fatah and Hamas officials said before the meeting that they did not expect it to produce a dramatic breakthrough, but said they hoped the meeting would allow for a resumption of negotiations between the parties. Officials in Damascus said Sunday night that the importance of the meeting was that it broke the ice not only between the leaderships of Fatah and Hamas, but also between the two leaders, whose relations have been rocky and who have not spoken with one another for more than a year and a half.

Upon the conclusion of the meeting, the two men emerged to speak to journalists. While both Abu Mazen and Mashaal came out smiling, they were unable to conceal the fact that the meeting had failed. Mashaal, who said unequivocally that his organization would not recognize Israel either directly or indirectly, rejected de facto the compromise wording that could have allowed for the establishment of a national unity government and could have ended the impasse.

The current assessment is that there is no real chance that a Palestinian national unity government will be formed both because of the unyielding positions held by Hamas and the official statement that the party issued, which read: "there is a consensus within Hamas that Ismail Haniya will be the prime minister."

In an attempt to camouflage the failure, Abu Mazen and Mashaal issued a joint statement that described the meeting as "positive," and which noted that "dialogue between Hamas and Fatah will continue in the coming days."

At the same time, the Palestinian news agency, Ma'an, reported last night that "The Hamas movement has announced that it will resume the national dialogue on Tuesday. The talks will recommence from where they ended after the previous month-long round of talks between the factions, particularly between the two rival factions of Hamas and Fatah"

Citizens Concerned Hamas Is Digging Under Kibbutz

Israeli Army intelligence officials fear that Hamas will be able to carry out a terror attack in one of the communities in the Western Negev by means of a tunnel, or perhaps another kidnapping, like the kidnapping of soldier Gilad Shalit to Gaza.

Residents of Kibbutz Nirim, located in the Western Negev near Gaza, recently reported that they heard knocking under their houses during the day, which could indicate tunnel digging. Kibbutz members are concerned that Palestinians will dig tunnels under the border fence and perpetrate a terror attack inside the kibbutz. The kibbutz secretary, Gadi Yarkoni, said yesterday that: "Members heard knocking several months ago that raised concern of tunnel digging. The IDF checked and nothing was found. Because of the sensitivity of the area, we take every little thing seriously, and we treated theses complaints seriously and brought in everyone we thought necessary."

Avi Yakar, a member of Nirim, added that "There is noise in the kibbutz and the IDF checked. We heard noise, and there was a lot of speculation. No one can say for certain that tunnels are being dug, but I don't know anyone who will rule this out. Perhaps it is the noise of distant water pumps, but there is noise and it can be heard from time to time in various parts of the kibbutz."

About three months ago, the daily Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv reported that a terror organization from the Gaza Strip plans to dig a tunnel under Kibbutz Nir-Oz in the Western Negev, in order to carry out a terror attack against soldiers and civilians. The report spoke about attempts by an Arab terror group to dig a tunnel, and in order to do so, it offered the owner of a plot near the Gaza border a sum of $40,000 in exchange for his agreement to rent the land for a year so as to dig the tunnel.

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il

This appeared in The Philadelphia Bulletin
www.thebulletin.us/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=2737& dept_id=585832&newsid=17740149

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 23, 2007.

1. Shadow boxing with Iran
by Anshel Pfeffer
Jerusalem Post
January 22, 2007
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467786077& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

All six Herzliya conferences to date have dealt extensively with the Iranian threat, but as the founder-chairman of the conference, Prof. Uzi Arad, says, "In the past we took care to amplify the issue and explain why it's more serious than all the other threats around. This year, we're getting close to the tachlis (practical details)."

That seemed to be the thread running through all the lectures on the subject, with each participant trying outflank the clich that time is running out. Original neo-con Richard Perle, now of the American Enterprise Institute, went straight to the point when he pointed to the stopwatch limiting each speaker's time. "Whose time is over, ours or Iran's?" he asked.

The speakers were equally divided between Americans and Israeli, and they all were singing from the same hymn-sheet: There's no time to waste anymore dissecting the Iranians' ideology and intentions, there are no more question marks. Everyone seemed to be echoing Binyamin Netanyahu's now familiar refrain, "It's 1938, Iran is Germany, and it's arming itself with nuclear weapons."

Perhaps it was the choice of speakers, but there seemed to be very little variation in the overall message. It began with the modulated diplomatic tones of US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who, without actually saying how, assured that under no circumstance would the US allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, rising in pitch and decibels to the crescendos of Perle and Maj.- Gen. (res.) Prof. Itzik Ben-Yisrael, who left few illusions that the US and Israel would soon be launching their attacks.

But the consensus that Iran is well on its way to the bomb turned out to be less clear-cut than most newspaper headlines would lead you to believe. Gary Samore, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, who analyzed the advances being made in Iran on the various fronts necessary for reaching full weapons capability, concluded that it was still quite a few more years off. Not the usual scare that they're all but there, and no one contradicted him.

In a rare public appearance, Ariel Levite, deputy director-general of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, spoke about 2011 as the estimated end of the current nuclear age.

So why all this sudden urgency? Perhaps the most important message that underlined the lectures was it doesn't really matter all that much when Iran actually reaches the point when it can arm a Shihab-3 with a nuclear warhead. As Prof. Paul Bracken of Yale University said, "You don't have to detonate a nuclear weapon to use it. North Korea has been using nuclear weapons for year, that's how it's got more foreign aid than any country in Africa."

There's a lot Iran can do without actually firing a nuclear missile, without even having a complete weapon. "We might have a few more years," said Maj.-Gen. Amos Gilad, head of the political-military department at the Defense Ministry, but "there are also psychological events. The Iranian president can announce a major advance and it will have a huge influence over the Middle East.

"For decades, the Arab countries thought we have a nuclear weapon and knew they couldn't beat Israel, so there was no coalition forming against us. The Iranians could create a belief that they can beat us, and under their umbrella create an axis that will destabilize the Middle East."

Dr. Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who set out the various courses of action open to the US and Israel, recommended a much larger investment in antimissile defenses, not only to defend America and its allies from actual attack but also from any use of nuclear blackmail.

To different degrees, all the speakers made it clear that while diplomatic options still have to be used, they are no longer nearly enough. Even Burns, from behind his silk glove of diplomacy, acknowledged that efforts so far had only left Iran emboldened. "It has to learn to respect the power of the international security." he said.

And there don't seem to be too many ways to teach them that respect. The previously fashionable solution of regime change hasn't gone away, but it will take too long. As Bracken said, "It's probably true that globalization will take care of the regime in Iran, but that's not good advice to give a US president, that there will be democracy in Iran by 2300."

Perle didn't mince words. "Iran with nuclear weapons will not be that easily deterred or detained. The threat to destroy a large civilian population in a second-strike is not an easy threat to make, and anyway, by then it's too late. So when will Iran have a nuclear weapon? You can't wait for all the evidence to take a decision."

His solution was clear: "Precision attacks to critically damage the nuclear facilities, efficiently and quickly. B-2 bombers and cruise missiles can carry it out. Israel will have to do it if it's clear that there is a existential threat. Israel must do it and this president will join in. We have to make sure we don't fail, the worst thing would be a failed effort.

"If he is told on his last day in office that this is the point of no return and if you don't [act] you will have been the president to allow Iran to go nuclear, he will give the order."

2. A World Without Israel
by Josef Joffe
January/February 2005

Imagine that Israel never existed. Would the economic malaise and political repression that drive angry young men to become suicide bombers vanish? Would the Palestinians have an independent state? Would the United States, freed of its burdensome ally, suddenly find itself beloved throughout the Muslim world? Wishful thinking. Far from creating tensions, Israel actually contains more antagonisms than it causes.

Since World War II, no state has suffered so cruel a reversal of fortunes as Israel. Admired all the way into the 1970s as the state of "those plucky Jews" who survived against all odds and made democracy and the desert bloom in a climate hostile to both liberty and greenery, Israel has become the target of creeping delegitimization. The denigration comes in two guises. The first, the soft version, blames Israel first and most for whatever ails the Middle East, and for having corrupted U.S. foreign policy. It is the standard fare of editorials around the world, not to mention the sheer venom oozing from the pages of the Arab-Islamic press. The more recent hard version zeroes in on Israel's very existence. According to this dispensation, it is Israel as such, and not its behavior, that lies at the root of troubles in the Middle East. Hence the "statocidal" conclusion that Israel's birth, midwifed by both the United States and the Soviet Union in 1948, was a grievous mistake, grandiose and worthy as it may have been at the time.

The soft version is familiar enough. One motif is the "wagging the dog" theory. Thus, in the United States, the "Jewish lobby" and a cabal of neoconservatives have bamboozled the Bush administration into a mindless pro-Israel policy inimical to the national interest. This view attributes, as has happened so often in history, too much clout to the Jews. And behind this charge lurks a more general one -- that it is somehow antidemocratic for subnational groups to throw themselves into the hurly-burly of politics when it comes to foreign policy. But let us count the ways in which subnational entities battle over the national interest: unions and corporations clamor for tariffs and tax loopholes; nongovernmental organizations agitate for humanitarian intervention; and Cuban Americans keep us from smoking cheroots from the Vuelta Abajo. In previous years, Poles militated in favor of Solidarity, African Americans against Apartheid South Africa, and Latvians against the Soviet Union. In other words, the democratic melee has never stopped at the water's edge.

Another soft version is the "root-cause" theory in its many variations. Because the "obstinate" and "recalcitrant" Israelis are the main culprits, they must be punished and pushed back for the sake of peace. "Put pressure on Israel"; "cut economic and military aid"; "serve them notice that we will not condone their brutalities" -- these have been the boilerplate homilies, indeed the obsessions, of the chattering classes and the foreign-office establishment for decades. Yet, as Sigmund Freud reminded us, obsessions tend to spread. And so there are ever more creative addenda to the well-wrought root-cause theory. Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that what is happening between Israelis and Palestinians is a "tremendous obstacle to democratization because it inflames all the worst, most regressive aspects of Arab nationalism and Arab culture." In other words, the conflict drives the pathology, and not the other way around -- which is like the streetfighter explaining to the police: "It all started when this guy hit back."

The problem with this root-cause argument is threefold: It blurs, if not reverses, cause and effect. It ignores a myriad of conflicts unrelated to Israel. And it absolves the Arabs of culpability, shifting the blame to you know whom. If one believes former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the Arab-Islamic quest for weapons of mass destruction, and by extension the war against Iraq, are also Made in Israel. "[A]s long as Israel has nuclear weapons," Ritter opines, "it has chosen to take a path that is inherently confrontational...Now the Arab countries, the Muslim world, is not about to sit back and let this happen, so they will seek their own deterrent. We saw this in Iraq, not only with a nuclear deterrent but also with a biological weapons deterrent...that the Iraqis were developing to offset the Israeli nuclear superiority."

This theory would be engaging if it did not collide with some inconvenient facts. Iraqis didn't use their weapons of mass destruction against the Israeli usurper but against fellow Muslims during the Iran-Iraq War, and against fellow Iraqis in the poison-gas attack against Kurds in Halabja in 1988 -- neither of whom were brandishing any nuclear weapons. As for the Iraqi nuclear program, we now have the "Duelfer Report," based on the debriefing of Iraqi regime loyalists, which concluded: "Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior-level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary."

Now to the hard version. Ever so subtly, a more baleful tone slips into this narrative: Israel is not merely an unruly neighbor but an unwelcome intruder. Still timidly uttered outside the Arab world, this version's proponents in the West bestride the stage as truth-sayers who dare to defy taboo. Thus, the British writer A.N. Wilson declares that he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Israel, through its own actions, has proven it does not have the right to exist. And, following Sept. 11, 2001, Brazilian scholar Jose Arthur Giannotti said: "Let us agree that the history of the Middle East would be entirely different without the State of Israel, which opened a wound between Islam and the West. Can you get rid of Muslim terrorism without getting rid of this wound which is the source of the frustration of potential terrorists?"

The very idea of a Jewish state is an "anachronism," argues Tony Judt, a professor and director of the Remarque Institute at New York University. It resembles a "late-nineteenth-century separatist project" that has "no place" in this wondrous new world moving toward the teleological perfection of multiethnic and multicultural togetherness bound together by international law. The time has come to "think the unthinkable," hence, to ditch this Jewish state for a binational one, guaranteed, of course, by international force.

So let us assume that Israel is an anachronism and a historical mistake without which the Arab-Islamic world stretching from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria to Pakistan, would be a far happier place, above all because the original sin, the establishment of Israel, never would have been committed. Then let's move from the past to the present, pretending that we could wave a mighty magic wand, and "poof," Israel disappears from the map.

Civilization of Clashes

Let us start the what-if procession in 1948, when Israel was born in war. Would stillbirth have nipped the Palestinian problem in the bud? Not quite. Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon marched on Haifa and Tel Aviv not to liberate Palestine, but to grab it. The invasion was a textbook competitive power play by neighboring states intent on acquiring territory for themselves. If they had been victorious, a Palestinian state would not have emerged, and there still would have been plenty of refugees. (Recall that half the population of Kuwait fled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's "liberation" of that country in 1990.) Indeed, assuming that Palestinian nationalism had awakened when it did in the late 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinians might now be dispatching suicide bombers to Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere.

Let us imagine Israel had disappeared in 1967, instead of occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which were held, respectively, by Jordan's King Hussein and Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Would they have relinquished their possessions to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and thrown in Haifa and Tel Aviv for good measure? Not likely. The two potentates, enemies in all but name, were united only by their common hatred and fear of Arafat, the founder of Fatah (the Palestine National Liberation Movement) and rightly suspected of plotting against Arab regimes. In short, the "root cause" of Palestinian statelessness would have persisted, even in Israel's absence.

Let us finally assume, through a thought experiment, that Israel goes "poof" today. How would this development affect the political pathologies of the Middle East? Only those who think the Palestinian issue is at the core of the Middle East conflict would lightly predict a happy career for this most dysfunctional region once Israel vanishes. For there is no such thing as "the" conflict. A quick count reveals five ways in which the region's fortunes would remain stunted -- or worse:

States vs. States: Israel's elimination from the regional balance would hardly bolster intra-Arab amity. The retraction of the colonial powers, Britain and France, in the mid-20th century left behind a bunch of young Arab states seeking to redraw the map of the region. From the very beginning, Syria laid claim to Lebanon. In 1970, only the Israeli military deterred Damascus from invading Jordan under the pretext of supporting a Palestinian uprising. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Nasser's Egypt proclaimed itself the avatar of pan-Arabism, intervening in Yemen during the 1960s. Nasser's successor, President Anwar Sadat, was embroiled in on-and-off clashes with Libya throughout the late 1970s. Syria marched into Lebanon in 1976 and then effectively annexed the country 15 years later, and Iraq launched two wars against fellow Muslim states: Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990. The war against Iran was the longest conventional war of the 20th century. None of these conflicts is related to the Israeli-Palestinian one. Indeed, Israel's disappearance would only liberate military assets for use in such internal rivalries.

Believers vs. Believers: Those who think that the Middle East conflict is a "Muslim-Jewish thing" had better take a closer look at the score card: 14 years of sectarian bloodshed in Lebanon; Saddam's campaign of extinction against the Shia in the aftermath of the first Gulf War; Syria's massacre of 20,000 people in the Muslim Brotherhood stronghold of Hama in 1982; and terrorist violence against Egyptian Christians in the 1990s. Add to this tally intraconfessional oppression, such as in Saudi Arabia, where the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect wields the truncheon of state power to inflict its dour lifestyle on the less devout.

Ideologies vs. Ideologies: Zionism is not the only "ism" in the region, which is rife with competing ideologies. Even though the Baathist parties in Syria and Iraq sprang from the same fascist European roots, both have vied for precedence in the Middle East. Nasser wielded pan-Arabism-cum-socialism against the Arab nation-state. And both Baathists and Nasserites have opposed the monarchies, such as in Jordan. Khomeinist Iran and Wahhabite Saudi Arabia remain mortal enemies. What is the connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Nil, with the exception of Hamas, a terror army of the faithful once supported by Israel as a rival to the Palestine Liberation Organization and now responsible for many suicide bombings in Israel. But will Hamas disband once Israel is gone? Hardly. Hamas has bigger ambitions than eliminating the "Zionist entity." The organization seeks nothing less than a unified Arab state under a regime of God.

Reactionary Utopia vs. Modernity: A common enmity toward Israel is the only thing that prevents Arab modernizers and traditionalists from tearing their societies apart. Fundamentalists vie against secularists and reformist Muslims for the fusion of mosque and state under the green flag of the Prophet. And a barely concealed class struggle pits a minuscule bourgeoisie and millions of unemployed young men against the power structure, usually a form of statist cronyism that controls the means of production. Far from creating tensions, Israel actually contains the antagonisms in the world around it.

Regimes vs. Peoples: The existence of Israel cannot explain the breadth and depth of the Mukhabarat states (secret police states) throughout the Middle East. With the exceptions of Jordan, Morocco, and the Gulf sheikdoms, which gingerly practice an enlightened monarchism, all Arab countries (plus Iran and Pakistan) are but variations of despotism -- from the dynastic dictatorship of Syria to the authoritarianism of Egypt. Intranational strife in Algeria has killed nearly 100,000, with no letup in sight. Saddam's victims are said to number 300,000. After the Khomeinists took power in 1979, Iran was embroiled not only in the Iran-Iraq War but also in barely contained civil unrest into the 1980s. Pakistan is an explosion waiting to happen. Ruthless suppression is the price of stability in this region.

Again, it would take a florid imagination to surmise that factoring Israel out of the Middle East equation would produce liberal democracy in the region. It might be plausible to argue that the dialectic of enmity somehow favors dictatorship in "frontline states" such as Egypt and Syria -- governments that invoke the proximity of the "Zionist threat" as a pretext to suppress dissent. But how then to explain the mayhem in faraway Algeria, the bizarre cult-of-personality regime in Libya, the pious kleptocracy of Saudi Arabia, the clerical despotism of Iran, or democracy's enduring failure to take root in Pakistan? Did Israel somehow cause the various putsches that produced the republic of fear in Iraq? If Jordan, the state sharing the longest border with Israel, can experiment with constitutional monarchy, why not Syria?

It won't do to lay the democracy and development deficits of the Arab world on the doorstep of the Jewish state. Israel is a pretext, not a cause, and therefore its dispatch will not heal the self-inflicted wounds of the Arab-Islamic world. Nor will the mild version of "statocide," a binational state, do the trick -- not in view of the "civilization of clashes" (to borrow a term from British historian Niall Ferguson) that is the hallmark of Arab political culture. The mortal struggle between Israelis and Palestinians would simply shift from the outside to the inside.

My Enemy, Myself

Can anybody proclaim in good conscience that these dysfunctionalities of the Arab world would vanish along with Israel? Two U.N. "Arab Human Development Reports," written by Arab authors, say no. The calamities are homemade. Stagnation and hopelessness have three root causes. The first is lack of freedom. The United Nations cites the persistence of absolute autocracies, bogus elections, judiciaries beholden to executives, and constraints on civil society. Freedom of expression and association are also sharply limited. The second root cause is lack of knowledge: Sixty-five million adults are illiterate, and some 10 million children have no schooling at all. As such, the Arab world is dropping ever further behind in scientific research and the development of information technology. Third, female participation in political and economic life is the lowest in the world. Economic growth will continue to lag as long as the potential of half the population remains largely untapped.

Will all of this right itself when that Judeo-Western insult to Arab pride finally vanishes? Will the millions of unemployed and bored young men, cannon fodder for the terrorists, vanish as well -- along with one-party rule, corruption, and closed economies? This notion makes sense only if one cherishes single-cause explanations or, worse, harbors a particular animus against the Jewish state and its refusal to behave like Sweden. (Come to think of it, Sweden would not be Sweden either if it lived in the Hobbesian world of the Middle East.)

Finally, the most popular what-if issue of them all: Would the Islamic world hate the United States less if Israel vanished? Like all what-if queries, this one, too, admits only suggestive evidence. To begin, the notion that 5 million Jews are solely responsible for the rage of 1 billion or so Muslims cannot carry the weight assigned to it. Second, Arab-Islamic hatreds of the United States preceded the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza. Recall the loathing left behind by the U.S.-managed coup that restored the shah's rule in Tehran in 1953, or the U.S. intervention in Lebanon in 1958. As soon as Britain and France left the Middle East, the United States became the dominant power and the No. 1 target. Another bit of suggestive evidence is that the fiercest (unofficial) anti-Americanism emanates from Washington's self-styled allies in the Arab Middle East, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Is this situation because of Israel -- or because it is so convenient for these regimes to "busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels" (as Shakespeare's Henry IV put it) to distract their populations from their dependence on the "Great Satan"?

Take the Cairo Declaration against "U.S. hegemony," endorsed by 400 delegates from across the Middle East and the West in December 2002. The lengthy indictment mentions Palestine only peripherally. The central condemnation, uttered in profuse variation, targets the United States for monopolizing power "within the framework of capitalist globalization," for reinstating "colonialism," and for blocking the "emergence of forces that would shift the balance of power toward multi-polarity." In short, Global America is responsible for all the afflictions of the Arab world, with Israel coming in a distant second.

This familiar tale has an ironic twist: One of the key signers is Nader Fergany, lead author of the 2002 U.N. Arab Human Development Report. So even those who confess to the internal failures of the Arab world end up blaming "the Other." Given the enormity of the indictment, ditching Israel will not absolve the United States. Iran's Khomeinists have it right, so to speak, when they denounce America as the "Great Satan" and Israel only as the "Little Satan," a handmaiden of U.S. power. What really riles America-haters in the Middle East is Washington's intrusion into their affairs, be it for reasons of oil, terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction. This fact is why Osama bin Laden, having attached himself to the Palestinian cause only as an afterthought, calls the Americans the new crusaders, and the Jews their imperialist stand-ins.

None of this is to argue in favor of Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, nor to excuse the cruel hardship it imposes on the Palestinians, which is pernicious, even for Israel's own soul. But as this analysis suggests, the real source of Arab angst is the West as a palpable symbol of misery and an irresistible target of what noted Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami has called "Arab rage." The puzzle is why so many Westerners, like those who signed the Cairo Declaration, believe otherwise.

Is this anti-Semitism, as so many Jews are quick to suspect? No, but denying Israel's legitimacy bears an uncanny resemblance to some central features of this darkest of creeds. Accordingly, the Jews are omnipotent, ubiquitous, and thus responsible for the evils of the world. Today, Israel finds itself in an analogous position, either as handmaiden or manipulator of U.S. might. The soft version sighs: "If only Israel were more reasonable..." The semihard version demands that "the United States pull the rug out from under Israel" to impose the pliancy that comes from impotence. And the hard-hard version dreams about salvation springing from Israel's disappearance. Why, sure -- if it weren't for that old joke from Israel's War of Independence: While the bullets were whistling overhead and the two Jews in their foxhole were running out of rounds, one griped, "If the Brits had to give us a country not their own, why couldn't they have given us Switzerland?" Alas, Israel is just a strip of land in the world's most noxious neighborhood, and the cleanup hasn't even begun.

Josef Joffe is the publisher of Die Zeit, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and distinguished fellow at the Institute for International Studies, both at Stanford University.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Neal Sher, January 23, 2007.

Please note that this email reveals disturbing information I received from the first Executive Director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. It seems that President Carter, in Nixonesque fashion, was engaged in "Jew counting."

The more we learn about Jimmy Carter's one-sided and biased views towards Israel and her supporters in this country, the more reason we have to be deeply troubled by what he represents and the dangerous mischief he continues to foment.

There is not enough space to repeat the detailed and well documented critiques of his best selling book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. They are, however, aptly summarized by Dr. Kenneth Stein, one of the many former aides and colleagues publicly to have disassociated themselves from the former president, who charged that: "[the book] is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

One of the book's most egregious -- and now infamous passages -- is found at page 213, where Carter advises "the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups" to make clear that "suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism" will end once when Israel accepts the ultimate goals of the "Roadmap." Thus the former president sanctions -- indeed encourages -- continued suicide bombings until Israel meets Arab demands. In fact, what seems to trouble him most about such Arab acts is not that they kill innocent Israeli civilians, but that they may damage sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

Despite the in depth criticism of his thesis, Carter has dug in, stubbornly insisting that his book is both "accurate and needed," blaming the firestorm he has triggered on Jewish American organizations and while he accuses the pro-Israel community of trying to stifle him or any debate on Middle East policy.

And, let's not ignore his interview on the Al Jazeera network during which he astonishingly proclaimed that Palestinian missile attacks against Israeli citizens do not, to his way of thinking, constitute acts of terror. Even his apparent condemnation of the killing of children and bombing buses is problematic, as it is couched in terms of damaging sympathy for the Palestinian cause. This approach is reminiscent of that employed by Arafat who, to the extent he ever was in any way critical of acts of terror, complained only because he thought it was tactically disadvantageous.

Not surprisingly and very tellingly, Carter's frontal attacks have been warmly embraced by a nasty cast of scoundrels, including white supremacists groups and websites such as Stormfront and Aryan Nations as well as David Duke and the notorious Holocaust denying Institute of Historical Review.

It is with good reason that Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Howard Dean have publicly distanced themselves from Mr. Carter, a lead which hopefully others will follow No Democratic leader or official has come to Carter's defense, and partisan attempts to use his comments to smear all Democrats as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic should not be tolerated.

The ongoing controversy, including the Carter Center's acceptance of millions of dollars from anti-Israel Arab sources, including the Saudi royal family, and the Bin Laden family prompted me last month to reveal to the JTA a disturbing 1987 encounter I had with Mr. Carter, while I was the Director of the Office of Special Investigations in the Justice Department, as he took up the cause of the family of an admitted Nazi SS concentration camp who had been stripped of citizenship by a federal court and removed from the country. See:

If one didn't know better, you'd think that we were not talking about a former president, but rather Pat Buchanan. After all, it was Mr. Buchanan, was it not, who over the years: denigrated Israel by calling it, among other things, an albatross around this country's neck, as he blamed her for the wars in Iraq; demeaned the pro-Israel lobby for having turned Capitol Hill into what he calls "Israeli occupied territory"; and came to the aid of Nazi criminals being pursued by our government, even while serving as communications director in the Reagan White House.

As troubling as all of this is, there is more. I have received correspondence which ineluctably leads to the comparison of Jimmy Carter to the darkest side of Richard Nixon.

In response to my earlier Op Ed, on December 27 of last year [see below] I received an email from Professor Monroe Freedman, a distinguished member of the faculty of Hofstra Law School in New York. He had been the first executive director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which had been created during the Carter administration. Working closely with Elie Wiesel, Freedman put forward to the White House a list of Council members. The recommendations came back disapproved, and Freedman remembers well the reason: "In the top corner, in Carter's handwriting and with his initials was the notation: 'Too many Jews'"

It certainly looks like Mr. Carter took a page right out of the playbook of the disgraced Nixon, who, in a most paranoid and bigoted of moments, instructed an aide to count the Jews in the Labor Department where he believed his economic policies were being obstructed.

To all those who doubt that Jews are an extraordinary people or that Israel is an extraordinary nation, I ask: who else could bring together and find common cause between the likes of Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan David Duke and Jimmy Carter? Enough said.

Neal Sher, a New York attorney, previously served as the Director of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations and is the former Executive Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He can be reached at nsher@erols.com.

Editor's Note: The cartoon is by Cox and Forkun and is taken from the Gathering Storm Blog

To Go To Top

Posted by Reuven Kossover, January 23, 2007.

This was written by Reuven who lives in Ma'aleh Levona. His website is called BlogCritics.org and this article is archived at
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/01/19/070649.php He was born in Brooklyn and lived in Minnesota for a number of years. There he managed restaurants and wrote stories. He moved with his family to Israel where they now reside. He is also published by the Root & Branch Information Service and by Jewish Indianapolis

Writing on this subject is very tricky. "Destiny" implies something far more than a mere political analysis. The truth is, the more I think about it, it is the destiny of the people of Israel that I am meant to pay attention to.

But before I go further, I need to set down some definitions, so that you, the reader, know exactly what I'm talking about. Otherwise the semantic confusion can prevent you from understanding either the meaning or the import of this article. In addition, I would like to express my thanks to Rabbi Yehoshua Friedman for fine-tuning certain points of Jewish law.

So, here we go.

I. Defining the terms

1. Zionist movement: a largely secular movement to bring Jews home to the Land of Israel.

2. State of Israel: the political expression of the Zionist movement.

3. Children of Israel: the descendants of Jacob (Israel), son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of TeraH, a high priest in Sumer, in the city of Ur, who left for the city of Paran when the king he served died. After a period of time, Abraham, commanded by G-d, continued westwards to the Land of Canaan.

4. People of Israel (Hebrews): the descendants of the sons of Israel, who were divided into a number of tribes.

5. Land of Israel: territory designated by the Torah [BaMidbr/Numbers 34:1-15] or the Tana"kh [Ezekiel 47:3-23, 48:1-35] as the territory that G-d has given the People of Israel.

6. Kingdom of Israel: This has three definitions.

a) the Kingdom of Sha'úl (Saul), David, and Shlmo (Solomon) which extended as far as the Euphrates River at the height of its power;

b) the secessionist kingdom of ten tribes that separated from the tribes of Yehud (Judah) and Shim'n after the death of Shlmo (Solomon) and accession to the throne of his son ReHavm. With time, this kingdom weakened and the territory of the tribe of Benyamn became part of the southern kingdom of Yehud (Judah);

c) in messianic times, the Kingdom of Israel will be the entity that succeeds the State of Israel and any other entity that rules here.

7. Jews: Originally, the descendants (tribe) of Yehud, one of the sons of Israel. With time, the tribe of Shim'on merged into the tribe of Yehud, and with time, the tribe of Benyamn merged as well [Scroll of Esther 2: 5-6]. At the time of its fall, the Kingdom of Yehud represented the tribes of Yehud, Shim'on, Benyamin and those people of the tribe of Lev who lived within the borders of the kingdom. The descendants of these people are the Jews mentioned in definition #1.

a) According to Halakh (normative Jewish law), a Jew is the child of a Jewish mother, or a convert to the religion who accepts the entire corpus of 613 commandments of the Torah. If male, the convert needs to be circumcised. All converts are required to immerse in flowing water or a mikv (ritual bath). According to the rules of the Rabbinate, the official Jewish religious body in Israel, the forgoing definition is the only definition of who is a Jew.

b) According to the ministries of interior and of absorption of the State of Israel, the forgoing definition is the primary definition of who is a Jew. But these ministries will accept other individuals who have Jewish grandparents as Jews. It should be noted that the Israel High Court of Justice has ruled that non-normative (i.e. non-"Orthodox") conversions from overseas will be accepted as well. But at the same time, the ministry of the interior has refused to accept some converts, even "Orthodox" ones, for automatic citizenship, requiring a rather arbitrary waiting period and naturalization process.

8. Israeli: This has two definitions.

a) one who lives within the State of Israel, or who has Israeli citizenship and who is subject to its jurisdiction;

b) an artificial cultural construct, a creation of the Zionist movement, an attempt to create a new Jew, one uninfluenced by the rabbis and the decadent Jewish culture of Eastern Europe.

9. Palestine: This has three definitions.

a) The territory of the Land of Israel under the name given it by the Romans in 100 CE or so, Syria Palestina. This name was given the territory to insult the Jewish (Judean) inhabitants of the country, as the name Palestine recalls the name Philistine, an Aegean people that fled to this country, settling in the vicinity of what are now the cities of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Gath, and who were traditional enemies and persecutors of the Children of Israel;

b) the territory covering both sides of the Jordan River granted to the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the League of Nations as a "Mandate", with the stated purpose of creating within it a "Jewish national homeland." The British separated most of this territory from its direct rule and administered it as the Emirate of Transjordan with the son of Feisal, Sherif of Mecca and Medina, Abdallah, as Emir. Under international law, the Palestine Mandate was the successor state to the Ottoman Empire where it had jurisdiction. The successor states to the Palestine Mandate are the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan;

c) the political construct of Arab terrorist organizations who wish to end the State of Israel, and to end the Jewish presence in this region.

10. Palestinian: This has two definitions.

a) A resident of the territory of Mandate Palestine, an individual under its legal jurisdiction. It should be noted here that for the entire period of British rule, the Arabs resident in Mandate Palestine did not self identify as "Palestinians," but as members of the Arab "Umma;"

b) an artificial cultural construct of the terrorist movements representing the Arab refugees who left the Palestine Mandate during the war that broke out in 1947-49. A great deal of "academic" work was done by the Husseini family to construct a history for this non-existent nationality. Additional work was done by discredited scholars such as Edward Sad, who was shown by Justus Weiner to have lied about basic facts about his own life. Only after the founding of the Palestine Liberation organization, did the Arabs claim to be "Palestinian."

Now to clarify my own biases.

I am a Jew. I am a citizen of the State of Israel, and therefore an Israeli under definition 8a above. But when I express my own opinions, I am not talking as an Israeli, under the artificial construct of 8b above. I speak as a Jew, and as a member of one of the tribes of Israel.

As for me, I believe that the State of Israel is collapsing of its own corruption and lack of purpose, as it has already served its purpose. But it will be replaced, not by a "Palestine," but by a Jewish entity far different from what we have seen, and one that is able to cope with the coming reunification of Yehud (the Jews) with the brother tribes that appeared lost to history. Nothing is lost under the sight of G-d. I refer you all to the Book of Ezekiel [Ezekiel 36:6-38, 37:1-28].

There is one further thing I must make absolutely clear here. In writing this, I'm not dealing with the "Arab-Israeli crisis," the "Middle East crisis" or any other of the cataracts that stand in the way of free flow of thought, ideas, people, and commerce in this part of the world. I'm not writing about peace, I'm not writing about war. I'm not writing about making peace or making war. Those issues are not for this article. I'm writing solely about the destiny of my people, the People of Israel.

II. Where do I come in?

I believed, when I pressured my wife to move to this country, that the reason for the move was to protect my children from the corrosive influence of American culture, and to prevent them from assimilating into it, marrying non-Jews, and likely losing their Jewish heritage in the process. So, I listened very carefully when a thirty-year-old Israeli, the fellow on the other side of the counter of Pizza Maestro, which used to serve excellent pizza in the East Talpiot neighborhood of Jerusalem, explained to me that my sons would assimilate into Israeli culture. I had already figured out that what passed for Israeli culture was a very pale imitation of the corrosive culture I had thought I had left behind in America.

After having a good think, I turned on the laptop we had brought with us to the absorption center and started re-reading the essays that Barry Chamish wrote about the political establishment in Israel. I started re-reading the nightmare complaints of other recent and not so recent immigrants to this country. I started to compare my own experiences to the ones I read about, and carefully compare what I really wanted to do with what I was doing as a new immigrant.

I realized that I had been duped. My goal -- getting away from American culture and assimilation into it ad been a mere carrot. There was something further behind this immediate goal that I did not really understand -- something that has only become clear in the last couple of weeks.

Did G-d come to me in the fireplace, like one of those wizards in the Harry Potter books, to tell me my destiny and that I had been duped? No. We don't have a fireplace, to start with. We have a small (too small) electric heater to keep our house warm. And G-d didn't show up in the heater either, as an Entity that didn't become consumed.

This was a slow realization, one that has come to me with the people that I "chanced" to meet, and in the events that have "chanced" to occur in my life.

For example, was it chance that an agnostic who identified himself culturally as a Jew but who did not really observe any of its laws, met a woman who knew nothing about Judaism, but who knew more about faith in G-d than a deck of theologians? Was it chance that I, the agnostic who challenged even the purpose of his bar mitzvah from the bim in the synagogue (after doing a workmanlike job of chanting the verses required of me) was now forced to teach this woman the Judaism he had run away from? Was it chance that I had always talked about the perfect number of children being four, (and hoping in his heart that he would have four boys) that I fathered four sons -- one aborted by the mother, one who died after sixteen weeks in the womb, and two that lived?

Was it chance that after applying my wife's basic formula of "G-d will provide" after walking out of a night auditor's job in disgust with absolutely no idea of where the next paycheck would come from found, by "chance", that he could return to the management job he had left at Burger King four years earlier? Was it chance that we were able to buy a house in Saint Paul in 1993, at the lowest interest rate in forty years, and realize a gain of over 100% in its sale eight years later in one of the hottest real estate markets our neighborhood had seen in decades? Was it chance that the commander of my volunteer police unit insisted that I be assigned to Tuesday night duty instead of the Friday morning assignment I preferred? Was it chance that I met Aryeh Gallin on the first night I was doing patrol, and discovered how much we had in common in our outlooks in political affairs?

Was it chance that after meeting Aryeh Gallin and becoming associated with the Root & Branch Association that he runs, I was able to meet people like Barry Chamish, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Vendyl Jones, Dr. Paul Eidelberg, Moshe Feiglin, and a whole slew of other people who represent the bubbling pot of intellectual ideas in Jerusalem and the rest of the country?

Was this all chance?

No. I don't think so. I don't really believe in chance. I used to. Now, I don't. Not anymore. In my life, I have been pushed, indirectly sometimes, sometimes in a most rude way, to understand that G-d runs the universe and that my survival depends on trust in that G-d.

There are no links to check all this out. My life is not a URL on the Internet. But now, based on all this, when I see works that doubt that "mere chance" is the ruling force of the universe, I'm not too hard to convince.

III. A glimpse of the future

In early December, Aryeh Gallin sent me e-mails about a post-doctoral student from India. There is nothing special about that. Israel has world class universities, like the Technion in Haifa and the Weitzmann Institute near Rishon l' Tzion, and India sends thousands of young men and women to study science here. But Dr. Aafreedi, the young man whom Aryeh wanted to invite to speak at the Israel Center in a Root & Branch presentation, is not a scientist. He is a historian. In addition, he was studying Jewish history with the intent of linking it to the history of his own people, the Pakhtun who live in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, to our own.

The Pakhtun claim to be descendants of the tribes that were expelled from our country when the Assyrians conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel (see definition 6b) 2,700 years ago. They are not clear which particular tribe, but a Jewish woman I chanced to meet on the bus a couple of days ago said that the Pakhtun are descendants of the tribe of Ephraim. Dr. Aafreedi apparently believes the same thing, particularly about the "khel" or "tribe" of Afridi, his own. Jewish history, and the history of the People of Israel generally, appears fraught with delicious ironies and the Child of Israel who lacks a sense of humor lacks sense altogether.

A large number of the Pakhtun comprise the Taliban.

Dr. Aafreedi spoke on 20 December 2006, but due to changes in the Egged bus routing, I was unable to get to town to be master of ceremonies that night. I only got to meet Dr. Aafreedi in Jerusalem last Thursday (11 January). Put simply, he is the best news our people have seen in 2,700 years, since the Assyrians destroyed the northern Kingdom of Israel. He is a fellow Israelite. He is one of over 40 million fellow Israelites, including, yes including, the Taliban. G-d indeed, has a sense of humor, a sense of humor sharper than the sharpest of needles.

It's enough to make a guy laugh till the tears come out of his eyes in pain, and cry until the tears come out of his eyes in joy.

For over two millennia, Jews have more or less considered themselves the only remaining Children of Israel, figuring that the other tribes had been lost to history. We have taken a term from the Bible, "sheart" -- remnant -- and applied it to ourselves. Thus, you see the name of many synagogues in the Western world -- "Sheart Yisraél" -- Remnant of Israel. Apparently, this may be a misperception.

In addition to all the forced converts away from the religion who are now coming back to the faith, like the descendants of the Spanish and Portuguese "anusim," we Jews now have to come to grips with the fact that we are only a small portion of a larger people. According to Rabbi Dr.Yehuda Bohrer, one group of Israelites from the general area of Bokhara claim to be descended from the tribe of Reuvén. They never lost their laws or traditions and have retained the links with Jews and are now considered as Jews.

Unlike the members of the tribe of Reuvén, the Pakhtun appear to have lost much of the ties to our people. Nevertheless, they have been claiming to be Children of Israel for over a thousand years; they claim that the original king Afghana, the first king of the royal line of Afghanistan, was a descendant of Sha'l, of the tribe of Benyamn. Jewish merchants who lived in Kabul always could travel without fear to the Pakhtun lands, where they were recognized by the Pakhtuns as fellow Children of Israel. Today, the Pakhtun, who live in places that have media hostile to the State of Israel, like India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, look upon us Jews as brothers from the wrong side of the tracks. If there is the possibility that Dr. Aafreedi can prove the claims of his people using methods that go beyond mere references in Persian or Jewish writings, then we Jews have the interesting task of "recognizing Joseph" (Ephraim was a son of Joseph). And the Pakhtun are going to have to get to know their brothers, the Jews.

Oy vey!

[Editor's Note: See also the article called "Indians With Biblical Roots" by Dr. Navras Jaat Aafreedi in this issue of Think-Israel. Click here.]

Contact Reuven Kossover at the Root and Branch Association (rb@rb.org.il).

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, January 23, 2007.

The Yesha Council highlights the deceptions in a recent study by the ultra-left wing Peace Now group purporting to show that 40% of Yesha communities are built on private Arab land.

"The so-called facts in the Peace Now report are from the true reality," the Yesha Council says.

The Yesha Council has named its report, currently underway, "The Protocols of Peace Now -- the Great Deception." It includes maps, documents, quotations -- and an itemized list of "simple, ridiculous mistakes, as well as the lack of sincerity, that typify the criminal negligence that characterizes this hate-motivated report."

Praised by Arabs

The Peace Now report received lavished praise from Palestinian Authority Arabs. The PA news agency Ma'an recently wrote that it "shows part of the true face of the Hebrew State... It shows that private Arab-owned lands were simply stolen by the Hebrew state to build settlements -- disproving the claim of four decades... The report was not publicized by me or by a Palestinian organization, but by an Israeli organization -- and Israel cannot deny it... Where are all the Israeli mottos about justice, democracy and civil rights?... This is now a 'ready-to-go' case for the International Court... Now that Peace Now has given this gift to the land-owners, we must thank this organization, and see what the land-owners and the PA will do; for this is much to do..."

"The Peace Now members are running around the world with this report," a Yesha Council source said, "in order to malign the State of Israel - but it is filled with distorted data and lies. All is apparently fair and acceptable in their war against the Jewish communities."

Peace Now members are currently lobbying U.S. Congressmen against Israel based on their report. Nationalist camp activists say that Peace Now's objective is to make the approval of U.S. aid to Israel contingent upon the withdrawal of Israeli financial support for all Yesha communities allegedly on private Arab land, as well as the destruction of all hilltop outposts.

No State-Owned Lands in Yesha?

The point of departure of the Peace Now report, the Yesha Council says, is that "all of Judea and Samaria is private Arab-owned land unless proven otherwise." The entire concept of state-owned lands essentially does not exist for Peace Now, says Council leader Pinchas Wallerstein.

Only a small percentage of Judea and Samaria is actually privately-owned, however. A legal expert familiar with the area told Arutz-7 that "perhaps 5%" of the uninhabited land there is privately-owned. "Vast areas in Judea and Samaria lay totally desolate in 1967 when Israel liberated them in the Six Day War," he said. Most of these areas were then designated as state-owned, in the absence of other documentation.

For instance, most of Maaleh Adumim -- one of the largest cities in Judea and Samaria, just east of Jerusalem -- appears on the Peace Now report as if built on private land, when in fact it was built on state-owned lands.

The Yesha report also shows that Peace Now falsely "expanded" the borders of Jewish communities into Arab-owned land. "Additional area around the communities was simply added to the Jewish towns," a Yesha source said, "as if to prove that the Jews had stolen the land -- when in fact the communities don't claim these areas at all."

Peace Now even ignores a ruling by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak, Wallerstein states. Barak ruled in the past that the community of Etz Ephraim, near Elkanah, is built on Jewish-owned land -- yet Peace Now has it on Arab land.

Neither does Peace Now recognize the sale of land, apparently. The Modiin-area community of Kfar Oranim, for instance, whose land was duly purchased from Arabs, appears in the Peace Now report as "mostly Arab-owned."

The Essential Goal: An End to Jewish Presence in Judea and Samaria

Peace Now's activities center largely on making life difficult, if not impossible, for Jews living in Judea and Samaria. One of its major campaigns in recent months has been waged against the construction of 33 high-rise buildings in a section of Modi'in Illit, some of which were built on land belonging to the nearby Arab village of Bil'in. A Peace Now spokesperson speaking with Arutz-7 at the time did not rule out the possibility that it would seek a court order to demolish the buildings -- though Jewish families had already purchased and moved into many of the apartments.

This past December, the nearly 200 people of Migron, south of Beit El, learned that Defense Minister Peretz plans to forcibly expel them in several months if no "voluntary evacuation" agreement is reached. Though some of the land on which Migron was founded is officially listed as Arab-owned, these Arabs had never come forward to make their claim, nor had they ever cultivated or laid any claim to it -- until Peace Now sought them out and encouraged them to do so.

Peace Now has also targeted new construction in Maaleh Adumim, Maaleh Rechavam, a neighborhood in Eli, and many more locations, and has demanded the destruction of some 120 hilltop outposts throughout Judea and Samaria. It frequently files suit in the Supreme Court against what it feels is the government's slow pace in demolishing areas of Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.

Last month, a petition by Peace Now has prompted Attorney General Mazuz to open a limited criminal investigation against government officials who arranged funding for Yesha outposts.

MK Uri Ariel said that the "deceptive Peace Now report is another attempt to foster conflict and ignite a war... Peace Now does not promote peace amongst the Jews, nor between us and the Arabs." Yaakov (Ketzaleh) Katz of Beit El, a veteran leader of the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria, said about Peace Now's latest report, "They merely want to weaken us and the State of Israel." Gush Etzion settlement leader Nadia Matar has said that "members of Peace Now are spying and informing on behalf of the Arab enemy."

International Funding

Notably, Peace Now's costly expenses in detailing every new Israeli structure in Judea and Samaria are largely funded by foreign governments. Investigative reporter David Bedein says the organization is or has been effectively on the payroll of at least three European governments -- Britain, Norway, and Finland -- and has also been funded by the Economic Cooperation Foundation, a group funded directly by the European Union.

Britain and Norway are fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israeli communities in Yesha, thus that the money they give Peace Now invariably serves those governments' foreign policy interests. Despite this, the organization is not required under Israeli law to register as a foreign agent. In contrast, Bedein explained, if the organization were operating in the United States, it would have to register as a foreign agent with the U.S. Justice Department.

Bedein said Peace Now "was in effect spying on Israel for foreign governments," and engages in surveillance activities relating not only to Israeli communities, but also on military installations belonging to the IDF.

Outposts Have a Purpose

The Yesha Council report opens with a strong criticism of the type of work Peace Now does:

"The very decision to evacuate outposts, to the cheers of the Palestinians, as if we were disciplining third-graders along the style of, 'Get out, stand in the corner, show us your papers and then return,' without checking seriously even one time what the real objective of these outposts is and how they will contribute to less friction and a better atmosphere -- for this alone the Knesset should vote no-confidence in the government." These words were uttered in the Knesset by then-MK Ariel Sharon on October 18, 1999.

Sharon explained at the time that one of the justifications for the outposts is to guarantee Israeli access to various routes in the area. "For instance," he said, " Elon Moreh, Itamar and the Shilo bloc must be connected to the Alon route in the Jordan Valley to their east. If we don't sit on important points along these routes, who will defend them?"

Hillel Fendel is senior editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, January 23, 2007.

What's the biggest threat in the Middle East today? Answer: Iran, both directly and indirectly. Directly because of its expansion of influence in Iraq and drive for nuclear weapons; indirectly because of its sponsorship of radical groups and the most extremist Arab state, Syria.

And who gave us Islamist Iran, inasmuch as any foreign factor could have done so. Answer: Jimmy Carter, through his incompetence at dealing with the Iranian revolution and its aftermath, plus his weakness in managing the state-sanctioned kidnapping of several dozen American diplomats. If George Bush created post-Saddam Iraq, Carter helped produce the monstrosity in Tehran. So now, this latter failed president is trying to distract attention from his own responsibility, without ever a word on the world's only openly genocidal state, and of course insisting that Israel is the only problem in the region.

This type of misdirection is always a welcome tool in the arsenal of otherwise no good leaders. Which brings us to Mahmoud Abbas. A good way to examine the situation in Palestinian politics is to consider his most important recent statement, to the January 11 Fatah rally marking that group's 42nd anniversary. It is worth noting that in fact Fatah is 47 years old. Why the five-year difference? Because Fatah dates its origin from the first terror attack on Israel, not its political origin, showing its continuing identification with violence.

Abbas began his speech with a quote from the Koran, something Yasir Arafat used to do but not seen previously from Abbas or other Fatah leaders. Clearly, this is an attempt to appear more Islamic to appeal to Hamas and its constituency. Needless to say, it won't work.

The point of the quote was that divisions are disastrous, which seems obvious enough, but here there is a fatal flaw. The real issue for the Palestinian political scene is not unity, but who is leading. Fatah is not willing to have unity at the expense of being the junior partner of Hamas. This is not just the normal desire to be in power. Fatah leaders are psychologically incapable of accepting the fact that they are only number two. That is still another reason why unity is impossible.

Within seconds of his call for unity, the crowd is shouting, "Hamas is Shiite!" Not only do the Fatah people hate Hamas, which after all is killing their cadre and taking the loot away from them, but they are now thinking in the framework of the new Middle East sectarian war. Hamas sides with Shia Iran, which is heresy for Arab nationalists, and with Hizballah, which is very uncomfortable for Sunni Muslims (Hizballah has very bad relations with most Lebanese Sunnis right now). So while Abbas said, "We are all sons of one people," the crowd continued to chant against the Shiites.

Abbas then, as Fatah's credentials, recited a long list of 15 "martyrs," all of them involved deeply in terrorist operations, including the leaders of Black September which carried out many airplane hijackings and murderous attacks. There was no mention of moderate PLO or Fatah officials killed by radical factions. What this shows is that the Palestinian nationalists--like the Islamists--view terrorism as their great achievement in the past, a concept that also locks them into this approach in the present and future. It is easy to take this compilation of glorious achievements for granted, yet it is amazing nonetheless. Is the problem that Abbas cannot or will not do what most politicians would, talk about what Fatah has done for the Palestinians in material terms? The answer is both. After forty-whatever years, the Palestinian national movement has little to show except its survival. And that is part of the problem.

Next comes Abbas' solution: that all factions should unite in turning their guns against Israel, not each other. It is certainly understandable that he say so. Even if he had moderate intentions, this is certainly the easiest and "cleverest" strategy to follow. Yet everyone should understand that by following this path, Abbas underlines the fact that diplomacy and negotiations for peace thus become impossible. Abbas cannot deliver anything because of his weakness, but he also cannot deliver anything because of his strategy. First, to compete with Hamas by showing Fatah is better at armed struggle. Second, he proposes to unite with Hamas by both of them fighting alongside each other.

In doing so, Abbas rejects three other strategies, and so does the overwhelming majority of his organization. One option that isn't considered--and was not used under his predecessor either--is to compete with Hamas by material achievement, that is, by improving his people's lives. A second, which is linked to the first, is to outshine them by making a compromise peace and getting a Palestinian state. Finally, there is the option of waging all-out war on Hamas and winning.

This reality is part of the picture that makes Palestinian unity, moderation, or peace-making out of the question. The anarchy will continue in Gaza and the West Bank partly due to the impossibility of compromise between two sides competing for power and money; partly as a result of the broader regional conflict, in which Fatah and Hamas are on different sides. And for these same reasons, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue to decline in regional importance. As for the Arab-Israeli conflict (as distinct from the Israeli-Islamist or Israeli-Iran conflicts), it exists only in demagogic speeches and the illusions of Westerners who know little about the region.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerusalem Post Staff, January 23, 2007.

This was written by Jerusalem Post Staff.

Three nuclear weapons constitute a second Holocaust. Enemies are explicit in their desire to destroy us. We are sleepwalking through this as if diplomatic engagement will create a fiesta where we will all love one another," Newt Gingrich, Former US Speaker of the House of Representatives, told the Herzliya conference on Tuesday via satellite.

According to Gingrich, "Israel is facing the greatest danger for its survival since the 1967 victory. Israel maintained its dominance since 1967 even after the 1973 failure. In 1984 I wrote that WMD and terrorism would pose a threat for US national security. If two or three cities are destroyed because of terrorism both the US and Israel's democracy will be eroded and both will become greater dictatorial societies."

"We lack the language and goals to address the new environment along with the speed and intensity to counter the contemporary threats. If we have no strategy we will need to be intellectually honest to consider the next step once two cities have been destroyed. My grandchildren are in greater danger than I was throughout the Cold War.

"What stages are you in Israel going to take if tomorrow morning Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv would be destroyed? Similarly the US needs to consider what policies it would advance if in twenty-four hours, Atlanta, Boston and San Francisco were destroyed. These threats will become even more imminent in two or five years time," he added.

Gingrich believes the US should have as an explicit goal -- regime change in Iran. "In 2006 even the Department of State which seeks to deny the nature of reality, noted that Iran is a leading sponsor of terror. What I need is something that will be similar to Reagan's Replacement strategy in Iran. The current unrest in Iran will facilitate this," he said.

The former House Speaker concluded by calling on the Department of Homeland Security to conduct two nuclear exercises and one biological exercise in major cities such as Philadelphia or Dallas. "This has to be carried out to determine how many causalities would occur and whether hospitals could accommodate the casualties."

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Haimson, January 23, 2007.
This was written by Claudia Rossett and it appeared in National Review Online
(http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/ ?q=NmVlNzc4OWI5YTc4MDY1MzhiMDM2OWRhNjgzYzk0ZTk=).
Claudia Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

THE EX-PRESIDENCY: The Question of Carter's Cash
In which our reporter follows the money

Did Jimmy Carter do it for the money? That's the question making the rounds about Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, an anti-Israeli screed recently written by the ex-president whose Carter Center has accepted millions in Arab funding.

Even in Carter's long history of post-presidential grandstanding, this book sets fresh standards of irresponsibility. Purporting to give a balanced view of the Palestinian -- Israeli conflict, Carter effectively shrugs off such highly germane matters as Palestinian terrorism. The hypocrisies are boundless, and include adoring praise of the deeply oppressive, religiously intolerant Saudi regime side by side with condemnations of democratic Israel. In one section, typical of the book's entire approach, Carter includes a "Historical Chronology," from Biblical times to 2006, in which he dwells on events surrounding his 1978 Camp David Accords but omits the Holocaust. Kenneth W. Stein, the founder of the Carter Center's Middle East program, resigned last month to protest the book, describing it in a letter to Fox News as "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments." As this article goes to press, more protest resignations, this time from the Carter Center's board of councilors, appear to be in the works.

If there is a silver lining to any of this, it is that Carter's book has drawn much-overdue attention to some of the funding that pours into the Carter Center, whose intriguing donor list includes anti-Israeli tycoons and Middle East states. Founded in 1982 and appended to Carter's presidential library, the center has served for almost a quarter century as the main base and fund-raising magnet for Carter's self-proclaimed mission to save the world.

In recent weeks, a number of articles have noted that Carter's anti-Israeli views coincide with those of some of the center's prime financial backers, including the government of Saudi Arabia and the foundation of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, whose offer of $10 million to New York City just after Sept. 11 was rejected by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani because it came wrapped in the suggestion that America rethink its support of Israel. Other big donors listed in the Carter Center's annual reports include the Sultanate of Oman and the sultan himself; the government of the United Arab Emirates; and a brother of Osama bin Laden, Bakr BinLadin, "for the Saudi BinLadin Group." Of lesser heft, but still large, are contributions from assorted development funds of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as of OPEC, whose membership includes oil-rich Arab states, Nigeria (whose government is also a big donor to the Carter Center), and Venezuela (whose anti-American strongman Hugo Chvez benefited in a 2004 election from the highly controversial monitoring efforts of the Carter Center).

A recent editorial in Investor's Business Daily, headlined "Jimmy Carter's Li'l Ol' Stink Tank," listed a number of "founders" of the Carter Center. The names were drawn from the annual reports, and included "the king of Saudi Arabia, BCCI scandal banker Agha Hasan Abedi, and Arafat pal Hasib Sabbagh." And, writing last month in the Washington Times, terror-funding expert Rachel Ehrenfeld described links going back to the 1970s between the Carter family peanut business and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, whose Pakistani founder helped bankroll the Carter Center at least until BCCI went belly-up in 1991, busted as a global criminal enterprise.

Carter and Friends (2001, AFP)

There is, of course, much more to the Carter Center than this list implies. It is large, with assets totaling $377 million (as of 2005), an operating budget of some $46.8 million, a staff of some 150, a 200-member board of councilors, and hundreds of donors, including not only individuals and foundations, but the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. State Department. Some of the center's work is devoted to such laudable causes as wiping out the parasitical guinea worm. Indeed, it is possible to glean from various news items and brief mentions in the center's annual reports that some of the more intriguing donors, such as the sultan of Oman and the OPEC development fund, have been giving money for exactly such causes. According to one notation on the Carter Center website, for example, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia donated $7.6 million in 1993 to help Carter fight the guinea worm.

But notwithstanding such occasional tidbits, it's stunningly hard to discern from the Carter Center's public documents who is giving precisely how much, and for what. Donor names, sometimes listed only as "Anonymous," are lumped under broad categories such as "$100,000 or more" or "$1 million or more." There is no systematic tally of just how much "more" -- no clear way to know, for example, whether Saudi money accounts for only a tad of Carter's funding or a mighty dollop, and whether the Saudi share of total contributions has changed over the years. Neither is there any systematic disclosure of who is funding exactly what activities in the name of "waging peace," "fighting disease," and "building hope" -- the center's self-proclaimed missions. A reporter's e-mail exchange with Carter Center press secretary Deanna Congileo elicits the response that none of the anonymous donors are from the Middle East, but no further details can be released without permission from the donors -- which, even if granted, will take some time to obtain (stay tuned).

All this might be less disturbing had Carter confined his post-presidential efforts to such good works as vanquishing the guinea worm. But for years he has run his own mini-presidency -- complete with a series of attempts to outflank or shape the policies of sitting presidents. These have included -- to name just two examples -- his letter-writing campaign in 1990 to members of the United Nations Security Council, in an effort to thwart the Bush I coalition that fought the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein; and his 1994 trip to North Korea, where he proposed to the dying tyrant Kim Il Sung a deeply flawed nuclear-freeze deal that may well have helped Kim's son consolidate power and develop ICBMs and atomic bombs.

It could be argued that Carter, whatever his pretensions, is, after all, a private individual running a private foundation, and is therefore under no obligation to disclose full details of the getting and spending of the river of money flowing through his center. (In 2004, the most recent year for which the center's website makes such figures available, donations totaled $146 million.) But in all his waging and fighting and building (and fundraising), Carter has been trading for years on the respect accorded to his former public office. Regardless of whatever room for murk the law allows, full financial disclosure is what sound judgment demands. The Carter Center itself makes much in promotional materials of its efforts to strengthen democracies by "promoting government transparency." Is Carter so rigidly certain of his rectitude that he believes himself exempt from his own preaching?

In a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece defending his new book (and insinuating that the debate over it is being controlled by pro-Israeli lobbyists), Carter wrote that he is merely seeking a "free and balanced discussion of the facts." It is quite possible that even he may not know for sure whether he has molded his views to suit anti-Israeli donors; whether his center has attracted the money of such donors because they like his views; or whether, while fighting the guinea worm, he simply made the unrelated mistake of writing an appallingly biased and bad book. But having parlayed his former public office into global influence, he owes the public at least this much: Tell us, clearly and directly, enough about your supporters and their money that we can, with full information, decide for ourselves what is going on.

Contact David Haimson at DvHaimson@aol.com to receive emails with direct links to articles on Israel that are well-worth reading.

To Go To Top

Posted by ZOA, January 23, 2007.

New York -- A high-ranking Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officer has disclosed that the Israeli government has "tied the IDF's hands" and is preventing military operations that could stop Hizballah from rearming and gaining strength ahead of a possible new round of violence this summer. The officer said that, "This is not up to the IDF ... The government is responsible for making these decisions, and for now they are holding us back." He explained that, despite the fact that Hizballah is known to be receiving almost daily arms shipments from Syria, the Israeli Cabinet has decided the military should refrain from initiating operations to thwart the smuggling. The IDF also believes that Hizballah has now restored its strength to the same level it had before last year's Lebanon war (Jerusalem Post, January 21).

Also, the Director of IDF Strategic Planning, Brig.-Gen. Udi Dekel, has said that Hizballah was busy rearming and receiving "nonstop" weapons shipments from Syria. This was the first time a high-ranking IDF officer has publicly confirmed that Damascus is shipping weapons to Hizballah. Addressing the Herzaliya Conference, Dekel warned that the Middle East is becoming increasingly "unstable" and that Iranian involvement in almost every conflict in the region is intensifying. According to Dekel -- the highest ranking officer to appear at the conference -- the terrorist group Hamas is also smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip from Egypt, across the Philadelphi Corridor along the Egypt-Gaza border. Dekel said the cabinet and the IDF faced the "constant dilemma" of whether to act to thwart the terror buildup in Gaza and Lebanon or to prepare for a new war instead. He said the IDF planned to use 2007 "to get ready" for possible additional conflicts (Jerusalem Post, January 21).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 23, 2007.

Case 1. A Muslim teen murders a prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist by shooting him three times almost at point blank and shouting "I shot the non-Muslim". What do you think should be the reaction of a Turkish official to this?

Sevket Kazan, Deputy of the Saadet Party (SP) of Turkey, argued that the CIA and Mossad planned and organized the murder of Armenian Turkish journalist Hrant Dink. "The boys were used in Trabzon and in Sisli attacks and murders, but the real murderer are the CIA and the Mossad" he said. Sevket Kazan further continued in his Diyarbakir speech: "Armenian journalist Hrant Dink is a victim of an assassination. Of course, it is an event to be condemned.... Both a priest in Trabzon and Dink were killed by boys under 18. The CIA and the Mossad are behind all these murders, yet they use domestic tools for these crimes. Their main aim is to destabilize Turkey."

Case 2. A Turkish father takes his daughter for a walk. (hat tip: The Religion of Peace)

Turkish father and daughter

Would you like these to happen in your streets, Europe?
(Already does happen in the streets of Islam infested Germany---M.Travis)

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Maria Sliwa, January 23, 2007.

This Press Release comes from Christian Solidarity International (CSI). Visit their website at http://www.csi-int.org CSI has been in the forefront of the campaign to eradicate slavery in Sudan since 1995, and is commemorating this year the 30th anniversary of its foundation and the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the British slave trade.

(AWEIL, Southern Sudan) Last week, 102 Black African slaves were liberated from Baggara Arab masters and returned to their homeland in Southern Sudan in an action supported by Christian Solidarity International (CSI).

Most of the liberated slaves -- mainly boys and young men -- had been captured by Sudanese government-sponsored Arab militias during two decades of civil war, pitting the Arab-Muslim dominated Government of Sudan against the predominantly Black African Sudan People's Liberation Front (SPLA).

Interviews reveal a strong pattern of physical and psychological abuse. The overwhelming majority of the liberated slaves had been subjected to beatings, racial and religious insults, forced labor and denial of the freedom to practice any religion other than Islam. Most of the girls and women had been subjected to sexual abuse. Among the slaves were:

16-year-old Agor Deng: Agor was repeatedly raped by her master, Adam Abakir and his associates. Adam Abakir and his wife excised her finger nails with a knife after she failed to obey an order to grind grain. They also forced her, using death threats, to pray like a Muslim.

30-year-old Garang Akot Wiir: Garang's right arm and leg were partially paralyzed after having been beaten and tied up tightly for 24 hours as punishment for attempting to escape. He was renamed Abdelrazik Ezzadin by his master.

45-year-old Achol Loc Wiel: Achol was shot in her leg during a slave raid. She also lost her husband and three children during the slave raid and forced march to Northern Sudan. Achol was gang raped by her master's friends. She was also forced to abandon the practice of her Christian faith and pray like a Muslim.

The liberation and documentation of the 102 slaves was the result of cooperation between Arab-Dinka Peace Committees, the civil authorities in Aweil State, local churches and CSI.

The Sudanese Episcopalian priest, Rev. Tito Athian -- a longstanding local CSI partner -- expressed joy at the liberation and repatriation of the slaves, stating: "Thank you for helping bring back our people from slavery. Now they are free to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ and choose their own religion."

After witnessing several CSI slave liberation actions, including last week's, anti-trafficking consultant and author of The Jubilee Prophecy, Aaron Cohen, said: "I have seen first hand, in 23 countries, the positive changes good programs can have in the lives of enslaved people. CSI has created in Sudan a sustainable and effective program which has liberated thousands of slaves, inspired anti-trafficking legislation, and brought hope to people in bondage. CSI's pioneering work in Sudan is an excellent example to all abolitionists."

Contact Maria Sliwa at SliwaNews@email.admail.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, January 23, 2007.

"An end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not solve the problems of the Middle East," Yaalon says. "Israeli concessions will only strengthen extremist Islam."

Speaking at the Herzliya Conference today, the former Chief of Staff said, "Conventional wisdom has it that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will bring stablity to the Middle East. It is also widely felt that the core problem is Israel's occupation [of Judea and Samaria] and that a two-state solution will solve the 100-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"These two mistaken assumptions," Yaalon said, "do not allow a new type of thinking that can truly solve the problem."

The Palestinians have no interest in a two-state solution with Israel, Yaalon said: "They have never agreed to any partition of the land. They objected to the Peel Commission's proposal in 1937, and to the UN's plan in 1947, and again in 2000 in Camp David. Arafat's rejection then of Ehud Barak's generous offer [of 95-98% of Judea and Samaria] and the war he launched instead showed that his goal was to prevent a two-state solution and, especially, the recognition of Israel... The fact that Kassams continue to fly from Gaza also prove this... Hamas has made it quite clear as well: they are interested in one Arab state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea."

Similarly, he said, "The objective of Hizbullah is not the liberation of southern Lebanon -- but rather the destruction of Israel... World War III is currently underway; a clash of civilizations between the West and radical extremist Islam. Al-Qaeda did not arise because of Israel, and the State of Israel was not yet around when the Muslim Brotherhood was formed [in 1928]..."

"Therefore," Yaalon said, "in my opinion, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not bring calm to the Middle East... The lack of an authoritative Palestinian leadership that is capable or willing to implement a two-state solution, and the fact that an entire young Palestinian generation is being brought up on hatred and death, shows that the two-state paradigm is not relevant now, if at all."

Listeners to public taxpayer-supported Israel Radio were prevented from hearing Yaalon's words, as broadcaster Gabi Gazit cut off the broadcast after three minutes. Gazit said he would return to the speech if Yaalon said something more "actual and hot." On the other hand, Gazit "allowed" the broadcast of the left-wing speech of Defense Minister Amir Peretz nearly in its entirety.

"We have experienced too many golden calves in the past years," Yaalon said, "that were supposed to give us hope and provide quick solutions. What we need is leadership that will give true solutions, not spins."

Among these quick-fix "golden calves" was, presumably, Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and northern Shomron. Yaalon was replaced at the IDF helm by Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz shortly before the Disengagement, after Yaalon said the withdrawal would strengthen terrorism.

"Unilateral Israeli concessions will only strengthen Islamic Jihad and terrorism," Yaalon emphasized again today. "International pressure upon Israel for further concessions, or unilateral Israeli withdrawals, are seen as weakness and will only encourage them to continue to attack Israel and the West."

Regarding Iran, the former IDF head said that we must stop thinking in terms of an immediate solution, and rather seek a long-range approach: "There is no choice other than a conflict with the Iranian regime. The entire world must understand that the Iranian problem is not a local one, and that the transfer of technological and financial means to Iran must be stopped immediately... Those who do not prevent the transfer of these means are bringing the conflict closer. The Syrian and Iranians must be punished by the world; they pushed Hizbullah to war but were not punished."

Regarding Israel's preparedness for the recent war in Lebanon, Yaalon said, "The problems were not in the soldiers or the equipment, but rather a failure of military and political leadership. With the upcoming changes of personnel, I am confident that the army will return to itself very quickly."

Asked about his own role in Israel's lack of sufficient preparedness for the war -- Yaalon was Chief of Staff from 1992 to 1995 -- he said that he will be happy to answer this question after he testifies on the matter before the Winograd Commission. The commission, headed by former Tel Aviv District Court Justice Eliyahu Winograd, is investigating the events and preparations leading up to the summer's Lebanon War.

Hillel Fendel is senior editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Jake Levi, January 23, 2007.
This was written by Hana Levi Julian and it appeared in Arutz Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

The government has agreed in principle to withdraw from most of Judea and Samaria ("Yesha"), in secret talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. So reports WorldNetDaily.

Egypt and the European Union (EU) have been mediating the negotiations, according to the World Net Daily (WND) news website. WND quoted high-level Egyptian diplomatic and intelligence officials, and an aide to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, as saying they have been directly involved in the talks.

Negotiations have been quietly proceeding apace for the past two or three weeks, according to sources quoted by WND reporter Aaron Klein, after PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas suggested to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert late last month that the two men switch to "back channel talks" in order to avoid media coverage.

According to Egyptian and EU sources, one of the plans currently under consideration involves handing over control of central and southern Yesha to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's security forces. In northern Yesha, the transfer of responsibility to Abbas' security forces over the area would be monitored by Jordan and EU observers.

No word about the fate, under this plan, of the many tens of thousands of Jews living in these areas has been received.

Hamas's role in the plan remains unclear. The terrorist organization has repeatedly vowed never to formally recognize the State of Israel, renounce terrorism or uphold agreements with Israel signed by the previous, Fatah-led, PA government. That stance is not accepted by the international community.

Talks toward a unity coalition between PA Prime Minister and Hamas chairman Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Abbas, who heads the Fatah faction, are all but dead, leaving Hamas in control of the PA.

The streets of Gaza have become a battlefield as Hamas and Fatah struggle for control of the PA government, with bloody clashes that have resulted in the deaths of both terrorists and innocent PA residents alike in what has become a militia war.

The situation may intensify further and eventually lead to escalated attacks against the Jewish State as well, in the wake of an announcement by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week that the Bush administration has agreed to finance, arm and train Abbas' security force.

The force will reportedly include the Fatah-controlled Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, one of the most vicious groups engaged in the terrorist war against Israel. Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades has shared responsibility with the Islamic Jihad terror group for the suicide bombings in Israel over the past two years.

Rice said during her visit to the region last week that the U.S. will send Abbas $86.4 million to beef up his personal security guard, Force 17, which also polices PA areas in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Bush administration is hoping to strengthen Fatah -- which it perceives as a moderate group -- in its bid to wrest control of the PA government from Hamas.

The last time the U.S. transferred arms to Fatah in order to strengthen its ability to police the PA, the weapons were ultimately pointed at Israel by a myriad of terrorist factions. When asked about that experience, Rice claimed that this time would be different.

"It was envisioned [then] that the Palestinian Authority would have security forces," she said. "The problem is those security forces broke into essentially personal militias under [former PLO chairman Yasser] Arafat. They broke into too many that were often warring with each other."

The current plan, she added, would be carried out in a way that would "move over time," with the idea being that the U.S. would maintain control over what is being done with the weapons.

"This plan is not just to equip [Abbas' security forces] and train them, [but] it is also to professionalize them, to unify them [and] to put them under a single command," she said.

Now these newly-armed forces, trained and "professionalized" by the U.S. government would be given control over most of Judea and Samaria, placing them within rocket fire range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Ben Gurion International Airport. They would also be within range of Arad in the Negev, and other cities and smaller communities located near the pre-1967 borders.

Diplomatic sources said talks are moving rapidly as the PA wrestles with Israel over the precise location of the new borders. Solana's aide told WND that diplomats are expected to see a "historic political evolution and movement in negotiations in the next few weeks and few months, unseen since the Camp David peace talks in 2000."

In 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to give Arafat an official PA state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and eastern neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Arafat turned down the offer, insisting the entire Israeli capital be transferred to the PA.

Contact Jake Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, January 23, 2007.

Jews in Yemen have been abruptly targeted by a local sheikh, told they were "moral destroyers," and ordered to "leave or else" -- and some have. Jewish "sages" have been killed, one woman reports.

Only some 50 Jewish families remain in virulently anti-Israel Yemen, but after years of being largely ignored by the local population and authorities, they have now been targeted by Moslem extremists.

Some of the families, in the Yemeni capital Sanaa, were confronted by masked men who told them that if they do not leave within ten days, "things will be bad for you." Other Jews were told that the Moslems don't want to see even one Jew left in the region. Reports of Killings

In a phone call engineered by Voice of Israel Radio on Monday, a Jewish woman living in Yemen said that the Moslems "have already killed the wise men." No confirmation of this has been received from other quarters -- though news from Yemen does not flow freely.

The stated explanation for the Moslem anti-Semitism, according to a letter circulated by local Sheikh Yahya Sad Al Khudhair, is that the Jews are "associated with groups and activities that primarily serve global Zionism that works actively to corrupt the people and cause them to abandon their ethical values and religion and disseminate all types of abominations... Our religion has ordered us to fight the corrupt people and expel them."

In the Voice of Israel phone call, Masoud -- a Yemenite Jew who moved to Israel six years ago and now lives in Be'er Sheva -- spoke with a woman relative in Yemen. The conversation was held in Hebrew-spiced Arabic. "Kif halak?" Masoud asked in Arabic, meaning, "How are you?", and the response came in Hebrew, "Baurich Hashem," "Blessed be G-d."

The woman told Masoud, "On Friday [11 days ago], they received letters saying that whoever doesn't leave will get killed or have his children taken away or I don't know what... Now they saw these [threatening] letters and are scared; what can they do? They took everything they had, with the children, and left, and now they're in a hotel." Some 45 Jews are now reportedly in the Paris Tower Hotel in Saana.

Asked why the remaining Jews do not come to Israel, Masoud said simply that they are currently not interested in that option.

Earlier last week, according to the Yemen Observer, local authorities and tribal sheikhs held meetings to discuss the complaints from the Yemeni Jews -- but they resulted only in oral reassurances for the Jews, who were told to ignore the threats and go back to their villages. "Yes, they received threats," the area's Deputy Governor said Monday about the Jews, "and they are now here in the hotel, but I can assure you that the problem will be solved today, and the Jews will return to their villages."

Yemenite Jews Converted to Islam

Dr. Moshe Nachum, of the Israeli Federation of Yemenite Jews, accuses modern Israel of having led indirectly to many thousands of Jewish converts to Islam. He told Arutz-7 that 56,000 Jews -- roughly 2/3 of the Jewish population in Yemen -- were brought over to Israel during Operation Magic Carpet (also known as Operation Eagles' Wings) in 1949-50, following murderous Muslim riots. A trickle of migration was allowed to continue until 1954, at which point it stopped. In 1962, another 2,300 Jews were allowed to immigrate, but many families were then left split between Israel and Yemen.

"I went to Yemen in 1977," Nachum said, "at which time I learned that there were between 25,000 and 28,000 Jews there. No one was allowed to leave until 1993, at which time a trickle began, leading to a total of 900 or 1,000 Jews coming to Israel. A few hundred now remain there."

Hillel Fendel is senior editor of Arutz Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). This article appeared today on Arutz-Sheva
(www.mymarketing.co.il/Show/0XFAF647A66065914EFFC2B03D2C54162927 D035218139A1CD2B18D517183476B3.htm).

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, January 23, 2007.

Rice: "This time it will be different". REALLY?

It appears to me that there is an iceberg out there called the "peace process". So much is going on beneath the surface that the peak only hints at.

Think of Israel as the Titanic.

The following items are all part of a grand plan in no particular order,

1. Israel decided not to invade Gaza and instead just announced a $70 million program to fortify the homes near Gaza.
2. Olmert has made many speeches offering to give away most of Judea and Samaria.
3. Olmert has tied the hands of the IDF citing diplomatic considerations.
4. Peretz backed off his announcements to build in the Jordan and Ma'aleh Adumin.
5. The construction of the fence is proceeding through Jerusalem.
6. Israel has agreed to the the transfer of weaponry to Abbas and the efforts to make it strong enough to take on Hamas.
7. Israel has agreed to transfer $100 million in tax revenue to Abbas
8. A three way meeting (Rice, Abbas and Olmert) has been announced to be held soon.
9. Israel has said that the Saudi Plan might be a basis for discussion.
10. Olmert has met with S. Arabia and Jordon.
11. The idea of withdrawing from Judea and Samaria as we did in Gaza has been mooted.
12. There is agreement on removing checkpoints.
13. The GOI continues to clamp down of settlers whom it considers "subversives".
14. Today we read about secret negotiations leading to withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.
15. Today we read about the "desirability" of joining NATO.
16. Rice has stated that this time "it will be different" referring to the arming of the Arabs.
17. A "ceasefire" is in place as a backdrop to negotiations
18. Livni wants to move past the first stage of the Roadmap requiring an end to violence.
19. Lieberman was brought into the government to enlarge the coalition and neuter the right to some extent.
20. Secret negotiations with Syria have been announced with the outline of a deal.

What I discern from all this is that the intention is that the security force being built for Abbas will enforce the peace. This time it will be different according to Rice, because S. Arabia, Jordon and Egypt are committed to ensure that he does so although she hasn't said so. All are agreed to destroy Hamas and neuter Hezbollah and to face down Iran and to support the government of Iraq against Iranian influence.

Such an agreement will involve normalization of relations.

Think of Israel as the Titanic.

Ted Belman
416-256 7597

Ted Belman hosts IsraPundit.com. He can be reached at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 22, 2007.
1. "A History of Anti-Semitism on Campus"
By Amihai Glazer
Amihai Glazer is a professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). He received his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1978.
This is From Standwithus.org

The hate speech practiced by the Muslim Student Union at UCI is well known. Also well known is the UCI Administration's repeated statements that the Muslim Student Union has freedom of speech rights to organize such events as "Holocaust in the Holy Land." They are right. Free speech has more protection at a public university than perhaps at any other location; even administrators who find the Muslim Student Union despicable agree that they have a right to organize events full of hate. Indeed, though speakers cannot incite listeners to violence against a specified individual, they do have the right to incite generalized hatred of Jews and Zionists.

But that does not mean that the University Administration is bound to silence. University presidents at several campuses have embraced the opportunity to denounce hate speech. In September 2002, Harvard President Lawrence Summers issued a memorable speech citing the upturn in anti-Semitic incidents and noting that supposedly progressive universities were taking part in actions that were "anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent." Faculty and students calling for divestiture from firms investing in Israel, but from nowhere else, offer one example.

Chancellor Berdahl of UC-Berkeley signed a letter published in The New York Times warning against extreme anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish activity on campus. (UCI's chancellor at the time, Ralph Cicerone, refused to sign the letter.) In September 2002 the president of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, concerned about a forthcoming conference which featured vehemently anti-Zionist speakers, issued a statement saying: "This conference is sponsored by a student organization, following established University procedures for holding events on campus ... The agenda of the conference represents the views of the organizers and not the University of Michigan."

Faced with another anti-Zionist conference (planned by New Jersey Solidarity), Richard L. McCormick, President of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, stated "For myself, I find abhorrent some elements of NJ Solidarity's mission" In its mission statement, NJ Solidarity expresses its opposition to Israel's right to exist and supports Palestinians human right to resist occupation and oppression by any means necessary. These views are in conflict with my own and, I believe, with the majority of the university community." He went on to state: "Freedom of expression must not be used to incite hatreds or demonize individuals and groups."

In contrast, UCI has stood silently as speeches espousing violence were delivered on campus. One such occurrence was in spring 2002, at a forum which then-chancellor Cicerone attended. A panelist, Visiting Professor James Sterba, spent his allotted time justifying suicide bombings against civilians. No one from the Administration in attendance ever distanced himself from such a view. In winter 2004 and again during the week of May 17, 2004, UCI witnessed a public lecture by Amir Abdel Malik Ali, a known hate-monger invited by the Muslim Student Union during its "Anti-Oppression Week" and during its "Anti-Zionism/Zionist Awareness Week." Mr. Ali had the honor of making his hateful speech from a lectern emblazoned with the UCI emblem. Fortunately, the UCI Administration no longer allows such implicit approval. But the Administration does continue its practice of not enforcing its own rules when they are violated by the Muslim Student Union. For example, the Muslim Student Union was allowed to erect a massive "Apartheid Wall" on a public walkway, though University policy forbids even the placement of paper posters on public walkways.

UCI continues in other ways to aid and abet anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli activity. This year, UCI honored Ms. Vanessa Zuabi with the Outstanding Community Service award at its 2006 Lauds & Laurels Awards ceremony. When Ms. Zuabi was vice president of the Society of Arab Students, the group organized a rally in May 2004, purportedly to demonstrate unity against hate crimes. The rally came a week after the group's anti-Israel cardboard wall was destroyed. Jewish student group leaders approached the leaders of SAS and expressed sympathy about the destruction of the wall, noting that they had suffered a similar incident the year before, when their Holocaust memorial was destroyed. The Jewish student groups expressed their interest in showing their solidarity in the cause of peace by participating in the rally with SAS and the rest of the UCI community. Had Ms. Zuabi and the rest of the SAS leadership truly been interested in promoting peace and in bringing the campus community together, she and her fellow group members would have accepted this overture. Instead, the Jewish student groups were told that they were not welcome, and unlike other groups on campus, were not allowed to speak at the rally. Furthermore, a rally organized by the Society of Arab Students had a poster with a drawing equating the Star of David to a swastika. The week after "Holocaust in the Holy Land," UCI announced that Ms. Zuabi would be honored as the student speaker for the commencement ceremony of the School of Social Sciences In short, UCI honored a person who had engaged in anti-Semitic activity.

Nevertheless, there is hope. On May 30, 2006, Chancellor Drake issued a public statement, saying "Make no mistake: I find hate speech abhorrent. It is inconsistent with advancing understanding or dialogue...I ask you to join me in renouncing hate speech as a form of expression..." Though the timing of the statement suggests that it was issued in response to "Holocaust in the Holy Land," the statement does not explain who engaged in hate speech, or who were its victims. I wish a future statement would. 2. "Palestinian street named for Saddam Hussein was paved with USAID money" by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook Palestinian Media Watch: Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin -- Jan. 22, 2007 p:+972 2 625 4140e: pmw@pmw.org.il f: +972 2 624 2803w: www.pmw.org.il

After Saddam Hussein's execution, the Palestinian Municipality of Yaabid decided to name both a school and its main street after the Iraqi dictator.

It appears that the same street was paved 18 months ago using grants from USAID.

This is not the first time that US money has gone to build Palestinian infrastructures that are named to glorify terrorists and enemies of the US.

Three examples:

1. After the US gave the Jenin municipality money for road works in the city, a block in the center of Jenin was named for the first Iraqi suicide terrorist who killed four American soldiers in Fallujah. The mayor of Jenin participated in the anti-American rally and the speakers blessed the "resistance of the residents of Fallujah" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 4, 2004].

2. USAID funded the building of the Salaf Khalef Sports Center. Salef Khalef (Abu Iyad) the head of the Black September terror organization, was behind the killing of two US diplomats in Sudan and the 11 Israeli Olympic athletes. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May, 30, 2004]

3. USAID funded renovations of the Dalal Mughrabi School named in honor of Dalal Mughrabi and her terror group, who killed American photographer Gail Rubin and 36 Israelis. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 14, 2004]

The following is the article on the naming of Saddam Hussein Street:

"In the Yaabid Municipality. thousands of citizens held a requiem for the soul of Saddam in the mosque. Following that, a march began in the streets of the municipality, that ended at the offices of the Yaabid Municipality, where a mourners' tent was opened in his memory. Public figures and the [Armed] Factions in Yaabid decided to name one of the schools in the municipality and its most important street after Saddam to immortalize his memory and to emphasize the values of Arabness and Jihad, which he represented." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 4, 2007]

The following is from the PMW archives on the USAID funding:

"The Yaabid Municipality in the Jenin area held a ceremony yesterday for the inauguration of a project of the paving of the main street of the municipality, funded by the United Stated Agency for International Development (USAID). The project of paving and renovating the main entrance to the municipality and some of the inner streets is three kilometers long and cost $402,000." [Al-Ayyam, July 14, 2005]

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, January 22, 2007.

There is so much smoke around the Iranian Mullahs' bomb that makes Tehran's smog feel like a fresh ocean breeze, by comparison. Here is a partial list of views about the Mullahs, their capabilities and intentions about the bomb affair. The Mullahs:

* Will never dare to use the bomb, even if they had it. To do so would be suicidal.
* Are years away from anything resembling a credible bomb, in any quantities.
* They lack the technological skills needed to make a workable bomb.
* Don't have the means of hitting Israel with the bomb, their professed favorite target.
* Want the bomb for defensive purposes only.
* Would never hand the bomb over to proxy terrorists.
* Are using this whole bomb thing as a ploy to rally the populace and survive.
* Are visionary patriots planning for a future when the oil dries up.
* Are environmentalists aiming to curb global warming caused by the use of fossil fuel.
* Are striving to join the nuclear club for its prestige.

And on, and on, and on, goes the litany. I believe, based on facts rather than wishful thinking, that every one of the above assertions, as well as all other similar dismissive arguments are both false and fraught with danger, because all the above arguments are confounded by various amounts of denial.

Psychological denial is a common quirk of the human mind. People use denial to distort, even refute reality, when accepting it is too threatening to them. Alcoholics are habitual users of denial, a major tranquilizer of the mind. The alcoholic will adamantly deny having any problem with alcohol and continues to drink, even in the face of irrefutable contrary evidence. Denial is resorted to by both individuals and groups, and can be just as deadly for both.

Perhaps the most compelling dismissive argument is that the Mullahs would never dare to use the bomb, since it would be suicidal to do so. This argument is just as flawed as the rest. The "mutual deterrence" argument may work in state-to-state confrontations. It apparently has worked in the past and the hope is that it will work in the future. However, the mutual deterrence argument fails when a non-state entity is the adversary. The Mullahs don't have to lob a bomb at Israel or at anyone else to inflict huge harm. They can pursue their cause of death and destruction by simply providing their killers with dirty bombs in a suitcase. Given the Mullahs' fanaticism and Machiavellian nature, they would come up with a myriad of clever schemes to achieve their objectives.

Consider dirty bombs. They are easy to make, are portable, can kill as well as make a city uninhabitable, without leaving a "finger print." The Mullahs can go to work then turn "innocently" to the international community for help them -- to find a group of rogue radicals, so they claim, who had penetrated their facilities and have made off with a loot of radioactive stuff.

It is not as if events like this have never happened in the past. Deadly stolen radioactive materials have found their way to the black market on a number of occasions. The world would respond in panic, yet with its usual arthritic sluggishness searching for the miscreants. Given how clumsy and disorganized the world's intelligence community is, the prospect of acting expeditiously, much less apprehending the "thieves" is not very encouraging. This is particularly the case when the Mullahs themselves would have a short leash on the "thieves," to hide them and deploy them only with the greatest of care.

Iran's ruling Mullahs are clustered around major factions such as the conservatives, the moderates, and the so-called reformists. Yet, the differences among these factions are tactical rather than strategic. One and all share the same overarching goal of defeating the "Crusader-Zionists" by any and all methods possible; bringing about the "end of the world" Armageddon; and, thereby creating the requisite conditions for the appearance of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, to assume his rule of the world.

Therefore, it is Cart Risqué (foolish risk-taking a la Jimmy Carter's throwing the nation's lot with the Mullahs during the 1979 Iranian Revolution) to overlook the fact that it is Islam, irrespective of any and all considerations, that poses a deadly threat to the world. Choosing one faction over another is no choice at all.

What is the likelihood that the ruling Mullahs will actually use the bomb? If they remain in power long enough to have it, they are very likely to use it, in one form or another. At the very least, they use the bomb for blackmail and intimidation in the region. Not even the all-out nuclear exchange can be ruled out. Islam is a religion centered on death with the faithful eyes fixed on the afterlife and its promised eternal pleasures. If the faithful kills, he goes to Allah's paradise; if he gets killed, he goes to Allah's paradise.

The Mullahs' claim that they are pursuing the nuclear program to meet the country's energy need could only fool the most gullible-denial type. Why is it that the Mullahs invest nothing at all in stopping the leak of more than six percent of the precious oil they pump out? For every 100 barrels, six barrels of Iran's irreplaceable national treasure dissipates at the wellhead. Yet, they spend billions of dollars to harness nuclear energy. Just as troubling is the fact that Iran sits on one of the world's most dangerous earthquake fault lines. Building nuclear plants on sites such as the one in Bushehr is absolute insanity.

Speaking of insanity, Ahmadinejad, the Monkey, comes to mind. He is dismissed as being a zany fanatic who shouldn't be taken seriously for his bomb-rattling threats. But this type of dismissiveness can prove deadly. Recall that even a multi-billionaire former president of Iran Rafsanjani, a man seen by many as moderate and a shrewd live-let-live type, has publicly announced that a single bomb would finish off Israel while the Muslims would suffer a setback from which it can easily recover.

The Mullahs are proven vicious mass killers. They summarily executed tens of thousands of Iranian dissidents. They had no qualms at sending thousands of children to clear the minefields ahead of their tanks during the 80-89 war with Iraq; and, they have thousands of "martyrs" brainwashed and prepared to serve as bomb mules to be dispatched to any place in the world.

Sadly, once again it is the peak of "Me First" time with American politicians. Like sharks, they are circling the "bleeding" lame President, busily snipping at him and hoping to take his place. In the meantime the real enemy, Islamofascism is forging ahead toward its goal of dominating the world.

I have been warning that it is a deadly miscalculation to engage in infighting, and sit and wait this emerging catastrophe out. It is little more than an exercise in denial to believe that nothing bad will happen, and that the corrupt inept Mullahs will likely shoot themselves in the foot instead of wreaking havoc on the world. I also keep pleading that we should forthwith help the Iranian democratic oppositions send the death-bearer Mullahs back to their mosques. It is the free world's best and urgent option.

What sane person would want to take a chance to wait and see if the mad Mullahs, once they have the bomb, would use it or not?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 22, 2007.

This comes from the Atlas Shrugs website.

NISA is a non-profit organization of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), established as a vehicle towards alleviating issues related to abuse and domestic violence Our mission is to help men and women achieve domestic harmony and a happy family life in the SF Bay Area.

But NISA, the North American Islamic Shelter for the Abused, doesn't exist. After exhaustive investigative efforts, we find NISA is a shell. A cellphone. There is no Islamic shelter for abused women (wifebeating, btw, is in the Koran) has no shelter. So what exactly are they raising money for? In an ATLAS EXCLUSIVE, covert Atlas operative Julie blew the lid right off what appears to be a bogus Islamic charity.

First off understand that Muslims do not believe in getting into anyone else's family business.

In Muslim households are the head of the family and like gods. The authorities, 99.9% of the time in Middle Eastern countries, turn a blind eye to any complaint a woman has, but they seem to let the husbands know she complained...which brings her to more beatings...

Now they [NISA] have been fundraising BIG TIME with CAIR, and I checked them out...they have only an 800 number for women to call. Other than that one phone line, they can act like a charity, while collecting huge amounts and funneling it somewhere, since all they have is a PO BOX.

This phantom Islamic abused women's shelter gives out awards (to give bogus cred to say Imam Tahir Anwar, one of the "Muslim Leader of Tomorrow" [See http://www.asmasociety.org/mlt2006/usa.html]) He speaks 5 languages fluently, and was recently the recipient of the Community Service Award from NISA (North American Islamic Shelter for the Abused).

NISA has hooked up with a local catholic church as well. They are listed by this muslim group as the place where they offer services for abused Muslim women. Julie wrote to the church trying to actually track down the non-existent shelter and the folks at NISA. Since NISA was affiliated with the church, she asked the Church of Palo Alto for their info. Here is the exchange;

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:22:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: NA Shelter for the Abused
To: "Michael Clemons"

Well, check Google....your church appears there as associated with this group. One of your webpages references them as well.

[This is from a google search on the Unity Palo Alto Community Church:

1. Sharing abundance is an important part of Unity Palo Alto Community Church's sharing prosperity and community outreach.
Unity Palo Alto Community Church -- Giving | Sharing Abundance ... The mission of the North-American Islamic Shelter for the Abused (NISA) is to help women and men achieve domestic harmony and a happy family life in the SF ...
www.unitypaloalto.org/giving/ tithe_recipients_2005.html -- 27K -- Cached -- Similar

2. Unity Palo Alto Community Church -- Giving | Sharing Abundance ...
Unity Palo Alto Community Church participates in community outreach, ... The mission of the North-American Islamic Shelter for the Abused (NISA) is to help ... www.unitypaloalto.org/giving/ tithe_recipients_2005.html -- 27k -- Cached -- Similar pages

I checked and this group has no address other than a PO Box, and yours, and they even refer to your church on their website.http://www.ask-nisa.org/

They appear with CAIR, and radical muslim groups to "fundraise" for the abused muslim women. However, nowhere in the US are there any muslim shelters for abused women, and I do feel your church should inform the FBI. CALL 4-11 in our area and ask for the local office of the FBI. They would be the ones to investigate anyway.

This group, NISA,says they have a toll free hotline, 1- 888-ask-nisa but someone should call this who is an agent and speaks fluent Arabic, and this should be the FBI. I am wondering who calls this hotline, since muslim women are too afraid to speak out about their problems. My husband is a convert to Islam. I know much about the subject, since I edit his books, one of which is on the very subject of women who are abused by islam.

This so-called non-profit group seems to have no other goal than fundraising... I would think you would want to avoid notifying them, but let the FBI know, and the FBI should do all of the contact. You could interefere in something crucial to our security... if you do not simply ask the FBI to look into it.

Michael Clemons wrote:


I do not know what to tell you as We do not have any information on the North American Islamic Shelter for the Abused.


Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:21 AM
To: office@unitypaloalto.org
Subject: NA Shelter for the Abused

I am trying to locate the North American Islamic Shelter for the Abused. I could not find it on Google. I came to your website, but I do not see how to contact them. Please tell me if there is such a shelter, and if it located within the one existing shelter in Santa Clara County.

Thank you...If you have any contact info I would appreciate it.

Julie W. Ali
Palo Alto

Note: forwarded message attached.

Julie called NISA -- she called for help. No one answered. She got a call from a woman who apparently called back on a cell phone. When asked about the number, the caller, Saha, said she "forgot to do the caller ID block."

She said they do that for "security reasons." The cell phone number is (650) 930-0978 ...she said they only recently got cell phones. Most likely she was the designated person to take incoming calls for the hotline, and they are routinely forwarded to one or another's home phones.

She said they had no shelter.

Saha said they have shelters out there [government sponsored ones!!]

The phone is registered to Sriram Gopalan.

Who is Sriram Gopalan? He owns the cell phone that someone used to return my call to NISA, the North American Islamic Shelter for the Abused, a subsidiary of ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, closely associated with CAIR.

I first learned of NISA through one of CAIR's email bulletins last Fall, about their joint fundraising efforts for an Islamic shelter for abused Muslim women. I looked to see what information was available. The "shelter" consisted of a PO Box, at

P.O.Box 50515
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 856-0440
(650) 856-0444

The "hotline's" hours are listed from 10 am PST to 1 pm, a time when few women seem to be being abused. Their website is truly focused on donations from the public, and I do not see any accounting where this money is going. There is almost no oversight of non-profit organizations when it comes to the money they receive or spend. Their website does not say how much they have raised so far through CAIR, etc. and the Palo Alto Unity Church donation given to them back in October, 2006. I wonder who is watching the barn.

Certainly not the FBI.

However, my initial call went unanswered, and I did not leave a message. I got a return call about ten minutes later from a woman who identified herself as "Saha." Her English was that of a native, or at least an immigrant who grew up in US schools. She claims to be Afghan. She indicated she was using one of their several cell phones to return my call...so I saw the number on my caller ID...(650) 930-0978. She indicated she should have used the *67 beforehand for "security" reasons.

Saha had no information whatsoever for my Pakistani "friend," an abused woman neighbor of mine....she took four hours to get the wrong information to me.....several emails and some phone numbers in my area of the country. None of them was viable. I called her back, and she looked on the Internet while we were on the phone, and found one local shelter to which she referred me.

I found that the registered owner of the cell phone has a number of other phones in the Bay Area, and numerous residences. My intrigue continued, as I saw that he listed his date of birth only as 1979, but claiming to be 31 years old. My calulations are he would be 27 if he were born in 1979.

I found discrepancies enough in the information I paid for, that I obtained an email for him from his Internet posts. I wondered if someone had stolen his identity, since being 28 years old would make him very wealthy if he owned all the buildings and condos I saw listed.

I saw that he was Presisdent of the Indian Cultural Society at the University of Missouri, Maryland chapter. More residneces in and around the nation's capitol. He has numerous resdiences in Atlanta and other Georgia towns. He has relatives listed all over the USA...spome in New Jersey.

At one point, his identity seems to shift to being 61 years old when he lived in New Jersey. Could there be several people using this ID?

He wrote Steve Forbes' blog on a Flat Tax, and claims he would support it if the Flat Tax were zero. He seemed to think zero taxes are the way to go. Now, are his residences non-profit, his cell phones all non-profit, and his shelter non-existent? The gal who called me said they hope to have an Islamic Shelter next year. I can only imagine how big that building will be and for what it will actually be used.

Posted by Pamela Geller Oshry on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 06:30 PM in | Permalink | Comments (0) |

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Noam Bedein, January 22, 2007.

In the January 19th interview conducted by Jerusalem Post correspondent Herb Keinon with US Ambassador Richard Jones, it was most surprising to hear Mr. Jones say that "Now you are showing restraint...Because there is a cease-policy of restraint is improving your security in the long run. You really haven't suffered that much in terms of loss of life [from the Kassams] and you have given Gaza a little breathing space..."

Does Mr. Jones not know that the Al Aksa Brigades, the military wing of the Fateh, chaired by Machmud Abbas -- hardly a "fringe group" -- also takes credit for the 77 missile attacks on the Western Negev SINCE the November 26th, 2005 cease fire?

Meanwhile, does Ambassador Jones not understand that there was "no loss of life" over the past two months only because these missiles accidentally missed their civilian targets?

Can Ambassador Jones please explain just how Israel's security is "improved" when terrorists fire missiles to terrorize Israel's population in the Western Negev while Israel allows its adversaries in Gaza to regroup, rearm and reorganize?

What would happen if Mexico fired 77 missiles into Western Texas or if Canada fired 77 missiles into the Pacific North West? Would any American suggest a policy of restraint? Would any American suggest a policy of restraint?

Noam Bedein is Media Liason for Sderot Information Center For The Western Negev Ltd

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Narvey, January 21, 2007.
[Editor's Note: Read the referenced Caroline Glick's article below.]

I believe Caroline Glick's article on the 4th way is the first time the demographic study results by Ettinger and Wise have made it into the MSM along with running up a flagpole, the rejection of a two state solution for a one Jewish state solution. That is an important beginning. If the JP has picked up on it, there is good reason to think that Ha'aretz could give it attention as well or be induced to do so and inject such thinking into the national debate.

The two state solution juggernaut pushed by the Quartet and most, if not all, of the West is going to be exceedingly difficult to derail.

As indicated, Ms. Glick's article hopefully will capture the attention and the imaginations of many Israelis who will begin to rethink Israel's future within the realm of reality. That is something that the GOI seems quite incapable of, either because Israel's current leadership has no capacity to think outside the box of the two state solution or because America, the quartet and the rest of the world will just not allow for such thinking.

The challenge is to raise awareness of realities that argue against a two state solution and for a one Jewish state solution, not only amongst Israelis, but Diaspora Jewry and pro-Israel advocates as well. If enough leading pro-Israel voices, within and outside of Israel can buy into and advocate the one state solution and create momentum for the public to address issues as they are and not as they wish they were, that just might break Western thinking free of the 2 state solution box that now confines the debate and limits vision.

Ted Belman wrote: "The Demographic Study Group including Yoram Ettinger and Mike Wise presented their studies and proposals for a One Jewish State Plan to the American Enterprise Institute (www.onejewishstate.com)."

One State Plan: A Democratic Jewish State


The One State Plan extends Israeli democracy to the West Bank and is structured to assure that Israel remains a democratic Jewish State.

The Oslo Accords and various Two State Road Maps have failed. Regional and global dynamics have changed. Any independent state established in all or part of the West Bank will not be viable and will diminish Israel's security. It will quickly become a serious threat to Israel. Based on recent analysis, Israel and the West Bank have been demographically stable since 1967 and policy makers have made political decisions based on erroneous information and fallacious forecasts.

PLAN Highlights:

* Israel and the West Bank will be organized into regional Districts.
* Some of the Districts may be predominantly Arab.
* West Bank Arabs could qualify for citizenship or permanent residency, and others may opt for funded relocation.
* Districts will elect some Members of Knesset and the other MKs will be elected nationally.

Two-state plans are not viable and will lead to disastrous consequences.

As events in Gaza and Lebanon have unfolded more opinion leaders in Israel are beginning to understand the dangers inherent in all two state plans. Retired Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Moshe ("Bogey") Ya'alon dramatically warned, "In the past decade, the government of Israel and Israeli society decided to divide the land. In the present reality, I see difficulty in producing a stable situation of end-of-conflict within that paradigm." If a sovereign Palestinian state is created on the West Bank, the recent Gaza and Lebanon experiences and the behavior of the Hamas and Fatah leadership confirm that that state will be used as a stepping stone to further assault the State of Israel.

In April 2004, President Bush declared: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."

It is not too late to avoid the tragedies that the current status will bring. Israel must ensure its long-term success and include the entire West Bank in a democratic district governing structure.

Send your comments to support@onestateplan.com


Two State Plans such as the Road Map, the Geneva Plan, Oslo Accords, and the Saudi Arabia Proposal seek to end the current status of indeterminacy and limbo. Many believe that Two State Plans will prevent an imaginary demographic catastrophe that would destroy Israel as a democratic Jewish State. Ironically, Two State Plans that seek to avoid demographic catastrophes, all permit unrestricted Arab immigration west of the Jordan River into the new Palestinian state. This unlimited immigration will quickly lead to an irreversible Demographic Catastrophe, and assure that the Jewish population west of the Jordan River will become a minority and could ultimately lead to the destruction of the State of Israel.

ALL Two State Plans are fatally flawed because they propose a sovereign state that could

not be a viable independent entity
be led by terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel
oppose the existence of a Jewish state
not resolve the claims of right of return and refugee issues
compound dual-loyalty problems for Israeli-Arabs
not resolve issues of Jerusalem
not resolve issues of "the settlers" and the settlements
become a global center of terrorism
be a treaty partner to terrorist and rogue regimes
support hate education in schools and mosques
support anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, and anti-Semitic organizations globally
arm with conventional and unconventional weapons
create endless territorial, water, and resource disputes
lead to violence, war of attrition and a major conflict
create demographic problems between the sea and the river
lead to demoralization and/or destruction of the State of Israel

Jordan faces serious demographic and other challenges. More than half of its population are non-Hashemite Arabs. No one knows when the ruling minority Hashemite Kingdom will be replaced by a fundamentalist or other regime. It is irresponsible for Israeli leaders to preclude a two-state solution: a democratic Jewish State on the west bank of the Jordan River and an Arab State on the east bank of the Jordan River.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, January 21, 2007.

This was written by Matthew Wagner and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467783009&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

NRP-NU MK Benny Elon

A new proposal designed to solve Israel's Arab demographic concerns suggests offering a million Palestinian residents of refugee camps in Judea and Samaria incentives totaling as much as $50 billion to convince them to leave the area.

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Ateret Kohanim Yeshiva in Jerusalem, and MK Benny Elon (National Union-National Religious Party) have joined forces to promote the proposed program, which they said would be funded by the state. The two men, who are next door neighbors in Beit El, propose paying the refugee camp residents $50,000 to $100,000 each if they agree to emigrate.

"Those poor people have been suffering for six decades," said Elon. "I believe that if we give them the option of leaving they will grab it."

Elon said that he was astounded to discover that Palestinians who want to leave had difficulty getting to Ben-Gurion Airport, for security reasons.

Elon said many western countries, including Canada as well as some in South America, were open to immigrants, especially if they brought cash with them. He said he hoped to gain the cooperation of western countries for the program by emphasizing its humanitarian dimension.

Aviner, a respected halachic authority, has written an article advocating the transfer-for-payment idea, which appeared this weekend in Be'ahava U'Be'emuna, a pamphlet that is distributed in thousands of synagogues across the nation every Shabbat.

"Arabs are busy killing Jews or providing aid, cover and legitimacy to terrorists," Aviner said in a telephone interview.

"There is no end in sight. I do not want to keep killing them to protect myself. So the best solution is to encourage them to leave," he said. "As soon as the word gets around that Israel is paying compensation to anyone who leaves, it will have a snowball effect."

Aviner quoted the Koran as well as the Bible to demonstrate that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people.

Arabs who agreed to stop all terrorism against Israel and to accept second class citizenship, without voting rights, would be allowed to stay, Aviner said.

MK Ibrahim Sarsour (United Arab List-Ta'al) called the proposal "satanic," "fascist," and "nearly Nazi."

"Palestine is an integral part of Waqf-administered sacred Islamic land," said Sarsour, who is also the head of the Islamic Movement in Israel. "It belongs to the Muslim people. Benny Elon and others like him will have to trample over our dead bodies to remove us from this place."

Sarsour said "Islam" was willing to normalize relations with a sovereign Israel within the Green Line. He said all Jews living in the West Bank or eastern Jerusalem must leave their homes or renounce Zionism and agree to second-class citizenship, without voting rights.

"But Elon is trying to push for the option of conflict and extinction of both peoples," he said.

Sarsour said "zealots" like Elon and Aviner had caused the destruction of the Second Temple, and that history could repeat itself.

"The weak do not stay weak forever, nor do the strong," Sarsour said.

There were some of the "You must be Nazis if you want to want to move the Arabs out" comments but here are some comments that amplified the article.

60. Arabs and logic
Aviva -- Jerusalem, Israel
01/23/2007 03:27

Sarsour calls a plan for paying Arabs to leave "satanic, fascist and nazi" and then turns around and proposes exactly the same plan for Jews--only without compensation. So it is the compensation that makes the plan "satanic"? Also, nazis never paid the Jews to leave--they made the Jews PAY THEM for the privilege of being allowed to leave instead of being murdered.

57. This is a wonderful idea
01/22/2007 22:36

Giving money to the palis to leave is a wonderful idea but in the world that we are living in, they would rather live in filth and kill themselves and their children to wipe Israel off the map and destroy the Jews. If they wanted to they could easily go live elsewhere but they won't. and besides all the terrorist sponsors will pay more for the palis to stay put. Good luck I say, I hope this will work but I know how islamofacists work.

53. Where the money will come from
Tracy W
01/22/2007 19:26

"Palestine" is not viable. If it becomes a country, Palestinians will engage in every illicit deal available to survive. Or else they will continue to live off charity, like they've always done. Too much Western money continues to be poured on them already. It's cheaper for Israel and donors to pay now than to continue to pay for ever. Nobody can expect to make a decent living and have a normal life in a Palestinian state. Just look at Gaza now.

49. The Arabs want all Jews in E.Jerusalem and Judea Samaria to leave their homes -- isn't that satanic, fascist and nearly Nazi
Haim Cohen -- Israel
01/22/2007 19:03

If the Palestinians insist that all Jews leave their homes in Judea Samaria, they must agree that all Palestinian Arabs leave their homes within the Green Line.

45. to Dan 39
jackiekc -- USA
01/22/2007 17:53

Use the tax money that Israel has been hold to send the first guys away, then --as the cost of policing and the need for security lessens, use the money saved from that expense. There is always a way to find enough cash, if it enables Israel to get rid of potential terrorists.

44. The Fact That Arabs Were Ever Allowed In The Jewish Knesset Is Despicable. By Trying To Be 'Holier Than The Pope' Israel Has Slit Its Own Throat.
Adina Kutnicki -- US
01/22/2007 17:25

While the Israeli gov't has proven that transfer is doable with its 'settler' population, isn't it all the more imperative to transfer a burgeoning hostile Arab population? Sarsour's fantasies are exactly the reason this must be done. He and his fellow Islamists believe that the Jewish homeland belongs to the Arabs. Never mind that their own Koran says the opposite. Since they have been repeating this lie for decades most of the world has swallowed it.

43. Grab Offer With Both Hands.
maura collins -- Ireland.
01/22/2007 17:25

MK Sarsour would play no part in this, as he is a corrupt pol. He proposes the same, sans the Nazi tag, and thinks this is acceptable? This man should never have been given the opportunity to be a member of the Knesset, and that is the base fault of Israel trying to play fair with a people who have zero concept of fairness. That this offer was made at all is astonishing, and I, for one, would grab it with both hands.

42. Grab Offer With Both Hands.
maura collins -- Ireland.
01/22/2007 17:24

As a woman with children, should I be in the position that those in Samaria & Judea are in, I would do everything within my power to protect them, and no force on earth would sway me from my duty as their mother. I would hope to be smart enough to realistically see myself for what I am: fodder for the Pals, and would accept an offer of $$ and safe passage to a country willing to accept us. Continue>

40. Not a bad idea
Andrew -- Canada
01/22/2007 15:22

Not a bad idea -- As long as Israel coughs up the cash (NO hand-outs from the rest of the world. Of course if people want to make a donation then go ahead) A better idea would be to cut off ALL funding to the "holy land" (including the Israeli war machine) and let "God" decide who the choesn people are.

35. It won't happen precisely because IT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM
Mo -- Israel
01/22/2007 08:49

There is a need for conflict in Israel, and anything that would end it peacefully with nobody having any grievances (as this plan would do) is unacceptable.

34. Is this guy for real?
Matt -- USA
01/22/2007 08:46

It may just be ironic editing for humor's sake, but the illogic and hypocricy of Sarsour's statements made me laugh out loud. The Jews should either move away, accept second class citizenship, or face Sarsour's thinly veiled threats of violence. On the other hand, a voluntary and generous financial inducement in the other directon is satanic and Nazi. Allah must be so proud.

33. This was Herut's plan from the last elections
Joy -- Israel
01/22/2007 06:25

Im happy that Benny Elon is adopting Kleiner's plan for assisted Arab emigration. Its agood plan and since Herut couldnt enter Knesset its good that someone else adopt the plan. Its really the only humane solution to our situation.

32. Sarsour plan
Victor -- Canada
01/22/2007 06:10

Mr Sarsour to be seriously considered should suggest a symmentric plan: to provide compensation for all relocated Jews from Arab funds (when those who were relocated from Gaza will get their compensation from PA?) and declare that Arabs also should not have electorial rights in Israel.

31. Transfer-for-cash plam
Gary A. Glaser -- USA
01/22/2007 05:45

I suppose next some leftist is going to start talking about the apartheid Israeli plan, while completly ignoring the fact that Sarsour proposed the exact same plan from a Moslem point-of-view. Of course, it is a well known fact that all non-Moslems are second-class citizens of any Moslem country, although a lot of people completely ignore this fact.

28. first try and think with their head.
gregorio -- argentina
01/22/2007 03:36

This plan is absolutly irrealistic. The worst option is to offer them money. They will happily take it, and in a short time, return, resettle, and ask for more. Blackmailers never quit, and the only way to deal with them is the one all know.

26. Imaginary Proposal
David Kopel -- USA
01/22/2007 03:02

Won't happen. Not now. Not ever. And under the remote possibility that Israel does make such a proposal, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Iran would counter-offer $150,000 to stay..

25. Solution since 1948!
01/22/2007 02:40

The UN had this solution on the books as part of the resolution that ended with the Israeli war of independence. According to Sansour, they are also Nazis (who also provide millions of $$$ in aid to Pal terrorists). This is not a new solution but kudos to Elon for taking the lead in doing something about it. Why would Arabs take it? Because no other viable solution exists -- and they're tired of being fodder for someone else's war.

24. $100,000 not to be sneezed at!
Joe -- USA
01/22/2007 02:33

'satanic, fascist, nearly Nazi' to offer $100,000 to move to a different country. I can't recall the fascists or Nazis offering Jews $100,000 to emigrate -- or many countries prepared to accept Germany's Jewish refugees. For $100,000 I would be happy to consider a move to a less stressful society.

23. Hyprocrisy -- Arabs already paid to stay
01/22/2007 02:28

Arab MKs mention of Nazis is always out of place. While this plan offers an incentive, but no force -- compare that to Arafat's henchman that paid off refugees to stay in camps and never leave (in order to make Pals look more pathetic) and threaten them if they do try to leave. Among many examples, the one that stands out is Israel's offer to build adequate housing in Gaza in the 80's, and all were rejected. Even the Koran says Israel is Jewish, despite Sansour.

22. Emigration to Arab countries
Tracy W
01/22/2007 02:15

Logic and fairness dictate that immigration from Muslim countries into the West should be blocked until they themselves open their doors to Palestinian immigrants, which they have always refused to do. Why has the West permitted this? I don't see ANY demand being made from coutries that actually lost the war with Israel. Why?

20. Kahane
Binyomin -- USA
01/22/2007 01:57

This was Kahane's plan. Change the name and then everyone likes it. Kahane Chai?

19. what did Sarsour say?
Al Kafr
01/22/2007 01:38

he thinks denying Arabs voting rights in Israel as "nazi like" but offers Jews Dihimi status with no voting rights and no civil rights. How interesting. The kettle is calling snow black.

18. Sarsour just proved Elon is right
Gili -- Canada
01/22/2007 01:29

Consider: Sarsour is saying that "Islam" is willing to normalize relations with Israel and offer those living in the west bank second-class citizenship without voting rights. That is actually a heck of a lot *more* then what they are currently offering (which is to exterminate all Jews). If pushing Elon's plan gets this kind of reaction then we should be all for it. Also, the Arabs are demanding a state free of Jews yet they call the Jews racist for asking for the same thing in the Jewish state

17. Good idea---the territory alone is worth the money, never mind ending the war
01/22/2007 01:23

However, it is a bad idea to talk about it if you are not going to do it.

16. Question?
Spencer -- Canada
01/22/2007 01:19

Can someone please answer this question.... Isn't the more serious demographic problem the number of Arabs within Green Line Israel who have full voting rights and who have a birthrate far higher than Jews? Arabs who live in the West Bank and GAza are separated by a wall, do not have voting rights and are not a real strategic threat as long as ISrael has a powerful military.... But Israeli Arabs could take over Israel legally without war simply through demographics?

15. Birthright should be paying Arabs to leave!
Sam Gorin -- usa
01/22/2007 01:19

Ive been saying it for ages, instead of telling Jews they have no future in the US, France, England or any other democratic country -- spend the money in a wiser function -- Pay the arabs to leave. Soursour thinks he and the arabs OWN Israel -- they are simply waiting for the Jews to get tired and leave, then move in. Only Olmert doesnt know Islam uses the Pal "issue" to destroy Judism -- Olmert still thinks its about "Land".

13. Better then nothing
Alex -- USA
01/22/2007 01:02

This plan is better than anything else "on the table". It is very humane, maybe even more humane than it should be. Non-voluntary transfer with compensation is even a better plan. History has proven many times that Arabs do not desire peace. A hostile population like that does not have moral justification to agree or disagree for transfer. Send them all out and compensate them for their property. The time for this idea to go mainstream has come.

11. Nothing wrong with this plan but...
Shel Zahav -- Israel
01/22/2007 00:35

There is nothing wrong with this plan if done voluntarily. It is a win-win situation. However, $50,000 per person isn't necessary; $20,000 per person will suffice to fund 100,000 emigres per year.

EGW -- canada
01/22/2007 00:23

Did Aviner REALLY say "ACCEPT SECOND CLASS CITIZENSHIP", or is this a bit of "press licence" to embellish and titilate??? I am a landed immigrant in Canada. I can't vote but am NOT in ANY way a "second class citizen". I have suggested for years that Yesha should form a "shadow" government complete with all the appurtenances, Defense, Justice, Health, Social, Immigration, etc. They have over 600,000 souls including Golan and East Jerusalem. there would be many immigrants, like Israel in 1948.

9. 80% of Palis polled said they would take $$ and run
01/22/2007 00:10

Sarsour, your mad and rabid Jew hating is contributing to Arab's notorious history revisionism. So this plan is like the Nazi's, huh?? When the Nazi's transferred the Jews to the gas chambers? When the Nazis stole billions $$ from the Jews and still have not returned the loot? Well yes I am slowly seeing your comparisons. Maybe you are right and we should make sure you are. So let's start tattooing!Polled Palis, 80%, said they would take the money and run. Get lost, you animal!

7. Transfer-for-cash, one objection
Tracy W
01/21/2007 23:41

Although I absolutely agree with this idea, my objection concerns the second-class citizenship designation. 1) It would result in non-ending criticism both inside Israel and abroad. 2) Future Israeli governments might bend under pressure and restore their citizenship 3) Arab parents may swear loyalty, but what about future generations? 4) The Arab population would continue to increase creating an impossible situation when they become a majority in a few decades (apartheid?).

6. Economic incentives to help Palestinian Muslims relocate is an ethical and humane way to solve the Mideast conflict and concretize regional stability
01/21/2007 23:39

Economic incentives to help Palestinian Muslims relocate, is an ethical and humane way to solve the Mideast conflict and concretize regional stability.

5. Sarsour EXTREME Hypocracy
01/21/2007 23:28

An arab MK explaining in perfect clarity that arabs would NEVER allow jews to vote in their countries. So why should we allow arabs to vote. EXPEL THEM.

4. Funding Arab Re-settlement
01/21/2007 23:27

The idea of giving cash to Israeli Arabs to resettle elsewhere is excellent. It should be expanded to the Palestinian Arabs as well, by using the huge funds from international donors that end up in the pockets of corrupt leaders or in the purchase of weapons instead of helping Arab families.

Brooke -- Canada
01/21/2007 22:57

Finally a REAL and FAIR solution !have been advocating for a long time. However, Canada is not the place to send them. France loves them as does Cuba, Venezueala, N> Korea and Russia. And all of their Arab brethern countries. The West does not need their Jihad and anti-semetism, thank you very much. I love Israel and the West. Send them to countries that meet their true political natures- not to the West that is naive and still labors under the cruel weight and false lies of multi-culturalism

2. Pay As You Go
Moshe -- USA
01/21/2007 22:52

Payment of $50,000 to 100,000 per individual to leave the UN camps for other countries is much more humane than receiving UN hand outs and languishing in poverty and humiliation. In addition, it would remove a source of terrorism against Israel. This is a wonderful idea. But it won't work, because Israel's neighbors will not let it work. For example, the refugees could be encouraged to return as illegals and to carry out acts of terrorism.

1. This was Michael Kleiner's plan
Yoni -- Israel
01/21/2007 22:23

Wasn't this the Herut party's plan in the last Knesset? At least give credit where its due.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, January 21, 2007.

All oppressive regimes fear their people. As a result the Police are generally divided into two types: the Criminal Police and the Political Police. The function of the Criminal Police is the usual business of law and order. The Political Police focus on "enemies of the State." The existence of a Political Police in Israel is nothing new and this has been around since the pre-State days of the Jewish Agency.

This is called "Israel Runs Secret Unit To Monitor Withdrawal Opposition," and is archived on IMRA
(http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=32550). Contact IMRA at imra@netvision.net.il It was published today on

JERUSALEM -- Israel's domestic security agency has been operating a secret unit designed to monitor and infiltrate opposition to the government's withdrawal policy from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The secret unit was established in February 2005 as the government prepared for the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank and the expulsion of 16,000 Jews. Officials said the Israel Security Agency unit, authorized to infiltrate protest groups, was also designed to monitor the Internet.

"There will be attorneys in every relevant district, and they can accompany the investigations and provide immediate advice to the police because of the sensitivity involved in the realm of expression," Shai Nitzan, deputy state prosecutor for special operations, said.

Nearly two years later, the government and some panel members have refused to acknowledge the ISA unit. But Knesset member Michael Eitan, former chairman of the Constitution and Law Committee, said the unit continues to operate, although without parliamentary oversight.

"This was an intelligence unit," Eitan told Israeljustice.com in mid-January 2007. "What's it our business to oversee this?"

The secret intelligence unit was discussed in a closed emergency session of the Knesset Constitution and Law Committee on March 1, 2005. A transcript of the hearing was recently obtained by Israeljustice.com.

"The government conducted a meeting and has made a decision to establish a special unit in the Justice Ministry," Eitan told the committee during the emergency session.

Officials said Nitzan has headed the secret ISA unit under the jurisdiction of the Justice Ministry. They said Nitzan reports to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz and the unidentified legal adviser of the ISA. Neither the ISA nor the Justice Ministry agreed to discuss the special unit. Several officials became agitated when asked about the functions of the ISA unit.

"No, no and no," Justice Ministry spokesman Moshe Cohen told Israeljustice.com.

During the March 2005 session, Nitzan and other officials provided details of the secret intelligence unit. They said the unit was meant to determine whether dissent or civil disobedience constituted incitement or sedition, punishable by five years under Israeli law.

"We are very sensitive to crimes called 'crimes of expression,'" the ISA legal adviser said. "The treatment is different to that of other crimes because there is a thin line between freedom of expression and criminal acts. These include incitement to violence, incitement to racism and incitement to draft evasion."

Over the last year, about 700 people were indicted in connection with the protest campaign against the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank, officials said. Several of the indictments pertained to newspaper articles or letters critical of officials who directed the withdrawal.

Officials said the prosecution has handled what they termed clear cases of incitment or sedition. They said the new ISA unit was reserved for what one official termed "clandestine matters."

The intelligence unit was also granted extensive powers, officials said. This included the use of agents to infiltrate the anti-withdrawal movement, comprised mostly of Jewish teenagers.

"We call them live sources," the ISA legal adviser said of the agents. "This is no secret, and if it is a secret, I'm revealing that we operate live sources to collect information in problematic situations."

During the hearing, the intelligence official acknowledged the unauthorized use of an agent-provocateur to incite the man who eventually assassinated then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. The official said the agency has "come a long way" since ISA handled the agent, Avishai Raviv.

The legal adviser said ISA has been cooperating with the Justice Ministry and the attorney general in the use of agents against Jewish dissidents. He said the agency also operated a so-called Jewish division, which monitored those deemed Jewish extremists.

For his part, Nitzan told the Knesset session that the ISA unit was meant to help authorities block the rise in anti-withdrawal protests. He said the state prosecutor drafted guidelines to confront incitement and sedition.

"The prosecutor's office is already overloaded," Nitzan said. "As a result, there are cases that it is important to deal with quickly to send a message to prevent additional violations of the law. We've also asked for more judges."

During the session, several committee members expressed concern over the new unit. Knesset member Yuli Edelstein, imprisoned in the 1980s as a Jewish dissident in the Soviet Union, said he was worried by the ISA use of agent-provocateurs, employed widely in totalitarian countries.

"The angle that really worries me is the activity of the agents," Edelstein said. "We need to supervise the Justice Ministry."

Other committee members expressed concern over the authority of the secret intelligence unit to comb the media and Internet sites for dissent. Knesset member Yitzhak Levy said this was unprecedented in Israel.

"Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said the unit will go through newspapers every day and try to spot [negative] remarks," Levy said. "It seems that we are speaking about an activism that is above and beyond what is usually discussed."

Today, several of the committee members said they no longer receive updates regarding the ISA unit. But attorneys who represent anti-withdrawal activists said the unit's activities were adopted by other agencies in the law enforcement community.

"People in the police are doing this," Yitzhak Klein, director of the Jerusalem-based Israel Policy Center said. "They have a computer crimes section and they are looking for incriminating material and there is some evidence that these cases are run through Mazuz himself. It's possible that we see here one of the outcomes of the special unit."

Knesset committee members said Eitan was the sole liaison between Israeli authorities and parliament concerning the government campaign against anti withdrawal opponents. But even during the 2005 hearing Eitan doubted whether parliament could maintain oversight over the ISA unit.

"There are gray areas like everything in life, but the Justice Ministry is on top of things," Eitan said. "It could be that we in the Knesset need to supervise the Justice Ministry and receive information. But even then, there will be things that are not right. What can we do? Should we get rid of these operations that we know we need?"

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 21, 2007.

Professor Amnon Rubinstein from Meretz Denounces the Treason at Tel Aviv University

Prof. Amnon Rubinstein is an interesting guy. These days he is the closest thing to a leftist patriot in Israel, and I say that as someone who maintains that in Israel "leftist patriot" is generally an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

Rubinstein's bio reads like a political novel (see a version of it at
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/rubinstein.html). For years he served as professor at constitutional law at the Tel Aviv University (TAU) Law School. Rubinstein was one of the founders of that law school and its very first dean. In the 1970s he was one of the founders and leaders of the "old" Shinui party, not to be confused with the centrist Orthodox-baiting party with the same name run later by Joseph "Tommy" Lapid. That older Shinui merged with others, including some Marxists from MAPAM, to form the MERETZ party in 1992. MERETZ, of course, was a leftwing capitulationist party, and in large part it was responsible for creating (with its Labor Party coalition partners) the entire Oslo debacle. Within Meretz, Rubinstein and his faction formed a remarkable freer-market cadre, one fighting internally against the Marxists over economic and social issues. Indeed, Rubinstein's Meretz faction was the closest thing in Israel back then to advocates of true market economics.

Altogether Rubinstein sat in the Knesset for 25 years. He served for a while as Minister of Education, and as such promoted experiments in public school choice and vouchers. He was one of the senior professors in Israel who jabbed their fingers in the eye of the country's Ivory Cartel, the Council on Higher Education, defying the council in setting up the first private-sector law school and university in Israel, the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, where Rubinstein continues to teach.

While I am not suggesting that Rubinstein be granted moral clemency for his personal role in imposing the Oslo fiasco on the country, he is nevertheless a combative Zionist. He is one of the few people in Israel for whom "leftist Zionism" really still exists. And he has been one of the leading crusaders in Israel against Israel's Academic Fifth Column (see
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1132053860765& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

While Rubinstein still holds to many of his dovish positions, he despises "Post-Zionists" and New Historians, people like Ilan Pappe, Oren Yiftachel, Neve Gordon, and their ilk. Rubinstein regards such people as traitors and often says so. He writes a weekly column in Maariv in which attacks on academic extremists are a recurring and frequent theme. He and Ben-Dror Yemini, who is also Left of Center, have emerged as the two best commentators on Israeli academic sedition in the Israeli mainstream media.

Rubinstein is particularly effective because of the fact that he himself is a bona fide member of the Oslo Left; hence when he attacks academic radicals his criticism is all the more devastating. Curmudgeons such as myself are understood to be anti-Oslo and anti-Left regarding just about everything, and so no criticism by us can make any impression on the leftwing anti-Zionist radicals. But Rubinstein and Yemini draw blood every time they attack, and they are critics whom the Post-Zionists cannot ignore and dismiss.

On January 12, 07, Ben Dror Yemini (deputy editor of Maariv) devoted an entire full page in Maariv to a pro-terror "academic" event held at Tel Aviv University, sponsored by its law school. Yemini began his column by pointing out that "rights discourse" is today little more than a weapon being used by Israel's enemies and by the enemies of human freedom to destroy Israel. He mocks "progressives" who rationalize the murderous behavior of terrorists as part of "understanding the Other" and being sensitive.

He then notes that a few weeks ago, a group of leftist anti-Zionists on the faculty of Tel Aviv University, of which there are ever so many, conducted an "academic conference" dedicated to the idea that imprisoned Palestinian mass murderers and terrorists are in fact "political prisoners", deserving of sympathy and support. The Tel Aviv University law school contains a large number of anti-Israel radical leftists. A Palestinian who blows up a pregnant mother with her toddlers is nothing more than a political protester, protesting occupation, in the "minds" of such people. Yemini's column was a blistering attack on the participants and sponsors of that "conference".

Restrictions on misuses of academic freedom, such as what was on display in the pro-terror conference at Tel Aviv University, are, wrote Yemini, no different from restrictions on Holocaust Denial. That is because Holocaust Denial is not an academic nor scholarly theory at all but merely a political weapon of hate. But so is "academizing" terror and mass murder. So any "conference", such as the pro-terror one held at Tel Aviv University law school, is little more than an attempt at promoting the anti-Semitic agenda, writes Yemini. He then asks rhetorically why Tel Aviv University does not conduct Holocaust Denial conferences in the name of "academic freedom," or a conference for those advocating genocide of Jews.

Yemini's column was followed in Maariv a week later by an even more devastating attack on the Tel Aviv University Left, written by Amnon Rubinstein. Prof. Rubinstein's entire column was an attack on that same pro-terror conference, hosted by the very same law school in which Rubinstein had taught for many years. His column is entitled "Terrorists on the Faculty". He begins his column by noting that initially every single participant in that "conference" was a leftist, most of them openly radical and anti-Israel, but when public criticism was triggered once the event was advertised, a few token non-extremists were added as speakers.

Nevertheless, there was nothing at all academic about this "conference", writes Rubinstein. No research, no scholarship, no real debate, simply anti-Israel political advocacy. It was an event more befitting a beer hall than a university, he adds (perhaps one in Munich? -- SP). It was simply an example of on-campus anti-Israel political indoctrination, of the sort that takes place every week on Israeli campuses. Campus conferences sponsored by the social sciences, writes Rubinstein, almost never allow any expression for the points of view held by the vast majority of Israelis (meaning Zionism and patriotism).

At the Tel Aviv University law school pro-terror conference, the speaker there receiving the greatest applause was Tali Fahima, notes Rubinstein, a pro-terror extremist Jewish woman recently released from prison, where she had been held for assisting her Palestinian terrorist boyfriend plan terror attacks. Another featured speaker at the Tel Aviv University event was a Palestinian terrorist who had been imprisoned for his crimes by Israel for 27 years, including for throwing a Molotov cocktail at a civilian bus. Rubinstein adds bitterly that the people who run the TAU law school never even considered balancing these terrorists with an invitation to a victim of Palestinian terror to sit at the conference podium. At Tel Aviv University, murderers and terrorists of Jews considered entitled to "civil rights", but not Jewish civilians.

The TAU conference also included a long session on the administrative problems faced by Palestinians seeking to visit imprisoned terrorist family members, writes Rubinstein, while not a word was said about the kidnapped Israelis being held by terrorists. But if you think the TAU law school would conduct a conference on the violation of the human rights of families of Jews murdered by those same terrorists, you would make me laugh, adds Rubinstein.

Rubinstein joins Yemini in claiming that there is no difference between this seditious pro-terror "academic" conference conducted at Tel Aviv University (on facilities financed by the very same Israeli taxpayers whom these radical professors want to see murdered --- SP) and a conference promoting Holocaust Denial or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The law school at Tel Aviv University is hardly the only campus center there in which anti-Israel sedition and "Post-Zionism" dominate. There are entire departments at the university in which every single faculty member (or nearly every one) is an anti-Israel radical leftist. Courses consisting of in-classroom anti-Israel indoctrination are conducted there. For more information on sedition and radicalism at Tel Aviv University, go to the web site www.israel-academia-monitor.com, operated by "Israel Academia Monitor", Israel's cousin to "Campus Watch", operated by Dr. Daniel Pipes in the US.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, January 20, 2007.

Daniel Pinner is a veteran immigrant from England, a teacher and an electrician by profession; a Torah scholar who has been active in causes promoting Eretz Israel and Torat Israel.

This is a commentary on Vayeira by Daniel Pinner. His ideas are compelling, partiularly considering that the Israeli Government jailed him even though they know he was blameless. He shot a gun into the air when he was attacked by some 50 rock-throwing Arabs, until they backed off. He was accused of injuring one of them -- even though the "wounded" arab changed his claim several times (the shot was in the leg, no, the chest) and the arabs gave contradictory testimony.

This essay appeared January 18, 2007 in Arutz-Sheva

"And Hashem said to Moses: 'Say to Aaron: Take your staff and stretch forth your hand over the waters of Egypt, and they will become blood, and the Egyptian sorcerers did the same with their black magic,'" (Exodus 7:19).

This is a remarkable comment on the power of hate. The previous day, Moses and Aaron had stood before Pharoah and his sorcerers. Aaron had cast down his staff and it turned into a snake. The Egyptian sorcerers then matched that miracle with their sorcery.

True, Aaron's snakes swallowed all the sorcerer's snakes foretelling that Hashem's miracles would inevitably overpower black magic from impure sources. But nonetheless, they succeeded in reassuring Pharoah that Egyptian magic could protect him.

When Aaron and Moses brought the plague of blood on Egypt, those sorcerers again duplicated the miracle using their own black magic, demonstrating to Pharoah that they were a match for Hashem, the G-d of the Hebrews.

Surely it would have been more sensible for them to turn the blood back into water! But instead, they took what little water they had (according to Targum Yonatan they took water from Goshen; according to the Or HaChaim, they dug for subterranean water), and turned that into blood. So important was it for them to prove that Moses and Aaron did not have special powers, they were willing to add to the plague.

With the second plague too, the Egyptian sorcerers displayed the same characteristic. "Aaron stretched forth his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up and covered the Land of Egypt. And the sorcerers did the same with their black magic, bringing up frogs onto the Land of Egypt," (8:3). Again, instead of trying to eliminate the frogs, they brought up even more frogs -- purely in order to prove that their magic could match that of Moses and Aaron.

With the third plague, that of lice, the sorcerers tried again to do the same: "Aaron stretched forth his staff and struck the dust of Egypt; it became lice, on man and beast. All the dust of Egypt became lice throughout the Land of Egypt. And the sorcerers did the same with their black magic, to bring forth lice, but they were unable to," (8:13-14).

It was then that the sorcerers confessed to Pharoah "this is the finger of G-d," (8:15). But at no stage did the sorcerers try to alleviate the Egyptian's suffering.

This seems to have been a consistent Egyptian characteristic. More than 80 years earlier, a previous Pharoah had made the infamous decree. "When you deliver the Hebrew women and you see the birth stones, if it is a boy, you will kill him, and if it is a girl she will live," (1:16). When this evil scheme failed because the midwives refused to collaborate, Pharoah commanded his entire nation [not just the Jews] saying, "Every son who is born [not just the Jewish boys] you will throw into the river; and every daughter you will save alive,"(1:22).

The Midrash explains his rationale. "The astrologist told him, 'The mother of the savior of Israel has become pregnant, but we don not know if it will be an Israelite or an Egyptian,'" (Exodus Raba 1:18, and compare Targum Yonatan to Exodus 1:22).

With hindsight, we understand their uncertainty. Moses was both an Israelite and an Egyptian prince. But the practical result was that in his attempt to frustrate the Israelites' salvation, Pharoah was willing to perpetrate mass murder even against the sons of his own people.

As the plagues progressed Pharoah persisted in his attempt to destroy the Israelites, even as he knew that he would destroy his own nation in the process. By the eighth plague, that of locusts, Pharoah's servants could already see the writing on the wall.

Pharoah's servants said to him, "Until when will he be a snare unto us? Send away the people so they will serve Hashem their G-d. Do you not know that Egypt is destroyed?!" (10:7).

In his desperate fight against Israel, Pharoah ultimately plunged himself and his army into the Red Sea, leaving them to their own destruction.

And this set a precedent for all our enemies. A few weeks later, we encountered Amalek in the desert, in Rephidim. The Torah gives a fascinating insight into that encounter, and the nature of Amalek. "As it happened that when Moses would raise his hands, Israel would prevail..." (17:11). And the obvious question is: When Israel prevailed -- as they eventually did when Aaron and Hur held Moses's hands up -- why did Amalek not simply break off contact?

After all Amalek was in the desert far from their settled homeland. They had nothing material to fight for. Evidently, this was yet another example of the enemies of Israel being willing to doom themselves in order to fight against us.

Pharoah and the Egyptians managed to inflict horrendous damage on us before they were finally destroyed; so to our enemies in our own days. But the historical lesson is clear. An enemy so consumed by hate that he is willing to destroy himself to kill a few more Jews, is an enemy whose defeat and utter desolation we will ultimately celebrate.

"So too may all Your enemies be destroyed O' Hashem, and those who love Him will be as powerful as a rising sun," (Judges 5:31).

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by January Yoram Ettinger, January 20, 2007.

Enclosed you'll find the 201st issue of "Straight From The Jerusalem Cloakroom", which exposes the superficiality of the claim that the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Palestinian issue or the US-Israel win-win relations have been a core cause of Islamic terrorism.

Should you wish to examine previous issues and OpEds, please visit The Ettinger Report at http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il.

Enjoy it and may we elect leaders, who are endowed with the leadership tenets of Moses (who features in last week's portion of the Torah (Va'Erah): Humility, Compassion, Faith, Long-Term Vision and Determination in face of adversity. Yoram

Below is Straight From The Jerusalem Cloakroom #201, January 21, 2007

While the US and European foreign policy establishments have contended that the core of the 13-century-old Islamic terrorism and Middle East violence is the less-than-a-century-old Palestinian issue...

1. ISLAMIC TERRORISM HAS BEEN A MIDEAST FIXTURE since the seventh century, when three of the first four Caliphs, succeeding the Prophet Muhammad, were murdered by political rivals: Umar ibn Abd al-Khattab (644AD), Uthman Ibn Affan (656AD) and Ali ibn Abi Talib (661AD). It has afflicted the Arab Mideast regionally and domestically. Prof. P.J. Vatikiotis, London University, who was a world renowned authority on Mideast history: "One cannot separate, in the Mideast, international terrorism from domestic terrorism. One cannot condemn the one without condemning the other, nor can one combat the one without combating the other." ("Terrorism: How The West Can Win", 1986, p. 83).

2. ANTI-WESTERN ISLAMIC TERRORISM dates back to the basic Muslim legal/theological view of the struggle between the Abode of Islam (Dar A-Salam) against the Abode of War-Sword-Infidels (Dar al-Kharb). It aims at bringing the globe under Islamic dominion. In October 732AD, the Muslim forces of Abd Al-Rahman fought -- and lost to Charles Martel, "The Hammer" -- 200 miles south of Paris, in an attempt to realize the goal of Islam. Today, Arab/Muslim societies invoke Quranic verses and Islamic history precedents as guidelines for daily (especially national) conduct. Contemporary rogue Muslim regimes pursue Islam's historical goal through terrorism, via the acquisition of nuclear and other non-conventional capabilities and by demographic expansion in western democracies of Dar al-Kharb.

3. THE USA IS PERCEIVED AS THE "BIG SATAN" by Mideast Arab regimes due to its role as the leader of the Western infidel world, Dar al-Kharb. The US is the most effective hurdle, which has tackled Islamic terrorism and expansionist aspirations by rogue Muslim regimes (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc.). US democracy of Life-Liberty- Pursuit of Happiness, free minds/markets, tolerance and freedom of expression/religion/association/media constitute a clear and present danger to all Arab/Muslim regimes (Turkey excepted). They would be replaced, summarily, once US democracy is implemented in their midst.

4. SCAPEGOATISM HAS TARGETED THE USA, the West and the Jewish State as scapegoats for Arab/Muslim frustration, humiliation and rage over the failure to reclaim the splendor of ancient Islamic dominance.

5. ISRAEL IS DEPICTED, by Arab/Muslim establishments AS A DAGGER OF THE WEST, as an outpost of the US, "an agent of US imperialism", as the "Little Satan."

6. "A NIHILISTIC CULT OF DEATH ARE TRAITS THAT NAZIS, FASCISTS AND ISLAMISTS share completely in common. The morbid addiction to destruction and revenge drives them to paint the world red with blood in their mad rush to introduce utopia in the here-and-now... Whether millions die in the attempt is irrelevant... Arab unity would remain a dream without sacrifice, conflict martyrdom and bloodshed... (Prof. Wistrich of the Hebrew University, "National Interest", Summer 2003).

7. IRRESPECTIVE OF ISRAEL'S EXISTENCE AND THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE, Islamic terrorism has recently plagued Australia, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Russia, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Scandinavia, Holland, France, England, Spain, the US, etc.

8. INDEPENDENT OF ISRAEL'S POLICIES AND THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT, Muslim terrorists were arrested in England before blowing up civilian aircraft over the Atlantic (Aug. 2006), 3 Muslim terrorists were seized for planning to blow up two German trains (Aug. 2006), Muslim terrorists murdered 209 Indians in Mumbai (July 2006), Muslim terrorists were apprehended in Canada for attempting to blow up major Toronto buildings (June 2006), Muslim terrorists were jailed for trying to blow up an Australian nuclear power station (Nov. 2005), 65 Indians murdered in New Delhi (Oct. 2005), etc.

9. A MESSAGE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT FROM PROF. FOUAD AJAMI, of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies: "No American diplomatic scheme would spare America the fury of those bent upon eradicating its presence in the region. It is a false reading of a large civilization to say that the terror springs from the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians... It springs from deeper social, economic and political pressures within Mideast society, from the traumas of dislocated newly urbanized youth...Some of it is hatched by merciless men for whom terror is a profession that pays... It does not advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians to pretend that it would solve a problem much larger than their conflict..." (NY Times, April 17, 1986).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Freify, January 20, 2007.

You were expecting ...maybe...peace????

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Hizballah puts a tight rein on UN peacekeepers' movements and policing operations in S. Lebanon -- with threats to their safety

The Shiite terrorist group last week set up military checkpoints and roadblocks to keep UN troops off the main roads connecting the Lebanese-Israeli border to Shiite villages and small towns in the south. Hizballah warned UN commanders that monitors flouting Hizballah's injunctions and conducting searches would be fired on.

These restrictions box the international force, expanded by the Security Council last August to keep the whole of S. Lebanon free of armed men except for the Lebanese army, into a narrow border strip. Hizballah has again manned its pre-war border positions -- albeit by unarmed operatives -- and their yellow flags are flying from their roofs. But most dangerously, Hizballah has moved most of its weapons stockpiles into the blocked villages in breach of the ceasefire rules and is anxious to keep them out of sight of UN monitors.

Having beaten UNIFIL into a corner, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasralllah celebrated the resignation of Israeli chief of staff Lt. General Dan Halutz as proof of his strategic victory in the Lebanon conflict of summer 2006. In a speech Friday, Jan 19, he crowed that Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz would be next to go. The speech was pre-taped, as are all Nasrallah's public appearances since last year, in view of his status as an internationally wanted terrorist.

DEBKAfile's military sources report that the episode Thursday, Jan 18, when Lebanese "villagers" from Zaoutar north of the Litani drove away Spanish UNIFIL members, was in fact the first time Hizballah had publicly turned the screw on the international peacekeepers. The Lebanese group has acted in advance of the arrival of the new Italian UNIFIL commander in Lebanon, Maj. Gen. Claudio Graziano, who takes over from Maj. Gen. Alain Pellegrini. He is expected to be a lot tougher about keeping Hizballah in line with the ceasefire conditions than Pellegrini who, the Shiite group found to be a soft touch.

DEBKAfile's political sources note that all of Hizballah's breaches and its advance ever closer to the border have evoked no Israeli response, whether diplomatic or military. This is causing deep concern in Israel's northern border towns and villages.

Contact freify at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, January 20, 2007.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Arafat' slicker Fatah comrade, President Mahmoud Abbas, on January 14th and promised that she has heard Arab demands for a stronger American hand to guide peace efforts with Israel. An Associated Press report quoted her on January 15th as stating, "I have heard loud and clear...You will have my commitment to do precisely that."

In other words, it's throw the Jew down the well time again.

Think about it...

What people or nation would be pressured to negotiate with enemies still dedicated to their destruction ?

Not many, right? Although Kurds come to mind also.

Condi's crew now expects Kurds--who have been subjugated and murdered by the hundreds of thousands by Arabs over the last century--to supply fighters to help keep Arabs of different stripes from blowing each other apart to the south in the name of the artificial, failed, Yugoslavian-type state known as Iraq.

It makes no difference that neither variation of Arabs--in their own words--have any intention to treat fellow Muslim but non-Arab Kurds as equals.

Arab nationalism has--and always will--win out over an inherently flawed, synthetic Iraqi nationalism, and if the Kurds don't play ball, the Shi'a in Iraq will eventually do to them what the Sunni have repeatedly done after the Islamic Republic of (Arab) Iraq is set up upon America's withdrawal. Just look to the east. Kurds have repeatedly been massacred there in the name of Shi'a Iranian nationalism. And Arabs see most, if not all, of this region as "purely Arab patrimony."

Back to the well...

Condi & Co. are inflating the Road Crap-er Map-balloon again.

Many others have already commented on Abbas' recent statements calling on Hamas and Fatah to stop killing each other and to turn their guns once again on Jews. And Condi and the Foggy Folks act as if they're deaf, dumb, and blind. Indeed, she's now planning to supply additional scores of millions of dollars in arms to her buddy Abbas.

But, fear not... there will be "assurances." Like those she gave on television about Hizbullah being disarmed in Lebanon last summer, during "phase two" of the cease fire.

Right...And I'm the Passover Bunny.

Recall that Abbas won his own "moderate" presidency running on a platform calling for Israel's destruction (but by more acceptable means), and all his government agencies, maps, schools, media, etc. and so forth depict the Arabs' 22nd state, "Palestine," taking the place of--not living side-by-side with--Israel. All of this and more are well known. At least Hamas is honest about its murderous, rejectionist intentions.

But, never mind...

Abbas and Fatah--whose constitution still doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, no matter what their worldwide whitewashers say--are the Jews' State Department-designated "peace" (of the grave) partners.

State--with approval from the White House--has repeatedly pressured Israel to unilaterally cave in to Arab demands.

Not long before Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had his horrendous stroke, as just one of many earlier examples, reports told of Condi screaming at Israeli officials at Sharon's ranch. Such things as removing checkpoints (that America now finds necessary itself in Iraq to cut down on terror); the Jews, themselves, supplying Arab disembowelers of their kids with arms; returning to the 1949 suicidal armistice lines; making Judea Judenrein; etc. and so forth are usually high on such agendas.

The title of that January 15th article mentioned above read, "Secretary of State Says She's Heard Abbas' Demand."

Where's the leaders who will put forth Israel's demands?

Who will unabashedly state to Abbas that Israel will not negotiate with any enemy until it openly acknowledges to the world and to its own people in their own language that it accepts Israel's right to exist.

Who will look the Arabs in their eyes and state that if they can have some two dozen states created by the conquest and forced Arabization of mostly other non-Arab peoples' lands, then Jews can have a resurrected state in the land where their ancestors have had a continuous existence for over three millennia.

Can Condi's boss say that about his ranch in Texas? Ask the Mexicans...

Where's the Israeli leader who will tell its best friend, America, that if it can have national security interests which necessitate that it acquire territories, topple governments, and meddle thousands of miles away from home, then it needs to understand that a miniscule Israel needs something more to increase its own security than empty promises and unfulfilled obligations from Arabs still sworn to its destruction.

America would not yield to such an enemy under such circumstances, and it is three thousand miles wide, has mostly friendly neighbors (despite conquering massive territories from at least one), has two oceans helping to act as a buffer, has three hundred million people, and is the most powerful nation on Earth.

Until Israel gets itself leaders willing to take a cut in American aid and such if the price is a Munich-style "peace" with Jews as the sacrificial offering, it should not agree to attend any proposed new Road Map summit that is now being planned.

It will only wind up being throw the Jew down the well time again.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, January 20, 2007.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post January 16, 2007.

Ehud Olmert's Kadima Party is on the skids. The weekend opinion polls showed that if elections were held today, the Likud would win 29 Knesset seats while Kadima, which now controls the government with 29 seats, would fall to 12 seats. But elections are anything but a foregone conclusion, and if his colleagues have their way, his political destruction will not bring about elections but simply pave the way for their ascension to power, just as Ariel Sharon's massive stroke paved Olmert's path to the premiership.

Indeed, this week Olmert's two principal deputies, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman, were veritably basking in the heat of his political infernos. Both used their photo-ops with visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to present themselves to the Israeli public as Olmert's rightful heirs -- the leaders with the big ideas and the international cachet that we can turn to in our hour of need.

On the face of it, Livni is best positioned to seize the reins of leadership. If Olmert is forced out of office, as vice premier Livni is legally the next in line. And as the inevitability of Olmert's political demise has sunken in, supported by much of the local media, Livni has been priming the public to accept her as Olmert's replacement. The media constantly reminds us that unlike many of her party and coalition colleagues, Livni is not suspected of having committed any criminal felonies and so, we are led to believe, we should be relieved to have her in charge. Her 51-percent job approval rating versus Olmert's 14-percent approval rating indicates that the public has bought this line of thinking.

BUT DO we really want her to lead us? In Livni's press appearance with Rice Saturday night she was asked whether she supports moving ahead with Palestinian statehood before the Palestinians end their involvement in terrorism, in contravention of the principal guideline of the US-backed road map peace plan. Livni's response illustrated at once her unique rhetorical skills and the unmatched analytical acumen she brings to bear today as Israel's chief diplomat.

In her words, "And but yes, I do and I was not talking about jumping or skipping or bypassing some of the phases of the road map, but I do believe that talking with the Palestinians today what are the best steps that we can take and maybe to make some visions or some -- what we say the political horizon more concrete if this can help, so this is something that we have to do. But there's a difference and we can distinguish talking with the Palestinians and implementing parts one before the other, and I believe that this is the difference maybe and maybe the kind of misunderstanding that was in the understanding of talking or implementing the phases in a different order."

It is not simply that this statement is garbled to the point of incoherence. It is not simply that Livni uses phrases and watchwords like "some visions" and "political horizons" and "misunderstanding that was in the understanding" in an attempt to cover up cognitive foolishness and disconnect from reality.

There is the pretension of know-it-all snobbery running through this -- and indeed every statement that Livni makes -- which demonstrates that Livni is altogether convinced that her grand designs for Palestinian statehood are so grand and designer that she will never allow the reality of the total Palestinian commitment to Israel's destruction to disturb her.

INDEED TWO days before Livni made this incomprehensible statement, Fatah terror organization and Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, on whom she pins all her hopes, told a rally in Ramallah that the "moderate" Palestinians in Fatah must understand that it is their job was to continue to kill Israelis. In his words, "We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation."

Saturday night's question to Livni about her view of the road map was a reasonable one. Late last month she outlined her vision for Israel's future in an interview with Haaretz. There she expressed her total commitment to establishing a Palestinian state as soon as possible. In her view, establishing a Palestinian state is a much more important priority for Israel than neutralizing the burgeoning Iranian nuclear threat to Israel. And to this end, she broadly intimated, she believes that it is in Israel's interest to hand Judea and Samaria over to Hamas and Fatah after first ethnically cleansing the areas of all Jewish presence.

And, by Livni's telling, this massive empowerment of terrorists and evisceration of Israeli societal cohesion would be nothing more than a first move toward the ultimate settlement of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. A final settlement would also include the ceding of parts of Jerusalem and facilitating the entry of millions of foreign-born Arabs dedicated to Israel's annihilation into the rump Palestinian terror state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

As to Iran, Livni sees no real reason for concern. She insists that due to her diplomatic brilliance, Israel won the war against Iran's Lebanese army Hizbullah last summer. Livni proclaims Israel's victory even as both the IDF and the US Director of National Intelligence and Rice's incoming deputy John Negroponte, have admitted that Hizbullah has rebuilt its forces to pre-war levels and is widely perceived as having won the war, to the detriment of Israel's strategic posture.

IN SPEAKING of Iran itself, Livni sounds more like a detached international relations professor sitting in Berkeley or Boston than the politician responsible for Israel's international relations. As she sees it, the biggest problem with Iran's nuclear weapons program is that it is liable to set off a regional arms race where lots of countries will try to get the bomb.

That is, her principal concern is not that Israel is first on Iran's list of declared targets for nuclear annihilation. That, she explains, is really beside the point. And anyway, it isn't Israel's problem -- it's the whole world's problem; and thanks to her, the whole world is unifying to stop Iran from getting the A-bomb.

BUT THEN, Livni wasn't the only cabinet minister pushing the notion of herself as Olmert's heir. Lieberman did too. Although the Likud has been leading in the polls for six months, Lieberman joined the government in early November to both prevent elections and so block the Likud's ascension to leadership, and to build his own credibility in a bid to replace the Likud with his Yisrael Beitenu party as the largest center-right party in Israeli politics.

Lieberman projects himself as the anti-Livni -- the sane voice in the government that will curb her radical leftist tendencies. But is this true? Is he a sane voice?

At the beginning of the month, Lieberman assailed Livni's plan to give the Palestinians a state before they renounce their plans to destroy Israel. But then he unveiled his big idea. Lieberman understands that Israel is a frontline state in the global jihad. But since this is a global jihad, he has determined that Israel's best bet is to join the European Union.

In his words, "Israel's diplomatic and security goal... must be clear: joining NATO and entering the European Union." In his photo-op with Rice, Lieberman expounded on his big idea that NATO and the EU will now take Israel under their wing. Israel, he said, must reoccupy Gaza to end its transformation into a new hub for global jihad. But after Israel invades Gaza, NATO should send 30,000 soldiers into Gaza to take over security from Israel.

Just as Livni, in advancing her idea of giving Judea and Samaria to Fatah and Hamas, ignores the fact that Fatah and Hamas are not interested in peace with Israel, so Lieberman in advancing his plan to subsume Israeli sovereignty into EU and NATO membership pays no attention to the nature of these groups. He ignores the fact that the central guiding principle of EU foreign policy is support for the Palestinians -- including Hamas -- in their bid to destroy Israel. And he seems to overlook the fact that US leadership of NATO did not prevent NATO members France, Belgium, Germany and Turkey from doing everything they could to prevent the US from defeating Saddam Hussein in 2003.

After ascending to his accidental premiership when Ariel Sharon was felled by his stroke last year, Olmert was able to win the elections last March by disguising his radical leftist and strategically stillborn plan to transfer Judea and Samaria to Fatah and Hamas as "pragmatism." In his efforts he was ably assisted by the media, which hid Gaza's post-withdrawal transformation into a base for global terrorism from the public.

So in their presentation of themselves as competent alternatives to Olmert, Livni and Lieberman are simply following in his footsteps. They know that if they offer policies to the public that deny the reality of war and so lead the public to believe that Israel does not have to fight that war, they will receive the support of the pacifist media and be well positioned to win the elections without ever having to actually defend their positions.

What becomes clear, then, is that if Israel is to emerge successfully from its real strategic challenges it needs to rid itself not only of Olmert, but of all his heirs apparent. For this to happen, his government must fall with him, and we must proceed to general elections.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, January 20, 2007.

Has the territorial instinct, an evolutionary adaption ever so vital to animal, including intelligent animal a/k/a human, survival been abandoned by multitudes of Israelis, including current leaders, as well as friends of their beleaguered state? Has it been replaced by Blanche Du Bois' 'Streetcar Named Desire' pronouncement, "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers", in this case 'the kindness of hostile Jew despising neighbors'? Even Tennessee Williams would not likely have wished such a fatal concept to infect an ethnic group, especially one that has throughout its history been brutally persecuted, culminating in six million members butchered in 'The Holocaust', indeed the most sadistically systematic genocide ever perpetrated by one dysfunctional Darwinian species, convincingly supporting the safe-haven necessity of that territorial instinct. No kindred spirit subset of presumably intelligent beings, especially one profoundly attached to precious life on Earth, should so abandon its nature, yet many Jews and their presumed supporters alas apparently have.

We note 'prominent' citizens from Israel and Syria drafting a clandestine document calling for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. What would tycoon investor Warren Buffet say to that give away, having recently invested billions of dollars in a presumably Israeli operated tool manufacturing company located in the Golan Heights? Would such a savvy entrepreneur have risked heavyweight capital in an Iranian influenced Syrian controlled enterprise? Would foreign investors ever broach Israel again, a nation willing to give away 'the farm' to hostile neighbors? Would they trust risk capital to a naive nation that so disrespects its future generations, ceding part of their birthright for the illusory promise of peace? Might they fear their investment property and ground beneath would also be ceded or subject to frequent attacks by emboldened aggressive predatory neighbors sensing a compliant bleeding nation on the ropes? Israel must not limit its growth potential by relinquishing claim to justly secured land conquered in battle. Period. All land so secured in 1967, including the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria, and east Jerusalem, as a result of a failed attempt by hostile Arabs to annihilate the Jewish State, is now and should always be part of sovereign Israel. Period. This indeed is a territorial imperative etched into the genes of those human beings intent on surviving as a single prosperous nation and must not be violated! Yet, for so many perhaps well intentioned souls to feel otherwise suggests an insidious overriding self-defeating program, suppressing natural instinct, has taken over and if powerful enough will lead to catastrophic consequences for the State of Israel. The misapplied term 'occupation', abundantly used by mostly all media outlets, falsely defining the current scenario in Judea and Samaria where Israeli troops must protect Jewish citizens from their hostile Arab neighbors, within such justifiably secured land, has become so imbedded in the psyches of so many Israelis they tend to believe all the shameful connotations of the wretched lie. There can be no occupation of people when those people would be free to move about and develop unrestricted civilized lives but choose not to, instead allow violent members within their group the opportunity to threaten their peaceful neighbors. Thus, Israeli forces are obligated to set up barriers and check points restricting all Arab movement because of those belligerents, perhaps wearing homicide/suicide belts, uncontrolled by local Arab authorities. No doubt, Israeli citizens have every right to dwell in Judea and Samaria; must not be removed by Jew despising Arabs; nor, in fact, by politically nave Jewish/Israeli leaders disengaged from those territorial instincts essential to the survival of the nation they were elected and selected to steward.

What is so bizarre about today's Israeli so-called Palestinian conflict is that in 2000, at Camp David, U.S. President Bill Clinton and Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak were willing to cede almost all of the so-called West Bank, the Arab sector of Jerusalem, as well as the entire Gaza strip to autocrat Yasser Arafat, a potential 'Palestinian state' beyond the wildest dreams of most morphed Jordanians, and he refused the offer, opting instead for intifada. Of course, billionaire Yasser had everything to lose from this deal and consequential 'Allah forbid' peace with Israel, since such a settlement would likely eliminate the flow of euros to 'abused Palestinian refugees' as well as the substantial portion of those charitable contributions circuitously directed to The Bank of Arafat. No doubt, this sleazy Arab could not afford a cut in income saddled by a demanding high maintenance wife living in Paris. Yet, the people he presumably represented, did not rise in protest, allowed him to put the kabash on any reasonable civil future they might envision, thus proving they were not ready for or perhaps even worthy of independent statehood. Several short years later, bereft of Arafat, provided by Israel with the territory of Gaza, this same group of Arabs collectively elected terrorist Hamas leaders to control their presumed quest for dignity as one united group. We observe the dysfunctional outcome of that choice, and again must ask if so-called Palestinians are even capable of civilly populating one united state of their own. Their obvious inability to rid any collective territorial instinct they might possess of ruinous bogeymen further suggests that this rag tag group of Arabs perhaps is really a displaced group native to another larger territory; how about Jordan? All this more than suggests that Israel, a proven tolerant civilized democratic economically vibrant state, more than deserves all the territory it rightly captured in 1967. Having said that, let us fervently hope for the sake of Israel, the territorial instinct kicks in and dominates a beleaguered exasperated populace, the term 'occupation' is deleted from a self-defeating self-flagellating collective mindset, and all thoughts of 'land for peace' are dismissed. Nothing less than a prosperous State of Israel is at stake.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Fried, January 19, 2007.

This email comes from Jean-Jacques Duval (jjduval@hughes.net) of Willsboro, New York. This is what he writes

This is a transcript of a section of a Newt Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a firestorm.

This is finally said in a way that even the most "head in the sand" person can understand it. Please God, help us.

This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to KILL us. Please pass this on to those on your list.

NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.


Contact Milton Fried at docmiltfried@mindspring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Randy Hall, January 19, 2007.

(CNSNews.com) -- The U.S. is engaged in "a silent war" conducted by illegal aliens that is causing a higher toll than the war in Iraq, according to the founder of an immigration watchdog group.

While the mainstream media is focused on the Iraq war, this ongoing silent war is "taking its toll in lives and domestic tranquility," said Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project.

"Since 9/11 alone, about 45,000 U.S. residents have been killed in action via homicide or manslaughter at the hands of illegal aliens, and about another quarter of a million to 300,000 have been wounded," Gilchrist told Cybercast News Service in an interview.

Gilchrist said he used the terms "killed in action" and "wounded" intentionally "because essentially, we have a war going on here that's not a declared war, that's not a convention

Gilchrist said the financial cost was also significant.

Gilchrist said the financial cost was also significant.

Wal war, but it is costing us 9,000 lives a year."

That amounted to "about 15 times the rate of KIAs [soldiers killed in action] in Iraq," he said.

Gilchrist said the financial cost was also significant.

Welfare benefit programs used strictly by the illegal immigration population were costing "$400 billion a year -- that's four times the annual cost of the war in Iraq," he argued.

Those funds were being spent on "a plethora of related welfare and benefit-type programs, including medication, education, housing, HUD subsidies, Social Security, all that stuff," Gilchrist said.

"Our coffers are being plundered by those who don't deserve them," he noted. "Those programs were earmarked for American citizens."

He said that figure did not include another half-trillion dollars lost each year "due to payroll and income tax fraud from the underground economy created by having 30 million illegal aliens in the United States."

Gilchrist conceded that not all illegal immigrants were working and that not all who are working were doing so "under the table."

"But a good portion of them are, and because they're staying under the radar, no one knows who they are, where they are or what their intentions are."

Estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. vary considerably, but the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) said the numbers cited by Gilchrist "sound about right."

On the costs to the U.S. economy of illegal immigration, the CIS estimates federal costs per year at only $10.6 billion but notes that the vast majority of costs are incurred at the local and state levels.

Crime statistics relating to illegal immigrants are hazy, but on his website, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) says that 12 homicides and 13 drunk driving deaths a day are attributed to illegal aliens.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee immigration subcommittee in 2005, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Heather Mac Donald said that in Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide and up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants in the first half of the previous year targeted illegal aliens.

Representatives from the National Council of La Raza and the National Immigration Forum declined requests for comment on this article.

According to the Americas Project at the Center for American Progress, the U.S. is "making a futile attempt at using Border Patrol agents and physical barriers to regulate our labor market."

"This massive misapplication of resources fails to make us safer and will not be remedied through appeals to fear, symbolism or by throwing good money after bad," project director Dan Restrepo says on the center's website.

"A safer, modern immigration system must combine border and workplace enforcement with mechanisms to regulate future flows of immigrants into our country and allow the 12 million undocumented already here to emerge from the shadows," he added. 'Multi-ethnic'

Gilchrist, a 56-year-old Marine veteran who received a Purple Heart for wounds sustained during the Vietnam War, founded the Minuteman Project in 2004 after "years of frustrated efforts trying to get a neglectful U.S. government to simply enforce existing immigration laws."

The Minuteman Project describes itself as a "citizens' vigilance operation." Its main activity is to monitor the flow of illegal immigrants across the U.S. border from Mexico, though the group also promotes proactive enforcement of the nation's immigration laws.

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the group has been opposed by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which a year ago accused the group of being "racists" and "cowards."

Earlier this month, Brent Wilkes, national executive director of LULAC, told Cybercast News Service that the Minuteman Project consisted of "pretty crazy folks."

Gilchrist dismissed such accusations as "so ridiculous they hardly even merit a reply. If Wilkes would go to my website, he'd see that we're a multi-ethnic -- and I repeat, a multi-ethnic -- immigration law-enforcement advocacy group."

"My problem is not with legal immigrants. My grandparents were legal immigrants from Greece, Germany and England," he said, adding that charges of racism are "the last resort of a scoundrel losing an argument."

Still, Gilchrist said he sees a hopeful future regarding illegal immigration, in part because "the Minuteman Project is going to force debate on this issue."

"Immigration is still strong in the hearts and minds of Americans, because it goes right to the preservation of our sovereignty," Gilchrist added. "We just want to preserve a civilized society under the rule of law, under the First Amendment. That's the way the Founding Fathers set it up."

Gilchrist also noted another sign of the group's progress. "We've got a guy who wants to start a chapter up in Canada. He'll be the first non-American to be part of the Minuteman Project."

Randy Hall is CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor This article is stored at
www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/ Illegal%20Aliens%20Waging%20Silent%20War.html

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, January 19, 2007.

Matthew Kalman's "Report says Israeli rule bears down on Gaza" (SF Chronicle, 1.19.07) summarizes the GISHA report

Unfortunately, both the GISHA authors and Kalman fail to note the one critical fact that renders the report worthless, or, worse, a contribution to the whitewash of Arab terrorism -- the terrorists in the Gaza Strip and West Bank are at war with Israel.

After signing the Oslo Accords in which he eschewed terrorism and committed to resolve all disputes peacefully, Arafat began his terror war, in October, 1993. For the past 13+ years, Israel has been on the defensive against an endless, relentless terror onslaught which has mounted almost 30,000 attacks, killed almost 1,700 Israelis, and wounded many thousands more.

When one ignores this state of war, the Israeli strictures seem arbitrary, totalitarian, even random. No-go zones, road blocks, lock-downs, curfews, careful search of vehicles and persons entering Israel, and control of the Gaza population registry do indeed bear down on Gaza. But they stop or empede the terrorism.

When one puts these strictures in to the context of the current state of war, with:

qassams falling daily, most of which fall harmlessly outside of Jewish communities because the no-go zones make it impossible for the qassam crews to get their armaments near enough to be as effective as the terrorists want them to be,

weekly attempts at violent terror attacks thwarted by the IDF, thanks in large part to these strictures,

at least a dozen attempts to infiltrate in to israel suicide bombers from the Gaza Strip since Israel unilaterally ceded the Gaza Strip to Hamas, all but one of which have been thwarted by the IDF, thanks in large part to these strictures (especially the tight security at crossing points from Gaza to Israel),

the daily attempts to smuggle arms and ammunition and explosives and terrorist leaders from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, most of which are caught and stopped thanks to the strictures and tight security,

and the endless ranting of the hate speech, hate preach, and hate teach that energizes the population, from pre-kindergarten to dotage, to a state of genocidal fury against Israel and jews and Christianity and Christians and the West and all things non-Moslem and even against Moslems who are not supportive enough of the 'palestinian cause',

...then one can see that the strictures are in fact reasonable, restrained, carefully focused, and effective acts of self-defense against the terror war.

By not acknowledging that a state of war exists, both GISHA and Kalman avoid asking the hard question that puts the lie to the GISHA report's assertions: "where do you want the casualties?"

a.) With the restrictions, the casualties are the innocent civilian peace-loving palestinians who are inconvenienced, delayed, humiliated, harmed financially, reduced economically, maybe even at times harmed physically....and all because of the war that their leaders maintain despite Israel's concessions and invitations to a negotiated resolution...


b.) without the restrictions, the casualites would be even more Israelis bombed, blown up, burned alive, shot, stabbed, kidnapped, and otherwise harmed, and even more damage to Israel's economy.

It is clear that if the terrorists were to put down their weapons, there would be no more violence.
But if Israel were to put down her weapons, there would be no more Israel.

So....by decontextualizing Israel's defensive strictures, GISHA tells us where they want the casualties.

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

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, January 18, 2007.

Dear Friends

As I stated many times, the idea of another independent state, Palestinian or other, in tiny Judea and Samaria is practical

Anybody who tells you otherwise is simply lying!!! Even if it were the Swiss who attempted to create a state there, let alone Fatah & Hamas terrorists, it would for sure prove a failure.

It is time the world realizes there is only room for one viable country west of the Jordan River, ISRAEL. Any other arrangement will only lead to more wars and bloodsheds.

Did I hear you cry, the demography, stupid? This is another fallacy.

Here is a benchmark article on the subject from another truth provider: Caroline Glick. It's called "Where Israel went astray," and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post.
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1167467765896&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

There are two reasons that IDF chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz's resignation this week was essential. First, during the war last summer with Hizbullah, Halutz failed to conceive of a war fighting plan for the IDF. Having failed, he needed to go. Second, both during the war and in the six months since its cessation, Halutz lost the faith of his officers and soldiers. A commander cannot function without the faith of his men, and so, again, he had to go.

There is every reason to expect that Halutz's replacement will win the faith of troops and officers. And it is essential that he do so quickly for as the war made clear, the IDF needs to undergo a massive, painful and rapid process of reform and overhaul if it is to meet the wide-ranging and acute challenges it faces.

Yet even if Halutz's replacement is an Israeli version of General George Patton, it is doubtful that he will have the opportunity to apply his military talents to the conceptualization and implementation of a fighting doctrine capable of defeating Israel's enemies. The IDF's doctrinal discussions are framed by the larger national debates in Israel. And today those debates remain captive to the same fantasies and lies that since 1993 have prevented the IDF from planning properly for war -- whether in Lebanon, Gaza, Judea and Samaria or even Iran.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Israel this week reinforced this untenable situation. In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, US Ambassador Richard Jones explained that during her visit, Rice "picked up" Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's plan to hold "discussions" with Fatah terror group commander and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas about the establishment of a Palestinian state in spite of the fact that the PA is ruled today by the Hamas terror group.

According to Jones, Livni convinced Rice that it is necessary to provide a "political horizon" to convince the Palestinians to replace Hamas with Fatah. After the Palestinians overthrow Hamas, he explained, it will be possible to implement the agreement and handover Judea and Samaria to Fatah (and Hamas).

That is, the Israeli government is pushing a national strategy that is based on a total lie. While Abbas plans his visit this weekend with Hamas terror master Khaled Mashaal in Syria in the hopes of facilitating the formation of an Iranian-Syrian sponsored Fatah-Hamas unity government, the Israeli government wishes to "strengthen" him.

A revitalized IDF will be unable to secure Israel under these conditions. As long as the guiding strategic principle dictating Israel's policies is that Israel must establish a Palestinian state, and to that end, the policy debate revolves around issues such as whether protecting the residents of Sderot from rocket attacks will strengthen or weaken Abbas, the IDF will be incapable of defending Israel regardless of who its leaders are.

SINCE THE inauguration of the 1993 Oslo peace process, Israel's national debate has largely ignored the only question that should be guiding it: How are we to advance Israel's national interests? Rather, since 1993, our national debate has been anchored around the question of how best to establish a Palestinian state. This question, rooted in the false Arab narrative which consciously rejects the morality of the Zionist revolution, has brought us to a position where the IDF is cognitively barred from rationally approaching Israel's security challenges.

Things needn't be this way. The Israeli public is quite sick of hallucinatory peace processes and is keen to reignite a Zionist national discussion. Consistent opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of the public knows there is no possibility of achieving peace with the PA and that any Palestinian state will be a terror state. Moreover, in poll after poll, the Israeli public expresses its patriotism and its desire to strengthen and preserve the Jewish, democratic character of the State of Israel.

And there are options other than delusion. On Wednesday, one such option was presented in Washington at the American Enterprise Institute. There, the American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG) presented a plan for Israel's future called "The Fourth Way."

Led by American economist Bennett Zimmerman and former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger, the AIDRG first burst onto the screen in early 2005 when it presented the first comprehensive analysis of Palestinian population data.

Since 1997, Israel's leaders have based their policies towards the Palestinians on what was perceived as a madly ticking Palestinian demographic time bomb. The public was told that the Palestinian population in Jerusalem, Gaza, Judea and Samaria was rapidly expanding and that by 2015, Jews would lose our majority west of the Jordan River. If we didn't hurry up and hand over Judea, Samaria and Gaza and partition Jerusalem, we would find ourselves forced to choose between a Jewish state and a democratic one.

The AIDRG took it upon itself to do what no Israeli governmental body had considered doing: Its members just started counting heads. It worked out that the doomsday scenario was based on a massive fabrication. In 1997, the PA published census figures that exaggerated its population figures in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem by nearly 50 percent. The PA double counted Arab Jerusalemites, included hundreds of thousands of emigrants to its population rolls, asserted mass immigration when in fact there has been net emigration from the PA since 1995. It exaggerated fertility rates and underplayed mortality rates. In all, the PA added approximately 1.4 million people who did not exist to its population rolls.

Rather than 3.8 million Palestinians, the team found there were likely no more, and perhaps less than 2.4 million Palestinians. Jews, who make up an 80 percent majority within sovereign Israel, make up a 59% majority of the population of Israel with Gaza and Judea and Samaria and a 67% majority of the population with Judea and Samaria without Gaza.

Last year, the group analyzed fertility trends in Israel and Judea and Samaria among Jews and Arabs. They found that in contradiction to the Palestinian and Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics forecasts, while Jewish fertility rates are on a steep and consistent incline, Arab fertility rates are steadily declining.

The significance of these actual trends is obvious: Not only is there no Palestinian demographic time bomb necessitating the immediate handover of Judea and Samaria to Palestinian terrorists. Israel's actual demographic position is its ace in the hole.

This year the team members took their data to the next logical step by offering their best shot at a national strategy for Israel, based on true population data. While one can agree or disagree with the viability of their strategy, the fact that it is based on truth rather than lies already places it in a different league from the "peace" plans that have held Israel intellectually hostage since 1993.

The plan is predicated on electoral reform in Israel that will set the course for a democratic absorption of all or parts of Judea and Samaria into Israel while securing the political rights of all Israelis -- both Jewish and Arab. Israel today is governed by a proportional electoral system that treats the entire country as a unitary voting district. The plan recommends changing the electoral system to a direct, district-based voting system divided along the lines of the Interior Ministry's administrative partition of the country.

Given Israel's 80 percent Jewish majority outside Judea and Samaria, it is unsurprising that Jews form massive majorities in every administrative district in the country except the northern district. In the North, Arabs comprise a bare 52% majority. But the internal migration of just 52,000 Jews to the North would overturn that majority.

Within Judea and Samaria, the sparsely populated sub-districts of Western Samaria and the Jordan Valley are vital for Israel's national defense. As the study shows, an internal migration of approximately 150,000 Jews to these areas would give them strong Jewish majorities. Given that the Tel Aviv district has a 99% Jewish majority and the central region of the country has a 92% Jewish majority, a national plan for populating the areas could easily facilitate such a migratory trend.

In the Jerusalem district, the population trends are in flux. The erection of the separation fence has driven tens of thousands of Arabs from Judea and Samaria into the city to avoid PA rule. Conversely, the high real estate prices in Jewish neighborhoods are forcing Jews to leave the city.

Today Jews make up a 67% majority in the capital. The researchers demonstrated that if the capital's boundaries are extended to include Jerusalem's western suburbs, the Etzion bloc, the Adumim bloc, and the Givon bloc on the Jewish side as well as Abu Dis, Beit Hanina and the north Jerusalem bloc on the Arab side, the Jewish majority of the expanded city would be 66%. The flow of Arabs into the city's center to get away from the PA would abate. Real estate prices throughout the city would drop with the increase of land supplies and so the capital would again be affordable to young Jewish families. If Bethlehem is added to the municipal boundaries of the capital, the Jewish majority would be reduced to 62%.

On the other hand, with the separation fence bringing about an effective partition of the city, "Arab Jerusalem" around its truncated and walled-off boundaries will enjoy a 72% Arab majority and the Jewish population within the shrunken, expensive capital will continue to dwindle.

NEXT WEEK Israel's premiere policy conference, the 7th Annual Herzliya Conference, will take place. The "Who's Who" of Israel will again present their "visions" for the country. In most cases, the speakers will regale us with tales of how they will make peace with the PLO and will warn us that we have to be nice to Abbas, (and eat our peas and carrots,) or be destroyed by Iranian nuclear bombs.

At last year's conference, the AIDRG team presented the data they had painstakingly compiled. They were greeted with unabashed hostility. Many walked out in the middle. Others groaned or chatted loudly with their friends trying to drown out the presentation. The audience of elitists didn't want to hear proof that for the past decade, Israel's national debate -- which they themselves have led -- has been based on a lie aimed at destroying the Zionist idea.

This year the team will return to the conference. But rather than being allowed to present their newest data and their plan, they were given a mere three minutes to speak at the end of a session about something else entirely.

Halutz's resignation was a good and necessary thing. But in and of itself, it will have little significance for Israel if it remains a lone incident. For Halutz's exit from the scene to be a harbinger for a better, safer future, it needs to be followed not only by the resignations of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Amir Peretz.

Our failed and delusional leaders must take their mendacious and defeatist national debate along with them. As they depart, we must regain control over our national conversation and build it upon the firm foundations of reality and a renewed commitment to advancing and securing Israel's national interests.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 19, 2007.

The other day a friend of mine revealed to me the fact that he was scheduled to meet with agents of the FBI. It seems that after almost a decade of ignoring warnings and Intel reports regarding Osama bin Laden's "American Hiroshima" operation (widely publicized by bin Laden himself, and hundreds of news agencies world-wide), our Federal employee's curiosity was finally aroused by the Canadian television series "24".

I remain deeply skeptical regarding the FBI's sudden interest in the War Against Islamic Terrorism, Brigitte Gabrielle's article below is merely one example amongst many that form the basis of my skepticism.

The FBI Translator Scandal:
ACT members respond and demand action

by Jerry Gordon

Last Thursday, Brigitte Gabriel and I put out an Action Alert to the American Congress for Truth membership, asking you for examples of how our government rebuffed your valued assistance as Arabic and Farsi linguists for critical intelligence translation work assignments in military, foreign and homeland security agencies.

In less than 72 hours were got dozens of responses and they are still coming in.

While a sampling they are nevertheless indicative of your concerns about why our government persists in denial of loyal American citizens offering to reduce the mountainous backlog of untranslated intercepts and transcripts of interrogations in Arabic and Farsi, in particular.

How mountainous is the backlog of untranslated intercepts? Read this comment from a National Security Agency (NSA) official quoted from Congressional hearings in a Washington Times article on the subject written by Rowan Scarborough and Bill Gertz entitled: "Intelligence backlog."

NSA director, Army Lt. Gen. Keith in commenting in written response to Senators on the large backlog of time consuming labor intensive foreign language intercepts on terrorism noted:

"Today's backlog is no longer confined to Arabic and its multiple dialect but also less commonly taught languages where linguists are in short supply."

One knowledgeable insider in our national security apparatus wrote in response to the ACT action alert:

"The fact that the FBI and the military don't have enough linguists/translators especially after 9/11 is a disgrace and the fact that those they have are possibly not reliable or trustworthy makes it imperative that new competent resources are found..."

Imagine that you are a Marine Corps battalion commander in Anbar province in western Iraq-hotbed of the Sunni and al Qaeda insurgency. You find out from your G-2 via counter intelligence operatives that the local interpreters procured through a contract let via a major defense contractor have been feeding intel to these insurgent groups. You're darn angry because this has cost you casualties and in some instances lives of brave Marines in your field units. What do you do besides complain to the theater ground commander and higher intelligence echelons at CENTCOMM.

As we have found out in our inquiries to our ACT members we have an overwhelming response that includes first rate Arab and Farsi linguists who are Middle Eastern Christians, Jews and apostate Muslims disappointed that their talents have gone wanting because of political correctness and frankly outright intimidation by Muslim linguists in our security agencies.

Here are some examples of the responses received from ACT members and others to date. I will begin with Brigitte Gabriel's experience. She is one of many Christian Lebanese who tried to help but got no where.

Brigitte Gabriel, ACT founder, Lebanese Christian.

Brigitte applied three times to the FBI in 2001 and 2002 VOLUNTEERING her services to help translate, in whatever capacity she could be used, to help our country in the fight against terrorism. She never got an answer. Finally the Government sent her a government application that stated that translators must be between the age of 25 and 35, (she had just turned 36), must have graduated with a degree in the language they wish to apply to translate and must have three years on job experience as translators. (utterly ridiculous bureaucracy) Meanwhile complaining on TV that they do not have enough translators. Brigitte Gabriel speaks not only the classical Arabic which is the official language of all the Middle East, but also the local dialects, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, Palestinian, and Jordanian.

From an Iraqi Christian.

"I applied twice for the FBI. I never got an answer from them. I heard that the Recruiters are Egyptians and want translators with an Egyptian dialect. I don't know if religion is a factor, but I've given up. I think it will be very intimidating under these circumstances. By the way I'm an Iraqi Christian living in the U.S. I worked as a linguist for the U.S. Army in Iraq."

From a Lebanese American Christian.

"I was deployed from Ft. Benning, Georgia in May, 2003 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Supporting our armed forces and intelligence units. In October 2004, I was injured by a suicide bomb blast inside the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. I had to come back for treatment. A year ago I was released by all doctors and they recommended that I could go back to work, but not in Iraq. I called my employer and to my amazement they offered me a job back in Iraq but not a stateside one because I lacked a security clearance. I refused and they sent me a letter in January, 2006 laying me off. I have tried in vain to find a job with the government or defense contractors. The recruiters are usually Muslim and some have told me that they have relatives working for al Jazeera TV. Can you believe that!

From a Persian American Jew

I volunteered to help with Farsi translations. I heard back from them that they were interested in my Hebrew skills!! I didn't see how Hebrew came into the equation with dealing with our country's dangers. The response was very bureaucratic in nature. I have since done Farsi translation for a private think tank.

From a Coptic Christian American

"I am a Christian Egyptian who applied for a linguist position with the FBI after 9/11, went through the testing process and was sent a rejection letter. I would love to contribute to your cause, if I can be of assistance."

Rejection of American Israeli citizens

"I know personally of such a case where a loyal American applied for such service and got nowhere. This American Israel Jew got the same treatment. He is young, intelligent eastern looking guy who could make a real contribution to the efforts. Something funny is going on."

What these ACT responses do is to resonate previous reports of bias against Middle Eastern Christians, Jews and apostate Muslims chronicled in reports from WorldNetDaily about discrimination against American Israeli linguists and by investigative authors Rita Katz -- an Iraq born American Jew -- in her book "Terrorist Hunter" and Paul Sperry in his engrossing book "Infiltration."

So what is ACT going to do now that we have lifted the veil on this burgeoning scandal? Plenty.

Working with key House and Senate National and Homeland Security Committees we are going to push for following:

A GAO audit of major defense contractors supplying in-country interpreters at egregious billing rates running as high at $100,000 annually versus $30,000 for a military trained linguist interpreter;
* We are going to file under the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a request for information from military, foreign and domestic intelligence agencies that includes the annexed information.
* We are going to hold a Washington Summit for ACT members to discuss this issue and more as part of a major agenda for action;
* We are going to request hearings on the translator 'scandal' from Senate and House National and Homeland Security Committees.
* We will assist these subject matter Committees on Capitol Hill in the review and preparation of remedial legislation and executive actions to bring the translator scandal to heel, so that our troops in the field and our citizens at home aren't in jeopardy of a major series of 9/11 Islamist terrorist attacks.

Act will need your help in reaching out to those of you who are U.S. citizens to get to your Congressional representatives and Bush Administration officials demanding their attention to this problem.

Keep those emails coming! They are grist for the mill and build an effective case for immediate attention to this problem. A problem that needs resolution now if this nation is to be secure. A problem that is compounded by political correctness and intimidation by American Muslim advocacy groups.

We will continue to monitor your emails and report back on developments on this issue as they emerge. Rest assured that ACT is going to make this a 'cause' that will resound in the halls of Congress and the mainstream media.

Thank you for telling it like it is. With your support ACT will win this battle!

Proposed Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request

Information Request
U.S. Security Hiring Practices of Arabic, Farsi, Turkic and Urdu Translators and Analysts

Census of Qualified Translators Employed;

1. Demographics

Number in staff
Age, Sex, Ethnicity, Religious affiliation
Citizenship: U.S. / if non U.S., country of origin

Educational attainment: high school, college/university/graduate school
Language training: formal college/university or military language programs, others
Military rank or GS- pay grades
Years of service/experience
Location: U.S. -national /regional offices
Abroad: Countries where currently deployed

2. Recruitment policies and programs

Current and project staffing requirements
Career development programs in language and area studies
University language and NSEP programs
Military language programs
Community outreach programs
Foreign sourcing programs
Standardized language testing
Candidate screening criteria
Candidate Acceptance rejection rates by ethnicity and religious affiliation

3. Target language translation and analysis requirements

Current level of translation needs -- number of lines of original language texts or message transmissions for translation
Number of assigned language translator/analysts
Current level of translation reports and output -- number of lines of texts and message transmissions
Backlog deficit of un-translated lines of texts and message transmissions
Contract language translation services -- volume and extent of procurement, domestic U.S. versus foreign providers
Machine language translation augmentation and support-availability, uses and quality of output.

Language translation program development and initiatives
History of programs-pre and post 9/11
Objectives of programs vis a vis support of domestic and international security
Interim Remedial adjustments vis a vis program recruitment, staffing
Future program initiatives to cover current language translation deficits

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization that meets with politicians, decision makers, speaks on college campuses and plans events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance. Email them at member@americancongressfortruth.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, January 19, 2007.

This was crossposted on Eye on the World website:
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/ which also has a satirical clip, Death to America on the January 23, 2007 page. It may be satirical but it sounds very like the real thing.

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."

"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

Anjem Choudary, the public face of Islamist extremism in Britain, added that Muslims have no choice but to take the fight to the West.

"What are Muslims supposed to do when they are being killed in the streets in Afghanistan and Baghdad and Palestine? Do they not have the same rights to defend themselves? In war, people die. People don't make love; they kill each other," he said.

But in the same debate, held on the prestigious grounds of Dublin's Trinity College in October, many people in the crowd objected.

"These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven," said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals.

"This is not ideology. It's a mental illness." [...]

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, January 19, 2007.

the four urls below are our last month's TV show, "Spotlight on the Middle East", the January program with our interview of Professor Michael Oren. It is divided in to four parts to accomodate Google technology.

We hope to eventually have all of our TV programs on Google; and next month's show, taped this past Tuesday and due to be screend by the end of this month, may be available on Google soon. For more information about the "spotlight" series, check out our website and other information below.

The broadcasting times are:

Sundays at 8:30 AM,
Mondays at 8 PM, >
Tuesdays at 12 PM,
Thursdays at 6 PM,
and Fridays at 10 AM.

Channel 27 in the Palo Alto -- Menlo Park -- Atherton areas. And see below for other viewing options for people further afield.





During the last weeks of January (07) and most of February, our TV show, "Spotlight on the Middle East", will air on channel 27 (Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park, California) per the schedule in the up-dated news release below.

For our February show, Marty Wasserman and I address the issue of former President Carter's new book: "Palestine, peace not apartheid".

Our program focused on the wave of criticism leveled at his book for its innacuracies, de-contextualizations, mis-statements of fact, misleading ommissions, and, in some cases, demonstrable lies and forged documentation and falsified maps and plagerism....all condeming of Israel but whitewashing or even legitimizing Arab terrorism.

We discussed the resignations of some of his former associates, students, and advisors at the Carter Center.

We also discussed the degree to which Arab money (hundreds of millions of dollars from the Arab petro-wealthy to him and his Carter Center at Emory University) may have influenced Carter to speak out in favour of dictators (either Arab dictators or others who were in favor with the Arab world), repressive Arab regimes, the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Arafat and terrorists in general.

Similarly, we raised the question: can the fact that his latest book is a parody of history or peace-making and instead regurgitates the Arab propaganda, lie for lie, be a function of his loyalties having been purchased by Arab oil money?

I encourage you to view our show, and contact me at this email address, or at our website (see below) for input, critique, corrections (if, God Forbid, we goofed on something), accolades, and suggestions for future topics.

As described below, you can tune in to the show even if you are not in our viewing area (Palo Alto, Atherton, East Palo Alto) by going directly on the internet at the dates and times noted below, Pacific Coast Time, at the following address:

The alternative way to view the show on the internet is to go to our Note that there is NO archiving. So you must go to our website at the Pacific Coast time that the show is aired in order to watch it on line.

Note too that our show changes monthly with a new show starting the last week of each month. We all look forward to hearing from you.

And don't forget my radio show: "Mid-East Media Watch", on Stanford University's KZSU 90.1 FM radio. The show airs every Friday from 11:00 -- 11:30 am, as part of "The Jewish Alternative", where I and producer Sara Bellum discuss the week's media coverage of the middle-east conflict.

We are now back on the air, because the mid-winter break at Stanford is over. We will be on the air every friday, 11:00-11:30 AM (90.1 fm, KZSU.Stanford) until Spring break.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, January 19, 2007.
International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Please get your supporters and Church contacts fully on board with the campaign Learn from History for Holocaust Day during Holocaust Week.

The website is: www.learnfromhistory.eu

Please register your support.

This is VERY, VERY important and there is also information and material for Churches to use to commemorate the event.

If you need any further help please let us know as I believe that this is critical and considerable time and effort has been spent on this project and we need to get the maximum from it.

They gave us our roots. We cut them off and sent them to die in places like Auschwitz, Dachau and Birkenau. While we were silent they disappeared like smoke before our eyes.

Now it is time to repent and learn from history. Only by confronting the past can we build a better future in Europe. No longer can we remain silent when the calls to destruction are again echoing in the world.

This time let's get it right. Perhaps the old roots can start to give life again? Perhaps the rain will fall again over the hills of Europe, and the trees bear new fruit.

Please visit our website at: www.anglicansforisrael.com

Contact Simon McIlwaine by email at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 19, 2007.

1. The missiles were falling on the Negev, fired from Gaza. The very top officials in the Israeli Tax Authority were under arrest for corruption. The Hezbollah was re-arming on Israel's northern border and Iran was openly threatening genocide. Israel's army chief of staff resigned in disgrace for the fiasco of the war this past summer.

And what was Prime Minister Ehud Olmert up to in the midst of all this?

Why, he was getting himself an "eyelid job". In order to change his image from one of a crooked, beady-eyed political hack, Olmert just underwent eyelid surgery, to make him look nicer. And who paid for this cosmetic surgery? The press was not telling. Perhaps it was the same group of business cronies who were involved in Olmert's shady dealings in real estate or in the "bank privatization affair," for which Israel's Attorney General has now decided to indict Olmert.

And just as it looked like Olmert could not mess things up any worse than he already had, the media broke the story that he and his mates had been secretly negotiating a deal with Syria. Under the proposed deal Israel would reward Syria for 70 years of aggression and so would return to its pre-1967 borders, those same borders once described by Abba Eban as "Auschwitz borders". Will Olmert now blink his new lids when it comes to the Golan?

A "deal" for a "return" of the Golan Heights to Syria was almost signed by Ehud Barak in 2000, in large part the initiative of Israeli capitulationist diplomat Itamar Rabinovich (currently serving as President of Tel Aviv University). Had it been concluded, that deal would have moved Syrian armed forces right up to the shores of the Sea of Galilee, the Syrian military would have taken up new positions threatening Israel, and Israel's very existence could have been endangered if a new all-out war were to break out.

Instead of striking a poorly-conceived deal with Syria to take attention away from his sleaze, perhaps it would be better if Mr. Olmert were to stay home and work some more on his eyelids.....
(More to follow)

2. Blog Story of the Day:
This is from Sultan Knish.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2007/01/ urban-outfitters-announce-their-latest.html
See also
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467767600& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull //-->

Urban Outfitters announce their latest line of WASP Terrorist Sympathizer Wear

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, January 19, 2007.

The article below was inspired by Holocaust survivors' discussions on the Iranian threat. It is called "The Iranian Threat To Wipe Israel Off The Map." and was written by Solly Ganor, a Holocaust Survivor, who live in Herzelia, Israel. It was distributed by Leonard and Carol Raizin.

It is rather apparent that not too many people realize how Holocaust survivors really feel about this subject matter.

I would be grateful if you would pass it on to as many readers as possible.

Sadam Hussein who threatened to burn down Israel was hanged yesterday without fulfilling his wish. Among his last words was '" Long live Palestine." The main reason why he hated Israel was the fact that in 1981 we thwarted his plans to Build and atomic bomb. A squadron of Israeli fighter-bombers took care of that threat.

Former U.S. Secretary State, Mr. James A Baker was furious with Israel and threatened us with sanctions. However, in 1991 during the first Iraqi war President Bush, the father, was very grateful that we did it. It is doubtful that the coalition forces would have dared to attack Sadam Hussein if he possessed nuclear weapons.

Most likely, had Sadam Hussein been alive and well today, he would be the ruler not only of Kuwait but perhaps of Saudi Arabia and the other gulf oil states. It was Israel that prevented that calamity.

However, with Sadam gone we are faced with another threat: Iran, its leaders proclaim day and night that they will wipe Israel off the map.

The world doesn't seem particularly disturbed by the threat of a new Holocaust against the Jewish state.

The majority of Holocaust survivors and their descendents live in Israel. The new threat evokes in us old nightmares of Dachau and Auschwitz, Babi Yar and Ponar. Are we going to face this new threat once again alone with the whole world standing silently by as it did during the last Holocaust?

How serious are the threats coming from Iran?

Considering that the Islamic death cult is the prevailing philosophy among the Islamic terrorists, it is very serious. It becomes even more serious when you see on Iranian television thousands of young people signing up to become suicide bombers for Allah, not to mention they do the same is dozens of other Islamic countries.

Would they use their nuclear weapons against Israel once they developed it? We think that it is more than likely.

However, there is a small difference between the last Holocaust and the looming one ahead.

The chief of the Israeli air force is the son of Holocaust survivors. The only Israeli cosmonaut Ilan Ramon who, unfortunately perished in the Columbia space shuttle crash, was one of the pilots who bombed and destroyed the Iraqi Osirak atomic reactor in 1981. He too was a son of Holocaust survivors. There are many more high-ranking officers in the Israeli army and air force that are children of Holocaust survivors and are very sensitive to the Holocaust issues.

I am sure that there are those in Israel who are working on the problem right now and if necessary, will deal with the Iranians they way they dealt with the Iraqis in 1981.

Those who doubt us do not understand what the Holocaust means to us survivors, our children, grand children, and all of Israel.

I suggest, that not only the Iranians should take notice of it, but Western countries as well. If they think that Israel will sit quietly and allow it to be wiped off the map they should better think twice about it.

I remember a conversation I had with two young Germans in Frankfurt a few years ago. My publishers, Fischer Verlag, invited me to Frankfurt to discuss my book Das Andere Leben with a group of young people. The book was originally published in English under the name of Light One Candle. After the lecture I met two young Germans who explained to me why they think that Israel is the most dangerous country in the world. Naturally, I was outraged. Their argument was as follows:

"We consider Israel the most dangerous country not because we think that Israel constitutes a danger to Europe. What we do believe is that if a major war breaks out again between Israel and the Arab States, and Israel's existence is threatened you may set the world on fire with your nuclear arsenal."

I was getting a really annoyed with them and answered:

"If you mean that this time, we won't go peacefully to the gas chambers like good little Jews, you are absolutely right. We won't, even if we have to use all means at our disposal; if Europe is effected by that, too bad. Your continent is soaked with Jewish blood anyway. Perhaps it could do with some cleansing." I said sharply.

There was a short silence. The Germans looked embarrassed.

At the time I was furious with the Germans, but perhaps they weren't so wrong. Perhaps we should make crystal clear to the world that as far as the survival of Israel is concerned they better take into the account our Holocaust background. Perhaps it is not such a bad idea to be considered a mad dog rather than a silent lamb.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, January 18, 2007.

This was written by Daniel Pipes, who is director of the Middle East Forum (www.meforum.org), "a think tank that "works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East." He is author of "Miniatures" (Transaction Publishers). Contact him at his website: http://www.DanielPipes.org

Question asked of Jerusalem Post columnists: "Do you believe the road map is still relevant? Is there a need for a new plan?" For all replies, see "Burning Issues #21 Is the road map still relevant?"

The question implies that once upon a time, the "concrete, three-phase implementation road map" (as it is more fully known) was relevant. That, however, never was the case. As Yitschak Ben-Gad succinctly summed up the problem in the title of his 2004 book, it was always the "roadmap to nowhere." Or as I counseled in a February 2003 article, Israelis and Americans should hold firm against "road maps that lead exactly in the wrong direction."

The plan was born a bureaucratic monstrosity; of its myriad faults, grown perhaps the most fundamental was its assumption that if only the Palestinians were given just a tad more of this or that, they would finally recognize the benefits of harmonious co-existence with a Jewish state of Israel. Not to have learned by now that Palestinians have larger and more aggressive ambitions than to live side-by-side with Israel implies living in a state of denial.

Due to continued Palestinian violence against Israelis, the road map to nowhere has, fortunately, not been implemented. I don't suppose it ever will be, and I sleep better in that expectation.

And no, there is no need for a new plan. The Bush administration should return to its predecessors' willingness to mediate, facilitate, and fund, and drop its overly-ambitious notions of "solving the Arab-Israeli conflict." As Irving Kristol memorably observed, "Whom the gods would destroy, they first tempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict."

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Hellman, January 18, 2007.

Indict Iran's President for inciting Genocide

Take Action!

"Never again!" Must Mean "Never! Again."

Call, email, fax, write, or meet with your U.S. Representative ASAP to urge him/her to become a co-sponsor of House Con.Res. 21, urging the UN Security Council to charge Iran's President Ahmadinejad for inciting genocide against Israel and its people. It was introduced by Reps. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Mark Kirk (R-IL) and others on January 8, 2007.

Ask your two Senators to support a similar Senate Resolution. Timing is vital. Your quick action will demonstrate that we are serious about the vow "never again!"

Urge your Representative to call Congressman Rothman's office (202-225-5061) to join him, Rep. Mark Kirk and others as co-sponsors of this vital H.Con.Res 21 and contact your two Senators to ask them to launch a champion measure in the Senate. For more information visit our website: www.cipaconline.org

Richard Hellman is President of Cipac -- Christians' Israel Public Action Campaign. Visit their website: http://www.cipaconline.org. For more information, write info@cipaconline.org

To Go To Top

Posted by A Tirschwell, January 18, 2007.

Magen David Adom (MDA) continues to have a shortage of type O blood (and other types as well). If you are visiting Israel in the next two weeks, or know someone who is, please consider taking an hour to donate blood. There's no more meaningful hands on way to help all Israelis.

The American Friends of Magen David Adom will be sponsoring a blood drive at the Inbal Hotel in Jerusalem on Thursday, January 24 from 4:00 to 8:00 PM that is open to the public. In addition, blood drives will be sponsored at Yeshivat Ohr David on January 22 from 2:00-5:30 PM, and at the Yeshiva University campus with Yeshivat Torat Schraga and the YU Kollel on January 30 from 1:00 to 5:00 PM.

For other times and locations throughout Israel, visit the MDA web site (in Hebrew) at http://www.mdais.org/main/siteNew/index.php? langId=3&page=539 to see where you can donate.

Please pass this all along to maximize blood donations.

For more information on these or other Magen David Adom activities, please contact Jonathan Feldstein, Israel Representative of American Friends of Magen David Adom at 057-761-4220 or jfeldstein@afmda.org.

Contact the poster at ravaaron@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Front Page Magazine, January 18, 2007.
This article was written by Kenneth R. Timmerman and it appeared today in www.FrontPageMag.com

For now, the nutty recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that the United States should engage in direct talks with Syria and Iran appears to have been mooted by events on the ground.

U.S. military forces have caught Iran red-handed -- twice -- over the past few weeks in Iraq, No one can possibly doubt any longer what I and many others have been saying for some time: that Iran is involved on the ground in Iraq and is aiding both Sunni and Shia insurgents in an effort to blow that country apart.

But like all bad ideas in Washington, rest assured that the Baker-Hamilton recommendation of direct talks will come back. Study group members can be counted upon to argue that the capture of top Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intelligence officials in Iraq only proves their point that Iran has real influence and thus must be dealt with directly, to prevent them from playing the spoiler's role.

And by the way, they will argue, what's the alternative? Nuke Iran?

It is regrettable and truly astonishing that President Bush has not applied to Iran and to Syria the same global vision he has so eloquently displayed in regards to Iraq and other fronts in the global war against the Islamic jihad. Because there is a clear alternative to the capitulation offered by Baker, Hamilton, and their advisors.

Instead of rewarding these regimes, the United States should use its tremendous resources to contain Syria and to undermine the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Such a policy is not far-fetched, nor is it based solely on ideology, although compelling moral arguments can be made in its favor. Instead, it serves the national and historic interests of the United States.

Syria is a weak and failing state, that survives largely because it goes unchallenged.

After the assassination in Feb. 2005 of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese people revolted against Syrian interference in their country. The brave and persistent demonstrations of the Cedars Revolution forced Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. The failure of the United Nations and the international community to keep pressure on the Syrian regime encouraged Syria to creep back in through the back door.

The lessons just of these past two years are crystal clear: pressuring Syria works; acquiescing to Syria does not. And yet, the Baker-Hamilton group chooses acquiescence. When Syria sins, force Israel to make concessions, the ISG recommends. If there is logic here, it is not of the sort to make Americans proud.

Instead, the United States should make the Syrian regime understand that it will pay a real price for its transgressions. Serious economic sanctions on Syria for its continued support of Hezbollah, in defiance of UN Security Council resolution 1701, would have a devastating impact on the minority Alouite regime. And targeted military strikes on Syrian border outposts and military units caught red-handed aiding Iraqi insurgents would send a clear warning to Syria's military leaders. If Syria did not get the message, the United States could step up the pressure by targeted air strikes on Damascus safehouses where Iraqi insurgent leaders continue to hide.

Syria has always backed down when challenged. If Mr. Baker were truly the "realist" he claims to be, he would acknowledge this and propose policies accordingly.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, is made of different stuff. This is a regime that over the past twenty-seven years has been willing to pay a tremendously high price in blood and treasure to pursue its radical policies. Since the 1979 revolution, the United States has repeatedly attempted to "influence the behavior" of the regime, without success.

As I wrote in these pages just last month, the Baker-Hamilton proposal is a warmed rehash of the same failed policy we've been trying since 1979.

There is only one approach that will get the attention of the Tehran's revolutionary and clerical leaders; and this is the one approach that Baker and Hamilton -- and the foreign policy Establishment -- have rejected: support for regime change.

This is the one approach that the United States and its allies have never tried. Short of an all-out U.S. military assault on Iran, it is the only approach that can avoid a future Persian Gulf region dominated by a radical Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons. Saying pretty-please, as the Baker-Hamilton group proposed, just isn't going to work.

Empowering Iranians to change their regime will be costly. From having worked with opponents to the Iranian regime over the past twenty years, and studied the requirements of opposition groups currently working inside Iran, I believe the United States should be prepared to commit a minimum of $300 million over an initial six month period if we are to have any hope of a successful outcome.

The very first step must be the appointment by the President of a Special Envoy for Iran, with full presidential authority to convene a loya jirga type meeting of several hundred prominent Iranian leaders. The majority of those able to attend such a meeting will of necessity come from the diaspora; some will come secretly from the inside.

That meeting should focus on establishing a broad declaration of principles around which the various opposition factions can unite, and then electing an executive committee that will include authorized spokespersons for the pro-freedom movement. (Much of the ground work for such a broad meeting of Iranians has already been accomplished over the past two years, thanks to the Iranians themselves).

Over the next six months, the following tasks must be accomplished:

  • Drafting a detailed game plane for organizing massive non-violent protests against the regime in Tehran. This game plan must include strategies for neutralizing the Revolutionary Guards, the bassij corps, and paramilitary gangs loyal to extremists in the current regime, and for preventing the Islamic-Marxist Mujahedin Khalq, which worked with the regime during the early years of the revolution, from exploiting the situation and seizing power in a putsch. It must also include a strategy for providing financial support to striking workers and professionals;

  • Specific policy recommendations for the United States and our allies, so we can best leverage tools available to governments and international organizations for delegitimizing and destabilizing the Tehran regime. (The U.S. Department of the Treasury has made a modest start here).

  • Identify, contact, and train key operations officers on the ground in Iran;

  • Identify and pre-position secure communications and other equipment needed to coordinate operations inside Iran; and

  • Establish a finance committee tasked with harnessing the tremendous resources of the Iranian diaspora, who have withheld major support to the pro-freedom movement because they rightly judged that the movement lacked U.S. support.

Broadcasting must be an integral part of any comprehensive political plan to challenge the legitimacy of the Iranian regime and promote non-violent regime change. However, none of the $300 million fund should go to expanding the Persian language service of Voice of America or Radio Farda, the Persian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Both have failed utterly to live up to the goal for which they were established.

Rather than communicate an American viewpoint during Iran's proxy war against Israel this past summer, for example, VOA television sent reporters to Beirut to interview top Hezbollah leaders -- the same Hezbollah leaders Iranian state television was treating as rock stars.

As for Radio Farda ("Tomorrow"), established to be a "surrogate" for the free media Iranians could not access inside their own country, it became a laughing stock by championing Iran's failed reformist president, Mohammad Khatami.

Since Ahmadinejad took over as president in 2005, Radio Farda has adopted the "music-first" model of Westwood One and become simply irrelevant. Both are a waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars and should be downsized or eliminated altogether.

Instead, funding should be provided to private Iranian broadcasters who understand the political thirst of their compatriots and know how to package a compelling message in a professional format. The allotment of the broadcasting budget should be determined by the Executive Committee, with a preference to pluralism and professionalism.

The U.S. intelligence community can play a support role in this effort, but should not take the lead. The last thing we need is to ask the Central Intelligence Agency to organize the Iranian opposition.

On the contrary, much of this program can -- and must -- be accomplished overtly. Having the President of the United States openly support the aspirations of the Iranian people, at the same time devoting $300 million to back the effort, will have a tremendous impact on pro-democracy forces inside Iran, without yet putting lives at risk.

At the end of the initial six month period, the President can then decide if he believes the program is viable. If so, he can pull the trigger on the plan devised by the pro-freedom groups in coordination with his Special Envoy. The U.S. will need to commit another $500 million or so to the effort of organizing and supporting the massive non-violent protest movement throughout Iran. This will be supplemented by another $500 million or more raised from the Iranian diaspora.

This is expensive, for sure. But it is far less costly than the alternatives of facing a nuclear-armed Iran, or having to send in U.S. troops to prevent Iran from deploying or firing nuclear weapons.

The Baker-Hamilton approach of engaging the terror-masters brings great risks and few rewards. It sends a clear message that terrorism, even conducted against the world's sole superpower, is a strategy that works. Engagement with Iran and Syria will foster more terror, not curtail it.

Furthermore, engaging regimes that systematically repress their own people and seek to destroy a bold democratic experiment on their borders, sends a clear message to pro-democracy forces inside those countries that their efforts can never succeed.

In one simple stroke, the Baker-Hamilton approach will have emboldened our enemies, and deterred our potential allies. And yet, for reasons that only the chattering classes can explain, this goes by the name "realism."

Supporting regime change by Iranians, while containing Syria, not only makes the best strategic sense for America. It is the right thing to do.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 18, 2007.

I. We are the Aryan Neo-Nazi Party. We strive for the complete destruction of Israel and of the Jewish people. We think that this destruction can be achieved in total, even if it is implemented in stages. We hate Jews and want to see an end to Jewish history and Jewish existence.

Accordingly, we have prepared a master plan for achieving our goal of total annihilation of Israel:

1. Israel must withdraw as a first step to its pre-1967 border and it must set up an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2. The Hamas organization must then be the party in control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
3. Israel must refrain from all retaliation against Palestinians, no matter what. The entire world must exert pressure on Israel NOT to use force against Palestinian armed forces.
4. Israel must conduct negotiations even while it is under fire.
5. Israel must never retaliate for rockets being fired into the Negev.
6. Israel must end all attempts at assassinating Palestinian leaders or militia commanders.
7. Israel must allow Israeli Arabs to set up their own national institutions inside Israel, including their own parliament, shadow government, fiscal institutions, and school system, and where Israeli Arabs fly the Palestinian flag over all their institutions and gatherings.
8. Israel must institute affirmative action preferences to ensure that Arabs hold positions of power in all areas.
9. Israel must release all imprisoned Arab terrorists and murderers without any conditions.
10. Israel must turn the Golan Heights over to Syria and allow the Syrian military to take up positions there.
11. Israel must abandon the Shabaa Farm on its Lebanese border.
12. Israel must slash its military budget by an enormous percent and transfer the funds to social spending.
13. Israel must never attack the Hezbollah under any circumstances.
14. Israel must unilaterally foreswear development and use of nuclear weapons.
15. Israel must refrain from using any weapons that are controversial, such as cluster bombs.
16. Israel must remove all Jewish symbols from its flag and national anthem.
17. Israel must agree to an unrestricted "right of return" for Arabs wishing to return to pre-1967 Israel.
18. Israeli schools must refer to Israel's creation as the Naqba or catastrophe (in Arabic).
19. Israel must pay compensation to any Arab ever injured, or who lost property, as a result of the Middle East conflict.
20. Israel must set up an Arab-language university for its Arab student population, in which Arab nationalism will be the focus of instruction.

II. We are the Israeli Professors for a Compassionate Peace. We want an end to the Middle East conflict. We believe in peace and equality. We strive for justice. We hate violence. We are patriots who love our country. All we want is a fair and peaceful resolution to the Middle East's problems.

Accordingly, we have prepared a master plan for achieving our goal of peaceful resolution for Israel and its neighbors:

1. Israel must withdraw as a first step to its pre-1967 border and it must set up an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2. The Hamas organization must then be the party in control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
3. Israel must refrain from all retaliation against Palestinians, no matter what. The entire world must exert pressure on Israel NOT to use force against Palestinian armed forces.
4. Israel must conduct negotiations even while it is under fire.
5. Israel must never retaliate for rockets being fired into the Negev.
6. Israel must end all attempts at assassinating Palestinian leaders or militia commanders.
7. Israel must allow Israeli Arabs to set up their own national institutions inside Israel, including their own parliament, shadow government, fiscal institutions, and school system, and where Israeli Arabs fly the Palestinian flag over all their institutions and gatherings.
8. Israel must institute affirmative action preferences to ensure that Arabs hold positions of power in all areas.
9. Israel must release all imprisoned Arab terrorists and murderers without any conditions.
10. Israel must turn the Golan Heights over to Syria and allow the Syrian military to take up positions there.
11. Israel must abandon the Shabaa Farm on its Lebanese border.
12. Israel must slash its military budget by an enormous percent and transfer the funds to social spending.
13. Israel must never attack the Hezbollah under any circumstances.
14. Israel must unilaterally foreswear development and use of nuclear weapons.
15. Israel must refrain from using any weapons that are controversial, such as cluster bombs.
16. Israel must remove all Jewish symbols from its flag and national anthem.
17. Israel must agree to an unrestricted "right of return" for Arabs wishing to return to pre-1967 Israel.
18. Israeli schools must refer to Israel's creation as the Naqba or catastrophe (in Arabic).
19. Israel must pay compensation to any Arab ever injured, or who lost property, as a result of the Middle East conflict.
20. Israel must set up an Arab-language university for its Arab student population, in which Arab nationalism will be the focus of instruction.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, January 18, 2007.

The shaven and suit wearing Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas is the darling of the West. He is an old-school Communist, Yasser Arafat's life long right hand man, a "protégé" of Arafat's terror school, and a Holocaust denier with the same grandiose new Holocaust plan as his mentor. In spite of this rather frightening description, for unknown reasons, the West is constantly dating him.

This article was written by Michael Widlanski, who is a specialist in Arab politics and communication at the Rothberg School of Hebrew University. He is a former reporter, correspondent and editor, respectively, at The New York Times, The Cox Newspapers-Atlanta Constitution, and The Jerusalem Post. He has also served as a special advisor to Israeli delegations to peace talks in 1991-1992 and as Strategic Affairs Advisor to the Ministry of Public Security, editing secret PLO Archives captured in Jerusalem

Arabic-expert Dr. Michael Widlanski points out that it is very much possible the real Abbas and the threat he poses to Israel are all "lost in translation."

What Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, is saying, and what he is planning to do, is far from what Secretary Condoleezza Rice and the West care to understand or act upon.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas made a very militant anti-Israel speech this week, but most of its violent message was lost in translation, because Abbas used a somewhat obscure wording in Arabic.

"Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let our rifles, all our rifles, all our rifles, be aimed at the Occupation," declared Abbas using an apparent reference to the old oratory of Communist leader Mao Tse Tung.

Even non-Arabs well-schooled in Arabic had trouble figuring out the strange verb from "da'a" used by Dr. Abbas, but it is a command form that means "let us" or "leave us begin to" from the weak Arabic verbal root Wa-da-'a (Waw, Dal 'Ayin). [See Hans Wehr, ADictionary of Modern Written Arabic, p.1058]

The phrase is important in many ways, because it shows --That Dr. Abbas, who studied at the KGB's Patrice Lumumba University for Third World leaders, continues to heed Communist revolutionary rhetoric and tactics -- That Dr. Abbas is committed to the "revolutionary path" of Yasser Arafat, who also saluted those using violence against Israel; -- And that Abbas believes that the Palestinian revolution requires continued violence against Israel, and that this violence can actually be a unifying factor among Palestinians, though Abbas has said that the timing of the violence is of critical.

"I say to the master of the martyrs," declared Abbas, saluting Arafat, "your sons will continue your march. I say to you, your lion cubs will continue this struggle (nidal), this battle (kifaah) until a Palestinian state is established on the land of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.

Abbas, who spoke for more than 30 minutes on Jan. 11 in Ramallah, made it clear that he was distinguishing between the "struggle" or "battle" against Israel and the "fighting" among Palestinians.

"Firing weapons at my brother my friend, my neighbor," declared Arafat's successor, "is forbidden, forbidden, forbidden," repeating his words and waving his left hand strongly.

But Abbas said the Palestinian struggle would continue despite setbacks.

"They have killed us everywhere, but this revolution, by virtue of the determination of its people, by virtue of the determination of its youth--this revolution has continued and it will continue until we fulfill the Palestinian dream."

Abbas was speaking at the forty-second anniversary of the founding of the Fatah organization-a day commemorating the first Palestinian attack on Israel's national water carrier on January 1, 1965, and Abbas was trying to use the occasion unify the divided Palestinian community, perhaps by using Israel as a common enemy.

The Fatah Day speech was delayed by ten days of massive fighting between Fatah and Hamas, both of which are wrestling for leadership of the Palestinian Authority in the wake of Yasser Arafat's death in November 2004.

"Since our launching to this day, we have believed in principles which we shall not relinquish. From the dawn of our beginning we have said 'Let a thousand flowers bloom and let our rifles, all our rifles, all our rifles, be aimed at the Occupation.' And we will keep the oath, the renewed national unity, for everyone who cares for the sake of the homeland and in the path of the homeland," declared Abbas.

Frequently throughout his speech, Abbas referred to Arafat as martyr, similarly describing those Fatah gunmen who died while carrying out attacks on Israel.

Abbas's comments were interpreted by Palestinians themselves as a clear reference to attacking Israel-a badge of honor rather than something to condemn.

The Palestianin leader's words were repeated almost exactly in later television shows by other Palestinian officials, such as Ibrahim Abu-Naja and Dr. Kamal Sharafy who called Israel "the enemy" and "the Zionist enemy," respectively.

As if to remove any doubt about the militancy of Abbas's words and the place to aim Palestinian rifles, minutes after Abbas's own speech, Palestinian television's senior announcer, described Israel's establishment as the beginning of "occupation."

"No one [here] is a criminal. All our people are as one hand to free our land," declared Abbas, speaking about the struggle against Israel that unites all Palestinians. Not once in his speech did he condemn or even disapprove of continuing rocket attacks and attempted suicide assaults by Hamas and by his own Fatah movement.

But Abbas made it clear that Palestinian violence had to be curtailed for practical reasons, because it was "crossing a red line," endangering Palestinians.

"I have heard the sound gunshots here, and that is forbidden," asserted Abbas, the Fatah and PLO chairman, remonstrating against the largely pro-Fatah crowd that gathered to listen to his words in the town of Ramallah, north of Jerusalem.

"Condemning and preventing internal fighting," was his goal, asserted Abbas, referring to the internal Palestinian bloodletting in which about 300 Palestinians died last year. Stopping this "falatan" -- anarchy in Arabic -- was his regime's first priority, said Abbas, but his words did not seem to convince the crowd.

"Hamas is a bunch of Shiites," cried members of the crowd, using the term "Shiite" as a kind of curse, and Abbas again rebuked his own Fatah members, saying, "This [kind of talk] too is forbidden," as he tried to strike nationalistic and Islamic themes of unity, departing slightly from his prepared speech.

"No one [Palestinian] is outside our society," yelled Abbas waving his hands at the noisy crowd. He specifically saluted the late Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, one of the founders of Hamas, which developed the human bomb attacks that ravaged Israel from 1994-2004, after Israel signed several agreements with the Palestinians.

"No one is a traitor. No one is a collaborator [with Israel]. No one is an infidel," Abbas continued, strongly suggesting that anyone who has used arms against Israel, even if he vied with Fatah for leadership, was still not beyond the pale.

[Almost all Palestinians are Sunni Muslims and the term "Shi'a" in Arabic, which means faction or faction member, refers to those Muslims who broke away from the majority community after the death of Islam's leader, Muhammad, and supported Ali, Muhammad's nephew. -MW]

In what was in many ways one of the most militant speeches against Israel from a Palestinian official normally touted as a moderate, Dr. Abbas also stretched out his hand to the Hamas terror organization that has never even pretended it does not want to destroy Israel.

Dr. Abbas seemed to reject all possibilities of territorial compromise or anything less than full repatriation of Palestinian refugees, and he repudiated Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's idea that a further Israeli withdrawal would lead to a Palestinian state inside temporary borders.

"Today more than any other day, we must hold fast to our Palestinian principles, and we will not accept a state with temporary borders" said Abbas, adding, "We will not give up one grain [of land] in Jerusalem."

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com or visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, January 17, 2007.
The recent speculation about Israeli-Syrian talks regarding the status of Golan Heights and the relations between the two countries have raised a quite a few eyebrows(including mine) in the international community.

The Heights were captured by Israel in the 1967 war and has ever since been the bone of contention between Israel and Syria. The acquisition of the Golan helped Israel to have a measure of security against an unfriendly neighbour that has refused to have anything to do with the Jewish state since 1948. The regime's support for various terrorist factions, is an indicator of such unfriendliness or willingness to come to terms with Israel. So there is no guarantee that the handover of the Golan would solve the ongoing tension between Israel and Syria, as the latter is bent upon discrediting Israel in every international gathering including the UNO. Moreover, as in the past (prior to 1967), the Heights could be a staging base for military actions against Israel.

The onus of peace is upon Syria. If it is serious about mending fences. It should (a) Stop supporting the terrorists (b)secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers (c) denounce Iran's nuclear ambitions and denial of the Holocaust (d)Give guarantees of Druze self-determination (d) Recognize Israel. If Syria comes to grips with the reality of Israel,and abides by with some of the conditions as mentioned above, then it would be a new determinant of peace in the Middle East.

Contact the writer at kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 17, 2007.

This was written by Ezra HaLevi of Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNN.com). It is called "BTselem Accused of Deception in Annual Report" and it appeared January 14, 2007 on Arutz Sheva.

The B'Tselem human rights group is accused by CAMERA, a media watchdog group, of using deceptive terms and selective omissions to slant the perspective of its annual report on Arab casualties.

In its December 28 press release, B'Tselem announced the main findings of its generally anti-Israel annual report: "This past year, we witnessed a deterioration in the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories, particularly in the increase in civilians killed and the destruction of the houses and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip."

The report itself does not classify those killed as civilians or terrorists, though. It chooses instead to classify Arab casualties as either "Killed when participating in hostilities" or "Did not participate in hostilities when killed."

CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) contacted B'Tselem and was told by spokesperson Sarit Michaeli that this is indeed the group's policy.

According to CAMERA, until 2002, B'Tselem actually did provide separate lists of those it classified as Palestinian civilians. "In 2003, B'Tselem's loose definition of the term 'civilian' included countless Palestinians who were killed while they were in the process of attacking Israelis, including opening fire at a Bat Mitzvah celebration in Hadera, killing six and injuring 35; setting off bombs; infiltrating Israeli communities and killing or injuring residents; and fighting with Israeli troops," the CAMERA report states. "B'Tselem has since abandoned that policy -- perhaps in face of CAMERA's criticism -- but is the current practice any more credible?"

The media accuracy group reviewed the details of the two most recent months covered by the B'Tselem report. They found that not only were known wanted terrorists included in those supposedly uninvolved in hostilities, but that when conflicting reports existed as to an individual's involvement, B'Tselem consistently assumed that he was not.

B'Tselem reported, for example, that Muhammad Mahmoud Rajab a-Jarjawi, 19, who was killed Nov. 23 in Beit Lahiya, "did not participate in hostilities when killed." In fact, the report says he was "killed while on his way home from prayers, which ended at five in the morning."

The Palestinian Ma'an News Agency (as supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring) reported that day, however: "Our Gaza correspondent reported that an Israeli reconnaissance plane launched a rocket at a group of armed Palestinian resistance men who were confronting the invading Israeli tanks east of Bayt Lahiya. One of the men, Muhammad Jarjawi, 19, was killed and many others were injured."

The report includes armed terrorists in its "did not participate in hostilities" classification. One incident is described as follows (emphasis added): "Muhammad (Eid) Amin Mahmoud Ramaheh, 27-year-old resident of Ein Beit al-Maa Refugee Camp, Nablus district, killed on 14.12.2006 in Ein Beit al-Maa Refugee Camp, Nablus district, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed when shot at short range when he ran from his car when an undercover unit tried to arrest him. He was armed."

The IDF report that day described the incident: "The forces set up a roadblock in order to stop Ramaheh, but when Ramaheh's vehicle arrived it bypassed the roadblock and collided with another vehicle, injuring a number of civilians. As the forces approached Ramaheh's vehicle, he and one of his men opened fire at them. The soldiers returned fire, killing the two, who had been armed with an M-16 and a handgun."

Other information consistently left out of the B'Tselem report includes the membership in terrorist organizations of those killed. The IDF reported that Rahama was a head of Fatah's Tanzim terror group and was involved in terror attacks and in attempted attacks in the Shechem region.

"B'Tselem can not be relied upon as a trusted source for figures on Palestinian civilian casualties," the CAMERA report concludes. "Nor can the details it provides on the circumstances of death for Palestinian casualties be considered accurate." The complete CAMERA report is available at

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Christian Zionism Organization, January 17, 2007.

Dear Friends,

We are excited to announce the launch of www.Christian-Zionism.org which is dedicated to telling the true story about Christian Zionism.

Anti-Christian Zionist groups, books, and articles are attempting to poison the public against Christian Zionism. http://www.Christian-Zionism.org will refute anti-Christian Zionism propaganda and reframe Christian Zionism in a positive light.

www.Christian-Zionism.org is a clearing house for Christian Zionism articles, information, organizations, and events. We encourage you to learn more about all of our Christian Zionist organizations in the Organizations section of the website. We also encourage you to sign up for our email updates under the Subscribe Now section of the website.

www.Christian-Zionism.org also provides extensive pro-Israel resources. Please visit the Resource and Links sections of the website to watch videos from Israel, download posters and cards, and learn about Israeli history.


David Brog, Christians United for Israel
Earl Cox, Israel Always
Rev. James Hutchens, Jerusalem Connection International
Esther Levens, National Unity Coalition for Israel
JoAnn Magnuson, Bridges for Peace
Susan Michael, International Christian Embassy Jerusalem
Robert Stearns, Eagles Wings
Bill Sutter, The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc

Go To www.Christian-Zionism.org
email: mail@christian-zionism.org
web: http://www.christian-zionism.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, January 17, 2007.
This was written by Eli Lake and it appeared January 16, 2007 in the New York Sun

When President Bush announced the new Iraq strategy Wednesday evening, acknowledging that Iran was effectively at war with us in Iraq by supplying terrorists with advanced improvised explosives, my thoughts turned to Lawrence Franklin.

Nearly a year ago, Judge T.S. Ellis III, sentenced this Pentagon Iran analyst to almost 13 years in a federal prison after he pleaded guilty to discussing classified information with two former lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The case, which is thus far the Bush administration's only successful anti-leaking prosecution, illustrates the strategic confusion of our national security bureaucracy in a time of war.

Franklin, it turns out, was trying -- unconventionally -- to influence a debate in the administration in 2003 over a national security policy directive regarding Iran. He provided Aipac's Iran specialists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, with his own list of specific instances of how Iran was sending teams from its Quds Force to sow terror, kill American soldiers, and pose a threat to Israeli operatives in northern Iraq. He hoped his list could find its way to the National Security Council, through the two lobbyists, to counter the intelligence from other channels suggesting that Iran had an interest in stabilizing Iraq.

Franklin was not a typical bureaucrat. He was dogged in his view of the Iranian threat, and he was also not averse to taking risks that would earn him the enmity of powerful foes. He risked incurring the enmity of the CIA by meeting with sources of Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iran-Contra era figure, and, in December 2001, met with the man's sources in Rome. At the meeting, according to Franklin's friend Michael Ledeen, Franklin was told about hunter-killer teams operating against coalition forces in western Afghanistan. He delivered the intelligence personally to special forces command that month in Kabul, and, according to Mr. Ledeen, the intelligence was correct.

For his troubles, Franklin got caught up in the prosecution of two Aipac officials and has been libeled by some in the Web fringes as a spy for Israel. One of the commanders who worked closely with Franklin, General Mulholland, wrote a letter to the court last year, praising the former analyst's patriotism and diligence.

What's interesting is why Franklin took such desperate measures to make the president aware that the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world was sponsoring terrorists in a post-Saddam Iraq. Messrs. Weissman and Rosen were leading proponents in the 1990s of the view that Iran's sponsorship of international terrorism could be modified through diplomatic sticks and carrots -- the inverse of Franklin's view that the Islamic Republic was genetically predisposed to use terrorism as statecraft.

One reason was that in 2002, the Bush administration, as part of its efforts to coordinate the Iraqi opposition, was resigned to working with Iran's proxies, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa party. This decision locked America into an impossible position. Mr. Bush was betting that Iran would have an interest in stabilizing Iraq because the groups closest to Iran would be brought into the government to replace Saddam Hussein. The kind of analysis Franklin was providing would scuttle a policy built around the presumption that Iran shared our interests in Iraq.

That presumption has cost the White House a good part of its strategic coherence. On the one hand, the president has at times acknowledged the malicious role the Iranians play in Iran, he has lent his voice at times to the struggle of Iranian democrats, and he has authorized paltry sums of cash for meetings about the Iranian opposition. On the other hand, Secretary Rice in 2005 ordered our envoy in Baghdad, Ambassador Khalilzad, to open a direct channel with his Iranian counterpart and placed hopes for modifying Iranian behavior in a United Nations Security Council resolution. America has pledged up to now to respond to the threat Iran poses in Baghdad by talking to bureaucrats in Geneva, Paris, and London. Then last month, we changed our strategy. Suddenly America is responding to the Iranian threat in Iraq by going after Iran's outposts and missions. It may be too late. As the National Security Council's power point summary of the new strategy says, Iran has been "burrowing" its agents deep inside the new Iraqi government. Iran has proven that it is not averse to working with the Sunni car bombers who kill Shiites and with the Shiite militias who kill Sunnis. Iran's Quds Force turns out to be playing both sides of the Iraqi civil war.

This news has been ignored and disbelieved by those lawmakers advocating a "diplomatic surge." But it would not likely come as a surprise to Franklin, a Persian speaker who now parks cars and works odd jobs, as he awaits final word on the jail sentence he earned for trying to get word of all this to a president who failed to grasp what Franklin was trying to tell him.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, January 17, 2007.

On her current trip to the Middle East, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been meeting with a series of Arab leaders, patting each one on the back and heaping praise on them for their supposed "moderation".

But just who is a "moderate Arab leader", and is Secretary Rice making a grave mistake when she applies this term to those with whom she meets? Read my column below from the Jerusalem Post and find out.

This article appeared today in The Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467747950&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly at msfreund@netvision.net.il.


US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has come and gone on her latest visit to the Middle East, but about the only thing she left behind was a trail of confusion and bewilderment.

Prior to Rice's arrival, her trip was billed as an effort to bolster "moderate Arab leaders" in the area. On January 9, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that one of the secretary's goals would be to "support those forces of moderation in the region."

That sounds reasonable enough. After all, the Middle East could certainly use a healthy dose of restraint.

But after watching Ms. Rice's performance over the past few days, it should now be clear that her idea of what constitutes a "moderate Arab leader" is way off the mark, and this should leave us all deeply concerned about the future.

Take, for example, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whom Rice put forward as a model of moderation.

Standing next to Abbas at a press conference in Ramallah on Sunday, the secretary of state practically gushed with enthusiasm when she said in her opening remarks, "I want everyone to know, particularly the Palestinian people, how much we admire the leadership of President Abbas as a leader of the Palestinian people."

And yet, it was just last Thursday, three days prior to meeting with Rice, that Abbas publicly called upon Palestinians to attack Israel.

SPEAKING at a rally to mark the 42nd anniversary of the founding of Fatah, Abbas told a huge crowd gathered in Ramallah, "With the will and determination of its sons, Fatah will continue. We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation."

"We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation," Abbas added.

Is this the kind of "moderation" Rice had in mind?

Indeed, despite Abbas's outrageous call to arms, Rice did not say a word -- not a single, solitary word! -- about it during her joint press conference with him. She did not see fit to demand a retraction from Abbas of his invitation to violence, nor did she press him to refrain from inciting further bloodshed.

Instead, Rice chose to heap additional praise on Abbas, telling the assembled journalists that "we've made a lot of progress over recent years, in particular because of the hard work of President Abbas."


What progress is she referring to? To the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel? To the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit? Or perhaps to the growing popularity of Hamas and Islamic Jihad among the Palestinian electorate?

To be sure, when one compares Abbas with the "genocide now" crowd over at Hamas, he might appear to be a tad bit less extreme. But the gap between "less extreme" and "moderate" is vast, and the two cannot and should not be confused.

AND THEREIN lies the problem with Rice's misguided compliments to Abbas. By embracing him rather than rebuking him, she encouraged the Palestinian leader to believe that he can openly call for violence against Jews without paying any political price for doing so.

Her actions also sent a dangerous message to Palestinians, who might start to think that America's top diplomat sees nothing wrong with their leader's plea to start using their rifles against the Jewish state.

Rice's confused idea of "moderation" was further on display in Egypt, where she met on Monday with Egyptian autocrat Hosni Mubarak and his foreign minister, Aboul Gheit.

Later, at a press conference with Gheit, Rice again had nothing but praise for her hosts, asserting that, "Egypt is really a partner."

What she neglected to mention, of course, was that Mr. Mubarak rules his domain in the finest tradition of the Pharaohs, suppressing dissent, tossing his political opponents into prison, and fixing the outcome of elections to his liking.

Egypt has also allowed untold quantities of weapons to be smuggled freely into Gaza, into the waiting arms of terrorist groups, and it has refused to crack down on the flow of funds to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Some "partner."

We are sure to be treated to a continuation of this spectacle in the coming days, as Rice travels to the Gulf to meet with other "moderates" such as the terror-sponsoring Saudis and some of their Israel-boycotting neighbors.

AND THAT should have us all deeply worried, because the issue of just who is a moderate Arab leader is far more than just one of semantics. It goes to the very root of US foreign policy in the region. For by misidentifying or mischaracterizing various Arab leaders as "moderates,"

Rice and others do real harm to the very cause they seek to advance.

Rather than encouraging moderation, they are in fact unwittingly promoting extremism by failing to call to account leaders such as Abbas, Mubarak and others.

And by blurring the definition of true moderation, they have allowed these men to continue to pursue policies that are antithetical to Israel and the West, all while continuing to bask in the undeserved political support they receive from abroad.

The question of "just who exactly is a moderate Arab leader," and whether any really exist, remains open to debate.

But by conferring this title upon despots and dictators, and those who sponsor terror, the US secretary of state is doing far more damage than good.

Michael Freund served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, January 16, 2007.

Facts on the ground suggest a broken Iraq cannot be glued together when the pieces are incompatible. Religious Sunnis and Shiites, disputing successors of Mohammad for thirteen centuries, are about as likely to see eye to eye as elephants will soon learn to fly. All the superglue made by U.S. President Bush and his tacticians will not put a turbaned sword wielding Humpty Dumpty back together again, especially after the Humpty Shiites have for decades been dumped on by Sadist Hussein and his Dumpty Baathist Sunnis. The secular Kurds want nothing to do with the religious Sunnis and Shiites, indeed are finding their ways very nicely in a region known as Kurdistan. Any pie in the sky neo-con advisor disputing the obvious is leading us down a yellow brick road with a grim fairy tale that will continue to burst apart letting no one live happily ever after.

There are realistic solutions to this mess however; just ask U.S. Senate wizard Joe Biden who is no longer biding his time, will likely go after the big brass Presidential ring due to arrive in 2008, and presciently suggests separating the three incompatible Iraqi tribes into three loosely connected regions, no doubt sharing a Koranucopia of petrodollars traded for its carbon based elixir, voraciously imbibed by the industrial world, flowing underneath heretofore blood soaked desert, compliments of Martyrs Inc. Alas, if that doesn't work, the Middle East will likely make Dante's Inferno look like a Boy Scout bon fire, once the American cavalry sings happy trails and heads West, creating a power vacuum that will suck in mad Mahmoud and his Persian Shiite Revolutionary Guard brandishing misguided anti-Sunni missiles, perhaps of the Dr. Strangelove variety. The House of Saud, sensing its vast mostly Sunni neighborhood could fall like a house of cards, will jettison its own jihad junkies into the mix; perhaps followed by Turkish troops, more concerned that sovereign Kurds abutting their nation's border will inspire Turkey's own discontented Kurdish citizens to run afoul of the law, attempt to secede, thus such troops will be inclined to preemptively knock the stuffing out of those free bird Kurdish troublemakers to the proximate south.

Lets not ignore Russian Papa Bear Putin who is not likely to stay on the sidelines as his continent implodes. Will he supply Iran with sophisticated weaponry to defeat Sunni forces, cognizant of a consequential opportunity to share power with a Persian Shiite empire in the making thus asserting more control over the market price of oil, holding the industrial world over a barrel? Cold war paybacks can be brutal as a resurrected Soviet empire strikes back with a vengeance. You can take Vladimir out of the KGB but you can't take the KGB out of Vladimir, fixing to rumble with the petro-ruble. Furthermore, might such a scenario play out without all the other superpowers and superpower wannabes East and West flexing Big Kahuna biceps, surfing into the melee with self-serving agendas, attempting to ride the wake of an Islamic tsunami without breaking their boards of directors scared silly by broken-pipeline phobia, a twenty-first century ailment with prehistoric origins?

The one wild card in all this is Israel. How will the beleaguered Jewish State fair if a broken Iraq so upsets the balance of power within a Middle East jihad infected jungle virtually everything destabilizes, disintegrating all restraints? If mad Mahmoud AhMADinejad is a man of his word, 'wiping Israel off the map' will be a priority. It thus behooves the imperiled Jewish State to be ever vigilant, striking first if necessary. Yet there is one silver lining as dark clouds ominously threaten to burst violently creating that immense world-class tsunami. Shrinking oil prices, indeed far more subtle than jihad, yet over time just as potent, could cause a financially strapped Iran to abandon its jihadist military ambitions, thus abort any chain of events leading to catastrophic consequences. Putin's own ambitions would likewise be stifled, as Russia's fossil fuel revenue sector would similarly be dealt a substantial blow. The entire world, including Israel, would then be spared the wrath of an Islamic Rasputin, allied with its strange Soviet bedfellow, bent on planetary conquest. Perhaps all civil nations could consequently live happily ever, but only father time will tell. The morale to this story is 'be prepared'; one never knows which way the wind blows.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daryl Temkin, January 16, 2007.

There is something "in" about using words outside of the English language. At one time, French words would creep into our political vocabulary -- as when Henry Kissinger introduced the word "détente", a relaxing of political tension.

In recent years, we are no longer adding to our French vocabulary, and mostly Arabic has become the trendy or in vogue source of words. Now we have become familiar with such colorful words as "jihad", "intifada", "burka", "hijab", and "Ramadan" -- - just to name a few.

Prior to both the French and Arabic words of the day, the Yiddish language brought a new tonality to understanding and describing various emotions. A variety of articles and even books have been written to explain the wide range of Yiddish additions found scattered within the English language.

At this time, there is one powerful Yiddish word which is most fitting to enter into the English lexicon. The word is "shanda," pronounced, "shan- dah". Like many descriptive Yiddish words, there is a simple definition and then a much broader definition. The simple word definition is "shame or embarrassment", but the more enhanced definition is, "How dare you do what you did?" A shanda refers to an action which has no trace of wisdom or legitimate reason for having occurred. Severe guilt and embarrassment must be attached to this situation or there will be nothing learned or gained. A shanda is a shame of such magnitude that the fact that it happened once is already too much.

Nothing is acceptable about a shanda because it is a moral injustice, and even more compelling, anyone who attempts to justify a shanda, is worthy of being cut off. A shanda is a despicable act and deserves a very strong consequential response, similar to a parent shouting so loud at their errant child that the entire neighborhood hears of the wrongful act.

It's not easy to achieve the "shanda" status. Typically, one has to "work hard" to arrive at such a nadir. In order for a shanda to be a shanda, it has to have the "merit" to really stand out in the general category of "low grade behaviors". The competition for such an "award" can be fierce, but the winner will generally display qualities that are unquestionably outstanding. The public's judgment will often establish a "shanda finalist award" which could take place monthly or weekly, and hopefully not, daily. Unfortunately, in reference to the Middle East, we live in a time when devastating shandas are occurring much too frequently.

This past week was astonishing. America proclaimed its gift of $84 million dollars and a rich supply of new weapons to Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian President. America claimed this gift would be used only to fight the Hamas terrorists. In appreciation, Mr. Abbas, Arafat's right hand man from the inception of the PLO, gave a public speech at the 42nd Anniversary celebration of Fatah's creation. In that speech, Mr. Abbas declared that the American gift of weapons and money would certainly be used for the destruction of Israel.

Mr. Abbas, the falsely termed "moderate", cried out for unity among the warring Palestinian factions telling them to stop killing each other and to focus their guns on destroying their "common enemy", Israel. He let it be known that the new weapons will be pointed in one direction for the destruction of the occupying Israelis. Once again, the agenda for destroying terrorism was set aside for the agenda of destroying Israel.

What was the shanda? That with few exceptions, the world media chose not to report the Abbas declaration as to where these weapons would be pointed. The Shanda was that the world media chose to report the first part of Abbas' statement making him sound like he is the "great unifier" stating that he wants the conflicting Palestinian factions to come together and to stop killing each other. That makes Abbas sound like he is a fine, moderate, responsible, and peace seeking leader. The world media, in order to maintain their "liberal" political illusion, censored the next part of the Abbas statement where he commanded the Palestinians to point their new American assault rifles at Israel. This is a shanda!

Again, the world media chose to protect Abbas and project the American and European Union illusionary message. The falsely believed "fair and balanced" liberal-minded media which supports the political discourse works to continue the lie and the fantasy that Abbas wants to conquer and disarm the terrorists. The media is so bold that they commit their sly deception right in the face of Abbas clearly admitting the truth. This is a shanda!

As days passed, the Abbas words were heard by enough alternative news sources that Condoleeza Rice was confronted with this information. She responded stating that America will be in control of how these weapons will be used. We are now asked to believe that America now has the ability to direct which way a rifle in the hands of a Palestinian "freedom fighter" is pointed and which way the bullets will fly. This is a shanda!

And then, in spite of Abbas clearly stating his leadership intentions, in spite of the well known information that Hamas and Fatah are often inter- mixed, in spite of numerous Palestinian leaders declaring the same message that Abbas spoke, and in spite of the history of abuse of past arms gifts to the Palestinians, America is still going forward with its plans. On top of this, in the same speech, Condoleeza Rice praised the furtherance of the "Road Map". She pointed out that "Israel's implementation of the Road Map has already succeeded in forcing Israel to expel Jewish residents and destroy their communities in the Gaza region. They are out of Gaza. And so I think we want to look at what is still to be achieved." So now the Gaza expulsion is considered part of the Road Map and Condi is awaiting the next expulsion. This is a shanda!

Then, for icing on the cake, Time Magazine reported that Ms. Rice suggested that the Road Map go forward and that the first step of the Road Map be skipped since it is not being accomplished. The first step of the road map requires the terrorists be disarmed and the teaching of Israel and Jew hatred be stopped. Ms. Rice was willing to skip the most important foundational requirements for the Palestinians to fulfill and therefore was willing to establish a Palestinian state embedded with anti- Israel hate and limitless terrorism. This is a shanda!

Usually, a shanda is something of such magnitude that among responsible people it rarely happens. However, within the Israeli-Arab conflict, shandas have been happening not only once a month or once a week, but now several times a day.

A shanda is such a moral infraction that it requires a response of yelling and screaming. A shanda is the very thing that one can not sit back and say, "So -- what else is new?" A shanda is an event that must not go unnoticed and un-reprimanded. The Jewish and non-Jewish world has to scream about the absurdity and the immoral nature of this $84 million dollar American gift of money plus weapons for the spread of terrorism. And, there has to be yelling and screaming about all the other shandas as well.

If we remain silent in the face of shandas of the above named magnitude, then the "doors of immorality" will be left wide open for something of even greater horrendous magnitude to occur. The human race cannot afford this. Complacency in the face of a serious shanda must not be tolerated. These types of shandas must be receive a powerful reprimand that will not only be heard throughout a neighborhood, but will be heard and understood throughout the world.

Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel Education Institute which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews. Dr. Temkin can be reached at: DT@Israel-Institute.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, January 16, 2007.

This is by Mark Silverberg.

America is discovering that the road to victory in Iraq runs through Tehran and Damascus. It is also discovering that a military strategy based on a "limited war" doctrine and confined to Iraq cannot defeat an Iranian enemy engaged in a broader war of conquest.

The asymmetry of fighting a "limited war" in an existential conflict first surfaced during the Truman administration in its confrontation with communist North Korea. When the Chinese drove the UN army out of North Korea in its quest to conquer the South, Truman (to the surprise of the Chinese) failed to escalate the conflict and adopted the limited objective of fighting the war in South Korea rather than destroying the enemy to the north. As a result, American forces quickly became bogged down in a defensive South Korean conflict with no clear end to the war in sight.

In 1961, President Kennedy and his brain trust of social theorists including Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Dean Rusk, George Ball and others institutionalized this policy of "limited war" as the doctrine of "flexible response." It assumed that the enemy would "get the message" that America was determined to fight based on a gradual escalation of the conflict depending upon the extent of the threat.

Unfortunately, "flexible response" did not take into account that the North Vietnamese (like al Qaeda, Iran and Hamas today) were ideologically committed to total victory and were prepared do whatever was necessary to achieve it -- short of their own destruction. While Ho Chi Minh set out to wage total war on the South, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson treated the conflict not as existential (which it was for South Vietnam) but as limited. As a result, five hundred thousand American troops were confined to a strategically defensive stance in South Vietnam (as in Korea) with no thought of marching on Hanoi. By failing to threaten the continued existence of the North Vietnamese Communist government, North Vietnamese leaders were able to drag out the war until America's will to fight was broken by its own anti-war propaganda at home.

This same failed "limited war" strategy has dogged American strategic war doctrine ever since. During the Iranian embassy crisis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini disclosed that he had no fear of an American army marching on Tehran since President Carter's only serious response to the hostage-taking was to impose ineffectual diplomatic and economic sanctions, an embargo on Iranian oil and a break in diplomatic relations.

President Clinton also followed the "limited war" approach even as Americans were being harvested by Islamic terrorists from New York to Saudi Arabia to Kenya. He sent cruise missiles to blow up empty tents in the Afghan desert and pharmaceutical factories in the Sudan, signed agreements with dictators based on the belief that America would somehow be "safe", hamstrung American intelligence services in the name of civil liberties, shrunk the American military in the name of economy, and chose to use the courts as the battleground, rather than engaging with the terrorists and taking the war to them and their sponsors.

This doctrine has now been transposed onto Iraq. How can America possibly win a "limited war" in Iraq when its enemies (Iran and Syria) and their terrorist proxies (al Qaeda and Hezbollah) are committed to undermining American efforts there and are pursuing "total war" against them with the intention of driving them from the region and establishing a global Islamic Caliphate? America has limited its war objectives to stabilizing, democratizing and reconstructing Iraq before it has vanquished those in Iran and Syria who are doing all in their power to see the American enterprise fail. If the American people have grown weary of Iraq, it is because the average American sees no merit in having a national debate on how to wage a futile war. Americans want victory and like it or not, the road to victory leads through Tehran and Damascus. The American public will never support a war predicated upon a limited, drawn out and failed war strategy against an enemy dedicated to the destruction of American influence in the Middle East. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, capturing its oil fields, destroying its government offices and regime change are absolutely critical if Iraq is to be secured and the larger war against Islamic fascism is to be won. America's enemies (specifically Iran and Syria) must be convinced that the price of pursuing conquest in Iraq or elsewhere in the world is simply too high a price for them to pay.

If the United States sends a message that it considers victory in Iraq too costly to pursue, how then can Iran and Syria be blamed for concluding that Washington may be unwilling to pay the costs of avoiding defeat? During World War II, it would have been unthinkable for allied forces to have stopped at the German border after liberating France without destroying Adolf Hitler, the Nazi war machine and the entire cult of Aryan supremacy.

In the final analysis, just as Israel will eventually be required to vanquish the terrorist infrastructures in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon if Israelis are to be secure in their homeland, so America will be required to carry this war to Iran and Syria if it is to end the threat they and their proxies represent to Iraq and the world. Iraq can and never will be stabilized so long as these nations are free to undermine American interests and pursue their global Islamic war.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Frankfurter, January 16, 2007.

It is a fundamental right of every individual to be judged equally amongst his peers. Without it, democracy becomes unsustainable. And yet, multiple standards are almost intrinsic to human nature. Double standards infect almost every realm of human endeavour. A prime example is the use of human shields.

Outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, the use of human shields is decried by all. The former UN Secretary General, Kofi Anan, denounced the use of human shields by guerilla rebels in refugee camps of West Timor.

So what action was taken in Palestinian villages presided over by the UN? UNWRA headquarters in Jenin was used as cover for Palestinians to shoot at IDF soldiers. Human shields were, and are, a common tool. Terrorists were even caught opening fire while taking cover behind a woman holding an UNWRA flag.

How was UN condemnation phrased on this occasion? The Weekly Standard described it well. Local UN officials fabricated an Israeli army "massacre" of "unarmed civilians" and UNRWA Commissioner General Peter Hansen gave dozens of lip-smacking interviews recounting his eye witness account of Israeli atrocities. But the Weekly Standard concluded, based on foreign journalist and international observer evidence, that Hansen "is a bald-faced liar."

This determination to vilify Israel and exonerate Palestinian fabrication is evidenced in any event where Palestinians being used as human shields are accidentally killed -- whether by Israelis as collateral damage or by Palestinian "work accidents." Deep indignation is loudly shouted. By contrast, Palestinian murder of deliberately targeted Israelis is addressed by a muted voice whispering mild concern.

The Palestinians have well understood that the international the media and politicians will grant rewards for every civilian death in their struggle against Israel -- whether of Jew or Arab. President Mahmoud Abbas publicly declared that Palestinians must avoid civil war, and turn their guns against Israelis. And the world declares amen to depictions of this man as a "moderate" deserving of hundreds of millions in arms and military training. Media reports adopt his language: " Jerusalem church leaders alarmed at worsening relations between two main political parties are calling for an end to violence and an urgent return to the "real priorities" of Palestinians." Code words lifted almost directly from the Palestinian leader's speeches; quickly translated: Stop killing each other and get back to killing Jews.

The human shields themselves have also reached a new level of boldness and sophistication. Knowing that Israel will avoid killing "innocent" civilians, they call for the murder of their Israeli counterparts, while protecting terrorists and arms caches with their homes and their bodies.

In recent months, Israeli security forces have used telephone calls to warn Palestinian militants and others near alleged militant safe houses and weapons caches, giving them up to a half hour to evacuate. When militia leader Mohammed Baroud got the call Saturday, he enlisted neighbors to protect his house from the Israeli military. They've now set up a system of shifts to protect the house around the clock.

"This kind of [peaceful] resistance cannot replace the rocket resistance," says Jamila Shanti, a female member of Hamas who helped organize a permanent presence of female human shields around the house. "The popular resistance is to protect the people from the bombing. The rocket resistance is to confront the Israeli machinery." ( http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p01s02-wome.html)

The US, on the other hand, solves the dilemma by simply following the rules of war. According to the Geneva conventions, as Kofi Anan pointed out in Timor, armies are not required to protect human shields. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or more recently Somalia, the results have been devastating. But the world quietly applies the international standard, as long as the attacker is "one of us." Israel, as "the other," must respect human shields deliberately hiding terrorists and their weapons. Palestinians, "the lesser," are not up to these international ethical norms. Using human shields and murdering civilians are minor faults which cannot be allowed to distract the flow of international aid.

However you slice it -- that's racism.

David Frankfurter is a business consultant, corporate executive and writer who frequently comments on the Middle East. To subscribe to his 'Letter from Israel', email him at david.frankfurter@iname.com. Or go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/

To Go To Top

Posted by Alfred Ritter, January 16, 2007.

This article comes from BBC Monitoring, which is based in Caversham in southern England. It selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.

Many relics of China's Jewish community are in good condition

Little remains of China's once flourishing Jewish communities, yet many of their cultural artefacts are remarkably well preserved, a study by Chinese historians has revealed.

According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua, a recent survey in the northeastern city of Harbin reveals that hundreds of buildings built by the city's Jewish community in the early 20th century have survived practically unscathed.

Harbin is also home to the biggest Jewish cemetery in the Far East, boasting 700 gravestones with clearly legible Hebrew inscriptions.

Local historian Zhang Tiejiang said the survival of such extensive cultural remains gave the lie to Western assumptions that China's Jewish heritage had been destroyed after the Communists came to power in 1949.

"Westerners know little about Jewish people in China, creating a vacancy for the study of world Jewish history," Mr Zhang said. A long association

European Jews first arrived in China in the Middle Ages, many of them settling in the central city of Kaifeng. A Torah in Chinese from the Kaifeng synagogue can now be seen in the British Museum.

The less well-known Jewish community in Harbin grew up at the beginning of the 20th century when large numbers of Russian Jews arrived to help build railways in northeastern China.

During World War II, many Jews fleeing Nazi persecution settled in Shanghai, a city which still has a synagogue and a recently opened Jewish museum.

Reporting on the results of the survey Xinhua quoted a Harbin official as saying that the Chinese people had always done what they could to preserve the remains of Jewish culture.

"There was a harmonious relationship between Jews and Chinese half a century ago. After the Jews left China, the Chinese people voluntarily protected their heritage," Gao Yingxiang told the news agency.

Improving ties

Although most of China's Jews left during the 1950s, the Chinese government now recognises Jews as an official ethnic group, and the Harbin survey comes at a time when China is seeking to improve its ties with Israel.

Relations between the two countries were frosty for many decades after the war, but the last few years have seen a marked thaw.

The visit by Chinese President Jiang Zemin to Israel earlier this year represented a further stage in this process.

During his visit, Mr Jiang -- wearing a Jewish skull-cap -- laid a wreath at Yad Vashem, Israel's national memorial to the 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust.

Contact Alfred Ritter at alfwritt@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by David Haimson, January 16, 2007.

This was written by David Makovsky and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post as an Opinion piece today. It is archived at
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1167467739679& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

David Markovsky is a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, and is currently director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where his latest monograph is "Lessons and Implications of the Lebanon War: A Preliminary Assessment (2006)." The above is excerpted from a piece he wrote for bitterlemons-international.org

As Condoleezza Rice visits the region, she should dispel some of the mythology that exists in the Arab world on Middle East peacemaking. 1. If Israel does not go to final status talks, this shows it does not want peace. This is the reductionist, land-driven narrative that sees gradualism as an Israeli plot. It received a boost in the US last year due to contributions by American academics who are not Middle East experts (Walt/Mearsheimer) and by former president Jimmy Carter. This narrative conveniently ignores the fact that some of the biggest obstacles to resolving this conflict in 2000 were not land, but issues of refugees and security. Through land swaps, land seems the most easily resolved of these issues.

The other issues helped doom the talks in 2000 and seem even less resolvable now. Apart from the impasse on refugees, security is a problem as well. From the Israeli side, how could the IDF withdraw from virtually the entire West Bank when 1,000 Kassam rockets have fallen on Israel from Gaza since its 2005 pullout? The distinction that Israel views final status talks as desirable but not feasible is seldom heard in the Arab world, even if the difference is heaven and earth. 2. Everyone knows what the solution is, but the parties just do not know how to get there. This makes it sound as if all that is missing is a book on diplomatic etiquette. In fact, rejectionism and terrorism are not marginal phenomena, as Hamas currently heads the Palestinian Authority government.

3. The Arabs states are for peace. They put forward the Arab Initiative in 2002. It is axiomatic that Arab leaders will urge Rice to press Israel, but it is far from clear that they will do their share. Even though the Arab Initiative is an improvement on the past, there is no doubt that this is a very asymmetrical peace plan.

The initiative requires Israel first to do all the front-loaded work by getting out of the West Bank and Golan Heights, with Arab reciprocation delayed, hence less binding. This process would be far more effective if Arab states were to take parallel steps to reinforce progress on all sides. This would bolster the center among Israel and the Palestinians, providing the latter with key political cover. If the Quartet's road map is to be revived, it should be matched by an Arab road map. 4. The whole problem of the Arab-Israel conflict is that Israel enjoys too much support in Washington. The Walt/Mearsheimer/Carter thesis is a familiar echo of what famed American historian Richard Hofstadter described in his essay, "The Paranoid Strain in American Politics," about the American right's scapegoating of liberals as communists during the McCarthy period.

Perhaps it is not surprising that scapegoating occurs during periods of turmoil like the Iraq War, but it is also unfair. American Jews did not stop Bill Clinton from proposing the partitioning of Jerusalem in 2000, for example.

5. Everything in the Middle East is linked to the Arab-Israel conflict. Since September 11, 2001, the American public has been treated to an endless seminar on the Arab world. Its conclusion has been that Islamism has very deep cultural and political roots, linked to dysfunctionalism in Arab regimes but not driven by the Arab-Israel conflict.

The 2000-2004 intifada did not cause a single Arab regime to fall; al-Qaida prepared its plots at the height of US peacemaking in the Middle East in the 1990s. The Sunni insurgency in Iraq's Anbar province is not driven by the dynamics of Israelis and Palestinians.

The US should be involved in the search for a two-state solution not because of Iraq, but because it wants to find problem-solving solutions that give dignity to both Israelis and Palestinians alike.

An elevated debate that avoids unchallenged slogans as well as a carefully orchestrated policy that avoids the pitfalls ahead could even prove Santayana's Middle East corollary to be wrong.

Contact David Haimson at DvHaimson@aol.com to receive emails with direct links to articles on Israel that are well-worth reading.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Haimson, January 16, 2007.
Broken Covenant:
American Foreign Policy and the Crisis Between the U.S. and Israel

by Moshe Arens -- Simon & Schuster 1995

From the cover:

In this no-holds-barred account, Moshe Arens, Israel's former Foreign Minister and Defense Minister, lays bare the harsh realities of U.S.-Israeli relations during the tumultuous period of the Palestinian uprising known as the Intifada and the climatic Persian Gulf War. during those years, diplomatic relations between Jerusalem and Washington plummeted, as President George Bush's administration, in pursuit of U.S. interests in the Middle East, interfered in Israeli domestic politics, refused Israel vital military intelligence during the Gulf War, and attempted to bring down Israel's democratically elected government.

In January 1989, just weeks before Moshe Arens became Foreign Minister, the U.S. government began a dialogue with Yasser Arafat's infamous terrorist group, the PLO.

At the time, the Intifada was in full swing in the occupied territories west of the Jordan River, and Israel's new Likud-led coalition government was eager to begin peace negotiations with the Palestinians, as well as with the surrounding Arab countries that were at war with Israel.

Arens charges that the opposition Labor Party, led by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, was increasingly willing to make concessions to Israel's Arab neighbors that would weaken Israel's national security. Secretary of State James Banker and President Bush circumvented, and ultimately undermined the legitimate Israeli leadership in Jerusalem by entering into backdoor negotiations with Rabin and Peres, who were willing to accede to Arab demands for PLO representation at the negotiating table. As a direct result, Israel's coalition government fell apart in early 1990, and Shamir was forced to form a new government in which Arens became Defense Minister.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the U.S. began a pattern that would continue throughout the Gulf War, refusing to provide Israel with military intelligence on Iraqi troop movements and missile launcher sites, even as Israel was being attacked. The U.S. gave repeated assurances that they would eliminate the Scud threat to Israel, yet missiles continued to fall within Israel's borders for six weeks. Arens's efforts to deploy Israel's own military forces were constantly rejected by U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration. In the meantime, while the U.S. raised funds for Arab countries that had been economically weakened by the war, Israel received almost to economic aid.

After the war, as Israel's peace effort resumed, Shamir and Arens continued to resist external pressure to make unwarranted concessions to the Arabs. The Bush administration resorted to strong-arm tactics to force its peace agenda on the Israeli government, delaying a ten-billion-dollar loan guarantee intended to help Israel absorb recently arrived Soviet immigrants until U.S. terms were met. In the end, U.S. manipulation of Israel's internal political situation helped bring down the Shamir-Arens government in the 1992 elections and effectively restored the more conciliatory Labor Party to power. The rejection of Bush's policy toward Israel by American voters committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance contributed to the defeat of Bush in the U.S. elections that followed.

Moshe Arens served as Israel's Ambassador to Washington from 1982 to 1983, and as a member of the Israeli government from 1983 to 1992. He was Defense Minister from 1983 to 1984, Foreign Minister from 1988 to 1990, and again Defense Minister from 1990 to 1992. Contact David Haimson at DvHaimson@aol.com to receive emails with direct links to articles on Israel that are well-worth reading.

To Go To Top

Posted by Dawn Treader, January 16, 2007.

This comes from today's World Net Daily (WND) and was written by Aaron Klein, of their Jerusalem Bureau.

JERUSALEM -- While Jerusalem serves as Israel's capital, and the Temple Mount is located within Israeli sovereignty, the popular satellite map program Google Earth divides the city and places the Mount -- Judaism's holiest site -- within Palestinian territory.

Interactive Google Earth maps mark eastern sections of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount as "occupied territory," set to become part of a future Palestinian state.

Google Earth states it demarcates its maps according to international standards, but no Israeli-Palestinian negotiations -- even the failed Camp David final-status negotiations in 2000 -- ever placed the Temple Mount within Palestinian territory.

Google Earth map shows Temple Mount on Arab side of Jerusalem

The United Nations considers eastern sections of Jerusalem, recaptured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War, to be "disputed." The Israeli Knesset officially annexed the entire city of Jerusalem as its capital in 1980.

"Google Earth is reinforcing lies," Rabbi Chaim Rechman, director of the international department at Israel's Temple Institute, told WND.

"The Muslims have engaged in a systemic campaign to re-write history and erase any traces of Judaism from the Temple Mount in total disregard to all actual archeological and historic evidence," he continued." Now Google Earth has given in to this campaign."

Jerusalem first was divided into eastern and western sections when Jordan invaded and occupied the city and the Temple Mount area in 1947, expelling all Jewish inhabitants. Israel originally built its capital in the western part of the city, while the eastern quarters remained under Jordanian control until Israel regained them in 1967.

'Racist Israel stealing Palestinian water'

Google Earth does not limit its input in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Jerusalem alone.

The Gaza Strip is labeled by Google Earth as "Israeli occupied," even though the Jewish state withdrew from Gaza in August 2005.

TotallyJewish.com, a UK-based Jewish website, pointed out an interactive Google Earth map of an Israeli community in the northern West Bank features integrated user comments implying Jews are stealing water from neighboring Palestinians.

A posting on a Google map next to the town of Kiryat Arba, near the ancient city of Hebron, states: "Note the well-tended lawns in a region deprived of water."

Clicking on a weblink in the posting brings the user to a site stating, "The principal reason for the water shortage is an unfair distribution of water resources shared by Israel and the Palestinians."

The posting decries Israel's purported water-confiscation practices as "illegal" and "racist," even though dozens of major Israeli aquifers, many run by the Jewish National Fund, purify water running through Palestinian cities and return the cleaned water to the Palestinian towns.

Comments on other Google Earth images claim Israel plans to divide parts of Bethlehem, even though no such plan exist.

Google Earth is also accused of showing falsified images. Visitors to Google Earth who click on an area just outside Jerusalem can view a computer-generated image claiming to depict an Israeli missile factory.

Israeli defense officials told WND the "missile factory" is a fabrication.

Google Earth could not immediately be reached for comment since its corporate offices were closed today in observance of Martin Luther King Day.

A Google spokeswoman previously told TotallyJewish.com comments and pictures on satellite maps can be switched off if visitors don't want to see them. She said the company would investigate the offending postings.

Referring to Google erroneously labeling the Gaza Strip as occupied, the spokeswoman said, "Borders and place names are not always updated straightaway. Occasionally there are discrepancies. We are happy to receive feedback and will pass it on to the Google Earth team and take the necessary steps."

Terror leader: 'Congratulations to Google Earth'

Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, accused Google Earth of encouraging terrorism.

"When the Arab terrorists see Google Earth's falsification of geographic realities, they will be appeased and encouraged because these kinds of lying maps send the message that their disinformation campaigns and their terrorism work," Klein told WND.

Indeed, Abu Nasser, second-in-command of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, said he was "thrilled" by Google Earth's depictions.

"Congratulations to Google Earth," Abu Nasser told WND.

"We congratulate Google and the American people in making this very important change in the Middle East. The Al Aqsa Mosque (located on the Temple Mount) is part of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem is part of Palestine. If such a big institution like Google corrected these historical mistakes on maps, maybe we can bring about a change in the depictions of Palestine by the American media, which is controlled by the Zionists."

According to Abu Nasser, whose terror group says it is trying to liberate the Al Aqsa Mosque, the Jewish Temple "never existed."

"At least not on the area Jews now call the Temple Mount.," he said. "Maybe a Temple existed somewhere, but not in Jerusalem. The Temple Mount exists only in the imaginations of the Jews and Americans."

Abu Nasser's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party. The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

The revelation's about Google Earth's Mideast map follow media reports this week insurgents in Iraq are using Google's satellite imagery to attack British bases and troops.

Intelligence sources quoted by Britain's Daily Telegraph said raids of insurgents last week found printouts of Google satellite photographs of British bases, including details such as toiled blocks, Land Rover parking, and tented areas.

One of the photographs, taken of a hotel housing a British regiment, had the camp's longitude and latitude written on the back, the newspaper said.

"This is evidence, as far as we are concerned, for planning terrorist attacks," an intelligence officer told The Daily Telegraph. "Who would otherwise have Google Earth imagery of one of our bases?"

A Google spokesman told the newspaper its information could be used for "good and bad." "Of course we are always ready to listen to governments' requests," he said.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Denis MacEoin, January 15, 2007.

This article was published January 12, 2007 on the A Liberal Defence of Israel website (http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/), a blog "designed to correct the false impression that Israel is an illiberal, fascist, or apartheid state. Here, I shall present arguments to show that Israel actually embodies the best in democracy, anti-racism, religious freedom, and rights for women, gay people, and minorities of different kinds."

It's easy to form the impression that anyone who defends Israel comes from a right-wing, even a far-right, political viewpoint. Because a majority (or what seems like a majority, but may well be only a vocal minority) of people on the Left, most of the liberal and left-leaning press, most liberal and leftish intellectuals, journalists, TV producers, and political activists have become anti-Israel in their sentiments and actions, it is too easy to assume that defence of Israel is automatically a right-wing matter, and a matter for shame at that. But it really isn't that simple. There are Labour MPs who belong to Labour Friends of Israel, there are pro-Israel, Left-oriented pressure groups like Engage, and there are plenty of vocal Israel advocates from the centre of politics, like myself.

There are, naturally, many people who defend Israel who do take conservative and neo-conservative positions on related issues. Some of them are very hawkish indeed, and they frighten me as much as they do you. But they are not representative. For one thing, there are many liberal-minded people on the right whose concern for social justice is equal to that of those on the left and centre. For another, there are probably more on the extreme right who consider Israel and Jews with contempt or outright hatred. It's also important to remember that, until not that long ago, Israeli politics and Israeli government were dominated by the Left. Israel's history is more socialist than that of the UK. Israelis protest about many of the same things other liberal-minded people protest about. Israeli liberals anguish about much the same things as liberals everywhere: poverty, war, injustice, freedom of speech, torture, abuse of human rights, the environment, racism, the impact of giant corporations, prisoners of conscience, and other, often related, issues.

This is not to suggest that people on the right, in Israel as elsewhere, do not anguish about these matters or take action to improve them. But the centre and left are more likely to be seen on the streets marching, carrying placards, or shouting slogans, writing letters to the press, creating pressure groups. And such activities, it must be said, are vital to the health of any democratic society. We all have to care about the oppressed, the disappeared, the imposition of capital punishment, the waging of war, the massacre of innocents. If liberals and the Left take up their cudgels on behalf of such causes more visibly than those on the Right, then we must all be grateful for that. If left-wing feminists have advanced the cause of women's rights in the teeth of opposition from conservatives and traditionalists, they deserve the thanks of women (and men) everywhere. If liberals have put apartheid or sex trafficking or the exploitation of workers and farmers in the Third World on the agenda, and have challenged the Dutch Reformed Church or women traffickers or big business to do so, they can be credited for many legal and political reforms that enhance the rights of us all. Their predecessors, who brought about the abolition of slavery, the end of child labour, the curtailment of capital punishment, or the introduction of legislation granting homosexuals the same rights as other citizens no longer seem the enemies of propriety, morality, and social cohesion they did all those years ago.

But over the past couple of decades, liberal and left-wing politics have undergone an unprecedented, even bizarre, change of direction, a sea change that has distorted and disfigured much of its original world-view. Much of the natural sentiment of liberal politiics remains: a bias towards the underdog, a determination for justice, a belief in humanity and the rights human beings deserve as a natural heritage. But this has often been obscured -- and, as time passes, is ever more obscured -- beneath other messages. Political correctness, from valid beginnings, has transmogrified into something so far removed from its original purposes as to be unrecognizable. This is nothing new in politics or religion, of course: human minds and institutions seem to have an instinctive drive towards extremes. Thus Marxism, starting as an ideology based in justice and the equitable distribution of wealth and resources, helped create some of the least just societies in history, some forms of Christianity, though rooted in the teachings of a man of peace who loved the poor and the dispossessed, became illiberal and violent expressions of militancy and aristocratic contempt for the poor, the French Revolution, situated in the Rights of Man, devoured its children and brought forth a megalomaniac emperor. We can all add examples from history and current affairs, from both the left and right of politics.

Political correctness and related political attitudes have turned several otherwise honourable endeavours into extremist onslaughts on moderate and balanced democratic discourse. For example, feminism achieved great things then turned sour in part with radical feminists made men culpable for all the ills of human kind, declared that 'all sex is rape', and became as intolerant of the male sex as men had ever been of women. Similarly, where Martin Luther King took black people on a great march to freedom and equality, black power ideologues became racists in reverse. Listening to the boxer Muhammad Ali pour out venom on the white race was to me as sickening as giving ear to a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan spew forth hate speech against blacks.

The current vogue for post-colonial studies, introduced in part by the Egyptian 'Palestinian' intellectual Edward Said, consists for the most part of criticism of the colonial enterprises of the great Western empires -- the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese conquest of most of the world, or the later US neo-colonialism by proxy. Much of that criticism is entirely valid, if we bear in mind the multitude of wrongs done to native peoples and their cultures. But less is said about the benefits imperialism sometimes brought, nor do we hear much about non-Western imperialism, its vices, and its benefits. The many Islamic empires -- the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Mughals, the Safavids, the Ottomans -- seem to be blameless, the Arab conquests, with their devastating impact on the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia are passed over in silence. The imperial history of Africa, the exploits of the great jihad states of Nigeria and elsewhere, the Chinese empire, the depredations of the Mongols and Timur Lang, the empires of the Byzantines and Sasanids, the military exploits of the Tartars, the Cossacks, the Turks, and the rest are seldom referred to.

In political terms, this approach translates into an all-consuming hatred for our own culture, for Western civilization in general, and for specific parts of the Western world, notably the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom. That other civilizations have oppressed subject people, committed atrocities, established totalitarian ideologies, carried out vast and long-lived trading in slaves (notably the Arabs and Ottoman Turks) seems to escape liberal reproach. Meanwhile, the great achievements of the West are swept under the carpet: the abolition of slavery, the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Human Rights, the spread of advanced education, science, medicine, tolerance for different creeds, democracy, and the very creation of left-wing and liberal political thought.

What has turned an entire generation of young people, committed to great ideals, desiring the well-being of their fellow men and women, well educated, enquiring, the recipients of the greatest material comforts bestowed on any generartion in history, with hearts burning for good and peace, dedicated to make poverty history and discrimination a thing of the past into what seems at times a gang of thugs whose hatred for Israel -- and sometimes Jews in general -- a driving force in their lives? Is it not that same sense of imbalance, that absence of measure that has been imposed on them by the strident demands of political correctness, that numbing sense of righteousness and rightness that has come to pervade the liberal world, that political absolutism that resembles so greatly the unswerving will of the Third Reich, that black-and-white Manichaeism of the Stalinist empire, or that fixed division of the world between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam that characterizes all Islamic political thought?

The demonization of Israel has reached proportions that none of us have seen since the days Hitler and his propagandists made Jews the scapegoats of all the ills of mankind. It is everywhere accompanied by a dogged refusal to see harm in the thoughts and deeds of the PLO, Hamas, Hizbullah, or any other of the terrorist armies whose knives seek Jewish throats, to acknowledge the feverish anti-Semitism of the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Iranians, and others throughout the world, to contemplate, however briefly, the possibility that Israelis are like other human beings, and that they may have sound reason to defend themselves from a second genocidal attack on their race. Not seeing things like that, that's what hard to understand. How can a liberal not see it? How can members of the International Solidarity Movement pose with Kalshnikovs and still insist they work for peace? How can Muslim liberals read anti-Semitic texts and see anti-Semitic images every day in their press and on television, and turn aside from it, and say and do nothing to call their societies -- the very societies they purposrt to condemn for their absolutism and intolerance in every other field -- to account? How come the left-wing president of Nicargua, Daniel Ortega is even now embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad, the president of a deeply conservative theocratic state, and claiming they have much in common?

How is it possible for a man like Jimmy Carter to abandon his own principles so thoroughly as to seek in the Middle East, not a righting of wrongs, but a down-and-dirty fight with Israel and a whitewashing of Palestinian obstinacy and violence? He knows better than that, I'm convinced; but in a world where value is seen only in the underdog, however ignobly he may have barked or bitten, where strength against intolerance is seen as the iron fist of an apartheid state, and where terrorism becomes the moral equivalent of heroism and a struggle for freedom from 'colonial' oppression, perhaps he felt he had no other choice, if he was not to lose all credibility with the credulous centre of American politics.

Why does no-one march against al-Qa'ida? Against female genital mutilation? Against forced marriages? Against honour killings? Where are the protests about the Burmese dictatorship, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Turkish denial of the Armenian massacres, the continuing Arab slave trade, Mugabe's robber regime in Zimbabwe, Pakistan's nuclear bomb, North Korea's state-created famines, and all the other glaring injustices that drag on just above or, more often, just below the headlines? Could it be that none of these involve Western states? Could it be that liberals have come to believe that any sort of injustice or violence may be excused so long as it is the work of non-Westerners, whom we must never condemn? Is that not a form of reverse racism?

When I see ISM members stand in Palestinian streets to place their bodies as shields between Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli children; when there are banners outside Parliament calling on Hizbullah to disarm in accordance with UN resolutions; when I hear the sound of tramping feet and shouting voices calling for an end to terrorism; when I open my morning Guardian and read a letter signed by hundreds, calling for a boycott of Iran -- then, and only then, will I start to believe that the liberal left and the liberal centre have regained their sense of proportion. Until then, I despair, not that there may be peace and justice and kindness in the world, but that political correctness will have blinded so many to where they may find them.

Denis MacEoin's area of expertise is in Arabic and Islamic Studies and he has published extensively on Islam, including "The Sources for Babi History and Doctrine, & Rituals in Babism and Baha'ism," and "Islam in the Modern World."

To Go To Top

Posted by Walid Phares, January 15, 2007.

During the year Future Jihad was published in America, significant developments further proved true the conclusions of the initial book. In one single year, before and after its publication a series of declarations by the Jihadists, by international leaders and by intellectuals on all sides of the conflict, signaled that the "War on Terrorism" was after all an all-out confrontation between a worldwide Web of Islamist movements and regimes on the one hand and a dispersed international community, some of which was engaged, while parts of it weren't in this world war, on the other hand.

My first objective was to explain basic facts to the international public community: That there was an ideological current out there, aiming at world domination, which he defined as "Jihadism." The latter comes from two trees, one is Salafi the other is Khomeinist. The Salafists, formed in Sunni environment, are inspired by middle ages doctrinaires and have emerged in modern times as Wahabis, Muslim Brotherhoods, Takfiris, Deobandis, Tablighi and others. They want the reestablishment of a modern day Caliphate. They feel they are the heirs of 14 centuries of history and reject modern international law. The Khomeinists are the Jihadists who emerged in the Shiia community. They aim at establishing an Imamate to reunify all Muslims under their guidance in pursuit of Jihad.

The books' second objective was to show how Jihadists view the world, its modern history, its international relations, its wars, the various civilizations and how they adapt their strategies to modernity. Chapters three, seven, eight and nine were dedicated to show the readers how the Jihadists viewed the 20th century, WWII, the cold war, the choices they made and the different options they developed as Salafists, Wahabis, Khumeinists, regarding the Soviets, Israel, the West, and the Muslim regions. The bottom line was to show that there were no sheer emotional and simplistic reactions to crisis, but rather focused, integrated, and complex policies and strategic objectives. This assertion goes against the dominant theories of the past, which never went away yet, that in essence Islamist attitudes are created by Western policies. Future Jihad precisely argues otherwise: Jihadi ideologies are sui generis. They were developed before current international relations were formalized in laws, survived the latter and have projected their aims regardless of Western or non-Western policies. Certainly, diplomatic, economic and military acts by greater and small powers impact the evolution, decisions and plans of the Islamists. Policies affect other policies, but Jihadism and its various trees and branches, is a being of its own. It relates to the evolution of political Islam historically and can only be explained from inside out.

"...it has also become clear that whoever would be able to shape the minds of Americans as to identify the enemy will win the War on Terror. And whoever can show the US public or bar it from seeing the reality of the Jihadi wars against democracies will make or break the War on Terror and its length."

The third objective of the book was to describe the Jihadi war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War and against the United States and some of its allies after the cold war, leading to 9/11 and beyond.

The final objective in producing Future Jihad was an attempt to analyze the specific conflict between al Qaida and the United States. In chapter twelve I examined the root causes of America's failure showing that the breaches were not simple security flaws but rather systemic malfunctioning at the national security level. In Chapter thirteen, I suggested a model of what could have been a historically successful Jihadist offensive worldwide and its consequences in the US had a 9/11 of a greater dimension occurred years later instead.

The fifth objective was to offer modest guidelines and prescriptions to face off with the growing dangers of Salafi and Khomeinist ideologically-based terrorism. While geopolitical threats to regional and world peace come from classical radical regimes, such as Tehran's and to a certain extent Damascus' and Khartoum's, another type of threats is represented by the capacity of Jihadi networks to transform moderate or stable Muslim Governments into radical ones, with a full use of their resources

Finally I made another set of recommendations to educate the public, the Government's agencies and the media as to the mind, visions, strategies and if possible the tactics of the Jihadists. The prescription aimed at developing a "global resistance" against Jihad-Terrorism, both within the Arab Muslim world and within the international community. I am glad to announce that the paperback Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West is out in English and Spanish. Versions in other languages are expected in the near future.

The Jihadi Counter Offensive

During 2005-2006, I had several important opportunities to address and interact with policy, legislative, media, community decision makers, experts and concerned citizens across the US and Europe, including in Paris, London, Brussels, Vienna, and Lisbon. In America, my book tour allowed me to discuss Future Jihad in Washington, New York, New Jersey, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami and on many campuses nationwide. Since its launching I have received many emails and messages from bright readers of the book as well as viewers of and listeners to talk shows. These inputs were sociologically critical for the assessment of the public understanding of the bigger picture. I was also able to conduct briefings at the European Parliament, the US Congress, the United Nations Security Council, Interpol and other international bodies. In addition, my participation in Arab media forums including on al Jazeera, al Hurra, al Arabiya and other outlets provided me the opportunity to interact with ideologues, academics and activists from all sides, and particularly of relevance the self declared Jihadi camp. In addition, my interactions with democracy groups and intellectuals from the Arab and Muslim world on the one hand, and frequent visits to and learning process from the various Islamists -particularly Jihadists- chat rooms online, helped my analysis of Future Jihad refines itself and develop ballistics of knowledge in the clashing strategies of the so-called War on Terrorism. My main post-book conclusion is as follow: The Jihadists are -Salafists and Khumeinists alike- on a worldwide counter offensive with their perceived enemies and they are planning on widening it, rationalize it, and render it irreversible. Here are the various sketches from present situations into future trends:

In the paperback version of 2006 I discussed the specific issue of Bin Laden and al Qaeda and their importance in the global Jihadi movement; their centrality but also their relativity as well. One concept I noted particularly the so-called Hudna (truce) proposed several times by the group, particularly to Europe. The Hudna is a main indicative of Jihadi geopolitics, often misunderstood in the West. Another concept I revisited is the worldwide web of Jihadism, stressing its ideological but also its political nature. While loose and full of fragments, I believe it has a centrality that escapes the classical perception of Western defense parameters.

Europe's Jihads

Following my several field trips to Europe and monitoring of Jihadi deployments on the continent I analyzed the global strategies of the Salafists in specific zones: the United Kingdom; Western European battlefields: Belgium, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Germany in addition to the southern European zone including Spain and Italy; finally France (which I consider as one zone by itself). Two other European zones are Eastern Europe and the Balkans with different outlooks and geopolitical Jihadi realities. The European Jihads are ahead of their cross Atlantic parallels. The ideological mobilization that surfaced during the so called "Cartoons Jihad" is an important indicator of the wide spread of Wahabi and Salafi teachings across the continent

The World Battlefields

Russia's battlefields with the Salafists have reached a national security level of threat, both from Chechnya and through its southern borders with Central Asia. The Asian battlefields have grown geometrically in intensity and scope: Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia to the East; Bengla Desh, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the West; and Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in the center. Asian Jihad is gradually including a Chinese Jihad in the old Muslim Sin Kiang and spills over to Australia south bound and to the Greater Middle East West bound. Aussie is facing two threats: One regional to its north, linked to the success and advance of Salafi forces in Indonesia and the Philippines, and the other through domestic infiltration by radical Islamists, similar to the global patterns of penetration in the West. In Africa, the Jihadi battlefields are spreading rapidly from Somalia to Darfur all the way to the sub-Saharan countries of Chad, Mauritania, Ivory Coast and Nigeria.

The Greater Middle East

But it is in the Greater Middle East, from Morocco to Iran, where the central battlefields will be decisive. Iraq's Sunni triangle -- contrary to the mediatized wisdom in the West- is only the tip of the Jihadi iceberg. Al Qaeda in Iraq has "chosen" the battlefield to pin down US central forces while Salafist and Khomeinist forces are on the offensive in other spots. Had America not chosen Iraq as a ground for confrontation, the Jihadists would have chosen another terrain for the clash. It is ironic that mainstream scholarship in the West is blind to this reality. In the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda and its wider web of Wahabis patiently await their moment for the ultimate leap. In North Africa, the combat Salafists are omnipresent, and from there on, dispatch their cells into Europe. In Egypt and among Palestinians, the Brotherhoods and Hamas have created strongholds; and in Turkey the soft Islamists are taking all the time needed to deliver their battle of ideas against the seculars. In addition to the Salafi surge, the Iranian-led axis of Jihadism from Tehran to southern Lebanon, with the Syrian regime in the center wages its own campaign. Ahmedinijad's regional offensive -- with nuclear ambitions and Terrorism tools- is only the most recent expression of the older Khamanei's regime. The "axis" has mounted a separate state-sponsored Jihad: Hamas and PIJ in Palestine, HizbAllah in Lebanon, Muqtada al Sadr in Iraq and cells around the Middle East and within the West. The question of Terrorism in the Greater Middle East isn't confined to the Arab-Israeli conflict anymore. The latter has become a consequence of the region's Jihadism, not the other way around.

Latin American Ambitions of the Jihadists

From Venezuela under Chavez's populist power and from Bolivia's new "Castrist" leadership the Jihadist bases are growing to meet the tri-border emerging "Emirate" of the tips of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. Al Qaeda and HizbAllah are racing to outnumber the cells of each other organizations. From the south of the Americas, the Jihadi thrust will be reaching the US mainly through the Mexican border and deep into the heart of the country.

Canada's Jihadists

With the arrest of cells during the summer of 2006 in Toronto, Canada has entered the Global sphere of Jihadi penetration. Modeled after their American counterparts, the Canadian Jihadists are as determined and prepared to strike and enflame the country. In fact North America seems to have become a one continental hub of operations. Cells form on both sides of the border and interact with each other. For example the arrest of the Georgia cell last year showed a Montreal connection. The same type of radical literature is found in American and Canadian cities, and interestingly enough the Islamist radical activism operates on a "North American" level.

America's Jihad Mutates

As I argued in the first edition of Future Jihad (Terrorist Strategies against America), the Mohammed Atta type of Terrorists is not in the majority anymore. Today, 2006-2007, the new Jihadists are mostly US-born, speak the language well, are educated and operates within the system. And more importantly, they benefit from a militant political shield, which protect them as they grow ideologically and organizationally. In the past few months more evidence is emerging on the deep influence the pro-Jihadist groups have developed inside the country. The wall protecting the spread of the Wahabi-Salafi, and even Khomeinist ideologies in America has become close to be legal, after it has thickened politically. The mutation of Jihadism inside the US is the single most important challenge the country will face in this decade and maybe beyond. The incapacitation of the US Government in its counter Jihadist efforts has become the central breach in national security.

The War of Ideas: The Future of the War on Terror

Hence, it has also become clear that whoever would be able to shape the minds of Americans as to identify the enemy will win the War on Terror. And whoever can show the US public or bar it from seeing the reality of the Jihadi wars against democracies will make or break the War on Terror and its length.

Dr. Walid Phares is Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America (Palgrave/St. Martin, 2005). He is also a Professor of Middle East Studies at Florida Atlantic University.

The international version of Professor Walid Phares' Future Jihad is now released. The new title is "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West" Published by Palgrave/St Martin; New York and London (December 2006).

This article appeared in The New Media Journal.us January 13, 2007

To Go To Top

Posted by David Haimson, January 15, 2007.

This op-ed piece was published in the German daily DIE WELT (in German) on January 6, 2007

"Benny Morris believes that the Iranian regime will annihilate Israel with nuclear weapons, and nobody will stop it from doing so. Morris used to have the reputation of being an Anti-Zionist, but he rejects the accusation that he questions Israel's right of existence. In this article, Morris explains why he is convinced that sometime in the future millions of Israelis will be murdered." (DIE WELT, translated by Ursula Duba) The following is the original text in English provided by Benny Morris.

The Nazis, of course, industrialized mass murder. But still, the perpetrators had one-on-one contact with the victims. They may have dehumanized them, over months and years of appalling debasement and in their minds, before the actual killing. But, still, they were in eye- and ear-contact, sometimes in tactile contact, with their victims. The Germans, along with their non-German helpers, had to round up the men, women and children from their houses and drag and beat them through the streets and mow them down in nearby woods or push and pack them on cattle cars and transport them to the camps, where 'Work makes Free', separate the able-bodied from the completely useless and lure them into 'shower' halls and pour in the gas and then take out, or oversee the extraction of, the bodies and prepare the 'showers' for the next batch.

The second Holocaust will be quite different. One bright morning, in five or ten years' time, perhaps during a regional crisis, perhaps out of the blue, a day or a year or five years after Iran's acquisition of the Bomb, the mullahs in Qom will covoke in secret session, under a portrait of the steely-eyed Ayatollah Khomeini, and give President Ahmedinejad, by then in his second or third term, the go ahead. The orders will go out and the Shihab III and IV missiles will take off for Tel Aviv, Beersheba, Haifa, and Jerusalem, and probably some military sites, including Israel's half dozen air and (reported) nuclear missile bases. Some of the Shihabs will be nuclear-tipped, perhaps even with multiple warheads. Others will be dupes, packed merely with biological or chemical agents, or old newspapers, to draw off or confuse Israel's anti-missile batteries and Home Guard units.

With a country the size and shape of Israel (an elongated 8,000 square miles), probably four or five hits will suffice: No more Israel. A million or more Israelis, in the greater Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem areas, will die immediately. Millions will be seriously irradiated. Israel has about seven million inhabitants. No Iranian will see or touch an Israeli. It will be quite impersonal.

Some of the dead will inevitably be Arab. 1.3 million of Israel's citizens are Arab and another 3.5 million additional Arabs live in the semi-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv-Jaffa and Haifa have substantial Arab minorities. And there are large Arab concentrations immediately around Jerusalem (in Ramallah-El Bireh, Bir Zeit, Bethlehem), and outside Haifa. Here, too, many will die, immediately or by and by.

It is doubtful whether such a mass killing of fellow Muslims will trouble Ahmedinejad and the mullahs. The Iranians don't especially like Arabs, especially Sunni Arabs, with whom they have intermittently warred for centuries. And they have an especial contempt for the (Sunni) Palestinians, who, after all, though initially outnumbering the Jews by more than 10 to 1, failed during the long conflict to prevent the Jews from establishing their state or taking over all of Palestine. Besides, the Iranian leadership sees the destruction of Israel as a supreme divine command, as a herald of the Second Coming, and the Muslims dispatched collaterally as so many shuhada (martyrs) in the noble cause. Anyway, the Palestinians, many of them dispersed around the globe, will survive as a people, as will the greater Arab Nation, of which they are part. And surely, to be rid of the Jewish state, the Arabs should be willing to make some sacrifices. In the cosmic balance sheet, it will be worth the candle.

A question may nevertheless arise in the Iranian councils: What about Jerusalem? After all, the city contains Islam's third holiest shrines (after Mecca and Medina), Al Aksa Mosque and the Mosque of Omar. But Ali Khamenei, the supreme spiritual leader, and Ahmedinejad most likely would reply much as they would to the wider question regarding the destruction and radioactive pollution of Palestine as a whole: The city, like the land, by God's grace, in twenty or fifty years' time, will recover. And it will be restored to Islam (and the Arabs). And the deeper pollution will have been eradicated. To judge from Ahmedinejad's continuous reference to Palestine and the need to destroy Israel, and his denial of the first Holocaust, he is a man obsessed. He shares this with the mullahs: All were brought up on the teachings of Khomeini, a prolific anti-Semite who often fulminated against 'the Little Satan'. To judge from Ahmedinejad's organisation of the Holocaust cartoons competition and the (current) Holocaust denial conference, the Iranian president's hatreds are deep (and, of course, shameless). He is willing to gamble -- the future of Iran or even of the whole Muslim Middle East in exchange for Israel's destruction. No doubt he believes that Allah, somehow, will protect Iran from an Israeli nuclear response or an American counterstrike. Allah aside, he may well believe that his missiles will so pulverize the Jewish state, knock out its leadership and its land-based nuclear bases, and demoralize or confuse its nuclear-armed submarine commanders that it will be unable to respond. And, with his deep contempt for the weak-kneed West, he is unlikely to take seriously the threat of American nuclear retaliation.

Or he may well take into account a counter-strike and simply, irrationally (to our way of thinking), be willing to pay the price. As his mentor, Khomeini, put it in a speech in Qom in 1980: 'We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah ... I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant...' For these worshipers at the cult of death, even the sacrifice of the homeland is acceptable if the outcome is the demise of Israel.

Israel's deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, has suggested that Iran doesn't even have to use the Bomb to destroy Israel. Simply, the nuclearization of Iran will so overawe and depress Israelis that they will lose hope and gradually flee emigrate, and potential foreign investors and immigrants will shy away from the mortally threatened Jewish State. These, together, will bring about the State's demise. But my feeling is that Ahmedinejad and his allies lack the patience for such a drawn-out denouement; they seek Israel's annihilation in the here and now, in the immediate future, in their lifetime. They won't want to leave anything up to the vagaries of history.

As with the first, the second Holocaust will have been preceded by decades of preparation of hearts and minds, by Iranian and Arab leaders, Western intellectuals and media outlets. Different messages have gone out to different audiences -- but all have (objectively) served the same goal, the demonization of Israel. Muslims the world over have been taught: 'The Zionists\the Jews are the embodiment of evil' and 'Israel must be destroyed.' And Westeners, more subtly, were instructed: 'Israel is a racist oppressor state' and 'Israel, in this age of multi-culturalism, is an anachronism and superfluous'. Generations of Muslims and at least a generation of Westerners have been brought up on these catechisms.

The build-up to the second Holocaust (which, incidentally, in the end, will probably claim roughly the same number of lives as did the first) has seen an international community fragmented and driven by separate, selfish appetites - Russia and China obsessed with Muslim markets; France, with Arab oil -- and the United States driven by the debacle in Iraq into a deep isolationism. Iran has been left free to pursue its nuclear destiny and Israel and Iran, to face off alone.

But an ultimately isolated Israel will prove unequal to the task, like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an onrushing car. Last summer, led by a party hack of a prime minister and a small-time trade unionist as defense minister, and deploying an army trained for quelling incompetent and poorly-armed Palestinians gangs in the occupied territories and overly concerned about both sustaining and inflicting casualties, Israel failed in a 34-day mini-war against a small Iran-backed guerrilla army of Lebanese fundamentalists (albeit highly motivated, well-trained and well-armed). That mini-war thoroughly demoralized the Israeli political and military leaderships.

Since then, the ministers and generals, like their counterparts in the West, have looked on glumly as Hizbullah's patrons have been arming with doomsday weapons. Perversely, the Israeli leaders may even have been happy with Western pressures urging restraint. Most likely they deeply wished to believe Western assurances that somebody, somehow -- the UN, G-7 -- would pull the radioactive chestnuts out of the fire. There are even those who fell for the outlandish idea that a regime-change in Teheran, driven by a reputedly secular middle class, would ultimately stymie the mad mullahs.

But even more to the point, the Iranian program presented an infinitely complex challenge for a country with Israel's limited conventional military resources. Taking their cue from the successful Israel Air Force's destruction in 1981 of Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor, the Iranians duplicated and dispersed their facilities and buried them deep underground (and the Iranian targets are about twice as far from Israel as was Baghdad). Taking out with conventional weapons the known Iranian facilities would take an American-size air force working round-the-clock for more than a month. At best, Israel's air force, commandos and navy could hope to hit only some of the components of the Iranian project. But, in the end, it would remain substantially intact -- and the Iranians even more determined (if that were possible) to reach the Bomb as soon as possible. (It would also, without doubt, immediately result in a world-embracing Islamist terrorist campaign against Israel (and possibly its Western allies) and, of course, near-universal vilification. Orchestrated by Ahmedinejad, all would clamor that the Iranian program had been geared to peaceful purposes.). At best, an Israeli conventional strike could delay the Iranians by a year or two.

In short order, therefore, the incompetent leadership in Jerusalem would soon confront a doomsday scenario, either after launching their marginally effective conventional offensive or in its stead, of launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Iranian nuclear program, some of whose components were in or near major cities. Would they have the stomach for this? Would their determination to save Israel extend to pre-emptively killing millions of Iranians and, in effect, destroying Iran?

This dilemma had long ago been accurately defined by a wise general: Israel's nuclear armory was unusable. It could only be used 'too early or 'too late.' There would never be a "right" time. Use it 'too early,' meaning before Iran acquired similar weapons, and Israel would be cast in the role of international pariah, a target of universal Muslim assault, without a friend in the world; 'too late' would mean using its nuclear weapons after the Iranians had struck. What purpose would that serve?

So Israel's leaders will grit their teeth and hope that somehow things will turn out for the best. Perhaps, after acquiring the Bomb, the Iranians will behave 'rationally'?

But the Iranians are driven by a higher logic. And they will launch their rockets. And, as with the first Holocaust, the international community will do nothing. It will all be over, for Israel, in a few minutes -- not like in the 1940s, when the world had five long years in which to wring its hands and do nothing. After the Shihabs fall, the world will send rescue ships and medical aid for the lightly charred. It will not nuke Iran. For what purpose and at what cost? An American nuclear response would lastingly alienate the whole of the Muslim world, deepening and universalizing the ongoing clash of civilizations. And, of course, it would not bring Israel back. (Would hanging a serial muderer bring back his victims?) So what would be the point?

Still, the second Holocaust will be different in the sense that Ahmedinejad will not actually see and touch those he so wishes dead (and, one may speculate, this might cause him disappointment as, in his years of service in Iranian death squads in Europe, he may have acquired a taste for actual blood). And, indeed, there will be no scenes like the following, quoted in Daniel Mendelsohn's recent 'The Lost, A Search for Six of Six Million,' in which is described the second Nazi Aktion in Bolechow, Poland, in September 1942:

'A terrible episode happened with Mrs. Grynberg. The Ukrainians and Germans, who had broken into her house, found her giving birth. The weeping and entreaties of bystanders didn't help and she was taken from her home in a nightshirt and dragged into the square in front of the town hall. There ... she was dragged onto a dumpster in the yard of the town hall with a crowd of Ukraininans present, who cracked jokes and jeered and watched the pain of childbirth and she gave birth to a child. The child was immediately torn from her arms along with its umbilical cord and thrown -- It was trampled by the crowd and she was stood on her feet as blood poured out of her with bleeding bits hanging and she stood that way for a few hours by the wall of the town hall, afterwards she went with all the others to the train station where they loaded her into a carriage in a train to Belzec [extermination camp].'

In the next Holocaust there will be no such heart-rending scenes, of perpetrators and victims mired in blood (though, to judge from pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the physical effects of nuclear explosions can be fairly unpleasant).

But it will be a Holocaust nonetheless. Contact David Haimson at DvHaimson@aol.com to receive emails with direct links to articles on Israel that are well-worth reading.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 15, 2007.

I begin with a speech that PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave last Thursday, on the cusp of the arrival of Sec. Rice to this area. He spoke at a rally in Ramallah; the occasion was the 42nd anniversary of Fatah's first attack on Israel. The content of the speech is dynamite.

"Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at the Occupation," he declared.

With this, he has once again openly stated that he has no intention of taking on Hamas, but will fight Israel.

Indeed, he went on to say, "No one [here] is a criminal. All our people are as one hand to free our land...No one [Palestinian] is outside our society." This has consistently been his position: he began his presidency speaking of "unity."

After Abbas's speech, the senior announcer for PA TV (which is Fatah controlled), clarified, describing Israel's establishment as the beginning of "occupation." Nothing could be clearer than this: They don't consider Israel within the Green Line legitimate either. They want it all, they want us gone, they are not looking for a two-state solution.

Abbas voiced support for the "right of return." And once again he invited Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join the PLO, which he heads.

He also rejected the notion of a Palestinian state with temporary borders (Take that, Livni and Rice!) "Today more than any other day, we must hold fast to our Palestinian principles...We will not give up one grain [of land] in Jerusalem."

IMRA has run translation and commentary by PA media expert Dr. Michael Widlanski: http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=32420. I would suggest that you save this, or bookmark it for future reference. This absolutely puts the lie to any notion of Abbas as a moderate.


Condoleezza Rice arrived in our part of the world on Saturday. In the course of her various pronouncements, she has in no way alluded to Abbas's speech (which I quite assure you the State Department monitored). In fact, in her press conference with Abbas, held yesterday in Ramallah after she met with him -- http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=32446 -- she persisted in advancing her alternative-universe thinking. She's still making that effort to bolster Abbas, so that he will become strong enough to promote his "moderate" agenda. Consider:

"I want everyone to know, particularly the Palestinian people, how much we admire the leadership of President Abbas as a leader of the Palestinian people." This is so blatant in its intent that it's ridiculous.

"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for their own state." They could have had a state of their own for years already, if they had wanted it more than they want to destroy Israel.

"And if there is anything that I can do and that the President can do to finally realize that day when the Palestinian people -- who everybody understands to be an entrepreneurial people, a people who are predisposed toward democracy and tolerance -- for the Palestinians to have their own state that they can live in security and peace with Israel and that Israel can therefore have a secure and a democratic neighbor, why wouldn't we want to do that?"

A people that everyone understands to be predisposed toward democracy and tolerance??? We're looking at people who are essentially lacking a civil society -- at people who kill and kidnap each other when they are angry. How can she stand before the press and say this with a straight face? Does she believe that in saying it she makes it so? Does she remotely imagine that Israel could live in security and peace with a Palestinian state at its border? Does her merely saying this make the "moderate" Arabs happy?

While Rice made no mention in this press conference of requiring compliance of the PA with regard to dismantling terrorism, etc., she did allude to the fact that the US is seriously considering an $85 million grant to the PA security forces, for training and equipment, so that there would be "professional, unified Palestinian security forces."

She doesn't say what these professional, unified security forces are going to do, or who will be included (Abbas would include the terrorists). She does not talk about terrorism.

On Thursday, Abbas, president of the PA, made it clear he was not going to take on Hamas or challenge any of the terrorist groups. "No one Palestinian is outside our society."

On Thursday, Abbas made it clear that he intended to attack Israel: "Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at the Occupation."

On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State, called the Palestinian people a people "predisposed to tolerance."

On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice, talked about a massive donation of funds for the PA being considered by the US, some of which would provide arms to the PA security forces.

This is too outrageous to accept without an outcry of protest.

Condoleezza Rice must be called on this.

This time I ask that you contact two very influential Congressmen:

The Honorable Tom Lantos (D-CA)
Chairman, Committee on International Relations
US House of Representatives
2413 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3531
Fax (202) 226-4183

The Honorable Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East
House Committee on International Relations
US House of Representatives
2243 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2601
Fax: (202) 225-1589

Congresspersons prefer not to be contacted by e-mail. I know it's more trouble, but please take the time to call or fax or write a snail mail letter. Your effort will pay off.

If this is not possible for you, you might try to reach Congressman Lantos at: CA12Lantos@mail.house.gov or via his Chief of Staff, robert.king@mail.house.gov

You might try to reach Congressman Ackerman at: gary_ackerman@mail.house.gov. (There is an underscore between his names.) or via his Chief of Staff, jedd.moskowitz@mail.house.gov

You will not be addressing Congressmen Lantos and Ackerman as your elected representatives (unless you are the constituent of one of these gentlemen). You will be addressing them in their capacities as chairs of relevant committees -- chairs who will respond to the concerns of the nation. You certainly must write as an American.

The message is simple, and can be drawn from the above information: PA president Abbas said clearly in a speech on January 11 that Palestinian guns will be aimed at Israel, and that he will not be taking on Hamas. Yet three days later Sec. Rice, after meeting with him, spoke about helping the formation of a PA state and providing money for their security forces. Quote from their words, above. Say that this is not acceptable. It is a policy based on air and presents a danger to Israel and to the long term goals of the US.

Then, please, once again, forward this to everyone you know, get this on to lists and blogs. And, as you are able, write letters to the editors of your local papers addressing these same issues.

It's time to expose the hypocritical, anti-Israel policy of the US State Department.

A Sample Letter (supplied by Nurit Greenger)

Our Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is stirring the Middle East "peace" pot to the point of endangering Israel's existence.

Only Last Thursday, January 11th, in an inciting speech he gave in rally in Ramallah, on the occasion of the 42nd anniversary of Fatah's first attack on Israel, the PA president Mahmud Abbas used expressions such as "our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at the occupation," "occupation," "right of return," and "...invite Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join the PLO, which he heads," while rejecting the notion of a Palestinian state with temporary borders. Additionally, his statement "Today more than any other day, we must hold fast to our Palestinian principles...We will not give up one grain [of land] in Jerusalem," resonated.

This absolutely puts the lie to any notion of Abbas as a moderate.

What this really mean is that Abbas is calling to form a joint forces with other Palestinian terror groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, he is clearly moving away from any possible sincere productive peace negotiations with Israel and a right out call for full fledge war on Israel.

Yet only three days after Abbas's most provocative speech, Secretary Rice, who is hopping from place to place in the region held a meeting with Abbas. After the meeting she made clear she still persists in advancing her alternative-universe thinking and is still making the effort to bolster Abbas, so that he will become strong enough to promote his "moderate" agenda, he declared three days earlier, he simply does not posses. Ms Rice still promises the USA will be helping the formation of a PA state and provide money for their security forces.

Among Rice's affinity statements she had the audacity to "promise" that the PA rifles won't be aimed at Israel and the U.S. will prevent a repeat of previous attacks on Israel with arms supplied to PA forces. "I want everyone to know, particularly the Palestinian people, how much we admire the leadership of President Abbas as a leader of the Palestinian people," she said, that clearly means she accepts Abbas to be the leader of the war he declared he is planning to wage on Israel.

What Ms Rice said in her speech full of hot air was au contraire to what Abbas has in mind and planned.

Ms. Rice's policy presents danger to Israel and to the long-term goals of the US in the region.

It's time to expose and deal with the hypocritical, anti-Israel policy of the US State Department.

I ask you to act properly and work to stop Condoleezza Rice's destructive path toward Israel.

With thanks,

Arlene Kushner can be reached at akushner@netvision.net.il She works as an investigative journalist for the Center for Near East Policy Research, and as an Israeli-based freelance writer. Contact her at akushner@netvision.net.il Or go to her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 15, 2007.

Leaders of Western countries are playing a political game of "Pick & Choose" as to which Islamic nations are Terrorist States. If one can put these nations on a scale of one-to-ten, there are differences as to the degree of their support for Islamic Terror.

Sometimes it is easy, particularly when those nations barely hide their efforts to support and provoke Terror. For example, Iran and Syria would rate a full ten! for their years of terrorist activities and their support of terrorist organizations like Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades (military arm of Fatah: Arafat and Abu Mazen's 'home' organization), PFLP, etc.

Then we can jump to what many see as a sliding scale of supporting radical Islam by Terror as the Sword -- while trying to "look moderate" -- with the help of Western leaders who do NOT want that nation labeled as a Terrorist enabler.

Here we find Saudi Arabia which has funded Terrorist organizations who carry out significant Terrorist acts -- such as the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Saudis fund Terror, weapons, training and safe houses -- in addition to funding Madrassahs (schools that teach the extreme Wahhabi form of Islam) and Mosques all over the world. Because of their oil, Western Governments pretend that none of this is happening -- or at least that the Saudis are "innocent". The Saudis are able to dictate to the U.S. to: "Jump" and the Bush Administration (through the State Department will say: "How high?"

The Europeans have completely succumbed to the Media and brain-washing pressure of Islam. As a result, they have started down the road to total submission. (Islam means: "submission"). Europe is being called "Eurabia" as Muslims overwhelm European countries with immigration and a virtual birth attack.

For a brief moment in time, President George W. Bush had a glimpse of the underlying matrix of Islam. He saw the Terror deeply embedded in the religion and the Muslims globally. He reacted correctly in Afghanistan and Iraq because of 9/11 as he had to. While he was his own man at the time, he did the right thing. By 2006 Iraq became a quagmire as the world of Islam started to pour "Mujahadin" (terrorists/fighters for Islam) into Iraq through Syria.

Then Bush began to wobble/ American soldiers did attack the terrorists but, they did so with reservations and so the attack lacked depth. This was not a war with Nazi Germany where both the military and the civilian population were conquered to the point of surrender. America did not fight the war in Iraq to a total submission -- mostly because neither Bush, the military nor the State Department were prepared for a real war.

America was not merely fighting a people but, she was engaged in a war of civilizations. Winston Churchill said it best when he observed that: "The Hun (Germany) is either at your throat or at your feet." The same is true for the Muslims, be they Saudi Arabs, Persians or Egyptians. The connecting thread is their religion, Islam and their manual of war, the Koran.

Unfortunately, we in the Free West are allowing our perception of civilization to blind us to the view of our enemy who operates mentally between the 7th and 12th Centuries. When Muslims follow the 7th Century teachings of Mohammed, they are either excessively friendly, drawing the unsuspecting into their web or savagely vicious when they are strong enough to defeat the "infidel" (non-Muslim) whom they are ordered to convert to Islam by the sword. The Muslims call those countries where Islam reigns: "Dar al Salaam" and where it doesn't "Dar al Harb". One waits for war while the other is at war. The goal of Muslims as stated in their Koran and oral teachings is for a Global Muslims Caliphate, domination of the world by Islam.

Even today in the state of Spain, the Spaniards are fearful that the Islamists will follow the Koranic mandate and return to Cordoba. Muslims would maintain that it belongs to Islam because once the Muslims conquered it. They believe that wherever Muslims were once the dominant rulers and eventually driven out, today's Muslims must re-conquer it and re-establish Islamic law.

Why do I feel that we are once again in the same position as we were when Hitler moved forward to conquer Europe? Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement with Adolph Hitler September 28, 1938 and gave him the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia for "Peace in Our Time": the traditional symbol of "Appeasement in Our Time". The Allies could have stopped Hitler long before we had to sacrifice American troops to rescue Europe. In so doing we rescued America before Hitler was able to conquer most of Europe and move on to America.

Granted pro-German interests in Washington believed that Hitler had the right idea. The head of the U.S. State Department's John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles first head of the CIA could have given testimony as to Hitler's plan as could have General Motors, Henry Ford and a host of Banks who supported Hitler's concept of defeating Stalin's form of Communism.

I wonder what either the Republicans or Democrats will be saying prior to the 2008 elections when the Islamic Hitler (Ahmadinejad) moves into even more aggressive actions -- this time with nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach Europe, Russia and Israel -- with ships that can carry nuclear bombs to America.

How fast will they back-pedal when American cities are hit with dirty or even "regular" nuclear bombs? There is a difference. Will we hear from their speeches about how they were really fighting radical Islam? That's really a misnomer. Delete the word of "radical" because all of Islam is radical. It's in their book, their hearts and their doctrine to conquer the world.

Again, we could have stopped Hitler at an early time but, we in the Free West choose avoidance until Pearl Harbor. America had a mini-Pearl Harbor in 9/11 but, we only had a partial awakening of our "Sleeping Giant". (In 1941 one of the Japanese admirals warned that Pearl Harbor "Awakened a Sleeping Giant.")

The statement that we do not belong in Iraq, repeated by Howard Dean and other Democrats, has been repeated "ad nauseam". The fact is that we should have been more aggressive to the point where we were not restrained by TV news who highlight the fact that American soldiers die in war. The next set of people unlucky enough to die will be American civilians in far greater numbers. Then all of our brilliant politicians will fall all over themselves to say they it wasn't their fault, we were not at war to attack Islam more directly but to attack Terrorism performed in the name of Islam.

While there are many things about which I disagree with President George W. Bush, his declared war against Global Terror and those States who harbor Terrorists was correct. Too bad he later started to listen to his father, James Baker III and the pro-Arab State Department in their plan to "pacify" Islamic Arabs.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sacha Stawski, January 15, 2007.

Muslims may become majority in Germany by 2046:
United Press International

IRNA Germany-Muslims-Population Muslims could become a majority in Germany as early as 2046, the Berlin-based B.Z quoted Monday an interior ministry-financed study as saying.

Sparked by the steady influx of Muslim migrants into Germany, Muslims could form the largest share of the German population by 2046, said the study conducted by the Islam-Archive Central Institute, located in the western town of Soest.

The Islamic think-tank reported over the weekend that there has been a sharp rise in the number of Germans converting to Islam.

Around 4,000 Germans converted to Islam between July 2004 and June 2005 which is four times as many as in the prior space of time, according to the study which will soon be released in full details.

"Russia sees Muslim population boom"
By Jonah Hull
english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ F8C5F608-FA29-4BB3-A7CA-A6F05B98BE23.htm

The Muslim population could outnumber ethnic Russians within 30 years

Low domestic birth rates and rising immigration from the former Soviet republics have produced an explosive growth in Russia's Muslim community.

At the same time Russia's overall population is in crisis. Short life spans and low birth rates among ethnic Russians mean the population is declining by 700,000 people a year.

The return of long-denied religious freedoms in Russia has seen Islam flourish. As a result, many ethnic Russians fear their country is losing its national identity.

There are around 25 million Muslims in Russia today, a rise of 40 per cent since 1989.

By 2020, with the continued growth rate, Muslims will account for one-fifth of the entire population.


Their numbers continue to grow, fed by immigration from largely Muslim, former Soviet republics in the North Caucasus and Central Asia.

Islamic leaders have said that Russia is a haven for Muslim immigrants, keen to work and build on their growing community, and they discount the rise of hostile nationalist sentiment.

"When they say Russia is for Russians, it's a mistaken path that could lead to the break-up of the Russian Federation"

Damir Gizatullin, Council of Muftis

Damir Gizatullin, from the Council of Muftis, said: "Some irresponsible politicians want to achieve electoral success by creating nationalist waves.

"When they say Russia is for Russians, it's a mistaken path that could lead to the break-up of the Russian Federation."

Many ethnic Russians are terrified at the prospect of becoming a minority in their own country.

Alexander Belov, from the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, said: "History is a fight between races and religions.

"It's the law of nature ... people are used to being with people like themselves, speaking the language their mothers taught them."

The Orthodox Church, restored since the Soviet collapse, remains dominant in Russia.

But with the rise of Islam, coupled with the negative growth in Russia's ethnic Slav population, dramatic change is under way.

If the trend continues, the Muslim population could outnumber ethnic Russians within 30 years.

Contact Sacha Stawski at info@honestly-concerned.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, January 15, 2007.

This article was written by Hana Levi Julian and it appeared on the ISRAEL21c website,

An Israeli company has patented a way to turn oil shale rock into high quality oil and natural gas -- a project that may bring jobs to the Negev and low-cost energy to the Jewish state.

The "Hom-Tov" process, brainchild of A.F.S.K. Hom Tov CEO Yisrael Feldman, involves mixing the bitumen residue left over after refineries produce crude oil together with oil shale rock.

Refinery production leaves a minimum residue of ten percent bitumen -- also known as asphalt -- per barrel of crude oil. The substance is used today only for road work or waterproofing materials because it requires too much additional processing to be used for conventional fuel, but is a key component in the "Hom Tov" process.

According to Hebrew University Professor Ze'ev Aizenshtat, an energy resource expert, the method also results in a dry fuel byproduct that can be used to power the "Hom Tov" production plant, as well as provide additional electricity for the national grid.

Feldman told ISRAEL21c that his method was first introduced in 1992 as a way to extract combustible organic material which could then be used to produce oil at a fraction of the current refinery cost. In 1994, then-Energy Minister Moshe Shahal ordered further investigation in the hope that researchers could come up with a way to produce quality oil at rock-bottom prices. Shahal's hopes were soon realized.

A Boon for the Negev

Backers of the project are now considering placing a production plant in the Negev, where oil shale is plentiful and has already been unearthed by phosphate plants that must dig past the rock in order to reach the lower minerals they seek.

The rock itself contains approximately 20 percent organic material and has been used as a direct fuel for more than a century in countries such as Brazil, China, Estonia and Russia.

The proposed Negev plant, depending on its size, will be able to produce up to 30 percent of Israel's energy needs for the next 70 years, at an initial construction cost of $700 million.

Ultimately, the plant could produce oil that would cost only $25 per barrel, half the cost of today's crude -- a financial bonanza for the Haifa-based company. "We won't see that price for oil again," says Feldman.

There are other benefits that may ultimately be derived from the process as well. Aizenshtat says the "Hom Tov" method may be used in the future to recycle industrial refuse such as tires, plastics and manufacturers' waste from pesticide and fertilizer plants.

The price of the oil produced from refuse may be different, but the end result is the same -- alternative fuel at a fraction of today's prices.

"The world is looking for a replacement for oil supplies," observes Shahal, an attorney who now serves as the project's legal representative.

The company is already in the process of applying for construction and mining permits. If approved, the plant is expected to begin full production by 2011.

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben-Gurion University. He can be reached by email at quality@computer.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 15, 2007.

A while back, we posted an item about how the leftist anti-Zionists on the faculty of Tel Aviv University, of which there are ever so many, were planning an "academic conference" dedicated to the idea that imprisoned Palestinian mass murderers and terrorists are in fact "political prisoners", deserving of sympathy and support.

Now ordinarily, this would be the sort of story that the mainstream Israeli media would studiously ignore and one that only Plaut listers and readers of inciting blogs would hear about. But on Jan 12, 07, Ben Dror Yemini (deputy editor of Maariv) devotes an entire full page in Maariv to this "academic" atrocity (in Hebrew, at http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/529/615.html ).

The basic theme of the conference, sponsored in part by the Tel Aviv University Law School (a bastion of the pro-terror Left), was that Palestinians who blow up pregnant women and their children and then get imprisoned are "political prisoners". Yemini in his column points out that "rights discourse" is now little more than a weapon being used to destroy Israel by Israel's enemies and by the enemies of human freedom. He mocks "progressives" who rationalize the murderous behavior of terrorists as part of "understanding the Other".

Restrictions on such misuses of academic freedom as the pro-terror conference at Tel Aviv University are, says Yemini, no different from restrictions on Holocaust Denial. That is because Holocaust Denial is not an academic or scholarly theory at all but merely a political weapon of hate. So is "academizing" terror and mass murder. Such a "conference" is little more than an attempt at promoting the anti-Semitic agenda, adds Yemini.

He writes that the fact that such a conference took place at Tel Aviv University is testament to growing Israeli insanity and an Israeli death wish. He mocks the conference participants as "serious people, sensitive to the sufferings of others". (His tone is one of irony.) He points out that all the "human rights groups" operating in Israel have an explicit anti-Israel political agenda, one that denies Israel's very right to exist. The "Physicians for Human Rights" used to be run by a certain Ben Gurion University anti-Semite about whom Alan Dershowitz wrote that he "got into bed with neo-nazis and anti-Semites."

Yemini then notes that an unnamed member of the Board of Governors of Tel Aviv University wrote him (Yemini) a note about this "conference", asking whether Tel Aviv University would next run an academic conference on the question of how to murder Jews while enjoying oneself. "Why not," wrote the man to Yemini, "after all, there are no limits on academic freedom at Tel Aviv University!" Yemini compares the "academics" at the TAU conference to those at the Tehran neo-nazi conclave.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, January 15, 2007.

This comes from Lazer Beams, the web journal of Emuna Outreach.

Emuna Outreach has been working overtime lately. We're increasingly using the medium of video presentations to deliver the message of Jewish Outreach and Rebbe Nachman's teachings far and wide, quickly and enjoyably.

Rabbi Lazer Brody

Today, you're invited to ride out to the Judean Hills with me. Far off the beaten track, there's a cave and spring that Jewish guerillas used as a hideout from the Romans during the Bar Cochba rebellion nearly 2000 years ago. It's a dream place for personal prayer. C'mon and join me right here. Let's see how hitbodedut - your own personal-prayer relationship with Hashem - is the key to emotional stability and true happiness.

For a healthy soul, it's best to take the advice of the best doctor of the soul there is; in my book, that's none other than Rebbe Nachman of Breslev. Rebbe Nachman stresses the importance of spending at least 60 minutes a day in personal prayer. Hashem is always available, with or without an appointment.

Rabbi Lazer Brody was born in Washington, D.C. in 1949. After receiving his bachelor's degree in agriculture from the University of Maryland in 1970, he moved to Israel and joined the Israel Defense Forces regular army, and served in one of the elite special-forces units. He is a decorated combat veteran of two wars and dozens of counter-insurgence and anti-terrorist missions on both sides of Israel's borders.

After surviving a near-suicidal mission to Beirut during the Israel-Lebanon conflict of 1982, Brody could no longer ignore the hand of G-d in his life. He became a baal-tshuva and left his mountaintop farm to study Torah in Jerusalem.

Nine years of intensive Talmudic, ethics, and legal studies, led to his rabbinical ordination in 1992. He devoted another two years of postgraduate study to personal and family counseling, and subsequently spent two years as rabbi and spiritual rehabilitation director of a major Israeli prison. There, he created a highly successful program of spiritual rehabilitation for prisoners based on Tshuva.

In 1996, Brody moved to Ashdod and became the understudy of the famed Melitzer Rebbe, a contemporary giant in rabbinical law and personal counseling. Two years later, Rav Shalom Arush opened a branch of his renowned of the "Chut Shel Chessed -- Breslev" Yeshiva in the port city of Ashdod, and appointed Brody as the "Rosh Kollel", or Dean of the rabbinical program.

Today, Lazer Brody dedicates his time to Jewish Outreach, and particularly to spreading the teachings of Rebbe Nachman of Breslev around the globe.

Brody's first book, "Pi Habe'er", is a contemporary commentary of Torah based largely on the teachings of Rebbe Nachman of Breslev. The book has been widely acclaimed, and has received the approbations of Rishon Le'Tzion Rabbi Ovadiah Yossef, the Bes Din of the Eda Haredis in Jerusalem, Rabbi Eliezer Berland, and others. His second book, "Nafshi Tidom", is a unique guide to coping with verbal abuse, embarrassment and insult.

Brody's third book -- his first in English -- is "The Trail to Tranquility", published by Llumina Press, and available at www.llumina.com.

Brody's newest book, "The Garden of Emuna", is a translation of Rav Shalom Arush's best-selling "B'Gan Ha"emuna".

Contact: You can reach Rabbi Lazer Brody at rabbi_lazer@ahoo.com.

Contact Avodah at avodah15@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, January 14, 2007.

This is from an interview with John Bolton on Fox News.
www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Mideast%20 Peace%20Efforts%20a%20Waste.html

Read the Sunday Times interview with John Bolton.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meets with Mideast leaders to jumpstart the peace process, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton called the attempt a waste of time.

Bolton, who also said it's time another body replace the United Nations, told the Sunday Times of London the Arab-Israeli conflict was "not a priority," adding: "I don't see linkage to Iraq, and Hamas and Fatah are in a state of civil war."

Now back at American Enterprise Institute, Bolton let loose on a variety of topics during the interview, from negotiating nuclear weapons with Iran to the reunification of the Korean peninsula.

"I wouldn't have engaged in negotiations with Iran in the first place," he told the paper, in a nod to Britain, France and Germany, nations that have made contact with Tehran. "The policy has failed. Sanctions won't stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons."

Bolton said President Bush and his administration would "rather find a way for diplomacy to succeed but time is running out -- that's me speaking."

Regime change, he said is "preferable" to a U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear sites, though "the only course worse than the use of force is an Iran with nuclear weapons."

"President Bush has said it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons and he will not accept it," Bolton said.

"There are all kinds of ways to change the regime," he said, mentioning covert and overt means to topple the government. "We have an extensive diaspora of people with Iranian heritage in America who we don't use effectively."

As to the threat of nuclear weapons posed by North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il, Bolton said that the only solution was through a "peaceful reunification of the [Korean] peninsula."

The vocal critic of the U.N. still believes that other organizations such as NATO might be better suited to governing world affairs.

"Fifteen years ago people said NATO would either go out of area or out of existence and now it is in Afghanistan and it is all but NATO -- absent Germany and France," he said. "I think NATO should go global. There is no reason why Japan and Australia shouldn't join."

In Bolton's view, America needs to take the lead in global affairs because "Who else will?"

To Go To Top

Posted by May Leiner, January 14, 2007.

This was written by Isaac Kohn and it was published today in Arutz Sheva
(http://israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6850). Isaac Kohn lives in Brooklyn, New York.

This is an excerpt from "Abbas urges: "Raise Rifles Against Israel" in WorldNetDaily and written by Aaron Klein.

"Raise [your] rifles against the Israeli occupation," Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared Thursday in Ramallah.

In a speech commemorating the 42nd anniversary of the founding of his Fatah party, the PA chief called on Arab factions to put an end to weeks of infighting and instead fight Israel.

"Shooting at your brother is forbidden. Raising rifles against the occupation is our legitimate right, but raising guns against each other is forbidden. We should put our internal fighting aside and raise our rifles only against the Israeli occupation," said Abbas in a speech in the Muqata compound in Ramallah attended by World Net Daily.

Abbas' call to arms was not reported by most major media outlets featuring articles on the Palestinian leader's speech.

I am thoroughly convinced that a certain mental defect has settled deep inside the Jewish brain, which definitely categorizes us as, by far, the craziest people ever to inhabit this universe.

Civilizations came and went, empires rose and fell, and many tribes and nations that once existed are no more. Hundreds of millions were killed, murdered, exterminated and wiped off the face of the earth. That is the history of this world, as intolerance, jealousy and hate commingle into a mix destined to erupt. It will never change. Today's wars are no different.

But nowhere, not ever, has there existed a people on this earth who have done everything within their power to help their sworn enemies to destroy them. Nowhere in history does one read about a people who armed, trained, supplied and encouraged their enemies to do all they can to kill and destroy the same people who have just granted them all of the possibilities to do just that. Empires fought to survive, the ultimate goal was to protect an empire's people. Where in the annals of ancient to present history is there a record of a people self-inflicting the methodology that will destroy them? Where?

Where, you ask? Here, in the State of Israel, which does everything in its power to enable the Arab murderers to accomplish their mission of destroying the state and exterminating its Jewish population. The imbeciles who run the country have employed every deceiving means -- yet deceiving no-one but themselves -- to bring about the state's destruction. And the general public is either exhausted, blind or deaf as it allows this to go on unchecked. As I said, we are totally crazy.

What is so hard to comprehend? The above statement by the Yasser Arafat protege and Holocaust denier is nothing we need to be surprised at. A leopard does not change its spots. What he said last week is what he said throughout his career as Israel's next door, murderer-neighbor. Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hizbullah, Arafat, Abu Abbas or Ahmed Yassin -- the names are different, but the ideology is one and the same. The aim and goal is the ultimate destruction of Israel and the extermination of its people.

How loud must one shout for the world media in general, and Israel's in particular, to take note of what is being said? How long will we bury our head in the sand and claim that all is well because we refuse to see the true danger?

They waged wars on Israel since the day of its creation. And the one in 1967 was a war against Israel by an enemy determined to annihilate. Not a war to conquer or capture, or to hold for barter. The enemy was determined to kill, murder and destroy the State of Israel in order to "correct the terrible mistake" foisted on the Arab world by the United Nations. And the world stood by as Israel went at it alone, with G-d leading her to victory.

Can anyone question what the result would have been if, G-d forbid, the tide had turned the other way? How many of us would have survived the long swim across the Mediterranean Sea? How many condemnations would the UN have issued to force the Arabs to relinquish what they conquered? How much pressure do you think the US, Russia and the EU would have applied to force Egypt, Jordan and Syria to retreat?

Israel was immediately pressured and cajoled and threatened. And our leaders capitulated; like dominoes falling against each other. Israel's resolve and determination cracked and broke apart as it began to placate and soothe the enemy. So, we surrendered liberated lands to terrorist murders sworn to continue the struggle against the Jews. Against all predictions and warnings that these surrendered areas will turn into terrorist-infested cities of refuge, Israel drew a map of A territory and B areas and C sections. Under US and European pressure, we gave them guns and ammunition, and armed them to the teeth. And we said nary a word as the world gave them billions of dollars in order to feed the population, but which was used instead to purchase additional weaponry.

And they "thanked" Israel; thanked us in a big way, by bombing buses and malls, by murdering children and women, by launching rockets and mortars. Thousands were wounded and killed in their insatiable thirst for Jewish blood. But we couldn't very well sit by and watch all of this carnage without taking a strong stance, could we? No.

So, Israel's hero invoked his brilliant plan of placating and surrendering to the enemy by destroying the Gaza settlements and expelling the Jews of the area. Forewarned that Gaza will turn into Hamasland, Ariel Sharon paid no heed in his turn-coat insistence on placating Israel's worst enemy since Nazi Germany. We know the end result. No need to detail his sin against his own people. The hundreds of Kassams on Sderot and the Negev speak volumes in attesting to his misdeeds.

We are simply crazy if we don't listen carefully and understand that the above speech was given at the Fatah rally by the same man that our esteemed, again-under-investigation-for-corruption prime minister, Ehud Olmert, hugged and kissed a mere few days ago. This is the same vermin who received a generous gift of $100 million dollars from Israel's prime minister. This is the same snake to whom the US, just recently, pledged and gave $86 million dollars to bolster his tottering chair. And seven thousand guns and a million round of ammunition was given an Israeli green light, to be delivered to the above-mentioned hatemonger, in order to "strengthen his position" against Hamas. This is the enemy who spoke loud and clear about the need to turn those same guns against Israel. This is the bloodthirsty enemy whom Israel is promoting as "our peace partner."

When are we going to learn that, as far as our enemy is concerned, the only good Jew is a dead Jew? What will it take for Israel's leftist, pro-Arab, anti-Israel media to open its eyes and see the truth? When will we Jews understand once and for all that the Arabs mean what they say and that they will employ every possible avenue to reach their ultimate goal? When?

Contact May Leiner at mayleiner@cs.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lisa Rubin, January 14, 2007.

The excerpts from an article called "Rice says she registers Mideast demands" by Anne Geran, AP Diplomatic Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rice are in gray boxes.
The photos are not part of the origi