HOME Featured Stories January 2011 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, January 31, 2011.

Almond trees

"There is nothing more frightening than staring down at a blank sheet of paper." — Ernest Hemingway  


Writers, I suppose, have it a little easier. Painters, too. Just sit and wait, beside their empty page or canvas, for the muse to descend. Photographers don't have that luxury. We must head out on the hunt, put our feet on the ground and search for what inspires us.

This week's image is the final result of several failed attempts to capture a subject I observed in another location, but where success eluded me. One of my favorite shooting sites is Emek HaEla, a lovely valley south of Beit Shemesh and only 20 minutes from my home. Driving through one recent afternoon, I noticed a grove of almond trees in pre-blossom stage, forming a kilometer-wide sea of red buds. Interestingly, when one enters the grove and studies the trees close-up, the color is barely noticeable. From a distance, the rose-hued pastels light up against the bright green background of new grass and young leaves. Try as I might, the highway, farm buildings and assorted agricultural muck combined to ruin every angle I attempted.

I found this location further south, near the city of Kiryat Gat. I spent more than an hour circling above this grove on the surrounding hillsides, finally locating an angle through the dense forest that afforded a decent view of my subject. Nothing seemed to work, however, until the last moments of daylight painted some interesting light on the green shrubs and bare white branches in the foreground. I felt like I had been chasing a ghost, but my perseverance plus a little luck helped me bring home the prize.

Technical Data: Nikon D700, 28-105 zoom at 98mm, f8 @ 1/60 sec., ISO 400

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, January 31, 2011.

A retiring Mossad official briefed our agency 20 years ago, saying that 90% of Israeli intelligence worries concern Egypt, where, he said, Egypt was producing more than 100,000 unemployed graduates every year from its Radical Islamic Universities, which flourished under Sadat and under Mubarak.

From notes of this meeting, the intelligence expert in 1991 concluded that: " 20 years from now,another 2 million educated radical Moslems will hit the streets in Egypt, join the Moslem Brotherhood and overthrow the regime".

20 years later, that assessment has come to fruition.

Mubarak did maintain a formal peace with Israel, which concentrated on intelligence cooperation and joint economic ventures.

Mubarak's legacy, however, is that his regime prepared future generations of Egyptians for war with Israel.

His official Egyptian media ran daily editorials that continued to call for Jihad against the Jewish State.

Virulent anti-semitism and anti Zionism dominate every aspect of Egyptian culture.

Egypt continued to host the Arab League, which maintained its declared state of war to exterminate the State of Israel, a stance unchanged since 1948.

An examination of Mubarak's official Egyptian gov't school curriculum reads like a manual for war on the Jews.http://impact-se.org/research/egypt/archives/oldindex.html.

The Moslem Brotherhood does not mince words about its Jihadist genocidal policy towards Israel.

If the Moslem Brotherhood takes over, it will enter into a formal alliance with Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran.

The Camp David Accord, signed in 1979, delayed the next war with Egypt for 32 years.

That next round is around the corner.

The Israeli government information offices had always downplayed the fact that it is Egypt, NOT Iran, that supplied massive caches of munitions to the Hamas regime in Gaza to launch 12,000 aerial attacks on the Western Negev over the past decade.

This article would not be complete without a personal recollection"

"My Mengle Moment in Egypt"

Many people speak about a policy of anti-Semitism promoted by the Mubarak regime

Many Israeli Jews who visited Egypt during Mubarak's reign witnessed such a policy in action.

Here is an eyewitness account to that policy.

On March 15, 1996, Egyptian President Mubarak invited President Clinton, PLO Chieftan Yassir Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to attend a one day summit ianti-terrorism summit in Sharm el Sheich, Egypt, at the tip of the Sinai desert. T

The gatherng was intended to salvage middle east negotiations that had been seemingly sabotaged by bus bombings in Jerusalem that had been detonated by Hamas.

Little did anyone know then that, many years later, former Mossad director Ephraim Halevy would later appear on Israel Broadcasting Corportation radio and soberly inform the public that those bombings had been ordered by Arafat himself.

In preparation for the seminal summit, Mubarak invited media from around the world to cover the event.

More than 200 reporters came from Israel to the summit, with hundreds more media outlets that arrived from the Arab world and from Europe.

After the plane landed, as reporters were processed through Egyptian customs, Egyptian security police suddenly surrounded a young official of the Israel Government Press office who was acommpanying the press. The Egyptians informed the young man that they would not alllow him in the country, because he was wearing a Kippa yarmulke headcovering. All the explanations in the world would not help. Two burly Egyptian security guards escorted the kippa wearer back to the plane, for public expression of Jewish observance.

I was glad that my kippa was under my hat, and it seemed necessary to find some kind of glue that would keep it hidden, so that two burly Egyptians would not put me back on the plane

After a non eventful day of peace rhetoric, reporters went back in chartered buses to the airport, to their respective destinations.

At the small Sharm El Sheich airport terminal, an Egytian security official made a strange announcemment. "Those of you who hold Israeli passports are asked to go into separate part of the terminal".. Meanwhile, passengers without Israeli passports were allowed to board their respective flights.

Uri Dan, the late Yediot Aharonot correspondent, asked very loudly if this was Egypt's version of the Mengele selection process, recalling very loudly how his grandfather from Salonika was selected by Mengele for death, when he got off the platform in Auschwitz.

Uri Dan's objections not withstanding, the Egyptian securitty people reviewed the passports of each Israeli, and then sent all the Israeli passport holders to cool their heels in the cold airport terminal, without food and without proper sanitation facilities, until 5:30 AM.

It would seem that Egypt wanted to give the Israelis a message.There may be a peace treaty between countries, but that did not mean that they would have to treat Jews with any dignity.

If these were the scenarios of anti-semitism under Mubarak, imagine what it will be like with a Moslem Brotherhood regime in place.

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 or ctrforneareastpolicyresearch@gmail.com This article appeared today in Israel Resource Review
http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/ content.cgi?ID=4279&q=1

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, January 31, 2011.
This was written by Jeffrey Fleishman and it appeared in JewishWorldReview.com

Cairo — (MCT) The medical students marched and sweated in protest.

"The fear is broken," yelled Bahaa Mohammed. "We want freedom."

"And Islam," said his friend. "We need Islam."

"Yes," said Mohammed, hushing the young man. "But first freedom and the will of the people."

The exchange in the streets of Cairo between the students, both members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, is a telling glimpse into the Arab world's largest Islamic organization as it joins other opposition groups seeking to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak. The Brotherhood is muting its religious message.

The organization's strategy became more apparent Sunday when it announced support for opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei as a transitional president if the Mubarak government is toppled. The move was recognition that ElBaradei, a secularist with Western democratic principles, is the most potent symbol for change in a nation desperate for fresh voices.

Founded in 1928 by a teacher in the Nile Delta, the Muslim Brotherhood has had a history of bloodshed and intrigue in a nation where many have embraced its form of Islam while the government has labeled it a terrorist threat. Its radical wing was accused of attempting to assassinate President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954, and it has long supported Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

"The Muslim Brotherhood has always been a concern for secular and even religiously devoted Egyptians because of fear that their Islamic ideology could damage the country's image and hurt tourism," said Emad Gad, a political analyst.

"The revolution does not belong to any one group," said Esam Shosha, a movement member. "We are one country. It's not just about the Brotherhood, at least not now; it's about all Egyptians."

Whether that attitude survives in a post-Mubarak era is uncertain, but it suggests that after a week of uprisings the Brotherhood understands the emerging dynamics of Egypt. The organization, which runs religious and social programs across the country, believes that backing ElBaradei for now is the best chance to further its political ambitions.

"They don't want to appear as if they're using this revolt to seize power," said Wahid Abdul Magid, an analyst at the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "What they want is free and fair elections to allow them to take power transparently. This would show their real popularity in the Egyptian street."

The question is whether the organization's religious agenda fits easily into an Egypt that is more tolerant and susceptible to Western-style liberalism and hip TV preachers. The Brotherhood's beliefs are moderate when compared with many of the world's more militant Muslim organizations. But it rejects the idea that a woman or a Christian could be president of a Muslim country, and would tilt the nation's laws toward stricter Islamic codes. And it would certainly ban alcohol and topless beaches at the resort of Sharm el Sheik.

Estimated to have 600,000 members, many of them educated and middle class, the Brotherhood said it rejected violence decades ago. Its social and health programs have filled gaps in the state's failing public services in this nation of 80 million people. During the 30 years under Mubarak's rule, thousands of its members have been arrested. It has been further weakened by internal divisions over its role between religion and politics.

In 2005, after then-President George W. Bush urged Mubarak to allow freer elections, the Brotherhood won 20 percent of the seats in parliament. The result worried Washington and Cairo that Islamic parties were on the rise across the region. The Egyptian government responded by purging the organization, culminating in Brotherhood's defeat in last year's legislative elections, widely regarded as rigged by the ruling party.

The organization, politically isolated, debated strategies. Then in mid-December, the Tunisian uprising started, which forced President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali from office this month. A similar fervor ignited in Egypt, and the Brotherhood, careful not to officially endorse street protests for fear of another crackdown on its leaders, urged its young members into the streets alongside secular groups such as the April 6 movement.

It also asked its young rank and file to keep diaries of their thoughts on the gathering revolt. Their involvement in Tuesday's protest drew accusations from Mubarak's security forces that the Brotherhood was instigating violence and sedition. But by Friday, the organization, calculating that the president was vulnerable, sent thousands of its young and old members marching through Cairo, Suez and other cities.

"It was a revolution that started with young people with no political agenda. It was important for the Brotherhood to send its youth," said group member Shosha, whose cell phone holds videos of Egyptians who were beaten and shot during protests. "Our young members are probably more educated and more knowledgeable in demonstrations and how to handle police tactics."

Mohammed Bedeir, a 23-year-old member, said: "We've been told to take part in the protest to pile the pressure on the regime. We've been telling the soldiers in the streets, don't side with the government or at least don't attack us. We're asking them to stay in the middle and let us demonstrate."

What surprised the Brotherhood and other traditional opposition groups was a protest movement without slogans, news releases and position papers. It came from the people, students and middle class at first, then swelling across economic and social lines. It has forced the organization to recalibrate its message in a world where the old boundaries have shifted.

That may not be easy.

"A Christian Copt or a woman cannot be president of a Muslim nation," said Shosha, a broad-shouldered man, who sat in the Brotherhood's headquarters in Cairo watching the protests on TV. "This is a religious point, not a political one. But it will be the Muslim leader's role to protect the rights of Copts and women."

Shosha said he was 12 when he befriended older Brotherhood members at a neighborhood mosque. Their message was to suffuse all aspects of life — job, family, politics — with Islam.

"Then I grew up and entered university, and I started thinking if the Brotherhood only wanted power it wouldn't have lasted so long after all the state oppression against it since 1950s," said Shosha, 31. "It's still here doing the work of God."

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, January 31, 2011.

This was written by Yaakov Katz and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=205797). Analysis: This year is turning into critical one for Israeli isolation in the Mideast. Turkey is gone and Egypt appears to be on way.


The collapse of Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt is not yet about Israel but soon will be, depending on his successor.

If the Muslim Brotherhood grabs the reins in the massive Arab country, Israel will face an enemy with one of the largest and strongest militaries around, built on some of the most advanced American-made platforms.

The impact on Israel will be immediate — the IDF will need to undergo major structural changes, new units will need to be created and forces in the South will likely need to be beefed up. Since the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the IDF has not had to worry about two fronts at once. Until now.

The appointment of Intelligence Minister Omar Suleiman as the vice president in Egypt is a reassuring sign for Israel.

Suleiman has played a key role in Israeli-Egyptian relations over the years and is considered in charge of the "Israeli Dossier". His office has been responsible for coordinating efforts to stop smuggling via tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor with Gaza and he is considered something of a moderate in comparison to outgoing Defense Minister Mohamed Tantawi.

In a cable published recently by WikiLeaks, Suleiman told the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2009 that Egypt was stopping Iranian money from making its way through the country to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

A new regime in Egypt could change all of that, and the transfer of Iranian funds to Hamas would be the least of Israel's concerns.

Due to the peace with Egypt and Jordan as well as the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the IDF has spent the last decade focused on the internal Palestinian threat, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Israel's military buildup was performed accordingly, including procurement plans regarding the number of tanks, armored personnel carriers and fighter jets acquired.

"With its current assets, the IDF will currently find it very difficult to be able to deal with two live fronts at once," a senior defense official admitted recently.

In the meantime, in Israel the hope is that Mubarak survives the calls for his downfall and that the appointment of Suleiman as well as the dismissal of the government succeeds in easing the demonstrations on the streets.

At the moment, assessments in Israeli intelligence circles are that Mubarak will survive. The demonstrations throughout Egypt, while large and growing, do not have an organized leadership behind them, and fearing a violent crackdown, the Muslim Brotherhood is staying underground.

The question, though, is what happens the "day after" Mubarak? Who will succeed him and what role will the Muslim Brotherhood play? Israel's concerns though are not isolated to Egypt. One former senior Mossad official said on Saturday that Israel needed to be more concerned with a potential revolution in Jordan.

"In Egypt, Israel has Sinai as a major buffer zone," the official said. "This is not the case in Jordan, where there is a massive Palestinian population that could directly threaten Israel through the West Bank."

This year is turning into a critical one for Israel, which is finding itself increasingly isolated within the Middle East. Turkey is gone and Egypt appears to be on the way.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, January 31, 2011.

This was written by Margaret Coker and Summer Said and it appeared in the Wall Street Journal
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487048 32704576114132934597622.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Charles Levinson contributed to this article. Write to Margaret Coker at margaret.coker@wsj.com and Summer Said at summer.said@dowjones.com


CAIRO — Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood's agreement to back the secular, liberal opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei as lead spokesman for the country's opposition groups in reform negotiations suggests the group's once sidelined moderate wing is regaining strength.

The move marks the latest step by the controversial Islamic organization to subordinate its religious goals to what opposition groups are describing as a battle for democracy, in a country run under a state of emergency by President Hosni Mubarak for more than 30 years. It also suggests the movement may be positioning itself as a significant political actor in future Egyptian politics.

Mr. ElBaradei, 68 years old, is the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for the group's nonproliferation work. He returned to Cairo on Thursday from Vienna after a long absence, to join protesters and to offer to lead a transitional government.

Early last year, the longtime activist played a major role in re-energizing Egypt's opposition movement, helping to organize a signature drive for a petition demanding political reform, although he didn't play a role in organizing the latest protests. He had clashed with the Bush administration over Iraq and Iran policies, but later forged ties with the Obama administration.

The Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is thought to be Egypt's most popular unofficial political organization. It has a long fought to establish Sharia law in Egypt, an anathema to the military leaders that have run the country and a key reason given by Mr. Mubarak and his predecessors for soft-pedaling on political reform. The group's strict views on morality and religion also have traditionally alienated them from Egypt's other political movements, which are largely led by Western-leaning intellectuals.

A succession of rallies and demonstrations, in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Algeria have been inspired directly by the popular outpouring of anger that toppled Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. See how these uprising progressed.

One of the hallmarks of the massive national protests against Mr. Mubarak has been its secular tone. Supporters of the Brotherhood have joined the street demonstrations, but their footprint has been intentionally light, according to opposition leaders. Brotherhood members agreed with the umbrella of opposition groups organizing the protests to keep religious slogans out of the demonstration to minimize the risk that Mr. Mubarak's security agencies could discredit the movement, organizers said.

Egypt's opposition groups have had a checkered past, with ideological divides and personal animosities sapping their strength against the might of the Mubarak regime. For now, their solidarity appears to be sticking.

The umbrella organization, called the National Association for Change, on Sunday formed a steering committee, with Mr. ElBaradei at the helm, to strategize further movements and pressure Mr. Mubarak and his military leaders for more political concessions, according to senior Brotherhood leaders.

That reflects the organization's strategy that their religious goals need to be put on the back burner to achieve democracy, said Helmi Gazzar, the head of the Brotherhood's district party office in northern Cairo.

"What we want is what the people want; right now we should have a completely different regime. We should have freedom and free elections," he said. "We respect Mr. Baradei. He has the most potential" to achieve this.

Some Middle East analysts argue that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the organization from which many of the region's Islamists have taken inspiration, has a more moderate theological profile than is sometimes feared.

Unlike the Palestinian political group Hamas in the neighboring Gaza Strip, the Muslim Brotherhood isn't considered a terrorist organization by Washington or by European capitals. Egypt has outlawed the group as a political party, but members of the movement sit in Parliament as independent lawmakers, and U.S. officials frequently meet with these parliamentarians.

Detractors, however, see the Brotherhood as an extremist organization, similar to the Islamic movement that overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979. They point to a draft political manifesto published by the organization in 2007 in which the organization called for a religious guidance counsel to be set up in Egypt to approve all laws passed by the country's civilian institutions. The political platform also states that Christians or women couldn't become president.

The Brotherhood's moderate wing disagreed with the manifesto, but the document helped exacerbate rifts between the group and Egypt's leftist and liberal democracy activists. For that reason, it was seen as a significant development when Mr. ElBaradei forged the umbrella opposition movement last year with the approval and inclusion of the Brotherhood.

Not all of the group's secular detractors have lost their mistrust of the Brotherhood, but they say they understand the importance of the group to the overall goal of pushing for democratic change.

"I have some fears about the Muslim Brotherhood and their [future] intentions. But the situation is bigger than all of us now. You need them in the streets," said Ziad el-Alami, a senior aide for Mr. ElBaradei and a human-rights lawyer.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Marcia Leal, January 31, 2011.

This was reported in


Israeli media is reporting that what was described as a "leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood" has told an Iranian news network that he would like to see the Egyptian people "prepare for war" with Israel and that the Suez Canal should be closed in order to pressure the Mubarak regime. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post:

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al-Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease "in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime." He added that "the people should be prepared for war against Israel," saying the world should understand that "the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime."

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they "would not kill their brothers." He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after "seeing millions head for the streets."

MEMRI translated a November 2010 excerpt from an Iranian TV interview with a Mohammed Ghanem, identified as a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, in which Mr. Ghanem criticizes the Egyptian ruling government. According to the MEMRI translation

Thw following is an excerpt from an interview with Mohammed Ghanem, representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, which aired on Press TV (Iran) on November 15, 2010:

Mohammad Ghanem: "To understand the political system in Egypt, you must recognize that the regime in Egypt is a dictatorship. Parliamentary elections are a show, and I would see no difference... The outcome of the elections... Mr. Mubarak has been there 30 years. He holds 85% of the power of the regime, and the 15% within the Authority [Assembly] of the People are appointed by him."

Moderator: "He is the president, of course. Presidents wield power. This would be his sixth term. He has submitted himself to elections, so is it a dictatorship?"

Mohammad Ghanem: "It's a dictatorship regime because he holds all the power. It is only a one-man show. Now, he has developed even that system to be a family and a business. It is a dynasty, and the whole economy of the country is run according to the interests of Mr. Mubarak, his family, and his loyals."

Moderator: "So what is the impact of that — if that is indeed true — for the average, ordinary Egyptian? What does this mean life is like for them?"

Mohammad Ghanem: "Poverty, ignorance, illness, no services. The people felt denial. They felt that they have been neglected, because there is one percent — maximum between one and two percent — who own the country, who run the economy, and run the interests for their own." [...]

The identification of Mr. Ghanem as a Muslim Brotherhood representative is supported by UK corporate records which list a Mohamed Ghanem as a director of World Media Services, known to have been affiliated with the Al-Markaz al-I'lami lil-Ikhwan al-Muslimin (Information Centre of the Muslim Brotherhood), London. Al-Da'awa, a Muslim Brotherhood magazine formerly edited by UK-based Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Kamal Helbawy, was published by World Media Services, which is known to have shared premises with the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), one of the UK Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

Contact Marcia Leal at marcia.leal.eejh@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green (WIG), January 31, 2011.

Dear friends,

Below please find details about a very important vigil that will take place this coming Wednesday morning. Please make sure to attend and to forward far and wide the call below by many organizations, all united in their demand for the right to self-defense.

With love for Israel,

Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar
For Women in Green (WIG)


Three years ago, the soldiers David Rubin HY"D and Achikam Amichai HY"D were murdered by Arabs while hiking in Nachal Telem in the Har Hebron region. Their friends swore to honor their memories by continuing to hike everywhere in the Land of Israel.

For three years now, there have been weekly 'David and Achikam hikes' throughout Judea and Samaria, among springs and caves, streams and breathtaking views.

The hikes are organized by responsible and cautious guides, who have led thousands of hikers from all parts of the country: Ashdod, Rishon Letzion, Bat Yam, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Netanya, and more. Last Friday, the 23rd of Shvat 5771 (Jan. 28, 2011), the group hiked to Biblical Tel Gedor in Gush Etzion. On the way back, Arabs from a nearby village saw them and began shooting guns and throwing stones. The size of the group ­ in the dozens ­ and its make-up, which included people in their '70s, made a quick evacuation difficult and while descending the Tel defensive measures were required.

When army and police forces arrived, they arrested the hikers who were carrying weapons. Those hikers were imprisoned and charged with homicide before it was even established that any Arab had been killed, before a dead body was even produced, and before even one Arab was interrogated. On Wednesday, the 28th of Shvat, February 2nd, there will be a court hearing in Jerusalem's Russian Compound. We are asking the public to be there at 9:30 a.m. to demand that the Jewish State allow Jews the right to defend themselves and to demand that those detained be freed immediately.

Why is it that when Jews are murdered, our government officials decry the terrorists, but that when Jews save themselves from being murdered, the victims are treated as murderers? When David and Achikam were murdered, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said "[they] fought bravely". Why is it that now the victims of last week's hike are being treated as killers?

Do Jews in present-day Israel have the right to remain alive by defending themselves against murderous attackers without being charged with homicide?

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. For details, call Yehudit Katsover 050-7161818 or Nadia Matar 050-55

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 31, 2011.

The issues are anything but simple, and resolution of the situation in Egypt will not happen overnight, or in a week or a month. I do not intend to focus exclusively on this situation. And yet... it is so important, and so fraught with major consequences, that we must continue to keep a very watchful eye.


At present there is a sort of holding pattern, or stalemate. Mubarak is refusing to step down. He has appointed a new cabinet and instructed the new prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, to "allow wider participation" of political parties, and to address unemployment concerns.

These orders touch upon two key issues.

Financial difficulties being endured by the Egyptian people have a great deal to do with what brought tens of thousands into the street. (Anxiety about the subsidization of bread — a staple in Egypt — because of Egyptian fiscal policies that have brought higher prices may have figured into this.)

Wider participation of political parties is meant to signal the very beginning of governmental reform; what actually happens in this regard remains to be seen.

The "new" cabinet has seen some people replaced, but still consists of many familiar faces.


In the meantime, the protests are still going on in the street, with tanks roaming about and helicopters overhead. Protesters insist they are not stopping until Mubarak leaves.

The expectation in many quarters is that Mubarak will resign shortly and make way for his vice president, Suleiman — who certainly has the experience and capacity to take control.

Zvi Mazel, who served as ambassador to Egypt, has written:

"The people are no longer clamoring for food and work, they want him gone, and it is doubtful that they will settle for less. Even if Mubarak manages to hold on, it will be as a diminished president..." (Thanks here to Lily S.)

What seems most clearly the case is that if there is to be stable reform in Egypt — that moves even tentatively in the direction of democracy — it must be done via a moderating and reformulated version of the current regime, and not via a takeover by the street.

If Mubarak is to finish his term, writes Mazel, "he will have to implement political and economic reforms, including significant salary raises and increased subsidies, though it is not clear where the money will be coming for. The emergency laws which granted him extraordinary powers will have to be scraped, together with the special clauses introduced in the constitution to limit the possibility for an independent to be candidate for the presidency."


There is much talk about who the leaders of the protest movement are and which ideologies they represent. Young people — educated and often radicalized — are seriously invested in the rebellion. But what becomes more and more evident is how deeply involved is the Muslim Brotherhood, even though it has not moved to officially assume leadership.

As Shmuel Even, writing for the Institute for National Security Studies, put it:

"The outcome of the riots may not necessarily be connected to what or who ignited them, rather to whatever power structure is created and those who succeed in leveraging it for their own benefit."

The Brotherhood has announced official backing for El-Baradei, who first demanded Mubarak's ouster, and now has the Brotherhood's blessing to negotiate a "unity government."


Down the road, it goes without saying, the Egyptian military, and the leader it supports, will have considerable effect on what happens.


At first, with Israeli consent, the Egyptian army placed troops on its Sinai border with Gaza, to prevent Hamas terrorists from infiltrating.

Consent from Israel is necessary because according to our peace treaty with Egypt the Sinai, a buffer zone, is to remain demilitarized.

Now news has broken of something more significant. Israel reportedly gave permission yesterday for Egypt to station two battalions — about 800 soldiers — in the Sinai. This is the first time Egyptian troops will have been stationed in the Sinai since the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty 32 years ago. They are to be based in the Sharm el-Sheikh area on Sinai's southern tip, far from Israel.

This is being done to enhance Egyptian government stability, and, I am assuming, to increase its army's ability to respond quickly against Hamas militants in the Sinai.

This is not about to be confirmed on the record. Israeli officials who spoke to YNet about this did so anonymously because of the Netanyahu ban on discussing the situation.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-4021890,00.html


There was a time when Egypt having troops in the Sinai would have been a source of great turmoil, as it would have been seen as a threat here in Israel. As it is now, the Israel government is demonstrating a readiness to support the Egyptian regime — the only nation prepared to do so.


For the record, not everyone was pleased with this. MK Uri Ariel (National Union) protested that:

"This government does not have the right to enable Egypt to break even a comma of the peace accords. It's a terrifying precedent for the future. "Anyone who knows the Middle East knows that forces which improved their positions against Israel won't withdraw easily and it doesn't matter if they're commanded by Mubarak or his successor."


Meanwhile, President Shimon Peres said today (not specifically in response to Ariel's comments) that:

"We always have had and still have a great respect [for Mubarak]. I don't say everything that he did was right, but he did one thing for which all of us are thankful to him: He kept the peace in the Middle East."


Lest there be any misunderstanding about this: The Brotherhood is Islamist. Whatever pseudo-popular or faux-democratic machinations they might rely on in the interim, they are seeking a Muslim state run according to Sharia, the elimination of Israel, and then the ultimate goal — a world-wide caliphate (employing a "grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization ").

Barry Rubin has provided this quote from a Brotherhood member of Egypt's parliament:

"From my point of view, Bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi [the leaders of al-Qaida who staged the September 11 attacks and massive killings in Iraq] are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists...."


With reason, there are analysts who see Iran's hand in what is going on in Egypt.

Turkey has gone Islamist; Syria is in Iran's camp; Hezbollah, an Iranian puppet, is now controlling Lebanon; Hamas, another Iranian surrogate is in Gaza; and Moshe Yaalon, Minister of Strategic Affairs, says there are Hezbollah elements there as well.

For the last hold-out, Egypt, to go this route as well in the course of time would be cataclysmic. This is the case foremost for Israel. But also for the stability of the entire region and the interests of the US. Consider, with everything else, what it would mean if Islamists controlled the Suez Canal.


Barak Ravid, writing in Ha'aretz, says that Israel is calling on the US and a number of European countries to moderate criticism of Mubarak in order to preserve stability in the region. Jerusalem seeks to convince its allies that it is in the West's interest to maintain the stability of the Egyptian regime.

He cites a senior Israeli official, who said:

"The Americans and the Europeans are being pulled along by public opinion and aren't considering their genuine interests. Even if they are critical of Mubarak, they have to make their friends feel that they're not alone. Jordan and Saudi Arabia see the reactions in the West, how everyone is abandoning Mubarak, and this will have very serious implications."


This theme is also reflected in the words of Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

"Precisely when the Egyptian government had its back to the wall with the worst protests in recent history, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs threatened the embattled President Mubarak with a cut in U.S. foreign aid. What kind of signal did the White House press secretary's threat about cutting aid send to King Abdullah of Jordan or to President Saleh of Yemen, as well as to other allies in the Persian Gulf? Did it mean that as soon as an Arab leader gets into trouble, he starts to get disowned?"


If the leaks by Al-Jazeera last week pretty much sank the already near-moribund peace process, what is going on now may deliver the final blow.

PA leaders, after being embarrassed by leaks ostensibly showing their willingness to compromise, are bound to be more intransigent than ever. And now, facing the instability in Egypt, Netanyahu — who already has expressed concern for Israeli security in any final agreement — will be all the more convinced that if regimes surrounding us are not stable it is essential to hold on to strategic territory.

In the course of time, I hope to address some of those who persist in the delusion that "peace" is attainable now.


With this, a ray of light:

Last Thursday, key leaders of the US House sent a letter to President Obama urging that he veto a resolution at the Security Council that would declare Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria, and including eastern Jerusalem, to be illegal.

The letter stated that:

"The passage of this resolution would simply isolate Israel and embolden the Palestinians to focus on further such pyrrhic victories, immeasurably setting back prospects for achieving real peace."

It asked that Obama "pledge in response to this letter to veto any UN Security Council resolution that criticizes Israel regarding final status issues."

The letter was sent by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), ranking member Howard Berman (D-CA), incoming Middle East subcommittee Chairman Steve Chabot (R-OH) and ranking member Gary Ackerman (D-NY).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, January 31, 2011.

I fear that Obama's seeming dream of destruction for the Jews is perhaps true...his vaunted failure to veto a UN condemnation of Israel is a first for the US, and entirely useless in terms of making a difference, so his instructions tour diplomats to let the condemnation ride is a significant statement of violent disapproval that nets him and the US nothing, scores negligible points with the Arab moiety, and pisses off the Jews who funded his travesty of a campaign.

I cannot say that we ought to have better intel, which we should, but this is one of those unexpected turning points in history that caught flame from an unexpected source — Tunisia — and even the best intel cannot be everywhere (tho we should be better where we are).

But the price of oil will skyrocket, hurting the people here even more, and the situation will prove to damage even further any shred of credibility this figleaf poseur has left as a 'leader' who loves this country.

I fear his incompetence and consequential petulence, and think he is driven by primordial forces of humiliation that he is an illegitimate; his mother a non-discerning hippie who slept with many partners without the inconvenience of a ring or marriage; his grandparents humiliatingly white; his real father possibly a drug pusher; his fake father never really married to his confused atheist/clueless mother (according to his own books); his fake father, an alkie and an eventual car-wreck, abandoning him almost the moment he was born; his mother, even though a seeming gypsy and rudderless, abandoning him to his elderly white grandparents; his being peripatetic all his childhood, registered in Indonesia as a different person, changing his very name and ID several times; being neither fish nor fowl as he grew up — all of these cannot help but make him insecure, though he pretends to a confidence to which he is utterly unentitled.

In psych, we call it a reaction formation.

He acts I think out of these subterranean insecurities and damaging bafflements, and the hints I have read that he had also possibly a flirtation with homosexuality in part, and was a part-time self-confessed druggie — scurrilous as these reports might be to some who have not read the reports — may be partially a result of his internal unworthiness. Not only to me and this country, but to his jumbo-eared self.

These insecurities and underpinnings also spell out why he is so bizarrely bent on getting illegals accepted and amnestied, despite the huge and repeated no-confidence votes he has gotten in several huge waves, the most recent being his thumping in the midterms, but even prior to that, the country does not want any amnesty or so-called Dream Act — he cannot see beyond his own inner-child's rejected self, and cannot rise above the sense of rejection he feels when he harks back to his childhood as a wandering mixed child with revolving-door 'fathers' and a schooling that was unpredictably hither and yon. I see it as a fixation he cannot escape, amplified by his probably not himself being an American citizen, no matter how he blusters.

As Cuba Gooding, Jr., almost said in the movie: Show me the papers.

He does not have them. There is no record of his having been naturalized.

Were he the patrician adult born to privilege, he would not be so seethingly rageful at privilege, which he of course demonstrates in all his legislative loop-de-loops around the wealthy achievers he cannot emulate in his heart — because he is at base a fraud. Ergo his community activism and his commotion about 'spreading the wealth' around — he feels innately unworthy and poor, no matter how he pulled in the shekels with his two ghosted bios. He is himself illegitimate, and an illegal, and he is unprivileged, no matter which schools accepted him via who-knows-what mechanism of foreign influence and clandestine clout.

Like Marx, who could be the anti-social scourge he was because he had a rich wife subsidizing his puerile acting out, his radical manifestos, Obama has us and our bankroll at his back to fund his numerous failed ideas, his Alinskyite childishness — if you could even call such abundantly abandoned notions 'ideas.'

And it explains his remarkable overindulgence in gruesomely expensive and unearned vacations and wastrel ways in the White House, with our taxes — prudence is the farthest thing from his bony glutamus maximus; even when the country is balls to the floor bankrupt, courtesy his astonishing profligacy time and time again. And his wife is worse, since she seethes with the unrepentant yearnings of pre-Civil Rights Act American-born blacks — but at least though she is ungrateful for her fortunes as a legacy in college and thereafter, at least she comes by her rage from honest ethnographic sources... she at least came from an intact home, parents and siblings of one father, one mother. Obama is storied for half-siblings all over, some living on a dollar a day in shacks somewhere in Africa, some elsewhere, semi-acknowledged.

Actually, I take that back. She is an ungrateful stanchion. Without noticeable skills, and without graciousness, she is a barely tamped-down shopaholic and meddler in the wellbeing of the country — how dare she tell WalMart what to sell and how much to sell it for? How dare she tell us what to eat? In her $700 slippers, and still she looks for all the candid shots of her mostly like a fishwife except when she is uncomfortably wrongly dressed for the occasion. (That red gown she wore for Chairman Hu was a total mistake, as it betokened a siding with the politics of Hu, which even she cannot in reality be telling us. She should have worn any color in the world EXCEPT red. But their WH protocol instructors must long ago have committed hara kiri, since the Obamas are so abysmally wrong on almost every one of their many state occasions, here or abroad.)

I have been putting up my own little protest: I am stockpiling incandescent light bulbs. Toxic curly bulbs are not my wont, and I shan't listen to the White House's or Albert Gore's suppositional mandates.

Have I now duly transgressed on the sufferance of many in this unexpurgated assessment?

Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at dreyfusmarion@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, January 30, 2011.

This was written by Tim Ross, Matthew Moore and Steven Swinford. It appeared in the Daily Telegram (UK) and is archived at


The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.

On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.

He has already been arrested by Egyptian security in connection with the demonstrations and his identity is being protected by The Daily Telegraph.

The crisis in Egypt follows the toppling of Tunisian president Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali, who fled the country after widespread protests forced him from office.

The disclosures, contained in previously secret US diplomatic dispatches released by the WikiLeaks website, show American officials pressed the Egyptian government to release other dissidents who had been detained by the police.

Mr Mubarak, facing the biggest challenge to his authority in his 31 years in power, ordered the army on to the streets of Cairo yesterday as rioting erupted across Egypt.

Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters took to the streets in open defiance of a curfew. An explosion rocked the centre of Cairo as thousands defied orders to return to their homes. As the violence escalated, flames could be seen near the headquarters of the governing National Democratic Party.

Police fired rubber bullets and used tear gas and water cannon in an attempt to disperse the crowds.

At least five people were killed in Cairo alone yesterday and 870 injured, several with bullet wounds. Mohamed ElBaradei, the pro-reform leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was placed under house arrest after returning to Egypt to join the dissidents. Riots also took place in Suez, Alexandria and other major cities across the country.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, urged the Egyptian government to heed the legitimate demands of protesters. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she was deeply concerned about the use of force to quell the protests.

In an interview for the American news channel CNN, to be broadcast tomorrow, David Cameron said: I think what we need is reform in Egypt. I mean, we support reform and progress in the greater strengthening of the democracy and civil rights and the rule of law.

The US government has previously been a supporter of Mr Mubarakís regime. But the leaked documents show the extent to which America was offering support to pro-democracy activists in Egypt while publicly praising Mr Mubarak as an important ally in the Middle East.

In a secret diplomatic dispatch, sent on December 30 2008, Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador to Cairo, recorded that opposition groups had allegedly drawn up secret plans for regime change to take place before elections, scheduled for September this year.

The memo, which Ambassador Scobey sent to the US Secretary of State in Washington DC, was marked confidential and headed: "April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt."

It said the activist claimed several opposition forces had agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011 presidential elections. The embassy's source said the plan was so sensitive it cannot be written down.

Ambassador Scobey questioned whether such an unrealistic plot could work, or ever even existed. However, the documents showed that the activist had been approached by US diplomats and received extensive support for his pro-democracy campaign from officials in Washington. The embassy helped the campaigner attend a summit for youth activists in New York, which was organised by the US State Department.

Cairo embassy officials warned Washington that the activistís identity must be kept secret because he could face retribution in when he returned to Egypt. He had already allegedly been tortured for three days by Egyptian state security after he was arrested for taking part in a protest some years earlier.

The protests in Egypt are being driven by the April 6 youth movement, a group on Facebook that has attracted mainly young and educated members opposed to Mr Mubarak. The group has about 70,000 members and uses social networking sites to orchestrate protests and report on their activities.

The documents released by WikiLeaks reveal US Embassy officials were in regular contact with the activist throughout 2008 and 2009, considering him one of their most reliable sources for information about human rights abuses.

Contact Barbara Sommer at sommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, January 30, 2011.

This was written by Aaron Klein and appeared in World Net Daily

Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief, is known for his regular interviews with Mideast terror leaders and his popular segments on America's top radio programs. His newly released book is "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists." Follow


An unidentified protester in Egypt stands before a fiery background (Al-Jazeera).

TEL AVIV — Islamists, in particular the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood, seem poised to take power throughout the Middle East as a result of riots that have already toppled one Arab regime and are threatening others, in what some are calling only the latest wave of an Islamic "tsunami" sweeping the globe.

In Egypt, members of President Hosni Mubarak's family reportedly have fled the country as a flood of violent, fatal street protests threatens the stability of this most populous Arab nation, a longtime U.S. ally and the only Muslim nation with a long-lasting peace agreement with Israel.

The White House has been championing the protests, calling for a transition to democratic rule in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood formed the main opposition to Mubarak.

Learn Islam's global agenda to secure all nations under its only religious law: Get "Islam Rising" on DVD

The Obama administration's support for the unrest is strikingly reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's support of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, which marked the birth of modern Islamist expansion now seemingly sweeping the Mideast.

In fact, some Muslim clerics are already calling the riots in Egypt simply an extension of 1979's Islamist conquests.

"Thirty-one years after the victory of the Islamic Republic, we are faced with the obvious fact that these movements are the aftershocks of the Islamic Revolution," said Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, as reported by Iran's Radio Zamaneh. "The fate of those who challenge [our] religion is destruction."

Speaking of media and government leaders, Khatami added, "They want to highlight the labor, liberal and democratic issues, but the most important issue, which is the religious streak of these protests, [is] being denied."

The leader of Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood, Hammam Saeed, warned that the unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast until Arabs succeed at toppling leaders allied with the United States.

"The Americans and Obama must be losing sleep over the popular revolt in Egypt," Saeed said at a sympathy protest held outside the Egyptian Embassy in Amman. "Now, Obama must understand that the people have woken up and are ready to unseat the tyrant leaders who remained in power because of U.S. backing."

And on the Internet, the Middle East Media Research Institute reports, prominent Salafi cleric Abu Mundhir Al-Shinqiti issued a fatwa in the website Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal Jihad encouraging the protests in Egypt, claiming Islamist jihadis are now on the verge of a historic moment in the history of the Islamic nation, an "earthquake" he likened to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City.

As the clerics are accurately noting, Egypt is only one of many recent cases where Islamic unrest has surged in the Middle East and North Africa.

In Tunisia, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was toppled following rioting and street protests and widespread looting.

In Yemen, last week witnessed the largest protests in years against Yemen's leader, Ali Abullah Saleh, who is considered a crucial ally in the U.S. fight against al-Qaida in his country and in the Middle East. The protests further escalated yesterday.

Banners wielded by protesters in Yemen demanded the country's president abandon changes to the constitution that would grant Saleh another 10 years in power.

Algeria, Jordan and Morocco are taking note, fearing similar outbreaks.

In Pakistan, even the "peace-promoting," so-called "moderate" Islamic Barelvi sect is organizing rallies demanding the release of a policeman who confessed to the assassination of Punjab governor Slaman Taseer, a liberal politician who criticized federal blasphemy laws.

In Lebanon, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia seems to be hijacking the country's government using legal means.

Earlier this month, Hezbollah used its veto power to topple the government of the Western-oriented prime minister, Saad Hariri. Hezbollah feared Hariri would use security forces to arrest members of its militia following indictments expected to be issued in the near future against Hezbollah for the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Last week, the Hezbollah-backed candidate for prime minister, Najib Mikat, seemed poised to form the next government, sending Hariri into the opposition amid the threat of sectarian clashes.

Hezbollah members reportedly deployed on the streets of Beirut this week in a clear signal intended to deter Hariri backers from rioting.

The news media largely have painted the revolts in Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt as popular unrest, citing the use of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to make the arrangements for the demonstrations.

White House championing

The White House itself has been almost openly championing the unrest.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today called for an "orderly transition" to democracy in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is the main opposition group.

Obama himself reportedly voiced support for an "orderly transition" in Egypt that is responsive to the aspirations of Egyptians in phone calls with foreign leaders, the White House said.

Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, speaking in a White House webcast, also urged the government and protesters in Egypt to refrain from violence.

Egyptian officials speaking to WND, however, warned the Muslim Brotherhood has the most to gain from any political reform.

The Brotherhood seeks to spread Islam around the world, in large part using nonviolent means. Hamas and al-Qaida are violent Brotherhood offshoots.

An Egyptian security official noted the Muslim Brotherhood was directly involved in protest organization.

Similarly, it is Islamists allied with the Muslim Brotherhood who stand to gain in Pakistan, Jordan, Tunisia and Yemen. Already, the Shiite fundementalist Hezbollah organization is poised to exert enormous influence over Lebanon.

WND reported the Egyptian government suspects elements of the current uprising there, particularly political aspects, are being coordinated with the U.S. State Department.

A senior Egyptian diplomat told WND the regime of Mubarak suspects the U.S. has been aiding protest planning by Mohamed ElBaradei, who is seen as one of the main opposition leaders in Cairo.

ElBaradei, former International Atomic Energy Agency chief, has reinvented himself as a campaigner for "reform" in Egypt. He is a candidate for this year's scheduled presidential elections. ElBaradei arrived in Cairo just after last week's protests began and is reportedly being confined to his home by Egyptian security forces. He is seen as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition force in Egypt.

Last week, ElBaradei gave an interview to Der Spiegel defending the Brotherhood.

"We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. ... [They] have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them," he said.

Just today, the Muslim Brotherhood said it was in talks with other anti-government figures, including ElBaradai, to form a national unity government without Mubarak.

David Rubin, former mayor of the Israeli town of Shiloh and author of the book The Islamic Tsunami, however, warns that the Obama administration cannot continue to ignore the Muslim Brotherhood's and other Islamist groups' greater goals.

"There is a plan to take over Western civilization," Rubin told The Washington Times, "and we need to recognize it for what it is."

"Confronting the growing threat to Western civilization first involves admitting the problem exists, something President Obama not only refuses to do but strongly denies," a Times editorial on Rubin continues. "The administration has censored any discussion of the problem in these terms within the government, preferring to focus on ill-defined 'violent extremism' when the real extremist threat is only partly violent and wholly Islamicist."

Muslim Brotherhood declares war on U.S.

Multiple prominent U.S. commentators have also been claiming the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate organization and denying any Islamist plot to seize power.

On Friday, President George W. Bush's former press spokeswoman, Dana Perino, told Fox News, "Don't be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This has nothing to do with religion."

Bruce Reidel, a former CIA analyst and advisor to President Obama, penned a Daily Beast article in which he claimed, "The Egyptian Brotherhood renounced violence years ago. ... Its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme vilification by more radical Islamists."

Reidel's assertion the Brotherhood renounced violence, however, is contradicted by the Brotherhood's own statements in recent months, including a call to arms against the West.

In November, the Brotherhood's new supreme guide, Muhammad Badi, delivered a sermon entitled, "How Islam Confronts the Oppression and Tyranny."

"Resistance is the only solution," stated Badi. "The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan because it has been defeated by Islamist warriors."

Badi went on to declare the U.S. is easy to defeat through violence, since it is "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading toward its demise."

Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center, noted Badi's speech evidenced "the likelihood that more Brotherhood supporters in the West will turn to violence and fund-raising for terrorism."

Frank Gaffney, president of the American Center for Security Policy, takes it a step further.

"In short, the Muslim Brotherhood — whether it is operating in Egypt, elsewhere in the world or here — is our enemy," he wrote.


If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND poll.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Wilder, January 30, 2011.

I know it may seem difficult to fathom, but there are certain elements of life in Hebron that have nothing to do with politics. At least, they shouldn't.

For example, Tel Hebron. This site was called, by a preeminent archeologist, the second most important archeological site in Israel, after Jerusalem. Excavations in the middle 1960s, during the Jordanian occupation, revealed on the southern tip of the tel, ancient walls over 4,000 years old. Dr. Avi Ofer, during middle 1980s, discovered a shard dating to the pre-Abraham era, with a list of animals written on it. During the latest dig, in the late 1990s, archeologist Emmanuel Eisenberg uncovered 2,700 year old 'lemelech' ('to the King') seals, with the word Hebron, in ancient Hebrew, inscribed on them. This, in addition to a house constructed during the days of King Hezekiah, and two walls, one of which was built during the days of Abraham and Sarah.

Such a site, anywhere else in the world, would be classified as a national treasure, and related to appropriately. In other words, the government would invest funds to beautify the area and insure its well-being, while encouraging tens and hundreds of thousands of people to visit each year.

Imagine bringing a third-grader to 'the house where Abraham lived,' or to the burial place of Ruth the Moabite. (This place, at the height of the tel, is traditionally also the tomb of Jesse, King David's father.) What could be more impressive than standing on 4,000 year old stairs, leading to the gates of the city of Hebron, with a foreign diplomat, explaining to him that 'this is not only the roots of Judaism, it is also the roots of all of monotheism.'

I have declared this to thousands of people touring this wondrous area, and never cease to be amazed at my own words. And also at the expression of the faces of those I'm speaking to. Jaws literally drop.

But it's the truth, and the truth has to be told. The real question is, does anyone listen? I've taken countless journalists to this site, yet almost none of them have seen fit to include such a precious parcel of history in their articles. History is not political, but such an expose just might be taken the wrong way, proving the fact that Hebron really does have Jewish roots.

So, ignored it is. Even by our own. Our own journalists, politicians, and anyone else of any importance.

And what about Ma'arat HaMachpela, the tombs of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs? It took a bit of 'pushing and shoving' until the Prime Minister was convinced that this site is really of national importance and should be included on the list of national heritage sites.

However, Netanyahu isn't the only one who was persuaded to relate seriously to Machpela. According to recently received statistics, last year over 700,000 people visited the so-called 'Jewish side' of this holy monument. That is quite a lot of company. The number continues to climb and it won't be long before we pass the one million mark.

But what do people see when they arrive at Machpela. Climbing the stairs and entering this massive 2,000 year old structure, visitors find themselves standing under a canvas awning in the building's mains courtyard. Not a roof, rather a tarpaulin. This covering, a poor attempt to protect visitors and worshipers from the elements, hasn't been cleaned in years. A filthy, water-creased tent-like structure adorns the second holiest place to the Jewish people in all the world.

In one word, this can be described as disgusting. An additional word is disgraceful. Is this the wys to commemorate our nation's founders: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah?

For about a decade Hebron community leaders have been trying to convince the 'powers that be' to remove the awning and replace it with a high-quality roof, as would be befitting of such a national monument. To no avail. Despite hundreds of thousands of annual visitors, of all races and religions, a roof is too political. A potato much too hot to touch.

A few weeks ago, when finally on Shabbat, thank G-d, rain began to fall, water dripped down from the canvas covering onto a Torah scroll. The Torah reading was stopped and the scroll immediately moved. Last night, as a result of heavy winds and rain, the roof finally caved in, falling to the ground, leaving a gaping hole, and a great view of the sky above. And rain falling on worshiper's heads.

Isn't it time to stop playing politics with our national treasures and bring an end to such humiliation?! This solution is not to replace the old canvas with a new one. The time has finally come to take the giant step and authorize a real roof atop Ma'arat HaMachpela.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 29, 2011.

A few steps up the street, is where Ruthy lives and creates. Mostly statues of metal, stone, and clay, but paintings as well. Here are some of her works, and more will follow. Look at


Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il See more of his graphic art at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, January 30, 2011.


Historically, the Jewish people often have not foreseen particular persecution, believe enemy assurances, and do not realize their leaders are betraying them. Survival at stake, the Jewish people cannot afford continued naïveté.

Israelis have finally become disillusioned about the unrealistic "peace" program of its leftists.


Now they are beginning to recognize how subversive their leftist and Arab NGOs are. These NGOs are subsidized in a more or less clandestine manner by anti-Zionist foreign governments and organizations such as New Israel Fund.

NGOs ostensibly favoring human rights ignore human rights abuses there, which are committed by the Arab side. They falsely accuse Israel of human rights abuses against Arabs. Their goal in this is to get the world to declare that Israel must withdraw from areas the Arabs claim and that Israel is not a legitimate state and its Jews should go to the countries from which their ancestors fled.

If the NGOs really cared about Arab human rights, they would condemn the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) for oppressing its own people.

These subversive NGOs denounce Israeli self-defense against Muslim sedition and terrorism. They encourage Arabs to protest, even if violent about it, against the security barrier. Some of them spy on Israelis in the Territories, objecting to their legal house-building and not to illegal Arab house-building. They demand that Jews not move into houses they own in certain parts of the country and not evict Arabs who squat in them. They claim to favor law and order, but defend Arab possessors of stolen property.

Some newer Jewish communities in the Territories were encouraged to establish themselves by the government. These towns then went through all the qualifying steps for full permission. The appeasement-minded politician serving as Defense Minister arbitrarily refused to sign off on the final step. Now the NGOs cry out that such communities are illegal. They distort the meaning of legality.

Some Arab groups demand self-government for Israeli Arabs, though that be a step toward organized Arab rebellion.

Such is the subversion of Israel engaged in by the Israeli left and by Arabs sponsored by the EU and the New Israel Fund.

The real remedy to the abuse by NGOs is to define subversion and ban foreign financing of it. All that the Knesset proposed was to require Israeli NGOs to declare their sources of foreign funds. Just keep Israelis informed. Even that was too much for the Left. The Left pretended that the measure is McCarthyist. However, it pretends most opposition to it is McCarthyist. But it is the Left that smears the whole Right for the apparent membership in it of Rabin's convicted assassin. Guilt by association, this is, for which the McCarthy era was known. The Left demands that the critics they defame be prosecuted and silenced. That is real McCarthyism.

This is a one-two punch: subvert Israel and silence critics.


The bill about NGOs is popular, but itself is subverted. By whom? By PM Netanyahu. He appointed a member of the New Israel Fund to review the bill. The reviewer acted like a dentist pulllng rotten teeth. Consequently, the enforcement and some other key provisions were deleted.

Now it is time for the people of Israel and the whole Jewish people to realize that the Israel is subverted by its own government, posing as nationalist.

The people elected Netanyahu and his Party to provide security. For the same reason, they had elected predecessors Sharon, succeeded by Olmert, and Barak, and Rabin, succeeded for a while by Peres. All of them imposed, accepted, or proposed agreements that sacrificed national security to the Arab enemy. Sharon/Olmert withdrew from territory, enabling it to become a terrorist base against Israel. As a result of those anti-Zionist policies, thousands of Israelis have been murdered, more thousands wounded, and still more thousands impoverished. Subversion carries a heavy price even if the country survives it.

Rabin turned over to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) the names of Israel's Arab agents. The P.A. purged them. The lesson here is not only to distrust the Arab side but also to doubt the rationality or loyalty of Israel's own leaders.

When Sharon and Olmert dispossessed the Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria, they did so by means that were cruel and ruinous. Was Sharon's goal an attempt to weaken the dispossessed Jews emotionally so that they could not organize opposition to him? Or had he become anti-Zionist? In determining this, remember that he once had formed a left-wing political party.

Olmert was defeatist in dealing with Hizbullah and Hamas. Hence Israel's wars with them were put off for too long and then failed to clear the terrorists out. Peres had campaigned against the original Lebanon War, lest Likud get credit for winning it.

One can cite similar instances, but those are enough examples. Out of office, Israeli politicians sound militant about national security. In office, they appease the U.S. and the Arabs. Does the State Dept. have some hold over them? In any case, the people should resist being deceived by them. Let the people vote for real nationalists, not make-believe ones!


After the U.S. violated guarantees made to Israel several times, one would expect Israeli skepticism about the U.S. executive branch. Popular misconceptions, such as that the U.S. is an ally of Israel, die hard, despite mounting evidence. Perhaps Israelis suffer from the Jewish people's centuries of depending upon gentile goodwill. The U.S. makes a few positive statements about Israel, and Israelis take it seriously.

It is no secret that the State Dept. opposed the reconstitution of a Jewish State, proposed its repeal, and has striven to detach the Territories from it. The U.S. also has criticized Israeli measures against terrorism, including the use of checkpoints without which terrorism increases.

Perhaps what keeps Israelis from admitting the State Dept. anti-Zionism is that U.S. diplomats are not extreme in how they pursue it. They no longer call for terminating Jewish sovereignty. Instead, they try to prod Israel into reaching an agreement with the Arabs that would deprive Israel of good defensive borders, much of its water supply, and a Jewish majority by virtue of heavy Arab immigration. Waiting in the wings are State Dept. and Arab demands for further Israeli withdrawal. Wouldn't do to press for those additional demands now, lest Israelis balk at their totality. Better to ask for something now, and then when Israel gives it up, ask for more.

Israelis need to stop living in a world of make-believe, recognize friend from foe, and take their future into their own hands.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, January 30, 2011.


Below is the latest from the Debka Intelligence Report. Here is yet more reason for Israel to begin considering very soon the strategic necessity, at the very least, of retaking the Philadelphi Corridor separating the Gaza Strip from Egyptian Sinai. This is what I called for in my latest article: The Islamic Tide is Cresting.
http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/ 2011/01/28/the-islamic-tide-is-cresting.html

Listening to Secretary of State Clinton this morning on Fox News Today was like watching an episode of The Outer Limits. Fantasy, fantasy and more fantasy. Caroline Glick's article: The Pragmatic Fantasy — unlike Hillary Clinton's fatuous nonsense — is absolutely correct. See "Column One: The pragmatic fantasy."

And then we have reports that the Obama administration may have helped engineer the potential overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, but may well be instrumental in ushering in not what it claimed to want — democracy — but the Muslim Brotherhood and a far, far worse oppressive Islamic regime similar to that of Iran: Egypt protests: secret US document discloses support for protesters — Telegraph, 1-28-11. Remember, too, that the West's lifeline — the Suez Canal — runs through Egypt.

In the case of Clinton and Obama it is a matter of "careful what you wish for."



Hamas gunmen from Gaza battle Egyptian forces in Sinai
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report January 30, 2011, 2:26 PM (GMT+02:00)

Hamas opens Palestinian front against Egyptian regime

Gunmen of Hamas's armed wing, Ezz e-Din al Qassam, crossed from Gaza into northern Sinai Sunday, Jan. 30 to attack Egyptian forces and push them back. They acted on orders from Hamas' parent organization, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, confirmed by its bosses in Damascus, to open a second, Palestinian front against the Mubarak regime. The Muslim Brotherhood is therefore more active in the uprising than it would appear.

debkafile's military sources report that Hamas gunmen went straight into battle with Egyptian Interior Ministry special forces (CFF) in the southern Egyptian-controlled section of the border town of Rafah and the Sinai port of El Arish. Saturday, Bedouin tribesmen and local Palestinians used the mayhem in Cairo to clash with Egyptian forces at both northern Sinai key points and ransack their gun stores.

Sunday, Hamas terrorists aim to follow this up by pushing Egyptian forces out of the northern and central regions of the peninsula and so bring Egypt's border with the Gaza Strip under Palestinian control. Hamas would then be able to break out of the Egyptian blockade of the enclave and restore its smuggling routes in full. Officials in Gaza City confirmed Sunday that Hamas's most notorious smuggling experts, including Muhammad Shaar, had broken out of the El Arish jail Saturday and were heading for Gaza City.

Our military sources further report that the Multinational Force & Observers (MFO), most of whose members are Americans and Canadians, are on maximum alert at their northern Sinai base, while they wait for US military transports to evacuate them to US bases in Europe.

This force was deployed in Sinai in 1981 for peacekeeping responsibilities and the supervision of the security provisions of the 1979 Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel under which the peninsula was demilitarized except for Egyptian police. Ending the MFO's mission in Sinai after thirty years knocks down a key pillar propping up the treaty peace between Egypt and Israel.

Early Sunday, the Egyptian army quietly began transferring armored reinforcements including tanks through the tunnels under the Suez from Egypt proper eastward to northern Sinai in effort to drive the Hamas forces back. The Egyptian troop presence in Sinai, which violates the terms of the peace treaty, has not been mentioned by either of the peace partners. Our Jerusalem sources report the Netanyahu government may have tacitly approved it.

Hamas' Gaza leaders do not seem to fear Israel will resort to military or even air action to interfere with their incursion of Sinai, although it brings their armed units within easy reach of the long Egyptian border with Israel.

In central Cairo, thousands of protesters gathered Sunday morning, some having camped there overnight in defiance of the curfew. Their chants were different in two important senses from the slogans dominating the first five days of their protest. Now they are calling for both President Hosni Mubarak and his newly-appointed Vice President Gen. Omar Suleiman to resign, branding them "American agents." Secondly, Islamic elements are more conspicuous among the crowd collecting in central Cairo Sunday.

Thousands of political prisoners, Islamic extremists and criminals are on the loose having reportedly escaped jails in the Cairo area.

The United States is preparing to evacuate citizens. The Embassy in Cairo advised all Americans to consider leaving the country as soon as possible. Ankara is sending planes to carry Turkish citizens out of the country. Saturday, the Israeli airline El Al sent a special flight to Cairo for families of embassy staff. The diplomats remain in place.

In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu updated the weekly cabinet session on his conversations overnight with President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Egyptian crisis.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, January 30, 2011.

This was written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and was published in K A H A N E", The magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea in September 1976 — Elul 5736.

If you did not receive this article personally, and would like to receive Rabbi Kahane articles weekly, please contact me at: BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

To view previously sent Rabbi Kahane articles go to: www.barbaraginsberg-barbara.blogspot.com


The illusion of Arab-Jewish coexistence is a delusion that leads directly to tragedy. On the one hand, it is patently false. On the other, it encourages mad policies on the part of the Israeli government. Thus, we find that a group of yeshiva students travelled to the Galilee village of Peki'in to pray at several sacred sites. What makes Peki'in special is that never since the destruction of the Second Temple was it empty of Jews. Throughout the long exile there were always Jews in this small place and, today, one lone family remains, a father and his unmarried daughter.

When the students came, they were met with stones by the local Arabs and Druze. They were forced to call the police and leave. When the Arabs were asked why they had stoned the Jews they replied that they feared that they had come to settle there ... [Sounds familiar? Today, Jan 23, 2011, apartment buildings for Jews are being built starting a new Jewish neighborhood in Jaffe. This led to a huge, loud and angry Arab demonstration in Jaffe, with shouts of "We don't want Jews in our neighborhood." BG]

This is the truth of Arab-Jewish coexistence and the tragedy of the Jewish policy of illusion. In the JEWISH state, Arabs have reached the point of chutzpah and gall when they can stone Jews and openly explain that they feared that the Jews might try to settle in their village. There is NO Arab village in the JEWISH state and the Arabs live in the JEWISH homeland by sufferance of the Jews. For them to have the brazenness to question Jewish rights is both symptomatic of their true feelings as well as the result of the timid and frightened "non-policy" of fear of what the world will say, that has led to an incredible decision to place two soldiers on trial in connection with the death of two Arabs killed in rioting against Jewish sovereignty. Both deaths occurred as Arab mobs, encouraged by Jewish weakness and hesitation, stoned Israeli troops, threw Molotov cocktails at them and tried to cause conditions of anarchy and revolt that would eventually force Jews to retreat from Judea and Samaria.

Both deaths occurred as Israeli soldiers were attacked and tried to put down the revolt. At first, the government refused to put soldiers who were facing an enemy committed to wiping out the Jewish state, on trial. Now, under pressure, they have agreed. The result will be that any soldier will hesitate before firing and will fear the consequences of his doing what any normal soldier should do. The result will be that the Arabs will know this and be encouraged. The result is that, once again, capitulation to the Arabs will breed more arrogance, more demands, more revolt.

[All the above we are suffering today. BG]

Contact Barbara Ginsberg by email at BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Prowisor, January 30, 2011.

The world watches Egypt closely, Israel is watching even more so. The main concern is who will take power. The number one possibility at this point is the Moslem Brotherhood. Now that nice bunch of guys definitely has an agenda for this neck of the woods. First on their list is ending the Peace Treaty with Israel. This of course includes many sub-categories that do not ease the tensions, not only with the Israeli government, but also many Arab rulers and peoples.

We are seeing demonstrations in Jordan, starting out as Pro-Opposition for Egypt, but also including support for a new Arab state in Israel (or instead of Israel) and rights for the "Palestinian" people of Jordan, who BTW, make up over 70% of that country.

Nice peaceful Lebanon in the North with its new Hezbollah puppet in government seems to be bustin' at the seams, with the possibility of reeling backward into a civil war once again.

All over the world, Arabs and other protestors are coming out into the street backing the Egyptian protestors, holding signs to oust Mubarak, and bring about reform. Reform? That is one word that may be debated.

And coming back to Israel, some of the Arabs of Israel are getting excited once again that Saladin (Salah al Din) will rise again from somewhere, eventually to cleanse the Jews from all of Israel.

I am concerned that the present US administration is showing such support for this uprising. Mubarak was never a friend to Israel, but he sure was not a friend to Islamic extremists. In fact none of the Arab leaders are a friend of Israel, but they are definitely not interested in loosing power to Extremist Islamic parties.

Now, every analyst or Mid East supposed expert in the world (as long as they live outside the Mid East, in safety) realizes that when an Arab dictator falls, the next step is not democracy. In fact it is usually a slide into extremism, that is, unless the US will station forces defending the "new" government.

There is indeed a domino effect and the question is where will the blocks fall?

As we mentioned before, it is simply a matter of time before the present Arab dictatorships change hands, yes change hands, as Democracy and Islam do not mix. First on the agenda of all of these new leaderships will not be a peaceful, fruitful relationship with the US, it will be quite the opposite. Western society tends not to understand the "Arab" street. I am sorry to inform you, it is not made up of the shiny happy people of the Upper West Side of NY, it is not lead by the Professors of Columbia U, nor is it occupied by the residents of Dearborn, Michigan. The residents of the "Arab street" are the mob, and who rules the mob will eventually be in power.

At present the rulers of this mob throughout the Arab world happen to be extreme Islamic parties, also known as Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and many other names. Learn these names, these will be the new rulers of the Arab regimes in the Middle East. These regimes will be put in power by the "mob", whose uprising is getting support (at least publicly) from some Western powers.

Watch how we will see how this becomes the new cause on US campuses, along with continuing calls for Israel's downfall. I know, some of you are saying, "crazy", he's extreme", hey, it's just a thought, a possibility, so play along with me for a bit.

Again, coming back to Israel for a sec, the calls from the Arab street and various Arab pundits are already being heard to oust Abbas from rule, rise against Israel, and so on, and so on, but this time the "mob" may have the verbal support of the US admin. Israel carefully watches the developments down on its southern border, as we all know where this may lead. In Jaffa the Arab demonstrations that include Left Wing Israeli Jews calls for a city free of Jews, this of may well spread. Yes, the Arab street is rising up against its enemies, and everyone is a candidate. To make matters worse...the message being sent out or at least understood from the White House is that they will support any uprising.

If I was to continue to play this game of possibilities, of conspiracies, of action novels, I might say that this all may fit into some sort of plan, a scheme if you will. One that places the Arab nations in the hands of the Islamic parties, a scheme that puts Israel in very real danger, and a plan that would have a definite effect on American and Western society as we know it...that is, if I were to continue to play this game.

And so the Dominoes continue to fall...

Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 30, 2011.

I write with the assumption that (almost) everyone reading this will have been following the news regarding Egypt, at least at a minimal level. And I write, as well, aware that within hours after I send this out, the news may have shifted. In fact, my best efforts to get this straight notwithstanding, it's close to impossible to get a handle on the shifting details.

It's clear to everyone following these events that they have less than nothing to do with Palestinian Arabs or a "two state solution." Egyptians are most decidedly not rioting in the streets because there is no Palestinian state. This should (unfortunately, it won't) put to rest once and for all the fallacious idea that what happens between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs is at the heart of what goes on elsewhere in the Arab/Muslim world.


The uprising that started on Tuesday and has escalated for days since — with rioting in the streets, more than 60 dead and over 2,000 injured, refusal to obey curfews, and more — has been directed against the repressions of the Hosni Mubarak regime of almost 30 years. Those repressions — as well as wide-spread corruption, economic problems, and failure to enact promised reforms — are very real. Most hated are the police, whose vehicles and stations have been attacked and torched.

Chaos has been exacerbated by prison break-outs at first in four different sites, with thousands of prisoners, including terrorists and political prisoners from the Muslim Brotherhood, going free after clashing with guards and starting fires. They have gone on a rampage of looting, with marauding gangs releasing even more prisoners.


The army has replaced the police now in Cairo, a teeming city of 18 million, with tanks stationed everywhere. This morning there was uneasy quiet in the streets of the city. But this, I believe, had as much to do with the need of demonstrators to rush home and protect their families and properties from the escaped prisoners as it did the actions of the army. There were stories of householders standing off looters with razors and broken bottles.

Now thousands have returned to central Cairo, with more soldiers and tanks being brought in, and reports of helicopters overhead. Jets have been heard overhead as well.

Egyptian Internet was shut down the other day, and apparently Al-Jazeera has now been cut off as well.


Mubarak, who earlier was reportedly in hiding in Sharm El-Sheikh, has since visited military headquarters. He has fired his government, promised real reforms, and perhaps most significantly, appointed intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to fill the post of vice president — a post that had been empty.

Suleiman, 74, has been serving since 1993 as the head of the General Intelligence Directorate. Egyptian journalist Issandr Amrani, cited in today's JPost, describes the Directorate as an organization that "combines the intelligence-gathering elements of the CIA, the counterterrorism role of the FBI, the protections duties of the Secret Service, and the high-level diplomacy of the State Department."

In other words, Suleiman is one very powerful man, and has proved himself adept at handling terrorists and controlling Islamist elements in Egypt. Additionally he has frequently served as a diplomatic envoy and is savvy with regard to Israeli issues. He is considered corruption-free. While he is said to be considerably more popular than Mubarak, there are elements among the protesters who reject him because of his association with the old regime.


What seems clear now is that if the regime holds, ultimately Suleiman will replace the much-hated Mubarak. Mubarak had been grooming his son to succeed him, but this is not going to happen. In fact, there is the possibility that succession by Suleiman might take place fairly imminently. It is the disappearance from the scene of Mubarak that the crowds are clambering for.

This is what I am hoping will happen (ideally with some genuine reforms enacted), and I will explain why...


The rioting protesters, including a good percentage of educated young people, at present are pushing for democratic reforms. There is the impulse to applaud them and to wish them well in turning Egypt around.

However, this group is not well organized and has no charismatic leader at its helm. Because it is diffuse, it is vulnerable to take-over by non-democratic elements.

I am greatly concerned that Mohamed El-Baradei — from 1997 to 2008 Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — has returned to Cairo from Vienna, where he lives, to join the protestors and help bring Mubarak down. El-Baradei is an enemy of Israel, make no mistake about it.

According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua, in 2009 El-Baradei is reported to have said, "Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses."

More significantly, he cut Iran slack, turning a blind eye with regard to Iranian nuclear developments on several occasions, so that he bears some culpability for the nuclear progress Iran made over time.


Of even greater concern than El-Baradei is the potential role of the (Islamist) Muslim Brotherhood, which has joined protests but is not taking a leadership role now. Should this group ultimately move to take over, and should there be an Islamist government in Egypt in time, this would represent a worst case scenario for us and the whole region.

It would undercut US interests in the area, present a threat in terms of exported revolution to other Arab states (most notably a very frightened Jordan), and would greatly increase the likelihood of war.


I know there are those who have lamented former prime minister Menachem Begin's readiness to reach a peace accord with Sadat, Mubarak's predecessor, and point to the cold peace that exists — with anti-Semitism rife in Egypt. I have never been of this mind. Better a cold peace than no peace.

Egypt is the largest of the Arab nations with the largest standing army and the most sophisticated military (thanks to US assistance). As long as the peace has held, other Arab nations have thought better of going to war with Israel on their own. Heaven forbid that this dynamic should shift at some point down the road: For there is considerable likelihood, if not certainty, that an Islamic Egyptian government would abrogate its peace treaty with Israel.

Mubarak has been staunchly anti-Iran (in some good measure because of Sunni-Shia tensions) and is no fan of Hamas. Hamas, after all, is a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, and he has seen Hamas presence in Egypt as exacerbating Brotherhood unrest. Turn this around and picture what an Islamist Egyptian government would do to strengthen Hamas in Gaza.

Not surprisingly, Iran has come out with words of support for the rebellion.


It has to be noted that there is an abysmal record with regard to democratic revolutions successfully taking hold in the Middle East. As Barry Rubin wrote last night, if the regime falls and power is up for grabs, we have the following precedents:

"Remember the Iranian revolution when all sorts of people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president.

"Remember the Beirut spring when people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Hezbollah is now running Lebanon.

"Remember the democracy among the Palestinians and free elections? Hamas is now running the Gaza Strip.

"Remember democracy in Algeria? Tens of thousands of people were killed in the ensuing civil war.

"It doesn't have to be that way but the precedents are pretty daunting."
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2011/01/ special-report-egypt-revolt-and-us-policy


When we talk about the Iranian revolution and how abysmally that ultimately failed, we have to look at the role of then-president Jimmy Carter, who sided with the revolutionaries.

There are analysts now who are deeply concerned about Obama pulling a "Carter," and with reason.

According to the Egyptian paper Almasry Alyoum, as reported in Haaretz, Obama secretly met members of the Muslim Brotherhood who live in the US and Europe, in early 2009. While according to WikiLeaks, as cited by the London Telegraph, in the last three years, members of the US government have communicated with an Egyptian activist who was involved in top secret plans for transition to a democratic government. Two years ago (which would have meant after Obama took office), the US ambassador to Egypt allegedly helped keep the identity of this activist from Egyptian police.

While I report these items, I cannot attest to their absolute veracity. There has been a suggestion that the fact that WikiLeaks has now revealed the connection between the US and this activist might have helped spark what is transpiring. This may be a bit far-fetched.

More immediately there is concern that the Obama administration is publicly coming down too hard on Mubarak and that this may help bring him down.


As evidence of this:

Secretary of State Clinton, in a press conference this morning, said:

"I want the Egyptian people to have a chance to chart a new future.

"It's not a question of who retains power. ... It's how are we going to respond to the legitimate needs and grievances expressed by the Egyptian people and chart a new path. Clearly, the path that has been followed has not been one that has created that democratic future, that economic opportunity that people in the peaceful protests are seeking."

Is she being briefed at all? Is she smoking something? Peaceful protests?

Continuing, she said that what was needed was "an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy...

"We are totally committed to working with the Egyptians that are interested in a true democracy."

Well, where does this leave everyone? And does this help the situation?

She just wants an orderly transition to real democracy in a nation that has never had democracy, and in which riots are currently taking place.


With regard to our current situation, Maj.-General (res.) Yaakov Amidror, who headed research and assessment for the IDF, declared:

"We need to understand that we are living on a volcano. Conditions can change from today until tomorrow."

Switching metaphors, he then said, "We are on thick ice, but even that melts eventually. There's no immediate fear of any security escalation. The main question is: In the long term, will we be ready for all scenarios?"


At first the government of Israel was entirely mum on what's going on. Now Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel is "anxiously monitoring" the unrest in Egypt.

"Our efforts are designed to continue and maintain stability and security in our region

"I remind you that the peace between Israel and Egypt has endured for over three decades and our goal is to ensure that these relations continue.

"Of course, at this time, we must show maximum responsibility, restraint and sagacity and, to this end, I have instructed my fellow ministers to refrain from commenting on this issue. Naturally, we are also holding consultations in the appropriate government forums."

Netanyahu has also been in phone consultation with Obama and Clinton.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, January 29, 2011.

Noor Almaleki

There are two honor killing trials currently underway in the United States: one in Tucson, another in Buffalo. Both defendants are Muslims and both murdered Muslim women.

Iraqi born Faleh Almaleki mowed his 20 year-old daughter Noor down in cold blood after she refused an arranged marriage to an Iraqi national and chose a future husband, American-style, all by herself. Yes, Almaleki stalked her and mowed his too-American daughter Noor right down in a two ton jeep and then, with the help of Noor's mother, his wife, and their son, fled to Europe, where he was captured.

The second defendant, Pakistani-born Muzzammil Syed Hassan, beheaded his 36-year-old third wife Aasiya, whom he had savagely battered for years, after she sued him for divorce; he also stabbed her 60 times.

In my research on honor killing, I discovered that there are two very different groups of victims world-wide: One has an average age of 17; the other has an average age of 36. These two women represent each kind of victim.

Their killers are both brazen, practiced liars and bullies; their lies take my breath away. Hassan is acting as his own lawyer. He claims that he was the "abused" spouse, emotionally, psychologically, and sometimes physically. The fact that he weighed twice as much as Aasiya counts for little in his lexicon of self-pity. Hassan has subpoened the judge, the prosecutors, and the media who have been covering his trial; he has been forced to withdraw these subpoenas. Hassan has also claimed that the "doctors" whom he expected to testify for him as the "abused" spouse have been biased or scared away by the "bad media" coverage.

Almaleki equated his daughter to a "small fire" which had to be extinguished in order to keep his house from burning down. Nevertheless, he is now arguing that he only meant to "spit" at Noor's female protector and lost control of his 4,000 pound car "by accident."

If you have lived among Muslims (and I have), you will understand that western concepts of objective truth do not exist. But, for that matter, if you have lived long enough among western leftist relativists (and I have, I have), you will come to a similar conclusion. Hence, consider the following.

A military friend tells me that "When you're taking flak you know you're over your target."

From that point of view, I am certainly over my target. Both my academic and journalistic work on honor killing and on Islamic gender apartheid have not only led to harsh criticism but, in my view, may also have partly led to an upcoming international conference at Australian National University in Australia: "Honour Killing across Culture and Time."

"Honour-motivated violence is a trans-historical and cross-cultural phenomenon, yet it has recently become a metonym for Islamic and anti-modern cultures."

Yes — it is a trans-historical and cross-cultural phenomenon, but that is because Islam has colonized every continent and, unlike Christianity and Judaism, has failed to abolish this form of misogynist barbarism.

The conference description is couched in postmodern language which asks: "How is honour embodied and performed in ways that lead to gendered violence?" "How do status anxieties and social asymmetries contribute to honour killing?" "How do anti-violence strategies negotiate competing claims of human rights and cultural relativism?" "How are personal and familial honour-related killings distinguished from collective public and state violence?"

And there you have it.

"Social asymmetries" (no doubt caused by western imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism) are probably responsible for "honour killing;" and the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are far more violent than...individual, domestic "honour killings."

Clearly, this conference wants to defend Islam from being seen as the only group which is violent towards women. Such a perception is deemed to be "racist" and "Islamophobic."

However, most honor killings are Muslim-on-Muslim and, while it is true that Hindu and Sikh honor killings do exist, they are mainly confined to India and do not accompany Hindu and Sikh immigrants into the West. This skittishness, this refusal to name reality is like the British media omission of "Muslim" from their coverage of "Asian" gangs who prey upon mainly "white" girls. In other words, Muslim gangs, from southeast Asia, namely from Pakistan and Bangladesh, rape, kidnap, then force young white British teenagers into sordid lives of prostitution. The British media do not mind tarring and feathering Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Buddhists, Hindus or Sikhs with their broad "Asian" stroke.

A writer, an activist usually has no way of knowing whether their work is effective, influential, that it actually speaks truth to power or, more important, saves real lives. For some time now, I have been privileged to have been asked to testify, via affidavit, in a number of averted honor killing cases. All but one of these cases are still underway. Earlier this week, I received very good news which I would like to share.

I was asked to provide an affidavit for an African woman who refused to become an elderly Muslim man's sixth wife. She is a woman who had secretly converted to Christianity, married another African Christian man and fled to the United States on a forged passport. She is now being held by immigration authorities. Were she to be deported, she would first face being genitally mutilated, and then honor murdered, for fleeing, for marrying, and for converting. My affidavit has, apparently, thus far, kept this poor soul in our blessed country. Her advocate told me that she has just heard from the prisoner's husband.

He did tell me that it was your affidavit and my letter that has kept X in the US thus far. There were 42 other refugee claimants in the prison with her — but she was given a special paper that none of the others received. It was information about remaining in the US. Most of the others have now been deported, but X remains in prison. The lawyer says she has a very good case for going to the half way house in Y — set up for people such as X. Hers is a convoluted case to say the least...but her husband sends his gratitude to you for getting involved and endorsing what we know to be true for women in (this African country).

This is all I have to say to the conveners of the conference in Australia and to those who criticize my work on honor killing.

Save some lives, then get back to me with your politically correct theories.

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. F

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, January 29, 2011.

This below is an important article by Truth Provider Contributing Editor Robert Vincent and is available at


"...events are demonstrating that the problems of the Middle East and larger Moslem world have nothing to do with Israel. They have everything to do with the corrupt, backward social/political systems that dominate the region."

"it is equally important for Western publics to understand that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even if a comprehensive peace treaty were signed tomorrow, would have no effect on the real problems facing the Moslem world."

"...for many years, the true importance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the repressive, authoritarian Arab/Moslem regimes of SW Asia and NE Africa has been to use this issue as an excuse for their own lack of progress socially, politically, and economically."

"Recently, Bill Clinton asserted that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were solved, that would take away "50%" — his exact reckoning — of the motivation for Islamist hatred against the West. We hear this theme repeatedly from various pundits throughout the media, academia, and even from current and former high government officials....I have to wonder what Bill Clinton would say now."

"If President Obama and his ilk were consistent in their foreign policy logic, they might as well just come out and proclaim, "If it weren't for those stubborn, greedy Israelis who just refuse to give the Palestinians a homeland in the West Bank, all this violence and instability just would not be happening". Except now, even barnyard animals can see just how ridiculous this sounds."

"...the upheavals we see today in the Moslem world may mean that we can not only start treating enemies like enemies; it also means that we can start treating allies like allies. This can only be a positive development where Israel is concerned, and one that is long overdue."


The turmoil in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab/Moslem world (e.g., Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon) has many observers concerned that Israel may soon be facing a far more threatening local environment as a result of these events, and that Western interests generally may suffer. On the surface, this might appear to be the case, as so-called "moderate", "pro-Western" regimes encounter internal difficulties and are even overthrown.

This writer begs to differ. Ultimately, these developments are in fact to the West's long term advantage, and should positively impact Israel as well.

First, one might ask just how genuinely "pro-Western" or "moderate" many of these established regimes really are. For example, the Wikileaks documents have shown, among other things, what observers like me have known for years: "Moderate" Saudi Arabia is the primary financial sponsor of Sunni Moslem-affiliated terror groups — like Al Queda — in the world today. The same dynamic holds for many of these other countries; their media is full of vicious anti-Western propaganda, and the "foreign fighters" we often hear about facing off against our troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan hail from many of our allegedly "moderate" allies, such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states.

What do we really have to lose, in real terms, by the demise of these governments? Their replacement by genuinely democratic, secular regimes, responsive to the objective needs of their publics, would be a positive development by any standard. But if, as many fear, they are replaced by openly Islamist regimes, this would only bring out into the open the orientation of these societies, for all to see. The blind hypocrisy of Western leaders giving these governments a pass in the name of propping up so-called "moderate allies", even as these same "allies" support the very forces that kill our troops and terrorize our populations, would have to end. Perhaps if we began treating our enemies like enemies — what a radical concept — we might start making genuine headway in the war against Islamist terrorism.

Moreover, events are demonstrating that the problems of the Middle East and larger Moslem world have nothing to do with Israel. They have everything to do with the corrupt, backward social/political systems that dominate the region.

The truth is that the supposedly "pro-Western" kings and dictators of the region have only remained in power at the point of a gun, and by co-opting the only constituency that mattered — the clerics — the de facto ruling class in these societies. This arrangement has kept the bulk of their populations chained to a medieval existence, falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world.

Such a state of affairs may have allowed the political elites in these countries to put off the day when they'd have to govern responsibly and objectively address the needs of their societies, but that day could not be put off forever. It seems that day is arriving now.

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have no real bearing on the internal problems of countries such as Egypt, Israel is still extremely important from a political, psychological, and for the West, strategic point of view. As I've said before (see my earlier article, "Why They Hate Us"), Israel is "West Berlin" for us in the face of the Islamist movement. With this in mind, it is of vital importance that we back Israel, not sell her out.

But it is equally important for Western publics to understand that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even if a comprehensive peace treaty were signed tomorrow, would have no effect on the real problems facing the Moslem world.

The above point cannot be made too strongly. Because for many years, the true importance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the repressive, authoritarian Arab/Moslem regimes of SW Asia and NE Africa has been to use this issue as an excuse for their own lack of progress socially, politically, and economically.

The Saudi King did that outright when Obama visited the kingdom in June of '09, linking his demand to Obama that he "impose a settlement" to his desire to promote "progress" in his own country, as if the only thing standing in the way of Saudi Arabia joining the modern age were those pesky Israeli "settlers" standing in the way of a Palestinian "homeland".

Where Israel is concerned, this is the "silver lining" I see in all of this unrest and instability: That "excuse" is wearing pretty thin. Recently, Bill Clinton asserted that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were solved, that would take away "50%" — his exact reckoning — of the motivation for Islamist hatred against the West. We hear this theme repeatedly from various pundits throughout the media, academia, and even from current and former high government officials.

That is what all of these inept and corrupt kings and dictators have been assuring U.S. policy makers and their advisers for decades — when they aren't bribing them outright to adopt that point of view.

I have to wonder what Bill Clinton would say now.

If President Obama and his ilk were consistent in their foreign policy logic, they might as well just come out and proclaim, "If it weren't for those stubborn, greedy Israelis who just refuse to give the Palestinians a homeland in the West Bank, all this violence and instability just would not be happening". Except now, even barnyard animals can see just how ridiculous this sounds.

These events present the media and other opinion leaders with two stark choices. They can either

a) finally admit that we really ought to support our liberal democratic ally, Israel, in the face of the changes that are taking place in the region, or

b) continue to parrot the same "blame-Israel-for-everything" line they've been promoting up to now. However, in pursuing this latter course, they will only make themselves look increasingly demented, degrading their already weak credibility still further. Certainly, the public will not buy that line any more. What is more, to enable the corrupt leaders of Moslem SW Asia/NE Africa by continuing to validate their lies and propaganda, as Bill Clinton did in the example above, will only exacerbate the problems of the region.

In short, the upheavals we see today in the Moslem world may mean that we can not only start treating enemies like enemies; it also means that we can start treating allies like allies. This can only be a positive development where Israel is concerned, and one that is long overdue.

Robert Vincent

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Udi Schayat, January 29, 2011.

This comes from Mark Hass, Director, EducateUSA (www.EducateUSA.org).

As a summary of his message:

"FOX News and perhaps other media that the Muslim Brotherhood, the illegal totalitarian political party has come out in Egypt and is openly promoting the overthrow of the Mubarak dictatorship that the U.S. supports financially and which government is the only boarding state to Israel which has a peace treaty with Israel. ...We can contact our government leaders and demand that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is already on the international terrorist list for Russia and other countries, have their name added by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General as a terrorist organization which has just proven itself in Egypt to engage in conduct dangerous to the welfare, safety, security of the United States while in their country, and is inadmissible in America under Title 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(F).

This will probably not occur since the State Department is currently in high level discussions to work with the Muslim Brotherhood, but it is important to make the public demand.

We can contact our Senators and Representatives and demand that they immediately pass a law forbidding support of the Muslim Brotherhood just as they forbid support for their military wing named Hamas...."

View current list of Signatories to the Briefing document.


Call To Action!!!

If you have been following the news, you have heard on FOX News and perhaps other media that the Muslim Brotherhood, the illegal totalitarian political party has come out in Egypt and is openly promoting the overthrow of the Mubarak dictatorship that the U.S. supports financially and which government is the only boarding state to Israel which has a peace treaty with Israel.

The news media and the State Department have said that stability under the Mubarak dictatorship is critical to the U.S. National interests and to International trade. Hamas is the military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is reasonable to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood will eventually, sooner if not later, take over control of Egypt. Although the Egyptian military is somewhat separate from the Mubarak ruling body, we have no idea how many Islamists have infiltrated their military. And they have a lot more Muslims in their military than we have.

A window of opportunity just opened this morning in which we can make a difference in just days.

We need to act now!

We can contact our government leaders and demand that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is already on the international terrorist list for Russia and other countries, have their name added by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General as a terrorist organization which has just proven itself in Egypt to engage in conduct dangerous to the welfare, safety, security of the United States while in their country, and is inadmissible in America under Title 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(F).

This will probably not occur since the State Department is currently in high level discussions to work with the Muslim Brotherhood, but it is important to make the public demand.

We can contact our Senators and Representatives and demand that they immediately pass a law forbidding support of the Muslim Brotherhood just as they forbid support for their military wing named Hamas.

We can contact the President and Demand he add the name of the Muslim Brotherhood to Executive Order 12947 created by President Clinton making it illegal to affiliate or support Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ, and other domestic enemies. He won't want to do this, but he might be forced to by political correctness.

Once any of these actions have taken place, I believe the illegality of supporting the MB will open the flood gates to prosecution of their affiliates including CAIR and the MSA. This will also be a precursor to a declaration of imminent danger from the Brotherhood when the potentially imminent take over the U.S. Consulate in Egypt occurs. Remember, it happened in Iran, and we had been giving the Shaw a great deal of money to buy him off prior to the Shia takeover.

I believe that many of the Brotherhood front organizations will disappear or at least go underground just as occurred with the American Bund (American Nazis) when America entered the war.

Should a member of Congress vote not to make all support for the Brotherhood illegal due to the Brotherhoods public instigation through the mosques in Egypt of religious based violence and government over throw, then the Congressperson can legally be identified by the term that was coined by al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The term used worldwide to identify a Muslim who supports Muslim Brotherhood political ideology is "Islamist". If our Congress does not end support the Muslim Brotherhood, those who vote to continue to allow support by not banning the organization may reasonably be publically named "Islamist Collaborator". As an act of political correctness and self preservation I believe we can persuade our Legislators to legally name the Muslim Brotherhood as a Domestic Enemy. That legal identification has significant implications in our fight to stop the spread of sharia in America and in the implication of Title 18 terrorism legislation.

I invite everyone's input as I begin my personal plans to include this information within the forthcoming Briefing distribution, and to begin promoting within our network that people demand action on the part of our President and Legislators to make all support for the Muslim Brotherhood illegal under:

  • Executive order 12947 making it illegal to affiliate or support named domestic enemies.

  • U.S. Patriot act HR3162 Subtitle B — Section 411 which makes it unlawful to represent political (Muslim Brotherhood), social or similar groups, whose public endorsements of terrorist activities undermines our efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorism.

  • 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(D)(V)(bb) Illegal membership in totalitarian party. In general any person who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible. The totalitarian political party named the Muslim Brotherhood is based in Egypt and is leading the efforts to overturn a government supported by America.

Please send me your personal thoughts. There is little time to develop this strategy and I would appreciate hearing everyone's thoughts as I formulate my personal strategy and actions.

Mark Hass
Director, EducateUSA

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Richad Swier, January 29, 2011.

I have been reading about the turmoil in Tunisia, Sudan, Egypt and Albania. Many pundits have speculated on the reasons for this violence and its final outcomes. Let me add my humble comments to the many voices speaking about what is happening globally and how it will impact U.S. foreign policy and our great ally Israel.

I titled this column "Islam Rising" because I believe we are witnessing the beginnings of a much more militant and radical civilizational Islam.

I have been reading Samuel P. Huntington's seminal work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order published in 1996. Huntington presents a view of the post Cold War world that pits civilizations rather than nations against one another. Huntington foresaw civilizational conflicts defined primarily by religious/cultural differences. He divided the world into seven, and a possible eighth, civilizations: (i) Western, (ii) Latin American, (iii) Islamic, (iv) Sinic (Chinese), (v) Hindu, (vi) Orthodox, (vii) Japanese, and (viii) the African.

In a 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington wrote:

"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." [My emphasis]

This map portrays Huntington's global civilizational view. The Western civilization is in blue and Islamic civilization in green:

According to Huntington, this cultural organization contrasts the contemporary world with the classical notion of sovereign states. To understand current and future conflict, cultural rifts must be understood, and culture — rather than the State — must be accepted as the locus of war.

Western nations will lose predominance if they fail to recognize the irreconcilable nature of cultural tensions.

When you look at the above map you notice that all of the current violence is taking place within or on the fringes of the Islamic civilization. Since the end of World War II there have been two violent conflicts between Western civilization and the Sinic civilization (red in the above map) — Korea and Vietnam. All other significant conflicts since have been with and within the Islamic civilization. The list includes Afghanistan (both Russian and U.S. involvement), the Iran/Iraq war, multiple wars between various Muslim states and Israel, Bosnia, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Darfur, Pakistan, the invasion of Iraq and today violent confrontations in Tunisia, Sudan, Egypt and Albania. Albania has been dubbed by some as the Israel of the Caucuses.

While Huntington did not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations, I believe he set forth a descriptive hypothesis that is coming true.

Islam is becoming more modern, more militant, more anti-West, and more dangerous. The West has no solution but to fecklessly sit on the side lines and call for calm.

Unless and until the West unites we will continue to see the other six civilizations rise and act in their own best interests against us. As Samuel Huntington said in his book it is the "West against the rest". The West can no longer afford to squabble amongst ourselves. We must unite or fall by the wayside. Twice before Islam nearly toppled the West. Will this Third Jihad succeed? I worry that the West is not to big to fail and that is a legacy I do not want for my children and grandchildren.

As the Islamic civilization has modernized it has become more religiously fundamental and has rejected the Western ideals of democracy, free markets, civil rights, the rule of law, decentralized government and religious freedom.

All civilizations are not created equal, all civilizations are not good and all civilizations are not our friends. Diversity and multiculturalism work against us and favor those who would destroy us. The West is made up of many cultures living and working is piece together. Those who come to the West must embrace its ideals and assimilate into our culture. Islam does not and will not do that. We cannot live with a state within a state — it is the United West or nothing.

Contact Dr. Richard Swier by email at drswier@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 28, 2011.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il See more of his graphic art at

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, January 28, 2011.

Below, Carmel Gould analyses the Guardian's editorial line on the Palestine papers. It appeared yesterday in Just Journalism


On day three of the Palestine papers story Jonathan Freedland launched a staunch defence of The Guardian's right to publish the tranche of Palestinian-sourced documents, saying: 'once an organisation has been handed information like this, it either publishes it or it suppresses it. Those are the options. Which is why no news organisation worthy of the name would hesitate to release a trove of documents of this kind.'

The commentator further argues:

'Of course publication will have political consequences, even awkward ones. But that cannot be for journalists and editors to decide: their job is to find out what is happening and report it, as best they can. The consequences are for others to manage.'

Had such a clear editorial agenda at The Guardian not been so apparent in the framing of this story over the last four days, it might be easier to accept that the publication is merely acting as a conduit for information that they feel they are obliged to put into the public domain.

But it is hardly as though swathes of extracts have been strewn across the pages for readers to interpret for themselves. On the contrary, the vast majority of copy is Guardian analysis of what it has selected as being relevant to the reader.

Just Journalism made the effort to dig up the document in which Saeb Erekat is reported to have offered Israel 'the biggest Yerushalayim ever' (emphasised massively by The Guardian on the first day of coverage) and found that in the sentence immediately before, the Palestinian negotiator claimed that Israel was desperate for a two state solution, often more so that the Palestinians. Of course this never made it into any of Seumas Milne and Ian Black's cover to cover analysis.

Clearly, The Guardian has exploited these documents to push a specific agenda which goes far beyond 'find[ing] out what is happening and report[ing] it'.

The publication has shown itself irrefutably as anti-moderation and pro-maximalist. Despite its repeated claims to be in favour of a two-state solution, its editorial decisions all point to the something far less compromising.

Attacking the credibility of moderates

For a start, the editorial team has done as much as possible to discredit the Palestinian moderates, holding up any hint of compromise on their part as scandalous, no matter that even the Middle East correspondent at The Independent acknowledged that:

'Few of the concessions are exactly new, including the idea that to advance a two-state solution to the conflict some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem would be Israel's in return for a land swap elsewhere; or that descendants of the 700,000 Palestinian refugees that fled or were forced from their homes in the war of 1948 would be allowed compensation and/or resettlement in the new Palestine or in third countries rather than return, other than in token numbers, to their old homes in what is now Israel.'

Contrary to this reality, The Guardian consistently portrayed the Palestinian Authority as having secretly agreed to massive concessions which were never on the table. The leading article on day one described Palestinian leaders as 'weak, craven and eager to shower their counterparts with compliments' and willing to 'surrender' and 'sell' the Palestinian birthright.

By day three, they were hosting on its pages a pro-suicide bombing, pro-annihilationist Hamas leader to set out his faction's intentions to 'regain the initiative' with 'practical measures' in response to this 'treason' by their opponents.

Combined with its insistence that, 'Palestinian negotiators should speak for the widest possible spectrum of Palestinian opinion' and that a permanent deal depends upon 'popular consent', there is a strong sense that what The Guardian is actually arguing for is a more demanding Palestinian position less willing to compromise, roughly translated as more Hamas and less Palestinian Authority.

Opposing a Jewish state

The Guardian's second Palestine papers editorial, 'Despair. But we still need a deal' contends:

'Rather than attack the messenger, people should see the Palestine papers as a chance to put the search for a durable two-state solution back on track. Let there be no doubt. A two-state solution remains the only show in town.'

However, the front page of that same edition, and the first two-page spread that followed, clearly communicated to readers that The Guardian does not envisage one of those two states being Jewish.

Directly under the lead headline, 'Revealed: how Palestinian leaders gave up on refugees,' one of the key findings listed was 'Negotiators accepted Israel as 'Jewish state''. The first paragraph tells readers:

'PLO leaders also accepted Israel's demand to define itself as an explicitly Jewish state, in sharp contrast to their public position.'

The main headline on the next page screams, 'Palestinians agreed to Israeli demand for a 'Jewish state'' and explains to readers, 'Palestinian Authority leaders publicly reject any ethnic or religious definition of Israel, and it is fiercely opposed by many of Israel's own Palestinian citizens.'

Quite clearly, even if Palestinian moderates accept Israel as a Jewish state, The Guardian does not. Its handling of this issue demonstrates the extent to which, even though it calls for the founding of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, it still expects Israel to absorb an unspecified number of Palestinians into its state and to desist from identifying as Jewish lest it offend its own sizeable Palestinian minority.

This view has been detectible in The Guardian in the recent past but never has it been made so obvious. Having said that, at no point anywhere in the excess of thirty articles published in the print edition over the last four days, has the publication laid its cards on the table and explicitly stated that it is against Israel defining itself or being accepted as a Jewish state.

It might be in everyone's interests for The Guardian to do just that in its next Israel-Palestine focused editorial. This news organisation should no longer flaunt itself as a backer of a two-state solution when it does not envisage a Jewish state existing peacefully alongside a Palestinian state.

It needs to choose whether it wants to continue to promote rejectionism of Jewish self-determination in Israel and encourage a more hardline Palestinian stance, or whether it is in favour of a settlement which addresses both peoples' national aspirations. It cannot have it both ways.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, January 28, 2011.

U.S. Border Patrol agents captured a radical Muslim cleric attempting to sneak into the United States across the California-Mexican border this morning.

Said Jaziri was discovered hiding in a Mexican registered BMW. The terrorism supporting cleric has been banned from France and Canada, as well as the United States, police sources told the Law Enforcement Examiner.

Jaziri, who gained notoriety when he ordered his followers to "execute" the controversial Danish cartoonist who drew pictures of the prophet Mohammed, was arrested, as was the BMW's driver Kenneth Robert Lawler.

Jaziri, 44, had been deported from Canada to Tunisia in 2007 after Canadian immigration officials discovered that he had fabricated statements on his refugee application. Prior to that he had been imprisoned in France on terrorism-related charges.

While serving as Imam at a Wahabbi mosque in Montreal, Canada, Jaziri advocated civil unrest and the institution of Sharia law in Canada and the U.S. His detractors accused him of attempting to incite civil unrest among the Islamic population is Canada.

He also advocated stoning of homosexuals, whom he branded diseased.

In 2006, he led protests over cartoonist Kurt Westergaard's illustrations that satirized Islam and were published in a Danish newspaper and later other publications and Internet web sites.

After the Canadian government deported him he alleged police and intelligence agents physically and mentally tortured him during the flight from Montreal to Tunisia. His deportation case garnered him support from the Muslim community as well as Amnesty International when he claimed he would be tortured forcibly returned to Tunisia.

According to Border patrol sources, Jaziri had allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling ring thousands of dollars to sneak him across the border. He told the "coyotes" that he wished to be taken somewhere secure in the United States.

He reportedly told U.S. law enforcement officials he had flown from Africa to Europe and then to Central America and finally Chetumal, Mexico, at which point he traveled by jitney bus to the Mexican border town of Tijuana.

Counterterrorism experts believe that radical Muslims and Islamic terrorists routinely sneak into the U.S. across the Southwest border since many of them are indistinguishable from Mexican illegal aliens.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, January 28, 2011.

Yet another New York Times Op.-Ed. (Nicholas Noe, 1/28) urges Israel to sacrifice national security for a dubious peace treaty. Here Israel is to sacrifice the Golan and more to Syria, as if that would save Lebanon. We will see that the essay rests on misleading statements, unsupported assumptions, and misguided notions of the Levant.

The thesis here is that in return for the Golan, Syria would stop sending arms to Hizbulllah. The anticipated result is that Hizbullah would be unable to mount a major assault on Israel.

The premises are faulty: (1) Hizbullah already has 40,000 rockets; (2) Iran airlifts arms into Lebanon; (3) Since Syria claims not only Lebanon but also Jordan and Israel, the Golan would not buy it off. Indeed, Syria has tightened its alliance with Iran. Handing the Golan to Syria is like feeding a lamb to a lion. For a while, the lion digests. Then the lion gets hungry again. It forgets any gratitude for the previous feeding.

After considerable stage-setting, the Op.-Ed. blames Lebanon's current problems on President Bush for failing to address "the concerns held by many Lebanese" — that Israel still occupied Lebanese territory and that the country needs a stronger national defense.

Perhaps Bush should have addressed those concerns. Would the Arabs believe the truth, that Israel does not attack Lebanon unless Lebanese attack Israel, so Lebanon does not need a stronger defense? The Op.-Ed. should have rejected holding Western policy hostage to Arab concerns. Stated Arab concerns are taken too seriously, as if credible.

The credible context here is regional hegemony and jihad. The big Muslim countries in the area vie for regional hegemony or influence. Syria wants Iranian help in controlling its sub-region. Iran wants regional and then global hegemony in behalf of jihad.

Jihadists are as duplicitous as were its fellow imperialistic, totalitarian, antisemitic patrons, the Nazis and Communists. Arab "concerns" are cultivated by rulers to rouse masses and blackmail unbelievers. Fanatics do not have genuine grievances; they manufacture them as pretexts for further demands. Under the preposterous allegation that weak Poland was committing aggression against them, the Nazis and Soviets jointly invaded Poland, setting off the main European theater of WWII.

Jihad keeps the masses in a state of religious paranoia. Since Islam holds that it is entitled to world conquest, it is aggrieved by anything short of submission to it. Why sympathize with that? Arab grievances are endless. The basic Western misunderstanding (often flavored with anti-Zionism) is that making concessions to the Arab side mollifies it and can make it peaceful. The same misunderstanding led to disastrous concessions to the Nazis and Communists. Shall we keep repeating such mistakes!

Likewise, Hizbullah claims of Israeli occupation and "defending" Lebanon are a pretext for demanding land and for "defending" Lebanon by keeping its illegal militia and attacking Israel. However, the UN, no friend of Israel, surveyed the border and found Israel was not occupying it.

Next the Op.-editors attribute to Bush's policy "a botched Israeli invasion" and popularity for Hizbullah. That is misleading. First, Hizbullah had attacked Israel, as had prior Lebanese factions and governments. Failure to mention jihadist aggression renders the whole Op.-Ed. suspicious.

It would be fairer to state that Bush's encouragement of freedom helped motivate Lebanese to free themselves. He encouraged Israel to fight back and destroy Hizbullah's menace to Lebanon. If Israel had succeeded, wouldn't Bush have been seen as vindicated?

Israel did botch its response. Its failure was more than poor military preparation. The Olmert-Livni-Peretz regime was defeatist. It lacked will, the West's most vulnerable reaction to jihad. The government did not want to strike hard, fast, and fully, to destroy Hizbullah once and for all.

The UN proposed the usual ceasefire intended to deny Israel victory. That's what the UN is for, isn't it? Israeli Foreign Minister Livni embraced the ceasefire as an achievement, but it left Hizbullah half intact and under conditions guaranteed to let Hizbullah rearm. She still praises her work. So much for the sagacity and integrity of Israeli leaders!

The ceasefire relied on UNIFIL to prevent Hizbullah rearmament. But UNIFIL was notorious for letting or assisting terrorists get at Israel, and barring Israeli retaliation. The ceasefire required UNIFIL to get permission from the Lebanese Armed Forces where to patrol. Everybody pretended that the reluctant UNIFIL was earnest and that the Lebanese Armed Forces were not allies of Hizbullah, despite evidence to the contrary. UNIFIL reported no Hizbullah violations, while Hizbullah multiplied its rockets four-fold and planted them in dozens of villages. UNIFIL heard no evil, saw no evil, and spoke not about evil.

What is the solution? The authors suggest reconvening Syria-Israel negotiations. Prior negotiations, they assert, almost succeeded in disarming Hizbullah. (How can they be sure, considering that Syria violated the Security Council resolution against letting arms go to Hizbullah?) No agreement reached, because Israeli PM Barak was unable to "hand over to Syria the last few hundred yards of shoreline" of Lake Kinneret, bordering the Golan.

The authors might have acknowledged that the shoreline never was part of Syria. Syria had seized it and held it until Israel was able to regain that part of its sovereign territory. The issue was not a mere "few hundred yards" but the opportunity for Syria to drain or pollute Israel's main water reservoir. Why omit crucial facts like those?

Suggestions to negotiate ignore the insincerity of the jihadists. When Israel offers one concession, the Arab side demands another. Then the West urges the "two sides," really meaning Israel, to bridge the remaining gap. There's always a gap and Israel always is expected to close it. Hearing such suggestions, most recently from the Obama administration, which claims to understand Islam, the Arab side hardens its heart. That is what religious fanatics do.

But there are greater flaws in the editors' reasoning. They misrepresent the whole issue. The issue is imperialism and jihad. Syria repeatedly committed aggression against Israel. Syria violates armistice agreements. Syria cannot be trusted to keep the peace after absorbing concessions made to it. Indeed, gaining the Golan Heights would deprive Israel of a natural tank barrier, early warning station, and of artillery positions within range of Damascus. It also would enable Syria to fire down the mountains into Israeli civilian areas, as those state terrorists had done before. The editors fail to adduce one bit of evidence that Syria would abide by an agreement. Why ask Israel not only to make a great sacrifice but also to take a great risk with a recidivist aggressor?

Pre-empting the question whether an Israeli pullout would endanger Israel, the authors cite various Israeli military leaders. Are they some of the same ones whose previous incompetence about Lebanon the authors earlier cited? Do the authors know that the Israeli Left cultivates generals as future candidates for political office, provided they adopt the leftist ideological line of appeasement of the Arabs? Relying on a political view, the Israeli military and political establishment almost let Syria and Egypt destroy Israel in 1973, by not preempting sneak attacks. Israel also made a fatal hesitation under pressure by the U.S., which Israelis thought was its ally. Citing Israeli military opinion is unpersuasive.

As with the Palestinian Arabs, pundits futilely try to resolve a religious conflict with territorial measures. Again, the problem is Islamic jihad. Islam permits temporary agreements with non-believers, until the Muslims can overcome them. Nevertheless, pundits keep pinning their hopes on new treaties. The example of the PLO violating the Oslo Accords since 1993 in serious ways that show belligerent intent fails to daunt the peace treaty idealists. Or are they idealists? By what ideals do they always champion Arab dictators and aggressors at Israel's expense?

Egypt and Jordan violate their treaty provisions for normalizing relations with Israel. Both engage in diplomatic war with Israel, and boycott it. Egypt long allowed arms to be smuggled from its territory into Gaza. As terrorists attack Egypt, too, Egypt may review its policy on smuggling.

Coming upon the authors' claim that Hizbullah has a "mission to liberate Jerusalem, one is struck by its falsity and bias. In self-defense, Israel liberated the Old City of Jerusalem from oppressive, discriminatory, and backward Arab rule. Israel allows Christians as well as Muslims freedom of worship there. Muslims need liberation from their own rulers — as recent riots demonstrate — not from Israel.

The article ends by demanding U.S. pressure on Israel to withdraw. Nothing convincing explained why the Arabs would make peace.

A good case can be made, in theory, for withdrawal from the Golan — Syrian withdrawal. If Syria withdrew from the rest of the Golan, Israel would have such secure borders that war would be much less likely.

Israel withdrew before, from: (1) Gaza, which became a terrorist base that bombards Israel; (2) Southern Lebanon, which became a terrorist base that bombarded Israel and threatens to devastate it, in concert with allies; (3) Parts of Judea and Samaria and from checkpoints there, leading to greater terrorism; and (4) After the 1957 war, from Sinai, used for invading Israel a decade later. Now it is used for smuggling arms into Gaza.

There is something bizarre or suspect in the stream of Op.-Eds. demanding, without stating the whole truth, withdrawals and concessions by the Israeli victims of aggression and in behalf of fanatical Arab imperialists with designs on the whole world. The world would not live happily ever after. And Israel is not the cause of Mideast instability, where the current spread of rioting arises from internal conditions.

There is something odder when Americans are among those demanding U.S. pressure on behalf of jihadists. The U.S. is fighting in two theaters against jihadists. Jihadists attack the U.S.. Have we not learned from those attacks that jihad is international, and that we must oppose jihad everywhere we can and not oppose defense against it by our ally, Israel? I smelled the smoke of 9/11. Have other Americans already forgotten it?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, January 28, 2011.

A special women's unit within the banned radical group Muslim Brotherhood is operating in Egypt and possibly other Arab nations.


The troubling political and civil turmoil today in Egypt, while cloaked in the rhetoric of reform, is an impending victory for the terrorists of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood.

What appears to be solely a male uprising, a special women's unit within the banned radical group Muslim Brotherhood is operating in Egypt and possibly other Arab nations, according to a counterterrorism report obtained by the Terrorism Committee of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

The report states that when the deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mahmoud Ezzat, was arrested with other members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated group, investigators uncovered evidence of a group of women who serve as "mules" to deliver messages and act as messengers for the terrorist group.

According to Middle East reports, the secret "sisterhood' is being likened to a group of female terror group members that operated in the 1960s, especially in operations targeting Israel.

Sayyid Qutb, an early Brotherhood leader, taught that Muslim society had turned its back on Islam and had to return to its roots. He advocated violent revolution in order to overthrow secular governments and restore Islamic rule. He was captured, tried and executed by the Egyptian government in 1966.

While the group itself is outlawed in Egypt, security experts say that individual members of the ultra-secret Muslim Brotherhood may be among the candidates running for government office in the recent national elections in 2010.

The women's secret unit was created much in the same way that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded, according to U.S. intelligence sources.

While the radical Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, it is praised by many Egyptians and government officials wink at its continuing activism. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood's candidates, who can only stand as independents, won 88 seats (20% of the total) to form the largest opposition bloc, despite many violations of the electoral process, including the arrest of hundreds of Brotherhood members. Meanwhile, the legally approved opposition parties won only 14 seats. This revived the debate within the Egyptian political elite about whether the Brotherhood should remain banned.

The history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt following its founding in 1928 has been one of huge growth followed by successive government crackdowns.

Both royal and nationalist Egyptian governments suppressed the Brotherhood in 1948, 1954, 1965 after plots, or alleged plots, of assassination and overthrow were uncovered. Periodic suppressions have continued even after the Brotherhood officially renounced violence in the 1970s.

Today it is illegal but tolerated as Egypt's most popular and powerful non-governmental organization, according to security experts.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, January 28, 2011.

This is from Jim Hutchens.


Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat said:

"Can you imagine that you accept for the sake of peace to have Jews as citizens with full rights in Palestine like Arab Israelis? Can you imagine that I have changed my DNA and accepted a situation in which Jews become citizens having the rights that I and my wife have. Can you imagine that this will happen one day?"

God says:

"Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be faint-hearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. For the Yahweh your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory." "I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me." — [Deuteronomy 20:3-4; 32:41].

The Jerusalem Connection says:

You can certainly believe a Palestinian when he says his DNA will not change regarding the Jews. The hatred is visceral, irreversible and drummed into every Palestinian child. If ever there is a Palestinian state it will be, by their own declaration, a racist state, ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Yet Israel today has Arabs who enjoy all the privileges of Israeli citizenship. There are Arabs in Israel's Knesset, there is even an Arab justice on Israel's Supreme Court. The naïve notion of a Palestinian state living in peace next to the State of Israel is a dysfunctional delusion that exists only in the minds of out-of-touch Westerners. As the Roman Vegetius said,"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.": "He who desires peace must prepare for war."

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, January 28, 2011.

I often highlight the courage and true friendship of the Consul General of Azerbaijan in Los Angeles. It was a very contentious time for Israel, and I was invited for a celebration of the Azeri Independence Day. The Consul General, without any hesitation or fear, highlighted Azerbaijan's close cooperation with Israel, mentioning Israel by name.

The Consul General gained my eternal gratitude, for everyone else was afraid to even mention the name "Israel" lest they be accused of (or catch) something bad. It was the most politically incorrect thing to do, and the Consul General, a diplomat, threw all caution to the wind and stood by us — when it counted most. It was not youthful indiscretion or mischievous experimentation — he actually meant what he said.

Later, during Operation Cast Lead (December, 2008 — January, 2009), Israel was again constantly maligned. The primary focus was Israel's supposed "disproportionality," only if Israel were to be "proportional," some 8,000 (or twice or thrice that many) rockets were to hit Gaza, obliterating it into non-being.

Who stood at Israel's side then? Of all the nations of the world, it was Egypt. Not because of the peace treaty Israel has with Egypt, a very cold one. Rather because the Egyptians know the soul, substance and behavior of the Gazans. They know the threats by the Hamas regime that now controls the area and the dangers of its continued expansion.

Something happened in 2011 that was not anticipated at all. Tunisia fell, its leader escaping to Saudi Arabia. "The Power of the Masses," was the new slogan. The unrest spread like fire to Jordan, Egypt, even Yemen. In the blink of an eye, the map of the Middle East is reshaping, reforming; a new monster is emerging.

President Mubarak of Egypt was taken by surprise. Not only is his health shaky, his reign may come to an end with a wave of a hand, the hand of the masses who went to the streets.

So far the army has remained loyal to Mubarak, the disturbances seem to be "under control." A tilting point may be reached, sneak upon us unannounced and clearly unexpected, when the forces protecting the current regime may just join the masses. If this were to happen, the Middle East would fall, like a house of cards, and a new hegemony would emerge, the Iranian Octopus.

President Obama and his administration are talking about "not taking sides," but they have done exactly that, by denouncing the "disturbances," and calling for steps to calm the situation down.

The protests, we understand, have allowed the Obama administration to foster a grand delusion of America leading the world into a period of Global Democracy. A post-Enlightenment notion of nonsense that has no relations to the ground, reality that is detached from facts or rationality and a fictional story that supersedes the course of events, creating them. A great disconnect more dangerous than the unfolding events.

The Middle East neither respects nor can exist under democracy. Even Israel is loosing her battle to survive because life there is too good.

Secretary of State Clinton advised:

"Before I talk about our meeting today, I want to say a word about the protests taking place in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. As we monitor this situation carefully, we call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence. We support the universal rights of the Egyptian people, including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. And we urge the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media sites.

"We believe strongly that the Egyptian Government has an important opportunity at this moment in time to implement political, economic, and social reforms to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people."

Secretary Clinton should flip the pages of recent history, to 1978. A Democrat was our Commander in Chief. As he is still alive today, he will attest to the chain of events, although even the four decades since would not have impaired his ability to detach himself from any accountability to the consequences we are still experiencing.

It was at this time of year thirty two years ago that then President Carter called for the ruler (King) of Iran, the late Shah, to do just that: a bit more democracy, a bit more freedoms, a bit less harshness and less Savak (secret police). It was the American present for Christmas.

It was Carter's calls and pressure on a friend of the USA, the late Shah, which brought the messiah on the white donkey out of exile and back to Iran. The seed for all that we know today to grow, Ahmadinejad, the Mullahs, and the race to develop nuclear and other more devastating arms, control the world and establish an Islamic caliphate, was planted then, watered and fed with an overdose of nutrients. How successfully devastating this experiment was!

So now, an American President once again calls for the relaxation of "human rights abuses," for greater freedoms and a less strong hand, in an area that understands nothing but a firm fist forcefully applied.

It is now Israel's turn — and deep responsibility — to stand with Mubarak, and extend whatever help is necessary — officially and behind the scenes.

If Egypt falls, there will be little to stop the Muslim Octopus from suffocating the world — and Israel is not in the best condition to be standing alone to block its way.

The series "Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel" by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century. Contact Norma Zager and Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Maayana Miskin, January 28, 2011.

Egypt is bracing for major riots Friday, with demonstrations planned throughout the country after Friday morning prayers. Three people were killed this week in the largest demonstrations in Egypt in 25 years.

The major protests follow the recent successful revolt in Tunisia. Demonstrators are calling on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down from power and allow open and fair elections.

The country's four primary Internet providers all cut service shortly after midnight. Mobile phone signals were disrupted as well, in an apparent attempt by authorities to make it more difficult for protesters to organize or to get footage of the demonstrations out of the country.

Organizers have switched to contacting friends abroad on landlines. Footage and reports from protests earlier in the week were online almost instantly as demonstrators updated their pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook while riots were ongoing.

Muslim Brotherhood Joins the Fray

The latest government crackdown may be a response to the Muslim Brotherhood's announcement on Thursday that it will join Friday's demonstration. The Brotherhood is Egypt's largest opposition group, and its participation could give the counter-government rallies new strength.

One Brotherhood leader told reporters, "Tomorrow is going to be the day of the intifada." He predicted that many of the Brotherhood's younger members, some as young as 15, would take part in Friday's demonstrations.

Leading opposition member Mohamed ElBaradei has also thrown his weight behind the protests.

Overthrow Planned in Detail

According to a report in the Hebrew-language daily Maariv, Mubarak has reason for concern, as those organizing the demonstrations have planned his overthrow in detail. Documents spelling out how to revolt against the administration reportedly include satellite images of strategic sites and major intersections.

The documents, given to activist leaders, also include instructions on how to seize Mubarak's presidential palace, television and radio stations, and the seats of local government throughout the country, according to the report.

Maayana Miskin writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com), where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jeff Dunetz, January 27, 2011.

This one is pretty important to me, not because of whether I support or don't support Glenn Beck but because It makes me sick when clergy misuse their titles for political purposes. It is archived at
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/01/ jewish-funds-for-justice-goes-after.


As the Torah says Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people (Lev. 19:16). The ancient Jewish Sages took that passage and said that there are three transgressions that would cause a man to lose his place in the world to come: murder, adultery, and idol worship, and that loshon hora (evil speech) is equivalent to all three (Bab. Erchin 15b). Jews believe that the harm done by telling tales about people is worse than the harm done by something like theft because one can repay stolen money, but harm done by speech can never be repaired.

In today's Wall Street Journal, four-hundred Rabbis joined with a socialist Jewish organization called Jewish Funds for Justice (JFJ) to bring shame upon themselves, their holy profession and the entire Jewish people, and even worse have committed a Chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name) with an open letter to Fox News against Glenn Beck (the full ad is embedded below).

The letter states, "In the charged political climate in the current civic debate, much is tolerated, and much is ignored or dismissed. But you diminish the memory and meaning of the Holocaust when you use it to discredit any individual or organization you disagree with. That is what Fox News has done in recent weeks, and it is not only 'left-wing rabbis' who think so."

Mr. Beck's three-day series defaming Holocaust survivor George Soros sparked the letter from rabbis. At that time, Mr. Beck claimed Mr. Soros survived the Holocaust as 14-year-old boy by collaborating with the Nazis to send other Jews to the death camps. Mr. Beck said, that Mr. Soros "used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off. And George Soros was part of it. He would help confiscate the stuff. It was frightening. Here's a Jewish boy helping send Jews to the death camps."

Mr. Beck's three-day attack on Mr. Soros was hardly the first time he has misused the Holocaust to incite viewers. The rabbis' note Mr. Beck has made "literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterizing people with whom [Beck] disagree[s]." Beck routinely compares American leaders to Nazis, has likened his crusade against progressives to that of "Israeli Nazi Hunters," and has said that putting the "common good" first leads to "death camps."

In the face of mounting criticism by Jewish groups, Fox News chief Roger Ailes dismissed criticism of Mr. Beck in an interview with the Daily Beast as nothing more than "left-wing rabbis who basically don't think that anybody can ever use the word 'Holocaust' on the air."

We respectfully request that Glenn Beck be sanctioned by Fox News for his completely unacceptable attacks on a survivor of the Holocaust and Roger Ailes apologize for his dismissive remarks about rabbis' sensitivity to how the Holocaust is used on the air."

Loshen Hora is not permitted even when true, but in this case there is nothing to worry about because it's not true. I can guarantee you not one of these Rabbis are listeners of Beck, because if they were, they would know that he hadn't as the letter they signed said made, literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterizing people with whom [Beck] disagree[s]. According to Jewish law, if they sign a letter saying that Beck made hundreds of on air references they should see the proof. So I ask Rabbi Steven Wernick, Executive Vice President, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the movement of Judaism of which my family and I are members, where's the proof? To Rabbi Daniel Nevins, Dean, Jewish Theological Seminary Rabbinical School which recognized my wife and me for community service who also signed the letter, I ask: is this what you want to teach the rabbis of tomorrow? I invite any of the Rabbis who signed this letter did you watch the three day Soros series or did you just read the partial transcript sent to you? Did you know that almost everything that Beck said in those three days came directly out of the mouth of George Soros?

If any of these 400 rabbis has any proof for the charges you signed, contact me and show me the proof if you can — but they can't. Even worse, they didn't even ask for the proof before they lent their names to organized loshen hora.

The Jewish Fund for Justice is waging this battle against Glenn Beck as an agent of George Soros. The group receives significant funding Soros' Open Society Institute, which gave the organization $30,000 in 2008, $150,000 in 2009 and $200,000 in 2010, (H/T Ken Larrey). I wonder if any of the Rabbis who signed this letter knew the motivation, or that before Beck did his three day special on Soros, there was a meeting between senior staff of the two and Soros' guy warned Beck's not to do the expose? Of course not! A true rabbi would have called Beck and asked for his side; none did.

Soros' funding is only part of the story, the Jewish Funds for Justice' progressive message of redistribution of income and social justice, and the continued collective guilt of Whites (especially Men) is antithetical to Beck's call for personal (vs government) responsibility and charity, along with a constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity for all (as opposed to a guarantee of equal result).

On its website the Jewish Funds For Justice has a online library of articles, leadership and facilitation exercises, templates, and other helpful resources for you to utilize in your organizations. Feel free to download and share any of these materials.

An entire section of the library is about the "White Man" as the oppressor. A series of articles which say even if they don't know it, the Caucasian is a racist and an oppressor, which gives insight into their beliefs behind social justice. This position seems to echo some of the positions of Black Liberation Theology, which have been exposed by the Fox broadcaster. The thought that we are collectively guilty and our salvation will only come if we collectively repent against the social crimes that we have done.

For example, one of the articles in their library is called Male Privilege and White Privilege" by Peggy McIntosh

I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. This paper is a partial record of my personal observations and not a scholarly analysis. It is based on my daily experiences within my particular circumstances.

I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, code-books, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.

Another called The Culture of White Supremacy argues that the culture in the US is "White Culture" and that culture

...is intertwined with other major cultural manifestations of the is U.S: the greed competition and individualism of capitalism; male supremacist fear and hatred of the power of women; historical Christianity's hatred and fear of sexuality, and its compulsion to divide humankind into the "saved" and the "dammed;" and the militarism's glorification of war and conquests as proof of manhood and nationhood that has roots in European culture going back thousands of years.

White culture is a melting pot of greed, guys, guns and God. Its a deadly brew.

The document also claims that calls for people to take personal responsibility is just another way of keeping the non-White races inferior.

Many of the other documents in that section promote the same view that all Whites (especially White Men) are racist oppressors including:

* Systemic Racism, Injustice from Cradle to Grave
* Interview with Lani Guinier, Tracking the Miners Canary
* Being a Strong White Ally
* Basic Tactics
* Article: "Building Diversity in Organizations" by Tyra Sidberry
* A Few Thoughts on Racism and Leadership
* STAND UP: An Exercise on Oppression for Leaders
* Class Race Exercise
* Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing
* Quotations

With the belief that Whites continue to oppress the non-whites, it's no wonder they believe in Government-led social justice. The Government has to do it, because the Caucasian Man either wont or doesn't realize that he should.

JFJ has developed seminary programs to prepare rabbinical students for "the challenges of engaging their communities in the critical and profoundly Jewish work of meaningful social justice" — i.e., the redistribution of wealth. These seminary programs are outgrowths of JFJ's emphasis on "congregation-based community organizing" (CBCO), which is described by Benjamin Ross, JFJ's Director of Organizing, as "a social change strategy developed by Saul Alinsky." Aiming to "challenge [religious] congregations to address systemic issues relating to poverty and social injustice," this type of organizing is spearheaded by four major national CBCO networks: the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation, the PICO National Network, the Direct Action Research and Training Center, and the Gamaliel Foundation. JFJ works in partnership with local affiliates of each of these organizations.

Another part of the motivation behind the attacks is many of the key figures of the JFJ are involved with other organizations/people who have been exposed by Beck. For example:

* Rabbi David Saperstein, who is on the JFJ Board, serves on Obama's faith advisory board and served on many boards with of Rev. Jim Wallis who has also led attacks on Glenn Beck. Saperstein is also on the board of the People for the American Way Foundation, which was formed by the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation gets much of its funding from George Soros.

* Mik Moore Chief Strategy Officer at Jewish Funds for Justice is the former Deputy Political Director at SEIU Local 32B

* Until 2008 Simon Greer attended the residency program of the Windcall Institute, a project of the Common Counsel Foundation. Van Jones serves on the advisory board of the Windcall institute.

* Si Kahn who is on the board of JFJ was the founder and until last year the Executive director of Grassroots Leadership, which received $130,000 from Soros' Open Society Institute in 2008 (which was the latest tax return I could find).

Notice the pattern?

In the end what the Wall Street Journal ad today represents is a slander made by 400 Rabbis who did not even bother to check to see if what they were signing is true, driven by JFJ a political organizations whose politics run contra to those of Glenn Beck. Both the organization and its leadership are beholden to George Soros who sent a Representative to threaten Beck for his expose' and/or others who have campaigned against Glenn Beck. In other words, this "open letter" published in today's Wall Street Journal, is nothing but an attempt to slander someones name for political reasons.

I hope that the 400 rabbis who have committed this Loshen Hora, caused all of this shame and have desecrated the name of god Chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name) realize the error of their ways, not that their offense could ever be totally rectified.

As an old Chasidic tale teaches: A man once went around spreading lies about the rabbi. Eventually he began to feel remorse for the wrong he had done. He went to the rabbi and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything to make amends. The rabbi said, "Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds." The man followed the request gladly. When he told the rabbi that he had done the task, the rabbi said, "Now, go try and gather the feathers." The man said, "But Rabbi I cannot gather the feathers they are all scatter to the winds." The Rabbi replied, "Exactly! You cannot take back the damage your words have done, the same way you cannot than recollect the feathers."  

1/28 Update: A Note From Rabbi Steven Wernick, One of The 400 Rabbis Who Slandered Glenn Beck

In response to the article I wrote yesterday, Latest Attack on Glenn Beck Shames The Rabbinical Profession and Desecrates God's Name I received a Facebook note from Rabbi Steven Wernick who was not only one of the 400 rabbis signing the "open letter" against Glenn Beck, but his was one of the lead signatures, larger than the others used by Jewish Funds For Justice used to promote the advertisement. To read his note which seems to indicate that this Rabbi does not 'get it," along with my response — and videos — Click Here.

Contact Jeff Dunetz by email at jeff@jeffdunetz.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Teresinka Pereira, January 27, 2011.

Snow on the ground.

No stars to be seen.

Sadness comes

to stay,

and holds my eyelashes.


I won't dream of you.

Contact Teresinka Pereira by email at tpereira@buckeye-express.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, January 27, 2011.

Well organized and funded, Islamists are fastening their control over Lebanon and Turkey. They are evaluating new political opportunities in Egypt and Tunisia. Strong Islamist sentiment in Jordan risks its future.

The mainstream media speculate how far the peoples' and Islamists' revolts will spread. U.S. coddling of some despots impairs its standing.

There remains confusion over which countries are becoming Islamist. Less discussed are other ramifications for the U.S..

The U.S. has been giving hundreds of millions of dollars of military subsidy to the armed forces of Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, and Jordan. For a longer period, the U.S. has subsidized Egypt's military, more than $30 billion worth. Egypt was able to build a modern, first class military. No other country threatens Egypt militarily, but Egypt's military doctrine trains it to invade Israel through the Sinai.

Commentators warned the U.S. government of the danger to peace from a powerful Egyptian military that may fall into the hands of Islamists. Such warnings went unheeded. The U.S. is like a runaway train, racing to a crash and, to make the analogy more appropriate, is speeded up by thoughtless government or selfish lobbies.

The government and the military industry act as if America can indefinitely subsidize foreign governments that detest freedom or waste subsidy. Struggling to pay high taxes, Americans' small businesses may disagree.

Sometimes when dangerous subsidies are challenged, people counter withy doubts about U.S. subsidy for Israel. Israel, however, does not threaten peace or to regional stability. Israel has contributed to U.S. policy goals, first helping to contain the USSR and then to contain radical Islam, if the not always sage State Dept. permits it to.

People imagine that U.S. financial aid to Israel dwarfs U.S. subsidy to others. Actually, the U.S. now provides more money to Arab governments.

One report after another finds that U.S. aid gets embezzled by foreign officials or used to no effect. Economists believe that subsidy tends to undermine native initiative. They cite the example of sub-Sahara Africa, whose elites absorb and abscond with billions of dollars, while serious economic problems persist. Of course, one can cite examples of some aid going to local people to good effect. But not much of that overall.

An unfair element of U.S. aid is that the U.S. forgave Egypt's debt to it but not Israel's. Israel spends almost an equivalent amount on debt repayment as it gets from the U.S.

U.S. aid to Israel should be questioned. This aid comes with strings attached. One string obliges Israel to spend most of the money on U.S. military goods. Some of those goods are inferior to Israel's own. One example is cluster bombs. Israel's explode during an attack, but many of the U.S. cluster bombs exploded afterwards, by then set off by civilians. Israel got criticized for their use in Lebanon.

U.S. military aid to Israel amounts to a subsidy of U.S. industry and forcing a dependency upon Israel, at the expense of its own industry. Not wanting to reject free aid, Israel fails to object to U.S. aid to its Arab enemies, such as Egypt. (Keep your eye on Egypt's anti-Israel diplomacy and its military doctrine against Israel, not on its treaty with Israel that Egypt violates.)

Israel condones military aid to its enemies. It condones aid to Egypt, for example, lest, if Israel pressed for its termination, people would suggest that for balance, terminate aid to Israel. The suggestion would be specious. It makes a false analogy between Israel and Egypt. Egypt has been an aggressor and may resume aggression; Israel has been Egypt's victim. It is unjust to balance aggressors and victims.

Improper use of analogies reflects poor logic, exploited by demagogues and lobbyists. Israel ought to be able to explain the fallacy in the analogy, but appeases Egypt.

In any case, now that the U.S. economy is weaker and government funds are scarcer, foreign aid should be evaluated. What is counter-productive, stolen, or misused should be eliminated. Perhaps the new Congress will assess foreign aid. A hopeful sign is a congressional initiative to review U.S. donations to the UN human rights organization, controlled by abusers of human rights.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, January 27, 2011.

The United States proposed giving 'Palestinian' refugees land in South America to settle in, during a June 2008 meeting with Israeli and Palestinian Authority negotiators in Berlin, the British paper Guardian reported Thursday.

Condoleezza Rice, who was U.S. secretary of state under President George W. Bush, offered the idea as a way to bypass the PA's demand for the "return" of displaced Arabs and their progeny to the Land of Israel. During a discussion about international funding to compensate refugees, Rice said: "Maybe we will be able to find countries that can contribute in kind. Chile, Argentina, etc.."

"In kind" refers to land, according to the newspaper, which says that the proposal "seems based on the fact that Chile has a large Palestinian community dating back a century and, like Argentina, has large tracts of sparsely populated land." Next to the quotes, which were "not verbatim," appeared the initials CR. No one else in the meeting had those initials, exept for Rice.

The Guardian explained that the idea "flew in the face of Palestinian insistence that the refugees have the right to return to their ancestral land — a demand Israel has resisted since its foundation in 1948. Carving out a new Palestinian homeland 8,000 miles away in the Andes could theoretically reduce pressure on Israel to return land."

The paper noted that the proposal "appears to have been influenced by the transfer of 117 Palestinian refugees to Chile between March and April 2008, a few months before the Berlin meeting" and that it is "a twist on suggestions made in the last century to settle Jews in Madagascar and what is present-day Kenya."

Jewish colonies were also established in Argentina in the 19th century by the Jewish Colonization Association founded by Baron Maurice Hirsch, in an attempt to solve the "Jewish problem" that eventually failed. By 1930, at the peak of ICA settlement in Argentina, over 20,000 Jewiah colonists farmed approximately 500,000 hectares of land.

Chile has Latin America's largest Palestinian population — estimated at more than 200,000 — and previously accepted refugees from war-torn Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia.

This appeared today in Arutz-7 (www.israelnationalnews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, January 27, 2011.

For first time, commandos discuss takeover of Turkish ship. Medical officer: We made every effort to care for and save lives of injured rioters, and when I say every effort — I mean it.'

This was written by Hanan Greenberg and it is archived at
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-4019111,00.html


Following the publication of the Turkel Committee report into the events surrounding the Turkish flotilla to Gaza, senior officers from the Israeli navy addressed the committee's findings and the events aboard the Mavi Marmara ship. They told the navy's official website that each and every thing the commandoes did was necessary.

"The Marmara incident was heroic," Lieutenant Colonel D. a veteran operations officer in the elite commando unit stated. "I am proud to be associated with an operation like this, in which people operated with true heroism. Our mission was to tie up six ships and bring them into harbor — and all six ships were in the Ashdod harbor by morning."

In a conversation with Ynet, military sources expressed their satisfaction with the committee's findings. They determined that had the commandos not operated as they did — the final results would have been more severe. "From my examinations, no commando unit the world would have been able to take over a ship with 700 people on board, some of whom were terrorists," said the navy's international policy officer, who was responsible for the diplomatic aspects of the operation.

"The IHH, which was the chief organizer of the Turkish flotilla, is an extremist organization and its people were very organized and went on board with an unambiguous goal — to kill IDF soldiers, there is no other explanation. We didn't surprise them, we announced that we were coming on deck, they knew everything, there was no secretive aspect, and we arrived on helicopters.

"We thought there would be a reasonable amount of resistance, which is why the commandos were armed with crowd dispersal equipment and with a firearms for emergencies. When they got on the ship, the passengers came at them with knives, axes, clubs and daggers, so there was no doubt about what they had in mind. Not to injure but to kill. They came to kill. There is no other way to interpret axes and knives," said the officer.

The corps' medical officer and the officer in charge of the commandos' doctors, Lieutenant Colonel Dr. A discussed the operation: "In the operation's medical plan, just as in any medical plan, we raised the risk factors by a few levels, which is why I can't remember a navy operation that involved so many senior doctors and the amount of medical equipment...there was never a question of whether to care for the rioters or not," said Dr. A.

"The commandos made every effort to care for and save the lives of the injured rioters, and when I say every effort — I mean it."

The medical team estimates that "the lives of seven rioters were saved and medical complications were avoided in the cases of 12 rioters. In total, 55 wounded passengers received different levels of medical care."

During the takeover the commandos passed through the ship's sections and discovered more wounded people, which created a new problem. "In addition to the fact that some of the rioters refused to cooperate with the commando forces, they were literally hiding the wounded and we needed to actively search the ship for more wounded," revealed Dr. A.

"There was one case where a soldier told them 'listen, there are wounded people here. I want to save their lives, let me save their lives,'" the IDF doctor recalled.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadassah Levy, January 27, 2011.
This was written by Aryeh Tepper and it is archived at http://www.jidaily.com/seed.

Until modern times, the boundaries of Jewish identity were cut and dried. If you were born to a Jewish mother, or if you were a convert according to Jewish religious law (halakhah), you were Jewish. If not, you weren't. But during the course of the 20th century, the traditional definitions came to be outstripped by the high rates of intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews in the Diaspora.

Now, because of these developments in the Diaspora, and especially in the former Soviet Union, the problem of intermarriage has penetrated the Jewish state as well. According to the Law of Return, anyone with a Jewish grandfather can immigrate to and claim citizenship in Israel — which is what, during the 1990's, hundreds of thousands of former Soviet citizens did: individuals who identified themselves as Jews for purposes of the Law of Return but who were not Jewish according to halakhic criteria. These new Israelis have become part of Israeli society, serving in the army, studying at colleges and universities, integrating into the workforce — and marrying other Israelis. At the turn of the 21st century, what is to be done about this phenomenon?

By and large, Israeli leaders, both political and religious, have failed to respond to the problem or have responded in unhelpful ways, either by choosing to ignore it, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, by demanding wholesale conversion according to the most stringent and uncompromising religious standards. One brave exception is Rabbi Haim Amsalem, a member of the Knesset from the Shas political party.

In 2010, Amsalem published a massive Hebrew-language work, Zera Yisrael ("The Seed of Israel"), arguing that, when it comes to the non-Jewish descendants of Jews, things really are not all that cut and dried. Bringing to bear a host of authoritative sources, Amsalem persuasively demonstrates that such persons may be seen as falling under the little-known but legally valid category that gives his book its title. They might not yet be Jewish, but through their origins they are still definitely connected to the Jewish people, and this connection has important ramifications.

The most immediately relevant ramification, for Amsalem, is that these non-Jewish descendants of Jews should not only be encouraged to convert, but that the standards for their conversion should be relatively lenient:

They need clearly to commit themselves to at least behaving like "traditional" Jews. This means completely leaving their previous religion, denying idolatry, observing the fast on Yom Kippur, refraining from eating hametz on Passover, keeping kosher, lighting Shabbat candles, wearing tefillin (ritual phylacteries), and so forth.

From the perspective of ultra-Orthodox authorities, Amsalem's claim is utter nonsense; according to them, being Jewish means punctiliously observing all of the commandments. For his pains, Amsalem has been viciously attacked by the ultra-Orthodox press, and declared persona non grata by his political party. And yet, as he shows, the ultra-Orthodox are not the only authorities; on the issue of conversion, the authoritative Jewish legal tradition is far broader than contemporary ultra-Orthodox ideology allows.

Special attention should be paid to Amsalem's invoking of "traditional" Jewry. While it may be customary to divide Jews into two camps, the secular and the religious, a 2002 survey of Israeli Jews revealed that most are neither the one nor the other but something in-between. That something is characterized by a love of tradition together with a commitment to individual freedom. This tolerant and rather Middle Eastern stance, which honors the weightiness of religion, but from a distance, and observes the commandments, but not all of them and not all the time, is what goes by the name of "traditional."

Amsalem would require that newly converting Jews from among the recent immigrants conform to the practices of this segment of Israeli society. After all, these are people who are likely to marry "traditional" Israeli Jews, and it was out of concern for the welfare of both groups that Amsalem composed his book in the first place. That, and the desire to preempt the demands of religious liberals who would replicate the ruling of American Reform Judaism according to which Jewish identity can be passed down through patrilineal descent. That particular response to the problem of intermarriage has further confused an already perplexing situation by creating a branch of the Jewish people that much of the Jewish world doesn't recognize as Jewish; implementing it in the Israeli context would be equally if not more disastrous.

Amsalem's own political future is uncertain. Even as he has paid a price for his views within his former party, he has also become a kind of folk hero for many religious-Zionist, traditional, and even secular Jews. But wherever he ends up, he remains committed to advancing his vision for conversion, and he has much of the public behind him.

Moreover, it is not only from a legal perspective that the concept of the "seed of Israel" can be seen as a potential opportunity in meeting the challenges facing Israel and world Jewry. Around the world, there are non-Jewish descendants of Jews who feel an affinity for Israel and the Jewish people even if they have no intention of immigrating or converting. They include the Bnei Anusim, descendants of Spanish and Portuguese "crypto-Jews" forced to convert to Catholicism in the 14th and 15th centuries, and the hidden Jews of Poland who since the fall of the Soviet Union have become interested in learning about the Jewish dimension of their identity.

The only organization that has recognized the benefit of reaching out to such individuals is Shavei Israel, best known for helping descendants of the "Ten Lost Tribes" who are eager to return to the Jewish people. For Michael Freund, who heads Shavei Israel, it is a shame that no one has been actively engaging with such groups — who, whatever their status, hunger for a connection, whether intellectual, cultural, literary, or spiritual, with the Jewish people. For them, too, the notion of "The Seed of Israel" could function as powerful stuff, strengthening their commitments and motivating their loyalties.

Amsalem and Freund share a view of the future that is long-term and strategic. One hopes others will become convinced to take a similar view

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 27, 2011.

A story as convoluted and involved as the one involving the Al-Jazeera leaks is bound to be ongoing, with many takes, and many corollaries.

There is far too much to belabor, but I would like to address a few points:

On Tuesday, Saeb Erekat, in defending himself against the leaks, said that "[Al Jazeera has] twisted the words and distorted the truth."

One of the claims made was that he had said he was prepared to do everything but convert to Zionism in order to secure an agreement with Israel. Erekat now responded that "I said this in the context of rejecting the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. I told Tzipi Livni that anybody who recognizes Israel as a Jewish state would be a Zionist, and I am not a Zionist, and this is not how Al Jazeera has attempted to portray this incident."

I myself find this sort of defense credible — a demonstration of context missing, text that is almost right but sounds much more problematic because of what has been left out.

Abbas's claim that some of the leaks are simply "forgeries" seems less credible in light of the fact that there is broad scale acknowledgement that real notes from meetings had been leaked.


The PA is now thoroughly engaged in self-defense, and is said to be considering suits against Al-Jazeera.

As had been predicted, Hamas is already using the leaks as a weapon against the PA:

Yesterday, Hamas urged Palestinians everywhere to "work towards isolating and besieging this despicable group." A series of mass protests is being organized for coming days.

A group of jihadist groups including Hamas (which is actually one of the more "moderate" of these groups) met in Gaza City and then released a statement saying that Abbas does not have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. Don't know quite what this means, for these groups never thought Abbas had such a mandate — this statement only has impact as its message reaches the population in the PA-controlled areas.


One of the things discussed in the leaks about which Hamas professes the most anger is the fact that PA security forces have cooperated with the IDF.

This has certainly been the case: the whole idea of cooperation, and then a pulling back to allow PA control, has been part and parcel of efforts to "strengthen" the PA and then move towards establishment of a state. (None of which is exactly cause for celebration.)

Although the PA has been far less forthcoming in its efforts than had been hoped — their forces are really unwilling to take out terrorists, while the PA provides a "revolving door" for said terrorists in its prisons — there have been sharing of intelligence and some joint operations.

Hamas says that the PA has provided coordination in "the killing of its own people." (Most at issue is the Israeli assassination of Hassan al-Madhoun, a senior Fatah "activist" wanted by Israel for a number of terror attacks. According to the leaks, Shaul Mofaz, who was Israeli defense minister in 2005, had discussed the possibility of assassinating al-Madhoun with Nasr Youssef, who was then PA interior minister.)

The PA is now denying that any cooperation has ever existed.


With this, my friends, we have point blank evidence for the impossibility — with regard to security issues — of negotiating a "two state solution."

Were Israel to pull back, we would need to know that the Palestinian state at our eastern border was a sovereignty based on law and order that would restrain or take out or arrest and prosecute terrorists bent on doing damage to Jews. But such would not be the case.

It is considered a betrayal of considerable consequences to interfere with the actions of a "brother," even if that person is a jihadist, intent on illegal and murderous actions against Jews.

As I write this, I can hear some people protesting that there would be no more terrorists if there were no more "occupation." This I reject outright. Because the bottom line is that the radicals, the jihadists, are bent on destroying Israel completely. And there is no "negotiating partner" with the strength and the courage and the genuine conviction to stand against them. It is an impossibility.


What astounds me are all the journalists and pundits who are indulging in wishful thinking and declaring that the leaks show us that we really do have a partner for peace after all.

What balderdash this is.

For if the PA leaders find it necessary to deny having made concessions, and are on the defensive because the mere fact of such concessions can be used as a weapon to weaken them, how could it be imagined that they would ever come forward publicly and stand on a conciliatory negotiated settlement?


At this point I would like to answer a question posed to me by a couple of readers.

I had written in my last posting that:

"If Obama truly wants to see peace in this part of the world, he should table his efforts to get Abbas to the table...

"Obama's absolute priority should be stopping Iran in its destructive tracks and in increasing US deterrence in this part of the world.

"Does he have even a clue?"

My readers asked then, essentially, if I did not think Obama was doing what he was doing with conscious awareness rather than out of ignorance.


I answer thus:

Does Obama favor the Arab/Muslim world? Absolutely. I'm sure he'd love to be "best buddies" with the rulers of nations such as Saudi Arabia. Is he without genuine concern for Israeli security? Of course. Pushing us back to the '67 lines and putting a Palestinian Arab state at our eastern border would work quite well for him.

But he does have some goals. He wants to be a "hero": the president who sparked peace between Israel and the PA — or at least moved us along towards that end sufficiently so that he gains electorally and in other ways. And, yes, part of what he's after is establishing that Palestinian state.

My point was that he is oblivious to the broader context here, and the impossibility of achieving anything even resembling peace until the threat of Iran is removed from the equation — Iran, which foments radicalism via Hamas and Hezbollah. I see indications that he remains convinced that Abbas is a man seeking peace, and that he does not comprehend the radical nature of Palestinian Arab political discourse today, which would make it impossible to seek peace, even if Abbas truly wanted it. (See above.)

He pushes matters even further, insisting on seeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as central for our region, so that an Israeli-Palestinian Arab peace would have a ripple effect in pacifying the broader Middle East. And this is backwards.

I am not an advocate of a Palestinian state, certainly. But Obama, who does seem to want it, shows himself to be clueless with regard to how to properly foster it.


Obama is by far the most left-wing president the US has ever had, and his thinking conforms to a certain pattern. In broad strokes, I perceive those on the left as believing that problems can be solved with good will, by reaching out, and by promoting dialogue. They believe that confrontation is counter-productive (if not just plain wrong), and they are more ready to be appeasing. While those on the right see the reality of evil and believe that what is required sometimes is to boldly identify it and then undertake a strong confrontation with it (with the conviction that to fail to do so would be wrong).

Obama's efforts with regard to Iran have been a disaster, because he has drawn on his ideology in attempting to solve the problem of Iranian intransigence. Netanyahu is correct when he says that efforts with Iran won't succeed unless Iran knows there is a credible threat of military action. Obama declines to play it this way.

Similarly he has opted to send an ambassador to Syria, claiming that having a US spokesman on the scene will allow for a better exchange of ideas, present opportunities for increasing US influence, etc. etc. But, in reality, he is effectively rewarding Syria for hostile and belligerent actions, and giving it the wrong message. Syria should have been isolated to the maximum.

As a result of the way Obama plays it, US deterrence power in the Middle East has dropped. This encourages boldness on the part of terrorist groups, and terrorist-supporting states. It is counterproductive to peace. And this, I believe, Obama does not understand. I believe he is badly deluded.

Do I think Obama is a closet jihadist who secretly desires the hegemony of Iran or the emergence of a new caliphate? Do I think that he sees it as a victory, that terrorists are feeling stronger? I most certainly do not.

What I do believe is that Obama is an internationalist, who curtails American power deliberately. But in the course of curtailing that power, I strongly suspect that he has generated some unintended results.


Let me return to the leaks for one moment, to strengthen my point here:

Reportedly, Erekat had a heated exchange with US envoy George Mitchell in October 2009 with regard to the need for a complete freeze before the PA would come to the table.

According to the Al-Jazeera leak, Erekat then said:

"It's not up to me to decide your credibility in the Middle East. He [Obama] has lost it throughout the region...

"...people in the Middle East are not taking Barack Obama seriously. They feared Bush, despite everything. This is important. [Obama] has lost it with the decision-makers..."

I believe that Obama has no clue that his "nice guy" stance was bound to backfire in the Arab/Muslim world — while he is attempting to reduce US power, he fails to grasp the Arab/Muslim mentality that bases respect on power.


The import of what's happening with regard to the Al-Jazeera leaks is considerable. Please see the analysis by Pinhus Inbari, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

"Al-Jazeera, the powerful Qatari satellite television station, has been publishing documents leaked to it from the PLO Negotiations Support Unit.

"The release of the documents has caused great damage to the reputation of the PA and the PLO negotiating team. Sa'eb Erekat noted that while the PA was en route to triumph as it gathered international support for the recognition of a Palestinian state and for isolating Israel, al-Jazeera cut short this triumph and 'instead of delegitimizing the occupation, they delegitimized us.'

"The PA's success in gathering support for statehood recognition was turning Hamas rule in Gaza into a liability. Once Ramallah is recognized as representing a state, the international community might turn against the separate entity in Gaza and seek to end the problem.

"For years al-Jazeera has sought to advance the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood against the Arab regimes. The problem it faces is that the sources of the current wave of Arab unrest are actually local and have nothing to do with pan-Arab ideals or with the Palestinian problem.

"Now, after al-Jazeera has brainwashed Arab minds with charges of PLO treason, no declaration of statehood can be expected. Neither will there be a resumption of negotiations with Israel since the Palestinian team will stick to the most hard-line positions possible."
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1& TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=5864&TTL=The_ Palestine_Papers:_Al-Jazeera_Has_an_Agenda


The world is in considerable turmoil, and this is one part of a very complex and quickly changing picture. In my next posting I hope to take a look at other issues and events.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info 2

To Go To Top

Posted byJerome S. Kaufman, January 26, 2011.

On January 24, 2011, Palm Beach Synagogue and The American Friends of Bar-Ilan University welcomed Professor Efraim Inbar, Director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Professor Inbar was introduced by Sherri Siskin, Associate Director for Bar-Ilan of the SE Region of Palm Beach County. Professor Inbar's topic for the evening was, "Time is On Israel's Side."

He was born in Romania (1947), educated at the Hebrew University (B.A. in Political Science and English Literature) and at the University of Chicago (M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science). His area of specialization is Middle Eastern strategic issues with a special interest in the politics and strategy of Israeli national security. He has written over 60 articles in professional journals and has authored five books. Prof. Inbar served in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a paratrooper.

He began his lecture by stating that in his travels, he has met many Diaspora Jews and has been struck by the pessimism of these people relative to Israel. He believes, as a Realpolitician, that this pessimism is unwarranted.

The continued existence of any state is dependent upon two considerations — its strategic environment and the domestic strength of the country. No question that Israel lives in a very dangerous neighborhood with power and force as the rules of the game. There have been many wars plus terrorism but Israel has repeatedly demonstrated it cannot be beaten, thanks to its strong military machine, a nuclear arsenal (and the great will and dedication of the Israeli people).

As a result, our enemies have decided to make peace with us. There has not been a large scale war since 1973 (Yom Kippur War). We do continue to face terror but terror is the last resort of the weak. The Arab world is itself, in the throes of far-reaching political and social crises. They have failed to establish strong, modern states. They are weak and have had to adopt a different discourse vis-a-vis Israel. They no longer speak of pushing the Jews into the sea but, speak of peace. (Of course, they have their own definition of 'peace.')

There are circumstances that do genuinely threaten Israel — the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. He believes this can be prevented primarily due to the economic shambles within Arab countries plus their political instability. It is also wonderful to have with us a Big Brother like the United States. Israel is part of the winning team and he does not subscribe to the view that America is on the decline. America will undoubtedly recover from the weakness of the current administration. America will snap back.

We should not be discouraged by Israel's lack of popularity in much of the world. When were Jews popular? What else is new? We must remember that over half of the developing world, India and China, have no elements of anti-Semitism. They look upon Israel as a great civilization, a sister civilization. Just last week, a delegation of Chinese scholars came to Israel specifically to check upon the Jewish genius.

Israel is no longer a divided country. The cleavages between Ashkenazi and Sephardim have disappeared as has the cleavage between socialism and capitalism. The role of the government has been redefined. Israelis are now all good capitalists. The cleavage relating to the importance of the territories (Judea and Samaria, 'West Bank') has also disappeared. The discussion whether to annex the territories, create a 'Greater Israel' (this term always frosts me. For anyone to look at minuscule Israel and describe it as 'greater' in any sense is beyond ridiculous) is no longer an option. Everyone is for partition whether we like it or not. Everyone is willing to make concessions. He did candidly state, as an aside — "Of course, we don't know to whom to make these concessions!"

At this point, this part of the Professor's discussion went awry as far as I was concerned. By some sort of serendipity, I had spoken to the Professor before the lecture and he was happy that the Israelis were finally recovering from the disaster of Oslo. What this truly brilliant professor obviously had chosen to not recognize is the fact that the Israelis have not recovered from Oslo at all but have, in fact, been deluded and brain washed into embracing it. What else did Oslo promote but a Palestinian state, the giving up of Judea and Samaria and retreat to the 1967 Auschwitz borders that existed prior to the heaven sent miracle of the Six Day War?

At the question and answer period, I demanded of the Professor how could he possibly subscribe to this general acceptance of giving up more territory when the last retreats from territory shriek at the stupidity of such decisions. The retreat from southern Lebanon created the massive military force of Hezbollah which, under Syrian authority and huge Iranian support, has completely replaced the government of Lebanon. Hezbollah has amassed continually growing man power and lethal weaponry on Israel's northern border. It will attack Israel at the very first moment they think they have any chance of destroying it. Exactly the same situation has occurred with Israel's withdrawal from Gaza with the complete take over by Israel's mortal enemy, Hamas, defeating Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah

I asked the Professor how in the world could he and the rest of the Israelis remotely consider giving up Judea and Samaria when it would take less than five minutes for Hamas to take over that area too and indeed, shrink Israel into the defenseless Auschwitz borders. The Professor's answer was unimpressive. In retrospect, I should have also admonished him for subscribing to the abject, mindless suicidal retreat from more territory and the acceptance of a Palestine State. As a dedicated political scientist and world renown educational leader he should rather take it upon himself to begin a long neglected project to educate the Israeli people against a continuation of this national self-destruction.

The professor ended his lecture on a high note. He stated what characterizes Israeli society now is a willingness to fight. The youth (especially the Orthodox) are increasingly volunteering for the most dangerous combat units. We are not going anywhere. This is our country and we plan to keep it, despite all the apparent drawbacks of our current position and the fact that we don't expect peace anytime soon. Finally, the Professor mentioned a heart warming study. He spoke of a Patriotic Index which determined that 90% of Israelis were happy people. Confirming this index, a recent Gallup Poll ranked Israel as the eighth happiest country in the world.

Let us pray that the Lord keeps it that way.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green (WIG), January 26, 2011.

This morning, Wednesday, January 26, 2011, Arabs conducted plantings at Netzer in Gush Etzion, in the presence of the Palestinian Tourism Minister. Dozens of vehicles of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian police were in the area. The impression gained was that half of the Palestinian Authority had moved from Ramallah to Gush Etzion. Additionally, scores of Arabs arrived in busses and private vehicles, accompanied by international activists who entered the area to plant. When we asked for explanations from IDF people in the field, we were told that they are "planting on Palestinian land. What's the problem?"

And so, the problem is a severe one:

1) This is a clear retreat from our sovereignty on the ground. Entry permits in Israeli-controlled area C for the Palestinian Tourism Minister and Palestinian Authority officials undermine our sovereignty. This also gives strong support to the Arabs who take control of state lands.

2) "Palestinian lands" is a bluff, that the IDF, headed by Barak, is only too happy to adopt. The veteran residents of Gush Etzion know that the area of Netzer, the hills between Alon Shvut and Elazar, have all been state lands since 1967, except for two small plots. The Arabs took control of the lands, and under the aegis of the Draconian law that states that after the Arabs work the lands for a number of years, they become theirs.

3) The spineless Defense Minister, who is also lacking independence, is extremely dangerous on the ground. We thought that we had freed ourselves of the extreme leftist wing of his party, but events on the ground prove that Barak is continuing the moves to grant independence to the Palestinians throughout all Judea and Samaria. The Prime Minister knows with whom he entered into the marriage, and is not innocent as regards Barak's actions.

At 12:00 noon the IDF removed the Arabs from the area. During the time of the Arabs' event, Jews were not permitted to enter.

The soldiers, the Border Patrol, and the junior officers in the field were furious, and realized that this is a national disgrace and humiliation. Thank G-d, the people is healthy. It's a pity that the country's leaders do not draw strength from the people's spirit, and continue to plan further capitulations.

And in a direct connection to the above, we thank Al Jazeera for exposing what was done in the back rooms, about what our leaders are conducting give-and-take negotiations, actually, just giving. Residents of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Maaleh Edumim, Ariel — wake up! The Arabs haven't heard of 'settlement blocs"!

Today, it was shown, more than ever, that the struggle for our land is actually being waged on the ground. Accordingly, this Friday we will continue with plantings at Netzer at 9:00 a.m. The public is invited. Come one, come all.

Link to a short video about it, in Hebrew, but the images say it all. Netzer.

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 Richard Shulman, January 26, 2011.

Alan M. Dershowitz considers the erection of Jewish towns in the Territories unwise but legal. He considers the UN Security Council proposal to declare them all illegal unwise and incorrect. (He does not explain why those towns are legal. In past articles, I have.)

Like Israel's enemies, he calls these Jewish towns "settlements," as if Jews in their own homeland were alien, and as if Arab descendents of invaders and immigrants were aboriginal. But he urges a U.S. veto, in accordance with U.S. policy and because UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 requires the Territories to be allocated by concerned party negotiators and not outsiders' decree.

Resolution 242 required Israel to relinquish part of the Territories, but permits it to retain other parts needed for secure borders. 242 also requires Israel's neighbors to recognize the Jewish people's entitlement to a state, borders, and peace. This the PLO, Syria, etc. openly reject.

Mr. Dershowitz favors "Some territorial adjustments" for Israeli security. He wants Israel to freeze Jewish construction in the Territories voluntarily as the road to peace, and not as a precondition for negotiation.

Negotiation, Dershowitz asserts, would require the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge Israel's right to certain parts of the Territories, such as in Jerusalem. He does not explain why. Those areas "had been illegally captured by Jordan in its aggressive and unlawful war in 1948 calculated to undo the UN's decision to divide the area into Jewish and Arab homelands." He also claims that negotiation would produce "land swaps that recognize the realities on the ground."

What would the proposed resolution really accomplish? It would serve as cover for those who do not want to negotiate and who seek unilateral UN recognition of Arab statehood (Wall St. J., 1/28/11, Op.-Ed.).

The primary fallacy in Dershowitz' thesis is his assumption that the Arab-Israel conflict is territorial. The Arabs started the conflict because they deem any Jewish sovereignty over any amount of territory as contrary to the Islamic imperative to conquer. They still feel that way.

Since they went to war before modern Israel acquired the Territories, obviously the conflict is not over the Territories but over Israel's existence. Dershowitz fails to explain why, if Israel ceded the Territories, the Arabs, thereby gaining strategic territory for war and feeling encouraged in taking advantage of the Israeli unbelievers, would make peace. He does not explain how, because the Arabs cannot make peace. They may sign another pact that Islamic principles allow them to violate, but they cannot make peace. International jihad is a fact. Somebody please inform Dershowitz.

Since negotiations cannot bring peace, Dershowitz should search for another solution. I think the solution is for Israel to defeat the jihadists militarily and economically. Then it should annex whatever parts of the Territories do not have large Arab populations and from which the Arabs emigrate.

Dershowitz relies too much on past UN resolutions. Due to international jihad, the huge Islamic bloc at the UN, mercenary interests, and bias, the UN does not solve international problems but exacerbates them. As a lawyer, Dershowitz should begin attacking the legitimacy of the Security Council's claim to make international law.

Even the resolution that Dershowitz wants to uphold, is suspect. When Israel acquired the Territories in self-defense, the UN demanded that Israel evacuate from some of them, if the Arabs complied with the resolution. The Arabs did not comply. More than 40 years later, the Arabs still do not comply. The Arabs have gone on to violate all the Oslo Accords with Israel, too. Isn't it time to conclude that the earlier resolution was fatuous and has expired, just as the PLO should be considered to have voided the Oslo Accords?

Does anyone ask why the UN waited until Israel acquired the Territories to resolve on evacuation, rather than when, in defiance of the General Assembly resolution for partition, neighboring Arab states attacked not only Israel but also seized the Territories. This is the old story that if gentiles do it, it is all right, but if Jews do it, it is not right. This exhibition of UN hypocrisy undermines UN pretenses at being a legitimate arbitrator.

Surprisingly, Dershowitz, a veteran champion of human rights, approves of a freeze on construction by Jews and not on construction by Arabs, most of it illegal. Didn't think he favored ethnic discrimination.

Then there is the question of secure borders. Dershowitz conveniently does not define them. He goes along with the anti-Zionist crowd that mentions territorial "adjustments," as if minor changes would provide secure borders. They would not.

Secure borders were defined by the U.S. Chiefs of Staff report some years ago. The security was to be provided by the mountain barriers, which were natural tank traps and provided early warning observation points. That means Israel needed most of the Territories. (Same goes for the Golan.)

The notion of security is embedded in international law. A country may retain territory taken in a war of defense against aggressors who, if they got the land back, may use the land again to threaten the security of their original victims, in this case, Israelis. Giving aggressors their land back restores their wartime advantage and removes punishment for aggression. Is that ethical? Does it promote peace or renewed aggression?

The suggestion of a land swap is ludicrous. Israel doesn't owe anything to the Arab jihadists who attempt genocide against it. Since the Arabs do not have sovereignty or control over the Territories, why should Israel give up part of its own country to those enemies, in return for retaining some part of the Territories?

Perhaps the answer is further population exchange. Most of the Arabs fled from Israel on their own; for reasons of security, Israel expelled a small percentage of the enemy people. Arab states expelled almost a million Jews, double the number of Arabs who fled from Israel. The Arab states kept the property of the expelled Jews. Thus there has been a population exchange (and even a land exchange). Why not help even up this exchange further, and instead of removing a few Arab towns from Israel, remove the Arabs there?

It is not as if there is a Palestinian nationality. The PLO Covenant makes clear they are part of the Arab nation, which has a great land swatch and many countries. Certainly those mass-murderers running the Palestinian Authority are not entitled to sovereignty.

Neither is there any legal significance to the armistice line on one side of which are Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. W. Bank). A war ended at that line. So? The area on the far side is the unallocated portion of the Palestine Mandate, but Israel has no official border there, for it is awaiting final status negotiations. As the primary heir to the Mandate, Israel has the best clam to the Territories.

As a patriotic American, Dershowitz should come down harder on the jihadists, enemies of freedom. It is sad to find someone of Dershowitz' caliber misunderstanding the legal and other issues, and accepting conventional misconceptions about territorial adjustments bringing peace with radical Muslims whose goal is religious dominance.

Dershowitz contends that Israel shouldn't be forced to relinquish territory, it should do so voluntarily. What a disingenuous rationalization! He doesn't want Israel forced into national destruction, which is what territorial concessions to the jihadists would mean. No, he wants Israel to voluntarily jump over the cliff. Dershowitz may be an ally of Israel in the short run, but would harm it in the long run. We had better be careful about some people's claims to be a friend of Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, January 26, 2011.

This was written by Gabriel Wilensky and is archived at


On January 27, 1945 the Red Army advancing in Poland arrived in a sleepy town called Oswiecim. Next to it, they found Hell. As they crossed the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau, they saw discombobulated walking skeletons staring at them with empty eyes. Emaciated corpses were strewn everywhere. The stench of death was overwhelming. Over a million people — mostly Jews — had been murdered there. Auschwitz was the largest and deadliest of the 20,000 concentration camps built by the Germans to create a new world order free of Jews and political dissent.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which occurs on January 27, was designated by the United Nations to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust. The date, which marks the day in which Auschwitz was liberated, was chosen as Auschwitz has become emblematic of the Holocaust. Of course one could ask the question of why the United Nations thought it necessary to select a new date, given that there already was another Holocaust Remembrance Day date which commemorates the revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto. But a more important question is what the meaning of the word liberate is in this context. Obviously from a literal point of view the Soviet Army liberated Auschwitz, in the sense that prior to their arrival the prisoners lived and died under the German boot and after the Red Army arrived those that were still capable of surviving were freed. From this perspective it's also valid and true to say the American Army liberated Dachau, and the British liberated Bergen Belsen. But I would argue that we need to qualify the word "liberated", because what the Allied armies did was remove the German occupiers everywhere in their path. None of the Allied armies had as a military objective the liberation of these camps. None of them specifically sent troops in the direction of the camps with the objective of liberating the prisoners there. No, the camps just happened to be in their path. As a matter of fact, most of the Allied troops were understandably appalled by what they found, but they were surprised because they didn't even know those camps were there and what they had been used for.

But this was not the case with the top military echelons, or of the highest political figures. Indeed, a long time before the Soviets arrived in Auschwitz a detailed report of the inner workings of the extermination camp was circulated in the Vatican, in Washington and London. A little over half a year before the liberation of the camp the Germans began the deportation and extermination of Hungary's Jews. Many Jewish organizations pleaded with the Allied authorities so that they would bomb the railroad tracks going from Hungary to Auschwitz, and even the gas chambers. Churchill ordered his military to look into that very possibility, but was told that the railroad tracks and Auschwitz were outside the range of British bombers. The American Air Force gave similar excuses.

But the reality is that both the railroads and Auschwitz were indeed within range of American bombers already operating in Italy. As a matter of fact, the Americans had already photographed Auschwitz from the air and conducted several bombing raids of the German industrial facilities surrounding Auschwitz-Birkenau. Stray bombs actually fell in Birkenau. So, the American Air Force definitely had the capability of severely hampering the German deportation efforts from Hungary and even of destroying the gas chambers, thus severely hampering the German extermination effort. But saving Jews was not an Allied military objective, and neither the railroad tracks nor the gas chambers were bombed. As the American Air Force dithered, over 10,000 human lives were consumed in the flames of Auschwitz every day.

These facts should give us pause when we consider the meaning of the "liberation" of the concentration and death camps. As the world commemorates International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27th, it's also important to understand, and remember, what drove the Germans and their helpers in the various countries they invaded to perpetrate the Holocaust.

In Nazi Germany, the ancient hatred toward Jews had evolved into something secular and pseudo-scientific. This was something the post-Enlightenment, highly cultured German people could accept as a replacement for the ancient Christian anti-Judaism of their ancestors. By the time Hitler came to power German antisemitism was firmly grounded on the notions that Jews were racially inferior and for being a threat to Christian Germans and everything that was good. Ultimately, any message of hatred that conformed to the conception of Jews established by almost two thousand years of certain Christian teachings made sense and was acceptable.

Elsewhere in Europe, particularly in the East where the genocide took place and where the Germans found no shortage of auxiliaries for the genocidal duties that took place there, the situation was different. None of the locals who willfully collaborated in the execution of the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" had been brainwashed by Nazi racial propaganda. In those countries the locals hated Jews for the same reasons other Europeans had hated Jews for centuries: for killing Jesus, for desecrating the Host, for poisoning wells, for bringing about the Black Plague, for killing young Christian boys to extract their blood to make Passover bread, for being minions of the Devil, for being greedy money-lenders, and any number of other baseless accusations. But it's not enough to understand and remember what the motivation of the perpetrators was, because the perpetrators would have been unable to execute their monstrous deeds if it hadn't been for the fact that the majority of the populations of the world had the choice of acting to stop the genocide and chose not to. Even though it's true that some chose to remain silent bystanders out of fear of the Germans, many overcame the fear and acted to save people. We do not know with certainty why the American military authorities chose not to bomb Auschwitz, but we do know that many in the military establishment and the State Department were antisemitic and felt no compassion as millions of Jews were mercilessly slaughtered.

So, now that the world is paying attention to the consequences of this hatred when looking-in through the old electrified fence at Auschwitz-Birkenau, we should not forget where antisemitism came from, and recognize that despite the great progress in Jewish-Christian relations made since the Second Vatican Council, more work needs to be done.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, January 26, 2011.

An American acquaintance announced her departure for a tour of the Territories. Who will conduct her? Americans for Peace Now. She describes the organization as "a pro-peace, pro-Israel group. They advocate giving back territories for a two-state solution. I...have been eager for a long time to go to Israel to better understand the situation."

She is entering a war zone and taking instruction from allies of the aggressor. Some way to learn!

Laudable to seek knowledge, naïve to expect it from Peace Now. Peace Now is not a reliable source. Would one have gained insight about the new Germany in 1935 or the new USSR in 1925, by taking a tour from the Nazi or Communist Party? The USSR's Intourist agency specialized in showing foreigners the equivalent of Potemkin villages. The paying and over-paying guests were shown only what the regime approved. My acquaintance is in for propaganda.

She calls Peace Now pro-peace. Why, because "peace" is in its title and in its charter? Many NGO's are financed by anti-Zionist foreign governments and private agencies. These NGOs issue mission statements using human rights as cover for political bias. Their agenda is anti-Zionist, and anti-human rights:(1)Repress the rights of Israeli Jews to defend their lives and property; and(2)Transfer land, including secure borders, from the Jewish people to Arabs who repress their own people's human rights and encourage jihad against Israel. (For example of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) encouragement of terrorism, see
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/140503. For example of anti-Zionist NGO, see
monitor.org/article/hrw_in_ more_bias_even_less_credibility. Also see
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1749/ palestinian-authority-brutality-repression.)

PEACE IS CONFUSED WITH A TERRITORIAL DEAL. When jihad is the Muslim motive for conflict with Israel, territorial grants to jihadists facilitate war and ultimatum, not peace.

Since Peace Now's policy would facilitate war on Israel, how can Peace Now be deemed pro-Israel?

The poor tourist will be misinformed that the land belongs to the Arab people, whom Jews attack and rob. Hence the misconception of "giving back territories" to the Arabs. The Arabs never had a country there. Can't give back what Palestinian Arabs never controlled.

Undoubtedly absent from the tour will be documentation of the Jewish people's greater claim to the Territories, based on peace treaties, on League of Nations recognition of that greater claim, and on its endorsement by the UN before anti-Zionist propaganda distorted international affairs.

Also not likely to be told to the tourist is that Peace Now cooperates with the anti-Zionist State Dept. by spying on Jews in the Territories. Then the State Dept. complains about Jews building houses there. Neither the State Dept. nor Peace Now nor its allied organizations complain that Arabs are building houses there or in Israel, often illegally. Discrimination is a poor basis for U.S. or Peace Now policy.

Our tourist likely will be taken to Jewish communities accused of having been built largely on land stolen from individual Arabs. What she will not learn is that Peace Now fabricates such accusations. (I am not referring to the occasional and understandably misplaced acre out of thousands, which the courts can resolve, but whole towns cited by Peace Now.) Twice the group has been sued for defamation. Both times, the courts ordered it to compensate the maligned Jewish communities.

Contrary to Peace Now's contention, it rounds up and persuades Arabs to claim, without verifying the (unproved) claim, that the land is theirs. Just as Arabs during the British Mandate flooded the courts with fraudulent claims for land, so, too, contemporary courts find contemporary Arab claims for real estate false or unproved.

I have been reporting for years on Arab attacks on Jews in the Territories, Arab rustling of agricultural equipment and produce, and setting of forest fires. (About fires, Prof. Steven Plaut, 12/3/10.) In the past decade, there have been claims of the reverse, but no proof. Instead, Arabs have been caught making their olive trees appear damaged, blaming Jews for it, and demanding Israeli monetary compensation. (For examples, Arutz-7, 10/31/10, Arutz-7, 9/27/10.)

Do you suppose that Peace Now will inform the tourist that various Jewish radical groups bring Arabs onto Jews' fields to assault the Jews or to plant their own crops there, and then complain that evil "settlers" attacked them and their crops? Will Peace Now condemn the anti-Zionist Israelis who stand alongside Arabs throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at Israeli troops guarding the security barrier, and chanting for the destruction of Israel? If those radical Israelis believed in peace and justice, they would walk away from such violence and hatred. If they had any loyalty to their own people, they would understand that the Islamists hate Jewish independence and the Jewish people. Instead, they practice treason and call their alliance with violent jihadists peacemaking.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, January 26, 2011.

This was written by Aaron David Miller, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who served as a Middle East negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations. He is the author of "The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace."

This article appeared today in the Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/ la-oe-miller-palestinian-leaks-20110126,0,3104329.story


Somebody up there must really hate the Arab-Israeli peace process. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, that the odds against serious negotiations couldn't get any longer and the hope for a two-state solution couldn't be more forlorn, we now have the Palestinian version of WikiLeaks.

The documents obtained and released this week by Al Jazeera — assuming their authenticity — don't mean the end of the peace process (that never ends). But the revelations are deeply embarrassing to the Palestinian Authority and will put a chill on pragmatism and creativity for a while. More important, the episode reflects some serious underlying problems with the negotiating process, which will make quick or easy progress unlikely anytime soon.

First, a little reality therapy. Anyone who has seriously followed the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for at least the last decade would not have been surprised by the positions ascribed to the Palestinians: willingness to recognize Israeli sovereignty over disputed neighborhoods/settlements in East Jerusalem; territorial swaps; limits on the number of returning refugees. They have been in the public domain in one form or another since the Camp David summit of July 2000.

Revealing them in "official documents" clearly puts them in a different light. But anybody who has been really paying attention would never conclude that the Palestinian Authority's negotiators suddenly decided to sell out the Palestinian patrimony or betray Palestinian national aspirations. The Palestinian positions contained in these documents constitute the public parameters within which mainstream Israelis, Palestinians and American negotiators have been operating.

Then there is the question of what these positions really represent. At no point in the last 10 years have Israelis and Palestinians been close to an agreement. The documents reflect a particularly fertile period of exchanges between Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. But no agreement was reached, nor were any authoritative conclusions that bound either Israel or the Palestinian Authority, or for that matter the United States.

Indeed, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators live and die by the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" rule. That enables a negotiator to probe, offer up all kinds of positions and trial balloons, and to look for flexibility by demonstrating your own. All of this can occur without committing yourself to positions locked into concrete. Nobody was selling the farm or giving away the store. They were negotiating.

The timing of the leaks also has to be considered in judging the reaction to them. Had these leaks occurred when the situation was more hopeful, it would have been much less of a story. If Israelis and Palestinians were closer to announcing agreement that East Jerusalem would be the capital of the new Palestinian state, for example, the fact that Palestinians had agreed to allow the Israelis sovereignty over certain areas would have been far less controversial. Despair and hopelessness fills the air these days, and the leakers took advantage of that.

Unfortunately, we live in a world — and not just in the dysfunctional Middle East — in which perception is reality. These documents — and any that follow, particularly if they highlight anything that looks like collusion between Israel and the Palestinian Authority — will damage Abbas' credibility and buck up his internal opposition and Hamas.

The leaks also point out several serious problems in the negotiations.

First, there's no doubt that the gap is large between what Palestinian Authority negotiators purportedly were offering and what is acceptable on the Palestinian street and according to its narrative. The differences are not only between Israel and the Palestinian Authority but among Palestinians. The fact that the Palestinians today are like Noah's Ark, with two of everything — two polities (Gaza and the West Bank), two security services, two sets of funders — is part of the problem. But the main issue is that neither the Palestinian Authority nor the government of Israel has done nearly enough to condition their respective publics about the tough choices that need to be made if an agreement is to be reached.

Second, this isn't just a Palestinian story. The documents don't really reveal much about the Israeli positions on core issues. We know that Olmert was prepared to go further than any of his predecessors on all of these issues. But the storyline that is left is that the Israelis offered nothing in return on the key issues. And the logic of the moment would seem to argue: If the Palestinians were so flexible, why didn't you grab the deal? You really do have a Palestinian partner. As harmful as these leaks are to Palestinians, the Israelis don't look very good either.

Finally, these revelations are bound to have a chilling effect on a process already in the deep freeze. Palestinians will be looking over their shoulder before they risk additional creative, clever or pragmatic compromises. And the Obama administration is going to have an even tougher time extracting much flexibility from either side.

An Israeli negotiator once told me that you could be dead, or dead and buried. The peace process is just dead. It will be back with another life, but the complications in the wake of these leaks don't suggest a lot of confidence that that life will be a long or robust one.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, January 26, 2011.

Because conspiracy theories emanating from the Muslim world are nothing new — a decade ago, Israel was accused of perpetrating the strikes of 9/11, today it is accused of perpetrating the bombings of a Coptic church — they tend to be dismissed in the West.

A close examination of these theories, however, reveals pathological trends that need to be acknowledged — especially by Western leaders who stubbornly interact with the Muslim world under the assumption that all Muslims "think just like us."

Consider, for starters, those conspiracy theories dealing with subversive animals:

* "Iranians arrest fourteen squirrels for spying": According to Iranian state-sponsored news agency IRNA, "Intelligence operatives have arrested 14 squirrels within Iran's borders. The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services." (Iran has also arrested "spying pigeons" accused of working for Israel.)

* Israel unleashes rats and pigs against Jerusalem Arabs: According to the Palestinian Authority's official news agency, Wafa, Israel is "using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes" and "Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem."

* "Israel responsible for fatal shark attack and lethal jellyfish in Red Sea": According to South Sinai Governor Mohamed Abdel, "Mossad throwing the deadly shark (in the sea) to hit tourism in Egypt is not out of the question, but it needs time to confirm."

* Saudi Arabia "arrests" a vulture as part of a "Zionist plot": According to a BBC report, the vulture appears to have been tagged by Tel Aviv University researchers studying migration patterns; even so, "the bird could meet a horrible punishment in the notoriously severe Saudi justice system."

As the reader mulls over the plausibility of these charges, here is the latest example, from just last month. According to released Gitmo inmate Walid Muhammad Hajj, the Jews at the base cast "spells" on the Muslim inmates — including through the use of bewitched birds and a phantom feline that tried to sodomize Walid:

The most common method to wear down the brothers [Muslim inmates] was witchcraft.... There were, of course, Jews among the [staff of] the Guantanamo Base, and they would set traps for the guys.... I remembered an incident with a guy who sat next to me in the morning. When they brought the milk, he began to urinate into the milk. I said to him: "Why are you urinating in the milk?" That's when we knew that he was under a spell. After he had recovered a little, after we read Koranic verses to him, he said to me: "The birds on the barbed wire would talk to me, and tell me to urinate in the milk".... Once, when I was sleeping — on the floor, not on a bed — I suddenly felt that a cat was trying to penetrate me. It tried to penetrate me again and again. I recited the kursi verse again and again [Koran 2:255] until the cat left.

Considering that the Koran depicts talking ants and birds, vouches for the power of sorcery, and has an entire chapter dedicated to the Jinn (Sura 72); that Hamas arrested 150 "witches" in Gaza last year; that Islam's prophet Muhammad decreed that black dogs must die, "for they are devils"; that there is a fatwa to kill Mickey Mouse (a cartoon character), since rodents are "corrupters, steered by Satan"; — considering all this, it should come as no surprise that animals are being portrayed as infidel operatives.

Rather, the surprise lies in who is making and disseminating these stories. After all, conspiracy theories are not the sole domain of the Muslim world; the West has its share of crackpot theories. Yet, they are not in the mainstream. Conversely, far from coming from a marginalized periphery, all of the aforementioned animal accusations were either made or disseminated by "authoritative" sources in the Muslim world: Spying squirrels, Iranian state-sponsored news; rampaging rats and pigs, Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority media; tourism-destroying shark, an Egyptian official; spying vulture awaiting Sharia justice, Saudi media.

Consider the most recent example of Gitmo witchery. The problem is not that one Walid Muhammad Hajj believes this, but that Al Jazeera — by far, the highest rated news network in the Arab world — aired it on prime time. That the suit-and-tie host was very sympathetic, never once casting doubt on Hajj's narrative, speaks volumes. (Incidentally, this Gitmo story was aired on the same show that earlier provided Muhammad al-Awwa a platform to incite Egypt's Muslims against its Christian minority — thereby contributing to the latest slaughter of Copts in Egypt on New Year's Eve.)

The point here is simple: if the media — especially news and current affairs programs — reflect the concerns of their society, imagine if a prime-time CNN program hosted someone who earnestly accused people of witchcraft, talking birds, and rapist cats — all to a sincerely concerned host. What would that suggest about the American mindset?

What does it suggest about the Muslim mindset?

This appeared today in Hudson New York and is archived at
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8657/ bewitched-animals-and-the-muslim-media

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, January 25, 2011.

This was written by Andrew McCarthy and it appeared in National Review and is archived at
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257839/ islam-and-state-union-andrew-c-mccarthy

Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.


'The state of our union is ... denial — at least when it comes to Islam.'

I'm not holding my breath waiting for President Obama, as denier-in-chief, to make that pronouncement when he addresses the nation this evening at one of Leviathan's more notorious wastes of time, the State of the Union address. Indeed, Washington's annual celebration of itself, high on pageantry and bereft of substance, is unlikely to dwell much on the "religion of peace," notwithstanding its centrality — acknowledged or not — to much of U.S. policy. Such silence is fitting, as is its flip side: to brand as "Islamophobia" any deviation from the party line — a bipartisan party line if ever there was one. An adult discussion of Islam would bring down the house of cards on which our policy is based. Better to say nothing.

Thankfully, the Jerusalem Post's Barry Rubin won't play along. He disrupted our sweet dreams last week with a pronouncement from al-Azhar University. Al-Azhar is the centuries-old seat of Sunni scholarship in Egypt, a status that vests its sharia scholars with unparalleled doctrinal influence over the world's 1.4 billion Muslims.

It is conventional wisdom among the West's Islamophilic opinion elites — and thus prototypically among Obama administration officials — that jihad, the Islamic injunction to struggle in Allah's cause, has been distorted by sharia-obsessed Islamophobes into a summons to destroy the West. Jihad, this wisdom holds, is just an internal exercise in self-betterment — kind of like greening the planet and brushing after every meal. Jihad becomes confrontational and even violent only in self-defense, when Muslims are truly under siege.

Au contraire, says al-Azhar's Imad Mustafa. To be sure, he agrees that the doctrine of "defensive jihad" calls for war against non-Muslims who "attack" Muslims. But defense, for purposes of this doctrine, is in the eye of the beholder — or, more accurately, in the eye of the mufti who decides what sorts of provocations constitute an "attack." Implicitly, that leaves room for lots of pretty offensive jihad if the mufti construes the concept of "attack" broadly enough. What is bracing about Mustafa's new fatwa, however, is that he's not leaving anything to chance. He's making what is implicit unmistakably explicit.

Besides the defensive variety, Mustafa expressly endorses "offensive jihad" as the license to attack non-Muslims living in non-Islamic countries. It is the consensus of sharia scholars, he instructs, that offensive jihad is "permissible" in three different situations: (a) "to secure Islam's border"; (b) "to extend God's religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it"; and (c) "to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula."

The unapologetic aggression affirmed here is breathtaking. Ever wonder why Muslims demand a right of return to Israel for Palestinians but impose the death penalty on Palestinians who sell land to Jews? Why Muslims demand the right to build a grand mosque and Islamic community center on the lower Manhattan site of radical Islam's 9/11 atrocity but think nothing of barring non-Muslims from Mecca and Medina pursuant to their scriptures? It is because Islam — not radical Islam, political Islam, or Islamism, but Islam itself — is threaded with an intolerance that would be undeniable to anyone not in denial.

This is not something al-Qaeda dreamed up. Mainstream Islamic scholarship is reflected by Mustafa's first and third claims: a right to brutalize non-Muslims in order to ensure that an Islamic territory remains Islamic, and a right to purge non-Islamic influences from the Arabian Peninsula. The latter, in fact, explains not only Saudi Arabia's official policy of apartheid in Islam's major cities but al-Azhar's prior green-lighting of attacks on American troops in Iraq.

More immediately alarming for us, however, is the second justification Mustafa offers for offensive jihad. As Rubin correctly contends, this injunction "to spread God's religion" is not limited to circumstances in which a government has imposed an absolute prohibition on Islam, or at least driven Islam from the public square as Ataturk did in Turkey. It would also approve campaigns of aggression against countries that bar any aspect of Islamic belief or practice that Muslim scholars deem "necessary" to the full implementation of Islamic law.

Al-Qaeda seeks to spread Islam by brute force. The Muslim Brotherhood and its American confederates — CAIR, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Society of North America, etc. — agree with al-Qaeda on the endgame but part company on methodology. Theirs is a sophisticated potpourri of political agitation, legal extortion, public-relations legerdemain (such as Imam Feisal Rauf's claim that the U.S. Constitution is perfectly consonant with sharia — which is true only in the sense that the Constitution does contain the seeds of its own undoing), and clever campaigns to legitimize terrorism practitioners while ostensibly condemning terrorism in the abstract. But whether we are talking about violent jihadists or stealth jihadists, notice that there is no real daylight between what these forces seek to achieve and what the most influential Islamic scholars would authorize.

Nothing about that would surprise us at this point if we were watching as yet another terrorist murderer of yet another moderate Muslim politician is celebrated as a hero in Pakistan; if we saw the new Iraq, of which we are midwife, purge Christians and other non-Muslims from its territory; if we noticed the Ahmadi, a Muslim minority sect, being brutally persecuted for beliefs that are heretical to Muslims taking their cues from al-Azhar; and if we were studying polling that tells us most Muslims in Islamic countries would like to see a strict application of sharia.

But we are not watching, seeing, noticing, or studying. President Obama just announced the appointment of Quintan Wiktorowicz to the National Security Council as "senior director for [what else?] global engagement." A perfect fit for the administration, Wiktorowicz is a former Rhodes College professor whose claim to academic fame is the trendy theory that, as NPR admiringly put it, "very religious Muslims were in fact the people who ended up being the most resistant to radicalization."

Who, then, becomes a radical, Mr. Wiktorowicz? They tend to be (in NPR's description of his theory) "people who don't have a good grounding in the religion." Grounding in what aspect of the religion? We're not told — just left with his insistence that Islam is ecumenical and non-violent, end of story. The game, though, is given away with our new engagement director's explanation that any effective "counterradicalization" campaign must include "beefing up education about Islam among Muslims themselves."

Alas, real "education about Islam" would include such discomfiting texts as Imad Mustafa's latest fatwa. Wiktorowicz is not talking about teaching the Islam that is. He's talking about teaching the Islam of his dreams. On the Islam that is, al-Azhar has the ear of Muslims. The Obama administration has the ear of NPR.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. Turns out it's a university in Egypt.

From Readers of the original article.

tyhmaplanet, 01/25/11 16:40

There are no "moderate" muslims. There are those more aggressive in the practice of their religion, but a "moderate" muslim, as defined by Islamophiles, would be considered a heretic by Islam and its imams and, therefore, must be killed.

This is the very point that Islamophiles and Islamo-apathetics don't get. This is not a religion. It is a political ideology masked by religion. From the beginning, it was carefully designed to accumulate power. Once a muslim, whether by birth, or conversion, always a muslim. Leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death under Sharia law.

There is no muslim extremism. There is only Islam. If you don't believe that, just ask any imam. Some muslims and their leaders believe violence against the non-Islamic world, particularly the West, is justifiable. Others believe any means are justifiable, including peaceful means, if they are viable,feasible and more likely to produce the desired result, which is domination of the world by Islam.

Have you read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer? Great Book. Eisenhower carried a copy with him always. All muslims are true believers. They must be, or they can be killed by their fellow religionists. This dangerous political ideology, masquerading as a religion, has found the secret to perfect loyalty, or, as they may claim, perfect faith. Make it a crime punishable by death to blaspheme Muhammad, Allah, or any of the ideology's tenets and, also, make it a capital crime to leave the sect...pretty strong motivation for loyalty, particularly when the system has had fourteen centuries to be perfected. An Imam issues a fatwah to kill and, even if a majority won't act upon it, it only takes a few "faithful" to put fear in every muslim's and, now, every non-muslim's heart. The West dare not speak, much less act against Islamic forces among us. We've also bound ourselves firmly with political correctness. Muslims know this and they are using it to further their aim — a world of faithful muslims.

It is very important for the West to cease its denial and recognize that Islam is a dangerous political ideology, rather than a religion. All muslims are potential instruments of the violent side of their faith. The Koran approves and even encourages violence against non-muslims and against slothful muslims. It uses many of the same principles that totalitarian ideologies have used. In fact, some muslims have studied totalitarian principles and tactics and some totalitarians have studied principles and tactics of Islam. These tactics and principles are tools used to control the masses. They're ideologically on the opposite pole from principles of democracy and individual liberty.

Islam is not and cannot ever be compatible with the Western tradition of liberty. This conflict has been going on since the early seventh century and will continue until Islam gives up, which is unlikely, or the West gives up, which, it seems, could happen one day. Fifty, seventy-five, a hundred years hence, perhaps our descendants will be ruled by Sharia. It's practically inevitable, unless, God willing, there is a great awakening in the West, or, a great unspoken second coming of true liberty.

Yahudie, 01/25/11 15:39

We keep seeing these exposures of nefarious Islam but nothing is being done about it. When are even conservatives going to have the courage to speak out in public forums without shame or equivocation instead of in obscure journals (sorry, NRO)? It is past time to confront the mainstream media about their timidity and slavish adherence to the tenets of political correctness. A first requirement for any speaker is to stand-up to the charges of racism and "Islamophobia" — the first weapon of scoundrels..

Not only must we expose and fight Islam at Al Azhar but — more importantly — right here in the US (and Europe, but they've practically surrendered already). Americans concerned about the growing clout and ever-escalating demands of Muslims in this country must make it the highest priority to get true immigration reform to exclude further Muslim immigration into this country except for very limited SECULAR Muslims: No more Imams to "guide the flock"; no more illiterate baby-machine brides from some backward home village; no more "pull migration" to flood our cities with illiterate and useless masses.

Also as important, is the exposure of the Muslim propaganda and lobbying apparatus in this country: High-contribution (i.e., bribery) Muslim business contributors to American politicians; Arab-funded front organizations such as "Muslim studies" programs in universities; ex-diplomat lobbyists; Arab/Muslim "civil rights" organizations; Mosques and "social" organizations; and leftist front organizations.

Enough is enough.

Jack in Silver Spring, 01/25/11 12:46

Mr. McCarthy — Excellent column. You missed two things, though: The first is that no Jew can live in the PA controlled territories in Judea and Samaria (but lots of Moslems can and do live in Israel with rights equal to Jews); and the second is, of course, that Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology pretending to be a religion.

BrandingIron5, 01/25/11 08:53

Mr. McCarthy is correct, although one very pertinent question remains. Is the administration ignorant or complicit?

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, January 25, 2011.

This below was written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and comes from K A H A N E, the magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea, September 1976 — Elul 5736.

If you did not receive this article personally, and would like to receive Rabbi Kahane articles weekly, please contact me at: BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

Previously e-mailed Rabbi Kahane articles can be viewed on: www.barbaraginsberg-barbara.blogspot.com


Two letters arrived for me within a few days of each other. Together they tell an important tale. It is a tale of the distortion and the misshaping of the authentic Jewish Idea and it is a tale that every Jew should hear and understand.

This first letter came from a Jew — a religious Jew — a Jew whose home is in the State of Illinois. The relevant parts of this letter read as follows:

"Sometimes when we become firmly convinced of something, we tend to state it to others with a certain degree of fanaticism. Of course, you are right that the Jews of the entire world should make Aliyah to Israel. But let us consider some practical aspects ... are all of us going to be able to support ourselves as well as our families in Israel? Are we headed for an "Auschwitz" America? I hope and pray it does not happen and I do not think it will. But if it does, that will mean that America has turned full tilt against Israel and Jews will be no safer than in America. Prayfully, one day, my family and I will gather enough faith and courage to make Aliyah. But until we do, if we do, we do not require constant harping on this subject. What we do need now is your spiritual leadership in becoming better Jews where we are. Prophesize to our brethren in Israel. Bring them back to Torah. Prepare the land and the people for us?"

The other letter comes from an Israeli. A student who lives in Jerusalem and who studies at Hebrew University. He is not religious, but a firm nationalist. The relevant parts of his letter are:

"I do not write this letter in my name alone but in the name of many tens of students who agree with all of your main points... The thing that leads to a parting of the ways is "your fanatical religion" as they call it. Most of the students are irreligious. Know that many, many would like to see themselves in your camp, but they totally reject Rabbi Kahane because of their fear of "fanatical religion." With all due respect, I suggest that you only emphasize the major issue that is common to all including the irreligious."

Two letters. Each in their own way showing the schizophrenia that has seized the Jewish people and that has misshapen and deformed the authentic Jewish Idea. Two letters from two-Jews, each of whom has forgotten a different side of Judaism. One, a "religious" Jew who forgets that without the nation there is nothing. The other, a "nationalist" Jew who does not know that without religion, the Jew is meaningless. And how important it is for us to understand the totality and truth of the Jew as a RELIGIO-NATION. For if we do, we suddenly understand the reality of the Jewish Idea; we begin to grasp the truth that will lead to the final redemption. And if we do not, we continue our descent to tragedy.

You see, my secular nationalist friend, unlike you, I see nothing at all very special or logical about nationalism, per se. I see nothing very rational about setting up boundaries and a barrier, separate governments, armies, parliaments, economics, exchange rates and languages. If anything, nationalism is a barrier to world brotherhood and one of the major fomenters of conflict and war. If I were a secular nationalist I would be hard put to explain why Jews should remain separate and not assimilate and I would struggle for a rational explanation of Jewish behavior — stubborn and obstinate — over two millennia of exile as they suffered every conceivable manner of persecution and yet, refused to disappear.

There is only one reason why Jews should be different, and that is the very special difference, the uniqueness that makes them separate and different from all other peoples. ONLY the election of Israel, only the concept of a Chosen people, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; only the "Ata b'chartanu, You have chosen us from all the nations": only the "hamavdil beyn kodesh l'chol, He who differentiates between and separates between holy and profane, between Israel and the nations"; only the need to be different, apart and separate NOT BECAUSE OF SOME VAGUE LANGUAGE OR HISTORICAL DIFFERENCE but because of the distinct uniqueness of Torah and the commandments as a DIVINE decree — only this gives any validity to the Jew remaining alive as a distinct entity.

There is nothing special about a Jewish tank or jet plane, nothing special about an independent state of your own with a Parliament, Prime Minister, national airline and social-economic-political problems, all nations have them. There is nothing special about a scientific institute, universities and lawyers, physicians and sanitation men; all nations have them. But no nation has Torah except the Jewish people, and that is the difference. The only one.

And so, when I helped to found the JDL and called to people to love Jews so much that they should be prepared to climb barricades for them, fight physically for them, perhaps sit in jail for them, why in the world did I care about some Jew in Leningrad or Damascus more than some Zulu in South Africa? Only because Ahavat Yisroel follows directly from the special quality of the Jewish people — the DIVINE nation — each of whose members partakes of that divine quality and is my brother MORE than other peoples. Without my belief in the Jews as the Chosen People of G-d, there would be not the slightest interest for me in them more than in other people.

And if you wonder why secular Jewish nationalism, that which we call Zionism, has proven to be such a disastrous failure among our youth in Israel; and if it bothers you that the youth questions the basic axioms that, to you are truth incarnate, going so far as to dispute the right of the Jews to Israel and even joining an Arab spy ring; and if you are disturbed at the fact that most Israelis have little ties to world Jewry, and so many would like very much to leave the country and make a great deal of money elsewhere; and if the Jew in Israel looks more and more like any other people and feels nothing special about himself and his state — learn an important lesson.

Secular Jewish nationalism — no more than any other kind — can give no rational reason to a sensitive and intelligent young person to see anything special about his people or his state — especially when that state is faced with constant crisis, hardships and sacrifice. There are those secular Jewish nationalists who remember either the anti-Semitism of the Exile or the nostalgia of Judaism. Most Israelis know neither and they ask logical questions and demand answers that the letter writer, a secular nationalist, cannot really give him

As for me, without religion there are NO Jewish people worth fighting for and worth dying for. There is no Jewish state worth sacrificing so much for and crying out "not one inch." Everything that the nationalist writer sees in me as "nationalist" is instead RELIGIO-NATIONALIST, or the authentic Jewish Idea. Failing to see religion and G-d at the heart of Jewishness; failing to see G-d at the center of Jewish destiny, as the G-d of History; failing to understand that without a return to Torah, nothing will help us — the secular nationalist understands nothing.

And he is joined by the "religious" Jew form Illinois. A Jew who can say such "practical" things as "are all of us able to support ourselves in Israel?; as "I do not think" an Auschwitz can happen in America; as if America "turns full tilt" against Jews then Israel is also doomed; as advice to stop harping on Aliyah and instead try to make us "better Jews where we are."

The one writer puts religion on the shelf and thinks that he is a complete Jew, while the other ignores nationalism and prides himself on his being able to be a true Jew. Both are wrong. Both are cripples, the one limping on the right foot and the other on the left.

The religious Jew asks that I try to make Jews better "where they are." That is exactly what I do when I "harp" on the fundamental mitzvah of Aliyah. I am desperately attempting to reach the Jew "where he is" in the Exile and make him a better Jew by telling him to fulfill the mitzvah of settling the land. I reach out to him and try to make him a better Jew who will stop being so casual about a mitzvah that the rabbis tell us is equal to all the commandments of the Torah; who will realize that the rabbis call him, the dweller in Exile, a man who is as one without a G-d; who is called a worshipper of idol impurity; who is promised that in the Exile he will "find no rest for the sole of his foot."

He wishes me to make Jews better than they are? Every article I write concerning the immutable place of the nation and the state of Judaism does just that. Every criticism of religious Jews for failing to understand that there can be no authentic complete Judaism without the Land of Israel is that. Every time I attempt to teach the lesson of the State of Israel as being the beginning of the redemption and the beginning of the era of Kiddush Hashem is that.

The religious Jew who does not perceive that the Exile is Hillul Hashem, the desecration of G-d's name is one who does not understand Jewish history and the Jewish destiny. If he does not understand that his remaining in the Exile desecrates G-d's name, guarantees a terrible Holocaust and impedes the swift final redemption — then shout to him the truth over and over again no matter how annoyed he is, or rather precisely because he is annoyed. The Jew who remains in Exile and refuses to live in Israel is NOT a good a Jew as he should be. The Jew who can fail to understand that the Exile is a curse that is guaranteed to end in Auschwitz, and who can lay aside a mitzvah because "how will we support ourselves" (meaning, in the manner to which we have become accustomed), and who can think that the destiny of Israel lies in the hands of America — is a Jew who badly needs help. He is as "irreligious" in his way as the secular nationalist in his.

The question of Aliyah is not a peripheral or tangential one. It is at the heart of the Jewish future and destiny. And it will be shouted forth so that, in the words of the Book of Ezekiel "whether they listen or cease to listen, but let them know that there was a spokesman among them."

Somewhere in the Exile, the authentic Jewish Idea became misshapen and deformed. On the one hand there were those who forgot that the Jew is a religion. On the other hand, there were those who forgot that we are a nation. Both are helping to bring tragedy upon us. Until we return to the authentic Jewish concept of a RELIGO-NATION I will continue to receive letters from people who do not understand. Somehow they must be made to understand and that is why I write.

Contact Barbara Ginsberg by email at BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 25, 2011.

For a long time I have been writing about those in the State Department (known as "Foggy Bottom" for a good reason) who run the American government's secret foreign policy regarding Israel. I have called this a "Shadow Government", in that American policy is run in the "Shadows" by some powerful people operating under the radar and without Congressional oversight.

While the American people and the American Congress admire and support the Jewish Nation/State of Israel, too many elected and appointed officials, advisors and workers in the American government would be accurately called pro-Arab or Arabists, even Islamists or Jihadists. They have been savaging the world with the American "Shadow Government", actively supporting them. Sometimes they served an important post in government and then went on to earn lots of money on that honor with people who had "vested interests" with the multi-national oil countries and companies.

Perhaps these miscreants have always hated the Jews, just as the Dulles Brothers collaborated with the Nazis before, during and after WW2.

If money can be equated with Sugar, the rats are certain together and gorge themselves.

The following excellent presentation — originally published in the Jerusalem Post — is by Caroline Glick, who, as always, states and documents these facts....Of how these "Shadow" disloyal Americans have used every subversive trick to undercut Israel and force her disappearance, presumably to increase the oil cash flow and for their own personal bias.

The Bush family, going back to Prescott Bush, has borne that curse of hating the Jews but, always with an eye on American voters who, like the Jewish-Israelis and fear the Muslims as they immigrate in and increase to a "critical mass" in their host countries, overpower their civilizations and savage all unbelievers in Islam.

People like Condoleezza Rice, Obama, Hillary Clinton, James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, and Bobby Ray Inman... are members in good standing of the "Shadow Government" which holds evil at its center — at best. When they can, they attack the only democracy in the Middle East in order to gain favor with influentials in an extreme religious-driven perennial predatory blood cult culture. (Are these enough adjectives to cover the subject?)

Much has been written about how the FBI, CIA and the other 16 American Intel Agencies have been misused by the skulking "Shadow Government" to silence the Jews of America and Israel in order to appease Islam. Sadly, we see America spiraling down as trade and manufacture have been moved off-shore. America's economy has been hit hard by this mistaken policy move. It's as if America has been accursed by the inept and/or corrupt who have tunneled their way into power.

The American people have been paying a steep price for what these secret cabals have done against the Jewish State. Hopefully, these vicious predators will live long, in great pain and, when their time comes to leave this life, may they be sentenced to Kafa Kella, a place far beyond Hell.


Condoleezza Rice at AIPAC during the Bush Administration

Two documents reported on this week shed a troubling light on the US government's attitude toward Israel. The first is a 27-page FBI search warrant affidavit from 2004 targeting then senior AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen, published Wednesday in The Washington Times.

The second is WikiLeaks leaked secret State Department cable from October 2008 signed by then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice directing US officials to spy on Israel.

Both indicate that in certain quarters of the American government Israel is viewed as at best a banana republic and at worst an enemy of the US.

The text of the FBI affidavit directed against Rosen makes clear that the FBI had no particular reason to suspect that he was an Israeli agent or was harming US national security. Rosen's activities during his tenure as AIPAC's senior lobbyist as described in the affidavit — meeting with government officials, journalists and Israeli diplomats — were precisely the type of activities that lobbyists in Washington routinely engage in.

Despite this the FBI followed Rosen for five years and indicted him and his AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman on felony charges under the all-but-forgotten 1917 Espionage Act. The FBI probe and subsequent trial harmed AIPAC's reputation, destroyed both men's careers, and did untold damage to the reputation of both the State of Israel and its American Jewish supporters. That it took five years for the Justice Department to drop these outrageous charges is a testament to the strength of the FBI's commitment to criminalizing American Jewish advocates of a strong US-Israel alliance.

And then there is Rice's secret cable. Just days before the 2008 presidential elections, the Secretary of State instructed US diplomats in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA to conduct a massive espionage operation against Israel. The sought for information covered all aspects of Israel's political system, society, communications infrastructures and the IDF.

Regarding the IDF, for instance, among other things, diplomats and spies were asked to gather intelligence on planned Israeli military operations against the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria and probe the attitudes of military commanders. They were also told to gather information on "IDF units, equipment, maintenance levels, training, morale, and operational readiness[;] IDF tactics, techniques and procedures for conducting conventional and unconventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations[; and] Israeli assessment of the impact of reserve duty in the territories on IDF readiness."

As for political leaders, among other things, Rice instructed diplomats and spies to provide detailed information about government plans; influences on politicians; how politicians decide to launch military strikes; what Israel's leaders think about the US; and much more.

Rice also sought information about various aspects of Israeli society. Rice instructed US diplomats and spies to gather information on everything from, "Information on and motivations for any increased Israeli population emigration from Israel," to detailed information on Israeli "settlers" in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights.

Regarding the "settlers," among other things, Rice wanted information on, "Divisions among various settlement groups[;] details on settlement-related budgets and subsidies[;] settlers' relationships with the Israeli political and military establishment including their lobbying and settlement methods."

Rice expressed deep interest as well in all details related to Israel's military and non-military communications infrastructure. For instance, she directed US officials to gather information on "Current specifications, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and planned upgrades to national telecommunications infrastructure, networks, and technologies used by government and military authorities, intelligence and security services, and the public sector."

Finally, Rice wanted personal data on Israeli leaders. She asked for "official and personal phone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses of principal civilian and military leaders."

TAKEN SIDE-BY-SIDE, the first striking aspect of the US's fabricated Israeli spy scandal on the one hand and its massive espionage operation against Israel on the other hand is the shocking hypocrisy of it all.

But hypocrisy isn't the real issue. The real issue exposed by the documents is that the US is carrying out a deeply hostile policy against Israel in the face of massive public support for Israel in the US. That is, whereas two thirds of Americans support Israel, a minority constituency in the US government treats Israel with scorn and hatred.

And the question that arises from this is: How is this minority able to get away with it?

Part of the answer was exposed this week in the aftermath of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's move on Monday morning to break ranks with the Labor Party. To understand how the two issues are related it is important to understand the plight of Labor since the demise of the peace process with the PLO in 2000.

Since the peace process ended with the beginning of the Palestinian terror war in September 2000, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have viewed Labor's policies of appeasement at all cost as dangerous and wrong. That is, since 2000, Labor's policies have been the policies of the political fringe. This situation has only grown worse for Labor since Hamas's takeover of Gaza and victory in the Palestinian elections held in the wake of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Despite the fact that its policies are hugely unpopular, two factors have enabled Labor to continue to present itself as a mainstream ruling party.

The first factor has been the media. As has been their practice since the birth of modern Israel, since the demise of the peace process, the media have helped the likes of Labor by demonizing the Right, and rightist politicians and particularly Likud. Working hand in glove with leftist politicians, the media have engaged in the politics of personal destruction against right wing leaders. By demonizing the likes of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, they have rendered the social cost of supporting Likud and the Right is too high for many Israelis to bear.

At the same time, the Media have colluded with the Left to present Leftist leaders as earthy, heroic, sophisticated and responsible statesmen. By keeping the content of their policies firmly out of the discussion and framing the debate instead around personal attacks and symbols, the media have successfully kept rightist leaders on the defensive and shielded leftist politicians from substantive attacks on their radical policies.

The second reason that Labor was able to retain its mantle as a ruling party is that it has enjoyed the energetic support of the State Department and European governments which both support its radical policies.

Until the formation of the Netanyahu government two years ago, Labor was the State Department's favorite political party. Labor leaders from Shimon Peres down were the objects of constant attention and praise. Labor's leaders in turn were happy to help the Americans and Europeans hide their basic hostility towards Israel by claiming that their anti-Israel policies were actually pro-Israel policies.

So it was that in 2003 Labor leaders actively colluded with the State Department in drafting the so-called Roadmap plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace despite then prime minister Ariel Sharon's opposition to the plan.

Labor's importance took a hit with the formation of Kadima in late 2005. Comprised of newly minted leftists from Likud led by Sharon and veteran leftists from Labor like Peres, Kadima inherited Labor's mantle as the Left's new ruling party. Labor was able to retain its relevance to the US by joining Olmert's coalition and advocating even more radical policies than those advocated by Olmert and Livni.

But then Likud and the Right won the 2009 elections. Kadima, led by Livni, went into the opposition and Labor, under Barak joined the coalition.

As head of the opposition, Livni has become ever more vocal in advocating the policies of the radical Left and the Obama administration. Livni has placed the blame for the absence of the peace process and for the Obama administration's sour relations with Israel squarely and entirely on Netanyahu's shoulders.

For his part, Barak has been stuck in an untenable situation. To justify his partnership with Netanyahu, he worked closely with the Obama administration and actively lobbied Netanyahu to adopt the US's favored positions. The Obama administration rewarded him by regularly hosting him in Washington and openly extolling him as its chosen "Israeli foreign minister."

But given both his own party's radicalism and the Obama administration's hostility towards Netanyahu, Barak was never able to fully satisfy either his party or the Americans. He was never able to move to the Left of Livni.

Tzipi Livni with Hillary Clinton

According to Haaretz and to Labor leaders who opposed Barak, the end of the line for Barak came early this month with Ha'aretz's publication of a report claiming that the Obama administration had soured on Barak due to his failure to convince Netanyahu to extend the Jewish construction ban in Judea and Samaria for an additional 90 days. Livni, Ha'aretz reported, had replaced Barak as the Obama administration's favorite Israeli politician.

Since the article was published, Barak could no longer maintain the contradiction between Labor's radical policies and its protestations to ruling party status. Without American support, there was no way to keep Labor together.

This is why, when he announced his break with Labor on Monday morning, Barak explained that Labor had become a radical party that was home to post-Zionists who believe that Israel alone is to blame for the absence of peace. The post-Zionists rejected him when he lost his international support. So he had nowhere to go but into Netanyahu's waiting Zionist arms.

This is also why Livni and Kadima have so harshly attacked Barak. In an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday, Livni — whose political career owes entirely to her decision to betray Likud voters — called Barak's split from Labor "the dirtiest act," in history. More importantly, the woman who claims that Netanyahu is solely to blame for the absence of peace with the Palestinians and that he is wrong not to bow to every US demand protested, "For Barak to call whoever wants peace post-Zionist is unheard of."

This brings us back to the FBI's anti-Israel witch hunt and Rice's spy cable.

Barak lost his ability to serve as the puppet of the anti-Israel wing of the US government because he was unable to both serve under Netanyahu and overthrow him. By pressuring Barak to do the impossible, the anti-Israel officials in the US government inadvertently caused the demise of the Labor Party.

However, with Kadima under Livni, these officials can take heart. Their support for Livni makes her powerful. Owing to their support, Livni is able to maintain her control over the largest party in the Knesset.

And as long as Livni remains both powerful and loyal to their agenda, those forces in the US government that despise the Jewish state will be able to rest easy. Although the majority of Americans want their government to support Israel, shielded by Kadima, these US government officials will be able to continue to implement policies that treat Israel with the contempt due to a banana republic.

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@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, January 25, 2011.

This comes from Act For America (www.actforamerica.org), an issues advocacy organization dedicated to mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America to inform and coordinate civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. They write:

We are being told Imam Rauf is no longer the imam of the Ground Zero Mosque. He's been replaced by Shaykh Abdallah Adhami.

The NewsRealBlog column below by Joseph Klein provides some initial glimpses into Adhami's background. No quotes on sharia law yet but a lot of other smoke there. The article is called "New Ground Zero Mosque Imam Selection Rubs More Salt Into The Wound — Past Connections To Terrorist Supporters Exposed."
(http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/01/19/ the-new-ground-zero-mosque-imam-selection- rubs-more-salt-into-the-wound/).

We're wondering if the line from The Who's hit song "Won't Get Fooled Again" is appropriate: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

Have you added your name to our Keep America Safe and Free appeal to the new Congress?


Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is out as the religious face of the Park 51/Cordoba House mega mosque community center complex proposed to be built near Ground Zero. Rauf became too radioactive for the project's developers, so he was pushed aside. Despite efforts by some apologists to defend this faux 'moderate, the evidence of his true stealth jihad agenda was overwhelming.

Therefore, to keep moving ahead with their Ground Zero mosque project, the developers turned to Shaykh Abdallah Adhami as Rauf's replacement. This is just like rubbing more salt into the wound. All that the new imam represents is a different mask hiding the same radical Islamist agenda.

As Jamie Glazov wrote in his Front Page Magazine column, there is terror behind both Rauf's and Adhami's masks.

Let's start with the fact, uncovered by Pamela Geller on her Atlas Shrugs blog, that the new Ground Zero Mosque imam has a deep admiration for Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and advocates the replacement of the U.S. government with an Islamic Caliphate. Adhami has called Wahhaj "Our Beloved Imam" and the "voice of the spirit of Islam in America and its pride."

Imam Adhami's website Sakeenah has also carried a glowing description of Siraj Wahhaj:

Imam Siraj Wahhaj is the first in the Celebrating Our Elders series. He was selected not simply because of his devoted leadership to the community, but also for his role as a pioneer in the American Muslim experience. Since the 1970s, Imam Siraj has tirelessly laid the foundations for many scholars and leaders that would follow him. From activism to challenges, to the Nation of Islam to revolutions, follow Imam Siraj as he retraces the footsteps of his life.

I wonder if this retracing of Siraj's footsteps included his testifying as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman or telling his Muslim audience in New Jersey that

If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. ... [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.

Maybe, to give the new Ground Zero Mosque imam the benefit of the doubt, he just wasn't aware of this side of Imam Siraj, although Adhami's website did mention favorably Siraj's association with the Nation of Islam. And maybe it's not fair to ascribe Siraj's radical views to Admani through a single episode of guilt by association.

I might possibly be inclined to cut Imam Adhami a break if we were talking about only this one questionable association. But unfortunately that is not the case.

For example, Shaykh Abdallah Adhami showed up as a guest speaker at the annual convention of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) back around Thanksgiving 200o. The theme of the convention was "All Palestine is Sacred!" Adhami was joined at the speakers' rostrum by Dr. Sami Al-Arian who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to contribute services to or for the benefit of the Palestine Islamic Jihad.

Defunct since 2005, the Islamic Association for Palestine was established in 1981 by Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook. Indeed, it functioned as a front for the terrorist organization Hamas.

IAP was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document — titled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"— as one of the Brotherhood's 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends."

IAP was the parent organization of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was co-founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad (IAP's President and Dr. Sami Al-Arian's brother-in-law). Awad has said "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement."

Given the clear terrorist-supporting agenda of the Islamic Association for Palestine, why did the new Ground Zero Mosque imam Shaykh Abdallah Adhami agree to participate in this pro-Hamas group's annual convention and address the gathering? If Adhami wants to convince us that he has no hidden stealth jihad agenda, then he should release the transcript of his speech if it is still available.

While he is at it, Adhami should also explain whom he was referring to during a speech of his in New York in 2008 when he attacked critics of Islam and Prophet Muhammad as engaging in

Fraud that is being perpetuated now and spread among the entire world.

Adhami actually labeled such criticism as "horribly unconstitutional and egregiously un-American."

Obviously, the new Ground Zero Mosque imam has much to learn about our Constitution. He evidently does not realize that free speech is an essential part of what it means to be an American.

The sponsors of the Ground Zero Mosque appear to have picked another stealth jihadist as the new face of their despicable plan to project Islamic power within shouting distance of hallowed ground. It's time to stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and move the ship to another port.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Keith Davies, January 25, 2011.

When Jared Loughner murdered six innocents and injured about a dozen others within a few hours the left wing media lead by Paul Krugman of the New York Times was quick on the trigger (sorry for the language of hate) to condemn conservatives for being part of a blood libel in fomenting hate that caused Loughner to commit this horrible crime.

Now that we have yet another outrage from Islamic terrorists who have just bombed and killed dozens of innocents at the Moscow international airport, there will be no such condemnation by the left wing media of the Muslim imams who daily instill hatred for us infidels throughout the Muslim and the West, so that we should die because we are unbelievers and that Jihad should spread Islam for Allah as per the Koran, the Sunna and the Sharia. Based on Walid Shoebat's testimony and countless other former Muslims and righteous liberal Muslims, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that this spewing of hatred from the mosque pulpits is causing the violence, murder, intimidation and persecution of Westerners, Israel, Christians and all non believers in Islam.

The world is upside down with lies, deceptions and outrageous excuses. The left will ignore the real reasons for the terror attack and give us the usual stuff about how we need to understand Islam so that we can come together in ecumenical good will so that we can defeat the hate. They will undoubtedly compare these "isolated" incidents of violence using the false moral equivalent argument concerning the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh as a Christian motivated by his religion; an outright lie, as it is well known that he was an agnostic. Even if he were a Christian there is nothing in the Bible to justify such a crime. The left will also mention the usual nut jobs that have attacked abortion clinics with violence. All true Christians condemn the attacks on abortion clinics that may have happened a very few times over last 30 years, however it cannot be denied that the violence of Muslims on non Muslims is happening daily in thousands of instances almost all over the world. Hundreds of thousands of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists as well as Israelis suffer at the hands of Muslims driven by their scriptures and the willingness of imams to instill hatred that they quote from their "holy" books. If one cares to just dig on the surface you can find thousands of pieces of media that can be gleaned from hundreds of web sites including ours on the Internet exposing the hatred and violence from mainstream Arab TV and the imams who spew this rhetoric.

The left love to have these "peace panel" discussions that are organized by well-intentioned "useful idiots" who are being used by expert propagandists like CAIR and other Muslim organizations who are fronts for the Muslim brotherhood. The best analogy to describe what these Muslim groups are doing with their "interfaith outreach" is what the Nazis did to keep the Jews calm by lieing to them about being transferred, giving them soap before a "shower" and playing music before they headed to the gas chambers. Their strategy is simple: keep telling gullible Westerners that Islam is a peaceful religion until they are able to kill or convert us all. We are helped along by left wing Christians, who choose to be willfully ignorant, choose not to do research or at least do the minimum to invite apostates to give their side of the issue. By peace they will destroy many; we are in the middle of that very process.

Yesterday I witnessed first hand such nonsense. I attended a "peace center panel discussion" organized by the Quakers who invited two Muslims, one from CAIR, to answer concerns about Islam. For nearly two hours the audience was fed one lie after another. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to ask my question. It was also tragic that none of the audience members was able to ask detailed questions to trap the speakers. When they did get to ask a question that exposed the truth, in came the denials, lies and omissions from the speakers. According to one of the Muslim speakers, an expert on Sharia law, he stated, "the Sharia Law does not concern the life of an average Muslim." Maybe, but it is certainly a problem for the average Christian living in Pakistan as the Sharia is incorporated into civil law especially on the law of blasphemy and as a result the Christian community is being decimated with intimidation as well as jail and murder. No Muslim country is signatory to the Hague convention concerning the abduction of women and children. Ask any American parent who has a daughter and grandchildren stuck in the Muslim world and the hell their family is going through. Abduction of women and child kidnapping is an epidemic in all Muslim countries. Our organization gets hundreds of inquiries a year concerning this issue.

Our leaders including our President, Bishops, Pastors, Rabbis, Mayors, school boards and all community leaders need to wake up and face the truth before the truth will literally kill us.

Keith Davies is Executive Director of the Walid Shoebat Foundation.

To Go To Top

Posted by Raanan Isseroff, January 25, 2011.

This is an update to my November 22, 2010 article, "WHY GHAJAR MUST REMAIN ISRAELI AND WHY WE MUST HELP", posted here. Ghajar is a Druze village, half in Israel, half in Lebanon.

In a number of articles I found a reference to a UNIFIL consultant and after a bit of work got hold of his email.

He told me that the villagers are in big trouble. Officially, they are afraid to say their true feelings that they want to stay Israeli. The life is more settled, they are protected from terrorists (specifically, the Hezbollah).

Since Israel is wavering about giving it away under intense pressure from the UN who is taking the Syrian and Lebanese opinions into consideration (and the Lebonese government has since been taken over by the Hezbollah since the implementation of UN resolution 1701) so the villagers consequently are terrified of saying they want to remain Israeli. If they get given to Lebanon, Hezbollah will take care of them. If Israel gives Golan away to Syria, Syria will do what they want to do with them.

The UN could care less about their opinions. In the UN archives of reports on Ghajar, I found that Syria and Lebanon are fiercely putting in reports in efforts to push the UN into action.

Privately, the UNFIL consultant told me that the villagers are desparate to stay Israeli. But they are afraid of retribution.

Raanan Isseroff
Raanan Isseroff is Director of the Crown Heights Committee For Shlaymus HaAretz and can be contacted by email at rsisseroff@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, January 25, 2011.

This was written by David Haivri. Contact him by email at haivri@yeshuv.org


Shalom Friends,

As part of our ongoing efforts to improve the image of the Jewish communities in Yehuda and Shomron we have launched a campaign to open up the Shomron region to tourism We have seen that this strategy is very effective. When people actually come out and see the sites and meet the people who live here their perception of the facts becomes real and with that the understanding that the Shomron is a important asset to the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

Click here to see a picture blog from a recent tour of Russian language Bloggers and see some of the types of things to which our visitors are exposed.

You can help!

In February the Shomron Liaison Office will be at Israel's main tourism fair at Binyani HaOmah convention center in Jerusalem. To offer our tours to Israel's leading tour guides and groups. We are now producing a special tour map focused on our area as a promotion and tool for English speaking guests.

We need sponsors. You can help.

The tourism map of the Shomron bellow in Hebrew is now in stages of production in English. It will include information for sites and tours and contact information making this beautiful area accessible for tourists and guest.

We are seeking sponsorship to help cover the costs of this production. All donors of $25 and up will receive a copy of the map. Major donors can also be listed as sponsors on the map itself. Please contact us for details on overall costs at info@yeshuv.org Click here to make an Online Donation in Support of the Map.

Thank you,

See the message also on You Tube.

David Ha'ivri
Executive Director
The Shomron Liaison Office
Tel: +97239368146
Cell: +972526071690

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 25, 2011.

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the PA, has always highlighted "return" of the "refugees" as a cause to which he has particular devotion. He fashions himself as a "refugee" — although he has admitted that his family left voluntarily from Sfat (an Israeli city in the Galil), where he was born — and has consistently said that he will not retreat from the demand that the "refugees" be permitted to go back to their homes and villages inside of Israel's Green Line.

Whether this is truly an issue dear to his heart or a position that he knows he must take because his people will accept nothing less is in a sense irrelevant. The point is that Abbas has dutifully adhered to this line regarding return.

As a matter of fact, there is a substantial school of thought that says that PA insistence on "return" is a device for destroying Israel from within, and that Abbas's position is likely tactical.


Now comes the leak released last night by Al Jazeera to tell us that in a March 2008 meeting Abbas had with the Negotiation Support Unit, he said:

"On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take five million or even one million — that would mean the end of Israel." He then said that as Israel has offered to take 5,000, which didn't even satisfy family reunification demands, there would have to be compensation.

Are we supposed to believe this?


Yesterday I indicated that I thought there was a good chance that the leaks contained distortions if not fabrication. This particular leak convinces me that it indeed is likely the case. For I find it difficult to accept that Abbas said precisely what he is reported to have said here.

He might have said something like this: "We can try to push for all of the refugees to return, as a matter of principle, but let's face it, the Israelis will never buy it. But the 5,000 that Olmert offered? An insult. It doesn't even account for full family reunification. We cannot simply accept this, it would look very bad. Let's push as hard as we can. Talk about the rights of the people, need to reunify families. Maybe we can get acceptance of 50,000. Then, in the end we'll have to go with some compensation package as well."

But to simply acquiesce to only 5,000 returning, without protest, saying that it's not "logical" to expect the Israelis to accept as much as a million? It's a long way from 5,000 to a million, with a lot of ground in-between. And since when is he logical with regard to dealing with Israel?


Even as I write this, I am mindful that, according to YNet, Nabil Sha'ath, a former member of the PA negotiating team, gave an interview with Al-Jazeera last night — in defiance of an order from Ramallah — indicating that the documents were real.

One highly reliable source I checked with commented that "no one says the documents aren't real — they are not forgeries." But, as this source acknowledged, this still leaves room with regard to material left out, twisting of what was said, and so on.

Barry Rubin, whom I was also in touch with on this, reminds us that it is possible for real documents to have been altered and for Al-Jazeera and the Guardian to have misquoted what the original documents said. We must remember that Al-Jazeera was not provided with word-for-word transcripts of what was said at meetings, but notes.

What bothers me is the question of why Sha'ath would have defied the PA, and given an interview that further damns it. This makes his interview suspect in my eyes.


I'm picking up all sorts of analyses: That what the PA offered was not such a big deal, when you consider what they didn't offer. Or that what they said in private is so different from what they said in public because they weren't preparing their people for peace. Or that this proves we really have a partner for peace after all. These various takes assume that there is solid veracity in the leaks.

But I'm not going to go there.


Khaled Abu Toameh, writing about this in the JPost today, does not specifically say that the leaks are fabricated. But he does refer to a "show trial," which carries certain implications. This, in part, is what he wrote:

"After assuming the role of prosecutor and judge, Al-Jazeera, the Arab world's most influential TV network, has ruled that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have betrayed their people and must therefore step down from the stage.

"In other words, PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his men have been convicted of high treason — which, in the Arab and Islamic world, is a crime punishable by death.

"Al-Jazeera is now waiting for the executioner (the Palestinians, in this case) to carry out the death sentence.

"...The TV station has already decided that the defendants are guilty of the...charges against them. The station's unequivocal message to Palestinians is that Abbas and his men are traitors who need to be removed from the scene, and the sooner the better.

"It's hard to see how, in light of this damning verdict, the PA will be able to salvage what's left of its credibility. Al-Jazeera has succeeded in instilling in the minds of many Palestinians and Arabs the belief that the leaders of the PA are a bunch of corrupt traitors who serve Israeli and American interests.

"The damage to the PA's image and reputation is colossal and irreparable.."
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/ Article.aspx?id=205079


This, my friends, is the story. Not a parsing of whether Abbas might give more than he has publicly indicated, or what it means that his private and public words seem so different.

Abbas as a politician has been weakened, perhaps fatally. The PA has been weakened.

It was highly unlikely in any event that Abbas was going to return to the table, no matter what the Quartet may be proclaiming or what might be happening in meetings he has with Ross and others. But now? He might prefer to resign and go into hiding in a distant land rather than sit down opposite Netanyahu. Were he to meet with the Israeli prime minister, it would be seen by his people as immediately suspect, a betrayal.

Abu Toameh refers to a "death sentence" for high treason. Do not take this metaphorically. Abbas knows full well that his life is in danger.


And let's take this one step further. Roee Nahmias, writing on YNet, describes the "ambush-like coverage planned in advance, [in which] network reporters were deployed in the field." An Al-Jazeera correspondent went into a refugee camp in Lebanon "in order to elicit reactions to 'the Palestinian renouncement of the right of return.' Meanwhile, several commentators in the studios were fuming, including the editor of the hawkish London-based al-Quds al-Arabi, Abdul Bari Atwan, a Palestinian who constantly slams senior PA officials."

So Al-Jazeera not only fomented the current situation, it is willfully fueling it.

Elaborates Nahmias:

"...one should not be making light of al-Jazeera's effort (and not for the first time) to present PA officials as willing collaborators with Israel, who sell off their people and make concessions behind closed doors...

"...the overall package presented by the Qatar-based network was a resounding 'You sold out Palestine.'

"The situation throughout the Middle East is volatile ever since the Tunisia upheaval. Arab rulers are waiting for the dust to settle and for order to be restored. Yet precisely at this time, al-Jazeera arrived with its bombastic reports, which directly undermine the legitimacy of Palestinian Authority leaders, even if most of the 'concessions' were already known in advance and thoroughly covered by the media before.

"Such reports and claims, which have been repeated in various forms and more forcefully in recent years, are gradually weakening the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority. It is being portrayed as a weak, submissive, failed and corrupt entity, as opposed to Yasser Arafat's era, for example. And when this is the impression created by the most popular network in the Arab world, can one assume this will not have future implications?

"Even if the likelihood of this is slim at this time, we should take into account the possibility that ongoing erosion in legitimacy and image may one day provoke riots against the PA, or at least prompt a power struggle amongst its leaders, thereby dramatically toughening its positions. "If one day we see bloody riots in the West Bank similar to the ones we saw in Gaza, it would be worthwhile to go back to the latest al-Jazeera project. This is yet another step, and apparently a deliberate one, in weakening the PA, a move that one party stands to benefit from: The Hamas movement. It is for good reason that Hamas already uses the term 'popular revolution' in its reports." (Emphasis added)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-4018476,00.html


We should not be surprised by this state of affairs, for Qatar, which is the home base for Al-Jazeera, provides support for Hamas:

In 2008, The Washington Times cited a key Abbas aide as saying that Qatar provides Hamas with millions each month — in addition to which, it provides political support and hosts Hamas officials in Doha regularly.

In 2009, terrorism expert Matthew Levitt, writing on the Counterterrorism blog, addressed Qatar's "diplomatic journey away from the Arab consensus — via support for Islamist extremists — toward an alliance with Syria and Iran."

Altogether the situation with Qatar is both difficult and somewhat schizoid. For the US has had significant ties with Qatar, and, in fact, in 2003 directed the war on Iraq from an American base in Qatar.

The direction in which Qatar is moving seems to me a spit in the eye for the US. The current undermining of the chances of furthering the peace process so fervently sought by the US, if nothing else, is problematic for Obama.


Yesterday, State Department spokesman JP Crowley allowed in a press conference that the leaks complicate efforts to forge a peace deal. However, he clarified, this will not slow the president's work towards that goal.


But let us step back and look at the big picture:

Hezbollah is about to take control in Lebanon, to our north. Iran is directly implicated in what's going on there.

To our east, the PA is weakened and an Iranian-supported Hamas is more likely to take over, as the result of machinations by Qatar, which has ties to Iran.

Hello there, in Washington! If Obama truly wants to see peace in this part of the world, he should table his efforts to get Abbas to the table (Which efforts would likely include increased pressure on Israel to offer the PA "confidence building measures," since it was weakened.)

Obama's absolute priority should be stopping Iran in its destructive tracks and in increasing US deterrence in this part of the world.

Does he have even a clue?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Norma Zager, January 25, 2011.


"And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them..." Exodus 32:9-10

God has not abandoned Israel; Israel has abandoned God.

Just as the generation of the Golden Calf was denied access into the Promised Land, today also turning one's back on God will have tragic repercussions for the Jewish people.

Honoring God is not a religious issue. It is an obligation of every human being, every Jew, Christian or Muslim who has been blessed with God's favor.

In the desert when Moses doubted God, he was punished. Until then God's blessings had flowed freely to Moses in his struggle to free his people.

Last Wednesday in the United Nations the anti-Semites once again took advantage of an opportunity to discredit and chip away at Israel.

Where was Benjamin Netanyahu? Who spoke for Israel as she was maligned? No one. Even though a member of the Knesset from the Likud (ruling) Party was in New York on that very day. Silence!

Is Netanyahu not aware of the plaque prominently displayed on President Harry Truman's desk, "The Buck Stops Here?"

Although I supported Netanyahu, he has gravely disappointed me. However, it is not my disappointment he should fear.

Netanyahu should have gone to the UN and said aloud for the entire world to hear, "No more lies about Israel. These claims are not true. We are justly there, and we will stay there, for it is our right and our land. No amount of propaganda will defeat what is the truth."

As Israel's leader is his not the voice that should speak for his people and their right to exist? Even Moses begged for God's mercy for his people after their Golden Calf debacle.

My disappointment in Israel's leader is irrelevant. God's is not.

During the Six Day War in 1967, the world watched a miracle unfold. The tiny land of Israel took on the Arab world and was heartily beating it into submission.

Yet, in the Second Lebanon War 39 years later, Israel was defeated.

How could this be the case when Israel is now a much stronger and more powerful nation?

Power and success do not come from any physical component. They come from God.

In the Six Day War Israelis were empowered by their spirit, their appreciation of what God has given them, by the generational price they had paid to be returned to their land after the years of pogroms, murders, terror and the Nazi systematic extermination campaign.

They knew the blessing was from the Lord. They were grateful, thankful, and never for a moment did they disregard the power or magnitude of that blessing.

Now, Israel has forsaken gratitude, forsaken appreciation and is racked with politics and interfaith battles from within. Are not all Jews observant to the same God? Left or right, religious or secular, is God not the holiest of holies to us all?

Jews fighting amongst themselves, political opinions trumping the blessings they received, egos over God.

No wonder the Jewish State is on the decline and soon will be gone.

Yesterday, at lunch in Beverly Hills with my daughter and grandson, an Israeli couple and their two children sat at the next table. They looked like they were from central casting, a handsome Jewish husband, gorgeous wife and two exquisite little girls.

I found myself staring at the youngest child turning over in my mind the fact that she is unprotected from evil. The reality she was the same age as my beloved grandson. Obsessed with the brutal knowledge that rockets fly into Israeli schoolyards and to where children sleep, almost daily, tears filled my eyes.

My daughter, unaware of what I was thinking said, "Mother stop staring."

Her words brought me back to reality, but I felt an overwhelming sense of grief, not only for this beautiful family, but also for all the children that are now at risk because of Israel's bad behavior toward God.

If you want to be a Jewish State, how can you survive when you have abandoned the Almighty? Shown ingratitude for his gifts? Judaism is not a pagan religion. It is the religion that brought the world God's laws. It is the seed of Christianity and Abraham is even the father of Ishmael.

Yet, Israel turns her back on God?

How can this be?

If you believe in God, you believe all things come from the Lord. A land of milk and honey is a treasure to protect, not apologize for and throw back in God's face.

Humans can be modest, but they must not humble God. Since all gifts come from Him, humbling those gifts humbles the Lord.

Abandoning Israel is spitting in God's face.

It is no different than someone presenting you with a magnificent gift and you throwing it back and saying it is not what you wanted.

Would you expect that person to give you anything ever again?

Of course not!

And now Israel is saying the Jewish Homeland is not a gift worth fighting for. How does one expect God to feel about this?

Should He continue to give Israel gifts? Continue to make Israelis the leaders in medicine, science and technology? A country flowing with milk and honey where people come to stand on sacred land?

In September, the Palestinians will declare themselves a free state without having to make a single concession to Israel. They will simply take the land that belongs to Israel and say it belongs to them.

The international community will stand by and watch idly. The U.S., once a great ally, will pretend it did not see what was happening and remain mute. The crazy Jews in America will continue to fund President Obama's campaign after he sells out Israel, and AIPAC will wonder what the hell happened to all their supposed juice in Washington.

In the end it will be over and done.

Yet, it will not be anyone's fault but the Jewish people, not only in Israel, everywhere around the world.

Little by little the Arab world will chip away at the Jewish State until there is nothing left but the bones.

Just like the tombs of our Hebrew ancestors in Hebron, the Muslims will come in, rename Israel and bury all memory of her existence.

Fifty years from today history books will include a small footnote: "The Jewish people were an ancient culture and religion who, from time to time, occupied the land that is now Palestine. They are all but extinct now, although a few groups around the world continue to practice Judaism's tenets. It was once believed they delivered the Ten Commandments to the world through their prophet Moses, but history now records it was actually Mohammed who gave the world Allah's laws."

I cannot feel sorry for Israel. I can only weep for the little girl the Jewish people are sending into the hands of the hungry, awaiting wolves.

Golda Meir once said there will never be peace until the Arabs begin loving their own children more than they hate us.

How sad, it is the Jewish people who have abandoned God and their own children. I pray we wake up before all the beautiful little Jewish children of the world once again pay the price for our sin of ingratitude.

The series "Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel" by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century. Contact Norma Zager and Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, January 25, 2011.



In his letter to President Barack Obama, former Deputy Attorney General Phillip Heymann is the first US Official to state unequivocally that he has reviewed the complete record and found no evidence that Pollard did damage to the US or helped its enemies. Pollard was charged with one count of passing classified information to an ally "with no intent to harm the US." "No intent to harm the US" is legalese that means that there was no evidence that damage was done. Nevertheless, for years American officials claimed in the media that Pollards actions caused damage to the US. Heymann confirms that the official record contains no evidence to support the claim. The text of the letter follows below..


H A R V A R D    L A W    S C H O O L

Phillip B. Heymann
James Barr Ames Professor of Law
Director of Center for International

25 January 2011

Dear Mr. President,

Having reviewed the Pollard file at length as former Deputy Attorney General in 1993-94, I enthusiastically join the many distinguished others who are now urging you to commute the sentence of Jonathan Pollard. Like Jim Woolsey and Dennis Deconcini, I know the record and fully share their conclusions. Like Secretary of State George Shultz, I particularly admire the precise statement of the issues by former Attorney General Mukasey.

Pollard's conviction was justified but his sentence was entirely out of line with others engaging in similar behavior and it was made less-than-legitimate by a treacherous recommendation of the then Secretary of Defense. There is no evidence that Pollard intended to harm the United States or help its enemies. Having already served a severe sentence, Pollard is now supported by political and religious leaders across the political spectrum in seeking a commutation. I join them with deep conviction as to the justice of their shared cause.


Phillip B. Heymann

See Also:

Doc: Original Letter by Former A.G. Phillip Heymann to President Barack Obama [PDF]
at http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2011/012511.pdf

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, January 25, 2011.

The growing menace of endogenic Judeo-phobia — or how Jews fan the flames of hatred against their own.


"Thy destroyers and thy demolishers shall emerge from within thee." — Isaiah 49:17

"When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism" — attributed to Martin Luther King Jr., Harvard, 1968

Finally a belated realization is beginning to dawn on the nation. The pace is still far too slow, the scale far too small, and one can only hope that it will not turn out to be "too little too late." But at least some semblance of awareness is beginning to emerge that decades of delegitimization as the nation-state of the Jews comprise the gravest strategic danger Israel faces.

In his column "Yes to prosecuting subversion, no to McCarthyism" (January 13), Isi Leibler gave an commendably accurate diagnosis of the malaise and its roots: "We largely have ourselves to blame for enabling our adversaries to succeed in embedding their false narrative in the consciousness of the world." Aptly, he added: "Our failure has been augmented by the small but influential far left post-Zionist factions which systematically promote the Arab narrative and distort our position in our own media and universities." Perhaps the only defect in Leibler's analysis it that he understates the numbers and diversity of the malefactors.

For this perilous predicament has been precipitated not only by a small core of dedicated post/anti-Zionist zealots. It has been greatly facilitated by the complicity of a much larger allegedly pro-Zionist layer of Israeli society and pro-Israel Jewry — either passively through benign neglect, intellectual indolence and/or a lack of stomach for confrontation; or actively by providing the zealots with platforms, prestige and position to promulgate their poisonous — and arguably perfidious — political agendas.

Indeed, without such tacit cooperation (or craven capitulation), this kernel of radicals would be severely curtailed in its capacity to propagate anti-Israel malevolence. This has at least two consequences: It provides a license for the abuse of academic freedom, essentially lending it a veil of legitimacy for the perversion — rather than the pursuit — of truth.

And it fuels not only the growing drive for delegitimization of the Jewish state, but fans the hatred against the Jewish people. The howls of protest that inevitably arise at the mere mention of these effects are generally of two kinds. Both must be summarily dismissed as either invalid or irrelevant or both.

The first kind of protest typically holds that any discussion of such things constitutes a dire danger to freedom of expression, and an intolerable infringement of the autonomy of intellectual inquiry, the sine qua non for vibrant democracy.

In fact, in the context of Israeli academe, the contrary if true. It is the complacency/complicity/capitulation of the academic mainstream vis-à-vis the radical leftists that has constricted the freedom of expression and the scope of "permissible" opinions and/or research. This is undeniable in light of the almost total absence — certainly the gross underrepresentation — of pro-Zionist perspectives, and certainly of robustly hawkish ones, across the entire spectrum of the nation's faculties of social sciences and humanities (including law).

This wildly disproportionate dearth is even more remarkable — and revealing — given that over the past two decades, the dominant dovish paradigms have been refuted by reality — apparently demonstrating that such "intellectual inbreeding" has severely degraded the quality of academic output.

The second such Pavlovian-like protest is that Israel is not — and should not be — immune to criticism, and such criticism cannot and should not be dismissed as anti-Semitism, nor should anti-Semitism be invoked as grounds for muffling it.

While Israel is obviously not without blemish, and not every expression of disapproval can — or should — be construed as motivated by anti-Semitic impulses, this is only one aspect of a more complex truth. For it cannot be denied that the persistent and pervasive application of double standards to the conduct of the nation-state of the Jews, and the endemic distortion of realities in it — make anti-Semitism an increasingly plausible explanation for the unparalleled and unrelenting assault on nearly every position and action taken by Israel.

NOR CAN it be ignored that a growing body of opinion holds an increasingly seamless nexus between anti-Israeli vilification and anti-Jewish bigotry. Indeed, a significant number of pundits have identified anti-Zionism as the new channel through which a major portion of today's anti-Semitic sentiments are flowing. In effect, Israel has become a "lighting rod" that attracts hatred and enmity toward Jews, in a manner that provides these emotions with an aura of acceptability and political correctness that overt anti-Semitism could not.

Thus anti-Zionism has become a convenient surrogate for anti-Semitism, with hatred for Jews as individuals (Jews as people) being replaced by hatred for Jews as a collective (Jews as a people).

Accordingly, accounts of Israel and its actions, which cast unwarranted aspersions on the country and its policies, or present it in a one-sided, biased distorted, misleading, not to mention outright mendacious light, contribute considerably to fueling the flames of Judeo-phobic passions and validating Judeo-phobic prejudices.

Clearly then, pronouncements made by Israeli and/or Jewish individuals or organizations have special value for the country's detractors — frequently used to validate their anti-Zionist condemnations and "authoritatively" discrediting any rebuttals. Whether intentionally on not, such pronouncements reinforce the insidious invective and the demonic imagery used to portray Israel today.

The problem extends far beyond the explicitly post/anti-Zionists who propose annulling the country's status as a Jewish state and transforming it into a "state of all its citizens," and/or openly condemn it as an ethnocratic apartheid regime, meriting not only international censure but sanction.

Oren Yiftachel, for example, depicts Israel (on both sides of the Green Line) as a "colonialist ethnocracy," and Neve Gordon has explicitly called for a boycott of the country because of its "apartheid policies."

It extends to purportedly pro-Zionists who allegedly endorse the existence of Israel as the nation-state of Jews, but provide — hopefully unwittingly — anti-Semites with material and opportunity to promote their Judeo-phobic agenda. This group includes figures such as Aeyal Gross, who has described Israel as "a society where shooting at children of the 'other' is the norm" and which "is in fact indifferent or worse to Israel's widespread killing of Palestinian youth" and Fania Oz-Salzberger, who in the wake of the Gaza flotilla episode proclaimed in a Daily Beast article that she was "ashamed of my country" — presumably because young commandos were compelled to use lethal force to extricate themselves from the clutches of a brutal lynch mob — a mob who, shortly before the incident, had called for the Jews to "go back to Auschwitz."

PERHAPS MORE significantly, it includes the bodies that provide institutional support for the aforementioned individuals, and which facilitate the propagation of their condemnation — purposeful or otherwise — furnishing them with promotional platforms to mindfully endorse — or mindlessly enhance — the process of delegitimization. These include universities such as Ben-Gurion University, which promote individuals like Neve Gordon to department heads, whose duties presumably entail setting programs for seminars and conferences, contacts with other institutions of higher learning, influencing the choice of faculty and so on.

It includes Jewish benefactors who set up Israel studies chairs/programs and ensconce in them figures who provide — at best — a distorted portrayal and — at worse — a demonized image.

It also includes major Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee, which invited Peter Beinart as key speaker at its 2011 Global Forum. For not only has Beinart expressed views (in his misleading 5,000-word piece in the New York Review of Books in 2010 which catapulted him to celebrity status) that totally negate AJC executive director David Harris's eminently sensible defense of Israel's democratic credentials, but has publicly suggested that US Jewry ought to apply the same value judgments to Israeli measures vis-à-vis the Palestinians as they do to events "in Bosnia, the former Soviet Union and Darfur."

The net result of all this is that such individuals, armed with the prestige of their formal positions, become the prisms through which the wider public comes to view Israel and to evaluate its essence and ethical foundations. Unless these developments are urgently addressed — and arrested — their tragic consequences are not difficult to predict. Perhaps the best way to initiate such a corrective process is to inform the public and foreign donors of the ongoing absurdity of these self-destructive phenomena, and urge them to consider if this is really the best way to use their tax shekels and dollar donations.

The writer lectured at Tel Aviv University in Political Science and Security Studies for the past twenty years. In 2009/2010 he was the visiting Israeli Schusterman Scholar at University of Southern Californian (USC) and the Hebrew Union College (Los Angeles). He served for seven years in the defense establishment and is currently engaged in the establishment of a new Policy Center in Israel. www.martinsherman.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Kramer, January 25, 2011.

Martin van Creveld is a well-known Israeli military historian and author, formerly a professor at Hebrew University. In his recent article at www.Forward.com: "Israel Doesn't Need the West Bank To Be Secure," van Creveld posits that the West Bank isn't crucial to Israel's defense. Although I am not a military historian, I believe van Creveld's thesis doesn't pass the "smell test." As a resident of the West Bank community of Alfe Menashe, easily able to see many Palestinian towns from my doorstep, I'd fear for Israel's security were Judea and Samaria, known by the media as the West Bank, totally given up to the Palestinians.

Van Creveld (hereafter abbreviated to MvC) begins with the situation before the 1967 war, when Israel had no control over the territory beyond the Green Line, the 1949 armistice line. Despite that, Israel overcame its enemies in six days. MvC ignores the fact that before the Six Day War, the Palestinians hardly agitated for a state of their own. The PLO was established in 1964, not 1948. Two of the greatest threats to Israel were founded even later: Hezbollah in 1982, during the Lebanese Civil War, inspired by the Khomeini-led revolution in Iran; Hamas in 1987, during the First Intifada, as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

MvC then mentions the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which reduce the Arab threat to Israel. This is true as far as it goes, but the overwhelming threat to Israel is from Iran and to a lesser extent Syria, not Egypt or Jordan. Syria is still at war with Israel and is Iran's major Arab ally, although MvC says that Syria's threat is not "serious". Hezbollah and Hamas are Iran's proxy armies against Israel. All are increasing their offensive armaments at an alarming rate. Despite this, Hezbollah is unmentioned by MvC and Hamas rates only a passing reference.

MvC then describes Israel's astonishing growth, stating that, "Israel's GDP is now larger than those of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt combined. As to military power, suffice it to say that Israel is the world's fifth-largest exporter of arms." Checking the Internet, one can see that Egypt's GDP is nearly as large as Israel's. Adding the other three countries, Israel's GDP is significantly lower than their combined total. Nor could I find verification of MvC's statement regarding weapons sales, although Israel is a significant arms exporter. The top five sellers are all members of the United Nations Security Council: America, Russia, Germany, France, U.K. Whether this is relevant at all is questionable, since China, with its huge power and influence is not among the biggest exporters. Neither is North Korea, the world's greatest nuclear proliferator-troublemaker. As for the significance of GDP, Afghanistan's GDP is very low, but that hasn't prevented it from humbling the likes of the British Empire, Russia, and now America.

MvC then states that, "holding on to the West Bank won't help Israel defend itself against missiles coming from Syria or Iran." Perhaps this is true — but it's beside the point. Israel cannot be defeated by missiles; the existential threat is from ground forces pouring across our borders.The mountainous West Bank is the barrier protecting Israel's vulnerable coastal plain from armed attack from the east. The Jordan Valley is crucial to Israel's security and it would be extremely foolish for Israel to rely on perennially weak Jordan to protect its eastern flank. MvC dismisses the threat of a land invasion, despite admitting that, "the West Bank comprises the high ground and overlooks Israel's coastal plain." He also ignores the possibility that Arab ground forces could wreak havoc with Israel's buildup of reserve forces in the event of war by blocking the few critical roads through the West Bank.

MvC: "Therefore, just as Israel does not need the West Bank to defend itself against ballistic missiles, it does not need that territory to defend itself against conventional warfare. If it could retain a security presence in the Jordan Valley, keep the eventual Palestinian state demilitarized and maintain control of the relevant airspace, that would all be well and good. However, none of these conditions existed before 1967; in view of geography and the balance of forces, none is really essential today either." That's a lot of "ifs". Just because we overcame these negatives more than 40 years ago doesn't guarantee we could do it again under dramatically changed circumstances.

MvC seems to forget that the role of the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank has been crucial to diminishing terror attacks and preventing the fall of the moderate (relatively speaking) Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Withdrawing the IDF from the West Bank could quickly lead to a situation which resulted when Gaza was abandoned by the IDF: a Hamas takeover and the escalation of violent attacks into Israel.

According to MvC, Israel's risk is "negligible" if it gives up the West Bank. He shows his true colors when he states that continuing the IDF presence beyond the Green Line, "... will turn [Israel] into what it is already fast becoming: namely, an apartheid state that can only maintain its control by means of repressive secret police actions."

In conclusion, MvC says Israel can only save itself by exiting the West Bank and dividing Jerusalem, unilaterally if necessary. He points to the Gaza evacuation as a "very successful" example. Otherwise, MvC advises his children and grandchild to "... seek some other, less purblind [dim-witted] and less stiff-necked, country to live in."

An enemy force located in commanding positions along the West Bank could pose a threat to the center of gravity of the State of Israel, including Ben Gurion Airport, cripple its economic life, and put at risk large portions of its population. It takes just three minutes for an enemy fighter to cross the 42 miles from the Jordan River — over the West Bank and Israel — to Tel Aviv. If Israel were unable to deploy its air defense systems along West Bank hilltops in order to intercept enemy aircraft from forward positions, the provision of adequate air defense by means of fighter interceptors or anti-aircraft missiles would be doubtful. (See www.defensibleborders.org/apx1.htm)

In my opinion, MvC has allowed his left wing ideology to cloud his military judgement. Most pundits note that overwhelming missile attacks, like the American "Show and Awe" campaign in Iraq, cannot defeat indigenous guerilla forces. Even with its missiles, drones, and jet aircraft, Israel needs all the strategic depth possible to repel a possible invasion on the ground or in the air.

The Palestine Authority won't even acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state. As a tiny country in a hostile environment, Israel would be foolish to give up whatever advantageous positions it has to a weak quasi-government which is striving for a Jew-free, Muslim, Arab state of Palestine.

Stephen Kramer is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture" Check it out at www.encounteringisrael.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jacob Richman, January 24, 2011.

I posted on my website 180 links to learn about the Holocaust. Site languages include English, Hebrew, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. All 180 links have been reviewed / checked this week.

The web address is: http://www.jr.co.il/hotsites/j-holoc.htm

Please share this message. Thank you.

We must not forget.


Contact Jacob Richman at jrichman@jr.co.il and visit his website http://www.j.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, January 24, 2011.

This is from today's Guardian. It is archived at
http://justjournalism.com/media-analysis/ palestine-papers-holy-basin/


The Guardian leads its news reporting today with selections from 1,600 leaked documents that purport to show the Palestinian perspective on the last ten years of negotiating with Israel. The documents were apparently leaked by the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit (NSU) to Al-Jazeera, which then shared them with the Guardian.

Coverage of the insights into high-level negotiations blanket the first five pages of the paper, and there is considerable analysis and commentary about what the documents claim to reveal about the stances of both sides.

The Guardian's editorial line is that the Palestinian negotiating team offered concessions that ceded too much to Israeli demands on a variety of issues, from settlements to refugees. Nowhere is this clearer than on the proposal that some compromise on the Holy Basin, which is sacred to both Judaism and Islam, should be agreed between the two faiths. Throughout the coverage, any suggestion of a Palestinian compromise over the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif is portrayed as unacceptable. Strikingly, no mention is made of the site's significance to the Jewish people.

This approach is most explicit in the lead editorial, 'Pleading for a fig leaf', which portrays the Palestinian negotiators as 'weak' and 'craven', and as having to 'flog the family silver' in order to even gain the 'bondage' of a 'puppet state'. The editorial lists the concessions which were allegedly offered, including the issue of sovereignty over The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif:

'Haram al-Sharif, the third holiest site in the Muslim world? That, too, is up for grabs. Mr Erekat said he was prepared to consider "creative ways" to solve the problem of Haram al-Sharif or the Temple Mount.'

Therefore, according to the Guardian, any suggestion that the Israelis and Palestinians might agree to somehow share the hotly contested site constitutes a surrendering of 'the third holiest site in the Muslim world'. This is despite the widespread recognition that The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif is held to be the most sacred site in Judaism, a fact that is omitted from the editorial.

This emphasis on how any hypothetical sharing would be a thorny issue for Muslims, at the expense of any mention of the significance for Jews, is maintained throughout a series of articles by Middle East editor Ian Black, and associate editor Seumas Milne.

In Israel spurned Palestinian offer of 'biggest Yerushalayim in history', the authors state that 'the Old City's Muslim and Jewish religious sites' are 'the most sensitive issue', before explaining that:

'For Muslims across the world, the area is the most important in the conflict and Yasser Arafat's refusal to compromise over its sovereignty triggered the final breakdown at Camp David.'

Similarly, 'Secret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace process' describes how:

'Most controversially, [the Palestinian negotiators] also proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem's Old City — the neuralgic issue that helped sink the Camp David talks in 2000 after Yasser Arafat refused to concede sovereignty around the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.'

While the Guardian repeatedly describes the issue of The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif as an exceptionally sensitive one, it only ever highlights its significance for Muslims, while completely ignoring the paramount importance of the area in Judaism. This bolsters its editorial line that any compromise on total Arab control of the site would be a painful concession by the Palestinians, rather than an attempt to satisfy the legitimate claims of both sides of the conflict.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, January 24, 2011.

When the media misses a major point in reporting an event, that omission becomes important in itself. Was the media careless or deliberately misleading?

Take the Wall Street Journal report of 1/24/11, "Turkey Rejects Israeli Find on Raid." The report did convey the finding by Israel's commission of inquiry that Israel had a right to blockade Gaza, had a right to enforce that (partial) blockade on the high seas, had a right to respond with force to the violence against its commandos, and did so in a proper fashion. The state of war by Gaza against Israel entitles Israel to blockade Gaza. The next installment of the report by Israel's inquiry will cover the methods of the inquirers.

Wiothout waiting for the next installment, Turkey and "Israeli human rights groups" rejected Israel's findings. Turkey's own inquiry cited the UN report adverse to Israel. Turkey depicted Israel's inquiry as lacking credibility (Charles Levinson, A12).

The New York Times elaborates on the question of credibility by citing the UN report and an Israel Radio commentator who doubted the objectivity of a group commissioned by the government it was investigating. The two foreign observers attached to the inquiry attested to the inquiry's fairness (Isabel Kershner, 1/24/11, A10).

It is easy to sneer at a potential conflict of interest, but difficult to identify Israeli government violations of that conflict in dealing with the Arabs. In dealing with the Arabs, Israel retains a Zionist pride in acting decently, while most of the gentile world retains its favorable bias in dealing with the Arabs and its negative bias in dealing with the Jews.

Both newspapers missed the hypocrisy of Turkey mocking Israel for investigating itself. Turkey is oblivious to its hypocrisy in being an involved party that investigated itself. Now that Turkey is Islamist, surely it practices the Islamic tactic of Taqiya — deceiving non-believers. Indeed, recently a whole case was assembled demonstrating that Turkey quietly sponsored the flotilla in order to attack Israelis (from IMRA, 1/23/11).

The key point missed by the media is that the Israeli commission disproved the contentions of the UN report. It found that the UN report relied upon NGOs that call themselves human rights organizations but have a political agenda of undermining Israel so it can be destroyed by the Arabs. The NGOs used sub-standard methods for their own, tendentious investigations, adopting false and unchecked testimony.

Those so-called human rights organizations rarely champion human rights. They act as if the only rights Jews have is to surrender or be killed. Nor do they care about the rights of Arab women, homosexuals, journalists, or ordinary people oppressed by terrorist dictators.

The newspapers assume that the UN has credibility as being above politics. Actually, the UN is politics incarnate. The biggest bloc in the UN is the Islamic one. As a result, the UN often condemns Israel automatically and before sending out its investigators. How credible is that?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 24, 2011.

Two different stories, and we'll start with the Israeli vindication:

The Turkel Commission — officially the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 — released its findings yesterday.

The "maritime incident" alluded to is the one that involved a flotilla of six ships launched from Turkey, and pledged to break the Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza. The flotilla was organized by the IHH, an Islamic organization with terrorist ties. One of the ships — the Mavi Marmara — carried many so-called "activists" associated with IHH.

When the ship refused to change course, it was boarded by Israeli soldiers who were summarily and viciously attacked with weapons that had been stored on board. In the course of the ensuing struggle, in which Israeli commandos defended themselves, nine Turkish citizens were killed.

This incident caused a rupture with the Turkish government, and provided an opportunity for the international community to roundly condemn Israel. It was in response to this international furor that the Commission, consisting of four members and two international observers was set up; commission head was former High Court Justice Jacob Turkel.


The Commission review addressed the question of the legality the naval blockade itself; the actions taken by the organizers of the flotilla, and its participants; and the actions taken by the IDF to enforce the blockade.

In brief, the Commission found that:

1) "The naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip — in view of the security circumstances and Israel's efforts to comply with its humanitarian obligations — was legal pursuant to the rules of international law."

2) "The actions carried out by Israel on May 31, 2010, to enforce the naval blockade had the regrettable consequences of the loss of human life and injuries.

Nonetheless...the actions taken were found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law."


The virulence and the brutality of the attack on the Israeli soldiers by IHH members and their associates on board the Mavi Marmara has come to light as a result of the Commission investigation. Weapons wielded included axes, knives, clubs, crowbars, and metal objects hurled with slings. And the terrorists wielding those weapons were heard to yell Allahu Akbar ("Allah is great" — routinely heard when there is a terrorist attack).

One Israeli commando who gave testimony said:

"Before my feet hit the deck about 10 men jumped on me and started beating me with clubs, iron bars, their fists and anything else they could find. They beat my whole body, but they focused especially on my head and face. I have to make it clear that at that point I was not armed. That was when I knew my life was really in immediate danger."

You can see an extensive description of what went on, provided by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, here:
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/ English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e162.pdf


The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) has also uncovered information regarding active support for the flotilla provided by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who agreed to the departure of the ships even as he was aware that Israel would prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza.

Evidence has surfaced of a meeting IHH held before the flotilla left, which makes obvious the close ties the government of Turkey had with IHH.

ITIC Director Reuven Erlich is very clear on this issue. Yesterday he said:

"The Turkish government was behind this unprecedented provocation against the State of Israel. The Turkish government went through several levels of involvement from behind the scenes to the front. You cannot disconnect the two."


Erdogan recently insisted that if the relationship between Turkey and Israel was to improve, Israel would have to issue a formal apology for the incident. At this, Foreign Minister Lieberman, in one of his "right on!" observations, commented that Turkey should be apologizing to Israel.

What Netanyahu's government was toying with at the time was some sort of unofficial expression of "regret" for the deaths of Turkish nationals. But, hell, these guys got exactly what they deserved. And I trust there will be no more suggestions in this regard following the exposure of the Turkish government's involvement.

Now, of course, Ergodan is totally rejecting the findings of the Commission.


The foreign observers for the Commission were Lord David Trimble, an Irish baron and politician, and Brig. Gen. (ret.) Kenneth Watkin, a former Canadian judge advocate general for the Department of National Defence. The two have issued an official letter, in which they indicate that they had full access to all of the material the Commission was working with, and were provided with translations of all testimonies given in Hebrew.

The Commission, they said, "made repeated efforts to hear both sides," and "made enormous efforts to get as much information as possible." They expressed regret that offers by the Commission to take evidence via video conferencing and, alternately, to take evidence in a neutral location, were "not taken up."

In conclusion, they wrote, "We have no doubt that the Commission is independent."


And now to the PLO denials:

Some 1,600 confidential documents regarding negotiations between the PLO and Israel have been leaked to Al Jazeera, over a period of months, reportedly by several sources. Al Jazeera — a network based in Qatar — in turn has shared this material with the Guardian in London. Apparently covering a period of ten years this material is now being released by both sources. The Guardian says it has confirmed the authenticity of most of the documents.

The various documents were originally part of the records drawn up and maintained by the Palestinian negotiation support unit (NSU), an arm of the PLO functioning in Ramallah. In other words, this is official, at least in theory, from the PLO side — notes taken at meetings and such.

According to the Guardian, there has been discontent inside of the NSU, with many leaving, because of the degree of concessions being offered by the PLO.


The main thrust of what is being publicized concerns an apparent flexibility by the PLO beyond anything that has been made public before. In 2008, the PLO reportedly agreed to Israeli annexation of the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, except for Har Homa. Additionally, it is claimed, at one point Ahmed Qurei — who had been PA prime minister — offered Israel part of the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood.

The Palestinian Arab officials in the PLO and the PA are having apoplexy over these reports, for, given their current position (that any building in Jerusalem past the Green Line works against peace), it is greatly embarrassing.

There are several ways to interpret what is going on here, and to determine what lessons, if any, can be drawn from it. The bottom line for me, no matter how it is interpreted, is that it will all come to nothing. (I will elaborate.)


Palestinian officials are charging that Al Jazeera — and Qatar — are deliberating working against them. PLO Secretary General Yasser Abd Rabbo called a press conference today, at which he said:

"[Al Jazeera took] references which were said now and again in an ironic manner as Palestinian answers. Al Jazeera took a lot of things out of context, including things that were said in jest. They made up things I've never heard of.

"We ceded nothing in Jerusalem. We ceded nothing more than [Abbas] presented. Our position is that we have a right over the 1967 lands, the rest is not true."

While Abbas, who is in Cairo at the moment, claimed that the leaked documents deliberately confuse the Israeli and Palestinian positions:

"What is intended is a mix-up. I have seen them yesterday present things as Palestinian but they were Israeli... This is therefore intentional."


The interesting thing is that analyst Barry Rubin says Abbas may be correct. Or it may be, he says, that the documents provided to Al Jazeera were altered, or the translations (from Arabic to English) turned matters around. Somewhere, somehow, it is extremely likely that there is fabrication, Rubin believes. For matters on the record, including notes on negotiations that Israel has and all public statements made by the PLO with regard to its demands, make it close to impossible to accept that the PLO would have been so forthcoming.

Are we going to accept a purely Arab version of events, asks Rubin, when we know the Arab propensity for fabrication?

Besides which, if the PLO was so eager to make concessions, why does it refuse to negotiate now?

In addition to which, if the Americans had known of the PLO willingness to make concessions, why would this have not been factored into its policy? (He doesn't specifically mention the Obama role in demanding freezing of all construction in Jerusalem past the Green Line, but this certainly doesn't comport with Arab conciliation.)
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/palestine- papers-fabrication-of-day.html?utm_source=feedburner& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ Rubinreports+%28RubinReports%29


And what is the intended effect of these released documents?

There are those who claim that this will show that the PLO/PA is really more moderate and conciliatory than has been understood, and that, indeed, peace has a chance. It's a way to help the Arabs and make them look good.

But I think this utter nonsense. Unless there is something moderate and conciliatory on the public record, it all comes to nothing. Remember please, to put this in context. The PA still uses maps that have no "Israel" on them, still teaches its school children that all the land is theirs and that jihad is praiseworthy, and continues to name public squares after the most heinous terrorists. What conciliatory and moderate? What sign that peace is genuinely sought?

If, by some remote chance, these conciliatory offers were genuine, even this is meaningless if positions have hardened now. If the fact of their having been conciliatory is an embarrassment to them, what does this tell us?

And with regard to this, we come to the final piece in the equation: Hamas. There is an unfortunate tendency to forget about how Hamas affects Palestinian political discourse. Hamas fashions concession and conciliation as betrayal of the people. The PLO/PA cannot be seen to go there — to be seen as weak and unable or unwilling to fight for the land and support the rights of the people. This is a sure way to lose the street. Already Hamas is attacking the PA because of these "leaks."

If anything at all will come of this, it will be to further stiff the backs of PLO/PA officials.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, January 24, 2011.

Maayana Miskin writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com), where this article appeared today.


ElBaradei recently returned to politics after serving as head of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 12 years.

In an interview for Der Spiegel that is to be published in full on Monday, ElBaradei said, "If the Tunisians have done it, Egyptians should get there too." A regime change is "inevitable," he declared.

Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben-Ali was ousted last week after 23 years in power.

Egypt has more serious problems than Tunisia, he argued, pointing to Tunisia's thriving middle class, which he compared to the widespread poverty in his home country where a middle class barely exists. Egypt may see "a revolt by the poor and the frustrated," he said.

He denounced Mubarak's Egypt as "a one-party regime," and called on Mubarak not to seek another term in office, but rather to allow "free and just" elections. Mubarak has ruled Egypt for 29 years, and is rumored to be planning to pass his authority to his son, Gamal Mubarak.

ElBaradei has gathered one million signatures on a petition calling for the democratization of Egypt. He expressed support for a national action day in Egypt scheduled for next Tuesday, but said he would not take part.

If Mubarak allows fair elections, Elbaradei said, he may run for office. If not, he plans to boycott the elections.

Parliamentary elections in Egypt in December were boycotted by two major opposition parties, the Muslim Brotherhood and Wafd, both of which accused Mubarak's NDP of elections fraud.

Contact GWY by email at GWY123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Laura, January 24, 2011.

This was written by Robin Shepherd and is archived at
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/ british-foreign-office-bbc-european-liberal- left-devastated-by-leaked-revelations-on- israeli-settlements-guardian-furious-at- "weak"-and-"craven"-palestinian-leadersh/


British Foreign office, BBC, European liberal-left devastated by leaked revelations on Israeli settlements, Guardian furious at "weak" and "craven" Palestinian leadership

Game over. No way back. An entire edifice of anti-Israeli demonisation definitively consigned to the scrap heap, never to be recycled again. This is the uncompromising message that comes out of yesterday's revelations on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. To the horror of a European political intelligentsia which has been steadfast to the point of fanatical in its opposition to Israeli "settlements" in east Jerusalem, the Palestinian leadership itself, we now know, has long accepted that the vast majority of Israeli settlements can be considered legitimate and would become part of Israel under any reasonable peace agreement.

This is utterly devastating since it simultaneously shows that everyone from the British Foreign Office and the BBC to the European Commission and the continent's passionately anti-Israeli NGO community have been adopting a position which was significantly more uncompromising on "settlements" than the Palestinian leadership itself, and also that that same Palestinian leadership had accepted that the so called 1967 "borders" — the gold standard for practically every anti-Israeli polemic around — are irrelevant to the prospects of a lasting peace.

In one of its most resentful leader columns for years, the Guardian was nothing short of apoplectic: not so much with Israel, but with a Palestinian leadership which has effectively blown the credibility of the Guardian's very own mantras on the MidEast straight out of the water. The Palestinian leadership, the paper declaimed, had been shown to be "weak" and "craven". Their concessions amounted to "surrender of land Palestinians have lived on for centuries". And, in words that look alarmingly close to the position adopted by Hamas, "The Palestinian Authority may continue as an employer but, as of today, its legitimacy as negotiators will have all but ended on the Palestinian street." This is sheer spite.

The Palestinian leadership accepts what any reasonable person has been able to accept for decades. The Guardian then slams them as surrender monkeys. The Guardian newspaper is more hardline against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself. And bear in mind, as you mull over the implications of that stark and unyielding state of affairs, that the Palestinian Authority is led by Mahmoud Abbas, who is a Holocaust denier.

But it gets worse. The only conceivable way out of this for the anti-Israel community is to turn this all upside down and argue — as analysts, reporters (anyone they can get their hands on) have been doing on the BBC all day — that what this really shows is the extent of Israeli "intransigence": the Palestinians offer all these concessions, and still the Israelis say no! This was the line adopted by Paul Danahar, the BBC's MidEast bureau chief, who quite casually averred that, "The Israelis look churlish for turning down major concessions". Good thing no-one's taking sides then.

Tragicomically, it just won't wash. Privately and morally, senior Palestinians can see that there is nothing illegitimate or even especially problematic about most of the "settlements", (as reasonable observers of the MidEast have been saying for years). This we know from the leaks themselves. But publicly and politically they cannot sell such concessions to their own people. This we know because they are currently trying to distance themselves from the leaks, and because they educate their own people in an implacable rejectionism which extends to the "moderate" Palestinian authority glorifying suicide bombers and other terrorists by naming streets and squares after them.

Logically and reasonably, the Israeli response is to see such "concessions" for what they are: well intentioned in so far as they go, but impossible to implement in practice. Quite apart from the question of Hamas-run Gaza, the Palestinians have been playing the same old game of saying one thing to one audience and something else to another. They are not a credible partner for peace, and the Israelis do not look remotely "churlish" for understanding this.

It will be interesting to see how this whole affair now plays out. But never again can the anti-Israel community play the settlement card and at the same time retain a single ounce of credibility.

NB: Just for the record, there are no less than four opinion pieces on the subject up on the Guardian's Comment is Free site right now. This has got them seriously rattled... p.s. As of 3pm UK time, make that five pieces which I think is an all time record. Not that anyone's obsessed or anything... Share

Contact Laura at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, January 24, 2011.

Jews in Silwan, Jerusalem hire private security guards, because government security forces won't protect them. Arab riots require the guards to work overtime.

Certain houses in Silwan, originally owned by Yemenite Jews, had been appropriated for Arabs by Jordanian invaders in 1948-49. Recently, Jews purchased them from Arabs living in them.

How did Arabs react to Jews moving back in? Arabs set up roadblocks. When Israeli cars are forced to halt, Arab mobs throw Molotov cocktails and huge rocks at the cars. An eyewitness reports that Border Police came to stop the riots, but retreated upon being struck by rocks, themselves. Naturally, the riots continued.

A security camera in Silwan sends live video to the nearby police station. Police ignore the violence against Jews. Police do emerge from the station when a Jew shoots an Arab. That they intervene against.

A security guard under Arab attack shot at an Arab trying to stab him in the leg. The guard shot and injured the Arab assailant. The guard was fired for it. Imagine how worried must be the parents of young, private guards who may be maimed if they do not respond to attacks and treated as criminals if they do? The real criminals, the Arabs who discriminate violently, rarely are punished. Now imagine how demoralizing this is for the security forces! When Arabs start the next recognized war, will the security forces be prepared psychologically to defend their people vigorously?

It is difficult to blame Israeli security forces for abandoning security. If police enter Silwan, or if Border Police stay and use tear gas or shoot even rubber bullets at the rioters without permission, they are put on trial as if they committed an offense. If they kill a rioter, they are accused of murder for shooting the country's enemies in process of attacking innocent Jews.

Is it not a civil war when one side constantly shoots, stabs, stones, and bombs the other for stated religious reasons and to take over the country? Israel could resolve the problem of Israeli Arab violence in a few days, if it declared war on those making war on it, and if it fought back, accordingly. Israelis are entitled to government to protection of them and not of the enemy (from personal Israeli sources, 1/21/11).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Maistrovoy, January 24, 2011.

Our century is the epoch of cheap clichés, vulgar shows and aggressive ignorance. Smug professors accuse their opponents of Stalinism, knowing about Stalinism not more than schoolchildren. Semiliterate journalists use the word "Nazism" for the description of Guantanamo base or Israeli prisons. Pacifists name soldiers dispersing demonstrators in Bilin "fascists".

Pathology becomes norm, values have been devaluated.

A person doubting the loyalty of Third World immigrants will be called "racist".

An adherent of barbarous anachronisms is a true representative of multiculturalism; a religious fanatic becomes a "victim of discrimination".

Let's consider the terms.

"Nazism" is the policy of racist nationalism, not a demolition of an illegally built Arab house.

"Fascism" is a totalitarian regime forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism and not a parliamentary committee for investigating funding of a non-governmental organization.

"Stalinism" is a repressive authoritarianism that has annihilated dozens of million people, and not an arrest of a terrorist supporter.

"Apartheid" is an official policy of racial segregation, and not the Security Fence creation.

"Genocide" is a deliberate destruction of a whole nation, and not banning the importation of building materials into Gaza.

However, reading newspapers and listening to our politicians, an uninformed tourist could decide that a military junta has already come to power in Israel, and "death squadrons" prowl the country.

Now let's get to the heart of the matter.

The Israel Beiteinu proposal to create an inquiry commission to investigate the activities and sources of financing of the left-wing non-governmental organizations is the result of Im Tirtzu movement work.

Im Tirtzu has arisen as a spontaneous student movement against anti-Zionist campaign in campuses.

Former senior lecturer in political science at Haifa University Ilan Pappé accuses Israel of "genocide in Gaza" (about terms) and describes the IDF as a "killing machine". Shlomo Sand (obviously not the disciple of Polybius) insists that Jewish nation does not exist any more.

Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar from Haifa University and Oren Yiftachel from Ben-Gurion University call Israel an "ethnocracy", comparing the fate of Israeli Arabs with that of American Indians.

D-r of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University Neve Gordon called Israel an increasingly "proto-fascist" state and an "apartheid state" (again, about terms). Nine of regular lecturers in his faculty are members of left-wing radical groups.

Im Tirtzu students found out that Gordon and his staff are part of management of NIF that supports 16 of human rights groups: "Shovrim shtika", "Betzelem", "Adalah", "Coalition of Women for Peace", "Women in Black", "New Profile", "Physicians for human rights", and others. All of them got 8 $ million during 2006-2008.

The Goldstone Report was based on their data. The same organizations initiated legal claims against Israeli military men and politicians.

Every Yom a-Azmaut NIF organizes tours across the USA lecturing about "the Palestinian Catastrophe" ("Nakba").

The main goals of NIF are to delegitimize IDF, impose sanctions against Israel, encourage desertion from the Israeli army and support legal claims against IDF officers abroad.

They have no doubts about who is a bandit and who is a victim.

"Shovrim shtika" asserted that IDF "over and over again fired on the civilians who were not participating in clashes".

"Betzelem": "Security force abusing their superiority, continue to scoff at Palestinians and beat them, including children".

"Physicians for human rights": "It seems that attacks on Gaza were meant to initiate terror so they did not spare fire".

NIF director Naomi Chazan considers the Gaza blockade a "war crime".

Main partners of NIF are Ford Foundation (Henry Ford was famous for his anti-Semitism) and EU.

Ford Foundation financed claims abroad Israel against Avi Dichter, Moshe Ya'alon, Doron Almog, Shaul Mofaz and Amy Ayalon via Palestinian Center For Human Right and Center for Constitutional Rights.

As for EU and many West European states, their activity is rather doubtful. We remember calls to boycotts of Israel in Great Britain; blatant anti-Israel incitement in Norway (including the "Gaza Monologues" play); "Israeli organ trade scandal" in Sweden; in Spain, according to a local journalist Pilar Rahola, "any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide" and so on.

The aim of the investigation is not to clamp down on these organizations but to estimate their legal permissibility. The goal of HAMAS (as well as "Hezbollah") is not only the destruction of the Jewish State, but the total annihilation of the Jewish population. The idea has massive Palestinian support. It is not a border dispute, but the war of militant theocracy against democracy till utter annihilation.

IDF don't fire rockets on civil population of the enemy as it happened during World War II when the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. But those are inevitable among Palestinians, because HAMAS uses civilians as "human shields".

If Naomi Chazan, NIF, "Physicians & Rabbis for human rights" and "Women in Black" can't acknowledge reality, they are "useful idiots". These people can't see the difference between cause and effect, perceive the intentions of the enemies. They forget that human rights organizations must protect victims from a violent regime and not vice versa.

Anyway all of us have the right to know if an entity is defending human rights or undermining Israel's security.

The second aspect is the validity of financial streams.

Who supports the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and Center for Constitutional Rights?

The "Coalition of Women for Peace" is sponsored (besides NIF) by MOK (Spain), the Heinrich Boell Foundation of North America, "Responding to conflict" (Britain) and so on.

"Physicians for human rights" is financed by EPER/HEKS organization, "Diakonia", "Healing Across the Divides", "Christian Aid", and many others.

What are they and their aims? Who stands behind them?

We have the right to know everything about them.

In countries of developed democracy everybody has the right to express his or her own opinion. Neve Gordon can call Israel a "proto-fascist state" and Ilan Pappé — an "apartheid state". Jew Norman Finkelstein has the right to characterize Israel as "insane" and "lunatic", a member of the Jewish Labour Movement Sir Gerald Kaufman can compare HAMAS to Jewish resistance in the Warsaw ghetto.

But it doesn't mean that other should share their views. Nor does it mean that these people may turn their doubtful ideals into reality.

Alex Maistrovoy is a journalist. This was written for Novosty Nedely. Contact him by email at alfeldm55@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 23, 2011.

Egypt is tolerant religiously, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, President of the National Council of Human Rights in Cairo, former UN Secretary-General, and Egypt's former Minister of State for foreign affairs.

Lamenting the recently well-publicized Muslim attacks on his fellow Christians in Egypt, Mr. Boutros-Ghali interprets the attacks as an attempt to disrupt national unity. But he also provides a context of Muslim persecution of Christians throughout the Muslim-controlled bulk of the Mideast, and acknowledges "simmering tensions."

He depicts Egypt as being not a sectarian country but a model of religious tolerance. As evidence, he cites the protection afforded to Christians by thousands of Muslims who shielded them during their Christmas church attendance this year, which the government declared a state holiday. In 2007, he explains, Egypt modified its Constitution to declare the state secular and religions in it equal. In addition, he states, "Licenses for church construction are now easier to secure, since provincial governors now oversee such decisions." Among other proposals, he recommends rescinding such special licensing altogether (Wall St. J., 1/21/11, Op.-Ed.)

If you know Egypt's recent history and read between the article's lines, you find it obvious that it was crafted in the spirit of dhimmi subservience. Christians dominated by Islam strive for being condoned on the basis of nationality. Did you notice the self-contradictions? For example, on the one hand, Egyptians have religious equality and freedom of religion. On the other hand, Christians require special permission to build or renovate churches. Out in the provinces, contrary to what the article claims, governors may deny permission.

The article's admissions of difficulties are unfairly minimized and the severity of the problem is omitted altogether.

Actually, Egypt been fostering Islamic extremism within, though resisting foreign Islamist terrorism against it. Al-Ahram University issues extremist fatwas. By law, Egyptian law must be consistent with Islamic law. Islamic law discriminates against non-Muslims. Every Arab government establishes Islam.

The modern expulsion of the country's Jews was not mentioned. Neither were the many murders of Christians, almost always in instances instigated by Muslims. Police usually either look on or join the mob. It is futile and dangerous to protest to police. I have been reporting this for years.

Also ignored is the practice of kidnapping Christian women and coercing them into Islam and loveless marriages. If they try to return to their Christian families, they can be, under Islamic law, prosecuted for apostasy, a capital offense, even though their conversion was compulsory. If their parents complain to police, they risk their own security.

The toll on Christians has aroused younger members of that faith, so the regime is trying to smooth over the problem. Such efforts do not resolve the underlying problem. Egypt is haunted by the specter of the Muslim Brotherhood being the biggest opposition group and likeliest to take over Egypt, if the government allows free elections.

People have the impression that the Wall St. Journal is fair about jihad and the Arab-Israel conflict within it. How fair is a tendentious, one-sided Op.-Ed. that minimizes the problem with radical Islam, without having a counter-article?

Here is some documentation. This below is called "Egypt Cuts a Deal: Christians Fed to Muslim 'Lions,'" and was written by Raymond Ibrahim. It appeared October 18, 2010 in Hudson New York and is archived at


Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.


For centuries, the Copts — Egypt's Christian, indigenous inhabitants — have been subject to persecution, discrimination, humiliation, and over all subjugation in their homeland (etymologically, "Copt" simply means "Egyptian"). In the medieval era, such treatment was a standard aspect of sharia's dhimmi codes, first ratified under Caliph Omar in the 7th century and based on Koran 9:29. Conversely, during the colonial era and into the mid 20th century, as Egypt experimented with westernization and nationalism, religious discrimination was markedly subdued. Today, however, as Egypt all but spearheads the Islamist movement — giving the world Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Aymen Zawahiri in the process — that is, as Egypt reverts to its medieval character, the Copts find themselves again in a period of severe persecution.

And there appears to be no one to stop it — not even those most accountable: America's friend and ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his government. Indeed, recent events indicate that the Mubarak regime is intentionally inciting Egypt's Muslims against the Copts.

Consider: on September 15, prominent Egyptian Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, ex-secretary general of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, appeared on Al Jazeera and, in a wild tirade, accused the Copts of "stocking arms and ammunitions in their churches and monasteries" — imported from Israel, no less, since "Israel is in the heart of the Coptic Cause" — and "preparing to wage war against Muslims."

He warned that if nothing is done, the "country will burn," urging Muslims to "counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church." Al-Awwa further charged that Egypt's security forces cannot enter the monasteries to investigate for weapons — an amazing assertion, considering that Coptic monasteries are not only at the mercy of the state, but easy prey to Islamist/Bedouin attacks.

Needless to say, these remarks have inflamed Muslim passions (not to mention paranoia) against Egypt's Christians, who make approximately 12% of the population. To make matters worse, right on the heels of al-Awwa's "monastery-conspiracy-theory," Islamist leaders began to circulate baseless rumors that the Church and Pope Shenouda III "kidnap" Coptic women who willingly convert to Islam, and trap them in desert monasteries, "torturing" and "re-indoctrinating" them back to Christianity — even when the women in question publicly insist they never converted to Islam.

Due to all these allegations, since last month, there have been at least ten mass demonstrations in Egypt — most numbering in the thousands — condemning the Copts, the Coptic Church, and Pope Shenouda. The "Front of Islamic Egypt" issued a statement promising the Copts a "blood bath." Most recently, on October 8, Muslim demonstrators chanted "Shenouda, just wait, we will dig your grave with our own hands," while burning the 86 year-old pope's effigy.

At the very least, the usually intrusive Mubarak regime could have easily dispelled the absurd rumor that Coptic monks, among Egypt's most humble figures, were stockpiling weapons for an imaginary coup d'état in Egypt, by formally investigating and clearing the monasteries of the charge. Same with the ludicrous rumors that the Pope is kidnapping and torturing Coptic women who freely convert to Islam — an especially odd rumor considering the reverse is true: in Egypt, Christian women are regularly kidnapped and compelled to embrace Islam.

To further exasperate matters, on September 26, Al Azhar, a formal state body of Egypt, denounced a remark on Koran 5:17, which accuses Christians of being "infidels," made by a Coptic clergyman at an internal meeting on dogma, as "blasphemous." It further took this opportunity to state formally that citizenship rights in Egypt "are conditional to respect for the Islamic identity" of Egypt, thereby reversing any modern progress made regarding Egyptian equality and reinforcing the Copts' historical role as dhimmis (i.e., conditionally tolerated religious minorities). Pope Shenouda was further compelled to publicly apologize "if our Muslim brothers' feelings were hurt."

All this in a nation where Christian and Jewish scriptures are systematically denounced as fabricated. Indeed, mere weeks earlier, a well known publishing house in Egypt issued a book dedicated to "proving" that Christians had forged the Bible. Such double standards are well entrenched: after all, whereas the Coptic clergyman privately remarked on a Koranic verse, the Egyptian government openly interferes with Christian doctrine, while preventing Muslims from converting to Christianity, in accordance to sharia's ridda, or apostasy, laws. For example, Mohammad Hegazy is one of many Egyptians who tried formally to change his religion from Muslim to Christian on his I.D. card — in Egypt, people are Gestapo-like categorized by their religion — only to be denied by the Egyptian court. (Many other such anecdotes abound.)

Considering the citizenship rights Copts enjoyed in the early to mid 20th century, how did things come to this pass? Much of this can be traced to Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat, who altered Egypt's Constitution — by adding Article 2, "sharia is the principle source of legislation" — only to be rewarded, ironically, with assassination by the Islamist "Frankenstein monster" he had empowered. Since then, there has been a tacit agreement between the government and the Islamists. As Youssef Ibrahim puts it, the agreement "turned over to Islamists control in media, education, and government administrations in return for allowing Mr. Mubarak's rule to go on unchallenged, setting the stage ... for his son, Gamal, to succeed him. As part of the deal, [Mubarak] agreed to feed Egypt's Christians to the growing Islamic beast."

Hence the dire situation the Copts find themselves in. Magdi Khalil, a human rights activist at the forefront of the "Coptic question," states that "Egypt is on the verge of chaos and change of regime and there is a plan for Copts to pay the price of this predicted chaos, by directing the surplus violence, hate and barbarism towards them." This redirection onto the Copts is obvious even in subtle things: aside from the habitual anti-Copt indoctrination that goes on in mosques — all of the aforementioned demonstrations occurred immediately after Friday's mosque prayers — Egypt's state run public education system also marginalizes, if not ostracizes, the Copts (see, for example, Adel Guindy's "The Talibanization of Education in Egypt").

More obvious proof of the government's complicity is the fact that, not only has it not prevented or dispersed the increasingly rabid demonstrations against the Copts — the way it viciously and unequivocally does whenever any protests are directed against itself — but Egyptian security, as Magdi Khalil affirmed in a phone conversation, actually facilitate, and sometimes participate, in these mass demonstrations. After all, Islamists who publicly call for the death of the Pope do so, writes Ibrahim Eissa, "knowing quite well that State Security will not touch them, since demonstrations are directed against the Pope and not the President, the Church and not the inheritance issue [Gamal Mubarak as successor of his father]. Those who go out in Jihad against 'inheritance,' democracy and election fraud are beaten mercilessly by security forces but those who go out to incite sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians believe ...that they are the friends and 'buddies' of the police and the State Security."

As history teaches, whenever a majority group casts all its woes onto a minority group, great tragedy often follows. This is especially so when the majority group in question begins taking on an Islamist — that is, intolerant, violent, and medieval — character. Yet if Egypt's "secular" government and U.S. ally is willing to sacrifice the Coptic scapegoat to appease the ever-burgeoning Islamist monster it has been nurturing for some four decades, to whom can Egypt's Christians look for relief?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 23, 2011.

We might have expected WikiLeaks exposure to kill it: the Obama claim that cooperation with Arab states was dependent upon an Israeli-Palestinian negotiated peace.

But here we have it again, in somewhat different, and more outrageous, form:

A former CIA officer, Bruce Riedel, has just given a talk at a Middle East Policy Council event on Capitol Hill. The fact that legislators and their aides were privy to his "expert" words make them that much more damaging. What he said was that:

"American lives are being lost today because of the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." (Emphasis added)

Frank Anderson, also a former CIA official, and president of the Policy Council, reiterated this sentiment, saying "we are paying an increasing price in blood for their [Israeli and Palestinian] failure and refusal to reach an agreement."

Riedel explained — if you can call what he said an explanation — that:

"The Arab-Israeli conflict is at the heart and center of Al-Qaeda's ideology and its narrative." (Emphasis added)


This is so offensively distorted, so far removed from the reality of the situation, that it cannot be allowed to pass without rebuttal.

Al Qaeda's — and Bin Laden's — quarrel is with the US and the West. It is a clash of civilizations, within which Israel plays a decidedly minimal role. Were Israel and the PA to forge an agreement, it would not affect Bin Laden's attitude towards American civilization.


I cite here from a Congressional Research Service Report for Congress that was released by the US Navy Department of History:

"Osama Bin Laden's experiences as a logistical coordinator and financier for...resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s are thought to have provided the backdrop for his belief that Muslims could take effective military action inspired by select Islamic principles. His exposure to the teachings of conservative Islamist scholars in Saudi Arabia and his work with Arab militants in Afghanistan provided the theological and ideological basis for his belief in the desirability of puritanical Salafist Islamic reform in Muslim societies and the necessity of armed resistance in the face of perceived aggression — a concept Al Qaeda has since associated with a communally-binding Islamic principle known as 'defensive jihad.'

"In the early 1990s, Bin Laden emphasized his desire to secure the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops from Saudi Arabia at all costs...Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia and his ire increasingly focused on the United States. Following a period of exile in Sudan and Afghanistan in which his radical views sharpened, Bin Laden issued a declaration of jihad against the United States in 1996 that signaled his emergence as an internationally recognizable figure...

"Following his declaration of jihad on the United States, Bin Laden released a series of statements that expanded the vision and scope of his self-declared conflict with the United States...Echoing U.S. academic Samuel Huntington's theory on the impending clash of civilizations, Bin Laden repeated his characterization of a so-called 'new crusade led by America against the Islamic nations,' and emphasized his belief that an emerging conflict between Islam and the West would be fought 'between the Islamic world and the Americans and their allies.'"
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/ al-queda%20evolve.htm

The report mentions two audiotapes released in 2005, which identify the bases of Al Qaeda's political ideology:

An Islamic state governed solely by sharia law is primary. Secular government is unacceptable and deemed contrary to Islamic faith. Muslims must resist and overthrow rulers who violate Islamic law and principles.

Then there must be a liberation of Muslim lands "from every aggressor." Israel is mentioned in this context, of course, but not only Israel: included are all Western forces, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. And where Israel is concerned, the goal is most certainly not an Arab-Israeli peace, but the eradication of a Jewish presence on the land.


And where is all of this going? Why, the US government has to lean harder on Israel, of course. Israeli positions should be more in concert with American efforts to forge a deal.

Riedel suggested that a positive approach might be most effective: "Israelis need that hug. Implicit in the hug can also be, you'll get a cold shoulder if we're not moving in the right direction."

With "friends" like these...


Let us segue, then, to the obvious question: Just what is happening with that "peace process" these days?

Last week, Arab states submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council that reads, "Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."

Although it has close to 120 sponsors, a vote on it will not be called any time soon because of fear of a US veto.

Last I wrote about this, I expressed concern about whether we would see such a veto — my unease stemming from

a tendency by the Obama administration to appease the Palestinian Arabs. But the Americans do seem to be holding the line on this issue.


A couple of my readers have asked why there should be any expectation that the US would veto this — which is presumably a forerunner to a request that the SC recognize a Palestinian state — when Obama very much wants to see such a state established. And I think there are two answers:

First, the US may recognize that this route is fraught with diplomatic and legal difficulties. A Security Council vote not withstanding, the state would not emerge easily via a unilateral path. Thus the Americans are holding fast to the very legitimate position that issues can only be successfully resolved via face to face negotiations.

Then too, we must remember that Obama seeks a diplomatic success here. He still seems to hold fast to the delusion that he may be able to move the "process" forward in a way that would accrue positively to his reputation. This would not happen if the PA went the route of the UN — for it would be taken out of his hands.


And so, while all of the talk of a unilaterally declared state may come back to haunt us, at the moment it is old news. For Abbas has now come out with an explicit statement (which we could see coming late last week) that the PA will not be unilaterally declaring the establishment of a state.

What he says, however, is that the failure to achieve a state via negotiations could lead to a popular uprising or a "revolution" — a strange word in this context. As he put it to Al Jazeera on Friday, "it will have serious repercussions for the entire region."

I see this as a scare tactic: an attempt to frighten not only Israel but the international powers that be, so as to move them to further pressure Israel.

Included in his words we can find more than a hint that he might lead his people in the wrong direction. For what the PA said, and how officials handled the situation, would have a direct impact on the people's response. Remember, what had been identified as "spontaneous" Palestinian Arab fury at the presence of Ariel Sharon on the Temple Mount in 2000 was in fact pre-planned and carefully orchestrated by Arafat — he brought his people to that "Second Intifada." And was Arafat not Abbas's mentor?


Even though Abbas is publicly ruling out a war against Israel, what makes the situation more worrisome this time around is the presence of better trained and equipped PA security forces — thanks to the foolish and nearsighted US policy, which has been to build up these forces. The armed forces of the PA have a record of turning on Israel in times of frustration, and many of us have been concerned for some time about the possibility of it happening again.


Why is Abbas relinquishing the UN option, at least for now?

For me it appears fairly straightforward: Abbas thought he had Obama in his hand, and it's not quite turning out that way. We don't know what has been communicated privately to the PA by the American government. But we do know that the bulk of official public statements coming out of the US is in support of resolution of the issues only via two-party negotiations. And we know that indications are that the US would veto the "settlements" resolution. What chance then, that Obama would allow a SC resolution on Palestinian statehood to pass?


To make matters worse for Abbas, some European leaders have been getting cold feet about that unilateral declaration of statehood, as well.

Last week, British Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Alistair Burt, finishing up a Mid-East tour, told Ma'an News Agency that the British government cannot "recognize a state that does not have a capital, and doesn't have borders."

"We are looking forward to recognizing a Palestinian state at the end of the negotiations on settlements because our position is again very straightforward: We wish to see a two-state solution, a secure and recognized Israel side by side with a viable Palestine, Jerusalem as a joint capital and agreed borders.

"That's where we want to get to. When we get there, that of course will imply recognition of a state of Palestine."


Has Obama provided some sort of reassurance to Abbas with regard to increased pressure on Israel on the "settlements" issue? We may suspect this to have been the case, but I'm seeing no concrete evidence for this.


Abbas provided a whole litany of prior peace offers allegedly made by Barak and Olmert in the past. As we don't know the truth of what he claims, and as the situation is now different, I don't intend to visit that litany.

Both White House advisor Dennis Ross, and David Hale, top aide to George Mitchell, were here on Friday and, separately, met with Netanyahu. There has been no statement from Netanyahu's office.


I mentioned the PA security forces, above, and return here to take a look at these forces in another context. Important to know with whom we're dealing:

The Arab Organization for Human Rights, located in Britain, has released a report indicating that these forces have been using torture systematically for years. In a study that reviewed the years October 2007 to October 2010, it was found that an incredible 95% of those detained by the forces were subjected to severe torture, which included hanging techniques (such as hanging detainees upside-down from the ceiling), electric shocks, pulling out nails, beatings with cables, and more.

At least six Palestinians have died in the course of torture in PA prisons, the report said, while many former detainees are permanently disabled. Khaled Abu Toameh cited the report in the JPost today: "In order to put pressure on detainees, close relatives, even minors, are brought to the interrogation center, where they may be tortured in front of the detainees in order to try to force a confession."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, January 23, 2011.

This was written by Soeren Kern and it appeared January 20, 2011 in Hudson New York. It is archived at
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1817/ europe-muslim-lobby.

Soeren Kern is the Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic Studies Group. A political scientist by training, he specializes in US and European defense- and security-related issues. He is also an essayist on anti-Americanism and the roles of America and Europe in the world.


Europeans often fantasize about America's so-called Jewish lobby, which they claim has a chokehold over American finance, media and politics and is responsible for all manner of conspiratorial evil. But few Europeans like to talk about the growing influence of Europe's Muslim lobby, a conglomeration of hundreds of Muslim political and religious organizations — many of which are media-savvy mouthpieces for militant Islam that openly pursue anti-European, anti-Western and anti-Semitic agendas and often receive financial support from Islamic fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.

In a Europe where Islam is the fastest-growing religion, and where the number of Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years, Europe's Muslim lobby is becoming increasingly assertive and skilled at pressuring European policy-makers into implementing countless pro-Islamic policies, especially ones that institutionalize Islamic Sharia law. Muslim lobby groups are, in fact, transforming European society in ways unimaginable only a few years ago; critics say their ultimate goal is nothing less than the Islamification of Europe.

Some of the most effective Muslim lobby groups are located in Britain, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe, and include organizations such as the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB], Britain's largest Muslim umbrella body with around 500 affiliated national, regional and local organizations, mosques, charities and schools. It recently pressured the British government into adopting Islamic law and giving Sharia courts full powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The British government has quietly sanctioned the powers for Sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Whereas previously, the rulings of Sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims, rulings issued by a network of five Sharia courts are now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Sharia courts with these powers have been set up in Birmingham, Bradford, London and Manchester and the network's headquarters are located in Nuneaton, Warwickshire; and two more courts are being planned for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Overall, at least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed. A study by the Civitas think tank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques. The study warns of a "creeping" acceptance of Sharia principles in British law.)

Although the MCB, which represents half of the country's 3 million Muslims, presents itself as the moderate face of Islam in Britain, the group has its origins in the extreme orthodox politics of Pakistan. The MCB and some of its affiliates sympathize with, and have links to, conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by Sharia law.

Far from promoting moderate Islam, the MCB's real objective, critics say, is to help Muslims in Britain become more radical in their beliefs.

Among other positions, the MCB believes death is the appropriate penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. The group recently endorsed a pro-Hamas declaration that calls for Jihad against Jews and Israel, and condones attacks on British troops. The MCB also regularly makes headlines for boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day ceremonies in Britain; it is also campaigning for the establishment of an alternative Genocide Memorial Day that will "incorporate similar tragedies."

Another Muslim group, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom (MPACUK), has the outspoken aim of mobilizing Muslim voters to affect the outcome of British elections. During the general elections in 2010, MPACUK was pivotal in de-seating six members of parliament (MPs) who were perceived as being not sufficiently pro-Muslim.

During the 2005 general elections, MPACUK launched a smear campaign against Labour Party MP Lorna Fitzsimons. MPACUK distributed a leaflet claiming that Fitzsimons had done nothing to help the Palestinians because she was Jewish. Another leaflet said: "Lorna Fitzsimons is an ardent Zionist and a member of the most powerful anti-Muslim lobby in the world, the Israel lobby."

Fitzsimons is not in fact Jewish, and MPACUK later withdrew the leaflet. But MPACUK did succeed in unseating Fitzsimons; ever since then, many British MPs have been bending over backwards to appease Muslim voters.

MPACUK recently worked with Britain's Channel 4 television to produce a documentary titled "Operation Muslim Vote." With the aim of pressing for a larger participation of Muslims in British politics, the documentary tells the story of two MPACUK activists who head to northern England to take on the safe seats of several "pro-Zionist war mongering MPs."

MPACUK's website says its work is defined by the core principle of anti-Zionism: "MPACUK opposes the racist political ideology of Zionism and aims to counter the influence of the Zionist lobby. Openly available evidence demonstrates a Zionist agenda to dominate the Middle East and push a 'clash of civilisations' between Islam and 'The West'. We therefore believe that anti-Zionism is a strategic priority to counter the greatest and most urgent threat facing the Ummah [the Muslim Diaspora]."

Its website also says Muslims in Britain should be pro-actively engaged in mainstream media and politics as the most effective way to "reviving the fard (obligation) of Jihad."

Muslim lobby groups have also pressed the British government to enact the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which creates a new crime: intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds. Predictably, the new law has established new limits on free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration.

The growing power of Europe's Muslim lobby was most recently demonstrated by the European Union's decision in mid-December to quietly abandon a new measure that would have required halal (religiously approved for Muslims) meat products to carry a label to help non-Muslim consumers identify their origins. With the exponential growth of Europe's Muslim population, thousands of tons of religiously slaughtered halal meat is now entering the general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed by the non-Muslim population.

By bowing to Muslim pressure groups — such as the World Halal Forum Europe and the Halal Monitoring Committee — and dropping the halal labelling requirement, the EU is effectively establishing Sharia law as normative for Europe's meat industry. The halal controversy, in which Muslim lobby groups are seeking to impose the requirements of Islam, not just on their own people, but also on the rest of society, illustrates how the rise of Islam is influencing the daily lives of hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Europeans.

In France, which has the second-largest Muslim population on the continent after Germany, several Muslim lobby groups are vying to represent the country's estimated 4.1 million Muslims. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) serves as the official interlocutor with the French state in the regulation of Muslim religious activities, and as such it is the de facto representative of all French Muslims before the national government. The other main Muslim lobby groups are the Rally for French Muslims (RMF),backed by Morocco, and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF), close to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Germany, home to Europe's largest Muslim population in absolute terms, the powerful Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), itself a branch of the Turkish government's religious affairs authority, has succeeded in persuading the city of Cologne to approve the construction of a new mega mosque. The futuristic mosque will hold up to 4,000 worshippers, and will have a large dome and two 55-meter (180 feet) minarets, each as tall as 18-story office towers. The 4,500-square-meter (48,000-square-foot) mosque, which has a price tag of €20 million ($26 million), is being financed by donations from more than 800 Muslim groups inside and outside Germany. Critics of the project say the mosque is a deliberate effort to spoil Cologne's skyline by taking attention away from the city's Gothic cathedral, a globally famous Christian landmark.

In recent months, Muslim lobby groups have also persuaded the German government to adapt Germany's secular education system so that it caters to Islamic preferences. The German Education Ministry has, for example, agreed to fund Islamic studies at several state universities to train Muslim prayer leaders and religion teachers. Germany's Education Minister, Annette Schavan, says: "We want as many imams as possible to be educated in Germany. Imams are bridge builders between their congregations and the communities in which their mosques stand." She states further that Germany would need 2,000 imams and teachers if all 16 states offered Islam courses.

Elsewhere in Germany, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Muslim lobby groups are working with the Culture Ministry to design Islam-friendly classes for public schools. The new guidelines recommend cancelling all school trips during the month of Ramadan; taking into account the sensitivities of Muslims when planning internships and school events; and assigning less schoolwork during Ramadan because fasting could lead to loss of performance and concentration among Muslim students.

In the German state of Lower Saxony, the German Muslim Central Council is urging the Education Ministry to include Islam in its schools' core curriculum as part of a politically correct initiative to counter growing anti-Islam sentiments in the country. In Berlin, the Ministry for Education, Science and Research recently published a guide called "Islam and School," which gives teachers practical advice on how to avoid offending Muslim students.

In Scandinavia, the Muslim Council of Sweden, an umbrella organization of Islamic groups in the country, is pressuring the Swedish government to implement special legislation for Muslims in Sweden. The demands include: the right to specific Islamic holidays; special public financing for the building of mosques; a demand that all divorces between Muslim couples be approved by an Imam; and that Imams should be allowed to teach Islam in public schools.

As Europe's Muslim population grows, Muslim lobby groups are also exerting significant influence on European policy in the Middle East, resulting in a notable hardening of official European attitudes toward Israel. Several European countries, for instance, eager to maintain good relations with local Muslim communities, are laying the political groundwork for the EU to recognize a Palestinian state, possibly as early as October 2011,even if negotiations for a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are not concluded — a total abrogation of the UN's signed Oslo accords.

In December 2009, the EU adopted a resolution that for the first time explicitly calls for Jerusalem to become the future capital of a Palestinian state. The move not only reflects the EU's efforts to prejudge the outcome of issues reserved for permanent status negotiations, but in December 2010, an influential group of former EU leaders and officials published a letter urging the EU to implement sanctions against Israel.

Europe has also been "ground zero" for a series of anti-Israel lawsuits which exploit the legal principle of universal jurisdiction in order to harass current and former Israeli political and military leaders, with the twin aims of tying Israel's hands against Palestinian terror and delegitimizing the Jewish state. Such "lawfare" is often aided and abetted by Muslim lobby groups in Europe by means of financial and logistical support.

The steady demonization of Israel by European officialdom is also affecting the European street, where the line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism is becoming dangerously blurred. A survey conducted by the University of Bielefeld, for example, shows that more than 50% of Germans equate Israel's policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews, and that 68% of Germans say that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, an official EU poll shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

Another report commissioned by the EU's Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) found that Muslim immigrants are largely responsible for the sharp increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe.

Predictably, Muslim lobby groups pressured the EU into preventing that report from being released to the general public.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel who are battling against the forces of internal seditionists and external invaders.

— SC4Z

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, January 23, 2011.

This was written by Jason Edelstein of NGO Monitor. The videos were not part of the original article.



Lord Trimble, international observer on the Turkel Commission.


Members of the commission.

First Part of Report Defends IDF Actions, Refutes NGO Allegations

JERUSALEM — The Turkel Commission, established to investigate the "Free Gaza Flotilla" incident of May 2010, today released the first part of its findings, concluding that the IDF acted in self-defense and within the parameters of international law. Notably, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) B'Tselem, Gisha, and Physicians for Human Rights — Israel (PHR-I), which engage primarily in political advocacy and provided information to the Commission, were unable to influence the Commission's findings, says NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution.

"The Commission's initial report shows that testimony from B'Tselem, Gisha, and Physicians for Human Rights — Israel (PHR-I) was not accepted at face value," says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. "The Commission showed a sophisticated understanding of the lack of credibility in NGO claims, and recognition that these are political advocacy organizations. Commission members challenged and cross-examined NGO officials during testimony in October, and this report affirms that NGOs provided biased and unverifiable allegations regarding the flotilla incident and humanitarian situation in Gaza."

These groups were part of the NGO-led campaign to condemn Israeli actions of self-defense during the flotilla incident. They have also promoted the campaign falsely accusing Israel of "an illegal blockade" and "collective punishment" in Gaza, erasing the context of terror. These accusations were directly refuted in the Commission's report.

NGO Monitor also notes that the flotilla was endorsed by EU-funded Israel Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), EU- and European-funded Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), NIF-funded Coalition of Women for Peace, European-funded Alternative Information Center (AIC), and Israeli groups New Profile, Bat Shalom, Yesh Gvul, and Zochrot. Jeff Halper, executive director of ICAHD, is on the Free Gaza board of advisors.

"Clearly, the Commission recognized that these NGOs manipulate facts and misrepresent international law," Steinberg added. "This report is a significant and welcome change from the tendency towards blind acceptance of NGO reports in the media, among academics, in the judiciary and elsewhere. International institutions and the international community also need to challenge and question NGO allegations and reports."

In extensive analysis of NGO involvement both during the flotilla incident and in statements afterwards, NGO Monitor noted the following:

* B'Tselem claimed that that "information [about extreme violence against soldiers] is based solely on statements of soldiers." This ignores the clear video evidence of violent activists attacking Israeli soldiers with knives and clubs.

* PHR-I, which also has referred to the IDF as the "Israeli Occupation Forces," released a joint statement after the incident referring to the flotilla as "a humanitarian aid convoy...with human rights and peace activists, journalists, and members of parliament." Nowhere in the statement did it reference the connection to the IHH, the main flotilla organizer and a member of Union of the Good, an umbrella of 50+ Islamic organizations that was designated by the US government as "an organization created by Hamas leadership to transfer funds to the terrorist organization."

* Gisha stated, "This incident is proof that despite claims to the contrary, Israel never 'disengaged' from the Gaza Strip but rather continues to control its borders — land, air and sea," ignoring the mass weapons smuggling from Iran and Syria that necessitate such policing.

"NGOs are responsible for repeating and amplifying false claims of Israeli 'crimes,' without credible evidence," adds Steinberg. "In 2002, an Amnesty International representative gave credence to the 'Jenin massacre' lie, and in 2006, Human Rights Watch did the same in the tragic Gaza Beach incident. In this instance, the videos disprove the version put forth by the Free Gaza Movement, and this was reflected in the Turkel Commission report."

For more information on NGO Monitor reports regarding NGOs involved in the flotilla incident:

IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi)— Turkey
International Solidarity Movement (ISM)
Lost at Sea: NGO Legal Distortions in the Wake of the Flotilla Incident
NGO Campaigns and the "Free Gaza Flotilla" NGO Involvement in the Gaza Boat Flotilla

Contact Barbara Sommer at sommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, January 22, 2011.

Islamic nations including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey fear that the Iranian backed terrorist group Hezbollah will become the de facto rulers of Lebanon, thereby giving control of that Arab nation to the extremist governments of Iran and Syria.

Officials in Israel — who have confronted Hezbollah repeatedly — fear that a Hezbollah-run government in Lebanon will lead to an increase in unrest in the Middle East.

Disturbing to Israel's government and military is the recent news that Lebanon's Druze leader Walid Jumblatt's has sided with Hezbollah against Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a move that increases the danger that an Iranian "puppet government" will be established in Lebanon.

Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told reporters, "This is not just about a terror organization which operates with Iran's support and inspiration any more, but rather a real sovereign government."

"There is no doubt this is a dangerous development which forces us to follow (Lebanon) closely. We will be prepared for any future development," he told Ynet News.

On Friday, Jumblatt announced he was supporting Hezbollah, the Shiite group that brought down the Lebanon's moderate and U.S.-backed government when ministers from Hezbollah walked out of the government, forcing its collapse, last week when Prime Minister Hariri refused to renounce the tribunal investigating the assassination of his father, former PM Rafik Hariri, according to Ynet.

The tribunal prosecutor had issued a preliminary indictment that accused members of Hezbollah of assassinating the popular prime minister, who favored warm relations with the United States and the West.

The final criminal indictment is expected to accuse members of Hezbollah of the assassination, in spite of the terrorist groups denials of any role in the Hariri assassination. The Iran and Syria backed Hezbollah has alleged the prosecutor in the case is a tool of the Israeli government.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, January 21, 2011.

Since predicting the future is hard, to say the least, it's always interesting when one can clearly see a crisis looming months ahead of time. The usual pattern is for the impending problem to be ignored until the last minute, then it is suddenly discovered by journalists and policymakers with great astonishment.

Often, they then misdiagnose the causes of the problem precisely because they never understood why it happened in the first place.

In this case, the Palestinian Authority (PA) foreign minister — remember when the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement said that the PA wouldn't conduct foreign policy? Ha-ha-ha — Riyad Malki says he will seek recognition of a Palestinian state in September at the UN. For many years, Malki ran the terrorist group, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) on the West Bank. But it's ok! He quit.

So far, recognition has been obtained from Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador, with Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, and Chile considered next. Of course, almost 100 countries recognized the Palestinian state a long time ago, often 20 years ago, and that didn't change anything. Indeed, I was present when a unilateral declaration of independence was made near Algiers on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the PLO's parliament.

Everything the PA has obtained in the last 17 years has been due not to those diplomatic recognitions but to the 1993 agreement with Israel. To walk away from that agreement and negotiations in general would be a serious matter of violating every commitment the PA has understaken. It tells something about the PA's pattern of behavior and reliability in keeping agreements. But who cares, right?

More immediately, though, I have not seen a single article in any mass media outlet that makes these most simple and obvious points:

First, the PA has basically refused to negotiate with Israel for two full years, though one would scarcely know that from media coverage.

Second, this intransigence is now being parlayed into a unilateral action. The PA won't negotiate with Israel at all. Thus, it will not have to make any commitments, compromises, or concessions. It will simply get a state on a silver platter on all of the territory it claims.

That, at least is the strategy: If the world gives me everything I want who needs you?

I have also not seen a single mass media outlet even mention that the problem here is that the Palestinians would be offered a state without having to declare that this is their final demand. In other words, as the Palestinians have always wanted, the door would be open for a second round of conflict to wipe Israel off the map.

Who will be the big loser if this happens? In theory, you would think it would be Israel. But in fact even the PA realizes that this is going to have limited effect on the ground. The PA does need Israel for many things, including, for example, helping keep it from being overthrown by Hamas and passing through needed goods.

Even PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has admitted, in the words of an AP dispatch, "that the recognition drive at the UN will not necessarily bring realization of a state. But it helps the Palestinians enshrine their demand that the 1967 borders serve as the basis for drawing their nation's shape."

Or in Malki's words: "Such recognition would create political and legal pressure on Israel to withdraw its forces from the land of another state that is recognized within the 1967 borders by the international organization."

But it won't affect Israel very much at all. Nothing really will change.

By the way, let's remember that contrary to international practice, the PA cannot claim to be a state in those borders because it doesn't control that territory. And I'm referring here to the Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem, and much of the West Bank. Moreover, it is asking for recognition in contradiction to its existing treaty commitments. But again, who cares?

The UN General Assembly will no doubt accept Palestinian statehood by a resounding majority without that country making any commitments to peace, security guarantees, an end of the conflict, or anything else. Then the issue will go to the UN Security Council where the United States will veto it. Yes, President Barack Obama will do that. And so there will be no real change in the situation.

And that brings me back to my point. The big loser here is the United States. After all, why should the PA make any attempt whatsoever to negotiate seriously if at the end of nine months it can get everything it wants for free? How can the U.S. government ignore this reality?

In other words, the next nine months of U.S. policy on the peace process will be a complete and total waste of time. And nothing Israel does, for good or bad, will affect that reality.

There is, of course, something the U.S. government can do: maximum pressure on other states not to recognize; maximum pressure on the PA to drop the idea. Of course, this is not going to happen.

So, surer than the Titanic was going to hit that iceberg if it didn't change course, the Obama Administration is headed for getting a big hole in its side and taking on considerable water. Remember, you heard it here first. And you probably won't hear it anywhere else until about August.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. This article is archived in
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2011/01/ obama-administration-peace-process-policy

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 21, 2011.

"The problem with The Toppling of the Tunisian Regime: Ramifications for the Arab World" is INSS Insight No. 238, January 20, 2011, by Shlomo Brom.)


Commenting on ramifications of the Tunisian uprising, Israeli Journalist Shlomo Brom cautions Israel not to rely on Arab stability. That is, Israel should not fashion its national security policy on Jordan and Egypt remaining out of Islamist hands and possibly uninterested in going to war with Israel.

Our immediate source on this, Aaron Lerner of IMRA, observes that for years, Mr. Brom had urged Israel to make concessions on national security, depending on Jordan and Egypt being moderate (1/20/11).

Actually, the government of Egypt has been allowing Islamists to gain influence and has been instituting more and more Islamist law there. Even before that, Egyptian military doctrine prepares its army to invade Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, January 21, 2011.

The religion of peace as practiced in several Muslim nations offers a large segment of the population — women — neither peace nor liberty.


Somali women as young as 12 years old are treated brutally by their Muslim fathers, brothers and husbands. (Photo: United Nations )

The Somali terror group al-Shabaab, which forged an alliance with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror movement, has imposed oppressive new regulations on refugee women currently living in the Afgoye corridor.

The women are being ordered to wear full-length body coverings even when they are in the privacy of their own homes.

Al-Shabaab leaders threatened the women by issuing a warning that any one seen violating the dress-code would be severely punished.

According to intelligence reports, pick-up trucks mounted with loudspeakers could be seen in the villages where thousands of displaced Somali civilians have taken refuge on Sunday morning. Residents expressed a deep concern about the new rule that also forces women to stay home unless escorted by an adult male.

Al-Shabaab is intent on imposing strictest interpretation of Sharia Islamic law throughout the war-torn Somali countryside. The dreaded terrorist group routinely carries out abductions and violently punishes people for all types of crimes.

In a statement that came as no surprise to U.S. security and law enforcement experts in January 2010, the Somali-based terrorist group announced that its fighters are aligned with al-Qaeda's global terrorism campaign. The deadly group said in the statement, broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, that the "jihad of Horn of Africa must be combined with the international jihad led by the al-Qaeda network".

The al-Shabaab statement also announced that its militants had joined forces with a smaller insurgent group called Kamboni, another radical Muslim organization.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

This is archived on the examiner at
http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in- national/women-bullied-by-somali-islamists

To Go To Top

Posted by HandsFiasco, January 21, 2011.
This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in Jewish World Review (http://wwww.JewishWorldReview.com).

Taken side by side, the first striking aspect of the US's fabricated Israeli spy scandal on the one hand and its massive espionage operation against Israel on the other hand is the shocking hypocrisy of it all.

But hypocrisy isn't the real issue. The real issue exposed by the documents is that the US is carrying out a deeply hostile policy against Israel in the face of massive public support for Israel in the US


Two documents reported on this week shed a troubling light on the US government's attitude toward Israel. The first is a 27-page FBI search warrant affidavit from 2004 targeting then senior AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen, published Wednesday in the Washington Times. The second is WikiLeaks leaked secret State Department cable from October 2008 signed by then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice directing US officials to spy on Israel. Both indicate that in certain quarters of the American government Israel is viewed as at best a banana republic and at worst an enemy of the US.

The text of the FBI affidavit directed against Rosen makes clear that the FBI had no particular reason to suspect that he was an Israeli agent or was harming US national security. Rosen's activities during his tenure as AIPAC's senior lobbyist as described in the affidavit — meeting with government officials, journalists and Israeli diplomats — were precisely the type of activities that lobbyists in Washington routinely engage in. Despite this the FBI followed Rosen for five years and indicted him and his AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman on felony charges under the all but forgotten 1917 Espionage Act. The FBI probe and subsequent trial harmed AIPAC's reputation, destroyed both men's careers, and did untold damage to the reputation of both the State of Israel and its American Jewish supporters. That it took five years for the Justice Department to drop these outrageous charges is a testament to the strength of the FBI's commitment to criminalizing American Jewish advocates of a strong US-Israel alliance.

And then there is Rice's secret cable. Just days before the 2008 presidential elections, the Secretary of State instructed US diplomats in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as the DIA and the CIA to conduct a massive espionage operation against Israel. The sought for information covered all aspects of Israel's political system, society, communications infrastructures and the IDF.

Regarding the IDF for instance, among other things, diplomats and spies were asked to gather intelligence on planned Israeli military operations against the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria and probe the attitudes of military commanders. They were also told to gather information on "IDF units, equipment, maintenance levels, training, morale, and operational readiness[;] IDF tactics, techniques and procedures for conducting conventional and unconventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations[; and] Israeli assessment of the impact of reserve duty in the territories on IDF readiness." As for political leaders, among other things, Rice instructed diplomats and spies to provide detailed information about government plans; influences on politicians; how politicians decide to launch military strikes; what Israel's leaders think about the US and much more.

Rice also sought information about various aspects of Israeli society. Rice instructed US diplomats and spies to gather information on everything from, "Information on and motivations for any increased Israeli population emigration from Israel," to detailed information on Israeli "settlers" in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights. Regarding the "settlers," among other things, Rice wanted information on, "Divisions among various settlement groups[;] details on settlement-related budgets and subsidies[;] settlers' relationships with the Israeli political and military establishment including their lobbying and settlement methods."

Rice expressed deep interest as well in all details related to Israel's military and non-military communications infrastructure. For instance, she directed US officials to gather information on "Current specifications, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and planned upgrades to national telecommunications infrastructure, networks, and technologies used by government and military authorities, intelligence and security services, and the public sector."

Finally, Rice wanted personal data on Israeli leaders. She asked for "official and personal phone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses of principal civilian and military leaders."

Taken side by side, the first striking aspect of the US's fabricated Israeli spy scandal on the one hand and its massive espionage operation against Israel on the other hand is the shocking hypocrisy of it all.

But hypocrisy isn't the real issue. The real issue exposed by the documents is that the US is carrying out a deeply hostile policy against Israel in the face of massive public support for Israel in the US. That is, whereas two thirds of Americans support Israel, a minority constituency in the US government treats Israel with scorn and hatred. And the question that arises from this is how is this minority able to get away with it? Part of the answer was exposed this week in the aftermath of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's move on Monday morning to break ranks with the Labor Party. To understand how the two issues are related it is important to understand the plight of Labor since the demise of the peace process with the PLO in 2000.

Since the peace process ended with the beginning of the Palestinian terror war in September 2000, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have viewed Labor's policies of appeasement at all cost as dangerous and wrong. That is, since 2000, Labor's policies have been the policies of the political fringe. This situation has only grown worse for Labor since Hamas's takeover of Gaza and victory in the Palestinian elections held in the wake of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Despite the fact that its policies are hugely unpopular, two factors have enabled Labor to continue to present itself as a mainstream ruling party.

The first factor has been the media. As has been their practice since the birth of modern Israel, since the demise of the peace process, the media have helped the likes of Labor by demonizing the Right, and rightist politicians and particularly Likud. Working hand in glove with leftist politicians, the media have implemented the politics of personal destruction against right wing leaders. By demonizing the likes of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, they have rendered the social cost of supporting Likud and the Right is too high for many Israelis to bear.

At the same time, the media have colluded with the Left to present Leftist leaders as earthy, heroic, sophisticated and responsible statesmen. By keeping the content of their policies firmly out of the discussion and framing the debate instead around personal attacks and symbols, the media have successfully kept rightist leaders on the defensive and shielded leftist politicians from substantive attacks on their radical policies.

The second reason that Labor was able to retain its mantle as a ruling party is that it has enjoyed the energetic support of the State Department and European governments which both support its radical policies.

Until the formation of the Netanyahu government two years ago, Labor was the State Department's favorite political party. Labor leaders from Shimon Peres down were the objects of constant attention and praise. Labor's leaders in turn were happy to help the Americans and Europeans hide their basic hostility towards Israel by claiming that their anti-Israel policies were actually pro-Israel policies.

So it was that in 2003 Labor leaders actively colluded with the State Department in drafting the so-called Roadmap plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace despite then prime minister Ariel Sharon's opposition to the plan.

Labor's importance took a hit with the formation of Kadima in late 2005. Comprised of newly minted leftists from Likud led by Sharon and veteran leftists from Labor like Peres, Kadima inherited Labor's mantle as the Left's new ruling party. Labor was able to retain its relevance to the US by joining Olmert's coalition and advocating even more radical policies than those advocated by Olmert and Livni.

But then Likud and the Right won the 2009 elections. Kadima, led by Livni, went into the opposition and Labor, under Barak joined the coalition.

As head of the opposition, Livni has become ever more vocal in advocating the policies of the radical Left and the Obama administration. Livni has placed the blame for the absence of the peace process and for the Obama administration's sour relations with Israel squarely and entirely on Netanyahu's shoulders.

For his part, Barak has been stuck in an untenable situation. To justify his partnership with Netanyahu, he worked closely with the Obama administration and actively lobbied Netanyahu to adopt the US's favored positions. The Obama administration rewarded him by regularly hosting him in Washington and openly extolling him as its chosen "Israeli foreign minister."

But given both his own party's radicalism and the Obama administration's hostility towards Netanyahu, Barak was never able to fully satisfy either his party or the Americans. He was never able to move to the Left of Livni.

According to Haaretz and to Labor leaders who opposed Barak, the end of the line for Barak came in late December with Haaretz's publication of a report claiming that the Obama administration had soured on Barak due to his failure to convince Netanyahu to extend the Jewish construction ban in Judea and Samaria for an additional 90 days. Livni, Haaretz reported, had replaced Barak as the Obama administration's favorite Israeli politician.

Since the article was published, Barak could no longer maintain the contradiction between Labor's radical policies and its protestations to ruling party status. Without American support, there was no way to keep Labor together.

This is why, when he announced his break with Labor on Monday morning, Barak explained that Labor had become a radical party that was home to post-Zionists who believe that Israel alone is to blame for the absence of peace. The post-Zionists rejected him when he lost his international support. So he had nowhere to go but into Netanyahu's waiting Zionist arms.

This is also why Livni and Kadima have so harshly attacked Barak. In an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday, Livni — whose political career owes entirely to her decision to betray Likud voters — called Barak's split from Labor "the dirtiest act," in history. More importantly, the woman who claims that Netanyahu is solely to blame for the absence of peace with the Palestinians and that he is wrong not to bow to every US demand protested,"For Barak to call whoever wants peace post-Zionist is unheard of."

This brings us back to the FBI's anti-Israel witch hunt and Rice's spy cable.

Barak lost his ability to serve as the puppet of the anti-Israel wing of the US government because he was unable to both serve under Netanyahu and overthrow him. By pressuring Barak to do the impossible, the anti-Israel officials in the US government inadvertently caused the demise of the Labor Party.

However, with Kadima under Livni, these officials can take heart. Their support for Livni makes her powerful. Owing to their support, Livni is able to maintain her control over the largest party in the Knesset.

And as long as Livni remains both powerful and loyal to their agenda, those forces in the US government that despise the Jewish state will be able to rest easy. Although the majority of Americans want their government to support Israel, shielded by Kadima, these US government officials will be able to continue to implement policies that treat Israel with the contempt due to a banana republic.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, January 21, 2011.

A fine article appeared in UCI but alas, the Jewish author persists in regarding all arabs anywhere near the Jewish Homeland as "palestinians."

Here is our reply:

Jews lost half the battle for their land and diminished their own sovereign powers and conferred them upon the Muslim usurpers when Israelis allowed the arabs to choose the words that through usage ended up defining the issues between Muslims and Jews. What I mean is this: Most Jews perversely feel obliged to treat any arab who breathes Israel's air as a "Palestinian," even though this or that arab — and that's most of them — has simply stepped over the border into Israel.

Given an Israeli's misbegotten sense of political correctness (exemplified by Shimon Peres' ingrained Polish accommodation toward the bloody fascist Egyptian known as Yasser Arafat) Jews allowed Muslims to slip into the cloak they dropped when they abandoned their Palestinian garments to don Israeli colors. The better-schooled arabs, many of them UK and US-educated Saudis, quickly saw the advantage of renaming themselves what they never were in order to stake claims to the region known as Palestine, which region was earlier declared a part of the Jewish Homeland by the San Remo Resolution and ratified by subsequent US and European treaties. (The Saudis sent mega-millions to Yasser Arafat and so did the US State Dept. and Arafat just as swiftly absconded with these millions. But the Saudi-funded US State Dept. bureaucrats continue to rob the US taxpayer in order to fund arab gangsters and terrorists, gangsters and terrorists who undermine the US, even within its borders.

Poor Jews, uneducated Jews, desperate homeless Jews, adrift Jews, were so ignorant of their rights to the Lands of Israel that they eagerly sought out a shepherd to guide them into their homeland and unfortunately for them, Shimon Peres, with his Polish self-absorption and ever-burgeoning vanity, decided to make himself their leader and so, in the name of a "peace process" that was from the very beginning designed to forge a path toward the destruction of Israel, Peres lead them into peril for the sake of persuading his "dearest friend in peace," Yasser Arafat, to blow sweet nothings in Peres' easily aroused ears.

The first step Israel must take is one of redefining the issues by selecting words that buttress Israel's paramount claims to the lands that the Muslims still hope running-Jews will simply let fall into their greedy hands. And this means that all Jews and all Israelis must immediately stop referring to Muslims and/or arabs as "palestinians." The latter are Muslims first and arabs by ethnicity. And that's a fact that Israel the nation and israelis themselves must reinforce. Because it's true. Nettie might call it "peace-processing" when he gives the arab usurpers reasons to believe that he is a king with the monarchial powers that allow him to give them Israel's precious land, but in fact, in reality, when Nettie mugs and grins and performs his charade, he is merely seen as a powerless tool who is playing out the foul script written for Jews by their UK antagonists and their UK cohorts: the arab usurpers and their enablers who sadly enough, are the readily intimidated Jewish traitors and seditionists.

Why should Israelis ask what the arabs want? Arabs have repeatedly told you. They want Jews dead an gone just like they want all Christians dead or gone. But Jews, first. Why? Because for the past three decades, Jewish bosses have ordered Jews to run or explain or surrender or apologize and weep. Which is what the cowardly Euroids taught Arabs to demand Jews do. Now listen up, Israel! Take whatever steps are useful or necessary to set the arab usurers back in their place. Drive them back to the Arabian peninsula and Tunisia and Algeria and Lebanon and Egypt and Syria or wherever they or their forebears came from, or else prepare to keen and moan while the arabs do unto your children what they did to Danny Pearl.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel who are battling against the forces of internal seditionists and external invaders.

— SC4Z

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Neuer, January 21, 2011.

Why does the United Nations' Human Rights Council turn a blind eye to systematic repression in countries such as Cuba, Iran and Zimbabwe? Here's one reason: Its Advisory Committee, meeting this week in Geneva, is dominated by apologists for the world's worst dictators.

The Obama administration is rightly calling to abolish this body of 18 advisers. It's time for other UN stakeholders to do the same.

Expert: Halima Warzazi, who shielded Saddam from censure

According to the UN's website, the Advisory Committee is a "think-tank" whose goal is "to ensure that the best possible expertise is made available to the council." The experts, we are told, possess "recognized competence and experience in the field of human rights," "high moral standing" and "impartiality." Their decisions, the UN would have us understand, are based on principle, evidence and logic.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. A quick glance at three of the committee's leading members — all chosen by politicized regional groups — makes it clear that they are guided by an extreme ideological agenda.

Expert: Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, hugging Ahmadinejad

First is Halima Warzazi, chosen by her peers last year as chairwoman. In the halls of the UN, the former Moroccan diplomat is noticeable for her brightly colored, traditional robes. Those who know UN history, however, remember her for something else.

In 1988, the precursor to the Advisory Committee was considering a resolution to condemn Saddam Hussein for having gassed thousands of Kurds in Halabja. It was an auspicious moment. Two years before Saddam would brutalize Kuwait through torture, murder and rape, and three years before he would kill more than 30,000 Kurds and Shiites, here was an opportunity for a UN body to show the Iraqi dictator that the eyes of the world were upon him.

But it was not to be. Warzazi initiated a "no action" motionto kill the resolution— and won the vote. Saddam went on to murder thousands more. So much for this adviser's "high moral standing."

Then there is Jean Ziegler, who served last year as Warzazi's vice-chair. The former socialist politician from Switzerland has authored numerous books accusing America and the West of being responsible for the world's ills.

Expert: Jean Ziegler, seen on the left in 1985 meeting with Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy

Ziegler is a life-long cheerleader for Fidel Castro. In 2002, he praised the dictator of Zimbabwe, saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him."

In 1989, as reported by Time magazine, Ziegler co-founded the Moammar Khadafy International Prize for Human Rights, with $10 million from the Libyan regime. Awardees have included Castro, Hugo Chavez and Louis Farrakhan. In 2002, the prize was given to convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy — and to Ziegler himself.

Finally, there is the newest expert adviser, Nicaragua's Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann. In the 1980s, he was foreign minister under the Sandinista regime of Daniel Ortega.

In 2008-2009, Brockmann served as president of the UN General Assembly, nominated by Ortega after he regained power. While there, Brockmann named his own official advisers, including Anti-American guru Noam Chomsky, Khadafy's U.S. lawyer Ramsey Clark and Hamas sympathizer Richard Falk. In 2009, Brockmann designated Castro a "World Hero of Solidarity."

In 2008, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the opening of the UN to attack America and "deceitful" Zionists, Brockmann rushed to hug him.

And in 2009, he sided with Sudan's President Omar Hassan al Bashir after he was indicted for genocide, saying the charge was "racist."

Warzazi, Ziegler, Brockmann — these are the "impartial" and "competent" experts guiding the Human Rights Council, whose 47 members already include China, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Not even George Orwell could have imagined this.

Hillel Neuer is an international lawyer and executive director of UN Watch, a human rights group in Geneva. This article was published today by the UN Watch Organization as Briefing #271 and is archived here. It appeared today in the New York Daily News.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, January 21, 2011.

This document is dedicated to the memory of Herb Zweibon, a super-Mentsch, a principle-driven human-being, a Jewish and a Zionist warrior and educator, an American patriot who was a leader in the battle of truth, realism, conviction and determination against lies, wishful-thinking, opportunism and vacillation.

The Tunisian turmoil — and its potential regional ripple effects — reaffirm the significance of the Judea and Samaria mountain ridges to the national security and survival of the Jewish State. I authored the document in 2003, but it is even more valid in 2011.


The Tunisia-Mideast-Judea and Samaria Connection:

1. The Tunisian turmoil is a reminder of the nature of Israel's neighborhood, the Middle East — the role model of domestic and global terrorism, volatility, instability, unpredictable violence, intra-Arab treachery, tenuous compliance with commitments, short-lived intra-Arab agreements, shifting alliances internally and externally, uncertainty, oppressive totalitarianism and divisiveness. Israel's high security threshold, and extremely slim margin of error, are determined by such regional phenomena.

2. The more violent and the less certain the region, the higher the security requirements. Moreover, the prime test of a Middle East peace accord is not its conclusion, but its capability to withstand the worst-case Middle East scenarios, such as an abrupt violation by a concerted unpredictable attack. For example, would the slim 9-15 miles waistline of pre-1967 Israel be able to fend off a 1973 Yom Kippur-like offensive?!

3. The Tunisian turmoil constitutes a prelude to potentially stormy 2011-12, fueled by a series of aging Arab rulers on their way out, a retreating US, increasingly assertive Russia, China and North Korea, bolder Muslim terrorist organizations and explosive disenchantment among oppressed Arab/Muslim masses.

4. The approaching departure of the aging/ailing President Mubarak could produce a pro-US regime, but it could also yield a radical Islamic takeover, followed by volcanic eruptions in the Middle East at-large, in the eastern Mediterranean, Horn of Africa, the Red Sea, Sudan, North Africa, devastating Western interests, providing a tailwind to terrorism and radical regimes and consuming the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.

5. The scheduled US retreat from Iraq, its expected evacuation of Afghanistan and the switch of US policy from confrontation to engagement with rogue regimes, are perceived by US rivals and enemies as an extension of the US retreats from Iran (1979), Lebanon (1983) and Somali (1993), adrenalyzing radical and subversive veins. The retreat from Iraq could trigger a lava-effect, threatening the survival of pro-Western regimes in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and the UAE, but benefitting Iran, Syria and regional terrorism.

6. Turkey's about-face from a Western-oriented policy to Islam-driven policy has transformed the former leader of the Muslim World from a stability-generating ally to an unrest-perpetrating opponent of Western democracies. It has undermined regional stability, advancing Russian, Iranian and overall Islamic ambitions at the expense of vital US interests.

7. Middle East turbulence could force the Hashemite regime in Jordan to abandon its pro-Western policy and its peace treaty with Israel. Regional constrains forced King Hussein to collaborate with Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Regional pressures led Jordan's King Abdullah and King Hussein to join the wars on Israel in 1948/9 and in 1967 and 1973 respectively. During 1968-1970, King Hussein provided its arch-enemy, the PLO, with logistical and operational bases for anti-Israel terrorism. How would Israel's border with Jordan be impacted by a radicalized Iraq or Egypt?! How would it be affected by the toppling of Jordan's Hashemite regime?!

8. Mideast precedents — and sober assessments of Middle East reality — behoove the Jewish State to base its policy on realistic Mideast scenarios and not on lethal wishful thinking. The Mideast requires (especially) Israel to maintain a high security threshold, which secures its most vulnerable eastern border: the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which constitute the "Golan Heights" of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv; the most effective tank obstacle in the region (3,000ft steep slope dominating the Jordan Valley in the east); a dream platform for invading the 9-15 miles sliver along the Mediterranean Sea (2,000ft moderate slope over-towering 80% of Israel's population and infrastructures in the west).


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

This article is archived in Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, January 20, 2011.

We are the SC4Z. Re: the latest analysis of US views of Syria elucidated by Barry Rubin/Badan reads as follows:

"Their argument rests on a basic linkage theory, which, incidentally, also accepts key aspects of the Syrian official line: The problems in the region are related, and they revolve around the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israel's occupation of Arab lands."

Here's how we'd say the same thing. Notice our better and more subltly persuasive use of semantics ...

"The argument rests on a theory of "basic linkage," which, incidentally, also blindly accepts key aspects of the Syrian script: That all problems in the region revolve around the arab-Israeli conflict centered on the newly hatched idea that Israel occupies ""arab lands" rather than the other way around."

Viva to Israel. Time to settle the arab occupiers who want to be known as "palestinians" in the new state of Jordan where these arabs have spawned for decades.


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Frank Salvato, January 20, 2011.

Five years ago when my organization BasicsProject.org partnered in producing the first national symposium series on the threat of radical Islam, the issue was not in the mainstream. In fact, our publication, NewMediaJournal.us was banned from Google News for what they called "hate speech," simply because several of our writers dared to broach the subject of jihad and the violent tenets of Islamist fundamentalism. To be sure, we have come a very long way from those days. Today, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both talk regularly about the issue with Mr. O'Reilly calling it "the Muslim problem." This is a good thing, but it isn't nearly enough.

As President Obama does everything in his power, using every resource and every propaganda ploy to diminish the "Muslim problem" that exists, not only in the United States, but around the world, the truth remains, fundamentalist Islam is a problem that is growing, not diminishing. Many on the Left and in the Progressive camp insist that the number of people within the Islamic religion who practice fundamentalist Islam — radical Islam; those who, when asked, champion the violent element within their religion, are but a scant ten percent. But when we put that percentage in realistic terms, realizing that nearly one-fourth of the world's population is Muslim (1.57 billion adherents) and that the number of those following the Islamic religion grows by 1.84% annually, we can divine that ten percent of the Muslim population — those who subscribe to fundamentalist Islam and violent jihad — amounts to 157,000,000 people and growing. That number, to equate it to something tangible, is over one-third of the population of the United States of America.

This, regardless of how you feel about the majority of Muslims in the world, should scare you to know end: a number of people equal to one-third of the population of the United States of America believes that Islam should be the preeminent religion in the world, dominant over all other religions and that the oppressive and brutal Sharia law should reign supreme, even over the Constitution of the United States, on our shores.

I have been pointing these facts out for years, warning of a fundamentalist Islamist invasion of the European Continent and of "creeping Sharia" in the United States, only to be called a "hate-monger," "a bigot" and "a racist"...and those are the printable descriptions. Today, as we watch events around the world with regard to the advance of Islam, I stand vindicated in my assessment, yet I take no solace in being correct.

A recent poll by Le Monde, the dominant newspaper in France, as reported by The London Daily Mail, revealed that "Islam is considered a 'threat' by millions of French and Germans to their national identity." It ran the results under "a headline which brands efforts to get different religious communities to live side by side as a 'failure.'" According to the poll, 68 percent of the French and 75 percent of Germans believe Muslims are "not well integrated into society." German chancellor Angela Merkel went as far as to say that the notion of "multiculturalism" in German society — given the issue of non-assimilation by foreigners — had "utterly failed." Germany has one of the largest Muslim immigrant populations in Europe at 4.3 million. The Muslim immigrant population in France is 7 million and the British come in at 2.4 million. Experts say that almost 85% of the population growth in Europe, as a whole, was due to Muslim immigration and that the Muslim population alone will double by 2020.

The poll goes on to say that:

"...55 percent in France and 49 percent in Germany believe the 'influence and visibility of Islam' is 'too large', while 60 percent in both countries say the reason for the problem is Muslims' own 'refusal' to integrate...Just as crucially, 42 percent of French and 40 percent of Germans consider the presence of Islamic communities 'a threat' to their national identities.

"An editorial in Le Monde adds: 'As Islam becomes a permanent and increasingly conspicuous fixture of European societies, public opinion is clearly tensing up...'"

Again, given that experts have said that the percentage of the world's Muslim population that follow fundamentalist Islam, which signs-on to the concept of the establishment of Sharia law and violent jihad, is ten percent, it is easy to see why the Germans and the French — and for that matter the whole of Europe — is ill-at-ease with the current situation. In Germany, France and Britain alone, using the experts' ten percent figure, 1.7 million Muslims subscribe to fundamentalist Islam and the establishment of Sharia law.

To this point we have discussed the threats posed by fundamentalist Islam — violent jihadist Islam — as they pertain to a growing population, the lack of acceptable assimilation into the host country's cultures and population growth by procreation. But there is another more disturbing trend emerging around the world: the violent extinguishment of other religions where fundamentalist Islam exists.

With each passing day we read a growing number of news items that describe how fundamentalist Islamists are attacking Christians and Jews, burning their houses of worship or otherwise violently attacking not only the places where they worship, but the non-Muslim worshipers themselves.

  • In Somalia, a location that both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri directed Islamist jihadists in order to "regroup" after their ouster in Iraq by superior US and Coalition forces, a mother of four had her throat slit in front of her children by the radical Islamist group al Shabaab for having converted to Christianity.

  • Christmas Eve bombings in Jos, Nigeria, perpetuated at the hands of radical Islamists and targeting Christian churches on one of Christianities most holy of days, killed 31 people and injured scores more. The governor's office in Jos had received letters purported to be from some Muslim organizations threatening attacks against Christians. The violence in Nigeria between Islamists and Christians has been in existence for decades.

  • In Spain, the Hudson Institute reports that an initiative to build more mosques is coming into full swing, with the inclusion of a behemoth mega-mosque in Barcelona. The construction of new mosques comes at a time when municipalities linked to the Socialist Party have closed dozens of Christian churches across the nation.

  • In Egypt, angry Copt Christians accosted the car carrying Egypt's top Muslim religious leaders in protest of the bombing of the All Saints Coptic Church in Alexandria on News Year's Day, a bombing executed by radical Islamists. The blast killed 21 Coptic Christians.

  • In the Philippines, al Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyef Islamists bombed a Christian chapel on Christmas day injuring the priest and ten others.

  • And United Nations Human Rights official, Navi Pillay, said attacks on religious minorities in places like Egypt, Nigeria and Pakistan should serve as a wake-up call to authorities everywhere to combat rising fanaticism. Given that these locations are predominantly Muslim, the minority religions would be based in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, to name the more popular religions practiced in those regions.

    The story is increasingly the same, from Pakistan and Afghanistan to the countries that formed the former Soviet Union, from Europe to Africa and the South Pacific, radical and violent Islamists are waging what can only be described as a "holy war" in a quest to expunge all other religions from their spheres of dominance...and this push is expanding day by day by day.

    The inane Progressive tenet of political correctness has advanced the false notion that Islam is a religion of peace. Even former President George W. Bush made the mistake of allowing his influence to be co-opted by this fallacy. Truth be told, whether by immigration, procreation of violent jihad, fundamentalist Islam is advancing by whatever means works in any given location. If we are foolish enough to look the other way when the evidence to this fact is so incredibly overwhelming, we will soon be watching as the US Constitution gives way to Sharia law.

    Free men and women everywhere, we are witnessing the third great Islamist quest for world dominance. We are in the midst of a holy war waged by fundamentalist Islamists against all other religions and their adherents. If we do not dispense with the lunacy of political correctness in an effort to be honest about our "Muslim problem," it will most certainly be too late.

    Time my fellow lovers of freedom, is running out.

    Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative Contact him by email at franksalvato@verizon.net

    To Go To Top
    Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, January 20, 2011.

    There are certain verbal expressions which seem to clarify specific situations...they really hit the nail right on the head, so to speak.

    On January 18th, America and Russia took steps towards recognition of the Arabs' twenty-second state, joining a growing list of South American and other countries who have already done so since the collapse of latest round of Jew arm-twisting--er "negotiations" — in Washington late last year.

    While there's more to be said about the American moves in this direction, I have addressed this side of the coin previously. So, let's focus on the Russians for now...

    During his visit to the Palestinian Authority in Jericho, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev reiterated his country's previous recognition of what amounts to the creation of the Arabs' second — not first — state in Palestine.

    It cannot be repeated too often that Jordan had already been gifted to Arab nationalism in 1922 from almost 80% of the original, post-Ottoman Turkish Empire, 1920 Mandate's territory.

    It was noted that Medvedev's stopover was the first time a major world leader visited the PA without traveling to Israel first — giving concrete evidence to support his words.

    Now, none of the above would be intrinsically wrong except that the new Arab state the Russians, President Obama's Administration, and others are gifting recognition to still refuses to grant Jews — in one tiny state which sits on about 11% of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine's land — that same recognition.

    As has been noted often (and forgetting about the more honest Hamas folks), the allegedly moderate, latter-day Arafatians of the PA have stated that they will never recognize Israel — regardless of how much it concedes for peace — as a state of the Jews. And they have called any negotiations with Israel simply a "Trojan Horse."

    Furthermore, the Arabs' openly-admitted plan since their failed attempt at Israel's destruction in 1967 has been one which they dubbed the destruction-in-phases scenario...first force Israel back, via international pressure and "negotiations," to its pre-'67, nine to fifteen mile wide, '49 armistice line (not border) existence, and then move in for the kill when the time is ripe. And the time gets riper by the day as Israel gets surrounded by even more heavily-armed surrogates of Iran and others as well.

    Arafat called this false peace "the Peace of the Quraysh," the temporary cessation in warfare Islam's prophet, Muhammad, granted his Meccan enemies in the 7th century C. E. until he was ready to deliver the final blow. Arafat's "moderate" successors also call it their Trojan Horse... as we've already seen. Add to this the Arab demand that Israel allow itself to be inundated by millions of real and alleged Arab refugees, and the picture becomes complete. By the way, the above were all part of the alleged "peace plan" Israel recently rejected in the failed negotiations being pushed by the current White House and for which it has been blamed.

    The results of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (a staging area for assault against Jews in Israel for millennia) — frequent attacks upon it from Arabs living there — are but examples of what Arabs have in mind elsewhere if Israel does not get the territorial compromise it was promised in the disputed territories by the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 in the wake of the '67 fighting.

    While Arabs insist that they will never recognize the sole State of the Jews, scores of millions of non-Arabs — Kurds, Copts, Imazighen ("Berbers"), black Africans, native Jews, and others — pre-date and live in the twenty-one states which make up the "Arab" League on lands Arabs simply refer to as (via murderous conquest and forced Arabization) "purely Arab patrimony." And that's the problem with granting recognition to Arab state #22 — by anyone.

    Okay — now back to the Russians...

    Moscow insists that Israel return to its 9-15 mile wide armistice line existence and backs this up by recognizing a PA state on the east side of '49 armistice lines.

    Given this reality, it's long overdue that Israel do likewise in the Caucasus Mountains and declare its support of the Russian-conquered Chechen people.

    Russian imperialism engulfed many different peoples throughout Asia and elsewhere, especially during the 18th century. Chechnya has periodically been in revolt against its expansionist Russian conquerors ever since.

    The Russians have slaughtered countless numbers of Chechens over the years whose overall general crime was to simply want freedom from Moscow.

    Some Chechens have resorted to murderous terrorism in response, and kidnapping and lawlessness have become too commonplace in the land. Additionally, warring factions (reminiscent of other lands where positive nationalism has not been allowed to take root) add to this picture of the legacy of Russian conquest.

    Unlike Arab nationalism in its various stripes (claiming some two dozen states at the expense of scores of millions of native, non-Arab victims), the Chechen people — like the Jews before, the Kurds and Imazighen ("Berbers") today, and others in the region as well — do not yet have one independent state, let alone two dozen.

    With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, temporary independence was proclaimed, but the Russians squashed that hope in wars throughout the late 1990s. Horrendous acts of terrorism, committed by Chechens in response, only backfired on the cause of the people in whose name the atrocities were committed.

    Some will draw parallels between the above situation, involving Russia and the Chechens, and Israel and its assorted Arab enemies.

    But there are some very crucial differences...

    For starters, how does a nation like Russia — which conquered vast territories and peoples, making it the largest country, geographically speaking, in the world today — dare tell Israel, which one needs a magnifying glass to find on a world globe, that its desire for a territorial compromise in lands in which Jews have thousands of years of history (unlike the Russians) is "expansionist colonialism?"

    Those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones — and the Russian house is indeed one of the most transparent on these issues.

    Fatah and Hamas are Arab factions determined to destroy Israel — one sooner, the other later. They are, nonetheless, Arabs...and while there are differences between Arabs, there are also differences between Jews — and so forth.

    Perhaps Jews, playing the same Arab game, should demand multiple states for themselves too because of their own differences. There are more Jews (as just one of many examples) in Israel, France, the Americas, and elsewhere whose origins are in Morocco than Arabs who got to have independent states in Kuwait and the Gulf Emirates.

    While it's understandable that Arabs — given their own subjugating "purely Arab patrimony" mindset towards the region — refuse to recognize the rights of Jews (half of whom in Israel were refugees from the "Arab"/Muslim world) and others as well, this does not mean that their attitude is not morally nauseating. Think about what has been happening in the Sudan's south and west if you need just another horrendous example of this...

    No matter how Arabs and their supporters spin it, what they want is that twenty-second state for themselves created on the ashes of the resurrected one that the Jews have. And furthermore, what they really want is a 23rd too — expecting Israel to be turned into that after it's swamped by Arab refugees (not a one which would have existed if a half dozen Arab states did not attack a new born Israel in 1948).

    There is no question, in Arab minds, that the new state(s) they demand will replace Israel, not live along side it. Official Arab websites, maps, textbooks, media, sermons, children televison shows, and so forth leave no doubt about this — regardless of the sweet talking and taqiyya practiced on an all-too-willingly-gullible West.

    Chechens don't have one state, let alone dozens, and their unfortunate resort to extremism should no more exclude Chechnya from independence from Moscow than the frequent barbarism committed against non-Arabs by Arabs have affected the latters' own political quests.

    What's good for the Israeli goose must indeed be good for the Russian gander... http://q4j-middle-east.com

    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 Jonathan Schanzer, January 20, 2011.


    After decades of looking to Egypt to provide stability in the Middle East, Washington finds Cairo contending with an increasingly dangerous combination of ossified leadership, Islamist violence, and disaffected minorities. From the New Year's Eve suicide bombing at a Coptic church in Alexandria to the recent shooting of a Copt on a train in the south, Egypt is witnessing an alarming rise in violence against minorities. Depending on how much goes wrong, 2011 could be a bumpy ride.

    Egypt's disenfranchised Copts, the target of the recent bombing that killed twenty-one, are one concern. In Alexandria, the New Year's Eve hangover brought a series of clashes between regime forces and angry Copts demanding better protection and equal rights from an indifferent government. This was not a one-off, either; in November, protests erupted after the government halted construction of a Coptic church in Giza. Copts constitute 10 percent of Egypt's population of 80 million, and we can expect them to take to the streets in the future.

    But Copts remain a low priority for President Hosni Mubarak's regime, particularly when compared to jihadists who attack non-Muslims, regime targets and tourists as a means of weakening a government they view as too cozy with the West. The worst-case scenario is a reprise of the 1990s, when al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya went on a terror spree culminating in the 1997 Luxor attack, which killed fifty-eight foreign tourists and four Egyptians, and all but suffocated tourism for years to come.

    While Egyptian intelligence has successfully squeezed the old-guard jihadists, a strange new guard may be sprouting. The hitherto-unknown Islamist group Ansar al-Sunnah al-Muhamadiya now threatens the life of former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who is pushing to change Egypt's stagnant political system. A November fatwa charged that ElBaradei wanted "to divide us Egyptians and the prophetic words were obvious: to kill him."

    Some Egyptians think Ansar issued its decree with a nod from the Mubarak regime. After all, the government had already barred ElBaradei from running in the November elections; the fatwa was yet another warning that his reform message was unwelcome. A week later, the popular Muslim Brotherhood and secular Wafd party announced that they would boycott Egypt's elections after a first round plagued by fraud and violence.

    While Obama administration officials expressed dismay over the Egypt's rigged polls, one WikiLeaks cable suggests Washington is more alarmed over the ossification of the Egyptian military. Egypt's aging officers refuse to take steps to improve their military capabilities. Moreover, they still view Israel as their primary adversary, despite three decades of peace. This paranoia permeates Egyptian society. The Egyptian Bar Association blames Israel for the Coptic-church bombing, while officials alleged an Israeli plot against Egyptian tourism after shark attacks off the coast of Sinai in December. U.S. aid — slated to increase from $2.5 to $3 billion this year — has not engendered good will, but it has also failed to steel Egypt's resolve against a nuclear Iran. Cairo has quietly expanded financial ties with Iran through the jointly owned Misr Iran Development Bank. Mubarak also warned he would seek his own nuclear weapons if Iran obtained them, prompting the U.S. ambassador to dub Egypt a "stubborn and recalcitrant ally."

    Iran, meanwhile, has reportedly established a smuggling network among the Sinai Bedouin. Cairo has tried to halt it, but Iran has the advantage. Israel's security services reported last week that in 2010, Iran smuggled about one thousand mortar shells, hundreds of short-range rockets, and dozens of advanced antitank missiles into the Gaza Strip.

    Teetering atop this mountain of challenges is the question of political transition. Mubarak, now eighty-two years old, has been president for twenty-nine years. Though he resembles a "walking sarcophagus," as one Egyptian observer quipped, a WikiLeaks cable suggests the ailing autocrat will rule until death.

    Thereafter, drama is almost a certainty. Mubarak's forty-seven-year-old son, Gamal, wishes to accede to the throne, but Egypt's military elite could block his succession. Depending on how much of a vacuum ensues, the Muslim Brotherhood could also make a play for the brass ring. Other contenders include Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, and Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Moussa.

    Some or even all of this mess could play out in 2011. At best, Washington will need to recalibrate the Egyptian alliance. At worst, it'll take an overhaul.

    This appeared today in the National Interest

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, January 20, 2011.

    "Having a camera no more makes you a photographer than having a hammer and some nails makes you a carpenter." - Claude Adams


    Photography often requires finding order amid chaos and distraction. It takes a sophisticated eye to see what doesn't belong and to compose by exclusion. And it's never a simple matter of left and right, but also over and above, and often most importantly, what falls in the background.

    I appreciate merchants who take pride in displaying their wares with an artistic flare. If you arrive early enough at Jerusalem's Machane Yehuda market, you can see vendors stacking fruit with a purpose beyond mere profit. The efforts of these stall owners made capturing this week's photos a lot simpler.

    The shot on the left caught my eye in the way the rows of round, dried figs seem to dominate their surroundings. I don't know if the vendor intended it, but he alternated light colored and dark colored fruits so that no two similarly colored fruits occupy adjacent bins. That makes the whole setup more visually appealing as well as aiding the shopper to see and select from the many different choices.

    The photo on the right features fruits closely related in color. This shot was taken in open sunlight, and I used the play of shadow and light, as well as selective focus, to emphasize the papaya in the foreground. Today is Tu Bishvat, the new year for trees in Israel. May we merit a bountiful harvest in the coming year.

    Technical Data

    Left Photo — Nikon D700, 28-105 zoom at 55mm, f11 @ 1/80 sec., ISO 500

    Right Photo — Nikon D300, 18-200 zoom at 46mm, f13 @ 1/160 sec., ISO 400

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by MS Kramer, January 20, 2011.

    The Arabs cannot abide having a Jewish state in their midst. While it's true that the Muslim world has sometimes treated Jews better than the Christian world, that behavior was based on the dhimmitude of the Jews. This dhimmi status of infidels (Jews and Christians) segregated them and demeaned them while exorbitantly taxing them. "Infidels" were prevented from exercising their rights such as where to live, what occupation to pursue, etc. In short, dhimmi status wasn't a condition the Muslims would have accepted for themselves.

    The revulsion of Arabs, and Muslims in general, towards Israel is based on a long history of keeping the Jews in their place. Egypt and Jordan, despite their peace treaties with Israel, are non-belligerent strictly for the money they get from America and for the respite they get from confronting Israel militarily. (That doesn't mean that they wouldn't join in a wide-spread war against Israel.) In both countries, the elites are totally opposed to 'normalization' with Israel, which means that professionals who dare to cooperate with Israel, or even visit it, face banning from their professional organizations, or worse. Egypt's government supports a virulent anti-semitic campaign in the media against Israel. (Jordan's government is more restrained because of King Abdullah's need for Israeli backing.) Turkey, formerly Israel's only Muslim ally, has now joined the Arabs in confronting Israel at every turn.

    Israelis have "progressed" from total opposition to a Palestinian state to advocating one. At times, Israel even seems to beg the Palestinians to make peace, which I believe is a major mistake. For their part, the Palestinians foment hatred against Jews and Israel continuously, even encouraging their children to become suicide bombing martyrs. Most Israelis are not fond of the Palestinians, but there is no program of vilification against them. There is a small but active left-wing "peace camp" in Israel (including Jews from the Diaspora) which wholeheartedly supports the Palestinians. You can find them demonstrating against Jewish building in Judea and Samaria, and even in Jerusalem, Israel's capital.

    These Jews believe everything the Palestinians claim and disbelieve whatever Israel's government declares. They are on the front lines demonstrating weekly against Israel's security barrier, which has saved many Jewish lives from terror attacks. They even join with the boycotters and other delegitimizers of Israel, giving support to groups like the ISM (International Solidarity Movement) whose aim is to eliminate Israel. While the Palestinian point of view is given lots of space in Israel's media, you could look high and low in the entire Muslim world and not find any sympathetic treatment of Israel. Nor is there an understanding "peace movement" in any Muslim country. There are articles supportive of Israel, but only expatriate Arabs dare to publish them.

    There will be no peace between Israelis and Palestinians until there is some Palestinian movement towards compromise. They want it ALL while Israel offers to meet somewhere between two extremes. The Palestinians are rejectionists. Their strategy is to reject all offers to keep the situation at the boiling point. They believe, from experience, that the Jews will eventually up their offer and that international pressure will help to ensure it. President Obama gave the Palestinians even more than they expected when he made a major issue of Jewish construction beyond the Green Line (1949 armistice line), especially in Jerusalem. Previously, the Palestinians negotiated despite Jewish building. Now, the complete end to all Jewish construction is a precondition for them to return to direct discussions.

    There won't be an offer better than Chairman Arafat turned down from Prime Minister Barak in 2000. President Abbas was just as intransigent in 2008, when he rejected Prime Minister Olmert's unprecedented peace offer, which was substantially based on the 1949 armistice line.

    Olmert said that he offered the Palestinians a land swap, which would trade vacant Israeli land for Jewish communities beyond the Green Line. He also offered a solution for Jerusalem, where the Jewish part would remain under Israeli authority and the Arab sections would be given to the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state. According to Olmert's plan, the Temple Mount would be demarcated under the rule of five different states with access available to believers of all religions. (I believe this is an unworkable proposition.) Olmert said that he and Abbas had reached an interim agreement on the Palestinian right of return, but Olmert never received a final response from the Palestinians on the matter.

    Israelis have not been indifferent to Palestinian intransigence over ending the conflict. It's very doubtful that an offer as (over)generous as that advanced by Olmert will be repeated. There won't be a Palestinian right of return, nor will the Temple Mount be given up. Both of these are non-starters for most Israelis, who continue to favor the center-right government. Nor can more than a half million Jewish residents living beyond the Green Line be ignored. Imagine a unilaterally declared Palestinian state which included all these Jews within its "borders". Now try to visualize United Nations or some other troops arriving in Israel to evacuate the Jewish communities beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. And what about Gaza? Under Hamas rule it opposes a combined State of Palestine, instead aiming for an Islamic Caliphate.

    So, until the Palestinians stop trying to eliminate Israel and come to terms with us, there won't be a viable Palestinian state. If they do get some kind of ersatz state, it will quickly be taken over as an Iranian proxy by Hamas. Unfortunately, more generations may come and go until a solution is found to this dispute, so long as the Arabs refuse to accept the Jewish state, Israel.

    Stephen Kramer is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture" Check it out at www.encounteringisrael.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 19, 2011.

    Before I look at that picture, which concerns political/diplomatic issues, I want to touch a couple of other bases:

    Tonight and tomorrow are Tu B'Shvat, called the birthday of the trees. This is a Mishnaic holiday, important in the calculation of the age of a tree (needed for matters such as when its fruit can be eaten).

    These days, however, it has become something of an ecological arbor day, with planting of trees here established as a traditional activity. Trees are treasured in this arid land.


    On a completely different note: Enid Wurtman, an extraordinary woman who was not only active in the Soviet Jewry movement, but is forever doing things for others, now desperately needs someone to do something for her. She is terribly ill and requires a new kidney.

    I will not provide details here. If you are willing to even consider donating a kidney to save her, please be in touch with me. And, in any event, please pass this information along so that others might see it. Thanks.


    Now as to the picture that isn't pretty.

    In response to a request by a PLO representative, the State Department last Friday granted permission for the first time to the PLO mission in Washington DC, at Dupont Circle, to fly its flag and call itself a General Delegation of the PLO.

    Protested State Department spokesman PJ Crowley, "There has been no change in the status of the Palestinian mission here in Washington. It operates under guidance provided by the State Department.

    "It does not have any diplomatic privileges or immunities."

    If there is no change in the status of the PLO mission in Washington, at least informally, then I'm the Queen of Sheba.

    Crowley then allowed that "we have granted [the changes] given the improvement in the relations between the United States and Palestinians."

    Those changes, he explained, have "symbolic value" that reflect those improved relations.


    Improved relations??

    It was just the other day that I wrote about how PA officials spit in Obama's eye, when he asked them to refrain from bringing a resolution on "settlements" to the Security Council and they told him they were going to go ahead.

    At that point I wondered if perhaps that would be the straw that broke Obama's back, and that he would finally become furious with them. But, as it turns out, if he is furious (and he may be) he's hiding it well.

    The problem is that I was thinking in terms of a normal reaction from Obama, but what we see here is sick. This is Obama's "suck-up to the Muslims and maybe they'll cooperate with me" gambit. The ultimate in appeasement-style diplomacy,

    It's of a piece with sending a diplomat back to Syria in spite of how that country has been acting. And it doesn't work. The likes of Assad and Abbas can smell Obama's weakness a mile away.

    This is not reassuring with regard to Obama having the strength to veto that "settlement" resolution, should it be advanced for a vote. But maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.


    The chief of the PLO mission in Washington, Maen Areikat, offered words of praise to the US for granting permission, and said:

    "I think it indicates the willingness of the American administration to deal with the realities on the ground.

    "It's about time that this flag that symbolizes the struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination and statehood be raised in the United States."

    Sort of grabs you in the stomach, doesn't it?


    The only one who got it straight is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee (bless her):

    "Raising this flag in DC is part of the Palestinian leadership's scheme to manipulate international acceptance and diplomatic recognition of a yet-to-be-created Palestinian state while refusing to directly negotiate with Israel or accept the existence of Israel as a democratic, Jewish state."


    At the same time that this was happening, the Palestinian Arabs were advancing their agenda of securing a state via international recognition in yet another way:

    In a visit that was broadly touted as a diplomatic first, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev visited the PA and declared that nothing in Russian policy had changed. Russia had recognized a Palestinian state in 1988 (when Arafat declared the state from Algiers), and stands by that.

    Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat called this "an historic move to make the Palestinians proud for a very long time to come."

    But that was Arab spin, for Medvedev hadn't made an historic move, he had only reiterated a decision that was more than 20 years old. Unfortunately, the world, reading press on this, is unlikely to grasp this.

    And Erekat elaborated even beyond this, declaring, "We appreciate the Russian recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders (sic) whose capital is East Jerusalem." In doing so, he went beyond spin to fabrication. Medvedev had said nothing about borders or East Jerusalem.

    What Medvedev did do is sign some agreements with the PA regarding projects in agriculture, communications and sports. He also announced that Moscow would be transferring $10 million to the PA, and inaugurated a new Russian museum in Jericho. It was in Jericho that he made his statement about a Palestinian state.


    At the press conference held with Medvedev in Jericho, Abbas — in the words of Khaled Abu Toameh and Herb Keinon. reporting in the JPost — "urged the Quartet members, who are scheduled to meet in Munich next month, to issue decisions that would oblige Israel to return to the negotiating table..."

    "oblige Israel to return to the table" is diplomatese for forcing us to freeze all building so that they will then be willing to return, which in fact they could do at any time. The realities are simply being turned around here.

    All of this feels a bit like a Palestinian Arab pincer operation, with everything being tried at once.

    Abbas's comment at this press conference was that there were only two options: negotiations or violence and terrorism.

    Interesting, this not-so-veiled threat. What happened to the option of getting international recognition — which was what was supposed to make the Medvedev visit so important — and securing a UN vote? These PA comments are tailored for the occasion and the listening audience.


    This entire scenario makes it clear that enormous strength is going to be required of our government. This is one reason the implications of the new line-up — affecting which way the government will tilt and the degree of stability it now offers — are so important.


    If the nations of the world want to establish a Palestinian state, they ought to realize that they're going to have to pay for it, pay for it, and pay for it:

    Yoram Ettinger reminds us that:

    "Since 1994, the highest per-capita-foreign-aid in the world has been provided — mostly by the US taxpayer — to the Palestinian Authority. Since 1994, there has been an unprecedented intensification of Palestinian anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-US hate-education and incitement in PA-controlled schools, mosques and media, an all-time high PA non-compliance with commitments made to the US and Israel and an unparalleled expansion of Palestinian terrorism infrastructure and activity. Thus, foreign aid has not moderated the PA. Foreign aid has rewarded PA hate-education, non-compliance and terrorism."

    Citing a recent study, he writes that "...during 2009 and 2010 the PA's reliance on donations increased...The research...points to the PA's steadily increasing dependence on donation funds.

    "The data reinforce the claim that there is no Palestinian economy, and that in reality [it] is almost exclusively supported by the donation industry.

    "Yes, an economy can be built from donations — if these are allocated for development, production and infrastructure, but this is not the case."

    Explained research author Adam Roiter,

    "The donations [go] toward the entrenchment of government institutions instead of the development of infrastructure, industry, human capital etc. What we have here is a schnorrer country [one begging off of others]..."

    "...facts on the ground indicate that the governmental apparatus and international aid organizations impede the growth of the business sector, while donations are used to preserve the ruling party rather than build a separate economy that is not dependent on foreign donations."
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-4013700,00.html

    One more example of just how foolish and willfully obtuse the world is.


    By proud comparison, a quick look at Israel's economic situation. From the London Economist, Dec. 29, 2010:

    "Over the past two decades Israel has been transformed from a semi-socialist backwater into a high-tech superpower. Adjust for population and Israel leads the world in the number of high-tech start-ups and the size of the venture-capital industry. Twenty years ago Harvard Business School's leading guru, Michael Porter, devoted just one sentence of his 855-page The Competitive Advantage of Nations to Israel; today there is a growing pile of books on Israel's high-tech boom, most notably Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle, by Dan Senor and Saul Singer." (with credit to Yoram Ettinger)


    I wrote recently about a program by Hadar Israel on Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace, which featured three speakers. Here you have links to video segments of two of those speakers.

    Maj. General (res.) Uzi Dayan, speaking about Israeli sovereignty, and the need for our soldiers to fight on our land, here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ZmObIIusLJk

    Maj. General (res.) Yaakov Amidror, speaking about the mistake of ever relying on international troops, here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=-aRPZWYGg30

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by HandsFiasco, January 19, 2011.

    Dear Friends,

    Below please find the translation into English of Elyakim Haetzni's excellent article that appeared in the Yediot Acharonot newspaper a few days ago, about the return of Jewish life in Jerusalem at the site of the "Shepherd's hotel", which had been built by the former Mufti of Jerusalem, the Nazi Hajj Amin el-Husseini.

    The translation is a public service by Women for Israel's Tomorrow
    (Women in Green).
    With love for Israel,
    Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katsover


    Karm el-Mufti is the name of the land in Sheikh Jarrah owned by Hajj Amin el-Husseini ("der grosse Mufti," the great Mufti, as he was called in the Nazi German Reich, to which he was affiliated, body and soul). In 1929, the year in which he was responsible for the murder of 118 Jews, two Jewish architects, almost on a volunteer basis, built a spacious home for him.

    Hajj Amin, the ideologue of harnessing belligerent Islam to all-out war against the Jews and Zionism and the father of Arab terrorism, was also an ideological Nazi, who in the [Second] World War directed from within Germany the Nazi propaganda for the Middle East. Hitler and Himmler's door was open to him, he built SS divisions in Bosnia, and he received a "franchise" to implement the destruction of the Jews of Eretz Israel by means of the local Arabs, upon Rommel's conquest of the area, as they expected. The Mufti also prevented the rescue of Jewish children in exchange for German prisoners of war, and saw to their destruction in Auschwitz.

    After the war, not only did the British not try him as a war criminal, they even allowed him to continue to fight against us in partnership with Nazis, until his dying day.

    Now Jews are in the Karm of the Nazi murderer, and a synagogue in memory of the Holocaust will be located in his house: is there any greater historic justice than this?

    The Mufti rented the house to the Christian Arab historian George Antonius, one of the creators ex nihilo of the false Palestinian mythos, in order to neutralize the historical claims of the Jews. Hajj Amin mobilized religious fanaticism in the service of the "Palestinian cause," and Antonius provided the educated West with a pseudoscientific Palestinian narrative with which to attack Zionism. Under the influence of his wife Cathy, the house functioned as a social salon in which, in an aristocratic atmosphere, the Palestinian nobility met with the senior British officials. Both shared their profound loathing of the Jews. Among other lovers, Cathy shared her bed with the infamous General Barker, the commander of the British forces in Eretz Israel, and the author of the slogan "Hit the Jews in their pockets." Members of the Haganah would eventually find his love letters in the house. Jews in the cradle of Palestinian nationalism and the stylish social anti-Semitism in Eretz Israel: is there any greater historic justice than this?

    On April 16, 1948, a convoy to Mount Scopus was attacked close to the "Mufti's House." The British broke their commitment to defend it, and for six hours, in broad daylight, Dr. Yassky, the director of the Hadassah Hospital, Dr. Moshe Ben-David, the director of the medical school, the linguistics scholar Dr. Benjamin Klar, Abraham Freiman, an expert on Jewish law, doctors, professors, nurses, and patients were brutally murdered. At that time, a British regiment (the Scottish Highlanders) was stationed in the Mufti's house, but didn't lift a finger.

    And as in Hebron in 1929, the British put an end to the massacre with a single shot, but only after they drank their fill from the blood of 68 Jews, so, too, next to the Mufti's house, they put an end to the horror only after 78 had been murdered. To the contrary, they prevented the Palmah from coming to the assistance of those being slaughtered. On the border of the Mufti's house the British built a beautiful consulate building, that serves — what else? — as a focal point for the consuls' opposition to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.

    Now, the hostile British cannot open a window without seeing Jews through it, from close up: is there greater historic justice than this? "The Mufti's House" stands at a major junction, in the seam line of historic Jerusalem. The Ramallah authorities, the American and European foreign ministries, and the Jewish collaborators claim that Jewish "settlement" here will prevent the partition of the city, and will frustrate the establishment of the Palestinian capital in it.

    O that it would be so! And if this is the case, then the couple Irving and Cherna Moskowitz, who purchased "Karm el-Mufti" and other strategic sites in order to plant Jewish life in them, have acquired their place in Jewish history.

    Only a single question remains hanging in the air unanswered: what has happened to us, that we have lost the ability to experience the satisfaction of achievement, the gratification of success, and the joy of victory?

    Elyakim Haetzni

    Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 18, 2011.

    I will devote this post to internal political issues, with discussion of other matters to follow soon.

    The negotiations between Likud and the new Independence party have been completed, and the new portfolios assigned. One perhaps needs a score card to keep track of it all. For those interested in the details, I provide them at the bottom of this posting. New positions will become official after being passed by the Knesset tomorrow.

    Suffice it to say here that of the five people in the new Independence faction, four will have Cabinet portfolios and each — with the exception of Barak, who is retaining his Defense position — will have been promoted.

    That's quite a coup for a new faction that isn't even fully a party yet. Clearly there was an understanding between Netanyahu and Barak. It is almost a given that prestigious positions were promised as a way to entice those involved to break from Labor — that break being something that Netanyahu clearly sees being as to his advantage.

    Netanyahu is saying that his coalition is now more governable because everyone in it wants to be in it — this being a reference to the continual dissatisfaction voiced by the left of the Labor party. But there's another piece to this story: That disgruntled left of Labor was always threatening to pull the party out of the coalition (which is why Barak, who very much wants to retain his position, catered to them). By drawing five people away from Labor, Netanyahu was able to keep his coalition stronger than it would have been had all 13 Labor members pulled out.

    Not surprisingly, the prime minister's catering to the Independence faction has left other factions of the coalition disgruntled. But when they sought enhancement of their positions, Netanyahu told them, nothing doing.


    Yesterday there had been talk that there might be yet another split, dividing the remaining eight Labor MKs into two separate groups. But the decision has been made to hang together. "We've decided to give Labor another chance," declared MK Amir Peretz, speaking for himself and three other party dissidents, MKs Ghaleb Majadle, Daniel Ben-Simon, and Eitan Cabel. They want a new constitution, a reshaping of the party, and a new leader.

    I have picked up nothing regarding the official resignation from the coalition of the rump Labor party of eight MKs, but it is broadly assumed that they will be leaving. This reduces Netanyahu's coalition from 74 to 66. And it will have the effect of strengthening the hands of Shas and Yisrael Beitenu, as Netanyahu cannot afford to lose an additional faction.


    In speaking about the fact that he now has a strengthened, more unified coalition, Netanyahu addressed the Palestinian Arabs, saying that they, and all others, will have to face the fact that he is the address for negotiations. He will not be going anywhere, he said. There was no point in trying to wait him out.

    I can understand this attitude, particularly as there have been rumors about expectations (reportedly voiced, for example, within the Obama administration) that his government might soon fall and that Tzipi Livni, more amenable to making concessions, would take over.


    What we need to look at, however, is where this takes us with regard to the "peace process."

    After saying that his government was the address for negotiations, Netanyahu made yet one more impassioned statement about how he would miss no opportunity to get back to the table and pursue peace. So many times he has made these statements. And how wearisome they are.

    What I observed is that a day earlier, Barak had made a similar comment. With stress within Labor no longer distracting them, he said, the members of the new Independence faction would be better equipped to work for peace.

    Uh oh. What does this mean?

    One commentator whose piece I read today opined that neither Barak nor Netanyahu will be strongly motivated to work for negotiations, now that Labor's left, which applied pressure and made threats, is absent from the scene. This has a certain plausibility, but it remains to be seen.


    The new Cabinet line-up.

    Three Labor ministers resigned from the government on Monday:

    Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Welfare and Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog and Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman.

    In addition to Ehud Barak, who retains his position as Defense Minster, four people — three of them ministers — moved over from Labor to Independence:

    Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon; Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai; Deputy Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Orit Noked; and Knesset Member Einat Wilf. Of these:

    Simchon will now replace Ben Eliezer in Industry, Trade and Labor.

    Noked will replace Simchon in Agriculture.

    Vilnai will retain his responsibilities for the home front, which he had as a deputy defense minister, and also replace Braverman in Minority Affairs.

    Wilf — who was not in the Cabinet — is on maternity leave. In due course she will chair the Independence faction and the Knesset Education Committee.

    The prime minister has opted to keep Welfare and Social Services Ministry, left vacant by Herzog, for Likud. At present he will fill the position and then pass it on to someone else in his party. Shas had sought this portfolio.

    Simchon and Vilnai will, according to YNet, also serve as observers on the Security Cabinet. This is a Cabinet, of some 15 members, which makes some critical decisions. Had these two been placed on as voting members, it would have swayed the balance leftward in the Cabinet's decision-making process; but observers do not vote.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by David Isaac, January 18, 2011.

    "...they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh." — Joshua 20:8

    In "Golan: More Than Geography" (The Jerusalem Post, March 5, 1993), Shmuel Katz wrote of then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher's first visit to the Golan Heights.

    He was taken on a study tour by helicopter and, apparently for the first time in his life, he was enabled to see the full extent of Israel within the "Green Line" and to assess the significance of the Golan Heights towering over Israel's Galilean plain. Coming away from his tour, he immediately gave voice to a confession with clearly far-reaching implications. "There is no question," he said, "that the geography complicates the matter, and changes the situation very greatly." (The Jerusalem Post, February 25) Christopher was manifestly surprised by what he had seen.

    Christopher's revelation was short-lived. Returning to the United States, the secretary of state was no doubt enlightened by his professional underlings at Foggy Bottom, who explained the 'complexities' of the matter and pulled one of their ready-made plans off the shelf and handed it to him, saving him the time and trouble of having to think up one himself, perhaps one that would have been based in reality.

    Despite the fact that the Golan Heights was formally annexed by Israel in 1981 and that it has been developed beautifully by the Jews who have settled there over the past 45 years, it has been popping up in the news in worrying ways.

    On Dec. 26, WorldNetDaily reported that, "The Obama administration is pressing Israel to enter into negotiations with Syria aimed at compelling an Israeli retreat from the strategic Golan Heights." According to the report, White House envoy Dennis Ross visited Israel and Syria "to discuss specifics of a deal" that would give Syria the Golan. (For a Shmuel Katz criticism of Ross, see "Dennis Ross Confesses" at

    And on Dec. 31, Ha'aretz revealed that soon-to-be-retired Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi will leave the Israel Defense Forces, and "go charging after the next objective: peace with Syria. ... The price of this deal is known: withdrawal from the Golan Heights in return for security arrangements and normalized relations." Ashkenazi thus appears poised to join the ranks of other former soldiers, such as Ehud Barak, who reached their level of incompetence the moment they set foot into politics.

    Matters are not helped by strong evidence that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to negotiate away the Golan as part of an agreement with Syria during his first term in office, making it likely he will be willing to do so again.

    In a 1999 article for the New Republic, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, wrote, "[I]t is clear that, during 1998, Netanyahu became deeply involved in a secret negotiation with Assad over the terms and conditions under which Israel would transfer the Golan Heights, taken from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War, back to Syrian control." Pipes adds: "Anyone who has followed Netanyahu's career will instantly recognize in this episode the man's well-established pattern of speaking loudly but carrying a small stick."

    Although one after another of Israeli prime ministers have shown an astonishing willingness to sacrifice the Golan, whether because of outside pressure, or to extricate themselves from their own political problems, to do so would be an unmitigated strategic disaster.

    As Dr. Erich Isaac, Professor Emeritus of Geography at the City University of New York, writes in Outpost, the periodical of Americans for A Safe Israel (June, 1995), "[W]hile few may know this, in the course of recorded history more than 60 assaults on the Land of Israel west of the Jordan were launched from, or through, the Golan. In fact, throughout history, control of an area much larger than what is generally called 'Golan' today was a vital concern of those entrusted with the defense of the land west of the Jordan."

    In "Mr. Prime Minister, Do Not Abandon the Golan" (The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 9, 2008), Shmuel wrote of the history of assault in recent memory.

    Here is a record of Syria's three aggressions. No more than three years after the Syrians gained their own independence from French trusteeship, Syria in 1948 freely entered into the alliance with six other members of the Arab League to prevent by force of war the birth of the State of Israel. The towering Golan Heights were a first-class natural base for Syria's onslaught. This was in 1948.

    Miraculously, Israel survived against tremendous odds and suffering heavy casualties, but Syria retained the Golan; and then during the following 19 years, despite the armistice of 1949, playfully used the Heights as a launching-pad for lobbing shells down onto the Galilee.

    It is a part of Israeli folklore that in those 19 years children in Galilee did much of their schooling in underground bunkers for protection from those shells. Partaking as targets for those attacks were also the fishermen of the Lake of Galilee.

    Then in 1967, in company with Egypt and Jordan, Syria joined in a new assault on Israel. This was advertised well in advance, by Egyptian president Nasser, to be a 'war of annihilation.' Heavily buttressed, the Golan naturally played its part in the attack. This time however, Israel decisively won the war and was able to say 'enough is enough.' This time the Israeli Defense Force climbed and captured the Heights.

    Israel, however, was given little respite. Six years later, and that on Yom Kippur, Syria, again in company with Egypt, made war on Israel. In hard fighting Syria failed to win back the Golan Heights and, indeed, lost an additional slice of territory to the east. Negotiations followed and, under pressure from US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, Israel returned that slice, and a border was delineated between Israel and Syria.

    That border, incidentally with Damascus in its sights, has ever since 1974 assured Israel of peaceful relations, such as they are, with Syria. That border emphasizes the truth, for which a heavy price in blood has been paid, that only with the Golan in Israel's hands can peace be maintained.

    The Israelis have done wonders with the Golan, in sharp contrast to the Syrians, who did virtually nothing to develop the area and merely treated it as a large artillery platform from which to shell the Israelis below. The Jews, on the other hand, have made the region flourish, building first-class wineries, as well as developing agriculture and a mineral water industry.

    Such development is unfortunately no proof against a weak, opportunistic Israeli leadership. Despite accounting for 15% of Israel's agricultural exports, Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip was evacuated and its buildings razed to the ground in eight days.

    But the Golan's Jewish population is 23,000 and growing. Recently, young Israeli families have been moving to the region. Two thousand Israelis moved into the town of Katzrin alone in the last year, swelling the town's size from 6,000 to 8,000.

    Sami Bar-Lev, the mayor of Katzrin, believes it's the region's Jewish history that will ensure the Golan remains a part of the State of Israel.

    In "Golan: More Than Geography", Shmuel writes of the "moving 'Charter of the Golan'" signed by virtually all of the 4,000 pioneers who first came there after 1967. It read, in part:

    "We have returned to the Golan to build and be rebuilt. Every furrow of soil has been sanctified by the blood of our sons. In the basalt rocks we have anchored the foundations of our homes, and into the fertile soil we have set our roots. Here are our homes, and this is our legacy; we shall never forsake them."

    That is the sound of Jewish settlement starting out on the right foot. If the new residents imbibe the spirit of the old, then the Golan's best line of defense won't be Jewish history, but the living Jewish present.

    David Isaac is editor of the Shmuel Katz website: www.shmuelkatz.com. Contact him at david_isaac@shmuelkatz.com

    This is archived on the Shmuel Katz website:

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Ari Bussel, January 18, 2011.

    It is said that our enemies never fail to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. How sad when the same is applicable toward us.

    I was sitting with the top brass of COGAT, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, a unit in the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Water has become a big issue, both because of the April 2010 issue of National Geographic and because Israel is accused of stealing the water from the Palestinians.

    The issue has become such a hot button topic, that the BDS movement has taken upon itself the added task of alerting the world to yet another atrocity by the Jewish state: "Thirsting the Palestinians." It was the start of a global campaign, not one reflecting the truth and highlighting Israel's many accomplishments and contributions in the field of water conservation and reclamation, but rather to spread lies.

    COGAT had an event in "Area A" of Judea and Samaria, the one completely under Palestinian control (or maybe it was in "Area B" or "Area C" — does it even matter, the West Bank is apparently all Occupied) to which foreign journalists were invited. It was indeed "Area C," which highlighted the cooperation and helping hand Israel extends even to areas completely under Palestinian control.

    The spokesperson for COGAT was so busy (as is typical with army spokespersons) that he did not even bother to call back or reply to the e-mails he received.

    Thus, I took the opportunity sitting with the top brass of COGAT to extend an invitation: An all expense paid trip to the USA for a Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel to come and brief about water in Judea and Samaria and Gaza. [Although Israel had unilaterally disengaged from Gaza five years ago, COGAT is still responsible for the very active borderline with Gaza, from allowing hundreds of truckloads into Gaza to allowing tens of thousands of Gazans into Israel for medical treatment.]

    Israelis usually fight for the chance to travel overseas, and the higher the rank, or the position in the political realm, the feistier the fight. "Why is he going and not me?" is normally at the back of one's mind. Thus, I thought to myself, an all expense paid trip will be welcome, not to mention the important topic of discussion to Israel's public diplomacy efforts.

    How mistaken I was. Even the booklet I promised, printed at taxpayer expense, was never sent or made available. I could possibly find the information on the internet, but why would a foreign journalist in Israel try to uncover the truth, when there is so much dirt thrown around and when the Palestinian extremely-well-oil propaganda machine is constantly active on overdrive?

    Compare for yourself: Why lift a finger (even if the result is undoubtedly good for Israel), when the other side is proactive, supplying (doctored) pictures, (made-up) stories that become fancier and more imaginative with time, and even filming live, on location (a shooting of a father protecting his son by Israeli soldiers, apprehension of harmless farm workers, setting groves on fire or the brutality of yarmulke-wearing fathers and mothers driving in Jerusalem and hitting Palestinian pedestrians for fun).

    Israelis, for some reason, do not like to listen to those on the front line, to reports from the field. They seem above it all, immune, unconquerable and indivisible.

    Thus, when Judge Goldstone came to Israel to conduct his UN-sanctioned inquiry into Operation Cast Lead, Israeli officials and elites refused to meet with him as a matter of policy. Thus, the only information he amassed, other than his preconceived unshakable ideas, was what he was fed by Israel haters. Whether by her enemies from outside as the Palestinians from Fatah to Hamas, or from within as many Israeli organizations, specifically those sponsored by the New Israel Fund.

    Israel was dumbfounded to read Judge Goldstone Report. Since its publication, Israel has already submitted three subsequent reports in rebuttal, but the damage was already done. Has anyone paid attention to Israel's reply? Too little, too late, and even Israelis themselves no longer care about the details. Judge Goldstone, the Jew-Hater Jew has become the symbol of self-hate.

    Then came the Turkish Terrorist Flotilla of Lies, a convoy of vessels with either expired or unwanted and unneeded "humanitarian aid" that was designed to do one thing: Break the naval blockade around Gaza.

    The fact there was never a maritime route into Gaza was irrelevant. The goal of the Turkish terrorists from the IHH (a "humanitarian relief fund" with radical Islamic agenda) was clear: damage Israel either by reaching Gaza thus "freeing it," or by sacrificing those on the ships and blaming Israel for being cruel and evil, and responsible for any injured and dead.

    American anti-terrorism expert Steve Emerson warned about the composition of those participating in the convoy. His research, based in large part on open / public sources, indicated what may happen. It was published and readily available weeks prior to the convoy's approach to Israeli territorial waters.

    The end result is well known: Israel was unprepared. As its Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi admitted during testimony, he would do things differently when faced with future such convoys. Seven elite commandos were critically injured after the "peaceful activists" threw them off board, lynched them and were about to murder those taken under deck.

    Nine terrorists died, and Israel is blamed for their deaths. The wheel has been reversed and the perpetrators are hailed as peaceful angels seeking the betterment of mankind. Israel, cast as the Oppressor and Colonialist Power, was accused of the cold-blooded murder of these nine terrorists.

    Has Israel learned the lesson? There is still a Commission headed by Judge Tirkel and including foreign members studying the May 31st 2010 Maritime Incident. In the meantime, a UN commission convened by the international community has already concluded its painstakingly evidence gathering stage. It has managed to even wrap up and reach the conclusions stage pronouncing Israel's absolute guilt.

    If only Israel and those entrusted with her security bothered to read Steve Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism dispatches, let alone do the research on their own.

    The youngest member of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) is in the USA on a tour. She is one of 23 women serving in the Knesset (of 120 members) and a member of the Likud ruling party. She is also a member of Foreign Affairs and Security, the preeminent committee of the Knesset.

    In a private briefing in Beverly Hills, the MK was asked what Israel intends to do in response to this week's PA plea to the UN to declare all settlements illegal. The person raising the question is a very well respected Jewish reporter in Los Angeles.

    Is Israel going to bring her top guns to the UN, people like Prime Minister Netanyahu, her best spokesperson, Ambassador to the US Prof. Michael Oren, or even the MK herself, who is going to be in NY on her way back to Israel at the very same time? Or maybe Israel may enlist the assistance of Eli Hertz, publisher of Myths and Facts, who specializes in the legal aspects of Israel's creation as a modern state?

    The MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is expected to do little, for her hundreds of diplomats and support staffs have been embroiled for almost a year in a labor dispute, demanding a very substantial raise, to equate their salaries to those of Israel's Intelligence services like the Mossad. They claim they risk their lives at the same level, being at the forefront of the delegitimization campaign against Israel and to doing such a phenomenal job as to actually be deserving of a raise.

    I realize the MK is a junior MK and as impressed as the others and I were with her, it would be an error to assign full responsibility on her shoulders. Nor does she have the experience in this particular field, the fight for Israel in the international public diplomacy court.

    But is it not in Israel's best interest to have her best and brightest already in NY working without sleep before the Wednesday hearing?

    How about the September General Assembly of the UN in when the PA is going to request global recognition as a country in the 1967 borders? This is just a step toward complete recognition for the 1947 borders and the completion of the Jewish Israel task force to wipe the Zionist entity off the map and rid the world of this nuisance. But it is an important step nonetheless.

    One day soon Israel will be looking back at these incidents and lament or blame others, so let us say in advance: It is Israel that in recent history seems to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to defend herself.

    Israel must learn from her own military war doctrine: The best defense is a good offense. Sitting idly by and doing nothing is tantamount to handing your defeat into the your enemy's hands.

    It cannot be stupidity. So what can it be: complacency or arrogance?

    Either one will produce the same result: the destruction of the Jewish State.

    The series "Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel" by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.

    The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover.

    Contact Norma Zager and Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Laura, January 18, 2011.

    This was written by David Solway and it appeared in Pajamas Media. It is archived at
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ is-peace-possible-in-the-middle-east/


    The Middle East "peace process," as in Macbeth's great soliloquy, "creeps on this petty pace from day to day," depleting its innumerable tomorrows and leading to nothing but misery and despair. It has only "lighted fools/The way to dusty death" and to failure after failure, being quite definitely "a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing." Of course, the bitter and mephitic Scots laird is speaking of the futility of life while we, on the other hand, are considering the total senselessness of a quixotic and fugitive political enterprise that is heading nowhere except endless stalemate or renewed conflict.

    Surely, it has become obvious by this time, after sixty-plus years of tractionless discussions and bloody confrontations, that the current negotiating paradigm of Israeli concessions for Palestinian recalcitrance, that is, land for no peace and a raft of further demands, is simply not working, nor is it going to work. Why the Israeli leadership ever embarked on so fruitless a project is beyond rational explanation. In matters of life and death, unanchored hope is no substitute for hard-headed assaying and a grounding in history. For peace to have even an unhouseled ghost of a chance, several correlative concessions on the part of the Palestinians would be absolutely mandatory. For example:

    The Palestinians would have to agree that a Palestinian state would be no more Judenrein than Israel would be, let's say, Muslimrein; there are one and half million Arabs resident in Israel, most of whom will not surrender their Israeli citizenship. Why then should 300,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria be evicted from their homes?

    The Palestinians would have to realize that their insistence on the "right of return" to Israel of seven million so-called "refugees" is a complete nonstarter, and must be dropped from their negotiating position. Israel is not about to commit demographic suicide.

    They will be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

    They will have to accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Ramallah as the capital of Palestine.

    They will need to be reminded that the "green line" is not an officially ratified international border but merely a temporary armistice line, allowing for adjustments that ensure Israel's retention of strategic depth. For the Palestinian Authority to assume that its proposed or unilaterally declared state would abut the pre-1967 borders is a violation of UN Resolution 242 [1]. Moreover, Clause 5(2) of the Rhodes Armistice Agreement of 1949 stipulates that "In no sense are the ceasefire lines to be interpreted as political or territorial borders" and that they do not affect "the final disposition of the Palestine question."

    They will consent to cease promulgating anti-Jewish hatred in media and mosque and to erase anti-Israeli incitement from textbook and classroom.

    Given Israel's meager territorial scale and the volatility and inherent violence in the region, especially the aggressive meddling of Iran in local affairs, the smuggling of rockets and other armaments threatening Israel, and the inroads made by al-Qaeda and its offshoots, the Palestinian Authority will be compelled to permit a defensive Israeli presence in the adjacent hill country.

    The likelihood of the Palestinian Authority agreeing to even one of these conditions is virtually nil. But in order for a viable peace to take root, all of these conditions would need to be implemented. Further, none of the desiderata I have listed resolves the dilemma of a Hamas terrorist government solidly entrenched in the Gaza Strip and committed to the destruction of Israel. Neither do these terms take into account a bellicose Hezbollah, equipped with 40,000 Iranian and Syrian supplied rockets, camped on Israel's northern border. The creation of a Palestinian state would do nothing to defuse the tensions in the area and would conceivably only serve to exacerbate them. For even should the above provisions be settled upon, there is no guarantee that the new Palestine would not join the Islamic axis. Ultimately, as Jonathan Spyer cogently argues in The Transforming Fire [2], the conflict is not really about borders per se. It is simply one aspect of a world-historical clash between a Hydra-headed Islamic collective and a half-dormant Western world, with Israel in the immediate firing line.

    Whither, then, peace? A realistic assessment of the situation would indicate that peace, a harmonious resolution of competing agendas, will always recede the closer we seem to be approaching it via road maps, Quartets, direct or indirect negotiations, interim agreements, or any of the diplomatic sedatives currently on offer. According to recent polls, the bottom-up approach adopted by the Israeli government, stoking the Palestinian economy and building its productive base, has not materially altered the fierce anti-Israeli consensus among the populace. As Jonathan Rosenblum writes [3], "There can be no peace at present — and perhaps ever — because the Palestinians have pursued not a two-state solution, but a two-stage solution, of which the second stage is inevitably the establishment of a unitary Palestinian rule from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. Even those Palestinians who profess to support a two-state solution, make clear to pollsters that they do not see it as a final solution, but merely as a stage to a takeover of the Jewish state, which they will never, in any event, recognize as such."

    Peace in the Middle East is, in any sober analysis, probably and at the very least generations away from accomplishment. Peace may emerge after another thirty or fifty years of grinding exhaustion or a major outbreak of hostilities that leaves the belligerents incapable of pursuing so debilitating a struggle. And this is a best case scenario.

    But there is another possibility, which is to give up entirely on a "peace process" that, thanks to Palestinian intransigence and Islamic Jew-hatred, is doomed to bankruptcy. An unsentimental view of life would conclude that there are some problems in this world for which there are no good solutions, only modes of containment. Iran is a problem with a solution; Israel/Palestine is not. The modus operandi in the Holy Land, such as it is, involves accepting the necessity of an armed truce, punctuated by occasional pre-emptive strikes and local flare-ups, on the model of managing an incurable disease. For if a disease is incurable, it is utter folly to imagine that it can be made to disappear courtesy of some miraculous cure. And the Middle East disease is, frankly, incurable.

    As I wrote in The Big Lie [4], what I am suggesting is, after all, not something that we regard as unacceptable or morally objectionable in everyday life. We understand that it would be perilous to succumb to unfounded aspirations and pious notions by dismissing facts and embracing unrealistic choices. If we discover that we are suffering from diabetes, there is no point in believing that the disease can be made to reconsider. Rather, we must rely on daily treatment, however irksome it may be.

    Put simply, we often have to do what we would prefer not having to do. In private life, such constraints may be financial or medical, but the ultimate purpose is survival — just as it is in the realm of national existence, even if this means having to stay on a permanent war footing. If you have to take insulin, then you have to take insulin, or die. If you have to pay down a mortgage, then you have to pay down a mortgage, or lose your house. And if you are dealing with an enemy that has a 1400 year history of conquest and spoliation, and which is committed to your annihilation, then you must remain in a state of perennial military readiness and be prepared to defend yourself in perpetuity. Clearly, this is not a pleasant option but, unfortunately, there is no other feasible alternative. What is true for people is also true for a people. I, for one, cannot see the value in pretending otherwise.

    Israel cannot afford to capitulate, not only to its self-declared enemies but to its own passionate yearning for peace. Falling backwards over the possibility of peace is a bungled negotiating paradigm, as Oslo made painfully clear. Any Israeli politician still hooked on Oslo represents a threat to his country. The same applies to the Israeli left — Kadima, Labor, Meretz, Haaretz, the peace constituencies, a treasonable professoriate and many NGOs — who are essentially a pack of useful jewdiots, victims-in-waiting of their own self-immolating policies.

    Similarly, any Western diplomat addicted to untenable proposals and implausible assumptions about the achievement of a stable and long-lasting peace in the Middle East represents a threat to Israel as well, and, indeed, to the entire region. When EU foreign policy chief and resident gargoyle Catherine Ashton asserts [5] that there is "no alternative to a negotiated deal," she displays only ignorance and bad faith, weeds which spring from the mounting dung heap of EU policy-making and British anti-Semitism. Ashton is not referring specifically to Mahmoud Abbas' threat to declare statehood unilaterally, which would make a modicum of sense if she were. Like her blinkered counterparts — Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and others — she is insisting on a wider program that envisages what is both counter-productive and impossible.

    In the international theater, it is fair to assume that the United States will never form a friendly alliance with Russia or China but must stay alert and maintain a credible deterrent capability, regardless of commercial exchanges and temporary reciprocities. On the level of the individual, as I have argued, one does not resist the need for medication or medical procedures if one desires to prolong one's life. It is no different in the Middle East, in particular with respect to the survival of the Jewish state.

    Is peace possible in the Middle East? Will Israel manage to arrive at an entente cordiale with its implacable Muslim enemies, whether on its own initiative or with the coercive "assistance" of the West? The answer is no. Or not in the foreseeable future. Militant Islam is not about to go away anytime soon, and neither is Palestinian faux-irredentism, anti-Semitism, or anti-Zionism. "Radical Islam," writes [6] British historian Andrew Roberts, "is never going to accept the concept of an Israeli state, so the struggle is likely to continue for another sixty years."

    Israel does not have the luxury of losing a war, any more than it does of achieving a false peace. It is not — or no longer — in a position to rely on a slip-now grip-later political system, but needs to react with strength, intelligence, and dispatch. It cannot accede to the Olmertian velleity of being "tired of winning." It cannot trust the security guarantees of its ostensible Western allies or the United Nations, which are not worth the paper they're scribbled on. It must, to quote [7] Melanie Phillips, "stop conniving with the premise of their enemies that the Middle East impasse would be solved by establishing a state of Palestine to which the settlements — and thus by extension Israel — are the obstacle." This is a false narrative that needs to be decisively countered. Israel must also parry the subtle blandishments of the "normalcy tilt," that is, once memories of terrorist atrocities begin to fade, that life will continue in the cafés and on the beaches of Tel Aviv as per usual. For Israel, with its precarious foothold at the very epicenter of the Dar al-Harb, or Islamic House of War, is not a "normal nation" nor will it ever be.

    It is the destiny of the Jewish nation to be constantly in danger of sedition from within and aggression from without. Apart from incendiary violence, it must confront a world-wide disinformation campaign pivoting on what David Harris calls the two "maladies," [8] namely, the "confirmation bias" (valorizing information unfavorable to Israel, irrespective of its untruth) and "reverse causality" (switching cause and effect, so that Israel is made responsible for the actions of its enemies). Such meretricious impulses or tropisms appeal to both anti-Semites and anti-Zionists and have become the common property of both Jew and Gentile, some Israelis and many non-Israelis, alike.

    It is an open question who is more contemptible, the Jew who lights the fire under the cauldron or the cannibal who throws him into it — all, of course, under the sign of "peace," which is only a synonym for eventual eclipse. It needs to be candidly said. The enemy is threefold: an Islamic aggressor who will not relent, of whom the Palestinians are the advance column; the reptilian Jew who contrives against his own people; and their Western enablers, primarily in Europe and the current American administration. For each of these, peace is only subversion by another name and war by other means.

    Israel's survival, however, is indeed possible, even if peace is not. But it should begin to act in certain demonstrable ways. It must demobilize its homegrown Quislings and intellectual vandals, with argument, reason or, if need be, the application of legal force where appropriate. There is no excuse for hostile NGOs spreading harmful propaganda on the European dime. There is no justification for state-supported leftist professors brazenly undermining the very country that pays their salaries. It serves no purpose to cosset Muslim groups and firebrands who seek to bring down the state, or to turn the other cheek when rockets fall on its civilian communities. In addition, Israel must take control of the explanatory narrative, or, in a current slang expression, "change the diskette." And the debacle of military unpreparedness and poor leadership, as during the 2006 Lebanon War, must be avoided at all costs.

    Forget peace. It's not going to happen. And it is not a risk worth taking since unchecked sentimentality is the most ruthless of serial killers. Camp David is the inevitable precursor of the Intifada. The situation is admittedly distressing but it is by no means unrelievedly desolate. For Israel will prevail if it succeeds in preserving a reasonable degree of internal unity, and remains confident, steadfast, realistic, and, above all, vigilant.

    Contact Laura at lel817@yahoo.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, January 18, 2011.

    Below is the text of the speech given by Rabbi Meir Kahane at the Central Hotel in Jerusalem 28 AV (August 24) on the eve of a large demonstration in Hebron. The audience consisted of mostly American tourists. The Rabbi wanted these tourists to join him in Hebron and wave their American passport, since the Israeli government's eyes are raised unto Washington. It comes from "K A H A N E", the magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea on September 1976 — Elul 5736.

    If you did not receive this article personally, and would like to receive Rabbi Kahane articles weekly, please contact me at: BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

    To view previously sent Rabbi Kahane articles go to: www.barbaraginsberg-barbara.blogspot.com


    The First Jew came early to the city. It was burying his wife Sara, "in the field of Machpelah before Mamre — the same is Hebron." And there he lived and there he died as did his son Isaac along with Rebekah. And when Jacob lay on his deathbed in the exile of Egypt, he called his sons together and charged them: "Bury me...in the cave that is in the field of Machpelah which is before Mamre...There they buried Abraham and his wife Sara; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah."

    And the Jews left the exile of Egypt and returned home and Caleb, the Jew who was sent to spy out the land and who found it good, was given as an inheritance that which he desired, the City of Patriarchs: "And Joshua blessed him and he gave Hebron unto Caleb and the son of Jephuneh for an inheritance."

    And the Jews dwelt in the land and their first king Saul fell in battle and David lamented and sought to return from the exile into which he had been driven. And he asked G-d: "Whither shall I go up?" And He said: "Unto Hebron." And David went up unto Hebron and established there his kingdom, his first capital city. And for centuries the Jews lived in and possessed Hebron until the terrible Roman legions came and burned the Temple, destroyed the land and exiled its Jews. But the longing of the Jews for their land could not be quenched and slowly they returned and a Jewish presence was once again established in Hebron. Poor, oppressed, suffering the terrors of both Moslem and Christian persecution, forbidden to go beyond the seventh step of the mosque that the Moslems had built over the Jewish shrine-the Jews nevertheless built their community in Hebron with synagogues, houses of learning, and institutions of charity. The Avraham Avinu Synagogue, the Istanbul Synagogue, Yeshivat Firra, Yeshivat Magen Avraham, Yeshivat Torat Emet, Yeshivat Knesset Yisroel; all thrived in the Hebron that was poor in Jewish body but rich in Jewish spirit. All of them - and Chesed L'Avraham.

    The generous and charitable Jew of Bagdad, Yosef Avraham Shalom, decided, in 1909, to build a hospital for the Jewish community of Hebron. He and the famous Sasoon family of India, contributed handsomely and on Lag Baomer of the year 1911, in the presence of the rabbis of Hebron led by the Haham-Bashi, Rabbi Saliman Mani, the cornerstone was laid. And a Turkish deed, dated 1910, still exists today, confirming title to the building as residing equally with the Rabbis Mani and Franco. The hospital was to serve Jew and Arab alike, healing their pains and illnesses. It was Jewish built and Jewish owned and it went into tragedy along with all the other Jewish buildings of Hebron on that hot summer Sabbath eve in August, 1929.

    The Arab mobs began to gather in the afternoon. The mood was ugly and the perfidious British advised the Jews to remain in their houses. But, the first victim was already counted as the matmid, the diligent student, at Yeshivat Hebron, Shmuel Rosenholtz who never left his study, sat alone in the Study Hall and the mobs turned his body into sieve with their knives. But it remained for the next day, the Holy Sabbath, for the horror to be completed. That Arabs raged through the town as the Jews cowered in their homes. Moshe Goldschmidt was castrated, his eyes gouged out, and murdered; Nahum Segal saw his two-year-old son snatched from his arms and his head cut off; they thrust Noah Immerman's head into a stove and he was burned alive.

    And Chesed L'Avraham, now operated by Hadassah to serve all the citizens of Hebron, was put to the torch. As the flames leaped high into the Judean air, in the adjoining building the Arabs dealt with 65-year-old Ben Zion Gershon, the pharmacist who had done so much for them. His eyes, nose and hands were cut off and as he died the mob stabbed his wife with nailed clubs and knives so that she took two weeks to die; his daughter was raped before she died. Seventy Jews took refuge in the home of A.D. Slonom, the banker and lone Jewish representative on the Hebron Town Council, in the belief that he, the dignitary, would be spared. Most died along with their illusions and along with Slonom. Within a few days nothing was left of the Jews of Hebron. Nearly seventy were buried and all the rest fled to Jerusalem.

    From that day forward, Hebron remained Judenrein. Its emptiness of Jews was symbolized by Chesed L'Avraham-Hadassah standing silent, empty of its Jews as Arab murderers and robbers took possession.

    And then came the Miracle. "And thou shalt smash west and east and north and south..." The miracle of the Six Day War as Jews, armed with the decree of the All Mighty, smashed through the Arabs to free their homeland unto the Jordan, and Hebron, city of Patriarchs, rejoiced in its first freedom in 19 centuries and wept tears of happiness as the flag of the Jews went up. And Chesed L'Avraham, too, looked on its Jewish soldiers and waited to be redeemed.

    The Messiah knocked on the door as the call of Redemption rang out and Rachel, weeping for her children, saw them returning to their borders. Redemption was waiting, waiting for the Jews to understand her, to seize and embrace her. Woe unto a people that saw nothing, called darkness light and light, darkness...

    The Arabs of Hebron, cowering in fear as they anticipated their just punishment, were stunned to find the Defense Minister of the Jews, Moshe Dayan, race into town to comfort them with the news that the Cave of the Patriarchs would remain theirs and that the Jews would only be allowed to use it at certain hours. How the Arabs could not believe it as the Jews were barred from returning to their city, their homes and property. How the Arabs - who would have slaughtered every Jew they found had the positions been reversed and who waited in their homes with white flags hanging from every window - stared in disbelief as the insane Jews heard the Messiah pounding on the door and turned him away! How they could not comprehend the Jews allowing Sheikh Ja'abry, inciter of murder in Gush Etzyon in 1948, to remain mayor and to wine him and dine him in the process.

    How the Arabs watched in amazement in contempt for the stupidity of the Jews, as a handful of Jewish believers in the Messiah tried to open the door by coming to Hebron on Passover of 1968 to demand Jewish settlement there, only to be viciously attacked by Dayan. (And how they ground their teeth as the Jews of Moshe Levinger defied the gentilized Dayan and government, and who with faith and stubbornness and sacrifice,created a Kiryat Arba.}

    But Hebron itself remained Judenrein and the desecrated Synagogue of Avraham Avinu — built in 1604 by Sephardi Jews — remained a wreck, buried under the droppings of sheep who used it as a pen leased to the Arabs by the Jewish military government of Hebron.

    And Chesed L'Avraham-Hadassah remained silent, empty of its Jews, mourning for the dead who would never return and for the living that were as dead to redemption as all those who lay in the Jewish cemetery. And, indeed, something inside the Jewish government of Israel had died. It looked and saw nothing, it saw and understood nothing. The men at the helm, the men to whom G-d is an abstraction, the men of socialism and secular nationalism and rationalism — did not understand that the rise of the Jewish State and the smashing of the enemy was the hand of G-d, the beginning of the Redemption. They did not comprehend that the resurrection of Israel was the beginning of the end of the era of Hillul Hashem, the desecration of the name of the L-rd, which had been epitomized by the humiliation, persecution and the graveyard of the exile. They were blind to the fact that a Jewish State was the beginning of the Sanctification of the name of the L-rd, putting an end to His humiliation, putting an end to the gentiles' nineteen-century laughter, as they mocked the down-trodden Jews by saying: "Where then is your G-d?" They did not see that the Jewish State, Jewish return, Jewish government, Jewish army and Jewish power were the Sanctification of G-d, were proof of His Omnipotence, were the answers to the mockery of the baffled gentiles who now blinked to see their holy places under Jewish sovereignty. They did not have the vision to grasp the fact that refusal to allow Jews to return to Hebron because of realpolitik, because of fear of what the gentile world would say, was a retreat from Jewish might and sovereignty and that in turn was a retreat from Sanctification and from Redemption — a return to humiliation and desecration. They did not realize that the refusal to return to Chesed L'Avraham was a refusal to open the doors to the Messiah and would bring down a terrible and needless tragedy on the Jewish State.

    When Jews of faith demanded return to Chesed L'Avraham, the gentilized Hebrews replied that they were bound by Jordanian law and that the law had turned over Chesed L'Avraham, to the United Nations! When aged Avraham Franco showed his deed of ownership, the Defense Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, replied: "Jordan took over Jewish property under the Enemy Property Law and gave it to the UN. We in turn pledged to the UN to honor their holdings in the occupied (sic) territories. We have no intention of breaking that pledge."

    And so, the Messiah sighed and remained outside in the cold, while the Jewish Defense Minister of Israel continued to honor enemy definition of enemy property as "Jewish" — and Chesed L'Avraham and all the rest were zealously kept from the enemy by the enemy...

    But there are good Jews in Israel. There are Jews who understand the Divine origin of the state, the era of sanctification. There are Jews who hear the Messiah's knocking and who struggle with the government to open it. They are Jews of Kiryat Arba, of Gush Emunim, who returned to Chesed L'Avraham-Hadassah with the deed of Avraham Franco in one hand and the deed of Abraham, our father and his One G-d, in the other. The building is ours, they cried, the building is Jewish! Open the doors to us, open the doors to the Messiah!

    And the gentilized Hebrews refused and arrested them. And when more came they arrested them, too, and put up barbed wire and soldiers with guns to make sure that the Jews and their Messiah would not enter. And the gentilized Defense Minister of Israel complained that the Jews of faith were "inciting" the Arabs and swore that Chesed L'Avraham would not go back to the Jews, that he, the enemy, would keep the enemy property from entering the hands of the enemy...It is a desecration of all the holy and martyred dead who fell on that Sabbath 47 years ago. It is a disgrace to the living Jews who won the battle for Hebron and lost the war as the Arabs stand and laugh because they know that just as they shouted during the pogrom of 1919, "the government is still with us..."

    And what will be? What will be depends in such great measure on the good Jews of America. What will be depends on whether the Jews of the Exile who have such power because they have the money and influence that the government of Israel needs, will act. It depends on whether the American Jew who loves the state will understand that there is a difference between the state he loves and its government which is such a disaster. What will be depends on the American Jew saving the state from its government.

    What will be depends on the American Jew rejecting the false anger of the Israelis who demand UJA money from him as an obligation because he is a Jew, and then telling him that he has no business interfering in Israeli affairs because he is not an Israeli. It depends on his shouting back: "Precisely because I am a Jew I have the right to save Israel by more than just money. Because I am a Jew I have a right and an obligation to save Israel from a disastrous government that leads her to tragedy. It is not I who will cause more Jewish tragedy and losses but the government of Israel because I am a Jew I must stop this. Because I am a Jew I know that this is not an "Israeli" issue but a Jewish one. Because I am a Jew I have an obligation to go to Hebron and to open the doors of Chesed L'Avraham - to open the doors of the Messiah.

    American Jews. Come tomorrow to Hebron. Bring your Jewishness and your American passport. Wave the first before the world and shout: I am a Jew! Make Hebron Jewish! Open the doors of the Messiah!

    And then wave your American passport that is so respected and revered by the men who rise each morning and say: "I raise mine yes unto Washington, from Ford shall come forth my salvation..." Wave it before those who have nothing but contempt for the Israeli citizen but who nervously need the American UJA contributor and Bonds purchaser.

    American Jews! You can do that which no one else can. Hebron is not an Israeli issue but a Jewish one and you are Jewish. Be Jewish. Come to Hebron tomorrow and open the doors of Chesed L'Avraham. And when your return to America - temporarily, before your immigration home - join the struggle against the tragic policies of a tragic government. In the exile, open the Jewish struggle for a Jewish State. Cease being intimidated. Israel is as much yours as any Jew. If you truly love Israel, you will know that "any love that does not have within it chastisement is not real love." Love Israel. Save her from those who bring tragedy upon her by barring the way of the Messiah. On to Hebron and the final redemption.

    BG adds: [Jews have returned to Hebron, by blood, sweat and bravery — but the battle to remain and keep on building, and liberate all of Hebron still continues by the brave, devoted Jews.]

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Laura, January 18, 2011.

    This was written by Caroline B. Glick, the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com. This article appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=204051.


    Tunisian president's regime was not the only thing destroyed. The two main foundations of `expert' Western analysis of the Mideast have also been undone.

    If at the height of the anti-government protests in Tunisia last week, Israel and the Palestinians had signed a final peace deal, would the protesters have packed up their placards and gone home?

    Of course not.

    So what does it tell us the nature of US Middle East policy that at the height of the anti-regime protests in Tunisia, the White House was consumed with the question of how to jump start the mordant peace process between the Palestinians and Israel?

    According to Politico, as the first popular revolution in modern Arab history was in full swing, last week the White House organized two "task forces" to produce "new ideas" for getting the Palestinians to agree to sit down with Israeli negotiators. The first task force is comprised of former Clinton and Bush national security advisers Sandy Berger and Stephen Hadley.

    The second is led by former US ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration Martin Indyk.

    And as these experts were getting in gear, US President Barak Obama dispatched his advisor and former Middle East peace envoy under the Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 administrations Dennis Ross to Israel to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to ask them to put out "new ideas." Amazingly, none of these task forces or meetings has come up with anything new.

    Again, according to Politico, these task forces and consultations generated three possible moves for the Obama White House. First, it can put more pressure on Israel by announcing US support for a "peace plan" that would require Israel to surrender its capital city and defensible borders.

    Second, the US can pressure Israel by seeking to destabilize Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government.

    And third, the US can pressure Israel by pumping still more money into the coffers of the unelected Palestinian government and so raise expectations that the US supports the unelected Palestinian government's plan to declare independence without agreeing to live at peace with Israel.

    So much for new ideas.

    THEN THERE is the unfolding drama in Lebanon. It is hard to think of a greater slap on the face than the one Hizbullah and Syria delivered to Obama last Wednesday. Hizbullah brought down Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri's government with the open and active support of Syria while Obama was meeting with Hariri in the Oval Office.

    And how did Obama respond to this slap in the face? By dispatching Ambassador Robert Ford to Damascus to take up his new post as the first US ambassador in Syria since Syria and Hizbullah colluded to assassinate Hariri's father, former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri six years ago.

    Reality is crashing in on the Obama administration. But rather than face the challenges presented by reality, the Obama administration is burying its head in the sand. And it is burying it head in the sand with the firm support of the inbred US foreign policy elite.

    The overthrow of Tunisian President Zine El Abedine Ben Ali last Friday is a watershed event in the Arab world. It is far too early to even venture a guess about how Tunisia will look a year from now. But it is not too early to understand that Ben Ali's regime was not the only thing destroyed last Friday. The two main foundations of "expert" Western analysis of the Middle East have also been undone.

    The first foundation of what has passed as Western wisdom about the region is that the only that thing that motivates the proverbial "Arab street" to act is hatred of Israel.

    For nearly a generation, successive US administrations have based their Middle East policies on the collective wisdom of the likes of Ross, Hadley, Berger, Indyk, George Mitchell, Dan Kurtzer, and Tony Blair. And for nearly a generation, these wise men have argued that Arab reform, democracy, human rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious freedom, economic development and the rule of law can only be addressed after a peace treaty is signed between Israel and the Palestinians. In their "expert" view, Arab autocrats and their repressed subjects alike are so upset by the plight of the Palestinians that they can't be bothered with their own lives.

    Tunisia's revolution exposes this "wisdom," as complete and utter piffle. Like people everywhere, what most interests Arabs is their own standard of living, their relative freedom or lack thereof, and their prospects for the future.

    Mohammed Bouazizi, the 26-year-old Tunisian college graduate who set himself on fire last month after regime security forces destroyed his unlicensed produce cart did not act as he did because of Israel.

    The Egyptian man who set himself on fire in Cairo on Monday outside the Egyptian parliament, and the Algerian man who set himself on fire in Tebessa on Sunday, did not choose to self-immolate in the public square because of their concern for the Palestinians. So too, the anti-regime demonstrators in Jordan are not demonstrating because there is no Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.

    The Tunisian revolution demonstrates that "Arab unity" and commitment to "Palestinian rights," is little more than a sop for Western "experts."

    The chief concern of Arab dictators is not Israel, but the prolongation of their grip on power. From their perspective, one of the keys to maintaining their iron grip on power is neutralizing US support for freedom.

    By arguing that Israel is the root cause of all Arab pathologies, Arab despots put the US on the defensive. Having to defend its support for the hated Jews, the US feels less comfortable criticizing the dictators for their repression of their own people. And without the Americans breathing down their backs, Arab dictators can sleep more or less easily. Since Europe doesn't mind that they trample human rights, only the US constitutes a threat to the legitimacy of these Arab autocrats' iron fisted repression of their people.

    And this brings us to the second fallacious foundation of "expert" Western analysis of the Middle East destroyed by the recent events in Tunisia. That foundation is the belief that it is possible and desirable to build a stable alliance structure on the back of dictatorships.

    Tunisia's revolution exposed two basic truths about relationships with dictatorships. First, they cannot outlast the regime. Since dictators represent no one but themselves, when the dictator leaves the scene, no one will feel bound by his decisions.

    The second fundamental truth exposed by Ben Ali's overthrow is that all power is fleeting. Ben Ali's day came last Friday. The day of his Arab despot brethren will also arrive. And when they are overthrown, their alliances will be overthrown with them. To a significant degree, the Obama administration's failure to understand the chronic instability of dictatorships explains its obsession with appeasing Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. Because the US wrongly assumes that Assad's regime is inherently stable, it misunderstands Assad's rationale for preferring Iran and Hizbullah to the US.

    Assad is a member of the Alawite minority community. He fears his people not only because he represses them through state terror, but because given his Alawite identity, most Syrians do not view him as one of them.

    As dictators and murderers themselves, Iran's ayatollahs and Hizbullah's terror masters support Assad's regime in a way that the US never could, even if it wished to. Indeed, as Assad sees things, given the nature of his regime, there is no chance that an alliance with the US would do anything but weaken his regime's grip on power.

    US attempts to build relations with Assad tell this dictator two seemingly contradictory things at the same time. First they signal to him that his alliance with Iran and Hizbullah strengthen his regional stature. Without those alliances, the US would not be interested in appeasing him.

    Second, due to the chronic instability of his tyrannical terror state, and his consequent utter fear of democracy, Assad views American attempts to draw him into the Western alliance as bids to overthrow his regime. The more the likes of Obama and Clinton seek to draw him in, the more convinced he will become that they are in league with Israel to bring him down.

    ON THE face of it, the Tunisian revolution vindicates former president George W. Bush's policy of pushing democratization of the Arab world. As Bush recognized in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the US is poorly served by relying on dictators who maintain their power on the backs of their people.

    Bush got into trouble however by seeing a straight line between the problem and his chosen solution of elections. As the Hamas victory in the Palestinian Authority and the Muslim Brotherhood's victories in Egypt's parliamentary elections on the one hand, and the undermining of pro-Western democratically elected governments in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq on the other hand made clear, elections are not the solution to authoritarianism.

    The Tunisian revolution provides several lessons for US policymakers. First, by reminding us of the inherent frailty of alliances with dictatorships, Tunisia demonstrates the strategic imperative of a strong Israel. As the only stable democracy in the region, Israel is the US's only reliable ally in the Middle East. A strong, secure Israel is the only permanent guarantor of US strategic interests in the Middle East.

    Second, the US should proceed with great caution as it considers its ties with the Arab world. All bets must be hedged. This means that the US must maintain close ties with as many regimes as possible so that none are viewed as irreplaceable.

    Saudi Arabia has to be balanced with Iraq, and support for a new regime in Iran. Support for Egypt needs to be balanced with close relations with South Sudan, and other North African states.

    As for engendering democratic alternatives, the US must ensure that it does not make any promises it has no intention of keeping. The current tragedy in Lebanon is a blow to US prestige because Washington broke its promise to stand by the March 14 movement against Hizbullah.

    At the same time, the US should fund and publicly support liberal democratic movements when those emerge. It should also fund less liberal democratic movements when they emerge. So too, given the strength of Islamist media, the US should make judicious use of its Arabic-language media outlets to sell its own message of liberal democracy to the Arab world.

    Tunisia's revolution is an extraordinary event. And like other extraordinary events, its repercussions are being felt far beyond its borders. Unfortunately, the behavior of the Obama administration signals that it is unwilling to acknowledge the importance of what is happening.

    If the Obama administration persists in ignoring the fundamental truths exposed by the popular overthrow of Tunisia's dictator, it will not simply marginalize US power in the Middle East. It will imperil US interests in the Middle East.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 17, 2011.

    Answer: Of course not.

    Today is a day when there seems so much to write about that it's hard to know where to begin. And those other controversial issues I had hoped to examine will once again take a back seat, as we look at the more immediate and "tachlis" ("brass tacks") news.


    Here in Israel the political scene is in absolute turmoil as Ehud Barak pulls an "Ariel Sharon":

    Just as Sharon pulled out from Likud and started Kadima, so has Barak — along with four other members of Labor — now left Labor and started a new faction, to be called Independence (Atzma'ut). This was made possible after the Knesset House Committee approved Barak's request to leave the Labor Party. Accompanying him are Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon; Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai; Deputy Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Orit Noked; and Knesset Member Einat Wilf.


    Following this move, the members of the Labor party who held portfolios — Isaac Herzog, social services minister; Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, minister of industry, trade and labor; and Avishay Braverman, minister of minority affairs — resigned from Netanyahu's government. There is no longer anyone from Labor in the government (i.e., cabinet). Their portfolios will be reassigned. Whether these three will still sit in the Knesset as part of the ruling coalition is doubtful — it is anticipated that Labor may resign the coalition completely, bringing it down to 66 members.

    Needless to say, the rage at Barak within what remains of the Labor party is considerable. Word is that Ben-Eliezer will serve temporarily as party chairman until a new party head can be chosen.


    All of the turmoil aside, there is a logic to what has happened:

    MK Einat Wilf, explained at a press conference,

    "For a long time the Labor party has been acting as two separate factions.

    "We cleared the way for them, and are letting them keep the name.

    "...It's important that there be a leftist social party in Israel but it wasn't right for us."

    Wilf's comments echoed Barak's written request to the Knesset:

    "We believe that the future of the Labor party hinges on its return to Mapai origins and Ben-Gurion doctrine, which is located at the center of the political map.

    "The ideological gap between the faction members is unbridgeable. In reality, two separate factions have been created."

    The new party, declared Barak, after the split was accomplished, would be "centrist, Zionist and democratic."

    He explained that the situation as it had been, "wasn't always healthy and good for Labor. We noticed a shift towards the left and post-Zionism."


    Barak has never been one of my favorite politicians. I consider him devious and self-serving, at best.

    But what he has said with regard to the reason for this split has given me pause. Many is the time that he has behaved vilely — sending the IDF in the middle of the night, for example, to take down an "illegal" house, leaving a dazed family literally in the dark. And I observed at those times that he was playing to the left wing of his party — showing how tough he was with "settlers" to keep them happy.

    Will Barak be more centrist now? Will he moderate his behavior, now that the left wing of Labor is no longer a factor he has to contend with? Don't know. Would like to think so, but we will have to see...


    Negotiations between Likud and Atzma'ut for a coalition agreement have already begun, and are expected to be completed quickly. Netanyahu had been aware that this was about to happen. There will then be reassignment of portfolios. Barak, however, will retain his portfolio as defense minister.

    Netanyahu's take on this scenario is that it has strengthened the coalition and, with the left wing gone, made it easier to govern. There is considerable speculation about how all of this will affect Netanyahu's relationship with Shas and Yisrael Beitenu. And it remains to be seen how Atzma'ut actually shapes up as a party, and who may want to join its ranks.

    And there is even more in flux. Meretz, a far-left party, is making a bid for the remaining members of Labor to join with them. While rumors are re-surfacing with regard to the defection from the Kadima party of a group — headed by Shaul Mofaz and all originally from Likud — that is to the right within the party and might rejoin Likud.


    President Obama is about to face a test, and I'm mighty uneasy that he may fail:

    Officials of the PA, exhibiting an enormous amount of self-assurance and arrogance, have rejected Obama's request to refrain from seeking a UN Security Council resolution on the illegality of the "settlements."

    As Khaled Abu Toameh put it, in today's JPost:

    "The US administration has been pressing the PA to refrain from going to the Security Council out of fear that such a move would have a negative impact on efforts to revive the stalled peace talks."

    Not only would it have a "negative impact," it would be tantamount to publicly sounding the death knell for that negotiated settlement. And it would be a spit-in-the-eye for Obama.

    The Quartet, you see, has just announced that in early February its members will be meeting to talk about how to jump-start the "stalled" peace talks. Ridiculous on the face of it, certainly, but this is the US position. In fact, the US has come out quite consistently behind a negotiated settlement.

    While this is absolutely the wrong time to pursue the matter (which is why the Quartet announcement is ridiculous), in principle this is the only way to go: All relevant UN resolutions and agreements call for final determination of all issues via negotiations. To turn away from this is to abrogate agreements and defy UN resolutions.


    Negotiator Saeb Erekat has now said that the PA is going ahead in spite of US opposition. The PA, you see, refuses to make any "undignified" concessions to Israel — which is being held completely responsible for the breakdown of talks.

    "The Israeli government has chosen settlements over peace." The Israeli policy (of refusing to freeze everything) "will lead to more violence, chaos, extremism, and bloodshed."


    Said PA official Nabil Sha'ath, in light of the lack of negotiations, there were four things the Palestinian Arabs could now do: wage a "non-violent" popular struggle, seek international recognition of a state, achieve national unity [with Hamas], and build state institutions. Of course the option of violence — as spelled out quite clearly by Erekat, above — also stares us in the face.

    Sha'ath predicted recognition by most of Latin America within three months of a Palestinian state "along the 1967 borders, with east Jerusalem as its capital."

    "We don't intend to negotiate about the land...We won't give up any part of the Palestinian (sic) territories, especially Jerusalem."

    And so, this resolution on the illegality of "settlements" is simply a runner-up to the main thrust of PA intentions.


    For the ten-millionth time: the land beyond the Green Line does not belong to the Palestinian Arabs. But they act "as if" and the world has bought it.

    It's essential to be very very clear on what's happening:

    The PA believes it can get a better deal by avoiding negotiations, which would require some compromise, and pushing their demands this way. Thus is the issue of "settlements," which was never a stumbling block to negotiations before, being made the "reason" why the PA cannot sit down at the table.


    But of course it was Obama who raised the issue of settlements in the first place. Obama, with his declared eagerness to have better relations with Muslims and his readiness to be publicly tough with Israel, who convinced Abbas and company that he was on their side.

    And you know what? Even though the US has requested that the PA not proceed with a SC resolution, I believe that the PA still thinks he will end up on their side:

    Thus has Erekat said that the PA was holding discussions with several countries, including the US, with regard to the proposed draft of a resolution. "We don't want this resolution to be met with a veto by the US or any other party."

    What this means is that the wording is being adjusted in hopes that ultimately it will be palatable to all who sit on the Security Council (or, at least, all those permanent members with veto power). Although Erekat did indicate that they would continue even if it seems likely there will be a veto.


    And Obama? The US has a history of blocking anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council. Will his government sustain this policy now? Will he stand strong against what the PA is doing, instead of trying to find "conciliatory" or "compromise" wording that he can live with?

    If the US doesn't stop this resolution, he will be delivering to Abbas the message that the PA has a clear playing field, and that their techniques ultimately will succeed. He will be abandoning the demand that there must be give-and-take between the parties involved, with a mutually agreed upon border. And he will be setting the scene for that violence down the road.


    All this said, there are serious impediments to what the PA is planning to do. A non-state party cannot legally decide by itself to become a state, claiming a border that the adjacent existing state does not agree to. (If the PA were to declare a state in the area that it now controls, with perhaps Ramallah as its capital, that might be something else.) Especially is this the case as UNSC resolution 242, passed after the '67 war, does not require Israel to pull back to the Green Line.


    From where I sit, watching these events unfold, my chief concern is one of how Israel can come out strongest, and remain intact.


    It was not unexpected: A temporary injunction on construction at the Shepherd hotel site has been issued in response to a petition by the Muslim Committee in Israel, which is questioning the legality of the building permit.

    A meeting will be held on Wednesday by the appeals committee of the Ministry of the Interior to examine the legality of the project.

    In a statement to the JPost, David Luria, executive director of Ateret Cohanim — which supports Jewish building projects in eastern Jerusalem — expressed confidence that all challenges to the project would be overcome because it was legal. This petition was just one more attempt — and likely not the last — intended to halt construction.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Avodah, January 17, 2011.

    This was written by Rabbi Eli Mansour. of Congregation Bet Yaakob. Visit the website http://www.dailyhalacha.com/sources.asp for more in the Halachic Series.


    The Torah in parshas Mishpatim denounces as a thief not only one who steals property but also someone who acts in a deceptive manner towards others.

    Trickery, lying, and deceiving, are forms of stealing.

    The Tosefta in Masechet Bava Batra lists seven categories of theft, and mentions at the top of the list, as the most grievous form of thievery, the sin of "Geneivat Da'at," which literally means "theft of the mind," referring to deception.

    The Ritva (Rabbi Yom Tov Ashbili, Spain, 1250-1330), in his commentary to Masechet Chulin, writes that deceiving another person transgresses a Torah violation. According to the Ritva, the verse "Lo Tignovu" ("Do not steal" — Vayikra 19:11) refers specifically to this form of "theft," and thus a person who deceives another violates this Torah prohibition. This is also the position of the Yerei'im (by Rabbi Eliezer of Metz, France, 1115-1198), in Siman 124. Others, however, maintain that deception transgresses a Rabbinic edict, and not a Torah violation.

    We present here a number of practical examples of Geneivat Da'at.

    The Gemara mentions the example of somebody who invites his fellow to join him for a holiday, fully aware that this person had already made plans to spend the holiday elsewhere. He deceives his fellow into thinking that he sincerely wishes to host him, whereas in reality he has no actual intention to extend the invitation. Even though no practical harm results from this disingenuous invitation, it nevertheless violates the prohibition of Geneivat Da'at, insofar as the individual has deceived his fellow.

    In the context of business operation, the issue of Geneivat Da'at arises quite frequently. For example, a proprietor may not announce a 50% price reduction and then raise the prices so that the sale price will amount to the item's actual price. Even though he in the end receives a fair price for the merchandise, he has nevertheless transgressed the prohibition of Geneivat Da'at because he has deceived the consumers.

    The Poskim (Halachic authorities) discuss the question of whether a person who purchased a gift for his fellow at a discount price may leave the original price-tag on the package, so that the recipient will think he paid the price listed on the tag. Would this be considered Geneivat Da'at, in that the giver deceives the recipient into thinking that he paid a higher price for the gift? The Poskim generally conclude that one may leave the price-tag on the package, since the price on the tag is, after all, the true value of the item purchased.

    Another question addressed by the Poskim concerns a case of one who wishes to give a gift. For example, it is forbidden to gift a set of Zohar that has several pages missing. The person giving the gift assumes that the recipient will never actually study the Zohar and will thus never realize that the set is missing pages. The Poskim write that it is forbidden to give this set as a gift, since one thereby deceives the recipient into thinking that he has received a perfect set of Zohar, whereas in reality it is defective.

    Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) records in his work Iggerot Moshe a question he was asked as to whether Yeshiva High School students may be shown the answers to the Regents' Exams before the tests, so that they will not have to study the material and could use the extra time for Torah study. Rabbi Feinstein responds by expressing his astonishment over the very posing of such a question. Cheating is a clear violation of Geneivat Da'at, and it cannot possibly be allowed even for the purpose of facilitating additional time for Torah study.

    Rabbenu Yona of Gerona, Spain (1180-1263), in his work Sha'arei Teshuva, compares one who steals property committing a sin with his hands to sins involving deceit. A person's soul, he explains, is a part of the Almighty Himself, the embodiment of perfect, unadulterated truth. Engaging in deceitful conduct contaminates this Godly quality of the soul, and thus constitutes a most grievous sin, more severe than the theft of property.

    Summary: Geneivat Da'at, deception, is deemed by Halacha as the most grievous form of theft.

    Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard Shulman, January 17, 2011.

    This was written by Narain Kataria. I know him. He is informed and honest. He is active in the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam. Contact him by email at katarian@aol.com.

    Here is a link to an article in a series I published in Examiner.com about his work:
    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2010m5d21- New-York-Hindu-Leader--Part-1-From-refugee- to-American-patriot--A-true-freedomfighter.

    We are used to Jews being hounded and terrorized by Islam. And, except for the leaders of some of the mainline churches, most of us know the Arabs are systematically cleansing their states and the Territories of Christians. But thanks to the conditioning mantra constantly recited by politicians and the media that Israel could bring peace just by making a few more concessions to the Palestinian arabs, there is less knowledge that Islam practices equal-opportunity terrorism around the globe. Perhaps this essay will make us less provincial.


    We are appalled and horrified to know that over one hundred Hindu families (about 500 people) in Pakistan's Balochistan province are making frantic efforts to seek political asylum in India after becoming the target of a campaign of vilification, demonization, kidnapping and extortion by Jihadists supported by Pakistan's spy agency ISI.

    Over the last 5 years, more than 5,000 Hindus have already moved from Pakistan's Sind province to Rajasthan, India. Their tattered clothes, emotionless faces and vacuous eyes tell their dismal tale. Most of these Hindus refugees look like zombies.

    Although no figures are made available, anecdotal evidence and human rights groups say that persecution and conversion of Hindus and Sikhs have risen in the last two years, with temples and gurudwaras being desecrated and worshippers being attacked.

    According to Basant Lal Gulshan, Balochistan's Minorities Affair Minister "forty-one Hindus were abducted during the past three years and four more were killed when they resisted kidnapping attempts.

    In the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Talibans have warned Hindu men to grow beard and Hindu women to wear burqa in order to avoid being beaten or fined by Lashkar extremists.

    Last year, Islamic militants directed Sikh community in the NWFP either to convert to Islam, leave the land of their forefathers or pay 12 million rupees ($140,000) jizya — the medieval tax levied on non-Muslims in Islamic state.

    'DNA" reported in its issue of May 28, 2010 that over 50 Pakistani Hindus have converted to Islam in the Sialkot district of Punjab within a week (between May 14 and May 19) under pressure from their Muslim employers in a bid to retain their jobs and survive in the Muslim-dominated society.

    Hindu women are raped. Men are harassed, beaten up or slain, and children are abducted. Harassment and torture of minorities — Hindus and Christians — in Pakistan is going on unabated. In the latest matter, a Hindu girl near Karachi, Pakistan, was abducted, forcefully converted to Islam and kept in a Muslim mosque in Pakistan. It is the Taliban effect.

    At the time of Partition of India in 1947, there were somewhere between 20 to 24% Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. They were forced to convert to Islam or leave the country. In the last 63 years Hindus and Sikhs have been ethnically cleansed from Pakistan.

    It is not only Hindus and Sikhs who suffer indignity and humiliation; Christians are also treated like criminals, and charges of blasphemy are leveled against them on the flimsiest of excuses.

    In March, 2010, Dr. Manjit Singh Randhawa, President of Sikh Nation Organisation, had appealed to the United Nations against forced conversion and racial discrimination of minorities (Hindus and Sikhs) to prevail upon Pakistan to repeal the 'Nizam-e-Adl 2009 Regulation' that has "legitimized and legalized tyranny" by 'Taliban', in complete disregard to its international commitments under various UN Conventions, to safeguard Human Rights of its citizens within international borders of Pakistan.

    Jihadists in collaboration with Pakistan military have radicalized Pakistani society in the most dangerous manner. In a show of strength, on January 9, 2011, over 40,000 Islamists gathered in the streets in Karachi, the capital of Sind province in Pakistan, under the banner of Tahaffauz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat which is a conglomerate of religious parties opposed to amendments of the country's blasphemy laws. They showed support in favor of Mumtaz Quadri, the assassin of Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, and showered him with rose petals. Speakers at the meeting openly threatened to kill anyone supporting blasphemy law while 3,000 police officers watched them helplessly. Mumtaz Quadri was promised legal help by 200 lawyers. For more information on this you may contact Gopinath Kumar, Editor-in-Chief of Pakistan Hindu Post at

    Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan are facing an uncertain future. Their plight is miserable. They live in fear of abduction for ransom, armed robberies and murder.

    Under the circumstances, we appeal to the governments of India, the USA, the United Nations, and all global human rights groups to stop egregious human rights violations and rescue these hapless Hindus, Sikhs and Christians from the jaws of death as soon as possible.

    Narain Kataria

    Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India
    Hon. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, Washington
    Hon. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, New York
    Hon. Meera Shankar, Ambassader, Embassy of India, Washington, for necessary action as deemed fit
    Hon. Prabhu Dayal, Consul General of India in New York, for necessary action as deemed fit.
    Hon. Faqir Syed Asif Hussain, Consul General of Pakistan, New York, for necessary action as deemed fit.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yoram Ettinger, January 17, 2011.

    Since 1994, the highest per-capita-foreign-aid in the world has been provided — mostly by the US taxpayer — to the Palestinian Authority. Since 1994, there has been an unprecedented intensification of Palestinian anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-US hate-education and incitement in PA-controlled schools, mosques and media, an all-time high PA non-compliance with commitments made to the US and Israel and an unparalleled expansion of Palestinian terrorism infrastructure and activity. Thus, foreign aid has not moderated the PA. Foreign aid has rewarded PA hate-education, non-compliance and terrorism. The following study documents that foreign aid has also been abused by the PA, enticing corruption and inefficient economy.

    This was written by Gil Kol and it appeared yesterday in Ynet News
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340, L-4013700,00.html


    Study shows over 60% of Palestinian Authority's GNP comes from US, EU, UN, World Bank. "Donations go toward entrenchment of government institutions instead of development of infrastructure, industry, human capital," say research authors, economic analyst Eyal Ofer and President of Financial Immunities consulting firm Adam Roiter.

    According to the study, more than 60% of the Palestinian Authority's Gross National Product comes from the United States, European Union, United Nations, World Bank and others countries,

    According to the study's findings, during 2009 and 2010 the PA's reliance on donations increased — with a 20% growth in donations, totaling some $3.96BN per year.

    In real values, the scope of donations more than doubled within a period of four years.

    The research, similarly to OECD reports, points to the PA's steadily increasing dependence on donation funds. In fact, the Palestinian people receive the largest amount of donations worldwide.

    For every Palestinian citizen, the PA receives an average of $1,000 per annum, which amounts to an average of ILS 2,000 (about $560) per family, per month. The data reinforces the claim that there is no Palestinian economy, and that in reality is almost exclusively supported by the donation industry.

    Yes, an economy can be built from donations — if these are allocated for development, production and infrastructure, but this is not the case.

    "The donations toward the entrenchment of government institutions instead of the development of infrastructure, industry, human capital etc'," explained Roiter. "What we have here is a schnorrer country, without which it does not exist," he added.

    Ofer and Roiter noted that since 2000— when the rate of donations reflected 10.47% of total GNP— there has been a steady increase in the scope of foreign donations. The most significant boost began in 2007, immediately after Hamas gained control of the Gaza Strip, and following the PA's claim that it needed more funds to establish its regime.

    'No industrial sector'

    Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's links with the International Monetary Fund, as well as his "Western" rhetoric vis-à-vis transparency, the building of government institutions and preventing market monopolies have helped him with the task of fundraising.

    However, according to the study, the facts on the ground indicate that the governmental apparatus and international aid organizations impede the growth of the business sector, while donations are used to preserve the ruling party rather than build a separate economy that is not dependent on foreign donations.

    Ofer and Roiter are not the only ones pointing to the worrying trend. A piercing article published in UK-based the Guardian newspaper last November claimed that [Palestinian] NGOs have become synonyms with corruption and incompetence, hinting at international donors who the paper claimed thwarted the Palestinian economic development by overinflating the aid industry without supplying long-term solutions.

    The latest study reinforces this claim, pointing to the absence of an industrial sector in the Palestinian Authority. "Employers lack the ability or the will to go into industry or development, because they cannot compete with the salaries of governmental organs and that of the aid workers on the ground," said Ofer, adding, "In reality, their economy is solely based on the trade of services."

    Even grants that are specifically designated for "projects" throughout the Palestinian Authority are only partially used for their original purpose, claimed Ofer.

    According to Roiter, although it is in Israel's interest to see the PA reinforced rather than the Hamas — the Authority's conduct may be dangerous in the long run: "Without the donations, the Palestinian Authority's economy will collapse, and this by turn will affect the security of Israel's residents.

    "The funds go into the pockets of bureaucratic echelons and to the monstrous administrative apparatus that mostly deals with allocation of funds and fundraising," he added.

    "Governmental services operate on the expense of the business sector, which is left at a standstill — instead of developing alongside it," he noted.

    The study also reveals that while the Palestinian prime minister brags in front of foreign institutions over the scope of tax collection in the PA, he forgets to mention that 77% of all taxes are collected by the Israeli Finance Ministry as part of a joint agreement between Israel and the PA. The former then transfers the latter more than NIS 5 billion (about $1.4 billion) per year, which amounts to approximately a third of the PA's annual budget.

    The authors conclude their study with a grim prospect — the Palestinian Authority's financial and political interest is compatible with that of Israel — a complete standstill with a false display of "progress."

    "The PA may create a false display of assuming responsibility, but does nothing to prevent a possible scenario of economic collapse, because it is easier to live on someone else's expense," they conclude.

    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

    This article is archived in Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Lee Caplan, January 17, 2011.

    Gilad Shalit's mother is writing a letter to her son Pass it on and please don't delete it.

    This is my son. The first life that I created. Part of my body my soul and my love. I heard his voice for 20 years. From the moment he arrived in this world to our last telephone conversation: " Mom, I am returning home, can you hear me. "

    I heard his voice as clearly as I heard his first cry as a baby. I can still hear his cry at night when he was a child. You never gave me peace to sleep at night.

    I used to lie next to you pacifying you. When you were sick the first time, I was so worried about you. I took you to your first day at school and you made me promise that I would return to bring you home.

    This I promised you. I have never broken my promises to you.

    I have all your drawings on the fridge and the walls of the kitchen so that you would know that this is your home amongst your drawings and the memories of you. You grew up to quickly in front of my old and tired eyes.

    At your bar mitzvah I suddenly saw how quickly you had grown. I was the proudest mother in the world.

    You grew up to be successful, charming and clever. (This is my son, I thought then, this is my son) When you started going out with your friends part of me would go with you. I used to hug you and ask you to be careful. "Don't worry mom, I am a big boy" I used to wake up at night looking at my watch and thinking, where are you, I am waiting for you to return home. All I wanted was for you to come back safely. When I heard you falling into bed from exhaustion, I knew that you were home safely with me. Then I would be able to go to sleep myself peacefully.

    When you got your driving license, I used to pray that you would travel safely and not swerve into the gutter and you would not knock another car. I hoped you would not drive if you did not have to.

    You never disappointed me and you were always responsible and happy.

    I was always thrilled to see your smile even though I had sleepless nights worrying about you. When you received your first call up papers to the army, my heart skipped a few beats. You were only 17 years old. You came back very proud and happy with big bright shiney eyes. I wished that you would not have to go to combat and that you would not get called to a dangerous zone.

    You just wanted to protect your country. It is not the country that raised you, it is Me, I who raised you.

    The day that you shut the door behind you and you traveled to do your army service. I counted the days till you would return home.

    I decided then and there that I would go to Shul and to thank G-d and ask him to return my son to me safely. Instead of going out I would wash your uniforms and prepare food for when you would come home.

    The day that I heard loud knocking on the front door, I knew something was terribly wrong.

    I opened the door praying that I would not see what I saw. Two uniformed army personnel and an army medic. One was your commander and he held my hand tightly. I did not have to hear the words he was telling me. The darkness cut the blood supply from my veins in my arm and I understood that something was terribly wrong.

    In the news they show your photographs. I go to Shul and I pray. I pray all the time, even when I am sleeping, I am praying.

    This is my son, my son who was snatched into Gaza.

    My son who might never return.


    Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Jonathan Schanzer and Hayri Abaza, January 16, 2011.

    The dramatic exodus of Tunisian dictator Ben Ali on Jan. 14 has been hailed by some as the fall of a ruthless Arab autocrat and a potential win for democracy in the Arab world. This is the first time an Arab leader has been forced from office by street protests. However, this is not the first time in modern history that a Tunisian dictator was removed in the wake of popular discontent. The fight for Tunisia may be far from over.

    When Tunisia gained its independence from France in 1956, the country's founder Bourguiba implemented drastic secular policies. The famous Zitouna Mosque became a western-style university, sharia courts were abolished and women were discouraged from wearing the hijab. While devout Muslims were uncomfortable with these changes, it was not until Bourguiba drank a glass of orange juice on television during Ramadan in 1960 that they began to voice their discontent.

    The Islamist movement grew during the 1960s and 1970s, urged on by Muslim Brotherhood acolyte Rashid Ghannushi. However, only after the Iranian revolution in 1979 did the Islamist movement hit its stride.

    In 1981, when Bourguiba called for the first multi-party elections in Tunisia's history, Ghannushi formed the Islamic Tendency Movement, or MTI. Ghannushi and many others were soon arrested for forming an unauthorized association. Bourguiba's National Front took all 136 seats in parliament, and started a crack down on the MTI. Companies were ordered not to hire Islamists. Women wearing the hijab were barred from public places and taxi drivers caught with Islamist materials had their beards cut and their licenses revoked.

    Tensions peaked in March, 1987, when Bourguiba arrested over 3,000 Islamists, including Ghannushi, for speaking at a mosque without a license. When Ghannushi was given a life sentence street riots erupted, followed by bombings at four Tunisian hotels.

    At this point, it had become clear that Bourguiba had lost control. His lieutenants realized that he had to be deposed if they were to continue ruling.

    In November, 1987, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, formerly director general of national security, took control of the government amid reports that Bourguiba was in poor health. Ben Ali quickly moved to placate the Islamists. He released Ghannushi, went on a publicized pilgrimage to Mecca and ordered the observance of Ramadan. He pardoned other MTI members, and scheduled elections for April, 1989.

    European capitals heralded this smooth transition in the hope that Tunisia would remain a secular and stable neighbor.

    Optimism surrounding the 1989 general elections dropped, however, when Ben Ali barred Ghannushi's Renaissance Party on the eve of the vote. Islamists ran individually and officially captured 14.6 percent of the vote, although the true results were estimated at between 30 percent and 40 percent.

    Ben Ali, however, had the victories annulled. State media announced that Ben Ali's Constitutional Democratic Party won every seat in the election with 99 percent of the vote. When Islamists took to the streets in protest, the regime dismantled the Renaissance Party and arrested thousands, beginning a long campaign of government repression.

    Until Jan. 14, Ben Ali had successfully held the Islamists and all other challengers at bay. However, Tunisians quietly chafed under his regime. The recent economic discontent was only a symptom of the widespread frustration in this North African nation.

    In Tunisia's cyclical modern history, it is clear that autocracies ultimately give way to frustration and instability. The regime could offer some small cosmetic changes to placate the angry Tunisian street. However, it could also simply regain control by oppression. Neither approach will solve Tunisia's endemic and systemic problems.

    Today, however, the masses still rule the streets, and the regime has not yet consolidated power. Amidst all of groups that participated in this street revolution, the Islamists are clearly the most organized, as they were during the Iranian revolution in 1979, and as they are across the Arab world today. To ensure that neither the Islamist theocrats nor the regime autocrats gain power, the West must support a genuine liberal democratic process in Tunisia.

    The West now has an opportunity to ensure a political transition in the Arab world resulting in neither theocracy nor autocracy. The former has been a force for instability to both Arab states and Europe while the latter creates the façade of stability but ultimately gives way to great tumult.

    Hayri Abaza is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Jonathan Schanzer is the vice president of research at FDD.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 16, 2011.

    As you read the following, wherein nations are gathering (again) to bond with radical Islamists whose sole purpose is to eliminate world Jewry along with whatever remains of a Christianity. One observes a Rolling Horizon as Islam aims to turn the world into a War Planet.

    Anything that is good about humanity is being smashed in order to bring Islam to dominate all mankind under the banner of a Global Caliphate under strict Muslim Sharia Law. They have declared that their goal is to conquer all others, to enslave all peoples to worship a pagan god Zin who morphed into Allah.

    Islam is creeping along, spreading violence, inciting young men and women to murder — not promoting values good for humanitarian causes. Radical Muslims feed off of those whom they conquer as do most parasites. When the host victim is finally consumed, then they move on to their next victim/country. They are only restrained when their intended victim(s) exhibits a strong anti-immune system which quickly moves to kill all attacking invaders.

    Invading viruses and parasites recognize and fear a victim whose defenses are up and strong. Nations, like people, make themselves available and vulnerable victims when they accept the savagery that accompanies such attackers as Muslim "Jihadists".

    In our time, many of the world's nations were slow to resist Adolph Hitler and simply accepted his attack on the world as 'something to be endured, hoping that the disease would eventually die out and life could continue as it once was. But, the world discovered that the disease of Hitler wasn't going away as he and his henchmen Nazis gathered themselves up and fought until the parasite was killed. Sadly, in the process of WW2, 50 million people were slaughtered in the process of the War. However, the 6 million Jews were massacred because they were Jews.

    Today we observe Christianity accepting being driven into oblivion, led by clergy who no longer believe in themselves or in their Church. Instead they try to appease Islam by joining them in attacking the Jewish State. Instead of pacifying the Muslims in their show of weakness, the Christians find themselves being driven out of every Arab/Muslim-dominated Middle East nation. The Muslims see that they have the whip hand and are lashing the Christians, driving them out of Muslim nations and cities.

    Strangely, the only safe place for Christians in the Middle East is the Jewish Nation/State of Israel. Christians in Israel are protected in daily life and under the law. The Church and world Christianity have yet to acknowledge that Christians are under Jewish protection from marauding Arab Muslims.

    But, even in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and other areas where Arab Muslims are allowed to live, they try and often succeed in making life miserable for Christians, resulting in a Christian abandonment of their homes and churches.

    If Israel sends in troops to stop the attacks by Muslims against Christians, how the world howls its rage!

    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@gwinstonglobal.org

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Move America Forward, January 16, 2011.

    The situation in Tunisia is so unstable and a possible threat to our own security. With the previous government completely overrun, groups are struggling to form a coalition interim government and stop the violence and chaos in the streets. It's a very dangerous time, and they're no telling how long it will take to form a government, or if the rioters will see it as legitimate. This is the ideal opportunity for Al Qaeda to try for a power grab

    Al Qaeda's brand in the northern part of African continent, AQIM, standing for Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, is actively trying to steer the outcome of the situation in Tunisia. In a video released last week, they made their intentions clear. They have been encouraging rioters, actively sowing the seeds of discontent and sparking the violence we're seeing in Tunisia. And they're trying to recruit Tunisia's disaffected youth for their Jihad against the America.

    is a video recently released by AQIM leadership. It says "send us your sons so that they receive military training...We offer our support and our comfort and our help in your distress and your uprising...we will sooner or later retaliate against your torturers and their masters"

    Al Qaeda has a vested interest in seeing countries like Tunisia, nearby Algeria and any other weak government fall. They are encouraging the protesters to overthrow the somewhat pluralistic pseudo-democratic systems in favor of institutin Sharia Law.

    This would undoubtedly lead to an exponential increase in Al Qaeda's power. A government run by radical Imams who Al Qaeda has direct control over is exactly what they had in Afghanistan, which we stopped, and exactly what they tried to do in Iraq, which we prevented.

    Meanwhile, our troops are still fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and keeping the peace in Iraq. Our troops stand ready to fight the terrorists wherever they hide! Send a care package now to some troops who need our support!

    So far it seems that the protests are based on economics, but does that mean that Al Qaeda simply using that as the easiest form of sowing disconent? They certainly aren't the ones calling for peace and calm rational problem-solving. In fact evidence suggests that AQIM has been working inside Tunisia for some time, perhaps trying to set up the right situation for an ugly destabalization to occur.

    Way back in 2007, some security analysts could already see Tunisia becoming a base of operations for Al Qaeda in the future and they predicted a violent future for the poor developing nation.

    "Counterterrorism officials on three continents say the trouble in Tunisia is the latest evidence that a brutal Algerian group with a long history of violence is acting on its promise to organize extremists across North Africa and join the remnants of Al Qaeda to become a new international force for jihad." — New York Times, February 2007.

    In 2008 Al Qaeda claimed responsibilit y for the kidnapping of two Austrian tourists and the region has been on the CIA list of places too dangerous for Americans to travel, at least without taking extreme precautions.

    We don't know enough yet to say if Al Qaeda is directly responsible for the uprisinsgs, the killings, the turmoil in Tunisia and Algeria, but we do know for CERTAIN that the destabalization of these countries is something Al Qeada wants to see, and will c ertainly try to capitalize on to broker a better position, expand their influence in those countries, and create a movement of religious extremists to take power there and instituate Sharia law.

    We can't let that happen, otherwise this simply becomes another case of Jihadist wack-a-mole, hopping from country to country. It's in our best interest to take a hard look at Tunisia and see how we can help, strengthen the government or assist in bringing in a new government, but one that does not sympathize with Al Qaeda. We just hope President Obama is paying attention.

    Contact Move America Forward by email at info@moveamericaforward.org

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 16, 2011.

    A couple of corrections from yesterday's post, both date-related:

    I do hope it was obvious that Irving Moskowitz bought the Shepherd Hotel in 1985. Since it wasn't constructed until 1935, it would have been a tad difficult for him to have bought it in 1885, as I had inadvertently written.

    And the proper date for that posting is January 15 (Motzei Shabbat), and not January 13, as written. This was a case of my having started it on the 13th and then forgetting to change the date when I sent it out.


    As to that Hurray:

    The NY Times reported today that Israel, working with the US, tested the Stuxnet virus at the Dimona nuclear facility, using centrifuges similar to those found in Iran.

    It was clear enough that we had to be involved — and the speculation has been that it might have been Israel working in concert with the US — so this report rings true. The Times says that President George W. Bush authorized this project as a way to forestall an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.


    I want to begin to touch on a number of issues here that are both problematic and controversial — issues that I've tabled until now because of focus on other pressing matters (such as our rights in eastern Jerusalem).

    The very first of these is the serious matter of African immigrants/refugees — primarily from Sudan, Somalia, and Eritrea — who have been entering our country illegally, crossing into the Negev from the Sinai. Thousands are here now, and they keep coming.

    The subject is far too complex for me to do it full justice in this posting, but I believe I would be remiss if I did not, finally, at least provide an overview of the situation.


    The supreme irony is that at the very same time that we are accused of genocide and apartheid and whatever else, the word has gone out in Africa that we in Israel treat Africans more humanely than other nations, and that this is the most promising place to come to. Well, we are the most humane. But we are a very small nation and cannot cope with this indefinitely.


    Several problems confront us. One is the expense and the logistical nightmare of providing for them. Many have settled in the south of Tel Aviv, alarming and angering the local residents who say they cannot recognize their neighborhoods any longer, as the immigrants, often at loose ends and struggling, hang out on the street until all hours, drinking, smoking, and making noise. Not to mention — this is the simple fact of the matter — that the crime rate has gone way up in that area.

    We have children here, Israeli citizens, who struggle below the poverty line and should be provided for. As well, there are other segments of our society that require special attention and services, all of which means expenditure of funds. Where would the funds come from, to provide for this influx of foreigners as well? (Much that is done for them now, informally, is on a volunteer and NGO basis, with people helping them find a place to live and to learn Hebrew. Some infiltrators work without papers.)

    But another issue of critical importance is the fact that we are, and must remain, the Jewish state. This is Israel's raison d'etre, without question. It's what we are about.

    A considerable influx of mostly Muslim Africans — there are already 15,000 to 20,000 here and 100 to 200 more are coming every week — would have the troubling and unacceptable effect of shifting the demographics and the culture down the road. Our entire population is 7.7 million, with 20% of this number Arab.

    Ultimately, the current situation is unacceptable for us and we need to be unapologetic about this. Yaakov Katz, head of National Union, gave voice to this when he asked, "Is this what we wanted when we built Tel Aviv [a quintessentially Jewish city]? That it should be an African City?"


    And there are other problems: Some are genuine refugees, fleeing from persecution at home, and desperately needing a place to go because their lives are at risk. A more legitimate case can be made for taking them in. But others are simply seeking better economic circumstances, yet often claim persecution in order to bolster their chances of being permitted to remain here. How to differentiate one from the other? All indications are that a solid majority of the Africans here have come for purposes of economic betterment.

    Add to this the fact that Sudan is hostile to Israel and that there is the possibility of trouble-makers if not terrorists infiltrating with the refugees (and yes, where there are legitimate refugees they may well be from Sudan).

    Not a simple situation, at all.


    These immigrants/refugees have their defenders here, of course. A coordinator for one advocacy group calls attempts to keep the infiltrators out "inhumane and illegal," and says such action would mean that Israel was "violating its international responsibilities."

    Excuse me? I find myself more than a bit irked by this bleeding-heart nonsense. Israel is a nation of immigrants like none other. In its early days it managed to absorb some 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim states. In more recent days, Israel airlifted 14,500 Ethiopian Jews from Addis Ababa in less than 48 hours. Stunning stuff. Every nation in the world should be as responsible as we have consistently been in this regard.

    Let some other nation with a larger area and greater population open its doors to these immigrants/refugees.


    What to do about this? There are no simple answers.

    A fence is supposed to be built along the 160 km. border between the Sinai and the Negev — or along part of it, at any rate, with listening devices and such monitoring the remainder. Construction on it has begun, but completion isn't expected for a couple of years.

    A handful — a few hundred — infiltrators were returned to their native land not long ago, allegedly with their consent, and with cash in hand. No one expects this approach to provide the full solution, but one of the hopes is that word will start to get out that going into Israel is not necessarily the best thing to do. That's a key to slowing the flood of people headed our way.

    Putting them in prison — as they are here illegally — has been suggested as another way to cool their ardor for coming here. But I don't know that this would play.


    The Eritrean Ambassador to Israel, Debbas Tesfamariam Tekeste, gave an interview on this subject to YNet recently.

    "The solution was very simple from the outset, at the end of 2006 — the first one to arrive should have been sent back to Eritrea," he said. But now it's too late.

    Eritrean citizens infiltrating Israel via Egypt are not refugees, but work migrants, he insisted. "We consider them guests invited by Israel. By deciding not to deport them from the get-go, you have created an ever-growing phenomenon of Eritreans seeking to improve their quality of life and reach Israel."

    If an Eritrean citizen shows up at the embassy and asks to come back home, he will be offered assistance, Debbas said. But "if someone is forced to return from Israel against his will we shall refuse. These are people with different dreams and expectations, they will undermine national morale and bring back with them frustration and bitterness..."

    Apparently Eritrean children learn about Israel in school and get the idea of coming here from an early age.

    Debbas addressed the possibility of a security threat from a different perspective: "When these people arrive in Sudan or the Sinai anyone can manipulate them into brining a bomb into Israel or performing acts of espionage."


    So, is the lesson here that we are too nice?

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by HandsFiasco, January 16, 2011.

    This was written by Sharon Katz, Editor of Voices,
    It appeared in the December 2010-January 2011, volume 14, Issue 11.


    This is a double story — that of the first Jewish-owned building in Hebron after the Six Day War, and a much too brief remembrance of the re-Jew-vanation of Hebron, the City of Our Patriarchs. Both these stories are currently being told in a breathtaking inspirational photography exhibition in Hebron itself.

    The photographer: Gershon Ellinson, famed for his photographic chronicles of the renewed Hebron Jewish community.

    The exhibit: Stakes in Hebron.

    The place: Machpela Visitors' Center at the foot of Me'arat HaMachpela.

    In my pre-Aliya life, I wrote about the entertainment industry on America's east coast. Whenever we had a screening, everyone oohed and ahhed when the stars of the film entered the screening room. Lehavdil, a similar air pervaded Hebron recently when I visited there with photographer Gershon Ellinson. He had generously agreed to tell my husband/publisher Israel Katz and myself the story behind the photos in his newest photography exhibition. But Gershon was surrounded by people looking at his momentous photos and shouting, "Hey, that was me," and he became engrossed in conversations with the person actually in the photograph, the person who made history.

    A tall man with a long white beard Yossie Leibowitz, pointed at a photo of himself walking down the steps of the Shavei Chevron Yeshiva in Beit Romano in 1982. HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu, ztz'l, had come to visit Rosh Yeshiva Rav Moshe Bleicher. Leibowitz was the yeshiva's Menahel (director) then. When the photo was taken, he said, there were seven boys learning in the yeshiva. Today, bli ayin hara, there are 340.

    I was incredibly lucky. I walked through the entire exhibit with one of those history-making people, the legendary Yehudit Katsover; one of the women who snuck into Beit Hadassah in 1979; the wife of Kiryat Arba's former mayor of 20 years, Tzvi Katsover; a dynamo with her own record of activism that today includes the Yibaneh Fund to redeem the land of Israel and Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green) with her activist-partner Nadia Matar.

    Yehudit Katsover is also an owner of the Machpela Visitors' Center, the first Jewish-owned building in Hebron since the 1929 massacre of the Hebron Jewish community by their Arab neighbors. The Settlers' Restaurant The story of the Machpela Visitors' Center is itself significant within Hebron tradition. Gershon's photos record the evolution of the store from its purchase until today. Yehudit explained that the building had been used by the Jordanians until 1967 when Hebron was miraculously liberated. Then the property was turned over to the civil administration.

    A year later, Hebron celebrated its first Jewish wedding, Benny and Bina Katsover. Benny had come to Hebron at first with Rabbi Moshe Levinger and the families who moved into the Park Hotel on Passover 1968 and then later lived in the Hebron military headquarters. Benny (who was to become a leader of Samarian settlement) and Bina married in the military headquarters in August 1968 with approximately 1000 guests. Before the wedding, everyone went to pray in Me'arat HaMachpela. The residents set up a kiosk for the wedding party, and then left it standing, Yehudit said. Because masses of visitors continued to visit the Cave of the Patriarchs, the kiosk gave them the opportunity to buy kosher food. But the military governor demanded that the kiosk be closed. When it wasn't, he overturned it himself, and evicted from Hebron the three Jews who ran it.

    At this time, Yehudit said with a smile, "Government minister Yigal Alon had a warm feeling for the return to Hebron. Yediot Achronot's Nachum Barnea said that the construction of Kiryat Arba was fueled by the feud between Moshe Dayan and Yigal Alon."

    The government approved the establishment of a restaurant, art gallery, and souvenir shop near Machpela. The civil administration sold the building to several partners, among them Yehudit and Tzvi Katsover, who ran the Settlers' Restaurant (now the Machpela Visitors' Center) from 1971 until today, except for the 20 years when Tzvi Katsover was Mayor of Kiryat Arba.

    When the Katsovers moved from Dimona to Kiryat Arba in 1972, Yehudit said that she understood immediately what an important place the center was. "It was the first acquisition in Hebron. For many years, it was also the only Jewish presence in Hebron. The Arabs tried to destroy it and chase us from here. The Settler's Restaurant was stoned, bombed, its windows smashed and its store trashed." Tzvi Katsover's response to the Arab aggression was to build a second floor on to the restaurant.

    One of the earliest workers in the Settlers' Restaurant was Gershon Ellinson. Armed, of course, with his camera, Gershon photographed everything around him. Gershon said, "I was the Jew in Hebron before there were any Jews there, long before Beit Hadassah. I opened the store even if no one came. Even when there was a closure, I had permission to enter. I was never afraid. There wasn't a problem then, not like today."

    Gershon became an accepted fixture on the street, friends with the Arab shopkeepers, whom he visits to this day. The Machpela Visitors' Center began as the only source of life in Hebron. B"H, today a Jewish community surrounds it. The center is an active place with a restaurant, separate souvenir shop and a simcha hall.

    While we were there, a brit was taking place. The new baby's name reflected the character of the Hebron community — one of faith and hope in the future — Or Chadash. "Or chadash al Tzion ta-ir, V'nizkeh chulanu m'heira l'oro. A new light shall shine in Zion. May we all soon benefit from that light."

    Yehudit has extended the Center's hours until midnight, and is planning to create an educational project there as well, that will tell the story of Hebron from Abraham until the present. Gershon Ellinson's historic photography will be the basis. History in a Flash Gershon Ellinson was learning in Kiryat Shmuel Yeshivah when he first visited the families settled into the Park Hotel on Passover 1968. He became friends with the entire group, and when they moved into the military headquarters, he joined them. There Gershon met his wife Meira, and there they lived until the building of Kiryat Arba in 1971.

    Gershon, now a resident of Efrat, told Voices that he began photographing Hebron from the moment he visited the Park Hotel. He had a small old camera, and just started snapping. At the time he was a photographer and a shochet. He did the shechita of the meat in Hebron for a year and a half.

    Gershon photographed everything, he said, "because I like taking pictures. I didn't think then, that it would have any deeper meaning or any special importance." His friends laughed at him, "Oh Gershon. Really, enough." And now, said Gershon, he's the only ones with pictures of Hebron's entire epic history.

    Not only did he photograph history, he made history too. One dark night on Rosh Chodesh Iyar 1979, Gershon drove his truck to Kiryat Arba and loaded it with 13 women and 45 children. Then he rode through the deserted streets of Hebron to the back of the Beit Hadassah building, a former medical clinic which had been abandoned since the 1929 riots. He took out a ladder, and the women climbed through a window into the building. Gershon took one photograph only. He wanted to capture the extraordinary moment, but he didn't want to flash too many times and alert the army or the locals.

    Yehudit Katsover added, "There was a special atmosphere that night. We climbed the ladder and not one child cried. Not one sound was heard." She explained further, "In 1979, the government didn't want us to expand in Kiryat Arba. We said, 'Okay, we can't expand in Kiryat Arba, we're going to Hebron.'"

    "In the morning they woke up to a community in Bet Hadassah. There was great simcha. Miriam Levinger was at the head of the women in Beit Hadassah," Yehudit said. Miriam's husband, the dynamic Rabbi Moshe Levinger was the founder and has been the leader of the Hebron/Kiryat Arba community from the days of the Park Hotel until today. Our entrance into Beit Hadassah made a big noise in the government, but we got so much public support and love. We even had Knesset members visit us. Prime Minister Menachem Begin couldn't take us out," Yehudit said. Gershon noted that Israel's papers were filled every day with scenes from Beit Hadassah. Since it was a closed military zone, he said, everyone wondered how those photos were being distributed. He laughed, "I gave the women plastic cameras to take into Beit Hadassah, and I sent up film on a rope from the window outside. They pulled the film up and snapped as many pictures as they wanted."

    The women lived in that room for a year. On Friday nights, the men and yeshiva students would recite Kiddush and sing in front of Beit Hadassah. In May 1980, Arab terrorists murdered six of the men and wounded 20. With this murder, the Israeli government okayed the return of Jewish life to ancient Hebron. Yehudit sighed, "Always everything is built on blood."

    All the building in Kiryat Arba and Hebron was a struggle, Yehudit said. "Nothing was just built with kef (fun)." She threw open her arms, "'Bo livnot et Eretz Yisrael! Come build the land of Israel.'" There were periods of progress and there were setbacks. When the government fenced in Kiryat Arba in 1979 so that it couldn't grow beyond its 250 apartments, Eliyakim HaEtzni and a few others pulled down the fence.

    Gershon documented this moment and every other advance or hindrance in the struggle to return to Hebron, including thrilling firsts: The first yeshiva, Yeshivat Nir with Rav Eliezer Waldman as Rosh Yeshiva. The first school in the military complex. The first carpentry shop. The first tractor to dig the foundations of Kiryat Arba in 1970. The first roads. The first house. The first caravan on Tel Romeida in 1984. All the way up to the first Jews in Beit HaShalom in 2007.

    Several of Gershon's photos are dedicated to a brave and proud Jew, Russian immigrant Professor Benzion Tavger. He came to Kiryat Arba to set up a laboratory, but when he couldn't break through the red tape, he took up a job as shomer (guard) of the Old Jewish Cemetery. He found the cemetery in ruins. The tombstones were used by the Arabs to build a fence around the area. With the help of HaRav Shlomo Goren, ztz'l, and families who had actually been there, over the course of years, the cemetery was reconstructed. One of the graves he renovated was that of the Menucha Rachel (a relative of the Lubavitche Rebbe).

    Gershon also documented every stage of Professor Tavger's uncovering of the Avraham Avinu synagogue. Yehudit commented, "He was such a proud Jew. He went right to work with such an air of confidence, everyone was sure he was digging for the government."

    In addition to his collection of 40,000 photos from Hebron, Gershon also kept all the deeds, government forms, etc., plus an archive of all the newspaper articles on the renewal of Jewish life in Hebron and Kiryat Arba. Over the past year, Gershon has been going through his treasure trove of photos and negatives in preparation for a book that he will be publishing next year, IY"H, with his priceless photographs about the return to the holy city of Hebron.

    The photo exhibition, organized by the Machpela Visitors Center together with Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), is a breathtaking record of one of the most thrilling periods of Jewish history in one of the most ancient Jewish cities in Israel. On permanent display at the Machpela Vistors Center, the exhibit is a lesson in Jewish roots and Jewish pride and will help every visitor reconnect with his past and his future. For more information: Yehudit Katsover 050-716-1818

    Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, January 16, 2011.

    As the case of Jonathan Pollard winds its way through the appeals courts, it is becoming increasingly clear that at the bottom the outstanding issues are political. Not that we'd want to belittle the relevance of the work of Pollard's lawyers or of the further appeal that may be made to the highest bench. But as the case has been winnowed by last week's opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, it becomes clear that if any mistakes were made, they were not made by the judge who took Pollard's guilty plea and meted out his life sentence.

    There had been suggestions that the sentencing judge, Aubrey Robinson, was compromised because he had allegedly received out-of-channels information about the material Pollard sent to Israel. Supposedly the judge learned that some of the secrets Pollard passed to Israel referred to Israel's dealings with South Africa. Judge Robinson, as a black man, might have been particularly sensitive to such evidence. Such was the opinion of Arthur Goldberg, who talked with Judge Robinson, according to an affidavit of Alan Dershowitz. But this affidavit was not even credited by the one judge who sided with Pollard on appeal, Stephen Williams.

    What Judge Williams does credit, in a noteworthy dissent, is the argument that the federal prosecutor violated the spirit, and on one key point even the letter, of the deal under which he got Pollard to give up his right to a trial and to plead guilty.

    This is no small matter. In his dissent, from which we print excerpts in the adjacent columns, Judge Williams goes through the prosecution's sentencing memorandum, paragraph by paragraph, detailing the slyness by which the prosecutor sought to evade the obligations of the contract he had made with Pollard.

    To get language strong enough to describe the offensiveness of the prosecutor's behaviour in the Pollard plea bargain, the judge had to reach for his Shakespeare, whence he quoted Macbeth's curse against the witches:

    And be these juggling fiends no more believ'd, That palter with us in a double sense; That keep the word of promise to our ear, And break it to our hope.

    Nor, incidentally, does the prosecution get much of a lift from the two judges — Lawrence Silberman and Ruth Ginsburg — who sided against Pollard. They just figure that the "hard-nosed dealings of the prosecution weren't enough to justify a new hearing, according to various technical precedents in case law. It may be on this point that the Supreme Court will have to get involved.

    Meanwhile, Pollard will be held, presumably in the solitary state in which he has been confined for most of the time since he was arrested in 1985, and the rest of us will be left to consider just what was the animus that led the Justice Department to deal with Pollard in a way that prompts a judge to question the prosecution's very integrity.

    The clue, in our view, is to be found in the decision of President Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, to use the word "treason" to describe Pollard's crime. Treason is the most heinous of all crimes, and our Constitution prohibits Congress or courts from defining treason in any way other than as waging war against the United States or adhering to its enemies. So when no less an officer as the secretary of defense invokes in a written document the word "treason" to describe Pollard's crime, it can suggest only that he wants the court to regard Israel as an enemy.

    Such views are not surprising coming from Mr. Weinberger, whose hatred of Israel often overrode better judgment. But we find it hard to imagine that Pollard would have been handed a life sentence if the administration's star witness hadn't been talking about Israel as though it were an enemy state, not when spies for the Soviet Union were receiving lighter sentences.

    One job of the courts, however, must be to remain unswayed by these kinds of passions. It may be that the Supreme Court will be asked, and agree, to untangle this knot. It may be that Pollard will spend the rest of his days in his solitary basement cell. Or it may be that a future president will conclude that it is no longer dangerous for a man in possession of the secrets Pollard knows to go free and will then have the courage to explain to a troubled public that although Pollard committed an extremely serious crime, he was dealing with a friend of America and has served enough time.

    # Note: The Supreme Court later refused to hear the appeal of this decision. See also: Excerpts from Judge Steven William's Dissenting Opinion.

    Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Billy Mills, January 15, 2011.
    This was written by Dorry O'Brien:
    Sharia law, the Muslim Brotherhood, and U.S. homegrown jihad are where our fight in the US has to be focused. Sharia law is responsible for the other two. The Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira are the basis of Sharia law, a deadly legal system for the rest of the world. Sharia was illegal in America from the day our Constitution was ratified; We need to keep reminding our elected officials (which includes all judges and justices) of that by producing state and federal legislation that reinforces that fact. Whenever ANYbody says that the Islam is a theocracy based on the Qur'an and is therefore protected under the 1st Amendment, remind them that the Qur'an is the basis for Sharia law, which requires the death of America ... which means the Qur'an does, too. — Dorrie

    This below was written by J.R. Dieckmann. It appeared September 1, 2010 in
    www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27211. JR Dieckmann is editor, publisher, writer, and webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles, Ca. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. Contact him at


    The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion. Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.

    Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws. Islam has the Qur'an that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings. If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also.

    We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam's Qur'an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values. Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else. How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Qur'an?

    What legitimate religion would demand that its members either kill or convert people of other faiths? What legitimate religion is intent on imposing its own laws on the rest of the entire world? If Islam were just about praying to Allah and worshiping Mohammed and nothing more, we would not be having a problem with Islamism and Islamic terrorists. Islam has a global mission to take over and run the world according to Islamic Shariah law. How can we call that a religion?

    What legitimate religion in this country comes with its own civil laws that take precedence over national, state, and local laws? No, Islam is not a religion. It is a governing doctrine that not only dictates religious beliefs, but also social behavior that includes laws, penalties and punishments, not by God, but by people if the laws are not obeyed. Islam is a form of government, not a religion. It does not belong here. We already have government under our Constitution (sort of).

    As Muslims build their mega-Mosques in our nation— financed by Saudi Arabia — they laugh at the stupid Americans who are selling out their fellow citizens by allowing Islam to take over our country a little bit at a time. It is the same method used over decades by the Marxist Progressives who now have control of our government — take away our liberties one little piece at a time until full control and submission is achieved.

    We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom Islamists know they cannot destroy us militarily, but they also know that they can do it with political correctness and insisting that we respect their freedom of religion, even though they have no respect for ours. We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom.

    What religion recruits killers and terrorists in their place of worship, then sends them off to foreign training grounds to become proficient at mass murder? I know of only one. They are taught to kill in the name of God, but this is not the law of God who commanded "thou shall not kill"— it is the law of Mohammed who commanded "kill them all who will not convert."

    The Qur'an blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law The Qur'an blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law. It certainly is not. Why do we tolerate this abomination in America where our laws maintain a separation between church and state? To accept Islam in America is to accept Islamic law as well.

    Are we out of our minds? Did anyone notice that we are at war with these people? Terrorists feed on the same rulebook as other Muslims who have so far remained peaceful. Will they be making the same decision that Barack Obama made when he wrote in Dreams Of My Father— "When the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will side with the Muslims" It is always nice to know that our president is on our side when America goes to war. Too bad this one is not.

    L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country

    The same thing is happening in the southern Border States where Mexicans are taking over cities one by one. You need look no further than the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona to realize that the city government in L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.

    The strong Democratic population has even elected a Mexican mayor to run the city, and half of the city council members have Mexican surnames, as do many in the California state legislature. Although most of these legislators were born here in America, their loyalties seem to lie more with Mexico and Mexican citizens who are now invading our state along with other Border States.

    These people of Mecha and La Raza believe this land is rightfully theirs and they intend to govern it for their people. Any objections are met with charges of racism aimed at Americans who simply want to preserve the American language, culture, values, and way of life. Los Angeles has changed a great deal since this invasion began and many American have moved out to find a new homeland.

    What are we going to do when we see the same thing happening in the federal government? What are we going to do when Muslims demand that the United States respect and enforce Shariah law? They are already doing it in England and other European countries. It is only a short time before we see it here too. Shariah is already creeping into the courts and local laws in some states.

    Is that the kind of country we want? Or do we want the country that our founders created? I have no problem with Muslims living in Islamic countries overseas where they can have the kind of society they desire, as long as they leave us alone and free to enjoy the kind of society that we desire. The two cannot be reconciled into one united society any more than capitalists can unite with communists. It must be one or the other.

    Some people think we should be bending over backwards to make nice with Muslims and make sure they feel welcome in our country because that is what America is all about, they say. Immigrants built America, they say. To an extent, this is true if we are talking about the immigrants who migrated here to become Americans and help to build this great country over 200 years ago.

    Today we have way too many foreigners coming to America not to become Americans, but instead to change America. They want to dominate instead of assimilate. They want us to accept their culture instead of them accepting our culture and becoming productive members of it.

    Are you tired of being called "an immigrant" right here in your home country? I know I am. "America is a nation of immigrants," they say. Let me state this for the record. I am not an immigrant, I am a natural born American. My parents were born here. My grandparents and great grandparents were born here. How many others in this country have the same family history? How many people reading this have known no other flag than the American flag?

    We are not immigrants, we are Americans — and America is a nation of Americans — not a nation of immigrants. How much longer will we be able to call ourselves "Americans" with foreign cultures and emphases on diversity encroaching on our country? People naturally gravitate toward their own kind, not because they are racists, but because they seek the company of others with whom they have things in common.

    It's becoming increasingly difficult to relate to people here in Los Angeles who don't even speak our language. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment and hostility when we see our city being taking over by foreign invaders. Now we have to lock our doors both at home an in our cars.

    When America was being built, most everyone was an immigrant — from Europe. That was over 200 years ago. We still welcome immigrants who want to become a part of America and become American— but where do we draw the line between welcoming friends and embracing our enemies? Obviously, to those running our government, there is no line thanks largely to Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a Congress full of Democrats when they passed The Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

    "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs," Kennedy said. Oh really?

    If Muslims want to live and work in America and worship their prophet and God, that is not a problem. But when they try to go beyond their own personal worship and demand that we change our society to accommodate them, then that is where we need to draw the line. It is not we who should change, it is they. Just like people migrating from Mexico, they need to discard their old country ways, adapt to America, assimilate into our society, and become Americans.

    Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims — and our own government — can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America.

    Contact Billy Mills by email at rewrite@suddenlink.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arline Kushner January 15, 2011.

    The entire subject — not just of the Shepherd Hotel — but of all of eastern Jerusalem is of great importance because of the issue being made, both by Palestinian Arabs and by their left-wing sympathizers, with regard to Jews living there.

    There is, of course, the attempt to represent eastern Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. (Although, actually, if you watch the words of the Palestinian Arabs carefully, you will notice that frequently they refer to their right to "Jerusalem." Make no mistake about it, in the end they want it all.)

    And there is apparently even more going on beyond this: an attempt by the PA to gain control of a swath of land that runs from Ramallah, through eastern Jerusalem, to Beit Lehem (Bethlehem) and even beyond to Hevron. Jewish residence in eastern Jerusalem generates a stumbling block to this goal.


    Let us begin, then, at the beginning, with a definition of eastern Jerusalem. (While it is commonly alluded to as "East Jerusalem," I decline to utilize this term, as it implies a separate entity that in reality does not exist.)

    What eastern Jerusalem refers to is everything within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem that is beyond the Green Line: By the conclusion of Israel's War of Independence (fought in 1948-49 when the Arab League attacked the new Jewish state), the city of Jerusalem had been divided for the first time in 3,000 years. Israel had gained control of the western, more modern, part of the city, while the eastern part of the city, including the Old City, fell into Jordanian hands, and for 19 years was rendered Judenrein. The temporary armistice line that separated the two parts of the city was the Green Line.

    (For the record: While eastern Jerusalem is, obviously, more or less east of western Jerusalem, there are areas of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line that are north or south of western Jerusalem. The world still refers to these areas as "East Jerusalem.")


    In 1967, Israel took the eastern part of the city and reunited Jerusalem. Israeli civil law was extended to eastern Jerusalem, which was now under Israeli administration; full annexation was implemented in 1980, with passage by the Knesset of the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel. At that time. the municipal borders were extended in anticipation of the development of new Jewish neighborhoods — and, indeed, neighborhoods such as Neve Yaakov and Pisgat Ze'ev were established.

    There are presently 108 sq. kilometers within the city's borders.


    While eastern Jerusalem is represented as "Arab" Jerusalem — in good part because it had an exclusively Arab population when under Jordanian control — the reality is far more complicated.

    This is, first, because of Jewish history — the ancient history of the Old City and more modern, pre-1948 Jewish history in the area.

    And then because of the current population. Today eastern Jerusalem has some 450,000 residents, roughly half of whom are Jewish. (The area is larger than Tel Aviv and has a more substantial population.) Neighborhoods are checkerboard and cannot be divided with a line between Jewish and Arab; in some instances, Jews and Arabs live in the same neighborhoods.


    In the news today, there is frequently reference to two neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem that are considered controversial: Sheikh Jarrah and Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). Often they are alluded to as if they are two names for the same area. In point of fact they are two adjacent areas. Last week, I visited both of these neighborhoods, when I accompanied a tour.

    Beginning with a look at the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood: It is the site of the tomb of Shimon HaTzaddik — a high priest in the Temple, approximately 350 BCE, he is credited with convincing Alexander the Great not to destroy Jerusalem.

    In the mid-1800s, when the Ottoman Empire controlled the region, Jews found it difficult to get permission to visit the tomb of Shimon HaTzaddik. The two chief rabbis of the Sephardic and Ashkenazi communities of Jerusalem cooperated in raising the necessary funds, and, in 1875, purchased the area that contained the tomb and some dunams surrounding it privately from its Arab owner.

    Hundreds of Jews lived on that land until the British expelled them in 1948, saying they couldn't protect the Jews from the Arabs.


    In the 1960s, Jordan settled poor Arabs in Shimon HaTzaddik.

    In the 1970s, the Israeli courts recognized the legality of the Jewish ownership of this neighborhood. Arabs living in the area, however, were awarded the status of "protected tenants." That is, they could not be evicted.

    There were, however, certain rules to abide by: The tenants were, for example, required to pay rent, and forbidden from expanding the building they lived in without permission.

    The first evictions occurred in the late 1990s, when a group of Arab residents challenged the ownership of the buildings they were living in, and went to court to secure title. The court found that the papers that were presented were forged, and subsequently held that the Jewish community had the right to evict them.

    In the years since, after long procedures, there have been other evictions approved by the courts because of failure by the Arab tenant to abide by the rules, so that protected status was forfeited. In each instance in which this occurs, the challenge must be brought to the courts separately.

    When an Arab family is evicted, a Jewish family is permitted to move in. To date, there are 18 Jewish families living in Shimon HaTzaddik. The goal over time is to see many more Jews return to this area that had been Jewish.


    This is an area, my friends, where there are protests because of the "grave injustice" of poor Arabs being summarily driven from their homes to make way for Jews who usurp Arab property.

    Or so they say, while playing fast and loose with the facts. Who cares about facts, when it's possible to grab a good deal of media attention making Israel look bad? And rule of law? No need to respect that when it's Israeli law.

    But let's look again at this situation, before moving on: Jews were driven off of land that was Jewishly owned, and Arabs moved into their homes when Jordan controlled the area. When Israel gained control, the Arabs were protected legally, given a special tenancy status. Seems to me both eminently humane and decent. Should the tenants fail to abide by the rules — in some instances not paying rent for years, for example — petitions to have them removed from the property require a court procedure.


    An important and little known fact: There are over 40,000 illegally built houses in eastern Jerusalem. Arabs and their defenders will tell you they build illegally because they cannot get permits.

    But there's another side to this story. Very often they don't seek permits because they don't want to tacitly recognize Israeli sovereignty — who is Israel to say where they can build? — and they don't want to pay taxes.

    We're talking about a fight for Jerusalem that involves facts on the ground. The Palestinian Authority fosters this illegal building.


    Briefly, now, let us look at the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, which was established in the 1870s:

    From its establishment, through the 1930s, it was sparsely populated, but became an upper-class area where some wealthy Arab families established themselves.

    Today it is the site of several European consulates. It is also where a number of Israeli government offices, such as the police headquarters, are found, having been located here during the time of PM Menachem Begin. Three Jewish hotels are also in the neighborhood.

    And, of course, it is the site of the Shepherd Hotel. The history of this hotel is so enormously convoluted that I will provide only a brief summary.


    Of primary note is the fact that the building was constructed in the 1930s by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who actually never lived there. Because of his collaboration with the Nazis — he was involved with an SS unit that murdered 90% of Yugoslavian Jewry — he fled from the British.

    The building — which at one point was in the hands of al-Husseini's secretary, George Antonius — then was utilized by the British as a military outpost; it was actually a Scottish regiment that was housed there.

    After 1948, the Jordanians had use of the building. When Israel acquired the region in 1967, it took control of the property under the Absentee Property Law. Two Christian Arab brothers were permitted to take over the building with protected tenancy status. They ran it as a pilgrim hotel until 1982.

    The building was then sold to a Swiss firm. What is not entirely clear at this point is whether the family of the Christian brothers (who were deceased by then) had been permitted to acquire the property outright and sold it, or whether the Israeli custodian of the property arranged the sale. What is clear is that the Israeli courts have ruled that the Husseini family has no claim to the property (legally, as I have been given to understand it, the fact that Hajj Amin al-Husseini had fled to the Nazis was a factor in this ruling).

    In 1885, Irving Moskowitz legally bought the property. For a period of time, Israeli border police used it, while awaiting construction of a new building.

    The property had been designated as residential, and zoned for 20 units. Moskowitz hired a lawyer to secure a change in the zoning so that 100 units might go up. But as this has proved to be difficult legally, the decision was made to go ahead with the 20 units, and municipal approval was received. Legal work to secure permission for additional units will continue.


    The demolition of part of the building has now taken place, and hopefully construction will proceed.

    I have already written about the ludicrous situation in which local Arabs are mourning the outrage of Israel destroying a piece of Arab heritage. Arab heritage: A building put up by an Arab Nazi collaborator. This is closer to the truth of their heritage than they usually like to admit, but anything to make trouble.

    The Husseini family went to court again just days ago to try to stop the construction. Their claim (are you ready?) was that they still owned a piece of the driveway — they're not even trying to claim the entire building. The court threw it out, saying that this issue had been dealt with already. But it's unlikely we've heard the last from them.


    An aside, before closing:

    That Nazi collaborator and eager murderer of Jews, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, was a mentor to Yasser Arafat, founder of Fatah and for many years head of the PLO. Arafat addressed him as "uncle," whether affectionately or because he really was his uncle is not certain. This tells us a great deal that the world would rather not know.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Anne Bayefsky, January 15, 2011.

    Recent WikiLeaks cables reveal that diplomats at the United Nations are haunted by a thorny question: how much UN-driven antisemitism is too much? The original UN was built on the ashes of the Jewish people and owes its human rights foundations to the victims of the Holocaust. At today's UN, we have now learned, diplomats hunker down near the General Assembly hall "listening outside with headphones on" trying to figure out the extent of the hate-speech that those on the inside should endure before walking out.

    The particular subject of the WikiLeaks cable from US officials in Stockholm was a September 2009 Assembly speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sweden held the EU's rotating presidency, and it fell upon Swedish diplomats to decide when Ahmadinejad had crossed pre-arranged "red lines." As it turned out, some EU members walked out of the speech, while Sweden stayed put. According to the cable, the Swedes were upset by the "embarrassing" "lack of EU coordination" — not by the bigotry broadcast over the UN global megaphone.

    What had the Europeans confused would seem to be Jewish conspiracy theory 101. Ahmadinejad had used his UN platform to describe Jews as "a small minority [who] dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery...to attain its racist ambitions." Yet this roused a mere eleven of the UN's 192 members from their seats, including the United States. Israel had chosen not to attend.

    Five months earlier in April 2009, Ahmadinejad had mounted another UN-provided stage in Geneva and began by denying the Holocaust, claiming that the "Zionist regime" had been created "under the pretext of Jewish sufferings." At this "anti-racism" gathering (dubbed "Durban II") he continued: "The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces." This time UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon remained glued to their chairs. Nine states, including the United States and Israel, had decided to boycott beforehand, while the remaining EU states and a few others belatedly got up and left.

    In September 2010 Ahmadinejad used his UN invitation to New York to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job — "segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack" for the sake of "the Zionist regime." On this occasion seven countries, including the United States, headed for the doors. Israel had previously figured out it was not worth going.

    Playing musical chairs is not the only response to UN-based antisemitism. The vast majority listen attentively and many applaud. Sometimes no one moves at all. On June 8, 2010, the Syrian representative lectured the UN Human Rights Council: "Israel...is a state that is built on hatred...Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school and I quote 'With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood.'" The Obama administration, which chose to join this Council, had a representative present, and neither he, nor any other Council member, budged. UN officials, who routinely interrupt anything they deem insulting to Muslim states, said nothing.

    Years of UN-driven antisemitism have clearly deadened the nerve-endings of democracies. On November 29 and 30, 2010 the UN General Assembly sponsored its annual UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People followed by the usual anti-Israel agenda items.

    From center stage in New York via Libya and Syria came the following: "Zionism, in reality, is the worst form of racism..." "The cancerous settlement in all the Palestinian territories" "Israel shows and rears its ugly face." "The word Israel has become synonymous with words such as aggression, killing, racism, terrorism."

    Numerous states voiced their opposition to "Judaization" — UN vocabulary for the crime of any Jew on any Arab territory. They bellowed about Israeli "butchering," "apartheid," "ethnic cleansing," "genocide," "racism," "brutality," "crimes against humanity," "torture," "killing in cold blood," and "barbarism." Guilt started "over sixty years ago" — that is, with Israel's creation.

    It would not have been difficult for listeners to discern that the fabrication of a cancerous Jewish state with its blood-thirsty ugly Jewish occupants was antisemitism. But not a single country moved. No UN gavel interrupted the speakers. Just the diplomatic niceties of thanking and bowing before Mr. President and Mr. Ambassador, and excellencies, and distinguished delegates.

    By the end of a year of double-standards, discrimination and hate-mongering eighty per cent of all 2010 General Assembly resolutions criticizing specific countries for human rights violations were directed at the Jewish state alone. Only six of the remaining 191 UN member states faced human rights criticism at all, one of which was the United States. And now half of the country-specific condemnatory resolutions and decisions ever adopted by the UN Human Rights Council target only Israel.

    2011 will be worse, as UN Headquarters prepares to host the first-ever summit of "heads of state and government" on racism in September. "Durban III," named after its notorious 2001 namesake that took place in Durban, South Africa, is aimed at "mobilizing political will...for the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration." This Declaration charges Israel with racism and names no other state.

    In contrast to Durban I and II which were attended by very few world leaders, Durban III is intended to be the golden ticket for Ahmadinejad and company to promote Zionism is racism. From a New York podium, a few days after the 10th anniversary of 9/11, they will also instruct Americans about tolerance. Though Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused to attend, President Obama is still undecided.

    In June 1979 Pope John Paul II made a nine-day pilgrimage to Poland, documented in a moving recent film "Nine Days That Changed The World." With the power of faith and moral conviction he appealed to millions for change, turning the Soviet empire inside out. What a contrast to the European Union representatives of today hiding in UN halls with their earphones, and the Obama administration confounded about whether to come or go.

    Where are the world leaders of our time who are prepared to challenge and repudiate with the power of faith and moral conviction a UN empire that is a shell of Eleanor Roosevelt's vision and inimical to our dearest values?

    Anne Bayefsky is editor of EYEontheUN. Contact the organization at info@EYEonthe UN.org She is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. This article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post. For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arny Barnie, January 15, 2011.

    Below is a letter received from a young Iranian man who cries out for Americans to support the Iranian people who hate the mullahs and the tyrants that are running the country. Here is what he says and what is going on inside Iran!!


    Hi dear friend.

    Are you ok?

    Today I was watching a video through a VPN (because in our country about 8 million sites are blocked and also VPN does work rarely).

    I watched 3 videos ... One of them is about a girl named " Taraneh Moosavi " (Taraneh means "song " in Persian). This girl was an innocent one who was captured during protest last year and got raped and got tortured and finally she died. After that, mullahs burned her body and abandoned her beside a street .... But fortunately, when Taraneh was arrested in jail, she told to her inmates that: " My name is Taraneh Moosavi and I demand you that call my family and tell them that I have been captured by mullahs and they don't let me to call to my family ".

    Taraneh said her telephone number to other inmates and some of inmates got free several days later and they called Taraneh's family and told her the point and several days later when Taraneh's body found alongside streets, policemen called Taraneh's family and pretend that they have found Taraneh now and they told Taraneh's family that: " Your daughter is burnt and have an accident with a car and she is dead and we burried her".

    This crime of regime and this lies to deceive people, did not worked. They tried a lot to deceive people, but they couldn't. They have threaten Taraneh's mother to stay silent, otherwise they will be killed..

    One week after that was reported "Taraneh is dead", her father died ... because he got really depressed and couldn't tolerate this. he died because of heart attack.

    In youtube, there is some clips about " Taraneh Moosavi " that I post 2 links about her below:
    About Taraneh Moosavi ( with English subtitle)

    and here, one American man talks about Taraneh .. I don't know this man ... his name is Mc.Cotter
    About Taraneh.

    And here, I want you to notice about one thing: A video of some Iranian prisoners who escaped from country and they say something about their torture and it has English subtitle
    Iranian prisoners.

    By the way, I really hate Obama ... He is idiot ... Please don't let him to eliminate your country with his fucking islam. Islam has destroyed everywhere ... It has destroyed our country already and I hope we will be free from this Islamic terrorist regime.

    I hate Islam a lot .. It is a kind of religion which is not based on mind and reasoning .. They are tyrant ... I am really sorry ... How does Obama want to let muslims to build a mosque near the place that several Americans got killed? It seemd that Obama don't consider American people's feelings ... I don't like him and this disgusting feeling, evolve everyday....

    This act of Obama is like when somebody kills your brother (for example) and I dedicate him a flower ...

    Dear Friend, I want to go now ... Please give me your opinion about these 3 videos one by one ... Thanks Have a good time.

    Contact ArnyBarnie by email at ArnyBarnie@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Bill Warner, January 14, 2011.

    There is a false dichotomy about Islam. Some think that only conservatives are critical about Islam and the liberal/progressives/Democrats/leftists are supportive of Islam. But there are very conservative Christians who admire Islam and stand up for it. There are left-of-center types who abhor Islam because of its doctrine and treatment of women. There are people from both camps who support and condemn Islam.

    Islam has little to do with left/right and liberal/conservative split. Islam is another axis and does not share the normal political divisions. Now it is true that the Democrats are the current benefit of Islamic support, but during Bush's first election, Muslims in Florida claimed it was their support that tipped the election to Bush. Muslims have voted for both parties.

    Although there are more conservatives who are critical of Islam than liberals, the correlation is not so strong as to be useful. There is another political axis that predicts whether someone supports or criticizes Political Islam. That axis is knowledge, knowledge about the doctrine and history of Political Islam.

    Whether a Kafir (non-Muslim) supports or criticizes Islam is not classical left/right politics, but knowledge. There are two separate Kafir parties — the Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance.

    The Party of Knowledge has learned about the political doctrine and political history of Islam and knows about words such as jihad, Sunna, dhimmi and Kafir. Members of the Party of Knowledge know that the Koran is a dualistic document and contains "good" and "bad" verses that are both true. The Party of Knowledge also knows that the biggest key to understanding Islam is knowing Mohammed, not the Allah of the Koran.

    The Party of Ignorance draws its arguments from what Muslims say about Islam. They use the voice of Muslims to repeat apologies for Islam. The Party of Ignorance is always attacking the members of the Party of Knowledge with insults, put downs, mocking tones and allusions to the Party of Knowledge being bigots and hate-speechers. In short, the Party of Ignorance repeats what Muslims say and uses personal attacks against the members of the Party of Knowledge. Knowledge is evil; ignorance is good.

    The true foundation of the Party of Ignorance is that they absolutely refuse to read any of the biography of Mohammed, the Sira, nor his traditions, the Hadith. The Party of Ignorance holds the Koran in high esteem, but no one in the Party of Ignorance has any understanding of it. Since it is impenetrable it must be profound. Since it is not understood, it can mean anything you want to project onto it.

    What are we to call the members of these two parties? Derivative names such as Knowers and Know-nothings suggest themselves, but there is already a classical set of names taken from Islamic doctrine. Members of the Party of Knowledge are Kafirs and members of the Party of Ignorance are dhimmis. Naturally the Kafirs know who they are and the dhimmis have not clue as to what their name means. Poetic justice?

    A dhimmi is a creature created by Mohammed when he subjugated the Jews of Khaybar. Dhimmis can live under Sharia law, because they have agreed to never publicly oppose Islam and practice their beliefs in private. Today, the name dhimmi refers to an uncritical apologist of Islam.

    How does this play out in real life? Here is the language of the Kafirs: Koran, Sira, Hadith, and Sharia. Their language uses terms like Sunna and abrogation. Kafirs use details about the history of jihad and the dhimmi.

    Dhimmis quote a Muslim or an apologist professor. But the favorite dhimmi talk is about how Kafirs are stupid and evil. Dhimmis always move away from the subject of Islam as soon as possible and start deprecating/trashing Christians and Western culture. Dhimmis tend to never use technical words such as jihad, but use words such as terrorist. Just as soon a terrorist is mentioned, then comes the example of that Christian terrorist, Timothy McVey. Of course, he was a self-avowed atheist, but that matters little to a dhimmi. The only Islamic history the dhimmi knows is a censored version of the Crusades and the fabricated Golden Age of Islam.

    Analytic thought brings up the question of a Muslim being in the Party of Knowledge. There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge — Kafir and Muslim. How do we distinguish them from each other? Simple, how does a Muslim and a Kafir react to Kafir suffering? One fine day, Mohammed sat beside his 12 year old wife and watched as jihadist beheaded 800 male Jews. For a Muslim, this was as day of joy and triumph. The Kafir sees the deaths of 800 Kafir Jews as a war crime and an act of evil.

    There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge, but only one kind of person in the Party of Ignorance. If you are confused, then you are a member of the Party of Ignorance.

    Bill Warner is Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam. This article is archived at
    http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/ the-party-of-knowledge-and-the-party-of-ignorance/

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Boris Celser, January 14, 2011.

    What Do "Peto Speaking At Oise On Tuesday" & "Ahava Boycott" have In Common? They are both Wake-Up Calls to the Jewish community.

    In the 1930's did we go as "sheep to the slaughter" because Jewish leaders told us to "shush... everything is under control"

    Canadian Jewish Congress monitors Malmo, Venezuela, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Finland, Britain, France, Denmark, Austria, Germany Belgium... A PUBLIC RALLY should have been organized by the CJC in support of our fellow Jews at risk but CJC told us to "shush... everything is under control". Now, Jews are leaving in the 1,000's.

    In the future, what will stop Islam from fulfilling their cries to "slaughter the Jews".

    In Canada, our Conservative government under the leadership of Stephen Harper has clearly stated, "those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada"

    There is no excuse for YOU and all other Jews not to rally in the streets in the 1,000's to expose and confront the HATE whether it's from BDS, Neo Nazis, the Left or ISLAM.

    On Tuesday evening, I will stand with JDL in front of the OISE to protest the HateFest because I stand with the leaders who are a Light unto the Nation and through their actions, lead by example.




    What have the "Jewish Leaders" done to stop BDS? (Boycott Divestment Sanctions of Israeli businesses)? You don't have to see many to realize these boycotts are well-trained, well-organized and well-supplied with funds.





    What will the "Jewish Leaders" in Canada do to stop BDS?

    Articles and Videos

    Mountain equipment boycott.

    Chapters and MEC boycott video.

    Aroma Cafe boycott video.

    AHAVA (and "Ahava" means "love" in Hebrew) Ahava boycott video.

    A small store in Montreal — Article in Vlad Tepes.

    This photo was taken in San Francisco.

    It comes from "The leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures" "The Leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures," which has pix of Noam Chomsky chatting with Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hugging, George Galloway of UK and his friend Haniyeh of Hamas.

    Boycott Israel" hate campaigns hit major cities in the civilized world... (The following list was obtained from a quick Internet search and is by no means comprehensive.)

    Washington, DC — boycott. the Ballet

    San Francisco, USA — boycott. Trader Joe's

    Seattle, USA — Boycott Ahava

    Seattle, USA — boycott. A store

    Pittsburgh, USA — boycott. Trader Joes

    NYC, USA — boycott polished diamonds

    Rome, Italy — boycott Carmel-Agreco (exporter of Israeli agricultural produce)

    Paris France. Boycott. grocery store

    Paris France. Boycott. store

    Paris France. Film festival

    Paris France, boycott. store.

    Utricht, Netherlands — Marching in street.

    London England. boycott. H&M supermarket

    London England. boycott. Waitrose supermarket

    London England. boycott. Natural History Museum

    London England. boycott. Starbucks

    Wales UK. Boycott. Tesco

    This photo was taken in Los Angeles

    This photo was taken in Antwerp, Belgium.

    Toronto Rally. "Jewish child, you're gonna f'*k'n die. Hamas is coming for you"

    Boris Celser is a Canadian. He has an MBA, and is a lifelong traveler and avid reader. He invites comments to this article — please address them to celser@telusplanet.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Barbara Sommer, January 14, 2011.

    Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 10:24:25 AM
    Subject: More stupidity from Jewish "leaders" from Boca to Detroit


    First we found out that the S. Fl. chapter of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum will have as its keynote speaker, Hannah Rosenthal, the former executive director of both J Street and Americans for Peace Now. These groups are openly pro-Palestinian and fiercely anti Israel radical "Jewish" groups that are paving the road to Holocaust #2.

    Now we learn that the Detroit Jewish Federation glorified a CAIR honcho with Jewish funds. This stupidity on the part of Jewish donors has got to stop. And it will only stop when Jews wake up and stop giving blindly to groups that falsely use the term, "JEWISH" in their titles.

    Don't feel embarrassed to say, "NO!" Fund only Jewish groups that cater to the good and welfare of the Jewish community, Israel and their friends and supporters. Do some checking before writing out those checks.



    November 15, 2010,— 12:53 pm
    Jewish Officials Host, Promote Israel Boycott Supporter, CAIR Official
    By Debbie Schlussel Why is the Jewish Community hosting an event (the latest of two) promoting a key supporter of the boycott on Israel? That's a question you need to ask the Jewish Welfare Federation, now known as theUnited Jewish Communities, the self-appointed bureaucracy which acts as the voice and Politburo of Jewish communities across North America. And if you give to Federation, it's a good reason to stop and never give again.

    Jewish Community's Robert Cohen Promotes Israel-Hating/Jew-Hating Muzammil Ahmed Last week, the Detroit Jewish Federation hosted a free medical care event promoting Muslim doctor Muzammil Ahmed, a CAIR board member and the lead supporter of divestment from Israel on the University of Michigan campus when I was a student there. He led divestment from Israel protests on the center of the Michigan campus and shouted anti-Semitic slogans at Jewish students (including myself) from the top of his lungs. And now he's on the board of an organization that raised money for HAMAS and is an unindicted co-conspirator in federal terrorism cases. Dr. Ahmed recently wrote online asking people to condemn Israel for going into Gaza in response to repeated rocket attacks and the continued kidnapping of soldier Gilad Schalit (see above). He asked them to praise Imam Mohammed Elahi, who worked for Iran's late Ayatollah Khomeini as the spiritual leader of his Iranian Navy. Elahi is vocally anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. He is well known as an agent of Iran and Hezbollah.

    Dr. Ahmed, a urologist who is chief of surgery at Islamo-pandering Oakwood Annapolis Hospital (where my late father was on staff), also wrote an op-ed piece in the Detroit Free Press defending a Muslim doctor, doctor Jouhaineh Maleh, for committing Medicaid fraud and bringing pregnant Muslims into the United States to give their kids citizenship and use phony social security numbers to have U.S. taxpayers cover the cost.

    The event, an "Interfaith Health Fair" sponsored by the Jewish Federation, was held at a Detroit area mosque and featured Imam Abdullah El-Amin, a man who refuses to condemn HAMAS and Hezbollah (ditto for Dr. Ahmed). The Jewish Federation co-sponsored the event with the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, an openly pro-HAMAS/pro-Hezbollah organization, which features several imams who openly call for jihad and killing of Jews and Christians at their mosques. Per usual, not a single Muslim in the organization will denounce Hezbollah or HAMAS. Not one.

    As I noted, this isn't the first time Federation hosted and funded an event promoting Dr. Ahmed. Last year, on Christmas, Federation decided to include Muslims on its "Mitzvah Day," on which Jews help Christians — especially poor or sick Christians. Federation actively promoted Dr. Ahmed and his family as the Muslim face of "Mitzvah Day" ("Mitzvah" means commandment in Hebrew, but it is generally used to mean "good deed.") In fact, Federation got the Detroit Jewish News, which it once funded, to put Dr. Ahmed and his family on its cover and in a color spread in its pages. The ass-kissing-our-enemies Jewish Community ended Mitzvah Day at 1:00 p.m., so the devout extremist Muslims could pray to allah. Now, the Jewish Federation is promoting Jew-hating, Israel-hating Dr. Ahmed in the pages of both The Detroit Newsistan and the Detroit Free Press.

    Not surprisingly, the architect of the medical care day event was Robert Cohen, a complete hypocrite and fraud who heads the Detroit Jewish Community Relations Council, an agency funded by the Jewish Federation, which claims to speak for me and other Jews in Detroit, but actually doesn't. Cohen — to justify his waste-of-time, do-nothing job (which pays him over $100,000 a year in salary and benefits) — frequently hosts anti-Iran protests. That's funny, since he repeatedly hosts events promoting Shi'ite Muslims who support Iran and Hezbollah and whose mosques are funded and controlled by Iran. It's also ironic, since he knows from reading this site, that Imam Elahi, Muzammil Ahmed's favorite imam, is an agent and open supporter of Iran and Hezbollah.

    Cohen told the Free Press he wants to spend more Jewish money to promote these Jew- and Israel-haters, like his new friend, Muzammil Ahmed: [E]vent coordinator Dr. Muzammil Ahmed said, "We're trying to find ways to do more things together for the common good." ...

    The event was presented by the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan and the Jewish Community Relations Council. "I expect we'll want to do this again," said Robert Cohen, event organizer and executive director of the council.

    As you'll recall, I've written about Cohen before. He's the one who told Jewish community members to continue to pander to openly anti-Semitic Muslims just after they marched with swastikas during the Israel-Hezbollah war because, he claimed, Christians expect us to. He's also the one who appeared at the trial of Houssein Zorkot, a Hezbollah terrorist who trained with an AK47 in a Dearbornistan park, in order to tell local reporters that we should be sensitive to the man and not condemn him. And he said that open anti-Semite, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, wasn't such a bad guy and hoped that Wright would "unite" people. That's not to mention Cohen's statement that the Detroit Jewish community's celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary should be low-key and not focus on politics or "controversial" wars. Huh? With "Jewish leaders" like him, who the heck needs Muslims?

    Yes, that moron, Robert Cohen, reads this site and has said so to several third parties. Sadly, he reads it, but it just doesn't sink into his thick skull. And you know what they say about those who repeatedly do the same thing and expect different results. Robert Cohen, the Detroit Jewish Federation, and the liberals who've appointed themselves to speak for me continue to promote extremist Muslims who openly hate Jews and Israel and openly express support for Iran.

    And they still expect different results. That's the definition of insanity.

    And, yes, these "wise men" who run the un-elected, self-appointed Jewish community dictatorship are insane.

    They continue to promote the enemies of the Jewish people — the enemies of America — on American soil. I suppose one Paris, one Malmo aren't enough.

    The dumbasses who run the Detroit Jewish community are well on their way to another Paris here.

    Contact Barbara Sommer at sommer_1_98@yahoo.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Bruce Tuchman, January 14, 2011.

    Judith Popinski pictured next to the White Bus at the Red Cross museum in Malmo, Sweden

    Judith Popinski, and 86-year-old Holocaust survivor, is no longer invited to schools that have a large Muslim presence to tell her story of surviving the Holocaust.

    This was written by Nick Meo and is archived at
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp- rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html


    When she first arrived in Sweden after her rescue from a Nazi concentration camp, Judith Popinski was treated with great kindness.

    She raised a family in the city of Malmo, and for the next six decades lived happily in her adopted homeland — until last year.

    In 2009, a chapel serving the city's 700-strong Jewish community was set ablaze. Jewish cemeteries were repeatedly desecrated, worshippers were abused on their way home from prayer, and "Hitler" was mockingly chanted in the streets by masked men.

    "I never thought I would see this hatred again in my lifetime, not in Sweden anyway," Mrs Popinski told The Sunday Telegraph.

    "This new hatred comes from Muslim immigrants. The Jewish people are afraid now."

    Malmo's Jews, however, do not just point the finger at bigoted Muslims and their fellow racists in the country's Neo-Nazi fringe. They also accuse Ilmar Reepalu, the Left-wing mayor who has been in power for 15 years, of failing to protect them.

    Mr Reepalu, who is blamed for lax policing, is at the centre of a growing controversy for saying that what the Jews perceive as naked anti-Semitism is in fact just a sad, but understandable consequence of Israeli policy in the Middle East.

    While his views are far from unusual on the European liberal-left, which is often accused of a pro-Palestinian bias, his Jewish critics say they encourage young Muslim hotheads to abuse and harass them.

    The future looks so bleak that by one estimate, around 30 Jewish families have already left for Stockholm, England or Israel, and more are preparing to go.

    With its young people planning new lives elsewhere, the remaining Jewish households, many of whom are made up of Holocaust survivors and their descendants, fear they will soon be gone altogether. Mrs Popinski, an 86-year-old widow, said she has even encountered hostility when invited to talk about the Holocaust in schools.

    "Muslim schoolchildren often ignore me now when I talk about my experiences in the camps," she said. "It is because of what their parents tell them about Jews. The hatreds of the Middle East have come to Malmo. Schools in Muslim areas of the city simply won't invite Holocaust survivors to speak any more."

    Hate crimes, mainly directed against Jews, doubled last year with Malmo's police recording 79 incidents and admitting that far more probably went unreported. As of yet, no direct attacks on people have been recorded but many Jews believe it is only a matter of time in the current climate.

    The city's synagogue has guards and rocket-proof glass in the windows, while the Jewish kindergarten can only be reached through thick steel security doors.

    It is a far cry from the city Mrs Popinski arrived in 65 years ago, half-dead from starvation and typhus.

    At Auschwitz she had been separated from her Polish family, all of whom were murdered. She escaped the gas chambers after being sent as a slave labourer. Then she was moved to a womens' concentration camp, Ravensbrück, from where she was then evacuated in a release deal negotiated between the Swedish Red Cross and senior Nazis, who were by then trying to save their own lives.

    After the war, just as liberal Sweden took in Jews who survived the Holocaust as a humanitarian act, it also took in new waves of refugees from tyranny and conflicts in the Middle East. Muslims are now estimated to make up about a fifth of Malmo's population of nearly 300,000.

    "This new hatred from a group 40,000-strong is focused on a small group of Jews," Mrs Popinski said, speaking in a sitting room filled with paintings and Persian carpets.

    "Some Swedish politicians are letting them do it, including the mayor. Of course the Muslims have more votes than the Jews."

    The worst incident was last year during Israel's brief war in Gaza, when a small demonstration in favour of Israel was attacked by a screaming mob of Arabs and Swedish leftists, who threw bottles and firecrackers as the police looked on.

    "I haven't seen hatred like that for decades," Mrs Popinski said. "It reminded me of what I saw in my youth. Jews feel vulnerable here now."

    The problem is becoming an embarrassment for the Social Democrats, the mayor's party.

    Their national leader Mona Sahlin— the woman who is likely to become the next prime minister after an election later this year — last week travelled to Malmo to meet Jewish leaders, which they took to be a sign that at last politicians are waking to their plight. After the meeting, the mayor, Mr Reepalu, also promised to meet them.

    A former architect, he has been credited with revitalising Malmo from a half-derelict shipbuilding centre into a vibrant, prosperous city with successful IT and biotech sectors.

    His city was — until recently at least — a shining multicultural success story, and has taken in proportionally more refugees than anywhere else in Sweden, a record of which it is proud.

    Sweden has had a long record of offering a safe haven to Jews, the first of whom arrived from the east in the mid-nineteenth century. Today the Jewish population is about 18,000 nationally, with around 3000 in southern Sweden.

    The mayor insisted to The Sunday Telegraph that he was opposed to anti-Semitism, but added: "I believe these are anti-Israel attacks, connected to the war in Gaza.

    "We want Malmo to be cosmopolitan and safe for everybody and we have taken action. I have started a dialogue forum. There haven't been any attacks on Jewish people, and if Jews from the city want to move to Israel that is not a matter for Malmo."

    Sweden has had a long record of offering a safe haven to Jews, the first of whom arrived from the east in the mid-nineteenth century. Today the Jewish population is about 18,000 nationally, with around 3000 in southern Sweden.

    "Jews came to Sweden to get away from persecution, and now they find it is no longer a safe haven," said Rabbi Shneur Kesselman, 31. "That is a horrible feeling."

    One who has had enough is Marcus Eilenberg, a 32-year-old Malmo-born lawyer, who is moving to Israel in April with his young family.

    "Malmo has really changed in the past year," he said. "I am optimistic by nature, but I have no faith in a future here for my children. There is definitely a threat.

    "It started during the Gaza war when Jewish demonstrators were attacked. It was a horrible feeling, being attacked in your own city. Just as bad was the realisation that we were not being protected by our own leaders."

    Mr Eilenberg said he and his wife considered moving to Stockholm where Jews feel safer than in Malmo. "But we decided not to because in five years time I think it will be just as bad there," he said.

    "This is happening all over Europe. I have cousins who are leaving their homes in Amsterdam and France for the same reason as me."

    Malmo's Jews are not the only ones to suffer hate crimes.

    At the city's Islamic Centre, the director Bejzat Becirov pointed out a bullet hole in the window behind the main reception desk.

    Mr Becirov, who arrived in 1962 from the former Yugoslavia, said that windows were regularly smashed, pig's heads had been left outside the mosque, and outbuildings burnt down— probably the acts of Neo-Nazis who have also baited Jews in the past.

    He said that the harassment of Jews by some young Muslims was "embarrassing" to his community. Many of them are unemployed and confined to life on bleak estates where the Scandinavian dream of prosperity and equality seemed far away.

    For many of Malmo's white Swedish population, meanwhile, the racial problems are bewildering after years of liberal immigration policies.

    "I first encountered race hatred when I was an au pair in England and I was shocked," said Mrs Popinski's friend Ulla-Lena Cavling, 72, a retired teacher.

    "I thought 'this couldn't happen in Sweden'. Now I know otherwise."

    Contact Bruce Tuchman by email at bruce.tuchman@wellsfargoadvisors.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by M.S. Kramer, January 14, 2011.

    By the Fall of 1945, things were getting back to normal in America. The war was won, the "boys" were coming home, and the Depression was a fading memory. Murray Greenfield, who had served in the Merchant Marine, was planning to attend Hunter College in New York City. But something more important came along for Murray and about 240 other young North American men, Jews and gentiles alike: the chance to help some of the 150,000-plus displaced persons in Europe emigrate to Palestine to build the Jewish state!

    Murray's excellent book, "The Jews' Secret Fleet", co-written with Joseph M. Hochstein, has recently been published in a revised edition. From the viewpoint of one of the young participants, the book tells the dramatic story of the rescue of Jews from Europe after World War II by idealistic volunteers. The book includes a brilliant introduction by Sir Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill and author of numerous books on history and geography. "The Jews' Secret Fleet" is also the basis for a fascinating documentary film by Alan Rosenthal, entitled Waves of Freedom.

    "The Jews' Secret Fleet" is the only authentic book that covers the full participation of 240 volunteers. These men sailed from the USA bringing some 35,000 survivors of the Holocaust to Eretz Israel on 10 rickety ships. The book details their remarkable journey, a story that was unforgettably told in "Exodus", the epic novel by Leon Uris of Israel's struggle for independence. "The Jews' Secret Fleet" and the DVD "Waves of Freedom" are available from Gefen Publishing House. [www.gefenpublishing.com]

    "In late 1946, word had gone out in the streets of U.S. cities such as New York and Chicago that young Jewish men with sailing experience were needed to help smuggle Holocaust survivors across the Mediterranean to Palestine. The mission was to be top secret because the British had declared such immigration illegal and created a blockade to stop the effort." [www.jewishreview.org]

    Murray made his snap decision to join the clandestine movement to expedite illegal immigration to Palestine — known as Aliyah Bet — despite hearing that he might be hanged by the British if he were caught and that there was no pay involved for his efforts. The latter fact clinched it for Murray. He figured that no remuneration meant that the operation must be worthwhile! Murray's mother was mollified by his decision not to attend college by the fact that, as he told her, he was doing something to help the Jewish people. Another shipmate, Harold Katz, just disappeared from Harvard Law School one day and didn't show up for a year — his parents also didn't know where he was or exactly what he was doing. The young men had become part of the operation known as the "Bricha" (escape in Hebrew).

    After its victory in WWI and its takeover of the formerly Ottoman Turk province of Palestine, Britain decided to drastically limit the influx of Jews to Palestine. The decision was a pragmatic, political one, based on the fact that there were millions of Arabs to placate compared to far fewer Jews. Besides, the Arabs were sitting on top of a fortune of oil which Britain coveted. Therefore, the British backpedaled from their responsibilities in fulfilling the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922, barely waiting for the ink to dry on the document. The Balfour Declaration, promulgated in 1917 to call for the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine, was de-emphasized, Jewish immigration to Palestine was severely curtailed, and Arab immigration from North Africa and Arabia was welcomed. As the Nazis gained power in Europe, the limitations on legal Jewish immigration became particularly intolerable for the Jews.

    The effort to bring Jewish immigrants to Palestine, both legally and illegally, predated WWII and continued after its end. Part of the post-war effort to bring Jews to Palestine is depicted in the film "Waves of Freedom", the wonderful documentary by Alan Rosenthal, an Anglo-Israeli with more than forty films to his credit.

    In his book, Murray relates how, by hook or by crook, a fleet of 10 ramshackle ships were purchased as war surplus from American "boneyards, to be manned by the "American Jew-runners," as at least one British naval officer called them. These adventurous young men, many not Jewish, were part of the "Machal", non-Israeli fighters for Israel's independence. Organized and assisted by Israeli members of a Jewish para-military group, Haganah, the intrepid crews sailed the ships to various locations outside of the US for retrofitting.

    Murray's ship, the Tradewinds (later renamed Hatikvah), first set sail in Miami, was repaired in Charleston and Baltimore, eventually refueled in the Azores Islands (a lucky connection with a local Jew provided fuel after it was unobtainable from the usual sources), then made its way to Lisbon. There it was retrofitted to hold more than 1,400 refugees, packed like sardines in cubbyholes below deck. The workers who reconfigured the ship were told that the boat would be carrying tropical fruit. Though the crew tried to keep their mission a secret, the captain felt it best to leave Lisbon hurriedly, so quickly in fact that they left port with their anchor still underwater, pulling up electric cables as they went! Finally, in Italy the Tradewinds took on its "cargo" of displaced persons, most of whom had entered Italy on foot via the snow-covered Austrian Alps. While on the last leg to Palestine, the crew took down the flag of Panama, the ship's country of registry, replacing it with a "Jewish flag" and renaming the ship Hatikvah.

    Of the more than approximately 70,000 "illegal immigrants" transported from European ports to Palestine between 1946 and 1948, about half came on the ten American ships. But there were problems: "Only a handful of ships — not [including] one U.S. vessel — penetrated the British air and sea blockade deployed to prevent any arrivals in Palestine. The blockade, backed up by an assortment of economic and diplomatic obstacles, extended from the Palestine coast through the Mediterranean, to the chancelleries of Western and Eastern Europe, and even to the U.S. Upon reaching the Palestine coast, the ships were routinely apprehended by the Royal Navy. Many of their passengers were transported to prison camps on Cyprus that had been [originally] constructed to house German prisoners of war." Others were sent to Atlit, a British camp for detainees built on the Mediterranean coast below Haifa. [www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org]

    The Hatikvah was eventually apprehended and its passengers and crew were interred for the next fourteen months on Cyprus at a hot and crowded displaced persons camp, which was not dissimilar from the concentration camps the refugees knew from Europe. Some of the prisoners were lucky and soon got into Palestine in a "legal" manner, but most of the men and women who were of fighting age were kept on Cyprus by the British until the War of Independence for Israel had ended in 1949.

    Though the total of those who succeeded to immigrate to Israel on Bricha ships was small, compared to the huge influx of newcomers who arrived from European and Arab countries in other ways, their spirit and hopefulness were highly significant and symbolic of the exhaustive effort to build the modern state of Israel. Reading "The Jews' Secret Fleet" is an excellent and exciting depiction of one of the most thrilling and successful undertakings to build the State of Israel. picture: Hatikvah crew including Murray

    Stephen Kramer is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture" Check it out at www.encounteringisrael.com

    Stephen Kramer is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture" Check it out at www.encounteringisrael.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, January 14, 2011.

    To the Dean of Humanities, Tel Aviv University

    Dear Dr. Zisser,

    Congratulation to your new job at TAU! I know the Stephen Roth Institute personally.

    I am a researcher on anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and anti-Zionism and Islamism. I was a Post-Doc at Yale University until 2009 (YIISA), holding a PhD in political science from Innsbruck, Austria, from 2006.

    I am an expert on German anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, including the work of Prof. Moshe Zuckermann. I published two books on German anti-Semitism so far, this year I will publish my third book on that topic.

    Many journals around the world, including the Middle East Quarterly, Jerusalem Post, Jewish Political Studiew Review, Die Welt, achgut, Tribuene, New Jersey Jewish News, Mentalities among others have published my articles or reviews on anti-Semitism.

    I have seen your winter 2010/11 programme, including a lecture on December 30, 2010, by Moshe Zuckermann. I am curious how this could happen. Zuckermann is a leading anti-Israeli voice in Germany. Hardcore anti-Semites like the daily junge Welt or the Iranian news quote Zuckermann regularly.

    Why did the Stephen Roth Center include such a person like Zuckermann in its programme? What was the role of the two German foundations hereby?

    Zuckermann did very much support German style anti-Semitism by writing for the daily junge Welt, formerly a daily of the GDR. They are known as enemies of the Jewish state of Israel and friends of Jihad and any kind of anti-Western, anti-American ideology.

    Thank you very much for your response,

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr. Clemens Heni
    Research Fellow, Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA),
    Hebrew University, Jerusalem

    Contact the Israel Academia Monitor by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yoram Ettinger, January 14, 2011.

    1. ChemChina, the China National Chemical Corporation, acquired 60% of Israel's Agan Machteshim for $1.44BN (Globes Business Daily, Jan. 10, 2011).

    2. Intel plans to invest $2.7BN, adding 650 employees to the 7,000, who are currently employed in its six Israeli plants (Globes, Jan. 3). On January 3, 2011, at the Consumer Electronics Show, Intel introduced Sandy Bridge, its latest processor micro-architecture, which was entirely developed at Intel's Haifa plant. Intel's microprocessors are installed in 80% of the world's laptops.

    3. Microsoft's Silverlake private equity fund invested $50MN in Israel's PrimeSense. Microsoft is PrimeSense's leading client. Veola Private Equity led ($7MN) a $16.5MN round in Israel's Zend (Jan. 11). Macmillan Publishers acquired controlling interest — for $7.5MN— in Israel's BioData (Globes, Jan. 4). GM invested $5MN in Israel's PowerMat (Globes, Jan. 7). Belgium Cellular led a $5MN round in Israel's Jinni (Jan. 7).

    4. Israel's Economy 2010 Performance: 100,000 additional employees, compared with 8,000 in 2009. 4.5% GDP growth (0.8% in 2009 and 4.2% in 2008, 5.2%, 5.3%, 5.1% and 5% in 2007-2004), compared with 2.7% average by other OECD members. GDP per capita grew 2.7%, compared with a 1.1% decline in 2009. Unemployment declined to 6.7%, compared with OECD's average of 8.3%, Canada's 8.3%, USA's 9.7% and Japan's 5.1%. Balance of payment surplus — $7BN. Budget deficit will not exceed 4% of GDP. An all time low, less than 75% public debt to GDP ratio (Dec. 30, 2010).

    5. The London Economist, Dec. 29, 2010: "Over the past two decades Israel has been transformed from a semi-socialist backwater into a high-tech superpower. Adjust for population and Israel leads the world in the number of high-tech start-ups and the size of the venture-capital industry. Twenty years ago Harvard Business School's leading guru, Michael Porter, devoted just one sentence of his 855-page "The Competitive Advantage of Nations" to Israel; today there is a growing pile of books on Israel's high-tech boom, most notably "Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle", by Dan Senor and Saul Singer.

    [Israel] was one of the last countries to enter recession and among the earliest to exit... Israel is also good at the sort of technological mash-ups that produce exciting new industries... The country has long turned adversity into a source of competitive advantage..."

    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

    This article is archived in Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Errol Phillips, January 13, 2011.

    This was written by Alana Goodman, and it appeared as a Commentary Contentions article and is archived
    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/01/11/ time-magazine-takes-its-israel-hatred-to-a-new-level/


    Yesterday, I wrote that the recent controversial legislation at the Knesset would likely result in a full-fledged freak-out from the left over Israel's supposed slide toward totalitarianism, and this morning Time magazine didn't disappoint. How bad is it? Let's just say that Time might as well save the money it spends on its Jerusalem-bureau reporters by publishing full press releases from the Elders instead.

    The article, titled "Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Even Some Conservatives,"
    (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ 0,8599,2041613,00.html) is packed full of misinformation and outright contempt for the Jewish state. The online version also includes links to alleged atrocities committed by Israel — i.e., "Watch video of Israel preparing to deport children of migrant workers," "See photographs of young Palestinians in the age of Israel's security wall," "Watch video of the water crisis in the West Bank."

    It was written by Time's Jerusalem-bureau chief, Karl Vick, who penned the November cover story about how Israelis were too busy living the 90210 lifestyle to worry about the peace process. The biased statements and factual inaccuracies in his latest piece are honestly too numerous to go through for a line-by-line rebuttal, but here's a brief rundown of the worst of it.

    1. It claims — without evidence — that Jawaher Abu Rahma was killed by tear gas from IDF soldiers:

    Last week, after a Palestinian woman died after inhaling tear gas fired by Israeli troops, army spokesmen mounted a whisper campaign suggesting she died of natural causes. The unlikely, anonymous explanation was played prominently by Israeli newspapers. Those who said otherwise stood accused of "trying to de-legitimize the Israel Defense Forces."

    I wrote a full roundup of the IDF's investigation into Abu Rahma's death — which Vick nonsensically characterizes as a "whisper campaign" — here.

    2. It reports factually incorrect information about the recent NGO law passed by the Knesset and compares Israel to authoritarian states:

    "Just last week, the coalition prompted cries of McCarthyism when it moved to crack down on Israeli human rights organizations deemed suspicious by a government that increasingly equates dissent with disloyalty. Taking a page from neighboring authoritarian states, Netanyahu encouraged support for the law, appointing a panel to investigate independent organizations that are critical of government actions."

    There are good reasons to oppose the NGO law, but to say that the panel was appointed to investigate groups simply because they are "critical of government actions" is completely disingenuous and inaccurate. The panel was created to examine whether NGOs involved in the delegitimization movement were being funded by foreign governments. It's fine to disagree with such a move, as the American Jewish Committee did, but there is no need to blatantly mischaracterize it as Vick does.

    3. It quotes a historian who stops just shy of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany:

    Ron Pundak, a historian who runs the Peres Center for Peace, sees the current atmosphere of Israeli politics as the ugliest in the nation's history. "It's totally abnormal," he says. "From my point of view, this is reminiscent of the dark ages of different places in the world in the 1930s. Maybe not Germany, but Italy, maybe Argentina later. I fear we are reaching a slippery slope, if we are not already there."

    Yes, Time has always been renowned for its anti-Israel bias, but this article takes it to a new level. This is the type of story you'd expect to find on the Electronic Intifada — and it's shameful that a mainstream publication is stooping to that level.

    Alana Goodman is an assistant online editor for Commentary magazine, where she covers news and politics for the Contentions blog. She has written for the Weekly Standard, the Washington Examiner, and the Jewish Post, among other publications. She lives in Washington, D.C.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Errol Phillips, January 13, 2011.

    This was written by Benny Morris and it appeared January 7, 2010 in National Interest


    Coptic Pope Shenouda III called for "calm" in the wake of the New Year's Day bombing outside the church in Alexandria, in which twenty-three members of his flock were murdered and dozens were injured. And he explicitly avoided condemning the presumed perpetrators, Egyptian Muslims, his neighbors.

    Technically, this makes sense. The investigators have not yet arrested, let alone charged, anyone — and quite possibly never will.

    But, of course, a deeper logic was at work. The Coptic leader does not want to rile, and aggravate tensions with, the surrounding dominant sea of Egyptian Muslims (though, more bravely, some of his flock took to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria and clashed with the police who, they charged, had done and were doing too little to protect them).

    I can also understand Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who, in a knee-jerk reaction, attributed the attack to unnamed "foreign" elements. He too prefers not to point at extremist Egyptian Muslims as the responsible party; he too worries about riling the Islamists.

    Somewhat more surprising is Pope Benedict XVI, who sees all the world's Christians, including the Middle East's, as his wards. Of course, he condemned the attack, as well as the series of murderous attacks which immediately preceded it against Christians in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. But he too avoided explicitly condemning "Muslims" as the guilty party (much as Western leaders regularly vaguely speak of "international terrorism" without mentioning "Islam" or "Islamists" in this connection, as if other religious groups, say Buddhists or Hindus or animists, are also commonly engaged in this unleasant pursuit.)

    So the forthrightness and explicitness of these very same Muslims, when attributing blame, is truly noteworthy. No mealy-mouthed spokesmen here.

    Take Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Qabbani, Lebanon's Grand Mufti. He immediately announced: "This assault [on the Copts in Alexandria] ... is not an individual internal Egyptian act, but a criminal act with Zionist ... fingerprints. [They] want to sow hatred among Muslims and Coptic Christians."

    Or take the spokesman of the Egyptian Bar Association: "The Mossad carried out the operation in a natural reaction to the latest uncovering of an Israeli espionage network."

    Or a spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Munim Abu al Fattouh Abdel: It could not have been Egyptians. Perhaps it was the Mossad or someone else interested in sabotaging Egypt.

    Iranian TV put it more definitively: the Mossad. "It goes without saying that no Muslim ... will ever commit such an inhuman act." (Surely, this one must have been said tongue in cheek?)

    These accusations are, of course, risible. But they raise a serious question. What are the bounds of credulity in the mendacity-ridden Muslim societies of the Middle East? Can preachers and spokesmen say anything, however outlandish, and expect the masses to eat it up? Is there no limit to what the infidel can be accused of — and to the expectation that the charge will stick?

    Which raises the still more profound question: What are the long-term prospects for peaceful cohabitation on planet Earth between us in the West and these Muslim societies in which truth has absolutely no traction or importance, where the masses will believe — ask any pollster — that the CIA or the Mossad knocked down the Twin Towers on 9/11?

    Contact Errol Phillips by email at ep@pinehurst2.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Avodah, January 13, 2011.

    This was written by Reb Gutman Locks.


    The other day, I helped a nice American man and his son to put on tefillin. He did not wear a yarmulke (head covering), so I was very surprised that he could read the prayers in Hebrew so well. He said that he was a reform rabbi. This was really unusual; rarely have I seen a reform rabbi put on tefillin.

    I wanted to make an important point to him, without turning him off, so I was very diplomatic. I said, "It's not so bad that the reform movement doesn't follow the Torah the way it is written. Most Jews in the world don't. But it is really wrong that you tell your congregations that the way you follow the Torah is the way that it is supposed to be followed. It would be much better if you would tell them the way you do it, and then explain that you do not do it the way the Torah says.

    I was surprised that he agreed with me. Normally, people jealously defend their chosen path. He told me that he used to be an Orthodox rabbi, but some years ago his 17 year-old son was murdered. He said that he was so angry with G-d that for years he did not follow any mitzvahs at all. He ate non-kosher food, didn't keep Shabbat; he did absolutely no mitzvahs. He was angry that G-d took his son away from him.

    He said, "But then G-d spoke to me. Not like a voice, but inside my heart." He put his hand over his heart. "I realized that instead of being angry with G-d for what He took from me, I should be thankful for what He gave me. I had 17 wonderful years with my son. I saw that I was focusing on my loss, and ignoring the good that I had been given."

    Little by little, he is coming back to Torah and mitzvahs.

    We can certainly learn from this man. One of the best ways to make sure that you have a good day is to thank G-d for all of the good that He has given you.

    Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 13, 2011.

    Mother and child

    Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il See more of his graphic art at

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arutz-7, January 13, 2011.

    This was written by Amiel Ungar and appeared in today's Arutz-7.


    Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, who has ruled Tunisia since 1987, has apparently decided to adapt a carrot-and-stick approach in an attempt to quell the rioting that has now gone on for three weeks.

    On the carrot side, the Tunisian leader promised to create 300,000 new jobs for college graduates. The Ben Ali regime has invested a great deal in education but must now cope with the vocational expectations of the students and their desire for political participation. It was the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old student a month ago in protest over high unemployment and inflation that triggered the current unrest.

    A gesture to the demonstrators is the sacking of the minister of interior, Rafik Belhaj Kacem and the appointment of an investigation committee that is to study both the recent violence and official corruption. Another conciliatory gesture was the release of some of the protesters who were arrested.

    At the same time the Tunisian government has blamed both Islamic and leftist groups for inflaming the protests and this is why the government has taken stern measures such as shutting down schools and universities across the country. The government has also brought in military reinforcements including tanks and they are deployed around the ruling party headquarters and the radio station.

    While the opposition remains disorganized and leaderless, it could derive encouragement from the fact that it was gathering support from various sectors of the Tunisian population as well as from the geographic breadth of the protests — from the capital Tunis to towns in the periphery.

    As the situation deteriorates, comment on the situation is coming in cautiously from the outside. The most outspoken person has been the European Union's head diplomat Catherine Ashton. Her spokesperson denounced "the disproportionate use of force by police against peaceful demonstrations".

    France, the former colonial power, while refusing to play the role of the preceptor, said it hoped that the authorities in Tunis could meet the "expectations of their people". European Mediterranean countries close to Tunisia such as France, Italy and Spain would like to see the situation resolved. The last possible thing they would like to see is a collapse that could swell the number of Tunisian migrants in their countries.

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also cautious in calling for a peaceful resolution. The State Department voiced its concern over "the use of excessive force", but balanced that by praising the very positive aspects of our relationship with Tunisia." Ben Ali may be a problem but what will succeed him could conceivably be much worse.

    It may be that Ben Ali has overstayed his welcome. He had in effect offered Tunisians a promise of stability and prosperity in exchange for political quiescence. He is not the first authoritarian leader to go down that road. Franco tried it in Spain. But this strategy is hostage to economic performance. When the economy falters, the population feels shortchanged. It is also a treadmill because the creation of a larger middle class triggers both economic and political aspirations that the regime can satisfy with increasing difficulty.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Ari Bussel, January 13, 2011.

    Israel is good for the Palestinians. It supplies them electricity. It fulfills any order of the Palestinian Authority as a conduit into Gaza. It allows tens of thousands of them to go for medical treatment in Israel. It provides drinking water, assists with the water infrastructure and treats their sewage.

    Israel provides vaccinations and helps fight the spread of diseases like bird flu. It supplies many commodities and products that are of far superior quality and at the same or lower prices than those brought from Egypt.

    Israelis are good for other reasons. They actually care about Gazans. Despite being bombed and kidnapped, ambushed and murdered, Israelis will not target civilians of any age. They protect women and children and the elderly and will do everything, risking their own lives repeatedly, to save a human being be he or she a terrorist fighting against them or an innocent bystander.

    For Israelis, lives are sacred, and the Palestinians know it all too well.

    Christian Arabs in Israel love Israel. Not because Israel is the home of Jesus Christ, where he was born, studied, taught, lived, was crucified and later resurrected, but because here they enjoy freedom of religion that today can only be found in one other place: the United States of America.

    Christians also know what it means to live under Muslim rule, be it in an Arab country like Lebanon, that once was the Paris of the Middle East with a majority of Christians and today a small minority; in Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ that today has less than two percent Christians; or in any one of numerous African countries where they are slaughtered, their churches set on fire with their occupants burned alive.

    The Druze love Israel. They are loyal to Israel as the Druze in Lebanon are loyal to Lebanon and the Druze of Syria loyal to Syria. But there is something more here — it is loyalty that goes beyond the call of duty. Almost 96% of Druze youth serve in the IDF, a number three times the average for Israeli 18 year old males (if compared to the general Jewish population).

    Druze elders and religious leaders have a centuries-old wisdom one can find nowhere else. Their lives are not very easy, but they understand the region better than anyone, and not only because they speak the language. They know what it means to live under Arab rule, and they are faced with the difficult position of protecting their extended families living in Syria and in Lebanon. Yet, they manage to gain the respect of the Israeli public at large, with Druze Members of the Knesset, in leading positions in each (Jewish) political party and as Ministers and members of almost every Government.

    Tourists love Israel, not only because the best breakfasts are served at its hotels.

    Israel is multi-faceted. From antiquity to modernity, from Biblical sites to the nightlife of Tel Aviv, from the Diamond Exchange to the Stock Exchange, from startup companies to the leading innovators of the world, all can be found in this tiny country. It is a quick drive from one place to another, from modern era to astonishing remains of millennia past.

    One can always see showers of stars in the night's skies, and periodically showers of a different type, a barrage of rockets and missiles. That never stops foreigners from coming to the country to show their admiration, love and support.

    It does not take long to traverse the country from its northern-most border to its southern-most point, the resort city Eilat. One can easily cross the border from Israel to Egypt or Jordan at that southern tip for a day trip to experience Petra or for the beaches of what used to be Israel until Egypt received Sinai in a "land for peace" swap.

    Along the way from North to South or West to East, one passes via different climatic regimes and geographic zones, yet all seem to bloom. Israel is a country that is flourishing, a man-made heaven. It is a magical place for tourists to find whatever one wants — including those many who want Israel's demise and come to make films and other propaganda pieces against the Jewish State. Only in Israel!

    Culture and arts, architecture and infrastructure are amazing, but there is a new breed of tourists arriving in Israel. They come for the sun and the warmth, escaping the cold like the hundreds of millions of birds in their annual migration south. But more recently they come for medical checkups as part of a vacation in Israel: amazing, and only in Israel.

    Israel, it seems, is a country so many love, yet so many others love to hate.

    Israeli Arabs, once the largest minority in Israel, enjoy special rights. They are still making up their minds where do their loyalties lie — with their country, the Jewish State of Israel, or with a convoluted idea of a revolt, a national aspiration to be disconnected from Israel.

    When offered the chance to leave and become citizens of a Palestine-in-formation, they reject the idea. They like their position as equal citizens of the Jewish state. Confused? Need not be. In the Middle East lies the "real truth," the one people will act upon, and the "spoken truth," the one that has to be said because of the need to keep an image or a set of other constraints.

    Even Israel's Arab neighbors like the fact she is in the neighborhood. It is thanks to Israel and her Jewish and non-Jewish citizens that so many good things have been inflicted on her neighbors, from water drip-irrigation technology to agricultural advancements, alternative energies, medicine, treatment of the sick to prevention of the spread of diseases.

    Israel's Arab neighbors are happy she is in the neighborhood, for they know a good thing, yet they can not be so outwardly welcoming as to dare express this opinion. They also know that Israel is a moderating force, for they have internal problems of their own, threats of extremists trying to take over their own governments.

    Moreover, and maybe most importantly, Israelis know how to fight. They can attempt the impossible, most daring missions, and seem to succeed. Thus, when Iraq threatened her Arab neighbors, Israel was seen as a deterrent, and more recently when Iran looks down with contempt and long range plans about the Arab countries, they know that while Israel exists, they are safe.

    Members of the royal family from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab countries come to Israel on "secret" missions for medical treatment. They know they will receive the very best treatment available in the world and be treated with dignity, respect and confidentiality, often in their own language. Many of the doctors, nurses and staff in Israeli hospitals are Arabs. Israel is trusted when things really count — their own lives and that of their loved ones.

    Israel is a favorite destination of savvy private and institutionalized investors and funds, and businesspeople seeking new financial outlets. To them, Israel is a safe haven to park their money, with a very stable financial system, innovation the likes of which can be found no where else around the world and returns that are often very high.

    Israel is also a favorite destination for Hizbollah and Hamas missiles, previously for Saddam Hussein long-range Scud missiles and nowadays for Iran's long-range missiles. Those elements, though, do not love Israel. They are focused on her destruction by all means, including some of the most horrible ones, from unleashing nuclear to chemical or biological agents.

    Israel has become the focus of international hatred, all blamed on the Zionists-occupiers-of-land-not-theirs. There are numerous blood libels that are improved over time. Once it was Israel releasing cat-size rats that only target Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem but affect no one else. Then it was Israel catching young Palestinian males to harvest their organs. Each year at certain times when supplies are low, the Red Cross would urge its blood donors to come and donate blood. In Israel there is no need, they kidnap Palestinian kids who are never heard of again. These ridiculous charges escalate each year.

    Even more recently, Israel's own history is being re-written. Its most holy of places, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, are being stripped of any connection to the Jews. "It was never the City of David, if there was a David. The Western Wall was just a Roman fortification. All holy sites in Israel are a new creation of old Muslim sites."

    Since there is no connection between the Zionists and the geographic location called by colonialist powers "Israel," then any evidence such as archeology must be destroyed. Hundreds of truckloads of some of the most important archeological remains from the Temple Mount were dug and dumped away like trash. Who said the Jews had anything to do with Jerusalem?

    Israel Deniers go a step further and question the Bible and the God of the Hebrews. Nothing is sacred any more, all permitted by these Muslim extremists. The rewriters are even spreading lies that the Lord of Hosts was actually two Gods. Anything to undermine what was otherwise an unshakeable history of three thousand years, and is now being questioned, ridiculed and disregarded.

    Fairy tales are being written about Palestine, claiming there was never a connection to the Bible, calling Jewish history another Zionist-colonialist fabrication, a claim to the land-not-theirs. And if this is bad, then we must also remember the simple solution: JEWS GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM: America, Russia, Germany, Poland.

    Simple, catchy, elegant. NOT YOURS, GO BACK.


    GO BACK!

    Many people love Israel. It is not a religious ideology alone, but pragmatism, reality and truth. Many more hate Israel so much they are consumed with the fire of hatred. They have now found an outlet in the form of "Palestine," "Palestinian People" and an acceptable substitute for Israel.

    But Israel cannot be replaced, because rational human beings normally choose light over darkness, good over evil and truth over lies. We live at a period of history when darkness is blinding, evil is mesmerizing and lies are told so often we confuse them with truth. Mistake not — those closest to Israel, those who apparently have the alternative, choose Israel.

    Israelis choose Israel, although they take their own existence for granted and often are not thankful enough for all they have.

    Jews choose Israel, for it is their homeland, their shelter, the meaning of their very being, even if often times they do not know to express their love and appreciation and seem to be distancing themselves from their own land. Mistake not, they have no right or ability to exist if Israel were to cease to exist.

    I, for one, will apologize no more. I will not accept those who are so blinded by hatred, yet sophisticated enough to fight my very existence using the best tools available — mine. I am fighting back.

    My Bible, my God the Almighty, my land and my people are not up for negotiation. Neither is my sanity or wellbeing. Israel exists, and those who truly experience her for what she is will do everything possible to ensure she continues to exist exactly as she is: the only Jewish Homeland of the Jews, the one Jewish country among the member nations on this earth, the one miracle on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

    Do not mistake past accommodations and patience for weakness. We are strong and our resolve will not be broken. It is harder than granite, stronger than diamonds. It has been shaped under the immense pressure and temperatures of inner earth, over millions of years, and it is included in the DNA of every Jewish person.

    Be careful what you wish for, for wishing too much for the annihilation of the Jewish people, demonizing them, engaging in blood libels and attempting to re-write history and other self-serving methods must eventually backfire.

    I, for one, am apologizing no more. If you want to destroy me I will fight back and my armies will destroy you once more.

    Contact Norma Zager and Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Paul Lademain, January 13, 2011.

    We are the SC4Z and we have something to say about Shimon Stein's woeful threnody admonishing Israel to behave like a good little doggy. You know how it goes: "Wag your tail when you approach your master ... or else." (See his remonstrations, below.)

    And wagging its tail has cost Israel dearly: Israel's bow-down has cost Israel sovereignty over its lands and with this surrender, came not only a loss of self-respect but a covert loss of respect on the part of the world community. Only a confederacy of numbskulls would surrender its land in exchange for an empty air-kiss from its proudly- bloody enemies. Does the resurgence of patriotism throughout Israel offend Mr. Stein? Frighten him? Is it better in his mind to quell patriotism, a stifling which in turn generates fermentation of internal strife, because Jews are seemingly so sensitive to foreign criticism? Is this the real reason why foreign interests secrete their funds in the hands of internal seditionists who repeatedly caution Jews to bury their love for country? And just who profits from this? Well, the average citizen in the streets of Israel is not living as handsomely as, let's say, Shimon Peres and his jabbering claque, or the Sharon family clans.

    What Mr. Stein ignores is the enormous advantage accruing to the US from its relationship with Israel. Except for Israel, the US has no other friend in the Middle East, no other finger on the pulse, no other eye on the ground. And anyone who mistakes Saudi Arabia for anything more than a wily vendor of valuable sludge-byproducts is willfully blind to the disastrous effect of Saudi Arabia's current major export: Sharia. Because the US paid and continues to pay the Saudis so handsomely for its sludge-byproducts, the latter can fund its major toxic export, Sharia, on a global basis. Even into the jails and cess-pools of the dark and dank economic crannies found in every country, including the US. Not only does the US underwrite Saudi exports, it arms the Saudis for the privilege of paying them whatever price Saudi-controlled OPEC sets. And so that old dance continues, with the US State Department jigging furiously on both sides of the street. Prancing on the arab side like a be-ribboned slave and stomping petulantly to curb its pet dog, who wags its tail on the other side of the road.

    Mr. Stein fails to grasp the economics of the dance and their affect on both the US and Israel: Unlike Egypt, a dictatorship that receives US beneficence in the billions every year, Israel pays dearly for US financial support. And unlike Egypt and the other arab-state recipients of US largesse, Israel re-fertilizes the US coffers. What has Jordan done for us lately? Please tell. As for Egypt — well, the US pays through the nose to keep Mubarak happy and thereby preserves US traffic through the Suez canal at Egyptian pleasure.

    Stein is wrong when he speculates that US attitude rests on only "three pillars." He ignores and thereby insults the intelligence of the fourth. And the fourth pillar understands that Israel is the boulder that stands on the path of Saudi imperialism and frustratesSaudi Arabia's cold and patient march toward Islam's re-occupation of Europe. You think not? Well think again. Think geography. The Saudis look at their maps and drool over the prospect of seizing the lands of Israel and controlling Israel's deep water port on the Mediterranean. What a splendid path the lands of Israel would make for a pipeline to a re-named Port of Haifa.

    And you think the Saudis weren't aware of the offshore gas fields? Hey! They're in the oil and gas business, remember? Mr. Stein should think on that. You can bet the US State Dept. already has.

    Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the Secular Christians for Zion.


    And now: Mr. Stein:

    Unlike Israel, the United States does not view Iran as an existential threat, and clearly this impacts attitudes on how to resolve the crisis.

    United States-Israel Relations: Is Anything Forever? [IMRA Jan 13, 2011]
    INSS Insight No. 237, January 12, 2011
    Stein, Shimon

    The 112th Congress, elected in November 2010, convened on January 5, 2011. Various Israeli elements have expressed satisfaction with the election results — a resounding defeat for the Democrats and President Obama and a rise in the GOP's power — because they believe that Israel can take advantage of the Republicans' achievement to curb undesirable ideas and initiatives by the administration. Time will tell if their assessment proves right.

    One of the few subjects on which there is unanimity in Israel has to do with the country's relations with the United States. Without a doubt, this relationship is special, if not unique. Some within the Israeli political establishment feel this relationship is immune to any change, and on more than one occasion this assumption has led Israeli governments to adopt positions that disregard Israel's tremendous dependence on the United States in matters of foreign policy and security. In other words, as far as these individuals are concerned, the fundamental assumption about the relationship is that it is forever — that what was once will be forever.

    America's attitude to Israel rests on three major pillars. The first is the idealistic dimension in United States foreign policy: America's commitment to fight for and defend democracies abroad. Since Israel is a democracy, supporting Israel is an American interest. The second is the American Jewish community, which serves as a bridge between Israel and the American people. The third pillar is shared security and foreign affairs interests. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the common enemy in every way. Since the end of the Cold War, a shared interest has been the war on terrorism, as terrorism is viewed as a common threat and as such is supposed to ally the two nations (although unlike Israel, America has made no official declarations linking al-Qaeda terrorism to Palestinian terrorism aimed at Israel). In Israel's view, the Iranian threat, first and foremost the nuclear challenge, is another threat linking the two nations.

    How strong are these pillars today? Are cracks appearing in them, liable to affect their stability? Official American statements reiterate the two nations' shared values and the commitment to Israel as a Jewish state. However, Israel's conduct in Judea and Samaria on the one hand and the growing extremism and intolerance in Israeli society on the other are liable to erode Israel's image as a democracy in the eyes of the American public.

    Within the American Jewish community there are segments unwilling to automatically accept Israeli government positions on the Palestinian issue (just as in a different vein they are unwilling to cede to Israel's official position on matters of Jewish ritual law) and are prepared to publicly oppose the Jewish establishment for its blind support of Israeli government policy. These voices are not unknown to the American administration. Consider, for example, the presence of National Security Advisor Jones at the anti-establishment J Street conference, although no official representatives of Israel attended; J Street is known for its public criticism of Israeli government policy. In addition, statements such as the one by General Petraeus, whereby the Israeli-Palestinian conflict creates an anti-American atmosphere and challenges the ability of the United States to promote its interests in the Middle East are disturbing; so too is the question posed lately (not for the first time) with greater force by certain circles about Israel being an asset or a burden. These are challenges to the prevailing Israeli assumption about Israel's contribution to the lasting, unshakable fact of the nations' shared interests.

    President Obama's approach to international relations in general and to relations with the Muslim and Arab world and the Israeli-Palestinian issue in particular has differed from that of President Bush. In an attempt to learn from the mistakes of his predecessors, who postponed their attempts to solve the conflict to the end of their terms in office, President Obama decided to tackle the issue right at the start. There is no doubt that his decision to turn the end/freeze of Jewish settlement in the territories into a pivotal condition even before the start of the dialogue was one of the reasons the talks went nowhere. The Palestinians were able to stand on the side watching the US try to promote their interests without having to enter into the negotiations themselves. At the same time, a crisis developed in the relationship between Israel and America (one of its results being a loss of trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which may continue to mar their relations for as long as each is in office). The far-reaching, generous benefits package that America was reportedly willing to grant symbolized the great importance the administration — justifiably or not — attributed to extending the construction freeze for another three months, with the hope (it is unclear what this hope was based on) that in this period of time there would occur a significant breakthrough on some of the core issues. The failure of the American effort represented the end of a chapter from the administration's perspective; this will no doubt negatively affect future relations between the nations.

    It remains to be seen if the president, whose status and chances for reelection do not depend on his success or failure to resolve the conflict but rather on his ability to stimulate the American economy and create jobs, will decide to become personally involved in the effort to force the parties to abandon their current positions and enter into negotiations on the core issues. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's December 2010 speech at the Saban Forum did not indicate explicitly what approach President Obama may adopt should he decide to intensify his efforts on the issue.

    Continued American activity, and certainly increased involvement, will yet again expose the fundamental differences of opinion regarding the strategy and tactics of negotiations. The Iranian nuclear issue, too, beyond the level of official declarations, also reveals disagreements between Israel and the United States, stemming from their different geographical locations and balance of interests. Unlike Israel, the United States does not view Iran as an existential threat, and clearly this impacts attitudes on how to resolve the crisis.

    It should be noted that alongside political disagreements, the Obama administration has worked to intensify security relations between the nations, believing that strengthening Israel's security enlarges its room for political maneuvering in the context of negotiations. At the same time, it strengthens Israel's deterrence vis-à-vis the regional threats against it, first and foremost the Iranian threat and its regional derivatives.

    In the final analysis, as a nation lacking alternatives in terms of strategic alliances, Israel must do its utmost to preserve the support of the United States, its only ally. Conduct that assumes symmetry in the relations, as well as some sort of determinism in terms of American support for Israel, jeopardizes this special relationship. It is imperative that Israel's leaders make every effort to maintain the relations, which, given the environment of change the United States is facing in the coming decades, cannot be taken for granted.  

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Dave Nathan, January 13, 2011.
    The is an Debkafile Exclusive Report.

    With backing from Tehran, Hizballah and its Christian ally Michel Aoun abruptly quit the Lebanese unity government Wednesday, Jan. 12, in a move that could pave the way for their seizure of power in Beirut. They struck as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon's prosecutor Daniel Bellemare prepared to hand over to the pre-trial judge "within hours or days" indictments naming Hizballah officials in the case of the former premier Rafiq Hariri's assassination in 2005.

    Hizballah is committed to defying those indictments and refusing to hand over its top officials for extradition by the government.

    As the Lebanese crisis raced towards it climax, President Barack Obama, Saudi King Abdullah, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri held intense consultations in Washington and New York on a united front against Iran-backed disruptions in Beirut by Hizballah and its allies.

    Iran's supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said repeatedly that the STL and its rulings are "null and void" because they serve "foreign interests."

    As the US, France and Israel made military and diplomatic preparations to thwart a clash, Obama scheduled a meeting with the Lebanese Prime Minister for Wednesday night, Jan. 12, to decide how the US, France and its allies would act in a conflagration.

    Over the weekend, the US president ordered US vessels to buttress the Sixth Fleet stationed in the eastern Mediterranean with the USS Enterprise carrier and its strike group with 6,000 sailors and marines aboard and 80 fighter-bombers. Already deployed there is the USS Bainbridge missile destroyer.

    On Monday, Jan. 10, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a tour of the Persian Gulf, expressed concern over the situation in Lebanon. Clinton said: "I'm deeply worried about the efforts to destabilize Lebanon. We should do everything we can to make sure those warnings are not accurate."

    American military moves in the Mediterranean are intended to signal to Tehran and Hizballah that Washington will be prepared to use force to defend the Saad Hariri government in Lebanon and if necessary deploy aerial forces and the marines to avert a Hizballah takeover in Beirut. The French fleet was also ordered to bolster its naval strength opposite Lebanon.

    But Hizballah got its move in first. Its resignation from the Hariri government showed that its leaders and Iranian sponsors were not fazed by the US-French military moves off the Lebanese coast and were moving ahead with their plans.

    Debkafile's military sources add that a comment by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Tuesday, Jan. 11, fit into the picture taking shape in Washington, New York and Paris. He remarked to foreign journalists that 60,000 missiles and rockets, all of Iranian and Syrian origin, were now pointing at Israel.

    Last week, Meir Dagan, at a ceremony marking the end of his tenure as head of the Mossad, said that only 10 countries in the world have firepower on a par with that of Hizballah.

    According to our sources, it is definitely in the cards for an Iranian-Hizballah move in Lebanon provoking a US-French military response to evolve into a clash between Hizballah and Israel, providing an opportunity for the destruction of Hizballah's mighty missile arsenal.

    Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 13, 2011.

    Have you ever seen a stone winking?


    Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go see more of his graphic art at

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 12, 2011.

    This is going to be a two-part posting. Today I participated in a tour of eastern Jerusalem, which incorporated the Shepherd hotel of Sheikh Jarrah as well as part of the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood. Other commitments prevent me from doing justice, today, to relevant information regarding this area and its history that I want to share in a posting. And so this will come tomorrow.

    Today, I want to share what someone else has written:

    I've often praised Daniel Greenfield, who, writing as Sultan Knish, does a great job on his blog. His piece, "The Crime of Building a House," not only pertains to the Shepherd Hotel, it sets matters into a context that is best called obscene:

    "In Niger, two Frenchmen were murdered by their Islamic kidnappers. Saudi Arabia sentenced a 23 year old girl who was gang raped to a year in prison and 100 lashes. Iran arrested two dozen Christians for the crime of being well... Christians. Which of these awful things did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU's Red Baroness Ashton forcefully condemn?

    "The answer is none of them.

    "Instead they forcefully and vigorously condemned the demolition of a hotel built by a Muslim Nazi collaborator and now owned by an American-Jewish businessman who bought it in order to build an apartment complex on the spot. An apartment complex for a mere 20 families that is somehow worse than all the aforementioned murders and atrocities. So much worse that they demanded the personal intervention of the highest diplomatic officials of the United States and the European Union.

    "The Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalem is not the Plaza Hotel. It is a dilapidated neighborhood eyesore that has been abandoned since the 1980's. No one lives in the Shepherd Hotel, a grim ugly fortress surrounded by barbed wire, that remains behind as a legacy of the Mufti of Jerusalem, who championed Hitler and helped recruit Muslims to serve in the SS. But with its demolition, people might actually begin to live on that spot. Children might actually play on ground that had been previously fenced off by barbed wire. And the worst thing of it all is that those people and their children will be Jews.

    "...In her statement, Hillary Clinton said the United States is "very concerned" about the demolition of a Nazi collaborator's abandoned hotel. In a world where North Korea and Iran are racing ahead to build nuclear weapons, Russia and China are racing to outstrip the United States in weapons development and the economy is on the brink — that is what the Obama Administration is "very concerned" about. That 20 Jewish families will be able to have homes in the capital of their own city.

    "Hillary Clinton chose to attack Israel from Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE, a totalitarian regime whose own construction boom was built on slave labor imported from India. Where there are no political freedoms and where non-Muslim foreigners have few rights, if any. Where a video showed the brother of the ruler of Abu Dhabi torturing a man in ways too horrifying to describe, with the approval of the police and the judicial system over a debt. Where 42 percent of the prisoners are there for being indebted. The UAE is essentially a slave state, built on the backs of mostly non-Muslim migrant workers with no human or legal rights.

    "While in Abu Dhabi, Hillary Clinton might have called on its rulers to open up the system to democratic elections. She might have raised the issue of Western women who are raped in Dubai and then sentenced to jail for being raped. Or the case of Roxanne Hillier, who was sentenced to jail for just being in the same room as her male boss. It certainly would have been appropriate for Hillary Clinton to have challenged the UAE on its abusive treatment of female visitors and tourists. But none of that happened.

    "Instead Hillary Clinton used the platform of a barbaric skyscraper studded dictatorship to denounce the only democracy in the region. In a speech more inspired by Monty Python, than any concern for human rights, she described the demolition of a long abandoned hotel as a 'disturbing development' and warned that 'this move contradicts the logic of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties on the status of Jerusalem.' Yet oddly enough, Arab construction does not contradict such an agreement, only Jewish construction does."

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ 2011/01/crime-of-building-house.html


    According to The Independent (London), Secretary of State Clinton told her aides confidentially that her tour to the Middle East was an "apology" tour, to mend relationships after damage done by WikiLeaks. She's not about to criticize UAE, then, is she?

    This, by the way, is not the first time members of the Obama administration have criticized Israel from an Arab country.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Rachel Saperstein, January 12, 2011.

    [ Savta = Grandma in Hebrew]

    Shabbat Parshat [Torah portion]

    We celebrated my seventieth birthday this past Shabbat. Our three children, their spouses, twelve grandchildren, Bubby [Moshe's 94-year-old mother], and Budi and Shugie [Moshe's brother and sister-in-law] were there. My great niece Shevy, a New Yorker studying at a girls' seminary in Jerusalem this year, joined us.

    The locale: Kibbutz Ein Tzurim in the northern Negev, a short drive from our caravilla site in Nitzan. The kibbutz has a guest house and we all piled into cottages or single rooms. Accommodations were sparkling clean, the food delicious, the grassy lawns glittered green from the recent rains, and the trees were tall and leafy. The sun shined between bouts of rain showers.

    Now back to my birthday party...

    I asked for just two things: NO testimonials and NO maudlin praise for Savta. Let's have Torah and lots of laughter. I've never learned to bake, so there was not going to be praise for Savta's cookies.

    Meals were in the dining room where all the guests met and ate. My son Ari and his wife Efrat prepared benchers [after dinner prayers] with my picture on the back captioned "In honor of Savta at age 70".

    There were several groups of guests, including a bar-mitzvah, so the kibbutz provided us our own private meeting hall with a large urn of hot water, plastic plates, cups, drinks and a large bowl of fruit.

    After dinner it was on to our own meeting hall for an oneg Shabbat [Sabbath celebration]. The little ones were put to bed, the older ones sat around tables laden with cakes and nosh courtesy of the adults.

    We began with Friday night melodies, words of Torah, then funny stories about Savta.

    My son-in-law Oshri talked about the leadership role Moses was forced to accept. "Sometimes leadership can be very difficult. Savta took on a leadership role when she had to help the people of Gush Katif," he said, "and she created Operation Dignity."

    [Wow! To be compared to Moses is really a compliment.]

    Ari had his funny story ready. "When I was a kid I always complained that we had to eat healthy foods instead of candy. One evening, coming home tired and hungry after a class trip, I found that mommy had put out a plate of toffees, hard candies and chewing gum. I was upset. 'That's not food. I'm hungry!'"

    'But sweetheart' Mommy said, 'you always complain that I serve healthy food. Tonight you are getting your wish'. So I ate the candy. Mommy taught me a lesson. She's pretty smart!"

    I sat there listening to my son and feeling like the meanest mother. Ari laughed. He called it a learning experience.

    I spoke about the importance Hashem placed on the people of Israel retelling the story of our redemption from slavery and our becoming a nation. Each year at the Passover Seder table we teach this to our children. This celebration of nationhood has continued for thousands of years. I looked at my own grandchildren, born in Israel and imbued by their own parents with love of people and nation and the Jewish way of life. [We did okay!]


    After morning prayers in the kibbutz synagogue we met in the dining room for lunch. Then on to the meeting hall for the formal "Birthday Party". We took out our red plastic dishes, cups and utensils, and our pink napkins. I watched with pleasure as the grandchildren, even the smallest, sat at the tables.

    Efrat opened the program with a 'biography' of Savta Rachel. Even I was exhausted listening to Savta's endless activities. I usually sneer at people whose lives have been in overdrive, but apparently I thrived on action. [Should I ruin the moment by telling them that my favorite activity is lying in bed with a good Faye Kellerman novel? But I don't tell anyone about my laziness, and kept quiet.]

    My daughter Dafna presented me with a beautifully decorated album filled with birthday greeting from family and friends. Most had come via email, some by regular mail, and a few were hand delivered. Dafna then sang a song she had composed telling the history of Saba Moshe and Savta Rachel. It's a work in progress.

    Now it was my daughter Tamar's turn to 'do her thing'. Grandchildren able to read stepped outside to prepare. In they came, each clutching a paper, lining up according to size. Each read a short paean to Savta, then turned the paper around to reveal a large letter or number. At last the message was revealed: SAVTA RACHEL IS 70. We laughed and cheered!

    Time for the birthday cakes. Cakes, plural, because for years I've told the children I'm 26. Efrat presented me with a yeast cake made by my grandson Akiva and rolled into the number 26, my eternal age. Then a chocolate cake, her work, with '70' in colored sprinkles. [Moshe says it's the best cake he's ever eaten. And he ate most of it.]

    Fun time. Tamar and her daughters Ohr and Hadar had prepared a bingo game with squares on each cards. Each square had an answer to a question about Savta's life. With each answer a pretzel stick was to cover the appropriate square.

    "Where was Savta born?"

    "Brooklyn!" was the shout from every throat.

    "What is Savta's sister's name?"

    "Aunt Harriet!"

    "What's my prize?" asked Budi, Moshe's brother, the first to finish the puzzle.

    "You can eat the pretzels!" was the reply.

    All the winners, ie everybody, received a packet of gum. And ate the pretzels.

    Moshe told the story of my grandmother, after whom I was named. I remember my father referring to me as 'my mama'. Ruchel Leah, my grandmother, taught the women in her village in Romania. There are many Ruchel Leah's in the family and we are all teachers. My great-nephew Shlomo googled her gravestone in Seged, and I received the shock of my life. She was not only a teacher but dispensed charity to the needy. So that's why I'm doing what I'm doing. It was all pre-determined that I would be giving aid in the latter part of my life. I am fulfilling my destiny, the Ruchel Leah destiny, as teacher and charitable worker. It is so important to receive a name that gives meaning to our lives. [I love this story!]

    Time for a last Torah thought. Ari talked about the details of the night before our departure from Egypt: "Why does the Torah include all the minutiae? Apparently to remind us that not only are the grand details important but also the small touches that we give to the event... the floral arrangements...the place settings...the special foods arranged beautifully on the platter. These, too, are important to the Sabbath or the Passover Seder."

    This is something that I have brought to my children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews. They have taken these touches from me and made them an integral part of their own lives. A good legacy.

    "Some people talk about what they would like to do," said my son. "Savta talks very little about herself but does a lot. She and Saba came on aliyah to Israel. She wrote ESL textbooks for teaching English to weaker students. When Saba was wounded she wrote a guide for families of terror victims. She was a spokesperson for Gush Katif during the bombardment and the expulsion. She began her chessed work when her people needed it most. Our mother and Savta has shown us the way."

    Time for a nap. Seudat shlishit [the third Shabbat meal], evening prayers and Havdalah, the ceremony separating the holy Sabbath from the ordinary weekday. My grandson Akiva recited the service with all of us singing and clapping.

    We packed our bags, kissed each other goodbye, watched everybody depart, paid our bill, and drove the short distance to our caravilla site.

    Once in a lifetime you have a grand party. You see before you those who will carry on your legacy. You celebrate the past and the future. That's what this birthday party was all about. Happy Birthday to all my family and friends.

    [Well, back to my novels. These old bones need a rest before we tackle our new home in Lachish. Gotta build a town!]


    OPERATION DIGNITY needs your help more than ever. The people of Gush Katif living in Nitzan and other sites come to Operation Dignity for aid during these difficult times. Help us help them.

    Shekel checks or US$ checks under $250 should be sent to

    Operation Dignity
    POB 445
    Nitzan 79287 Israel

    Dollar checks of $250 or more, earmarked for Operation Dignity, should be sent directly to

    Central Fund for Israel, 13 Hagoel Street, Efrat 90435, Israel


    Central Fund for Israel, 980 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10018, USA

    See our website — www.operationdignity.com — for further details,

    Rachel Saperstein and her husband, Moshe, were among the thousands of Jews kicked out of their homes in Gush Katif, in the Gaza strip, and forced into temporary quarters so dismal, their still-temporary paper-based trailers in Nitzan, seemed a step up. Contact them at ruchimo@.netvision.net.il

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, January 12, 2011.

    "I can look at a fine art photograph and sometimes I can hear music." — Ansel Adams


    Comparing music and photography, master landscape artist Ansel Adams noted that the photographic negative or, in today's world, the RAW digital file, is the equivalent of a musical score. Like musical notes on paper, the image exists in an unrealized form. What the photographer subsequently does with that file is analogous to a performance.

    This week's image features a sight commonly seen in Israel during the Hebrew month of Shevat: the burgeoning almond blossom. My performance with this photo began before I snapped the shutter release, by choosing to employ a soft focus filter. Instinctively, I viewed this photo from the outset as delicate and light, and softening the focus seemed an ideal way to convey that feeling. I was careful to isolate the branch and new buds and line up some open blossoms in the background. This created a mottled "bokeh," the odd term used to describe how a lens renders the out of focus points of light.

    The second and third movements featured a bit of added contrast and darkening the background. The final movement was the crop, which left the subject just off center. As his skills and vision develop, the photographer's performance of his negative evolves, but hopefully, will always be worthy of an encore.

    TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D-300, 28-105mm zoom at 80mm, f5.6 at 1/800 sec., ISO 200.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, January 12, 2011.

    Recent remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder on the threat posed by "radicalized" American Muslims are revealing — not just because of what they say regarding the domestic situation, but for their international implications as well. According to Holder:

    "[T]he threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant. The threat has changed ... to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born. It is one of the things that keeps me up at night. You didn't worry about this even two years ago — about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do." Holder noted that while he was confident in the United States' counter-terrorism efforts, Americans "have to be prepared for potentially bad news.... The terrorists only have to be successful once."

    Holder's assertion that "the terrorists only have to be successful once" has important implications: aside from the obvious — that it only takes one strike to create devastation on U.S. soil — it is also a reminder that when people argue that most American Muslims are moderate, and only a few are radical, it does not help our security. It took nineteen to commit 9/11; and we have already seen that some American Muslims are radical. According to Holder, in the last two years, 50 of the 126 people charged with terrorism were U.S. citizens.

    Conversely, Holder's point that "You didn't worry about this even two years ago — about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do," is odd. Why should Americans not have been a worry two years ago? Anyone even moderately familiar with Islamist ideology knows that it allows for absolutely no national allegiance. The notion that some American Muslims could become radicalized should have been a concern since 9/11 — nearly a decade ago, not two years ago. It should have been a concern when it became obvious that American Muslims — like John Walker Lindh, Gregory Patterson, Levar Washington, Kevin James, Christopher Paul and Jose Padilla — were turning to violent jihad.

    More significantly, the fact that Americans are being radicalized not only bodes ill for U.S. security; it also suggests that American efforts in the Muslim world are doomed to failure. Consider: if American Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits — including democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression — are still being radicalized, why then do we insist that importing these same benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more ingrained form of "radicalization"?

    After all, the mainstream position, the only one evoked by politicians, both Democrat and Republican, is that all the sacrifices America makes in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), will pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and happily slough off their Islamist veneer, which, as the theory goes, is a product of — you guessed it — a lack of democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression. Yet here are American Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West — and still do they turn to violent jihad.

    In short, America needs to rethink its strategy for the war on terrorism — both at home and abroad. Domestically, this means cracking down without compunction on anything that smacks of Islamist activity, without fear of being "politically incorrect;" it means better monitoring of jihadist websites which play a major role in radicalizing American Muslims, such as Inspire (which was started by a North Carolina Muslim); and it means exercising prudence when granting visas to people from dubious backgrounds. Internationally, it means understanding that the one solution to war promoted by most Western politicians — spreading Western values and ways of governance — is no solution at all.

    Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.
    This article is archived at http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8611/ radical-muslims-in-america

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, January 12, 2011.

    This article is from
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/ exclusive_george_p_shultz_call.html


    In a remarkable development in the Jonathan Pollard case, the former secretary of state and highly respected national security figure George P. Shultz has written to the president asking for Pollard to be released:

    January 11, 2011
    The President
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear Mr. President,

    I am writing to join with many others in urging you to consider that Jonathan Pollard has now paid a huge price for his espionage on behalf of Israel and should be released from prison.

    I am impressed that the people who are best informed about the classified material he passed to Israel, former CIA Director James Woolsey and former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dennis DeConcini, favor his release.

    I find the letter you received from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey of the Bush administration particularly compelling.

    With my respect,
    Sincerely yours,
    George P. Shultz


    This is an extraordinary letter, because Shultz is not only a respected Republican and a strong defender of America's national security, but he served in the Reagan administration with Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who wrote the letter that the court used to issue Pollard's sentence. Conservatives, in effect, have offered Obama all the support he might need should he be inclined to pardon Pollard.

    The question remains: Will he?

    See Also: The original copy of George Shultz's letter to President Obama at

    Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Marcia Leal, January 12, 2011.

    This comes from Jeff Dunetz of the Yid with Lid website and it is archived at
    http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/01/ who-knew-egyptian-tv-says-jooose-forced.html. The article includes a video where Wael Ramadhan explains early Egyptian history. Who knew? (Translation by Memri).


    Boy oh boy, those moderates in Egypt sure know history. In fact some times they understand History better than anybody else in the world, even better than any historical record written at the time the event happened. Take for example the story of the Roman invasion of Egypt during the time of Cleopatra.

    Gold coin. Anthony and Octavian.

    Roman record say that after Julius Caesar was killed, Rome was ruled by the famous trio of Mark Antony, Caesar's nephew Octavian (who became Augustus) and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Octavian ruled Rome, Antony went on to govern the east. Lepidus governed Hispania and the province of Africa. Octavian forced Lepidus to retire and then started a propaganda war against Antony who by then was shacked up with the Egyptian Queen who had once shacked up with Julius Caesar (her name was Cleopatra).

    Cleopatra had a child with Julius before he died and wanted her son to take over as Caesar's heir, which wasn't great job security for Octavian so he decided to break up the love connection going on in Alexandria Egypt. Civil war broke out between Octavian forces and the combined forces of Antony and Cleopatra. The Romans won a great sea battle, Tony and Cleo went back to Egypt where they killed themselves before Octavian could land in Alexandria and lead them off in chains (some say before they killed themselves they sang the song Tonight from West Side Story but that is not confirmed). Octavian goes back to Rome, changes his name to Augustus, names the eighth month of the year after himself, screws February out of a day just like his Uncle Julius, and lives happily ever after.

    Now over two thousand years later, we find out that story was totally bogus. Wael Ramadhan, creator of an Egyptian-Syrian TV series about Cleopatra, was interviewed on Egyptian TV and explained the real story.

    Wael Ramadhan: The [Roman] war against Cleopatra was Jewish in essence, and history repeats itself. The Romans had no territorial aspirations in Egypt in those days, and this is ignored by history and by many historians. The Romans were at war with the Parthians and the remnants of the Persian Empire, but they had no intention of waging war against Egypt.

    But the Jews harbored resentment and pain, because of their expulsion from Egypt — when they were still called "Hebrew" — and they wanted to return to Egypt by force, in order to establish their presence there, but they did not have an opportunity to do so until that moment. So they recruited the help of the Romans.

    This part of history is not mentioned in any Arab history book, but is the outcome of research I conducted myself, and this is my own perspective, which is unique and true.

    Interviewer: Especially since it is based on sources that are...

    Wael Ramadhan: On very important sources. [The Jews] financed the Romans, distracted them from their wars, and diverted them to Egypt. They failed in their attempt to get Julius Caesar to defeat Cleopatra. They failed to get Mark Antony to defeat Cleopatra. They had also financed the Mark Antony campaign. They failed in their efforts to completely control that region.

    To this moment, they continue to try. History repeats itself. That is what should have been called the history of Cleopatra, and this was my approach when I made the "Cleopatra" series.

    I THINK WE ALL OWE A DEBT OF GRATITUDE TO THOSE MODERATES in Egypt. Before today, Judea (what the Holy Land was called back then) was thought of as weak little country under the protection of Rome, but today we know different. Thanks to Wael Ramadhan we learn that tiny little Judea was able to push the Roman Empire to break up its management team, start a civil war and invade the powerful country of Egypt.

    The best part of it all is Ramadhan played it right down the middle, he could have made up a story and used it to incite hatred against Jews and Israel, but not good old Wael who I understand is going to work for MSNBC based on his honest portrayal of history in this Cleopatra series.

    Contact Marcia Leal at marcia.leal.eejh@gmail.com.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Naomi Ragen, January 12, 2011.

    My mother-in-law passed away yesterday in Jerusalem at age 85 after seven torturous years succumbing to a merciless illness which left her unable to speak, walk, or move her limbs. But the last period of her long life, was not her worst. The worst happened when she was eighteen and the Nazis come to her home in Uzhhorod (now in Ukraine), beating her little brother senseless, and carting away herself, her three sisters, two brothers, parents, and beloved grandmother. The worst was the cattle car ride, and the platform in Auschwitz in which she and her sisters were separated from their mother, never to see her, or any other member of their family alive again. The worst was the year spent in concentration camp starving, trying desperately with her older sister Zipporah to keep their youngest sister Malka alive. I remember the stories she told me those Friday nights when my husband, her beloved only son, was away in the synagogue with his father. How she cut her slice of bread into tiny portions instead of eating it all at once, to save some for the next day, the willpower that took. How she managed to take bits of cloth and form them into collars that she bartered to other prisoners for food and other essentials. Her sisters and camp 'shvesters' called her by her Czech name, Magda.

    And then there was the death march and the story of how she and her sisters and some friends took the life or death plunge to escape, hiding under hay in a hayloft, as the Germans stuck pitchforks in looking for them, until finally giving up. On the road, finally free, they found a crate. Starving, they pried it open. Inside was the finest French champagne, fallen off some German truck. They celebrated the end of their captivity by drinking it straight from the bottle still in the striped uniforms of Auschwitz. And then they found an empty house abandoned by the German family who lived there to escape the advancing Russians. Using the soap and towels left behind they heated water and bathed, seeing the color of their skin for the first time in many months.

    Deciding to go to Israel, she and her two sisters waited for the Zionist organizers to bring them. But delay after delay made Magda lose hope. And so she decided to go home to see if anyone she knew had survived. Leaving her sisters behind, she traveled by train to her home town. But, she said later, she couldn't bring herself to look her neighbors in the face, remembering how they had lined up to watch her family being taken away, smirking with satisfaction. She boarded the next train out, taking it down the line to where the Sudenten Germans had been chased out, leaving behind houses the government was handing over to refugees like herself. By chance, my father-in-law got off at this same stop. He had also gone home to see if his wife or son and daughter had survived. Finding proof that Auschwitz had taken his entire family, and that his neighbors had helped themselves to all his belongings, he went house to house gathering his possessions together, then left them in the wagon, handing them over to the wagon driver as he hopped the next train out.

    Fate brought them together. And they brought each other love, comfort and the hope for a new beginning.

    Eventually, they wound up in New York City, working as a tailor and a seamstress. There she was known as Shirley. They raised a son and a daughter. They achieved the American dream, owning a home. And when their son married and moved to Israel, they decided to join him.

    Those were, they always said, the best years of their lives. They owned a lovely apartment in Netanya near the sea, and spent their time being grandparents, enjoying their many friends, or volunteering for good causes.

    When we say Yizkor for her, we will use the name Shaindel, the name her parents gave her. But I always called her "Mom." And my kids called her "Bubbee." She was a wonderful, giving person as well as a tough cookie. Though not always easy to accept, her criticism came from love and from wanting things to be better for those she loved, in the way she understood it. We loved her very much. May her name and memory be blessed.

    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 Boris Celser, January 11, 2011.

    This was written by Melanie Phillips, who writes about Lars Hedegaard, the President of the Danish Free Press Society. "Europe's own freedom is being consumed by these flames ... the Europeans oligarchs leading Europe to total tyranny." It is archived at
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6606449/ the-danish-witchhunt-against-the-truthtellers.thtml


    Over the past week or so, Britain's media have finally been forced to confront the fact that Muslim pimping gangs in the UK have been abducting, drugging, raping and abusing mainly white girls, along with Hindus and Sikhs, and further 'grooming' them for sex in a clear display of hostility towards 'unbelievers'. Hitherto this phenomenon was not only kept from the public by a paralysed media class which refuses to confront Islamic outrages, but it appears that the police have often dragged their feet in pursuing such gangs as a result of the same politically correct paralysis. I wrote about this in the Mail yesterday.

    In Denmark, however, a campaigner for freedom of speech is actually to go on trial later this month for daring to bring this kind of thing to light. Lars Hedegaard is President of the Danish Free Press Society and The International Free Press Society. A while back the DFPS kindly presented me with an award for my work. When I met Hedegaard I observed that, in campaigning against hate speech laws which censored and suppressed necessary discussion of the Islamic threat to free speech and other human rights in the west, he was himself running the risk of being silenced by Denmark's thought police.

    This has now duly come about. The Danish public prosecutor is clearly determined to stamp out this elementary human right by silencing all such discussion. First, a Danish MP, Jesper Langballe, was convicted of hate speech last month for endorsing Hedegaard's comments about 'honour' violence and sexual abuse within Muslim families. In his statement in court, published here on the website of Sappho, the DFPS magazine, Langballe wrote about the Orwellian Danish legal rules which effectively convicted him in advance of his trial, causing him to choose to 'confess' rather than participate in such a totalitarian 'circus'.

    Now Lars Hedegaard faces a similar circus. Later this month, he is to stand trial for 'racism' after he stated about Muslim 'honour' violence within families:

    They rape their own children.

    In vain did Hedegaard explain the following day that obviously he had not meant by this that all Muslims engage in such practices, any more than saying 'Americans make good films' means that all Americans make good films; in vain did he adduce copious evidence of concern — including from Muslim victims themselves — about the amount of sexual and 'honour' violence, including rape and incest, within Muslim families. None of this made any difference. Hedegaard is about to be burned at the Danish legal stake for his heresy. And both he and Langballe also face further libel suits about such remarks.

    As far as I can see, these developments in Denmark have been totally ignored in the English-speaking media. So much for the liberals' fetish of free speech — so noisily defended whenever Christianity, America, Israel or the west are being demonised and libelled; so much for the feminists' professed concern for the rights of women and the obscenity of rape and sexual abuse. Two men who actually stand up for these principles are being persecuted for doing so, while the so-called progressive world is either helping pile up the faggots for their fire or looking the other way.

    It's not just Hedegaard or Langballe who are being consumed by these flames, however, but Europe's own freedom. Boris Celser is a Canadian. He has an MBA, and is a lifelong traveler and avid reader. He invites comments to this article — please address them to celser@telusplanet.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Daniel Greenfield, January 11, 2011.

    In Niger, two Frenchmen were murdered by their Islamic kidnappers. Saudi Arabia sentenced a 23 year old girl who was gang raped to a year in prison and 100 lashes. Iran arrested two dozen Christians for the crime of being well... Christians. Which of these awful things did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU's Red Baroness Ashton forcefully condemn?

    The answer is none of them.

    The last Nazi collaborator hotel in Jerusalem

    Instead they forcefully and vigorously condemned the demolition of a hotel built by a Muslim Nazi collaborator and now owned by an American-Jewish businessman who bought it in order to build an apartment complex on the spot. An apartment complex for a mere 20 families that is somehow worse than all the aforementioned murders and atrocities. So much worse that they demanded the personal intervention of the highest diplomatic officials of the United States and the European Union.

    The Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalem is not the Plaza Hotel. It is a dilapidated neighborhood eyesore that has been abandoned since the 1980's. No one lives in the Shepherd Hotel, a grim ugly fortress surrounded by barbed wire, that remains behind as a legacy of the Mufti of Jerusalem, who championed Hitler and helped recruit Muslims to serve in the SS. But with its demolition, people might actually begin to live on that spot. Children might actually play on ground that had been previously fenced off by barbed wire. And the worst thing of it all is that those people and their children will be Jews.

    Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, might have been displeased to look up from the netherworld and behold the demolition of his hotel, but to see the representatives of the United States and the EU taking up his work and treating the demolition of his hotel as the gravest issue of the day would surely have cheered him up. If he had ever been worried that his work would die with a bullet in Berlin or when his Holy War Army, even with the support of seven Arab countries and half the British officer corps failed to drive the Jews into the sea during the War of Independence, the statements of Hillary Clinton and the EUSSR's Red Baroness Ashton testify once again that the evil that men and muftis do lives on after them.

    In her statement, Hillary Clinton said the United States is "very concerned" about the demolition of a Nazi collaborator's abandoned hotel. In a world where North Korea and Iran are racing ahead to build nuclear weapons, Russia and China are racing to outstrip the United States in weapons development and the economy is on the brink — that is what the Obama Administration is "very concerned" about. That 20 Jewish families will be able to have homes in the capital of their own city.

    Hillary Clinton chose to attack Israel from Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE, a totalitarian regime whose own construction boom was built on slave labor imported from India. Where there are no political freedoms and where non-Muslim foreigners have few rights, if any. Where a video showed the brother of the ruler of Abu Dhabi torturing a man in ways too horrifying to describe, with the approval of the police and the judicial system over a debt. Where 42 percent of the prisoners are there for being indebted. The UAE is essentially a slave state, built on the backs of mostly non-Muslim migrant workers with no human or legal rights.

    While in Abu Dhabi, Hillary Clinton might have called on its rulers to open up the system to democratic elections. She might have raised the issue of Western women who are raped in Dubai and then sentenced to jail for being raped. Or the case of Roxanne Hillier, who was sentenced to jail for just being in the same room as her male boss. It certainly would have been appropriate for Hillary Clinton to have challenged the UAE on its abusive treatment of female visitors and tourists. But none of that happened.

    How dare the Jews bulldoze this man's hotel?

    Instead Hillary Clinton used the platform of a barbaric skyscraper studded dictatorship to denounce the only democracy in the region. In a speech more inspired by Monty Python, than any concern for human rights, she described the demolition of a long abandoned hotel as a "disturbing development" and warned that "this move contradicts the logic of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties on the status of Jerusalem". Yet oddly enough, Arab construction does not contradict such an agreement, only Jewish construction does.

    This is not about Israel vs Palestine. The population of Jerusalem, both Jew and Arab, are Israeli citizens. If the Shepherd Hotel were being demolished to build homes for Arab citizens of Israel, does anyone seriously believe that Hillary or the Red Baroness would be getting so worked up over it? It's not the passport that makes the difference, but the race and the religion. And if so, it's not Israeli roads that are Apartheid, but the policies of Obama and the EU which strive to carve out a new "Pale of Settlement" where Jews may and may not live.

    The Red Baroness, who has been too busy ordering bulletproof limousines and dispatching dozens of EU diplomats to such trouble spots as Barbados for vital martini drinking assignments, to actually attend European Commission meetings — found time to blast Israel instead. Baroness Ashton has missed two thirds of the EC meetings, but she has found time to show her commitment to human rights by lobbying on behalf of the People's Republic of China. She may have ignored the persecution of Christian Copts in Muslim Egypt — but when the Jews demolish an abandoned hotel, then by all of the EU's stars, the Red Baroness is on the ball.

    "I strongly condemn this morning's demolition of the Shepherd Hotel and the planned construction of a new illegal settlement," said Baroness Ashton. The "settlement" is somewhat confusingly a housing project being built in place of an existing hotel in one of the oldest cities of the world. But somehow the term "settlement" no longer means a new town in an unsettled region, it now simply means a place where Jews live. Or propose to live. As Nazi Germany termed some art as "Jewish art" and the Soviet Union euphemistically labeled some science as "cosmopolitan science", the word "settlement" has become untethered from its literal meaning and instead become synonymous with a Jewish dwelling place.

    While Baroness Ashton sent out her spokesman to condemn the attack on Christian Copts in Egypt and the assassination of Salman Taseer in Punjab, she personally declared her outrage over a hotel in which no one was killed, aside perhaps from a stray lizard or two sunning themselves on the nearby rocks. It's rather clear where her priorities lie and it isn't with the victims of Muslim terror, rather with its perpetrators. For that same reason, Hillary Clinton can't be bothered to offer sympathy to the Western women raped in Dubai and raped again by its Muslim legal system, but lashes out over something as petty as the demolition of an abandoned hotel.

    It was perfectly fitting for Hillary Clinton to deliver her condemnation of Israel from Abu Dhabi, one of the region's centers of corruption, where oil money buys human slavery, and rape victims are sent to jail by the law of a Muslim tyranny. And the West keeps silent, rather than offend the fat greasy hands of the royals who control the pipeline. It was similarly fitting that the Red Baroness neglected representing her country, in order to come prancing down to Israel, berate the locals for not dismantling itself quickly enough to suit the rulers of those same oil rich countries, who pull the strings on those like Baroness Ashton, that the Soviet Union grew tired of playing with.

    Hillary Clinton and the Red Baroness accuse Israel of obstructing peace negotiations by demolishing the Shepherd Hotel. But was there any serious prospect for negotiations before that? While the Mufti's hotel still stood, then Israel was charged with obstructing peace by allowing Jewish families to build homes in Judea and Samaria. And during the 9 month construction freeze in which they were not allowed to do it — then Israel was charged with obstructing peace through its blockade of Gaza's terrorists. And before Israel withdrew from Gaza, it was charged with obstructing peace by not withdrawing from Gaza. And before Israel liberated Gaza in 1967, it was still charged with obstructing peace by refusing to do one thing or another that the Arab Muslim regimes wanted from it. Israel is always under attack and always at fault. If not for one thing, then for another. And while women are gang raped and whipped by our friendly allies in the Gulf, Israel is charged with the terrible crime of building a house.

    This was written by Daniel Greenfield and it appeared yesterday on his website: SultanKnish.com. It is archived at
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/01/ crime-of-building-house.html

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gil Ronen, January 11, 2011.

    Israeli leftist groups receive money from Arab pro-terror organizations, an independent investigation by grassroots student group Im Tirtzu revealed. The findings were reported by Ma'ariv Tuesday.

    Im Tirtzu's study connects the dots between 13 Israeli leftist groups — including B'Tselem and the Center for Protection of the Individual ('Hamoked')— and a Ramallah-based fund called the National Development Center (NDC), which is closely linked to a fund called the Welfare Association (WA). The WA, in turn, receives some of its money from the Al Aqsa Fund, which also gives money to the relatives of mass murdering 'martyrs' who carried out suicide attacks against Jewish men, women and children.

    Im Tirtzu says that by receiving money from these sources, the Israeli groups are legally obliged to fight Israel through propaganda and 'lawfare.'

    The NDC gave a total of about two million dollars to 13 Israeli groups in 2008-2009 alone, the new research reveals. The largest donations were to Hamoked, which received $450,000, and B'Tselem, which got $400,000.

    The NDC, founded 2006, is officially funded by the governments of Switzerland, Sweden, Holland and Denmark. However, its website also says that its assets, systems and team of founders came from the WA. Im Tirtzu says that according to the group's official criteria for granting assistance, any aid recipient must commit itself to "activity for monitoring human rights abuses by the 'Israeli Occupation Force'," and for conducting a propaganda and legal struggle against the 'occupation' of Judea and Samaria.

    NDC's headquarters are based in Ramallah, and its directors are all from the Palestinian Authority. Five of the 13 board members are also representatives and members of the WA in Ramallah, which receives money from the Islamic Investment Bank, Arab countries hostile to Israel and the Al Aqsa Fund. The Al Aqsa Fund, which gives money to family members of suicide bomb mass-murderers, gave the WA $797,000 in 2007 alone.

    B'Tselem: tell the police

    B'Tselem responded to the Ma'ariv report by saying that the NDC "is a body for transferring money established by the governments of Switzerland, Sweden, Holland and Denmark, and gives money to B'Tselem, among other groups. The body's operation is completely legal and B'Tselem reports, as the law requires, all monies transferred to it from these governments through this body. If the people of Im Tirtzu have any complaints, they are welcome to ask the Israel Police and the Registrar of Amutot (NGOs) to investigate."

    Hamoked said: "Four European nations that are friendly toward Israel chose to give money to Hamoked through a pipeline known as NDC. Any other presentation of these simple facts is an underhanded attempt to depict the group in a bad light."

    Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gil Ronen, January 10, 2011.

    Iranian authorities have downgraded the status of the site known as the Tomb of Esther and Mordechai the Jews. They have removed an official sign at the mausoleum, in the city of Hamadan in central Iran, that declared it an official pilgrimage site.

    The state-run Iranian news agency Fars hinted that the fate of the site could be much worse. It said Iran has chosen to ignore, for the time being, "the responsibility of Esther and Mordechai for the massacre of 75 thousand Iranians, which the Jews celebrate at Purim."

    Fars noted that Jews from the world over visit the site, including Israelis who possess additional, non-Israeli passports.

    According to the official Iranian news agency MEHR, a group of about 250 student-members of the Basij militia gathered in front of the tomb in December and threatened to tear it down The Basij members sent to threaten the landmark were students from Abu Ali Sina University. They said they were responding to alleged Israeli plans to damage the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem

    "Muslims, be aware that [the Israelis] have started the destruction of Al-Aqsa mosque while their second sacred site in Iran, the Esther and Mordecai tomb, is at peace and no Muslims make a sound," the protesters stated. "We, the student basijis... warn Zionist regime leaders if they assault the Al-Aqsa mosque in any way we will destroy the tomb of these lowly murderers," they said.

    Mordechai and Esther, they accused, massacred 77 thousand Iranians in a single day. Some of them wore burial shrouds as a declaration of their willingness to die for their cause.

    According to a report on FightHatred.com, Iranian authorities have also taken to revising the history of Esther and Mordechai, teaching schoolchildren that the two carried out a massacre of tens of thousands of non-Jews, and that the annual Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated by Jews to commemorate this "Iranian Holocaust".

    Video: The Tomb of Esther and Mordechai in Hamedan Iran.

    Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com), where this article appeared today.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Laura, January 10, 2011.

    This was written by Leo Rennert. It appeared in American Thinker
    ( http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/ new_york_times_ignores_an_inco.html).


    If the New York Times did some serious journalism about changing demographics in Jerusalem instead of focusing only on new housing for Jews, it would discover that Israel's capital is far more Arab today than it was in 1967 after the Six-Day War when Israel captured East Jerusalem, including the Old City, ending 19 years of Jordanian aggression and occupation.

    In the four decades since 1967, Arab population in the unified city has soared from 26 percent to 34 percent. By 2020, it is expected that Arabs will comprise 40 percent of the city's population. And demographic studies indicate that Arabs may reach population parity with Jews in Jerusalem as early as 2035. Why this Arabization of the capital? Because of high housing costs and the lure of better jobs for Jews elsewhere in Israel, while hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority to bankroll construction of thousands of Arab homes — many of them without legal permits.

    The Times, however, is not interested in the steady Arabization of the capital, because this would contradict its make-believe agenda that Jews are proliferating in East Jerusalem, where supposedly they have no business to be, including in areas where Jews resided for many centuries before they were expelled by Jordan at Israel's founding.

    So, the Times ignores the reality of Arabs building homes in Jerusalem at a far faster rate than Jews, and focuses only on political theatrics when leftists organize protests against occasional new Jewish developments in the city's eastern neighborhoods. The underlying premise of its reportage is that it was OK for Jordan to make East Jerusalem "Judenrein" for 19 years before the Six-Day War, but scandalous for Israel to let Jews recoup court-recognized property titles or buy residential properties from willing Arab sellers.

    This anti-Israel bent by the Times again is in full swing in a Jan. 9 dispatch by Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner about demolition of the Shepherd Hotel a short distance north of the Old City on the slope to Mt. Scopus to make way for 20 apartments for Jewish families ("Israeli Demolition Begins in East Jerusalem Project")

    In her lead paragraph, Kershner writes:

    "Israeli bulldozers demolished part of a landmark building in a predominantly Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem on Sunday to make way for a new Jewish housing project, prompting condemnations from Palestinian officials."

    Expanding on these Palestinian condemnations, she uncritically quotes Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator and Mahmoud Abbas's propaganda minister, as declaring that "Israel continues to change the landscape of Jerusalem, aiming to change its status and turn it into an exclusive Jewish city."

    If this were really Israel's intent, it botched it up royally. In 1967, after the unification of Jerusalem, the Arab population of Jerusalem totaled about 70,000. Today, there are a quarter of a million Arabs in Jerusalem. And according to demographic forecasts, the city will be home to some 360,000 Arabs at the end of this decade.

    Yet, the Times spends lots of ink reporting Erekat's bald lie that Israel is changing Jerusalem into an "exclusive Jewish city."

    In relating the history of the Shepherd Hotel, Kershner accurately reports that it was built in the 1930s as a villa for Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grandmufti of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, her only description of Husseini is that he "notoriously aligned himself with Hitler." That doesn't begin to do him justice. There were far more nefarious aspects to Husseini than merely aligning himself with Hitler. Kershner fails to report that Husseini ginned up Arab pogroms in the early half of the 20th Century that killed many hundreds of Jews. It was Husseini who goaded Arabs in the 1920s to drive all Jews out of Hebron, killing scores and desecrating their synagogues and cemetery, It was Husseini who lined up the Arab world to further Hitler's Final Solution.

    For a reporter and a newspaper, which are so quick to document Palestinian pain, to omit how much Jewish blood Husseini had on his hands again points up the double standard of Times coverage — when it comes to the Holy Land, spotlight Palestinian suffering, brush out Jewish suffering.

    Kershner's euphemistic deletion of Husseini's blood-soaked record — that he was, in Kershner's words, only "aligned with Hitler" — leaves readers without a context for her quote of Daniel Luria, a spokesman for an organization supporting more Jewish housing in eastern Jerusalem, who remarks that demolition of the Shepherd Hotel is "beautiful poetic justice."

    Luria's entire quote was that witnessing the end of the Shepherd Hotel was "beautiful poetic justice" precisely because, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Husseini was implicated in the killing of massive numbers of Jews. The Jerusalem Post reported the entire Luria quote. Kershner did not. She dropped Luria's reason for savoring "poetic justice" — Husseini's orchestration of multiple massacres of Jews.

    Holocaust history demands that such crimes never be forgotten. And that especially goes for the New York Times.

    Contact Laura at lel817@yahoo.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, January 10, 2011.
    This sermon was delivered at Temple B'nai Shalom in Braintree, MA on January 8, 2011 by Rabbi Van Lanckton. It is archived at
    http://ravalsruminations.blogspot.com/2011/01/ justice-for-jonathan-pollard.html

    Jonathan Pollard has been locked up in jail by our government for 25 years. He is serving a life sentence without parole.

    He went to jail when he was 31 years old. Now he is 56.

    This week the Patriot Ledger printed an editorial opposing Pollard's release. The paper claimed that the editorial was from another source and "may or may not" reflect the editorial view of the Patriot Ledger.

    Thank you to Arline Goodman for your email to all of us about this editorial. You inspired me to think more deeply about the role of Jews in America, in relation both to our government and to our media. What should we do to require our government to act fairly? How can we get our media to check the facts and report honestly?

    Here is what I believe to be true about Jonathan Pollard.

    He is Jewish. He is an American civilian. In 1983 he was working in Washington, DC, as a civilian intelligence analyst for our Navy.

    Pollard discovered that some people in our national security establishment were deliberately withholding from Israel information that he believed was vital to Israel's security.

    The information included nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities of Syria, Iraq, Libya and Iran. The information indicated that those countries were developing those weapons for use against Israel. The information even included plans for ballistic missile development by these countries and plans for eventual terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

    Pollard asked his superiors about the suppression of this information. They told him to "mind his own business." One said, "Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don't need to know."

    He learned that one motive for hiding this information from Israel was to limit Israel's ability to act independently in defense of her own interests.

    Pollard tried to persuade the agency to stop this covert policy and to permit the legal flow of this information to Israel. When he failed, he began to give the information to Israel directly.

    The US government discovered Pollard's actions in 1985. The FBI arrested him and questioned him.

    Pollard admitted what he had been doing. He signed a plea agreement. He agreed to cooperate fully with the government. That agreement spared both the American and Israeli government a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.

    Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution. Nevertheless, Pollard received a life sentence. The judge recommended that he never be paroled. He was sent to a maximum security prison. He has been there ever since, for the last 25 years.

    Pollard was never indicted for harming the United States. He was not charged with compromising codes, agents, or war plans. The prosecution never claimed that he had committed treason. He was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States. The typical sentence for that offense is two to four years in jail.

    Before Pollard was sentenced, however, Caspar Weinberger, who was then the Secretary of Defense, delivered a 46-page classified memorandum to the sentencing judge. Pollard and his attorneys have never been allowed access to the memo. They didn't see it then, and they haven't seen it since. They have never had a chance to challenge the charges in it. But the judge saw it.

    Not only that. The day before sentencing, Weinberger delivered a four-page memo to the judge. Pollard was able to see it only briefly. In that memo, Weinberger falsely accused Pollard of treason. Weinberger advocated a life sentence.

    The judge accepted that recommendation. Pollard is still serving that sentence after 25 years. Many efforts have been made to free him, both in the courts and by appealing to president after president to release him by commuting his sentence or pardoning him. All those efforts have failed.

    Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has tried before, and is trying again, to free Jonathan Pollard. Many others have joined that effort, including. just this week, President Obama's teacher and mentor from Harvard Law School, Charles Ogletree. No success yet.

    Now the Patriot Ledger publishes an editorial that opposes Pollard's release. The editorial makes false charges about Pollard that have already been discredited.

    The editorial says that most of the U.S. military and intelligence communities oppose Pollard's release. Not so.

    It says that George Tenet, then the head of the CIA, threatened to resign if President Clinton released Pollard. Not true.

    The editorial says that we will never know what Pollard passed to Israel if he is released. Ridiculous! Pollard provided all that information to the authorities 25 years ago. Keeping him in jail will not lead to any new information.

    So what do we do about this? We write to the Patriot Ledger to complain about the editorial and to set the record straight. I will work with anyone who wants to join me in writing such a letter.

    And we use this occasion to join with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Professor Ogletree and all of Jonathan Pollard's many supporters to demand that President Obama finally commute his sentence to time served and release him to put an end to this injustice.

    We are extraordinarily fortunate to live in a country where we have the rights to argue with the media and to make demands upon our government to correct injustice. That is not so elsewhere, as we were dramatically reminded by two stories in the news during the last weeks of 2010.

    The 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Liu Xiaobo [shau-bo] of China. The committee made that award to honor Liu's "long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights in China."

    Liu is a Chinese literary critic, writer and human rights activist. He advocated for political reforms, the end of communist one-party rule in China, and free markets. He argued that the government must be accountable for its wrongdoings.

    The Chinese Communist party considers his writing to be subversive. His publications have been banned in China. Just over one year ago, he was sentenced to prison for eleven years. This is his fourth prison term. The government is punishing him because he is criticizing the government and he refuses to stop.

    In 2010 we also watched as justice was perverted in Russia by the extended imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was a highly successful Russian businessman. Six years ago, he was the wealthiest man in Russia. He headed a huge Russian company established during the privatization of businesses in Russia. He is not being punished for any illegal conduct. Rather, he was convicted in 2005 after he had begun arguing in public for greater democracy in Russia, a direct challenge to the regime of President Vladimir Putin.

    After he went to jail, Khodorkovsky began to advocate for human rights even more openly. As a result, and in order to silence him, the Russian government brought baseless new charges against him just months before he was to become eligible for parole. These charges also have no basis. They are simply a way to keep Khodorkovsky sidelined from the political process and held in jail.

    Here in America, in contrast to China and Russia, we enjoy the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution.

    Here in America, we have the right to speak freely.

    Here in America, we have the right to petition the government to undo injustice.

    Here in America, the government is subject to the rule of law and can be called to account by the citizens when it departs from that standard.

    The requirement that the government must follow the law is a very ancient Jewish idea. We find it in Chapter 17 of Deuteronomy. The Torah says that, if the Israelites wish to have a king, then that king must follow certain legal requirements. Among these are the commands that the king write his own personal copy of the Torah, keep it with him, and study it daily, in order to remind himself that he is not above the law.

    When the Israelites no longer had their own king, first because of banishment to Babylon, and later after coming under Roman rule following the destruction of the Temple, it became our practice to pray for the welfare of the government. The basic idea was that even a despotic government under the rule of a monarch or emperor provided some order and security. Ruthless government was better than anarchy.

    As Rabbi Chanina said in Mishnah Pirkei Avot, "Pray for the welfare of the government. If it were not for the fear of the government, men would eat each other alive."

    We in America also pray for the welfare of our government. But we have a different idea of government. We are not subject to the Babylonians or the Romans. We, the citizens, are responsible for what happens in our democracy. Here is our prayer; we recited it just a short while ago:

    We ask Your blessings for our country, for its government, for its leader and advisors, and for all who exercise just and rightful authority. Teach them insights of your Torah, that they may administer all affairs of state fairly.

    Our Constitution limits the freedom of our government to do as it wishes. Yes, there are times when our government acts unjustly. Many of these are times of national security concerns. Think of the Americans of Japanese descent that our own government locked up in concentration camps here in our own country during World War II. Think of the claims by the government that it could arrest anyone the president labels an enemy combatant, and detain that person indefinitely without trial and without review.

    But our system also includes correctives for those injustices.

    The government acknowledged that it had wronged the World War II prisoners and paid reparations to them.

    Our Supreme Court repeatedly rejected the arguments of the previous administration that it had virtually unlimited authority to lock people up without review. The Court reversed the government's actions, requiring them to provide due process and a judicial review to the Guantanamo prisoners.

    What can we do to bring justice to Jonathan Pollard? We can take seriously the prayer for our country. When we pray, the essence of what we are doing is reflecting on the subject of the prayer and deciding what we ourselves are going to do about it.

    The Hebrew word for prayer is hitpallel. The root in Hebrew means to judge or clarify. Hitpallel is a reflexive form of that verb. It means to judge ourselves, to obtain clarity for ourselves.

    The only way for God to work in this world is for us, fashioned in the image of God, to carry out the objectives set forth in our prayers. If we pray that the hungry may be fed, then we must feed them. If we pray that the naked may be clothed, then we must clothe them.

    If we pray that God will teach our leaders and advisors insights from the Torah so that they may administer all affairs of state fairly and exercise just and rightful authority, then it is up to us to teach those insights.

    Justice, justice shall you pursue. That means not only obtaining a just result, but doing so fairly.

    The result for Jonathan Pollard has not been just. And the government did not obtain that result fairly.

    So it is not enough for us to say the words of the prayer for our country. We must carry out by our own actions what the prayer asks God to do.

    We help to achieve justice for Jonathan Pollard by joining with his supporters to demand his freedom. We can do so very easily by going to the website that has been set up for that purpose and taking action.

    We help to achieve justice for Jonathan Pollard by joining our voices in the calls for justice addressed to President Obama. He has the power to commute Pollard's sentence. We must ask him to do that, and then ask again if he does not.

    We help to achieve justice for Jonathan Pollard by objecting to false and misleading newspaper reports and editorials and demanding that the papers admit their errors and print the truth.

    The precious rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights are nothing more than words on paper if we fail to exercise them. It is not just the words in our constitution, but the actions of the citizens, that make those rights into a reality. We the people are in charge of the government. But only if we take charge.

    To help us do that, after services I hope you will take home this list I prepared. It includes the contact information for officials at all levels of government. It includes also information on how to contact newspaper editors, and the address of the Free Jonathan Pollard website. Please use this list to contact our government officials and the press and advocate for justice. As Rabbi Tarfon said in Pirkei Avot: "It is not incumbent upon you to complete the task. But neither are you free to desist from it!"

    And in the words of Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am for myself alone, what am I? And, if not now, when?"

    Shabbat shalom.

    Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:

    To Go To Top

    Posted by William Narvey, January 10, 2011.

    From: William Narvey [mailto:wpnarvey@shaw.ca]
    January 10, 2011

    Dear Professor Jones,

    I am pleased you have responded to my letter, even though you take issue with my advice. Your heart seems to be in the right place, which moves me to respond..

    Your bio speaks to your involvement in trying to improve mutual understanding and respect between Muslims and non-Muslims and you are against human rights violations and against innocent victims of hostile conflict.

    Given your positive attitude in respect of issues I share concerns about, your comment provides me an opportunity to engage with you.

    I believe it important to do so, yet my experience leads me to conclude that most of the talk between Jews/Non-Muslim Westerners and Muslims is not talking with, but talking at each other, especially when it comes to hot button issues that have created much tension and concern.

    Dialoguing on safe issues is fine, but it really gets neither side any closer to understanding each other when it comes to the tough and often emotionally laden divisive issues that are usually avoided for obvious reasons that you are as aware of as I.

    I have therefore long held the view that there must be more dialogue with and not at each other and to that end, Muslims and Jews/non-Muslim Westerners must find the courage to confront and discuss the significant issues of concern and conflict between them.

    You appear to be expressing the same view as me in this regard.

    It is with that in mind that I can sincerely say that I welcome the opportunity to engage with you on these more challenging issues.

    My comments with which you take issue, are however both specific to you and of more general and broader focus. You have however, conflated the two to an extent. I will try to separate the two for you and respond accordingly.

    As to specifics:

    1. You say: If you read my articles closely, nowhere do I rationalize or minimize the acts of terrorists PARTICULARLY those of Muslims.

    This statement is more in response to Steve Rubin's comment that:

    "Based on Mr. Jones' comments we should believe that we caused these Muslim maniacs "to feel bad", therefore, they retaliated." I presume Steve was referencing your opening paragraphs in your reproduced article Slaughter of innocents as self-defense, retribution: Sept. 11 terrorism, Gaza warfare where you state:

    "AMONG the many difficult memories I have from the first decade of the 21st century are two slaughters of innocents. Both were carried out in the name of retribution and self defense.

    The first, Sept. 11, was brutal, murderous and has negatively affected the lives of millions of people. Beyond the billions of dollars spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, thousands of U.S. troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis have been killed.

    In addition, we have imposed stateside policies that include ever-more intrusive searches of our communications and our bodies. Sadly, this version of the "war" on terrorism often feels more like a war on

    Americans in general, and Muslims, in particular. The truth is this approach has increased the number of attacks on Americans and U.S. interests worldwide since Sept. 11."

    While I too deplore the slaughter of innocents Prof. Jones, we have thus far only your own words from your articles to go by to discern what your specific views are that run far deeper then just the general bromide you offer about the world needing to join you in standing against the slaughter of innocents.

    Saying you are against the slaughter of innocents is a noble sentiment we all would concur with, but without specifics as to whom you consider innocent and in what context and circumstances, your words are nothing more than a platitude.

    Your words that "The truth is this approach has increased the number of attacks on Americans and U.S. interests worldwide since Sept. 11.", can be fairly stated as your suggesting that American/Western policies led to the Jihadist 9/11 attack and that their actions following, have only further infuriated the Jihadists more, so we are experiencing Jihadist attacks motivated by their sense of self-defence and retribution to the American/West's response to the Jihadists.

    Where Professor is your unqualified denunciation of the Jihadists, all they stand for and believe in including their own recitation of many passages from Islamic foundational writings that they cite to justify their 9/11 attack and continued attacks and hatred of on America, the West, Jews and Christians?

    I do not however, take your words in isolation in that regard Professor.

    You must recall as do I, in the days following 9/11, the major media networks in the States interviewed many leading imams and Muslim organization spokespersons on their broadcasts to get their reaction to 9/11 and their position regarding the Jihadists.

    All these Muslim leaders condemned the Jihadists with all the sincerity they could muster, however there was in almost every instance, a qualification. Almost all these Muslims I heard, added words to the effect, 'but America's policies in the Middle East and support of Israel, has greatly angered the Muslim world', thus implying, though some actually said expressly, that America had therefore brought 9/11 on herself.

    In my view, you are implicitly echoing those sentiments. While not minimizing the Jihadists evil, you certainly appear to be rationalizing it. I therefore I find Steve Rubin's comment as to where you are coming from is fair.

    Steve and I might not be correct about your innermost specific views in this regard, depending on what you might further advise, but just taking you at your word and for my following reasons, I say our take on your words is fair.

    What then Professor can you add or say to counter this impression we have of what you are saying?

    2. You react to my mention of Saudis funding many university programs in the States and Canada to be led by Muslim professors who are mixing their own anti-Western and anti-Israel political views and revisionist histories into what they are teaching of Islam, Middle East politics and history as being "simply ludicrous-funded by the Saudis???— George W. Bush can lay a greater claim to this than I can."

    I have not specifically said that the program you are running at Manhatten College where you teach, is funded by Saudis.

    I have made a specific assumption Professor that as regards what you are teaching at Manhatten College, reflects your views on Israel, which I will deal with in my next numbered response.

    It is entirely possible that you have not injected your views on Israel's position and actions vis a vis the Palestinians into your teachings. If you claim you do not do that and that you teach history and politics in a fair and balanced way, based on objective religious, historical and political authorities that deal in fact and history, without undue finger pointing at Israel, I have no basis to doubt it.

    I await your word on that.

    I am not clear on what your reference to George Bush relates to, since my point was about Saudi funding of university programs to teach about Islam, Middle Eastern politics and history

    I will therefore confine my comments to that point.

    There are a great many articles easily accessed on the internet regarding Saudi funding of educational programs in both pre-university schools and universities and providing much information on how many of the Muslim teachers and professors are misinforming and misleading their students about the religion and history of Islam, Middle Eastern history and politics, including the history and politics of the Israel vs. Palestinian/Arab conflicts.

    Check out just two of them, by Stanley Kurtz and Lee Kaplan: here and here.

    Check out as well the website for Campus Watch I earlier provided.

    As to the Saudis, you well know the Islam they believe in and practice is called Wahabbiism. It is fundamentalist Islam and it holds sway over the minds of most of the Middle East and much of the Muslim world that is 85% Sunni. Jihadists derive their Islamic beliefs and practice from fundamentalist Islam.

    I trust, I needn't cite for you the great many passages from Islamic foundational writings that fundamentalist Muslims, Jihadis and all other Muslims we refer to as radical, believe in that hatefully demonizes Jews, Christians and non-Muslims in that order, that calls for no toleration of non-Muslims save in a taqiyaa sort of way in order for Islam to gain the advantage such as Arafat's/Abbas' 1994 defence of the Oslo Accords in the face of Palestinian/Arab anger by likening those Accords to Mohammed's breaking his treaty of Hudabiya with the Jewish Banu Quryash tribe of Medina in 629 C.E., that sees the world as divided between dar-al-Islam and dar-al-Harb and that Muslims are enjoined as a religious duty to carry on war against dar-al-Harb until Islam reigns supreme and dominates the world, ie. Islamic manifest destiny by Muslims killing, converting or subjugating those in dar el Harb, which would thus become dar-al-Islam.

    I well understand that not all Muslims take these teachings against non-Muslims to heart, but the fact remains that a very great many do.

    What Professor do you say of these numerous passages in the Islamic foundational texts I alluded to and where do you stand in relation to them?

    The Saudis have been playing a duplicitous game with the West. While since 9/11 the Saudis have become more co-operative with America and the West in ferreting out Jihadists, they were and continue to fund, less secretly now of course in this information age, the very Muslim radicals that they claim they are against and whom they contribute efforts to working against.

    It was however, not until the Jihadist bombings in Riyahd in 2003 that the Saudis began to more seriously step up to the plate to help the West combat the Jihadi terrorists that they finally saw threatened them as well.

    What Professor do you say in relation to the foregoing as regards my stating that many of the Muslim teachers and professors in Western schools and universities are misinforming and misleading their students about the religion and history of Islam, Middle Eastern history and politics, including the history and politics of the Israel vs. Palestinian/Arab conflicts?

    3. You say: It is a fact that innocent people are dying all over world in the name of a twisted form of Islam and this "war on terror"(this should concern any compassionate human being). It is also a fact that most of the world's' 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims are not at war with anybody.

    Yes Professor, more Muslims have been murdered and maimed by radical Muslims than non-Muslims, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan, etc..

    When you say those radical Muslims practice a twisted form of Islam, I must ask, twisted how and what then do your own beliefs and practice of Islam dictate to the contrary?

    As I asked before, how do you reconcile the many passages in Islamic foundational writings I alluded to, with your own Islamic beliefs that I will accept your word on, that teaches and preaches universal values of mutual tolerance, respect, understanding, peace and harmony between Muslims and non-Muslims?

    As for the "war on terror", it is a complete euphemism. It seeks to hide the fact that the West is very much at war, not of their choosing, with Jihadists, their material, financial and moral supporters and cheerleaders, all of whom are influenced to at least some extent by what I referred to earlier as fundamentalist Islam that is in keeping with Wahabbist Islam of the Saudis.

    I won't say that the West's war is against most of the 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims, but it is by various experts estimates, at war with many 100's of millions of them.

    What say you in this regard?

    4. My suggesting that you have an anti-Israel bias that unfairly is not supported by facts, history and current realities

    In this regard Professor, I can only take you at your word in respect of the article Slaughter of innocents as self-defense, retribution: Sept. 11 terrorism, Gaza warfare and your other articles I provided links to in my last comment. It is based on your words that I have formed that opinion.

    I have no objection whatsoever as regards where your biases and sympathies lie as we all have our biases and sympathies. I am biased and sympathetic towards Israel.

    Conflict and problems arise when we allow our biases and sympathies to dictate how we look to facts, history and current realities to not lead us to what conclusions they fairly should be leading us to, but rather to the conclusions that accord with our sympathies and biases.

    In your articles, while you make brief scant reference to condemning Hamas/Hezbollah for their atrocities against Israel and the killing of innocents, you devote almost all of words to condemning Israel for the slaughter of 1,000 Lebanese, for the slaughter of a great many Palestinian innocents, for Israel's collective punishment and oppression of the Palestinians and Israel's disproportionate use of force.

    It is on that score that I take great issue with you.

    There are many historical realities you minimize, cherry pick or ignore altogether such as:

    a. Arab hatred of Jews because they are Jews, long preceded the re-birth of the Jewish State of Israel. For instance, Haj Amin al-Husseini the leader of the Arabs in the Palestinian Mandate fuelled Arab Jew hatred and persecution, led Arabs to attack Jews and massacre a great many Jews in Hebron in the 1920's and it was al-Husseini who established offices in Berlin before and during WWII to offer his assistance in committing genocide against the Jews in the Palestinian territories in keeping with Hiter's plan to murder all the Jews of Europe.

    It is that same Arab hatred of Jews and rejection of their right to exist in their own state that fuelled the Arab genocidal wars against Israel since her creation and the assymetrical terrorist attacks from Palestinians, both Hamas and Fatah and Hezbollah.

    b. The infamous 3 no's by the Arabs meeting in Khartoum following the 6 day war that are still in play today, though disguised by some discussions and negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, those discussions essentially get hung up on making any deal with Israel ie. the 3 no's are still very much in play.

    c. While not all Muslims are anti-Semitic, the majority of the Muslim world is according to many experts, including Muslim pundits. It is accurate to therefore say that the majority of the Muslim world are racists when it comes to Jews.

    Events and facts bear this out.

    At the UN, the O.I.C. representing the 56 Muslim UN member nations brings forth every year a litany of highly politicized anti-Israel Resolutions before the UNGA, which singularly condemn Israel every which way to Sunday and including Sunday, but there is not a word on Palestinian wrongs.

    Both the Hamas and Fatah/PLO Charters, though worded somewhat differently, clearly call for the destruction of Israel and taking all of Israel for a Palestinian state or in Hamas' case for Islam. Palestinian propaganda and speeches by their leaders to their people, especially in Arabic, give unequivocal expression to those core objectives.

    Hamas and Abbas/Fatah control every aspect of Palestinian society, from politics, to education, to the media and even what is said in the mosques. In that regard, to this day both Hamas and Fatah ensure all Palestinians are bred and nurtured on Jew hatred from cradle to grave.

    d. Since her re-birth, Israel has been the only one to make real and tangible efforts towards peace with her Arab neighbours and those Arabs that since the early 1970's identified themselves as a societal group called the Palestinians that changed their terrorist organization into an what they cloaked as a liberation organization to achieve self-determination of the people they claimed to represent in the lands they inhabited in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

    In making various interim peace agreements with the Palestinians, Israel is the one that has made tangible concessions of land and position in return for Palestinian promises that were almost all honoured only in the breach. Israel too breached some of the terms of its agreements as well, however on close examination of the facts, Israel did that in most or all cases in reaction to Palestinian breaches of agreement.

    To this day, the Palestinians have not backed down from any of their demands which if Israel were to accede to, would mean the end of Israel.

    e. Israel attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah without much if any retaliation. Israel in 2006 fought back and yes many Lebanese died, but most were Hezbollah fighters and supporters and in 2008 many Hamas died. Yes, some innocents died, but both Hezbollah and Hamas, in contravention of every civilized norm and Geneva convention that speaks to crimes against humanity and war crimes, have used human shields from behind whom they launched their attacks.

    Suggesting Israel used disproportionate force is ludicrous. In fact, had Israel actually used disproportionate force against the terrorist attacks by Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, a very great many non-combatants would have been killed, but Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah would have been destroyed.

    f. When it comes to human rights, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East where human rights are respected. Not respected perhaps perfectly, but certainly respected far more than by a country mile then they are respected in every Muslim nation. It is Israel's respect for human rights and the welfare of Palestinians/Arabs that are not directly involved in combat with Israel, that has stayed Israel's hand from rolling over Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah which they are militarily able to do.

    g. I could keep going on and on with historical facts and current realities, but this should suffice for now.

    Professor, your bio states you are involved in seeking to bring about greater understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims including Jews.

    Your words in reply to me speak of wanting an end to the death of innocents and wanting only peace between Israel and Palestinians/Arabs.

    You certainly seem to have the will to bring about greater mutual understanding and respect between the Muslim and non-Muslim world and between Muslims and Jews and to have the world share your vision for a world where innocents are not harmed by parties in conflict which means finding better and more moral, peaceful and humane ways to resolve conflicts.

    Since you sought to engage with me and any others listening in, I invite you to respond in the particular to my foregoing detailed response to your letter.

    Bill Narvey

    From: James Jones [mailto:jonesyahya@yahoo.com]
    Sent: January-10-11 6:03 AM

    Greetings all; As an American and academic I encourage/relish healthy debate. Most of the comments below are not about what I said but about what people BELIEVE I am (some of which is simply ludicrous-funded by the Saudis??? — George W. Bush can lay a greater claim to this than I can). If you read my articles closely, nowhere do I rationalize or minimize the acts of terrorists PARTICULARLY those of Muslims. It is a fact that innocent people are dying all over world in the name of a twisted form of Islam and this "war on terror"(this should concern any compassionate human being). It is also a fact that most of the world's' 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims are not at war with anybody. Sadly, there is more lively debate on these issues in issues in Israel than there is and the US. Here's hoping that US Jews, Muslims and other concerned citizens will spend less time bashing and distorting the views of those with whom they disagreed and more time urging our co-coreligionists toward peace in the Middle East. May the Creator have mercy on us all.

    Jimmy Jones

    From: William Narvey
    Subject: RE: FAITH MATTERS
    Date: Sunday, January 9, 2011, 5:27 PM
    To: Steve Rubin [mailto:sarubin18@gmail.com]


    Jones describes himself as the founding co-ordinator of the Center for Middle East Understanding. More like Middle East Mis-Understanding. He really has a problem with Israel. Surprise, surprise. The majority of the Muslim world is anti-semitic and that comes from a number of prominent Muslim writers themselves. Most Muslims are united in support of Palestinians and against Israel. Most equate Israel with Jews and you know where that gets them.

    Like so many others, while condemning Jihadists out of one side of his mouth, Jones excuses their actions by blaming the Jihadist victims.

    Some information on Jimmy E. Jones:

    Bio from Islamic Research Foundation here.

    Masjid al-Islam has a number of articles here.

    More articles by Jimmy E. Jones here and here.

    The problem that not only Jews, but Westerners generally have with the likes of Jones, is not so much with one person like Jones, but with the very many like Jones and worse.

    Many, but of course not all Islamic scholars that have been given teaching/professorship positions in a great many U.S. and Canadian universities and colleges in religious studies or Middle East politics programs are teaching revisionist history and twisted politics as regards Muslims, Israel and the West. Many of these programs have been funded by the Saudis.

    Campus Watch, a department of Dr. D. Pipes' Middle East Forum, has kept close tabs on the more dastardly revisionist Muslim teachers/professors. They are busy indoctrinating our youth while universities, grateful for the millions of dollars flowing into their coffers from the Saudis, others and even student tuitions look the other way. http://www.campus-watch.org/

    It is good to invest the time to know of what is going on with our universities. The more difficult effort is for each of us to figure out what to do about it and then do it or do it by joining a group that already is actively involved in trying to set matters right.


    From: Steve Rubin [mailto:sarubin18@gmail.com]
    Sent: January-09-11 2:01 PM

    In response to Mr. Jones' most interesting article, I must say that he has truly "elasticized" the truth. The act of terrorism that took place on 9/11 will be burned in the minds and hearts of at least 3000 American families from all walks of life. Let's not forget about the millions who have been, and continue to be, emotionally traumatized by this jihadi act.

    Our countrymen were murdered and slaughtered to make a point. These jihadi terrorists, yes, all Muslim, wanted to show the US people that they could do what they have done to Israel and many others for decades. Based on Mr. Jones' comments we should believe that we caused these Muslim maniacs "to feel bad", therefore, they retaliated. No matter how you look at it sir, this was terrorism at its best, executed by sick people who believe that anyone who is not a Muslim should be slaughtered. Let's not forget how well they treat their women or what they are doing to the Copts in Egypt.

    There are no excuses for any of their acts of violence. Whether you agree or not with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, several US administrations felt it necessary to protect Americans and other freedom-loving people around the world. I have such respect for our soldiers, for those who have lost their lives for us and for those who continue to defend certain inalienable rights.

    Please stop looking for excuses to make the Muslim jihadists look like the downtrodden. They themselves have attempted to create that appearance with no success. What the US has tried to do is protect itself and its people. This was not caused by us. We were the ones who were attacked. Period. US responses cannot be blamed for the increase in terrorist activities against us. These murderers believe in death and not life and they don't care who gets slaughtered in the crossfire as long as they attempt to make their point. The jihadists, whether the Taliban, Al-Queda, Hizbullah, Hamas or others are incapable of convincing the sane people of the world that Sharia law should be the way of life for all.

    Some of the established policies may be executed in slightly stupid fashion, using the TSA as an example, but the end goal is to stop terrorists from having free reign over our lives. US interests and citizens have been targeted for decades all over the world. by these "fine examples" of human garbage.

    For someone who has probably never visited Israel or been personally involved in Hussein's attempt at destroying Israel in the winter of '91, or the two intifadas, or the constant barrage of missiles being fired at the southern towns of Israel by Hamas or the few summers ago when Hizbullah believed they could throw Israel into the sea, you have some opinions based on a great deal of one-sided information.

    Should I remind you of '48, '56, '67 and '73 or the murders of 21 children in Ma'alot or the murder of Israeli Olympians in '72 or bus bombs or the 23 soldiers killed in Jenin — let's not forget that these peace-loving jihadis claimed then that Israel killed 1000 innocents in Jenin yet a UN investigation found that only 56 were killed. Please tell me who is filling your head with these lies?

    Please tell me. Do you claim that the US has no right to protect itself? Do you claim that Israel has no right to protect itself? When Operation Lead Cast began, the first thing Israel did was to inform the civilian population to remove itself from the area via pamphlets, leaflets, cellular phone calls and more. The fact is that these jihadi terrorists have been using their own civilians as cover for years.

    Israel removed 8000 residents of Gush Katif in order to show a desire for peace. What did these Muslims do? They proceeded to turn that huge plot of land into an enormous center for terrorists. Do you believe everything that is published by Muslim academia and well-known terrorists? Goldstone has never and will never be a Zionist or pro-Israel. He wanted to sell his own agenda to the world as the Muslim countries have been doing for years in the UN, that fine bastion of peace-loving nations.

    I have yet to see a true attempt by any major group of Muslims to come to the forefront of this serious world problem and say, this is wrong. Terrorism is not the way. Treating women worse than manure is not the way. Murdering innocent people is not the way. You and many others continue to play the game of "it's all Israel's fault". Let's not forget about Uncle Tom Ahmadinejad who claims the Holocaust never took place and threatens the State of Israel every day of our lives. What about Abbas who completed his doctorate based on revisionist attitudes of the Holocaust. I guess that the millions of Poles, Russians, homosexuals and gypsies weren't murdered by the Nazis, either.

    Wake up and smell the coffee. If you want to have your eyes opened, go spend some time in Netivot, Sderot, Ashkelon and Ashdod. Perhaps you can travel around the country and see the freedom of movement the Arabs truly have. The Israeli Arabs and those who live in Judea and Samaria have lives that are one thousand times better than they ever had under Jordanian rule. When was the last time you heard that a country being constantly attacked supplied the attacking population with money, electricity, water, medicine and so much more? Sir, your way of seeing the "truth" is slightly warped.

    Wishing you only long life and safety under the protection of the US government.

    Stephen Rubin
    Formerly of Fairfield, CT now residing in Beit Shemesh, Israel.

    *Don't even think of claiming that my views are jaded because I live in Israel. Do you have any idea how many leftist/liberals live here in Israel and in the US and are "allowed" to voice their opinions against the administrations? What happens in the Muslim world when a moderate attempts to voice his/her opinions? They are "offed". Hopefully this response of mine will be published in the New Haven Register, but somehow, I am not so sure.

    Slaughter of innocents as self-defense, retribution: Sept. 11 terrorism, Gaza warfare

    by Jimmy E. Jones

    Jimmy E. Jones is president of Masjid Al-Islam and associate professor of world religions at Manhattanville College, where he is founding coordinator of the Center for Middle East Understanding. Write to him at 624 George St., New Haven 06511. E-mail: jonesyahya@yahoo.com.

    AMONG the many difficult memories I have from the first decade of the 21st century are two slaughters of innocents. Both were carried out in the name of retribution and selfdefense.

    The first, Sept. 11, was brutal, murderous and has negatively affected the lives of millions of people. Beyond the billions of dollars spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, thousands of U.S. troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis have been killed.

    In addition, we have imposed stateside policies that include ever-more intrusive searches of our communications and our bodies. Sadly, this version of the "war" on terrorism often feels more like a war on Americans in general, and Muslims, in particular. The truth is this approach has increased the number of attacks on Americans and U.S. interests worldwide since Sept. 11.

    The second slaughter of innocents that stands out in my memory was Israel's "incursion" into Gaza from Dec. 27, 2008, through Jan. 18, 2009. As with Sept. 11, the architects of this brutal assault did it in the name of retribution and selfdefense.

    The controversial Goldstone Report, lead by someone who considers himself a Zionist Jew, raised serious issues about the conduct of Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters during this carnage. The question that Israelis and Americans — whose military and financial support make such actions possible — must ask themselves about such a policy of collective punishment is whether it is fair, just or even effective. With more than 1,000 innocent lives lost, is Israel more secure than it was prior to this "incursion?" When are we going to learn that two wrongs do not make a right? Thankfully, there are some Americans, Israelis and Palestinians who are trying to rise above "eye for an eye" bloodletting through nonviolence. Unfortunately, Americans seldom hear about Palestinian nonviolent activists. Therefore, I strongly recommend two recent books. "Popular Resistance in Palestine" is by Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Palestinian Christian activist who used to live in the area while teaching genetics at Yale University.

    The book chronicles the history of Palestinian resistance, with an emphasis on nonviolent activities.

    The other, "I Shall not Hate," is by a Palestinian Muslim, Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish.

    He is an physician who lost three daughters and a niece when Israelis shelled his Gaza home while he was talking live on television to Israeli newscasters about the "incursion." Remarkably, he continues working to build bridges between Israelis and Palestinians.

    In the upcoming week before the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, it is good to know that there are nonviolent activists like these for whom faith matters.

    Contact William Narvey by email at wpnarvey@shaw.ca

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 10, 2011.

    That's rhetorical, of course. No one gives us a break. But the position of the EU at present is over-the-top:

    According to a report from The Independent (London), an internal EU document was sent to European Consuls General located in Jerusalem with regard to the Shepherd's hotel demolition. According to this report, the Consuls then suggested that it would be wise if they were present during housing demolitions in eastern Jerusalem, and that they attend demolition and eviction related court proceedings and "ensure EU intervention when Palestinians are arrested or intimidated by Israeli authorities for peaceful cultural, social or political activities in east Jerusalem."

    If this doesn't enrage you, don't know what will.


    Additionally, The Independent wrote:

    "If current trends are not stopped as a matter of urgency, the prospect of east Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state becomes increasingly unlikely and unworkable.

    "Over the past few years the changes to the city have run counter to the peace process. Attempts to exclusively emphasize the Jewish identity of the city threaten its religious diversity and radicalize the conflict, with potential regional and global repercussions."

    Global repercussions, no less.

    But when the man responsible for the horrendous, obscene murder of four innocent Israelis is arrested by the PA simply to keep him safe from Israel (with no intent of prosecuting) — and when he is released to make Hamas happy, the PA is angry at Israel for grabbing him so quickly — this apparently doesn't run counter to the peace process. At least, we have no word from the EU indicating that it is.

    So, we know whom we are dealing with, and what we are up against. And it's not a pretty picture.


    With regard to the Europeans on this issue, there are two or three essential problems:

    [] There is insufficient recognition of the historical nature of eastern Jerusalem.

    Where there is talk (British talk in this instance) of Israel "emphasizing the Jewish nature of the city," it is a marker of people who are clearly clueless (or pretending to be clueless?) about the fact that Jerusalem IS a Jewish city. Since the late 1800s, Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority. It was only the illegal usurpation of eastern Jerusalem by Jordan in 1949 that rendered this area "Arab;" this came about because Jordan drove every last Jew from that part of the city. In recent years Jews are simply moving back to the areas that were originally Jewish.

    There was no international outcry when Jordan acted as it did. No distress that the Jewish nature of part of the city was willfully destroyed, as synagogues were taken down and cemeteries vandalized. No distress that Jews, who had been promised access to the Kotel — the Western Wall — were totally denied access for 19 years.


    [] There is an assumption being made: the automatic expectation that eastern Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state.

    Says who? Because the PLO demands it? Let it be very, very clear: Palestinian Arabs (as a recently self-defined entity) NEVER had any part of the city. It is not theirs to claim, although they have done their damnedest in recent years to erase evidence of the Jewish presence.

    The flip side of this is that Jewish rights are being totally ignored or sublimated to Arab claims. That is the single most important issue to be confronted.

    But there is more: There is total failure to recognize that Jerusalem is so thoroughly composed of interlocking Jewish and Arab neighborhoods that dividing the city is truly a logistical impossibility. And there is refusal to acknowledge the security risk to Israel — the nightmare — that would follow from an autonomous Arab presence in some sectors of Jerusalem. Where I live in an old neighborhood of western Jerusalem, I am within easy kassam range of areas that would be part of a Palestinian state, were the Europeans to have their way.


    [] There is serious disrespect for, and disregard of, Israeli law and legal processes.

    The furor over the demolition of an old hotel building that was acquired legally by Jews 25 years ago is evidence of this. So is the suggestion by the Consuls General that they should monitor court proceedings. How insulting and inappropriate does it get? They want not only monitoring of court procedures, but the ability to intervene.


    While distancing his government from the hotel demolition, Prime Minister Netanyahu did support the legal right of Jews to acquire property in Jerusalem. Today his office released the following:

    "Actions undertaken yesterday (Sunday), 9.1.11, at the Shepherd Hotel were conducted by private individuals in accordance with Israeli law. The Israeli government was not involved.

    "There should be no expectation that the State of Israel will impose a ban on Jews purchasing private property in Jerusalem. No democratic government would impose such a ban on Jews and Israel will certainly not do so."

    Additionally, a Jerusalem District Court — in response to a petition by the Husseini family — has declined to issue a temporary restraining order against building on the Shepherd hotel plot.


    Amidst much praise, Meir Dagan has just stepped down from his post as director of the Mossad, after a record-breaking term of eight years. A number of brilliant operations are being attributed to him (although it is obviously impossible to credit him on the record definitively) — these include the assassination of Hezbollah strongman Imad Mughniyeh, the bombing of the Syrian nuclear reactor, and certain sabotages that have occurred in Iran.

    Tzachi Hanegbi, who was very much aware of Dagan's operations because of various government positions he held, had this to say:

    "Even without relating to these specific operations [as above], anyone familiar with Dagan's years in the Mossad up close can attest to the fact that reality has surpassed all imagination."

    And so we owe a debt to Meir Dagan, not only for the successful operations that he achieved, but for the very critical deterrence power that accrues to them.

    Dagan has been succeeded by Tamir Pardo. May he have a term of stunning success.


    Very recently, word was that — when terrorists from small militant groups in Gaza (such as Islamic Jihad) had gotten restive and were seeking a chance to use the new weapons they had acquired — Hamas had given the go-ahead, with the proviso that attacks stay in the vicinity of the border. (This was to prevent an Israeli response of major proportions.) What we saw then, starting near the end of 2010, was an escalation in attacks.

    But just yesterday, perhaps unsettled by the Israeli response, Hamas declared it wants to avoid a Cast Lead II, and announced that it has expended efforts to get those other groups in Gaza to stop firing rockets at Israel — to "control the situation on the ground."

    Either Hamas is not trying very hard, or these groups are not listening. The rockets are still coming on a daily basis, and frequent clashes take place near the border between Israel and Gaza. In the first week of 2011 alone, ten rockets were fired at Israeli communities near the Gaza border. There is routinely an Israeli response to an attack, with strikes against terrorist sites.

    Last Wednesday, two Palestinian Arabs attempting to scale the fence into Israel were shot and killed.

    On Friday, an Israeli soldier was killed and three others wounded by friendly fire. This happened after IDF soldiers saw terrorists placing devices on the border fence, and called in mortar fire against them from another location.

    Today, three rockets landed in the outskirts of Ashkelon, in one of the longer range attacks of recent weeks.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Boris Celser, January 9, 2011.

    This is from Steve Sailer's iSteve Blog.

    The Guardian reports:

    British Pakistanis should stop marrying cousins, says MP

    Riazat Butt
    Wednesday November 16, 2005
    The Guardian
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/11/ muslim-cousin-marriage-in-britain.html Evidence That Cousin Marriage Causes Low IQ, Retardation and Birth Defects

    The Labour MP Ann Cryer has called for British Pakistanis to stop marrying their first cousins after a study suggested that they were more likely to have children with recessive disorders than the general population. An investigation by BBC Newsnight claims that British Pakistanis account for 30% of all British children with recessive disorders, which include cystic fibrosis. Dr Peter Corry, a consultant paediatrician at Bradford royal infirmary, says his hospital sees a disproportionately high rate of recessive genetic illnesses.

    The Times of India reported:

    The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin.

    This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.

    The research found that while British Pakistanis accounted for just 3.4% of all births, they had 30% of all British children with recessive disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality.

    In my "Cousin Marriage Conundrum" article of 2003, I reported that Muslims in Europe use arranged cousin marriages to get around laws restricting immigration:

    According to the leading authority on inbreeding, geneticist Alan H. Bittles of Edith Cowan U. in Perth, Australia, "In the resident Pakistani community of some 0.5 million [in Britain] an estimated 50% to 60+% of marriages are consanguineous, with evidence that their prevalence is increasing." ...

    European "family reunification" laws present an immigrant with the opportunity to bring in his nephew by marrying his daughter to him. Not surprisingly, "family reunification" almost always works just in one direction — with the new husband moving from the poor Muslim country to the rich European country.

    If a European-born daughter refused to marry her cousin from the old country just because she doesn't love him, that would deprive her extended family of the boon of an immigration visa. So, intense family pressure can fall on the daughter to do as she is told.

    First cousin marriages also lower IQ by a few points on average, which Arabs can't afford. One study found a seven point depression in IQ, but other studies point to maybe half that. In any case, it's one reason that IQs among Caucasian Muslims are lower on average than among other Caucasians.

    Of course, this has major implications for the question of the day about why Muslim immigrants aren't integrating into European societies, with everybody who is anybody denouncing European racism. But if the Muslims force their daughters to marry their cousins from the Old Country, they aren't going to engage in the most effective form of integration: inter-ethnic marriage.

    A racial group is a partly inbred extended family. Due to cousin marriage, Muslims are particularly inbred within particularly limited extended families, which is a major reason why Muslim cultures are so fractious and integrate so poorly into larger societies. Boris Celser is a Canadian. He has an MBA, and is a lifelong traveler and avid reader. He invites comments to this article — please address them to celser@telusplanet.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, January 9, 2011.

    Quick Takes by Aaron Klein
    "US Pressing for Israel-Syria Talks"
    The Jewish Press, December 31, 2010

    The Obama administration is pressing Israel to enter negotiations with Syria leading to an Israeli retreat from the strategic Golan Heights, this column has learned. Syria which maintains a military alliance with Iran, has twice used the Golan, which looks down on Israeli population centers, to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.

    Informed Middle East security officials say that Dennis Ross, an envoy from the White House in the Middle East, visited both Israel and Syria last week to discuss specifics of a deal in which Syria would eventually take most of the Golan. According to the security officials, Ross is slated to become Obama's main envoy regarding Israeli-Palestinian affairs, with the current envoy George Mitchell to step down.

    With Israel, Ross discussed specifics of a deal with Syria, including which territory would be expected to evacuate in both the Golan and the Jordan Valley, the security officials said. The officials said that Ross told Syria it needs to scale back its relationship with Iran and stop facilitating the rearmament of Hizbullah. The Iranian backed Hizbullah reportedly now has over 10,000 missiles and rockets, including a large number that can reach Tel Aviv. and beyond.

    The article below is my article on Dennis Ross, published in the Detroit Jewish News dated November 14, 2004 with a follow up article December 24, 2008




    It was quite a show at the West Bloomfield, Michigan, Jewish Community Center Jewish Book Fair on November 4, 2004— watching former Ambassador Dennis Ross mesmerize an adoring audience of naive Jews as to his great contribution to the so-called "peace process" in the Middle East.

    His press agent wrote him up as, "A highly skilled diplomat, Ambassador Ross was this country's point man on the peace process in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. He was instrumental in assisting Israelis and Palestinians reach the 1995 Interim Agreement; he also successfully brokered the Hebron Accord in 1997, facilitated the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty and intensively worked to bring Israel and Syria together." ('assisted Israel!' Huh!)

    Evidently, the man who wrote the promo piece was not on the scene when these events occurred. Ross was indeed the point man along with the other great "assisters of Israel" in Clinton's State Department: i.e., Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, Richard Haase and, of course, Madeleine Albright and Clinton himself. Their "assistance" has all but brought Israel to its knees.

    As a sign of his gratitude, Arafat orchestrated the even greater killing of Israelis that continues to this very day. In the 30 months after that date, more Israelis were killed by terrorists (213) than in the preceding 10 years — (209 from January 1983 to September 1993). In the following year, there were over twice as many Israeli terror fatalities! The situation has gone from bad to worse. In the four years of the current Intifada, September 2000 to September 2004, 1,032 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian Arab violence and there have been 6,665 casualties.

    Nevertheless, Ross continues to promote the same concept. He implores the Israelis to "get out of the lives of the Palestinian Arabs." If the Israelis could only make the Palestinian Arabs accept the gracious deal of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak — all of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley, Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, unlimited Arab right of return to Judea and Samaria, etc.

    Conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Israelis threw Barak out of office immediately after learning of what Barak, Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton and the American State Department had offered. They replaced Barak with another general in the hope that this general would address the issue the way generals are supposed to deal with terror. This general, Arik Sharon, unfortunately has also fallen into the trap of "land for peace" despite the years of its abject failure.

    Finally, Ross made his most incredibly, damaging statement of all. He said that he knew, at the time, that Yasser Arafat was incapable of sticking to any deal he made! Furthermore, in all those years of negotiation, the Ross mediators did not obtain one concession from Arafat himself. None were obtained all the while Israelis were bleeding to death and coerced to give up more and more vital territory!

    It is also obvious at that Jewish Center lecture, that Ross wants his point man job back. Thankfully, this is extremely unlikely with a Republican administration. But, from recent reports, under the Obama Administration, may succeed! (And, just now, as I predicted November 4, 2004, he has!— jsk)

    Unfortunately, at least for public consumption, President Bush continues to urge Israel to accept another terrorist Arab state in its back yard. He has not accepted the fact that such an entity will not help the interests of the United States. It will backfire upon us. America will have one more enemy to deal with and, God forbid, eventually obtain instead, the loss of a fellow democracy and a stalwart military and political ally sold down the river.

    Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Hadassah Harel, January 9, 2011.

    This was written by Elliot Jager and it appeared January 7, 2010 in Jewish Ideas Daily


    The Economist is a curious publication. A weekly newsmagazine published in London, devoted to international politics, business news, and social trends, it largely hews to a classical liberal (or libertarian) line in economics and a correspondingly conservative line in politics. In contrast to most newsmagazines today, it is also a rousing success: while the moribund Time and Newsweek are tightening their belts, the proudly highbrow Economist has more than doubled its circulation (now at 1.6 million, half in the U.S.) in the past decade and continues to wield great influence in the world of ideas and opinion.

    As reputable and sophisticated as the Economist's coverage has been, however, its political stance lends credence to charges of bias. This is particularly true in the case of Israel, where the magazine consistently drops its façade of cool detachment and recklessly scatters diagnoses and accusations like daisies. The current cover story, "Please, Not Again: The Threat of War in the Middle East," is the latest case in point.

    According to the Economist, war could break out at any point this year over Iran's "apparent" desire to build atomic bombs, the arms race "between" Israel and Hizballah (presumably, the two share an equal thirst for aggression), or "miscalculations" on the Gaza border. The solution to these frightening scenarios? The Obama administration must exert "tough love" on Israel by imposing a settlement that will establish a Fatah-led Palestine in the West Bank. For, the article reasons, once this is done, Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas in Gaza will all find it "much harder" to attack Israel.

    Economist editorials and feature articles are published anonymously — though the newspaper's Israel correspondent, former Haaretz editor David Landau, would likely have contributed to the latest barrage. Landau is on record as asserting that Israel is begging for "more vigorous U.S. intervention" and in fact "wants to be raped" by Washington. In the Economist report, an unappreciative Israel is now pocketing billions in American aid even as it rebuffs pleas to "pause in its building of illegal Jewish settlements." The reasons for this supposed obstinacy are Israel's "thriving economy" and "America's pro-Israel lobby" — hence the need for muscular and determined action by the White House. One despairs of rehearsing the fatal flaws with this argument, to the extent that it is an argument at all rather than an unsubstantiated rant. Suffice it to say that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has latched onto any pretext not to negotiate with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government. But it is hardly any wonder that relative moderates like him are fearful. Coddled by the international community, Hamas is solidifying its grip on Gaza, and with Syria's support Hizballah has for all intents and purposes usurped Lebanese sovereignty. Iran may soon provide the rejectionists with a nuclear umbrella. In this geopolitical climate, Abbas would be pilloried if he negotiated in earnest with Netanyahu.

    The implication is clear: unless the international community first tackles the jihadists and rejectionists, moderates will be afraid to make the compromises necessary for a settlement. But don't tell that to the Economist. Indeed, in its survey of the entire Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iran to Iraq, the "biggest headache" the editors can find to name is not the metastasizing evil that, in its latest incarnation, inspired the terror bombing of a New Year's eve mass at a Coptic church in Egypt but rather "Jewish colonization in the West Bank." Swept aside as evidently beneath consideration is the possibility that disputed territory captured in a war of self-defense, of immense strategic value to Israel's survival, and deeply rooted in Jewish civilization ought at least to be the subject of direct negotiations between the parties.

    All this is par for the course. Reading the Economist, one learns that Israel perpetually, and lethally, magnifies and then bungles even legitimate security threats; that it obdurately "colonizes" the "Palestinian side of the 1967 border"; that its harassment of Arabs extends to setting traffic lights in Palestinian areas to flicker green only briefly. Such "reporting," which falls somewhere on the grid between the false, the farcical, and the fabricated, lends a sobering relevance to the words of billionaire CEO Larry Ellison, quoted in one of the magazine's canny ad campaigns: "I used to think. Now, I just read the Economist."

    One trembles to imagine how many among its 1.6 million readers let the Economist do their thinking for them.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Women in Green (WIG), January 9, 2010.
    Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar of Women in Green (WIG) write:
    Dear friends,

    Below please find below the YNET article by Yair Altman about this Friday activity on the Eitam Hill in Efrat. The links here below will bring you to the English YNET article, but as they often do, they only partially translated the original Hebrew article, and therefore we are presenting you the full English translation of the Hebrew text. Yashar koach to the tens of people who came on Friday. It was great to be back on the Eitam and it seems we will have to go back again and again and again.... The struggle two years ago for the Eitam was in order to make sure the Eitam lands would be officially declared belonging to Efrat. That was, thank G-d, achieved. Now we are resuming the struggle in order to actually have building there.
    With blessings for a good week.

    The article below was written by Yair Altman.
    The English version of the Ynet article (shortened version) is at

    The original Hebrew Ynet article is at


    "Facts on the Ground"

    Settler gathering (Photo: Yair Altman)

    Dozens of settlers went up to the hill next to Efrat, where the construction of 2,500 housing units has been approved. They directed harsh complaints to the Prime Minister: "Only Netanyahu brought us the freeze. He can't put the blame on Barak."

    The settlers are trying to establish facts on the ground — while the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are at an impasse: this morning (Friday) dozens of Gush Etzion residents came to the Eitam Hill, that is next to Efrat, to proclaim the renewal of the struggle for Jewish rule there. Their going up to the hill was coordinated with and guarded by the IDF, and was organized by the Women in Green organization, headed by Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katsover. In the past the settlers waged a lengthy battle for control of the hill. In 2009 the Civil Administration rejected the Palestinian appeals for control of the site, and determined that the 1,700 dunams in the area of the hill are state lands. The [Civil] Administration annexed them to the municipal territory of Efrat.

    The Housing Ministry finished planning the construction of 2,500 housing units at the site, but the settlers claim that since then no change has taken place on the ground. According to them, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, on his own, is continuing the freeze and preventing them from building there — for political reasons.

    "300 dunams of the 1,700 that were annexed to Efrat are the private lands of Jews that were purchased even before the establishment of the State," the deputy head of the Efrat Council, Josh Adler, related. "Unlike many council heads and leaders in Judea and Samaria, I don't blame Ehud Barak for the lack of construction in Judea and Samaria and in Efrat, because I don't expect anything else from him. I do blame Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister for whom we voted. From him, we expected continued construction and taking possession in Eretz Israel, and we received the exact opposite, he's even worse than Olmert." Adler added: "We can't be politically correct, we must state the truth. Only Netanyahu brought us the freeze. This did not happen to us in any other government, not that headed by Kadima, and not that headed by Labor. This is his personal invention. He can't put the blame on Barak, he's his boss, and he's the one who has the final word. We're talking about land that is no different from any other place in Eretz Israel, although at present the politicians aren't thinking about construction in this place."

    He also spoke about the expansion of the settlement, that is located between Hebron and Bethlehem. "I call this Efrat B, for 2,500 housing units is about all that we have today in Efrat, in which some 9,000 people live. An additional struggle of ours is to bring the hill within the line of the separation fence. We in the Council are struggling all the time for the construction of a road that will reach here."

    Rabbi Baruch Efrati of Efrat taught a class there: "We re commanded in the Torah to turn the land into our possession, we are commanded to be settlers and to overcome any other national entity that settled on this portion of land that was given to us. In order to fulfill the commandment, it is not sufficient that we only come up here and build here with the government looking the other way, rather, it is important that this be recognized as legal and official by the government of Israel, otherwise the law of the conquest of the land is not fulfilled. That day might seem far off, but I live in the Zayit neighborhood, and I remember the struggles for that place. Who would have dreamed that the neighborhood would flourish and be full of culture, and be among the most beautiful in the area, as it is now. Thank God, dreams come true, but actions must be taken."

    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 Naomi Ragen, January 9, 2011.
    This was written by David J. Rusin and it appeared on Islamist Watch
    (http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2011/01/ the-slow-motion-exodus-of-european-jews)

    Do Jews have a future in an increasingly Muslim Europe? Often explored by Daniel Pipes, this question recently drew a disconcerting answer from prominent Dutch politician Frits Bolkestein, who opined on the grim choices facing visible (e.g., Orthodox) Jews in his nation:

    The former EU commissioner says there is no future for this group in the Netherlands because of "the anti-Semitism among Dutchmen of Moroccan descent, whose numbers keep growing." He feels that this group of Jews should encourage their children to emigrate to either the United States or Israel, because he has little confidence in the effectiveness of the government's proposals for fighting anti-Semitism.

    Bolkestein's remarks echo those of Benjamin Jacobs, the country's chief rabbi, who told Arutz Sheva in 2010 that "the future for Dutch Jewry is moving to Israel." Indeed, some Jews are acting. The same news service reported in December that the son of Raphael Evers, another leading Dutch rabbi, "has announced plans to move to Israel due to anti-Semitism":

    "It's not that you can't leave the house, but you need to constantly hide, to be careful," he explained. He related his own cautionary measures, which include avoiding certain neighborhoods, and hiding his kippah (yalmulke) when walking through areas with a high number of Muslim immigrants.

    Next consider Sweden. Last month, the Simon Wiesenthal Center urged traveling Jews to exercise "extreme caution" due to "harassment of Jewish citizens in the southern city of Malmö." An estimated 60,000 Muslims comprise a fifth of Malmö's population and hate crimes regularly impact the lives of its 700 remaining Jews. "The city's synagogue has guards and rocket-proof glass in the windows," the Telegraph notes, "while the Jewish kindergarten can only be reached through thick steel security doors." With the government's response a mix of denial and blaming the victim, many Jews are leaving Malmö — and even Sweden altogether.

    Recent years also have seen increasing numbers of Jews moving to Israel from France and the UK. Will this soon be the case for Jews of other European countries as well? Given the raft of worrying tales from 2010 alone — Muslims assaulting Jews in Norway and Denmark, stone-tossing Arabs driving Jewish dancers from a stage in Germany, and a poll finding that 38% of Muslim youth in Austria agree that "Hitler had done a lot of good for the people" — the future does not look happy.

    It has become fashionable to equate the plight of today's Muslim population in Europe with that of the continent's oppressed Jews during the 1930s. However, one can tell which group faces the real threat in modern Europe by watching migratory trends. While European governments are planning fences to keep Muslims from entering illegally, Jews are exiting in droves. People vote with their feet. The results — Muslims in, Jews out — offer critical lessons and warnings.

    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 Sacha Stawski, January 9, 2011.

    This article was written by Benjamin Weinthal. This article is archived at
    http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle. aspx?id=202756


    BERLIN— Despite new rounds of UN and EU sanctions in 2010, German-Iranian export and import trade showed increases last year, according to an examination of new German government trade statistics last week by The Jerusalem Post.

    The fresh data also revealed that Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration's approved 16 dual-use transactions with Teheran, which can be used for military and civilian purposes, and remain a major concern for the Israeli government because of the possibility that Iran can apply the equipment for a military application. Israel's Ambassador to Berlin Yoram Ben-Ze'ev and Israeli security officials have over the years criticized flourishing German-Iranian economic relations, which provide sorely needed sophisticated technology to Iran's government.

    Trade numbers from the German Federal Statistical Office reveal that German export trade to Iran increased from $4,159,920 billion dollars between January and October 2009 to $4,175,687 billion dollars during the same time period in 2010. The overall export and import trade data for November and December is not yet available, according to the office. Iranian imports to Germany climbed to $909,176 dollars between January and October 2010 when compared to $574,261 during the identical time frame last year.

    Roger Bückert, the head of the group pro-Israel Initiative "Never Again," wrote the Post by e-mail on Friday that he suspected an increase in German-Iranian trade in 2010.

    "As long as relevant economic and societal associations such as the German chamber of commerce supply know-how at workshops, like the recent example in Bayreuth, regarding how one can knowingly circumvent international sanctions against Iran — and do not experience any ostracism or discouragement from the side of politicians and society, the trend will, unfortunately, continue... despite political lip service." Bückert added, "It is true that any infrastructure aid to Iran is wrong, but supply of dual-use goods is completely unacceptable and morally reprehensible. If Siemens had to refrain from business with Iran because surveillance technology was supplied to Iran that was used for bloody repression of the Iranian opposition, how much more must we reject supply of dual-use goods to Iran that could cause much greater harm."

    Tobias Pierlings, a spokesman for the German Economics Ministry also wrote the Post by e-mail on Friday, saying, "Trade statistics on a monthly or quarterly basis are subject to heavy fluctuations. They are therefore not useful as a basis for statements on long-term trends. A multi-year perspective shows that German exports to Iran are declining overall... An eventual increase of German exports to Iran through allowed export policy does not contradict the EU's sanctions."

    When asked if Germany's rising trade volume with Iran is jeopardizing the security of Europe and Israel, Pierlings wrote, "Israel's security for the Federal German government is non-negotiable." He added that Germany has implemented the international and EU sanctions targeting Iran.

    Holger Beutel, a spokesman for the German Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA), told the Post on Wednesday that Germany supplied Iran last year with dual-use equipment like "replacement parts for rescue helicopters, valves for a steel work, a liquid jet vacuum pump for water treatment in connection with desalinization and protective clothing for medical production." He declined to comment on the names of the German firms involved in delivering dual-use technology to the Islamic Republic. The spokesman said some of the merchandise, for example, the protective gear, would now be banned under new sanctions because protective clothing could be used in military chemical weapons facilities.

    The new round of EU sanctions, according to Beutel, made an exemption for the export of encryption and sophisticated telecommunications technology to Iran's government and firms.

    During the 2009 democracy protests against the alleged doctored results of the presidential elections in Iran, media reports revealed that Iran's government, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), used surveillance equipment from the German-Finnish firm Siemens-Nokia to block and monitor internet connects, Twitter messages, and mobile and land-line communications. It is unclear which EU countries pushed for the telecommunications exemption.

    The United States designated the IRGC a global-terror entity in 2007. The EU has refused to crackdown on the IRGC. According to Iran experts, the EU, which is Iran's second largest trade partner after China, does not want to dramatically decrease its business relations with Teheran. The IRGC is estimated to control as much as 75 percent of Iran's economy.

    Bückert's pro-Israel organization, which is located in the small West German city of Siegen, is slated to protest in late January against a local pipeline firm, Bergrohr, which conducts business transactions with Iran.

    Bergrohr has over 50 contracts with Iran's energy sector, according to the company's website.

    Bückert said that Germany ought to swiftly implement unilateral sanctions that go beyond the potency of the EU sanctions.

    "Germany's relevance for the Iranian economy is so strong that unilateral German sanctions would mean a damaging blow for Iran's economy."

    Sacha Stawski is with the Honestly Concerned organization. Contact him at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Hillel Levin, January 9, 2011.

    11-year-old Aharon Chaim from the town of Beit El in Israel, is suffering from an advanced stage of leukemia and must undergo both chemotherapy and radiation for approximately the next two years (!). He and his mother travel every day to the hospital, about an hour-long trip each way.

    Aharon Chaim is in pain, has lost his hair, has no appetite, cries often, is weak and bloated, and at times needs a wheelchair. His twin brother is suffering along with him emotionally. In order to take care of Aharon, his mother has had to quit her job; his father works for minimum wage.

    The family, who made Aliyah to Israel from Chile, has no car and must rely on favors from others in order to get to and from his daily treatments. The current volunteer-based arrangement involves many different drivers, a variety of drop-off and pick-up points, sudden changes in schedules or cancellations, exposure to germs, waiting outside in harsh weather and a lot of stress for everyone.

    We, in Beit El, are trying to set up a better system involving a regularly paid driver/taxi. Estimated travel expenses alone would cost approximately $130 a day, or over $3,000 each month.

    Unfortunately, this is only one of the many areas in which the family will be in need of financial support for a prolonged period of time. Many additional expenses, including prohibitively expensive medicines, are not covered by their health insurance policy.

    We are grateful for any contribution that would help ease this young boy and his family's hardships.

    Outside of Israel:

    1. (Tax exempt) Please make checks payable to: Central Fund of Israel

    2. On the Memo line of the check or in a clearly attached note, please write: For Keren Ezra Beit El-"Migdal"

    3. Please mail to: Central Fund of Israel
    3rd floor
    980 6th Ave
    New York, NY 10018

    In Israel:

    1. Please make checks payable to: Keren Ezra Beit El

    2. In a clearly attached note, please write: For "Migdal"

    3. Please mail to: Keren Ezra Beit El-Fendel,
    P.O.B. 1070
    Beit El, 90628

    Hillel Fendel, Sue Kroopnick and Bruriah Gefen
    Keren Ezra Beit El (Beit El Support Fund)

    Contact Hillel Levin by email at hillel.leib@gmail.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yaaqov Ben-Yehudah, January 9, 2011.

    Leftist incitement continues in Jewish, Shimon HaTzadiq neighborhood of Jerusalem.

    I saw a friend of mine on Shabbath. He is a resident of the Shimon HaTzadiq neighborhood. He reported that last Friday, minutes before sheqi'ath hahamah (sunset), three Leftist agitators convinced an Arab boy to commit an act of vandalism against one of the buildings in the neighborhood, by ripping down an Israeli flag hung from a window by the building's residents.

    These leftists have done their homework, and know full well that the religious residents of the neighborhood are powerless, or at least very limited in what they can do in the form of a response during Shabbath.

    1. Torah observant Jews will not contact the police, unless it is necessary to save a life.

    2. They will not risk going after a minor over such a small thing, which would invariably lead to the arrest of Jews, and portrayal of the Arab minor as a victim.

    3. Even if they succeed in retrieving the flag, the would not return it to its proper place, during Shabbath.

    Apparently these leftists think that it is quite alright that Arabs have been squatting in Jewish homes since the 1940's, rent free.

    When justice is served, and Jews are able to reclaim their stolen homes, the Leftists have a problem with that.

    Furthermore, the above strategy targeting Torah-observant Jews is parallel to the anti-Torah strategy employed by Leftists in Yehudah & Shomron.

    Before the last Shemitah (Land Sabbatical) year 2007-2008), Leftists ripped out newly planted trees, and encouraged Arabs to do the same, knowing full well that the Torah-observant residents would not violate Torah law by replanting them after Rosh HaShannah, 2007, the beginning of the Shemitah.

    Yet, these same Leftists try to accuse the residents of destroying trees in a manner which is also forbidden under Torah Law, during ANY year.

    Truly a nasty strategy which demonstrates great hatred towards HaShem's Torah, and toward the Jews who follow it.

    More ways to be in contact with me:
    Google Talk
    AIM — ICQ 228680620
    Skype yaaqov.ben.yehudah (IM only)

    Contact Yaaqov Ben-Yehudah by email at yaaqov.ben.yehudah@gmail.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Steven Plaut, January 9, 2011.

    1. So let's see what we have here. A group of Israeli "intellectuals" is rending its clothing over the decision by the Knesset to open an investigation into the funding of leftist seditious groups in Israel, those pretending to be human rights groups.

    The "intellectuals" in their statement also proclaim their admiration for the "forces of democracy" represented by the 17 Knesset members who voted AGAINST the proposed bill. And just who are these progressive forces of democracy and enlightenment? Who are these great darling democratic opponents of the investigation proposal? They include the Knesset Members from the HADASH communist party, a party that has never gotten around to repudiating Stalinism, and the Knesset Members from the various Arab fascist parties that are little more than surrogates for the Hamas. THOSE are the great beacons of democracy and enlightenment in the eyes of Israel's leftist "intellectuals."

    2. There is an interesting twist to the tragic story of the shootings in Tucson that left the Congresswoman so badly injured. (Evidently, media pronouncements notwithstanding, she is NOT Jewish by the way.) It is the Rabin-ization of the incident and its conversion into a bludgeon against freedom of speech for conservatives.

    As you recall, after the Rabin assassination, the McCarthyist Left in Israel launched a campaign that insisted that Yigal Amir had murdered Yitzhak Rabin because Rightists, Rabbis, and sundry other non-leftists had exercised their freedom of speech. They had even dared to disagree with Rabin's policies. Obviously the utilization of freedom of speech by non-leftists, insist the McCarthyists, causes murder, assassination and violence. It is a clear and present danger and so must be suppressed.

    Well, the smoke had not cleared from the Tucson shootings yesterday when the liberal-leftist media were pronouncing that the perp had gunned down the victims because of Sarah Palin and the tea party people. Like in post-Rabin Israel, the Left saw the shootings as a great opportunity to launch an assault against freedom of speech. If the perp had murdered because he had listened to Palin, then obviously speech by tea party types and utilization of freedom of expression by conservatives is a clear and present danger and so must be suppressed. It is post-Rabin leftist McCarthyist pabulum deja vu all over again!

    Meanwhile, I have not seen any evidence that the perp had even heard of Sarah Palin, or even ever read a newspaper. From what is coming out in the news, the perp is a deranged conspiracy nut who sounds much more Barry Chamish than Bill O'Reilly. Even the Neo-Nazi militias are insisting they never heard of him.

    But never mind. In leftist "thinking" the solution is always to suppress freedom of speech for non-leftists, no matter what the problem is requiring a solution.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Boris Celser, January 9, 2011.

    Year to date statistics on Airport screening from the Department of Homeland Security

    Terrorist Plots Discovered      0
    Transvestites      133
    Hernias      1,485
    Hemorrhoid Cases      3,172
    Enlarged Prostates      8,249
    Breast Implants      59,350
    Natural Blondes      3
    Boris Celser is a Canadian. He has an MBA, and is a lifelong traveler and avid reader. He invites comments to this article — please address them to celser@telusplanet.net
    To Go To Top

    Posted by Boris Celser, January 9, 2011.

    Interesting piece regarding the EDL, the EU countries, the Canadian JDL and the dangers for Canada. It was written by Ted Belman and it appeared today in IsraPundit.

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


    Meir Weinstein heads the JDL in Toronto. They do great work. They picket what must be picketed and oppose what must be opposed. Recently they voiced their solidarity with the EDL in Britain and even planned a rally in Toronto at which the EDL leader was to speak by hook up.. This caused a reaction in in the conservative, pro Israel, National Post. You can imagine it also caused a reaction from the Jewish establishment in Canada.

    As a result of a National Post story on this rally, this letter was written to the author Stuart Bell. I know Stuart Bell and Meir Weinstein. As readers of Israpundit know, we support the work of EDL and believe they are getting a raw deal from the establishment. The JDL in Canada is a great organization which stands up for Jews throughout the country. They do not in any way resort to violence but don't shrink from it in self defence.

    Dear Mr. Bell:

    Re: "National Post Story: Controversial anti-Islamic group plans rally in Toronto"

    Let me begin by recommending that you take the time to read the Hudson Institute's well researched, and balanced article "The English Defense League: The New Face of Europe?"
    (http://www.hudson-ny.org/1562/ english-defense-league) — A. Miller

    Negligent immigration, social policies, and trade deals, have created very serious problems throughout the entire EU. Groups like the EDL, SIOE, etc. are putting their lives on the line, to defend freedom and Western civilization from Islamic Fascism, and are not enemies of democracy. The real enemies of democracy are:

    (1) Corrupt EU governments and politicians that have crawled into bed with Islamic Fascists, (reminiscent of those who did the same with Nazi Fascists) — betraying the citizens they are sworn to protect.

    (2) Marxists in the mainstream press who continually whitewash the truth about Islamic Fascism;

    (3) Academics in Universities, who willfully corrupt and brainwash students (sometimes using intimidation tactics) to serve their Marxist/Islamist agenda;

    (4) Corporations involved in business deals with the Saudis and other Islamists; and

    (5) Islamic Fascists, who are highly financed by Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., and encouraged to wage War against the Infidel and the West.

    Europe's problems with Islamic Fascists foreshadow what is coming to Canada. Islamic attacks against innocent people of all ages, races, and religions, have manifested into: beatings that frequently cause facial disfigurement, or permanent physical and brain damage; kidnappings and agonizing torture leading to the death of the victim; murders by stabbing or beatings, etc; gang rapes of females from all age groups — including very young children and the elderly; forced prostitution of young school girls, etc.

    Roving gangs of Islamist thugs are wreaking havoc and heartache, in every EU country. They are encouraged by Islamist clerics and community leaders to view non-Muslims and Secular Muslims as fair game, because attacks against the Infidel are appropriate actions in Islam's Jihad against the West.

    The attacks occur regularly (sometimes daily or weekly) throughout the entire region. Information about these crimes is readily available on the internet, for anyone willing to take the time to research the problems. The UK's press refers to Muslim thugs as "Asians", and the French press, and others refer to them as "youths". Politicians and the press do not want people to know that Islamic Fascists are committing these crimes. For the sake of political correctness, "multicultural ideals", trade deals, oil, etc., decent, law abiding citizens, of all racial and religious backgrounds, have been sacrificed to Islamic Fascists.

    What would you do if your community was taken over by Islamic Fascists, who continually attack innocent people? What would you do if the authorities did little or absolutely nothing to stop the attacks because of political correctness, or the Government's alliance with Islamists? For political reasons, the OPP didn't protect victims of Native unrest in Ontario, and are unlikely to protect victims of Islamic Fascists, so how would these problems get resolved? Frustration, and desperation, led to the establishment of groups like EDL, and SIOE. Their demos are an effort to put pressure on politicians and police to do their jobs, and clean up the mess caused by Islamic Fascists.

    It's only a matter of time before Canada's Islamic Fascists behave as violently as the EU's. Ultimately Canadians will have to decide whether they are going to submit to Islamic Fascism, or take a stand to defend our way of life. JDL has already made their decision, and work hard to combat Islamic Fascists. As the daughter of a World War II Vet, I have made my decision, and will do whatever I can to stop Islamic Fascism, despite my advanced age, and serious health issues. What will you do?

    Regarding your statement: "A British right-wing group responsible for a wave of violent anti-Islamist street protests in the United Kingdom..." While there have been some incidents of violence on the part of the EDL, the organization is working very hard to put an end to violent outbursts. Far too often Islamists and the left have attacked EDL demonstrators with bricks, rocks, bottles, knives, bats, metal bars, and Molotov cocktails. On some occasions, British police caged the EDL demonstrators — trapping them like animals — and turned a blind eye when Islamists/leftists attacked them with a variety of flying objects.

    When the EDL attended a demonstration in Holland supporting Geert Wilders, Dutch police set them up to be attacked. EDL buses were directed towards a gauntlet with weapon carrying Islamists and leftists on both sides of the buses. Bus windows were broken, and people were attacked while inside the buses. Then the police ordered EDL demonstrators off the buses, and forced them to walk through the gauntlet, unprotected and unarmed, while being viciously attacked on both sides. Dutch police did absolutely nothing to stop the attacks. Some members of the British police force accompanied the EDL to this demo, and witnessed the attacks. It was shocking that Dutch police would deliberately compromise the safety of EDL demonstrators, and painfully apparent that Dutch authorities wanted to send a violent message to supporters of Geert Wilders.

    With regard to the charges against Mr. Lennon for assaulting a police officer at the Remembrance Day service — if you had watched the video of that incident, you would clearly see that Mr. Lennon accidentally bumped into the officer when he jumped a barrier, while attempting to grab an Islamist flag that he felt was insulting the Vets. Obviously, Mr. Lennon's decision to jump the barrier was rash, and foolhardy. But, he did not attack the police officer. The bogus charges, like many others that have been laid against EDL members, are deliberate efforts on the part of the British Government, to curtail all criticism of Islamic Fascism, and destroy the EDL movement.

    There is a disgusting double standard throughout the entire EU. Islamic Fascists are open about their goals to destroy the West, often violent, and frequently make threats against individuals or the host country. Yet, little or nothing is done about these fascists. However, when citizens speak out, or demonstrate against Islamic Fascism, they are viciously targeted by the authorities, and bogus criminal charges are frequently laid.

    In case you haven't noticed, Britain and other European countries have quietly become totalitarian states that cruelly work against citizens from all economic, racial and religious backgrounds, in favour of Islamic Fascists and the Marxist agenda. Decent citizens have been thoroughly betrayed by Governments, the press, and others. The authorities don't hesitate to harass, fine, criminally charge, and lie about citizens who oppose the status quo.

    In Europe, freedom of speech really only exists if you are on the left, or an Islamist. Voices of dissent are constantly at risk of some form of punishment, and many have been forced out of their jobs. Totalitarian tactics such as those used by Communist and Islamist regimes, are prevalent throughout the EU. Orwell was right, and what is occurring at the hands of the authorities, is frighteningly out of a Kafka novel. Therefore, before labeling the EDL as the cause of violent demonstrations, etc. please investigate what is really going on in Europe.

    Regarding Professor Goodwin's statement: "It (EDL) wants members of the Sikh community, similarly members of the Jewish community to become involved as a way of opposing..." The EDL already has Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, black, gay, etc. members of its organization, who have been active for quite some time.

    Professor Goodwin also stated: "...he doubts the EDL message will resonate in Canada. He said it appeals primarily in working class districts of northern England that have little experience with multiculturalism." That is an absurd statement. Many of my family members live in the north of England, so I know exactly what is going on in the region. All of Britain, including the North has had extensive experience with multiculturalism for several decades.

    Despite Professor Goodwin's failed attempt to paint the EDL as inexperienced with other races, it is well documented that they welcome all races, and religions. The EDL is only opposed to political Islam aka Islamic Fascism. EDL has gained popularity in all walks of life — not just among the "working class". Aside from being an utterly snobbish and stupid remark, it is blatantly untrue.

    If you are going to refer to "experts" like Professor Goodwin to discuss organizations like EDL, please ensure that their statements will be accurate, and that they don't have a Marxist agenda when it comes to Islamic Fascism.

    The Jewish Defense League deserves high praise for having the guts to stand with the EDL. Unlike other organizations, JDL actively works to protect Canada from the evils of Islamic Fascism. Anti-Semitism is on the rise throughout the West. In the EU, Jews, including their young children, are viciously attacked by Muslim thugs. Many Jews are leaving the region, because it is no longer safe. It is the 30's all over again, thanks to Muslim bigotry against Jews that has been imported into our National Homes.

    In Canadian Universities Jewish students have been marginalized by pro-Islamist, anti-Israel/anti-Jewish Administrations; professors, and students. On Canadian streets Islamic Fascists and their leftist supporters called for Jews to be sent to the gas chambers. Present at some of those demos were MPs and Union leaders. Vicious hatred towards Jews, and other Infidels, is rampant in Mosques, community centers, schools, and universities. JDL is out on the streets drawing attention to these matters, and fighting Islamic Fascism, while "official" Jews like Farber worry about being politically correct.

    I want no part of political correctness when it comes to Islamic Fascism, because I know it will be the death of us. Farber, and others like him, definitely don't speak for my family. We lost many loved ones during the Holocaust, and others who fought the Nazis as members of the Allied Forces. First hand experience has taught my family the devastating consequences of fascism.

    Fascism must be fought at every turn, even when it hides behind the phony cloak of a "religious" label. Good for the JDL in their decision to join with EDL, so that they can work together to stop Islamic Fascism wherever, and whenever, it rears its ugly head.

    Never Again means Never Again!

    Boris Celser is a Canadian. He has an MBA, and is a lifelong traveler and avid reader. He invites comments to this article — please address them to celser@telusplanet.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, January 9, 2011.

    This article is archived at


    Dying as a Martyr for Allah — becoming a Shahid— continues to be presented as a positive achievement in Palestinian society. As documented by Palestinian Media Watch, for years the Palestinian Authority has promoted Martyrdom as an ultimate value and goal both to adults and children. Still today, aspiring to become a "Martyr" is considered an honor and praised by society. Often the death and funeral of a "Martyr" is referred to as a wedding and he himself is considered a "groom" who marries the virgins of Paradise.

    When a Palestinian was killed by Israel last week while placing a landmine by the security fence in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, a female relative explained: "Today he is a groom. I've sounded a joyous cry. He is a groom. He wanted to become a Martyr for a long time. When I told him: 'Find a job,' he said: 'I want to be a Martyr.'" Click to see video

    Emphasizing the idea of the "Martyr" becoming a groom, a woman earlier this year exclaimed on PA TV: "By Allah, we welcome every Martyr as if he were a groom among us."

    Parents who themselves have lost children, encourage others to also "sacrifice" their children. A mother of a "Martyr" said about her dead son: "Praise to Allah, he sought Martyrdom, and he achieved it. My message to every mother is to sacrifice her child for Palestine." Click to view.

    "If I were young and could bear children who would fight the way my children fought, and another generation of my children could arise, I would do it," said a mother of one Shahid (Martyr) and five prisoners, expressing pride in her children.

    Another mother, whose son died in prison said: "I know that my son, praise Allah, died as a Shahid, and all the glory and honor is that my son is a Shahid." (All sources and translations below.)

    Palestinians who have killed Israelis or aided others in doing so, and who are serving time in Israeli prisons, are likewise considered heroes of Palestinian society.

    Recently, the weekly PA TV program At the Fighter's Home chose to honor terrorist prisoner Sanaa Shehadeh by visiting her home and family. Shehadeh is serving 3 life sentences in prison for transporting a suicide terrorist to Jerusalem in 2002. Three civilians were killed and dozens wounded in the attack. Her father told PA TV: "I am proud of my daughter Sanaa, and say that she is a heroine... I call her the 'heroine of Jerusalem', and sometimes 'the heroine of Palestine'." [PA TV (Fatah), Dec. 22, 2010]

    Karake bestows award of honor to the family of Sami Younis

    Previously PA TV had already honored prisoner Sanaa Shehadeh by visiting her home and broadcasting her two nieces singing her a song. Click to see PMW's report on her nieces singing her an anti-Israel war song.

    Last month, the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs chose to honor two prisoners, Sami Younis and Hadil Abu Turki. Sami Younis is convicted of planning and carrying out a kidnapping in 1980 of an Israeli soldier who was later killed. Hadil Abu Turki tried to stab an Israeli soldier in Hebron in 2009. The PA Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, bestowed her family with an "award of honor" (see picture.)

    The PA Minister for Prisoners' Affairs also recently decided to honor a woman because she is the mother of four sons who together are serving 18 life sentences in Israeli prisons for murdering 18 people.

    PMW has documented the policy of the PA to honor terrorists by naming permanent structures and events after them in the report "From Terrorists to Role Models."

    PMW has documented the success of the PA's Shahada promotion, including parents celebrating their children's death.

    Following are excerpts of various family members expressing pride and joy over their "Martyr" and prisoner family members:

    PA TV News broadcast:
    [Report on two Palestinians killed while attempting to lay landmines by the security fence in the southern part of the Gaza Strip.]

    A family member of one of them: "Today he is a groom. I've sounded a joyous cry. He is a groom. He wanted to become a Martyr for a long time. When I told him: 'Find a job,' he said: 'I want to be a Martyr.'"
    [PA TV (Fatah), Dec. 26, 2010]

    The weekly PA TV program At the Fighter's Home visits prisoner Sanaa Shehadeh's home. Shehadeh is serving 3 life sentences in an Israeli prison for transporting a suicide terrorist to Jerusalem in 2002. On PA TV, her father explained how proud he is of his daughter: "I am proud of my daughter Sanaa, and say that she is a heroine... I call her the 'heroine of Al-Quds' [Jerusalem], and sometimes 'the heroine of Palestine'."
    [PA TV (Fatah), Dec. 22, 2010]

    Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs honors prisoners who killed Israelis and aided terrorists: "Marking the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs yesterday at the El-Bireh municipality honored the oldest prisoner in the occupation's prisons, Sami Younis (Abu Nader) from Ara, inside the Green Line, who is over 80, and the [youngest] female prisoner Hadil Abu Turki of Hebron (15). ... [Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa] Karake emphasized: 'Our position, in the Palestinian Authority, is that the prisoners of Jerusalem and of Palestine occupied in 1948 must be a basic and fundamental part of any political solution, and they must not remain outside of any agreement, as Israel wishes [them to], claiming that it regards them as Israeli citizens, while it denies them elementary civil rights.' Karake called upon those responsible on the Palestinian side for a prisoner exchange deal for Shalit, not to submit to the Israeli wishes, and to insist on including the prisoners of Jerusalem and Palestine occupied in 1948 in this deal."
    [Al-Ayyam, Dec. 10, 2010]

    Note: Hadil Abu Turki tried to stab an Israeli soldier in Hebron in 2009. Sami Younis (Abu Nader) assaulted an Israeli soldier, took his weapon and killed him in 1980.

    PA TV talk show Good Morning Jerusalem discusses attacks on prisoners. Mother of a Shahid (Martyr) and five prisoners, Um Rafat Al-Isawi: "If I were young and could bear children who would fight the way my children fought, and another generation of my children could arise, I would do it." [PA TV (Fatah), Sept. 24, 2010]

    As part of a report on the funeral of prisoner Raed Abu Hamad, who died in an Israel prison: Mother of Abu Hamad: "I know that my son, praise Allah, died as a Shahid, and all the glory and honor is that my son is a Shahid." [PA TV (Fatah), Apr. 19, 2010]

    PA TV news report:

    Mother upon news of son's death in an IDF airstrike: "We had always hoped for his [my son's] Martyrdom (Shahada), knowing he wanted to die as a Martyr (Shahid). Every time he went out, we would say to him, 'May Allah be with you.' We knew that he wanted to die as a Martyr. Praise to Allah, he sought Martyrdom, and he achieved it. My message to every mother is to sacrifice her child for Palestine. Another woman: "By Allah, we welcome every Martyr as if he were a groom among us." [PA TV (Fatah), Feb. 11, 2010]

    Itamar Marcus, Director of Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.pmw.org.il), was Israeli representative to the Tri- Lateral Anti Incitement Committee established under the Wye accords, and has written reports on Palestinian Authority, Syrian and Jordanian schoolbooks.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, January 9, 2011.

    For video of the disturbances on 7 January at Bil'in (action starts at 38 seconds) tear gas hoax

    Abu-Rahma's Death: Not Caused by Tear Gas Latest findings deny the claim the Palestinian woman Abu-Rahma's death was caused by inhaling tear gas the IDF used in a nearby riot. Brig. Gen. Alon: "She herself was not at the protest"

    IDF Website 09 January 2011, 12:19

    Following the investigation of circumstances of the death of Jawaher Abu-Rahma on December 31st, 2010, who was killed during a protest in Bil'in, Commander of the Judea and Samaria Division, Brig. Gen. Nitzan Alon, discussed the findings of the investigation for the first time. In a recent briefing, Brig. Gen. Aon said that, "Our assumptions about the circumstances of the death have been verified. Our understanding is Abu-Rahma did not die as a result of inhaling tear gas but as a result of aspects of her medical treatment. There is no chance that the gas caused her death. Using tear gas in the way it was used in such an open area, and given the distance where she at which she was standing from the demonstration, there is no chance that her death was caused by the gas."

    Brig. Gen. Alon stated that, "Today, there is no difference between our understanding of the events and that of the Palestinian Authority's officials." This as opposed to other bodies with vested interest in the matter who've expressed their opinion. Commander of the Judea and Samaria Division stated that "Abu-Rahma did not take part in the demonstration, she was far away from it. Remains of tear gas may have reached her but she did not die from this, rather as a result of complications related to other diseases. These findings are based on additional facts found during the week."

    Brig. Gen. Alon discussed the protests occurring in Na'alin and Bil'in every week, like the one which took place on Friday December 31st 2010, during which the IDF uses crowd dispersal means in a calculated way. "We make a clear distinction between a quiet demonstration of the residents of Bil'in, Israeli citizens and other activists who come to peacefully protest the fence, and a violent protest which includes rocks and iron hurling at IDF forces and the destruction of the security fence — against which we use crowd dispersal means."

    Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC] (http://eufunding.org.uk)
    http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yuval, Truth Provider, January 9, 2011.

    This is a pivotal article by Jerrold L. Sobel, published today in American Thinker. Here is a note Jerrold wrote to me this morning: Hey Yuval....I love your idea....In my article entitled "Israel and the Palestinians: Irreconcilable Differences," published today by American Thinker, I laid out the foundation of how you reached your proper conclusion.
    http://comments.americanthinker.com/ read/42323/743676.html

    My idea, Jerrold referred to, is in my article titled ENOUGH ALREADY! I post it here:

    It is now more than ten years that I have been searching, researching and writing about the Middle East conflict.

    I proudly include myself among the few experts who truly comprehend the interminable conflict in all its aspects, culturally, historically, geographically, legally and politically.

    What in the past 100 years or so has not yet been tried? What is left to explore between the rivals that has not yet been examined ad-nauseam? How long do we need to wait for a glimmer of hope from the Arab side? How long must Israel endure world pressure to satisfy "Palestinian" blackmail?

    Even if the miracle of a complete peace treaty is achieved and signed, who can guarantee that the Middle East's shifting sands would not render such treaty a mere piece of useless paper?

    Even the peace treaty with Egypt, a country far away from Israel, with a large desert as a buffer and no territorial claims, is completely dependent on nothing but the survival or demise of one leader. Can anybody guarantee that a regime change in Egypt would not bring about renewed hostilities between the two countries? That the Muslim Brotherhood would not shred the peace treaty to pieces?

    Can anybody promise Israel that a so called "Palestinian" state within rifle range of Israel's most densely populated centers can be trusted over a long period? Can anybody guarantee that a "Palestinian" piece of paper promising Israel no more violence can be relied upon while they cannot find common ground among themselves?

    Is it so easy for the world to forget how Hamas wrestled Gaza from Fatah shortly after Israel vacated all its citizens from that territory?

    Lately, new voices are beginning to emerge. The "Palestinians" plan to unilaterally declare independence and establish a "Palestinian" State, thus ignoring all UN resolutions of several decades that mandate a negotiated settlement. They even manage to convince some western countries to support such dangerous "Palestinian" plan.

    If something is not done immediately, if Israel continues to procrastinate, if Israel does not react right away, Israel will most certainly lose the only opportunity it has to stop the world from endorsing the "Palestinian" dangerous move.

    Israel must remember the verse from Psalms (121:4): "The Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps!"

    So, when I am asked what my solution is, I say ENOUGH ALREADY! It is Israel, not the "Palestinians" who should take unilateral action before it is too late:

    Annex Judea and Samaria immediately and begin negotiations with Jordan about a long term solution.

    I am convinced that many Arab dwellers in Judea and Samaria would acquiesce, maybe even endorse such a solution. It will open a whole new world of opportunities to them. Judea and Samaria would be safe and no longer a threat the existence Israel. Neither will it pose a threat to Jordan, as a separate "Palestinian" state undoubtedly would. Instead of a hostile "Palestinian" state on its western border, Jordan would now have Israel with which a peace treaty is already in force.

    Incentives, financial and others could be offered to Judea & Samaria Arabs who would move to Jordan, while similar incentives could be offered to Jews all over the world who would wish to settle in the territories. This should alleviate the demographic worries feared by some Israelis.

    After a few months of gyrations, the rest of the world would get used to the new situation on the ground. The world, including the Arab world, would realize that this solution promises to bring stability to the region.

    In any case, Israel's fate would not be worse than it is today.

    For those who want 'peace now,' this is the only available logical solution. It is a sound and immediately achievable solution geographically, historically, culturally and politically.

    If Israel neglects to seize the moment, a "Palestinian" state will be forced upon her, the result of which will be perpetuation of the Middle East conflict for generations to come, drowned in blood on both sides.

    Israeli leaders from the entire political spectrum must join-in and act IMMEDIATELY!

    I urge you strongly to read Jerrold Sobel's article including all the links within it. It is reprinted below. Yuval.


    There are still many matters that mankind just can't get a grip on. For instance: When exactly did the universe begin? When will it end? What's the la