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

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, January 31, 2012.

Dishon Stream

"A photograph is the pause button of life.
- Ty Holland

Dishon Stream: A short pause for a long exposure


Nearly two-thirds of Israel is desert: rocky, barren, and devoid of water. So whenever I find a new and unexplored water site, I am like a kid in the candy store. I discovered the Dishon Stream quite by chance while driving in the Northern Galilee region en route to Tzfat. I am an advocate of taking at least a short walk outdoors every day, so it was a simple decision to divert my trip to explore this hidden watershed.

I remember this spot because I sat on a rock cooling my feet and enjoying a mid-morning snack. Dried fruit and nuts fueled both body and mind as I paused to listen to the rush of water over rock and contemplate the setting before setting up to shoot. Whenever I want to slow down water and reveal its movement, I push my camera to its extremes: smallest aperture, lowest ISO and a leisurely shutter speed as well. This objective was complicated by the amount of light hitting the scene with the sun high in the sky. Even on the smallest light settings, I was limited to a 1/10 second exposure, just barely enough to give the water the milky textures seen in this photo.

By reader request, I am expanding the technical data section to include more details of the settings and equipment used to produce the photograph.

TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D-300 on a tripod, manual exposure, spot mode, f22 at 1/10 sec., ISO 100. Decreased exposure by 2/3 stop to prevent overexposing the white areas in the water. Lens: Nikon wide angle zoom, 12-24 mm, at 13mm.
Date: 3/16/09, 10:32 a.m. Location: Dishon Stream Trail, northern Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Kuttner, January 31, 2012.

As part of the annual seasonal ill will media reporting about Israel which seems to occur prior to Christmas, the New Zealand Herald published an article by Pete Wedderburn about donkey abuse in the "Holy Land". It was obviously sourced from the UK Independent, although interestingly enough it seems to have since disappeared from their on line site. The same story also appeared in the UK Telegraph on line page. The interesting aspects of this story are the way language can be used to distort and create negative vibes plus the manipulation of photos, captions and headlines.

First of all let us concentrate on the narrative itself. Mentioning Christmas and donkeys in the first sentence is a neat way to get readers' attention. It also focuses effectively on the theme of abuse by none other than of course, Israelis. It does not take much of a leap in imagination by the end of the story to associate Israelis with abuse of not only donkeys but of course also humans, especially Palestinian Arabs. The negative theme continues with the author's arrival at Ben Gurion airport which he explains is covered in dust. Not only is the airport covered in dust but also it seems the whole country, thus conveying the impression that Israel is some sort of backward, dirty outpost of the uncivilized third world. He inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag by stating it was boiling hot, thus confirming that he had arrived in the midst of a sharav, the climatic condition which afflicts the Middle East at certain times of the year and is accompanied by strong winds, intense heat and sand blown in from the desert. However why explain this fact when one can instead convey a negative connotation?

The "bad" news continues with the author taking a taxi from the airport. He makes sure to tell us that the driver is surly. Needless to say there are no surly taxi drivers in the UK (or NZ). We have not yet reached the gist of the story and already readers know that Israel is dusty and the taxi drivers are unfriendly.

The main theme is about the abuse of donkeys in Israel and the work of a donkey sanctuary which tries to rehabilitate these animals and restore them to health. A most interesting subject one can assume and one which would touch the heart strings of animal lovers everywhere. However there is a major problem. Nowhere in this report is it made clear that the vast majority of donkey owners, users and abusers are Palestinian Arabs or perhaps Israeli Arabs. Donkeys are indeed used for transportation, agricultural work and as beasts of burden by Arab villagers working the land and traveling from one village to another. They are also used in parts of Jerusalem's Arab Old City where the alleyways are too narrow for cars. In the 20 years I have been in Jerusalem I have never seen these animals in the Capital and my guess is that for the majority of Israelis their only close encounter with them would be either in a zoo or at a vacation site where children ride as part of their holiday activities. This is not the impression you would glean from the story because it just talks about Israelis and therefore the logical conclusion is that it must be Jewish Israelis who are the perpetrators of this animal abuse.

Headlines usually set the tone and many readers do not get past them so that the way they are presented is critical in creating first and lasting impressions. The Telegraph used the headline: "Animal Welfare — Israel's donkey sanctuary..." That is a fair and balanced headline.

What was the NZ Herald headline? ..." Heavy burden of abuse for donkeys in the Holy Land...."

Hardly balanced and designed to create an immediate negative impression.

I have saved the best part for last. The Telegraph used 4 photos on their online site. One showed the author hugging a donkey in the sanctuary. Two other photos showed injured and abused donkeys. All these were relevant to the story and perfectly acceptable. The fourth photo showed Mary & baby Jesus on donkeys presumably traveling to Bethlehem. I presume that the paper wished to highlight the abuse by modern day Israelis compared to the loving warm feeling associated with this idyllic Biblical scene. So what photo did the NZ Herald use? None of these. Instead they must have dug around in their archives and found a photo which they published as part of this story. It showed a miserable looking donkey, fully laden, in a rubble strewn field. In the far distance loomed some buildings and an outline of a Mosque dome. The caption that the NZ Herald used was so unbelievable that I had to read it several times in order to make sure I had read it correctly. It stated that donkeys were used in Jerusalem as a mode of transport by those people who were too poor to afford public transport. In case you have not yet realised the implications, read on. Firstly, readers are asked to believe that the photo shows Jerusalem. From the rubble strewn field and distant indistinct buildings one could easily assume that Israel's Capital is nothing more than a derelict outpost of some sort with stray donkeys wandering around its streets. Nothing of course could be further from the truth. Secondly, the statement about poor people commuting by donkeys in Jerusalem because they cannot afford public transport is transparently false as any visitor to the city can attest. In recent months Jerusalem has inaugurated Israel's first modern light rail commuter system which is the envy of many other countries.

In an article laden with generalisations, omission of salient facts and negative language about the Jewish State, the use of this photo and its accompanying caption is a classic case of blatant unbalanced and unfair reporting. Why did the NZ Herald use this photo and its completely false description? The Editor obviously did not feel it important to double check the veracity of what was published and therefore once again tendentious items about Israel were printed. I wrote a letter to the Editor which was never published. No opportunity to counter this inaccurate report will presumably be given and therefore readers will be left with the false impression that Israel is a nation of donkey abusers and that its Capital operates a donkey express line for those unable to afford buses or the light rail.

Finally one needs to ask this question. At a time when Syria is murdering thousands of its citizens, Egypt is in turmoil, the Arab spring is fading fast and Iran threatens to eliminate the Jewish State, why is it that the NZ Herald finds it necessary to print yet another story full of misinformation about Israel? One does not need to be a genius to work out the answer.


22 dec 2011
The New Zealand Herald-Independent

"Heavy burden of abuse for donkeys in the Holy Land"

UK vet Pete Wedderburn visits Israel where, as in other Mideast countries, many of the beasts endure hardship and pain

And whenever there's a donkey in trouble, there's at least one human who's caused the problem, directly or indirectly. It's no wonder that Tamuz's default facial expression is grim.

On my mantelpiece there's a picture of a donkey on a Christmas card, standing outside a snow-covered stable in a classic nativity image. The donkey is hardly the star of the scene but looks happy enough: work done, shelter and food for the night assured.


Weekend's vet Pete Wedderburn visits the Pegasus Society, a charity rescue centre for Israel's mistreated donkeys, 15 Dec 2011.

There's a picture of a donkey on a Christmas card on my mantelpiece, standing outside a snow-covered stable in a classic nativity image. The donkey is hardly the star of the scene, but looks happy enough: work done, shelter and food for the night assured. Here is another picture of a donkey in the Holy Land, described to me on a recent visit: an animal set on fire, then cruelly abused, saved only by the intervention of volunteers from a painful death. No beast of burden should have to suffer that much.

I'd flown in to Ben Gurion International Airport where there was dust everywhere from the moment I landed; blowing in the wind on the airport runway, on the pavement at the taxi rank, and coating the taxi itself. The surly driver took us for half an hour along a busy dual carriageway, before turning off onto one side road, then another, then another. The landscape changed from the intensely irrigated greenery around Tel Aviv to a rough patchwork of scrublands dotted with sugar cane plantations and avocado orchards.

It was early afternoon when we reached our destination. As I opened the door of the air-conditioned taxi, a blast of hot air hit me like a physical wave.

We'd pulled up outside a whitewashed bungalow half hidden beneath sweet-smelling passionfruit vines. There was no gate, just a few fence posts marking some sort of boundary from the rest of the scrublands. A metal sign was nailed to one of the posts; the text was in Hebrew, but the picture of a snarling animal was eloquent. As if on cue, dogs barked. Another sound confirmed that we'd arrived at the right place: the unmistakable comical hee-haw of a donkey braying.

A burly man with a tightly cropped head of grey hair stepped out to greet us: Zvika Tamuz, the 56-year-old founder of the Pegasus Society for the Protection of Horses and Donkeys in Israel. He spoke gruffly, and he looked serious, even angry.

When I asked a question, he retorted "What?" as if I'd irritated him. I soon learnt that Tamuz is a gentle, good-natured man, but he needs to present a tough exterior to do his job. As he introduced the 40 donkeys that have found food, shelter and veterinary help under his care, relaxed, and began to smile as he talked about some of his charges, patting them and even hugging them fiercely in passing. "This is Kalanswa; she was nearly dead when I found her," and, "Here's Natanya — she's the cheekiest beast of them all."

Tamuz has spent much of the past decade on a single-handed donkey rescue mission. He is summoned whenever there is a report of a donkey or horse in distress. Calls can come in at any time, from police officers, local authorities or members of the public, but he's always ready, with his truck and his horsebox. Israel is a small country so Tamuz can reach most donkeys in distress within a few hours, but with up to three call-outs coming in every day, he spends a long time on the road.

And whenever there's a donkey in trouble, there's at least one human who's caused the problem, directly or indirectly. It's no wonder that Tamuz's default facial expression is grim.

I was travelling with a plain-speaking 51-year-old from Cambridgeshire, Ali Findlay. He's the Middle East programmes manager for the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), an international animal welfare charity that offers both financial and practical support to small local animal welfare groups like Tamuz's sanctuary. WSPA works in more than 160 countries and is active across the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Findlay spends much of his life on the road, and he loves his work.

Any visitor to Israel would soon realise that donkeys need to be helped here: donkeys continue to perform their traditional role of transport for those who cannot afford cars, trucks or motorbikes. I saw donkeys hauling overladen carts, donkeys loaded high with boxes and bags on their backs. I even saw one poor beast struggling to carry an adult man at full gallop along the hard shoulder of a busy road in the midafternoon sun.

With the increasing cost of fuel, donkeys are more in demand than ever, not just in Israel but all over the developing world. They're often neglected: when people find it difficult to support their families, animal welfare moves down the list of priorities.

Findlay visited Israel in 2007 to carry out a review of the country's stray dog and cat situation. The issue of donkey welfare came up by chance in conversation: Findlay heard that Tamuz had started a donkey rescue service and that he was struggling to cope with the workload. So he got in touch and, together, they created a new development plan.

At that initial visit, Ali asked Tamuz what he needed most. The answer was simple: "food, food, food". International resources were mobilised, and within days, cartloads of much-needed hay arrived on Tamuz's doorstep. Ali followed up these supplies with regular visits, helping Tamuz to transform his one-man voluntary animal rescue operation.

Findlay is pleased with the progress. "But when you witness the rescue of an animal that has suffered horrific injuries through an act of cruelty, you know there is still much to be done. You wonder what would be the fate of that animal if Pegasus didn't exist. I call it my reality check."

Here is a reality check: a donkey had been grazing on its own on waste ground in a local town. Children put a nylon plastic bag on his back, poured kerosene on top of it, and then set the poor animal on fire, causing horrific burns. The following day, the same children rode around on him, despite his injuries. To avoid a confrontation with local people, Tamuz went in quietly when the children were at school, rescued the donkey and brought him back to the sanctuary. A wound-dressing regime over three months has gradually allowed the donkey, now called Raht, to make a full recovery from his trauma.

Rose is another donkey who's suffered. She was attacked by a pack of dogs, and by the time Tamuz reached her, she'd been bitten badly around the head. Tamuz brought her back to his base and, within hours, his vet had provided pain relief and antibiotic cover for the donkey. Tamuz dressed her wounds twice a day for several weeks, and her damaged tissues gradually healed. She's been left with scars, but as Tamuz says: "She's got four healthy legs and she's now one of the leaders of the herd. She's a happy donkey now."

I witnessed another case that did not end well: Tamuz had been summoned to a piece of wasteland beside a school. The happy sound of children playing at break time made an unlikely soundtrack to our discovery of a pony lying in the shade of an olive tree with a deep festering wound above her right fore hoof.

She gazed impassively at us, with that dull expression in her eyes that is typical of animals enduring chronic pain. She hobbled on three legs into the Pegasus horsebox.

Back at base, the vet took X-rays to assess the damage. The wound had been left for too long, and the damage to the underlying joint was immense. There was only one way to relieve the animal's suffering. As the vet gave her an injection to end her life, even the dogs stopped barking. The only sound that broke the grim silence was the clatter of the pony tumbling to the ground.

We drove off to the next case. Nobody spoke. Then Tamuz said: "I can see her galloping after us." Like an idiot, I looked for her over my shoulder before looking back at Tamuz. A tear was trickling from one eye. The pony was only running after him in his mind. He was feeling that in some way, he had let the animal down. Nothing more was said.

Findlay and Tamuz are busy men, but through their efforts, hundreds of horses and donkeys have had their suffering relieved. Their biggest challenge? As ever, it's the lack of resources. The need to pay for food and veterinary bills hasn't gone away, and Tamuz dreams of a new tractor to help him work more efficiently on the sanctuary land. WSPA has just started its Christmas campaign. Today's donkeys in the Middle East will never witness snow-covered stables or babies in mangers. Their reality is heat, dust and hard work.

To contribute, visit donate.wspa.org.uk/Pegasus or call 0800 072 6389


Michael Kuttner is a native New Zealander who for many years was actively involved with various New Zealand communal organisations connected to Judaism and Israel. He now lives in Israel and works for The Israel Resource News Agency in Jerusalem.

This article appeared January 17, 2012 in Israel Behind the News and is archived at
http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/ content.cgi?ID=4641&q=1

This article appeared Jan 17 2012 in Israel Resource Review.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, January 31, 2012.

World Silent on Threats to Destroy Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took advantage of a special plenary meeting to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day to address the threats to Israel's existence. "70 years after the Holocaust, much of the world remains silent in the face of Iran's declared intent to wipe Israel off the earth," Netanyahu said.

"Much of the world is silent in the face of calls by Hezbollah for the destruction of Israel, and its continued murderous activities. Many remain silent in the face of calls by Hamas to kill Jews wherever they are.

"These are days when most of the governments of the world remain silent in the face of cries of Palestinian Muftis to kill Jews wherever they are. Where is the condemnation of the Mufti? Not the Mufti of history, but the Mufti of today?

International Holocaust Remembrance Day should be the day the world stands behind the words 'never again,'" Netanyahu said.

Food for Thought/ by Steven Shamrak

An oil embargo is another ploy to delay a strike on the Iranian nuclear program to let Iran develop nuclear weapons and say "Well, nothing we can do now" afterwards! Meanwhile, Israel is under political pressure and is being prevented from exercising its right to defend itself!

Red Cross Harbouring Hamas Terrorists

Security officials and police caught two Hamas legislators, Khaled Abu Arfa and Mohammed Totah, who hid in a Red Cross building in Jerusalem for 18 months. The Red Cross building is located in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarreh, populated mostly by Arabs and a hotbed of terrorist activities, including brutal attacks on Jewish motorists. The Red Cross ostensibly is non-political but has been active in pressuring Israel's Magen David Adom to surrender its Jewish star (Magen David) symbol on its ambulances in Judea and Samaria. (The organisation ignores the new emblem — the "Red Cristal" — it adopted several years ago, and still uses the "Red Cross" emblem even in Muslim countries!)

Jerusalem Mufti's Call to Kill Jews

On January 9th, at an event marking the 47th anniversary of the founding of Fatah, Mohammed Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, vehemently called for the killing of Jews. He declared, "The hour of judgment will not come until you fight the Jews... The Jews will hide behind the stone and behind the tree. The stone and the tree will cry, 'Oh Muslim, Oh Servant of God, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'" (No international condemnation!)

Patriots Live in Samaria

More than two thirds of young men from Samaria who join the IDF serve in combat units. IDF statistics show that 67.1% of the young men who enlist serve in combat, as opposed to the national average of 39.5%. 81.2% of Samaria's draft-age men join the IDF after completing high school, after Hesder yeshiva studies or after a attending a pre-military preparatory academy. The national average is 74.8%.

Teenage Terrorists are not innocent

Security and military officials revealed that they have arrested two teenage Palestinian Authority terrorists who carried out a number of shooting, firebomb and rock-throwing attacks on Jewish civilians and soldiers.

Israel Planning Future — Natural Gas to Gold

Israel is putting together a plan for a national investment fund that would tap an anticipated natural gas bonanza to fuel both an export-geared economy and provide a nest egg of $10 billion in less than a decade for future generations. Also being discussed are using some of the proceeds to endow a new set of export-oriented, technology-based industries that would build on what has traditionally been the countrys greatest resource: human capital. (Arabs have been buying gold plated toilets and luxury car collections)

Iran and Hezbolah in International Terror Pack

Two Hezbollah cell members were captured in Baku on Jan. 19 by Azerbaijan's security, preventing attacks on the Israeli embassy and the Chabad center. This was the first known instance of Iranian intelligence and a Hezbollah cell cooperating on a terror operation.

Quote of the Week:

"How terrible to live life like that, knowing every day is a horror no matter what they (Jews) do or don't do, and if they try to protect themselves they are said to still be to blame, how unfair is that." — Gaye C., a Christian friend of Israel — Friends of Jewish people cannot understand Israel's tolerance and value of human lives, even of murderous enemies. Any other sovereignty state would crush them long time ago. Remember the UK waged war against Argentina over the Falkland Islands!

Short Summary of the True Islam
by Jake Neuman, www.islamreform.net

Islam is easy to understand and is totally different from any other religion. Islam is a military ideology masquerading as a religion. In Islam, it is a holy divine duty to murder kafirs (infidels), take their wives/children as sex slave booty and seize the kafirs' property. Kafirs are sub humans — they possess absolutely no humanity and must be murdered, tortured, terrorised, raped etc. According to Islam, all nations of the world must submit to Allah, destroy their democratic constitutions and replace them with Sharia Law — the divine constitution of God.

All Muslims living in the USA and all other democracies are not living in freedom and democracy, but under the dictatorship of the kafir. This situation is an obscenity against the Islamic God and cannot be allowed to stand. Only when the constitution has been destroyed and replaced with Sharia, all other religions destroyed, and all kafirs killed will the Muslim finally be free of kafir oppression. Only then will the Muslim man finally be living in freedom.

Muslim women are the property of her man. A Muslim husband can rape and beat his wife including beheading as a divine act of God.

Freedom of religion in Islam is freedom to practice Islam only.

Jihad is unholy war to conquer kafirs as a religious duty. There are 164 teachings of Jihad in the Quran.

Islam is the total destruction of Multiculturalism.

According to Islamic teachings, the land where a Mosque stands is a conquered territory of Islam and no longer part of the USA.

The life of Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith and Sira is holy — referred to as the Sunna of the prophet and must be emulated. This means that all the crimes of Muhammad are not crimes in Islam but holy acts. It is written in the Islamic book that Prophet Muhammad was a child molester, rapist, murderer, terrorist, torturer, slaver. Muhammad sexually molested a 6 year old child (Baby Aisha) and raped her at nine. He personally beheaded Jews and after murdering their fathers and husbands would rape and gang rape the captive women and kept some as sex slaves. Muhammad had a woman stoned to death in front of her new born baby. He was the first Muslim terrorist who created his own god Allah (acronym of the name of the Moon god of the Arab tribes). In short Islam is the product of a psychotic!

PS: ISLAM — International Society of Liars And Murderers

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

To Go To Top

Posted by K at History Watch, January 31, 2012.

On January 28th Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal stated: "Jordan is for Jordanians, and Palestine is for the Palestinians," during a press conference after a meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah II in Amman.

In 1921 the British foreign office tore away two-thirds of mandated Palestine and awarded it to the great grandfather of Jordan's present King Abdullah, Emir Abdullah, the youngest son of Hussein ibn Ali the former ruler of the Hijaz (present day Saudi Arabia). His Hashemite tribes settled into eastern Palestine among the few nomadic Bedouin tribes who were originally from Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

A factual history of a land the Romans named Palestine.

An ongoing sinister effort to de-legitimize the Jewish peoples right to their inherent homeland — Palestine is being perpetrated by so-called West Bank Arab historians and some senior PLO officials. One such "historian" in an interview on Al-Filistiniya (Fatah) television denied that the Jewish nation has any historical connection to the Land of Israel, at first denying thousands of years of documented Jewish history in Israel, and then replacing it with 4,000 to 5,000 of fictitious Arab Palestinian history.

Arab involvement in ancient Palestine were mainly in the form of incursions. From time to time, Nabatean Arabs from tip of Arabian Peninsula would invade the lands to the north, terrorizing and plundering.

For centuries prior to 1880 there were few Jews in Palestine and not many Arabs. The Jews were known as Palestinians and the Arabs — as Arabs. Most of the Arabs were roving Bedouin tribes, mainly from the surrounding Arab countries.

In 1921 the British foreign office tore away two-thirds of mandated Palestine and awarded it to the great grandfather of Jordan's present King Abdullah, Emir Abdullah, the youngest son of Hussein ibn Ali the former King of the Hijaz (present day Saudi Arabia). His Hashemite tribes settled into eastern Palestine among a few nomadic Bedouin tribes. On May 25.1946 Trans-Jordan became a Kingdom.Three years later it was renamed The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and then renamed once again, present day Jordan. Not only are the Arabs who call themselves 'Palestinians' not indigenous to Palestine, neither are the Jordanians.

With the arrival of more Jews and the British capture of Palestine in 1918, many more Arabs from the surrounding countries entered the area: hoping for jobs, a higher standard of living, and better medical care, all of which was being created by the influx of more Jews and the British mandated government.

In 1934 thirty thousand Syrian Arabs moved across the northern frontier from Hauran in Syria.

Between the years of 1880 and 1914 the Jewish population of Palestine increased from about 50,000 to 90,000.

After the re-establishment of the Jewish State, calling itself Israel, the Arabs decided to call themselves Palestinians, hoping to gain legitimacy as the aboriginal inhabitants of the land. The fallacy of Arab claims that most Arabs living in Palestine are indigenous to that area and not newcomers is simply not true. Until 1967 most Arabs considered themselves part of the 'Great Arab Nation' — Southern Syrians.

The claim by Arabs that they are an ancient and indigenous people of Palestine fails to stand up to historic scrutiny.

Historical footnote: many centuries before the present era there were two separate kingdoms in the area that later became known as Palestine. Israel was the northern kingdom and Judea was the southern kingdom (southerners calling themselves Judeans). The word "Jew" is a modification of the word Judean.

Since the time of King David, and many centuries before his reign, there have always been an unbroken Jewish presence in the Holy Land.

'Facts...Not Fiction'

Contact the poster at historywatch@att.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Edwin Black, January 31, 2012.

It will come as a shock to most Americans, but no presidential candidate — nor any candidate, nor any local, state or federal government — has developed a contingency plan in the event of a protracted oil cut-off. It is not even being discussed. Government has prepared for hurricanes, anthrax, terrorism, and every other disaster, but not the one threatened daily — a protracted oil stoppage, whether caused by terrorism, Iranian intervention in the Persian Gulf.

It is like seeing a hurricane developing without a disaster plan or evacuation route. Our allies have oil shortage interruption contingency plans, but America does not.

The crude realities: America uses approximately 19 to 20 million barrels of oil per day, almost half of which is imported. If we lose just 1 million barrels per day, or suffer the type of damage sustained from Hurricane Katrina, the government will open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which offers a mere 6 to 8 week supply of unrefined crude oil. If we lose 1.5 million barrels per day, or approximately 7.5 percent, we will ask our allies in the 28-member International Energy Agency to open their SPRs and otherwise assist. If we lose 2 million barrels per day, or ten percent for a protracted period of time, government crisis monitors say the chaos will be so catastrophic they cannot even model it. One government oil crisis source told me hours ago, "We cannot put a price tag on it. If it happens, just cash in your 401k."

Exactly how could America be subjected to a protracted oil interruption, that is, a 10 percent shortfall lasting longer than several weeks? It will not come from hurricane action in the Gulf of Mexico, or even major refinery accidents or other oil infrastructure damage. Such damage would be repaired within days and the temporary losses absorbed by the small half million barrel per day global cushion available.

However, if one, two, or all of three of these vital chokepoints are hit by terrorists flying hijacked jumbo jets or shut down by Iranian military action — the Abqaiq processing plant in eastern Saudi Arabia, the Ras Tanura terminal on the Saudi Arabian coast, or the two-mile per sea lane Strait of Hormuz — as much as 40 percent of all seaborne oil will be stopped, as much as 18 percent of all global supply will be interrupted, and as much as 20 percent of the U.S. supply will be cut off. Estimates on the U.S. shortfall could be even higher. Repeat attacks could prolong the crisis for many months, which is exactly what Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime have promised. Yet there is no government plan.

The best experts predict that if we suffer as much as a ten percent shortfall for any period of time, let alone twenty percent, it will be a neighbor-against-neighbor "Mad Max scenario" as food shortages swell and a storm of economic collapse surges across the country. Indeed, experts have been warning about this looming calamity for years. But the government and presidential candidates refuse to even consider the possibility or develop a contingency plan. Even if a secret plan exists, who would execute such a monumental undertaking?

Yet American allies have developed oil contingency legislation and other administrative plans that will permit their nations to survive a stoppage. These measures include severe vehicle traffic reductions, enabling fast alternative fuel production, mass vehicle fuel retrofitting, as well as rush public transit enhancement and mandated changes in driving habits. Unquestionably, for America to survive such a catastrophe will require a very painful, multi-layered program of immediate-term, short-term, mid-term and long-term fixes that will change our society and transform it off oil. The nation has no real alternative fuel delivery or retrofitting infrastructure. Lawmakers, mayors, governors, and candidates have not developed such a plan during the half decade the interruption has been looming.

The notion that Saudi Arabia can make up the shortfall from an Iranian disruption is impossible. Saudi oil disembarks from Ras Tanura and it too must pass through the narrow two-mile wide sea lanes of the Strait. For America to have prepared intelligently for a Persian Gulf oil interruption would have required a decade of planning. To absorb the hit from a sudden oil stoppage as is now once again threatened, will be very painful indeed.

Edwin Black is the New York Times best selling author of IBM and the Holocaust, Internal Combustion, British Petroleum and the Redline Agreement, and The Plan: How to Save America When the Oil Stops — or the Day Before (Dialog Press), from which this article is adapted. More information about The Plan can be found at www.planforoilcrisis.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 31, 2012.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. See more of his art at
or http://freifenberg-newblog.blogspot.com/
or http://abstractsfromfred-fred343. blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, January 31, 2012.

This was written by Frank J. Gaffney Jr., the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988. Under Mr. Gaffney's leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

"Unfortunately, CAIR and its fellow Muslim Brotherhood fronts are not simply trying to muzzle Gen. Boykin. They have gone after a number of other truth-tellers about the doctrine the Brothers seek to insinuate into this country — the totalitarian, supremacist politico-military -legal program the Islamists call Shariah."


According to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), there is a grave threat to America that must be suppressed at all costs. The threat is that Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin might be allowed to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.

This proposition is bizarre on multiple levels. For one, Gen. Boykin, who is a friend and greatly admired colleague of mine, is one of the United States' most accomplished and decorated military heroes. He served in and led our most elite Special Forces units for decades, including in many of our most dangerous recent combat operations. He also held a number of senior positions in the intelligence community, including as the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.

For another, Gen. Boykin is also an ordained minister. The sorts of events CAIR has insisted that he must not address include prayer sessions convened by the mayor of Ocean City, Md., and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

What makes the suppression of Gen. Boykin's right to express himself — and, for that matter, to enjoy freedom of religion — all the more outrageous is the nature of the organization demanding that he be silenced. Four federal judges have affirmed that CAIR is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and was spawned by one of its American affiliates, the Islamic Association for Palestine. Indeed, we know from wiretapped conversations at the time of its founding that CAIR was established by Muslim Brotherhood operatives as a political arm and fundraising mechanism for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization and the Brotherhood's franchise in "Palestine."

Unfortunately, CAIR and its fellow Muslim Brotherhood fronts are not simply trying to muzzle Gen. Boykin. They have gone after a number of other truth-tellers about the doctrine the Brothers seek to insinuate into this country — the totalitarian, supremacist politico-military-legal program the Islamists call Shariah.

For example, another colleague, former Rep. Fred Grandy, was removed from his position as one of Washington's most popular talk-radio-show hosts when he refused to allow Muslim critics to dictate who could appear on his program and what they could say.

In the fall, Stephen Coughlin, one of the nation's foremost non-Muslim experts on Shariah, similarly was subjected to a CAIR-led effort to deny his ability to speak. In that case, he was denied by the Obama administration the opportunity to provide training to CIA personnel about what impels our enemies to engage in murderous and stealthy forms of jihad, namely Shariah.

More recently, New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has been subjected to a campaign of vilification by CAIR and its friends. His offense? Mr. Kelly gave an interview to the makers of a superb documentary, "The Third Jihad," and allowed that film to be used in training his officers.

CAIR's desire to suppress this film is not hard to understand. After all, "The Third Jihad" brilliantly exposes what it and other Muslim Brotherhood fronts are up to in this country. In the words of the Brotherhood's own strategic plan, that is "a kind of grand jihad ... in destroying and eliminating the Western civilization from within" by our own hands.

The movie's narrator and central figure is Zuhdi Jasser. Dr. Jasser, a physician, happens to be one of the most prominent and courageous of American Muslims who oppose political Islam and its use of Shariah to justify the subversion and destruction of our Constitution, form of government and society.

Obviously, it is difficult to pillory Dr. Jasser the way CAIR et al. attack such non-Muslims as Gen. Boykin, Mr. Grandy, Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Kelly, namely as "Islamophobic." The Brotherhood and its official, multinational counterpart, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), brandish this term as a means of intimidating, smearing and silencing those who understand what they are about and oppose them effectively. In fact, the more effective the opposition, the more intense are the Islamists' efforts to silence those mounting it.

Dr. Jasser's right to free expression is being subjected to a similar kind of suppression. As he put it recently in the New York Post, "One of the chief ways that radical Islamists across the globe silence anti-Islamist Muslims is to publicly push them outside of Islam, to declare them non-Muslims, not part of the community [ummah] and so subject them to takfir [declaring them apostates]. That is what the vicious distortions about this film do to my work and the work of so many others within the House of Islam who are trying to publicly take on the American Islamist establishment."

Of particular concern is that the U.S. government is effectively encouraging what amounts to free speech for some — and abetting it. Team Obama has begun according Islamophobia the status of a serious problem. Worse yet, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has joined forces with the OIC in trying to find ways to suppress this fictitious problem by treating instances of what should be protected free speech as prosecutable "incitement."

To paraphrase the famous German pastor Martin Niemoller, first they are coming for the "Islamophobes" and for Muslims who oppose Shariah's political agenda. How soon will they decide that you have no right to speak freely either?

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Roger Bodle, January 31, 2012.
This was distributed by FLAME, whose Vice President, Jim Sinkinson, writes:
January 31, 2012

Why Do Jews Stand By and Allow Anti-Semitic Bigots to Attack Them? Jackie Mason Has an Answer

Dear Friend of FLAME:

Did you see this: Last week, the New York Times published a house editorial denouncing the screening of an anti-jihad film, "The Third Jihad," to New York Police Department staff. The Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately rose up in arms, forcing Mayor Michael Bloomberg to apologize and condemn the film. Now CAIR is also calling for the resignation of New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

My point? When Muslims are offended — by cartoons of Mohammed, by airport screening, by attempts to prevent women from wearing full-face coverings for ID photos — they and Islamic organizations erupt with fury ... and liberal media respond sympathetically.

Yet Jews suffer anti-Semitic attacks in the U.S. and around the world on a daily basis, and little note is taken, especially in the pages of the New York Times. This is even more true in Great Britain, France, Germany and other Western European countries. (Let's not even discuss Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and other Arab and Muslim lands, where anti-Semitism has been baked into the culture and voiced publicly for generations.)

This week's FLAME Hotline, by comedian Jackie Mason, is not funny in the least. In fact, I think you'll be amazed at how articulate Mason is, writing from London where he is appearing, on the subject of Jews' reluctance to oppose anti-Semitism. In fact, his message is sobering: Jews in the Diaspora need to emulate Israelis — be ready to "fight and survive at any price." If we fail to stand up to anti-Semitism, Mason insists, we will continue to suffer the murderous consequences forever, because the bigots will never give up.

In short, this article is a inspirational rallying cry that ends on an up-beat note that may surprise you. I hope you'll pass it on to those on your pro-Israel supporters list (and those who need some encouragement when it comes to Jewish self-defense). I think you'll also find Mason's words useful when talking with those who believe in a more passive approach to the scourge of anti-Semitism.

Best regards,

Jim Sinkinson
Vice President, FLAME


As Jackie Mason notes in his article below, by all rights, given millennia of persecution, Jews should be the world's most downtrodden, backward, hapless failures. Yet, despite three major wars against Israel in the last 65 years and despite ongoing rocket attacks and threats from its neighbors, tiny Israel has risen to become one of the world's most successful countries — politically, culturally and economically. While we at FLAME are determined to expose the lies leveled against Israel in the press, the U.N. and the Arab-Muslim world, we also believe it's critical to publicize the truth about Israel's amazing, inspiring accomplishments. That's why I invite you to preview our upcoming position paper, which will appear in national media reaching more than 10 million readers, including college newspapers. It's called "Good News from the Middle East: Israel's Prospects Have Never Been Brighter." Please take an advance look, and if you agree that these kinds of outspoken public relations efforts for Israel are essential, I urge you to support us. Remember: FLAME's ability to influence public opinion comes from individuals like you, one by one. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able — with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to
http://www.factsandlogic.org/ make_a_donation.html. Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs — from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people.

The essay below was written by Jackie Mason, and it appeared in the Jewish Chronicle London, January 13, 2012


If people really thought that Jews could represent any kind of risk, they would cower before expressing hostility. Criticism of Israel is either a coded means of attacking Jews or it has the unintended consequence of feeding anti-Semitism.

Why is anti-Semitism so popular and prevalent all over the world? Why does it continue unchecked despite the horrors of 70 years ago? People who care about the fate of the Jews are always searching for subtle, indefinable reasons to explain the continuing intensity of anti-Jewish hostility and hatred. The answer is far from mysterious.

As a matter of fact, the truth is so obvious that you'd have to be brainless not to see it.

My honest view is that as Jews we do little if anything to fight back against such prejudice. It seems to me that everyone knows that whatever the crime committed against a Jew, the only price you'll pay will be that of the ride to the crime scene and back. Then, instead of blaming the criminals, Jews will get involved in an orgy of self-reproach and guilt. And after blaming themselves, they'll start blaming each other.

Somebody will be screaming: "It's your own fault. Why would you be walking in that neighbourhood at two in the morning?". The other one will argue: "Why would I think they would recognise that I am Jewish?" and another voice will yell: "At least you could've been smart enough to wear trainers."

Then somebody says: "Let's report this to the police," while somebody else is saying: "Are you crazy? What if they find out we reported it? Do you want to get us all killed? Right now they don't know who we are. Let's just get out of the neighbourhood".

It's because anti-Semites are aware that these are the typical reactions of Jews to any violence committed against them that they feel free to launch their attacks whenever they please. Is it any accident that in Britain and Europe you hear about a rising tide of anti-Jewish attacks, but you rarely hear about the same thing against Muslims? (I know that even right now, you the reader are trembling in fear of what I might write about the Muslims.) And the sad truth about Israel is that its very existence serves as either a cloak or a spur for such bigotry.

While I defend anyone's right to censure the Israeli government, the fact is that too often such criticism is either a coded means of attacking Jews or it has the unintended consequence of feeding and encouraging anti-Semitism.

Take the former MP for Birmingham Ladywood, Clare Short, who has attacked Israel as the main cause of violence in the world, when it is obvious that for her and her like the only real crime is that the country still exists — something she seems to consider an offense to human decency.

What right do Israelis have to try to live in peace with the Arabs and constantly thwart every attempt of the Palestinian suicide bombers to annihilate their whole population, she seemed to ask? Ms. Short claims that the Jews in Israel practice an even more egregious form of apartheid than that which existed in South Africa. Why does she and others call it "apartheid", when every Arab has equal access in every school, to every job, every health-care service and every unemployment benefit? When Arab citizens even hold office in the Israeli parliament and in every other branch of the Israeli government?

Are these people so ignorant that they don't know that none of these opportunities would be granted to any Jew living in an Arab nation? Besides, how would a Jew be able to achieve any of these same opportunities in Arab countries when, in most cases, it wouldn't even be safe for them to live there?

When they attack Israel in such unbalanced, irrational and extreme terms, they simply give licence to thousands of anti-Semites to pedal the kind of bigotry and hatred from which Jews have suffered for so many hundreds of years.

But these people are likely aware, as are anti-Semites all over the world, that you suffer few consequences by attacking Jews, particularly if you do so under the cover of attacking Israel.

If people really thought that Jews could represent any kind of risk, they would cower before expressing such hostility, as I believe they now do with Muslims. When was the last time that an Englishman made a hateful speech against Muslims? Not that I'd approve of that. On the contrary — but it seems to me that people are so fearful of Muslims that they are afraid to even say "hello" without apologising. British and American people are now begging forgiveness from Muslims for things they don't even remember doing.

And don't get me started on George Galloway (Editor: anti-Israel leftist, former member of Parliament), who makes Clare Short look like Simon Wiesenthal. Mr. Galloway is yet another person who attacks Israel while making nice with terrorists, dictators and some of the most vicious anti-Semites on the planet.

The point is this: when you criticise an Israeli administration, you express views (rightly or wrongly) about the policies of a particular party or group of politicians. When you attack Israel, you express hostility towards an entire population, a nation whose founding and continuing purpose is to provide sanctuary to one of the most oppressed peoples in the history of mankind.

Of course, if you don't think they should be given such sanctuary, then that's another matter — but bear in mind that you'll find yourself in the good company of a host of despots and tyrants.

Hostility to Israel is often used as a blanket prejudice, a blunt instrument with which to attack Jews in place of any reasoned criticism of the Israeli government, which — just like any other government — cannot be exempt from censure or disapproval.

However, such bigotry is far from new. Take one of my country's former presidents, Harry Truman, in the White House at the time of Israel's independence. Jews still wax lyrical about his love for the Jewish people. Whenever two Jews get together and mention Truman, out comes the story of his Jewish business partner, Eddie Jacobson. What they forget is that Truman actually found Jews distasteful and treated his partner with utter disdain. This is evidenced not least when Mr. Jacobson pleaded with his former associate, by now the US President, to recognise the state of Israel. Truman's reaction does not bear repeating on the pages of a family newspaper.

As reprehensible, if not worse, was another recent president — Franklin D Roosevelt. At the height of Hitler's atrocities many Jews died needlessly because Roosevelt ignored their plight and, in some cases, even helped Hitler along by refusing to open up US borders, thus sending thousands back to their deaths in the camps.

Was this born out of anti-Semitism? Or plain indifference? In the end, is there any distinction?

And just the other day the US Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, came awfully close to finding anti-Semitism excusable in some circumstances. Calling modern Muslim hatred of Jews a "different phenomenon" from other kinds of anti-Semitism, he declared: "It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian territories and neighbouring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-palestinian problem." And this coming from the son of a Holocaust survivor. But of course, instead of firing him, President Obama remained mute. And as a result, whether by design or just by plain stupid omission, my president has given a quiet thumbs up the idea that it is "OK to dislike Israel".

Unfortunately, as America goes, so goes the world. But sadly, as the Haggadah says, "in every generation one rises up to destroy us".

Unlike Britain's Jewish community, which spends much of its time trying to blend into the background, many self-proclaimed Muslim leaders spend time demanding respect. We dare not paint the wrong cartoon, sing the wrong song, write the wrong book, look the wrong way, or even laugh without an explanation.

The Jewish people will never survive if we don't learn a great lesson from the power of the Muslim population.

If this world had the same fear of offending Jews as it has of offending Muslims, attacks on the Jews would never occur. Outside Israel, people never feel threatened when attacking a Jew, because he's a little guy with glasses carrying a briefcase who, in case of an attack, will pull out a fountain pen rather than a gun. He won't be ready to shoot the attacker; he'll be busy looking for a piece of paper to write his name down.

"The attacker" always knows that when his victim is a Jew, he won't get hit or hurt. The Jew won't fight. He'll cry, beg, scream or run. The attacker knows he can't lose life or limb because the victim can't fight; he's only preparing to sue.

As I said, this applies to the Jews outside of Israel. If we in the Diaspora continue to follow this pattern of traditional helplessness, instead of emulating the Israelis, who are ready to fight and survive at any price, we will continue to be hounded by anti-Semitism for the rest of our lives. We must stand up and be counted, we must show how proud we are to identify with a people surrounded by nations who are committed to their destruction. Even if it infuriates the Claire Shorts, George Galloways and Howard Gutmans of the world.

It invariably takes more courage to stand up against prejudice that than to join in with it, but is it too much to ask that our leaders display such courage from time to time?

And by the way, in case you think that — despite everything I'm saying — the battle has been won and that we no longer need Israel to fulfil its historic purpose, take a look at what is happening in Hungary right now.

Respected public figures — newspaper editors and journalists, judges, political commentators, human rights campaigners (a number of them Jews) — are being removed in favour of members belonging to the ruling, extreme right-wing party. Only last week Istvan Marta, director of Hungary's National Theatre, was forced out by the government and told he would be replaced by an actor who recently campaigned for the right-wing extremist, antisemitic Jobbik Party and by a playwright who is a professed antisemite.

If that doesn't sound horribly familiar and frighten the hell out of you, it should.

But in spite of all that, consider this:

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.

He has made a marvellous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him.

He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert but aggressive mind.

All things are mortal but the Jews; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

Good question. And no, those aren't my words. They were written in 1897, by another American, the great Mark Twain.

Contact Roger Bodle at rjbodle@xtra.co.nz

To Go To Top

Posted by The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, January 31, 2012.

Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, delivered a moving speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day (January 27th). He expressed "deep regret" that Norwegians took part in the arrests and deportations of Jews from the German-occupied country during World War II.

"The murders were unquestionably carried out by the Nazis. But it was Norwegian who carried out the arrests. It was Norwegians who drove the trucks. And it happened in Norway." he said.

However, back in 2009, Norway celebrated with pomp the 150th anniversary of the birth of writer Knut Hamsun (1859-1952). Nobel Prize winner for literature in 1920, Hamsun was an ardent supporter of Adolf Hitler. In 1940 he welcomed the Nazi invasion and in 1943 he presented his Nobel Prize to Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda of the Third Reich. On May, 1945, he signed a laudatory obituary of Adolf Hitler. In one of the lines Hamsun described Hitler as "a warrior for mankind."

Queen Sonja of Norway participated in the inauguration of the celebrations that were accompanied by fanfares and a musical comedy. In addition, a memorial statue of the writer was inaugurated; the construction of a museum dedicated to his memory was announced, and a postage stamp was issued; all that while Norway was taking over the presidency of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research.

Mr. Stoltenberg is the incumbent Norwegian Prime Minister since 2005.

We wonder whether his lines also apply to Knut Hamsun, or perhaps we will have to wait seven decades to find that out.

Baruch Tenembaum

Eduardo Eurnekian

Contact the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation by email at irwfnews@irwf.org.ar and visit the website at www.raoulwallenberg.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, January 31, 2012.

This was written by David Pollack, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It appeared in the Washington Post as an Opinion Piece.


Amid new strains in U.S.-Egypt ties, some in Washington are studying the tensions and results of recent voting for indications that democracy can take hold. Those who say the Muslim Brotherhood is showing new signs of moderation should compare its message to outsiders, in English, with its message to Egyptians and other Arabs, in Arabic.

Take the Brotherhood's official English and Arabic Web sites, IkhwanWeb and IkhwanOnline, from one day this month. In English, the home page featured no fewer than eight articles on the solicitude of the Brotherhood toward Egypt's Coptic Christian minority. The Arabic home page, by contrast, included just two small pieces on this theme. The contrast is sharper on other key issues. On democracy, the English home page one January day featured several articles with headlines such as "Why Islamists Are Better Democrats" and "Democracy: One of the Objectives of Shariah?" There was nothing comparable in Arabic. Instead, Arabic readers saw three pieces against freedom of the press, attacking two top independent Egyptian dailies for printing criticisms of the Brotherhood.

This kind of double talk is part of a pattern. Last February, right after Hosni Mubarak was overthrown, the Brotherhood published what it called an English-language version of Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie's message to the Egyptian people, celebrating their revolution. In that version, he supposedly spoke mainly of democracy, tolerance, pluralism and coexistence between Egypt's Muslims and Christians. But the text of his statement, published simultaneously in Arabic, had a totally different tone. In his authentic message, Badie wrote at great length on how Egypt's uprising was a blessing from Allah — and how much Egyptians needed to stay firm in their Muslim faith to reap its real rewards. The following headlines on the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) led the English site in recent months: "FJP and Christians Stem Sedition," "FJP Denounces Attack on Israeli Embassy" and "FJP Women's Committee Provides Free Medical Services in Sharqiyyah City." But not one of those stories appeared on the Arabic home page. Throughout the past year, women often are referred to by the Brotherhood in English — but almost never in Arabic. The same is true for the English and Arabic Web sites of the FJP, which now controls Egypt's parliament.

Some might note that all political parties, to at least an extent, engage in mixed messaging. But when this degree of duplicity is demonstrated, the group's credibility is, or should be, compromised accordingly. Some will say the Brotherhood includes some relatively moderate voices. True, but it is a very disciplined, hierarchical movement: Many of its moderates have left in the past year or have been expelled, and its most senior leaders are the hard-liners. Some will continue to say the Brotherhood is demonstrating that it can modify its positions. But as the movement has gained strength on the street and at the polls in recent months, the modification is mainly less moderate, not more.

For example, the Brotherhood belatedly joined the protests in Tahrir Square, but after Mubarak fell, its leaders opposed any "supraconstitutional" guarantees of individual freedoms and then barred members from further demonstrations. The group initially said it wanted no more than 30 percent of the seats in parliament; then switched to around half; then said maybe a majority, but in coalition with others; and now is drifting toward exercising complete control by taking the most important leadership and committee positions without having established formal coalitions with other parties. As for the upcoming presidential election, the Brotherhood once said it would not participate, then said it might support one of the existing candidates; now it appears it might search for a yet-unmentioned candidate of its choosing.

Meanwhile, one thing that has not changed is the Brotherhood's hostility toward U.S. policies and interests. In its electoral platform, the FJP begins its section on "Regional Leadership" by explicitly rejecting the old regime's approach of "supporting occupiers and colonisers, through its presence in the so-called axis of moderation, which is sponsored by the United States." In August, the Brotherhood called U.S. funding for Egyptian nongovernmental organizations "a disgrace." In its supposed denunciation of the violent police crackdown on NGOs in December, it nevertheless reaffirmed its continuing opposition to this funding.

Of course, it would be a welcome surprise if the Brotherhood does change into a more truthful and trustworthy interlocutor. In the meantime, however, we should pay no attention to anything the Brotherhood says in English and little attention to any private "assurances" it offers. And given the group's record of double-dealing, observers should take everything the Brotherhood says in Arabic with due doubt. The United States has to deal with the Brotherhood, but we don't have to trust anything it says — at least until it proves we should.

Editor's Note:

Of course, some of the comments went off on a tangent and felt the only problem in the Middle East was that AIPAC was influencing Congress to support Israel. But these comments below added useful information about the Brotherhood. It is also heartening that despite the huge campaign to not link Islam to terrorism, many people do understand that regurgent Islam — and the Muslim Brotherhood is very much a part of this movement — really does want to conquer the world and be the topdog religion.


David Pollock's points are well taken. Not unlike the Nazi's, the Muslim Brotherhood will have been elected in the closest thing to free election with one vote, one time. The MB's stated goal is to instate a Shar'ia compliant theocracy, and Islam is totally incompatible with democracy, albeit the MB has successfuly deluded many Egyptian voters and much of the West that it is compatible and "moderate".

Once in power, the ballot stuffing, the MB fully veiled women supporters of the FJP and the Salafist parties refusing to reveal their faces or to dip their fingers in phosphoric ink, which allowed them to vote more than once, and harrassment of non-veiled women at the polls will look like child's play in the next election, where the MB and the Salafists will not have to pretend to look nice for the Western media anymore.

The MB also barred Coptic citizens from entering the polling stations to cast their votes, campaigned in front of polling stations in open violation of the ban on campaigning 48 hours before the vote.

Thousands of MB "youth volunteers", accuses Zahran, who have entered polling stations around the country ostensibly to help illiterate voters cast their ballots are directing these voters to vote for the FJP.

The poor organization of the voting process, the lack of sufficient balloting papers, the late opening of voting stations all contributed to irregularities that marred Egypt's first post-Mubarak elections.

But unfortunately, to hear the truth, you will have to go to Egyptian sources like Egyptian Social Democratic Party rather than the WP and other liberal news outlets who seem to be receiving orders to whitewash the Muslim Brotherhood and are doing a pretty good job of it, too — with the relatively rare exception of this David Pollock piece.


Mr. Pollock has provided a useful observation on the discrepancies between the English and Arabic versions of statements from the Muslim Brotherhood. It is unfortunate that so little goes effort is expended in this country on translating Arabic documents into English. Even the "talking heads" on major news channels persistently mis-pronounce Arabic words. Pollock, though, may be too restrained in his criticism of the Brotherhood. Those who seek to impose a more fundamentalist Islam on their citizenry — and especially through the application of the shari'ah — are in the process of destroying democracy, at least as we understand the term in the West. To be sure, Islam has virtues, and its leaders proclaim them daily to the world: but those virtues or values are applicable only to an Islamic society, not to the non-Muslims or infidels. Islam contains within its fundamental documents prescriptions that are antithetical to Western democratic ideals. I congratulate Pollock for having the courage to bring this to the public.


Look, we're screwed in Egypt... and I don't mean that in the narrow sense of US policy objectives — I'm talking about the millions and millions of vulnerable people in the Muslim world; the women, children, foreigners, infidels (Christians, Hindus, Animists, Jews, etc.), and even the true believers themselves, who remain perpetually trapped in the 8th Century.

The author's concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood are well founded... though perhaps not because the Brotherhood itself is particularly untrustworthy. We see it that way because we can't quite comprehend that we are ALWAYS seen as their enemy... which is one consequence of our failure to recognize that there ARE no "moderate" Islamists...

If one is an "Islamist", then one is a true believer that Islam should be the very center of EVERY aspect of life. Therefore, society, government, law, education, politics, and personal life MUST conform to the teachings of Islam... This is the only permissible view, 100% aligned with the core tenets of Islam — there is no "middle ground", no liberal or moderate "interpretation" to be made...

So — now the Muslim Brotherhood is winning elections, and will be writing a new constitution. (Empowering the "Egyptian Taliban" isn't what WE had in mind, forgetting that it was the result of democratic elections that gave legitimacy to Hamas, among others...) The Arab Spring is looking pretty ugly all around, to be honest — the Libyan revolution has degenerated into a bloodbath of revenge killings and private torture chambers, Syria is imploding, Tunisia stagnating, Bahrain back to business as usual... but these were never OUR revolutions, after all...


For many years, the Muslim Brotherhood has been chanting: "Kill the Jews" and "Shariah is the Law". Recently, during the Egyptian elections, they carried signs and made speeches proclaiming that goal. But, the signs and speeches were in Arabic, and the mainstream American media didn't report them. The Obama administration apparently hasn't noticed them, either, and seems to have been particularly eager to befriend the Muslim Brotherhood. Hillary Clinton's aide, the wife of former Congressman Wiener, has family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps that is why there are no critical pronouncements emanating from the White House concerning the Muslim Brotherhood, but so many concerning Israeli apartments and settlements.

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 Arlene Kushner, January 31, 2012.

I am always reluctant to repeat here speculative, unconfirmed reports that pass as "news." For once I repeat them, I am reinforcing the impression that what I am saying is solid news.

Here, then, I will just allude in the most general terms to unsubstantiated talk about the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu might be willing to offer the Arabs a good deal of territory in Judea and Samaria.

One must begin by asking why in hell he should be ready to offer anything (if indeed that is the case). Why should there even be such speculation now? Why isn't he standing up on two feet and speaking for Israel's rights — now especially when the Palestinian Arabs have been so obstructionist and so unwilling to seriously negotiate, so willing to abrogate the Oslo Accords via various unilateral gambits at the UN, and so quick to praise as martyrs obscene child-murders.

The answer is fairly obvious: International pressure that he may not be capable of resisting. Resisting, actually, is not his style: he prefers to play the game and look like the good guy (whatever that means in this context). We've seen it over and over — the way he walks a very fine line, slipping evermore down that slippery slope.


How far down that slope he may be prepared to go now is something we don't know. But the question I ask is whether he is truly prepared to give away the store.

Netanyahu has been taking positions of late that are most definitely not reassuring. His move to block the legislation that would save Migron is just one example.

Another is his statement with regard to an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley. He said he would not forge an agreement that did not permit such an Israeli presence, and this was supposed to show how strong he was with regard to Israeli security and to provide reassurance. But I was not reassured. Because he didn't talk about retaining land in the valley, which is what is necessary. And he didn't allude at all to the necessity for Israel to retain high places in Samaria, also for security.


But, the flip side is that there are reports about other things that he insists he will not cave on — a united Jerusalem, no accepting "refugees," the demand that the PA recognize Israel as the Jewish state, the requirement that the PA sign off on the agreement as end of conflict, etc. And he knows with absolute certainty that if he doesn't cave on these things there will be no deal because the other side will never, ever buy it.

So the question: Is he thinking that if the Palestinian Arabs would let us keep Jerusalem, and would settle their "refugees" elsewhere, etc. etc., then he would truly be happy to give them most of Judea and Samaria? Or is he thinking that it's safe to go down that slope in order to make the international community happy, because our enemies, who can be counted on to reject what he offers, will ensure that in the end nothing happens anyway?

I cannot see into his heart, but my betting, even now, is that the answer is the latter. As nervous as Netanyahu has been making me, I persist in my belief that he is not an Ehud Olmert, who truly couldn't wait to give almost everything past the Green Line, including half of Jerusalem, to the Arabs.

And yet, when Netanyahu exclaims with great passion, as he just did, "I'm willing to travel to Ramallah to meet with Abbas," I cringe — drama meant for the international community though I recognize it to be.


If this discussion has the feeling of deja vu, it's because I have examined these issues before. Yet in light of the current situation I felt obliged to revisit it here.


And then I want to throw another thought into the hopper. This news, which just broke today, is something I will surely return to in its broader aspects:

According to Israel National News:

"Mossad director Tamir Pardo is in Washington for talks about a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations...

"Pardo's visit, which would normally be conducted in secret, was revealed by US Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, 78, who made the faux pas at committee hearing.

"The hearing was being broadcast live by US television.

"Feinstein said she had spoken with Pardo, who also met with CIA director David Petraeus, adding that the Mossad chief had mentioned the possibility of unilateral Israeli action against Iran."

This still has the feeling of rumor about it. We don't really know what Pardo and Petraeus discussed. But it is within the realm of possibility that there is a quid pro quo somewhere. It might be that Netanyahu is prepared to advance a "plan" to entice the PA back to the table, in exchange for some sort of passive US acquiescence, should Israel decide to hit Iran.

Speculation. My point is that the situation is vastly complex and we are not privy to all of the parameters.


It is now about 1:45 AM as I write in Israel. I have been waiting for results of Tuesday's Likud primary with regard to the selection of party leader. If figures that have just been released are correct, it is cause for much satisfaction. That Netanyahu would win was never in doubt — the issue was by how much. The challenger, a nationalist Moshe Feiglin, had secured some 23% of the vote last time around. Tonight it may be as much as 36% (this according to the JPost).

This delivers a message to Netanyahu to attend to the demands of the right flank of his party or risk losing voter support. It's letting him know that his position on such issues as Migron is not sitting well with a whole lot of people.

Follow-up as necessary tomorrow.


With regard to Obama:

An article — "No Matter What" — has been circulating broadly. Purportedly written by Dr. Walter Williams, an economist on the faculty of George Mason University in Virginia, it advances the thesis that Obama cannot lose the election. But it is a fraud! See the disclaimer and apology from the university:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/ RiteOn.orgApology.pdf

Let people know about this, for advancing the notion that Obama cannot lose has a psychological effect on how some might vote. It will not be an easy battle, but the fact is that Obama most certainly can lose.

(Thanks to Barbara O. here.)


Then, Yoram Ettinger, writing about "A Return to Andalusia."

This makes crystal clear what Palestinian Arab intentions truly are — and provides understanding as to why there is no compromise in dealing with them. What they are fighting about is the fact that Jews have no right to a presence on any land that, "in the eyes of Muslims, is Waqf — an inalienable religious endowment."

"On January 9, 2012, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, a close associate of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, stated that all of Israel has been Waqf since 637 C.E., and will be forever. The statement was made at the annual rally of Fatah, which Abba heads.

"This principle of 'holy land' is permanent, and is stronger than any leader or passing policy, and it applies to any land that was ever under Islamic control. It is an inseparable part of the legacy of Muhammad and Islamic law...

"The centrality of 'holy land' in the Muslim experience can be understood from the example of Andalusia, the Arabic name for most of the Iberian Peninsula, which was under Islamic rule from 711-1492 C.E. The Muslim Golden Age did not take place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, but rather in Andalusia...In 1492, Spain was liberated from the control of Muslims, who today still view 'Andalusia' as their 'holy land.' Muslim terrorist plots in Madrid in March 2004 killed 191 people and wounded around 1,800. The attack intended to correct the 'injustice of Andalusia.' Saudi Arabia is constructing the second largest mosque in the world in Cordoba, the former capital of Andalusia, while mosques are springing up like mushrooms all over Spain."
http://www.israelhayom.com/ site/newsletter_opinion.php? id=1262

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shula Kogen, January 31, 2012.

This article by Caroline Glick's is distributed by Keep JerusalemIm Eshkachech. A main reasons for Keep Jerusalem's > existence is to educate the Jewish people and the world at large as to our rights to a united Jerusalem and to help formulate and disseminate the MESSAGE. (see below.)


Caroline Glick said:

Our hasbara policy is a reflection of our government politics.

To a certain degree the government has not come to a conclusion. The left has come to a conclusion but the right wing (such as it is in Israeli politics) has not made a decision as to what it wants to be when it grows up and as a result Israel's hasbara is lost at sea.

If you can't decide what you want then you can't sell it. If you don't know what your product is then you can't sell it. You can only sell something that you know. If you don't have a strategic goal and all you are trying to do is survive the next hit from Washington, the next hit from the Israeli media, the next hit from the NY Times, whatever it happens to be, then your hasbara efforts are going to reflect that lack of direction. So I think that we talk a lot about hasbara as if it is a stand alone issue: "What we need is better hasbara." No, what we need is a goal, that we can achieve, that secures our interests and reflects our values. So long as we don't have one our hasbara is going to suffer. Our ability to make our case to the West, to the Americans, to whomever is going to be minimized because if you don't know what you are selling you can't sell it. And unfortunately, for the past 18 years Israel has not known what it wants to sell so it hasn't been selling it.

On the other hand, the Palestinians have known exactly what they want to sell. They know exactly where they want to go. They know exactly what they have to sell in order to get there. And even though they are very unattractive on the surface; they are terrorists, they are anti semites and they engage in terrorism and they indoctrinate terrorism in their schools, and they celebrate terrorism, they've been extremely effective and that is because they know where they want to go.

It's so easy to point a finger and say: "Yuli Edelstein you are a failure," but it's not him. Its not the foreign ministry, its not the Prime Minister's office, the bureaucrats, or the officials who are in charge of selling Israel 's message. Without a message, they can't sell. it.

Contact Shula Kogan by mail at shulavk@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Asaf Romirowsky and John R. Cohn, January 31, 2012.

A self-proclaimed National Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Conference is set to take place at the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy league institution in the heart of Philadelphia, during the weekend of February 4. Last held in 2009, according to the organizers, the BDS movement intends to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by demonizing Israel while propagating the Palestinian victimhood status in order to gain global sympathy.

They believe that if universities, companies and even countries boycott, divest from and sanction Israel it will pressure the government to change its so-called "hard nosed" policies toward the Palestinians and in addition to give up land Israel supposedly "stole" from the Palestinians in 1948 and 1967.

A closer look at the BDS movement and its methodology shows not legitimate criticism but actually a racist and anti-Semitic program. In a world where refugees have been created and resettled by the tens of millions, including over 900,000 Jews that fled Arab states, BDS targets only Israel. Its stated goals vary but all include the "right" for descendants of Palestinian "refugees" to "return" to a country they have never seen, thus bringing about the end of Jewish Israel.

The movement takes care to give the impression that ending specific Israeli policies such as the "occupation" or "apartheid" will also bring an end to efforts to ostracize Israel. Their maximalist demand — the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state — is carefully hidden but readily apparent to a careful examiner.

It is a matter of great concern that respected universities lend their space and name to such conferences in addition to the participation of their faculty and others from around the country. In North America, whatever goes on in a classroom is deemed protected by "academic freedom," whether it is academic or not. Only sexual harassment appears exempt from this blanket protection. Gradually, campuses have become an "academic freedom" zone where protests and other activities now qualify as academic "speech."

This freedom to critique is, predictably, directed mostly at the twin Satans, Israel and America, although efforts to curtail speech that academics find unpleasant and unacceptable have been longstanding in the form of "speech codes" and restrictions on "hate speech." Clearly academic freedom is a one-way street; only those having the correct opinions may claim it.

As such, we commend the University of Pennsylvania for clarifying it does not support or endorse the BDS movement, as well as for its clear statement that "The University of Pennsylvania... has important and successful scholarly collaborations with Israeli institutions that touch on many areas of our academic enterprise."

Universities which should be bastions of critical thinking and opposition to fallacies of argument have become fertile ground for myth, fantasy and lies about history. North American college campuses have been suffering from an significant increase in anti-Israelism. This new situation has demonstrated the need for a clear and inclusive definition of anti-Semitism and an answer to the question of whether anti-Israelism constitutes anti-Semitism.

The apparent dilemma has been that anti-Israelism itself is not blatantly or even necessarily anti-Semitic but rather may appear merely critical of "Zionist policies," thus distinguishing between Jews and Zionists. This well-worn distinction has enabled the anti-Israeli camp to pose as legitimate critics. What has actually emerged, in effect, is a new form of anti-Semitism, because the state of Israel acts as a proxy for Jews at large.

To the extent that it becomes harder to make a case for Israel on campus and in the Jewish community in general, the environment has become increasingly hostile to the pro-Israel community.

All of this has lent legitimacy to those who advocate for BDS. This paradigm is unique to the debate about Israelis and Palestinians and cannot be found in any other academic discipline. No university would host an "academic" conference on whether blacks are biologically inferior to whites, but even though the BDS movement makes a similar outrageous comparison one is considered acceptable and the other not.

Moreover, the involvement of Jewish individuals in such forums has become another indicator that this "genuine debate" deserves to be explored. In the US, politicized writing and teaching have often displaced scholarship, and academic freedom has been redefined as the liberty to dispense with academic standards. In response, hiring token Israeli Jews who subscribe to the anti-Israel narrative and support the BDS movement has become common practice on American campuses, thereby eliminating debate while providing the illusion of balance and using their Jewishness as a carte blanche to criticize Israel and question it existence.

Combating BDS has become complicated and confusing especially for those who want to believe that there is room for debating the "facts" presented by the BDS movement. What makes this battle so arduous for the pro-Israel community and so attractive for the antagonizers of Israel is the umbrella of academic freedom that argues that it is legitimate to debate all aspects of Israel, from specific policies to its elimination, in contrast to racial and gender discussions where such unsupported slanders are correctly and forcefully rejected by university communities.

Many in the Jewish community in their naïveté are willing to engage in these debates precisely because they are cloaked in academic freedom, which gives them the impression of legitimate criticism rather than racism.

On a positive note, the racist nature of the BDS movement has redrawn the lines of acceptable discourse. We are now seeing a sure but steady understanding of the real threats BDS and its sympathizers represent to not just the pro-Israel community but to honest academic discourse on the Middle East. The hope is that rejection of their hateful message will catch on.

Asaf Romirowsky is deputy director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and John R. Cohn is a professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University and a Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) board member.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Behind the News, January 31, 2012.

This was written by Penny Starr and appeared originally at CNSNews.com
(http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ un-textbooks-palestinian-children- explosively-anti-semitic-anti-american- and-anti) It appeared today in Israel Behind the News
http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/ content.cgi?ID=4650&q=1; it contains a video that is available
here. starring Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) (Penny Starr/CNSNews)

The textbooks used to educate Palestinian children who live in refugee camps came under fire at a briefing on Wednesday on Capitol Hill where experts said lessons of intolerance and hatred toward Jews and Israel fill the books' pages.


(CNSNews.com) — The textbooks used to educate Palestinian children who live in refugee camps came under fire at a briefing on Wednesday on Capitol Hill where experts said lessons of intolerance and hatred toward Jews and Israel fill the books' pages.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chairman of the House subcommittee on Human Rights and co-chairman of the Bi-Partisan Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, told CNSNews.com that U.S. donations to the United Nations Refugee and Works Agency (UNRWA) make the federal government accountable for what is in the books.

"We are responsible for the content and the content has been, year in and year out, explosively anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Israeli," Smith said, at the event he hosted with the Center for Near-East Policy Research, which is based in Jerusalem and which has studied the topic extensively.

Since the UNRWA began operations in 1950 in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the United States has been the largest contributor to the agency. The UNRWA oversees the health, education, and social services of some 5 million registered Palestinian refugees, including those in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), "Since UNRWA's inception in 1950, the United States has provided the agency with nearly $4 billion in contributions."

The CRS reports that U.S. contributions to the UNRWA have steadily increased over the past decade, with nearly $228 million given in [fiscal year] 2010.

Arnon Groiss, author of a comprehensive study on Middle Eastern textbooks who has advised the U.S. State Department and testified before the U.S. Congress, brought some of the textbooks to the congressional Rayburn Building on Thursday to share specifics of what the experts consider objectionable.

Groiss' report on the textbooks, "Teaching the 'Right of Return' in UNRWA Schools," was distributed at the event. The report had been commissioned by the Council for Religious Institutions in the Holy Land, an interfaith association of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim leaders.

The study shows, for example, that on the cover and on page 7 of the National Education textbook for Grade 2, the image of a Palestinian stamp has a blank square where the Hebrew script that is on the stamp has been removed. (See picture on left.) In the same book (p.16), a map is entitled "Arab and Muslim Nations" (see below).


Map of "Arab and Muslim Nations" in textbook that does not include Israel on the map. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

"Israel does not exist," on the map," Groiss told CNSNews.com. (Picture on right.)

In a Reading and Texts book (2011) for Grade 9, p.24, the instructions tell the student to "reconcile between the following poetical lines and the feelings they express":

"The morning of glory and red liberty watered by the martyrs' blood ... the hope for the Liberation of Palestine."

In the textbook National Education, Grade 7 (2011), pp. 20-21, it says, "The Zionist colonialist greedy ambitions in Palestine started in 1882. ... The coming of the Jewish throngs to Palestine continued until 1948 and their goal was taking over the Palestinian lands and then taking the original inhabitants' place after their expulsin and extermination. ..."

In the book, Our Beautiful Language, Grade 7, Part 1, 2001, p.81, there is a poem entitled The Martyr that, in part, reads: "Hearing [weapons'] clash is pleasant to my ear and the flow of blood gladdens my soul/ As we as a body thrown upon the ground skirmished over by the desert predators/ ... By your life! This is the death of men and whoever asks for a noble death — here it is!"

In the book Readings and Texts, Grade 8, Part 2, 2003, p. 16, it says, "Your enemies killed your children, split open your women's bellies, took your revered elderly people by the beard and led them to the death pits ...."

In Our Beautiful Language, Grade 5, Part 1 (2011), p. 50, there is a poem about the Palestinaian "Right of Return" entitled "We Shall Return." It says in part: "Return, return, we shall return/ Borders shall not exist, nor citadels and fortresses/ Cry out, O those who have left:/ we shall return!/ [We] shall return to the homes, to the valleys, to the mountains/ Under the flag of glory, Jihad and struggle/ With blood, sacrifice [fida], fraternity and loyalty/ We shall return/ ... To jihad in the hills; [to] harvest in the land."

In Reading and Texts, Grade 8, Part 1 (2009), p.66, it states: "O brother, the oppressors have exceeded all bounds and Jihad and sacrifice [fida] are imperative ..."

Congressman Smith said the United States should put conditions on the funding the UNRWA receives, including a mandate to clean up the textbooks.

"It would be based on a certification where the president would have to certify that the UNWRA textbooks are completely excised of all anti-Semitic hate," Smith said, adding that "zero tolerance on hate in those textbooks" should be the benchmark.

"And so, if you teach kids to hate when they're very, very young and just keep feeding them that kind of formula for violence, why are we surprised when they strap on dynamite and other kinds of explosives to kill themselves and think they're doing a good thing?" Smith said. "They've been taught. And we have to be much more emphatic — zero tolerance on hate in those textbooks."

Author David Bedein of the Center for Near East Policy said at the event that the refugee camp schools regularly promote the "Right of Return," which supports Palestinians' right to reclaim the property abandoned or lost in the 1948 war, even if that property — or the city or village where it was once located — no longer exists."

"This perceived right also applies to the refugee's descendants with no limit of number, time or place of birth," Groiss wrote in an essay on the "Right of Return."

In his conclusion, Groiss said the "Right of Return" is tied to the elimination of Israel and helps "propagate this non-peaceful line, in absolute contradiction to the (UNWRA) declared mission."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Laura, January 30, 2012.

This comes from
http://news.investors.com/Article/ 598759/201201241804/college-muslim- chaplains-al-qaida-hamas-background- checks.htm


Homeland Security: To please Muslim-rights groups, more and more colleges are hiring Muslim chaplains, only to watch them radicalize students. Campuses need tougher background checks.

Alarmingly, some chaplains have actively supported al-Qaida and called for violent jihad against "kaffirs," or infidels. And yet they still have access to students, and remain on the university payroll.

Take Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, Muslim chaplain at Northeastern University in Boston. He has urged Muslims to pick up the "gun and sword" on behalf of recently imprisoned al-Qaida terrorists.

Last month, Faaruuq held a fundraiser for Aafia Siddiqui, a one-time MIT student also known as "Lady al-Qaida," who's serving an 86-year prison sentence for opening fire on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

Siddiqui, a senior al-Qaida operative based in Pakistan, was captured with notes about a "mass casualty attack" in the U.S., along with a list of New York landmarks.

"What a brave woman she continues to be, and how much her bravery and her faith and her belief warrants our support at this time," said Faaruuq, as he encouraged Massachusetts Muslims to help raise $30,000 for her appeal.

"She's only guilty of defending herself," he said. In fact, Siddiqui yelled "Death to America" as she fired on soldiers. A federal judge called her actions premeditated.

While ignoring such evidence, the Northeastern chaplain condemned American soldiers as "kaffirs" and exhorted Muslims to "cut through" them with machetes.

mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

"Go out and do your job," he said, referring to jihad.

No wonder Islamic extremism has spread at Northeastern.

Then there's Khalid Griggs, assistant chaplain at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Upon his hiring, Wake Forest's president praised him as a "well-respected individual."

Yes, well-respected among the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Griggs has served as a leader of the Islamic Circle of North America, or ICNA, cited in the Muslim Brotherhood's recently declassified founding archives as one of its front groups. He is also a senior official in the Muslim Alliance of North America. MANA was co-founded by radical Muslim cleric Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

"It is difficult to understand how the president of such a respected American university could have remained so oblivious to the serious implications of allowing an individual like Griggs with openly publicized links to the Muslim Brotherhood access to Wake Forest students," said terror expert Clare Lopez.

ICNA is an offshoot of the Muslim Students Association, another Brotherhood front. MSA has grown to one of the nation's largest college groups with more than 150 campus chapters.

MSA chapters from New York to California have extolled suicide bombers and other terrorists as "martyrs" and the "only people who truly fear Allah."

And they are a big reason why, according to a recent Pew Research poll, one in four college-age Muslims in America support suicide bombings.

MSA also organizes anti-Israel student rallies, and hectors college administrators into Islamizing campus facilities. MSA and Muslim chaplains work in lockstep.

Clearly, regents and administrators are clueless about this dangerous threat. Unless they put in place better vetting systems, radical Islamists will be able to infiltrate college campuses and indoctrinate impressionable students who graduate to become jihadists instead of productive members of society.

Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, January 30, 2012.

The definition of the word revenant is: a person who returns after a lengthy absence, or someone who has returned from the dead.

The origin of the word revenant is French, from present participle of revenir, meaning to return. (Participle is a word formed from a verb and used as an adjective or a noun.)

The word revenant was first known to have been used in 1818.

The Jewish Nation is a revenant nation.

The Jews have returned to the Land of Israel, after lengthy absence, several times, thus the name revenant is the most appropriate for any Jew living in the land of Israel.

The Babylonian empire, under the ruling of Nebuchadnezzar II, conquered and occupied the Kingdom of Judea between 597-586 BC. In 586 BC, the Babylonian army, under the commandment of Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed the First Temple in Jerusalem and exiled the Jews to Babylon, mostly, the middle class and above Jewish population.

The exiled Jews in Babylon, the first known Diaspora, never lost their affinity for Jerusalem and their faith. According to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, in 538 BC, approximately seven decades after they were expelled from their Homeland, the Jews in Babylon were allowed to return to the Land of Israel. Cyrus the Great, the ruler of the Persian Empire then, issued the Cyrus's declaration, the decree that granted the Jews the right to worship their God in Jerusalem, in some form of an autonomy. Around 50,000 Jews made the first — Aliyah — revenir, to the Land of Israel, and most of the exiled Jews chose to remain in Babylon. During the next 110 years to follow, since the decree of Cyrus the Great, Jewish deportees returned to Judea — returned to Zion. These Jews were the first Jewish revenants.

These Jewish revenants re-established the city of Jerusalem and rebuilt the Second Temple at the original site of King Solomon's First Temple, which had remained a devastated heap during the approximately 70 years of exile. Work resumed at approximately 521 BCE, under the Persian King Darius (Ezra 5) and was completed during the sixth year of his reign in 518/517 BCE. Around 19 BCE, Harod the Great renovated and expanded the Second Temple.

On 70 CE, under Titus, the Romans conquered and destroyed Jerusalem, and burned the Second Temple.

When the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. the second exile of Jews from Judea began. The Jewish people were soon to be scattered throughout the earth knows to be the Diaspora. For the next 2000 years the Jews would have no authority in their land their God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However during most of the 2000 years Second Exile there have always been some Jews living in the Land of Israel, mostly in Jerusalem. Although most of the Jewish nation was in exile from its land, the Jews in the Diaspora never forget their Jerusalem.

Aliyah — revenir of Jewish revenants is a basic tenet of the Zionism ideology. The return to the Holy Land has been a Jewish aspiration since the Babylonian exile. Sizable scale of Jewish immigration to Eretz Israel and later the State of Israel began in 1882. Aliyah — revenir of Jewish revenants to the State of Israel still takes place today when Jews arrive to love in the State of Israel from all four corners of the world.

In 1948 the nascent Jewish state, comprised of 600,000 revenants, had to fight for its survival when, on May 15, one day after the creation of the State of Israel, the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded the new Jewish state. Israel won the war but lost a portion of its land to the Arabs. The Gaza strip and Sinai remained under Egypt's control and Judea and Samaria and a part of Jerusalem — the old city — fell into the hands of Transjordan. For nineteen years Israel was missing several of her limbs, which, legally and according to International law, belong to the Jewish State.

In 1967 Israel was compelled to defend itself again from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The result of the Six Day War was that Israel gained her land back, the land the Arabs were holding to, illegally for two decades.

Jewish revenants began settling their newly gained land in Judea and Samaria and Gaza. While the State of Israel did the unthinkable and made Gaza Judenrein, a growing number of Jewish revenants are inhabiting Judea and Samaria.

Unfortunately, the Arabs are still harboring one goal in mind, which is to capture the State of Israel and destroy it. Along this ominous goal, they have been demonizing and delegitimizing the state of Israel in any method possible. The Arabs' stealth jihad against Jews gained much support from the Jewish state herself. The Jewish revenants, living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, are known to be called by Israelis and Arabs alike "settlers," which is a pejorative and dismissing term. These pioneers, who elected to inhabit the Jewish land that did not see a Jewish inhabitant for over 2000 years, are also called by the enemies of the Jews and the State of Israel, who want to see her fall, by other derogative names such as "racists," "occupiers," "bigots" and the like.

There are two sides to every story. The world chose to hear and narrate only one side of this story and simply refuses to acknowledge the other side of the story. This is therefore, the other side.

The derogative word "settler" has 'occupation' connotation attached to it. Since the French word 'revenir', means to come back after a long time to something that belongs to you, these revenants did just that, returned, after a lengthy absence, to their Biblical land of Judea and Samaria, which is a part and parcel of the Jewish state, Israel. Places which are mentioned in the Bible, such as Shilo, Israel's first Capital in the Promised Land after fleeing Egypt, and where the tabernacle first stood, are resurrected and built by Jewish revenants-pioneers. Ancient Biblical names come alive again.

The Jewish people's Land is Israel. This land was given to Abraham in an unshakeable covenant by God over 3,000 years ago. But not only according to God this land belongs to the Jews. This land was finally, legally and unanimously, returned to the Jews by the world's nations in 1922.

Since the Jewish revenants began heading for the hills of Judea and Samaria, the State of Israel has been in a state of a confusion mode.

The Israelis signed the Oslo Accords and Camp David with terrorists who had no inclination to keep and abide by any of the terms of those agreements; the Israelis disengaged from Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria and gave the Arabs reasons to demand they disengage from more parts of the Jewish land. These political moves had one goal in the mind of the Jews only, which is achieving peace under false pretence. Every time a so called "peace treaty" agreement was signed, Israel's safety was reduced. It appears that Israel is forever seeking world's approval, without finally realizing that she does not need any approval. God gave His approval to the Jews. What Israel needs is people's fortitude, the Israeli leadership recognition of what is at stake through their judgment and decision making.

Therefore, when the media portrays the Jewish citizens of communities in Judea and Samaria, a/k/a West Bank, as fanatics and intolerant bigots, our response must be, they are simply Jewish revenants. The word "settlers" must be taken out of the lexicon and forgotten. We must end defaming the people who have made Aliyah — revenir to the land God gave the Jewish Nation. These Jewish revenants are pioneers in the land from which the Jews were illegally kept away since 1949 and it was finally returned to her Jewish owners in 1967, through a bloody war of self defense. These revenants-pioneers are principled Jews who chose to live in Judea and Samaria, along majestic aspirations and a great deal of fears of the unknown that only politics can inflict on them.
(http://www.israelmuse.com/2010/08/ news-videos-show-human-face-of.html)

The Other Side: The Jews of Judea and Samaria, Parts 1, 2 and 3.
part 1
part 2
part 3

Take the H.O.R.S.E by its rein and say: These Jewish revenants have legal and [H]uman rights to live in the Land of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean land; they are not [O]ccupying any land that belongs to someone else; they are not [R]acists and there are no [S]ettlements; there are simply Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria.

Change the lexicon, change the future of the State of Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 29, 2012.

When her son was accused of murdering members of the Fogel family, Nouf Awad said it was impossible for him to have done it. She swore that he had spent the night at home, with her.

Now that he is convicted, the mother wrote, "My greetings to dear Hakim, the apple of my eye, who carried out the operation in Itamar, sentenced to 5 life sentences."

Dr. Aaron Lerner advises: "Lesson to human rights NGO's: don't bank on the testimony of the mother of a terrorist." (www.palwatch.org 1/29/12 from www.imra.org.il).

The UN Goldstone Report, the New York Times, and others who favor the Arabs over Zionism often cite Palestinian Arab eyewitness reports for their accusations against Israel. Such testimony usually proves false. The alleged witnesses tend to be propagandistic supporters of jihad. But Western anti-Zionists pretend to take such allegations seriously.

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 29, 2012.

There's a good deal happening, and much to respond to. Please read this through and act. I like to think of my readers as also actors in the important fights we are fighting — against some things, for others. Your assistance does make a difference.


I begin with a link to my latest article on Front Page Magazine, "Answering Obama's Israel Lies."
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/27/ answering-obamas-israel-lies/

It exposes the distortions and half-truths that have been put out in a campaign video purporting to show what a good friend to Israel Obama is. Please, circulate broadly.

Here's the link to the original video, in case you haven't seen it. It's making the rounds big time and must be responded to in a serious fashion, for it's so easy to be taken in if you don't know the facts. When you DO know the facts, the response to this is some combination of rage and deep disgust. Click here. (My thanks to Debbie B.)


A very significant vote is coming up in the Knesset this week. The issues are complex and YOUR COOPERATION HERE IS EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT.

You've heard about this legislation from me previously: Proposed by MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi), it would forbid the dismantling of communities of more than 20 families in Judea and Samaria without properly filed documentation that the land was Arab-owned. This would negate the vague, unsubstantiated claims of land being "Arab" that are currently filed in court by Peace Now.

What is more, this legislation stipulates that if the documentation of Arab ownership is filed after a specified period of time (four years, as I understand it), the community still wouldn't be taken down and instead the Arab land owner would be provided with monetary compensation.


Prime Minister Netanyahu — at the behest of Minister Benny Begin, who is attempting to negotiate a "deal" with the residents of Migron and wants them to feel squeezed — has secured a negative vote on this legislation in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. Nothing prevents the promoters of a piece of legislation from bringing it to the Knesset without the approval of the committee — it is simply that without this endorsement it is less likely to pass in the Knesset.

An appeal has been filed — requesting a re-vote in the committee — by Minister of Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein (Likud) and Minister of Science Daniel Hershkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi) — but there has been no response to this. There is reason to believe the original vote would overturned if there were a second vote.


Now MK Oren has decided to bring this proposed law before the Knesset — possibly by Wednesday.

And here's where you have to pay attention to understand the situation and its serious implications:

Coalition discipline will not be invoked, so that members of the Knesset will be free to follow their conscience on this important matter rather than having to vote a party line.

HOWEVER, since the Ministerial Committee voted against the legislation, ministers are expected to also vote against it in the Knesset. They can, if they choose, vote for the legislation, but then, according to the rules, Netanyahu can fire them. He is not obligated to fire them, he is simply at liberty to do so.

Needless to say, Netanyahu is applying pressure, and making noises about firing those who do not toe the line.


This has an unpleasant echo of Gush Katif, when then PM Sharon applied every sort of strong-arm technique possible to keep his ministers in line so they'd vote as he wished. We cannot let this happen again. Sharon betrayed his mandate when he behaved this way, and Netanyahu is now playing matters in a similar fashion. I've cut him slack with regard to many issues. But I cut him none here.


In my last posting, I asked you to write to the Likud ministers in support of Migron. Now I ask you to write again, to these ministers and those of Shas and Yisrael Beitenu as well:

Say that you understand that legislation that would save Migron and other communities in Judea and Samaria is about to come before the Knesset. It would release Israel from the strangle-hold of Peace Now and prevent Jewish communities from being destroyed.

Remind them that the mandate given to the coalition by the voters was nationalist and that they would be betraying this mandate if they voted against this legislation.

Tell them that, even more importantly, if they vote against it they would be taking a position that is not in the best interests of the State of Israel.

Let them know that you see it as imperative that they vote their conscience on this matter. It is not acceptable for them to place job security ahead of what is best for Israel. In any event there is no guarantee that the prime minister will fire any ministers, and less likely if many ministers stand together to do what is right.

Voters and those who support the parties are very tired of political game playing. The ministers must know that they are being watched and that support in the future will depend on their readiness to do the right thing now.


Do NOT send a group message; the message to each minister should be separate. But there is no reason to be intimidated by the fact that there are several names on the list that follows.

There is a way to make it easy for yourself: Compose a message that says "Dear Minister," followed by text of that message. Copy that message and salutation. Then, in turn, click on each minister's e-mail address, paste in the greeting and message, and hit send.


Minister of Improvement of Government Services Michael Eitan

Minister of Environmental Protection Gilad Erdan

Minister of Welfare Moshe Kahlon

Minister of Transportation Yisrael Katz

Minister of Culture Limor Livnat
llivnat@knesset.gov.il (a previous typo in this address has been corrected)

Minister Yosi Peled

Minister of Education Gideon Saar

Minister of the Development of the Negev Silvan Shalom

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz

Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon


Minister of Internal Affairs Eli Yishai

Minister Meshulam Nahari

Minister of Religious Affairs Yakov Margi

Minister of Housing Ariel Atias


Minister of Tourism Stas Misezhnikov

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

Minister of Immigrant Absorption Sofa Landver

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon


If [what happened to] Gush Katif infuriated you or pained you, if you want to be part of a democratic process that protects Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, if the idea of their having to turn over their land to Arabs distresses you, please! take the time to do this.

Numbers count a great deal. Send this to others who are likely to also respond.

Thank you. More will follow tomorrow.


In closing, a note of clarification, very broadly, for those who are outside of Israel and perhaps confused by our system: Parties receive mandates (seats) in the Knesset according to the percentage of votes they secured in the previous election. If one party does not have sufficient seats (i.e., more than 60) to constitute a majority of the Knesset, then a coalition is formed; this always happens. Once the coalition is in place, there are ministerial positions allocated to the various parties in the coalition. With very rare exceptions, the ministers are chosen from the ranks of those within the parties who have been elected to the Knesset. Those who are ministers sit in the Cabinet and constitute the government, but they are still members of the Knesset.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Mendel of Jerusalem, January 29, 2012.

This article was written by Louis René Beres, strategic and military affairs columnist for The Jewish Press. He is professor of political science at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he lectures and publishes widely on international relations and international law and is the author of ten major books in the field. In Israel, Professor Beres was chair of Project Daniel.

It appeared in two parts in the Jerusalem Press. Part 1 appeared in the Jewish Press at
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/ columns/louis-rene-beres/the-pianist-and- palestine-first-of-two-parts/2012/04/05/0/
Part 2 appeared August 4, 2010 in the Jewish Press at
http://www.thejewishpress.com/ pageroute.do/44770/


Part 1

"Roman Polanski's film masterpiece "The Pianist" can be taken as a timely parable for Israel's current survival. Today, when Israeli society is sharply divided on the question of "Palestine," sensitive issues of Jewish "collaboration" will inevitably arise in public debates. This essay argues that certain apt insights for Israel's future may be discoverable in the terrible choices that fell upon Holocaust-era Jews in Europe, especially in Nazi-occupied Warsaw."

On the surface, The Pianist is "merely" the true tale of a talented Jewish musician, Wladyslaw Szpilman, caught up in the unfathomable depths of Nazi occupation and terror. More profoundly, of course, it is a disturbing visual microcosm of the generic human struggle between good and evil, a titanic contest that is sometimes utterly clear but at other times distressingly "gray."

The Nazis in Poland were monsters, to be sure, but what are we to say about the others, including Jews, who were sometimes forced to become collaborative perpetrators? What pertinent lessons can we still learn from this 2002 film for insight into Israeli and even Jewish preservation in our own time? Is there, for example, a discernible message here concerning Jewish cooperation in creating "Palestine"?

Let us first recall the basic film. Emaciated, skeletal, starving, and disoriented, the pianist endures German-occupied Warsaw with aid offered by both Jews and gentiles, and, also, with torments meted out by both Jews and gentiles. Yes, some Polish Catholics risked their own lives to save him, as did several Jews, including a member of the Jewish police. But some, mostly non-Jews, took considerable comfort, and occasionally delirious joy, in the Nazi-orchestrated mass murders.

What can we say more precisely about the Jewish police in Poland? Shall we be ashamed that thousands of Jews rounded up, abused, beat upon, and deceived their fellow Jews in what turned out to be a grotesquely futile attempt to save their own lives, and the lives of their families? Or shall we be more understanding, recognizing the overwhelming and ubiquitous human inclination to survive at all costs, even if the cost is, at least in retrospect, unmentionable? Let us be fair. What would we have done in identical circumstances?

However we might choose to judge the Jewish police in Warsaw, what really matters more is that we learn from this grim past to identify all future forms of active collaboration with our enemies as not only foolish but unforgivable. Now, and certainly with the benefit of an ineradicable hindsight, we must understand that our moral and intellectual imperative to survive together as Jews is also the only way we shall ever survive separately as individuals. Nowhere does this seemingly paradoxical understanding hold greater meaning than in regard to present-day Israel and in particularly to the question of "Palestine."

Learning from the Holocaust, from the particular and perplexing existential circumstances of "The Pianist," it is plain that we must never again do the grotesque bidding of assisting our intended murderers. It will also be insufficient if we should choose only to think about our anti-collaborative actions and associated policy prescriptions. We Jews are already good enough at thinking. Now, however, we must also learn to feel these actions and prescriptions, and to feel them as Jews.

Interestingly, in modern philosophy the human imperative to combine feeling with thinking can be located in its purest, boldest, and most compelling form in the magisterial writings of the twentieth-century Spanish Catholic scholar, Miguel de Unamuno, especially in his The Tragic Sense of Life. Perhaps more than anyone else, Don Miguel understood that our perishable world is built on "the man of flesh and bone," or upon ashes.

As The Pianist opens, the protagonist (played by Adrien Brody) is describing new anti-Jewish laws to a gentile friend, who quite naturally proceeds to comment, "This is absurd." How, she asks the cultured Szpilman, can an intelligent people, the Germans, prescribe such gratuitous harms against a singularly capable, innocent, and caring people? Why shouldn't Jews be allowed to drink coffee in cafes or sit on park benches? Incomprehensively, can the modern world once again have become medieval?

The correct answer, of course, is plain to all who know history. Absurdity can become normal. The veneer of human civilization is exceedingly thin. Beneath this veneer always lurk utterly primal needs and ferocities, persistent barbarisms that usually remain latent but that can explode with unimaginable fury when encouraged to emerge by a respected, or feared, public authority.

Why shouldn't six million Jews (the particular number is ominously noteworthy, as that is roughly the number of Jews in present-day Israel) now be permitted to live safely in their own tiny mini-state, a country smaller than Lake Michigan, when an Islamic world of over one billion people already has several dozen states, not one of which has risen to even the most minimal standards of democratic rule?

Why is the "civilized world" shamelessly preparing to carve a terrorist state of "Palestine" out of the already-ravaged body of Israel? Why, in the existential matter of a Palestinian state that would be unalterably opposed to American as well as Israeli security needs, are tens of thousands of Jews in the United States and Israel manifestly indifferent, or even openly supportive? Why, once again, are Jews actively complicit in their own planned annihilation?

Part 2

War, terrorism and genocide are not mutually exclusive. Now, as certain portions of the Arab/Islamic world openly declare genocidal intentions against Israel (a war of extermination is plainly a genocidal war under international law), some progressive Jews are proudly leading various rallies and/or publications for peace — a peace that could only be fashioned upon a new generation of Jewish corpses. Here, in the United States, and regrettably, also in Israel, Jewish university professors are all-too typically the leaders in organized campus protests (1) against an alleged Israeli "occupation," and (2) for expanded Palestinian "rights."

Not one of these Jewish professors normally murmurs an audible objection to multiple Arab murders of their fellow Jews in Israel by lynchings, shootings and suicide bombings. Nor, one can be rather certain, will any of these Jewish "humanitarians" suggest any reciprocal Palestinian wrongdoing when Hamas' next round of rockets is fired at cities and towns in Israel, or when Palestinian Authority security forces so rigorously trained by U.S. Lt. General Keith Dayton begin to initiate new terrorist outrages against Israel. Regarding these American-trained Fatah fighters, we can also be sure that they will ultimately also use their newfound terror talents against their benefactor — that is, against the United States itself.

Credo quia absurdum. "I believe because it is absurd." Offered an "opportunity" to combine self-destruction with broader patterns of injustice, we Jews always have enthusiastic takers among us. Always, these grim archaeologists of ruins-in-the-making overlook that any complicity with evil is destined, deservedly, to fail. We still have much to learn, therefore, from The Pianist.

The Jewish Police in Warsaw, we know now, were indecent and foolish. Today's "Jewish Police," mainly American and Israeli academic supporters of Israel's enemies, don't wear a uniform or carry a truncheon, but they are similarly indecent, and equally foolish. In some respects, they are vastly more odious than even their Warsaw antecedents, as this current generation of Jewish collaborators does so willingly and smugly, boastfully, and without any genuine prior need for personal or familial self-preservation.

Too often hiding behind their academic robes, and behind sanctimonious yet altogether vacant calls for academic "freedom," the consuming cowardice of these contemporary Jewish Police is not merely stifling it is also very dangerous. Intermittently reinforced by well intentioned but similarly-uninformed Jews outside the academy who believe that marching ceremoniously for Palestinian statehood is somehow the moral equivalent of marching for civil rights with Martin Luther King, these pitiable but lamentable Jewish minions represent the witless advance guard of Israel's physical annihilation. Left unchallenged by those who should know better, but who nonetheless remain silent, they will sit by contemplatively, and without remorse, as chemical, biological and possibly even nuclear weapons rain down upon Israel. In Los Angeles, a veritable Mecca for Jews who live comfortably in "caves" (Plato's caves), they will be visibly upset at what is happening (perhaps even going so far as to write angry letters to the Los Angeles Times), but still not sufficiently upset to interfere with their local Temple's busy oneg schedule, or with the Sisterhood's annual and widely-celebrated deli lunch.

Another thought dawns. In Warsaw, the great majority of Jews did not feel it was their personal responsibility to speak and act on behalf of Jewish survival. Rather, they believed, communal safety was exclusively the codified responsibility of community leaders; ultimately, that is, of the Jewish Councils who then both sanctioned and sustained the Jewish Police.

Today, it is clear that an even larger majority of American Jews remain silent in the face of hideous distortions of Israel by their fellow Jews, both in Israel and, here, in the United States. Many of this "silent majority" are professional and well educated: doctors and lawyers, business people and social workers, teachers and accountants, entertainers and professors. They are silent, they claim, only because they are not "experts." But the truest reason for their desperate silence is always something else. This is a seemingly irrepressible inclination to meet unwelcome and annoying danger with capitulation, fear and trembling.

What are they afraid of, these gentle and caring Jewish Temple members who can routinely be counted upon for regular donations to help the local homeless, and, of course, to make exceptionally tasty sandwiches for the local poor? How can these patently good people fail to see that the Jihadist anti-Jewish world is once again mustering for a Jewish genocide, this time a more modernized mass killing in which the technology of annihilation will now bring gas directly to the target populations? Don't they see that they have a sacred responsibility, as Jews and as human beings, not to sit idly by as readily identifiable portions of the Arab/Islamic world prepare openly to blot out the increasingly vulnerable and continuously despised Jewish State?

How can these Jews fail to understand their absolute and binding obligation to resist becoming another "Jewish Police?" How, indeed, can they have learned so little from their own modern history? From The Pianist?

Before suffering his then-unexpected torments, the pianist was altogether optimistic about the world. He did not want to be bothered too much about the unrelenting burdens of being Jewish. The world, after all, had become "modern." Weren't medieval hatreds, therefore, about to finally disappear?

The Jew had now become free to worry about others. He could even choose to be liberal and cosmopolitan. He was finally free, if only he chose, to stop worrying.

But he was wrong, dead wrong. Today, moreover, the State of Israel, always the individual Jew in macrocosm, exists in existential peril, and without an adequate awareness of its stunningly fragile future by most Jews living elsewhere. For this to change, all Jews, must, at an absolute minimum, firmly reject and counter the frequently false portrayals of Israel's policies and circumstances (e.g., the calumny of the Goldstone report concerning Israel's winter 2008-2009 Cast Lead self-defense operation in Gaza). They should also refuse to collaborate in any way with those multiple foes or their hapless agents who would cheerily bring us another Final Solution. This particular moral and intellectual imperative remains the great lesson of The Pianist.

If we should fail to heed this authentically existential obligation, the yawning abyss of Jewish history will be deep enough to hold us all. We dare not fail.

Mendel of Jerusalem can be reached by email at mendelofjerusalem2@yahoo.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sacha Stawski, January 29, 2012.

This was written by Benjamin Weinthal and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/ JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=255551


(Tobias Schwarz/Reuters)

Analysis: Head of anti-Semitism monitoring watchdog tells Post that Germany is not carrying out its declared goal of combating modern anti-Semitism.

Germany commemorated the 67th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz on Friday in the Bundestag. The memorial event mirrored the form of remembrance across Europe's capitals — a solemn pledge to heighten awareness about the crimes of the Holocaust and nebulous declarations about stopping future genocides.

In one of the more bizarre columns tackling the meaning of Holocaust Remembrance Day in the Bundestag, a journalist with the large daily Die Welt, complained about embarrassment because photographers showed up in jeans and sneakers to take photos of the keynote speaker, Marcel Reich-Ranicki. The journalist called for a dress code at future events.

Though last year Iranian lawmakers, who represent a Holocaust-denying government, appeared in the Bundestag for meetings, there were no media calls for a code of conduct barring Iranian deniers of the Shoah.

The 91-year-old Polish-born Reich-Ranicki spoke about how he survived the Warsaw Ghetto. Reich-Ranicki is widely considered to be one of Germany's greatest book critics.

While the president of the Bundestag, Norbert Lammert of the Christian Democratic Union, admirably urged Germans to combat all expression of radical right-wing extremism, he failed to mention that his party colleague, Ruprecht Polenz, helped make his backyard hospitable for Iranian lawmakers who represent Holocaust denial.

In short, it can be argued, what the Bundestag president and deputies ignored on Friday was that their chamber cordially welcomed in June a delegation of Iranian parliamentarians who embody the genocidal rhetoric calling to abolish Israel and the Holocaust denial of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Polenz, as head of the Foreign Affairs Committee, facilitated the visit of Iranian lawmakers and defiantly declared that "sanctions do not rule out" talks with them.

Just this month Tom Koenigs, a deputy with the German Green Party, traveled to the Islamic Republic. The constant interplay between Iranian legislators and German deputies is part and parcel of a long-running love affair. That helps to explain why The Wall Street Journal Europe ran a series of editorial several years ago on "Germany loves Iran."

There is a long bill of particulars to be leveled against Germany's willingness to engage the main exporter of Holocaust denial, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sacha Stawski, the Frankfurt-based head of Honestly Concerned, one of Germany's most important watchdog organizations monitoring anti-Semitism, told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday that Germany is not carrying out its declared goal of combating modern anti-Semitism. He cited the presence of Iran's media in Germany. "An official Bundestag document by an expert commission outlines, but not outlaws, how the Islamic Republic of Iran redistributes its anti-Semitic hatred and Holocaust denial right from within Germany through its IRIB TV channel," Stawski said.

Germany permitted the current speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, to issue a statement at the Munich Security conference in 2009 in which elements of Holocaust denial were present. Larijani said his country has "different perspectives on the Holocaust," and no laws barring such denial.

A year later, Peter Gauweiler, chairman of the Bundestag's Culture and Education Committee, traveled with committee members from a cross section of German parties to meet Larijani in Tehran. The deputies, Luc Jochimsen from the Left Party, Claudia Roth from the Green Party, the Social Democrat's Günter Gloser, and Monika Grütters, from the Christian Democrats, remained conspicuously silent about Larijani's Holocaust denial.

Munich will host the annual security conference next week and Iran's foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, apparently will attend. Salehi was sanctioned by the EU for his illicit work on Iran's nuclear program.

Many commentators have argued that the true litmus test for Germany's willingness to confront its responsibility for the crimes of the Shoah is its policies toward Iran's anti-Semitism and its nuclear program.

Tom Gross, a British born Middle East commentator, told the Post on Saturday that "while Holocaust remembrance is welcome, it is contradicted by German officials not shunning representatives of the world's leading Holocaustdenying government."

Gross continued, "They [Germans] need to make up their minds about whether they are serious about combating Holocaust denial."

Stawski told the Post that "Germany carries a special responsibility towards Jews and towards the one and only Jewish state."

While the Bundestag commemoration event, to its credit, prioritized the horrific scandal surrounding the lackluster fight against a neo-Nazi cell that over the past decade murdered Greek and Turkish immigrants, as well as a German police woman, critics are troubled by the German government and Bundestag's blind spot — Iranian genocidal anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Sacha Stawski is with the Honestly Concerned organization. Contact him at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 29, 2012.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. See more of his art at
or http://freifenberg-newblog.blogspot.com/
or http://abstractsfromfred-fred343. blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadassah Levy, January 29, 2012.

In the debate over Iran's nuclear intentions, the question of rationality looms menacingly. How do Iran's rulers perceive cause and effect, calculate costs and benefits, and make policy decisions in order to maximize the well-being of their state and citizens? How do they understand the outside world?

This was written by Alex Joffe and it appeared in Jewish Ideas Daily


In the debate over Iran's nuclear intentions, the question of rationality looms menacingly. How do Iran's rulers perceive cause and effect, calculate costs and benefits, and make policy decisions in order to maximize the well-being of their state and citizens? How do they understand the outside world? Through what cultural lenses do they see it?

A new book, The Saddam Tapes: The Inner Workings of a Tyrant's Regime 1978-2001, based on transcripts of conversations between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and his inner circle, provides a disconcerting look at the "rationality" of another regime with nuclear ambitions. Culled from thousands of hours of tape recordings captured by American forces, augmented by analysis from the Institute for Defense Analyses, the book addresses several issues relevant to Iran, including Saddam's views of the United States, Israel, and weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iran-Iraq relations and first Gulf War. The book also allows us a view of the Saddam regime's grasp of reality — and, by extension, that of Iran's theocrats.

All politicians project public personae that mask their true selves and make it difficult for the outside world to understand them. Understanding tyrants is especially difficult. Listeners must separate bombast from belief, policy from opportunism. To hear such a tyrant behind closed doors, speaking in his own voice, is a rare opportunity. Yes, Saddam is speaking to sycophants; but compared with his public pronouncements, something more closely approximating truth is revealed in the echo chambers where policies are actually decided. This truth, as recorded, is a mixture of the politically prosaic and the terrifyingly ideological.

In some ways Saddam, secularist and Arab nationalist, contrasted profoundly with Iran's current theocratic leaders; but there are ominous similarities. For Saddam as for the mullahs, Israel was the "one who raped our land," the "despised entity," the entity "rejected by humanity and by the nation." Zionists, Israelis, and Jews were undifferentiated. Saddam thought the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were to be carefully studied as an invaluable historical record of the global Jewish Zionist conspiracy. He believed Israel was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Zionists were responsible for reviving Pharaonic civilization in Egypt and Phoenician civilization in Lebanon in order to "break up the fabric of Arab nations." For Saddam, anti-Semitism was not simply an expedient or cover but a central organizing principle of life and thought.

His other motivating forces were regional rivalry and ideological politics. Saddam's grasping for leadership of the Arab world and the Palestinian cause brought him into constant conflict with his brother kings. He repeatedly expressed his hatred of Egypt's Mubarak and the Saudis' King Fahd, his compete distrust of Qaddafi, and his loathing of Arafat. Gangland-style assassination plots were proposed. The slaughter of Gulf Arabs was described as a "blessing." The killing of Iranians — Saddam was convinced that Israel would give Iran biological weapons for use against Iraq — was a "sacred duty."

What distinguished him from the others, however, was his deep, if brittle, faith in the Ba'athist ideology of revolutionary pan-Arabism. There was constant discussion of the proper ideological framework, of having a suitably deep understanding the Ba'ath party's revolutionary role in mobilizing the masses toward the correct historical conclusion. "We do not use the struggle or other means as a tool or cover to carry out any operation," Saddam pronounced, "unless we are convinced it would serve the revolution or would help the Arab cause."

This is the political side of fascism. All fascists are captive to the ideological notion that they rule not simply through coercion but by convincing the masses to surrender themselves to the nation. In Saddam's case, the organizing principle was the Iraqi-cum-Arab nation; for Iranian Khomeinists, it is the doctrine of vilayet i-faqih, the guardianship of Islamist jurists. But even Saddam, when faced with setbacks in the challenge of mobilizing the masses and maintaining the revolutionary state, found religion. He cited Islamic history, invented fatwas, and fatalistically praised God's will. At the end of the day, Ba'athism, like Arab nationalism generally, is thinly veneered over Islam.

Saddam saw himself as a world historical figure, a revolutionary leader with a unique destiny — yet he was also conspiratorial, egotistical, ill-informed, fundamentally Muslim, and irretrievably anti-Semitic. In different ratios, these features also describe the Iranian leadership. Their self-concept is no less revolutionary than Saddam's, and their goals are no less grandiose: resisting America's "global arrogance," driving it from the Gulf and Middle East, restoring Iranian and Muslim honor, and creating a "world without Zionism."

Which brings us to the weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam appears to have considered at two levels. Against Kurds and Iranians, chemical and biological weapons were practical tools of warfare and mass murder. Against Israel and the United States, the issue was at one time primarily deterrence: "Without such deterrence," he said, Iraq and the "Arab nation will continue to be threatened by the Zionist entity." But with Israel and America deterred, Saddam could wage bloody attritional warfare to "liberate" Arab lands.

The 1991 Gulf War changed his thinking. In January of that year, as the war raged, Saddam ordered chemical and biological warheads prepared for use against Saudi targets. "Also, all the Israeli cities," he added, "all of them. Of course you should concentrate on Tel Aviv, since it is their center." Thankfully, the order to fire never came.

Does any of this define "madness"? Is it simply an extreme case of bounded rationality among decision-makers limited by their personalities, experiences, and available information? In perhaps their most important revelation, the transcripts show that Saddam could be deterred by threats of force; but no amount of persuasion or explanation could have changed his mind about the Jews or his mission against them. His visceral anti-Semitism — not merely suspicion regarding Israel as a regional hegemon or concern for the Palestinians — was profound. The same is indisputably the case with Iran. Whether this is defined as rational or irrational is irrelevant. The important thing is to take it seriously.

Hadassah Levy is website manager,
(http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/ content/module/2012/1/18/main-feature/ 1/our-defenders-at-the-cia).

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, January 27, 2012.
This was written by Leila Paul.

Borders? Very simple issue. What was initially promised to Israel by the Allied Powers — all of what is called historical Palestine.

By negotiating borders Israel is showing weakness and half acknowledging the terrorists have rights. They do not. It's the weakness of soft, leftist Jews who have allowed this to go on so long that people no longer understand Israel's legal rights and that successive Israeli governments have been weak in enforcing Israel's rights to Judea, Samaria and — in my opinion — even into the ancient Abrahamic homeland of Mesopotamia. So at minimum, there must be zero — no compromise — discussions about Judea and Samaria.

I was born at a time when Palestine was a legitimate legal entity only from 1922 to 1948 under the British mandate. My ancestry goes back at least five generation of Bethlehem Palestinian Christians but I openly acknowledge the deceit and treachery of what happened in Judea and Samaria.

After I'd broken away from my indoctrination and did independent research I was astounded at Israel's weakness in enforcing its rights and its obligations to enforce those rights.

Do leftist Israelis have a Messiah complex? Does each one think he/she is the peace-preaching Messiah? Because any Jew who waits for permission from anti-Semites to defend against anti-Semites is suicidal. I know so-called Palestinians intimately. The vast majority are incapable of compromise or of respect for the true nature of any Abrahamic belief system.

Palestinians are a fraud and ride the coat tails of both the Judeo-Christian heritage and have manipulated anti-Semistism to advance their far more dangerous plots than any previous pogroms and the Holocaust.

No to compromise for it is a step toward the disintegration of Israel.

I speak from personal experience and I know first-hand the terrorists' goals as they tried to recruit me repeatedly while I still believed in the Palestinian identity and its propaganda.

The Christians who stayed behind have made deals with the Islamist PA and Hamas to give them credibility in their claims against Israel while they've stolen the houses and land of the Christians and others who left or got real estate at huge discounted prices from those desperate to flee the wars.

Those Christians there today have fabricated an entire narrative which must be analyzed and reviewed with skepticism. Those who were peaceful left — while those hoping to capitalize and make deals with whoever comes out supreme are of highly suspect motives and identity. Many claim to have been there for 500 years yet none of them can produce documents for that would have put them under Ottoman rule who would not have kept credible records. Anybody can claim to be a Palestinian today and claim they've been there for hundreds of years. No proof! I can prove ancestry for two generations prior to my great grandparents, but that's it.

The Ottoman Turks were horrendously abusive of those on the land under Turkish occupation and they conscripted into sure death those who stayed in the land of Judea, Samaria or Israel. Most of the Christians who had been there for generations left during the brutal Ottoman rule and most are in South America, the Caribbean or North America.

Without Israeli education, culture, sanitation and the democratic ideals they've observed most of the Arabs who lived there before 1948 would have died of disease, starvation or treachery of one another.

How Palestinians can claim to be killed like "fish in a barrel" by Israelis while they multiply in huge numbers is itself an astonishing claim and should be analyzed. Further, if Palestine ceased to exist after 1948 and did not exist as a national entity before 1922 — then nobody today is a Palestinian. I am a former Palestinian for that citizenship ceased to exist in 1948. My children most certainly cannot inherit a non-existent legal identity — so there are no Palestinians today only those who are old enough to legitimately claim they once were Palestinians between 1922 and 1948.

All the others are frauds.

I have — with my own ears — heard the seething hatred of those who call themselves palestinian and yet even if the numbers they quote in 1948 were remotely accurate how can they possibly claim to be so many millions today? No one verifies who was born there and for how many generations their ancestors were there. Only the naive or those who want to believe the worst about Israel and Jews would accept that fraudulent identity of Palestinians.

Islamism is not indigenous to the area while Judaism and Christianity are, so those who profess to be Islamist Palestinians are even greater deceivers. As for many of the Christians, a few may be descended of the ancient Hellenist Judeans who converted to Christianity following the time of Christ and many are likely pilgrims from European or middle eastern countries.

Editor's Note: These are some of the comments that added information:

keelie says: January 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm

And don't forget to include her equally important addendum:

There is no such thing as a Palestinian Christian for there is no Palestinian ethnicity nor a homogeneous culture which can be defined as Palestinian. So do not lump me in with those frauds.

That identity is a propaganda creation to defame Israel and represents those who infiltrated into Israel after the prosperity of the early 20th century. There were certainly some Christians present but it's impossible to say what their ethnicity is.

I was born into Christianity but I see myself as Judean.

Leila Paul says: January 29, 2012 at 2:39 am

I'm pleased to see my comments posted and can only hope that Israelis take a more confident stand to enforce their own rights to self-determination. Israel should not need permission from non-Israelis to assert Israel's long neglected legal rights.

It is Judea that is illegally occupied territory by those who profess to be Palestinian. The Palestinian legal identity was created by the British to facilitate the administration of their mandate which was founded on the obligation to restore the Jewish national homeland.

If anything, from 1922 to 1948, Palestine was intended to refer to the restoration of the homeland of the Jewish people — both those resident in the land and those returning from the Diaspora.

Yet the Arabs and their Islamist collaborators have hijacked the Palestinian identity and made it their own. The long term goal is to steal all the land of Israel but they start first with claiming Judea is Palestine.

Arabists and Islamists making the fraudulent claim they are Palestinian amounts to identity theft on a national scale.

yamit82 says: January 29, 2012 at 3:16 am


United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. 181 of 1947 (commonly known as the Palestine Partition Plan) recommended the creation from all of the lands of Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River, representing 22% of original Mandatory Palestine, a Jewish state (comprising slightly less than 11% of the Land), an Arab state (comprising slightly less than 11% of the Land) and an internationally-administered greater Jerusalem.

Israel's juridical birth certificate is the pre-Holocaust League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 (provisionally operative from 1920) — not the post-Holocaust United Nations Palestine Partition Plan of 1947. Moreover, the Mandate was itself explicitly based upon the preexisting "historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" (Mandate for Palestine, Preamble, Paragraph 3).

Since the Jewish people's right to reestablish their nation-state in the biblical Land of Israel became a pillar of international law decades before the advent of the Holocaust, and since this aspect of international law was merely a formal acknowledgment of the aboriginal Jewish right to the Land, it is a gross misrepresentation of History to claim that the State of Israel instead emerged from the womb of the United Nations, impregnated by alleged European remorse over the Holocaust.

Moreover, while the Holocaust did not create the State of Israel, the absence of the State of Israel did create the Holocaust. For, had the Jewish State already existed when Nazi Germany arose from the ashes of World War I, virtually all of those who perished in the Holocaust would, instead, have been forcibly expelled by Nazi Germany to a welcoming Israel; and, consequently, there would have been no Holocaust.

Furthermore, if genuine European remorse over the Holocaust had really existed in 1947, then the United Nations General Assembly would never have issued its niggardly Palestine Partition Plan — a recommendation of the international community which (following the decades-earlier severing from Mandatory Palestine of all of its lands east of the Jordan River, representing 78% of original Mandatory Palestine, first in 1922, territory which later became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, being 77% of the Land, and then again in 1923, territory which comprised the Golan Heights, being 1% of the Land) left the Jewish people with less than 11% of that which the League of Nations had originally allocated to them under the Mandate for Palestine, deprived them of any sovereignty over Jerusalem, and saddled them with a demographic and sectarian time bomb in the form of a population that was 40% Arab, virtually all of whom were hostile to the creation of a Jewish State. Rather — especially in light of the uncompromising language of Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine — a penitent U.N., acting through its Security Council, would have issued at that time an authoritative resolution under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter (which, unlike Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, authorizes coercive enforcement measures): (1) affirming the continuing primacy of the Mandate for Palestine as the legal foundation for the establishment of a Jewish State, (2) recognizing full Jewish sovereignty over the entire western portion of Mandatory Palestine, including Jerusalem, which constituted the remaining 22% of original Mandatory Palestine and (3) acknowledging that the Jewish people had the right to repatriate to their countries of origin the many hundreds of thousands of hostile Arabs who, from 1920 onward, had been permitted by Great Britain, as Mandatory trustee, to inundate the western portion of Mandatory Palestine in rank violation of its fiduciary obligations to the Jewish people under the Mandate for Palestine.

Clearly, Israel exists neither due to Europe's alleged guilty conscience nor due to the issuance of the meager Palestine Partition Plan, but due only to the fact that the renascent Jewish State militarily defeated the six Arab states which, together with local "Palestinian" Arab militias drawn from villages, towns and cities throughout the western portion of Mandatory Palestine, had sought to annihilate it from the face of the Earth, thereby igniting Israel's War of Independence.

keelie says: January 29, 2012 at 5:03 am

It is Judea that is illegally occupied territory by those who profess to be Palestinian. The Palestinian legal identity was created by the British to facilitate the administration of their mandate which was founded on the obligation to restore the Jewish national homeland.

Facts — legal or otherwise — seem to have no effect whatsoever. Rather, most people are governed by an odd mix of emotionalism and sentimentality and an equally odd — but highly faux — sense of moral righteousness, all of this based on nothing more than fantasy.

Both you and I (in another thread) commented on the common belief that the Israelis have been continuously conducting a program of genocide on the so-called Palestinians, since 1948 (if not since the time of Moses). Nobody — least of all our holiest of holy media — appears to have openly questioned this defamation in view of the enormous population increases in Palestinian-held territories.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Midenise, January 27, 2012.

In truth, American Jewry's diffidence towards taking a stand on Iran, or recognizing Obama's dishonestly on this issue specifically and his dishonestly regarding his position on US-Israel ties generally, is not rooted primarily in American Jews' devotion to Obama. It isn't even specifically related to American Jewry's devotion to the political Left. Rather it has to do with American Jewish ambivalence to Israel

European and American perfidy in dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program apparently has no end. This week we were subject to banner headlines announcing that the EU has decided to enact an oil embargo on Iran. It was only when we got past the bombast that we discovered that the embargo is only set to come into force on July 1.

Following its European colleagues, the Obama administration announced it is also ratcheting up its sanctions against Iran — in two months. Sometime in late March, the US will begin sanctioning Iran's third largest bank. At the same time as the Europeans and the Americans announced their phony sanctions, they reportedly dispatched their Turkish colleagues to Teheran to set up a new round of nuclear talks with the ayatollahs. If the past is any guide, we can expect for the Iranians to agree to sit down and talk just before the oil embargo is scheduled to be enforced. And the Europeans — with US support — will use the existence of talks to postpone indefinitely the implementation of the embargo.

There is nothing new in this game of fake sanctions. And what it shows more than anything is that the Europeans and the Americans are more concerned with pressuring Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear installations than they are in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

For his part Obama has a second target audience — American Jews. He is using his fake sanctions as a means of convincing American Jews that he is a pro-Israel president and that in the current election season, not only should they cast their votes in his favor, they should sign their checks for his campaign. For their part, both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were quick this week to make clear that these moves are insufficient. They will not force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. More is needed. As to American Jewry, the jury is still out.

In truth, American Jewry's diffidence towards taking a stand on Iran, or recognizing Obama's dishonestly on this issue specifically and his dishonestly regarding his position on US-Israel ties generally is not rooted primarily in American Jews' devotion to Obama. It isn't even specifically related to American Jewry's devotion to the political Left. Rather it has to do with American Jewish ambivalence to Israel.

The roots of that ambivalence — which is shared by other Western Jewish communities to varying degrees — predate Obama's presidency. Indeed, they predate the establishment of Israel. And now, as the US and the EU have given Iran at least another six months to a year to develop its nuclear bombs unchecked, it is worth considering the nature and influence of this ambivalence.

Today's principal form of Jew hatred is anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is similar to previous dominant forms of Jew hatred such as xenophobic and racist anti-Semitism, and Communist anti-Jewish cosmopolitanism in the sense that it takes dominant, popular social trends and turns them against the Jews. Anti-Zionism's current predominance owes to the convergence of several popular social trends which include Western post-nationalism, and anti-colonialism.

The problem that anti-Zionism poses for American Jewry is that it forces them to pay a price for supporting Israel. This is problematic because Zionism has never been fully embraced by American Jewry. Since the dawn of modern Zionism, the cause of Jewish self-determination placed American Jewish leaders in an uncomfortable dilemma.

Unlike every other Diaspora Jewish community, the American Jewish community has always perceived itself as a permanent community rather than an exile community. American Jews have always viewed the United States as the new Promised Land.

With the formation of the modern Zionist movement in the late nineteenth century, American Jews found themselves on the thorns of a dilemma. Clearly, the state of world Jewry was such that national self-determination had become an existential necessity for non-American Jews.

But while supporting Jewish refugees and a scrappy little country was okay, support for the Zionist cause of Jewish national liberation involved an acceptance of the fact that Israel — not the US — is the Jewish homeland. Moreover, it involved accepting that there are Jewish interests that are independent of — if not necessarily in contradiction with — American interests. For instance, irrespective of the prevailing winds in Washington, and regardless of whether the US supports Israel or not, it is a Jewish interest that Israel exists, thrives and survives.

In a recent oped in Haaretz, Hebrew University political science professor Shlomo Avineri contrasted world Jewry's massive mobilization on behalf of Soviet Jewry in the 1970s and 1980s and their relative silence today in the face of Iran's Holocaust denial and open calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Avineri is apparently confounded by the disparity between Western Jewry's behavior in the two cases.

But the cause of the disparity is clear. Supporting the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate was easy. Unlike Israel, Soviet Jews were powerless. As such, they were pure victims and supporting them cost Diaspora Jews nothing in terms of their position in their societies. Just as importantly, the cause of freedom for Soviet Jewry was perfectly aligned with the West's Cold War policies against the Soviet Union. The frequent Jewish demonstrations outside Soviet legations provided Western leaders with another tool to fight the Cold War.

In contrast, supporting Israel, and the cause of Jewish freedom and self-determination embodied by Zionism is not cost free for Diaspora Jews. At root, to support Israel and Zionism involves accepting that Jews have inherent rights as Jews. To be a Zionist Jew in the Diaspora means that you embrace and defend the notion that the Jews have the right to their own interests and that those interests may be distinct from other nations' interests. That is, to be a Zionist involves rejecting Jewish assimilation and embracing the fact that Jews require national independence and power to guarantee our survival. And this can be unpleasant.

Pro-Israel American Jews have historically tried to tie their support for Israel to larger, more universal themes in order to extricate themselves from the need to admit that as Jews and supporters of Israel they have a right and a duty to support Jewish freedom even if it isn't always pretty. Again, for Israel's first several decades, it was about helping poor Jews and refugees. In recent years, the predominant defense has been that Israel deserves support because it is a democracy.

Certainly, these are both reasonable reasons for supporting Israel. But neither support for Israel because it was poor nor support for Israel because it is free are specifically Zionist reasons for supporting Israel. You don't have to be a Zionist to support poor Jewish refugees and you don't have to be a Zionist to support democracy.

You do have to be a Zionist however, to defend the Jews in Israel and throughout the world in a coherent manner when the predominant form of Jew hatred is anti-Zionism. You have to be willing to accept and defend the right of the Jewish people to freedom and self-determination in our national homeland against those who deny that right. You have to be a Zionist to defend Israel's right to survive and thrive even though it is no longer poor and its democratically elected government is not liked by the Obama administration.

And you have to be a Zionist to realize that since Jewish survival is dependent on Jewish power, and anti-Zionists reject the right of Jews to have power, that anti-Zionists seek to bring about a situation where Jewish survival is imperiled.

The weakness of American Jewry's response to Iran's genocidal intentions towards Israel is of a piece with its weak response to the forces of anti-Zionism generally and to Jewish anti-Zionists particularly. Since 2007, the US government has effectively ruled out the use of force against Iran's nuclear weapons program and embraced a policy of pursuing negotiations with ayatollahs while enacting impotent sanctions to quell Congressional pressure. At least in part, this policy owes to the US's assessment that a nuclear Iran does not pose a high-level threat to US national security.

At the same time, both then president George W. Bush and Obama determined that an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons program does pose a high-level threat to the US. As a consequence, both administrations have taken concerted steps to prevent Israel from attacking Iran.

On the merits, both of these policies are easily discredited. But the fact that they continue to be implemented shows that they are supported by a large and powerful constituency in Washington.

To oppose Iran's nuclear program effectively, American Jews are required to oppose these strongly supported US policies. And at some point, this may require them to announce they support Israel's right to survive and thrive even if that paramount right conflicts with how the US government perceives US national interests. That is, it may require them to embrace Zionism unconditionally.

No doubt, if they do so, their own conditions will improve. They will finally be able to speak coherently against the gathering forces of anti-Zionism — both from within the Jewish community and from without. This in turn will act as a lightning rod for inspiring American Jews to embrace their Judaism.

With their leaders to date having abjectly failed to contend with the most powerful form of Jew hatred, it is no wonder that so many Diaspora Jews are leaving the fold. If they reverse course and go after their attackers, American Jewish leaders will give community members a meaningful reason to proudly embrace their identity.

In a speech this week at the Knesset, Netanyahu explained the different lessons the Holocaust teaches the international community on the one hand, and the Jews on the other. As far as its universal lessons are concerned, Netanyahu said, "The lesson is that the countries of the world must be woken up, as much as possible, so that they can organize against such crimes. The lesson is that the broadest possible alliances must be forged in order to act against this threat before it is too late."

As for the Jews, Netanyahu embraced Zionism's core principle: "With regard to threats to our very existence, we cannot abandon our future to the hands of others. With regard to our fate, our duty is to rely on ourselves alone."

We must hope that world Jewry will recognize today that the fate of the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world is indivisible and rally to Israel's side whatever the social cost of doing so. But even if they do not recognize this basic truth, the imperatives of Zionism, of the Jewish people, remain in place.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il
This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 27, 2012.

Last year, reports surfaced about European funding of anti-Israel slander. As a result, a German government funded NGO, EVG¸ has stopped contributing to the Israeli NGO, Zochrot.

Being radical, Zochrot supports the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) claim to a "right of return." There is no right of "return," it has no legal basis, and it would submerge the Jewish state under a flood of Arabs.

Zochrot also endorsed the violent Gaza flotilla and wrongly accused Israel of ethnic cleansing of Arabs. Such activities of slander and hatred contradict the humane purposes of EVG.

NGO Monitor, which exposed much improper foreign funding of bigotry and subversion of Israel, urges other government-financed charities to review their contributions to NGOs that purport to constructive activities but engage in destructive programs
(http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ remembrance_responsibility_and_future_evz_ and_europeans_for_peace, 1/26/12 in www.imra.org.il)

Doesn't it seem odd that governments donate funds to organizations on the basis of their self-description and not on their actions? Time-after-time, the donations are found to support political warfare, but the European governments mostly avert their eyes.

NGO Monitor is exposing more and more of these fraudulent acceptance of funds. The fraud prevents even a germ of peacefulness by the P.A.. The findings and results justify Knesset efforts to make known which governments are donating to what hostile political efforts. The Israeli Left, which favors those hostile political efforts against the survival of its own country, calls such exposure censorship. But exposing fraud is not censorship. (I am not endorsing particular Knesset bills, some of which may not address the problem properly.)

The purpose of demanding Arab immigration into Israel is to enable Arabs to destroy it. The Arabs pretend the demand is principled, but it is part of jihad.

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 Martin Sherman, January 27, 2012.

Israel's diplomatic reaction to recent charges that its water policy is racist exposes a preference for passivity over preemption.


Water reveals a new apartheid in the Middle East. The 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank use as much or more water than some 2.3 million Palestinians... even if only a few dare to use the word, all indications are that the Middle East is the scene of a new apartheid.... And in this situation, water is a particular element of conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. — Excerpt from the French parliamentary report on "The Geopolitics of Water"

My most recent columns have been devoted to analyzing Israel's public diplomacy, the reasons for its manifest ineptitude, and the mechanisms that produce this abysmal performance.

Last week, by coincidence, an illustrative example, underscoring precisely what I have been trying to convey, broke into the headlines.

It came in the form of a French parliamentary report on Israel's water policy, authored by Jean Glavany, a Socialist member of the National Assembly, and accusing Israel of using water as an instrument of apartheid and oppression against the Palestinians.

Responses, recriminations, repudiations

The report sent Israeli officialdom into a tizzy.

The media were peppered with responses, repudiations and recriminations. Foreign Ministry officials claimed to have been unaware of the document until several days after its posting on the National Assembly website.

One diplomatic source characterized the report as "a serious mishap that... has seriously damaged Israel's image in France." The embassy in Paris was accused of falling asleep on the job for not alerting the Israeli authorities of the impending publication and the malevolent nature of its contents.

Israel robustly repudiated the report. The Foreign Ministry spokesman condemned it — correctly — as "unacceptable," "loaded with the language of vicious propaganda, far removed from any professional criticism" and tainted with "blatant tendentiousness."

Moreover, according to official Israeli sources, some members of the working group involved in compiling the report disassociated themselves from its anti-Israel tenor.

However, the damage had already been done. Israel had — once again — been linked to the dreaded "A-word."

Cyberspace was replete with websites seizing on the report as yet another affirmation of the odious nature of the Jewish state and its dastardly discrimination against the "other."

Delusional derogatory drivel

Israel's firm rebuttal of the report was factually correct and morally justified. This was a document that comes as close to unadulterated, uninformed drivel as the written word can get, with accusations as malicious as they were mendacious.

Its allegations range from the highly implausible to the totally impossible. For example, one of its more ludicrous allegations is that Israel's security barrier — "the wall" — "prevents Palestinian access to the Jordan River."

However — as the most cursory glance at any map will show — the "wall" is located along, or close to, the 1967 Green Line, so it cannot constitute an impediment of any kind to Palestinian access to the Jordan River.

The river has anyway been reduced to a highly polluted trickle south of the Kinneret.

As such, it has been insignificant as a water source for decades, and access to it — or lack thereof — is irrelevant to Palestinians' hydrological situation. So contrary to the impression the report creates, it has no bearing on the quantity of water available to them.

Only marginally less absurd is the document's supposition that avaricious hydrological calculations lay behind the construction of "the wall," to ensure Israeli supplies and to prevent Palestinians from extracting water from sites in the adjacent "buffer" zone.

In fact, construction of the security barrier was undertaken solely in response to the horrific Palestinian terrorism that took place between 2000 and 2003. It seems that a few "minor" details eluded Monsieur Glavany's memory when forming his opinion of the function of the security barrier and the events that lead to its construction — such as the Passover massacre at Park Hotel in Netanya, and the carnage at the Sbarro restaurant and the Moment Café (both in Jerusalem), the Dizengoff Center and the Dolphinarium (both in Tel Aviv), and at the Beit Lid and Meggido junctions, to name but a few.

Had it not been for Palestinian terrorism there would have been no barrier. To suggest otherwise is either ignominious or ignorant.

Passivity over preemption

Despite all this, the French hydro-report episode was indeed a diplomatic debacle for Israel, not because of what was done after its publication, but because of what was not done before it.

Once again, Israeli diplomacy was seen to be slamming the stable doors long after the horses had bolted, reacting to events rather than anticipating them. It was a classic illustration of what I described in last week's column, of "Israeli [diplomatic] endeavors [being] reduced to defensive tactical responses, chasing events rather than preempting them, and doomed to failure."

There is little room for excuses, particularly when it comes to the water issue.

For while it may not have been possible to predict publication of this particular report at this particular time, the appearance of some similar document from some source or other was a near certainty, which should have been foreseen and preempted.

Sense of déjà vu

The situation that has arisen in the wake of the Glavany report has an eerie sense of déjà vu about it. It was barely two years ago that a similar document was produced by Amnesty International, brandishing similarly baseless accusations berating Israel's water policy as an instrument of apartheid.

The report immediately became a centerpiece of a US lecture tour by Omar Barghouti, arguably the most prominent leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. Flyers billing his talks splashed the title: "Thirsting for Justice: Israel's control of water as a tool of apartheid and means of ethnic cleansing."

The Israel diplomatic establishment had ample warning of Barghouti's appearances.

Despite this, no action was taken on suggestions — including from this writer — to preempt his appearances with the massive distribution of factual material, refuting the cavalcade of distortions, falsehood, exaggerations, omissions and half-truths that comprised his talk.

Lessons unlearned

The lessons of the Amnesty/Barghouti episode remained unlearned.

Rather than adopt an offense strategic initiative to remove Israel's water policy for the list of topics that can be used to denigrate the country, those charged with the conduct of its public diplomacy have opted for defensive tactical responses to hostile initiatives. Rather than launch an ongoing enterprise to set, a priori, the context in which later events are interpreted/perceived, they have opted to fend off individual accusations and condemnations, made in the inimical context prevailing today.

This is particularly exasperating in the case of water, which is one of the topics most amenable to mounting such an preemptive enterprise.

For while it is always possible to find heartrending anecdotal evidence involving highly localized incidents in which an elderly Palestinian may have been inappropriately treated, or in which the IDF damaged a cistern, these in no way reflect the intent or consequences of Israeli policy. This can only be fairly assessed by the overall impact that policy has had on the Palestinians' water situation.

Here the facts are unequivocal. They should be used to quash any allegation of discriminatory deprivation, as part on an ongoing proactive initiative to inform opinion-makers, hydro-professionals and the general public, and to create a context in which any accusatory documents are likely to be dismissed with the contempt they richly deserve.

Facts, figures, fabrications

The Palestinians' hydrological situation improved beyond all recognition under Israeli administration, not only in absolute terms compared to initial pre-"occupation" conditions, but in relative terms compared to that of Israelis.

Whether one focuses on overall consumption of fresh water; per capita consumption of fresh water; consumption of fresh water relative to Israelis; accessibility of running water to households; the area under agricultural cultivation; or the size of the agricultural product, the conditions for the Palestinians have been dramatically enhanced by Israeli rule.

Between 1967 and 2006, the overall annual consumption of fresh water by "West Bank" Palestinians grew by 300 percent, from 60 million cubic meters to 180 m.cu.m. The annual per capita consumption in the same period rose by almost 15%, from 86 cubic meters to 100 cu.m.

Overall consumption by Israel dropped by 15% (from 1,411 m.cu.m. to 1,211 m.cu.m.), while the per capita consumption plummeted by 70% (from 508 cu.m to 170 cu.m.), a remarkable decrease made possible not only by more efficient usage but also by massive replacement of fresh water by recycled sewage for irrigation, and of naturally occurring fresh water by desalinated water for domestic use.

By contrast, the Palestinians have steadfastly refused to undertake agreed-upon sewage purification projects, allowing untreated effluents to endanger "downstream" Israeli supplies.

Palestinian claims that it is Israel which has prevented the construction of recycling plants are preposterous. For what twisted logic could conceivably induce the fiendishly cunning Zionists to oppose the construction of installations that would protect their own water resources from Palestinian pollutants?

The wimpiness of 'Zionist oppression'?

Moreover, from 1967 to the years just before Oslo, Palestinian household consumption rose dramatically — by almost 600%, significantly higher than the 230% in Israel.

Similarly, water-conveyance to households also increased impressively.

Whereas in 1967 only 10% of the "West Bank" Arab population was connected to a running water system, the figure today stands at 95%. So much for discriminatory deprivation.

Palestinian agricultural performance improved dramatically as well, even though water allocations were not increased. (In recent years Israeli farmers have had their freshwater allocations slashed by 50% and more.) This was facilitated by the introduction of more advanced methods of irrigation and cultivation, resulting in an increase of the area cultivated by about 160% and of the agricultural product by 1,200%.

As world-renowned soil-physicist and hydrologist Daniel Hillel observes, by the 1990s, farming "was transformed from a subsistence enterprise to a commercial industry."

Furthermore, the inflammatory claims that luscious lawns and shimmering swimming pools in Jewish settlements unfairly and provocatively deprive Palestinians of water are belied by a single statistic: Israel conveys more water (nearly 56 m.cu.m.) from inside the pre-1967 borders into the "West Bank" than the total consumption of the entire Jewish population in the settlements across the "Green Line" (just over 48 m.cu.m.).

In other words, there is a net inflow of water from pre-1967 Israel to the Palestinians which more than compensates for the much-maligned lawns and pools.

Demand — not discrimination

While claims that per-capita consumption of water by Israelis is much higher than that of the Palestinian population are true, this is principally a result of differences in demand — not supply — because of differences in lifestyles. (Clearly, the fact that a millionaire in an opulent penthouse in Manhattan will use far less water than equally affluent owner of a sprawling estate in Bel Air is not a matter of discriminatory deprivation).

Different rates of consumption are found between the Jewish and Arab populations within pre-1967 Israel — and between different socioeconomic groups within the Jewish population — without anyone raising the claim that this is the result of purposeful deprivation.

Interestingly, per-capita consumption in the frequently vilified settlement of Kiryat Arba is 25% lower than in the Beduin city of Rahat — and 90% lower than in up-market Savyon). What perverse discrimination does that indicate?

The perils of PC-diplomacy

These facts and many others should be assertively and proactively inserted into the public discourse, not only as a response to attacks, but as part of an ongoing endeavor to mold public awareness and perception of the realities that pertain to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

One of the principal reasons that this is not occurring is the PC (Palestinian-compliant) perspectives of the Israeli civil society elites, discussed in my previous columns, who exert a dominant influence on the conduct of our public diplomacy.

These entrenched elites cannot permit accurate portrayal of Palestinian society without undermining their own worldview.

(With regard to the water issue, I can attest to this personally.) After all, this would entail exposing the fundamental reasons why the Palestinians find themselves in the miserable state in which they are today: a) a chronic and cavalier disregard for the truth; b) an enduring propensity to blame others for their fate; and c) an obdurate refusal to take responsibility for their own actions — and inaction.

And that is something one does not say in polite company.

Martin Sherman is the academic director of the Jerusalem Summit. He lectures at Tel Aviv University, served in Israel's defense establishment and was a ministerial adviser to the Yitzhak Shamir government. He has undergraduate degrees in physics and geology and a doctorate in Political Science and international relations. He has written extensively on water, including "The Politics of Water in the Middle East," London: Macmillan, 1999.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 26, 2012.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. See more of his art at
or http://freifenberg-newblog.blogspot.com/
or http://abstractsfromfred-fred343.blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, January 26, 2012.

"Beyond Words" is a newly-published seven volume collection of Rabbi Meir Kahane's writings from 1960 — 1990 that originally appeared in The Jewish Press, other serial publications, and his privately-published works.

"Beyond Words" has a number of extra features: including: Chronology of Rabbi Kahane's life.

"Beyond Words" now can be bought at Amazon.com. On the search line, type... Beyond Words Kahane.

Beyond Words
Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane,

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

Previously sent articles can be viewed on:

This below is by Rabbi Meir Kahane. It was published in February, 1977.



"And Pharaoh called to Moses, saying: Go and worship the L-rd. Only your sheep and cattle will remain — your children will also go with you. And Moses said: You will also give us offerings and sacrifices for the L-rd our G-d, and our flocks will go with us..." (Shmot 10:24-26)

The ninth plague-darkness — has struck Egypt with a vengeance and Pharaoh breaks. Step by step he has retreated and after the eighth plague — locusts — he was prepared to allow the Jews to leave except for their children. Now he surrenders almost entirely as he agrees that all the Jews can leave. He only asks one thing, one compromise, one small victory for himself, that the Jewish cattle remain behind.

Consider; the Jews have been slaves for 210 years. They have lived in misery and persecution. They suffered decrees such as the one casting their male children into the sea. They cried out unto the L-rd for freedom and salvation. Now, apparently the great moment has arrived! Pharaoh agrees that they shall go free! What does it matter that he asks for their cattle? Give it to him! The main thing is peace and salvation and we are willing to give up cattle for peace!

But Moses knows that this is not the purpose of the freedom of the Jewish people and of the story of the slavery and exodus. He is not prepared to compromise one inch because he knows what the purpose of G-d is. When Moses first entered the presence of Pharaoh and said: "The L-rd, G-d of the Hebrews, has said: Let my people go!" Pharaoh contemptuously answered: "Who is the L-rd? I know not the L-rd and will not let Israel go!" Here is where the battle was joined. Here is the purpose and aim of creation — to have the world recognize the dominion and kingship of the L-rd being challenged. Pharaoh must be made to recognize and totally acknowledge the sovereignty of the L-rd over him and his people. He cannot make compromises; he cannot strike bargains. He must submit totally!

"And I shall be glorified through (the defeat of) Pharaoh and his army and Egypt shall know that I am the L-rd." Only the total defeat of the wicked can raise and honor the name of the L-rd, says the Biblical commentator Rashi. This is why there will be no compromise with Pharaoh. He must totally submit, he must totally surrender.

And even when he apparently does this, after the plague of the first born, when he runs to Moses and says: "Get out, take your flocks with you, just leave and ask the L-rd to bless me!" Moses refuses and in the words of the Mechilta; "And he called unto Moses and Aaron in the middle of the night and said: get up and leave! Said Moses unto him: No, we have been ordered not to leave our houses until morning. What are we, thieves that we should slink out in the night? No, we will leave only in the morning with an upraised arm before the eyes of all the Egyptians!"

Not one inch of retreat here. The lesson of the L-rd being the Omnipotent, King of the universe must be seen and acknowledged.

The lesson is an eternal one and must be learned in our time, too. The question of peace in the Middle East is a question of the Arabs and the world acknowledging the total sovereignty of the All Mighty. There can be no compromise on this. It is only a peace that comes with Arabs submitting to the yoke of the heavenly kingdom that will be a permanent one and the Jew who gives up part of his land as a compromise, violates the entire purpose of the rise of the Jewish State and the demand of the All Mighty that the nations acknowledge Him as King. There can be no retreat from land because that is in essence a retreat also from the Kingship of the L-rd.

Contact Barbara Ginsberg by email at BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, January 26, 2012.

The Obama administration supports "democracy" and "self determination" in the Middle East — two euphemisms that, in the real world, refer to "mob-rule" and "Islamic radicalization," respectively. Yet, as Jimmy Carter recently put it: "I don't have any problem with that [an "Islamist victory" in Egypt], and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed."


Sounds fair enough. The problem, however, is that Muslim clerics openly and unequivocally characterize democracy and elections as tools to be discarded once they empower Sharia law. Thus Dr. Talat Zahran holds that it is "obligatory to cheat at elections — a beautiful thing"; and Sheikh Abdel Shahat insists that democracy is not merely forbidden in Islam, but kufr — a great and terrible sin — this even as he competed in Egypt's elections.

The Obama administration can overlook such election-exploitation because the majority of Muslims are either indifferent or willing to go along with the gag — with only a minority (secularists, Copts, etc.) in Egypt actually objecting to how elections are being used to empower Sharia-enforcing Muslims.

But what if Muslims do not win elections? What if there are equal amounts of non-Muslims voting — and an "infidel" wins? What then? Then we get situations like Nigeria.

While many are aware that Boko Haram and other Islamic elements are waging jihad against the government of Nigeria, specifically targeting Christians, often overlooked is that the jihad was provoked into full-blown activity because a Christian won fair elections (Nigeria is about evenly split between Christians and Muslims).

According to Peter Run, writing back in April 2011
The current wave of riots was triggered by the Independent National Election Commission's (INEC) announcement on Monday [April 18, 2011] that the incumbent President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, won in the initial round of ballot counts. That there were riots in the largely Muslim inhabited northern states where the defeat of the Muslim candidate Muhammadu Buhari was intolerable, [but] was unsurprising. Northerners [Muslims] felt they were entitled to the presidency for the declared winner, President Jonathan, [who] assumed leadership after the Muslim president, Umaru Yar'Adua died in office last year and radical groups in the north [Boko Haram] had seen his ascent [Christian president] as a temporary matter to be corrected at this year's election. Now they are angry despite experts and observers concurring that this is the fairest and most independent election in recent Nigerian history.

Note some key words: Muslims felt "entitled" to the presidency and seek to "correct" the fact that a Christian won elections — which they assumed "a temporary matter."

Of course, had elections empowered a like-minded Muslim, the same jihadis would still be there, would still have the same savage intent for Christians and Westerners — Boko Haram means "Western education is forbidden." But there would not be a fullblown jihad, and Obama would be singing praises to Nigerian democracy and elections, and the MSM would be boasting images of Nigerians with ink-stained fingers.

Yet the same jihadi intent would be there, only dormant. Like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood — whose ultimate goal is "mastership of the world" — they would not need to expose themselves via jihad, would be biding their time and consolidating their strength.

Now, back to the Egyptian clerics, specifically Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami — yet another leader in Egypt's Salafi movement, who teaches that Muslims must preach peace when weak but wage war when strong. Discussing the chances of a fellow Salafi, Burhami asserts:

We say — regardless of the outcome of the elections — whether he [his colleague, the aforementioned al-Shahat] wins or loses, we will not permit an infidel [kafir] to be appointed to a post where he assumes authority over Muslims. This is forbidden. Allah said: "Never will Allah grant to infidels a way [to triumph] over the believers [Koran 4:141]." We are not worried about losing elections or al-Shahat losing votes. We will not flatter or fawn to the people.

What will you and your associates do, Sheikh Burhami — wage jihad? Of course, that will not be necessary: unlike Nigeria, most of Egypt is Muslim; one way or another, "elections" will realize the Islamist agenda.

Thus, whether by word (al-Burhami) or deed (Boko Haram) those who seek to make Islam supreme prove that democracy and elections are acceptable only insofar as they enable Sharia. Conversely, if they lead to something that contradicts Sharia — for instance, by bringing a Christian infidel to power — then the perennial jihad resumes.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim by email at RaymondIbrahim1@gmail.com

This appeared today in Jihad Watch and it is archived at
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/ 11074/jihad-when-elections-fail

To Go To Top

Posted by Gail Winston, January 26, 2012.

If you put this essay by Yoram Ettinger together with his of yesterday entitled: "THE WAR INSIDE ISLAM" you begin to achieve a realistic history of Islam then and now. Then, perhaps, you may be able to cope with and understand what must be done to survive as a free and sovereign people in a free and sovereign country.

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 appeared in the "Israel Hayom" newsletter, January 25, 2012 and is archived at
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/ newsletter_opinion.php?id=1262


The collapse of Israeli-Palestinian agreements from the 1993 Oslo Accords until today stems from the fact that both Israeli and US leaders ignore the real root of the conflict. The heart of the conflict is the denial of the existence — and not the size — of any non-Muslim entity on land that, in the eyes of Muslims, is Waqf — an inalienable religious land endowment.

On Jan. 9, 2012, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, a close associate of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, stated that all of Israel has been Waqf since 637 C.E. and will be forever. The statement was made at the annual rally of Fatah, which Abbas heads. It was broadcast on the official Mahmoud Abbas television station, and called for the killing of Jews to hasten the Islamic Resurrection. The message of the Mufti has become rooted in the Palestinian consciousness, with the help of Mahmoud Abbas' educational system. Thus, according a July 2011 poll, conducted by the leading US pollster, Stan Greenberg, a liberal-democrat, closely associated with former President Bill Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, 73% of Palestinians viewed killing Jews as a springboard to Judgment Day. On March 27, 2010, Abbas declared: "Jerusalem and all its surrounding areas are Waqf land, as provided by Allah. We must do everything we can to save them from the threat of Judaization."

The principle of the Waqf land is permanent, and transcends leaders and policies which are provisional. It applies to any land that was ever under Islamic control. It is an inseparable part of the legacy of Muhammad and Islamic law, especially at this time of the surge by the trans-national Muslim Brotherhood, which views Allah, the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, jihad and martyrdom as the goal, the law, the leader, the way and the exalted aspiration respectively. Their loyalty to the Waqf land obligates Muslims to "holy wars" and the restoration of sovereignty in the Philippines, Thailand, parts of China, Kashmir, Chechnya, Israel, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere.

The centrality of the Waqf land in the Muslim experience can be understood from the precedent of Andalusia, the Arabic name for most of the Iberian Peninsula, which was under Islamic rule from 711-1492 C.E. The Muslim Golden Age did not take place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, but rather in Andalusia, especially in the Alhambra palace/fortress in Granada. At the beginning of the 8th century, the Muslims conquered the Iberian Peninsula, southern France, Sicily and the Italian coastline and declared it "the Abode of Islam." In 1492, Spain was liberated from the occupation by Muslims, who today still view "Al-Andalus" as Waqf. The March 2004 Muslim terrorist plots in Madrid, which murdered 191 people and wounded around 1,800, intended to rectify the "Injustice of Andalusia." Currently, Saudi Arabia is constructing the second largest mosque in the world in Cordoba, the former capital of Andalusia, while mosques proliferate all over Spain.

Prof. Efraim Karsh, Head of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean Studies at King's College in London, writes in his book "Islamic Imperialism" (Yale University Press, 2007): "In 1980, there was a huge map in Afghanistan on which large parts of what was then Soviet Central Asia and China's Xinjiang Province were labeled 'Temporarily Occupied Muslim Territory....' Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi, a spiritual guide of the Muslim Brothers [reiterated the message of Muhammad that] the city of Hirqil [Constantinopol] will be conquered first ... The other city Romiyya [Rome] ... we hope and believe that it too will be conquered ... That means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror."

Recognition of foreign sovereignty over Muslim Waqf land amounts to humiliation, betrayal and servitude for Arabs and Muslims. According to the 628C.E. Prophet Muhammad's Treaty of Hudaybiyya — which underscores the shifty nature of contemporary Arab policies in general and the "Phased Plan" in particular — Muslims are permitted to conclude tactical agreements that temporarily relinquish Waqf land, but never abandon the overarching, permanent strategy of reclaiming it all at a later stage.

Persisting in the "land-for-peace" policy ignores the roots of Arab hostility; repeats — rather than avoids — past mistakes; plays into the hands of our enemies; raises Arab expectations and exacerbates violence and terrorism in the region.

Gail Winston, worked with her late husband Emmanuel Winston; she is commentator and Middle East analyst. Contact her at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Act for America, January 25, 2012.

This was written by Jennie Olson and it is archived at
http://kstp.com/news/stories/ s2452252.shtml?cat=1target


The October al-Qaida video shows a light-skinned man handing out food to families displaced by famine in Somalia. But the masked man is not Somali, or even African — he's a Wisconsin native who grew up in San Diego.

A handful of young Muslims from the U.S. are taking high-visibility propaganda and operational roles inside an al-Qaida-linked insurgent force in Somalia known as al-Shabab. While most are from Minnesota, which has the largest Somali population in the nation, al-Shabab members include a Californian and an Alabaman with no ancestral ties to Somalia.

"They are being deployed in roles that appear to be shrewdly calculated to raise al-Shabab's international profile and to recruit others, especially those from the United States and other English-speaking countries," said Anders Folk, a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted suspected al-Shabab supporters in Minnesota.

Officials fear another terrorist attack in East Africa. Kenya announced on Jan. 7 that it had thwarted attempted al-Shabab attacks over the holidays. The same day, Britain's Foreign Office urged Britons in Kenya to be extra vigilant, warning that terrorists there may be "in the final stages of planning attacks."

More than 40 people have traveled from the U.S. to Somalia to join al-Shabab since 2007, and 15 of them have died, according to a report from the House Homeland Security Committee. Federal investigations into al-Shabab recruitment in the U.S. have centered on Minnesota, which has more than 32,000 Somalis.

At least 21 men have left Minnesota to join al-Shabab in that same time. The FBI has confirmed that at least two of them died in Somalia as suicide bombers. A U.S. citizen is suspected in a third suicide bombing, and another is under investigation in connection with a fourth bombing on Oct. 29 that killed 15 people.

The star of the al-Qaida video was Jehad Mostafa, 30, a Californian who handed out food using the name Abu Abdullah al-Muhajir, according to the SITE Monitoring Service. The Washington Post reported last year that Mostafa served as top lieutenant to Saleh Nabhan, a senior al-Qaida operative killed by Navy SEALs in a helicopter attack inside Somalia in 2010.

Mostafa and the Alabaman, Omar Hammami, 27, are among about a dozen men who have been charged in federal court in the U.S. and are believed to be in Somalia.

The Americans appear to have been motivated by the Ethiopian army's intervention in Somalia in 2006, which they saw as an invasion. However, many experts believe it's only a matter of time before al-Shabab turns its wrath on the U.S., which in February 2008 designated it as a terrorist organization. The group killed 76 people in terrorist bombings in Uganda in 2010 during the World Cup final.

U.S. military commanders fear that Americans inside al-Shabab could train as bombmakers and use their U.S. passports to carry out attacks in the United States.

E.K. Wilson, the agent overseeing the FBI's investigation in Minneapolis, said he cannot comment on whether there is an outstanding order to capture or kill Americans fighting for al-Shabab. The FBI has publicly said the Americans should return to the U.S.

It's a mystery what caused Mostafa, a young man whom many remember as mild and friendly, to join an extremist group.

Mostafa grew up in San Diego and graduated from the University of California San Diego. Imam Abdeljalil Mezgouri of the Islamic Center of San Diego, the city's largest mosque, said Mostafa was a respectful teen and good student.

"He was a very quiet, very loving boy. He didn't talk too much but when he did talk, people liked him," said Mezgouri.

Mezgouri said Mostafa got married in his early 20s to a woman he believed was from Somalia.

Public records show Mostafa was the president of the now-defunct Muslim Youth Council of San Diego, or MYCSD. The former organization's Web site says the group was "dedicated to showing the world that Islam is a religion of peace and Muslims are a peaceful and productive part of society."

Mostafa's father, Halim Mostafa, a Kurdish Syrian, is a prominent figure in San Diego's Muslim community who has tried to build bridges with non-Muslims. He made a low-budget film released in 2008 called "Mozlym" to show how the true meaning of Islam is often lost amid the misconceptions of non-Muslims in America, according to the film's Web site.

Mostafa's father declined to talk.

"I just don't want to get involved. I'm really sorry I cannot say anything. God bless you," he said.

Edgar Hopida, a spokesman for the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Halim Mostafa believes in the most liberal interpretation of Islam and noted that "it's ironic if his son is involved with al-Shabab."

Mostafa is believed to have met American militant Anwar al-Awlaki about a decade ago at a San Diego mosque, according to The Washington Post. He went to Somalia in 2005. Federal officials declined to comment.

Mostafa was indicted in August 2010 on terrorism charges sts 43 Christian churches and not a single Islamic congregation in Daphne.

The son of a Christian mother and a Syrian-born Muslim father, Hammami attended Daphne High School. Then-assistant principal Don Blanchard recalls Hammami as generally well liked.

"Omar I would not classify as a troubled kid," said Blanchard.

Hammami enrolled at the University of South Alabama, where he was president of the Muslim Student Association. Following the 2001 terror attacks, Hammami spoke to the student newspaper.

"Even now it's difficult to believe a Muslim could have done this," The Vanguard quoted Hammami as saying.

Hammami went to Somalia in 2006. He was indicted in 2007 on terrorism charges, and faced more charges in 2009 for providing material support to terrorists.

Hammami, who wears a long beard and often raps in al-Shabab videos, released a nearly 50 minute lecture in October to commemorate five years with the group. He spouts hatred for "Western oppression." In the video, provided to AP by the IntelCenter, he compares his upbringing in America with his life in Somalia, where he says a microwave — "or even a normal oven" — is a rarity.

The English speaker serves as a recruiter and fund-raiser and is one of the top people in charge of al-Shabab's foreign fighters, Kohlmann said.

Hammami attends morning fighting drills and motivates new recruits, former al-Shabab fighter Abdi Hassan told AP. Hammami avoids mobile phones for fear intelligence agencies will trace him, and uses pseudonyms on the Internet.

"He sometimes cries with emotion, which makes others cry with him," said Hassan. He added, "Every new American is asked to convince his friends to come. The Americans' suicide attacks and speeches are meant to attract other Americans."

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated 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.

To Go To Top

Posted by FSM, January 24, 2012.

This was written by Ralph Peters and it appeared in Family Security Matters
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/ publications/id.11301/pub_detail.asp


The Arab World's Endless Failures

Can American conservatism be saved from hysterical fear-mongers? My image of a true conservative is of a bold, honorable, responsible citizen, with just a touch of the swashbuckler. But that image is fading as so many conservatives insist on seeing bogeymen under every bed, cot, sleeping bag and beach chair. Supposed Mayan predictions of the end of the world in 2012 seem mild compared to the daily onslaught of warnings from my fellow conservatives that everything just sucks and America's plunging into a black hole. And of all the subjects that excite exaggerated fears, terror of Islam takes the moldy cake.

Let me be clear: I agree with the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (no conservative, that boy) who characterized Islam as "a barracks religion" that stymied cultural growth. Nor do I have the least sympathy with Islam's apologists, subversives or litigious jerks. But let's get a grip, folks. Far from taking over the world and making obese Americans stop drooling over internet porn, Islam is pathetically weak, plagued by myriad failures and, especially in the case of Arab Islam, unable to compete successfully in any sphere of organized human endeavor. The Arabs are even flopping at terrorism, which a decade ago, was their sole growth industry: Since 9/11, we've been terrorizing the terrorists. The terrorist response? Slaughter their fellow Muslims by the tens of thousands.

How can American conservatives impute overpowering strength to a religion-crippled civilization that, in the 21st century, not only cannot build a competitive automobile, but can't even produce a competitive bicycle? If I were to list the top security threats to the United States of America, Islamist terrorism might barely squeeze into the top ten, while Islam itself wouldn't make the top 100. Militant Islam is an ugly annoyance, but its victims, here and abroad, are primarily Muslims (for the record, my top five security threats, in order of gravity, are obesity, lack of personal responsibility, China's economic war against us, Iran's drive for nuclear hegemony in the Persian Gulf, and narco-trafficking).

The latest outbreak of conservative goose-bumps comes from the success of Islamist parties in elections in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. I do not see these election results as good news — but they're bad news primarily for Muslims, who once again have chosen the path of cultural stasis, social dysfunction and failure. Islam prevents populations from establishing gender-neutral meritocracies (or meritocracies of any kind), while imposing social constraints that choke off the sort of dynamism that allowed the West to surge to global leadership. While election results in Egypt, for example, may disappoint Americans, they condemn Egyptians to continued failure and misery. Islam did have some answers for desert-dwelling primitives in Mohammed's day, but it has no practical solutions for chronic underdevelopment and creative bankruptcy today.

Poverty and squalor in Egypt.

For over half a century, dictatorships froze social progress in the Middle East. Here, the military feared and obstructed progress; there, a royal dynasty used oil wealth to chauffeur tribal primitives in limousines. But none of the Arab models built healthy economies or healthy societies. Objectively viewed, their lack of development and progress on the human and cultural levels is simply stunning: All that oil wealth, and the Arab world still doesn't have a single world-class university of its own; exports no in-demand manufactured or technological goods; has effectively zero research-and-development capabilities, and loses its best and brightest to emigration. Trillions of dollars disappeared into the sand (or produced a few gaudy hotels), and the ruling classes throughout the Arab world still fly to Europe or America for medical care. How, exactly, is this catastrophically failed civilization going to take over Europe and America? By producing more illiterate children in slums? Folks, that isn't how the real world works.

Let's stay with Egypt: A strong performance by Islamist parties was inevitable, even if its final strength was a surprise. During the country's long military dictatorship, Nasser, Assad and, finally, Mubarak prevented the rise of secular opposition parties, but allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to lurk at society's fringes. Thus, when democracy came, only Islamists of varying degrees of severity were organized for political action — or were viewed by the common man as the legitimate opposition.

So what happens now? First, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist Nour party have to produce results — economic progress, above all. And they're nervous because they don't know how to do it. Being in deep opposition was relatively easy, but demonstrating tangible progress in an utter wreck of a country is another matter. Far from sponsoring terrorism against Methodists in Milwaukee, Egypt's Islamists (who vary widely in their political philosophies, by the way) are going to be mired in internal problems for many years to come.

Instead of seeing an expansionist Arab world, we're going to see one that is increasingly introverted as new democratic and semi-democratic governments struggle to come to grips with devastating levels of underdevelopment. As for those Islamists in government, well, charitable programs notwithstanding, Allah ain't going to feed hundreds of millions of kids or provide jobs for the multitudes of the unemployed. And excuses have a limited shelf-life.

Nor will these failed societies in hidebound states prove a greater threat to Israel. On the contrary, military budgets are going to decrease (and Arab militaries were incompetent to begin with). Egypt's military knows it would be defeated catastrophically were it to take on Israel again — and Syria's military is splitting into factions and cannot even subdue a largely unarmed political insurgency. Even Hamas and Hezbollah are lying low, terrified of losing their sponsors and mortified that their calls for revolution have resulted not in anti-Israeli, pan-Arab militancy, but in the insistence of hundreds of millions of Arabs on the establishment of democratic systems. The most important strongman in Hamas, Khaled Meshal, recently announced his effective retirement, and Hezbollah faces the loss of Syrian support and protection — perhaps even the loss of Iranian sponsorship. What's a poor terrorist organization to do? Worse, Saudi Arabia (the one piggish, virulent and unscrupulous state whose actions in our own country deserve uncompromising scrutiny and strong regulation) and the Arab Gulf states are as eager as Israel for military action against Iran's nuclear-weapons program. When the wealthiest Arab states and Israel face the same existential threat, Hamas and Hezbollah not only take a backseat, but end up hitchhiking in the desert.

On our end, I see two immediate problems. First, we're hypocritical. Under President George W. Bush, conservatives were all for Arab democracy. Under President Obama, suddenly Arab Democracy is the greatest danger since Communism. And how is it that we conservatives could accept generations of American support for the monstrous Islamist fanatics of the Saudi royal family — the initial sponsors of al Qaeda and backers of Islamist subversion in our own country--but panic at Tunisian election results? Second, and of far greater importance, we have to get over our insistence on instant gratification. The Arab world has been in decline not just since the rise of Europe five hundred years ago, but since the thirteenth century, when first Mongols, then various Turkic peoples subjugated the Arabs (the Crusades were a tiny historical blip and Arab whining about all the damage they did is just more counter-factual propaganda: Their fellow Muslims shattered Arab civilization, not a handful of unwashed Knights Templar).

The point is that last year's "Arab Spring" revolutions offer only a faint chance at incremental progress over generations. A civilization that's been on its butt for 800 years isn't going to become the next superpower anytime soon. We face an entire century, if not a longer period, of the morally inept and culturally backward Arab world searching clumsily for a way forward, for a means to begin to compete with civilizations, from Chicago to Shanghai, that have left the Middle East in the dust — or sands — of history. I do not know how, on a practical level, this pathetic wreck of a civilization will ever catch up.

In closing, let me return to Levi-Strauss's description of Islam as "a barracks religion." Writing in the mid-20th century, he was even more right than he knew. Islam is, indeed, inherently militant (although that doesn't make it strong in the post-modern world — quite the contrary). Those five mandatory prayer sessions a day? As a former soldier, I recognize roll-call formations when I see them. Faced with the challenge of controlling unruly desert tribesmen, Mohammed simply did what any competent first sergeant does: He made everybody show up and be counted. Great tool for seventh-century Arabia, not so good for a post-modern world that demands uninterrupted productivity. Islam's initial focus on obedient warrior cadres also helps explain the long passivity of Arabs under military regimes: Islam is, above all, a disciplinary religion where you shut up and follow the orders of the chain of command.

We often hear claims that "Islam is stuck in the seventh century." But other than those formations and a few other primitive practices, the charge isn't applicable. While Islam has developed painfully slowly, it has made some progress and is now up to the precise point that Christianity reached in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, the age of paralyzing theological scholasticism ("How many mullahs can dance on the head of a pin?") and of a monopoly clergy's insistence on doctrinal conformity. The obsessions with heresy and the fanatical concern with public behavior and regimentation are also essentially identical. The Arab world even has our high-medieval problems with clerical corruption behind the walls of its mosques and madrassahs.

It took the society-rupturing effects of the Black Death, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the triumph of the scientific method, the maturity of contract law, enormous improvements in education, and the maturation of capitalism to get us to where we are today (imperfect as our society remains). The Arab world is still murdering blasphemers and stoning witches to death. Arabs are, occasionally, a deadly annoyance to us, but they've been an immeasurable disaster to themselves. In the 21st century, Islam is a cultural suicide pact.

I'm in far graver danger from an American teenager texting while driving than I am from the entire Arab world. And so are you. This doesn't mean we can ever let our guard down. But it does mean we should stop being afraid of the dark in other people's bedrooms.

Ralph Peters is a former enlisted man and retired Army officer, a journalist, and a prize-winning, bestselling author. His latest book is Cain at Gettysburg,(on sale February 28th), a bluntly realistic novel of the Civil War's greatest battle.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, January 24, 2012.

The PLO Phased Plan —
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=N1N77BKCKE4&feature= player_embedded

History consistently reminds us that indifference in the face of an merciless enemy invariably leads to disaster. Further, more often than not, our enemies tell us exactly what they intend to do before they do it. Acting on their warning requires our personal courage, collective insight, and national will.


on January 20, 1993 the Israeli Knesset voted to lift a ban on contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), legalizing meetings with members of the group. Israeli Lawmakers voted 39 to 20 to repeal a 1986 law prohibiting Israelis from meeting the PLO members. The change was supported by legislators from the governing coalition led by the Labor Party, although the Government continues to reject negotiations with the PLO, which Israel considered to be a terrorist group.

The law banning contacts with the PLO was passed in the administration of a coalition Government of Labor and the right-wing Likud. It has been repeatedly defied by peace campaigners and leftist members of Parliament who have met PLO officials abroad. Several Israelis have been tried and two were jailed, including a veteran peace advocate, Abie Nathan.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was conspicuously absent from the late-night vote, attended by less than half the 120-member Parliament. Mr. Rabin has consistently opposed PLO participation in the Middle East peace talks, and has expressed concern that the new legislation might invite moves by the United States to involve the PLO openly in the negotiations.

The PLO was banned from the talks in Madrid in October 1991. However, the Palestinian negotiators from the West Bank openly consulted with PLO leaders at its headquarters in Tunis, thus direct talks were rejected.

A month earlier, Israel expelled 415 Arab-Palestinians to Lebanon and left-wing Meretz Party cabinet ministers urged Mr. Rabin to meet a pro-PLO leaders in the West bank and to consider inclusion of the organization in later stages of the talks in Madrid.

These ministers argued that the expulsions, aimed at suspected Islamic militants opposed to the peace talks, should be balanced by overtures to the Palestinian leadership supporting the talks.

There were also growing support for talks with the PLO among Mr. Rabin's Labor Party. But Mr. Rabin has rejected direct talks with the PLO in the current discussions of interim self-rule arrangements in the occupied territories, arguing that those talks can only be held with Arab-Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But he has tolerated open consultations between Arab-Palestinian delegates and PLO leaders.

In December 1992, in the background of the official "Madrid negotiations" in London, Israeli vice-minister of foreign affairs Yossi Beilin and Norwegian researcher Terje Rød-Larson set up a secret meeting for PLO representative Ahmed Qurei and Israeli history professor Yair Hirschfeld. Qurei and Hirschfeld made a connection and decided to meet again in what was going to be a series of 14 meetings in Oslo. During the first few meetings, a concept of an accord was discussed and agreed upon. The Foreign Affairs of Israel, Shimon Peres, was interested and sent the highest-ranking non-political representative and a military lawyer to continue the negotiations. Unlike the Madrid negotiations, the Israeli and the Arab-"Palestinian" delegations in Norway were usually accommodated in the same residence, they had breakfast, lunch and dinner at the same table, resulting in mutual respect and close friendships. The Norwegian government covered the expenses, provided security and kept the meetings away from the public eye, using the research institute Fafo as a front.

Negotiations concerning the agreements were conducted secretly, without the knowledge of the entire Jewish Nation, in Oslo, Norway, hosted by the Fafo Institute, and completed on 20 August 1993. What made the Oslo Accord negotiations different however, was the government of Israel's decision, against its law that banned negotiating with the terror organization PLO, to hold direct, face-to-face negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization, as the representative of the Arabs a/k/a Palestinian people.

On the other hand, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) realized the loss of its most important diplomatic patron, the Soviet Union, that started in 1989, and Arafat's failing relationship with Moscow. Another factor which pushed the PLO to the Accords was the fallout from the 1990-1991 Gulf War; because Arafat took a pro-Iraqi stand during the war, the Arab Gulf states cut off financial assistance to the PLO. The PLO was not invited to the 1991 Madrid Conference at which Israel discussed peace with Lebanon, Jordan and Syria and Palestinian groups that were not associated with the PLO, although the PLO, behind the scenes coordinated the Palestinian delegation at Madrid.

In August 1993, the delegations had reached an agreement which was signed in secrecy by Peres while visiting Oslo, who took the agreement to the United States to the surprise of US negotiator Dennis Ross. This was not yet the Arab-Palestinians and Israelis agreement on the wording of the Letter of Mutual Recognition, in which the PLO would acknowledge the state of Israel and pledge to reject violence, and Israel would recognize the (unelected) PLO as the official Palestinian Authority, allowing Yasser Arafat to return to the West Bank.

The Accords were subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington DC, in the White House Rose Garden, on 13 September 1993, in the presence of PLO chairman terrorist Yasser Arafat, the Prime Minister of Israel Yitzchak Rabin, and the United States President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton. The documents themselves were signed by Mahmoud Abbas, Araft's right hand man for the PLO, the Foreign Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres for Israel, Secretary of State Warren Christopher for the United State and foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev for Russia.

The Oslo Accords, was a political attempt to resolve the ongoing Arab a/k/a Palestinians conflict with Israel. It was the first direct, face-to-face agreement between the Government of Israel and the terror organization Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The intent was to establish the framework for future negotiations and relations between the government of Israel and the Arabs, within which all outstanding "final status issues" between the two sides would be addressed and resolved.

The Oslo Accords provided for the creation of a Palestinian National Authority (PNA), now known as the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Palestinian Authority was delegated the responsibility for the administration of the territory it was allocated to control. The Accords granted the Arab-Palestinians right to self-government on the Gaza Strip and the city of Jericho and in certain areas in the West Bank, through the creation of the PA. Yasser Arafat was appointed head of the Palestinian Authority and a timetable for elections was laid out, which saw Arafat elected president in January 1996, 18 months behind schedule. Although the PLO and the PA are not formally linked, the PLO dominates the administration. The headquarters of the PLO were moved to Ramallah on the West Bank.

Additionally, it was agreed that there would be a transfer of authority from the Israel Defense Forces to the authorized Palestinians, concerning education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation, and tourism. The Council would establish a strong police force, while Israel would continue to carry the responsibility for defending against external threats.

On 9 September 1993, Arafat issued a press release stating that "the PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security".

Both Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, before and after the Accord. At the same time, a significant portion of the Israeli public and some political leaders, including the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expressed doubt over whether a peaceful, coherent state can be founded by the PLO, and call for significant re-organization, including the elimination of all terrorism, before any talk about independence.

In Israel, a strong debate over the accords took place; the left wing supported them, while the right wing opposed them. After a two-day discussion in the Knesset, on 23 September 1993, a vote of confidence was held in which 61 Knesset members voted for the decision, 50 voted against and 8 abstained.

Palestinian reactions were also divided. Fatah, the group that represented the Palestinians in the negotiations, accepted the accords, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine objected to the accords because their own charters refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist in Palestine.

On both sides, there were fears of the other side's intentions. The Israeli government, the Israeli's trust in the accords was undermined by the fact that after the signing, the attacks against Israel intensified, which, some explained, was an attempt by certain Palestinian organizations to thwart the peace process. Others believed that the Palestinian Authority had no interest in stopping these attacks and was instead endorsing them, as they do to this day. As evidence showed, when violence flared up in September 1996, Palestinian police turned their guns on the Israelis in clashes which left 61 Palestinians and 15 Israeli soldiers dead.

Since the start of the second Intifada, known as the al-Aqsa Intifada, in 2000, the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by both the Arab-Palestinians and the Israeli public.

The Oslo Accords were secretly negotiated against Israeli Law prohibiting negotiating with the PLO, which Peres and Beilin blatantly violated. The Oslo Accords was conceived in violation of the Law and was therefore a criminal act, and it still is.

It is also publically known fact that in his book, Yitzchak Rabin identified Peres as an underhanded saboteur and they never really had a good relationship.

In summation, Shimon Peres does today what he has done for decades, which is to subterfuge and act underhandedly and secretive, all behind the back of the government of Israel. He conspired with his protégée Yossi Beilin right through the Oslo Accord. In fact, one can see the Oslo Accord as a process to destroy the Jewish State as was created by David Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharet, Abba Eban, Golda Meir and Menachem Begin and others.

In 2012, we can comfortably say that the Oslo Accords were a waste of time and a great loss of hope, blood and lives, mostly for the Israelis, who want peace, have adhered, as much as possible, and beyond, to the Agreement. To achieve her desired peace, Israel made irreversible, painful and regrettable concessions to people who had no intention to have peace with her, and they say it loud and clear.

Therefore, without exposing the Palestinian Authority (PA) as a whole, who all stand for inciting against Israel and her demise Israel has no chance of survival.

On September 23rd, 2011, Abbas Zaki the former representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Lebanon and a member of Fatah's central told Al Jazeera television that any negotiated "settlement" should be based on 1967 borders. Indefensible for Israel, true, but not an outrageous thing to say in public discourse, as President Obama has said the very same —
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama- endorses-palestinian-border-demands. Further, Zaki then went on to say, "When we say that the settlement should be based upon these borders, President Abbas understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go." Code for: negotiate, get as much as you can, and then move the yardstick down the road saying that's not enough. He also said that Fatah is going to destroy Israel in stages but needs to be quiet about it.

The Oslo Accords weakened Israel. Just like Neville Chamberlain harmed Britain and all of Europe by playing pretend with Hitler, Obama also has weakened Israel and the entire world and strengthened Islamofascist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The time is now for the table to turn: The PA must be considered a "terrorist", "apartheid", "imperialist", entity, not Israel. Only then we can get around to promote 'zot ha'haretz shelanu-This is Our Land, Israel's real history, and why even talking about dividing Jerusalem is immoral and against all Jewish belief. Only then we will be able to turn the anti-Israel tide.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/20/ world/israeli-parliament-lifts-a-ban-on -plo-contacts.html


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, January 24, 2012.

Recently, while unpacking some old boxes, I came across some treasures that had been bundled away for more decades than I care to remember. I had saved many old appointment books and love letters from many more men than I should recall. The reason I mention this now is because, until then, I had never realized what a terrible person I was.

After sitting down and reading these postscripts to my past, I noticed something. It seemed the more I was unkind to these guys, the more they wanted me. Truly. I thought what a bitch I was. Yet, no one in all those little stacks of envelopes seemed to mind that I gave them a hard time. Most in fact, seemed to love it.

So, it got me to thinking. Israel has been too needy. The same as the woman who sits in a bar with the expectant look of "Pick me! Pick me!", is never going to have a date for the prom. I think the same holds true for Israel. They want to be loved! They need to be appreciated!

Folks, there is another thing I learned a long time ago. There are four words that should be removed from the English language. They are, "ought" " should" " fair" and "equitable," 'cause folks, life ain't always the way it ought to be, should be, and for sure it's not fair or equitable.

It's not "fair" that a gaggle of anti-Semites from all those wonderful bastions of democracy around the globe such as Cuba, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, the Organization of Islamic States, the League of Arab states etc., meet in a world court in The Hague.

Gawd, who cares?

The Jews are concerned that the Catholic Pope gave a good review for the Mel Gibson passion play? Better the Catholics should give a little thought to the crises in their own church with pedophiles running rampant. How better those funds might have been used in charitable endeavors instead of close to a billion dollars in lawsuits. Maybe Mel Gibson ought to choose that as the topic for his next 'religious' epic. How his own church ought to go about cleaning up its act.

How much energy has been wasted in down playing Israel's aid to even their enemies so as not to antagonize the Arab World? Israel doesn't need to be loved that much.

Why should Israel give a diddly-squat that those very same folks who gave us the Holocaust decide to meet in the Hague to sit in judgement of Israel?

They have the power, but seem to have forgotten that fact. Maybe it's time to remember. My momma used to tell me, "Darlin, the best defense is a powerful offense!'

Some people aren't going to like the Jews... no matter what. The Jews gave a conscience to the world. The Ten Commandments was a stunner! Until then, everyone was happy in their hedonistic ways. Hey, they could sleep with sheep and who would care? Moses had to do his 'thing' and it's been downhill ever since.

The fact that the Jews are just tiny spot on the planet and the major recipients of the Nobel Prizes doesn't help either

Here's an apt analogy. I think I have no problem with my identity. Until some young, tall skinny blond wearing implants and hip-huggers walks past me. Do I like her? No! I think 'bitch'. She could have the personality of Lady Di. Or, the goodness of Mother Theresa. It wouldn't matter. She's hated by me and most of the other women in the room.

The same goes for Israel. As far as their immediate neighbors, most of which have the educational skills of an eggplant, they hate the Jewish State. It's a shame. It's tragic. But, folks, that's just the way it is. Their school books teach math, "If Abdul kills three Israelis and Mohammed bombs ten, how many are left?" This is not a mentality you can reason with.

The rest of the world? Well, to my thinking, it's pretty much the same thing. Israel tries to hard to be respected, loved or appreciated for all the truly wonderful things that they are. So what? Treat the European Union like a scorned man and they'll come groveling.

I grew up in Georgia. It saddens me to say it but, the state was filled with men who, I seriously suspect, slept with their cousins. That's just the way it was. But, do you think that they would have cared for a moment, or reacted by changing their ways, if the general population of California decided to violate their 'states rights' by interfering in the habits of the local natives. Lo-d, it almost caused a war when the State legislature decided to take down the Civil War flag from the courthouse.

Yet, just as soon as George Bush or any of our State Department civil servants who, have been on the payroll of the Saudis for many years snap their fingers and say jump, the wayward, hungry leaders of the State of Israel, say "How high?"

Which brings me back to how Israel ought to treat her detractors like a successful woman treats her men. Jealousy, in moderation, never hurt eiter. The United States doesn't want to give that needed 2.2 billion dollars foreign aid to Israel? Hey, call Michael Eisner! He's a nice Jewish boy who has money to burn and just turned down FIFTY-ONE BILLION dollars for a transfer of Disney to Comcast Cable Company.

So the motto ought to be "it's a can't have, want world." The detractors of the Jews can't be the chosen people. The more they are rejected, the more they want it. My mother used to tell me, "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free." Israel has to remember to make their so-called friends buy more cows.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz-Sheva, January 24, 2012.

This was written by Elad Benari, who writes for Arutz-Sheva.


Archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar warned on Thursday about the plans of the Muslim religious authority, the Waqf, for the Temple Mount.

Speaking to Arutz Sheva, Mazar said that for the past 12 years, the Waqf has constantly built on the Temple Mount in an attempt to implement its final plan: the establishment of a huge mosque on the Mount.

"There is no order there and no one to uphold the law," she said. "No one can enforce the law there. Not the Israel Antiquities Authority, not the Nature and Parks Authority and not the city of Jerusalem. The police are there but they are precluded from enforcing."

The Temple Mount was left in the hands of the Waqf following Jerusalem's reunification in 1967, a decision of then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. The Waqf has taken advantage of this and removed every sign of ancient Jewish presence at the most Jewish holy site. At the entrance, a Waqf sign says, "The Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyard and everything in it is Islamic property".

Police, in an attempt to appease the Waqf, discriminate against Jews. They limit the number of Jewish worshippers allowed on the Temple Mount at one time in order to prevent conflict with Muslim worshippers. They often close the Mount to Jews in response to Muslim riots — despite evidence that Muslim riots have been planned in advance for the specific purpose of forcing Jews out.

Mazar, a member of a group of Israelis who work to prevent the destruction of antiquities on the Temple Mount, said that the State Comptroller wrote a report which exposed serious findings about Israeli authorities' inability to enforce the law on the Temple Mount, but noted that the report has remained confidential to this day.

"The Comptroller produced a thorough report and questioned all the right people. He came to important conclusions which so far have not been published. Our group has demanded and continues to demand that the contents of the report be published."

She warned that the excavations of antiquities being performed on the Temple Mount by the Waqf may lead to disaster.

"It has been going on for 12 years. They're digging there as if it's a construction site. There is a danger that the ground will collapse under thousands of Muslims. It endangers the safety of the people. There must be engineering control over this huge monument. Every stone on the Temple Mount may contain some of the most important antiquities in the world."

Mazar added, "I do not accept the argument that this could lead to a world war. The Temple Mount is at the center of Jerusalem. We're not harming the Muslim rituals. We only want to enforce the law and order so that a disaster can be prevented. The Waqf cannot be trusted. If something collapses there the Western Wall may also be damaged, because the Temple Mount is on a round hill and its edges will be in danger."

Mazar said the Waqf's final plan is to unite all the mosques on the Temple Mount and create one big mosque. She added that it has been working for years to put the plan into practice and warned that if this happens, Jews will not be able to go to the Temple Mount.

"We know that the Waqf's goal is to unite all one the mosques, and unfortunately today it is far from being just an illusion," she said. "We will definitely weep over this plan in the future."

>Contact Arutz-Sheva at news@israelnationalnews.com to receive a free synopsis of the news daily.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz-Sheva, January 24, 2012.

This article was written by Gavriel Queenann, a writer for Arutz Sheva..


Dozens of riot police were deployed to quell a Muslim riot on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City on Friday.

Israel Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said more than 100 Muslims began throwing rocks at a police location following Friday prayers, prompting the police to enter the compound.

According to reports, police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the rioters.

Police, however, said they had used only stun grenades against the demonstrators and that "dozens of people" had barricaded themselves inside the Al-Aqsa mosque.

"We are negotiating with the Israelis not to storm into the mosque or the Dome of the Rock and to let people out," Sheikh Azzam al-Khatib, head of the Jerusalem Waqf, told AFP.

He blamed the Israeli government for the rioting and claimed they will "bear the consequences," adding "We demand that no settlers, radicals or soldiers enter the mosque to avoid friction."

Much of the tension follows on the heels of an uncomfirmed report published by the Al Aqsa Center earlier this week claiming Israel plans to divide the Temple Mount into separate Jewish and Muslim sections, in the same way that the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hevron is divided.

Friday's riot is only the latest in a series of clashes with police, and attacks on Jewish and Christian pilgrims, by Muslims on the Temple Mount this week

On Thursday, police arrested seven Arabs who instigated a series of confrontations with Jewish visitors on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City.

On Tuesday, Muslims on the Temple Mount hurled stones and shoes at police escorting Jewish and Christian visitors. One police officer sustained minor injuries.

Two Muslims were arrested in that incident, police said.

And on Sunday, police used tear gas to disperse Muslim rioters who were throwing stones inside the compound, arresting 18 people.

The Temple Mount is the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (705 CE) today. However, long before that, it was the site of the the First Holy Temple, built by King Solomon (stood from ~950 BCE to 587 BCE) and the Second Holy Temple (517 BCE to 70CE) and is indisputably Judaism's most sacred site.

The Western Wall, where Jews are allowed to pray, is merely a remnant of an outside compound wall of Herodian days and not part of the Temples.

The Muslim Waqf, the religious Muslim authority, has systematically attempted to destroy all archaeological evidence of earlier Jewish presence on the Mount, illegally excavating and destroying priceless and irreplaceable relics.

Israeli archaeologists and volunteers sift painstakingly through the debris of the excavations, finding artifacts that are then transferred to Israeli museums.

The Muslim Waqf was allowed to manage the site after Israel succeeded liberating the Temple Mount in 1967 at the suggestion of then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. It maintains a discriminatory policy seeking to bar Jews entry to the site.

The Israeli police, afraid of riots, allow Jewish worshippers to be discriminated against to the point of not being allowed to even whisper prayers on the Mount.

Contact Arutz-Sheva at news@israelnationalnews.com to receive a free synopsis of the news daily.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gail Winston, January 24, 2012.

If the Western world could mentally and emotionally absorb the historical facts well catalogued below by Yoram Ettinger, we might be able to understand why the Muslim world hates us in the West. Then, therefore, we might be able to live and thrive in our own countries by being strong enough to thwart the Muslim world's main goal and desire in their lives to create a Global Caliphate for and of Islam.

They would require that we all follow their Shariah Law (strict Islam) or they would simply kill us. It says so very precisely in their Koran. Without this understanding of this basic bestial mode of death cult which they have literally "cultivated", we have little chance of surviving the storms caused by their conflicts which they intend to spread in order to conquer the Western way of life.

They hate our freedoms of speech, religions, rights of women, and more. They are also jealous and envious of those very freedoms which they spurn. They pick on the Jews and the Jewish State of Israel because we're an easy target. We're small in numbers and they can tap the powerful well-spring of anti-Semitism which the Western world has accepted and allowed to make us hated.

To survive we must be strong, sovereign, fair to our own people and — while extending our open hand of friendship — we must maintain our military ability to defend our State and our people. Truth be told, the Muslim world of 57 states — of which 22 are Arab — is powerful. But, if we Jews maintain our own faith in our Judaism with its laws and mitzvahs, we can survive and we will.

First, we must extend Israel's sovereign laws over the entire Jewish Homeland which was created in the Balfour Declaration 1917, voted for at the San Remo Conference of 1920, ratified by the League of Nations and the United States Congress. Ever time we try to compromise and give away our Land as confidence-building gestures for peace, we build their confidence that if they can get a little of our Land, they can get it all.

Therefore, every Migron, Givat Assaph, Amona, Gush Katif (23 communities), 4 towns in the Northern Samaria, the Sinai Desert (with $17 Billion lost infrastructure).... every little and big piece of our Land which we abandon — every man, woman or child whom we evict from their homes which we demolish — is literally carving our future survival out of our own skins — Or at least the skins of our brave, pioneering settlers.

Read and memorize Yoram's piercing facts below. Then promise yourself that you will not accept any more "painful sacrifices", or "confidence-building gestures" — all forced by hostile outside forces against our people. Then, we may have real chance to survive with our children's children. I"H. With G-d's Help!


THE WAR INSIDE ISLAM by Amb. (Ret) Yoram Ettinger

At the outset of 2012, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue, the defining geopolitical and religious schism in the Middle East is boiling, exacerbating violent intra-Muslim fragmentation. The battle inside Islam is taking place on the religious, tribal, ideological and geographical levels.

The Syrian death toll is approaching 7,000, trending toward Papa Assad's 1982 massacre of 20,000 Sunni rebels. The Turkish-Kurdish confrontation has shifted to a higher gear, exceeding 40,000 casualties since 1984. During the first week of January, a series of sectarian-driven bombings devastated Baghdad and Nasiriyah in Iraq, murdering more than 140 people. More were killed in the Sunni stronghold of Mosul. Car bombs, suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices have become daily routine in Iraq, whose Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a Shiah Arab, President Jalal Talabani is a Sunni Kurd and Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi is a Sunni Arab. Iraq has become an explosive platform for its vindictive Shiah Arab majority (60 percent), which has been dominated and oppressed by the Sunni Arab minority (20%) since the seventeenth century. The historic conflict between Iraq's Arabs and its 15% Kurdish minority — which claims independence in northern Iraq, where it also confronts the Turkish military — further complicates matters.
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/ newsletter.php

The Sunni-Shiah confrontation, which has traumatized the Middle East since the seventh century, has re-emerged in Iraq in the aftermath of the U.S. military evacuation, and is fueled by Iran's policy of expansion. The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, its expected departure from Afghanistan and the perceived U.S. abandonment of Egypt's Mubarak — simultaneously with the Islamists' victories in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia — have emboldened Iran, escalating the level of anxiety of the highly vulnerable pro-U.S. Muslim regimes in the Persian Gulf and throughout the Middle East.

The seismic Arab Winter has triggered a political earthquake by violently destabilizing and weakening the three traditional ideological and military powerhouses of the Arab world — Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad. The fact that Mubarak, Gadhafi and Ben Ali — who were perceived as invincible dictators — were so decisively trounced, attests to the expected violent intra-Muslim volatility, civil unrest, terrorism and wars during the coming months and years. Civil war is raging in strategically-located Yemen, where Ahmed Saleh, the oldest son of the deposed Ali Abdullah Saleh, commander of the Republican Guard, is participating in local tribal and religious conflicts, fanned by Saudi military intervention. The House of Saud itself is heavily involved — as is Iran — in Bahrain's sectarian strife, pitting the subordinated Shiah plurality against the ruling Sunni minority of the Khalifa family. Although the island of Bahrain is small, the outcome of its civil unrest could determine the fate of Kuwait and other Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia. The tectonic intra-Muslim turbulence is further agitated by the artificial boundaries of all Arab countries, which were drawn by the Ottoman, French and British empires.

The Turkish journalist, Burak Bekdil, put the current intra-Muslim turmoil in historic perspective in an August, 22, 2011 article in the Turkish daily, Hurriyet: "Let's ignore the genocide [in the Sudans]. Let's ignore, also, the West Pakistani massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) totaling 1.25 million in 1971. Or, 200,000 deaths in Algeria in war between Islamists and the government in 1991-2006 ... One million deaths in the all-Muslim Iran-Iraq war; 300,000 Muslim [Shiah and Kurdish] minorities killed by Saddam Hussein; 80,000 Iranians killed during the Islamic revolution; 25,000 deaths in 1970-71, the days of [Jordan's] Black September; and 20,000 Islamists killed in 1982 by the elder al-Assad in Hama. The World Health Organization's estimate of Osama bin Laden's carnage in Iraq was 150,000 a few years earlier ... In 2007, Gunnar Heinsohn from the University of Bremen and Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, found out that some 11 million Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which {ONLY} 35,000, (0.3 percent) died during the Arab wars against Israel, or one out of every 315 fatalities ..."

Intra-Muslim violence is gleaned through entrenched education to hate, as well as Islam's attitude toward apostates. According to Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world's leading authority on Islam, "Apostasy was a crime as well as a sin, and the apostate was damned both in this world and the next. His crime was treason — desertion and betrayal of the community ... He was a dead limb to be excised."

A December 2, 2010 Pew global poll found that "the majority of Muslims would favor changing current laws in their countries to allow stoning as the punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft, and death for those who convert from Islam as their religion."For instance, 76% of Pakistanis agree — and 13% oppose — that apostates are to be killed. In a hypothetical country with a population of 172,800,000 (96% of whom are Muslim) that would amount to 126,074,880 individuals in a single country. They are not simply a fringe group.

The delusions of the Arab Spring, the "Religion of Peace," the Arab Coalition, and Arab peaceful coexistence are rapidly dissipating. 2012 could deteriorate into one of the most unstable years ever in intra-Muslim confrontations, completely independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue.



Fifty-one member countries — the entire League of Nations — unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

Unlike nation-states in Europe, modern Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi nationalities did not evolve. They were arbitrarily created by colonial powers.

In 1919, in the wake of World War I, England and France as Mandatories (e.g., official administrators and mentors) carved up the former Ottoman Empire, which had collapsed a year earlier, into geographic spheres of influence. This divided the Mideast into new political entities with new names and frontiers.

Territory was divided along map meridians without regard for traditional frontiers (i.e., geographic logic and sustainability) or the ethnic composition of indigenous populations.

The prevailing rationale behind these artificially created states was how they served the imperial and commercial needs of their colonial masters. Iraq and Jordan, for instance, were created as emirates to reward the noble Hashemite family from Saudi Arabia for its loyalty to the British against the Ottoman Turks during World War I, under the leadership of Lawrence of Arabia. Iraq was given to Faisal bin Hussein, son of the sheriff of Mecca, in 1918. To reward his younger brother Abdullah with an emirate, Britain cut away 77 percent of its mandate over Palestine earmarked for the Jews and gave it to Abdullah in 1922, creating the new country of Trans-Jordan or Jordan, as it was later named.

The Arabs' hatred of the Jewish State has never been strong enough to prevent the bloody rivalries that repeatedly rocked the Middle East. These conflicts were evident in the civil wars in Yemen and Lebanon, as well as in the war between Iraq and Iran, in the gassing of countless Kurds in Iraq, and in the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis, Syrians by Syrians as well as the killing of Egyptians by Egyptians.

The manner in which European colonial powers carved out political entities with little regard to their ethnic composition not only led to this inter-ethnic violence, but it also encouraged dictatorial rule as the only force capable of holding such entities together.

The exception was Palestine, or Eretz-Israel — the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, where:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country [Palestine] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

"In Palestine as of right and not on sufferance ..."

"When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection."
— Winston Churchill, British Secretary of State for the Colonies, June 1922.

Gail Winston, worked with her late husband Emmanuel Winston; she is commentator and Middle East analyst. Contact her at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

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


Shimon Peres awarded the first Presidential Prizes of Distinction. One recipient was Henry Kissinger "for his unique contribution to Israel and to peace in the Middle East, and for being a statesman with foresight, creativity and vision;..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA commented, "Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for a peace treaty that led to the fall of South Vietnam.

He had the "foresight, creativity and vision" to hold up the critical airlift during the Yom Kippur War of 1973 — explaining later that Israel had to bleed some before it would be ready to agree to the deals he had in mind.

He also was behind the decision to force Israel to allow the passage of supplies to the encircled Egyptian Third Army (www.imra.org.il 2/9/12).

Speaking of foresight, Dr. Lerner notes that the cold peace with Egypt, paid for 33 years ago by Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, was assumed to be wise. Up to about a year ago, experts expected the Mubarak dynasty to last.

Now a report states that PM Netanyahu proposed to the Palestinian Authority that Israel retain "a presence" in the Jordan Valley. That hints at a military presence and dispossession of Jewish farmers from it now and eventual total withdrawal from the Valley. How long the presence would last is not clarified. Without a civilian presence, a military presence usually is found politically untenable. How long is needed? Even the 33 years of the treaty with Egypt did not suffice to end band feeling in Egypt. If the report is correct, then PM Netanyahu was reckless.

[Dr. Lerner is reminding us that the Islamist take-over of Egypt has brought calls to abrogate the treaty and even make war on Israel. More arms are being smuggled from Egypt into Gaza. The treaty was unwise strategically. It also transferred oil resources from Israel to Egypt.]

In recording what occurred in those negotiations, the reporter mentioned the P.A. springing new demands upon Israel, often refusing to sit in the same room with Israeli negotiators, impeding negotiations, insisting that negotiations about a dozen major items be concluded in a few days, and then walking out (Barak Ravid Haaretz 17:21 19.02.12,
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/ diplomania/netanyahu-s-border-proposal- israel-to-annex-settlement-blocs- but-not-jordan-valley-1.413473, from www.imra.org.il 2/9/12).

How many times have journalists and western officials asserted that Israel should try to negotiate? About as many times as the P.A. negotiators have ducked negotiations or walked out of them.

The spirit of jihad is kept alive. Therefore, temporary security arrangements make a poor defense against jihad.

Two people who give out prizes in behalf of their country have questionable loyalty to their countries and the values which those countries affirm: Peres and Obama. The former makes all sorts of anti-

Zionist statements. So does the latter, but he also makes anti-American statements.


Egypt's military, long used the Islamist threat to curb anti-Islamists. It offered a deal to the Islamists before the election, and subsidized them. Egypt's most radical Islamic party, the Salafi one, then came from nowhere to garner a quarter of the vote. The Muslim Brotherhood got almost another two quarters.

A Salafi leader boasted about committing election fraud and pledged fealty to the head of the military. The leader of a moderate party claims to have government documents showing a voter registration of 40 million, but there were 52 million votes. This election may well have been rigged.

Although Western leaders complain about rigged elections in Russia and Syria, they ignore massive fraud in the Egyptian election (Daniel Pipes and Cynthia Farahat, National Review Online , 1/24/12
http://www.danielpipes.org/10548/ egypt-electoral-fraud).


Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami, a top-ranked figure in Egypt's Salafi movement explained in a video that Muslims may make peace with non-Muslims temporarily when weak, but when the Muslims become strong, they should fight. Like Yasir Arafat and many other Muslim leaders, the Sheikh cited Muhammad's truce with non-Muslims in his early period. When Muhammad's forces became stronger, he switched to war. Then he imposed a non-believer tax on the conquered non-Muslims who survived.

Al-Burhami advises Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Arabs not to war on Israel now, and be vanquished. He urges P.A. Muslims to continue paying into a jihad fund.

A Muslim Brotherhood secretary-general agreed that the Copts would not pay the non-Muslim tax now. But later...?

Western leaders do not try to stop Radical Muslims from attaining power if they call the process democratic. The Islamists sign peace agreements and seem friendly. But wait and see what happens (Raymond Ibrahim, Jihad Watch, 1/18/12
http://www.meforum.org/3154/ circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior)

The scholars at the Middle East Forum know this, but our political leaders do not. Think of all the American and Israeli leaders who think that Israel has peace with Egypt, Jordan, and the P.A.!

Once when Pres. Bush nominated Forum head Daniel Pipes to an advisory position, Radical Muslims with whom our government cooperated and still does, objected, and Pipes was not confirmed. How can such a government defend its people from jihad?


Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Erekat issued a press release demanding foreign intervention to get all P.A. prisoners released from Israeli prisons.

He didn't ask that the terrorists be transferred to a P.A. prison, but that they be freed. Thus the P.A. denounces terrorist attacks that give the world a bad impression of the Muslim Arab cause, but nevertheless demand that those same terrorists be released by Israel.

Thus the P.A. really approves of the terrorism that it sometimes condemns

(www.imra.org.il from P.A. news media,
1/23/12, http://english.wafa.ps/index.php? action=detail&id=18779).

Time after time, Western leaders and the media get taken in by the same Islamist ruses. One ruse is believing a press release given to the West, but ignoring indoctrination of the local Muslims.

Another ruse is believing Islamic protestations of wishing for peace, although Islamic doctrine encourages pretending to wish for peace while preparing for war.

Western media and leaders fall for so much Islamic deception that it amounts to a combination of ignorance and willful self-deception.

A third ruse is to proclaim fealty to democracy, while imposing dictatorship. Leftist leaders in Hispanic America have been doing this, without objection by President Obama. His objections are to friends of the U.S., such as Guatemalan self-defense against a would-be caudillo, criticism of South Korea, and unfair and deceptive denunciation of Israel. All this add up to an anti-American, U.S. foreign policy.


We reported on misleading stories about hunger striker, Khader Adnan, member of Islamic Jihad and soon to be released from an Israeli prison. Those stories were even worse. NGO Monitor informs us of additional falsesstatements and misleading statements presented by supposed humanitarian organizations and western media. The false picture makes it seem like Israeli cruelty and oppression versus a poor victim

The organizations and reporters depicted Israel as unique among democratic organizations in exercising administrative detention. It is not. Many advanced countries, including the U.S. and UK use it.

Another false statement by NGOs is that Adnan was held without charge. Actually, Israeli law requires a charge to be made. The law requires the detainee to be brought before a judge fairly promptly and that the evidence against him be substantial. Detainees have the right to appeal to Israel's Supreme Court. Israel exceeds the requirements for due process of law on this.

Many press releases refer to Adnan as a baker and political activist, without mentioning his membership and leadership in a terrorist organization. Islamic Jihad has been designated as such by EU, U.S., UK, Israel, Australia, Canada, and Japan.

Some organizations used to refer to him as belonging to that terrorist organization, but have not been doing so lately. That is a critical omission of their campaign to get him released.

Some of the organizations pressing for his release had reported earlier that he went on a hunger strike in 2010, after having been arrested by the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), which gets funds from several EU countries, acknowledged he was an Islamic Jihad leader, but nevertheless condemned his detention. When describing his detention by Israel, however, PCHR and other P.A. NGOs getting funds from European governments omitted mention of his membership in the terrorist organization. So did Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which campaigned for his release. This adds to the evidence of their bias
(www.ngo-monitor.org from www.imra.org.il 2/20/12) and to their lack of integrity.

What we see is European government financing of pro-terrorist organizations, championship of terrorists, and lying about the issues as if they are being humanitarian. When it comes to Israel, confronted by a massive international totalitarian, imperialist, and bigoted movement, those organizations and governments are not humanitarian. Rather, they are so antisemitic, that they subsidize enemies not only of Israel but also of their own civilization.

The falsely self-proclaimed humanitarian organizations will get away with their misappropriations and their mendacity until western populations become aware of the deceit and oppose 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 Arlene Kushner, January 24, 2012.

My readers have heard from me about Mitzpe Avichai, and now it is time to turn our attention to Migron — which presents some very serious issues. You will learn things here that it is unlikely you've heard from your mainstream media sources.

Migron is a Jewish community on a hilltop in the Binyamin Regional Council in Samaria, north of Jerusalem. With 49 families, it is the largest of the communities that are frequently referred to as "unauthorized settlements."

Migron Village (Indynewsisrael)


In order to properly understand the situation of this community, we will need a bit of background, which has been provided by a resident of Migron who serves as a spokesperson:

In 1960, the king of Jordan divided the area where Migron is now located into some 60 plots and gave them to individual families. It was, however, with the proviso that they begin farming within three years, or the land would revert back to the kingdom. No farming was done, not for three years and not for seven years — which is when the land came under Israeli control.

Land that reverted back to the kingdom should have become Israeli state land. This should have been the end of the story. (As I understand it, to ensure there would be no problem, the Jews who came to establish Migron purchased the land in any event.)


In 1999, establishment of Migron began with the set-up of the first caravans. The very first residents were actually part of an archeological expedition in the area, which, it should be noted, provided evidence — including a winepress — of an exclusively Jewish presence.

The community, as it grew, worked with a host of government ministries that provided support for phone lines, electricity, water, staff of day care and nursery schools and more.

In point of fact, the government saw a need for a Jewish community in this location for security reasons. A by-pass road had been established at the foot of the hill on which Migron is situated so that Jews would be able to travel — via route 60 — while avoiding entry into Ramallah. It was understood that without Jews on this hill, Jews traveling the road below would be at risk. (It is certain that Arabs would be up there, if Jews were not.)

Additionally, from the height of that location Jews are able to overlook the north of Jerusalem and communities situated between Migron and the Dead Sea.

But, for all the sanction the government gave to the establishment of this community, what was missing was the final authorization from the Ministry of Defense. From mid-1999, and for two years subsequent, Ehud Barak was Defense Minister, and so it is possible that he was the one who would have had to sign off on this. (What a surprise!) Or, as these approvals take time, perhaps the very leftist Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who followed him.

This is a common story. It feels rather schizoid — with one hand not knowing, or approving, what the other is doing. This is a function of the nature of the administration of Jewish communities beyond the Green Line. Were civil law to be applied, the Ministry of Defense would not be involved.


In 2006, Peace Now got into the act, going to the High Court and claiming that the land Migron was situated on belonged to Arabs. Ostensibly, Peace Now spoke on behalf of a group of Arab plaintiffs, who were from local villages. Residents of Migron observed that these plaintiffs, who seemed to have been drafted by Peace Now, were "without a clue."

Migron residents, I have been told, have never had a problem with their Arab neighbors, and it seemed to them more than a bit strange that, if the Arab plaintiffs knew that Jews were occupying their land, they would have waited the seven years since Migron had been established before registering a claim.

My Migron source tells me that various documents were provided to the Court that were never taken into consideration. With various legal delays, it was not determined until early last year that Migron was to be demolished by the end of March 2012.


In the meantime, the Arabs who were claiming that Migron was on their land brought a suit into the Jerusalem Magistrates Court, demanding that the State provide them with compensation for the years in which they were deprived of their land. (Never mind that in the years before Migron was established they had not in any way utilized this land.) But this court demanded of the plaintiffs that they provide proof of ownership of the land and gave them a deadline, which recently expired.

Just last week, the Jerusalem Magistrates Court ruled that the plaintiffs, as they could not provide proof of land ownership, had to pay compensation to the residents of Migron for their trouble and were forbidden from bringing further lawsuits on this issue.


Now, I asked myself, if the Arab plaintiffs that Peace Now was representing could not prove their right to the land of Migron, why is it that the High Court order to demolish Migron stands.

Today I posed that question to a representative of the Legal Forum of the Land of Israel. The answer is stunning:

This issue, I was told, is political, not legal. For the Court did not rule that the government had to demolish Migron. The government volunteered to do it. Let me repeat this: The government volunteered to do it.

What happened is that the Court turned to the government and said, these claims are being made against Migron, how are you going to handle this? And the answer from the government was, we'll demolish Migron by March 31, 2012.

The government said this? Even though government ministries had helped to establish Migron and there was clear recognition on the part of the government that putting a Jewish community on that hill was a wise thing to do from a security perspective?

So I have been advised.


If you are totally confused, it is understandable. But I believe I can explain what's happening here.

It is exceedingly unlikely that the government would have taken action against Migron if not for the petition of Peace Now, which acts as the "impetus" in many of these cases.

But once a petition such as this one is filed, the representatives of the government show themselves to be without the courage of their convictions. Or perhaps better put, they have no convictions. That is, they are not guided by a determination to stand by Jewish rights and to fight for those rights. They are guided by pragmatics and not by principle or ideology. They cave, out of fear of being criticized by the international community for taking Arab land, etc. etc.

And fairness to the residents of Migron, who were assisted by government agencies in establishing their community? What does this have to do with anything?


Right now this is a very hot political potato, with many incensed at the notion of taking down Migron. Speaker of the Knesset Ruby Rivlin (Likud) has spoken out on this with vehemence. I'm told Shas is with the residents of Migron. And Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says this is a red line for his party, Yisrael Beitenu, which will leave the coalition if Migron comes down.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, then, is between a rock and a hard place politically, and realizes that if a satisfactory solution is not found for Migron his government is at risk.

Thus, there is an attempt to strike an agreement with Migron residents that would provide an out for the government, which would not have to demolish the community.


But even this is a complicated and infuriating matter.

Not long ago, legislation was introduced that to prevent communities in Judea and Samaria from being destroyed unless the Arab(s) claiming ownership produced documentation of that ownership — and if documentation were produced beyond a certain number of years, there would be monetary compensation instead.

This legislation would protect Migron. But it is frozen in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation at the request of Netanyahu. He, in turn, has done this at the behest of Minister Benny Begin (Likud). If I live to be 100 I will not understand what is driving Begin at this point. He is heading negotiations that the government is holding with the representatives of Migron, regarding a so-called compromise. He doesn't want to see them protected by this legislation; he wants them to feel that they have no choice but to accept what he offers. In light of what I had previously understood to be his political orientation, the fact that he wants this confuses me totally.

The compromise, which is being urged on Migron by Netanyahu, would move the community to the bottom of the hill on to land that is universally acknowledged to be state land. It is better, the residents are being told, than having their community simply demolished.


But the community is not buying this. You may have read in recent news reports that a deal was reached. I was told today, however, that there is no deal.

The position of the Migron residents is that they have a right to be where they are, that they are not located on Arab land. If they move to the bottom of the hill, they say, it denies their purpose in having been put (by the government) on the hill for security reasons in the first place, and it ignores the involvement of multiple government ministries in helping them to be established there.


The question, then, is whether, when push comes to shove, the prime minister will actually allow the destruction of Migron, as this may bring down his government.

Apparently there are at least a couple of avenues he can take to remedy the situation. He can permit the release of the legislation from committee. Or, I was told by the legal forum, the government can return to the High Court and say that in the light of new evidence it withdraws its commitment to take down the community.


I would like to see as many of my readers as possible give a boost to the residents of Migron, as they wait to see if the prime minister blinks.

Please! write to Netanyahu.

Tell him that you are convinced that the residents of Migron are in their current location by right, that they were helped by the government as they were established, that they serve a legitimate security purpose, and that there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are on Arab land.

Tell him that you are watching his government closely in this regard, and that you expect him to do what is honorable and principled, and not what is convenient politically.

Say you expect him to return to the High Court and, based on new information, reverse the commitment to take down Migron. And that you further expect the legislation that is currently frozen in committee regarding the demolishment of communities to be released for vote in the Knesset.

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

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


Then, please, write to the following Likud ministers and urge them to push the prime minister to take action to remedy the situation in Migron properly. Ask them to remind Netanyahu that the government may fall if he fails to do this.

Keep it simple for yourself. Compose a short message that says "Dear Minister," followed by text, click on each minister's e-mail address in turn, paste in the message and send. Do NOT send a group message; each should be separate.

Minister of Public Diplomacy Yuli Edelstein

Minister of Improvement of Government Services

Minister of Environmental Protection Gilad Erdan

Minister of Welfare Moshe Kahlon

Minister of Transportation Yisrael Katz

Minister of Culture Limor Livnat

Minister Yosi Peled

Minister of Education Gideon Saar

Minister of the Development of the Negev Silvan Shalom

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz

Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon

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

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, January 24, 2012.

This was written by Daniel Greenfield who blogs as Sultan Knish.


When Hitler wanted to carve up Czechoslovakia he began by demanding the Sudetenland, inhabited by the Volksdeutsche, ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia. The world thought this was entirely reasonable and Czechoslovakia was forced to give in. Of course Hitler did not simply want the Sudetenland, anymore than he simply wanted the Rhineland. He was after a much vaster program of conquest.

By coining the term "Volksdeutsche" Hitler created an artificial identity for large numbers of Czechs, Poles and citizens of other Eastern European nations. He used that identity to create regional fifth columns that engaged in terrorism and then used them as justification to invade and seize other nations. Only by the time his ambitions reached Poland did Western Europe wake up to realize what their appeasement toward Nazi Germany had wrought.

By the time it was all over nearly 80 million were dead, a continent lay in ruins, Eastern Europe was in the hands of the Communists and Western Europe's Great Powers would never come into their own again.

"Palestine" like Volksdeutsche is an artificial identity created in order to maintain a fifth column and use them to conduct a proxy war against Israel, by the same Arab Muslim powers who had tried and fail to defeat Israel on the battlefield.

The tactic of course long predates and postdates Hitler. Alexander the Great made use of it in his conquests. The Russians used it only last year when they wanted to invade Georgia. But in the post-WW2 era it has most effectively been employed against Israel.

The absurdity of taking a Greco-Roman name for the region and trying to turn it into two things it never was, a nation and an ethnic identity, would have been inconceivable without heavy backing from both the Soviet Union and Western liberals. But by painting the genocidal urge of both Arab Marxists and Islamists as a drive to liberate "Palestine", the proxy war by Arab terrorists backed by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and more recently by Iran, was successfully repackaged by an oppressed people to liberate a land that never existed.

As "Volksdeutsche" gave Hitler the right to carve up and eventually annex Czechoslovakia, "Palestine" has given the Muslim world and assorted leftists the right to carve up and destroy Israel under the pretext of aiding the "Palestinian People."

In 1937, Awni Abd al-Hadi told the Peel Commission stating, "Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.... Our country for centuries was part of Syria,"

As late as 1980 the Jordanian Prime Minister stated, "The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture."

In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, head of the second largest militia within the PLO and once considered a potential successor to Arafat, stated the premise of the proxy war quite frankly;

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Arafat himself expressed the same basic idea in his infamous U.N. speech in 1988, saying, "The State of Palestine is an Arab State; its people are an integral Part of the Arab nation."

Hamas' Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahour repeated it in an Economist interview in 2008;

He certainly would not now "accept the reality" of Israel, as some of his senior colleagues have hinted. It may, instead, become "an eternal issue", he says, looking ahead to a distant future when, "like your European Union", the Arab nation will form one state across its historic lands, joining up with other Muslim nations such as Turkey. "We [Palestinians] were never an independent state in history," he notes. "We were part of an Arab state and an Islamic state."

That "Great Arab State" or "Great Islamic State", or Caliphate, has always been the endgame. Palestine is to the Caliphate, what the Sudetenland was to Hitler's Thousand Year Reich.

Israel is a stubborn little non-Arab non-Muslim state that stands in the way of the great dream of the Caliphate, a vast Muslim empire stretching across the Middle East into Turkey, Asia and even the heartland of Europe itself.

The fury directed at Israel from the Muslim world is in direct proportion to Israel's obstruction of this messianic vision of an Islamic Arab ruled Ummah stretching across the entire globe and fulfilling the vision of Mohammed.

It was never about "Palestinian rights", because not only is there no Palestinian people, but the refugee camps were themselves created by the Arab world as a first stage for the proxy war.

They began by alternately luring and badgering Arabs out of Israel during the War of Independence, for example;

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

The Economist, October 2, 1948

And naturally as renegades they would have been treated the same as the Jews, or perhaps even worse, during what was then seen as the "inevitable conquest" of Israel by the neighboring Arab states. At the very least that would mean the loss of property and land. At most it would mean outright massacre.

Once out they became refugees, kept in camps, and maintained as displaced persons, to serve as fodder for both terrorist recruitment and world outrage against Israel. As succinctly stated by UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway in 1958, "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die."

After two lost wars, the "open sore" was transformed into a new Palestinian nation that had never existed but was being suppressed by Israel. Palestinian Terrorism became global, as part of a proxy war conducted by Arab states against Israel, itself part of a proxy war being conducted by the USSR against the West. With the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has shed its Arab Marxist colors in favor of Arab Islamist ones, replacing Fatah, once backed by Arab Socialist regimes in Egypt, Syria and Iraq, in favor of Hamas, backed by Islamist regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Two State solution is the Sudetenland solution, carving up Israel and creating a sovereign and legally independent terrorist regime at war with Israel... inside Israel. With weapons flowing from around the Middle East and Pakistan through open borders, the real job of destroying Israel will finally begin.

Supporting the Two State solution means quite simply supporting the endgame of the proxy war against Israel. The solution has nothing to do with Palestinian rights or stabilizing the Middle East. There is no "tough love" in it, as Obama insists, or love of any kind. It is simply the final phase in the destruction of Israel, which itself is only one phase in the creation of a global Islamic empire.

Advocating the Two State solution means advocating genocide and ethnic cleansing. It means destroying the Middle East's only democracy to make way for a monstrosity that would be the worst of the Taliban writ large across the region and the globe. It means stoning, amputation and a thousand uncounted brutalities. And most of all it brings WWIII or a global clash of civilizations that much closer.

There are two kinds of people who support the Two State Solution. Those who know what they support and those who do not.

(http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/ 06/two-state-solution-is-victory-for-proxy.html)

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, January 24, 2012.


One is puzzled by the outraged tone writer Michael Powell seems to adopt in his coverage of a "dark film" on US Muslim behaviors shown to our police force, the largest and probably best in the country, if not the world. What exactly is incorrect, upsetting or even, indeed, remarkable about a general interest security film for our large and alert police force, a frontier constabulary that defends us as gateway city to the rest of the country?

Is it not by now abundantly clear, after thousands of Americans have been murdered on US shores by jihadis and self-avowed terrorists, dozens of islamist-tainted plots have been uncovered and--thankfully--foiled over the past several decades, and numerous terror training camps have been spotted and monitored extant in some 23 states throughout our country (at last report), that we are in de facto siege mode? Is it more important for readers of your paper to feel comforting embarrassment at local Muslim 'discomfort' or for the city, and the extended country, to be on alert for the various threats facing us daily, in our transit networks, planes, streets, synagogues, churches, schools, shopping malls and the like?

Is the writer part of a new breed of head-burying pseudo-journalists who prefer to blame imperative police and professional education rather than focus on the crystal-clear worldwide surge of storied murder, religious intolerance, abuse of women and children, radical extremism of undenounced Musllm hyperactivity against our good citizenry?

All muslims, of course, are not plotting. But many, many are.

Why is a documentary depicting truths in the dire state of underground terrorism and plotting called a "dark film"? In the past, ignoring or disingenuous repudiation of real dangers led not to a diminution of attacks, death and wholesale bloodletting, but to further embolden those who live among us and have no compunction at using our gullibilities and judicial laxities to inflict endless skeins of mayhem upon us.

Please, no more sanctimony over real exigencies, real dangers. If the Muslim community is so 'disturbed' by the showing of actualities in our too-frequently threatened communities, perhaps they can cleanse their textbooks, mosques and prayer fulminations of their proven burden of incitement and exhortation to itbach el non-Muslim--destroy the infidel.

Marion DS Dreyfus

PS: The writer has worked on the effects and legal/illegal anti-Constitutional aspects of the spread of shariah in the United States, particularly as related to financial instruments, commercial contracts and longterm loans.

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 Richard H. Shulman, January 23, 2012.

This is excerpted from an article written by Daniel Pipes. It is archived at
http://www.danielpipes.org/10524/ palestinian-right-of-return


A loophole in the Oslo Accords has let 137,000 Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Arabs move to Israel. They constitute 2% of Israel's population. Israeli Arabs are about a fifth of Israel's population. [Attention people who lament Arabs becoming a majority, and who suggest all sorts of Israeli withdrawals, but do not suggest that Arabs withdraw or be barred from immigrating to Israel!]

Before Oslo, from 1967 to 1993, only a few hundred Arabs from the Territories gained entrée into Israel and citizenship [and welfare benefits] by marrying Israeli Arabs. This was called "family reunification. But after Oslo, much of the reunification was due to sham or polygamous marriages.

The large Arab immigration amounts to gradual imposition of the non-existent right of return. This undermines the Jewish nature of the Jewish state. Israel's finance minister noticed years ago that the P.A. encouraged the process.

In 2003, Israeli law ceased making citizenship or residency automatic for family members from the P.A. Denmark, the Netherlands, and Austria have similar laws. Israel's Supreme Court stated that the right to marry does not imply a right of residency, and "Human Rights are not a prescription for national suicide."

However, In 2005, 11% of the legal Arab immigrants committed terrorism, killing 19 Israelis and wounding 83.

Few Israeli Arabs move into the P.A. to live with a spouse.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berchuck, January 23, 2012.

The interview was conducted by Sher Zieve. It appeared in Canada Free Press and is archived at
http://www.canadafreepress.com/ index.php/article/44097

For many years, Amil Imani has stood against the brutal and patently evil onslaught of Islam which continues to attack the population of his former country Iran — and now the world. Early on, Amil realized the inherent dangers associated with Islam. He and his family were able to flee the country after the Islamic revolution that was foisted upon Iran and in a recent phone conversation, Amil advised me that Iran had — culturally and historically — never been a Muslim nation until they were invaded by Islam...which was largely due to former Democrat US President Jimmy Carter He also very correctly advises his audience that the Left and Islam are part of the same insidious cabal. For many years, Amil Imani has stood against the brutal and patently evil onslaught of Islam which continues to attack the population of his former country Iran — and now the world. Early on, Amil realized the inherent dangers associated with Islam. He and his family were able to flee the country after the Islamic revolution that was foisted upon Iran and in a recent phone conversation, Amil advised me that Iran had — culturally and historically — never been a Muslim nation until they were invaded by Islam...which was largely due to former Democrat US President Jimmy Carter He also very correctly advises his audience that the Left and Islam are part of the same insidious cabal.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. He maintains a website at http://www.amilimani.com. Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and a new book "OPERATION PERSIAN GULF.


The Interview

Sher: Thank you so much for your time, today, Amil. I'd like to jump directly into the subject matter and ask the reasons for your decision to stay in the United States after completing your education. Wasn't it your initial plan to return to Iran?

Amil: Thank you, Sher, for having this interview with me. I left Iran in the midst of the radical Islamic revolution of 1978/79 to continue my education abroad, but never envisioned that Islamist extremists would take over our very modern and prosperous country. Most likely, I would not be alive today if I had stayed in Iran.

In 1979, the U.S. government (notably Jimmy Carter and Company), with the help of allied forces, created the greatest Islamic terrorist nation on the face of the earth and this spurred the rise of Islamofascism elsewhere. In fact, Jimmy Carter, by his interference in another country, betrayed the most valued friend to the West, the late Shah of Iran.

In reality, there was not a country for me to return to. Many of my friends were either killed in Iran-Iraq war or simply disappeared for standing up for their rights. Overnight, we lost everything. My battle with the forces of darkness started when evil (Ayatollah Khomeini) landed in Iran and unleashed his wrath on thousands upon thousands of Iranians who in the beginning, believed this "holy" man was their savior. But, he turned out to be the "evil" that our ancient prophet Zoroaster had warned us about.

Ayatollah Khomeini, with his cultural revolution, intended to de-civilize a very rich and civilized nation.

For the past 33 years, the Iranian people have been kept hostage in their own county by a group of barbaric savages who despise anything Iranian and are slowly purging any remnant left of pre-Islamic Persia, as well as Persian textbooks. These pro-Arab invaders are not Iranians by any means. "Iranian" is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. The barbaric mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating, and demeaning ideology.

To most Iranians, including myself, the name of the Ayatollah Khomeini was unheard of until the Western policymakers decided to remove the Shah (the best friend of the West) and install the Ayatollah Khomeini and carelessly forced the Shah of Iran to leave his homeland. After 33 years, the U.S. is still making the same mistakes with respect to its policy regarding Iran.

Sher: When we talked a few days ago, you told me that prior to Iran's 'Islamic Revolution' it had never been a Muslim country and that — until recently — Islam had never truly been part of Iran's historical and traditional culture. Before the sudden and swift rise of Islam, what were the true cultural aspects of Iran and its people?

Amil: A quick answer: Iranians are Muslim in name only. We have a saying in Persian that the way you take your first step, points your path for the rest of your journey. To elucidate this, please allow me to elaborate and give a brief account of Islam.

Islam's very first step was that of violence aimed at decimation of any people that stood in its path of conquest. It all started with Muhammad when his own Quraysh tribe chased him out of his hometown of Mecca. He was a troublemaker that earned the "crazed poet" epithet. He escaped from Mecca and settled in Medina where a large tolerant Jewish community lived. There he found enough peace to start his campaign of gathering a bunch of thugs with the promise of booty in this world as well as eternal pleasures of a sensual paradise if people followed his edict.

The rest is history. One of the very first things he did was to turn on the Jews of Medina — an easy and convenient target to kill, loot and enslave. Being amply rewarded for this thuggery, his followers expanded their range. To this day, the goal is the same. Destroying any and all people who refuse to surrender everything they are and have to this creed of savagery and slavery.

Nearly 1400 years ago, the followers of Muhammad from across the scorching Arabian Desert conquered Iran (Persia), the greatest empire known in the history of man. With that, they almost destroyed one of the most benevolent and beautiful religions of all humanity, Zoroastrianism, often called the mother of all revealed religions.

Originally, Iranians were forced to accept Islam to save their lives from the Arab invaders, but deep within the heart of every single Iranian alive today, exists a burning resentment of the Arab-Islamic invasion of their homeland and culture. The events in history have toughened present day Iranians. They have become great pretenders. But the totality of 1400 years of Islamic barbarity and savagery must and will end. Iranians no longer need to pretend that they are practicing Muslims; when in fact, they are not.

Before the Islamic invasion of 1979, most Iranians were unaware of true nature of Islam. But, the 1979 Islamic invasion quickly changed that. Nowadays, masses of Iranians are irreparably alienated from a corrupt and oppressive Islamic rule. The rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is crumbling. The previously solid edifice, or at least the appearance of it, is finally showing many cracks that continue to grow. There are just too many fault lines to list here. Many consider this, an era of Iranian awakening or Iranian renaissance. Islam has always been in contrast with Persian values as it is evident by the glorious pre-Islamic Iranian festivities and celebrations.

Sher: Every day now, we're hearing more and more chatter from strategic military experts that Obama is actually planning to take the USA into a war with Iran. Others have said that he plans to affect the war this year, in order to ensure his remaining in office. What do you make of this and what, if anything, are you hearing?

Amil: When you ask me about President Obama, you touch a very sore point. This man is an enigma. Every chance he gets he sings the praises of Islam. He calls it a great religion. It has been reported that some of his closest White House advisors are Muslims. At times, he seems to be a weak and indecisive politician who doesn't seem to firmly believe in the ideals of democracy and liberty. He, as a most powerful political leader, unfortunately doesn't always champion democracy. At best, he seems to be a strict pragmatist with a focus on the short-term results.

Some critics of Obama's Iran policies argue that Obama's weak stance, and his politicizing of the issue because of his 2012 re-election bid are creating a dangerous situation in the Middle East. Critics also point out that the developing Iranian crisis is due to Obama's weak response to Iranian aggression, which has emboldened the regime. In my opinion, both assertions are accurate. Obama had a golden opportunity in 2009, to help those millions of Iranians who were shouting in the streets of Tehran "Obama: Are you with us or against us?" President Obama decided to work against them.

What remains an enigma is this: Why did the Obama administration support regime change in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Libya but not in Iran?

Sher: We know that Obama has appointed multiple members of the Muslim Brotherhood to high levels within the US government. We also know that some — if not many — of these appointments have actually been in the area of US national security! As the Brotherhood is the parent organization of al-Qaeda and Hamas — to name only two terrorist organizations — what in the world could Obama be thinking? Do you see Obama working to establish the USA as part of the burgeoning Marxist Islamic Caliphate?

Amil: It is chancy thing to guess people's motive. What is more telling is the person's actions and the consequences of the actions. We see that Obama has been steering the country toward more government, greater redistribution of wealth, and more dependency on government micromanaging people instead of serving them to realize their own highest potential. Obama 's actions clearly show his drive to remake the U.S. into a socialist state.

As for his actions relating to Islam, we can go back and revisit in utter disbelief and watch him bow to the Saudi king, the titular head of Islamdom.

Furthermore, on numerous occasions he has spoken effusively of Islam, has allowed the mullahs to keep on racing to become a nuclear state and oftentimes berated Israel. Obama's actions in both fronts, socialization of the country and promotion of Islam, are encyclopedic and cannot be covered in this brief statement. But, to label the president as such, to utter, "Obama is a Marxist," is to open yourself to ridicule. People would rather dismiss than hear the truth, would rather live a lie and suffer its consequences than puncture their self-affirming facade.

We must allow all the facts, which speaks volumes: Didn't President Obama go around the Muslim heartland and sing the praises of Islam at every stop? Didn't he bow with great deference to the King of Islam in Saudi Arabia? Didn't he proudly proclaim Islam as the faith of his dear and near kindred? Didn't he, time and again, tell us that Islam is indeed the religion of peace? Didn't he with his captivating oratory skills cite passages from the Quran to show how reverent he was toward this religion? Didn't he appoint a raft of "devoted" Muslims to sensitive and high posts in government?

In his Cairo speech, didn't he blatantly mislead the world on how "Islam has been a part of America from the very beginning.........." misleading again about "Islam's magnificent history, its contributions to art, architecture, math, science etc." Didn't the Obama administration pull back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive? Paving the way to exonerate Islam of any wrong doing, e.g. Maj Nidal Malik Hasan's jihadist directed murder of 13 U.S. service personnel at Ft. Hood characterized as 'workplace violence'? Didn't he eliminate traditional National Day of Prayer, yet throws a lavish dinner marking the end of Ramadan in our White House?

It is said that you can tell a great deal about people by the company they keep. And who have been President Obama's close associates and mentors for many years, a partial list is given below and we will let people make up their own minds:

  • Tony Rezko, a convicted political fundraiser. Senator Clinton called him "slum landlord". He was an activist who raised money for both U.S. political parties. He is charged with at least eight counts, including fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering and aiding bribery. Rezko was one of Obama's first campaign contributors when Mr. Obama first ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. The Sun Times implied that Senator Obama could possibly go down with Tony Rezko, sooner rather than later

  • Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ who came under fire for his anti-American, racist and "inflammatory rhetoric

  • Louis Farrakhan is the black leader of the Nation of Islam and a prominent figure on the extremist scene by asserting hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals. Mr. Farrakhan, in his address to the world at Saviors' Day 2008, said: "Brothers and sisters, Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way," the Muslim leader declared. "Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, Native Americans, and Blacks? Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would." William Ayers was part of the "domestic terrorist group" and a former leader of the Weather Underground. Ayers and Mr. Obama were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. Moreover, Ayers contributed money to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported in State Board of Elections

  • Bernardine Rae Dohrn, a domestic terrorist and the wife of William Ayers.

  • Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's childhood mentor and was a communist. Obama had a relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Mr. Obama developed a close relationship with Frank Davis, almost like his son, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. In his books, Obama confesses attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature.

  • Rashid Khalidi is an Arab-American historian. Khalidi, like Ayers, held a fundraiser for Obama at his home. A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation. LA Times reported, "In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors"

  • Father Michael Pfleger is a controversial Roman Catholic priest, a pastor of St. Sabiana Church in Chicago, the largest African-American Catholic Church. "He gave Obama's campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs"

  • George Soros, a controversial billionaire, "a major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama." How Soros Financed Obama's Campaign, Lyndon LaRouche, a Political Action Committee explains in detail.

It appears that President Obama is perfectly willing to continue doing what he has done for the last three years to the United States and her citizens under the rubric of hope and change. He seems to believe that the US under an Islamic Caliphate is the choice he is making and gladly so...putting the members of the Muslim Brotherhood in key positions seems his aim. Also don't forget Obama and Bill Ayers were key members on the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge...an Annenberg Foundation charity whose stated goals were for educational improvement in the public school system.

Sher: Do you see a way — other than another American Revolution — for the American people to fight against Obama's dark plan for us and our country?

Amil: The Tea Party seems to be following methods Americans in the past have used to make those in power understand our grassroots dissatisfaction with what politicians have wrought in Washington DC. And that's all Obama has been to the American people; someone we saw who portrayed himself as a Messiah but wasn't. Who for all practical purposes lied about who and what he was. For now, the only way we can make our representatives in Congress understand the Obama/Democrat way is the wrong way is at the ballot box. We vote out those who refuse to acknowledge us both Republican and Democrat on both a local and a national level to get our point across. For some years now, the American people have been asleep. It is long past time to wake up and slowly but surely, they are finally waking up to the facts on the ground.

Sher: You have two outstanding books out: Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and Operation Persian Gulf. I understand you're working on a third book, also. Would you tell us where we can purchase copies?

Amil: Thank you. Obama meets Ahmadinejad is a fictional dialogue between the two world leaders, taking place at the Iranian "fascist's" palace in Tehran. The momentous, history-making meeting unfolds as an astonishing conversation that might not be far from the truth in what would occur if Obama actually took up Ahmadinejad on his invitation.

"Operation Persian Gulf"is an exhilarating action thriller, hair-raising suspense with heroic characters and a tale of mystery, love and adventure. It ranks with seminal works of fiction that ably portray reality: writings and movies such as those of The Heroes of Telemark, Where Eagles Dare, the television series Mission Impossible and biological terrorism thriller, Without. From a command post in California, a group of highly motivated Iranian-Americans determine that the Islamic Republic must be stopped from developing an atomic reactor and nuclear bomb at any cost. Both books can be purchased from amazon.com.

I am currently working on another book called " Islam was not for me" I expect to release this book in the summer of 2012.

Sher: Thanks, again, for your time Amil. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Amil: Thank you very much, Sher.

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Hand, January 23, 2012.

This article was written by Jack Kelly and it appeared in http://www.JewishWorldReview.com


Everything that was important to know about him was laid out in his memoir/manifesto: his virulent racism; his contempt for Christianity, democracy and all things Western; his murderous hatred of the Jews.

Adolf Hitler dictated "Mein Kampf" ("My Fight") to Rudolph Hess while in Landsberg prison in 1923. After Hitler became chancellor (prime minister) in 1933, a second edition, published in English and French as well as German, sold more than a million copies.

Within a month of assuming office, Hitler began converting Germany into a dictatorship — just as he'd said he would in "Mein Kampf." He would seize land for lebensraum (living space) in the Slavic countries to the east, Russia especially, Hitler said in his manifesto. But when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Edouard Daladier met with Hitler in Munich in September 1938, they chose to believe the Sudetenland represented the end of his territorial ambitions. By sacrificing their ally Czechoslovakia, they hoped to secure "peace in our time."

Chamberlain and Daladier chose to believe this because it would have been uncomfortable politically for them to acknowledge the truth. Liberals today delude themselves about the Muslim Brotherhood, for, I suppose, the same reason. But pretending a man-eating tiger is a pussycat doesn't make it so.

The Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian schoolteacher. He sought a world wide caliphate governed by Islamic law (Sharia). "Allah is our objective," says the Ikhwan's motto. "The Prophet is our leader. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our greatest hope."

Al Banna admired Hitler. He had "Mein Kampf" translated into Arabic. The Nazis subsidized the Muslim Brotherhood. The ranks of the SS Handjar Division were filled mostly by the Ikhwan.

The Muslim Brotherhood is today the world's largest and best financed Islamist organization. It's in 70 countries, including ours. The Ikhwan's goals haven't changed, the current supreme leader said Dec. 29.

"The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna," said Dr. Muhammad Badi. "A government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world."

"Mein Kampf" is still, after the Koran, the Ikhwan's favorite book. "This stuff we now see in the Islamic world looks like Nazism because it comes from the Nazis," wrote journalist Claire Berlinski on her blog


In a 2009 sermon, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's leading jurist, said: "Thoughout history, Allah has imposed upon (the Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Adolf Hitler. ... Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one."

The Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism against Israel, Americans, the Shiites in Iraq. But because it plans to get power the way Hitler did, many liberals view the Ikhwan as benign. President Barack Obama even chose Mr. Qaradawi to mediate peace talks with the Taliban. In elections Jan. 8, the Muslim Brotherhood won the most seats in the lower house of the Egyptian parliament. Islamist parties won nearly two thirds of the seats. The new speaker they chose is a member of the Ikhwan.

Elections for the upper house begin in late January. The presidential elections are in June. If the Muslim Brotherhood wins control of the government, it eventually will try to impose Sharia and hold a referendum to abrogate the peace treaty with Israel.

The Ikhwan are likely also to dominate the new government in Libya, where the regime of secular dictator Moammar Gadhafi was felled by NATO bombs, and in Syria, should secular dictator Bashar al-Assad fall there. Against all evidence, President Jimmy Carter in 1970 told himself the mullahs in Iran were moderate reformers. Against even more evidence, Mr. Obama regards the Muslim Brotherhood pretty much the same way. We're paying still a heavy price for Mr. Carter's egregious misjudgment. A greater miscalculation, with more profound consequences, looms.

Contact Robert Hand by email at borntolose3@att.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Act for America, January 23, 2012.

We direct today's email, not only to the attention of our members, but to those enablers and apologists for radical Islam whose only defense of this supremacist ideology is to call anyone who criticizes it a "racist" or "Islamophobe."

Please read the eye-popping investigative report below (highlights added), and then, if you know of someone who is quick to wield the "Islamophobia" epithet, please forward this to them.

For if they are genuinely concerned about "hate," and not just the advance of a politically correct agenda, they would do well to open their eyes to see the hate they are defending, aiding and abetting.

This below was written by Dave Gaubatz and it appeared January 18, 2012 in Family Security Matters
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/ publications/id.11242/pub_detail.asp


In the last five years I have personally visited over 250 Islamic Centers, Mosques, and Islamic Schools throughout America. The goal of my research has been to determine what Islamic leaders are teaching the young and innocent Muslim children. The findings are abhorrent, sad, unbelievable, frightening, and most disturbing is the fact our government is keeping this dangerous fact from the American people. Muslim children attending mosques and Islamic schools are being taught to hate America, our government, our military personnel, and its non Muslim population. In this article I will identify three significant mosques in America that are leading the way in teaching Muslim children to hate and to influence them to commit violent acts inside our country.

In America we have been programmed by the media and political leaders to believe violent teachings of Islam are only being taught to children in Palestine. We have watched the Muslim Palestinian children spew their taught hatred of the Israelis. What Americans are not being shown (due to political correctness) are that Muslim children throughout the world and specifically inside America are being taught violence and hatred in mosques, Islamic schools and Islamic Centers.

Children as young as 7 years old are being taught that to assimilate with America is to disrespect and dishonor Islam. They are being taught our military personnel are the enemies of Islam and it is justifiable to kill anyone who dishonors or oppresses the Islamic ideology.

During my research I have identified numerous mosques that are teaching young Muslim children to hate America and are leading them to commit future violent acts against our country and innocent people. I would like to focus on three such mosques. They are:

1. Dar al Hijrah, Falls Church, VA
2. Al Farooq, Nashville, TN
3. At Taqwa, Brooklyn, NY

Anwaar al-Awlaki and the Dar al Hijrah Mosque

Anwar al-Awlaki was an imam at the Dar al Hijrah Mosque from January 2001 until 2002. Three of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, attended some of Awlaki's sermons at this mosque.

My researchers and I spent several weeks at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, VA. Almost immediately we were informed to obtain our study material from the Halaco Bookstore which is located nearby the mosque. It was very apparent upon entering the store and reviewing the materials that the bookstore provides materials for the Sunni (Wahhabi) Muslim population across the U.S. and specifically for Dar Al Hijrah. I was able to spend many hours talking with store personnel and was invited to the home of one employee to discuss Islamic issues. There is a large section in the store dedicated to the education of the Muslim children. I discovered materials that are being sent to Islamic schools across America. Much of the material deals with Sharia and Jihad. One of the DVD's and books I obtained was by an Islamic scholar Ahmad Sakr. Sakr travels the U.S. visiting Islamic schools and educates them in Sharia law. I have watched one of his videos in which he tells the young children our government is evil and not to follow the laws of our country and Americas government leaders will all go to hell.

The material provided by Dar Al Hijrah and their selected Islamic bookstore also was filled with violent Jihad. There were manuals informing the readers how to destroy America and how to kill anyone who oppresses Islam. They are told how to obtain weapons to include weapons of mass destruction. Although all of the above is very disturbing and should (and actually is) against the law, the Muslim leaders of Falls Church, Val are allowed by our government to indoctrinate the Muslim children into future violence against our country. The next mosque (Al Farooq/Nashville, TN) is even more disturbing.

My research team and I spent two weeks at the Al Farooq mosque in Nashville, TN. The mosque was Sunni and had the typical violent books and DVD's/videos pertaining to the overthrow of any government system that oppresses Islam. They also had numerous teachings from current Islamic leaders operating in America who are teaching the Muslim population to hate our country and its people. Although this should frighten all concerned citizens, there was even sadder and disturbing intelligence collected at this mosque. Lately we have all read about the child brides and forced marriages in Afghanistan and in Saudi Arabia. What most Americans do not realize is that child marriages are occurring throughout our country and specifically in Nashville, TN.

One young 7 year old Muslim girl at Al Farooq talked to our researcher about being beaten (MP3 file) by her Islamic leaders and being married (MP3 file) to a Muslim man. I reported the matter to the Nashville authorities but almost from the beginning they were reluctant to intercede because this was a religious institution and more importantly to them it was Islamic. Senior law enforcement authorities of the Nashville police department informed me they were afraid of being sued by Islamic organizations such as CAIR if they got involved and it would be a political nightmare to get anything done at the mosque. What bothered me most of all is the fact I contacted Islamic organizations to help this innocent Muslim child and they also balked. This reinforced to me that Islamic law (Sharia) is alive and very active inside our country, to include child marriages. The next mosque I am going to discuss is led by an Islamic leader I have previously described as the most dangerous man in America.

At Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, NY is led by an Islamic scholar who is not only a major fundraiser for CAIR (terrorist supporter) but travels throughout the U.S. teaching his violent ideology of Islam. He is Imam Siraj Wahhaj. For those who have never visited the Islamic district of Brooklyn it would come to a surprise to many that the area around At Taqwa is similar to the Wahhabi land of Saudi Arabia. I have previously described Wahhaj as the most dangerous man in America. I have reviewed hundreds of his Friday (Juma) mosque lectures.

In this speech (MP3) he tells his followers that around the world Muslims will wake up and say

"I don't want to follow the way of the colonial masters any more. I want the Sharia. I want Islam. We want to be ruled by Islam. And all we have to do is go back to that golden generation."

He routinely called America an evil country and is a strong leader in developing Sharia law inside our country. His violent lectures are available to the adult and child Muslims throughout America.

"Those who struggle for Allah, it doesn't matter what kind of weapons, I'm telling you it doesn't matter! You don't need nuclear weapons or even guns! If you have faith in Allah and a knife!! If Allah wants you to win, you will win! Because Allah is the only one who fights. And when his hand is over your hand. whoever is at war against my friends, I declare war on them."


From a video by Sirah Wahhaj called "The Afghanistan Jihad," Toronto, Canada, of a sermon from Sept. 28, 1991.

"If we go to war, brothers and sisters — and one day we will, believe me — that's why you're commanded [to fight in] jihad. When Allah demands us to fight, we're not stopping and nobody's stopping us."

Sermon by Siraj Wahhaj entitled "Stand Up to Justice," delivered on May 8, 1992 and distributed as a video. Islamic teachings such as this are what led the Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood Murderer, to commit his acts.

Although I have only focused on three mosques that lead the way, introducing Muslim children to violence and hatred, there are hundreds scattered across the U.S. Few states are immune from this growing threat. The violence spewed by these Islamic leaders will ultimately lead to more violence in the name of Islam. I have witnessed firsthand the violence being taught. There are numerous such Islamic centers in NC, FL, VA, NY, and CA.

Unless Muslim parents decry the violent teachings of Islam to their children, there will continue to be more and more Siraj Wahhaj type Islamic leaders in America. The ultimate result will be the suffering of our country as we now see in France, Britain, and Canada.

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated 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.

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, January 23, 2012.

This was written by Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, who was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. Sheikhs fall in love with renminbi By M K Bhadrakumar.
It appeared in Asia Times and is archived at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/ Middle_East/NA24Ak03.html

This should be a heads up to us as well. I have argued for sometime that Israel's economic future is in the East and not the West. Our historic identification with Europe and America is now counter productive. It is a product of cultural inertia and must be examined in the light of rational national (and personal) interest. It took Israelis a few years to stop thinking in terms of dollars and think in shekels for domestic transactions but they made the transition. Maybe the time has come for the financial system to also stop thinking in terms of dollars and consider the yuan, rupee, won and yen.


China and Qatar have been taking virtually opposite positions apropos events in Libya and Syria. Yet, they do not seem to be deterred by this little difference and are bonding in a big way in economic cooperation to mutual benefit.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, who visited Doha last week, disclosed at a press conference on Friday: a) China proposes to invest in the manufacturing of ''downstream oil products, which are most urgently needed by Qatar''; b) China and Qatar signed an agreement to jointly build a refinery in Taizhou, Zheijiang, in China; c) Chinese companies propose to participate in infrastructure projects in Qatar; and d) China and Qatar are discussing a "long-term, stable and comprehensive cooperative partnership" in natural gas.

Then, Wen quietly dropped a bombshell. He revealed "one more important point" as if it were an afterthought. He said:

In order to address investment issues, we [China and Qatar] need financial support. Therefore, we reached another agreement, a cooperation agreement linking finance with investment. Qatar also proposed the use of local currency in trade settlement and even a specific ratio. I think this proposal can be studied.

The short point is, the renminbi, the "people's currency" also known as the yuan, is appearing in Doha. The China-United Arab Emirates (UAE) currency swap deal which was signed during Wen's visit to Abu Dhabi last week already brings the yuan to the Emirates. The deal with the UAE is worth US$5.5 billion and the Chinese central bank statement said that it aims at "strengthening bilateral financial cooperation, promoting trade and investments and jointly safeguarding regional financial stability".

Indeed, China is playing for the long term. Addressing an energy summit in the UAE, Wen made the startling proposal to create an international body that is mandated to determine the price of oil and which would regulate the policies of the entire supply chain involving the supplier countries, the consumers and even the transit countries.

Iran and Russia have already switched to their national currencies for conducting bilateral trade. Tehran's ambassador to Moscow Seyed Reza Sajjadi said on Friday, "[Trade] with Russia is based on our national currencies. We started this work long ago. Iranian businessmen are buying products in Russia and are using the rouble as [payment] currency] ... The US dollar has no [economic] support base ... There is a similar interest on the Russian side."

Last week, it also came to be known that India proposes to allow Iran's central bank to open rupee accounts with two Indian banks as a long-term solution to the countries' payment problems instigated by the US (which pressured New Delhi to terminate the traditional payment mechanism for Iran within the Asian Clearing Union.) An Indian delegation visited Tehran last week to finalize details.

The new arrangement envisages that while the payments for India's oil imports from Iran (roughly $12-14 billion annually) would be initially in Indian rupees, they would subsequently be converted into a separate designated currency. This is a pointed snub to Washington, which forbids friendly countries from dealings with Iran's central bank.

But, the UAE and Qatar are not to be compared with Russia or India. They are widely regarded as the anchor sheets of the Western strategy in the Middle East and they provide very substantial underpinnings to the petrodollar recycling.

Aren't we missing something here? Quite obviously, Persian Gulf countries are slowly, steadily probing their options in the Asia-Pacific to diversify their external relations that have been traditionally riveted to the West. With Europe in serious disarray and the US in decline and its reputation in the Middle East significantly dented, this trend is likely to become pronounced.

Smells like Arabic coffee ...

Equally, Wen made some candid remarks on Syria and Iran during his press conference in Doha, fully realizing that his host country would have a differ ent point of view. Wen said Beijing is "very concerned" about the Syrian situation. He added in some detail:

Syria's turmoil has been going on for quite some time. We have three comments on the Syria issue. First, we need to strive to seek a peaceful and political solution to the Syria issue. We oppose the killing of innocent civilians and should prevent it from happening. The order in Syria should be restored as early as possible.

Second, we must respect the requests of the Syrian people for change and their demands to safeguard their own interests. Third, we need to give play to the LAS' [Arab League's] role in this regard, especially its investigation and mediation role on the Syria issue, and enable LAS to provide help for the peaceful resolution of the Syria issue through dialogues and by political means.

Our goal is to find solutions, including meeting the requests of the people for change, continuing to develop economy and improving people's livelihood, so that states experiencing instability such as Syria could achieve stability and development.

This is the first major policy pronouncement on Syria by the Chinese leadership and, most interestingly, it was made on Qatari soil. The impression one gets increasingly is that China is quite comfortable with both Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states and doesn't see the security paradigm in the Persian Gulf in quite those zero-sum terms. The GCC comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.)

Again, we are blithely making assumptions on the basis of the sustained Western propaganda regarding an impassable Sunni-Shi'ite schism in the Persian Gulf, which completely overlooks that Iran and the GCC states (Saudi Arabia, in particular) have always maintained back channels to keep their discords in check.

Evidently, China is placing itself in the middle of the divide in the Persian Gulf while strengthening its interests on both sides. How its newfound influence plays out will be interesting to watch.

In turn, the GCC states also do not seem to mind that China has a strong strategic partnership with Iran. And, on its part, China seems justified in assessing that the GCC rulers are far from the one-dimensional moronic anti-Shi'ite fanatics that Western propaganda often makes them out to be. Beijing's new thinking opens up a fantastic panorama of China-GCC cooperation.

Wen said Iran didn't figure in his conversations with the leaderships in Saudi Arabia, the UAE or Qatar.

The Chinese commentaries have made it out to be that continued Iranian oil supplies are vital for China and implying that any increased purchases from Big Oil operating out of the GCC states would make China vulnerable to pressures. The government-owned China Daily featured a commentary on Saturday in a wrap-up of Wen's tour of the Persian Gulf, which said:

US is lobbying the international community to put the screws on Iran. But China should read into this game and refrain from succumbing under other big powers' pressure ... China should follow its own course, for Sino-Iranian trade is in accordance with international laws ...

Iran is an essential overseas market for goods, especially technology-intensive ones, from China, which built the subway in Tehran ... Oil imports from Iran are very important for China. If China stops importing oil from Iran, it will face an immediate shortage of fuel. Even if China can meet the shortage by importing from other countries, it would have to pay high prices and meet harsh conditions, which will deal a terrible blow to its economy. China has long suffered the whims of big oil-exporting companies and it is time their monopoly was curbed.

Wen was plainly dismissive about Western media reports that he was scouting for GCC oil to replace Iranian oil. "Some people think I have come for the oil. I think they are too narrow-minded. It should be said that I have come for the friendship. The biggest harvest of my trip is the enhanced mutual political trust."

Thus, a new matrix is shaping up whereby within the framework of bilateral agreements, Persian Gulf countries — Iran and the GCC alike — are beginning to bypass the US dollar as an intermediary in their oil trade with Asia.

Neither the UAE nor Qatar is embarking on a strategic defiance of the US. But they know that the yuan smells like good Arabic coffee and it feels great to hold it in a volatile and ephemeral world, given that its appreciation in value in the future is a certainty.

Simply put, the UAE and Qatar are creating a cushion from exchange rate volatility. But the geopolitical reality is also that the renminbi will look great sitting in their vaults. The big question is when Saudi Arabia might make its move.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Kaustav Chakrabarti, January 23, 2012.

God is High

God is Great

God is Mighty

God is Fate

God is Word

God is Deed

God is Knowledge

God is Creed

God is Silver

God is Gold

God is Solace

To young and old

God is Kind

God is Good

The Truth of Beauty

The Beauty of Truth

(So) Praise God High and Low

From Mountains Atop

And Valleys Below

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

To Go To Top

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


We get: (1) News reports whose unfounded, confounded, and dumbfounded assertions overwhelm the facts; and (2) News reports of facts without any interpretation. What good are facts whose significance is unrecognized?

OUR LATEST NEWS: Hizbullah has acquired from Syria longer-range and more accurate land-to-land and anti-aircraft missiles. Although Russia is arming Syria against invasion and air raids, the odds are increasing that the Assad regime cannot hold out from internal enemies and as national income declines. Syria already has one of the world's most extensive stockpiles of chemical weapons. FEAR: Those chemical weapons may also fall into Hizbullah's hands (Yaakov Katz,Jerusalem Post, 01/19/12
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/ Article.aspx?id=254251 from IMRA).

SIGNIFICANCE: People perceive of terrorist organizations as separate from armies. But terrorist organizations can become armies, without dropping terrorist activities. The SS did, the KGB did, Hizbullah, Hamas, and Fatah did. The Arab terrorist organizations were allowed to build into more formidable forces.

The stories of Hizbullah, Hamas, and Fatah make a case study in Western obtuseness.

What is the first task of wise intelligence agencies and their countries' political leaders? Their first task to is track trends, analyze their significance, propose responses if needed, and crush little boa constrictors before they turn into giant pythons, like the ones people release into the Everglades, now big enough to crush you. Unfortunately, neither the U.S. nor Israel have done that job well.

For years, I have tried to sound the alarm on that. But Israeli leaders worry more about foreign criticism of any and every Israeli use of force than enemy build-up of force. Western leaders, if I may use that term, prefer stalling by negotiating or relying on immediate lack of enemy violence to keep protest down.

Israel and the U.S. have two other problems. In both countries, intelligence services have become political minded. They have an anti-Zionist or anti-Western ideology. I'm not sure on whose side President Obama is. The State Dept. sabotaged President Bush's plan to get the Iranian regime overthrown. Israel has a vociferous Left that hampers Israeli self-defense. People call Israel's failure to make its case incompetence in public relations. Just incompetence? What about self-hatred, self-doubt, and sympathy with the enemy?

Israel also fails to add up all the forces that may be arrayed against it. It did not count forces of countries having peace treaties with Israel. But the people of Egypt and Jordan want war with Israel, and now the people are coming to power throughout the Mideast. Western leaders hail this hellish development as heavenly.

Americans complain about failure of education. But our leaders are supposedly educated, yet fail to think. President Obama has been postponing important action about Iran, and about a pipeline that his departments earlier had approved, etc., to avoid controversy before the election. Defer now, crash later.


A few weeks ago, a mosque at Tuba Zangaria, in Judea-Samaria, was vandalized. Police questioned some Jewish youth about it, but found no evidence. Nevertheless, the opportunity was seized by the media to blame Jewish youth. The youth were accused of taking out on Muslims their frustration with the government. Public figures hastened to denounce the youth.

Afterwards, Bassam Sawaad, member of the Tuba Zangaria local council said on Channel 2 that Jews did not commit that crime, Arab criminals did. A few hours later, as if to confirm his accusation, people first shots into his house (Prof. Steven Plaut, 1/22/12).

How people don't bother with evidence! They rush to judgment. Anything to blame political opponents. And then they boast that theirs is a country of justice. Perhaps, but they are not just.

My fellow Jews in Israel should stop being reflexively apologetic. As for the government, it should stop discrimination in favor of the Arabs, especially in this time of jihad.

Evidence is growing that prosecutors in the U.S. devise fraudulent cases to appeal to voter sentiment and to shake down industries and bolster class warfare propaganda. Now that more companies appeal verdicts, reversals are revealing how hollow were the cases brought to court.


The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) admitted that its census "is a civil Intifada," i.e., war by census. Hassan abu Libdeh made that statement to the New York Times on 12/11/97, after its first census. [That census has been thoroughly debunked, as I have reported.]

Now PCBS has completed another census. It reports a total non-Jewish population in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) of 4.2 million. This high figure, signifying a population surge, forms the basis of claims that Jews are becoming a minority west of the Jordan River, and better jettison the Territories before it gets overwhelmed.

The figures can damage Israelis' confidence in their future, panic them into making dangerous concessions, and render them less secure militarily.

Actually there are 1,300,000 people fewer. The PCBS census does not take into account the much reduced Arab birth rate and the much increased Jewish birth rate. This has been noted by the World Bank and the CIA Factbook. Israel faces no demographic crisis, though it does face a demographic challenge

Not only do the inflated figures bolsters anti-Zionist proposals, they also are used to defraud foreign donors, including U.S. taxpayers. Much Western aid to the P.A. is per person. The more persons claimed, the more money the P.A. extracts from donors (www.imra.org.il from Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Israel Hayom� newsletter, 12/28/11
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/ newsletter_opinion.php?id=1096).

Although people urge Israelis to withdraw from Judea-Samaria, they do not urge Arabs to withdraw from Israel. Why not?


David P. Goldman, trained in, and an author on music, mathematics, religions, and Western cultural heritage, presented some surprising views on how to deal with Islam. He was the one who foresaw the coming collapse of Turkey's economic expansion.

Since the Arab Spring has turned Islamist, Mr. Goldman foresees Mideast instability becoming too great for the U.S. to reverse. The U.S. will have to learn how to deal with it.

Most people attribute the instability to Islamic conflict with modernism. Not Mr. Goldman. He identifies the cause as the plummeting Muslim birthrate as women become educated (modern). He also mentions economic crises rising in some Islamic countries.

As the Iranian birth rate falls from 7 children each to 1.5 and below, Iran will find it hard to support the aging population. Highly literate Turkey has a similar rate, except for the Kurds there, having 4.5 children each and becoming a growing proportion of the population. That makes for instability too (for the Kurds tend to resist being oppressed).

Egypt, on the other hand, known for a high rural and illiterate population, still is over-reproducing. Its inferior colleges produce unemployable graduates. It can't feed half its people without importing food that is drawing down its monetary reserves. Camels for tourists, being unemployed, become food. The military is stealing what it can and capital is taking flight. That country may collapse, like Somalia.

How will such countries react to their problems? Having nothing more to lose, they are likely to behave irrationally. Don't count on Iran not using its nuclear bombs when ready.

How should the U.S. react? He suggests that the U.S. bomb Iran's nuclear capability. He also suggests destabilizing Islamist-run countries (1/23/12 from David P. Goldman, 11/15/11,
http://www.meforum.org/3156/ islamic-civilization-is-dying).

How to destabilize them was not discussed. The instability of many Muslim countries may be a combination of plummeting populations and Islam's problem in dealing with modernity.

Mr. Goldman's scenarios and suggestions have implications for military sales to those countries and foreign subsidy of those countries and our policy on Israel.

Why subsidize hostile Arab governments? The Obama Administration treats Israel as hostile to the U.S., whereas the Arab countries are hostile and Israel is friendly. This President treats Israel as the obstacle to peace, whereas the Arabs don't want peace. Their mounting problems probably will lead to more regional and domestic wars.

Imagine, while Egypt is collapsing, it might in its last gasp launch its giant military, furnished with U.S. arms! Imagine Syria collapsing, and letting Hizbullah seize its chemical weapons of mass-destruction! When will the U.S. and Russia stop arming the Arabs?

If we've learned our lesson from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would try to eradicate threatening armies without sinking all our funds into nation-building in cultures that are not nations but tribes, mutually jealous ethnicities, or rival faiths.

To preserve our own culture, freedom, and resources, we had better be cautious about taking in refugees who may bring to our country the same cultural values and behavior that are bringing down their native countries.

Demographic patterns sometimes change. But the same pattern has afflicted Europe. If we free the U.S. economy and people from excessive regulation, we may avoid the trend.


Egypt's military recently completed is biggest exercise, using live fire, against an unnamed enemy that might cross the Suez Canal

Only one possible enemy is across the Suez Canal from Egypt. That enemy is Israel. Israel, however, does not consider itself an enemy of Egypt. Israel has not attacked countries that have not committed acts of war against it.

The military exercise reveals Egyptian military doctrine. Since Israel doesn't attack countries not making war on it, and since Egypt is preparing for military action against Israel, then Egypt must be contemplating aggression against Israel. It would not be the first time.


President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize because he was thought to seek a nuclear-free world and by negotiation. He turns out to be stimulating nuclear proliferation.

The story starts with President Bush. The U.S. struck Saddam's military with such force, that Gaddafi was awed into explicitly abandoning his program for developing nuclear weapons. When Gaddafi was putting down a rebellion, the U.S. made war on him.

The rulers of North Korea and Iran both noticed the implications, though our media did not. Those rulers realized that had Gaddafi completed his nuclear program, he would not have been attacked and lynched. The lesson for them is to keep their nuclear weapons and programs, regardless of negotiations.

Worse, Saudi Arabia specifically warned that if Iran did not drop its nuclear plans, then the Saudis would develop nuclear weapons, too. Hence proliferation.

Incidentally, Pres. Obama continued U.S. participation in the war after the deadline set by Congress for it to cease. Obama probably violated the law and infringed on Congress' constitutional power to declare war
(Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi and Oskar Svadkovsky, The American Spectator, 1/16/12
http://www.meforum.org/3152/ addafi-long-shadow).

Obama facilitates nuclear proliferation in another way. He wasted years on demonstrably ineffectual sanctions and appeasing Russia. Neither the sanctions nor the appeasement worked. Nevertheless, Obama has not given up. Why face reality when one's naive ideology is more comforting?

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 22, 2012.

Newt Gingrich, surprising a whole lot of people, ran away with the Republican primary election in S. Carolina yesterday. He has garnered at least 23 of S. Carolina's 25 delegates to the Republican convention.
Source: Huffington Post

Analysts attribute this win to Gingrich's feisty delivery at the two S. Carolina debates — in Myrtle Beach and Charleston. He's focused, articulate, and unafraid of confronting facts that are politically incorrect.

During his speech to supporters last night, he declared:

"The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky [the founder of modern techniques in community organizing, who wrote 'Rules for Radicals'].

"If Barack Obama can get re-elected after this disaster, just think how radical he would be in a second term...

"President Obama is a president so weak that he makes Jimmy Carter look strong."


With regard to energy independence, he said:

"I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to the Saudi king."

Remember that? No one in America should forget.

Obama bows to Saudi king

With regard to Obama's decision on Keystone [which involved his rejecting an offer made by Canada to bring an oil line into the US, after which China expressed an interest], he observed:

"An American president who can create a Chinese-Canadian partnership is truly a danger to this country."


You can view his entire S. Carolina primary victory speech here:


The NY Sun put out an editorial today about Gingrich's S. Carolina win — "Gingrich's Synthesis" — that is worth reading:

"Newt Gingrich is on his game, to judge not only by his victory in South Carolina but the remarkable speech he delivered when the vote was in. It seemed as if he'd waited for months to get the whole country's attention, and when he had it last night he laid out a full vision...

"...What struck us as so shrewd in Mr. Gingrich's display last night was not his ability to divide but to synthesize [drawing on ideas of others and giving credit]..."

What he has done with this approach, says the Sun, "is a mark of leadership."

"It certainly puts Mr. Gingrich in a good position going in to Florida. We say that not as an endorsement, rather as merely an observation...The synthesis of ideas Mr. Gingrich unfurled in the Palmetto State suggests we are in for one of the great nominating contests of our time."
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/ gingrichs-synthesis/87667/ (And thanks to Chana G. for calling my attention to this.)


I have made no secret of the fact that I favor Gingrich as the Republican candidate because (whatever others perceive) I see him as having an excellent chance to not only beat Obama — the first order of business — but also to be a very fine president: He is exceedingly sharp and has a solid command of the issues; I was excited some long while ago when he made statements about Islamists and terrorism that told me he really knows what's what. He has a solid record behind him. And he's a fighter (in the positive sense) with staying power.

However this campaign may ultimately resolve itself, today I find that I am energized and more hopeful. The next hurdle is the Florida primary on January 31.


I will, however, also sustain my AABO (almost anyone but Obama) position, which means that — whatever my personal preference — I will gladly and without qualification support Santorum or Romney should one of them get the Republican nod. Obama is such a nightmare that defeating him must take precedence over a great many other considerations. He is on his way to fighting a dirty campaign — seriously misrepresenting his devotion to Israel. And I will shortly return to this important theme to consider it in greater detail.


Here, I want to note simply that Obama continues to insist that he is a huge supporter of Israeli security. Let's pass, just for the moment, on issues such as his wanting to push Israel to the '67 line (with perhaps 2% adjustment), when this is clearly not in Israel's best interest from a security perspective...

Last night I heard journalist/commentator Caroline Glick speak here in Jerusalem. The point she made was that with regard to Obama's Middle East policy, everything he has done has been wrong and has weakened the US. It has been my position, consistently, that a weakened US also weakens Israel's security — and I will continue to maintain this argument in countering his claims. But it goes beyond this to a weakening of Western interests.

Some of Glick's comments on Obama:

With new anti-American forces that have emerged with the so-called "Arab Spring," the US national interests have been hurt in a fundamental way.

"Everything the US is doing is inimical to its own interests and empowers its enemies." Examples:

The US has intervened on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since 2009: When Obama addressed the "Muslim world," in his speech at Cairo University (a Brotherhood stronghold), he was embracing the Muslim Brotherhood vision of a pan-Arab world [i.e, united by Islam — via a caliphate]. This was a rejection of Arab nationalism and constituted a direct hit on Mubarak's national legitimacy. Subsequently, Obama played a primary role in transferring power in Egypt from an ally (Mubarak) to an enemy (the Muslim Brotherhood).

The US has how embraced Turkey, which is moving into the Islamist camp, as its most solid ally in the Middle East.

Obama refused to support the Green Movement in Iran, which was seeking to overthrow the Islamist regime, even as they begged for assistance.

Obama, however, embraced the Gadaffi opposition, even though Gadaffi was not a significant threat and the opposition was strongly influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Obama has made clear that if you are confrontational to the US, he will support you, while if you show a pro-US tendency, he will betray you."

Under Obama, the US is actively supporting forces that want to destroy the US — is, for example, negotiating with the Taliban.


Is the picture beginning to emerge for you?


A power outage today slowed me down significantly. All else will wait for another day...

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, January 22, 2012.

"Beyond Words" is a newly-published seven volume collection of Rabbi Meir Kahane's writings from 1960 — 1990 that originally appeared in The Jewish Press, other serial publications, and his privately-published works.

"Beyond Words" has a number of extra features: including: Chronology of Rabbi Kahane's life.

"Beyond Words" now can be bought at Amazon.com. On the search line, type... Beyond Words Kahane.

Beyond Words
Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane,

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

Previously sent articles can be viewed on:

This below is by Rabbi Meir Kahane. It was published November 22, 1968.


There is great agitation and indignation within the United Nations today. It all centers around demands for return by Israel of the land won from Jordan last year. What land? The area that is commonly known as the West Bank of the Jordan. There is really more than a little irony in this demand. Indeed, it approaches the heights of chutzpah.

It is not only that a state which attempted to destroy another one and lost has the gall to demand terms more properly suited to a victor. It is not even the fact that the land Jordan demands was never legally and rightfully annexed by it in the first place. It is really the fact that the state that calls itself Jordan is an entity that is illegal, per se.

As the great holy war swung into its full gear, the little king of the little Kingdom called Jordan began to rain his shells into Jewish Jerusalem. His troops crossed the armistice line and seized territory in the no-man's land in the city. His words and acts were thrown into the battle to wipe out Israel and decimate its inhabitants.

Alas, Allah was unkind to Russia and the king's legion, and uniforms flung aside, aircraft burning, shoes cast away — the Jordanians fled east. From the plunderer came forth plunder and the Israelis swept to the Jordan to put an end to the insanity of a border that, in one place, was only fifteen miles from the Arab devil to the blue Mediterranean Sea.

The land that was taken, however, was not "Jordanian." It was part of pre-1948 Palestine; it was part or Eretz Yisroel, it was Jewish soil from the time of Abraham.

Here was the Old City of Jerusalem where Abraham brought his son Isaac for the Akeda; here was the city where David and his dynasty ruled; here was the sacred Temple Mount with its Western Wall waiting to be redeemed.

Here was Bethlehem were Rachel wept for her children on the way to Efrat. Here was Hebron where the Patriarchs impatiently lay in anticipation of a speedy redemption. Here was Jericho where the walls crashed down to herald the inheritance of the Holy Land by the Egyptian exodees. Here was Judea and Samaria and all the places and sites that have become familiar to a Jewish and non-Jewish Biblical world.

Here was Jewish Eretz Yisroel, a land that had been reluctantly left outside the borders of a Jewish state in 1948 as the Jews of Palestine sorrowfully agreed to temporarily accept partition of their land in their desperate need of some land to house the displaced of Europe and the oppressed of greater Arabia.

But the agreement was conditional and the Arabs, predictably, relieved the Jewish state of any need to adhere to that condition. The Arabs in psychopathic consistency refused any idea of compromise and rejected partition. Their armies rushed in to battle the yahud, and the U.N. sat in an impotence that was destined to become its favorite pose.

It was Jewish blood that won and secured a Jewish state, and the plan that was rejected by the Arabs was buried, unmourned and unlamented. And the West Bank of the Jordan? Under the U.N. plan it was to be given to an Arab Palestine state; under the Arab plan it to be given to an Arab Palestine state; under no circumstances did anyone foresee a usurper Jordan annexing it.

And yet, that is exactly what happened. Possessed of a British-trained and run Arab Legion, King Abdullah proved to be the only foe that Israel could not overcome. His army seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem and decided that Israel would not have it and neither would an Arab Palestine be created. From now on, it was to be part of Jordan.

No one accept this. The U.N. denied the legality of the move; the Israelis refused to recognize it and the Arab states themselves fumed at the annexation.

On December 13, 1948, Egypt's King Farouk served notice that he did not recognize Jordan's right to the West Bank. The Arab League threatened expulsion of Jordan from the body (Abdullah yawned and welcomed the move). Faced with a fait accompli, the Arab League never did recognize the grab but adopted a resolution on May 13, 1949 "to treat the Arab part of Palestine annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants."

So much for the Jordanian claim to the West Bank. The land it claims is Jewish land, sorrowfully given up in return for a peace and friendship the Arabs never gave. Their rejection of the latter doomed the former, and the land returned to tis true owners.

What is more important, however, is the need to examine the very basis of the travesty that calls itself Jordan. In itself it is an illegality, a travesty of justice, a robbery of Jewish possessions.

There never was Jordan until perfidious Albion — the British Colonial Ministry — decided to invent one, and the story is one that more should know about.

When the Balfour Declaration backed the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, there was never any country that was known as Jordan. The historic boundaries of ancient Israel included the east bank of the Jordan, and Balfour himself made this clear in a memorandum dated August 11, 1919:

"Palestine should extend into the lands lying east of the Jordan?"

What happened?

A desert chieftain named Abdullah ibn-Hussein and his brother Feisal, fleeing the Arabian wrath of Ibn Saud, were offered in 1920 the thrones of Iraq and Syria, respectively. Unfortunately for the Arabs, the French, who were given mandatory powers in Syria by the League of Nations, informed Feisal that he was most unwelcome in Damascus. The Arab took the Gallic hint and departed

Since both brothers were British pawns in the struggle by the Colonial Office to make the Middle East British, Feisal was given the throne of Iraq by the British Foreign Office, while Abdullah was left holding an empty kingdom-bag.

Faced with this, Abdullah began to make all manner of bellicose sounds about marching on Syria and ousting the French. While Paris hardly lost sleep, the British did not relish the idea of a confrontation between their puppet and the French and so, in 1921, Winston Churchill met with Abdullah and offered him an annual subsidy and established a new country to be known as "Transjordan" for Abdullah to rule.

It little mattered that such a step was illegal and that it robbed Jewish Palestine of a major share of its land. Whitehall proposed and Whitehall disposed.

Transjordan came into being, a comic-opera illegality, ruled in theory by Abdullah but in practice by London.

This was the state that on May 31, 1967 signed a defense agreement with Nasser to destroy Israel; this was the state that declared through its king, on that same day: "With the help of G-d and the solidarity of the Arabs we will see the victory of truth over the lie-s of the enemy"; this is the state whose radio declared during the terrible days of June 1967.

"How long did we wait and prepare for these hours of honor and for the day the Arabs would advance ... Be ready to meet on the soil of eternal Falastin [Palestine]." (June 1, 1967)

"Free citizens, heroic sons of Jordan. The hoped-for moment has arrived. Forward to arms, to battle, to new pages of glory. To regain our rights, to smash the aggressor, to revenge."
(June 5, 1967, 0915 hours)

"We are living through the most sacred hours of life ... Long did we wait for this battle in order to erase our shame."
(The Premier, June 5)

"Today the soldiers of Hussein have brought doom to the Jewish strongholds in Jerusalem ... They destroyed the Knesset and have liberated the holy soil from the Zionists. The heroic soldiers are marching forward towards Tel Aviv."
(June 5, 1800 hours)

"Forward toward your meeting with Rabin in Tel Aviv."
(June 5, 1155 hours)

Rabin was waiting, but the Jordanians never came. They busily were heading in the opposite direction, where they sit today, and demand the return of a territory that was never theirs to a state that was illegal from its inception.

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, January 22, 2012.

This week marks the seventieth anniversary of one of the most chilling events of the modern era.

On January 20, 1942, as related by Dr. Erwin Birnbaum in an in-depth front-page essay on page 1 of this week's Jewish Press, senior Nazi officials headed by SS General Reinhard Heydrich convened at a villa outside of Berlin in the suburb of Wannsee to discuss the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."

Though the Germans had already been busy murdering Jews en masse for some time, the Wannsee Conference, as it came to be known, sought to coordinate efforts across the various arms of the Nazi regime with the aim of fully implementing Hitler's plan to eradicate the Jewish people.

It set in motion a full-fledged and synchronized bureaucratic endeavor unprecedented in the history of mankind, one that resulted in the systematic murder of six million Jews.

As we look back at that frightening event, and consider just how close its participants came to achieving their monstrous goals, there are two words which inevitably ring loudly in our minds: Never Again.

After the Holocaust, with all the defiance and determination we could muster, the Jewish people made a vow that we would not allow another genocidal fiend to threaten our existence.

But the question we need to ask ourselves with utmost sincerity is: do we really mean it?

After all, there is a gathering storm over the horizon, as the Iranian regime drives relentlessly toward its goal of developing a nuclear arsenal.

Are we really prepared to take the steps necessary to stop them?

Make no mistake. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the would-be Hitler of Persia, has spoken openly of his ambition to wipe Israel off the map, in effect promising to complete what the plotters of Wannsee began.

On January 3, the tyrant of Tehran was quoted by Iranian television as saying once again that Israel will be destroyed. "Zionists, who have no faith in religion or even God, now claim piety and intend to take away the Islamic identity of Jerusalem," he declared.

"This ridiculous move is in fact the continuation of the colonialist policies of oppressors, which will not save the Zionist regime, but also take the regime closer to the endpoint of its existence," he vowed.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad's rants about exterminating the Jewish people have become so routine that they no longer receive much attention in the Western press.

But just because his threats have lost their news value does not mean they pose any less of a danger. We would be making a fateful and perhaps existential error to think otherwise.

Consider how belligerent Iran has been in just the past few weeks. Earlier this month, Iran's Revolutionary Court had the audacity to sentence an Iranian-American to death on trumped up charges, accusing him of being a CIA spy.

The ayatollahs have also repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit route for international oil shipments, in retaliation for Western sanctions.

And the Iranians even went so far as to confirm reports that they have begun to enrich uranium at a second facility in defiance of United Nations resolutions.

They are openly thumbing their noses at the international community, obviously calculating that they can get away with doing so.

If this is how Iran conducts itself before acquiring a nuclear capacity, you imagine what they would do if they were actually to obtain a nuclear arsenal. The threat a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to Israel and the entire Western world cannot and must not be underestimated.

On a visit to Venezuela on January 10, Ahmadinejad and his host Hugo Chavez joked before the television cameras about having a "big atomic bomb" at their disposal. An atomic Iran would threaten its neighbors, undermine the stability of the region, and endanger the future of Western civilization.

Like it or not, 2012 is a year of decision. In the coming months there will be no shying away from a momentous choice. Iran will either be stopped, or the ayatollahs will be able to construct their own weapons of mass destruction.

No one is itching to pull the trigger and to start bombing Iran. Such a course of action would have plenty of unintended consequences and would throw the Middle East into turmoil.

But several rounds of sanctions and attempts at diplomatic pressure have all failed to dissuade the Iranian regime.

At this point, there is no choice left but for Israel or the United States to resort to military force. Iran simply cannot be allowed to go nuclear.

Sure, the thought of attacking Iran is terrifying. But as alarming as the idea might seem, it pales in comparison with the ayatollahs being able to threaten the world. As the events of seven decades ago at Wannsee demonstrated, when people say they plan to annihilate you, you had best believe them.

Time is of the essence, and there is not a moment to lose. We must prepare ourselves for what may lie ahead. The US or Israel should take action against Iran now, before it proves too late.

Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his first term in office.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 21, 2012.

King Abdullah bin Hussein of Jordan proposes a peace of death between Israel and what he calls "the Palestinians" (January 19, op-ed, "The Palestinians and the Arab Spring." Conveniently he does not count Jordan's population as Palestinian, although for years Jordan was the biggest part of the Palestine Mandate for a Jewish national home, derived from Biblical boundaries. If he admitted that Jordan is part of Palestine, what case would be left for the claim that Palestinian Arabs do not have their own country?

The King tries to link his case to the "Arab Spring," as publicists do with any new and known event. It does not, however, seem known much by him. He refers to it with words that resonate in the West and but not in his East, such as "democracy." "Arab Spring" is bringing Radical Muslims to power. That phenomenon can be feared, cannot be appeased, and must be fought.

Such totalitarians rarely admit how far they intend to go. Islamist parties claim they won't impose Islamic laws of intolerance upon their people, they wish to be democratic. But even as they profess their decency, their people purge or chastise Christians, bars, barber shops, and women, who apparently shouldn't be seen or heard. Their spiritual leaders demand Sharia. Iran had denied it would take this path, Turkey denies it even as it represses more institutions, and Pakistan denies it even though its military intelligence protects radical movements.

In the name of peace, King Abdullah demands fatal concessions by Israel that would so enervate its defense as to induce! Interesting, that his first name is that of his great-grandfather, who invaded Judea-Samaria in an attempt to grab it and conquer Israel. The second name he lists is that of his father, who gratuitously made war on Israel in 1967. King Hussein prudently refrained from joining the Arab sneak-attack on Israel in 1973, but later regretted not piling onto Israel, when the war turned out to have been close, and Jordan's forces might have made the difference.

He who talks about peace thus is named after his family of imperialists. That would seem mere coincidence, except that Jordan's peace treaty with Israel, like Egypt's with Israel, requires normal relations. Neither Jordan nor Egypt conducts normal relations with Israel. They thus violate their treaties. And their peoples want war.

How much faith can one rest upon his honeyed words, uttered to catch us flies? As if some of us don't know that Islamic ethics approve of deceiving non-Muslims in behalf of Islam! What does he care, when most of us do not realize that totalitarian movements deceive, not even the government, supposed to defend us, and the newspapers, supposed to monitor government folly!

Although the Mideast has great problems of: Radical Islam and, even if not Radical, imperialist Islam; repression; nuclear arms development; failing economies, growing water shortages, and ethnic rivalries in most countries. Not that King Abdullah officially notices. To him, the conflict with Israel is "the region's central conflict." No, it is a scapegoat for failing governments and a target for Islamists.

He fails to consider why there is that conflict. Odd approach, he has, purporting to solve a problem whose cause he does not identify. The cause certainly was not because Israel denied western Palestinian Arabs a state. It started because Palestinian Arabs denied the Jewish people a state. The Arabs tried to exterminate the Jews from Israel and persecuted the Jews in Arab states. That is their holy cause? The Muslim Arabs commit aggression, and then blame the non-Muslims for defending themselves successfully. Is that fair?

So now they pretend that the problem is Israeli control over Judea-Samaria, although the Arabs made wars on Israel before it had that control. Shall we believe that the Arabs made wars for a problem that resulted from the wars? Is that the sad logic of the Arab side?

Ironically and hypocritically, Jordan's 1948 capture of Judea-Samaria, and Egypt's capture of Gaza made it impossible for the Arabs there to set up a state. But like people before them, the Muslim Arabs blame Jews for problems of their own making.

King Abdullah puts it as a matter of justice. What justice comes from his proposal to empower a genocidal people on a religious crusade, the same jihad that has attacked the U.S.? What justice to demand another state when there are more than a score of Arab states already, one of them even being in Palestine, though there really is no nationality of "Palestinian?" The so-called Palestinians are similar to Arabs in neighboring countries, never had a country of Palestine, and until well within my lifetime, denied they were a separate nationality and insisted they were Syrian. Masses of their families had migrated from Syria relatively recently.

Nevertheless, the King affirms a "Palestinian" right to statehood, a "cry for justice," and "a homeland free of occupation." Justice from a people that oppresses and even beats women, that executes Arabs selling land to Jews, and imprisons dissidents? And political "occupation" of what? There never was an Arab country there, to be occupied. The indignant ruler of Jordan forgets that his country had militarily occupied Judea-Samaria. Consistency is not his strong suit.

Referring to the Saudi plan, the King calls it "an unequivocal statement of the Arab world's commitment to a neighborhood of peace and acceptance...that would end the conflict...and give Israel security." If he says that and means it, then he didn't read the plan. The plan said that if Israel surrendered all its rights, and Israel has the best rights to the Territories, and makes in advance all the concessions, including ceding defendable borders, the Arabs might normalize relations with Israel. They also might not! Israel would find no security and probably no acceptance. Nor did the King, a descendant of his religion's founding Prophet, explain how Islam could make peace when its doctrine is to overcome non-Muslim independence even by the sword, especially in an area that had gained independence from Muslim rule.

How can a religion of conquest make peace with people who refuse to be conquered? King Abdullah doesn't say. The State Dept. doesn't explain. President Obama doesn't ask. What good are their policies?

Although the King admits that the entire Muslim world's regimes endorsed the Saudi plan for Israeli concessions, he persists in depicting the conflict as between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. He contradicts himself.

Inflaming the controversy himself, King Abdullah writes, "Meantime, Israel ha continued to build settlements, particularly in Jerusalem, a flash point for global concerns. Threats to holy sites, or efforts to change the city's character by driving out Arab Muslim and Christian Jerusalemites could stop peace for decades to come." Another false and misleading statement!

Israel shores up holy sites, whereas Palestinian Arabs tear down holy sites, such as Joseph's Tomb and Jewish relics destroyed in illegal excavation on the Temple Mount. But the King blames the Jews. That's an old ruse.

Muslims have been driving Christians out of the Mideast for centuries. Abdullah's relative drove the Jews out of the Old City, in 1948. Contrast that with the Christian increase in Israel! Then judge the King's credibility. He makes false accusations against Israel, and his people do what they accuse Israel of doing.

Arabs complain that Israel is building "settlements." Israel has not built any new towns in the Territories. Jerusalem is part of its state, so there are no "settlements" there, just big city neighborhoods. Arabs have usurped housing owned by Jews. The King's complaint amounts to a defense of Arab expropriation of Jews' property. Not an inspiring line.

Israelis do build within existing communities in the Territories. So do Arabs. Much construction for Arabs is illegal, but hardly any by Jews is illegal. To complain one-sidedly about construction for Jews forfeits more credibility. And he writes about justice!

Another concern of Jordan's ruler is that unless peace is made, "extremists" will take over. Whom does he think Fatah and Hamas represent, as they honor terrorists?

The King's misrepresentation is so extensive, that reflecting on it disproves his whole case.

Yes, as he writes, the Quartet has set a timeline to complete negotiations. Are the Quartet principled or biased? They comprise Russia, the EU, the UN, and the State Dept., all anti-Zionist.

Setting deadlines plays into the hands of insincere negotiators such as the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), who stall in hopes of coercing more concessions. Former P.A. head Arafat violated all of the approximately 200 agreements he made. How sincere were his negotiations? And why should anyone trust a new agreement by the P.A.?

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 Yehoshua Halevi, January 21, 2012.

"Light is the photographic medium par excellence; it is to the photographer
what words are to the writer; color and paint to the painter;
wood, metal, stone, or clay to the sculptor."
— Andreas Feiningers


I love it when the landscape changes attire. The more dramatic, the more exhilarating, and nothing dazzles quite like a fresh blanket of snow on hills that stay quietly green or brown throughout the seasons. For a country that averages about a foot of snow every three years, even the threat of a storm can bring life to a halt. While there have been snowstorms in Israel to compare with the Nor'easters of my childhood, the frozen flakes never hang around for long and since I left the tire chains in the garage back in Massachusetts, it is impossible to travel at the peak opportunities for taking pictures.

All of the snow photographs in my library were taken within walking distance of my home in the Judean Mountains south of Jerusalem. I selected this shot of grapevines bending under the weight of fresh powder as an offering to the weather makers to please bring us a few flurries this year. The storm had already cleared by dawn so I headed out to catch the sun while it was low on the horizon and before the snow melted and disappeared. I shot back in the direction of the sun, as I almost invariably do when photographing trees and flowers, but in this case it was the best perspective to highlight the opalescent sheen on the vine tendrils. Some days the weather turns the land into a once-in-a-lifetime scene. It was certainly enjoyable in the moment, and likewise when I return to that morning in pictures.

TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D-70, 18-70 zoom at 38mm, f11 at 1/800 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 Steven Plaut, January 21, 2012.

1. Well the hordes of the Tenured Left who raced off to show their solidarity with the village of Tuba Zangaria a few months back after its mosque was vandalized now have a problem.

As you no doubt recall, the police rounded up the usual suspects, mainly teenagers suspected of being part of the "Tag Mechir" (price tag) gang. But they were unable to find any damning evidence and no indictments were produced.

And now there is some evidence that the Tag Mechir teenagers were not behind the mosque vandalization at all and that in fact it was the work of local Arabs, common criminals. Who says so? Bassam Sawaad from Tuba Zangaria says so, that's who. Who? Bassam Sawaad is a member of the local council in Tuba Zangaria and he spoke on Channel Two news a week ago and stated that it was not Jews at all but local Arab criminals who vandalized the mosque. A few hours later, the local criminals in a sense confirmed those assertions by firing gunshots into Sawaad's home.

So what will be the next cause for the tenured Left? Pilgrimages to Mohammed a-Dura's home now that the French court proclaimed his "martyrdom" a fake staged hoax by a French TV crew? Pilgrimages to Tawana Brawley? Solidarity trips to Roswell, New Mexico?

2. There really is a problem of apartheid in Israel. It is the anti-Jewish apartheid now being funded by the European Union! The EU Eurocrats may not have any money to save Greece and Spain but they have ponied up 26 million Euros to fund anti-Jewish leftist NGO's operating in Jerusalem who seek to prevent Jews from buying any property east of the "Green Line." And why should Jews be prohibited from buying property east of the Green line, especially when "Palestinian" Arabs buy property all the time west of the Green Line? Because the Eurocrats are bigoted racists trying to fund apartheid in Jerusalem. Jews can buy property in Berlin and Vienna but not in East Jerusalem, opine these Brownshirts.

3. Well, it looks like the Israeli judicial system actually made a correct and just ruling for a change. It just ruled against a gaggle of Palestinian defendants led by a leftist NGO who were sued by the "settlers" from the West Bank "settlement" of Migron for defamation. The Palestinian poodles of the "Yesh Din" radical anti-Israel leftist NGO, financed by the usual villains, had published all sorts of defamatory comments against the settlers of Migron. The settlers sued them for 1.5 millions shekels in damages. The court only hit the Arabs in the end with 19,000 shekels in damages but every little bit helps, and the ruling may deter similar behavior by the leftist-Palestinian axis of evil.

4. The Ozzie and Harriet of the Israeli Left

Allow me to introduce you to two of the best role models for the anti-Israel Left in Israel these days. Meet Yoav and Iris Bar. They were active in the tiny Maoist group in the 1960s calling itself Matzpen (compass). Matzpen later fragmented into smaller splinters, and they were active in the one calling itself "Trotskyite," where the difference between a Maoist and a Trotskyite is roughly the same as the difference between cow manure and bull manure. When the Yom Kippur war broke out, their Trotskyite group was active in demanding a "revolutionary defeat of Israel." Matzpen is probably best remembered for producing an espionage and terror ring that was apprehended in the 1970s, led by kibbutznik Udi Adiv. Members of the ring had trained in terrorism in Syria. Udi Adiv did his jail time and today is a faculty member in political science at Israel's Open University.

They have been issuing calls to the Hamas to kidnap more Israeli soldiers. See this (in Hebrew)
http://www.sos-israel.com/index.asp? \catID=57456&siteLang=3
They were arrested recently for participating in a violent p[rotest in which police were attacked:
http://www.adalah.org/Article_full_heb.asp? parentID=319&ID=229. They are active in all the usual treasonous organizations, including some promoting world boycotts of Israel, and another that collaborated with the Hezb'Allah when it was firing rockets into Haifa. Both Bars were allies of Azmi Bishara, the Arab spy and traitor now in hiding.

The Bars basically want to be Arabs. They live in an Arab neighborhood in Haifa, sent their son to an Arab kindergarten and schools, and walk around with tee shirts with Arabic slogans.

For more on the charming family, including their photo, go here (in Hebrew):

Anyone still think the Israeli Left consists of naïve idealists seeking what they think is the good of the country?

Oh, if you want to write to or visit them, they live at 10 Hayarden Street, Haifa and their phone number is 972-4-8229296

5. An Economic Primer for the Tent Protesters and the "Wall Street Occupiers"

By Steven Plaut

What with the tent protesters again coming out onto the boulevard, the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd besieging the United States, while their kith and kin all around the world are bellyaching against "capitalism" and against America, we thought we would provide a very brief refresher course for the "Occupiers" about the basic facts of life and the fundamentals of economic reality. Here goes:

- Nothing can be redistributed until it is produced.

- Things do not get produced all by themselves and do not produce themselves. Someone has to produce them.

- People do not produce things without incentives and rewards. They do not work, except for a handful of workaholics, unless they get rewarded for doing so.

- There is no evidence that redistribution of income to make it more "equitable" promotes economic growth and there is lots of empirical evidence that it deters growth.

- In general, growth is associated with increasing inequality, mainly because growth generates profits and raises income for some groups more than others. Suppressing the consequent growing inequality is the same thing as suppressing growth.

- Over time, the main factor that diminished the dimensions of poverty and its harshness in the West has been economic growth and not welfare programs.

- The main factor that produced dramatically greater safety in the workplace and dramatically lower rates of work-related hazards was worker mobility and competition among employers to attract employees and not governmental regulation of safety and hazards.

- Capitalist countries have the cleanest environments on the planet. Ex-Soviet countries have the most polluted and the most severely compromised environments.

- No society has ever eliminated poverty. Lots of societies have increased its dimensions and severity.

- No one really knows how to create income equality. Marginal increases in equality also carry marginal costs to society in terms of other things and are not necessarily justified on a cost-benefits basis.

- There are serious doubts as to whether income equality is desirable. Full income equality also means everyone equally has a pathetically low standard of impoverished living. The cave men had income equality.

- When income becomes too equitable, there are no incentives to work hard and take risks and innovate.

- "Democratizing" the economy just means imposing political agendas on economic players, and it deters growth. It turns profit into a political reward rather than a reward for efficiency and innovation and hard work and productivity. "Democratization" of the economy is anti-democratic.

- The claim that equality is necessary to foster growth is about as persuasive as a claim by a vegetarian that vegetarianism is necessary to foster growth. In other words, someone making such a claim really just thinks that equality is nice and is trying to market it under a false packaging as an instrument that produces growth.

- Scandinavian "socialism" is really just capitalism with high taxes used to finance a high level of welfare state services. Scandinavian countries have low levels of nationalization of capital and also of regulation of business.

- Scandinavian "socialism" has not eliminated poverty in Scandinavian countries. The poverty rates among non-Scandinavians living in those countries are rather high. Scandinavians themselves have low poverty rates regardless of the economic system under which they live or the country in which they live because they work hard and are educated.

- "Soak the rich" policies generate far, far less tax revenue than the "Occupiers" and their kin think. That is partly because there are far fewer "soakable" rich people than the Occupiers think, and they are already taxed so highly that raising their taxes further could actually produce LESS tax revenue, because of "Laffer Curve" style incentive effects, especially after the first year of soakingly high taxation.

- Those who whine that it is impossible to find a job in America will have to explain how it is that every single illegal immigrant in the US who does not even speak English manages to find a job.

- Americans who live below the poverty line live in larger homes, are more likely to own their home, are more likely to own cars and durable goods, and eat more protein than do Europeans and Japanese who are NOT below their own poverty lines. Many low-income Americans have Big Screen TV's, DVD's and even Jacuzzis.

- Low-income Americans weigh more than other Americans, have much higher obesity rates, and are hardly "hungry." Over-eating is one of the most severe health problems in the United States.

- A large portion of "capital" in capitalist countries is owned by workers through pension programs and similar financial institutions.

- The "homeless" are by and large people with psychiatric problems and/or substance abuse problems and/or teenage runaways, and so American "homelessness" has little to do with income distribution. Even if income distribution were perfectly equitable, the homelessness rate would not change much, unless laws were changed making their institutionalization easier.

- The minimum wage creates unemployment and destroys jobs.

- Someone incapable of providing a labor service worth more than $5 an hour to employers will be out of a job if the law requires that he or she be paid $9 an hour.

- Low income people are better off when they are employed at $5 an hour than when they are unemployed while wages for the employed are $9 an hour.

- Unions create unemployment and reduce the number of people in unionized professions who are employed.

- Rent controls create housing shortages, raise the effective cost of housing for low-income people, produce massive quality deterioration in the housing stock, and may even contribute at the margin to homelessness because of the shortage in housing they create.

- People in Cuba earn $20 a month on average. Before communism Cuba was the richest country in Latin America. Now it is the poorest.

- Poor people in the US do not steal fishing boats to escape to Cuba. South Koreans do not steal boats to escape to North Korea.

- Wealthy people overseas with health problems come to the United States to get care. They do not go to Cuba.

- People all over the globe seeking high-quality university education come to the United States to get it. They do not go to North Korea or Cuba.

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 Errol Phillips, January 21, 2012.

I saw this Blog post this morning and thought I would pass it along. Think about it. I have preached for many years that synagogues should have an armory and and trained worshippers in the event of a catastrophic necessity in addition to personal protection at home. Here is the piece by Jeff Soyer writing in alphecca.com


In the NYC and New Jersey area there has been a rise in anti-Semitic incidents including firebombings of synagogues, vandalisms, and vicious graffiti. Much of these have taken place in Bergen County, N.J., my old stomping grounds.

For some reason that I cannot fathom, American Jews have always been for strict gun control and against arming themselves for protection from the forces of hate.

One editorialist, Jared Silverman, (www.njjewishnews.com) is re-thinking that:

I do not own a gun; however, I am considering getting one. I believe guns should be licensed and their owners properly trained. I also want to emphasis that there is a difference between ownership and the right to carry. It is difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed gun. However, there is some evidence of a deterrent effect of licensed, concealed weapons. FBI statistics, cited by the National Rifle Association, show that "right-to-carry" states have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country. I wonder what would be the effect on hate crimes.

Probably the same. Mutants and other criminals really don't like the idea that their intended victims might be armed and able to defend themselves. That's why crime rates always seem to be higher in those areas where gun control laws are the strictest. Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, and yes — New Jersey — come to mind.

Contact Errol Phillips by email at ep@pinehurst2.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, January 20, 2012.

Read how The Protocols of the Elders of Zion continues to be the only book that has ever had the perverse distinction of being both globally influential and, at the same time, a forgery.


Salman Rushdie, the author of "The Satanic Verses", was quietly deleted from India's Jaipur Literature Festival after the protests of the Darul Uloom Deoband seminary — one of Islam's most powerful bodies.

Rushdie went into hiding after the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian Shia leader, issued a fatwa calling for his death.

Rushdie's saga is now, in many parts of the Islamic world, associated with a "Zionist plot" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a short book concocted by the czarist police and presented as minutes of a secret meeting where Jews plotted world domination.

According to Iranian officials, Rushdie is a "mercenary author masterminded by Zionism, Britain and the United States of America". Today Iran is one of the major world printers of the "Protocols", the only book that has ever had the perverse distinction of being both globally influential and, at the same time, a forgery.

There is no accurate information on the sales of the "Protocols", but it is undoubtedly one of the best sellers of all time.

Unfortunately, the "Protocols" rarely attracts Western attention, as we like to think that it is just a bad joke. We closed our eyes for too long.

In 1983, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to the UN secretary-general accusing Jews of "poisoning Palestinian schoolgirls". It was the beginning of the monstrous Palestinian ideology.

Originally, the "Protocols" was meant as a warning to good Russian youths. The message: Beware of the machinations of the Jews, whose hidden aim is the subjugation of the Christian world.

Now the book is one of the most powerful propaganda tools of the Arab and Islamic world.

The only time the Protocols' popularity dipped was immediately following the Holocaust. One suspects it was a little difficult to reconcile Jewish control of the world with the obliteration of a third of the Jewish people. But soon rationalizations began to appear.

On December 27, 2011, the Palestinian-Lebanese historian Bayan Nuwayhed Al-Hout published an article in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which dealt, among other things, with the "Protocols" and their connection to Judaism, the Zionist movement and the State of Israel. In her article, Al-Hout claims that the "the Protocols completely correspond to the words of the great Rabbis throughout the ages, and to the Talmud itself. The Chosen People is a basic Talmudic concept, meaning the people who were chosen to rule and dictate".

Arab anti-Semitism has adopted all of Europe's anti-Semitic myths. The "Protocols" are now prominently displayed not only in the Middle East, but also on the Western and Christian bookshelf. Though they are a proven forgery, they nevertheless receive worldwide recognition by those who seek to rely on them for promoting their own nefarious purposes.

Regrettably, the book has also become the gospel of black antisemitism in the America. And ironically, the "Protocols" was on the banned list in South Africa for 80 years before the universally acclaimed anti-apartheid liberalization removed the ban.

The resurgence of antisemitic literature in Eastern Europe following the removal of total state control of speech and press also presents a dilemma for democrats.

A Chinese bestseller, entitled "The Currency War" and based on the "Protocols", describes how Jews are planning to control the world by manipulating the financial system.

An Iranian stand at the latest Frankfurt Book Fair presented a copy of the "Protocols" published in English by the Islamic Republic of Iran in plain view. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed to have distributed the "Protocols" to expose "the real visage of this satanic enemy" (Israel).

Ahmadinejad got his language on the Israelis as "cancer" and "vermin" from Professor Johann Von Leers, the specialist in the "Protocols" appointed full professor at the University of Jena by Alfred Rosenberg, official Nazi "philosopher". Von Leers was used to compare the Jews to "cholera germs".

Thousands of Jews have been killed in Europe because of this infamous document. Hitler used it as a manual in his war to burn all the Jews and Palestinian suicide bombers have been found with the "Protocols" in their pockets.

Now even some Christian bishops are quoting from the "Protocols." In an interview with George Saliba, Bishop of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Lebanon, aired on Al-Dunya TV on July 24, 2011, declared: "Any intelligent person who reads the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion will see the extent of its influence on the politics of our region and the world".

The Protocols is now a central issue in Muslim propaganda, even in what we call moderate countries, including countries that made "peace" with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan. The "Protocols" is everywhere, at every Arabic book fair, it is in public discourse, in newspapers, in TV soap operas. The "Protocols" are now on prominent display also at the Malaysian capital's International Airport and an Arabic translation of the "Protocols" can be found on the website of the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information.

While there is in fact no Jewish conspiracy to submit the world, there is an anti-Jewish conspiracy that like a virus infected the minds and the hearts of millions of people.

Giulio Meotti is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at giuliomeotti@hotmail.c.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, January 20, 2012.

This was written by Soeren Kern of the Stonegate Institute International Policy Council (info@stonegateinstitute.org). It is archived at
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/ 2768/germany-islamic-centers.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.


One of the oldest universities in Germany has opened the country's first taxpayer-funded department of Islamic theology.

The Center for Islamic Theology at the University of Tübingen was inaugurated on January 16 and is the first of four planned Islamic university centers in Germany.

The German government claims that by controlling the curriculum, the school, which is to train Muslim imams and Islamic religion teachers, will function as an antidote to "hate preachers."

Most imams currently in Germany are from Turkey and many of them do not speak German.

German Education Minister Annette Schavan, who attended the opening ceremony, said the Islamic center was a "milestone for integration" for the 4.3 million Muslims who now live in Germany.

But the idea has been fiercely criticized by those who worry the school will become a gateway for Islamists who will introduce a hardline brand of Islam into the German university system.

The three professors who will be teaching at the department (eventually there will be six full professorships) had to satisfy an Islamic advisory council that they were devout Muslims.

One of the professors is Omar Hamdan, a Sunni Muslim, says that critical analysis into whether the Islamic Koran was actually written by God is "completely out of the question." Pointing to double standards, some of those opposed to the center say there should be critical distance between text and interpreter, as when Christianity is taught in German universities.

Critics also fear that conservative Islamic organizations will exert their influence over teaching and research at the center. There are only two independent experts on the advisory board of the Tübingen center. The other five individuals belong to groups such as the Turkish-Islamic Union for Islamic Affairs (DITIB), which is a branch of the Turkish government.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan uses DITIB to control over 900 mosques in Germany — to prevent Turkish immigrants from integrating into German society.

During a trip to Germany in November 2011, Erdogan said that Berlin's insistence that immigrants who want to live in Germany must integrate and learn the German language is "against human rights."

In February 2011, Erdogan told a crowd of more than 10,000 Turkish immigrants: "We are against assimilation. No one should be able to rip us away from our culture and civilization." In 2008, he also said, "assimilation is a crime against humanity" and urged the Turkish immigrants there to resist assimilation into the West.

In March 2010, Erdogan called on Germany open Turkish-language grade schools and high schools, presumably to be controlled by DITIB.

Previously, Erdogan had said: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..." — a declaration many interpreted as a call for the Islamization of Europe.

Aside from the center in Tübingen, Islamic theology departments are also set to open in 2012 in Münster/Osnabrück, Erlangen/Nürnberg and Frankfurt/Giessen.

The German government will pay the salaries for professors and other staff at all four Islamic centers for the next five years, at a total cost of €20 million ($25 million).

According to the Education Ministry, over the next few years Germany will have a demand for more than 2,000 teachers of Islam, who will be needed to instruct more than 700,000 Muslim children.

Germany is opening its doors to Islam at a time when its government is also cracking down on those who criticize Muslim immigration and the Islamization of Europe.

Less than a week before the Tübingen Islamic center was inaugurated, it came to light that the German domestic intelligence agency — the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) — is looking into whether German citizens who criticize Muslims and Islam are fomenting hate and are thus criminally guilty of "breaching" the German constitution.

The BfV's move marks a significant setback for the exercise of free speech in Germany.

The issue has become part of the larger debate over the question of Muslim immigration and the establishment of a parallel Islamic society in Germany.

In November 2011, the German Federal Ministry of the Family released a 160-page report, "Forced Marriages in Germany: Numbers and Analysis of Counseling Cases," which revealed that thousands of young women and girls in Germany are victims of forced marriages every year. Most of the victims come from Muslim families; many have been threatened with violence and often death.

In September 2011, a new book "Judges Without Law: Islamic Parallel Justice Endangers Our Constitutional State," disclosed that Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in all of Germany's big cities. The book argues that this "parallel justice system" is undermining the rule of law in Germany as Muslim imams are settling criminal cases out of court, without the involvement of German prosecutors or lawyers, before Germany's law enforcement can bring the cases to a German court.

That same month, German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich revealed that Germany is home to some 1,000 Islamic radicals who are potential terrorists. He said many of these home-grown Islamists are socially alienated Muslim youths who are being inflamed by German-language Islamist propaganda that promotes hatred of the West. In some instances, the extremists are being encouraged to join sleeper cells and one day to "awaken" and commit terrorist attacks in Germany and elsewhere.

Back in Tübingen, Education Minister Schavan says she is "placing a lot of trust" in the new Islamic center, which she hopes will "contribute to the further development of Islamic theology."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, January 20, 2012.

Hard to believe but ... Is the Israeli government, with Netanyahu, really stupid enough to repeat this awful tragedy? Will they now, in a sick effort to pacify Israel's enemies, withdraw from Judea and Samaria? Such an action, G-d Forbid, can only result in the self-destruction, once again, of the Jewish State?

Shades of the Jewish self destruction to the Romans in 70 AD and 135 AD that has resulted in the centuries of persecution experienced by the Jews ever since.

This below was redacted from an article written by Devora Spitzer. The article was entitled "A Haunting Visit To The Gush Katif Museum" and appeared in the Jewish Press January 13, 2012. It is archived at

Devora Spitzer lives with her husband and six children in the settlement of Mata, in the Eila Valley. She is a sixth-generation resident of Israel, descended from Jews born in Hebron. Many of her family members were murdered in the 1929 Arab pogrom.


The Gush Katif (beautiful area on northern coast of Gaze, where Israeli towns and agriculture were reborn) Museum in Jerusalem was established by Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo, head of the Rambam Hashalem Torah Institute, centered in the town of Beitar Illit. Rabbi Wolpo has authored many highly regarded works of Halacha (Standard for orthodox religious observance) including two that research the halachic prohibition of forfeiting territories of the Holy Land to non-Jews.

At the time of the Gaza disengagement, he and his colleagues invested tremendous effort in attempting to derail the Israeli government forced expulsion of nearly 10,000 Jews. As the disengagement was implemented and while the fires were still burning, they resolved to establish this museum. It took three years to come to fruition. The museum's early visitors, back in 2008, were mostly from the national religious segment of Israel's population. But gradually, this changed. Both haredim and secular leftists had remained largely ignorant of what actually happened to Gush Katif's residents. As they heard about the museum, more and more started visiting and were deeply affected by the exhibits.

"The people of Israel have been experiencing disillusionment," says Rabbi Wolpo. "The Kassam rocket attacks, the Hamas ascent to power, the revolutionary changes in surrounding Arab nations, the enormous danger from terror organizations based in the Sinai desert — all these have brought Israelis, including many who once supported the expulsion, to re-think their positions. Now they're opposed to further expulsions of Jews from Judah and Samaria, God forbid. I'm sure the museum has played an important role in this, because when people visit, they start to understand what really happened there."

We pass through the rooms. Pictures document the history of Gush Katif, revealing that ever since the time of the Hasmoneans, of Chanukah story fame, there was a continuous Jewish presence in Gaza and its environs. This continued until the terrible 1929 Arab pogroms. Only after the 1967 Six-Day War did Jews return. They built thriving communities, never dreaming that one day they would be cruelly uprooted by their own government.

In February 2001, the first rocket was fired at Gush Katif. At the time, the news was widely featured in the Israeli and international media. But later, if news accounts of rocket attacks appeared at all, they were relegated to the back pages. ... More than 5,000 rockets fell on Gush Katif. Those attacks, along with so many other terror acts and shootings, claimed the lives of dozens of Jews; hundreds more were injured. The dead were buried in the sand of Gush Katif, but even they were dragged out of their repose when the Israeli government carried out the disengagement.

"Despite all the attacks," says Rabbi Gefen, "the idealism of the residents would not let them leave. The terror could not convince them to give in, because you don't give in when this concerns the Holy Land. They always insisted that if they wouldn't be located there, the rockets would be fired at the population centers in the heart of Israel." And, this forecast proved devastatingly true.

The Israeli Government, under the once acclaimed general and then PM Ariel Sharon, forced out the 10,000 dedicated Israelis of Gaza, abandoning the fertile area to the Arabs. Their houses destroyed, the families expelled, their lives shattered, the thousands of wretched families were cruelly plucked from their communities and land, and thrown into mobile homes until today — without livelihood, homes, or the wherewithal to support their families as they had until this cruel expulsion."

"Many of the expelled families have already used up all the compensation received from the government," Rabbi Wolpo stated. "They're paying the bank a mortgage for their destroyed home in Gush Katif, together with high rent for their present leaky mobile homes in Nitzan or Yad Binyamin. Many simply don't have money to buy bread.

... "Whoever observes the results of the previous withdrawals and considers the present revolutionary upsets in the Arab world, yet still speaks of further expulsions from Judah and Samaria and the establishment of a terrorist state in the heart of this land — is either insane or is an agent of our enemies," Rabbi Wolpo tells me.

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 Gloria Center, January 19, 2012.

This was written by Daniel Goldstein, a media critic and recovering blogger. He has been critiquing media bias against Israel since his first letter to the editor in 1987.


1) I never met an Islamist I didn't think was moderate

How can you tell when an expert who predicted one outcome realizes he is wrong? When he starts telling you that a different outcome isn't so bad.

A week and a half ago Thomas Friedman naively told us that the victory of the Islamists in Egypt was a good thing. To be sure there were skeptics.

Today in Trust but Verify, Friedman walks back his earlier unbridled enthusiasm.

Friedman starts by observing that Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns met with a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who declared that his organization's relationship with the United States was important.

(The full statement Friedman referred to is here:

Dr. Morsi called on the United States to rethink its strategies and change its policies toward the people in line with the Arab Spring revolutions, and to take more positive positions toward Arab and Islamic issues, because evident bias of U.S. administrations against Arab issues in the past never was in the US's favour. Morsi added that the FJP is convinced of the importance of Egyptian-American relations, which must be based on balance between both parties.
The "balance" Morsi referred to is demanding that American not to be so closely allied with Israel.)

Then Friedman noted that MEMRI reported that the Muslim Brotherhood's website was filled with antisemitic imagery and articles and that a leading Coptic businessman was charged with "contempt for religion."

Skeptics might say that the Muslim Brotherhood leader was cynically seeking to reassure a major donor that his country's billions in aid would be money well spent, but that the Brotherhood was really an extreme organization. Thomas Friedman is so much more sophisticated than that ...

There are two ways to read these news reports. One is that the Brotherhood and other Islamists are cleverly hoodwinking the naïve foreigners, feeding them the lines they want to hear. The other is that the Islamists never expected to be dominating Egypt's new Parliament — with more responsibility than other parties for completing the country's democratic transition, constitution-writing and election of a new president — and they are trying to figure out how to reconcile some of their ideology, with all of their new responsibilities.

My view is that both can be — and are — true at the same time.

In my mind, we all have to guard against lazy happy talk about the rise of the Islamist parties in Egypt ("I've met with them; they all seem reasonable") and lazy determinism ("Just read what they say in Arabic; they clearly have a secret plan to take over Egypt").

Of course Friedman filled his earlier column with "lazy happy talk" based on a few superficial interviews. The other side is based on an extensive archive of material, which can't be so easily dismissed.

Friedman continues:

In the happy talk department, please don't tell me that the rule of Turkey's Islamist Justice and Development Party, known as the A.K.P., proves that no one has anything to fear about Islamists taking power democratically. There is much I admire in the A.K.P.'s performance. (The recent suggestion by Gov. Rick Perry of Texas that the A.K.P. is a party of "Islamic terrorists" is shockingly stupid.) But I will only cite the A.K.P. as a reassuring example of Islam and democracy in harmony after I see it lose an election and vacate power. That is the real test. As The Economist noted about the rule of the A.K.P. in Turkey in its Nov. 26 issue, "Around 76 journalists are now behind bars" in Turkey, "more than in China, many of them for supposed terrorist crimes. ... The West does not seem to notice the steady deterioration in human rights in Turkey, instead extolling it as a model for the Arab spring."

Gov. Perry's reference isn't far from the truth as AKP does have ties with IHH, an international terrorist organization.

Friedman's condition for looking favorably on the AKP, its vacating power after losing an election, is a pipe dream as everything Erdogan's government doing is aimed at consolidating its hold on power and marginalizing its opponents.

So Friedman suggests engagement:

America needs to offer the Islamists firm, quiet (you can easily trigger a nationalist backlash) and patient engagement that says: "We believe in free and fair elections, human rights, women's rights, minority rights, free markets, civilian control of the military, religious tolerance and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, and we will offer assistance to anyone who respects those principles."

And what if America offers those things and the Muslim Brotherhood continues playing the double game of nice words to America but not so nice words in its own milieu? That isn't something that Friedman addresses.

But why should we trust Friedman. In a 2006 column, "The Weapon of Democracy", Friedman concluded:

But Hamas will have its hands full managing the West Bank, where it doesn't have as many people or arms as Fatah. As the Israeli strategist Gidi Grinstein put it, Hamas "is like a snake that swallowed an elephant." It has a lot to digest before it can move sharply in any direction.

Hisham Abdullah, the West Bank A.F.P. reporter, told me that when he went into Ramallah's main bookstore the other day and asked what was selling, the owner said he'd noticed Hamas people buying Dale Carnegie books on management.

This is just another way of saying that the burdens of governing will moderate Hamas. No doubt those Dale Carnegie books advised building up Gaza's armaments and planning ways to attack Israel, which is what Hamas did for the next couple of years leading up to Cast Lead.

It's clear that Friedman has backtracked a bit from his earlier column in that he at least is entertaining the idea that Islamists may not be democratic exemplars. However, his equivocation here and his own history suggest that he will go far to excuse the excesses of Islamists in power.

2) The banality of anti-Zionism

Sol Stern has an extensive essay in the City Journal, "Hannah Arendt and the Origins of Israelophobia." Given the recent discussions about who is pro-Israel and what is wrong with the "Israel firster" calumny, this is an excellent primer for one of the earlier and influential leftist critics of Israel. Stern writes:

Arendt's greatest legacy to the Left, however, isn't merely that she is remembered as a martyr; it's the nature of her criticism of Zionism. As Hebrew University philosopher Elhanan Yakira shows in his 2010 book Post-Zionism, Post-Holocaust, Arendt's accusation that Ben-Gurion manipulated the Eichmann trial in order to justify Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians has become a "master postulate" for the international coalition of anti-Israel intellectuals and activists. This "community of opprobrium" wishes to bring about a great reversal of our understanding of history. No longer will we believe that the Holocaust proved the correctness of the Zionists' solution to anti-Semitism; rather, the Zionists' manipulation of the Holocaust for their own ends reveals the fraudulent basis of the Jewish state. "Although the anti-Israel uses made of the Holocaust are multifaceted, ... they coalesce into a single pattern of defaming Israel and Zionism," writes Yakira. "The Holocaust, or the story of the destruction of European Jewry by Nazi Germany, plays a central role in this defamation, which aims, on the one hand, to deny legitimacy to the Jewish state in principle and, on the other, to indict the state, across the board, on moral grounds."

Amos Elon's 2006 homage to Arendt makes explicit the Left's debt to Arendt. "In the past, the difficulty of many Israelis to accept Arendt's book ran parallel to another difficulty — foreseen by Arendt early on — the difficulty of confronting, morally and politically, the plight of the dispossessed Palestinians," Elon wrote. "The Palestinians bore no responsibility for the collapse of civilization in Europe but ended up being punished for it." What Elon didn't mention, any more than Arendt had, was that the Palestinians were "punished" not because of the Nazi extermination of the European Jews but because of the self-destructive policies of their own fanatical, Jew-hating leadership.

Nowadays we hear many of Arendt's arguments echoed among Israel's critics.

This article was distributed by The Global Research in International Affairs (Gloria) Center
http://www.gloria-center.org/ 2012/01/middle-east-media-sampler- for-january-18-2012/

To Go To Top

Posted by Errol Phillips, January 19, 2012.

With respect to the article below, entitled "The Keystone of the Republicans' 2012 Presidential Campaign" by John Hinderaker
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ 2012/01/the-keystone-of-the-republicans- 2012-presidential-campaign.php):

I can't add much to John's indignation about the economic illiteracy of Obama's craven decision to block the Keystone pipeline, but I can note how it is also environmentally stupid. First, even if you've drunk double-shots of the climate change Kool Aid, blocking the Keystone pipeline not only won't have any effect on greenhouse gas emissions, it will actually increase them, along with environmental risks generally.

Why? Simple: Canada will now ship their oil to China by tanker, which will involve higher greenhouse gas emissions from shipping that you'd wouldn't have by sending it to us by pipeline. Second, instead of importing 1 million barrels of day of oil by pipeline from Canada, we'll substitute that million barrels by importing it by tanker from the Middle East and Africa, thereby doubling the shipping-related greenhouse gas emission over the pipeline option.

Second, Canada is going to ship out their oil from a northern latitude port in British Columbia. Shipping oil by tanker has a spill rate about six times higher than spills from offshore oil rigs or pipelines. You'd think after the ExxonValdez environmentalists would be able to calculate the simple risk tradeoff here involving a northern cold water port, except that environmentalists believe in a sentimental world without tradeoffs. (I like the Wall Street Journal's turn of phrase this morning about environmentalists making Keystone "a station of the green cross." Yup, that about nails it.)

Third, anyone think China will refine the oil the same way as the U.S.? That is, do you think China will use their Canadian-sourced oil with the same emission reduction requirements for conventional air pollutants as we do? Yeah, me neither. ~ So writes Steven Hayward in Powerline.


Incredibly, President Obama today denied the application for a permit to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obama's statement tried, rather pathetically, to blame his decision on the Republicans, who ostensibly rushed him into making up his mind prematurely. Of course, the Keystone application has been pending for more than three years — how impatient can the Republicans get?

We have written repeatedly about the economic benefits of the Keystone pipeline; for example here, where we quoted from a study by the Perryman Group which concluded that the pipeline would create an immediate 118,000 person years of employment via construction, while the long-term impact in the energy industry would be from 250,000 to 550,000 jobs. Not to mention cheaper energy prices, which will make all Americans richer, American products more competitive abroad, and will create, indirectly, still more jobs.

So what on earth is Barack Obama thinking? This item on the White House web site perhaps offers a clue. It is, to be blunt, almost unbelievably stupid:

[T]he idea, as some in Washington have tried to suggest, that building a pipeline is the ultimate answer to the question of American energy security and job creation is nothing more than a pipe dream. The truth is that just two of the Administration's programs — the DOE Loan Guarantee Program and the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards — will create more than 10 times the amount of jobs generated by the Keystone XL pipeline, which will only generate a few thousand temporary jobs.

This is astonishing. The DOE Loan Guarantee Program props up "alternative" energy schemes that are not efficient enough to survive in the free market. Solyndra is the poster child for this program, but a number of other such companies have also gone broke — the inevitable result, sooner or later, when you can't compete. We have said it before, but I will say it again: you cannot create wealth by subsidizing the inefficient creation of energy. You can create jobs, in exactly the same sense as when you tax people who are doing productive work and use the money to pay others to dig holes and fill them up again. The net effect of such inefficiency is to destroy jobs, not to create them. This appears obvious, but I sincerely believe that Barack Obama is such a hopeless case that he does not understand it.

And what about the EPA's mercury standards — how can they possibly create jobs? Presumably the White House means that lawyers, chemists and engineers will have to be hired to help power plants comply with the regulations. Unmentioned is the fact that closing down a large percentage of our coal-fired power plants — by far America's largest source of electricity — will deprive countless workers of jobs (but not lawyers, etc., and so most likely not Democrats) and raise energy costs for everyone, which will not only make us all poorer, but will also indirectly destroy still more jobs.

The White House concludes:

In terms of reducing America's dependence on oil, the Administration's fuel economy standards alone will save more than twice the amount of oil the Keystone pipeline would deliver.

If we really wanted to reduce dependence on foreign oil, we could just ban the consumption of petroleum. Americans would be poor, cold and hungry, but hey — we would be independent of foreign oil! I think most Americans are smart enough to understand that it makes infinitely more sense to produce our own energy than to impoverish ourselves by refusing to consume that which is produced abroad.

Is Obama's decision pure stupidity, or is there method to the administration's madness? Actually, it is of a piece with a number of decisions by President Obama to cater to his party's leftward fringe. Most notable is his decision to divide the American people by making the 2012 election all about class warfare. The conventional wisdom is that Obama's team must consider his position to be weak, since he is concerned about shoring up his liberal base rather than appealing to the moderates who hold the balance of power in the election. To that, I would add that no one has ever been elected President of the United States by running as a leftist. Could Obama be the first? Maybe so, but I doubt it.

By blocking the Keystone pipeline and destroying as many as a half million American jobs, Barack Obama has handed the Republicans a club with which they should beat him, and Congressional Democrats, nonstop from now until November.

Errol Phillips can be reached by email at ep@pinehurst2.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, January 19, 2012.

Apologists say that Bacha Bazi or 'Boy Play' is a very old cultural practice in Afghanistan and part of that nation's mainstream....

Young boys are the prey of Afghan men on both sides of the war. (News with Views/Paul Walter)

Citing the Afghanistan strategy review, Vice President Joe Biden reported "great progress" in the counterterrorism effort that has significantly degraded al-Qaeda and the Taliban, particularly their leadership. Lagging behind, he said, is progress on the counterinsurgency front — eliminating terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and building a stable Afghan government.

However, not once did Biden — nor Defense Secretary Leon Panetta — mention Afghanistan's dirty secret — a large number of pedophiles and pederasts among the Afghan male population.

Pedophilia is a widely-accepted practice in southern Afghanistan, where "boys are given to older men for the sexual gratification of the elder and the sexual education of the child," say many returning U.S. troops.

Afghans say pedophilia is most prevalent among Pashtun men in the south who comprise Afghanistan's most important tribe.

Apologists say that Bacha Bazi or 'Boy Play' is a very old cultural practice in Afghanistan and part of that nation's mainstream.

When U.S. officials such as President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta discuss the war in Afghanistan and make claims of success in that fledgling democracy, one issue that's avoided is the widespread sexual intercourse between Afghan men and young boys. In non-diplomatic terms, Afghanistan is a haven for child rape, according to several American military officers just returning from the frontlines of the Global War on Terrorism.

In a country that is considered overly repressive due to its adherence to the precepts contained in the Muslim religion's Koran, it's difficult for American service members and diplomats to understand the fact that a large portion of the Afghan male population are pedophiles (adults who enjoy sexual contact with prepubescent children) or pederasts (adults who enjoy sexual relations with pubescent or post-pubescent children).

While Muslims in Iraq have on several occasions stoned homosexuals for their sexual activities, not all Muslims believe pedophilia is a violation of Sharia law. Those who believe in the sacredness and infallibility of the Koran adhere to the teaching that women are sub-human and quasi-slaves, and therefore Muslim men will look for relationships — even sexual relationships — with others of their own gender.

According to Reuters, there is a lot of homosexuality going on in Afghanistan, but those engaging in it don't think of themselves as gay, so that makes it okay since Islam officially disapproves of the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

"They regard themselves as non-gay because they don't "love" the sex object so Allah is happy. These are the men who avoid their wives as unclean. Apparently there is very little love of any kind in Afghanistan, which explains a lot," according to Reuters.

"Having a boy has become a custom for us," Ena Yatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. "Whoever wants to show off should have a boy." [...]

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from a perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghans cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle, according to columnist Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the New York Times.

In Kandahar, a city with a population of about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are a popular — often weekly — pastime. Young boys dress up as females, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home.

A recent State Department report called "dancing boys" a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape." If women dressed and behaved in such a way, they would surely be punished by Muslim men.

Even after marriage, many men keep their boy-lovers, according to former U.S. military personnel who served in Afghanistan. That helps explain why women are compelled to wear clothing that hides their faces and bodies and if they "sin" they are stoned to death in accordance with Islamic law. That same law also forbids homosexuality, but the pedophiles explain that it's not homosexuality since they aren't in love with their boys only fulfilling a bodily need.

Paradoxically, the Taliban frown on sexual relations between men and boys and enforce Sharia law to the letter. Are the followers of Islam, who adopt a more "liberal" approach to practicing their religion, perhaps responsible for the widespread rape of male children in Afghanistan?

So, why are American military forces fighting and dying to protect pedophiles and pederasts in a country considered by many to be the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Why is there hesitation on the part of Obama, Clinton, Panetta and others to discuss the widespread sexual assault of male children in Afghanistan? Could it be that it is politically incorrect to discuss any immoral and unlawful behavior on the part of Muslims? It's quite evident that U.S. politicians may bash Christians without fear of adverse effects on their political careers. But these same leaders will behave as if they are walking on egg shells to avoid even the hint of criticizing Muslims.

In addition, there is always a hesitation to discuss man-on-boy sexual relationship for fear of mentioning the obvious: such a relationship is homosexual in nature.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com). This article is archived at
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement- in-national/afghan-pedophilia-a-way-of- life-say-u-s-soldiers-and-journalists

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadassah Levy, January 19, 2012.

This was written by Jonathan Neumann, the Tikvah Fellow at Commentary, the current issue of which features his essay on "Occupy Wall Street and the Jews." This article is archived at
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/ content/module/2012/1/18/main-feature/ 1/our-defenders-at-the-cia


News flash: Top-secret intelligence memos written during the last years of the Bush administration describe covert activities — in intelligence parlance, a "false flag" operation — by Israeli Mossad officers, posing as American CIA agents, who recruited assassins from Jundallah, an obscure Pakistan-based Sunni Muslim terrorist organization, to target Iranian nuclear scientists. Jundallah had a history of targeting Iranian civilians; indeed, American intelligence was barred from "even the most incidental contact" with them. Yet the Israelis brazenly negotiated with them under British and American noses in London; and in doing so, they put American lives at risk by inviting Iranian attacks in kind. According to a CIA source, when the news reached the White House, President Bush "went ballistic."

Or so Mark Perry would have you believe in his recent article in the magazine Foreign Policy.

A reader might benefit from knowing who Mark Perry is. Perry has run an organization called the Conflicts Forum, which specializes in what it calls "dialogue with a wide range of leading Islamists," prominently including Hamas and Hezbollah. In 1989 he became "unofficial advisor" to Yasir Arafat, head of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization. Perry maintained his role until Arafat's death in 2004.

None of this background is disclosed by Foreign Policy.

Not accidentally, Perry's claims appear to be nonsense. The Israeli government, whose policy is not to confirm or deny involvement in intelligence operations, has broken its general silence to call his story "absolute nonsense." There is external corroboration of Israel's position. In recent years, three high-ranking Israeli intelligence and defense officials have been forced to resign their posts because of Israeli actions that U.S. officials deemed against American interests — actions far less damaging than the "false flag" operation Perry describes. Yet Meir Dagan, who was chief of Mossad at the time of the alleged operation, not only kept his job but remained a Washington favorite.

So, what to make of the memos? Who were the two CIA sources that told Perry about them? Who were the six "currently serving or recently retired" CIA sources who confirmed the "level of anger among senior intelligence officials about Israel's actions?" Perry provides so little detail about his sources — How many current? How many retired? When? What were their roles in the Bush administration's venomous internal policy debates? — that it is hard to tell.

Conceivably, the memos were fabrications. More likely, they exist but were wrong, for honest or dishonest reasons. In Perry's own account, they were written for an exculpatory purpose: to rebut press accusations that it was the United States that was fomenting assassinations in Iran. When the U.S. intelligence community becomes embroiled in this kind of public controversy, the quality of the data and analysis it produces is — well, less than impeccable. That, surely, is the lesson of the American debate over the existence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

The recent assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists have revived accusations of covert U.S. support for such actions. And — surprise! — here come Perry's sources again, leaking further purported evidence of American innocence and Israeli guilt. The reader is entitled to some suspicion.

Perry's article is subtly deceitful, not to mention deeply hypocritical. There is no discussion of the Iranian nuclear program except to say there is a "covert, bloody, and ongoing campaign aimed at stopping" it. There is no discussion, for or against, of the targeting of individuals engaged in such a program. Since "false flag" operations are not unusual, Perry must show why this one was especially heinous; therefore, he emphasizes, graphically, the particular danger to Americans from Jundallah's provocation of Iran through terrorist acts against Iranian civilians. This alarm about the consequences of terror comes from the man who advised Arafat and pushes "dialogue" with Hamas and Hezbollah. This solicitude toward civilians is shown by a man who makes no mention of the terror wreaked by Iran on its own citizens. Indeed, Perry's priority, in addition to tarnishing Israel's image, seems to be the softening of Iran's, a country that comes off in his telling as the hapless victim of a malevolent Jewish plot, actualized by Jundallah's Sunni madmen over protestations from a weak-willed America.

Apparently, the "false flag" issue that so enraged President Bush was "resolved" when President Obama came into office and scaled back U.S.-Israel covert cooperation vis-à-vis Iran. If this is true, Perry hasn't done President Obama much of a favor by revealing it. But the veracity of this statement, like the rest of Perry's article, is hazy.

The one certainty about Perry's piece is that it is provocative. That was doubtless among the motivations for its publication on the part of the editors of the Washington Post-owned Foreign Policy. But then again, the magazine has, more generally, established itself as an industry leader in online Israel-bashing, hosting not only a blog by Stephen Walt, co-author of the notorious book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, but a panoply of anti-Israel products. A recent example is an article lambasting the Republican presidential candidates' near-unanimous support for the Jewish state.

Perry is at his most vivid in describing CIA anger at Mossad aggressiveness. "Israel regularly proposes" targeting Iranians, one unnamed source says: "They come into the room and spread out their plans," and "we say to them ... [T]he answer is no." (This is the same Israel that was so close-mouthed about the Jundallah caper?) As if in defense of the CIA's and Foreign Policy's position, Perry quotes an intelligence official — unnamed, naturally — as saying, "Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours... [T]hey're supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don't think that's true." That much is evident in the pages of Foreign Policy, which has found itself an entrenched prospect and seems to be enjoying the view.

Hadassah Levy is website manager,
(http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/ content/module/2012/1/18/main-feature/ 1/our-defenders-at-the-cia).

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, January 19, 2012.

Christmas in Iran was canceled to "respect" Muslim self-mutilation during Ashura.

Earlier I discussed how mosques, some of which breed radicalization and serve as terrorist bases, flourish in America, while churches are increasingly targeted and destroyed in the Muslim world, especially the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity.

This pattern — religious appeasement of Muslim minorities in the West, religious hostility for Christian minorities under Islam — continues and manifests itself in other ways.

Christmas in Iran was canceled to "respect" Muslim self-mutilation during Ashura.

Consider Christmas. The same appeasement that allows a "victory mosque" to be erected near Ground Zero, where jihadists killed some 3,000 Americans, compromises one of Christianity's most important events.

For instance, a "Montreal suburb has decided to remove a nativity scene and menorah from town hall rather than acquiesce to demands from a Muslim group to erect Islamic religious symbols." Contrast this with Iran, where many churches were "ordered to cancel Christmas and New Year's celebrations as a show of their compliance and support" for "the two month-long mourning activities of the Shia' Moslems," a reference to the bloody flagellations and self mutilations Shias perform in memory of Imam Hussein during Ashura.

Likewise, the University of London held Christmas service featuring readings from the Quran — Islam's holy book that unequivocally condemns the Incarnation, which is precisely what Christmas celebrates. Meanwhile, Islam's clerics in the West proclaimed things like "saying Merry Christmas is worse than fornication or killing someone," since doing so is to "approve of the biggest crime ever committed by humanity": the belief that God became man on Christmas. As the cleric makes clear, these are not his words, but rather the words of Islam's most authoritative clerics.

Nor are these just words. Around the Muslim world, Christmas time for Christians is a time of threats, harassment, and fear. One can point to any number of Muslim attacks on Christians to prove this — whether churches attacked, burned, or forced into closure; whether Muslim converts to Christianity beat, killed, or imprisoned; whether Christians abused on "blasphemy" charges; or whether just sheer violence and killings of "infidel" Christians. (See "Muslim Persecution of Christians" for a list of December's abuses alone).

More telling, however, are the attacks that specifically targeted or revolved around Christmas:

December 25, 2011 was "Nigeria's blackest Christmas ever": in a number of coordinated jihadi attacks, several church were bombed, killing over 40 people, "the majority dying on the steps of a Catholic church after celebrating Christmas Mass as blood pooled in dust from a massive explosion." As expected, the New York Times all but apologized for the terrorists.

Christmas Eve in Uganda saw Muslims throw acid on a church leader, leaving him with severe burns, blinding one eye and threatening sight in the other. The pastor was on his way to a church party when a man pretending to be a Christian approached him from behind, yelling, "Pastor, pastor." When he turned, the Muslim threw acid in his face while others poured it on his back, all running away while screaming Islam's victory cry, "Allahu Akbar!"

In Muslim-majority Tajikistan, "a young man dressed as Father Frost — the Russian equivalent of Father Christmas — was stabbed to death" while visiting relatives and bringing gifts. Considering that the crowd beating and stabbing him were shouting "you infidel!" police cited "religious hatred" as motivation.

These are among the more violent and illegal attacks on Christians around Christmas time, undertaken by Muslim mobs and terrorists. In their own way, however, Muslim governments — many deemed "friends" of America — also make Christmas a very "un-merry" time for celebrants.

For example, if "vandals" in Indonesia decapitated the statue of the Virgin Mary in a small grotto days before Christmas, Indonesian officials have been shutting down churches; one "embattled church" fighting for survival was forced to move its Christmas prayers to a member's house.

This pattern of treating Christian minorities as dhimmis — Sharia's legal term for non-Muslims under Islam forced to live as despised, second-class citizens — is business as usual in the Muslim world. Some more Christmas-related examples follow, from a cursory Internet search:

* Malaysia: Parish priests and church youth leaders had to get "caroling permits" — requiring them to submit their full names and ID numbers at police stations, an eerie practice for any non-Muslim under Islam — simply to "visit their fellow church members and belt out 'Joy to the World,' [or] 'Silent Night, Holy Night.'"

* Iran: While celebrating Christmas, a church was raided by State Security. All those present, including Sunday school children, were arrested and interrogated. Hundreds of Christian books were seized. The detained Christians suffered "considerable verbal abuses."

* Pakistan: Intelligence reports warned of threats of terrorist attacks on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Christians also lamented that "extreme power outages have become routine during Christmas and Easter seasons."

In closing, if people in the West think Christmas is a time of "peace on earth, good will toward man" — to the point of compromising this Christian holiday to appease their "fellow [Muslim] man" — they should know that, increasingly, it is neither a time of "peace" nor "goodwill" for Christians under Islam.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com. This appeared January 17, 2012 in PJMedia and is archived at
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/ 11039/christmas-under-islam

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, January 18, 2012.

Salomon Benzimra wrote to Ban Ki-Moon this below:


In your latest speech in Beirut on January 15, 2012, you declared that "Settlements, new and old, are illegal." This is not new, as you expressed a similar opinion at a press conference at the UN in December, 2010, where you condemned "all settlement construction, including construction in East Jerusalem."

Repetition of a falsehood does not make it true. Of all institutions, the United Nations should be particularly aware of the legacy of past agreements enshrined in international law and of the immutable acquired rights of peoples, as spelled out in the UN Charter. By condemning specifically the construction of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria — a territory commonly known by its unfortunate misnomer, "the West Bank" — you are advocating a return to the untenable ethnic cleansing that prevailed prior to 1967.

Besides, this is not the first time where you brandish, rather thoughtlessly, the illegality of an action undertaken by the Israeli government. In June, 2010, following the "flotilla" events on the MS Mavi Marmara, you joined the chorus of baseless accusations of Israel. You were "shocked" by the intervention of the Israeli Navy and you supported the views of your trusted collaborators Navi Pillay, High Commissioner of the UNHRC ("The Israeli Government treats international law with perpetual disdain") and Richard Falk, Special Rapporteur ("It is essential that those Israelis responsible for this lawless and murderous behavior...be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts."). However, a year later, your own Palmer Commission restored some sanity when it clearly concluded that "the naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law."

I trust you will do the honorable thing and withdraw your sweeping declaration on the "settlements." For the sake of UN credibility, I urge you to refrain from adopting the triumphant, passing lies which are so pervasive in anti-Israel circles and not to echo in your statements the idiotic applause you may have received from your audience in Beirut.


Salomon Benzimra, P.Eng.
Tor onto — Canada

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. This is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 18, 2012.

On Sunday I had written that a major joint Israeli-US military exercise — to be the biggest ever held — which had been scheduled here for this spring had been cancelled, allegedly for budgetary reasons. The news was brand-new when I put it out.

In the days since, there has been much said about this cancellation, and every pundit, every writer, has a different take. You have your choice: both countries decided together to cancel/Israel cancelled/the US cancelled. It was for Israeli budgetary reasons/to punish Israel/to allow adequate time for planning. And on and on.


My own best guess is that it was the US that cancelled. There seems to me to be one quite plausible reason for this: The US does not want to stir things up and appear aggressive, while the situation with Iran is so "sensitive."

When she made her statement denying any US role in the assassination of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, Secretary of State Clinton also said:

"We believe that there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a way forward for it to...rejoin the international community."

This was just two days before the joint exercise was cancelled.


Now, Clinton's statement sounds delusional to rational people. I would say it is delusional (and destructively so). But from her perspective there was reason for the position she was publicly espousing:

Over the past several days, there has been covert communication between the US and Iran via Turkey. Last week US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns was dispatched to Turkey where he met with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who is known to have traveled to Iran, and to have he met with Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani.

The original message to Iran is widely understood to have been with regard to Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. But

subsequent to these meetings, Larijani, in Ankara, declared at a press conference that Iran is ready to resume nuclear discussions with the West: "I believe all issues can be easily solved through negotiations." And Davutoglu has let it be known that Turkey would like to host international talks on Iran.

Even in light of this information, the US approach will still sound delusional to rational people, who know full well how deceitful Iran is and how its leaders use "talks" as a stalling device. But imagine the hope that sprang up anew in Obama regarding a possible breakthrough with Iran via peaceful means — precisely what he had championed all along. This would preclude any need for war with Iran and give him a boost for the election. Essential, then, that the US not appear to Iran to be "war-like."


Not incidentally, this would explain Clinton's rush to deny any involvement in Ahmadi Roshan's death — and, further, to actually condemn the fact that this scientist who was involved in Iran's nuclear efforts was killed. After all, how can the Americans "effectively communicate" with Iran, if its leaders perceive the US as condoning assassinations of Iranians?


On the flip side, we can only imagine how maddening this must be to the decision-makers in Jerusalem, whom I count as among the most rational of all with regard to this issue. Picture attempting to deal with a US that is conducting itself this way, in the face of imminent threat.


There is one additional theory regarding the cancellation of the maneuvers that I rather like, although, in light of the above, I don't know that it sufficiently accounts for it. Very recently, Minister of Security Affairs Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon observed that:

"In the United States, the Senate passed a resolution, by a majority of 100-to-one, to impose these sanctions, and in the US administration there is hesitation for fear of oil prices rising this year, out of election-year considerations."

Ya'alon is absolutely correct that Obama has demonstrated reticence with regard to fully imposing sanctions, and he may well be correct as to why this is the case. Obama's ability to be re-elected depends in some good measure on the state of the US economy come next November.

The theory is that this public comment by Ya'alon so piqued the US administration, that the joint exercise was cancelled almost immediately thereafter.


A public confession here: I find Ya'alon to be the straightest, the most honest, and the most "right-on" member of the government.


Here I recommend an important article by Frank Gaffney, President of the (Washington DC based) Center for Security Policy, "No-kidding red lines":

"...Such warnings [from the US telling Israel not to attack Iran] have become more shrill as evidence accumulates that Israel is getting ready to move beyond what is widely believed to be a series of successful — but insufficient — covert actions against the Iranian nuclear program, missile forces and associated personnel.

"Some U.S. officials reportedly think the Israelis are just posturing...

"Others point, however, to evidence that the Israelis are concealing key military movements from our intelligence assets as an indicator that they are going for it — and want to keep us from interfering...

"...At the end of the day, the fundamental difference between the U.S. and Israel is that the Israelis have laid down 'red lines' with respect to the Iranian nuclear enterprise...

"To be sure, the United States says it has red lines, too....

"The difference between American and Israeli red line, of course, is that the latter may actually take seriously the breaching of theirs. Presumably, that would be because the government of Israel has drawn them so as to define existential threats to the state, not simply as a matter of rhetorical posturing intended mostly for domestic political consumption. (Emphasis added)

"By contrast, we know that at least some Obama administration officials are persuaded the United States can live with a nuclear Iran. They are said to be working up plans to contain, or at least, accommodate themselves to such a prospect...

"So far, though, in what may be seen from Tehran — whether rightly or wrongly — as submission to the new, Iranian-dictated order of things, we have chosen to remove all carrier battle groups from the Gulf...

"Worse yet, even if President Obama actually wanted to enforce his administration's red lines, he has further compromised America's ability to do so with his wholesale abandonment of Iraq, draconian defense budget cuts and the emasculated national security strategy he claims is all we can afford.

"Thus, the Israelis could reasonably view the United States as less-than-serious about the threats posed by Iran and as wholly unreliable when it comes to keeping them from metastasizing further. Under such circumstances, if the Jewish State feels it has no choice but to be deadly serious with respect to its red-lines, its leaders must be expected to act as Iran violates them. (Emphasis added)

"The likelihood for such action can only have grown as a result of the contempt with which President Obama has treated Israel, our most important regional ally. Dissing its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is one thing. Allowing our own red-lines to be flouted with impunity, signals that Israel is on its own and must proceed accordingly. (Emphasis added)

"If we are going to stop the nightmare of a messianic regime armed with nuclear missiles, somebody better do it soon — and with something more effective than sanctions. America should take the lead. But, if the Obama administration won't, it should get out of the Israelis' way." (Emphasis added)
www.centerforsecuritypolicy. org/ p18909.xml


In my last post on the legalities of expulsion from Mitzpe Avichai, I relied upon information from the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel. Moshe Eyal of the Legal Forum will be visiting communities in the US from February 14-23. His goal is to raise funds to further the work of the Legal Forum; to that end he would be pleased to meet with people, explain the group's work and answer questions. If you have an interest, please let me know.


A very delightful, and fascinating "good news" story. In Hebrew, "hibuki" means "hug," and "hibuki" is "huggy." That's the name of a sad-eyed toy dog made in China, which is being used by therapists here in Israel.

When children, moved from their homes because of falling rockets, were traumatized during the Second Lebanon war, psychologists Dr. Shai Hen-Gal (pictured below), a trauma specialist, and Professor Avi Sadeh developed the technique of using a stuffed animal for their treatment. This particular stuffed animal, which came to be known as "Hibuki," was discovered in a store by Sadeh. It wasn't selling well because its sad face didn't appeal to parents, but it turned out to be perfect for distressed children.

"A traumatized child identifies more with a sad animal because it's easier for him to project his own sadness onto it," Hen-Gal explains. "Another advantage of this stuffed animal was its human expression, plus the long arms with Velcro at the ends that can hug the child and cling to him. The child hugs the puppet and the puppet hugs him. That's where the name comes from."

Children were told to "take care" of Hibuki, and the psychologists found that the therapeutic results were enormous. Within a matter of days, stress-related behaviors were reduced by 40%, and the effects of "Hibuki" were found to be long-lasting. Since 2006, over 50,000 of these sad-eyed stuffed dogs have been utilized in Israeli communities whenever children are exposed to trauma. During Operation Cast Lead, for example, or after the Carmel fire. The Education Ministry keeps several thousand Hibukis in storage for emergencies.

The Hibuki success was described by Sadeh and Hen-Gal in the journal Pediatrics, which is how Daniella Hadassi, a therapist who works in disaster zones on behalf of the Foreign Ministry, learned about Hibuki. She quickly perceived that it might be very helpful in Japan, which has a puppet-oriented culture, and made appropriate contacts.

Hibuki — Yanai Yechiel, January 2012 (Yanai Yechiel)

Switch to Japan, after the tsunami, when many thousands of Japanese children were traumatized. A team of three Israeli experts came to help last August, having been invited by the Japanese Puppet Therapy Association. One of these was Dr. Hen-Gal, who had 180 of these stuffed animals with him.

The Israelis found the situation daunting, not only because of the number of children affected, but because there is not in Japan a highly developed mental health system: Japanese culture fosters keeping a stiff upper lip, and not expressing feelings. A problematic situation when dealing with traumatized children. Hibuki, however — after the Israeli team explained how to utilize it — was a great success in Japan.

Sadeh reports that Cambodia has now expressed an interest.
http://www.haaretz.com/ weekend/magazine/a-hug-a-day- keeps-the-trauma- away-1.405841

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

To Go To Top

Posted by John Cohn, January 18, 2012.

In the New York Times, Roger Cohen outlines in exhausting detail the downsides of an attack on Iran's nuclear program, sobering reminders for the leaders of the United States and Israel. But while "U.S. intelligence (is) convinced Iran is not yet building a bomb", decades of catastrophic failures, from Pearl Harbor to the World Trade Center attacks, are hardly reassuring. It may be unthinkable that Iran or a "deniable" proxy would intentionally use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, but the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust makes premeditated vaporization of another six million more difficult to entirely dismiss. Europe's Jews in the last century had limited means to defend themselves, and Western leaders ignored pleas to stop the genocide as it occurred. No doubt the world community would again feel guilt for inaction. From the ovens of Auschwitz to the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur it has practiced that, but for victims it would be, once more, too late.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, January 17, 2012.

The New Year's resolution for "Sunnis for Da'wa [Islamization] and Jihad" — also known as Boko Haram, or "Western education is forbidden" — is to create a Christian-free Nigeria, beginning, naturally, with the north, where Muslims outnumber Christians.

Right at the start of 2012, Boko Haram issued an ultimatum giving Christians living in northern Nigeria three days to evacuate or die — an ultimatum the group has been living up to, so much so that Nigeria's President Jonathan recently declared a state of emergency.

This, of course, is not to say that Boko Haram has not been long targeting Christians, as the New York Times — which all but apologized for the group's terrorism — would have it.

Boko Haram and other Muslims have been terrorizing Nigerian Christians for years, killing thousands of them, and destroying hundreds of their churches. Just last November, hundreds of armed Muslims, many from the group, invaded Christian villages, "like a swarm of bees," killing, looting, and destroying. At the end of their four-hour rampage, at least 130 Christians were killed. Forty-five other Christians in another village were slaughtered by another set of "Allahu Akbar!" screaming Muslims.

Likewise, another jihadi attack from last November, enabled by "local Muslims," left five churches destroyed and several Christians killed: "The Muslims in this town were going round town pointing out church buildings and shops owned by Christians to members of Boko Haram, and they in turn bombed these churches and shops." In one instance, a local Muslim pleaded with Boko Haram members not to burn down a particular church — not out of altruism, of course, but rather because that Muslim's home was adjacent to the church, and might also have caught fire. The church was spared.

Still, beginning with Boko Haram's church attacks of December 25, where over 40 people celebrating Christmas were killed, the group has definitely upped both the frequency and savagery of jihadi attacks on Christians and their churches. Most recently, armed Muslims stormed a church and "opened fire on worshippers as their eyes were closed in prayer," killing six Christians, including the pastor's wife, and wounding many.

Then, when friends and relatives gathered to mourn the deaths of some of those slain in this most recent church attack, Boko Haram Muslims appeared and opened fire again, killing another 20 Christians, all while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" — Islam's ancient war cry, which at root simply means "my god is greater than your god!"

A number of other sporadic attacks have occurred since: Four Christians were gunned down as they were getting gases, likely so they could flee the north, and another two were slain during a Boko Haram invasion of Christian homes.

Ayo Oritsejafor, head of the Christian Association of Nigeria has accurately characterized this spate of attacks on Christians as "religious cleansing," citing that some 120 Christians have been killed since the Christmas day church attacks.

Worse, but not unexpectedly, President Jonathan recently declared that "some of them [Boko Haram] are in the executive arm of government, some of them are in the parliamentary/legislative arm of government, while some of them are even in the judiciary. Some are also in the armed forces, the police and other security agencies."

This is typical of any number of Muslim nations where Islamists have infiltrated and hold important positions in the government, even where the U.S is not enabling them, such as Nigeria.

At any rate, Sudan offers a glimpse at what may be in store for Nigeria. In July 2011, South Sudan was born, breaking away from Sudan proper, in response to that all too familiar pattern: Sudan's Muslim north, just like Nigeria's Muslim north, was constantly abusing — also to the point of ethnic/religious cleansing — the Christian and animist south.

In the interest of Nigeria's Christian population, then, the nation may well be poised to go the way of Sudan and divide — and thus be the latest example of the difficulty of living peaceably alongside Muslims wherever and whenever they make for large numbers.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com. This appeared today in FrontPage Magazine is archived at
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11032/ nigerian-new-year-christian-slaughter

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, January 17, 2012.

Directed by Guy Nattiv
Israeli Film Festival at Lincoln Center
During January 2012.
In Hebrew; English subtitles.
Reviewed by Marion DS Dreyfus


In general this Israeli film, a prizewinner in several international festivals, and a runaway hit in Israel last year, is constructed with a confidence of storytelling (no expository dialogue, no beating a dead horse over-explanation) that is found all too rarely in contemporary cinema.

FLOOD is the contemporary story of a family in crisis when their elder son, Tomer, long institutionalized for severe autism, is brought home when his care facility fails. The entire family, their neighbors and community, alters to adjust to the difficulties attendant on this unexpected returnee. Younger son Yoni, extremely well played by Yoav Rotman, makes money to supplement his family income by doing homework for hire. Their father is a sidelined pilot, on layoff after he was discovered to be high when operating the cloud-seeder weather plane in their small community. His (gorgeous) mother, Miri Roshko, played by the beauty who glammed up the knockout indie Israeli THE BAND'S VISIT (2007) several years ago, Ronit Elkabetz, is a daycare teacher after the Montessori model. Her job is imperiled by the unintended but real calamities caused by Tomer in the neighborhood. Day by day, her pre-K charges seep away, their parents afraid of the difficulties Tomer might provoke in proximity to their children.

The marriage is still intact, barely, with the husband off every morning pretending to still work at the small airfield, but more or less hanging out between plane maintenance and endless smokes in a busted-up one-seater. Money goes out, but too little comes in. Bills are unpaid. Caterers call to cancel the family's upcoming Bar Mitzvah. The introduction of the autistic brother, Tomer (superbly played by Michael Moshonov), into the fragile household tests the family, as well as all the neighbors and school faculty who must cope with the calamitous and unpredictable crises occasioned by the fully grown but ambulant nonresponsive son.

Amidst all this, the smart younger son is studying daily for his Bar Mitzvah, the Torah portion on Noah and the Flood (Mabul is the term for Genesis'es Noahide flood), and the repeated singsong passages from the Bible are so often drilled into Yoni, via tapes and the live rabbi tutor, that the autistic Tomer, usually oblivious of much that goes on around him, quickly learns it too. Yoni must deal with the demands of the rabbi tutor, his teachers, the unexpected care of his returnee brother, and his now overwhelmed mother with caring for the son she loves but has too little time for. Yoni is beset by school bullies who want the homework assignments, but without the payments. The cruelties exhibited by these older teens were difficult for this reviewer to believe, since such behavior seems so out of place — but bullying exists in every society, one knows, whether sophisticated or troglodytic.

Israeli film has come a long way since the early '50s, when pioneering black and whites featured warm, expressive celebrations of the nation-building hardships the first chalutzim were undergoing, their triumphs over the rock-scrabble land and bad geopolitical neighborhood they found themselves in.

Israeli films now compete successfully in international film fora and often win, both animated and live action features. This film does not play on the tropes many films have taught us to expect. Instead, Israel is seen here in a semi-rural area, with green and forested areas, patches of untamed farmland, an unsullied beach-coast, even surfer dudes hanging 10--and sophisticated but everyday people trying to manage as best they can with the help of their beloved kin, their warm neighbors, and their often quirky destinies. It is a country still under warranty.

While there is a touch of melodrama in the ending, with a near-drowning, heightened Bar Mitzvah anxiety, lightning splitting the sky and too heavy a burden of metaphor, this is a strong, meaningful film, one that grabbed the SRO audience (all paying patrons) by the head and throat. It provides a more grounded view of Israel and Israelis than exists in the constricted tunnel many have of the country made immortal by the Bible.

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 Yoram Ettinger, January 17, 2012.

Grasping the American state of mind constitutes a prerequisite for a proper assessment of US domestic politics in general and the November 2012 presidential and congressional races in particular.

Recent public opinion polls reaffirm that the US is a center-right nation, and that "Micropolitan America," Main Street, K-Mart, Fox News, radio talk show hosts, the Wall Street Journal and the local "Gazettes" are as important — in shaping the US political scene — as are "Metropolitan America," Wall Street, K Street, CNN and the three major networks, NPR radio and the New York Times.

Notwithstanding the uninspiring slate of Republican candidates, and the self-destruct Republican presidential primaries, recent public opinion polls highlight the uphill challenge facing President Obama's reelection campaign and the Democratic Party's attempt to sustain its Senate majority and regain the House majority.

According to a January 12, 2012 Gallup poll, conservatives have become the single largest group (40%) in the US, consistently outnumbering moderates (35%) since 2009 and outnumbering liberals (21%) by 2-to-1. "This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives."

Gallup determined that Independents — who make up the largest political group in the US — increasingly identify themselves as conservative (35%), less as liberal (20%), while the percentage of moderate independents is trending downward (41%).

There are, possibly, more "Blue Dog Democrats" (which are targeted by Republicans for a switchover) than liberal Democrats, since Democrats consist of 40% liberals, 38% moderates and 20% conservatives.

At the same time, the percentage of moderate Republicans fell from 31% to 23%, while conservative Republicans have grown 10% since 2002, from 62% to 72%.

While a plurality (40%) of young adults are moderate, conservative and liberal young adults are 28% each. By contrast, a plurality of all older age groups (40% or more) is conservative, about a third is moderate and no more than 21% is liberal. In other words, the upward conservative trend since 2002 has occurred primarily among adults 30 and older.

The aforementioned Gallup findings provide the background to — and are consistent with — a series of data published by the January 14, 2012 Rasmussen Report. For example, 55% of likely voters consider the President more liberal than they are, and just 27% feel that the president has about the same ideological views as they do. Moreover, 41% of the likely voters strongly disapprove — and 22% strongly approve — of President Obama's performance. Overall, 46% somewhat approve of the President's performance, while 53% at least somewhat disapprove. 47% of likely U.S. voters think that the Republican candidate is most likely to beat President Obama, while 39% expect the incumbent to win reelection.

A January 9, 2012 Rasmussen Report indicates that 54% of likely voters favor a repeal of ObamaCare, while 39% at least somewhat support the health reform. Furthermore, an October, 2011 Rasmussen Report found that 70% favor individual choice over government standards for health insurance.

Congressionally, 44% of likely U.S. voters would vote for the Republican candidate in their district if the election were held today, while 38% would choose the Democrat instead. A January 2, 2012 Rasmussen Report contends that the number of Republicans increased by a percentage point in December (35.4%), while the number of Democrats fell back two points (32.7%) to the lowest level ever recorded by the Rasmussen Report.

The American state of mind constitutes the foundation of US domestic politics, as well as US foreign policy in general, and the unique US-Israel bond in particular. Israeli leaders would benefit, substantially, from studying the significance of the aforementioned Gallup and Rasmussen public opinion polls.

Ambassador (ret.) Ettinger, the Executive Director of "Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative," an expert on Middle East politics and US-Israel relations, served as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israel's Embassy in Washington and Consul General in Houston, Texas. He regularly briefs Israeli and US legislators and their staff on US-Israel strategic ties, Mideast politics and overseas investments in Israel's high tech. His articles are published at:
http://www.TheEttingerReport.com. This article appeared today in "Israel Hayom" newsletter,
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/ newsletter_opinion.php?id=1212
To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, January 17, 2012.

"Beyond Words" is a newly-published seven volume collection of Rabbi Meir Kahane's writings from 1960 — 1990 that originally appeared in The Jewish Press, other serial publications, and his privately-published works.

"Beyond Words" has a number of extra features: including: Chronology of Rabbi Kahane's life.

"Beyond Words" now can be bought at Amazon.com. On the search line, type... Beyond Words Kahane.

Beyond Words
Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane,

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

Previously sent articles can be viewed on:

This below is by Rabbi Meir Kahane and was written May, 1978.


Across my desk the other day came two items: One was from a rabbi, Orthodox, famous; the other from a Christian minister. Let us play a little game. Let us see if we can guess who said what; in theory it should be rather simple.

The first of the men of the cloth wrote the following:

G-d, the L-rd says — if Israel will not be gathered voluntarily HE will bring them back with a mighty hand into their own land which I swear to Abraham and his seed.

... Anti-Semitism growing in our country is being animated by the Civil Liberties Union ... getting the Bible and prayers outlawed from our public schools ... demanding the Nazi the right to march in our cities; demanding the rights of the homosexuals, the lesbians; the right to sell traffic in pornography ... Now all we need is a loss of jobs and the devaluation of our dollars and we will see the Jew being blamed for it, and with it will be driven out of the U.S.A. ...

And now, the other:

... I have espoused the position that a Zionist need not commit himself to Aliyah in order to be identified with the movement ... . It is important at this critical juncture that nothing be done to alienate millions of Jews from belonging to the World Zionist Organization only because we want to impose on them a commandment they are not prepared to fulfill now or ever. It should be enough that they accept the centrality of Israel in Jewish identity and Israel's indispensability for the survival of either Jewry or Judaism or both ... to split the (Zionist) movement over an issue which may be ideological but so TOTALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL at this moment, would be most tragic.

Of course, you have guessed who said what. You know that it is the minister, a rather unknown one from a small town in Illinois, who so firmly stated the clear, Biblical truth that G-d will not allow the Jew to remain in Exile but will uproot him with terrible tragedy and force his remnant to come home to Israel. It is the minister who knows and believes the verse in Ezekiel that reads: As I live, says the L-rd, G-d, with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with anger poured out I will be king over you. I will take you out from the nations and gather you from the lands to which you were scattered, with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, and with anger poured out" (Ezekiel 20:33-34).

It is the minister who understands that the refusal of the Jew to leave the Exile and go home is not "totally inconsequential" but a matter of life and death, literally, for the Jew. It is the minister who really does believe rather than pay lip service in a comfortable, non-demanding religious setting.

And it is the rabbi — whose ancestors wrote the Bible — who, when all is said and done, does not really take it seriously. He is a famous rabbi, an Orthodox Establishment elite rabbi, who, until recently, held the most prestigious pulpit in Orthodoxy (whatever in the world that may mean). But he is the one who understands nothing about the Divine determination of history and the immutable tragedy that MUST strike Jews who refuse to obey the commandment of living in the holy land and who, instead, despise the treasure of the Land of Israel by preferring Fifth Avenue.

Of course, the minister is right, and I have little doubt that he is an anti-Semite, to boot. But that, in no way, takes from him the words of truth as he warns the Jews of tragedy. After all, it is people such as he who will bring it about. It is well, therefore, to listen to his words, because these are the words of the real gentiles; these are the words the Jewish Establishment never hears as it meets annually with the National Conference of Christians and Jews to exchange plaques and platitudes. This is what the minister writes to a Jewish acquaintance:

We would hate to lose you as our friend in our country but as a Christian friend may we encourage you to go to your own homeland — while you can sell your holdings and go home with your pockets filled, before some radical...nut ...rises up like a Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, etc. and will deny you the liberty to leave with anything more than the clothes on your back. For... no flesh can deter or thwart the prophetic plan and promises of the spoken words of our G-d ...

The pity is that the reaction of the rabbi to this would be to condemn the minister as an anti-Semite (true); to vow that he will never force Jews out of their land (America); and to blithely ignore the fact that it is indeed the L-rd who sends men like the minister to do to Jews that which the rabbi should be warning against. What does one say at a time when the rabbis have long since ceased to understand the Jewish Idea? Jew, stop listening to them. Get out now, before the minister and his kind come.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, January 17, 2012.

This was written by Israeli humorist, Efraim Kishon.


Israel is a country surrounded on all sides by enemies, but the people's headaches are caused by the neighbors upstairs.

Israel is the only country in the world where the coffee is already so good that Starbucks went bankrupt trying to break into the local Market.

Israel is one of the few places in the world where the sun sets into the Mediterranean Sea.

Israel is the only country in the world whose soldiers eat three sets of salads a day, none of which contain any lettuce (which is not really a food), and where olives ARE a food and even a main course in a meal, rather than something one tosses into a martini.

Israel is the only country in the world where one is unlikely to dig a cellar without hitting ancient archaeological artifacts.

Israel is the only country in the world where the leading writers in the country take buses.

Israel is the only country in the world where the graffiti is in Hebrew.

Israel is the only country in the world that has a National Book Week, during which almost everyone attends a book fair and buys books.

Israel is a country where the same drivers who cuss you and flip you the bird will immediately pull over and offer you all forms of help if you look like you need it.

Israel is the only country in the world with bus drivers and taxi drivers who read Spinoza and Maimonides.

Israel is the only country in the world where no one cares what rules say when an important goal can be achieved by bending them.

Israel is the only country in the world where reservists are bossed around and commanded by officers, male and female, younger than their own children.

Israel is the only country in the world where "small talk" consists of loud, angry debate over politics and religion.

Israel is the only country in the world where the ultra-Orthodox Jews beat up the police and not the other way around.

Israel is the only country in the world where inviting someone "out for a drink" means drinking cola, coffee or tea.

Israel is the only country in the world where bank robbers kiss the mezzuzas when they leave with their loot.

Israel is one of the few countries in the world that truly likes and admires the United States.

Israel is the only country in the world that introduces applications of high-tech gadgets and devices, such as printers in banks that print out your statement on demand, years ahead of the United States and decades ahead of Europe.

Israel is the only country in the world where everyone on a flight gets to know one another before the plane lands. In many cases, they also get to know the pilot and all about his health or marital problems.

Israel is the only country in the world where no one has a foreign accent because everyone has a foreign accent.

Israel is the only country in the world where people cuss using dirty words in Russian or Arabic because Hebrew has never developed them.

Israel is the only country in the world where patients visiting physicians end up giving the doctor advice.

Israel is the only country in the world where everyone strikes up conversations while waiting in lines.

Israel is the only country in the world where people call an attache case a "James Bond" and the "@" sign is called a "strudel".

Israel is the only country in the world where there is the most mysterious and mystical calm ambience in the streets on Yom Kippur, which cannot be explained unless you have experienced it. Sunsets in Jerusalem are gorgeous every evening.

Israel is the only country in the world where people read English, write Hebrew, and joke in Yiddish.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, January 16, 2012.

War Against Patriots Must End! by Gavriel Queenann

Knesset Law and Justice Committee chairman MK David Rotem told senior officials Thursday that he expects police and other law enforcement authorities to play by the rules of the justice system and refrain from using 'administrative orders.'

Rotem's comments came after IDF Central Command boss Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrahi ordered that 12 nationalist activists be notified of their temporary expulsion from Judea and Samaria for periods ranging from 3 to 9 months.

Mizrachi cited 'suspicion' that those exiled from their homes had been involved in planning and executing violent attacks on Arabs in the region as his grounds for the order.

The IDF has consistently used so-called 'distancing' orders as a means of targeting nationalist activists in Judea and Samaria in cases where no evidence of wrong-doing can be produced.

Rights observers note that issuing extrajudicial orders against citizens merely suspected of criminal acts is a gross violation of the fundamental right to due process and a common tactic employed by totalitarian police states.

Haim Rahamim, head of the investigations and intelligence wing of the Judea and Samaria District in the West Bank, admitted to Rotem's committee that the Israel Police had been unsuccessful running undercover officers in the region and struggled to obtain sufficient evidence to make their cases in court.

Ministry of Justice representative Attorney Karen Dahari openly admitted nationalist activists had been systematically targeted with extrajudicial orders when police failed to make their cases in court&

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Successful people in politics or business know that with proper planning and persistence any goal is achievable. Israel and Jewish communities need true political and religious leadership, not self-serving chameleons!

US Withdrawal to the Kingdom "Not Too Far Away"

The first of 9,000 incoming US troops have arrived in Israel — not just for the joint Austere Challenge 12 exercise but for a longer stay. They are part of the joint US-Israel deployment ready for a military engagement with Iran and its possible escalation into a regional conflict. A US aircraft carrier will soon arrive for joint missions with the Israeli Air Force. Most of the US arrivals are airmen, missile interceptor teams, marines, seamen, technicians and intelligence officers. (After 10 years of war against global terror and a trillion dollars wasted, the US still does not trust the 'democratic' government of Iraq. Israel is the only reliable partner that world's democracies have in the region!)

Jordan has Always been a Part of their Aim!

A Hamas official slammed Jordans King Abdullah and said his fate will be similar to that of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mustafa Sawaf, editor-in-chief of the Gaza-based, Hamas-affiliated paper Felesteen, criticized the King for his support of the renewed talks between Israeli and Palestinian Authority officials.

Cruel but Effective anti-Islamic Terror Action

Russian Navy commandos captured a Somalian pirate ship shortly after the pirates had captured a Russian oil tanker. The Euro Union navy that patrols these waters would not interfere because they feared there could be casualties. After soldiers freed their compatriots and the tanker, Russian Navy commandos moved the pirates back to their own (pirate) ship and then sank the pirate ship along with the pirates and without any court proceedings, lawyers etc. They used the anti-piracy laws of the 18th and 19th centuries where the captain of the rescuing ship has the right to decide what to do with the pirates. Usually, they were hung. (KGB used quite successfully a similar tactic against kidnapped foreigners during the civil war in Lebanon)

Outpost Law Must become a Law

According to a recent poll, Likud voters overwhelmingly support the so-called Outpost Law aimed at normalising the status of threatened communities in Judea and Samaria. The bill, authored by Minister Zevulun Orlev (Jewish Home), would forbid eviction and demolition orders for Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that have stood for four years and have at least twenty families. It also stipulates that all petitions disputing land claims must be proven through accepted evidentiary means in a court competent to hear the case. Should such a claim be found valid the court would be directed to order monetary compensation or alternative grant of land for the plaintiff.

Hypocrisy of the Headlines:

"Israel citizenship ruling slammed as racist" — The Vancouver Sun — Why is nobody questioning citizenship laws of Saudi Arabia or why Arabs who left Palestine, to facilitate genocide of Jews by advancing Muslim armies, over 60 years ago? Even three generation later they still have refugee status in Muslim countries.

They Hate Each Other even More

Iraq's security situation continues to worsen in the wake of the Obama administration's pullout of US forces. A coordinated wave of bombings targeting Shiite Muslims killed at least 78 people last Thursday.

Mind Your Own Business

One day after a mysterious assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, U.S. President Barack Obama called Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the phone and reportedly wanted explanations. The U.S. reportedly wants Israel to refrain from attacking Iran and to coordinate all Iran-related actions with Washington. (Lives of Israelis are under the threat from nuclear Iran! Obama, so-called of Israel, was too quick to proclaim the US was not involved in attack. The US quite often ignores Israels warnings and advise. Why should Israel listen to others when Israels national security on line?)

Muslim Brotherhood Denies it Will Uphold Peace Treaty

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood denied on Saturday that it plans to uphold the peace treaty that was signed between Israel and Egypt in 1979. According to the report, the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, which won the recent elections in Egypt, told Arab media that the final decision on the matter is in the hands of the Egyptian people. The denial comes few days after the US State Department Victora Nuland had told reporters that the Muslim Brotherhood assured Washington it would uphold extant diplomatic accords, including the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty signed by Anwar al-Sadat and Menachem Begin. (This is another web of lies and deception. Israel has no partner with who to make peace!)

Quote of the Week:

"The maximum any Israeli government can offer is less than the minimum any Palestinian leader can accept. The real gap between both sides is much greater than perceived, and that gap is growing" — Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council, 2009

Why is Israel the first priority? by Steven Shamrak, 2.04.03

Various large scale world atrocities and conflicts have occurred in the past few years: Saddam's annihilation of the Kurds, Syria's brutal occupation of Lebanon, East Timor, Tibet, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, conflict between India and Pakistan, North Korea, War in the Congo and Rwanda, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Bali, massacres in Algeria, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Philippines, West China, Bask region in Spain and France, Syria, the Lebanese civil war, and the Iran-Iraq conflict. The majority of the conflicts are instigated by Muslims against fellow Muslims or other ethnic and religious minorities.

There are many nations around the globe who once had their own statehood. They still maintain their unique national identity, culture, language and connection with the land:

The population of the Kurdish people is almost 35 million. Their homeland, Kurdistan, is divided between five countries. In his statements President Bush categorically rejected the idea of an independent state for Kurdish people — Kurdistan.

Basks, the ancient people of Europe are still divided and prosecuted by both France and Spain. Nobody is willing to even consider their independence. The EU is liberally vocal in expressing support for Arab-Palestinians but extremely mute about the future of the Bask people.

Addressing the question of Iraq President Bush and the other ally leaders felt a compulsion to raise the issue of a so-called Palestinian state. It is in spite of: there has never been an Arab or Muslim state in the territory called "Palestine". Palestinians are just a mix of people from various neighbouring regions (some of them even came from Bosnia). Syrian Arabic is one of the most commonly spoken dialects among them. Their leader, Arafat, is Egyptian.

The war in central Africa claimed almost 3 million victims during the last decade. Nobody gave a damn! Still, Arab-Israel conflict is the top priority of US, EU and UN. All eyes are on Israel. I am still puzzled why?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, January 16, 2012.

Thorsten Wagner, Professor and lecturer from Copenhagen, Denmark was hosted by Temple Beth El in West Palm Beach Florida, January 14, 2012. His invitation was evidently based upon the fact that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer and Thorsten grew up in a disputed area of Denmark on the German border. He now speaks as a historian supposedly empathetic to the tribulations of the Jews of Nazi Germany.

Curious with what this gentleman might have to say, I attended his lecture at the Temple and am still not sure the purpose or direction of his talk. The fact that he was a tall, handsome, apparently friendly man and totally effective in charming the receptive Jewish Temple audience was undeniable. What he was doing there, other than the obvious speaking engagement fee? I am not at all sure. Was he there to assuage the guilt of his grandfather, perhaps his inadvertent own or that of the other of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's, Hitler's Willing Executioners? I doubt that.

The synagogue rabbi did present a clue in an incidental aside concerning Wagner's address Friday night. Wagner had admonished the Jewish audience not to get hung up blaming the Muslims for the rejuvenated anti-Semitism in Europe and Islam's virtual invasion of European nations and attempt to establish Sharia law in these nations. Did not the Jews remember when they too were labeled and despised as new immigrants?

Huh? How dare he make such a preposterous comparison and how clever of him to mine the endless caverns of Jewish guilt. Never mind that the Jews have spent generations attempting to meld into American society and at an immense cost to their own religious observance. Is that the case with Muslims?

At the question and answer session I was able to pose this question to Wagner. How could he state that the Muslims were a minor factor in Europe, a very small percentage of the population and just another group of harmless refugees attempting to establish a foothold in a new society, just like everyone else?

Wagner declared that he based his conclusions on the Pew Report. I then went to the Internet and read two articles on the Pew Report and was convinced that there must be two different Pew Reports. Not So! There is only one report — that compiled by the Pew Research Center Forum on Religion and Public Life itself plus several commentaries from other sources.

Professor Wagner evidently read the one by Tom Heneghan on his web site, FaithWorld. The opening remarks of this report are:

"One of the most wrong-headed arguments in the debate about Muslims in Europe is the shrill "Eurabia" claim that high birth rates and immigration will make Muslims the majority on the continent within a few decades. Based on sleight-of-hand statistics, this scaremongering (as The Economist called it back in 2006) paints a picture of a triumphant Islam dominating a Europe that has lost its Christian roots and is blind to its looming cultural demise. The Egyptian-born British writer Bat Ye'or popularized the term with her 2005 book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis" and this argument has become the background music to much exaggerated talk about Muslims in Europe. (The article continued in a similar vein.)

Heneghan's above interpretation of the Pew Report (and consequently Thorston Wagner's) stands in stark contrast to the Executive Summary coming right off of the pages of the Pew Forum report itself, dated January 27, 2011 and shown below:

The Future of the Global Muslim Population

Projections for 2010-2030, ANALYSIS January 27, 2011

"The world's Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to new population projections by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades — an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world's total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

Muslims will remain relatively small minorities in Europe and the Americas but they are expected to constitute a growing share of the total populations of these regions."

Unfortunately, unlike other immigrants to these countries, Muslims have shown no desire or inclination to become part of the greater cultures. Quite the contrary, there is an outspoken declaration and action to make the greater culture conform to Sharia law via intimidating school systems, legislatures, the court system and the present administration itself, which already abounds with intrinsic Muslim support, empathy and identification.

But where does all this place American Jews. Despite Wagner's scholarship of the Holocaust and its virtual annihilation of the Jews of Europe, he admonishes Jewish audiences to not be frightened by the lethal verbiage and action against them by Islamists. Jews are to ignore Islam's declared intention to annihilate the Jews and Christians and turn the world into a giant Caliphate. (And ... it is painfully obvious, they are doing exactly that all over the world, including the US, at this very moment!).

Do not those actions sound a whole lot like those of Adolph Hitler and now Ahmadinejad? Are Jews then to conform to the recommendations of Thorston Wagner and hide their heads in the sand as they have done on so many other existential occasions? I think not. Furthermore, I would never allow Wagner to appear before another Jewish audience. I don't trust him!


Comment from reader, Jan. 27, 2012

Thank you for sending me this alarming article. Unfortunately, most every one is blind to the obvious truth you brought out for me who survived the war and lost 22 members of my family in the death camps....We live today in the same atmosphere as the one I lived trough in 1938....and I am sick with worries. For this reason I work with all my heart for Israel ...for Magen David Adom who is "Israel 's second line of defense," to quote Yitzhak Rabin. Indeed MDA is vital to the survival of our Beloved ISRAEL....but I wish the world would start to open its eyes before it becomes too late to stop the evil forces at work against civilization and against the Jews in particular.

With renewed thanks, Jacqueline Goldman(French/American citizen)

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 Arlene Kushner, January 16, 2012.

We're still dealing with Mitzpe Avichai. As my readers are well aware, I have focused on mistreatment of the infants and children forced out of their homes during the evacuation of this neighborhood. What I have now learned is precisely how much attention has been paid to this issue in relevant forums over a period of time:

As far back as August of 2009, a document had been drawn up by mental health professionals, who took into consideration lessons from previous evacuations of "outposts," regarding the rights of the child in these circumstances. This document made minimal recommendations, and stated that children must be prepared in advance for an evacuation of their homes, and should not be present when the evacuation and destruction are taking place.

At that time, the Knesset Committee for the Rights of the Child called upon the Minister of Defense to adopt this document. Should no document be in place, the Committee recommended that the chief of police hold a hearing with professionals prior to an evacuation with regard to protecting the rights of the children involved in the projected action.

This past December, the Committee for the Rights of the Child revisited this issue, declaring that even political battles cannot justify injury to children. If procedures are not set in place prior to the evacuation and destruction of homes, then adequate protection of the child will not be possible.


Following the evacuation and destruction at Mitzpe Avichai, the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel drafted a letter that went to MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi), Chair, Knesset Committee on the Rights of the Child; Yohanan Danino, Commissioner of Police; and Major General Avi Mizrahi, head of IDF Central Command.

Additionally, copies were sent to Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu), Minister of Internal Security; Ehud Barak (Ha'atzmaut), Minister of Defense; Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, IDF Chief of Staff; and Nitzav Amos Ya'akov, Judea and Samaria District Police Commander.


This letter minced no words:

What we are seeing is the repeated occurrences of the evacuation of children in such a way that there is a serious breach of their rights. Most recently now has this happened again with the destruction of Mitzpe Avichai, where the rights of children were violated.

This took place in spite of the fact that in December the Committee on the Rights of the Child had addressed breaches in children's rights, and it was made clear that what was needed was a crystallization of procedures to stop injuries to children. The Committee adopted as policy the call for an interim procedure until all final arrangements could be worked out.

In spite of this, the evacuation was executed in the middle of the night, accompanied by break-ins into houses with screaming. Pregnant women and women with babies and young children were prevented by the security forces from using their private cars — they had to move on foot from the hill where they were located to Kiryat Arba. This gross and brutal breach of the rights of the children is without justification.

It is doubtful that there was any prior discussion regarding concern for the children during the evacuation. If there was such a discussion, it was not a reasonable decision that was arrived at. It is difficult to find a genuine reason that would justify the serious damage done to the mental and physical health of the children. The police and army are responsible.

In light of the repetition of this phenomenon, and the increasingly degrading attitude of security forces with regard to the rights of the Jewish children of Yesha, it is requested that significant steps be taken to safeguard the children.

MK Orlev is requested to interact with law enforcement agencies to actively promote the adoption of the document that has been drafted on the matter.

Law enforcement agencies are requested to adopt interim procedures without delay. As long as there are no concretized procedures in place, there should be no additional evacuations.


OK folks, now it's your turn. Pressure truly will help here. And help is needed.

Contact the prime minister, the defense minister and the minister of internal security (details below). I am focusing on the political figures because it is within the political sphere that decisions are made.

Say that you are aware of the shameful way that the evacuation at Mitzpe Avichai was done, with total disregard for the rights of the children involved. Tell them that you know there is a document that has been drafted by mental health professionals addressing the needs of the children in cases of evacuation and destruction of their homes. What is more, you are aware of the repeated requests of the Knesset Committee for the Rights of the Child regarding the need for at least interim procedures to be set in place immediately. Without proper procedures established clearly before an evacuation, the children will not be protected.

Politics does not justify what has been done at Mitzpe Avichai. It must never happen this way again. Demand that appropriate action be taken immediately on behalf of the children, as befits the Jewish state. And let them know that you will be watching.

Write as well to MK Orlev and let him know that you are supporting his committee's efforts to protect the rights of the child during evacuations.


In all instances, from US: 011-972 and drop the 0 before 2 or 3.
Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister
Fax: 02-670-5369
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses
Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense (IDF matters)
Phone: 03-697-5436 This will get you to his secretary.
Fax in the Knesset: 02-649-6117
E-mail: ehudb@knesset.gov.il
Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Minister of Internal Security (police matters)
Phone: 02-530-0999
Fax at office of Director of Ministry: 02-541-8070 Fax at the Knesset: 02-649-6188;
E-mail: iaharon@knesset.gov.il

MK Zevulun Orlev, Chair, Knesset Committee on the Rights of the Child
Phone: 02-640-8054 or 02-640-8454
Fax: 02-675-3709
E-mail: zorlev@knesset.gov.il


My friends, I thank you for your efforts here. I am promoting this action first out of concern for children, but also out of love for Israel. She must be all that she is intended to be, and dealing with these issues is painful.


One more related piece of information, and then all else will be tabled until the next posting:

Yesterday, my contact in Kiryat Arba told me that there were Sudanese as well as Arabs on the scene moving out the belongings from the houses that were to be destroyed. I now learned how this came to be the case: they were the employees of the company that had been contracted by the Civil Administration to destroy the outpost. This is from Rabbi Shimon Ben-Zion, a former member of the Kiryat Arba local council, who reported to Arutz Sheva.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 16, 2012.

In recent months, scores of jihadists have attempted to kidnap Israelis. Most such attempts were not revealed to the public, according to Lt. Col. (Ret.) Meir Indor, head of the Almagor Terror Victims Association. He is not surprised by the growing Islamist criminal effort. [I spent an afternoon with him, and thought him reliable.]

Why is he not surprised? He is not surprised, because Israel presents itself as a society that does not try to deter kidnappings, and that when kidnappers succeed, Israel will pay any price to get the victim released. When an Islamist murderer is convicted, he goes to prison [for a while, eventually becoming released in the next payment of ransom] as a hero of his people [and honored by P.A. head Abbas, you know, Peres' "peace partner"] So it is that the government is not seeking the death penalty for the murderers of most of the Fogel family, including its babies. More murders will follow.

No wonder Israel's enemies feel they can attack Israel with impunity! (IMRA, 1/16/12 from victims1@gmail.com.)

Israel pulled its punches in the last wars in Lebanon and Gaza, letting its enemies build up missiles into an existential danger. Israel hardly makes its case against jihad. Most of the social studies professors in Israel make the Arab case and some even plump for boycott and terrorism against their own people. The demoralization among Israelis from such mental breakdown is palpable to Israel's enemies.

Interesting that the Israeli government does not reveal all the attempts. Does the government think that silence gives the enemy the impression that few terrorists attack Israel? The enemy knows what it is doing. Is this an effort to shield the tourist industry? Or does the government not want its people to realize how serious the problem is and that governmental policies encourage terrorism?

Capital punishment is controversial. During the period of Jewish autonomy under Roman rule, the death penalty rarely was imposed. In New York, it is reserved for particularly heinous crimes. Sometimes conviction for a capital offense is on shaky grounds. Much of the Western world is captivated by pacifism as being humane.

Col. Indor would consider aggression wrong and pacifism in the face of aggression wrong and inhumane. It is inhumane, particularly in Israel. It is inhumane because: (1) Israel releases murderers if fellow jihadists can capture more Israeli victims: Kidnap; release. (2) The jihadists are in a state of war with Israel. The kidnapping and murders they commit are not civilian crimes to be treated by a civilian criminal code; they are military and genocidal. The murderers of the Fogel family were particularly brutal in slashing the baby. They deserve the death penalty, and Israeli society needs it for a certain level of deterrence. Such deterrence can't be total, because of their religious belief in murder of non-Muslims. But a society thought afraid to defend itself will attract bullies, just as do timid boys in the schoolyard.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, January 16, 2012.

Pope Pius XII, the reigning pontiff during the Holocaust, won't go away. What he did or did not do about the Nazi extermination of Jews has been the subject of debate since the war ended. Now, according to new research by William Doino, a writer for "Inside the Vatican" magazine, the most controversial Pope in modern history helped a group of 500 Italian Jewish refugees escape death at the hands of the Nazis.

The new research might spur Pope Benedict XVI to elevate Pius XII to sainthood, as the Roman Catholic Church has been trying to do for many years. We already know that hundreds of Jews found refuge in Rome's convents and the in Vatican itself. We are also familiar with the individual acts of heroism of some Catholics who saved Jews across Europe. The debate has been framed in terms of absolutes: Pius' critics see him as the epitome of evil; his supporters insist he was a savior of Jews. Pope Pius XII was not "Hitler's Pope" of British historian John Cornwell nor the "Righteous Gentile" ridiculously evoked by Rabbi David Dallin. More simply, the industrial mass murder of Jews was not on the Pope's list of priorities.

The same could be said of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, but they did not claim to be the "Vicar of Christ." The apologists exonerate Pius XII by saying that he did not understand the meaning of the Holocaust. They are wrong. The Pope knew everything about the Shoah. As brave historian Daniel Goldhagen wrote, "It is not that Pius XII did not understand but that he understood only too well."

Pius was given daily briefings of Nazi atrocities by the British envoy to the Holy See. The pontiff resisted calls from Roosevelt's representative to the Holy See, the president of the Polish government in exile, the bishop of Berlin, and the chief rabbi of Palestine to speak out specifically and forcefully on behalf of the Jews.

Moral blindness

The Pope could have done much to stop the Zyklon B gas. He did little or nothing. How many Roman Catholic SS men and Nazi functionaries would have had, at the very least, second thoughts about their work had the Pope, for example, ordered Vatican Radio to broadcast round-the-clock denunciation of the Shoah, condemning it ex cathedra, and excommunicating the perpetrators? And how many Jews hearing such broadcasts from the voice of the Vatican would have learned that "resettlement" was a euphemism for death by gas?

In a landmark 1950 article for Commentary, historian Leon Poliakov wrote: "It is painful to have to state that at the time when gas chambers and crematoria were operating day and night, the high spiritual authority did not find it necessary to make a clear and solemn protest that would have echoed through the world".

In a letter to Bishop von Preysing of Berlin on April 30, 1943 referring to the extermination of the Jews, the Pope concluded his thoughts with, "Unhappily in the present state of affairs, we can bring no help other than our prayers." The Jews didn't need prayers, but heroic resistance from the Christian bystanders.

The Pope refused to publish what has now become known as the "hidden encyclical." In June 1938, more than a year before the outbreak of World War II, Pope Pius XI commissioned a draft papal statement attacking anti-Semitism called "Humani Generis Unitas" ("The Unity of the Human Race.") He died before it was completed. Pius XII buried it until it was published in France in 1995.

Had Pius XII published the document it might have saved hundreds of thousands, or millions, of Jews. The Catholic Church and relief organizations were suffering from the moral blindness induced by centuries of Christian "teaching of contempt," in which the Jews were demonized as "deicides", "moral lepers" and "agents of the devil" for their refusal to accept Christianity.

That's why Pius XII did intervene only on behalf of baptized Jews, as they were considered by the Church as Catholics. The Church believed Jews to be evil and harmful; it did not object in principle to their punishment and it lacked empathy for them. The Pope apparently chose cowardice in the face of overwhelming evil. That's why our moral judgment about the most important modern event concerning Jews in the history of the Catholic Church should remain that of culpability. While millions were cannibalized and devoured in crematorium IV of Birkenau and their skin was used for lamp shades, the Pope turned a blind eye to the Israelite cataclysm. Et Papa tacet.

Giulio Meotti is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at giuliomeotti@hotmail.c. This appeared in YNET,
http://www.ynetnews.com/ articles/0,7340,L-4176106,00.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, January 15, 2012.

John Campbell's biography of Great Britain's former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher (1979 to 1990), has just hit the big screen. Meryl Streep is already being talked about for another academy award for her portrayal of the Iron Lady.

Like her nation's overwhelming centuries' old imperial past, there are multiple ways of viewing Prime Minister Thatcher's own actions.

Ask people which empire in all of recorded history was the largest, and see if they know...

To save you the task of researching this (and as if you haven't already guessed), the British Empire beats them all by far, at one time comprising nearly a quarter of the land mass of the earth and about a quarter of its population up until the post-World War II era in the last century.

Name the location...all North America; British West Indies; Egypt, and much of the rest of the Middle East and elsewhere in North and sub-Saharan Africa; Australia and New Zealand; Hong Kong; the former Burma, Ceylon, and the Indian sub-continent and its environs; islands off of South America; etc. and so forth... not to mention the earlier forced acquisition and consolidation of the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish peoples' lands.

His and Her Majesties' realm dwarfed all others, and despite many of the Brits' former possessions now having attained independence, the legacy of that imperial experience is still very much with those former subjects today with impacts on much of the rest of us as well. The late 19th century poem by Rudyard Kipling, speaking of the White Man's Burden, sums much of this up nicely. While addressing America's new dabbling in such enterprise after its war with Spain, it was indeed originally written with Great Britain in mind.

With this as background, let's turn now to just a few events which transpired during the Iron Lady's days as Prime Minister...

A few years into Thatcher's administration, in 1982 Argentina once again got peeved at the audacity of British imperial and colonial policies which had resulted in its earlier grabbing islands a few hundred miles off the Argentine coast.

Almost 8,000 miles away from Great Britain, Las Malvinas--aka, the Falkland Islands--were perceived as a thumb in the eye of Argentina. Imagine, for example, the latter staking claim to the Isle of Wight or the Hebrides off of "Great Britain"...Scotland's coast.

Anyway, after the Argentine invasion, the Iron Lady's Brits went to war to re-conquer the islands in the name of British national interests...almost a third of the circumference of the world away from home.

Let's turn the clock back now to the days of the June ("Six Day") War in the Middle East. And, to really understand the point, we have to go back even further, to the break-up, after World War I, of the Ottoman Turkish Empire which controlled much of region for some four centuries.

The Brits made a lot of conflicting promises to lots of different peoples during those days.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt--and going beyond those would claim just neo-colonial, divide to still remain in control policies--there was also a sincere feeling, in at least some circles, that long-suppressed, different peoples should at long last get a taste of freedom and independence

Arabia for the Arabs, Judea for the Judeans (Jews), Armenia for the Armenians, and Kurdistan for the Kurds was one way of expressing this view, and President Woodrow Wilson's famous "Fourteen Points" emphasized this as well.

Having said this, that view often clashed with the actual folks running the British Foreign Office and such.

So, to not anger Arabs, for example, the Brits, whose imperial navy had recently switched from coal to oil, reneged on promises to the Kurds--currently some 35 million truly stateless people who pre-dated Arabs by millennia in the Mandate of Mesopotamia.

After receiving a favorable decision from the League of Nations regarding the northern oil fields in 1925--London supported only Arab nationalist interests in what would soon become a united Arab Iraq instead. Specially designed British Hawker-Hunter (anti-guerilla) attack aircraft took care of the Arabs' Kurdish headaches afterwards.

A few years earlier, the Brits were involved in similar imperial shenanigans...

While Jews had earlier been promised that they would be able to live throughout the Brits' other, smaller Mandate of Palestine, in 1922 almost 80% of the land was handed over to Arab nationalism instead. Transjordan was thus virtually severed from the remaining 20% of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine's territory while still technically being a part of the Mandate until gaining independence in 1946.

Led and formed by the Brits' Sir John Bagot Glubb ("Glubb Pasha"), Transjordan's Arab Legion seized lands west of the Jordan River in its attack on a minuscule reborn Israel in 1948 and, now holding territory on both banks, soon renamed itself Jordan instead.

Note please...the conquest of Judea and Samaria (only recently thus being dubbed the "West Bank" as well), was an illegal occupation of non-apportioned (not "purely Arab") territory in the Mandate, and no nations besides Pakistan and the Brits themselves recognized this.

Having been blockaded at the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba by Egypt and shelled by the Jordanians a bit later (casus belli), when Israel took the land in its war for survival in 1967, it was thus taking it from an illegal occupier.

In his book upon which the movie, Iron Lady, is based, John Campbell refers to and/or insinuates that Israel's defensive actions on the West Bank amounted, instead, to the illegal acquisition of "Palestinian" lands. It's a bit confusing as to whether those words in his book are his own thoughts or are actually those of the Iron Lady...Either way, they're simply wrong.

The disputed lands in question were indeed non-apportioned, and all of the Mandate's residents were allowed to live there...not just Arabs. Much, if not most, of the area was state lands, and Jews had lived and owned property there until they were slaughtered by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s and Transjordan officially made the territories Judenrein (as it made itself) after 1948.

Again, the Brits are a mixed blessing on all of these matters, wavering back and forth between issues of real politik and just reasoning...And the Iron Lady was no exception, despite her relative friendliness to Israel compared to what it faces coming out of her nation these days.

Thatcher's Britain--which could fight Argentina 8,000 miles from home in the name of Her Majesty's national (if not also still imperial) interests--would constantly press Israel to return the territories used to launch attacks against it and on which Jews (unlike the Brits on the Falklands) have thousands of years of connecting history to.

A Great Britain, which acquired territories and conquered peoples all around the globe while grabbing their natural resources for its own good as well, saw and still sees no trouble complaining about an allegedly "expansionist" Israel because, having been repeatedly attacked by Arabs who want it destroyed, says it needs to become something beyond the nine-to fifteen mile wide sub-rump state that it was left as after 1949...in other words, needs the very territorial compromise the British Foreign Secretary, as will be discussed below, had promised Israel just a bit earlier himself.

"Land for peace" became the constant lecture even from the friendly Iron Lady...even though it was quite clear to all with eyes open and neurons intact that the only "peace" the vast majority of Arabs had in mind for Israel was the peace of the grave--regardless of its size.

What makes this all the more confusing is that it was an earlier British Foreign Secretary himself, Lord Caradon, serving as chief architect of the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 in the aftermath of the June '67 War, who deliberately built in a territorial compromise over the disputed territories so that Israel would, at long last, get more secure, defensible, and real political borders instead of the armistice lines imposed upon it in 1949 after the combined Arab invasion the year before. Again, those lines had left Israel a mere 9-15 miles wide at its waist, where most of its population and industry were concentrated...an irresistible temptation to its rejectionist enemies.

Here were the Iron Lady's colleague, Lord Caradon's, very words on the subject...

It would have been wrong to demand Israel return to positions of June 4, 1967 ... those positions were ... artificial ... just places where soldiers of each side happened to be on the day fighting stopped in 1948 ... just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand Israelis return to them.

With this in mind, Jews would obviously have to repopulate areas in Judea and Samaria in which they indeed had lived earlier...for millennia. Until the Jordanians destroyed numerous synagogues and such, this included East Jerusalem as well, the location of Judaism's holiest of sites, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

To get what 242 promised — that territorial compromise — it's a no brainer, as my students would say, that Jews would have to actually live on the land. So, please explain this next alleged statement from Thatcher in 1980 recorded in a secret diplomatic cable written by Ambassador John Robinson on May 4th 1980...

Efforts to convince (Prime Minister) Mr. Begin that his West Bank policy was absurd, and that there should not be Israeli settlements on the West Bank, had failed to move him... His response was that Judea and Samaria had been Jewish in biblical times and that they should therefore be so today.

To her credit, however, she also made the following statement on page 246 in her book, Statecraft

Israel must never be expected to jeopardize her security: if she was ever foolish enough to do so, and then suffered for it, the backlash against both honest brokers and Palestinians would be immense — 'land for peace' must also bring peace.

By the way, the Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations and other solid documentation show that the vast majority of Arabs were newcomers into the Mandate themselves, Arabs settlers setting up Arab settlements in Palestine.

Indeed, after the combined Arab invasion in 1948 backfired on the Arabs themselves, so many Arabs in the Mandate were newcomers that the United Nations Relief Agency set up to assist Arab refugees had to adjust the very definition of that word to assist those people.

So many Arabs were recent arrivals--settlers--themselves that UNRWA had to change the definition of "refugee" from its prior meaning of persons normally and traditionally resident to those who lived in the Mandate for a minimum of only two years prior to 1948...Please understand what this is saying.

And there was no special agency set up to help numerically more Jewish refugees, fleeing so-called "Arab" lands, than Arabs who were fleeing in the opposite direction due to a war which Arabs started over Israel's rebirth.

While the Iron Lady is missed these days for her relative fairness towards Israel, besides the troubling example above, there were some other episodes as well...like when she joined American political leaders, such as George H.W. Bush, James Baker, and others (and most of the rest of the world) in condemning Israel's surgical destruction of Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. Just imagine if Saddam had the bomb when he went invaded Kuwait, went to war with Iran, and so forth...

Working non-stop on behalf of freedom for the Soviet Union's Jewish refuseniks, she then made the leap, however, comparing them to allegedly "stateless" Arab refugees. The plight of the latter was mostly a self-inflicted wound...that of the former was not. Read this to see what I mean:
http://www.icjs-online.org/ index.php?article=263

And Arabs already had one state created for them in the lions' share of the Palestine Mandate--Jordan. They were not "stateless." Arabs next refused another proposed partition plan in 1947 which would have given them about half of the 20% that was left. 90% was not enough for them...Jews were entitled to nothing in this vision of "justice"--the same subjugating Arab mindset which victimizes scores of millions of other non-Arab peoples in the region as well.

No doubt, it's disappointing when folks like the Iron Lady's fail to see such differences.

On the overall balance sheet, however, and despite the above and other "flaws" (just ask the Irish, for example), when judging world leaders, the world would be a better place if Margaret Thatcher was still in her office at 10 Downing Street.

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 Richard H. Shulman, January 15, 2012.


Israel's budget debates pitted expenditures for "social justice" versus national defense. The government chose to reduce the military allowance in favor of what it calls "social justice."

Just the other day, however, the costs of effective defense went up with the missiles Iran was showing off. Now Israel needs hundreds of anti-missiles, each costing about $75,000, and a system for integrating them into its defense structure.

Already the IDF had to choose between its branches. As a result, its navy is short of the corvettes needed to protect its coast. Each one costs well over a billion dollars! (IMRA, 1/15/12 from 3 January 12 19:30, Yuval Azoulai,
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/ Security-Industry/2012/01/13/Israel- needs-39B-to-fund-Arrow-plan/UPI-45861 326477304/?spt=hs&or=si).

Military threats to Israel have multiplied recently. Turkey has joined the anti-Israel, Islamic coalition, now threatening Israeli natural gas extraction from the sea. Egypt and other Arab countries are falling under thralldom of Radical Islam. The Radicals want war with Israel sooner rather than later. Egypt has a stronger navy than Israel and a powerful air force and mechanized ground force.

"Social justice" sounds like a euphemism to me for welfare dependency and interest group lobbying. Instead of having more people extracting from the national wealth, the government should reduce regulations and taxes and enable more people to contribute to the national wealth.


The New Israel Fund (NIF) held an award ceremony for leaders of two self-declared civil rights organizations, Adalah and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) on December 13.. Retired Supreme Court Justice Ayah Provocaccio praised the leaders, their organizations, the NIF, and his Supreme Court. He described all as defenders of human rights, necessary for democracy.

In defending human rights, Justice Provocaccio asserted, the two organiztions heal societal wounds and stand up for accused people. Adalah defends the Arab minority's rights to distributed public resources and for free speech. Much of that defense originates in petitions to his Court. ACRI, he said, defends all sectors of the country. Together, they raise society's moral level.

The judge referred to constitutional rights. [Israel has no constitution.] New threats to free speech were hinted at.

The judge admitted to having an emotional sympathy with the petitioners.

My source, IMRA, questioned the propriety of a judge praising litigants. The question was ignored by the media, but IMRA supposes that if a right wing judge had praised right wing litigants, the media would have been up in arms. The media has a double standard about rights and responsibilities (IMRA, 12/25/11 from
http://www.adalah.org/upfiles/2011/ Justice%20Procaccia%20address%20 English%2013-12-11.pdf).

What democracy is served by judges having emotional sympathy with one side? Bias means injustice.

The judge spoke in lofty generalities, contrasted with my several articles describing concrete details of abuses of Jewish rights and subversion of the country by Adalah, ACRI, NIF, and Israel's Supreme Court. The speech misstated matters. NGO Monitor has documented self-declared civil rights organizations using the guise of civil rights for propaganda in behalf of the international movement to de-legitimize and dissolve the Jewish state. That is the proper context in which to view these court cases.

NIF finances subversion and disunity and a few good things such as shelters for battered wives. Adalah seeks to give the Arabs privileges and to curb Jewish rights. ACRI almost never upholds the rights of Jews, but almost always bolsters Arab attempts to take away Jewish rights, as to property. Those restrictions on democracy are what the Far Left Supreme Court empowers.

The Supreme Court, itself, is a prime example of the low state of democracy in Israel. The Court is primarily self-appointed, stacked in favor of anti-Zionists, a small and unrepresentative minority of the people. No constitutional separation of powers binds the Supreme Court and no self-discipline restrains it. The unrepresentative Court freely overturns legislation approved by the people's elected representatives. It replaces the legislation with its own legislation, regardless of law, precedent, and evidence. Although in many cases, the Arabs are violating Jewish property owners rights, and Jews are defending their rights, and the Arabs have no valid evidence and the Jews so, the court's basis for rulings is its members' pro-Arab ideology.

The hints at new threats to free speech refer to new bills struggling and stumblng to recognize the international asault on Israel's existence, to identify the course of foreign funding of local efforts along those lines, and to curb some of the abuses. Some of the legislation goes too far or would not be effective. These defects are just an excuse for accusing the whole effort of being anti-democratic. The effort is to protect national sovereignty from international interference, such protection being essential to democracy. This is a matter of national survival.

The cries about free speech are hypocritical. Any criticism of stated approval of terorism, stated by Israeli professors and by Arabs, criticism of Arab violence, criticism of professors who abuse their classrooms to indoctrinate students against their own country, universities that refuse to hire non-leftists, and criticism of false statements, is called an assault on free speech. The leftists, who claim to believe in free speech and human rights, do not stand up for Jews attacked by Arabs, whose property is seized by Arabs. Instead, they demand that their critics be imprisoned. Free speech should go both ways, but incitement to riot should not be considered protected speech.


Israel's Pres. Shimon Peres has for years called Muslim Arab bombings, murders, and other hostile acts "Palestinian 'mistakes.'" Again on December 27, he told Israeli Ambassadors that Abbas' meeting with terrorist Amana Munu one of the P.A.'s "mistakes and errors." He insists that they are good peace partners.

By failing to call the P.A. to account, Peres gives the P.A. no incentive to moderate its harsh rhetoric (IMRA, 12/27 www.imra.org.il).

Abbas continually praises terrorists as an example for his subjects. By a sizeable majority, they endorse terrorism. Abbas' honoring of terrorists not only produces terrorists, it reflects his opposition to peace. This problem is obvious. Why doesn't Shimon Peres pounce on it? Is he unable to grasp the fact that the P.A. is engaged in jihad against Israel, which means it does not want peace? Or does Peres not care, so long as he can whittle down the Jewish state like the appeasement minded anti-Zionist he really is?

Peres and Israelis equally thoughtless are a major threat to Israel's survival. They vitiate opposition to jihad. They pave the way for the country's conquest.


In anticipation of Assad's overthrow, the IDF expects masses of his Alawite sect to flee from Syria. The IDF expects to let those refugees into the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights, at present, has a population half Jewish and half non-Jewish and whose allegiance is to Syria. A flood of refugees from Syria would tip the population balance. The result would be stronger pressure for Israel to relinquish the Golan and probably subversion and terrorism in the Golan.

Not to worry, say leading IDF brass. They believe that the Army has sufficient weapons systems to prevent a Syrian invasion from the Heights. They do not understand that current technology may become obsolete. Then what would Israel do? Perhaps those generals, being appeasement-minded leftists, refuse to consider that future conditions may not be as favorable as present conditions. Theirs is a poor way of planning strategy.

Aside from its being a part of the sovereign Jewish state, and its being a vital strategic barrier to invaders, the Golan also brings to Israel a major part of its water supply (IMRA, 1/10/12 from Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Arutz 7
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/151597).

What a criminally negligent strategy to allow another strategic defeat for, or threat to, Israel, as those threats multiply from the rise of Radical Islam in Turkey and Egypt, as Hizbullah gets tens of thousands of missiles, as Hamas improves its missiles, as the world bashes Israel, as President Obama orchestrates Administration hostility to Israel, and as Iran develops nuclear weapons!

Israeli strategists used to consider as a menace to Israel only the countries in a formal state of war with Israel. They omitted Egypt, which has been planning war on Israel. Egypt' treaty with Israel has an escape clause. Besides, jihadists do not feel bound by treaties with non-Muslims. Again, what poor strategists! Their short-sightedness or sub-prime patriotism impels them to suggest new Israeli withdrawals after prior withdrawals have posed strategic dengers to Israel. The strategic threats from the Sinai, Hizbullah, and Hamas all are the result of unnecessary withdrawals.

No matter how much the Left's ideology fails, leftists persist. They are obsessed. In the old days, they would be said to be possessed. People were supposed to be foolish in the old days, but what insanity prevails in our day!

The Left long has tried to strip Israel down into what most experts, including a U.S. Chiefs of Staff report, consider an indefensible rump. Letting thousands of Alawites into the Golan would be one step that way. It also would fit the leftist idea of getting Israel away from being a Jewish state. Do they realize or do they just not care that if Israel's proportion of Jews shrinks by much more, the result would be extermination?

Letting Alawites in would be rationalized as being humane to refugees. Humane to let in masses of people who have been trying to conquer the Jews for decades?

The concept of being humane to refugees is perverted, when those masses fleeing vengeance in Syria would be the people who supported the Assad dictatorship that the world says is brutal.

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 Sergio HaDaR Tezza, January 15, 2012.

The mission of Dry Bones Project is, through research and analysis, to create an educational outreach to advance popular understanding and to correct willful rewriting of history. The project intends to do so by means of cartoons, cartoon history books, and other works and through educational lectures.

Israel's enemies try to erase the pre-1948 history of the Jews in the Land of Israel. But China has not yet been infected with this denial of Jewish History.

We propose to inoculate the 1.3 billion Chinese against this modern libel with exciting, popular, online, and free to download apps and eBooks ...in a form and with content that will appeal to both the Chinese establishment and Chinese university students alike.

Yup! A unique project to bring China and the Jews closer together through educational, digital, Chinese-language, graphic works written and drawn by award-winning Dry Bones cartoonist, scholar, and political analyst Yaakov Kirschen (me)

We can do it ...but we need your help!

Instructions for Donors

To Donate By Check:

  1. Tax-deductible donations to Dry Bones Project should be made out to "REPORT, Inc."

  2. Important: Include a cover note stating that these funds are to be directed to Dry Bones Project.

  3. Checks and the accompanying cover note should be sent to:
    REPORT, Inc.
    PMB 309
    100 Springdale Road, Ste A3
    Cherry Hill, NJ 08003>

Pay Pal
To donate to Dry Bones Project through Pay Pal:
GoTo: http://drybonesproject.com
and click the Paypal Donate button.

For Further information, or to let us know that you've sent in a donation, please contact us at blog@mrdrybones.com For details visit http://drybonesproject.com

The special website is at http://drybonesproject.com
Dry Bones — Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 15, 2012.

In my last posting I registered moral outrage at the fact that the residents of Mitzpe Avichai, including children and babies, were pushed out of their homes — a total of 9 temporary structures in this fledging neighborhood in Kiryat Arba — in the middle of the night, into a freezing rain, so that the homes might be destroyed.

Today I have additional factual information:

According to a Hevron lawyer, the hill on which Mitzpe Avichai was established is not private land, but state (i.e., Israeli) land. We are not dealing here with a question of privately owned land that is challenged as possibly belonging to a Palestinian Arab. This area is part of Kiryat Arba (a Jewish community immediately adjacent to Hevron) but official permission has not been granted for Jews to establish homes there. Thus, technically, the state is within its rights to remove the people who had established themselves there.

Aside from the fact that this does not remotely justify removing people at 3 AM, the point was made by my legal contact that the state was under no compunction to remove the residents. They could just as easily have allowed them to stay.


In simple terms, then, we are looking at a political act: left-wing muscle flexing is how I see it. Call it, if you will, "Look world, how tough we are with 'illegal' outposts."

This left-wing attitude is the flip side of the Jewish determination to build there:

According to a reliable and very well connected source in Kiryat Arba, the Jews of the area saw the government refusal to grant them permission to establish a new neighborhood in existing Kiryat Arba as a part of a silent freeze that has been in place in Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu — acceding to the demands of Obama — established a temporary 10-month freeze on new building in communities in Judea and Samaria that ran through September 2010 When asked to renew that freeze to appease Abbas, the prime minster refused. Formally.

But it has been noted that starts for new Judea and Samaria construction have been few, and that building has been slow. This has been seen as an unacknowledged "freeze in practice."

At the very heart of the matter here is the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria. Why shouldn't we establish a residential neighborhood in an area that has already been determined to be part of Kiryat Arba? they asked. And that's exactly what they did — begin a new neighborhood. Ten times, in fact. Ten times it has been taken down.

The evicted families, who have been taken in by permanent residents of Kiryat Arba, have vowed to build yet again, and at least two new families have said they would join them. But at present this is not possible, as the IDF has cordoned off this neighborhood, dubbing it a closed security area. Security?


There had been reports that the police used Arabs to do the evacuation, but my source tells me that this was not quite the case: What he says is that the police did the evacuation of the residents, but they relied upon Muslims to carry out the belongings before the temporary homes were leveled. From among those belongings, he reports, jewelry was stolen.

As I indicated above, nine temporary homes were dismantled. But there was a tenth building that was also taken down — reportedly, without a warrant to do so. This was the beit knesset — the synagogue; the torah scroll and siddurim (prayer books) are in the hands of the Jewish community.


Switching gears... How's this for a crazy situation:

At the end of last week, Time magazine, citing "Western intelligence sources," said that the Mossad was responsible for the recent car bombing assassination of Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan — just as the Mossad, training and supporting Iranians, had been responsible for the last three assassinations of Iranian scientists.

At the very same time, Iran has claimed that it has "credible documents that prove the terror attack was planned, supervised and supported by the CIA."


Meanwhile Victoria Nuland, State Department spokeswoman, has declared that, "The United States strongly condemns this act of violence," a statement which I see as particularly stupid and which Republican presidential candidate hopeful Rick Santorum has roundly criticized. The US, said Nuland, "categorically denies any involvement in the killing."

Secretary of State Clinton delivered precisely the same message: "I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran."

Precisely what is it that the US is afraid of?

Meanwhile, Foreign Policy magazine, which hit the newsstands on Friday, says that Mossad operatives, carrying dollars and US passports in order to pass as CIA agents, last year recruited members of Jundallah, which the magazine says is a "Pakistani-based Sunni extremist organization," to assassinate key Iranians.

This last is a bit much for me. There has been considerable speculation that the Mossad is working with Iranian rebels intent on bringing down the current regime — in fact, evidence has been cited indicating that these rebels, with or without the Mossad, have been more directly involved than was imagined for some time. But a Pakistani-based extremist organization?


Meanwhile, the news is that Obama and company are growing increasingly nervous about the possibility of an Israeli hit on Iran. If it's going to happen, it's got to happen before long.

Obama has been warning Netanyahu about the "serious consequences" of a hit. (What about the serious consequences of not hitting Iran?) Panetta and others have been sent here seeking reassurances that we would give sanctions more time.

But, not only has the Israeli response been non-committal, Israeli officials have let it be known that there is disappointment with the way the US has approached the Iranian situation. Most recently, while Congress pushed for firm action on Iranian bank sanctions, Obama failed to follow through.

With regard to this, see: "Obama's Sanctions on Iran May Be Paper Tiger — Obama's new 'tough sanctions' on Iran include a waiver allowing him to let other countries play for time before punishing Iran."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/151265


What is more, Netanyahu has now said in an interview that:

"For the first time, I see Iran wobble under the sanctions that have been adopted and especially under the threat of strong sanctions on their central bank. If these sanctions are coupled with a clear statement by the international community, led by the US, [regarding intention] to act militarily to stop Iran if sanctions fail, Iran may consider not going through the pain. There's no point gritting your teeth if you're going to be stopped anyway."

In other words, the US is blowing it by not being tough enough.


Whatever my discontents with Netanyahu in other respects (and I'll come back to this in my next posting), I accord him his due here. He has been warning about the dangers of a nuclear Iran for a very long time. That the world should suddenly grow uneasy about what we might do — what we perhaps must do unilaterally because the world has reneged on its responsibility — is precisely as it should be. Let them squirm.


At any rate, the US is now considering various scenarios in terms of retaliation against the US, should Israel hit Iran. And here we have the likely answer to my question, above, regarding what the US is afraid of.

At any rate, the Americans are strengthening their presence in this part of the world in a variety of ways:

According to a Wall Street Journal report, the US has 15,000 troops in Kuwait and has moved a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf area. Additionally, it has been transferring arms to Gulf allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and has been strategically positioning aircraft.


In the midst of all of this, the US and Israel were due in May to have the largest war game ever held. To that end, US military personnel have been coming into Israel — reportedly some nine thousand were expected, including airmen, technicians, and intelligence personnel. There had been speculation that — beyond the scheduled joint operation — this would become part of the US preparation for responding to Iran.

But just today it was announced that the joint maneuvers would not be held because of "budgetary restrictions" — almost certainly a signal of US-Israel tensions. What happens to the US troops that are already here, and whether more will come (for yet-to-be-scheduled games later this year) are questions I cannot answer.

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, is due here in Israel this week, at which time he will discuss the Iranian issue.


Let me end with this very brief YouTube about IDF operations in 14 countries over the years that have saved lives, provided needed care and more. Just a very brief glimpse at something that is an enormous source of pride:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= L7OyAb20zwk&feature=player_embedded

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 14, 2012.


President Obama wants to disarm Russian opposition to U.S. missile defense set-ups in Europe. He contends that if the U.S. let Russia in on our anti-missile secrets, Russia would realize our missile defense is not part of a plot to make war on Russia.

His contention is disputed on the grounds that Russia might then figure out how to counter our own defense or it might share the technology with enemies of ours such as Iran and China.

The President contends that the recently signed law forbidding sharing such secrets may impinge upon his Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy (IMRA, 1/14/12 from Bill Gertz The Washington Times Wednesday, 1/4/12
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/ 4/inside-the-ring-215329133/?page=all#pagebreak).

Russia has been arming Iran and Syria. Pres. Putin is of the Communist old guard, after all. Putin is playing 20th century balance of power and imperialistic politics that were counter-productive then and weakening both countries as we are confronted by violent Islam.

Obama's theory has failed time after time. His other attempts to appease Russia, in the hope of getting Russian support, are not reciprocated. (Israel does the same with the Arabs.) As a result, Russia gets U.S. concessions without making any. Doesn't he catch on? Is he unable to learn from experience, hopelessly naive, or subversive?

Obama guards his executive privilege, but infringes on the prerogatives of the other branches. Thus he violates court orders and he has his Administration rule by decree contrary to Congressional authorization. Obama undermines our national security, splits national unity, flouts our constitutional protections, and bankrupts our economy.



Many terrorists were apprehended at the Hawara checkpoint near Har Bracha and Nablus (ancient Schechem). (Under foreign pressure), PM Netanyahu dismantled that checkpoint. In December, an Israeli soldier became suspicious of an Arab man. The soldier found the man transporting bombs and ammunition. Terrorism averted, but only because the soldier had special initiative (David Lev, Arutz 7, 12/27/11
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/ 151135#.TvpMULIk6dA in IMRA, 12/27/11).

One of the excuses foreign sympathizers with the Arabs offer for removing checkpoints is that they humiliate the Arabs. They don't humiliate the Arabs any more than airport inspections humiliate Americans but serve to discourage terrorism. In the Territories, checkpoints definitely have trapped terrorists.

Jihadists have depicted themselves as victims. They claim to be humiliated. The only humiliation they may have is that Israel thwarts jihad's attempt to humiliate non-Muslims. We should disregard their claims about being humiliated.

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 14, 2012.

La Raza is a radical group that's supported by the Democrat Party and the Obama White House in spite of the group's racist message. (News With Views)

"Students also learned in the La Raza supported curriculum that California, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas are really Aztlan, the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belong to their descendants, people of indigenous Mexican heritage."

A President Bill Clinton-appointed federal judge — A. Wallace Tashima — advised a group of Arizona students that they can sue their public school district for violating their First Amendment right by eliminating a radical La Raza studies program that ignites racial hostility, teaches disdain for American sovereignty and illegally segregates students by race.

"Only in America would a federal judge rule that a U.S. taxpayer-funded institution can get sued for refusing to provide such a divisive program that one instructor denounced for igniting racial hostility. The case involves the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican Raza Studies program, nixed after state legislators banned funding for ethnic studies curriculums that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government," stated the blogger for the public-interest organization Judicial Watch.

"Students also learned in the La Raza supported curriculum that California, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas are really Aztlan, the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belong to their descendants, people of indigenous Mexican heritage."

A President Bill Clinton-appointed federal judge — A. Wallace Tashima — advised a group of Arizona students that they can sue their public school district for violating their First Amendment right by eliminating a radical La Raza studies program that ignites racial hostility, teaches disdain for American sovereignty and illegally segregates students by race.

"Only in America would a federal judge rule that a U.S. taxpayer-funded institution can get sued for refusing to provide such a divisive program that one instructor denounced for igniting racial hostility. The case involves the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican Raza Studies program, nixed after state legislators banned funding for ethnic studies curriculums that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government," stated the blogger for the public-interest organization Judicial Watch.

Tucson's controversial La Raza curriculum was created during the Clinton administration in 1998 to promote the Chicano agenda. It was later renamed "Mexican-American Studies" to sound less threatening and extremist. In 2010 Arizona's legislature passed a measure (HB 2281) banning taxpayer-funded schools from offering classes that are designed for students of a particular race and promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group (in this case whites).

However, a group of Tucson district teachers sued in federal court to keep the Chicano program, claiming that it would be unconstitutional to eliminate it because it would restrict free speech, according to the Judicial Watch blogger.

In their complaint, the teachers said their free speech had been impermissibly infringed by the state. They further asserted that students who take the La Raza courses score higher on standardized tests, graduate from high school at higher rates, improve their overall grades and have better school attendance records.

Judge A. Wallace Tashima rejected the teachers' claims, but this week ruled that students have a standing to sue the district for killing the La Raza studies program because they've made a "plausible showing of a First Amendment violation" based on allegations that "viewpoint-discriminatory criteria" are being used to remove texts and materials from the curriculum. The Clinton-appointed judge also said that "at some point in the future students may be able to make a stronger showing that irreparable harm is likely...." though they have not yet met the criteria.

The Tucson program first gained national attention when a Hispanic history teacher, John Ward, who taught in it denounced the curriculum's biased theme that Mexican-Americans are victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites. Kids were taught that the southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired values from the corrupted ethos of western civilization, the teacher wrote in a newspaper opinion piece for the Tucson Citizen.

Students also learned in the La Raza supported curriculum that California, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas are really Aztlan, the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belong to their descendants, people of indigenous Mexican heritage.

Also, the former Tucson teacher said, students were told that few Mexicans took advanced high school courses because their "white teachers" didn't believe they were capable and wanted to prevent them from getting ahead.

The curriculum engendered racial irresponsibly, demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined public servants, discounted any virtues in western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty, according the teacher. He also revealed that many of the instructors who taught the courses were not certified to teach.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com). This article is archived at
http://www.examiner.com/law- enforcement-in-national/jimmy-carter- meets-with-muslim-brotherhood-cairo

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, January 14, 2012.

Jimmy Carter. (News with Views/Paul Walter)

"I think the Muslim Brotherhood is not anything to be afraid of in the upcoming (Egyptian) political situation and the evolution I see as most likely. They will be subsumed in the overwhelming demonstration of desire for freedom and true democracy." — Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.

The chairman of Egypt's new Freedom and Justice Party — a/k/a the Muslim Brotherhood — met yesterday with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The stated purpose of the meeting was the ongoing Egyptian transition process and the recent elections

Carter congratulated FJP chairman Mohamed Morsi on the parliamentary election results achieved by the party, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), noting there was international consensus to respect the results which reflect the Egyptian people's choices, said a statement posted on the Muslim Brotherhood's web site.

"The former U.S. president called on the FJP to accommodate nascent and new parties of youth which have not achieved significant rates of victory in recent elections," the web site stated.

President Carter is known for his enthusiasm for Islamist groups that takeover Middle Eastern and North African nations. He's also known to curry favor with Islamic radicals, neo-Marxists and other enemies of the U.S. and Israel.

In fact, Carter angered the Israeli government and people when he compared Israel with South Africa during that nation's Apartheid policy.

Morsi, a longtime member of the Muslim Brotherhood, told Carter that a mixed presidential-parliamentary model was optimal for Egypt in the current transitional period. This can be transformed into a full parliamentary system after the completion of democratic process, he added.

The FJP chief also said Egypt is a big country with vital institutions and respects the agreements signed in the past as long as all parties are committed to their terms within the framework of respect for sovereignty and independence.

Carter, who arrived in Egypt Monday, held talks with the chief of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Hussein Tantawi, and Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri.

During Carter's visit he never met with representatives from Egypt's Salafist Party, which is suspected of being more radical than the MB. Israeli Intelligence claims Salafists have often entered Gaza in support of Hamas, the Army of Islam, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror groups.

While progressives in the United States continue to be enthusiastic about Egypt's future, U.S. conservatives believe that Egypt may become another Iran — a nation that deposed an alleged brutal dictator and replaced him with a radical Islamist-controlled government.

Carter, who allowed Iran to fall to Islamic revolutionaries during his presidency, while allowing dozens of Americans to be captured, spoke to college students last February. Much of Carter's lecture was about current events in the Middle East, including Egypt. He's never been shy over his hatred for Israel and his love for groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

"I think the Muslim Brotherhood is not anything to be afraid of in the upcoming (Egyptian) political situation and the evolution I see as most likely. They will be subsumed in the overwhelming demonstration of desire for freedom and true democracy," Carter told the students.

Carter has a long history of coddling sworn enemies of the United States and Israel.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com). This article is archived at
http://www.examiner.com/law- enforcement-in-national/jimmy-carter- meets-with-muslim-brotherhood-cairo

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 14, 2012.

1. Racism and discrimination have suddenly appeared as a serious problem in Israeli academia. The racism and discrimination in question is anti-Jewish and is being practiced by Ben Gurion "University." That is right, 73 years after Kristallnacht Jews are being discriminated against and barred from attending a university program in psychology at Ben Gurion "University" because it is only open to Arabs. And a Jewish victim of this overt discrimination has filed suit with the Supreme Court.

The program in question is a MA program in psychology open only to Arabs and particularly to Bedouins. Jews who qualify are excluded. In addition, the program is secret. Ben Gurion University has been trying to hide it from the media and from students and even from the government.

The program seems designed for those who wish to become school psychologists or educators in Arab schools, particularly Bedouin schools, although that is not exactly how it is officially defined. Well, one Yosef Malka, who happens to be Jewish and who already works in a Bedouin school as a teacher, applied for the program. He was turned down by Ben Gurion "University." No Jews or dogs allowed into the program.

Malka has filled a Supreme Court suit against the university, the Israeli Ministry of Education, and Council for Higher Education in Israel. In his suit he claims this discriminatory program is operating in secret, without proper transparency. While working as a teacher in a Bedouin school, Malka heard about the secret program and decided to apply. In spite of the fact that he had already earned a BA with honors, he was rejected by BGU. In one of the letters of rejection he got from Prof. Shifra Sagi, from BGU's Department of Education, she admitted the program was funded with a special off-budget allotment of money from the Budget and Planning Committee of Israel's Council on Higher Education and that it is closed to Jews. Sagi has collaborated with and was a devotee of the late notorious BGU anti-Zionist professor Daniel Bar-On (who equated the Palestinian "Nakba" with the Holocaust
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/ Message.aspx/2265).

The case is now awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court.

It is not clear whether or not Malka offered Ben Gurion University a compromise solution whereby any Jew admitted into the program could attend while wearing a yellow star.

Fuller story in Hebrew in Makor Rishon, January 13, 2012

2. There are three details I left out of my report on the landmark decision by the Supreme Court in Israel this week concerning automatic entitlement to Israeli citizenship for foreign spouses of Israeli Arabs. The Knesset had passed a law that there is no automatic entitlement, but the judicial activists and their Leftist NGO allies attempted to get the court to rule that the Knesset law is "unconstitutional." (A bit bizarre given that Israel has no constitution.)

Anyway the three missing details are these:

A. The "automatic entitlement to residency/citizenship for spouses of Israeli Arabs" has already been used as a tactic to smuggle terrorists into Israel and indeed was a major consideration in the opinion written by the majority of six justices in denying the petition.

B. Among those who voted with the judicial activists to declare the law unconstitutional was Judge Edmund Levy, a religious man born in Iraq, usually considered to be a man of integrity and solidly to the Right. He is about to retire (judges have to by age 70 in Israel). Levy is an old-time Herut-nik He has often challenged the ruling Court leftist elite and is considered a courageous man of principle. At least he was until the vote this week. So why did he join the moonbats on the bench in trying to create a Palestinian right of return via marriage?

C. Ironically, given how Levy voted, the Beinisch team lost this round of imposing leftist judicial tyranny on the country only thanks to the legal problems of Judge Yoram Danziger. A far leftist, you may recall that Danziger issued a court ruling that the anti-Israel propaganda film "Jenin Jenin" is NOT slanderous when it claims that a group of Israeli soldiers carried out Nazi-like massacres, even after the film's director, Mohammed Bakri, himself admitted that the film is a tissue of lies. Well, when the "citizenship entitlement" case came up for deliberation, Danziger was under suspension from the bench while the police and Prosecution investigated him for his intimate dirty ties to one of the most corrupt local politicians in Israel. Being a leftist, the Prosecution of course proclaimed Danziger as clean as a hound's tooth. The only people in Israel who are NOT aware of Danziger's sleaze seem to be the people working in the Prosecutor's office. Anyway, it was only thanks to his being suspended that he was unable to vote with the Beinisch clique and tilt the Supreme Court ruling this week in favor of leftist judicial mindlessness, judicial tyranny, and court-imposed Israeli self-annihilation.

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 Maurice Ostroff, January 13, 2012.

This was written by Rick Richman and is entitled "Reminiscing with the Aged Leaders of Fatah," It appeared in Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ 2012/01/13/aged-leaders-of-fatah/


Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian, is spending a week in Israel and the West Bank and reports it is "dangerous" to visit Israel — "because it is impossible to reconcile the evidence of your eyes with the accepted international narrative"

"In the international media, Israel is presented as militarist, right-wing, oppressive. In fact it is the only pluralist democracy in the Middle East, the only nation where women's rights — and gay rights — are protected. It has a vibrant left wing, a cacophonous democracy and an innovative economy."

Compare his summary of the situation among Palestinians, unable to live side-by-side in peace and security even with themselves, lacking a pluralist society, missing any protections for women and gays, dependent on an economy funded by Western "donors" (because Arab states contribute a lot of rhetoric but few funds):

"So how can there be a Palestinian state when the two parts of it have recently been killing each other and cannot even travel in each others' territories? Palestinian friends tell me that Hamas would be likely to win a Palestinian election held now. Neither Fatah nor Hamas is remotely democratic. Fatah is also increasingly sclerotic. All its leaders are aged, all figures from the past in office for decades. There is no youth or vitality about it." Well, at least the aged leaders of increasingly sclerotic Fatah — cooped up in their half of the quasi-state, understandably afraid to hold another election — can look back on their decades in office and reminisce about all the times they almost had a state.

There was July 2000 at Camp David, when Israel offered a state on substantially all the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital in Jerusalem, and they turned it down. There was January 2001, when they turned down the Clinton Parameters, refusing a state again. There was September 12, 2005, when they got Gaza and announced "no more security turmoil and weapons chaos and abductions, which are not characteristic of our culture." The January 2006 election did not go well, but there was the February 2007 Mecca agreement, adopting "the language of dialogue as the sole basis for solving the political disagreements" — until the other party threw Fatah off the tops of buildings. In September 2008 there was another offer of a state, which they turned down again. In May 2009 they set "preconditions" for the democratically elected government of Israel to talk to the unelected aged leaders of sclerotic Fatah, saying they would do nothing further since they had a "good reality" in the West Bank. Since then, they have occupied themselves with seeking UN resolutions.

And during this entire period, billions of dollars came their way for participating in this "process." Good times, good times....

Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at maurice@trendline.co.il
and visit his website: http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 13, 2012.

Tornado in a Paint Factory

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il This graphic is archived here.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, January 13, 2012.

Iran's provocative uranium-enrichment program is at the center of its confrontation with the West. It's also, potentially, the way out. This was written by Olli Heinonen and it appeared January 11, 2012 in Foreign Policy Magazine
(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ articles/2012/01/11/the_20_percent_solution).

Olli Heinonen, a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is a former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, where he headed its Department of Safeguards.


On Monday, Jan. 9, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had begun producing 20 percent enriched uranium at Fordow, a fuel enrichment plant buried deep underground near the holy city of Qom. On the surface, there is little new here: Since February 2010, Iran has been producing 20 percent enriched uranium at Natanz, another once-secret site located about 3 and a half hours from Tehran.

Iran disclosed neither the Natanz nor the Fordow site to the IAEA until forced to do so, in 2002 and 2009, respectively, when outside observers discovered and publicized them. Fordow is smaller than Natanz in scale, but better protected from prying satellites and, potentially, a bombing campaign. Worryingly, the plant appears designed to focus on producing higher enrichments.

What has raised the world's suspicions is that Iran continues to produce 20 percent enriched uranium despite the fact that this exceeds its civilian needs and, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledged in September, does not make economic sense.

There are serious concerns over the proliferation aspects of Iran's enrichment activities. Increasing stockpiles of enriched uranium, together with studies related to an advanced nuclear weapon design, are building blocks for attaining a virtual nuclear weapon capability. (A state has a virtual nuclear arsenal if it possesses weapons-usable nuclear material and the knowledge and experience needed to design, manufacture, assemble, and deploy nuclear weapons.) So Iran's recent announcement that it plans to increase production of 20 percent enriched uranium is alarming.

Over the last few days, Iran has begun operating two enrichment cascades at Fordow. Furthermore, Iran is completing installation of two additional cascades, with their planned operation already announced. Once the four cascades at Fordow, in addition to the two Natanz ones, are operating, Iran will be able to produce 15 kg of 20 percent enriched UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) per month. This process uses as feed 3.5 percent enriched uranium, which is produced currently at a rate of 140 to 150 kg UF6 per month at Natanz.

This means that Iran's entire uranium-enrichment program is now being devoted to producing 20 percent enriched uranium. At current production rates, Iran can expect to have a stock of 20 percent enriched uranium of around 250 kg UF6 by the end of 2012, as well as more than 4 tons of 3.5 percent enriched UF6. (These estimates are based on the use of IR-1 centrifuges, which are now also operating at Fordow.) Iran will not likely be able to commission a large number of more advanced and powerful centrifuges before 2013. But if that happens, it will be an altogether different scenario.

If Iran decides to produce weapons-grade uranium from 20 percent enriched uranium, it has already technically undertaken 90 percent of the enrichment effort required. What remains to be done is the feeding of 20 percent uranium through existing additional cascades to achieve weapons-grade enrichment (more than 90 percent uranium). This step is much faster than the earlier ones. Growing the stockpile of 3.5 percent and 20 percent enriched uranium, as Iran is now doing, provides the basic material needed to produce four to five nuclear weapons. With IR-1 centrifuges, it would take half a year to go from 3.5 percent enriched uranium to weapons-grade material for the first nuclear device. More advanced centrifuges would cut the time required in half. If, however, IR-1s are using 20 percent enriched uranium as a feed, 250 kg UF6 with that level of enrichment can be turned to weapons-grade material in a month's time. This does not automatically mean Iran will be able to build a nuclear weapon in one month — building an atomic bomb is a complex endeavor that requires precision engineering capabilities that Iran may lack — but it does mean that the country would be able to "break out" of its international obligations very quickly should it decide to do so.

How can Iran convince the international community that its nuclear program will follow a peaceful track?

There are a few ways to go about it. One way would be to suspend the production of enriched uranium and convert the existing 3.5 percent and 20 percent enriched uranium stocks, with the assistance of the international community, to fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, as well as for another modern research reactor that could be provided to Iran. This approach would be good for Iran, as it would give the country a sustainable production of radioisotopes for industrial and medical uses in the shortest time.

Iran would also have to address the world's concerns about the military dimensions of its nuclear program, concerns laid out in the IAEA's most recent monitoring report. So far, Iran's leaders have failed to do so, despite being signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. With sanctions beginning to bite, tensions growing in the Persian Gulf, and international patience running out, there's no time like the present.

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 Alex Grobman, January 13, 2012.

This was written by Elizabeth Samson and appeared in the Jewish Week
(http://www.thejewishweek.com/ editorial_opinion/opinion/hamas_concede s_gaza_not_occupied_so_where_un). Elizabeth Samson is a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute. She is an attorney specializing in international law.


In a stunning about-face, and after decades of violence justified by excuses of being under occupation, this week Hamas has admitted that Gaza is not occupied by Israel. And yet, the United Nations, which has long been reluctant to acknowledge Gaza's change in status, is still silent on the issue.

In response to a statement by Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal that Hamas will hold mass demonstrations against Israel inside Gaza to parallel those organized by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar declared such a protest to be irrelevant. Al-Zahar stated that while the West Bank is "still under occupation" and that all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, should be used in that territory, "popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip." "Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?," al-Zahar asked. "When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable."

The international law of occupation requires that a hostile army have "effective control" over a territory in an area where its authority can be exercised, and to the exclusion of the territory's established government. As foreign minister speaking on behalf of the Hamas government, al-Zahar is giving public credence to what has been a fact since September 2005 — that Israel is no longer in Gaza and that the Israeli government does not displace Hamas's authority. The assertion that Gaza is no longer occupied is strongly supported by international law derived from the Geneva Conventions and legal precedent. For Hamas to state otherwise would undermine its own power and would be a profound display of the weakness of its government.

For decades, the notion that Israel is an occupier has been the rallying cry of the Palestinian people, seemingly an almost greater raison d'etre for them than an actual pursuit of self-determination, as evidenced by the consistent rejection of every peace offer presented to the Palestinians and the unyielding rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. While renouncing the language of occupation with respect to Gaza may be perceived as a concession to Israel, al-Zahar is actually demonstrating the strength of his government and boldness in the face of detractors in Gaza who are desperate for an excuse to continue to fight Israel.

There has been no official Israeli military or civilian presence in Gaza since September 12, 2005, when the last Israeli soldier left the territory and the government declared its specific intent to no longer occupy Gaza and withdrew all of its military and civilian installations. However, UN Watch, an NGO that monitors the actions of the United Nations, has brought further attention to the fact that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has refused to declare Gaza to be anything other than occupied. As recently as September 22, roughly six years since the Israeli disengagement, the U.N. authorized a mission to visit the "occupied Palestinian territory, specifically the Gaza Strip." In addition, an official U.N. fact sheet on the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" includes the map of Gaza.

While it is not legally necessary for the U.N. to acknowledge the absence of occupation in Gaza — application of the Geneva Conventions and legal precedent have satisfied those requirements — it is politically important for there to be a recognized change in status so that Israel will no longer be held to the more stringent legal requirements of an occupier and to lend greater legitimacy to Israel's acts of self-defense. Gaza should have the intermediate status of a sui generis territory — unique, of its own kind or class — under the control of its own governing authority for the period between the end of occupation and until the finalization of permanent status negotiations. And, considering that the law, the facts, and the leadership of Hamas all indicate that Gaza is not occupied, there is no legitimate reason to continue to deem Gaza to be under occupation, a legally and factually inaccurate status.

The purpose of the United Nations is "to bring about by peaceful means ... adjustment or settlement of ... situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." However, continually declaring that Gaza is still occupied territory and not allowing for an intermediate status may only encourage violence because the Palestinian people in Gaza will feel that their voices are not being heard. Furthermore, by denying a change of status the U.N. is doing the people of Gaza a great disservice — it is denying their autonomy as they struggle to prove their worthiness as a nation among nations.

In light of the groundbreaking proclamation by Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar, Secretary Ban should abandon the outdated and inaccurate rhetoric of occupation employed by the U.N. for so long. The United Nations should now seize the opportunity to have the words and actions of the organization reflect its stated determination "to promote social progress" and extend "better standards of life in larger freedom" to the Palestinian people of Gaza.

Dr. Alex Grobman's books include "Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe" [KTAV]. He is also co-author of "Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened?" (University of California Press); Zionism=Racism: The New War Against The Jews. His most recent book is The Palestinian RIght to Israel (Balfour Books, 2010). Contact him at agrobman@nj.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Patrick Dempsey, January 13, 2012.

It appears I have a problem with perceptions, and it seems it is structured around how I am perceived by People. I have been in detailed discussions with a colleague, who is a foremost Theologian within my Faith, and he seems to point to my ability to state what concerns rather than what doesn't concern me? That might well prove an issue in my dealings with those concerned with THHP. For the record, I have an issue with my Church, which stood idly by and allowed the slaughter of the Jews, which we know is The Holocaust. Fact!

People like Fr. Maximilian Kolde should not have proved largely unique, though there were many other exemplary Human Beings. They should not have proved so isolated an example of what we have supposedly learned from the teachings of Jesus Christ! We are taught by my Church that the ways of the Lord Jesus are an example to us all, and we should adopt his bearing, understanding and tolerances. My Faith, which stems from the beliefs of this Jew, and there is a huge distinction here, I am not aware that Jesus ever denied his Faith, moved away from his Judaism or ever expressed any desire to do so!

That said, I too have an issue with the Jews! I attempt, in some small way, to walk in Christ's shoes and for that reason, I do not judge lest I be judged. I act in Faith and do onto those as I would have them do onto me. For that express reason, I struggle at some times to comprehend that there can be an argument within my Church that enough was done, more could not be done and we acted well. That is all wrong!

For the Jewish People too, who have had the most catastrophic example ever visited upon a People, to bind them for all eternity with what lessons are to be learned, are they to be the only bastion of what needs to be taught? When a Jew, who did not approve of another Jew saving, 'the wrong sort of Jews' from the clutches of Eichmann, it is deplorable to me that Dr. Kasztner should have been murdered. Anne Frank would have been appalled! I am appalled! Surely, this adds to the work intended by Hitler and carried to such an awful statistic by bureaucrats like Himmler, Heydrich and Eichmann, to name a few? For me, it is incumbent upon the Jews, after their Holocaust, to maintain the example which expands upon what should never happen again?

For that reason alone I point toward what did not happen! I accuse those who did not do! I attack all those who did! I choose to remind this world that in those murdered Jewish People, we have lost what cannot be replaced! If the cry of conservation is what is being lost, through neglect of Rain Forests, what should the cry be when 6,000,000 People were denied their existence, their chance to challenge, or their ability to shake, alter and prove the way?

"Always to Remember,

Never to Forget."

Patrick Dempsey

Contact Patrick Dempsey at pd1010@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 13, 2012.

This was written by Moshe Sheskin: (meshes80@gmail.com)

I am somewhat disturbed by the rapid disintegration of your Constitution. Even more so by the infighting for the position of Republican candidate for the Presidency. It reminds me of a true story although I changed the names but it is probably the best way I have of describing the Shenanigans taking place in the media and probably the entire government bodies.

Little Tommy, as a result of overdoing the play period, wet his pants and he rushed home and as he entered and called to his parents. "It's no me, Nancy peed in my pants.

Your entire Congress. Senate and particularly the Executive branch, all suffer from the Tommy syndrome which is another way of saying that they personally are honest legislatures and it's the other party who is responsible. Yes, we still keep hearing about how Bush printed money and that is the reason for mind grabbing deficit.

With all the homes that have been repossessed, with the double figure unemployed. Huge sums to executive officers as bonuses, fancy and ridiculous vacations to the President and family, practically all at the expense of the electorate, it's time you start twisting the hand that is in your pocket. I question if there is one Congressman/woman, who doesn't become a millionaire during their term in office.

So why are the candidates so anxious to become President?

If you believe that serving the country is their first priority, one of us is naive.

I believe that 2012 is the last chance to put the U.S.A. On the right track,. It is still a great country but another four years with the present administration, will insure a foreign policy of appeasement and internally, to absolute ruin.

So really, why am |I writing this? It is my belief that America can be saved and again, as the old saying goes, "The Fish starts to rot from the head". I don't want the stench to come to Canada but it's not in our hands.

An interesting adjunct to this letter was just received and is posted below:


For the Record:

WHEN he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he received endorsements from people like Farrakhan, Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S Senate came into question, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco — a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home — people said it didn't matter.

WHEN it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communists, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this Nation" into something else, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in "Explicit Consent," harvesting human organs without family consent, and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama's Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist, as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation's largest tax, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN as President of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN his actions concerning the Middle Eastseemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time ally, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn't matter. WHEN he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn't matter. WHEN he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and 'stating' that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, and is still a Muslim, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn't matter.

WHEN he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people woke up — but it was too late.

Add these up one by one and you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama is determined to turn America into a Marxist-Socialist society!!

All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ?

Don't just belittle the opposition, search for the truth. We all need to pull together or watch the demise of the USA, free democratic society.

Americans must seek the truth and take action for it will keep us FREE. Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, North Korea or Iran. Our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington, DC. The government will not help, so we need to do it ourselves.

Question ... will you delete this, or pass it on to others who don't know about Obama's actions and plans for the USA, so that they may know how to vote in November, 2012 and the ensuing years?

It's your decision. I believe it does matter. How about you??

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Teresinka Pereira, January 12, 2012.

We write on paper,

on computers, on napkins,

on market receipts,

on newspaper's edge,

on paper plates and on trees

We, who talk to the wind

with the voice of poetry

and words of stone

We are tireless

transients of the night,

sleepless witches

We go on dreaming

and believing

in the power of love.

Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio HaDar Tezza, January 12, 2012.
This is archived at http://missingpeace.eu/en/2012/01/ dutch-daily-trouw-the-chosen-people- have-to-be-perfect/ and was posted by Missing Peace. It was written by Yochanan Visser.

Last week the Dutch Christian daily Trouw reached a new low when it published a vicious article about prenatal care in Israel entitled: "The chosen people have to be perfect".

The writer, Ilse van Heusden, gave birth to a healthy baby boy while temporarily living in Israel.

She succeeded in portraying the prenatal care in Israel as a government instigated 'military operation' aimed at the production of babies as perfect as possible.

Apart from distortions and lies the article contained many accusations and insinuations which are reminiscent of classic anti-Semitic rants.


After the publication of the article we contacted Trouw with a request to allow the publication of an op-ed in which we could debunk the false claims and lies in Van Heusdens article.

Trouw did not even bother to respond, nor did the editors respond to a similar request by the Dutch branch of the Likud party.


Here is a prime example of the anti-Semitic content of the article:

Van Heusden:

"To be pregnant in Israel is comparable to a military operation. Countless echos and blood tests should produce the perfect baby, nothing can be left to the luck of the draw. The state demands healthy babies and a lot of them too".

This was later followed by an outrageous lie about child allowances in Israel.

Van Heusden:

"What makes things even more emotionally charged is the Israeli demand to produce many children. The state promotes the birth of children by supplying, among other things, a considerable child allowance".

To support these outrageous claims, she misused a quote made by former Minister of the Interior Shlomo Benizri in 2002. At the time Benizri declared:'the fear of losing Israel's unique character obligates us to take action so as not to become a minority in our own country'.

Of course Van Heusden knew very well that Benizri was not talking about more Jewish babies, but about the influx of illegal immigrants and foreign workers.

She then suggested that the way Israel promotes having children is comparable to Arafat's policy of using the womb of Palestinian women as a weapon.

Child allowance

It is of course a lie that Israel 'demands' many or 'perfect' babies. The state does not interfere in the decision to have children; that is something Israelis decide for themselves.

It is also a lie that the state promotes child birth with considerable child allowances.

In fact, since 2002, the Israeli government has considerably reduced the level of child allowances. This reduction rose to as high as 70% for a family with 8 children.

An average child now receives 35 Euros per month.

That is of course far below the Netherlands where child allowance is an average of 120 Euro per month for children born before 1995, and roughly 75 Euro for children born since then.

Furthermore, this summer thousands of Israelis demonstrated against the fact that parents themselves had to pay for daycare of their children up till the age of five years (The Israeli government recently reduced the age to three years).

Racist state

After writing that she was diagnosed with the Cytomegalovirus (CMV) virus and as a result was requested to conduct an additional test, Van Heusden exclaimed:

"I was surprised about the spasmodic attitude about this test and the previous one. After all children are loved and honored here and Israel is a paradise when it comes to having children... But the flipside of the story is that having children is a demand and a discussion about that demand is not possible."

In actual fact, the prenatal program in Israel consists of recommendations only; a woman can refuse to conduct any test at all stages of pregnancy.

Van Heusden then compared the Israeli prenatal care to the Dutch system which she holds in high esteem:

"Every time I had to undergo such a test (diabetes blood test) it caused distress. In the Netherlands my first pregnancy was without problems and it was dealt with by the obstetrician accordingly. I was boring but 'boring was good', explained the obstetrician."

I am healthy and not in the category of the Ashkenazi Jews... yet I had to experience twelve echo tests and four blood tests".

Writing about the birth of her son Van Heusden said:

"finally we held this little baby boy in our arms that went through all those tests. When we admired his little fingers and toes we saw that one of his toes was too small. His personal revenge on the Israeli health system".

It is obvious that Van Heusden twisted everything that was done to safeguard her health and that of her child into an attempt to prove that Israel is a racist state which has a system to produce perfect babies.

Her claims are so outrageous that rebuttal seems beyond the pale. All prenatal care in Israel is organized according to World Health Organisation recommendations and is now on a higher level than that in the Netherlands.

Furthermore, Van Leusden was diagnosed with the CMV virus, which is the sole explanation for the many tests she had to undergo. In her article she admits that CMV can cause severe damage to the fetus.

Several Israeli women wrote us that on an average, 4 to 5 echo (ultrasound) tests are usual and not 12 as in the case of Van Leusden. Another woman from northern Israel claimed that her twins owed their lives to these echo tests.

Van Leusden's criticism about the diabetes blood test is completely unjustified. This test — standard procedure in all modern medical systems — is designed to detect gestational diabetes; a disorder which can have serious and even fatal consequences for mother and child.

Mortality rate

Through this type of advanced prenatal care, Israel has managed over the last 35 years to reduce the infant mortality rate by almost 70% (24.6 per 1000 infants in 1973 compared to 3.8 per 1000 in 2008).

A similar figure was reached among the Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank (now the lowest in the entire Middle East: 11 per 1000 compared to 58 in 1968 and 61 in Iraq nowadays).

It is also the reason Israel now has a lower infant mortality rate than the Netherlands, which has one of the worst rates in Western Europe.

High quality care

The high quality of Israeli health care is in part due to prevention programs such as prenatal care. There are nationwide population examinations for breast and colon cancer. Blood tests are almost standard during visits to a doctor.

As a result people are living longer (81.6 years in Israel compared with an average of 79.5 in the OECD). Israel has one of the highest cancer survival rates in the world (84% breast cancer survival rate in 2009). The same applies to the survival rate after a stroke (CVA) and Myocardial Infarction.

All this was achieved with a health budget which is approximately 60% lower than in the Netherlands ($ 2,165 per person per year compared with $ 5144 in the Netherlands) and a number of hospital beds that is far below the OECD average (2 per 1000 compared with 3.5 in OECD countries).


Of course all of this data was also at Van Heusden's disposal. However, she chose to write a libelous article where care for an unborn child in Israel was deliberately presented as a military operation and as a political weapon born out racist motives.

When an Israeli caretaker finally had enough of her complaints about the excellent prenatal care in Israel and made a sarcastic joke about the need for 'the chosen people to be perfect', she used it to make her point.

One Trouw reader summarized the article as follows:

"Subtle article by the way, it even manages to bring good infant care in Israel in the vicinity of "eugenics" and thus comparing it to Nazism."

Indeed such articles can normally be found on the websites of white supremacists such as David Duke or on anti-Semitic sites such as Jew watch

The fact that a Dutch Christian mainstream paper published it should sound alarms in The Netherlands.

The paper should issue an apology and dissociate itself from writers like IIse van Heusden The editor of Trouw can be reached at: religiefilosofie@trouw.nl
To Go To Top

Posted by Asaf Romirowsky, January 12, 2012.

Be the first of your friends to like this.

With this year's National Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Conference set to take place at the University of Pennsylvania in early February, it's important to understand what the BDS movement is all about and what its ultimate goals are.

The movement's focus is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it specifically demonizes Israel while propagating the notion of Palestinian victimhood in order to gain global sympathy. Those behind the movement believe that if universities, companies and even countries pursue BDS, it will pressure the Israeli government to change what the movement sees as Israel's hard-nosed policies toward the Palestinians and give up land they perceive as "stolen" land.

In 2010, we saw an illustration of this when the Philly BDS chapter put out a flash dance YouTube campaign against Sabra hummus being sold at a local grocer. The group contended that the corporate parent of the brand subsidizes Israeli human rights abuses by supporting the Israeli Defense Forces and its infrastructure in the West Bank. The group hoped that other university communities would follow suit. In fact, the issue triggered a big debate at Princeton University, with the student body ultimately voting to reject a proposed boycott of the hummus product on campus.

A careful look at the BDS movement and its methodology shows not legitimate criticism but a movement that is racist and anti-Semitic. Why? BDS clearly targets Israel. Its stated goals vary but all include the "right of return" for Palestinian "refugees." The effort is cloaked to give the impression that ending specific Israeli policies, such as the "occupation" or "apartheid," would also end efforts to ostracize Israel. Yet their maximalist demand — the flood of Palestinian refugees, which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state — is carefully hidden.

Although the basic idea of BDS is not new, we have seen a surge over the past few decades as a result of the desire to highlight Palestinian "victimhood." As long as Palestinians cling to the false notion of being "occupied," with Israel in the role of the "oppressor," they will never assume responsibility for themselves. In the Palestinian narrative, the "occupation" remains the root cause of all problems, from social and economic woes to terrorism.

Yasser Arafat's legacy of "armed struggle" has now been parachuted into the Palestinian "armed media warfare" through BDS and the non-governmental organizations that employ it. For example, during the 2001 World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, the focus was on Israeli "racism" and its presumed practice of apartheid. This has been a consistent theme of Israel's opponents, along with Holocaust denial and denying that anti-Semitism is a human rights issue.

Universities, which should be bastions of critical thinking and opposed to such false arguments, have become fertile ground for myths, fantasies and lies about history, especially when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

All of the above makes combating BDS very complicated and confusing, especially for those who want to believe that there is room for debating the "facts" presented by BDS supporters. What makes this battle so arduous for the pro-Israel community — and so attractive for the antagonizers of Israel — is the umbrella of academic freedom, which makes it "legitimate" to debate all aspects of Israel, from specific policies to its elimination altogether.

The upside of all this rhetoric and activism is that the pro-Israel community has redrawn the lines of acceptable discourse. While not everyone agrees with the policies of the Israeli government, a consensus has emerged over the basic belief of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Ultimately, BDS does not employ legitimate criticism but, in essence, questions Israel's very existence.

This appeared yesterday in the Jewish Exponent and is archived at
http://www.romirowsky.com/11012/ bds-movement-hidden-agenda

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 12, 2012.

Beyond what's decent. Way beyond what can be accepted with equanimity:

There are legal arguments over Jewish communities — "settlements" or "outposts" — in Judea and Samaria. We can take a stand against the government position regarding some (or all) of these. Presumably (ideally) those arguments can be pursued in courts and via negotiation, with dignity. Presumably if in the end the government or the IDF or the civil administration (appointed by the IDF) in Judea and Samaria or the court decides a particular settlement or outpost must come down, that, too, can be done with dignity — with decent Jewish respect.

But that's not what happened last night in Mitzpe Avichai, outside of Kiryat Arba (which is itself adjacent to Hevron). Police and representatives of the civil administration, after first blocking roads, came in the small hours of the morning, roused families from their beds, ordered them outside and destroyed their temporary homes. There was a light rain falling and the temperature was close to the freezing point.

Ten structures were destroyed, nine of which were inhabited. I believe the tenth was a synagogue. Among the families so evicted were several children and babies. The Flaishman family, by itself, for example, has seven children. Miriam, the mother of these children, said, "They arrived in the middle of the night. It was brutal. I woke up after they broke down the door and were already in the living room."

This is simply unacceptable.

Whether it was legal for those buildings to stand or not becomes an issue that is secondary. Children and babies have rights. The police and civil administration have obligations.

And yet...I read in YNet that, "No unusual events were reported during the eviction of the outpost..." By this is meant, of course, that there was no violence and the residents did not fight back. But to depict the night-time eviction of youngsters and babies into a freezing rain as not an unusual event?

It is my understanding, based on information from a knowledgeable source, that representatives of the government recently testified before the Knesset committee on the rights of the child, and offered verbal assurances that in instances where "outposts" are taken down children will be appropriately provided for.


Destroying homes in Mitzpe Avichai, outside of Kiryat Arba (Efrat)

Destroying homes in Mitzpe Avichai, outside of Kiryat Arba (Reuters)


The residents of Mitzpe Avichai have said they are not deterred and will rebuild. I will follow with information regarding the legal situation as I can secure it.


But the moral issue supersedes the legal issue in my opinion. I ask you PLEASE to contact Prime Minister Netanyahu without delay. On this issue especially it is important to keep the message succinct and clear. No speeches, no history lessons. Just a direct statement, which is more powerful:

Tell him that official action on the part of the government or its representatives that brings children and babies from their beds into a freezing cold rain in the middle of the night, as just happened at Mitzpe Avichai, is shameful and morally unacceptable. As he is the head of the government, you hold him accountable to make certain that it does not happen again.

This is sufficient of itself. If you wish to add one further thought, tell him that you know that the legislation that has been proposed that deals with preventing unnecessary dismantlement of settlements addresses the rights of children. Right now that legislation is frozen and it is in his hands to make certain that it advances speedily.

Change the wording of the above just a bit, so that it is clear that what you are saying represents your personal sentiments.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses

This is one of those instances in which numbers count. Netanyahu needs to hear from a great many people — and before the beginning of Shabbat here, please!


Other news to follow shortly...

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, January 12, 2012.

This was written by Thomas D. Elias and it appeared in Palo Alto Daily Post. Contact his at tdelias@aol.com Write and congratulate him for having the guts to speak out. no other journalist seems to care. it seems as well that most campus leaders do not care either.

Use his article to support your letters to campus governments and to the judges who deem the outrageous and threatening behavior of Arab anti-Israel students to be merely another form of protected "free speech".


Do state universities condone anti-Semitism?

Imagine the outcry if students on a university campus in California set up "checkpoints" to find out whether students with tan complexions are really African Americans, or whether students heard conversing in Spanish are citizens or illegal immigrants.

Screams of protest would rise if students set up similar barriers to check whether olive-complected schoolmates are outfitted with suicide bombs, or if anyone stopped students of any type demanding to know their sexual orientation.

Cries of bigotry would be deafening — and accurate.

But when Muslim student groups at UC-Berkeley in 2010 dressed in combat fatigues and carrying fake but genuine looking weapons manned such checkpoints and demanded that passing students tell them if they were Jewish? No outcry, no protest.

Nothing at all. Not a peep from the large corps of university administrators. Not a move by campus police, even when a counter-demonstrator was whacked with a shopping cart. No demonstrations anywhere.

The only action came from two students who filed a lawsuit charging that Berkeley administrators disregard intimidation by Arab students and foster a climate of anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, the checkpoints have continued sporadically on campus.

Now a federal court says any attempt to stop them would "raise serious First Amendment issues." So, implied U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of San Francisco last month, campuses can ban use of "hate speech" like the N-word and anti-gay smears, but outright physical attempts to intimidate Jewish students and impinge on their walking space are OK.

This, of course, all comes in the guise of protest against policies of the Israeli government. But no one stops students to see if they are Arab citizens of Israel. No one asks whether Jewish students are Israelis.

For those who dislike or hate Israel, all Jews are fair game. That's also true around the world, where synagogues and Jewishowned businesses from Argentina to France and New York to Los Angeles have been victims of pro-Palestinian bombings and other vandalism, regardless of whether they had any link to the government of Israel.

Which takes this phenomenon beyond the realm of political protest and into anti-Semitism.

Then there's Cal State Northridge, where mathematics professor David Klein maintains a page on the college web server devoted to calumnies against Israel
(http:// tinyurl.com/74fz26g). It's laughable to believe that taxpayers who fund that server intend it to be a platform for one-sided political rhetoric from a faculty member specializing in mathematical physics, teacher education and standardized testing.

As an aside, if it's true, as Klein says on his publicly funded page, that "Israel is the most racist state in the world at this time," why does Israel offer unlimited sanctuary to black African refugees trekking on foot from Darfur in the south Sudan who defy Egyptian threats to shoot them if they continue trying to reach Israel by crossing the Sinai desert?

But Cal State Northridge lets Klein keep using its server even when he makes no sense at all, with the campus' retiring president, Jolene Koester, giving it an official OK. There is also Cal State Long Beach, which does nothing to restrain psychology professor Kevin McDonald, labeled for years as an anti-Semite by the Southern Poverty Law Center and other civil rights groups. McDonald, says Wikipedia, claims that Jews "conspire to out-compete non-Jews for resources while undermining the power and self-confidence of the (non-Jewish) majorities in Europe and America whom he insists Jews seek to dispossess."

McDonald told this column last year his work isn't anti-Semitism but "science." In fact, it resembles the pseudo-science Nazis used to justify the Holocaust. But McDonald uses the cover of academic freedom to stay on the public payroll with a six-figure salary. Does anyone think this could happen if he had spent his career vilifying blacks or Latinos or gays or women?

The only significant recent exception to the pattern of essentially condoning on-campus anti-Semitism came last year at UC-Irvine, where 11 members of the school's Muslim Student Union repeatedly interrupted and heckled Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren during a 2010 speech, orchestrating their outbursts to make sure they continued even when some of shouters were forcibly ejected from the auditorium.

The 11 faced university discipline and 10 later were convicted of misdemeanor offenses despite claiming they were simply exercising their right to free speech.

The UC-Irvine outcome was far from typical in a state where public universities host and help fund dozens of conferences that nominally look only at ways to eliminate Israel as a nation. Hardly anyone denies those events — on UC campuses from Berkeley and UCLA to Davis and San Diego, along with Cal State campuses like San Diego State and Northridge — leave many Jewish students feeling threatened.

Two key questions emerge for top administrators: Even if hate speech were allowed, why are state funds being used for these activities? And why are blatantly political messages permitted, even encouraged, on publicly funded websites?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, January 12, 2012.

"To collect photos is to collect the world."
— Susan Sontag


HOW I GOT THE SHOT: For those of us who live in a winter climate, the first blossoms of spring are always a welcome sight. In Israel, the almond tree is the traditional harbinger of spring, as pink and white-tipped new buds and even full flowers often appear weeks ahead of other trees. To me, it's as if they are saying, "We know it's cold here in January, but we're going to bloom anyway." They flash their strength and beauty during the darkest days of the year, despite the cool air and limited sunlight.

Almond trees grow wild in Israel and are abundant in the Judean Mountains south of Jerusalem, where I make my home. I shot these buds and blossom 10 minutes apart on the same day after venturing out into a thick fog during a winter squall. It was midday, and these images convey the mood of those moments: dark and damp, yet powerfully fragrant and bursting with hope as the new growing season emerges. I used a tripod and chose a wide aperture to keep the depth of field to a minimum, which creates a soft, clean background and trains the viewer's eye on the drops of dew clinging to the delicate petals.


Upper photo: Nikon D-300, 28-105 mm macro at 105 mm, f5 @1/320th sec., ISO 400.

Lower photo: Nikon D-300, 28-105 mm macro at 98 mm, f5 @1/800th 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 Robin Ticker, January 11, 2012.

This is by Professor Paul Eidelberg. Contact him at paul@i-ari.org.


Hilarious news from the Netanyahu government, the exemplar of moral schizophrenia. To exhibit its bifurcated morality, the government has decided that its expulsion of 10,000 Jews from Gush Katif and Northern Samaria must be counter-balanced by p roviding a refuge for an untold number of Syrian Alawites; and of course no place can be more convenient than the Golan Heights. Never mind the Alawite connection with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Netanyahu's inane humanitarian gesture may have been inspired by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whose mental infirmity seems to charm Israel's American-educated Prime Minister. Be this as it may, Israel's Serial Bungler remains in office despite an excision in the frontal lobe of his brain. His military mind has retained awareness that Syria has long claimed the Golan as its own; and the Labor Party, of which the lobotomized Barak was a leader, is on record of wanting to "return" the Golan to the Syrians. So the gesture of providing a refuge for the Alawites on the Golan Heights may be another clever act of Israeli diplomacy.

It would take an Aristophanes to do justice to this comedy.

Contact Robin Ticker at faigerayzel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, January 10, 2012.

Change the System but Cease Haredi Bashing

by Isi Leibler

Many Israelis regard haredi lifestyles and the Halachic interpretations of their rabbis as excessively stringent and incomprehensible. But as long as haredim do not seek to impose their lifestyles upon others and fulfill their civic obligations like the rest of society, we are obliged to respect their right to practice their rituals or customs according to their predilections. Besides, there are many positive aspects of haredi lifestyles which non-observant Israelis could certainly emulate and benefit.

However, when haredim seek to impose their standards on the nation, we are entitled to become angry. This should concern us, rather than the criminal behaviour against women by individual thugs — whom the bulk of the haredi community and their rabbis have unequivocally condemned. Yet the media frenzy suggests that the principle threat confronting us is violence from hordes of violent zealots seeking to impose Taliban standards of conduct on the nation.

This has fanned waves of hysteria, demonising haredim who are held collectively responsible for the crimes of a small number of degenerate zealots.

Despite the Neturei Karte extremists, who shamefully undermined the haredi cause by obscenely demonstrating in the streets wearing yellow stars and comparing themselves to Holocaust victims, the failure to deal with these fanatics rests principally with our own law enforcement officials. Over the years, they frequently avoided addressing these issues and stood aside, emboldening the wild fanatics.

The same applies to the price tag outlaws. Instead of directing collective blame towards law abiding settlers who are outraged by such actions, the media should be condemning law enforcement officials for failing to apprehend and jail these criminals.

In sharp contrast to the hysteria directed against haredim collectively, it is noteworthy that the media is far more accommodating towards far left Israeli agitators who encourage and even orchestrate violent demonstrations which include stone throwing and physical clashes with police and military authorities, often culminating with serious injuries. The left media downplay such violent behaviour and even shower praise on the perpetrators...

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and so-called Arab Spring created tens of millions of refugees. Most of them have moved to Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran or Egypt. Many millions of them are being shipped to the United States, Europe or Australia. Only one group of people, dedicated to destruction of Israel, is not allowed to be removed from Jewish land. Population transfer works in resolving conflicts. It is time instigate the Sinai Option — Road to Permanent Peace !

End of the Peace with Egypt?

In recent Egyptian elections the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won 36.3 percent of the list vote, while the ultra-conservative Salafi al-Nour Party took 28.8 percent. When asked whether it is a requirement for the government in Egypt to recognise Israel, Bayoumi responded by saying: "This is not an option, whatever the circumstances, we do not recognise Israel at all..." "The Brotherhood respects international conventions, but we will take legal action against the peace treaty with the Zionist entity." (It was never peace, but a money grab — the US aid to Egypt for signing a worthless piece of paper! This will create an opportunity for Israel to retake the Sinai Peninsula and implement the Sinai Option!)

Let Kadima Rest in Peace

Given Livni's refusal to hold primaries, her opponents must form a majority of 15 Knesset members and "take the party away from her." In case of a split, the majority is granted the party's name and mechanism. Such a move would leave Livni at the head of a small and different party. He felt this should have been done some time ago. Avigdor Yitzchaki, one of the founders of the Kadima party, expressed support for Meir Sheetrit's attempts to divide the party. (Self-serving political prostitutes are attempting to revive a party of traitors!)

Ukraine Synagogue Firebombed the Second Time

Less than a month after celebrating the dedication of a new Torah scroll, the small, but historic Jewish community of Kremenchug, Ukraine, was forced to again deal with anti-Semitism after a Molotov cocktail ignited a fire and damaged its synagogue's exterior. The attack, which took place in the middle of the night on New Year's Eve, followed a similar attempted firebombing two months ago. In that instance, the Molotov cocktail failed to ignite. (Anti-Semitic and terror attacks against Jews in Israel and elsewhere are systematically ignored and not reported by international media)

PLO Corruption Dates Back to 1964

The history of the Palestinian Authority — only eighteen years in length — has been noted for extensive corruption from the outset. PA officials have long sought to recover some $1 billion in pilfered funds from Suha Arafat, the widow of Fatah's iconic (AIDS-redden pedophile) arch-terrorist and PA founder Yasser Arafat.

Kurds Protest, the UN is Silent

Kurdish separatist banners in red, yellow and green draped the coffins of 35 Turkish civilians and fluttered among mourning crowds on Friday, a day after the Turkish authorities admitted that airstrikes in northern Iraq intended to kill Kurdish militants had instead claimed the lives of young smugglers. (There are over 25 million Kurds who suffer injustice. They used to have their own country, Kurdistan, which is divided and occupied by five Muslim countries. But 'Useless Nothing' does not care! Fake Palestinians are its highest priority!)

A Terrorist to Advise the Terrorist

Mahmoud Abbas appointed as a new advisor. Mahmoud Damara was involved in the shooting and bombing to death Israelis, was part of Yasser Arafat's feared Force 17 terrorist group. Israel freed him last October, along with more than 1,000 other terrorists and security prisoners to gain the return of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

A Smoking Gun of Obama's Legitimacy

"Americans for Freedom of Information" group has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. The transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. It is alleged that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds with 11 law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. (Strangely, none of the main-stream media outlets are interested to report or investigate the story!)

True face of Islamic Democracy

Sahar Gul, 15, was beaten, had her fingernails pulled out and was burnt with cigarettes after she defied her in-laws, who tried to force her into prostitution and was locked in a toilet for six months. She had been sold by her brother to her husband about seven months ago for $US5000. Her husband is a soldier in Afghani army. Neither her husband nor her in-laws are arrested yet. (Nine out of ten Afghan women suffer from domestic abuse)

Example of Brotherly Love

Scuffles have broken out between rival groups of Greek Orthodox and Armenian clerics in a turf war at Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity. Bemused tourists looked on as about 100 priests fought with brooms while cleaning the church in preparation for Orthodox Christmas. "It was a trivial problem that... occurs every year," said Bethlehem PA policeman Lt-Col Khaled al-Tamimi. "No one was arrested because all those involved were men of God." The 1,700-year-old church, one of the holiest sites in Christianity, is in a bad state of repair, largely because the priests cannot agree on who should pay for its upkeep.

One Can't Breath Life into a Dead Body

While the Quartet is thrilled over Tuesday's peace talks, popular PA terrorist Marwan Barghouti wrote in his letter, marking the 47thth anniversary of the founding of the Fatah party, Barghouti wrote of Tuesday's mediated talks with PA and Israeli negotiators, "There is no point to make desperate attempts to breathe life into a dead body."

Self-hating Madness Must End!

At least two abusive attacks against ultra-Orthodox children were reported to the police this week. While waiting at a bus stop in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sanhedria, an 11-year-old boy was approached by two secular men and struck in the face. Another 11-year-old girl told police that she was attacked on a bus by a secular man, who spat at her, shoved her and shouted, "Haredim are cursed," and that they should not travel on buses any more. (Both sides must respect each other — we are one! We need to learn from our history — the second Temple was destroyed because of Jewish disunity! With respect to our diversity, we must unite against our common enemies.)

Mafia Style Extortion

An investigation by Globes found that demands by Beduin tribes in the Sinai for protection money from the Egyptian government is the primary motive for the attacks on gas pipelines in the peninsula. The Egyptian government is refusing to capitulate to Beduins' demands for now. Experts believe that Egypt will not seriously consider resuming gas deliveries to Israel until a new government is in place.

Quote of the Week:

"Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you're right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." — Mohandas Ghandi

Two Missiles a Day in 2011

Terrorists fired an average of nearly two missiles a day at Israel in 2011. In the course of the year, 680 rockets, mortars and Grad missiles were fired at southern Israel, according to data compiled by the Home Front Command.

Eighty Grad missiles were fired at Israel in 2011, compared to two the previous year. Grads have a longer range and a more lethal explosive payload than other rockets fired at Israel.

The Home Front Command's Southern District continued to upgrade the warning system for the residents of southern Israel. In addition to the siren system, the Home Front Command is working to improve mobile phone, internet and television warning systems.

The official said that the plan to reinforce homes within 4.5 kilometers of Gaza and educational institutions within seven kilometers of the border is partially complete and that within two years all educational institutions within 15 kilometers of the border will be fortified. (It will not change the behaviour of the enemies, and will facilitate Israel's government inaction and perpetuate Israelis' fearful existence under the threat of Islamic terror. Why waste time and money? Gaza is so close to the Sinai. It is a logical choice for the first stage of the Sinai Option.)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 11, 2012.

That means "Anyone But Obama," although I might qualify that with "almost."

Perhaps it's in the nature of the game, but as I watch from Jerusalem while the candidates vying for the Republican nomination go at each other, I am unsettled. Especially as sometimes accusations are over the top. In the end, of course, the Republicans will settle on one of those currently vying for the nomination. But we must hope that, by that time, the competition that preceded it will not have so tarnished his image that his capacity to beat Obama at the polls has been compromised.

Be it Romney or Santorum or Gingrich, any of these serving as president would be far better for America, and Israel and the Western world than Obama is. And in the end, I hope that is what Republicans in the US will remember, rallying in strength and with genuine enthusiasm behind the victor. This election, in the main, is not Obama's to win — his credentials are down the tubes — so much as it is the Republicans to lose.


At the moment, it's looking like Romney. And if it is, he'll have a tough fight on his hands.

Bill Daley, who took over from Rahm Emanuel as Obama's chief of staff, has resigned after a one-year stint. Obama has now replaced him with Jacob (Jack) Lew, who has been serving as Director of Management and Budget.

Former White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew on Nov. 8, 2011. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)

What has been broadly announced is that he is an "Orthodox Jew." According to the Forward, this means he "keeps an observant lifestyle, eats kosher food and does not drive on the Sabbath. He does not wear a kippa (traditional Jewish skullcap) in his daily life."

I know nothing about him (other than what I just wrote above)...yet. But I confess to pondering long and hard how he can be comfortable working for Obama.

And you'd have a very hard time convincing me that this particular appointment is just a coincidence, when Obama is so vigorously courting the Jewish community.


So now it's Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, Iranian professor and department head of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, who has been blown to kingdom-come (with or without the 72 virgins), in this case by a magnetic car bomb, in Teheran.

I'm am not prepared to say that Israel did it — although this is the working assumption in many quarters. This likelihood was fueled by a comment by Chief of Staff Benny Gantz yesterday, before Ahmadi-Roshan was hit, regarding the fact that in 2012 Iran can expect more "unnatural" events.

There are suggestions that rebels from inside Iran are responsible for some of these attacks. Or, as one blogger citing unnamed sources claims, the Mossad working with Iranians from inside. A plausible possibility.

Ahmadi-Roshan, is, I believe, the third Iranian scientist to have been taken out.

What makes these operations effective is not just the elimination of experts needed by Iran, but the uneasy and underlying anxiety that is generated.


I wrote recently about how difficult predictions are because of constantly shifting dynamics. Now Khaled Abu Toameh has written a piece, "The many contradictions of Mahmoud Abbas," which addresses precisely this with regard to the PA president:

"Seven years have passed since Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Yasser Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority, and many Palestinians appear to be as confused as ever regarding their leader's true intentions."

Abbas has offered conflicting messages with regard to policy, unity, reelections, peace talks and a third intifada.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy AndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=252912

My question is whether Abbas is himself conflicted, or, as I would suggest, there is method to his madness (or indecision).


I'm beginning to see suggestions once again — which make me furious once again — regarding the need for Israel to "make a gesture of good faith" to keep the Palestinian Arabs sitting at the table. But this is precisely what Abbas and company hope for: They confess to a burning desire to make peace, and reveal with tears in their eyes that it is being thwarted by the Israelis' refusal to freeze settlements, etc.

A gullible, appeasing world is quite happy to lean on Israel — once again — in the deluded hope that maybe one more concession will make a difference. Heaven forbid Israel should budge in this regard!

Here I want to refer to one specific suggestion, which I consider particularly foolish and dangerous. Perhaps, it is being said, we should give the PA more control of certain areas, ceasing IDF operations. What is ignored when such suggestions are made is that it is the IDF, operating nightly, that stops terrorists, finds weapons caches, and the like. The PA so-called security forces will not do this. To make this suggestion is to ever so casually and ignorantly suggest putting innocent Israelis at risk.


Guilio Meotti has written an insightful, indeed fascinating, thought-piece, "Israel, the Pistol Nation":

"In Israel, war and democracy have made an unusual marriage to create a Jew fit to survive in continuous sacrifice. It is not about gargantuan deeds by superhuman champions; it is family-and home-oriented, and rather intimate in tone.

"The militarization of the Jew, which is the burden and the salvation at the same time, has been the most dramatic psychological transformation of the Zionist revolution. Where once Jews were mocked for being 'cowards' and 'parasites,' today they are condemned by the world for being 'aggressors.'

"...That's the Jewish revolution, which the West can't accept, the most admirable Israeli phenomenon: A people still able to defend itself against the forces of evil."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-4174273,00.html


Menorah stamp

A 1,500 year old ceramic stamp bearing the image of a menorah has been found during Israel Antiquities Authorities excavations near the city of Akko. It has been identified as coming from the Byzantine period (6th century CE), and is a "bread stamp": It was used to certify that baked goods were kosher.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nodir Ataev and Steven Plaut, January 10, 2012.

Just as the new calendar year was about to begin, new violence broke out in the village of Andarak in southern Kyrgyzstan. Internecine violence among the ethnic groups of Kyrgyzstan has been flaring up periodically for years with the worst outbreaks in 2010. Kyrgyzstan may be the closest thing to be found in Central Asia to a "bi-national state," the sort of state that some are proposing be imposed upon the Middle East as a "solution" to replace Israel. It is the second poorest of the ex-Soviet republics. The two main ethnic groups in Kyrgyzstan are the Kyrgyz, about 70% of the population, until relatively recently in history a nomadic tribal population, and ethnic Uzbeks, close to 20%. There are also ethnic Tajiks living in the country. And there are lessons to learn from the violence there about the viability of multi-ethnic states in the Middle East.

At first glance, Kyrgyzstani ethnic relations might be expected to be idyllic. Both of the two main population groups consist of predominantly Moslem people speaking Turkic dialects. The Tajiks are also Moslem, speaking a language close to Farsi. Yet the country has seen outbreaks of massive inter-ethnic violence. In June 1990, a violent land dispute between the Kyrgyz and Uzbeks erupted in the city of Osh. In the summer of 2010, southern Kyrgyzstan was again gripped by bloody internecine violence. (The New Year's violence this year was between ethnic Tajiks and Kyrgyz.)

The south of Kyrgyzstan is predominantly Uzbek and was sliced off and glued into Kyrgyzstan by the Soviets in order to provide the country with parts of the fertile Fergana Valley. In the 1990 fighting, a state of emergency and curfew were introduced there and the border between the neighboring Uzbekistani and Kirghiz republics was closed. Soviet troops were deployed to stop the violence. According to official reports 230 people died, but unofficial figures range up to more than 1,000.

Central Asia is a part of the globe that is known by few Americans, with even fewer who have visited it. It is composed of countries that almost no American can identify on a map. Yet it is nevertheless an important region, located just north of Afghanistan and near the heartland of the forces of the anti-Western jihad, a region whose strategic worth is increasingly valued by the West in light of the war against terror. And it is also a region in which there are lessons for other parts of the world with regard to "engineering" artificial states. In particular, it illustrates the folly of proposals to construct "bi-national" and "multi-national" states in the Middle East as some sort of recipe for peace.

Throughout history and until very recently, Central Asians lived within the greater states and empires of other peoples, among them the empires of the Chinese, Mongols, Greeks, Arabs, Persians, Turks and Russians. Most of Central Asia was conquered by Alexander the Great and so was opened up to "Western-Hellenistic" cultural influence quite early. Later the region was incorporated within a series of Islamic states, khanates, and empires, including those of Islamized Mongols. Most of the population was Islamized, although at different paces, with those today called Uzbeks being among the earliest to embrace the faith, and those called the Kyrgyz and Kazakhs converting much later, many only in the last two centuries. Historically the population of the region did not see itself as composed of separate "nations," but rather as heterogeneous cultural and linguistic subgroups and clans within those larger empires, and where religious and tribal ties were far more important than "national" ties.

The nature of statehood and nationality in Central Asia was radically and artificially altered by the Soviets, who sought to neutralize the political ambitions and independence of the peoples of the region through a policy of divide and conquer. The Soviets also decided to erect boundaries for "Socialist Republics" and similar political structures (like "autonomous oblasts") throughout the region. Stalin and his people intentionally drew "national" boundaries for these new "nations" that often ignored demography and the ethnic compositions of the populations. They drew borders in an intentional way to include large populations of "alien" peoples in each of the new "republics" being invented. For example, two of Uzbekistan's largest cities are in fact ethnically Tajik.

The Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Tajiks, and many others were all interspersed throughout the territories of the "republics" in a dizzying mosaic. Cynics suspected that the Soviets wanted such structures to prevent ethnic-based opposition from forming, to focus attention of the ethnic groups in conflict against one another so that their populations would be easier to control, and to foment Russification. The languages of these new "countries" were forcibly and artificially transformed by requiring the use of the Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet, although in recent years Cyrillic is being widely replaced by the Latin alphabet. Stalinist policies of mass expulsion of populations brought other ethnicities and other tensions to Central Asia alongside uprooted populations from the Crimea and Georgia and elsewhere transplanted there.

Every one of the "republics" of Central Asia sits inside artificial borders arbitrarily drawn by the Soviets, each a sovereign authoritarian country; Uzbekistan has retained even today its one-party Soviet-era dictatorship. Ethnic tensions are to be found in all the countries of Central Asia, and these sometimes produce massive violence.

According to the United Nations, in the 2010 violence 400,000 refugees were displaced and over 100,000 people, mainly ethnic Uzbeks, fled across the border to neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The Kyrgyzstani interim government headed by acting president Roza Otunbayeva was accused of granting shoot-to-kill powers to its security forces in the south, and was criticized by human rights organizations. Human Rights Watch reported some involvement of government forces in attacks on Uzbek neighborhoods.

There are several lessons that can be learned from the violence in Kyrgyzstan. As a predominantly Moslem country Kyrgyzstan is very much a part of the Middle East. As such, the first lesson is that in the Middle East, bi-national and multi-national political structures do not work well, even under the best of circumstances, and produce inter-communal and internecine violence. Multi-ethnic Tajikistan has also seen civil war break out among different Muslim groups in that country. If relations among the fellow Turkic Muslims of rival ethnic groups break down into near-civil war, then how much less viable would be any bi-national Jewish-Arab state of the sort that the Destroy-Israel movement is currently proposing?

Ironically, there is a related positive lesson for the Middle East from the same region. While relations between ethnic Slavs and local Muslims in Central Asia have often been tense and can be potentially explosive, recent violent confrontations have been relatively rare largely because of the massive out-migration of the Slavs to Russia and the Ukraine. Ethnic Germans also largely emigrated. Ethnic Russians and Ukrainians simply moved to those nation-states in which their kin are the dominant majority.

Could not the Arab-Israeli conflict be resolved at least partly through a similar out-migration of "Palestinians" and their relocation into the predominantly Arab ethnic "homelands," much like the resettlement of Central Asian Slavs? After all, "Palestinians" are by and large people whose families migrated into what is now Israel from neighboring countries over the past century or so, to take advantage of rising standards of living produced by the Zionist immigrations and investments of capital there. And Palestinian Arabs are the only ethnic group on the planet that can choose to move to any from among 22 different sister states composed of the same ethnic group to which they belong.

Confrontation and civil war with Slavs have been prevented in Central Asia thanks to "transfer" of the minority Slav population to the predominantly Slavic countries. "Transfer" has long been the bogeyman solution that defenders of the Palestinian agenda dismiss as a racist and colonialist idea. They prefer the "progressive" solution of annihilating Israel and its population and erecting even more Arab states in its territory. The same people who want Israel dismembered reject out of hand the idea that Iraq or Syria could be made into more tranquil places by breaking them each into smaller states with more homogeneous populations. After all, that would be "colonialistic," unlike Soviet border invention.

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
http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. This article is archived at
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ 01/10/central-asia-lessons-for- the-middle-east/

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, January 10, 2012.

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) — a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of achieving, and where the members of society least likely to succeed are abundantly rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio HaDaR Tezza, January 10, 2012.

This comes from R. N. Dilgard


OIL — You better be sitting down when you read this !!!!!!

As you may know, Cruz Construction started a division in North Dakota

just 6 months ago.

They sent every Kenworth (9 trucks) we had here in Alaska to North Dakota

and several drivers.

They just bought two new Kenworth's to add to that fleet; one being a Tri

Drive tractor and a new 65 ton lowboy to go with it.

They also bought two new cranes (one crawler & one rubber tired) for that


Dave Cruz said they have moved more rigs in the last 6 months in ND than

Cruz Construction moved in Alaska in the last 6 years.

Williston is like a gold rush town; they moved one of our 40 man camps

down there since there are no rooms available.

Unemployment in ND is the lowest in the nation at 3.4 percent last I


See anything in the national news about how the oil industry is fueling

North Dakota 's economy?

Here's an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information:

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest.

The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer;

how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together.."

The U. S.. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big.

It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana.

Check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable(5 billion barrels), at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada.

For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves, and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL !!!!!!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006 !!!!!!

U. S. Oil Discovery — Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online — 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news:

We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates:

8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
18 times as much oil as Iraq
21 times as much oil as Kuwait
22 times as much oil as Iran
500 times as much oil as Yemen
and it's all right here in the Western United States !!!!!!

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy. WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East, more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped.. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices, by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way, this can be verified. Check it out at the links below !!!!!!


Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, January 10, 2012.

Osmakac showed hatred for the US in a video, in spite of the fact that the US military protected him and his family from the Serbian paramilitary's genocidal mission in Kosovo. (DoJ File Photo)

25-year-old Sami Osmakac today was charged for his role in an alleged plot to plant bombs at Florida nightclubs, a law enforcement office, and several local businesses in the Tampa, Florida area, according to a report obtained by the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police.

Osmakac is reportedly a naturalized U.S. citizen was born in the former Yugoslavia. The "lone wolf" terrorist suspect was arrested on January 7 for the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, the officials at the U.S. Department of Justice said today in a statement.

If convicted, he faces life in prison and a $250,000 fine, the Justice Department said.

A paid Federal Bureau of Investigation informant got a job at Osmakac's business and recorded conversations with him discussing attacks on the U.S., according to court papers. The informant isn't identified in an affidavit filed in support of the arrest warrant. He's simply known as CI (confidential informant) by law enforcement.

A 25-year-old Sami Osmakac today was charged for his role in an alleged plot to plant bombs at Florida nightclubs, a law enforcement office, and several local businesses in the Tampa, Florida area, according to a report obtained by the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police.

Osmakac is reportedly a naturalized U.S. citizen was born in the former Yugoslavia. The "lone wolf" terrorist suspect was arrested on January 7 for the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, the officials at the U.S. Department of Justice said today in a statement.

If convicted, he faces life in prison and a $250,000 fine, the Justice Department said.

A paid Federal Bureau of Investigation informant got a job at Osmakac's business and recorded conversations with him discussing attacks on the U.S., according to court papers. The informant isn't identified in an affidavit filed in support of the arrest warrant. He's simply known as CI (confidential informant) by law enforcement.

Osmakac asked the CI for assistance in buying firearms and explosives, according to the official affidavit. He was arrested after getting an explosive belt, a pistol, hand grenades and an AK-47 assault rifle from an undercover FBI agent, but those weapons had been either neutralized or rendered inoperable, according to the DOJ.

Osmakac also made a home video announcing the reasons for his planned attacks, according to an FBI source contacted by the Law Enforcement Examiner.

The video has Osmakac saying he thought Muslim blood was more valuable than that of non-Muslims and that he plans to "pay back" the injustices suffered by Muslims, according to the affidavit.

The FBI staged a similar sting operation using a secret informant to arrest four men who were convicted in 2010 of plotting to bomb New York synagogues and shoot heat-seeking missiles at military planes. That operation was run by the FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorism Task Force.

It's not known if the would-be Tampa terrorist has had contact with any organized radical Islamic groups or their affiliates.

"While I have consistently stated the overwhelming majority of Muslim-Americans are outstanding people, the reality is that radicalization within the Muslim-American community by al-Qaeda and its affiliates is a real threat to the security of our homeland. The Obama Administration recognizes this," said Rep. Peter King (R_NY), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, January 9, 2012.

This comes from Liberty News Online.


WASHINGTON — A radical jihadist group responsible for nearly 50 attacks on American soil is operating 35 terrorist training camps across the nation, but the U.S. government refuses to include the organization on the State Department's list of foreign terrorists.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra, known in the U.S. as "Muslims of America," has purchased or leased hundreds of acres of property — from New York to California — in which the leader, Sheikh Mubarak Gilani, boasts of conducting "the most advanced training courses in Islamic military warfare."

In a recruitment video captured from Gilani's "Soldiers of Allah," he states in English: "We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America."

Though Gilani and his organization is suspected of committing assassinations and firebombings inside the U.S., and is also suspected of the beheading murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, the terrorist camps spread through the country continue to expand in numbers and population.

A documentary called "Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Training Camps Around the U.S." provides compelling evidence of how "Muslims of America" operates with impunity inside the U.S. In the video, producers visited some camps, attempted to visit others and interviewed neighbors and local police officials. It also include excerpts of the "Muslims of America" recruitment video.

Get "Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Training Camps Around the U.S." and share it with your neighbors, your local police officials and your representatives in Congress.

The recruitment video shows American converts to Islam being instructed in the operation of AK-47 rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns and C4 explosives. It provides instruction in how to kidnap Americans, kill them and how to conduct sabotage and subversive operations.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra's attacks on American soil range from bombings to murder to plots to blow up U.S. landmarks. A 2006 Department of Justice report states Jamaat ul-Fuqra "has more than 35 suspected communes and more than 3,000 members spread across the United States, all in support of one goal: the purification of Islam through violence." In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security predicted the group would continue to carry out attacks in the U.S.

"Act like you are his friend. Then kill him," says Gilani in the recruitment video, explaining how to handle American "infidels."

Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was attempting to interview Jamaat ul-Fuqra's leader, Gilani, in 2002 when he was kidnapped and later beheaded. One year later, Iyman Faris, member of both Jamaat ul-Fuqra and al-Qaida, pleaded guilty in federal court to a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

Gilani was at one time in Pakistani custody for the abduction of Pearl. Intelligence sources also suggest a link between Jamaat ul Fuqra and Richard Reid, the infamous "shoe bomber" who attempted to ignite explosives aboard a Paris-to-Miami passenger flight Dec. 22, 2001.

"What we are witnessing here is kind of a brand-new form of terrorism," says FBI Special Agent Jody Weis in the documentary. "These home-grown terrorists can prove to be as dangerous as any known group, if not more so,"

As WND reported, a covert visit to a Jamaat ul-Fuqra encampment in upstate New York by the Northeast Intelligence Network found neighboring residents deeply concerned about military-style training taking place there but frustrated by the lack of attention from federal authorities.

Muslims of the Americas Inc., a tax-exempt organization, has been directly linked by court documents to Jamaat ul-Fuqra. The organization operates communes of primarily black, American-born Muslims throughout the U.S. The investigation confirmed members commonly use aliases and intentional spelling variations of their names and routinely deny the existence of Jamaat ul-Fuqra.

The group openly recruits through various social service organizations in the U.S., including the prison system. Members live in compounds where they agree to abide by the laws of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, which are considered to be above local, state and federal authority.

U.S. authorities have probed the group for charges ranging from links to al-Qaida to laundering and funneling money into Pakistan for terrorist activities. The organization supports various terrorist groups operating in Pakistan and Kashmir, and Gilani himself is linked directly to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Gilani's American headquarters is in Hancock, N.Y., where training is provided to recruits who are later sent to Pakistan for more jihadist paramilitary training, according to law enforcement authorities.

A Justice Department report to law enforcement agencies, prepared in 2006, provides a glimpse into how long Jamaat ul-Fuqra or "Muslims of America" has been operating inside the U.S.: "Over the past two decades, a terrorist group known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra, or 'Community of the Impoverished,' has been linked to multiple murders, bombings and various other felonies throughout the United States and Canada."

Gilani's "communes" are described by law enforcement as "classically structured terrorist cells."

Seven of the compounds have been identified as training facilities: Marion, Alabama; Commerce, Georgia; Macon, Georgia; Talihina, Oklahoma; York County, South Carolina; Dover, Tennessee and Red House, Virginia. Other compounds are located in California, Colorado, Texas, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan and West Virginia.

You are now without excuse: See the terrorist training camps in the U.S. with your own eyes. See excerpts of the recruitment video by "Muslims of America" aka Jamaat ul-Fuqra. See "Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Training Camps Around the U.S." with your own eyes.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Rock Peters, January 9, 2012.

Israel, oh Israel
how can you have peace
with Muslim terrorists who deny your very right to exist?

Where do you begin the negotiations
with the "Palestinian Authority" and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
when upon your extinction they insist?

How many times Israel
you have tried
and held out the olive branch,

But when people
live and breathe murder
peace has no chance,

Is Israel supposed
to remain idle while Muslim terrorists fire rockets
and kill Israeli civilians? Israel has every right and MUST defend herself
NEVER AGAIN there shall be loss of Jewish life as before by the millions,

For those who forget
the past
are condemned to repeat it,

We know from history
there is one thing to do with a Fascist ideology
and that is — to defeat it,

Because terrorists understand
only one thing
and that is superior might,

What Israel has done
in Gaza to defend herself is necessary
and is absolutely right

And NOW Israel must act quickly
to destroy Iran's atomic facilities
because the Iranian mullahs and mad men like Ahmadinejad
can never be allowed nuclear capability,

For Israel could make no greater error
than to surrender, to Muslim terror,

Why even on Christmas
Hamas was killing Jews!
does this come to anyone, as shocking news?
(Merry Christmas from Islam. Hamas hit Israel with 60 rocket attacks
on Christmas Eve)

Israel is Jewish
it is God's Holy land!
and we Americans with Israel will always, always stand!
Today, tomorrow and forever!

The Iranian nuclear program must be stopped by any means necessary!

Rock Peters is an author, songwriter, poet and patriot. His multimedia website — www.godsaveusa.com — is dedicated to fighting Muslim terrorism. It is both factual and attractive. Contact him at rockpeters@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, January 9, 2012.

This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg. For other essays by Eidelberg, whose expertise is "how to make Israel more democratic by Jewish principles, and how to make Israel more Jewish by democratic principles", see Israel-America Renaissance Institute _www.I-ari.org_ (http://www.i-ari.org/).


By boasting of Israel as a democracy, Israeli politicians and negotiators have established, in the minds of American policy-makers and opinion-makers, a set of democratic expectations, any departure from which causes, and is bound to cause, annoyance and even animosity.

Conversely, by failing to act a government whose policies and pronouncements are distinctively Jewish, Israel's leaders have laid the foundation for their country's humiliation and for much of the world's antagonism toward the so-called Jewish State.

Pundits were astonished by President Barak Obama's scornful treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing new here. The administration of George H. W. Bush had a special talent for insulting Israel. With unprecedented disdain, Secretary of State James Baker offered his phone number to the Yitzhak Shamir government "should it be interested in peace," he publicly and contemptuously declared. More than once during his Middle East diplomacy, Mr. Baker peremptorily arrived in Israel on the eve of Jewish holidays.

Indeed, without consulting Israel, and hardly 24 hours prior to a scheduled meeting between Prime Minister Shamir and President Bush, the State Department summarily announced that a Middle East peace conference would take place in Washington on December 4, 1991, the day preferred by the Arabs who surely knew, with the Bush Administration, that December 4 fell on a Jewish holiday. The Shamir Government refrained from expressing umbrage at this undiplomatic and disdainful behavior. But it is precisely the government's emasculated Judaism, submerged in democratic secularism, which provokes such indignities, and to which no Arab autocracy is subjected by the democratic government of the United States.

Contrary to the expectations of Jewish politicians and intellectuals who, out of fear of anti-Semitism, constantly boast of Israel as a democracy to endow it (and themselves) with legitimacy and respectability, it is precisely this lack of national authenticity or mindless adulation of liberal democratic values that underlies international contempt for Israel.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan D. Halevi, January 9, 2012.
  • PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal reached an agreement in Cairo on 22 December on national reconciliation and a strategic partnership. A new temporary leadership was formed for the PLO, for the first time in tandem with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Hamas' joining of the PLO does not herald a strategic shift in the movement's policy or recognition of the agreements the PLO has signed with Israel. The Hamas leadership keeps emphasizing that it seeks to take over the PLO after new elections to the Palestinian National Council and to alter the PLO platform in accordance with its own views.

  • Osama Hamdan, in charge of foreign relations for Hamas, asserted in an interview: "Whoever thinks Hamas has changed its positions and that it accepts the PLO's political platform of surrender is dreaming or fooling himself." Hamdan went on to state that "Hamas is seeking a national framework to reconstruct the PLO [and] reconsider its political platform...from the standpoint of our basic principles and rights, which do not accept bargaining, particularly [over] the liberation of our land from the river to the sea and the right of return."

  • Hamas has reached an agreement with Abbas on adopting the "popular resistance" paradigm for the struggle against Israel. Various political elements view this position of Hamas as a sign of pragmatism, heralding a process of accepting Israel's existence including willingness to negotiate with it on a political settlement. Yet the openly stated positions of the Hamas leadership do not support this assessment.

  • An official Hamas announcement on 27 December stated: "We underline our adherence to our right to the struggle in all its forms, particularly the armed struggle, for the removal of the occupation. The way of resistance [muqawama in the original, with a double entendre of resistance and struggle], jihad, and martyrdom for Allah [istishhad] has proved that it is the only way to forcefully attain our rights and the liberation of our land, Al-Quds [Jerusalem], and our holy places.

  • Hamas' growing confidence stems first and foremost from the consequences of the Arab Spring, or more precisely the Islamic Spring, which has empowered the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and other countries. For years under Mubarak's regime, Egypt gave backing to the PA. Now, in the wake of the revolution, Egypt stands to become a huge source of strength for Hamas, especially once the Muslim Brotherhood forms the next government there.

Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi, a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, January 9, 2012.

Last night a very special event took place at the Hurva synagogue, in the "Old City" of Jerusalem. Hundreds gathered to honor Hebron-Kiryat Arba's chief rabbi, Rav Dov Lior.

Rav Lior is, most simply put, a Torah giant, a genius whose Torah scholarship is second to none. Together with his brothers, he escaped the Nazi holocaust and has lived in Israel for many decades. A première student of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, Rav Lior has served as Hebron-Kiryat Arba's chief Rabbi, as well as being the Rosh Yeshiva (Dean) of the Kiryat Arba Nir Yeshiva, is the head of the local Rabbinic Court, and is Chairman of the Rabbinic Council of Judea and Samaria. He is accepted as one of the most learned Rabbis of the generation, whose Judaic legal rulings are requested and accepted internationally.

A number of years ago, one of Rabbi Lior's students, himself a learned Rabbi, Rav Yitzhak Rodrig, began a Torah organization in Kiryat Arba called the Institute for Community Rabbis. This organization is comprised of various Torah scholars, many of whom serve as Rabbis, community leaders and teachers in their respective towns, throughout Judea. Over the years this institute has published numerous books dealing with many aspects of Jewish life and law. Their initial publication, the first in a set of books, called 'Melilot' printed in 1997, is a series of research articles dealing with various topics, including medicine, security, damages, Shabbat, synagogues, and more. This series has already produced three volumes of over 1,200 pages of Torah erudition on diverse issues and subjects.

Other books include: The embryo in Jewish law, Parchment, Purity at the field of Machpela, the Environment, Laws of Mourning, several books dealing with Jewish teaching and education, and many more. (A complete list (all in Hebrew) can be viewed here. In fifteen years the institute has published some thirty books.

Several years ago Rav Rodrig began publishing arguably the institutes' most important volumes: Legal decisions rendered by Rav Dov Lior. These books, printed in the traditional format of questions and answers, known as responsa, provide rulings about every subject that can be imagined, be it Shabbat and holidays, kashrut, family matters, as well as legalistic topics concerning intricate details of Jewish jurisprudence.

Last night, many of Rav Lior's peers and students met to honor the Rabbi on the publication of the fourth and fifth books in this series, titled "Dvar Hebron" — (the Sayings of Hebron). One of these two books continues to deal with questions of traditional Jewish law, per se. However the second book is unique, in that it deals with 'outlooks' or 'views' (hashkafa) and faith (emunah). As such, this volume deals not with the kashrut, that is, food ritually suitable to eat by Jews, and does not deal with what may or may not be done on Shabbat, or how to build a Succah. Rather it examines: the value of Torah and Torah study; education; the mitzva (precept or commandment) of living in the Land of Israel, mitzvot conditional on the land of Israel, Jerusalem, War, War ethics, Independence Day, Redemption, Am Yisrael (the Jewish people) and more.

The last chapter of this amazing book is a summary of the subjects dealt with. Ten examples:

1. The image of a Rabbi in Israel: A Rabbi must prepare in Yeshiva. Additionally, he must have general knowledge and develop his virtue. Besides issuing rulings and teaching Torah, he must give direction to correcting societal shortcomings, and to show the public how both private and public happiness is found in Torah.

2. Agriculture and construction in Israel: All work that develops Eretz Yisrael (agriculture,building, etc.) is a mitzvah. It is also a mitzvah to preserve the beauty of the land.

3. Abjudication of the mitzvah to settle Eretz Yisrael because of danger to life (pikuach nefesh): ...the public is obligated to fight for the land even if there is danger involved. At present, when we have a government, army, and police, we are obligated to fight for Eretz Yisrael despite the danger, and it is forbidden to transfer land from Eretz Yisrael to foreign powers because of threats to life.

4. Prohibition to surrender Land of Eretz Yisrael to foreigners: It is forbidden to surrender parts of Eretz Yisrael to foreigners. This prohibition includes all Eretz Yisrael, according to the borders of the arrivals from Egypt. And in reality, relinquishment of Eretz Yisrael will not bring peace...

5. Refusing orders to destroy communities in Eretz Yisrael: It is obligatory to follow military orders, but if the order contradicts the mitzvot of the Torah, and this includes destruction of a community in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to obey them.

6. The importance of visiting (going up to) Temple Mount: People should go up to the place of the Temple in the areas where it is permitted, following the necessary preparations, to prevent continuation of the Waqf's (Moslem religious trust's) rule on Temple Mount. It is forbidden to fly above certain holy areas (Machane Shechina).

7. Harming a civilian population during a war for Eretz Yisrael: During a war, a civilian population should not be arbitrarily harmed but it is prohibited to endanger our soldiers in order not to harm civilians, during warfare.

8. Establishing a day of thanksgiving at the present: It is a mitzvah to establish a day of thanksgiving for the miracles happening in our days. ...for the miracles done for the Jewish people (Klal Yisrael), we must say Hallel (Psalms of Thanksgiving) with a blessing, and for the establishment of the State of Israel, which is the beginning of the sprouting of our redemption, this is a miracle done for Klal Yisrael, we must recite the blessing Shechichiyanu (a blessing of thanksgiving) prior to reciting Hallel.

9. Sanctifying G-d's name with the establishment of the State of Israel: Following the tremendous desecration of G-d's name that happened during the Holocaust, the rise of Israel in its land is a sanctification of G-d's name.

10. Serving in the armed forces: The existential danger that hovers over our very existence obligates us to serve in the armed forces, but it is forbidden to follow orders contradicting Torah.

Rav Dov Lior is not only a Torah scholar; he is quintessential Jewish patriot, whose allegiance is pledged fully to G-d, Torah, the People and the Land. His courage in speaking the truth is undeniably tangible, without regard for any public controversy or dispute. All his books, but especially this one, should be required reading throughout Israel.

This book, as well as Rav Lior's other responsa and of course, all of the Institute's publications, can be viewed and ordered via their web site: http://www.rabanim.org

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 Ted Belman, January 9, 2012.

This was written by Naftali Bennett and it appeared in NYET
(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-4172316,00.html).


Some people claim that the Judea and Samaria public relations effort, which is premised on our historical right in this land, is doomed for failure. This is also the perception that dominates Israel's PR establishment.

Our diplomats say that we must not speak of the Bible and history, because it's primitive; rather, we must only explain our security needs and point to the murderous behavior of the Palestinians. The enlightened world, say the diplomats, has no interest in irrational issues, but rather, only wishes to see practical arguments such as water, topography and security.

Yet there is no greater mistake. Those who seek an answer to the perpetual question of Israel's PR failure should not resort to budgetary or tactical explanations. The problem is that the Palestinians have been arguing for dozens of years now that this land is theirs, while we have been responding with "true, but we need security."

Amos Oz described it as follows: We, the Jewish people, drowned at sea, and found a lifesaver in a Land of Israel that belongs to the Palestinians. As we were facing an existential distress, we have the right to take part of the land from them.

Bible is our mandate

If this is our moral basis, we are undoubtedly doomed for failure. There is no wonder that the nations of the world would see us as robbers who pushed the Palestinian people out of their home. Regardless of how many PR campaigns we present regarding the Tel Aviv beach and our glorious high-tech industry, we shall remain robbers.

However, this is not the truth. This land is ours.

David Ben-Gurion expressed it well when he was asked by the Peel Commission about the Jewish people's right for the land of Israel. He responded simply: The Bible is our mandate. He did not explain our right only by saying that we have no other shelter.

As long as we keep on utilizing practical arguments while leaving the arena of justice to the Palestinians, we shall lose. The time has come for the Israeli government to go back to the simple truth: The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel.

The writer is the Yesha Council's director general.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, January 9, 2012.
"Attaining political power includes winning elections and forming a state run according to Islamic law, the liberation of countries of Islam from a foreign yoke, uniting them into one Islamic entity, and spreading Islamic values around the globe on the ruins of the liberal West."

The Muslim Brotherhood wholeheartedly supports Hamas, with whom they met last year in Gaza and Cairo. (IDF/ISA)

President Barack Obama's view of the Muslim Brotherhood is based on his — and his advisors' — apparent rationale that the Islamist group is reformed and much more like the American and European models of pluralistic societies.

However, experts on Islam and terrorism claim that the Muslim Brotherhood's — and the radical Salafists — dominance of the Egyptian government, by virtue of its recent parliamentary election victories, will eventually lead to the imposition of Sharia law on Islamic Arabs and jihad against infidels.

"Nothing the Obama administration is trying to do through its aggressive overtures, including recent high-level meetings with Muslim Brotherhood officials, will change that fact. Jihad is embedded in its history, as evidenced by the violent Islamic jihadist organizations such as Hamas that it spawned. And let's not forget that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that gave Osama bin Laden's former deputy and current leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, his start," said attorney and World Net Daily investigative journalist Joseph Klein.

Klein states that Jihad remains in the Muslim Brotherhood's DNA. Its motto includes the words: "Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." The Brotherhood's new offices are emblazoned with its emblem of crossed swords. When actress and former Saturday Night Live cast member Victoria Jackson accused the Obama administration of allowing members of the Muslim Brotherhood access to his White House and his administration, she was criticized for her comments.

However, in June 2011, the Law Enforcement/Public Safety Examiner reported that the feeding frenzy over New York City's Congressman Anthony Weiner's sex scandal was nothing compared to allegations that his wife, Huma Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and it's female off-shoot, the Muslim Sisterhood. Even more disturbing is the fact that Mrs. Weiner works for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and has access to confidential, even secret, intelligence.

A counterterrorism think-tank based in the Middle East, released its latest report on the increasingly powerful Islamic group, the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood.

In Middle Eastern and North African Arab countries, the behavior of the Muslim Brotherhood has been influenced by the basic tension between the movement's ultimate goal of establishing a state run according to Islamic law (Sharia'h) and the need to exhibit a certain degree of pragmatism and flexibility in relation to the movement's need to adapt itself to the social and political conditions of each country, according to a report by the Meir Amit Information Center in Israel.

The activities of the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be regarded as uniform throughout the Arab world for it is run differently in each country, according to local circumstances and constraints. However, there are connections and common learning within the movement in Egypt and other countries in the Middle East and around the globe, according to Meir Amit.

The Muslim Brotherhood's ideology is based on the world-view of "Islam as the solution" for every individual, social and political problem. Instituting a comprehensive "Muslim world order" will be possible, according to the movement and its founders, by means of a long-term process of multiple stages.

It will, through education, begin with the new Muslim individual, progress to his family, from his family to society at large and from there to the new Muslim world order.

Attaining political power includes winning elections and forming a state run according to Islamic law, the liberation of countries of Islam from a foreign yoke, uniting them into one Islamic entity, and spreading Islamic values around the globe on the ruins of the liberal West.

How to implement the ideology is subject to broad interpretation, and there are pragmatic, conservative and extremist factions within the movement.

It is the "pragmatic" members of the Muslim Brotherhood who President Barack Obama and his underlings choose to promote to the American people.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the most well-organized political force in Egypt today. It also has a broad socio-economic system (the da'wah), built up over the years as a function of the movement's fundamental ideology. Once Mubarak's regime was overthrown, the Muslim Brotherhood found itself in a forward position from which to attain power than for others who participated in the protests in Tahrir Square, as can be seen by its success in two of the three election rounds for the People's Assembly.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna in the early 20th century. Over the years it grew to become the biggest and best-established of the Muslim Brotherhood movements in the Middle East and beyond, and one of the central movements of political Islam.

The success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is rooted in a combination of ideology, politics and social work. Ideologically, it is perceived as an authentic response to the hegemony of "Western occupation," and attracted its following from among people who had been disappointed by other ideologies. It also found a foothold in the educated urban middle class using its vast socio-economic system, the da'wah, to win the battle for hearts and minds, according to Meir Amit.

It focused on responding to the problems of the ordinary man in the street through its broad social welfare programs, which included education and health care, along with preaching in its network of mosques. They often supplanted dysfunctional state institutions and became an effective social network for the dissemination of the Muslim Brotherhood's religious and political ideas.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is hostile to Israel because of its fundamental ideology. The movement regards all the land of Palestine as an Islamic endowment (waqf), rejects the State of Israel's right to exist, promotes an uncompromising jihad against Israel, and absolutely rejects peace treaties and normalization with Israel.

In addition, it is consistently anti-Semitic and spreads anti-Semitism, either rooted in Islam or based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Publicly, however, it sometimes represents itself as moderate and pragmatic because it considers its image in the international community as important.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com). This appeared in the Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement- in-national/president-obama-s-myopic-view- of-the-muslim-brotherhood).

Kouri writes,"Special thanks to Jeffrey Hochman, a former American police sergeant now living in Israel, for his invaluable help in acquiring intelligence reports regarding terrorist groups."

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 8, 2012.

The Shamgar Committee, which had been charged with establishing guidelines on how the government should respond if terrorists abduct Israelis in the future, has completed its work and submitted its report to Defense Minister Barak last Thursday. It is being said that the goal of the protocol that is recommended is to guide Israelis to abide by a "national moral code," as well as to send a message to the enemy that it will not be profitable to kidnap Israelis.

According to Israel Radio, the report is currently classified "top secret," and while parts of it may remain confidential, parts may ultimately be published.

Apparently the entire issue was examined, including everything from deterrence to how much should be paid for an abductee. What is known about the recommendations is that they call for a toughening of the stance of the government:

Explained Meir Shamgar, the former High Court president who headed the committee, "We didn't only discuss the question of how to conduct negotiations over prisoner swaps, but also the question of whether to hold negotiations at all, and who should be the one to lead them. We recommend that the issue of saving hostages be under the rule of the defense minister, the prime minister and the government."

There is informed speculation that the Committee recommended appointing a permanent committee to deal with abductions and that special envoys no longer be utilized.

"The issue of secrecy is an integral component of our recommendations," said Shamgar. "It is preferable to keep certain things secret, so information will not be leaked to hostile elements."


After receiving the report, Barak said:

"It's important that we have solidarity, that we see that we are able to pay a heavy price when necessary and, most importantly, that we have set guidelines and expectations from the beginning so that this can impact the expectations of the other side."

Not quite sure what he has in mind when he refers to "a heavy price when necessary," but the issue of solidarity that he mentions is of considerable importance. There's no question in my mind that the price for Shalit went up because people in Israel eager to see him released were publicly lobbying the prime minister. The members of Hamas are not fools — they saw the pressure Netanyahu was under.

And the existence of guidelines — which, in broad terms, must be public knowledge — are critical. Potential terrorist-captors must know before the fact that what Israel will offer in return for a hostage — if anything at all — has a very definite limit.


Apparently Barak will now discuss these guidelines with the prime minister. He will then either institute what is recommended or go to the Knesset to seek appropriate legislation.

I'm all for that legislation, so that negotiators are bound by law and cannot suddenly concede more than is wise when under pressure.


According to a report from Israel Hayom at the very end of December, the Forum of Eight (senior ministers, including the prime minister, foreign minister and defense minister) decided unanimously that if another soldier is abducted Israel will go to war.

"The era of self-restraint is over," one senior government official said. "Anyone who kidnaps an Israeli will have to pay, possibly with the end of his rule."

Observed Netanyahu, "Reality is forcing us to change the rules of the game."

At about the same time, MK Zevulun Orlev (Bayit Yehudi) declared that many MKs and ministers now regret having released so many terrorists for Shalit. He announced intention to introduce legislation that would limit the authority of the government to abrogate the sentences of terrorists for the sake of a policy objective.


This is a switch that merits a "finally," as well, I think:

Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz recently addressed "the rising potential for a multi-arena event" — by which is meant war on several fronts. "Facing in several directions as we are...we can't afford to stay on the defensive and must come up with offensive measures."

About time it was said!


I'd like to say "finally" about this, too, but I don't know that I can:

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey gave an interview to CBS News; it was intended to demonstrate how rough and tough the US will remain in spite of military cuts made by Obama that are both horrendous and exceedingly ill-advised.

Declared Panetta, "our red line to Iran is to not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us."

That should be a "finally," a badly needed definitive statement. However...

General Dempsey, when asked how difficult it would be to take out Iran's nuclear capacity, answered:

"I'd rather not discuss the degree of difficulty and in any way encourage them to read anything into that."

That merits a groan. Why didn't he say that it doesn't matter how difficult it is, because the US military can do it? Instead, he explained:

"But I will say that — our — my responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option... in some cases to position assets, to provide those options... in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on."

Talk about a statement lacking in certainty and clarity! And this wasn't the end.

When asked about whether the US could take out the Iranian nuclear capacity without using nuclear weapons, Dempsey replied: "I certainly want them to believe that that's the case."

He actually SAID this on national TV? This is a direct quote, provided by YNet. Hey guys, if the leaders of Hamas are not stupid, neither are the leaders in Iran.

Sorry — spin this as you may, as deliberate disinformation or whatever — I am underwhelmed, and definitely not reassured.


Let's look for just a moment at our "peace partners" in the PA/PLO:

Last week, after the meeting in Amman, I reported that, while the PA negotiators had submitted their proposals, the Israeli proposals for borders and security requirements that had been requested by the Quartet had still not been submitted.

According to Herb Keinon, who cited "Western diplomatic officials" in the JPost last Thursday, Israel did submit something. However, "the document...is just a rough outline of issues that need to be discussed, and did not present in any detail Israel's position on the matters."

Another meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. An adviser to Abbas said they will respond to this outline at the meeting.


Ehud Barak, who is always pumping for a "peace process," now readily concedes that the chances are very slight that any significant progress will be made during these talks.

However, he sees the talks as having benefit, none-the-less:

"Good faith negotiations with the Palestinians can impede attempts to isolate Israel. It's important that it be clear that Israel is active in a real way. It can hinder the effectiveness of attempts to isolate us internationally."

Is Netanyahu taking his cues from his buddy Barak? This is his "play-the-game" policy.


Meanwhile, speaking of playing a game, Mahmoud al-Aloul, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, said in a speech on behalf of Abbas in Ramallah that the first meeting in Amman was very disappointing because the Israelis came without any new proposals. Of course, the PA proposal, that demanded negotiations based on the '67 line, was just loaded with new ideas, right?

Just listen:

"The Palestinian leadership has spared no effort to seek peace and has complied with all initiatives. But all our efforts have been in vain...The Israelis are not prepared for any solutions."

The Israeli response? That it had been decided at the meeting that neither side would make statements about the negotiations and that the Jordanians would be the spokespersons. In other words, al-Aloul was out of line.


Meanwhile, according to the reliable Middle East Newsline, Fatah is currently wracked by infighting because of Abbas's failure to succeed at the UN. This faction is definitely not of one mind with regard to the Amman meetings. Even if there were no other problems with regard to the "negotiations," the ambivalence of Fatah would be the kiss of death.


There continue to be events in this part of the world that are shifting so rapidly that I wonder if I need a spread sheet to keep track of it all. I've said this before: these are extraordinary times, with shifting alliances, roiling dynamics. Truly impossible to adequately call very much of what will happen — events can only be monitored as they unfold. A couple of mentions here will suffice for now:

Last Thursday, US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stated that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had given the US assurances that it would honor Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Various parties have given "good guarantees," she said.

On Saturday, Essam al-Erian, deputy head of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party, speaking to Al-Hayat, an Arabic paper in London, said that the accords "are under the responsibility of the people and state institutions, and it would not be right for anyone to speak on behalf of the Egyptian people....We are not in a position to give assurances."

By that point, Rashad al-Bayoumi, the Brotherhood's second in command, had already told Al-Hayat that "the Muslim Brotherhood will not recognize Israel under any circumstances and might put the peace treaty with the Jewish state up to a referendum.

"[The Brotherhood] did not sign the peace accords... We are allowed to ask the people or the elected parliament to express their opinion on the treaty...We will take the proper legal steps in dealing with the peace deal. To me, it isn't binding at all. The people will express their opinion on the matter."

But at almost the same time that al-Erian's statement was published, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon made a statement on the subject: "The peace treaty with Egypt is not in danger." All the main players in Egypt understand the benefits of retaining the treaty, he maintains.

Could be. Could be that the hedging by the Brotherhood is just political blather, or that their representatives are covering their rears because they intended their reassurances — that Nuland so blithely announced — to be kept quiet.

Could also be that the Brotherhood itself isn't sure yet what it will do.


I have not been tracking the horrendous situation in Syria, in which some 5,000 have been killed by the government in the last 10 months, but this is another case in point: Will Assad come down soon or not? In spite of everything it is not at all certain that he will.

On Friday, Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby met in Cairo with Hamas politburo head Khaled Mashaal, and asked him to appeal to the Syria government to halt the violence. Mashaal cannot have been happy with this assignment — Hamas is in a bit of a tight situation in Syria and, as I have indicated, is seeking a home elsewhere. Not sure how much clout Hamas has with Assad at this point.

And how does the situation in Syria impinge upon Hezbollah? Right now there is less assistance to that terrorist group because Assad is drained and otherwise occupied. And if a new regime enters the picture? Muslim Brotherhood in Syria refused assistance from Iran because it has been a supporter of the Assad regime. Losing the Assad connection could be a big blow Iran's goals in this area.

Watch it play out...


Iran is obviously hurting, as sanctions squeeze its economy — its currency rate is at a record low. But will those sanctions be levied with enough seriousness to do the trick?

Is Ahmadinejad's threat to close the Straits of Hormuz more than a threat? Should he actually do so, it might be seen as a casus belli in the West.

More to watch...


Please see this excellent piece, "Israel is our land," by Naftali Bennett, Director General of the Yesha Council.

"...As long as we keep on utilizing practical arguments while leaving the arena of justice to the Palestinians, we shall lose. The time has come for the Israeli government to go back to the simple truth: The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel."
http://www.ynetnews. com/articles/0,7340,L-4172316, 00.html


And just up on YouTube: A flash mob in Beit Shemesh on Friday: 250 women dancing in the old city square — an open expression of their refusal to be barred from the public domain by ultra-Orthodox. What fun. Three of my granddaughters danced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= pZd0kLWP01c

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Richard Swier, January 8, 2012.

William Shawcross, whose father Hartley was a prosecutor at Nuremberg, wrote in a Wall Street Journal column "Terror On Trial":

"The [upcoming] trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be historic. It will address not just a group of thugs but the enduring human phenomenon of evil. Mutable and persistent, evil has not been discouraged by the progress of reason or the taming of nature. Evil reinvents itself in every age and is reinvigorated by mankind's inevitable immaturity. Like the fascist ideology that the democratic world fought in the 1940s, the dogma of al Qaeda (and of the extremist Shiite dictators of Iran) is despotic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and nihilist. Like the Nazis, they cannot be appeased." [My emphasis]

I fully agree with Mr. Shawcross. What is missing from his column is the understanding that we are not fighting a war on terror or against Al Qaeda. Rather we are fighting a protracted war against shariah Islam. Or it may be more correct to say shariah Islam is fighting a global war against the United States and we are simply reacting to it.

Mr. Shawcross points out, "After taking office in 2009, Mr. Obama swiftly expanded the use of drone attacks on suspected Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then in Somalia and Yemen. Drone strikes in Pakistan grew from 33 in 2008, Mr. Bush's last year in office, to 53 in 2009. Altogether, there have been more than 240 drone attacks in Pakistan since the beginning of 2009, with a death toll of more than 1,300."

"The remarkable thing about the president's reliance on drones is how little protest, until recently, it has aroused. Waterboarding may be deemed an abuse of a terrorism suspect's rights, but an attack by a Predator drone results (in the Vietnam-era phrase) in 'termination with extreme prejudice'," states Shawcross.

President Obama has gone all in with the use of drones to assassinate individual targets such Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Islamic preacher and an American citizen born in New Mexico.

What is missing from this strategy is, well, a well-defined global strategy against the shariah Islamists. Assassinating individuals is a tactic, not a global strategy to fight shariah Islamism. In the Middle East we are seeing nation states with 20 million, 60 million and 80 million people coming under the rule of shariah Islamic governments. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Turkey have all gone more despotic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and nihilist.

Drones do not address this immutable evil wave, labeled by the media as the "Arab Spring".

Killing individuals does not stop the movement or the spread of the shariah Islamist ideology. If anything it creates martyrs for the Islamic cause. Bin Laden is a hero, as is al-Awlaki.

Unless and until our government leaders clearly define the enemy there will be no progress. Our enemies understand this clearly. As Al Qaeda has said, "You have the clock, we have the time."

Dion Boucicault, an Irish actor and playwright, once said, "Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them." I fear that the United States is just killing time in the Middle East, while the shariah Islamists are quietly working to kill us all.

Finally, Mr. Shawcross explains, "Since the beginning of the 20th century, America's commitment and sacrifices have been essential to the world's ability to resist the forces of nihilistic aggression. That was certainly true in the war against fascism, and it is still true today. Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama has had to learn the hard way that, as the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr warned, 'we take and must continue to take morally hazardous actions to preserve our civilization'."

About William Shawcross

Mr. Shawcross's new book, "Justice and the Enemy: Nuremberg, 9/11 and the Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," will be published next week by Public Affairs. His previous books include "Deliver Us From Evil: Peacekeepers, Warlords and a World of Endless Conflict" and "Murdoch: The Making of a Media Empire." Egypt Islamists seen winning near two-thirds of seats Iran holds military exercise near Afghan border Details Emerge Of 'Shura Muraqba Five' Formed By Taliban And Al-Qaeda Commanders To Fight Against U.S. Forces In Afghanistan

Contact Richard Swier by email at drswier@gmail.com and visit his website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, January 7, 2012.

"Beyond Words" is a newly-published seven volume collection of Rabbi Meir Kahane's writings from 1960 — 1990 that originally appeared in The Jewish Press, other serial publications, and his privately-published works.

"Beyond Words" has a number of extra features: including: Chronology of Rabbi Kahane's life.

"Beyond Words" now can be bought at Amazon.com. On the search line, type... Beyond Words Kahane.

Beyond Words
Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane,

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

Previously sent articles can be viewed on:



Nothing can more decisively outline in stark detail the contrast and contradiction between authentic Judaism and the gentilized Hellenism that challenges it than the secular university. The very basis of the university, with its concept of total academic freedom and open marketplace of ideas (and let us not, for the moment, discuss the fraud that this is in actuality), runs counter to Judaism with its absolute truths.

But even for those liberal and secular Jews who choose the university ideal over that of Judaism, what is happening at Hebrew University should be cause for deep soul-searching on the part of any contributor and supporter of that institution. For I say, with absolute conviction, that Hebrew University (in common with other institutions of "higher learning" in Israel), more than any other single source, is the producer of the greatest danger to Israel's body and soul ...

In simple, basic language: the group that now represents the Arab students at Hebrew University, the 1,150 Arab students — all whom are Israeli citizens — who study at the Hebrew University, the 1,150 Israeli Arab students who study there thanks to Israeli taxpayers and, but more important, thanks to the American contributors to Hebrew University is a group that calls for the elimination of Israel and its replacement with "Palestine." That this should cause shock waves in Israel is yet one more cause for weeping and for appreciation of the massive damage done to the Jewish people and state by the news media of Israel.

... And the Jews pay for their destruction. Every Jew who gives to American Friends of Hebrew University or Haifa University or Tel Aviv University pays for those Arab intellectuals who dream of leading the struggle to destroy the Jewish state.

And there is more. There is more joy at Hebrew University. More reason for suicidal Jews to write even bigger and better checks. According to the weekly, Yerushalayim (published by Yediot Achronot), in its January 5, 1990 issue, Hebrew University Professor Ariel Rubinstein addressed a group of academics, economists and students recently at a forum of the Israel Economic Council. And there he said: "We have a special responsibility for the cynical use made by Israel of the tax structure in order to fight the Palestinian uprising. As human beings and as Jews, we must recognize that the basic component of this uprising, the one that calls for freedom from our rule, is a most just one."

In response to protests, the rector of the University, Yoram Ben-Porat, said: "Freedom of organization allows, too, political expression." Except, of course, for Meir Kahane. ...

The question of freedom of expression is not the issue here. What every Jew who, until now, has supported Hebrew University with funds should ask himself/herself. Is:

Should I support a university with professors who support our deadly enemies, and which include those who are anti-Zionists and who believe that a Jewish state by its very nature is racist...?

Hebrew University allows Arabs to hold anti-Israel rallies. It allows PLO supporters, such as Feisal Husseini and Hanna Siniora, to speak. Leftists hold rallies on behalf of the "Palestinians," who for 70 years have murdered Jews and who dream of the final holocaust. Is that the kind of institution you wish to support or could you perhaps find a Jewish one?
"Body and Soul at Hebrew University"
K.M., January-February 1990, pp.32-34

The average Jewish youth in Israel is so devoid of Jewish knowledge as to challenge the "best" of the assimilated Jewish youth in the West. The culture in the country is Western, rock and roll, hard rock, discos, drugs, drinking, sex before army service (much before army service), and the main thing is that life should be a kef (roughly, "a ball").
"But, of Course," ibid., p. 34

In country after country of the totalitarian world, large masses of people stand up to defy regimes that have a brutal past. With little fear of the militias and secret police, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrate — not because of any threat to their existence, but for democracy and civil rights. And in Israel, where the danger is not from lack of basic rights necessarily. But to the very existence of the state, to the very survival of the Jew and his loved one — the people sit.

It goes beyond apathy. It goes beyond apathy and indifference. There is a kind of atrophy of the mind, a petrifaction of the soul, a mummification of the very basic instincts of survival. There is a paralysis of self-defense, of the most fundamental and normal impulses of the human being.

The people sit in Israel, overcome by the noxious fumes of gentilized culture that babbles and "ethics" and "morality" on behalf of Moslem barbarians who seek to drink Jewish blood. They are captives of a Hellenistic minority that, itself spiritually disturbed and possessed of an incurable insanity of the mind and soul, does its best to, daily, fill the people with guilt and abnormality.
"O L-rd, Let It Not Be Too Late," K.M. January-February 1990 pp. 36-37

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, January 7, 2012.

Do not forget that the Land-4-Peace scam was promoted by Saudi-boughten functionaries in the the US State Dept. Notably Jimmy Carter and his gang and the US State Dept. functionaries who hoped the Saudis would bless them with the same financial goodies they bestowed on former Secy. of State Jim Baker. The Saudis poured billions into the purses of carefully selected, money-hungry US bureaucrats, former diplomats and the presidential libraries of former US presidents.

Arabist schemes were also aided and abetted by self-serving, vainglorious Jews, such as Shimon Peres and his clan of hanger-ons, who went along with the land-for-peace scam because it cost them nothing, brought them flattery and headlines and notoriety and financial opportunities == which disappeared just as soon as Yasser Arafat got what he wanted — but imperiled the Israelis and challenged Israel's inalienable rights to the Jewish Homeland. It was the success of transactions such as these that convinced the arabs that Americans are immoral, weak, and ripe for destruction.

The phony land-for-peace scam should have been disavowed years ago. The arab invaders who fling their filth at Jews must be driven into the sea or back to the far corners of the barren lands from whence they swarmed.

Gaza must be restored to Israel and when the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds in diminishing or "re-setting" the phony "peace treaty" then the entire Sinai must be restored to Israel. That is the price the arabs must pay for their deceit and duplicity. Israel and its potential allies can and must retake the entire region, with or without the aid of the US State Dept., thereby restoring the balance of power and neutralizing the very real threat of a wide-scale, arab-driven blood bath.

The only thing standing in the way of the truth as well as Israel's rightful exercise of its powers is that stubborn clown, Shimon Peres, and his dolts: Livni and Olmert. They will predictably enough cling ferociously to their wrong-headed decisions and their inane political philosophies that nourishes them (always at the cost of imperiling the rights and safety of thousands of innocent Jewish lives) rather than admit they were eager to be duped into a con game in exchange for the sweet-nothings blown into their ears by the clever arabs and their beholden enablers. (Expect Hillary to send her minions to Israel to utter threats and to "re-set" the US alliance to Israel--an undertaking driven by the humiliating understanding that she never
had and never will have the grit it takes to confront the Saudis.)

Such foolish cat-and-mouse games have got to be stopped or else the arabs will give the entire world a blood bath. HIllary is just as wrong-headedly stubborn as the vain Jews who allowed the State Dept. to drag them around by the rings in their noses. The Jewish men who gained control over tiny Israel escaped responsibility for their moral failures by flailing hysterically and pretending they were made privy to secret deals too complicated to be shared or understood by the common folk of Israel, whom they regard as too simple-minded to be respected.

We hope and believe Israel is prepared to deal "firmly" with the arabs who might yet dare to bring chaos to Israel and who are covertly planning to bring Islam and its chaos to South America. Israel can indeed deliver a kick to the gut and a strong boot to the butts of its enemies and to punish those who might yet dare to hurl their filth at Israel. But only if they have the will to rid themselves of the jibber-jabbering men and their pampered female cohorts who led Israel to this denouement.

This below is by Caroline Glick and it appeared yeterday in the Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/ Columnists/Article.aspx?id=252431).
Contact Glick at caroline@@carolineglick.com

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z.


The rise of the forces of jihadist Islam in Egypt places the US and other Western powers in an uncomfortable position. The US is the guarantor of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. That treaty is based on the proposition of land for peace. Israel gave Egypt the Sinai in 1982 and in exchange it received a peace treaty with Egypt. Now that the Islamists are poised to take power, the treaty is effectively null and void.

The question naturally arises: Will the US act in accordance with its role as guarantor of the peace and demand that the new Egyptian government give Sinai back to Israel? Because if the Obama administration or whatever administration is in power when Egypt abrogates the treaty does not issue such a demand, and stand behind it, and if the EU does not support the demand, the entire concept of land-for-peace will be exposed as a hoax.

Indeed the land-for-peace formula will be exposed as a twofold fiction. First, it is based on the false proposition that the peace process is a two-way street. Israel gives land, the Arabs give peace. But the inevitable death of the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord under an Egyptian jihadist regime makes clear that the land-for-peace formula is a one-way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent. Arab commitments to peace can be revoked at any time.

Then there are the supposedly iron-clad US and European security guarantees that accompany signed treaties. All the American and European promises to Israel — that they will stand by the Jewish state when it takes risks for peace — will be exposed as worthless lies. As we are already seeing today, no one will stand up for Israel's rights. No one will insist that the Egyptians honor their bargain.

As it has become more apparent that the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties will hold an absolute majority in Egypt's democratically elected parliament, Western governments and media outlets have insistently argued that these anti-Western, and anti-Jewish, movements have become moderate and pragmatic. Leading the charge to make the case has been the Obama administration. Its senior officials have eagerly embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Qaradawi is reportedly mediating negotiations between the US and the Taliban.

Qaradawi, an Egyptian who has been based in Qatar since 1961, when he was forced to flee Egypt due to his jihadist politics, made a triumphant return to his native land last February following the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak. Speaking to a crowd of an estimated two million people in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Qaradawi led them in a chant calling for them to invade Jerusalem.

Over the years, Qaradawi has issued numerous religious ruling permitting, indeed requiring, the massacre of Jews. In 2009, he called for the Muslim world to complete Hitler's goal of eradicating the Jewish people.

As for the US, in 2003, Qaradawi issued a religious ruling calling for the killing of US forces in Iraq.


BOTH THE Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are happy to cater to the propaganda needs of Western journalists and politicians and pretend that they are willing to continue to uphold the peace treaty with Israel. But even as they make conditional statements to eager Americans and Europeans, they consistently tell their own people that they seek the destruction of Israel and the abrogation of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel.

As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' Jonathan D. Halevi documented last week in a report on Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist positions on the future of the peace between Egypt and Israel, while speaking to Westerners in general terms about their willingness to respect the treaty, both groups place numerous conditions on their willingness to maintain it. These conditions make clear that there is no way that they will continue to respect the peace treaty. Indeed, they will use any excuse to justify its abrogation and blame it on Israel. And they will do so at the earliest available opportunity.

It is possible, and perhaps likely, that the US will cut off military aid to Egypt in the wake of Cairo's abrogation of the peace treaty. But it is impossible to imagine that the Obama administration will abide by the US's commitment as the guarantor of the deal and demand that Egypt return Sinai to Israel. Indeed, it is only slightly more likely that a Republican administration would fulfill the US's commitment as guarantor of the peace and demand the return of Sinai to Israel after Egypt's democratically elected Islamist regime finds an excuse to abrogate the peace treaty.

It is important to keep this sorry state of affairs in mind when we assess the prospects for a land-for-peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This week, following months of intense pressure from the US and the EU, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met face to face for the first time in 16 months. According to Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, who hosted the meeting, the Palestinians submitted their proposal on security and border issues to Israel. The sides are supposed to meet again next week and Israel is expected to present its proposals on these issues.

There are several reasons that these talks are doomed to failure. The most important reason they will fail is that even if they lead to an agreement, no agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is sustainable. Assuming for a moment that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas goes against everything he has said for the past three years and signs a peace deal with Israel in which he promises Israel peace in exchange for Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, this agreement will have little impact on the Palestinians' view of Israel. Abbas today represents no one. His term of office ended three years ago. Hamas won the last Palestinian elections in 2006.

And Hamas's leaders — like their counterparts in the Muslim Brotherhood — make no bones about their intention to destroy Israel. Two weeks ago at a speech in Gaza, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh proclaimed, "We say today explicitly so it cannot be explained otherwise, that the armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."

In his visit with his Muslim Brotherhood counterpart, Mohammad Badie, in Cairo this week Haniyeh said, "The Islamic resistance movement of Hamas by definition is a jihadist movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian on the surface, Islamic at its core, and its goal is liberation."


WITH HAMAS'S Brotherhood colleagues taking power from Cairo to Casablanca, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which supposedly peaceseeking Fatah will win Palestinian elections. It is in recognition of this fact that Abbas has signed a series of unity agreements with Hamas since May.

So the best case scenario for a peace deal with the Palestinians is that Abbas will sign a deal that Israel will implement by withdrawing from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and expelling up to a half a million Israeli citizens from their homes. Hamas will then take power and abrogate the treaty, just as its brethren in Cairo are planning to do with their country's peace treaty.

This leads us to the question of what the diplomatic forces from the US, the EU, and the UN who have worked so hard to get the present negotiations started are really after. What are they trying to achieve by pressuring Israel to negotiate a deal that they know will not be respected by the Palestinians?

In the case of some of the parties involved it is fairly obvious that they want to weaken Israel. Take the UN for example. In 2005, Israel withdrew all of its military forces and civilians from Gaza. Rather than reward Israel for giving up land with peace, the Palestinians transformed Gaza into a launching pad for missile attacks against Israel. And in June 2007, Hamas took over the territory.

Despite the fact that Israel is wholly absent from Gaza, and indeed is being attacked from Gaza, no one has called for the Palestinians to give the territory back to Israel. The UN doesn't even recognize that Israel left.

Last September, the UN published yet another report labeling Israel as the occupier of Gaza. And in accordance with this fiction, the UN — along with the EU and the US — continues to hold Israel responsible for Gaza's welfare.

Ironically, Hamas itself denies that Gaza is under Israeli occupation. In an interview with the Ma'an news agency on Tuesday, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar openly admitted that Gaza is not under occupation. Speaking of Fatah's plan to launch massive demonstrations against Israel, Zahar said, "Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable."

Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Fatah can all freely tell the truth about Israel and their commitment to its destruction without fear of any repercussions. They know that the Western powers will not listen to them. They know that they will never have to pay a price for their actions. Indeed, they know they will be rewarded for them.

Since the inauguration of the land-for-peace process between Israel and the PLO 19 years ago, the Palestinians have repeatedly demonstrated their bad faith. Israeli land giveaways have consistently been met with increased Palestinian terrorism. Since 1996, US- and European-trained Palestinian security forces have repeatedly used their guns to kill Israelis. Since 1994, the PA has made it standard practice to enlist terrorists in its US- and European-funded and trained security forces.

The US and Europe have continued to train and arm them despite their bad faith. Despite their continued commitment to Israel's destruction and involvement in terrorism, the US and the EU have continued to demand that Israel fork over more territory. At no point have either the US or the EU seriously considered ending their support for the Palestinians or the demonstrably fictitious land-for-peace formula.

As Israel bows now to still more US and EU pressure and conducts land-for-peace talks with Fatah, our leadership may be seduced by the faint praise they receive from the likes of The Washington Post or even from the Obama administration. But this praise should not turn their heads.

 To understand its feckless emptiness, all they need to do is direct their attention to what happened this week in Cairo, as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists secured their absolute control over Egypt's parliament. Specifically, our leaders should note the absence of any voices demanding that Egypt respect the peace treaty with Israel or return Sinai.

The time has come for Israel to admit the truth. Land-for-peace is a confidence game and we are the mark.

Editor's Note:

Sergio Tezza points out:

"The FACT that one of the main dogma, principles and tenets of Islam, a koranic obligation, one of the fundamental components of dhimmitude, is exactly the "land for peace" concept; that is, muslims say, "you give us sovereignty over the territory, and in exchange for that we'll allow you to live in peace", obviously as submitted subjects, not sovereign, and often abused, with a permanent muzzle on your mouths...or just little by little eliminated, as it has ALWAYS happened to non muslims in muslim lands.

The concept of "land for peace" is one of the foundations of Islam, and whoever accepts it isn't doing anything but encouraging muslims, whetting their appetite of conquest more and more, giving them a free victory, allowing them to strengthen themselves (it is nothing but their religious duty of Hudnah, truce, which ignorant, idiotic Westerners also among Israelis think of as a bona fide truce) in view of the final attack, and is drawing it closer."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, January 7, 2012.

This is not a political item and is not related to current events. But every once in a while there is a human interest story that can only be about Jews and just leaves you in awe at the Jewish experience, a story so incredible it can only be true.

Yakov Jacobson was a completely assimilated Jew in the US. From his name he is probably a recent immigrant from the ex-Soviet Union. He was working in a shopping mall as the mall Santa, dressed up in complete Santa uniform. A couple of Jews wandered in, evidently from Chabad, and were chatting with him. Hearing his name, they realized he was Jewish. They asked him if he would like to put on tefillin. Tefillin, he asked, what's that? So they explained it to him.

And so, dressed in his Santa suit, for the very first time in his life, Yakov put on tefillin. You can see the picture of him doing so here:

According to the israpreneur web site, this is a true story.

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 Janet Lehr, January 7, 2012.

This article is a review of Ofira Seliktar's recent book, Doomed To Failure? It was written by Alexander H. Joffe and it appeared yesterday in Conservative Views. It is also archived at
http://spme.net/cgi-bin/spmemart/ shop.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&ItemId= 0313366179

FREUD FAMOUSLY DEFINED over determination as the ways in which the "residues of the day" penetrated into dreams or in practice, when the fiction that 'peace' can prevail takes over, buses begin to explode and burn-(Intifadas rise to the fore!)

Ofira Seliktar's recent book, DOOMED TO FAILURE? is a careful, must read careful analysis of the Israeli, Western, and to a vastly smaller extent, Palestinian idea-setting and decision-making elites influenced one another and various publics to create the fabric of the Oslo process. These elites convinced themselves that the time to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians had come, by the conflict resolution' (CR) and 'peace studies' which lead to the conflict management trap. The principles apply to America's foreign policy for the past 30 years.

There are Conflict Resolution Film Festivals (East Hampton's annual fall film festival being one). There are Conflict Resolution Day Activities in Schools, ideas and events; Conflict Resolution Day Activities in Churches, Synagogues and Temples, ideas and events; in Civic and other Peace and Justice Organizations. The first edition of Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques was published by the US Institute of Peace, Wash. DC 1997. It won't be much surprise to listeners of Glenn Beck to learn that these ideas date to 1914 when liberal optimism to spread democracy and economic expansion would produce a relatively harmonious world in the near future-Wilsonian idealism revived these ideals in the post WWI period, but they were short-lived meeting headlong the great depression, rise of fascism and the horrors of a second World War in 40 years. For historic overview, read more.

'Conflict Resolution' is sweeping the world — Peace hasn't followed.


Doomed to Failure?: The Politics and Intelligence of the Oslo Peace Process
by Ofira Seliktar
Hardcover: 238 pages
Publisher: Praeger (August 27, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0313366179
ISBN-13: 978-0313366178



The famed French historian of the Mediterranean, Fernand Braudel, posited that history moves at different speeds, "the permanent and the ephemeral, the slow-moving and the fast ...what changes and what endures." Ofira Seliktar's book shows how Israeli, Western, and to a vastly smaller extent, Palestinian idea-setting and decision-making elites influenced one another and various publics to create the fabric of the Oslo process. This played out on different levels. For example, diplomats and intellectuals would coolly speak in secret meetings and public conferences, while at the same time riots and shootings were taking place. Then, buses began to explode and burn. Interacting at first mostly out of the public eye, these elites convinced themselves that the time to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians had come. The only ones who weren't convinced were Palestinian leaders, above all Arafat and his Islamist rivals, and, to an unknown extent, the Palestinian people.

Misreading the intentions of adversaries is as old as human politics. Democracies are far from immune, but the question is why, in an information age, such serious misreadings of the facts could happen. Seliktar opens with a discussion of how political elites perceive the world around them, create paradigms to frame evidence and structure action, and then deal with change. Is 'Reality' painfully flexible; is it constructed by our ideas and actions, or discovered by acute perception? What is deception and what is self-deception? Seliktar notes that the 'conflict resolution' (CR) and 'peace studies' approach so explicitly embraced by the "architects of Oslo" implied a series of clear assumptions that rejected the presumably outmoded 'conflict management' approach. Paramount were the ideas that politics did not have to be a zero sum game; that international diplomacy is a form of intersocietal therapy; that leaders could and would bring their societies into line; and that, somehow, these unique premises were mutually understood and accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians.

Sadly, in the real world, power, politics and culture are what count. Here, Seliktar might have dwelled longer on the cultural and religious parameters of the Arab-Israeli conflict, albeit at the risk of accusations of 'essentialism' and even worse, "orientalism." Not doing so may be a matter of either delicacy or brevity on her part. Political science in general seems uncomfortable with culture, since its local messiness muddies the clean waters of prediction. Religion must be treated as epiphenomenal, far away from the material core of human decision-making. Islam in particular must be treated with the utmost delicacy, since it is not, we are repeatedly told, "monolithic," "violent" or antisemitic, and in any case has been "hijacked" by "extremists."

For most political scientists, leaders, too, seem to matter little. Many share — as Seliktar does not — an implicit assumption that all leaders want what is 'best,' in the sense of optimizing and maximizing their own societies' fortune, if only as means to their own ends. Instead, sowing fear and chaos and then managing the resulting crisis remains the essential Middle Eastern leadership style. In the case of Arafat, confident predictions that he had changed his spots defied both history and reality. The same could be said about Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe and others. Variations on the title 'President for Life' or 'Maximum Leader' may be more reliable indicators a leader's real purpose than academic theories.

Seliktar adopts a top-down approach, because the "Oslo Process" comprised a series of intellectual constructs that originated in the academic, political, and defense/intelligence communities (all deeply intertwined in Israel), which in turn were sold to various publics. She provides an intensely detailed accounting of the various players, their backgrounds and institutional settings, and the evolution of ideas, all set against the political realities of the Intifadas. She shows, for example, how Harvard social psychologist Herbert Kelman's 'conflict resolution' concepts were put into use at joint Israeli-Palestinian workshops, and then extended by his student Stephen P. Cohen's Institute for Middle East Peace and Development, which had the backing of Carter era Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and mogul S. Daniel Abraham. This body of thought fed Track II diplomacy initiated by Norwegian and Swedish socialist politicians who had access to the Israeli Labor Party. Shimon Peres was the most influential convert to this approach and he leveraged his personal charisma and popularity to the cause of the "New Middle East," and Yossi Beilin, who leveraged his influence within the Labor Party. Simultaneously, the PLO was being 'rebranded' with the aid of a Washington, D.C. public relations firm. The train had left the station, and it was given greater momentum by the unexpected outbreak of the First Intifada of 1987 and the incapable Israeli response to it. But urgency meant different things to different parties. Pummeled by the Intifada and by condemnation and demonization from both external and internal sources, Track II became the primary hope for Israeli leaders. Thus, as a result of a combination of political circumstances and considerations of political expedience, they returned Arafat to center stage.

Self-deception regarding Arafat was legion. At every turn the 'peace industry' and its external facilitators seized upon random ambiguities and contradictions as evidence of his moderation. Alas, despite fawning biographies (at least one of which paid for by Rita Hauser, who later helped fund the 'Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies' at Columbia University) and his mastery of doubletalk, even Arafat's supporters could not explain away his support of Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. But time heals all wounds and dispels all misgivings, and the Madrid Conference (combined with the incentive of American loan guarantees) provided the opportunity for renewed pressure on Israel and ultimately for the rehabilitation of a presumably chastened and 'mature' Arafat. In the seemingly eternal Israeli good cop-bad cop routine, the George H.W. Bush administration portrayed Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir as uniquely intransigent, while Peres was presented as a positive force. Yitzhak Rabin won the 1992 election, and the die was cast. At the same time that attacks on Israelis began, the machinations of secret diplomacy shifted into high gear. Seliktar takes the story from Rabin to Netanyahu, from Oslo and the staged ceremony on the White House lawn 13 September 1993, to the Hebron Memorandum and the Wye agreement, through to Barak and Taba. And she does not fail to note the involvement of Iran, dating back to 1990 and 1991, which patiently built support for Islamist movements, even across the Shia-Sunni divide.

Flailing and contradictory, the Israeli and international responses to Palestinian violations and the growing death toll were the disheartening counterpart to the enthusiastic beginning of the Oslo Process. The general outline of the story is well known, but Seliktar's examination is remarkably detailed. Indeed, working from her compendious footnotes it is possible to reconstruct a monthly and in some cases daily chronology of idea-spinning and political events. Counter-posing events against debates and decisions brings into high relief the failures of perception and imagination that characterized virtually all levels of the Israeli intelligence, defense and policy establishments. And as an examination of Dennis Ross' The Missing Peace shows, whatever the American understanding of the process and Arafat himself, the train had departed, and the participants felt obliged to stay on board.

'Peace' was in everyone's 'interest,' but cui bono? The 'peace industry' that developed to theorize and implement Oslo, and which was heavily funded by the U.S. and Europe, profited greatly and expanded the reach of its paradigm through conferences, research projects and other therapeutic means to a predetermined end. Who could be against peace, and what researcher could swim against the tide? The United States Institute for Peace, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the German-Israel Foundation, and many others funded a plethora of projects at the Van Leer Institute, the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, the Tami Steinmetz Center, the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for Peace, and elsewhere. The advocates of the cause enlisted social science as a tool of social engineering which targeted Israeli society primarily. How else could one explain the creation of such a transparently partial device as the 'Israel Siege Mentality Scale' which purported to measure the 'Dread of the 'Other'? School curricula were rewritten to reflect 'post-Zionist' values, and revisionist "New Historians" chipped away at national "myths" and consensus. Writers such as David Grossman disparaged Israeli society's fears and "narratives" while carefully ignoring the realities of Palestinian society, such as rampant corruption and lawlessness. For their part, Palestinian researchers touted the "democratic ethos" of the Palestinians, their new "realism" and willingness to "coordinate." They similarly downplayed the rise of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

But the state-building exercise that became the Palestinian Authority collided with the reality of what Seliktar terms Arafat's "neopatrimonialism." The rais oversaw all, pitted one against all, took a cut from everyone, hid from all and lied to all. A vast "security" infrastructure was built as a tool of repression, "coup proofing," patronage and dependence. The Palestinian Authority crushed dissent through media censorship and personal intimidation. Finally, faced with the Islamist challenge, Arafat himself 'found religion.' Kleptocrats enriched themselves, and individual Israelis, not a few of whom had been security officials or involved with negotiations, profited handsomely. None of this was supposed to happen, and Seliktar is unsparing in her examination of the analysts who looked for excuses or looked away entirely.

Why was such a system of repression created, especially if Palestinians had learned so much about democracy from their years in Israeli jails, according to the conventional wisdom? The simplest explanation is that Palestinians lacked any meaningful cultural traditions of law or democracy, and that Arafat's prestige and monopoly of force were overwhelming. Willful denial of similar realities have since bedeviled state-building in the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, and Afghanistan, movements to democratization in Egypt and Iran, and have underpinned the destruction of democracy in Turkey. As the political scientist Adda Bozeman noted decades ago, without law as an inviolable norm and institution, "personalism" and "familism," a "delight in secrecy," and a "predilection for viewing conflict positively," retards the development of states and also unhinges the West from its own dedication to law and democracy. Sadly, her insights have gone unrecognized by politicians and analysts dedicated to a multicultural vision where such comments are deemed "racist" or "essentialist."

Another notable feature of Seliktar's prodigious research is her understanding that alternative interpretations were indeed present throughout Oslo, including from well-known figures. At the institutional level, for example, the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar Ilan University took a far harder line on the process than the Jaffee Center at the University of Tel Aviv. Individuals such as Ehud Ya'ari, Martin Kramer, Barry Rubin, Yehezkel Dror, Reuven Paz, Yigal Carmon, and Boaz Ganor were not shy about expressing misgivings about Arafat, warning about Hamas, and pointing out the technical shortcomings of the Oslo agreements themselves. On the one hand, these researchers were derided as Cassandras by dominant participants who proclaimed that all was well, even as the Israeli man in the street frantically telephoned friends and family to make sure they hadn't been blown up in a bus or a pizza parlor. On the other hand, they were also discredited by boorish and hysterical behavior on the political right in Israel. Older influential figures, such as Zeev Schiff and Yehoshefat Harkabi, who had previously taken a hard line on Arab intentions, became converts to Oslo, and their voices also carried weight. But the murder of Rabin discredited the right profoundly, in addition to removing the one leader whom many presumed capable of making real demands on the Palestinians. Only with the launch of the second Intifada in September 2000 and the failure of the Taba summit could Arafat, himself, derail the train permanently.

Although Seliktar does not pursue the question in detail, a preliminary accounting shows Oslo was comprised of an avalanche of cognitive biases, as defined by behavioral psychologists Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky and others. Among these were a self-serving bias (where more responsibility is claimed for successes but not for failures), the false consensus effect (the tendency to overestimate the extent to which people agree), herd instinct, projection bias (the unconscious assumption that others share similar beliefs, values or positions), and the illusion of asymmetric insight (the perception that one side knows the other better than the other). These misperceptions led to decision-making biases such as the interloper effect (where third parties are elevated above participants), normalcy bias (refusal to plan for disasters that have never happened before), illusion of control, post purchase rationalization, confirmation bias, the bandwagon effect, wishful thinking, and many more. Seliktar also notes that the Israeli intelligence process is prone to conflating analysis with advocacy. It is tempting to suggest other arrangements, such as the National Security Council established in 1999 by Netanyahu. But if the American experience here and if the example of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is any guide, these merely become additional bureaucratic competitors in an already crowded field.

In the broader sense of creating "peace," a number of conclusions may be derived from Seliktar's exhaustive book. Most are, in retrospect, quite obvious. Easily the first is that diplomacy is not therapy. Peace-making is a two-way, bottom up phenomenon, and actions observed are better predictors than words spoken. Constructive ambiguity and back channels may be mechanisms for elites to speak to one another, but these maximize opportunities for confusion, ambiguity, misinformation and blackmail. Participants become believers and then captive to the process and its "success." Another lesson is that public and private discourse must be in sync; local-political concerns are real, but duplicity and deception are intolerable. Incitement matters. Have any of these conclusions been internalized by participants? How much far away is a two-way, bottom up peace? The return of the conflict management paradigm, perhaps best exemplified by the successful separation barrier, is hard to deny. But the conflict, too, has moved on.

With Seliktar's institutional framing, it is noteworthy both how much the situation has changed but also remained the same. The dominance of Hamas in Gaza, Iran's patronage and the increasingly pervasive Islamization of the conflict are new. So, too, is the vastly increased importance of information warfare, the war for the hearts, and minds of global media consumers, with the strategic objective of delegitimizing the State of Israel. This is perhaps the one real example of Joseph Nye's "soft power" paradigm, executed ironically as a form of asymmetric warfare against Israel and the U.S. But in another sense nothing has changed. The Palestinian Authority remains an artificial construct, kept afloat by international donations and protected from Hamas only by Israeli security forces. Many of the same tired personalities on both sides still dominate the scene, while Israeli communities in the West Bank slowly reduce the options for "territorial compromise."

But, most of all, the same impulses persist, seeking to detect signs — mostly imagined — of a Palestinian willingness to compromise, coexist and cooperate with Israel. Analysts still look for meanings and realities hidden beneath those which stare them in the face. Hamas was elected in Gaza but this, for example, was merely a "reaction" to Fatah's corruption. The Hamas charter remains unchanged, but the scent of its "moderation" is forever in the air. Despite its denials, separation between Hezbollah's "military" and "political" wings is still assumed to provide an opening for "pragmatism." "Root causes" are still pursued and power held by tyrants is persistently assumed to foster responsibility and hence moderation. And, in the absence of peace, the peace industry lives on. Conflict resolution seminars, polls, conferences and declarations continue, but are now set against the backdrop of the growing "one state" movement and "lawfare" against Israel by NGOs and the UN. As if by design, conflict resolution looks like the good cop.

In the end, there is also the question of historical inevitability. Could the participants have taken different paths? Freud famously defined over determination as the ways in which the "residues of the day" penetrated into dreams, while in philosophy the concept is defined as events with multiple causes, any one of which would be causally sufficient. Were events thus doubly over determined such that, as if in a Greek tragedy, the creation of the Oslo agreement and its eventual collapse could be the only outcome? If Rabin had not been murdered, if Arafat had possessed the slightest bit of integrity, if there had not been despair and yearning on both sides, would things have turned out differently? The intermingling of dreams and waking states makes for inadequate analyses and policy-making. And as Isaiah Berlin once put it, the claim of inevitability "is one of the great alibis, pleaded by those who cannot or do not wish to face the fact of human responsibility." Seliktar shows admirably which decisions were made and by whom. For this, and for a penetrating analysis of how experts went wrong, her book deserves wide attention.


Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean World in the Age of Philippe II, tr. Sian Reynolds, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,1995) I: 353.

See Joel Fishman, "Perception Failure and Self-Deception; Israel's Quest for Peace in the Context of Related Historical Cases," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: Jerusalem Viewpoints No. 450, 15 March 2001. http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp450.htm.

See particularly, Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, (New York: Perseus, 2000). Cf. Peter Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, (New York, Columbia University Press, 1996).

See James T. Quinlivan, "Coup-Proofing: Its Practice and Consequences in the Middle East," International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2. (1999), pp. 131-165.

See Hillel Frisch, "Nationalizing a Universal Text: The Quran in Arafat's Rhetoric," Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 41, No. 3 (2005): 321 — 336.

Adda B. Bozeman, The Future of Law in a Multicultural World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), p. 166.

See for example Reuven Paz, The Islamic Covenant and its Meaning (Tel Aviv: The Dayan Center, 1988 in Hebrew), Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). For further literature directly related to the present subject, see Ephraim Karsh and Joel Fishman, La Guerre d'Oslo, (Paris: Editions de Passy, 2005); Joel Fishman, "The Broken Promise of the Democratic Peace: Israel and the Palestinian Authority," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Viewpoints No. 477, 1 May 2002. http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp477.htm ; ibid., "Ten Years Since Oslo: The PLO's 'People's War' Strategy and Israel's Inadequate Response," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Viewpoints No. 503, 1 September 2003. www.jcpa.org/jl/vp503.htm. Since this book does not include a bibliography, it is not clear whether the author made use of Golan Lahat, HaPitui Ha-Meshichi [The Messianic Temptation] (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 2004 in Hebrew) which documented the government's efforts to manipulate Israeli public opinion by spreading messianic hopes.

See for example Yehoshafat Harkabi's interview with Pinhas Ginossar and Zaki Shalom published as "The Last Reminiscence, January 14, 1994," Israel Studies Vol. 1, No. 1 (1999), pp. 171-195.

Isaiah Berlin, "Historical Inevitability," in I. Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 116-117.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, January 7, 2012.

This was written by Steven Emerson and is archived at
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=2542. Emerson is with Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) News.


The votes still aren't fully counted in Egypt, but the Obama administration has seen enough to reverse long-standing and well-rooted policies to shun the theocratic, global Caliphate-minded Muslim Brotherhood, whose philosophy spawned terrorist movements from Hamas to al-Qaida.

High level meetings between American and Brotherhood officials reflect a "new political reality here [in Egypt], and indeed around the region," the New York Times reported in a front page article Wednesday, "as Islamist groups come to power."

What is astounding and dangerous about the new U.S. recognition is the fact that Brotherhood leaders became more openly radical and militant once Mubarak was thrown out, issuing incendiary speeches calling for "martyrdom" operations against Israel and aligning with Hamas and other terrorist groups. Yet as the New York Times wrote, the Obama administration accepts as truthful "the Brotherhood's repeated assurances that its lawmakers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets and international commitments, including Egypt's treaty with Israel," the Times reported.

But there's another reality that seems overlooked. And that's the Brotherhood's history of deception and duplicity, policies that reflect its modus operandi in gaining legitimacy in Egypt and around the world but still promoting a militant agenda. While some MB officials may tell American officials they will respect individual liberties and honor Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, it's not hard to find massive evidence that paints a different and more disturbing picture.

As we reported last week, the Brotherhood is poised to dominate the next Egyptian government after vowing last spring that it sought no such power. The group's deputy chief says the Brotherhood "will not recognize Israel under any circumstances" and may place the peace treaty before voters in a referendum.

Brotherhood members must see their electoral success as a huge step in the direction of creating "the rightly guided caliphate." The United States would be foolish to differ. It also would be foolish to overlook the Brotherhood's record.

After American commandos killed Osama bin Laden, the Brotherhood told English language audiences "one of the reasons for which violence has been practiced in the world has been removed," Reuters reported. In Arabic, however, they referred to the mass-murdering al-Qaida founder with the honorary term of Sheikh and called him a shaheed, or martyr. The statement also criticized the American attack as an assassination.

Despite their reputations among some in the West as supposed moderates, Brotherhood officials routinely endorse terrorism. Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group in control of Gaza, declares itself to be the Brotherhood's Palestinian branch. Its peaceful intent includes recent re-iterations of its commitment to violent jihad and its vow never to accept the state of Israel's right to exist.

But the Brotherhood's threat of violence is not limited to actions against Israel. Influential Brotherhood theologian Yusuf al Qaradawi endorsed kidnapping and killing American civilians in Iraq in 2004 as an "obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately."

More recently, Qaradawi has called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies" and sanctioned killing Israeli women because they serve in the army. He has prayed to be martyred while killing a Jew.

Incredibly, there has been no American confirmation or denial of an Indian newspaper report last week which indicated Qaradawi is helping broker peace talks between the United States and the Taliban, which itself is scandalous.

But this is the same administration whose Director of National Intelligence called the Brotherhood "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence," during a February congressional hearing. James Clapper tried to walk this back in subsequent statements, but his assessment flew in the face of all the Brotherhood has said about itself since its founding in 1928, beginning with its motto:

"God is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes."

Deception is part of the Brotherhood's modus operandi in America as well. Evidence in the largest terror-financing trial in U.S. history shows the Muslim Brotherhood created a network of Hamas-support organizations here, operating as the "Palestine Committee."

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt parallels its embrace of Muslim Brotherhood American branches and front groups whose officials say nice things on American television, yet continue to covertly spread the ideology of, and in many cases funded, Islamic militancy and terrorism. Throughout its history, Brotherhood groups and leaders around the world starting with al-Banna, its founder, in Egypt, have spread the incendiary conspiratorial doctrine that the West, Christians, Jews and infidels have secretly conspired to suppress Islam since 1095, the year of the first Crusade. Brotherhood leaders blamed Israel, Jews and the United States for the 9/11 attacks. Nearly every Islamic terrorist arrest in the United States has been described by Islamist leaders as evidence of a "war against Islam."

The Muslim Brotherhood, where ever it is around the world, from Cairo to Chicago, seeks to gain legitimacy thru a campaign of deception and penetration of western regimes and institutions. It defies common sense to grant unilateral legitimacy to the Brotherhood without demanding concrete actions to openly disavow its support for Islamic terrorist groups or stopping the spread of its mass incendiary message that there is a war against Islam.

Wittingly or unwittingly, the United States has now become a de facto enabler of a militant ideology that ultimately seeks the destruction of our own way of life.

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 Roger Bodle, January 6, 2012.

Michael Ordman writes a weekly newsletter containing Good News stories about Israel. www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com. To subscribe, email a request to michael.goodnewsisrael@gmail.com

This essay is archived as
http://blogs.jpost.com:80/content/ if-it-wasn't-israel-you-might-not-be-alive-0


My Rabbi frequently looks out at his community from the pulpit and says, "You know, ten years ago, half of you wouldn't have been here". What he means, is that the medical advances over the last ten years have saved the lives of at least 50% of his congregation. And the same goes for Israel's medical and technological innovations. Probably half the population of the planet have had their lives extended by Israeli cancer therapy, medical treatments and research, humanitarian aid, agricultural innovations and water technology.

Lets get straight to the "heart" of the matter. The "Innovations in Cardiovascular Interventions" (ICI) conference in Tel Aviv in December was one of the largest international conferences on the subject. Israel is a leader in cardiology innovation, producing stents, heart valves and innovative pacemakers. And I couldn't write about the heart without mentioning the wonderful work of Israeli humanitarian organisation "Save A Child's Heart". At a time of political stalemate between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, SACH surgeons at Wolfson Medical centre are still fixing Arab hearts and creating bonds with the patients and their families.

One of the most heart-stopping stories of the week was when a Palestinian Arab with no pulse arrived at the gates of an army base in Judea and Samaria after midnight. Lt. Kim Ben Tikva and Sgt. Sharon Grisaro started intensive CPR and after 15 minutes the man began breathing. He is now at the Rabin Medical Hospital and his condition is stable.

Thanks to Israel, treatments for diabetes have improved significantly and last week Israel's InsuLine Medical announced positive results for the trials of its InsuPatch. The patch increases significantly insulin levels in the blood compared with an insulin injection. And a Hebrew University research team has the first proof of molecular risk factors for Type 2 diabetes. This could also lead to new treatments for diabetes and to detecting a susceptibility to other diseases at an early stage.

Other developments in Israel during this past week include trials of a new drug from Israel's AtoxBio Ltd for treating necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTI) for which there are no alternative approved treatments. Meanwhile Israel's Collplant has signed an agreement with Pfizer to jointly develop an orthopaedic product for the repair of compound fractures. Collplant manufactures human collagen from plants.

VIDEO: Tissue regeneration

A new phenomenon has just emerged — foreign pharmaceutical companies, like Bristol-Myers Squibb, are coming to Israel to develop their medicines. Israeli specialists are helping Squibb with their launch of a new drug for the treatment of melanoma. And you can understand what these companies see in Israel when we hear every week new research discoveries such as the Weizmann Institute scientists who have uncovered the method that white blood cells use to target invading pathogens.

Let's look now at the outside world in more detail. As usual, Israel continued to support over a million Gazans when it delivered 1094 trucks, 32,271 tons of food, clothing, electrical products, raw materials, medicines, aid through the Gaza crossings last week. Farther away, following the typhoons in the Philippines, Israel is literally "re-seeding" the islands' shattered economy and rebuilding the lives of local farmers. It has installed a massive hi-tech greenhouse in Licab, including a mist irrigation system, which can produce 20,000 vegetable seedlings per batch.

"Water is life" and Israel is at the heart of developments concerned with the world's precious water resources. Kibbutz Amiad, for example, develops products for wastewater treatment. Recently a delegation of Israeli water companies, including Amiad visited Chile, which needs their hi-tech equipment in order to make best use of the massive amounts of water required by their mining companies. Amiad was even featured on the BBC. And in rainy old Britain, British Water has just signed a cooperation agreement for Israeli water technology. Finally, Israel's national water company signed a financing agreement to build a state-of-the-art chemical-free reverse-osmosis desalination plant, which could allow drought-ridden Israel to export water to its Arab neighbours upon completion in 2013.

VIDEO: Water

But as Rabbi Hillel said, if I am not for myself, then who am I? Which is why I was thrilled to read about Elan Bielski — the grandson of Zus Bielski who was the subject of the amazing film "Defiance". Zus and his brothers fought the Nazis in Belarus and saved 1200 Jews during WW2. Elan is now a paratrooper in the Israeli army. He is a lone soldier and proud to carry on his grandfather's legacy of saving innocent lives.


Meanwhile, three American graduate students have recently launched a "Jewish Tooth Fairy Fund" for survivors of terror attacks and their families to obtain dental care they otherwise could not afford.

Finally, Israeli cancer treatments have been saving lives for decades, but I'll finish with the news of the campaign by cancer charity Zichron Menachem, whereby hundreds of Israelis are currently donating their hair to cancer sufferers.

It makes you feel good to be alive!

Contact Roger Bodle at rjbodle@xtra.co.nz

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, January 6, 2012.

Reading CDR Youssef Aboul-Enein's book, Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat, published by the Naval Institute Press (2010), one can see why U.S. leadership is far from "understanding the global threat"; why the Obama administration is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood; and why so many U.S. politicians rose up in condemnation when one obscure pastor threatened to burn a Koran.

According to the jacket cover, Aboul-Enein is "a top adviser at the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism" and "has advised at the highest levels of the defense department and intelligence community."

What advice does he give?

He holds that, whereas "militant Islamists" (e.g., al-Qaeda) are the enemy, "non-militant Islamists," (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood) are not: "It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists."

This theme, sometimes expressed in convoluted language — at one point we are urged to appreciate the "nuanced" differences "between Militant Islamists and between Militant Islamists and Islamists" — permeates the book.

Of course, what all Islamists want is a system inherently hostile to the West, culminating in a Sharia-enforcing Caliphate; the only difference is that the nonmilitant Islamists are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion are more effective than outright violence. Simply put, both groups want the same thing, and differ only in methodology.

Contradicting his general theme, sometimes Aboul-Enein alludes to this. For instance, after stressing that the Brotherhood is a nonviolent organization, he correctly adds that "the United States must be under no illusions that the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood includes limiting the rights of women" and other anti-Western aspects.

How to explain these discrepancies? Is the Brotherhood a problem for the U.S. or not?

The book's foreword by Admiral James Stavridis offers a clue when it states that the book is a "culmination of Commander Aboul-Enein's essays, lectures, and myriad answers to questions." In fact, Militant Islamist Ideology reads like a hodgepodge of ideas, and the author's contradictions are likely products of different approaches to different audiences over time.

His position on appeasing the Muslim world — a fixed feature of the current administration's policies — is clear. Aboul-Enein recommends that, if ever an American soldier desecrates a Koran, U.S. leadership must relieve the soldier of duty, offer "unconditional apologies," and emulate the words of Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond: "I come before you [Muslims] seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and say please forgive me and my soldiers," followed by abjectly kissing a new Koran and "ceremoniously" presenting it to Muslims.

Likewise, after rightfully admonishing readers not to rely on skewed or biased accounts of Islam, he presents Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong — whose whitewashed writings on Islam border on fiction — as the best source on the life of Muhammad.

Then there are Aboul-Enein's flat out wrong assertions and distortions, examples of which this review closes with:

* He asserts that "militant Islamists dismiss ijmaa [consensus] and qiyas [analogical reasoning]." In fact, none other than al-Qaeda constantly invokes ijmaa (for instance, the consensus that jihad becomes a personal duty when infidels invade the Islamic world) and justifies suicide attacks precisely through qiyas.

* He insists that the Arabic word for "terrorist" is nowhere in the Koran — without bothering to point out that Koran 8:60 commands believers "to terrorize the enemy," also known as non-Muslim "infidels."

* He writes, "when Muslims are a persecuted minority Jihad becomes a fard kifaya (an optional obligation), in which the imam authorizes annual expeditions into Dar el Harb (the Abode of War), lands considered not under Muslim dominance." This is wrong on several levels: a fard kifaya is not an "optional obligation" — an oxymoron if ever there was one — but rather a "communal obligation"; moreover, he is describing Offensive Jihad, which is designed to subjugate non-Muslims and is obligatory to wage whenever Muslims are capable — not "when Muslims are a persecuted minority."

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com. This appeared yesterday in Jihad Watch and it is archived at
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/ 10990/militant-islamist-ideology

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, January 6, 2012.

This was a Jerusalem Post editorial
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/ Editorials/Article.aspx?id=252452


UK Ambassador Matthew Gould (UK Embassy in Israel)

As it turns out, UK Ambassador Matthew Gould's righteous indignation last Tuesday was uncommonly instructive.

At a press briefing he hauled official Israel over the coals for supposed new building projects in beyond-Green-Line Jerusalem. Subsequently, however, his severe censure proved a tad embarrassing as it emerged that no new plans had been announced, no new tenders issued and no new pretexts for disapproval furnished. Gould's blunder, of course, isn't the heart of the matter.

What's compellingly enlightening is the exceptional opportunity he afforded Israelis (and fair-minded observers everywhere) to peek into the actual mechanisms of demonization. By rushing to judgment, Gould (followed a day later by France, although the farce had already been exposed) showed all and sundry precisely how Israel is condemned, facts notwithstanding. Israel can apparently only do wrong — even when it does nothing.

Contending that new housing permits were publicized that Tuesday for Pisgat Ze'ev and Har Homa, Gould waxed irate: "This is unhelpful and a disappointment to those who want to see the sides turn a corner." This, he charged, "took the shine off" that day's Amman meeting, geared to restart moribund negotiations.

In other words, there's already a designated culprit — Israel — for whatever might go awry. Even after Gould's halfhearted retraction, the gist remains — Israel is in the dock, potentially guilty. And, as France showed, slander sticks.

This episode too, as in other cases in which Israel is besmirched, was instigated by an Israeli NGO's alacrity to telltale. In this instance it was Ir Amim — Jerusalem's left-wing, self-appointed monitor of Jewish construction, which reportedly enjoys EU/British financial largesse.

Ir Amim unequivocally proclaimed that new construction tenders were issued just as Israeli and Palestinian representatives convened in Amman. The timing, asserted Ir Amim's communiqué, "is a slap in the face to Jordan."

Gould evidently treated this unverified "revelation" as gospel. Ir Amim's word alone sufficed to trigger a harsh rebuke of Israel. Presumably, checking up on the NGO's claims was not warranted, to say nothing of the fact that Israel regards all of Jerusalem as its unified capital under its sovereignty. Israel isn't even granted the indulgence accorded other democracies, where no venture is decreed overnight by a despot's whim but where bureaucratic due process dictates the slow, labored implementation of any policy. Nonetheless, here, too, urban development isn't the product of erratic impulses. We are an orderly society, bound by red tape and regulations galore.

Yet in our case we're chided anew for each plodding step along the arduous road from blueprint to formal authorization. The projects that so peeved Gould (and France) were in the works for an extended period before construction tenders were published — way before Gould's hullabaloo. Such tenders constitute the culmination of complex approval procedures for construction in Israel. These take up to 10 years to complete and aren't under the government's direct or constant supervision or control.

Although during his briefing Gould hotly denied an inherent anti-Israel bias in London and other European capitals, his knee-jerk eagerness to scold Israel powerfully indicates otherwise. The pattern is undeniable: first comes the stern supercilious admonishment and only later — perhaps — an unenthusiastic examination of whether the upbraiding was justified.

We may be forgiven for doubting that this is the order of things when Britain approaches other countries and other conflicts. Equally as disturbing was Gould's retraction, which characterized the absence of new tenders as "a welcome reassurance."

(Subtext: Israeli construction in parts of the Israeli capital remain intrinsically illegitimate. Gould thereby underscored his fundamental displeasure with Israel's presence in given Jerusalem neighborhoods.)

Even if one doesn't accept our attachment to the whole of Jerusalem — where an overwhelming Jewish majority existed since the first 19th-century census — plain decency should command the British envoy to at least portray it as disputed territory rather than as outrightly occupied.

After all, it was the Arab Legion in 1948 — under British leadership and active assistance — that conquered east Jerusalem, expelled its Jews and occupied it for 19 years in brazen contravention of 1947's UN Partition Resolution. Yesteryear's aggression shouldn't determine today's legalities.

Editor's Addendum

A reader, SB, of the original article commented, "Gould's appointment as British ambassador to Israel was a disaster waiting to happen. At the time he proudly touted being Jewish and his affinity for Israel. This is just another in a series of cynical uses of the court Jew by the UK. Not so different than Nobummer surrouding himself with Jewish advisors who do the dirty work of squeezing Israel. After all if Jews do it, it should be acceptable for others too. Please pass the barf bags."

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, January 6, 2012.
This was written by Charles C. Johnson and it appeared December 28,2011 in the Tablet
(http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and- politics/87027/thatcher-and-the-jews/?all =1). Johnson is author of the forthcoming Coolidge: Then and Now

Margaret Thatcher was a staunch defender of Jewish causes and a supporter of Israel in her political career, unlike most Tory politicians before her

Margaret Thatcher, October 1986. (Keystone/Getty Images)

When asked about her most meaningful accomplishment, Margaret Thatcher, now embodied by Meryl Streep in the biopic Iron Lady, did not typically mention serving in the British government, defeating the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, taming runaway inflation, or toppling the Soviet Union. The woman who reshaped British politics and served as prime minister from 1979 to 1990 often said that her greatest accomplishment was helping save a young Austrian girl from the Nazis.

In 1938, Edith Muhlbauer, a 17-year-old Jewish girl, wrote to Muriel Roberts, Edith's pen pal and the future prime minister's older sister, asking if the Roberts family might help her escape Hitler's Austria. The Nazis had begun rounding up the first of Vienna's Jews after the Anschluss, and Edith and her family worried she might be next. Alfred Roberts, Margaret and Muriel's father, was a small-town grocer; the family had neither the time nor the money to take Edith in. So Margaret, then 12, and Muriel, 17, set about raising funds and persuading the local Rotary club to help.

Edith stayed with more than a dozen Rotary families, including the Robertses, for the next two years, until she could move to join relatives in South America. Edith bunked in Margaret's room, and she left an impression. "She was 17, tall, beautiful, evidently from a well-to-do family," Thatcher later wrote in her memoir. But most important, "[s]he told us what it was like to live as a Jew under an anti-Semitic regime. One thing Edith reported particularly stuck in my mind: The Jews, she said, were being made to scrub the streets." For Thatcher, who believed in meaningful work, this was as much a waste as it was an outrage. Had the Roberts family not intervened, Edith recalled years later, "I would have stayed in Vienna and they would have killed me." Thatcher never forgot the lesson: "Never hesitate to do whatever you can, for you may save a life," she told audiences in 1995 after Edith had been located, alive and well, in Brazil.

Jews forced to scrub the street of Vienna after the Anschluss (annexation) of Austria, March 1938 (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise)

Other British politicians and their families housed Jews during the war, but none seems to have been profoundly affected by it as Thatcher was. Harold Macmillan, a Thatcher foe and England's prime minister from 1957 to 1963, provided a home for Jewish refugees on his estate, but his relations with Jews were always frosty, the mark of a genuflecting anti-Semitism common among the Tory grandees.

During the controversial Versailles peace talks that ended World War I, Macmillan wrote to a friend that the government of Prime Minister Lloyd George was not "really popular, except with the International Jew," the mythic entity thought to be behind all of Europe's troubles and made famous by Henry Ford's eponymously titled book. Macmillan often made snide jokes about Jews and Jewish politicians, derisively calling Leslie Hore-Belisha, a Liberal member of Parliament and a critic of appeasement in the years before World War II, "Horeb Elisha," a jabbing reference to Mount Horeb, where the Ten Commandments were handed down to Moses. Viscount Cranborne, a Tory member of Parliament and a Foreign Office official in the 1930s, undermined attempts to ease the entry of Jews into Britain or Palestine, shutting out those other would-be Ediths from finding safety under the British Union Jack. And together, Cranborne and Macmillan were among the Tory parliamentarians who forced Hore-Belish out of the government in the early 1940s for allegedly conspiring to force Britain into a war on behalf of the Jews on the mainland.

Thatcher, by contrast, had no patience for anti-Semitism or for those who countenanced it. "I simply did not understand anti-semitism myself," Thatcher confessed in her memoirs. Indeed, she found "some of [her] closest political friends and associates among Jews." Unique among British politicians, she was unusually free of even "the faintest trace of anti-Semitism in her make-up," wrote Nigel Lawson, her chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1992. Lawson knew of what he spoke. Alan Clark, a senior Tory politician, wrote in his diaries that some of the old guard, himself included, thought Lawson could not, "as a Jew," be offered the position of foreign secretary. Lawson's "Jewish parentage was disqualification enough," the Sunday Telegraph wrote in 1988, without a hint of shame. Rumors and speculation persisted well into the 1990s about why this or that Jewish member of Parliament couldn't be made leader of the Conservative Party.

Early on in her career — even before she entered politics — Thatcher had worked alongside Jews as a chemist at J. Lyons and Co., a Jewish-owned company. (She had graduated from Oxford in 1947 with a degree in chemistry.) After quitting chemistry, she became a barrister and grew increasingly involved in politics. She ran for office in some of the more conservative districts and lost each time. Thatcher finally won when she ran in Finchley, a safe Tory seat in a north London borough. Finally she had found her constituents: middle-class, entrepreneurial, Jewish suburbanites. She particularly loved the way her new constituents took care of one another, rather than looking to the state: "In the thirty-three years that I represented [Finchley]," she later wrote, "I never had a Jew come in poverty and desperation to one of my [town meetings]," and she often wished that Christians "would take closer note of the Jewish emphasis on self-help and acceptance of personal responsibility." She was a founding member of the Anglo-Israel Friendship League of Finchley and a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Aghast that a golf club in her district consistently barred Jews from becoming members, she publicly protested against it. She even joined in the singing of the Israeli national anthem in 1975 at Finchley.

The Jews of Finchley were "her people," Thatcher used to say — certainly much more so than the wealthy land barons that dominated her party.


When Thatcher became leader of the opposition in 1975, it was suggested that her closeness with British Jews might imperil the country's foreign policy. Official correspondence released in 2005 shows the unease with which bureaucrats at the Foreign Office treated Thatcher's affiliations in the run-up to her election as prime minister in 1979. Michael Tait, an official at the British embassy in Jordan, worried that Thatcher might be too readily seen as a "prisoner of the Zionists" unless she severed her official ties with pro-Jewish groups. Tait even suggested that Thatcher give up her beloved Finchley constituency for Westminster, a less Jewish district, and distance herself from the "pro-Israel MPs" that might make Middle East peace impossible. In the end, Thatcher reluctantly agreed to quit the Jewish groups she belonged to, but she kept her district and her relationships with pro-Israel parliamentarians.

Once she became prime minister, Thatcher appointed a government of outsiders. "The thing about Margaret's Cabinet," Macmillan would later say, "is that it includes more Old Estonians than it does Old Etonians." (Eton, the famous prep school, required that its students' fathers be British by birth, so as to keep out the Jews.) British politics had always been a club for genteel gentiles; Thatcher wanted to make it a meritocracy.

Thatcher appointed whomever she liked to positions in her government, whatever their religious or family background. Chaim Bermant, the Anglo-Jewish writer, probably went too far when he said Thatcher has "an almost mystical faith in Jewish abilities," but he wasn't completely off the mark. In addition to Nigel Lawson, she appointed Victor Rothschild as her security adviser, Malcolm Rifkind to be secretary of state for Scotland, David Young as minister without portfolio, and Leon Brittan to be trade and industry secretary. David Wolfson, nephew of Sir Isaac Wolfson, president of Great Universal Stores, Europe's biggest mail-order company, served as Thatcher's chief of staff. Her policies were powered by two men — Keith Joseph, a member of Parliament many thought would one day be the first prime minister who was a practicing Jew, and Alfred Sherman, a former communist turned free-market thinker.

With Thatcher, Joseph and Sherman formed the Centre for Policy Studies in 1974 to inject classical liberal ideas into Britain's Conservative Party. Joseph, son of one of the wealthiest families in Britain, wanted to "fundamentally affect a political generation's way of thinking." It wasn't enough to win elections, he believed; there had to be a change in how people thought of politics. He took his cue from his ideological nemesis, the Fabian Socialists, a group of British intellectuals who wanted to make Britain a socialist country through gradual change. Joseph would copy the Fabians' style by writing policy papers, giving speeches, and writing to famous Brits to try to change public opinion. One of those forays became a co-written book, Equality, published in 1979, which argued that equality of opportunity "requires that no external barrier shall prevent an individual from exploiting his talents. No laws shall permit some men to do what is forbidden by others." It was Thatcherite to the core.


Thatcher's philo-Semitism went beyond the people she appointed to her government; it had clear political implications as well. She made Jewish causes her own, including by easing the restrictions on prosecuting Nazi war criminals living in Britain and pleading the cause of the Soviet Union's refuseniks. She boasted that she once made Soviet officials "nervous" by repeatedly bringing up the refuseniks' plight during a single nine-hour meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev, "The Soviets had to know that every time we met their treatment of the refuseniks would be thrown back at them," she explained in her book The Downing Street Years. Thatcher also worked to end the British government's support for the Arab boycott of Israel. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Thatcher criticized Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath's refusal to supply Israel with military parts or even allow American planes to supply Israel from British airfields. In 1986, Thatcher became the first British prime minister to visit Israel, having previously visited twice as a member of parliament.

Yet despite her support for Israel, and though she rejected the stridently pro-PLO stance of some members of her government, she believed Israel needed to trade land for peace, wishing in her memoirs that the "Israeli emphasis on the human rights of the Russian refuseniks was matched by proper appreciation of the plight of the landless and stateless Palestinians." She also condemned Israel's bombing of Osirak, Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor, in 1981. "[The Osirak attack] represents a grave breach of international law," she said in an interview with London's Jewish Chronicle in 1981. Israel's bombing of another country could lead to "international anarchy."

In fairness, Thatcher wasn't alone in this position. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to United Nations at the time, compared Israel's bombing of the nuclear reactor to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned the raid. "Just because a country is trying to manufacture energy from nuclear sources, it must not be believe that she is doing something totally wrong," Thatcher said in the House of Commons. Iraq's facility, she noted, had just been inspected and so it was particularly unhelpful for Israel to have attacked. Reagan agreed — at least, officially. "Technically," Reagan wrote years later, "Israel had violated an agreement not to use U.S.-made weapons for offensive purposes, and some cabinet members wanted me to lean hard on Israel because it had broken this pledge ... but I sympathized with [Israeli Prime Minister Menachem] Begin's motivations and privately believed we should give him the benefit of the doubt."

That Thatcher did not give Israel the benefit of the doubt is disconcerting, though she made good by later calling for the liberation of Kuwait and eventually the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But in this Thatcher ought not to have let the mandarins in the Foreign Office get the better of her judgment: She should have trusted her philo-Semitic instincts.


It should also be noted, as this reader, JamesPhiladelphia, observed:

Yehuda Avner was a speech writer and confidant to five Israeli prime ministers. He has written the book titled The Prime Ministers. He describes on page 505 and on, the private dinner given by Margaret Thatcher England's prime minister to Menachem Begin, Israel's prime minister. Present also at the dinner were Lord Peter Carrington, England's foreign minister, and Yehuda Avner. The dinner was kosher, and like a shabath style arrangement, bread covered and like prayers done by Avner. Margaret Thatcher pointed she had served as representative of an area with majority of British Jews. She pointed out the closeness of her Christian church and the neighboring synagogue.

All these cozy environment of Jewish sympathy disappeared during facts on the ground. When Lord Carrington aggressively criticized the building of settlements in Judea and Samaria with full support of Thatcher. Begin emphatically said that it was legal, and necessary for the defense of Israel the settlements. And said that only Israel could defend itself alone to protect Jewish lives. And reminded how the allies, during WWII, refused to bomb the rail tracks carrying thousands of Jews to. Auschwitz. Thatcher at that point said she supported that policy, since the main point was to defeat Germany. Begin said that the war was practically won and diverting a few bombers would have saved several hundred thousands Jews.

The scenario was visceral. Margaret Thatcher could be nice to Jews, church/synagogue, kosher cozy food. But when it came to vital protection only the Jews could protect themselves. With lord Carrington applying a big torch. Lord Carrington then said "somehow, your little country, evokes all sorts of high emotional fevers. Stirs up the blood so to speak". Yehuda Avner says "when did genuine criticism end and bigotry begin?" Menachem Begin decided never again to visit England.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, January 6, 2012.

Islamic rogue regimes rank among the leaders of the unholy alliance of state-supported and state-sponsored global narco-terrorism. Narco-terrorism has become a most effective weapon — economically and operationally — in the battle against the most effective opponent of rogue regimes, the USA. These regimes aim to undermine the US homeland security, to injure the US morale, morality and social fabric, to instill fear and erode the confidence of Americans in the capabilities of their own government, and to bankroll expanding global terrorist operations.

Driven by ideology and greed, Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Hamas and additional Palestinian, Arab and Islamic terror organizations have targeted the US throughout the globe and on the mainland, establishing beachheads in Central and South America and setting sleeper cells in the US and in Canada.

The deep roots of the narco-terrorist threat to the US and to the Free World were highlighted by the Congressional Research Service in an April 30, 2010 report, and by Anthony Placido, the intelligence chief of the US Drug Enforcement Administration, during his March 3, 2010 testimony before the House Government Reforms Subcommittee on National Security: "More than 31,000 Americans — or approximately ten times the number of people killed on September 11, 2001, die each year as a direct result of drug abuse... It is important to note that this is not an emerging threat per se, but one that has existed since the late 1980s or early 1990s.... Eighteen of 44 designated international terrorist groups have been linked to some aspect of the international drug trade.... The nexus between drugs and terrorism is well established, and the threat to our national security is evident... Some drug trafficking organizations, based in the Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay Tri-border Area [which has a large Muslim population], have ties to radical Islamic terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.... There are numerous reports of cocaine proceeds entering the coffers of Islamic Radical Groups (IRG) such as Hezbollah and Hamas in Europe and the Middle East."

During the 1970s and 1980s, Arafat's and Mahmoud Abbas' PLO controlled clandestine laboratories in Lebanon, laying some of the foundations to the current narco-terrorism infrastructure, which boosted PLO's stashed bank accounts. According to Western law-enforcement agencies, 40 percent of PLO's weaponry acquisition was then financed by the trafficking of heroin, hashish or morphine. Much of the heroine consumed in the US and West Europe was provided by Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the PLO and other terrorist organizations, in return for Soviet Bloc military supplies. Tom Smith, a retired FBI Deputy Director for Intelligence stated, in a March, 1988 interview with the El Paso Times that PLO's large contingency in Nicaragua aimed to facilitate a narco-terror offensive against the USA.

Narco-terrorism in the service of America's enemies was discussed by Dr. Vanessa Neumann, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, in a December, 2011 E-note: "Venezuela and Iran are strong allies.... Iran also has a growing direct influence in Latin America, spurred by three principal motivations: 1) a quest for uranium, 2) a quest for gasoline, 3) a quest for a base of operations that is close to the US territory, in order to position itself to resist diplomatic and possible military pressure, possibly by setting up a missile base within striking distance of the mainland US, as the Soviets did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. FARC, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda all have training camps, recruiting bases and networks of mutual assistance in Venezuela as well as throughout the continent... Latin America is an increasing source of funding for Middle Eastern terrorism.... Hezbollah has high-level officials directly involved in the South American cocaine trade and its most violent cartels, including the Mexican gang Los Zetas.... The Tri-Border Area, South America's busiest contraband and smuggling center, has long been an ideal breeding ground for terrorist groups..."

Narco-terrorism constitutes a most sinister weapon, aiming to maim and murder the soul and the body of free societies. Regimes and organizations which are involved in narco-terrorism are afflicted by a corrupt character, which contrasts the essence of liberty and peace.

Narco-terrorist regimes and organizations cannot engage in — or adulate — narco-terrorism on the one hand, and claim to be engaged in the pursuit of peace on the other hand.

The sweeping and comprehensive uprooting of regimes and individuals which are involved in narco-terrorism, directly and indirectly, constitutes a prerequisite for the advancement of genuine, long term peace. On the other hand, the engagement with — rather than the confrontation of — narco-terrorist regimes and organizations, amounts to the sacrifice of permanent values and long term interests on the altar of short-term convenience.

Ambassador (ret.) Ettinger, the Executive Director of "Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative," an expert on Middle East politics and US-Israel relations, served as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israel's Embassy in Washington and Consul General in Houston, Texas. He regularly briefs Israeli and US legislators and their staff on US-Israel strategic ties, Mideast politics and overseas investments in Israel's high tech. His articles are published at:
http://www.TheEttingerReport.com. This article appeared in
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/ newsletter_opinion.php?id=1155

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, January 5, 2012.

This is from the Elder of Ziyon website.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/ 2012/01/to-reuters-they-arent-just- jewish.html


To Reuters, they aren't just "Jewish settlers" anymore

First there were "settlers."

But that wasn't inciting enough.

So we then had "Jewish settlers."

But with overuse, it didn't bring in the hate that journalists wanted to bring across.

So then came "Right-wing Jewish settlers."

But even that didn't capture the seething disgust that objective journalists wanted to convey towards them.

So now we have, from Daylife/Reuters:

Extreme right wing Jewish settlers, one of them injured from a rock hurled by pro-Palestinian activists during a weekly protest, stand in front of their house in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem December 30, 2011. Some 100 activists protested against the Jewish settlement in the predominantly Arab neighborhood and threw rocks towards a house occupied by the settlers leading them to confront the protesters, to minor clashes.

So people who live in a house in Jerusalem are "extreme right-wing Jewish settlers."

But the people who throw rocks at them, literally spilling their blood, are simply "pro-Palestinian activists."

Not "violent protesters." Not "left-wing terrorists." Not "anti-Zionist provocateurs." Not "pro-Palestinian stone-throwers." Not "rioters." Nope, they are peaceful supporters of Palestinian Arabs, mere "activists" — who throw stones at people they don't like.

And who can blame them:? After years of reading Reuters describing these Jews in such terms, who wouldn't want to throw stones at them?

To Reuters, it's the people who are being hit by rocks who are "extreme."

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gavriel Queenann, January 5 2012.

MKs Slam Espionage Charges for Protest Organizers

Israel's state prosecutors found themselves in the crosshairs after charging protest organizers were with espionage.

Nationalist MKs lined up to criticize state prosecutors for charging residents in Judea and Samaria who revealed IDF troop movements pertaining to demolition orders of Jewish homes with espionage.

MK Uri Ariel (National Union) told a Constitution Committee hearing on law enforcement in Judea and Samaria that the charges were an "immoral abuse" of power.

"The police and the prosecution put a black mark on Yitzhar by accusing people of spying," Ariel said. "Who is the enemy here? The settlers?"

"The criminal justice system that is actively working to destroy the homes of civil servants and army officers has now turned us into 'spies,' Ariel told the committee.

Turning to representatives from the state prosecutor's office, Ariel said, "You embarrass the legal profession."

Ariel also challenged the prosecutors to charge him with espionage. "I spy! I told about IDF movements in the evacuation of settlements. I am ready to stand trial."

"This is an immoral abuse and criminal," he added. "This persecution must be stopped".

MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) also railed against the decision to charge activists engaged in civil disobedience with espionage at the hearing, "You you are cheapening the term 'espionage.' Have you completely lost your minds?

"What's next?" she asked rhetorically. "Will you be accusing them of genocide? Charging them with genocide is utterly shameful."

Hotevely added, "Your behavior reminds us of dark regimes. Would you do it in Tel Aviv? Would you simply banish people? Distancing people from their homes, their wives, their children — are we in Soviet Russia?"

MK Nissim Ze'ev (Shas) told the committee, "I suggest the law enforcement system to take stock of its soul. It has taken a hostile line and allied themselves with enemies of the State of Israel. To accuse these people of espionage is an outrage".

"The police are arresting people without cause," Ze'ev added. "This is unacceptable. There is persecution and hatred toward the residents [of Judea and Samaria]."

National Union party chairman MK Yaakov Katz told the committee, "I call on every Jew in Israel who sees a military vehicle headed to destroy Jewish homes to inform all their friends so we can go and protest.

"We all received SMS messages about demolitions — are we all spies?" Katz asked. "When will you begin to execute people? The distance between accusations of espionage and shooting them is a short one."

Israeli governments "already killed in the Altalena incident citing the Rule of Law. Indeed, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer called for hilltop youth to be shot. And now you make up dirty stories about us and accuse us of espionage?" Katz asked.

"This blood libel will backfire on you," Katz added. "Your hatred may be the prevailing opinion of the prosecution, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and the police. But when you make up dirty stories today, what will happen to you in the future? You won't be able to complain if the same is done to you."

Shas faction chairman MK Avraham Michaeli said, "We are against administrative detention and distancing orders. Prosecute and the court will rule. There is selective enforcement against residents of Judea and Samaria. We live in a state of law and the law must apply equally to everyone."

Rights observers noted that Anat Kam — who passed reams of classified documents to a Ha'aretz reporter — was charged with illegal possession of classified documents rather than espionage even though the materials she leaked contained sensitive information that could have compromised Israel's national security and future war fighting plans.

This appeared in Arutz-7
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/151439

To Go To Top

Posted by Carl of Jerusalem, January 5, 2012.

One can only wonder what Mr. Justice Holmes would say. A California judge has found that a Muslim student who rammed a Jewish student with a shopping cart was simply exercising a right to free speech.

On Thursday U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech and dismissed the case against the university.

Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another's constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber's counter protest.

Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.

"The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit," Seeborg stated. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."


If this is not dhimmitude!!!!???

Carl in Jerusalem blogs at Israel Matzav.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio HaDaR Tezza, January 4, 2012.

In spite of the constant propaganda to the contrary, used to attack the Charedi world, TsaHa"L isn't interested AT ALL to have charedi youth in the army. In fact, the brass keep on breaking their own army rules to make it impossible for them to serve...

The Netsach Yehuda, a Nachal Haredi battalion (where by the way most are NOT charedim but national religious observant young men) has shown in combat and in anti terror operation to be way above average... Which shames all the shrimp-eating wanna be goyim that compose most of the high brass of the army...

This was written by Gil Ronen and it appeared in Arutz-7
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/151408


Hareidi soldiers complain they were also made to sit in a lesson with female soldiers, say they are being humiliated.

Hareidi-religious IDF soldiers toldArutz Sheva Tuesday that they suffered intentional humiliation at the hands of their commanders this week. The events described may be connected to the recent wave of anti-hareidi incitement in Israel's press.

Arutz Sheva has learned that soldiers in the hareidi Shachar Kachol unit stationed at Tel Nof Air Force Base were made to sit in a lesson Monday with female soldiers from one of the base's units. This instruction clearly contradicts the terms of service to which the IDF committed itself when the soldiers enlisted, which include complete separation from women.

Soldiers told Arutz Sheva that when they realized they were about to attend a lesson alongside women, they complained to their commanders. In response, they said that one of the base commanders said: "From now on, this is the procedure." He added: "We will not have exclusion of women here from now on."

The soldiers said they were also instructed to clean women's restrooms as part of their routine participation in cleaning and maintaining the base. This, too, is a violation of the terms of service that stipulate that they will remain within their training area and not enter women's quarters.

Eliyahu Lax, chairman of the Association for the Torah-Observant Soldier, said that he had spoke to senior figures in the battalion who averred that the story was true. "Unfortunately," he said, "we are getting the feeling, and not for the first time, that the IDF is not interested in hareidim, and the entire issue of incentives for enlisting hareidim is simply raised in order to use hareidim as a punching bag."

The hareidi soldiers have braved the hurdle of the disapprobation of some members of their community, who feel that they are going against the hareidi way of life and that they will end up lowering their standards of religious observance. These incidents are being used to show that those anti-army elements are right.

The IDF said Wednesday that an inquiry was held into the event following the soldiers' complaints and that "instructions regarding the activities of Shachar Kachol have been refreshed in order to prevent similar incidents from happening again in the future."

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

These are some of the accompanying quotes.

We have not occupied a foreign land; we have not ruled a foreign land;
we have liberated the land of our forefathers from foreign occupation."
(Maccabees I, Chapter 15, verse 33)

End Arab occupation of the Land of Israel: Judea to the Jews, Arabia to Arabs!

He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful — Kohelet Rabba 7:16

In less than three decades Israel has gone from being a country that frees hostages to one that frees terrorists — Michael Freund on the 30th anniversary of Entebbe

Rabbi Simlai said in the name of Rabbi El'azar son of Rabbi Shim'on: [Mashiach] "Ben David does not come until all judges and police in Israel will be done with."
Talmud Sanhedrin 98a

"Kol She'En Bo De'a, Assur LeRachem 'Alau" [Berakhoth 33a, Sanhedrin 92a]

On a visit to inter-war Berlin, Rabbi Yerucham Levovitz of Mirrer witnessed household pets dressed in pants and sweaters. He commented: "Where they treat animals as humans, in that place they will slaughter humans as animals" and he quoted the verse
"Those who slaughter men will kiss their calves" (Hosea 13:2).

When terrorists kill a Jew in Erets Israel, there are two responsible parties: the terrorists and the government that allows it. — Rabbi Meir Kahana, ZTUQ"L, HI"D


"He [your enemy] shall besiege you in all your gates, until the fall of the tall and fortified walls in which you trust throughout your land..." — Deut. 28, 52

Ezekiel Chapter 13:
10 Because-, even because they have led My people astray, saying: Peace, and there is no peace; and when it buildeth up a wall, behold, they daub it with whited plaster; 11 say unto them that daub it with whited plaster, that it shall fall;

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-Benjamin Franklin (1706 — 1790) U.S. Founding Father.

Every drop of Jewish blood spilled by Arab terror, is on the hands of ALL those who refuse to work for the removal of these blood-thirsty predators from among us. They cannot say:
"Our hands did not spill that blood." — HaDaR -

Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil. (Isaiah 5,20)

"At a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell)

"Lots of bad editorials are better than a beautiful obituary."
-an old Israeli saying from the times before "Lemmings Disease" and "Osloporosis" struck most of the country

"The strength of the prophets of Israel lay in the fact that they proclaimed the Truth when everything was against it." — Andre Malraux -

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other.
(George Orwell, Partisan Review, 1942)

"Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it." (Mark Twain)

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor — he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation — he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city — he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." -Cicero, 42 B.C.E.

"No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel.

It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under no conditions can be cancelled. Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations. No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the land — the entire land — exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realised."
-David Ben Gurion — at the Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1937

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, January 4, 2012.


Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, January 4, 2012.

Real Friendship Recognised by Action
(http://abcnews.go.com/International/ wireStory/germany-oks-subsidized- submarine-sale-israel-15055424)
by Juergen Baetz

A senior German official says the government has approved the subsidized sale of another Dolphin-type military submarine to Israel. The official says Germany has set aside euro135 million ($180 million) in next year's budget to pay for about a third of its cost.

Dolphin-class submarines are capable of carrying nuclear-tipped missiles, but there is no evidence that Israel has armed them with such weapons.

Israel already has three Dolphin submarines from Germany — one half-funded and two entirely funded by Berlin, a staunch Israeli ally. An agreement between the two nations included an option for another subsidized submarine which was now activated at Israel's request.

Honest Mistake or Sabotage?
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/ Article.aspx?id=250992

Israel is seeking clarifications from the United States to ensure bunker buster bombs it recently purchased are not carrying defective fuses that could cause their premature detonation. Recently the US settled a lawsuit against a defence contractor for allegedly supplying it with faulty fuses. The laser-guided bomb, GBU-28, weighs about 5,000 pounds and is reportedly capable of penetrating 100 feet of dirt or alternatively 20 feet of

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

The Turkish government persistently denies that the Ottoman empire committed genocide in 1915, insisting that "only" 300,000 Armenians were killed. Like there is a difference! A similar 'argument' has been used by some Holocaust deniers. Moral failure of the international community to condemn genocide of Armenians by Turks led to the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe by Nazis! The same lack of morality is behind the anti-Israel propaganda, which is supporting Arabs' intention to commit a second Holocaust.

PA Rejects Peace, even the Economic One
http://www.israelnationalnews. com/News/News.aspx/150961

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has rejected the "economic peace" proposal put forth by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The "economic peace" plan envisages Israeli moves to build economic prosperity in PLO enclaves in Judea and Samaria in exchange for security and calm in Israel's biblical heartland.

Israel Cancels Defence Deal With Turkey

Israel has canceled a $141 million defence deal with Turkey, a reflection of the steep deterioration in relations between the former 'allies'. Israeli officials are concerned that Turkey could deliver the state-of-the-art airborne intelligence units to third parties hostile to Israel.

No Business as Arms for Oil Business
http://www.theage.com.au/world/ iraqi-arms-deal-stokes-fears-of-civil- war-20111229-1pe9a.html

The Obama administration is moving ahead with the sale of nearly $US11 billion worth of arms and training for the Iraqi military — some of which have already been delivered, despite concerns that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is consolidating his authority in a one-party Shiite-dominated state and abandoning the US-backed power-sharing government. Mr Maliki has failed to carry out an agreement that would have limited his ability to marginalize the Sunnis and turn the military into a sectarian force.

How UNESCO Funds 'Hitlerism'
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/150958

When the United Nations celebrated its 50th anniversary, UNESCO refused to mention the Shoah — the Holocaust — in its World War II resolution, intentionally ignoring Israel's request to include a reference to the destruction of European Jewry. Since then, the UN's cultural body has passed from ignoring the Jewish requests to an obsessive promotion of Hitlerism in the Arab world. The latest number of Zayzafuna, the Palestinian Authority magazine for children, included an essay submitted by a teenage girl in which Adolf Hitler is presented as a positive figure to be admired because he killed Jews in order to benefit the world. Since August 2011, the magazine is financed by UNESCO and the MDG Achievement Fund, another UN foundation funded by the Spanish government.

Under the Cloud of Iranian Threat

US officials said that the Obama administration is poised to announce the sale of F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. The deal will send 84 new fighter jets and upgrades for 70 more for a total of $29.4 billion. (This deal will seriously compromise Israel's security. Perpetuating Islamic terror is good for business!)

Cave of Patriarchs is Israel's Foundation

The commander of the Hevron Region of the Israel Police, Col. Yitzchak Rachamim said during the candle lighting ceremony at the Cave of Patriarchs: "Our primary goal is that not only Jews from Diaspora will visit the Cave of Patriarchs, but also the residents of Israel will all flock in multitudes to this holy site. We identify fully with the importance of the place — this is the foundation of the state of Israel. The policemen and officers of the Hevron Region serve in this dear and holy place out of a sense of mission, challenge and destiny."

Israel Needs to Learn from Enemies
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/151006

Turkey cuts ties with France over Armenian genocide. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that he would cancel all political, economic and military meetings between representatives of Turkey and France. He also forbade French aircraft from landing in Turkey and said French ships were no longer welcome in Turkey's ports. (Israel must stand up against international bigotry for the rights of Jewish people to live in peace in

When One Hand Doesn't Know What Another Does!

Defence Minister Ehud Barak said that the IDF would demolish 'outposts,' regardless of any 'deals' made. Defence Minister Ehud Barak denied that he had acted on his own and ignored a deal to ensure that Ramat Gilad would not be demolished. "I can understand aiming for a compromise, but one way or another, illegal outposts will be taken down," Barak said. "Jews cannot settle on land whose ownership is disputed by Arabs." (Betrayal of Zionists by governments in Israel has became a norm. Anyone can dispute anything! It stops Jews from reclaiming Jewish ancestral land. Israel needs to remove gutless politicians from government!!)

Sunni Arab Regime Change Force is Created

The Qatar oil emirate, encouraged by its successful participation in the campaign to overthrow Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, has established a Sunni Arab intervention force to expedite the drive for Syrian President Bashar Assad's ouster. The new highly mobile force boosts the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army, whose numbers have jumped to 20,000 fighters, armed and funded by Qatar and now forming into military battalions and brigades at their
bases in Turkey.

Current Gaza Policy does not Work

IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said there is "no escape" from launching a major operation to root out Hamas in Gaza. "From time to time, we face rocket fire from the Gaza Strip and we understand the continuing buildup from the Egypt region," Gantz said. "I believe that the state of Israel cannot continue to live under the active threat of Hamas in the Gaza Strip." (In order to stop terror attacks Israel need to plan and implement the Sinai Option!)
http://www.shamrak.com/sh_articles/ EA_Sinai%20Option.htm)

So Much for Reconciliation

The Hamas government decided to ban Fatah's 47th anniversary celebrations in the Gaza Strip. Hamas has prohibited Fatah celebrations in the Gaza Strip since 2007, when the Islamist movement seized control of the area. Fatah condemned the ban as a breach of the reconciliation process with Hamas. (In 1964 the fake nation was forged,
http://www.shamrak.com/sh_editorials/EL_ Palestinians%20Ethnic%20Make%20Up.htm in order to destroy Israel!)

Meddling in Israel's Affairs

In a highly unusual response to criticism from European nations on the Security Council, the Israeli Foreign Ministry bluntly accused the countries of "interfering with Israel's domestic affairs" and warned that they risked making themselves "irrelevant." The Foreign Ministry's response came a day after a joint statement
http://ukun.fco.gov.uk/en/news/ ?view=PressS&id=708021082 by Britain, France, Germany and Portugal, delivered at the United Nations headquarters in New York. (At least one Israeli ministry is able to say it straight!)

Unholy Muslim Business — Hezbollah Laundered Drug Money

The Hezbollah terrorist organization is in hot water over a scheme to launder hundreds of millions of dollars, using American banks and other financial institutions to process money earned from drug trafficking in South America. According to a British security source, Hezbollah also sets up straw companies in African and Arab countries which then sell vehicles and/or other goods. Hezbollah operatives also steal passports, which are then used to cover terrorists as they travel the world to raise money. (And none of this attracts international outrage nor condemnation!)

Quote of the Week:

"We are sending today a clear and unequivocal message that the armed resistance and the armed struggle are our strategic choice and way in order to liberate the Palestinian land from the sea (Mediterranean) to the river (Jordan) and to expel the intruders and plunderers from the land of Palestine. Hamas will lead with this (Palestinian) people and the steadfast resistance organisations Intifada after Intifada till the liberation of Palestine is accomplished."* — Hamas' Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/150973) — He did not say which river, as 'liberation' of Jordan is part of the plan. And, he knows that there are no such people as Palestinian!

The Most Succesful Export of the PLO

At least 32 people were killed and 116 wounded as they poured out of the packed Christmas-morning Mass in St. Theresa Catholic Church near Abuja, the capital, according to Interior Minister Abba Moro. Four other bombs took at least three lives elsewhere in the country. Boko Haram, a group whose aim is to impose a strict interpretation of Islamic Shari'a on Africa's most populous country, took credit for the attacks. One-third of Nigerian states already live under Shari'a. (PLO perfected the art of terror, suicide and car bombings, in Israel terrorizing Jews and Lebanese during the civil war in Lebanon. Now these Islamic tools of terror are successfully used by Al Qaeda and other Islamic organizations in order to subvert and terrorize the non-Muslim population world-wide.)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by ArnieBarnie, January 4, 2012.

Contact ArnyBarnie by email at ArnyBarnie@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Norma Zager, January 4, 2012.

"The foreign policy of the United States is the way in which it interacts with foreign nations and sets standards of interaction for its organizations, corporations and individual citizens. The U.S. is highly influential in the world..." Wikipedia

The American president is the most informed human being in the world.

He is regularly updated on events occurring on this planet by every intelligence agency from here to Saturn, including the rings.

For any American to believe he didn't know the Muslim Brotherhood would rise to ultimate political power in the Middle East is the epitome of stupid.

Most Americans were very aware that Mubarak's demise, with the help of our administration, would allow extremists to gain a foothold in Egypt. If so many average Americans knew this would happen, are we to believe the State Department of the United States was clueless?

Now they will soon take over Libya with the help of the U.S., and another Jimmy Carter-style gift will deliver the entire Middle East into the hands of a dangerous terrorist group.

Carter gave us the Mullahs, and Obama will deliver the Muslim Brotherhood with a big red bow.

So what does this mean to America and to our allies like Israel? It means the tide has turned in the worst possible direction.

For those Americans who may have forgotten who the Muslim Brotherhood is ... I give you the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel.

Since then they have disguised their appearance to seem more moderate, and their activities have been more covert. They established a strong foothold in America under the guise of CAIR, a supposedly moderate Muslim presence that battles to cover up the real agenda of the Islamic extremists around the world and in this country.

The Muslim Brotherhood is one of the hungriest wolfs in sheep's clothing on planet earth, bought and paid for by the United States.

Americans are not stupid, and yet we continue to be blinded by those who would hand us to our destroyers with both hands.

What is the purpose of Barack Obama's administration, his foreign policy?

Perhaps we should take a closer look.

Anyone who opens even one eye can see the light.

He enabled evil Mother Russia to protect their devious agenda in the region, by screwing over our allies and caving into pressure from the USSR over the antimissile technology formerly promised, yet received no favors in return.

He went to the Middle East, called America a proud Muslim nation and blamed Israel then misrepresented their legitimate legal claim to their land.

He completely ignored Iran's efforts to secure a nuclear bomb they have vowed to use against Israel, the United States and Europe.

When Iranians were fighting in the streets for their freedom he was silent.

Even now, while Syrians, including children, die there each day, he is silent.

Yet he removes the moderate leaders who were already bought and paid for by the US, and allows the region's evil despots to continue their evil reigns.

WHY? What are his motives?

Shouldn't we ask that question as a nation?

What are his foreign policy objectives?

So far it has been enabling extremists and killing off moderates.

Odd, don't you think?

His economic policies have placed our country in serious jeopardy and weakened us as a world power.

He has only done the right thing when forced to do so because public opinion would never have accepted any alternative. Like voting against the Palestinians in the United Nations, when he knew that election year whatever was left of Jewish money and influence would immediately dry up if he had voted otherwise.

He dissed the Prime Minister of Israel treating him with less respect than the White House gardener and forced him into negotiating with the enemy from a position of weakness and without US backing.

Children in Somalia and Darfur are being murdered and starved, yet we are helping usher in Muslim extremists? He accuses Republicans of disregarding human rights and the environment and then allows children to die when he is the most powerful man on the planet and can help them?

He has golfed and vacationed more than any other president on the taxpayer's dime in a time of our worst financial turmoil.

Yet, with all of these egregious offenses and ploys to bring Muslim extremists into power, Americans still refuse to see the bigger picture.


Is it because we are too trusting as a people and can't fathom our leader taking us down a path of destruction?

Are we too proud to admit our mistakes?

Is it because we are too naïve and cannot see through lies and deceit when it is so obvious we are being played?

Or is it that we are under the spell of a master deceiver?

Someone whose agenda is so frightening and dangerous we refuse to accept the possibility it could be happening?

I submit it is all of these.

These successful efforts to create a new Middle East is in line with only one nation's agenda: Iran.

Their dreams of an Islamic caliphate have been greatly aided and abetted by the State Department of the United States.

How is this happening?

Why is this happening?

More importantly: why are we ignoring the obvious?

What is there in human nature that allows evil to wear such a pleasing disguise and fool us every time?

Anyone who ever believed the hype about some Arab Spring or glorified their victories will live to regret it as much as the demise of the Shah that ushered in the evil reign of the Mullahs.

Four more years of Obama's agenda will only secure one result — no Arab Spring but a Nuclear Winter.

It is so sad to me that Americans refuse to see the obvious. Now is the time to wake up and smell the hummus.

Open our eyes and accept the reality we have been taken in by one of the best in the business.

We must change course and return to our true values as a people.

If I am mad to ask these questions, better to embrace madness than enable malevolence. Enough aiding and abetting the world's evil or soon it will be unstoppable.

Pray, it isn't too late already to stop this.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, January 4, 2012.

As sent to a Magen David Adom supporter who insists that it is all a right wing plot to get funding for ZAKA and Hatzolah. We are looking for MDA donors who would like to go on record as being against the politicization of MDA, who do not like MDA withdrawing from Yehuda and Shomron, who do not feel it appropriate for MDA to help establish a front for an international political attack on Israel, a further de-legitimization of Israel and Israel's rights.

Please get back to me if you can put us in touch with MDA supporters.

The interview aired this morning on Israel Army Radio (not exactly a group of right wing extremists).

MDA has agreed in writing to remove all insignias and not transfer and funds to anything in Yehuda and Shomron. They are making good progress on the issues and need to continue and finish their good work.

Read it and weep.
http://glz.co.il/NewsArticle.aspx? NewsId=96611

Unfortunately MDA head office has decided it is in their personal interest to support the very political agenda of those who would abandon Israelis in Yehuda and Shomron. They should have insisted that they are a humanitarian organization charged with doing humanitarian work and they have no involvement in issues of what is Israel. If there are Israelis (Jewish and Arab) they will service them, if there are not it is not their issue. MDA has no place in the issue of what is and what is not Israel, let alone establishing a front for an international political attack on Israel.

If and when you decide that that what MDA is doing is not what you have been told, it is not your understanding, it is not what you donated your money and ambulances to support, when you decide you do not support the leftist vision of abandoning Israelis in the historical heartland of Israel so that Arabs can set up a forward base to attack Israel there will be a lot you can do from here to support Israel's future. When you find you are ready to go on record stating that, as always you support MDA, but what the executive is doing is inconsistent with what they told you in order to get your donation, you can make a huge, positive difference to the future of MDA.

This below was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and is entitled "Red Cross Admits Red Magen David Out of Yesha."


The Red Cross admitted Wednesday that Magen David Adom [Red Magen David] emergency services promised not to officially serve residents in Judea and Samaria and instead to have regional councils officially administer rescue efforts.

Magen David Adom (MDA) also agreed to removed its Jewish symbol from ambulances, as Arutz Sheva previously reported, Red Cross official Par Stanback told Army Radio, following weeks of contradictory statements that tried to mask the agreement.

When Arutz Sheva first exposed the entire story, the MDA head claimed it was inaccurate, but Arutz Sheva then posted the entire agreement it had obtained and to which MDA was a signator. MDA had signed a document that on its part abrogated the right to serve any areas not recognized internationally as within Israel's borders.That excluded large population centers such as Kiryat Arba, Efrat, Maaleh Adumim, Ariel, Kedumim and parts of Jerusalem as well as all the smaller Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Many contributors have stopped donating to MDA since the agreement was disclosed. Yesha youth, a considerable percentage of the volunteer force, stopped volunteering for MDA in protest.

National Union Knesset Member Aryeh Eldad, who was senior doctor in the IDF and at Hadassah Hospital, recently wrote in his Facebook page, "Magen David Adom decided to stop buying ambulances in Judea and Samaria, to remove its emblem and to direct its workers not to wear their official uniforms in Judea and Samaria."

He called on people to stop donating to MDA and instead donate blood directly to hospital blood banks and channel funds to other rescue services or to regional councils that administer the rescue services in Judea and Samaria.

"All of these actions by MDA are a surrender to the demands of the Arab Red Crescent and a condition for Magen David Adom to be an official member of the Red Cross," MK Eldad wrote, a month before the Red Cross admission.

Magen David Adom officials have explained that the level of service in Judea and Samaria continues as it was and that the agreement was made because it raises the status of the group as an official member of the International Red Cross.

Its membership allows it to participate in worldwide rescue efforts and to receive funds from the organization, according to the MDA.

However, Dayan, chairman of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria said the agreement only gives senior Magen David official an "entrance card" into the Red Cross.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Act for America, January 3, 2012.

Two weeks ago, an Austrian appellate court upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff on charges of "denigrating religious beliefs" (see story below).

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff is one of ACT! for America's international chapter leaders.

ACT! for America has contributed to Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff's legal defense fund and encourages concerned citizens to do the same. Log on here if you would like to make a contribution to her legal defense fund. We know Elisabeth's situation — she needs a lot of help if she is to continue fighting this on appeal. She is, indeed, fighting for the rights of all of us.

This back-door imposition of sharia law will not end in Austria. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), representing all 56 Muslim countries, has won the support of top officials in our State Department in its efforts to criminalize "defamation" of religion. (It is a violation of sharia law to "defame" Islam, Allah or Mohammed.)

In a move clearly designed to intimidate those who oppose the OIC's effort, Hillary Clinton's security personnel detained Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), at the closing event of a recent conference aimed at promoting this draconian effort. Lafferty was told she had been identified as a "security threat" to the Secretary of State. (See the TVC story here.)

For four years we have been warning America that our freedom of speech is under assault from radical Islam and its politically correct enablers and apologists. As you can see, we don't cry wolf.

The article below was written by Soeren Kern and it appeared December 26, 2011 in Hudson NY
(http://www.hudson-ny.org/2702/ sabaditsch-wolff-appeal).


An Austrian appellate court has upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam.

The December 20 ruling shows that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Although the case has major implications for freedom of speech in Austria, as well as in Europe as a whole, it has received virtually no press coverage in the American mainstream media.

Sabaditsch-Wolff's Kafkaesque legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party.

A glossy socialist weekly magazine, NEWS — all in capital letters — planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the first two lectures. Lawyers for the leftwing publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010; and her bench trial, presided on by one multicultural judge and no jury, began November 23, 2010.

On the first day of the trial, however, it quickly became clear that the case against Sabaditsch-Wolff was not as air-tight as prosecutors had made it out to be. The judge in the case, Bettina Neubauer, pointed out, for example, that only 30 minutes of the first seminar had actually been recorded.

Neubauer also noted that some of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were offhand comments made during breaks and not a formal part of the seminar. Moreover, only a few people heard these comments, not 30 or more — the criterion under Austrian law for a statement being "public." In any event, Sabaditsch-Wolff says her comments were not made in a public forum because the seminars were held for a select group of people who had registered beforehand.

More importantly, many of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were actually quotes she made directly from the Koran and other Islamic religious texts. Fearing that the show trial would end in a mistrial, the judge abruptly suspended hearings until January 18, 2011, ostensibly to give him time to review the tape recordings, but also to give the prosecution more time to shore up its case.

On January 18, after realizing that the original charge would not hold up, the judge — not the prosecutor — informed Sabaditsch-Wolff that in addition to the initial charge of hate speech, she was now being charged with "denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group." Sabaditsch-Wolff's lawyer immediately demanded that the trial be postponed so that the defense could prepare a new strategy.

When the trial resumed on February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the first charge of "incitement" because the court found that here statements were not made in a "provocative" manner.

But Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of the second charge against her, namely "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code.

The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were "Mohammed had a thing for little girls.")

The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.

The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($625) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial. Although at first glance the fine may appear trivial — the fine was reduced to 120 "day rates" of €4 each because Sabaditsch-Wolff is a housewife with no income — the actual fine would have been far higher if she had had income.

Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court (Oberlandesgericht Wien) in Vienna, but that appeal was rejected on December 20. The court says she will go to prison if the fine is not paid within the next six months. She says she will take the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court for Human Rights.

After the trial, Sabaditsch-Wolff said her conviction represented "a black day for Austria." The Vienna Federation of Academics (Wiener Akademikerbund) said the ruling represented "politically and sentimentally motivated justice" and marked "the end of freedom of expression in Austria."

Sabaditsch-Wolff is not the only Austrian to run afoul of the country's anti-free speech laws. In January 2009, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted for the "crime" of saying that "in today's system" the Mohammed would be considered a "child molester," referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of "incitement" for saying that Austria faces an "Islamic immigration tsunami." Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated 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. Visit their website: www.actforamerica.org and contact them by email at actforamerica@donationnet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, January 3, 2012.

This was written by Dov S. Zakheim and it appeared December 30, 2011 in the National Interest It is archived at
http://nationalinterest.org/ commentary/the-unintended-consequences- americas-adventure-iraq-6321

Dov Zakheim was under secretary of defense (comptroller) from 2001-2004 and recently completed his term as a member of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He recently published A Vulcan's Tale: How the Bush Administration Mismanaged the Reconstruction of Afghanistan.


Now that the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Iraq is complete, sectarian warfare once again has reared its ugly head. There were the killings of Shi'a during the month of Muharram, which were almost certainly a response, at least in part, to the roundup of Sunnis that probably took place with the government's approval. Then there are the charges that Vice President Tareq el-Hashemi managed a death squad. Hashemi is now a fugitive in Kurdistan.

Nuri al-Maliki, the author of those charges, has emerged as nothing less than a Shi'a strongman. No doubt he will retain the formalities of democracy — elections, a parliament, the participation of cooperative members of the Sunni, Kurd and Turkmen communities — so long as these do not interfere with his authoritarian ways. Should they threaten to cramp his style, he likely will further weaken these fledgling institutions, which already are fraying at the seams.

Maliki insists that he is not a tool of the Iranians. Strictly speaking, he is correct. Iraq will never allow itself to be completely dominated by Tehran. Nevertheless, just as there can be no denying that Iran was the real victor of Operation Iraqi Freedom because America defanged its only seriously powerful regional rival, so too is it true that Iraq has increasingly come to share Tehran's perspective on regional affairs. Witness its abstention on the Arab League's vote to suspend Syria. Iraq is now firmly rooted in what King Abdullah of Jordan years ago termed "the Shi'a crescent," which includes also Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, which also abstained from the Arab League vote, and Syria.

Moreover, Iraq appears no more friendly toward Israel than those other states in the crescent despite old pipedreams of neoconservatives who urged Washington to launch its attack on Iraq at the earliest possible moment. Egged on by Ahmed Chalabi, the advocates of regime change foresaw a democratic Iraq reopening the old Iraq Petroleum Company pipeline that once had run from Kirkuk to Haifa in Mandatory Palestine. Things have not worked out that way. Indeed, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Iraq would tolerate the basing on its soil of Iranian missiles pointed at Israel. Such a turn of events would only intensify the nervousness that is already palpable in Jerusalem. Ironically, it was Ariel Sharon, that icon of many neoconservatives, who warned Washington prior to the Iraq invasion that toppling Saddam would benefit the main enemy, Iran.

Sharon's prescience should have served as a lesson to those whose hubris drives them to want to transform the Middle East. Yet the advocates of military action against Iran, Syria or both (in part because of the hostility of these states toward Israel) clearly have turned a deaf ear to the former Israeli prime minister's argument, which can be summed up as, "Beware of what you ask for." The consequences of an attack on Iran for Israel's security are far from clear: even if an Israeli (or American) attack were to succeed — a somewhat dubious proposition — it would guarantee the undying hostility of the Persians for generations to come. Since Iran will always be the strongest power in the region, this is not a prospect that supporters of Israel should welcome.

As for Syria, again the consequences for Israel could be far from salutary. Would a militant Sunni Islamist regime, closely tied to Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood branches elsewhere (notably Egypt) improve Israel's strategic position in the region? Hardly. Israel once faced a peculiar entity called the United Arab Republic, comprised of Syria and Egypt, which constituted a coordinated threat to both its northern and southern borders. The UAR did not last long, but a Muslim Brotherhood reprise of that experiment might last long enough to mount a new attack on the Jewish state.

It made little sense for the United States to attack Libya. It makes even less sense for Washington to authorize an attack in either Iran or Syria. It is one thing to toughen sanctions against Damascus, choke Tehran's central bank, and coordinate even more closely with allies and friends to upend the Iranian nuclear program and further weaken the Assad regime. It is quite another to take military action. And those who support such action because of a misguided desire to enhance Israel's security should think again: Instead of a pipeline to Haifa, their support for regime change in Baghdad traded a Sunni enemy of both Israel and Iran for a Shi'a friend of Iran that is no less an enemy of the Jewish state.

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 Fred Reifenberg, January 3, 2012.


Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il See more of his graphic art at http://denjanewhome.blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 3, 2012.


The U.S. and Jewish organizations have reacted to Palestinian Media Watch's exposure of a UNESCO-financed, Palestinian Authority (P.A.) children's magazine that posed Hitler as a youth model, glorified jihad, and expressed antisemitism.

The U.S. ambassador to UNESCO condemned P.A. duplicity. The duplicity lay in telling foreigners that the P.A. wants peace while telling its own people to hate. The Ambassador demanded that UNESCO not only cease financing P.A. hatred, but let the P.A. know that its behavior is unacceptable. With membership in UNESCO comes responsibility.

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has been documenting P.A. duplicity in its messages for years.

B'nai B'rith went further than the Ambassador. It noted that the P.A. long has been fostering religious hatred. UNESCO never should have financed a P.A. magazine. B'nai B'rith suggested that UNESCO audit its other financing of P.A. activities, so it does not subsidize similar offenses (IMRA www.imra.org.il from PMW Bulletin, 12/26/11,
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx? fi=157&doc_id=6023 by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik).

The jihad that the P.A. glorifies is not the inner struggle for good character that apologists for jihadists rationalize. That definition of jihad ignores the much more applied definition, of war on people who do not accept Islam. The rationalization diverts attention from the big problem of military jihad.

P.A. duplicity for years, but only now and only for this limited issue does the U.S. notice? What does that indicate about the integrity or intelligence of U.S. foreign policy and bona fides on the Arab-Israel conflict?

The U.S. State Dept., especially under Pres. Obama, so often criticizes Israel and unfairly so, and so seldom criticizes the P.A., which criticism would be deserved, that its lack of integrity is palpable. What about media organs such as the New York Times, which act as if coordinating with the State Dept.?

Why should the UN finance anything of the P.A., whose whole mission and way of operating is by bigotry, deceit, and violence? The deceit includes peace agreements, promises to eradicate terrorism, and publicizing phony territorial motives for religious war. Shouldn't this revelation finally prick the world's vestigial conscience, causing general reversal of support for the P.A.?

Nor is the P.A. the only jihadist group doing this and getting UN, U.S., and European funding. NGO Monitor has been revealing foreign financing of Israeli pro-Muslim Arab organizations that claim to seek justice but act to promote bigotry and destruction of Israel.

It is high time for the civilized world to face the assault on it by international jihad. That means abandoning or replacing the UN, which has lent itself to the more than 50 Islamic members, its biggest bloc.



On January 3, the New York Times reported military budgeting cutting proposed by Defense Sec. Panetta, in compliance with the automatic fallback position of Congress after it was unable to reduce the budget in any rational way. This is my overview, written before that report.

The customary American way of governmental budgeting is irrational. This way is one of self-interested lobbying and log-rolling. Politicians in recent years also have budgeted on ideological grounds — bread and circuses for the plebes and political credit claimed by politicians for taxing and redistributing to favored groups. Does that make sense?

A rational way of governmental budgeting would evaluate purportedly needed tasks, determine whether they are appropriate for government, ascertain their true costs (not with smoke and mirrors featured by the new medical insurance law), determine whether they would work or have unintended consequences, and compare with the resources available. Doesn't that make sense?


Let's take as an example the Sunday Dialogue in the New York Times of November 13. Former Assistant Defense Secretary Korb suggested cuts in the defense budget beyond what former Defense Secretary Gates had suggested under pressure and what the current Defense Secretary Panetta proposed. Think-tankers and other readers replied, mostly suggesting even deeper cuts.

Some of the proposals constitute a reasonable basis for debate, but more do not. The abbreviated format didn't give respondents opportunity to develop their points; their points may be better advised than appears.

DISCUSSION NOT RELATED TO MILITARY SITUATION: The entire discussion was more or less out of context of the world military situation, of the state of U.S. military preparedness, and of the declining percentage of the budget and of GNP that military spending comprises. These commentators all would slash the military, as if they were a cabal of ancient Roman Senators slashing Julius Caesar, Rome's greatest defender.

Just two pages away from Korb's letter is a discussion about an increasing military rivalry over sea lanes, because most petrol now is extracted from the sea. The rising menace of jihad was not mentioned at all. Neither is China's greater aggressiveness. Nor was policy on whether to intervene against genocide stated. Nor was the decline in allies' militaries and the rise in enemies' militaries. Nor was cyberwar. What will be left to wield, as Iran's belligerency and North Korea's come to a head? Budgeting in a vacuum?

UNSUBSTANTIATED NUCLEAR ASSUMPTIONS: Sec. Korb contends, "Since we are unlikely to use nuclear weapons, our arsenal can be slashed from the current level of 5,000 to 311, as recommended by some Air Force strategists." How the strategists rationalized their recommendation, and what counter-arguments are made by others, he did not state.

Of course, some number has to be set. Our treaties already greatly reduced our nuclear arsenal. No distinction was made in Sec. Korb's letter about what types of nuclear weapons. Field artillery shells, for example, can more easily fall into irresponsible hands.

The main fallacy in the proposal is the stated assumption behind eliminating most nuclear weapons is that "we are unlikely to use nuclear weapons." Most of the suggested slashes have unstated assumptions that may make them even more irrational. How rational is the stated assumption, when it misses the point of the arsenal, which is not to have to use them because their formidible presence deters some enemies from attacking the U.S.?

This deterrence is diminishing, as nuclear weapons proliferate. New weapons of mass-destruction are coming under the control of insane leaders such as the ruling dynasty of North Korea. They also come under the control of religious fanatics willing to sacrifice Iran in whole or in part, so long as they can either crush an enemy such as Israel or, in their opinion, conjure up the hidden imam and Islam's glorious triumph. Then there are the totally brutal terrorists in Pakistan, who may yet seize nuclear weapons there, not that the government there is mature.

Nor should nuclear weapons be evaluated in isolation. There are other weapons of mass-destruction. Then there are conventional weapons. If we reduce them too much, we may box ourselves into having to resort to nuclear weapons. So we need the right mix of conventional and weapons of mass-destruction.

IRAN: Thanks to the U.S. spending decades negotiating with Iran and imposing sanctions on it, all in vain, Iran is very close to possessing nuclear weapons. How specious is Sec. Korb's assumption that we won't need to use nuclear weapons, when we are not halting nuclear development of foes that would!

Iran is placing nuclear facilities in a mountain impervious to ordinary bombing. If the U.S. does not act, talk is that Israel would. Suppose Israel concludes that its only capability to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons and facilities is by blasting that mountain with a nuclear bomb? Does that set off nuclear exchange? The U.S. may have boxed itself and Israel into a corner.

The combination of proposed and actual reduction of nuclear and conventional weapons and troops has brought some military brass to warn that we would be unable to defend the country properly.

The efficacy of the 311 nuclear weapons that Sec. Korb would leave us with is hampered by a treaty that forbids us from testing and modernizing such weapons. Maybe they won't work. What then?

TROOPS ABROAD: Another sizeable reduction proposed is the number of ground troops, by 100,000, "since we are withdrawing troops from the Middle East and are unlikely to need large armies there anytime soon." These withdrawals are ideological and controversial. As we withdraw troops, the enemy revives, undoing our efforts. If there develops an unbroken jihadist front in the Mideast, we may have to return, but with what? Unfortunately, barbarism is on the rise, not that such a realization is acknowledged in Sec. Korb's essay.

Withdrawal might be wise, if part of a comprehensive plan for defeating international jihad. But the U.S. has no such plan. Oops! Pres. Obama has ordered his staff to bury their heads in the sand and not even mention the enemy. His supposed "understanding" of Islam and reaching out to it by humiliating apologies and deafening silences coincides with a rise of Islamic radicalism, probably accelerating it.

The U.S. hollowed out its forces before: after each world war, and then during the Carter and Clinton regimes, and now in process during the Obama administration. After those earlier times, when we had to go to war, it took a long time to rebuild our forces. Carter let the Soviets imagine, and not without some justification, that we were too weak to stop them from dominating the planet. What a heartbreaking and criminally negligent disarmament policy we had under President Clinton's arms reduction! He left us so short of troops that right afterwards, we had to call on the National Guard for frontline forces and repeatedly recall them! We subjected them to unnecessarily severe emotional stress. Do people who stress fairness as a government objective think that was fair to the troops risking their lives for us to excessively risk their minds, too? (To be fair, Pres. Bush did not call for alleviating that troop-power shortage.)

Now that the world moves faster, we have less time to rebuild forces.

Many Americans blame Pres. Bush for adding to the national debt for wars. Not realized by the critics is that part of the deficits attributed to the wars really were costs of rebuilding the military from Pres. Clinton's neglect. By the same token, Pres. Obama's successor probably will have to rebuild the military again, and will be blamed for the resulting cost to the country.

The suggestion to bring home U.S. forces stationed in Europe may make sense, provided we have the facilities to ship forces to war zones swiftly. Unfortunately, we have let our military plane and ship ferries age into less reliability for major jobs.

RELY ON UAVS & SMART BOMBS: Now that the U.S. uses more drones and precision-guided munitions, Sec. Korb proposes reducing the number of fighter planes and aircraft carriers by 25%. He is assuming that the present number more than suffices now. Surely he knows that the recent wars have worn out much of our equipment, so that we really need to spend more money, in order to replace them. Hasn't he considered the fact that U.S. planes and ships are aging while China and other potential foes are building new and more up-to-date counterparts?

Beware of over-dependence on technology, the way the CIA did, and then had too few agents to realize that Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons, among other important intelligence failures.

Drones have their uses against terrorist organizations and a few targets, but they don't defeat a mass of enemies.

We need a fuller public discussion about when to send live forces in and when and how we can fight remotely. We should be cautious about putting all our eggs in one military basket, lest our enemies develop ways to neutralize the few weapons on which Korb would make us dependent. Recently, a U.S. stealth vehicle crashed in Iran; Iran may be figuring out how much of it works. The great new stealth technology on which our military counted for coming years may not be exclusively ours, and defenses against it may be on the way. Money must be reserved for continued invention and development.

HAS U.S. MILITARY SPENDING RISEN OR FALLEN: Sec. Korb's final defense of steeper military cuts than proposed before is that military spending has grown. But the question should not be how much we spend as each dollar buys less, but do we get what we paid for and what we need. Military spending may have risen, but published figures show the military to be a decreasing proportion of GNP and of the national budget.

Erstwhile defense budget cutters argue that the U.S. spends more than other countries. Spending does not equate to need. A major reason we spend more is that we have higher labor costs than does, say, China. We also have to prepare for all comers, whereas aggressors know whom they would have to fight. We build more advanced weapons, which cost more. But another reason we spend more is that we overdo the technology and under-monitor cost overruns. There are some ideas out there on how to purchase more efficiently. We need to implement the best ones. The much maligned American patriotism would help, if we possibly could get business people and workers to see the military as their shield, not just as their ATM.

ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSE: Former CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman suggests eliminating anti-missile defense, because, he believes, it doesn't work and is expensive. That is a rational approach, if he is correct. He also suggests removing 80,000 troops from Asia (whatever that means, Asia being a big continent), because we have long-range strike capabilities. Aerial bombardment can accomplish some things that troops cannot, but troops can accomplish some missions that missiles cannot. Let him discuss the different missions of troops and missiles!

Although Pres. Obama kept our costs down by restricting U.S. military efforts in Libya to supporting the air effort, he made a sudden new strain on the budget, followed by Obama's largesse with our tapped out funds in offering money to Libya (rather than unfreezing their funds here). His effort may be leading to the rise of Radical Islam there, a worse enemy of the U.S. than before. Hasty efforts can be worse than none.

NAVAL CONSIDERATIONS: Whereas Sec. Korb wants to build fewer new ships, at least fewer carriers, Mr. Goodman wants to reduce by 50 the number of ships we have. Why? Because "There is no other navy that could challenge the U.S. navy..." If we reduce our forces and if we rely on aging ships, while China builds, will his statement remain true?

I do worry that the full-sized aircraft carriers are too big to maneuver within narrow straits and present too valuable a target to risk.

Is a navy useful only against a navy? We need ways to ferry forces, to protect undersea industry from terrorists, etc..

Mr. Goodman dismisses some specific weapons, one for an amphibious assault by marines who haven't had such a mission in 60 years, and a helicopter that is problematic. That is using logic. Each weapon should be evaluated on its own merits and in coordination with other weapons. We must be mission-oriented, not company-oriented nor Congressional district-oriented.

WHAT SIZE OF MILITARY NEEDED: Mr. Goodman quotes former Defense Sec. Gates, "A smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to get to fewer places and be able to do fewer things." Mr. Goodman remarks, "He meant that as a warning; actually it is a blessing." There we have it! Goodman wants a less capable military. He insinuates that when it is more capable, it gets used recklessly. I agree. But isn't it wiser to have the capability when needed and strive to prevent reckless usage? If people can reform the budget, perhaps they can exert influence against military misadventure, too.

READERS' REMARKS: One reader, Robert A. Myers, asserts that the U.S. spends more on defense than would be needed to respond to any conceivable threats. Earlier U.S. military doctrine was to have sufficient forces to fight one major war and two minor ones simultaneously. Since then, the number of enemies and of wars has grown, but under budget-cutting pressure, the U.S. has been pared down the number of wars it can fight at the same time. The result is that if threatened from more than one quarter, we might not be able to handle the challenge. Sec. Panetta's latest doctrine is the ability to fight one war and keep another enemy off balance. When we get tied up like that, a third enemy is likely to feel free to indulge in aggression. What then, U.S.?

Edward A. Aguilar, program coordinator of Project for Nuclear Awareness, repeats some reductions already discussed, but also suggests, "Don't overhaul old nuclear weapons," eliminate most of them. In other words, let's find out when it is too late whether the remaining old ones still work. Is that prudent?

Mr. Aguilar also would reduce ICBMs. That contradicts simultaneous reductions in ships, planes, troops, and other weapons suggested by people who think we can rely on long-range bombing.

More promising is his idea to reduce our foreign bases but not our troops. Let those troops spend their money in the U.S., Mr. Aguilar suggests.

He ends with the old bromide, "Cut waste and redundancy," because "We can better use such funds to rebuild our schools and rehire laid-off teachers. A well-educated America is essential for our long-term competitiveness and national security." The military is not budgeted in a vacuum. We had added many teachers, as student enrollment declined. We outspend other countries proportionately on education, with poorer results. The small proportion of handicapped children cost the lion's share, because our way of budgeting is by entitlement, not for education. Some of the misbehaving ones are mainstreamed, so that they hamper the whole class. Since the laws view everything now in terms of rights, the miscreants have "rights," so the teacher cannot remove such youngsters without hearings and witnesses. This wears out discipline and consumes money until there are almost no programs for the better students who could help the country prosper if education fit their potential. The whole budget process and over-regulation of our country is irrational. The military budget should not be considered in a vacuum.

All politicians want to "cut waste and redundancy," at least until that affects jobs in their districts or lobbies contributing to their campaigns. Can we make those suggested efficiencies?

Yes, we need better educated Americans. But what has hiring more teachers and building more schools to do with that? The buildings are not in particular shortage or disrepair. When the number of teachers practically doubled, some years ago, education did not measurably improve. Nor should we slight defense in order to spend more on other things. Our economy is failing largely because we already spend too much. As for education, blame not class size and schoolhouse age, but an unprepared student body, lack of discipline, watered down curriculum, teaching for the test, falsity for political correctness and multi-culturalism, bureaucratic interference, and difficulties in firing incompetents. When school districts get more money, they may hire more bureaucrats. New York City did, to no avail.

University of Colorado "just war" theory teacher Michael Pierce blames high-cost assault weapons systems as the budget breaker. He blames our development of high-tech weapons for setting off arms races. Perhaps we should have stuck to muskets. But he is right that we do sometimes make weaponry so complicated that we cannot afford enough of them or too many break down.

Mr. Pierce ends his letter with a plea for dedicating the military to reducing the likelihood of military conflict. Estimable goal, but how would he do it? Crazy ideologies take over countries, and existing rogue states support them.

Mr. Korb more or less accepts all those suggestions, without sufficient qualification. Frightening!


What makes for rational military budgeting? Here are the principles involved, besides those implied in my criticism, above. Unlike the discussion, above, these principles do not include specifics for budget cutting.

1. IDENTIFY ENEMIES: Identify our active, inactive, and potential enemies for the foreseeable future. Of course, a big problem in the West is failure to recognize who are the Radical Muslims. Britain and the U.S. consult Radicals on how to deal with Radicals. Some Radicals are friends of President Obama.

2. ASSESS ENEMIES: Assess those enemies' military potential and likely strategy and tactics, not just what we learned from past wars.

3. HOW MANY TO FIGHT SIMULTANEOUSLY: Determine how many of those enemies we need to be able to fight simultaneously, lest we get tied down too readily and imperialists take advantage of that weakness.

4. WHEN TO GO TO WAR: Establish in military doctrine the parameters for when to go to war. When should we intervene? Early on? Just for immediate defense? Also to prevent future attacks? For humanitarian reasons? How can the U.S. avoid unnecessary wars, like some of those we waged before? If we are not the world's policeman, who is? Please don't answer that the UN is. The UN is more in the hands of aggressors than of peaceable folk.

WHAT ARE OUR GOALS: What are our objectives and our priorities? Is the war necessary? After criticizing the wars that Pres. Bush launched as unnecessary, Pres. Obama and supporters started their own war in Libya. The Libya war was not necessary for us and seems to be bringing Islamists to power. Obama's supporters did not criticize that. Their inconsistency makes them more partisan than principled.

4. HOW TO FIGHT: Figure out how to conduct any necessary wars. What combination of measures and of allies to use? Can we get allies to help, without their slowing us down? Should we arm them? Can we stay the course?

Can we defeat the enemy without fighting a war? Has the enemy an ideology that we should try to combat, or is the war solely military? This means identifying the ideology, which President Bush was coy about and President Obama refuses to do.

Eliminate assistance to our enemies, as by barring them from our universities, especially courses in technology that strengthen their own war industry. This means identifying them by country, despite the tendency here to refuse to recognize that a country may be our enemy even if some individuals in it are not. Likewise, cut off funding for the Palestinian Authority, a terrorist pair of entities. Likewise, stop blaming allies and praising enemies, as President Obama has done.

Let Congress stop subsidizing university Middle East Studies Centers. These Centers have failed to provide Congress with sound advice. They either miss important developments or themselves appease the Islamist enemies. Sometimes they accept donations from Islamists, who then influence hiring for the teaching posts. Many of our universities are hotspots of anti-Americanism, the Middle East Studies Centers being one reason. But Islamists also subsidize textbooks for lower education. Mustn't allow it. We should be smarter than to allow enemies of our country and our culture to bribe our governments and universities.

Stop hampering allies, as President Obama did in obstructing free trade agreements for years. Don't press authoritarian regimes to allow elections that Islamists are likely to win, as President Obama did with Egypt.

Likewise, the Defense Dept. long has used military aid to Israel to get Israel to reduce its own military industry. The foolishness in acting as an industrial rival of Israel is that we get less of the famous Israeli innovation that has helped give the U.S. military advantages, saved the U.S. billions of dollars, and actually provided many jobs in the U.S. making components of Israeli inventions.

Can we attain our goals by arming rebels who are not likely, themselves, to become our enemies? We mustn't repeat the mistakes of letting Pakistan funnel U.S. aid to Afghan Islamists, of boosting the Pakistan military that works against us, and of building up a huge Egyptian military likely to fall into the hands of Islamists. We spent $60 billion subsidizing the Egyptian military. How wasteful! (This indirect taxpayer subsidy of the arms industry was rationalized as the carrots to keep Egypt from using its sticks to attack Israel. When Egypt just had sticks, it would have been less likely to start another war and less likely to wreak much havoc if it did start on. But now Egypt has a first-class military, as war sentiment there rises. Our foreign policy experts may think they are clever, but our enemies must think they are fools. Which do you think they are?

Pres. Bush sought to help Iranians overthrow clerical regime, but the State Dept. sabotaged his policy. Now we haven't enough time to do it, not that the incumbent President would want to — he deliberately left Iran's protest movement out on a limb without our giving them even moral support. Why is there a pattern of Administration policy that facilitates matters for Islamists?

Can we keep our military secrets secure? Is it wise to let the media accept and publish stolen intelligence that can endanger our forces, in the name of freedom of the press?

How good is our intelligence gathering and our counter-espionage in these days of computer hacking? Will a President make trade deals with China, the way President Clinton let China have access to our rocket and nuclear technology? (And we keep Pollard in prison?)

We probably need a better balance in selecting advanced weaponry. Enemies having slightly inferior weapons but with a greater quantity of them, may defeat us. (Same goes for Israel, supposedly having a qualitative edge, but quantitative inferiority. Now that the U.S. sells top of the line equipment to the Arabs, and finds reasons for restricting sales to Israel while boasting of greater cooperation with the IDF, Israel may no longer enjoy qualitative superiority.

Plan how to capture enemy arms depots, which Pres. Obama did not have planned for Libya. As a result, smugglers are spreading Libya's arms throughout Africa and Asia, probably leading to far more killing than the war was intended to prevent. The chaos that emerged from the Libya war led to some murder for revenge within Libya. We should decide whether we go to war to prevent genocide or only for our own protection.

We need practical standards for combat that protect civilians reasonably, but do not go overboard so as to fail to protect our soldiers or to defeat the enemy. The U.S. and Israeli military go overboard, with lawyers having too much to say.

Must we spend a fortune on nation-building, or would it suffice periodically to destroy enemy forces capable of committing aggression, including weapons of mass destruction, weapons factories, and laboratories. Yes that would leave evil regimes in power, but without ability to menace us. Humanitarians would object to treating technicians as combatants, but how humane are objections that enable evil powers to kill millions of our people or require bigger wars and therefore more casualties? Millions blasted, but our honor intact?

Determine what forces we need to meet all those conditions and compare our existing forces and their condition to those needs. Have we the wherewithal to wage war appropriately in each situation, drawing upon a variety of means, some as new as robots and some as old as boots on the ground.

The newspaper discussion concerned weapons of offense. What about defensive measures? Remember our unpreparedness for roadside bombing of our vehicles?

Have we sufficient reserves?

HOW TO END A WAR: How will we end a war? Can we deploy sufficient means to win? Shall we betray local allies? Do we leave without having solidified matters?

CONCLUSION: Above all, we must have self-confidence and act justly and wisely, and not hate our own country's prominence, as the incumbent President does. We have to live within our means, both for military and civilian matters. The irrational planners consider military spending an intrusion upon civilian spending. Actually, civilian budgeters also have a responsibility. They should not bankrupt us with profligacy for political favors so as to hinder national defense, which is, after all, the paramount purpose of the federal government. Although critics assail the relatively minor earmarks, and they criticize subsidies for some failed companies, they have yet to denounce the whole system of federal and state subsidies for all.

Prepare a military budget accordingly.


Sarah Leah Whitson, head of the Middle East and N. Africa division of Human Rights Watch, discussed in the New York Times of 12/29 what reforms Libya needs.

NGO Monitor challenges her qualification as commentator on that. She has visited Libya. In 2009, she praised Ghadaffi's son Seif Islam as a leading reformer, operating via two semi-private newspapers and his Gaddafi Foundation. She waxed enthusiastic about his having "expanded space for discussion and debate. She ignored the human rights abuses by the Gadaffi regime.

Returning later that year, Whitson compared Gaddafi's son and heir to HRW! After all, she thought Seif Islam one of the "forces of reform." Actually, he left her less than "expanded space for discussion and debate." Government agents kept HRW officials under constant surveillance and cut short an HRW press conference.

Libya's most prominent dissident, Fathi Eljahmi, was imprisoned in 2004. Tortured in solitary confinement, he died in 2009. His brother condemned HRW, because it did not "advocate publicly for Fathi's case," lest it "antagonize Gaddafi."

As you can seem, it is dangerous to pretend that a closed totalitarian regime is reformist [for this emboldens the regime to tighten brutal control].

Whitson's and HRW have acted with similar blindness or callousness elsewhere. Her HRW division mostly ignored the Assad regime's human rights violations. She attempted to raise funds from "prominent members of Saudi society" on a platform of bringing up "Israeli abuses to the U.S. Congress." [What about Saudi abuses, which are real, rather than, as in Israel in dealing with Arabs, imaginary?]

HRW and Whitson have demonstrated their being unqualified to advise us now about Arabs' need for reform
(www.imra.org.il, 1/3/12 from www.ngo-monitor.org
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/ render?llr=rfhybieab&v=001QYDB14zrJ4_t35BP kuUajzc6nFQc1HAWESNM2kyd2iUypkKj9RzLEsswog 29wibb3iJ53a9cKf9z4JEJ3b00hMmV7I6_ nf1cg3GdbiWDphQkqeWlRT9n6w%3D%3D)).

HRW reminds one of the UN. The UN was supposed to embark upon a noble mission. It has become corrupt, greedy for more funds, and an accomplice of evil.

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 P. David Hornik, January 3, 2012.

IDF soldier attacked by "peace activists" on Mavi Marmara

It turns out that major Libyan rebel commander Mahdi al-Harati was one of the jihadists on the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ship that tried to break Israel's naval blockade of Gaza in May 2010. As John Rosenthal notes, "after the seizure of Tripoli, al-Harati was named second-in-command to Abdul-Hakim Belhadj, the head of the newly formed Tripoli Military Council." Belhadj also has an interesting pedigree, having been in phone contact with the leader of the 2004 Madrid train bombings just weeks before they were perpetrated.

Al-Harati, for his part, told the Spanish daily ABC in December that "I was wounded on the Mavi Marmara and spent nine days in an Israeli prison." ABC reporter Daniel Iriarte had come upon al-Harati and two more of Belhadj's men in Syria; they candidly told him they were there to help their "Syrian revolutionary brothers." That should raise alarms as to just what sort of elements might be replacing Bashar Assad — who, like Gaddafi before him, is a brutal thug but not necessarily the worst the region has to offer.

That al-Harati's résumé includes the Mavi Marmara is, however, rich in irony from an Israeli standpoint. The nine Turkish club- and knife-wielding lynch-mob members who were killed on the ship became, as I noted back then, the most internationally regretted jihadists of all time. This despite the fact that anyone with access to YouTube could see that the mob had savagely assaulted the Israeli naval commandos who boarded the ship bearing paintball guns.

And yet the deaths of the nine — called "peace activists" by much of the media — sparked such an outcry that eventually three Israeli commissions and two international ones were set up to investigate what had happened. The more consequential of the latter two, the UN's Palmer Commission, gave a ruling last September that was seen as basically vindicating Israel in its ongoing bitter diplomatic spat with Turkey over the incident. Still, while the Palmer Commission concluded that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was thoroughly legal, it blamed the commandos for using too much force — apparently believing they should have kept relying on their paintball guns instead of finally drawing their pistols to save themselves from a grisly fate.

At the time, however, Israel tried hard to convey that the commandos' attackers were members of the IHH, a radical organization with global-jihad, including Al Qaeda, links. Belatedly, the fact that the likes of al-Harati — who doesn't need too much dot-connecting to arrive at the Madrid train bombings — was not only on the ship but wounded in the fighting is further substantiation of the point. So, for that matter, is Hamas terror-master Ismail Haniyeh's visit with the relatives of the Mavi Marmara casualties on Monday.

The larger point, of course, is that the West has trouble identifying the nature and agenda of actors in the Middle East. From Iran in 1979 to the Mavi Marmara to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia — and possibly Syria — at present, those claiming virtue can turn out to be much the opposite. Clearly, Assad's fall would be a blow to Tehran's axis. Those struggling to replace him have to be watched closely.

David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com. This article is archived a
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/03/ libyan-jihadist%E2%80%99s-mavi-marmara-connection/

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, January 2, 2012.

Jews are being expelled from academia, just as they were in the 1930's. Is Europe going to let this happen again barely 70 years later?


Several days ago the Israeli leftist author Moshe Sakal was booted from an academic conference in Marseilles at the request of Palestinian poet Najwan Darwish.

The director of the conference, French-Jewish author Pierre Assouline, succumbed to the Arab pressure and said Sakal's participation "was not crucial".

A year ago, Marseilles' university was the site of another anti-Jewish boycott, when the septuagenarian Israeli novelist Esther Orner, who is also a Holocaust survivor, was banned from the University of Provence after a group of Arab writers objected to her presence.

For the first time since Vichy's collaborators, French faculties have been cleansed of the Jewish presence.

From the outside, European universities appear to many as genteel, cultured and tranquil oases of wisdom. In truth, European institutions of higher education are now brutal offsprings of anti-Jew hatred.

This is the worst wave of anti-Israel violence since April 6, 2002, when 123 university academics and researchers from across Europe signed an open letter, published in Britain's the Guardian calling for a moratorium on all cultural links with Israel.

Last spring, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz was banned from Trondheim and Oslo universities because of his views on the Jewish state.

Last September, Israeli professor from Ariel University, Ronen Cohen, was expelled from a German academic conference in Berlin (he was later reinstated after a storm of protest).

The Spanish Housing Ministry disqualified Ariel University from competing in the international competition between university architecture departments to design and build a self-sufficient house using solar power.

According to a recent poll by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 62.2% of university students believe that "the Jews are powerful because they control the economy and the mass media". More than 60% of Spanish university students say they do not want Jewish classmates.

A prominent figure of the Jewish community of Belgium, Jacques Brotchi, just resigned from the board of Free University of Brussels after denouncing several grave anti-Semitic incidents within the institution. The incidents included the staging of an Israeli checkpoint on the university campus and the invitation of anti-Semitic French comic Dieudonné.

According to Brotchi, the situation at Brussels is not isolated. "It is comparable to what is happening in other universities in Europe and elsewhere with the academic boycott of Israel campaigns, where anti-Zionism takes the form of anti-Semitism".

Rotterdam's Erasmus University's International Institute of Social Studies just hosted UE funded events in which Israel was equated with the former apartheid regime in South Africa.

Recently, Europe's largest student union, the University Of London Union, joined the worldwide boycott of all Israeli products. It's just one of the many students' unionswhich embraced the anti-Israel campaign. The Cambridge University Students Union voted to call on the University to cut ties with Veolia, a company involved in "infrastructure projects in Israeli settlements", and employed by the University on a waste disposal contract.

In Italy, where a Parliamentary committee published the first report on anti-Semitism (one-fourth of Italians surveyed agreed with the statement: "Considering Israel's policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews"), an Italian website called for the "blacklisting" of more than 160 Jewish professors who teach at Italian universities. The website accused the Jewish professors of "manipulating the minds of students" and "seeking to control Italian universities".

Physical attacks on Jews have taken place in Europe's universities. Palestinian militants violently attacked Solon Solomon, a former Knesset staffer, at Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Solomon never got the chance to deliver a speech, as members of the Palestine Solidarity Society and the Sinn Fein party shouted him down from the podium.

Fearing for his safety, Solomon fled the hall and retreated into a nearby room, which the protestors surrounded. University guards escorted Solomon to a waiting taxi.

Benny Morris, professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, was assaulted by a group of Muslims before a conference at the London School of Economics.

Will the European Union, many of whose prominent members either participated or acquiesced in the destruction of European Jewry 70 years ago, put a stop to the obscurantist conspiracy of the grandchildren of those Max Weinreich famously called "Hitler's Professors" to expel the Jews (again) from the family of nations?

Giulio Meotti is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at giuliomeotti@hotmail.c. This appeared December 20, 2011 in Arutz-7 and is archived at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/150915#.TvDLf2BUFXU

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, January 2, 2012.

Big headlines: "Israeli, Palestinian officials to meet tomorrow in Amman: Meeting to mark first direct talks in over a year."

Wow! Are we on the way to peace now? Did Abbas back off on his demand that Israel freeze all building past the Green Line before he would sit at the negotiating table?

No way. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat is making it clear that this meeting does not constitute re-establishment of negotiations:

"Netanyahu needs to freeze the construction of settlements and accept the '67 outline for a two-state solution before we return to the negotiations table."

So what is this meeting? From the Palestinian Arab perspective, it's, "We've been pressured incredibly by the Quartet (especially the US and EU) and Jordan, so we're going along." In other words, "Let's pretend."


What seems to be the case at this point is that Yitzhak Molcho, the attorney who serves as Israel's chief negotiator, will be travelling to Amman, for meetings tomorrow or the next day with Erekat and members of the Quartet; the meeting will be hosted by Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. Reportedly, one meeting will include the Quartet representatives and one will not.

There have been intensive secret preparatory talks involving representatives of all parties in the last few days.

Khaled Abu Toameh and Herb Keinon, writing in the JPost, cite Jordan's news agency, Petra, which quoted Jordanian Foreign Ministry spokesman Muhaddad al-Kayed as saying that the purpose of the meeting was to find common ground that would enable a resumption of talks that will "achieve a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord that embodies the two-state solution and addresses all final-status issues by the end of 2012."

Yea, right.

Al-Kayed said that Jordan's King Abdullah II had pressured PA President Mahmoud Abbas on this when he met with him in Ramallah in late November, and Israeli President Shimon Peres, when he met with him in Amman, just days later.


From the Israeli side, there is no desire to be obstructionist. And particularly because Jordan is prepared to be involved there is an eagerness to cooperate. There are two reasons for this. One is because Abdullah's readiness to facilitate matters signals a continuing orientation towards moderation and this must be supported. And then, as one Israeli official cited by YNet said, "Jordan and Israel have common strategic interests, even if the Jordanians sometimes acts differently in public."


I'm picking up varying reports on precisely what the format of the meetings will be. With Jordanians facilitating, I don't believe it will be quite direct face-to-face.


One matter of significance here is the request by the Quartet that both sides submit "comprehensive proposals on territory and security." The deadline is January 26, but, as I have recounted, the PA and Israel have been at odds over what this means. The PA, which has submitted a proposal to the Quartet, is charging that Israel is remiss in not having done so.

Israel says, with justification, that the Quartet's intention is that each side submit its proposal to the other after 90 days of intensive direct talks. The EU is backing the PA version, and US, the Israeli interpretation.

At any rate, thankfully, Israel will not be submitting such a proposal to the Quartet; this would have been unwise.


With regard to this, Abbas told Palestine TV yesterday that, "This deadline [for submitting proposals] ends on January 26, and when the Quartet does not succeed, we will have to wing our next steps...If nothing happens, all options are open..."

Abbas went on to say that a third intifada (violent uprising) was not on the table and he didn't accept it.

This, as well, is a pretend stance. He had just said, prior to this statement, that all options were open. What is more, I have picked up unconfirmed suggestions that he might be preparing for violence; if and when I receive confirmation I will share more.


What I do think is that violence would be a fall-back position and not the very next thing Abbas is likely to resort to. He is planning another UN gambit:

The Executive Committee of the PLO released a statement on Saturday indicating that it hoped — time unspecified — to go to the Security Council to discuss the matter of settlements and seek action to stop Israel from further building.

Continued settlement building, read the PLO statement, was likely "to destroy all chances of a peace process and the two-state solution."

Tears at your heart, doesn't it? The sincerely motivated Palestinian Arabs seeking peace, but unable to find it because of Israeli building. Evidence, once more, of what masters they are at PR, and of how skillfully they milk a situation — saying what they know the world wants to hear.

I can see wheels spinning in the empty heads of officials all over Europe and in the US. Oh! they will exclaim to each other, perhaps we can get Abbas to the table after all. We cannot permit this window of opportunity to close, and so we must press harder on Israel.

It's a blame game. A different kind of war.


I want to return to the various legal particulars connected to the issue of the Security Council and building by Israel past the Green Line. But here I will note that I have just learned that the US has said it will veto any SC resolution declaring the settlements illegal.


According to Haaretz the PA hopes to launch a diplomatic offensive this year that will put Israel under "international siege."

"....The campaign will be similar to the one waged against apartheid in South Africa."

They're planning all the old goodies, such as trying to bring charges against Israel for war crimes in the International Criminal Court.



Just days ago I reported on a bill that was to be advanced, which would require that a Palestinian Arab would have to go to court and provide documentation of ownership of land before Jewish houses on that land could be razed. And that if a certain period had elapsed before the claim had been made, the Arab would receive compensation if he proved ownership, and the houses would be permitted to stand.

Thus I was not pleased to read today that this bill was to be delayed for three months. Why? Because Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the Ministerial Legislative Committee not to approve it at this time.

Ya'akov Katz (Ketzele), who heads the National Union Party, plans to go directly to the Knesset tomorrow and ask that they act on this bill.


Katz's theory is that the prime minister is trying to delay this legislation long enough so that the "outpost" of Migron could be demolished. And so, a brief aside here:

Migron is a community established in 1999, on a hill northeast of Jerusalem — between the communities of Ofra and Geva Binyamin. Today, with over 250 residents, it is the largest of the so-called "illegal outposts."


The Ministry of Construction and Housing invested 4.3 million shekels in laying infrastructure for Migron through the Mate Binyamin Regional Council. As Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently said:

"Migron is not an illegal outpost. It's a community where then-Defense Minister Moshe Arens and the [army's] GOC Central Command stood beside the cornerstone at its founding."

But, in 2005, a very dubious "Sasson report" made the claim that it was established on Palestinian land.

And so, in 2006, Peace Now (yes, this group again) went to Court and claimed that Migron had to come down. There was no Palestinian Arab "owner" with documentation. Those Arabs who declared themselves to be the owners lacked papers and ultimately withdrew their claims.

In August of last year, the High Court said the community must be taken down by March 2012. In September, three houses were taken down by the army in the middle of the night, on orders of Defense Minister Barak. Taken down even as a compromise that might have saved those houses was being worked out.

The residue of bitterness is heavy, and the determination to save Migron strong.

Last month, 200 National religious rabbis signed a letter calling on the government to legally authorize Migron and to continue its development. (See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4166109,00.html)


MK Katz may well be correct in his supposition. Certainly Migron should not come down.

But I have yet another theory about Netanyahu's delay of the bill to prevent demolition of communities. It simply my own idea:

Netanyahu is facing increased pressure from the Palestinian Arabs with regard to the illegality of "settlements." Could it be that he does not want to be associated with a bill that saves communities from destruction, when there are charges (undocumented) of their being on "Palestinian land"?

Truly, I hope I'm wrong, for this would be no way to assert Israeli sovereignty and Israeli rights. The way is via strength.

Chazak chazak! (Be strong! Be strong!)


And that leads me to my good news piece for today:

"You have to be strong from the inside," says Yisrael Pilosof. When he and his siblings were little, they saw a great many amputees in Y. D. Gapim, the prosthetics workshop of his father. Yehuda Pilosof makes artificial limbs that have a global reputation.

Four years ago, Yisrael was ready to join in this work. " I knew one day I would do this, like my father does. I got to a phase in my life where suddenly I was ready."

Because of their reputation, the Pilosofs are sought inside of Israel, and from as far away as Haiti and Peru.

The youngest patient they have dealt with is a boy referred from ALYN Pediatric and Adolescent Rehabilitation Center who was born with no hands: "We started working with him when he was 2½, and now we are 'growing up' with him. Every few months we make him new hands because he grows very fast," Yisrael says.

Once Yehuda provided a new leg for a Jerusalem Arab's donkey, who otherwise would have been euthanized.

Among the clients of this extraordinary father-son team are some from Germany and the US. "The US and Germany have the best technology in this field," explained Yehuda. "But the talent of the hands is more important."

See the entire Israel21C story here:
http://www.israel21c.org/people/ the-men-who-make-new-limbs

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 2, 2012.


"...The overwhelming majority of the Iranian public — estimated at 90% — is strictly secular, does not observe the commandments of Islam. The mosques are empty, morality is low and violations of Islam encompass most of the Population, despite that the regime forces women to wear the chador...The vast majority of Iranians do not hate Israel and if they had permission to immigrate to the USA they would do it immediately..." (Excerpt from "Failure of the Islamic Revolution" Dr. Mordechai Kedar — Makor Rishon 12/23/11, translation by IMRA, www.imra.org.il.)

I didn't think the figure was as high as 90%, but Dr. Kedar is a distinguished scholar. His point remains, that most Iranians do not share the regime's intolerance and imperialism. All the more reason to try to help them take back their country from the fanatical clerical regime. Failing that, we should destroy the nuclear/missile weapons capability before the only recourse is nuclear war that would kill tens of millions of Iranians out of sympathy with our mutual enemy, the Radical Islamist regime, if not devastate our planet.

The Iranian desire to immigrate to the U.S. needs further definition of intent. Millions of Muslims have migrated to the West out of economic desperation, but hate the West. Ironically, they want to replace the Western way of life with the one they fled. Others arrive to organize terrorism and radicalize the Muslim sector.

An acquaintance stated that Europe cannot maintain its standard of living without immigrants, but Europe, he said, wants to ban immigrants. Initial popular reactions to belatedly recognized problems, such as immigration to Europe, are sweeping bans.

Gradually, the Europeans may make reasonable distinctions. Certain sources of immigration cause the problems of jihad within Europe, making it questionable whether Europe can maintain its standard of civilization. Generally speaking immigrants from Spanish America and the Philippines, for example, would not. The U.S. needs immigrants who have studied engineering at U.S. universities or who can finance businesses here. The U.S. also needs temporary, legal, migrant workers.

The immigration problem needs analysis, not solely an emotional reaction.



According to Steven Stalinsky of MEMRI, Twitter has been violating U.S. law against helping terrorists communicate, and evades requests for explanation.

Jihadis report attacks, battles, share videos, etc., via Internet. They depend on free web hosting developed by Western technology, for transmitting to YouTube and Internet Archive, creating Facebook pages. Now they increasingly use Twitter. They operate anonymously, though they have been identified.

Twitter bans users "Barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States." Twitter reserves the right to remove content, refuse to distribute it, and terminate users. Readers may report violations. Nevertheless, the ban has not been applied to Hizbullah, al-Qaida affiliates, and other terrorist organizations.

U.S. officials are particularly concerned about foreign jihadi recruitment of terrorists from America.

Last April, the Washington Times asked Twitter about reports on Taliban use of Twitter, which, as Sen. Joseph Lieberman said, probably violates the company's terms of use. Twitter refused to reply, but neither did it respond by ending the problem.

Some Members of Congress urged Twitter to stop hosting pro-Taliban tweets. Twitter indicated that micro-posts to not violate the terms of service because the State Dept. does not list the Taliban as a foreign terrorist organization. [As if Twitter stands on legal technicality in order to stomp on national security.]

Al-Shabaab is designated as terrorist. It has an active Twitter account. Twitter declined to comment about that, too. The State Dept. is investigating what to do, taking care not to infringe on freedom of speech.

Also officially designated as terrorist organizations years ago, Hizbullah and its al-Manar TV use Twitter, too. Hizbullah thereby circumvents Western restrictions on its broadcasting inflammatory propaganda to the West (www.memri.org, 12/22/11 fully footnoted, from www.imra.org.il).

Does Twitter not care that it enables jihadis to prepare terrorists to spill our blood? The company's reluctance to respond to serious complaints of national security is not explained. These jihadis are at war with us. They have no free press rights to wage war on us. Recruitment and propaganda on Twitter are a form of warfare.

The problem has been known for at least eight months. What is taking the government so long to act? The federal government watches the airports, ignores the seaports, and dithers over jihadi abuse of electronic waves. The government is not fulfilling its function.

Our country has ossified. We have built up a palisade of complex laws, surrounded by impenetrable thickets of thorny, incomprehensible regulations. Private companies and individuals run the danger of criminally violating unknown rules, rules that often require them to spend such large sums on compliance as to drag on our economy. No private companies want to take a chance against uncertain regulations wielded by vengeful Administration. The government, itself, is tied up in red tape as never before, regulations causing far more problems than they solve. Congress legislates month-to-month, reforming nothing as every group lobbies to further complicate matters, in the hope of getting everyone else to pay for what it wants.

Groups oppose almost every government and private project. They drag each project through administrative hoops and court appeals, until the project is dropped or it costs several times as much money and time as it might have. (The broad problem is laid out brilliantly and briefly in The Death of Common Sense by Philip K. Howard.)

The result is a counter-productive government, a wait-and-see economy, and a divided and stultified society. This is not the American way. And now we find the same paralysis impeding national security.

Most Americans have no idea about all this, just feel frustrated about nothing getting done. So they call for more regulation, but regulation is the chief problem. The way we now regulate does not work and cannot work. Over-regulating and over-spending dooms us. Thorough reform could save us.



Some moderate Muslims in the U.S. actively oppose radicalism and terrorism. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denounces and disparages those active moderate Muslims.

CAIR-Michigan's executive director, Dawud Walid, came to a November 18 rally in New York, to protest against counter-terrorism practiced by the New York Police Dept. in Islamic areas. He referred to moderates as Uncle Toms who do not represent the interests of mosques and Arab organizations.

CAIR-Minnesota and allies wrote in support of a boycott of a November 10 conference on Somali culture, in St. Paul. Two conference speakers, Abdirizak Bihi and Omar Jamal, often accuse local Muslim leaders of complicity with efforts to recruit Minnesota Muslims to join al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia.

The CAIR letter accused the conference of being anti-Muslim and anti-Somali. It considers as biased references to al-Shabaab as an "Islamist extremist terrorism" group. [Al-Shabaab has been designated by the federal government as terrorist, so CAIR is the biased party.]

The letter further claims that the two speakers are "unrepresentative" of the Somali community. But CAIR-Minnesota has no Somalis on its board. How representative of Somalis is CAIR?

Although Mr. Jamal works for the Somali government at the UN, and Mr. Bihi's nephew died with al-Shabaab, CAIR asserts that both have no relevant experience.

CAIR further accuses groups associated with those speakers of not filing tax forms and complains of the speakers' legal problems. CAIR should know abut those problems — for lack of filing tax forms, CAIR lost its tax-exempt status in 2011, and CAIR has a record of court appearances.

During an interview about Pakistan's government, Zuhdi Jasser emphasized the problem as Islamist ideology. In reaction, the head of CAIR Chicago, Ahmed Rehab, called Mr. Jasser "a sock puppet for the axis of Islamophobia."

Conclusions: First, dissenting Muslims "frighten CAIR and deserve support for that reason alone.

"Second, if CAIR is against those who are against radical Islam and its various manifestations, can there be any doubt regarding what CAIR is for? (David J. Rusin, 12/23/11,
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/ 2011/12/cair-targets-muslims-who-oppose- radical-islam.)

Third, the federal government, which wants to tell us what to do on a