HOME Featured Stories July 2010 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, July 31, 2010.


Sunset along the Israeli stretch of the Mediterranean

This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.


Sunset along the Israeli stretch of the Mediterranean

Sunset along the Israeli stretch of the Mediterranean

Summer sunsets on the Israeli side of the Mediterranean Sea are fairly predictable. On most days, an afternoon cloud bank hovers offshore and moments before the sun disappears below the horizon, rays of golden light pour through holes in the clouds.I had seen this performance often enough to know it was coming, but I needed a little bit of luck to get one of the boats into alignment with the sun at the critical moment. I was able to control this somewhat by changing my position along the shore.

I've been asked many times to provide outtakes from my photo shoots, to bolster the written explanation to my process. For reasons of simplicity, I've avoided doing it until this week. Here are three shots from the series. The shot under the main photo, taken first, is a general shot upon arrival at the beach, when I began to pre-visualize the final image I wanted to capture: a silhouette of the boat with strong light in the sky and on the water. The lower shot taken closer to sunset shows how I was studying the main elements of the photo and waiting for them to come together at the right moment. The selected image combines the best light of the series in both the sky and on the water in the foreground, as well as a full profile of the boat as it bumps along the choppy water.

TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D300, 70-200 mm zoom @ 105 mm, f16 at 1/400 sec.

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
http://www.cafepress.com/halevi18. He is available for public relations and editorial photography, celebrations and simchas.

To Go To Top

Posted by Judea Pearl, July 31, 2010.

What makes fog float in mid air, while raindrops fall straight down to earth? Physics teaches us that it is all a matter of "surface-to-weight ratio" — a simple parameter that determines whether soap bubbles rise or fall, and how many passengers a jet plane can carry. The larger the surface, so the theory goes, the easier it is for an object to lift its weight against gravitational pull.

The analogy came to mind this past week, on Ti-sha B'Av, when I pondered the fate of the Jewish people and tried to assess our collective surface-to-weight ratio.

It was a particularly cogent day to compare the amount of energy we spend at the boundaries of our existence, facing outward to defend our being, vis a vis the resources we waste facing inward, on self- congratulation, finger-pointing and other forms of added weight.

Take the protest march on behalf of Gilad Shalit last month. Tens of thousands of Israelis took to the roads, tens of thousands stood by roadsides feeding the marchers, and millions watched the marchers on Israeli TV. I have not seen any of it on CNN, for it was aimed inwardly, toward the Israeli government. We would have surely seen some of it had this enormous energy been directed outwards, say as a protest against the UN or the Red Cross or foreign embassies for not doing their share in stopping the most blatant human rights violation of our generation.

Or take Peter Beinart's much debated article "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" (New York Times Review of Books, June 10, 2010). Judging by the number of invitations I received to attend his lecture in Los Angeles, one would think that this creative intellectual has finally discovered a formula for peace or a new weapon to silence rockets without hurting civilians, or, at the very least, an Arab intellectual willing to accept Israel. None of the above. Reading his article again and again, all I hear is how uncomfortable he feels being a Jew at a time when Jews are accused of supporting a non-democratic entity called Israel, and how we can now extricate ourselves from this discomfort by speaking out, not against the distortions, but against a leadership that place their faith in the solid democratic character of Israeli society. I hear a desperate son coming home screaming: "Mother, the boys at school called you dirty names again. I hate you for causing me to face those bullies, and I hate you for making me feel so inadequate, unable to defend your honor except by joining them in amplifying your blemishes".

Beinart was treated royally in Los Angeles because he is the prophetic voice for many Jews of Discomfort; they love him because he takes their discomfort and elevates it to a noble feeling of moral purity. They used to feel guilty for Israel's actions, still concsious of her problems, no more. Elevated in virtue, they now see every blemish on Israel's face as "the litmus test" for her impure personality — hers, not theirs.

Observe another Jewish intellectual, the French philosopher Bernard Henry Levy, who is perhaps further to the left than Beinart. He too feels uncomfortable with some of Israel's actions, and he too proposed ways to correct them. Yet instead of pointing fingers at the Jewish establishment, he takes to the trenches and, using his column on the Huffington Post, he tells his leftist colleagues: Stop this madness, look at yourself in the mirror. Is your liberalism dead when it comes to Israel? (Jun 7, Huffingtonpost)

It is all a matter of surface-to-weight ratio, says my physics book, Jews of spine confront their maligners, Jews of Discomfort blame their leaders.

Deep inside, Levy knows perhaps that ours may well be the last generation in which Jews can earn respect in academic and intellectual circles; pro-coexistence scholars are already pariahs in academia, forced to hide their sentiments from colleagues. (See my column in this newspaper, "Our New Marranos," March 19, 2009), and if Israel goes under, Jews of Discomfort will certainly find themselves exorcised by the elite they now seek to appease. They would be remembered not for their discomfort, but for what they really were: members of a people who once supported a mistake called Israel — ruling elites do not easily forgive "mistakes" they labored to undo.

I will end with a request to readers. If you agree with my views or share my concerns, do not simply succomb to the temptation of sending this article to another member of your synagogue. Take to the trenches and face outward. Knock on the door of your gentile neighbor or office mate and say: Remember, Joe, how I used to go along with all your sarcastic criticism of Israel? Times have changed, Joe. My people are in trouble, and there are things I must do even at the risk of testing our friendship. I want to tell you how strongly I feel about Israel, what is factual and what is malice in what you hear, and why our world will not be the same without that tiny, shining spot called Israel.

Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, named after his son. He is a co-editor of "I am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl (Jewish Light, 2004). Contact him by email at judea@CS.UCLA.EDU

This article appeared July 28, 2010 in Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles
and it's archived at
http://www.jewishjournal.com/judea_pearl/article/ judea_pearl_jews_of_discomfort_20100727/

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, July 31, 2010.

This was written by Rodger Parsons and it appeared July 26, 2010 in UCI.


There's a rough beast slouching to be born. It's a wave of Islamic conquest that is spread out across the globe. The soft-core, politically correct liberal mentality of tolerance toward Islamists has become a disease of denial that allows the agents of militant Islam to masquerade as peaceful while acting to create a world in which only Islam rules. The moderate voices of Islam have been swept aside by strident violent theocrats, many wearing a pleasant facade designed to hide the truth.

The rough beast plays with the western mind: taunting first with terror, then with the appearance of accommodation, then with a death threat for any perceived slight of Islam, then with a peace and freedom flotilla complete with al Qaeda terrorists armed to the teeth and bent on killing, always working assiduously toward the promulgation of Shariah Law.

Anyone criticizing the infusion of Shariah Law into non-Islamic culture is criticized as being Islamophobic. But in the countries where Shariah governs, the climate is worse than Nazi Germany. See for yourself. Tenets of Shariah Law (From the Stop Shariah Now web site) Examples of Shariah Law include the following: (from the authoritative source Reliance of the Traveler, The Sacred Manual of Islamic Law.)

  • Requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms;
  • Beating of disobedient woman and girls;
  • Execution of homosexuals;

  • Engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages;
  • Requirement of the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape;
  • Stoning of adulteresses;
  • Lashing of adulterers;
  • Amputation of body for criminal offenses;
  • Female genital mutilation;
  • Capital punishment for those who slander or insult Islam;
  • Execution of apostates, or those that leave the religion of Islam
  • Inferior status for all non-Muslims, known as Dhimmitude.
  • Concept of Taquiyya: A Muslim may lie or deceive others to advance the cause of Islam.

But an even more threatening trend in the works is Shariah-Compliant Finance. Financial institutions looking to bag some of the trillions of petrodollars have set up Shariah Compliance Boards, some of which have militant Islamists that have openly spoken of replacing the western system of finance with an Islamic model. "Leading Shariah authorities like Mufti Usmani, employed by Dow Jones and HSBC SCF funds, have called for violent jihad against the West. Usmani has even published a book in English explaining how and why this is obligatory for all Shariah-faithful Muslims." (Guilty Knowledge, Frank Gaffney, Jr.)

The most dangerous aspect of this is the practice is known as zakat (the tithing to charities required of observant Muslims with a donation to the approved charities from the proceeds of the investments that are not "tainted" by interest, speculation, pork or other non-Shariah-compliant activities like the financing of churches, the printing of bibles or the financing of many forms of popular western entertainment). The difficulty is that some of this "charity" finds it's way into the coffers of terrorist organizations so that Shariah compliant finance can actually become a mechanism for the material support of radical Islamic activates around the world. The only way to stop this is to say no to Shariah, in any form, in every democracy.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 31, 2010.

It's been fairly quiet on our border with Gaza, until the last couple of days. It was, of course, only a matter of time.

It began on Friday morning when a Grad Katyusha rocket fired from Gaza hit central Ashkelon; thankfully there were no injuries but there was property damage and a number of people were treated for shock (which should not be minimized).

We responded with an aerial attack on three different Hamas-connected sites in Gaza: a site where Hamas commandos were trained, a weapons manufacturing warehouse, and rocket-smuggling tunnel. Issa al-Batran, a commander in Hamas's Al-Kassam Brigades, was killed in one of the strikes and eight others were wounded.


Hours after the Grad was launched, two mortars landed in the Eshkol Regional Council (which lies roughly south of Ashkelon).

Then tonight, a Kassam hit an educational institution, outside of Sderot, in the Shaar HaNegev Regional Council.


Whether this is the beginning of a sustained series of attacks, or will abate, it is too soon to say. Some analysts are connecting this to the prospect of direct talks between Israel and the PA — that is, an attempt to derail this by stirring up matters.


Speaking of those direct talks, news has just broken of a letter that was sent to Abbas by Obama two weeks ago, in which he said, "it is high time to resume direct negotiations with Israel" as Netanyahu "is ready to resume direct negotiations."

According to a PA official, the letter said that, "Obama will absolutely not accept the rejection of his recommendation to move to direct negotiations and that there will be consequences for such a rejection in the form of a lack of trust in President Abbas and the Palestinian side." Obama promised that he would work to extend an Israeli freeze on building in Jewish settlements due to expire in September if Abbas resumed direct negotiations. "But in case of a refusal its assistance on that issue will be very limited."

PA negotiator Saeb Erekat confirmed the existence of this letter to AFP (Agence France Presse).


There are several points of interest with regard to this letter. It was, you will note, sent before the Arab League meeting this past week, and may have had something to do with the response of the foreign ministers at that meeting with regard to (ambiguously) signing on for direct talks.

But what has not happened is that Abbas himself was so intimidated by Obama's threats that he jumped to come to the table. There are other things that are frightening him a good deal more, I would say.

What is more, if this report is accurate, it does indicate that Netanyahu has not caved with regard to extending the freeze. Although it tells us (as we have already guessed) that there will be huge pressure on him to do so, should Abbas cave in the end and come to the table.


Of course (and also no surprise whatsoever), UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is pumping for a freeze extension. The subject came up when Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with him on Friday.

Said Barak to Ban:

"We are hoping to start direct negotiations with the Palestinians soon, in order to move forward with an agreement which will be based on two nations for two peoples. The negotiations will not be simple, and courageous decisions will be required on our part and the Palestinians...We will need the help of the UN to go forward with the negotiations."

This man needs to be muzzled! Bad enough to speak about the "courageous decisions" we have to make (= going back to the '67 lines), but for him to seek UN "help," with the UN's anti-Israel reputation? We are our own worst enemies. Barak should hang his head in shame. But then, the evidence of the past is that he's shameless.


Barak then went into what might be seen as a comedy routine, if it were not so serious. He told Ban that the UN must act to prevent weapons smuggling by Hezbollah and to implement Resolution 1701. Come on! There will be no implementation of that resolution, and it's rather after the fact anyway. Under the nose of UN troops Hezbollah has already re-armed to a strength greater than it had before the Second Lebanon war.


Meanwhile, that fine upstanding UN Human Rights Council — which devotes more time and energy to investigating Israeli human rights "violations" than all of the other human rights violations in the world — is going to investigate the flotilla incident. Word from our prime minister's office is that we are not likely to cooperate. I would hope not. Not only is the mandate stacked against us, but UN war crimes prosecutor Desmond de Silva, who has been chosen to head the panel, spoke against our actions before his appointment.

At the same time, Ban is pumping for yet another UN investigation.


Please see and broadly share "Hypocrisy's finest hour," by Shaul Rosenfeld.

Rosenfeld exposes the world's hypocrisy when it comes to criticism of Israel:

"...during Operation Just Cause in December 1989, US troops in Panama killed 300 to 1,000 civilians...in October 1993, a UN force (mostly comprising US units) killed more than 500 Somali civilians, while 'carrying out an operation,' of course.

"Elsewhere, 460 to 2,000 civilians were killed during NATO bombings in Kosovo in 1999; in December 2004, in a campaign against Islamist forces in Iraq's Fallujah, the Americans killed more than 6,000 civilians and obliterated about 10,000 civilian homes. Yet those who determine Israel's guilt in advance have no use for such humdrum information."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3927180,00.html

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 31, 2010.


Fox News' Jerusalem correspondent Reena Ninan repeatedly aired an anti-Zionist NGO's unverified claim that Israel discriminates in land sales against Arabs in Jerusalem.

The Israeli NGO, Ir Amim, had a study alleging that 79% of the land in Jerusalem is earmarked by the Israel Land Authority for Jews and cannot be purchased by Arabs. When one boils down the claim's complex circumstances, little is left.

In the U.S., much of the desert is owned by the government. Same in Israel. In addition, Israel started as a socialist state, with more land under government control. [In addition, the Jewish National Fund spent Jewish communal funds buying land for Jews. The Turkish Empire left behind a system under which much of the land was state-owned.]

Israelis talk about buying land, but mostly they get it on 49-year leases. It works this way: (1) Israel Land Authority (ILA) property may be leased to Israeli citizens, including Arabs, and to foreign Jews. Arabs in eastern Jerusalem mostly are non-citizen residents; but (2) ILA regulations state that for purposes of leasing, residents are not considered foreigners. Therefore, Arabs in eastern Jerusalem may lease land there; (3) Where there is a conflict between the lease and the regulations, the lease-holder wishing to sell his house may choose to follow the regulations, which are the more liberal.

Actually, the Ir Amim report admitted that Jerusalem resident Arabs could buy land: "On the other hand, despite the restrictions cited in the ILA leasing contract, they are not always actually enforced and in many cases the Palestinian buyer's blue identity card is sufficient to close the deal, without his status as a resident, rather than citizen, being investigated and posing an obstacle to the process. But even when such a transaction is completed, the danger of cancellation will always hover over it, because [of] article 19 of the ILA leasing contract ... (page 7). The NGO did not identify any Arab residents barred from leasing ILA land (CAMERA, 7/30/10)


Michael Sheehan, ex-NYPD counter-terrorism head (Getty Images/Henry S. Dziekan III)

The Middle East Forum examines controversial public authorities' preparation for Ramadan in the U.S. and Britain, coming in a few days. Do those preparations follow the principle of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which "stipulates that 'employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship' on either the employers or other workers?"

New York City will patrol mosques more, on Ramadan, in anticipation of hate crimes. Legitimate threats require safety measures. However, as terrorism expert Robert Spencer notes, Islamist groups have exaggerated hate crimes against Muslims, in order to present their faith as victim. Recently, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) suggested that a mosque in Georgia was torched because of anti-Muslim bias. Police later arrested a Muslim for it.

What about Jewish and Christian holidays, which occasion many jihadist attacks? Do police increase patrols then, too? [I followed up with NYPD on 7/31. It does intend to increase patrols during other religions' holy days.]

In 2007, the increasingly radical Muslim Council of Britain issued an Islamist document advising state schools how to meet the needs of Muslims pupils. The city council of Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire, England copied from that document to advise its schools about Muslims pupils who fast during the days of Ramadan.

The advice is to ban swimming lessons for all, lest Muslims swallow water. Ban sex education for all, lest Muslims have sexual thoughts. Reschedule tests, which may be too difficult for hungry Muslim students. Prepare a bigger area for daily prayers. Do not have parent-school meetings in the evening, because Muslims are busy. "Build on this spirit" through "collective worship."

The advice goes too far. It disadvantages all students so as not to let Muslims feel disadvantaged. It forces all students to observe Islamic law (David J. Rusin, 7/30/10, with links to support the statements).

The author did not oppose considerately accommodating the minority but discommoding the majority. He did not oppose enhancing freedom of religion for the minority but partially imposing that religion on the majority. (This story is within an unstated context, described in other articles of mine over the past year, about Islam having a program of gradual encroachment in, and overturning of, non-Islamic areas.)


Nasrallah and young Hariri (A.P. photo/Hizbullah Media Office)

The UN has rejected Hizbullah criticism of its plan to try suspects for the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri [whose son is the current Prime Minister]. The UN is expected to try members of Hizbullah. The UN expressed faith in the impartiality of international tribunals.

Hizbullah accused the UN of political motives for having a trial. Hizbullah head Sheik Nasrallah called the investigation and proposed trial an "Israeli project" (IMRA, 7/30/10 from Egyptian Gazette).

Interesting hypothesis that the Hizbullah chieftain accuses the UN, which devotes half its efforts against Israel, of following Israeli direction. It also is interesting that at first, some people supposed that Israel had ordered the assassination of the leader who sought to free Lebanon from domination by Syria, Hizbullah, and Iran. What credibility does that blame-laying leave Hizbullah?

For many people, if the accusations are anti-Israel, they accept them, regardless of who makes them and how flimsy. They are not interested in truth but in an excuse for Israel-bashing. Victor Davis Hanson demonstrates that point by citing the many, significant, and truthful occurrences of contemporary antisemitism in Turkey, occupation, slaughter of innocent people, refugees, border disputes, "disproportionate" retaliation, and fascism. Why the obsession with Israel, coupled with unconcern about others? As a substitute for bald antisemitism (Summer 2010, A31 from National ReviewOnline, 6/11/10).


Two Muslim women students claim to have been ejected from a London bus by a "bigoted" driver who objected to their wearing head scarves. They have retained lawyers. The Muslim Council of Britain immediately expressed deep concern.

Metroline reviewed video footage of the incident. The video shows the women forcing their way onto a bus that was out of service. There were argumentative and even abusive. Metroline rejected the women's complaint. The video was not accompanied by a sound track, which would disclose the words used.

The Londonist is saddened by the students' exaggerating a minor disagreement into a bias incident ripe for lawsuit, and their eagerness to accuse the driver of bigotry and to speak to the BBC about it, hints at ulterior motive.

The author explains that seemingly minor disagreements become predatory lawsuits, whose costs and efforts may intimidate the prey into making settlements despite innocence (Nathaniel Sugarman, Middle East Forum, 7/30/10

Predatory lawsuits and the threat of lodging them by prosecutors such as New York State Attorney Generals Spitzer and Cuomo, abuse the use of courts. Courts are intended for redress of grievances, not for causing grievances. It is becoming a major drag on the economy.

We have documented the use of London courts to intimidate authors and publishers. About a year ago, we related the story of a group of Muslim men who boarded an airliner in the Midwest, arrayed themselves in the same seating as had the 9/11 hijackers, were loud and abusive and drew attention to their being Muslims and Arabs, and were ordered off the plane. Later they claimed discrimination, and sought to use their case to find out which passenger had complained to the crew. In effect, they ambushed the airline.

It was thought that they sought to sue the passenger and intimidate Americans otherwise alert to prospective terrorist hijacking. The cry of discrimination can be as false as the accusations by fired employees of bias, who were not told anything bigoted but who immediately ask their lawyers whether they can ground a case on race, religion, gender, or age, whatever might work, however false. We all know of employees who, when warned about poor work performance, threaten to bring suit for discrimination, if disciplined.


From Gaza, an advanced rocket, probably smuggled in, was fired into the Israeli city of Ashkelon, 10 kilometers away. It caused property damage. Previous rockets that landed there caused casualties.

In retaliation, Israeli planes struck at three different parts of the Gaza strip, hitting an arms smuggling tunnel, a weapons warehouse, and a site of "terror activity."

Since the end of the Israeli incursion into Gaza, Arabs have fired more than 400 rockets into Israel (IMRA, 7/31/10).

The New York Times calls those Arab attacks "broadly upholding a shaky ceasefire."

UN Middle East envoy spokesman Richard Miron declared that "indiscriminate rocket fire against civilians is completely unacceptable, and constitutes a terrorist attack." (Isabel Kershner, 7/31/10, A9).

Perhaps those who are wounded or whose houses are wrecked by rockets whose capability Hamas keeps developing may not agree that those hundreds of rockets upholds the ceasefire.

The UN urges Israel to put its faith in the "international community," and the U.S. urges Israel to rely upon "international guarantees." Before the Gaza War, Hamas and associates fired thousands of rockets into Israel, while Israel waited for the UN to condemn Hamas. Finally, the people of Israel demanded that their government protect them. After it did, the UN Goldstone mission condemned Israel and barely raised a sweat over the years of Hamas terrorism


Mayor approved mosque without investigating (A.P./Henry Ray Abrams)

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has come out in opposition to building a mega-mosque near Ground Zero. ADL national director thinks that is the wrong place for it. Polls show that most Americans agree.

Proponents reacted angrily, demanding that people "show tolerance" by welcoming the Muslim center. Mayor Bloomberg said that Americans and New Yorker welcome everybody.

Sarah Palin demanded that moderate Muslims show tolerance by rejecting the Muslim center.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that most Americans consider the proposal political rather than religious and as an offensive and aggressive act.

The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership promotes inter-faith dialog. He called the proposed mosque's imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf moderate.

The Center's programming director, Oz Sultan, said the center's Board would include Christians and Jews and become the model for moderate Islam, and would "build bridges" to other faiths. He defended the site as being where Muslims also were killed (Michael Barbaro, NY Times, 7/31/10, A1).

Does one build bridges by burning one's bridges to the victims?

The statement that Muslims died there is not relevant — Muslims are major victims of terrorism by radical Muslims.

How much have mega-mosque proponents. other than those who proposed it, investigated the project financing and studied the history and ideology of Islam? Are they aware of the Muslim principle of permissible deception in behalf of the faith? Does the Mayor realize how Islam uses such edifices as monuments to victory?

Is the imam moderate?

Some time ago, I reported on interfaith dialogs that displayed attempts not to reconcile but to defame or to impose. Some people are native, in assuming that leaders of other faiths necessarily will be reasonable and not fanatical.


Karzai talks with Taliban, women worried (A.P./Duan Vranik)

Traditionally, Afghan men kept their women as a sort of household furniture. The Taliban smothered women's lives even more [as by keeping them from becoming medical practitioners and denying them medical care from male doctors.] Women died in the name of the extremists' value of "modesty" and removing sexual temptation.

When the Northern Alliance and the U.S. helped liberate Afghanistan, women resumed schooling, working outside of the home, and dressing more comfortably and with individuality.

Now the Taliban are regaining power and intimidate areas nominally outside their control. Between the Taliban resurgence, and President Obama's plan to "de-surge" our troops there, Afghan women dread their future. They note that their government negotiates with Taliban, but does not demand women's rights.

The females increasingly refrain from going out to school. They fear being attacked by Taliban, supposedly proponents of preserving feminine purity. Women who work or teach women to work have been murdered for it. Women are being squeezed back into the confines of the homes.

Many women are marrying hastily, as they or their parents seek to preclude their marrying Taliban men.

In the non-Taliban North, the Tajik region, women enjoy more schooling and freedom (Alissa J. Rubin, NY Times, 7/31/10, A1).

For Afghan women, their country is becoming a big prison. More woman are or will be oppressed there than the whole Arab population of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), while some "humanitarians" claim that Israel has made Gaza a prison. How come the humanitarians show little concern about the female Afghan millions? How come the humanitarians show little concern about the P.A. oppression of its own people and its war on Israel that requires security measures such as embargo? Readers have sent in comments accusing Israel in general terms, without evidence.


The numbers of known radicalized Muslim youth in Germany still is not large. However, it is growing. Terrorist recruiters have become more effective and more intent on Germany. Now they send out Internet messages in German.

Sometimes, whole young families set off for Muslim areas, to assist jihad. Among them are converts. These new jihadists are told to bring their savings, to finance themselves and to help finance the militias. German authorities fear that some return in order to recruit more or to commit terrorism in Germany.

Left behind are parents who purport to be moderate and who profess shock at what happened. They hope their children will communicate with them and will return. Often, the young people are not heard from again (Souad Mekhennet, NY Times, 7/31/10, A4).

Germany treats radical Islam as a religion, entitled to free expression, but it is more a war society, a society making war on Germany, among many places. Embattled European police have good detectives. What preventive measures will Europe adopt?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Mark Silverberg, July 30, 2010.

The U.S. debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015, according to a Treasury Department report to Congress. Bankruptcy filings are nearing the record two million level of 2005 and unemployment is nearly 10%, yet, in mid-June, President Obama pledged a $400M aid package for supposed housing, schools, water and health care system projects in the West Bank and Hamas-ruled Gaza. He described these projects as a "down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank."

He must have forgotten that the Gazans first act of "independence" after the Israeli withdrawal from the territory in 2005 was to destroy the lucrative greenhouse industry that the Israelis left behind, but that should have served as a reminder of the billions in aid that have been squandered in pursuit of this pipedream. According to the Heritage Foundation, since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the U.S. has showered $2.2 billion in bilateral aid on the Palestinians, in addition to more than $3.4 billion for humanitarian aid funneled through dysfunctional U.N. organizations since 1950 — and yet, they are still considered "refugees". That's because vast amounts of these aid funds have been diverted to allow terrorist organizations like Hamas to focus on building its war infrastructure such as bunkers, fortifying positions and digging tunnels, rather than on subsidizing education, paving roads, promoting commerce and industry, or providing for and advancing the long-term interests of their people.

Should Congress approve this aid package, it will only serve to stabilize the Hamas regime, assist in consolidating its power, and inhibit the development of the social, political and economic infrastructures necessary to build a viable, unified and stable Palestinian state. Hamas's desire for more construction materials has more to do with rebuilding and strengthening its war machine against Israel than the needs of ordinary Gazans so it's fair to ask this administration: "Where's the strategic logic behind this pledge?" Money is fungible, so where are the assurances and accountability mechanisms necessary to insure that this money will not be spent on terrorism and missiles as has occurred in the past?

Consider the nature of the regime that controls Gaza. In the wake of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 which saw Israel expel and uproot 8,800 people from 25 communities and destroy its 26 synagogues, hundreds of businesses and 35 years of accomplishments, Hamas seized power from the Palestinian Authority in a bloody coup in June 2007 and, true to its roots as the ideological cousin of al Qaeda, and an offshoot of the extremist Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood, it fired over 7,500 missiles into southern Israeli cities and towns in the name of "resistance", declared its intention to annihilate the Jewish state, established "summer camps" for over a hundred thousand children to learn the Koran, paramilitary training, hatred of Jews, and the glories of "martyrdom", holds its population hostage, uses children as human shields and mosques, schools and UN facilities as weapons depots in violation of international law, proudly proclaims that its members cherish "death over life", has denied abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit his fundamental rights under international law for four years, has diverted millions in humanitarian aid and supplies through UNRWA and other NGOs to maintain its war infrastructure in violation of 301c of the Foreign Assistance Act, inserted its "morality police" into the daily lives of Gazans, and introduced an extremist Islamic "statelet" on Israel's southern border that serves as a base of operations for Iran — an enemy that has made no secret of its regional ambitions and nuclear aspirations. Emboldened by recent moral support from states such as NATO member Turkey, Hamas' confidence appears only to be growing. It shows no sign of budging on the principles that have caused its international isolation.

So, in making this undertaking and forcing Israel to ease its Gaza blockade, the Obama administration has confirmed that Gaza will remain firmly under Hamas control. It will not recognize Israel, renounce violence or support any peace agreement signed by its Palestinian rivals. In one stroke, he has rendered meaningless both the Oslo Accords and the conditions set by the Quartet — namely, the abandonment of terrorism, accepting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and recognition of the Palestinian Authority's rule as the legitimate government. The problem with his strategy (if that's what it is) is that it fails to consider the nature of the Hamas regime and the broader implications that arise from empowering a genocidal, virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-democratic, repressive, pro-Iranian organization on the southern border of our most reliable ally in the Middle East.

Some $10B has been spent globally in the last decade on the Palestinians making them the largest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world (with the exception of the Republic of Congo), yet places like Gaza remain as pro-terrorist as ever. Billions of dollars that are meant for schools, hospitals and infrastructure have been spent on luxury villas, casinos and payments to terrorists. Furthermore, since Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO) that controls the distribution of all goods entering Gaza, providing humanitarian aid through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Gaza may now constitute a violation of the "material support" provisions of the Patriot Act since such aid (according to the recent Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project) would "free up" other resources for Hamas to put towards its genocidal goals. It would also add legitimacy to its attempts to recruit and raise additional funds to further those objectives. By sustaining Hamas in power, this aid package may not only be illegal, but will undermine any future ability the Palestinian national movement may have of reaching a compromise with Israel.

More disturbing is the recent leak from a senior Hamas official to the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper suggesting that this pledge of aid to Gaza is the forerunner to an even more dangerous planned Obama initiative in the coming months — one that would remove Hamas from America's designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO) list. On June 16th, a Washington-based Arabic newspaper quoted a senior official as saying that an American envoy is scheduled to meet with Hamas representatives in an Arab country and hand them a letter from the Obama administration. According to the report, Obama believes (wrongly) that he has no choice other than to deal with Hamas due to its influence in the Arab and Islamic world. Given that Obama's 'go-to guy' on issues of intelligence, John Brennan, has been reaching out to 'moderates' in Hezbollah, it would hardly be surprising to believe that the Administration is now talking to Hamas.

And apparently, Obama isn't alone in this belief. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) seems to have bought into it as well. Mark Perry, writing in Foreign Policy (June 30th) notes: "While it is anathema to broach the subject of engaging militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas in official Washington circles (to say nothing of Israel), in a "Red Team" report issued on May 7th and entitled "Managing Hezbollah and Hamas", senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements."

The Report notes that while Hezbollah and Hamas "embrace staunch anti-Israel rejectionist policies", the two organizations are "pragmatic and opportunistic." This contradicts Israel's position that these two extremist Islamist organizations cannot change their raison d'être and must be confronted with force. However, the Report suggests that "failing to recognize their separate grievances and objectives will result in continued failure in moderating their behavior." One senior officer even commented in private discussions: "Putting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in the same sentence, as if they are all the same, is just stupid."

Good grief. What's "stupid" is that CENTCOM fails to see the reality that all these particular Islamist terrorist organizations are the same in at least one respect: They all share a commitment to and common interpretation of Sharia, and as such, they are all pursuing the same objective — the global triumph of Shariah under a theocratic Caliphate. While their tactics may differ, they are united in their common goal. When Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar proclaims (as he did on Future News TV on June 15, 2010 according to MEMRI): "This is our plan for this stage — to liberate the West Bank and Gaza, without recognizing Israel's right to a single inch of land ... without giving up the Right of Return for a single Palestinian refugee ... to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, to establish a state on it and ... [to have] Palestine in its entirety ... We will not recognize the Israeli enemy"... it's rather difficult to believe that deep down inside, this man is really a "moderate" who is "pragmatic and opportunistic". These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize and kill. The one thing that unites them is the jihadist vision in whose name they act. When these groups see Americans bending over backwards to justify flexibility toward militant Islamists, they assume, rightly, that their political strategy is working. You can pet these scorpions all you want, but you cannot change their fundamental nature.

According to Perry: "The report argues that an Israeli decision to lift the siege might pave the way for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, which would be "the best hope for mainstreaming Hamas" as though the object of U.S. policy should be to facilitate Hamas' takeover of the West Bank as well as Gaza. Hamas will only integrate into the Palestinian security forces once it is sure that it won't be obliged to surrender its freedom of military action.

And even more instructive is the following line: "The Red Team also claims that reconciliation with Fatah, when coupled with Hamas's explicit renunciation of violence, would gain widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement building and delay statehood negotiations." By attributing ill-will on the part of Israel, that statement suggests that the Red Team's real agenda includes the delegitimization of Israel.

Perry concludes that the report reflects the thinking among a significant number of senior officers at CENTCOM headquarters and among senior CENTCOM intelligence officers and analysts serving in the Middle East.

The Administration's "soft power" team seems to feel that since engagement with Islamist groups failed with Iran and Syria, it should keep trying it with Hezbollah and Hamas based on the assumption that dialogue with Islamists can resolve most issues. Einstein would have called that insanity. In the end, if this is the paradigm of this Administration and CENTCOM — that radical Islamist organizations can be house-trained — they will be opening Pandora's Box. Recognizing Hamas, as CENTCOM and the Obama administration seem poised to do, would be a colossal blunder that will have major ramifications for American interests and American credibility in the Middle East for years to come, and provide Iran with its long sought after base within missile range of Tel Aviv. These types of actions are destructive to our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, and to the American people, who have the right to expect their leaders to adopt realistic policies against those who threaten our way of life, our global interests, our security, and our allies.

Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel) and the author of "The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad". His articles have been archived under www.marksilverberg.com and www.analyst-network.com

This article was originally published by the Hudson Institute (NY) at www.hudson-ny.org

To Go To Top

Posted by M.S. Kramer, July 30, 2010.

Druze Lebanese leader, Walid Jumblatt, recently created an uproar over the 400,00 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Jumblatt's father, who once led the Druze, was assassinated in 1977. The Druze are a group of non-Arab Muslims, whose sect is considered heretical by many other Muslims. Their origins date back to the 10th century and they comprise about 10% of the Lebanese population. The remainder of the Lebanese population is mostly Arab Muslim or Arab Christian. (Lebanon was once predominantly Christian. Many Christian Lebanese do not identify themselves as Arab, but prefer to be known as descendants of the ancient Canaanites and call themselves "Phoenicians".)

Jumblatt, who heads the Progressive Socialist Party, recently questioned why Palestinian refugees are forbidden to own property in Lebanon. Jumblatt spoke to a group of Palestinian refugees from across Lebanon, who visited him in his residence in the village of Mukhtara. He said, "We allow other Arabs to own properties, arguing that this would encourage foreign investments, but we deprive poor Palestinians from [this right]." The MP said he insisted on granting Palestinian refugees labor rights, social security and property rights. This rhetoric is diametrically opposed to the constant strategy of the Palestinians: keeping their millions of so-called refugees in a wretched state to gain the world's sympathy for the Palestinian cause, while delegitimizing Israel's right to exist.

Significantly, Jumblatt added that Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Speaker Nabih Berri were exerting efforts in the same direction. In June, Jumblatt's parliamentary bloc submitted a draft law to grant Palestinian refugees their rights, sparking a huge debate in the Parliament. The proposal is currently being examined by parliamentary committees. (reported on July 4 in the Daily Star newspaper, Beirut)

Omar al-Issawi, a Lebanese journalist, director, producer, and television personality, wrote extensively on the refugees on the (English) Al Jazeera website in 2009: "There are thousands of Palestinian refugees across the globe, many of whom settled in neighboring Arab countries including Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. However, of all the Palestinian refugees in the Arab world, it is those who have taken shelter in Lebanon who have suffered the most.

"According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the international body set up to ensure the welfare of Palestinian refugees, the highest percentage of Palestinian refugees who are living in abject poverty reside in Lebanon. There are about 400,000 officially registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, or approximately 10 per cent of the population. Just under half of the refugees continue to live in camps. While those Palestinians resident in Syria and Jordan, for example, do not enjoy the benefits of full citizenship, they do have access to education, healthcare and employment.

[Jordan has lately de-naturalized thousands of its Palestinian citizens, who are the majority of Jordan's population. They live under a regime most accurately described as "apartheid", according to Mudar Zahran in the Jerusalem Post, July 24.]

"Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Palestinian refugee camps were under stringent Lebanese security control. For instance, travel from one camp to another was restricted and even reading newspapers in public was banned. Today, Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from draconian measures which the Lebanese state claims are there to prevent them from becoming permanent guests.

"As recently as 2005, Palestinian refugees were banned from taking up employment in 70 professions. Today, the number of restricted professions stands at 20 and includes senior medical, legal and engineering careers. While these restrictions were recently eased, applicants must have a valid work permit and membership in the appropriate professional representative body. Both are beyond the financial means of most Palestinian refugees.

"A major bone of contention for Lebanese nationals has been the fact that armed Palestinian groups continue to thrive in the refugee camps. When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was based in Lebanon between 1972 and 1982, it threw its lot behind the Muslim-dominated leftist forces that were engaged in civil war against the Christian-led right. [There were up to a quarter of a million fatalities during this period and one-fourth of the population were wounded.]

"In 1976, Lebanese Christian militiamen overran the Tal al-Zaatar refugee camp in East Beirut and massacred or expelled all of its residents. In 1982, Israeli forces facilitated the entry of Lebanese Christian militiamen into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in West Beirut. That massacre claimed the lives of about 800 residents of the camps.

"Between 1985 and 1989, Lebanon was the scene of what became known as the Camps War, when Pro-Syrian militiamen from Amal, a Lebanese Shia movement, and anti-Arafat factions laid siege to Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut and the South. Palestinian refugees suffered grim atrocities, and according to journalist Robert Fisk, the Camps War was worse than the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

"Many Lebanese believe the presence of armed Palestinians on Lebanese soil is a potential flashpoint and point to the clashes at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Northern Lebanon as a case in point. Between May and September of 2007, Nahr al-Bared was the scene of a brutal conflict between the radical Fatah al-Islam group and the Lebanese army. [At least 446 people, including 168 soldiers and 226 militants, were killed.]"

As Walid Jumblatt's remarks indicate, the future of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will be among the first items on the agenda of Lebanon's new parliament. In my opinion, this is revolutionary! Only one Arab country, Jordan, has allowed Palestinian refugees to become citizens and their rights there are circumscribed. Lebanon may open the door to begin integrating its refugees, after 60-plus years of segregation. This flies in the face of the usual Arab insistence that the Palestinians must be returned to their "homeland" in Israel. If this is a serious initiative, the "uprooted Palestinians" movement may be challenged by a parallel movement to assimilate the millions of Palestinian "refugees" scattered throughout the Arab world.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture."

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, July 30, 2010.

Your comments and constructive criticism would be highly appreciated.

Shabbat Shalom and have a pleasant weekend,


Western policy-makers grow increasingly-reconciled to co-existence with a nuclear Iran. They assume that, notwithstanding the radical rhetoric, the Iranian leadership is pragmatic, cognizant of its limitations, unwilling to expose its people to devastating Western retaliation and considering nuclear capabilities as a tool of deterrence — and not as an offensive weapon — against the US, NATO and Israel.

However, a nuclear Iran would constitute a clear and present danger to global security and peace, which must not be tolerated. In order to avert such peril, it is incumbent to disengage from illusions and engage with realism.

Unlike Western leaders, the Iranian revolutionary leadership is driven by ideological and religious conviction, bolstered by ancient imperialist ethos:

1. Jihad is the permanent state of relations between Moslems and non-Moslems, while peace and ceasefire accords are tenuous.

2. The Shihada commits every Shiite to kill and be killed, in order to advance Shiite Moslem strategy.

3. The strategic goal of Shiite Islam — which replaced illegitimate Judaism and Christianity — is to convert humanity to Islam.

The religious Shiite zeal is intensified by the Persian-Iranian ethos, shared by secular and religious Iranians, who believe Iran has been a regional and a global power for the last 2,600 years.

Iran's religious/imperialistic strategy has guided Teheran's tactical policy toward the US (the "Great Satan" and the key target for Iran's terror and nuclear), Central & South America (an anti-US terror platform), Iraq (the chief Sunni rival in the Persian Gulf and an arena to weaken the US), Saudi Arabia (an apostate regime), the Gulf States (targeted for revolution and takeover), Afghanistan and Pakistan (arenas to erode the US' image), international terror organizations and terror cells in the US and Europe (weakening Western societies), Syria, Lebanon, Hizballah and Hamas (threatening Israel and advancing regional hegemony) and Israel (the "Little Satan," a Western outpost in the Abode of Islam, the source of Judea-Christian values).

Western leaders are top heavy on "pragmatism" and low on ideology and religion. Therefore, they are preoccupied with Iranian global tactical policy, minimizing the study of Iran's strategic infrastructure of religion, ideology and history, which consider Shia, Jihad, Shihada and Persian imperialism as Teheran's Pillars of Fire.

Western leaders believe in engagement — and not in confrontation — with Iran. However, Teheran's revolutionaries regard such an attitude as a symptom of Western fatigue, of a tendency to "blink first" and of a modern version of the defeatist European slogan: "Better Red than Dead." Moreover, Teheran considers the US a superpower in retirement and retreat, gradually adopting the European state-of-mind and losing its posture of endurance since the 1973 retreat from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the 1979 terrorist takeover of the US embassy in Teheran, the 1983 retreat from Lebanon following the blowing up of the US embassy and Marine headquarters in Beirut until the 2011 expected US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, Iran demonstrated its willingness to pay a brutal price for its principles and interests, when sacrificing some 500,000 persons on the altar of the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, including approximately 100,000 children who were dispatched to clear minefields.

Teheran is encouraged by Western preoccupation with engagement and sanctions, which constitute a delusion and not a solution. For instance, Russia and China consider the US a rival and do not share the US assessment of Iran. They benefit from a weakened US and therefore they do not cooperate in the implementation of sanctions. Europe employs tough rhetoric, but displays frail action. And, the UN will not support a tough US policy toward Iran. The longer the sanctions and engagement process, the more time is available to Iran to develop and acquire nuclear capabilities.

Teheran benefits from Western adherence to a supposed linkage between the Palestinian issue and a successful campaign against Iran. However, there is no linkage between the Palestinian issue — or the Arab Israeli conflict or Israel's existence — and the pillars of Iran's strategy. The more entrenched the "Linkage Theory," the heavier the pressure on Israel and the weaker the pressure on Iran.

In 1978, President Carter's policy toward the Shah was perceived as the backstabbing of a US ally, providing a tailwind to the anti-Shah opposition and facilitating the Iranian Revolution. In 2010, Western policy toward Iran is perceived as an acknowledgment of the potency of the revolutionary leadership, thus serving as a headwind to a weakened domestic opposition and minimizing the possibility of a domestically-generated regime-change.

A sustained Western policy toward Iran would confront the Free World with a brutal dilemma: Accepting radical diplomatic, economic, military and religious demands presented by a nuclear Iran, or facing a series of vicious wars, including a rapidly escalated nuclear race among rogue regimes. In order to avoid such a dilemma, it is incumbent to disengage from the illusive options of deterrence and retaliation and engage with the realistic option of military-preemption/prevention. Furthermore, the cost of military inaction would dwarf the worst-case cost of a military preemptive action against Iran.  

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

This article was published yesterday in YnetNews and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Warner, July 30, 2010.

A favorite comeback for someone who is critical of Islam is — you are Islamophobic. Never mind that the term phobic means an irrational fear. Really, the charge is that you are irrational AND a bigot. A bigot is immoral and a hater and has no possible reason for their views.

There is a cure for bigotry. If you are a bigot, learning about the subject of bigotry can cure it. Clint Eastwood's character in Grand Torino started out as a bigot about the Hmong Vietnamese who moved in next door. As he got to know them, he changed and gave the ultimate sacrifice of his life to help them. The cure for his bigotry was getting to know more about his neighbors, the Hmong.

Notice this does not say that as you get to know them, you will always like them better. There are people and groups that the more you know them, the less you like them. As you see what they do and how they think, you may actually start to fear them. Not being a bigot doesn't mean that you love everybody and what they do. In the sixties, the Black Panthers had a revolutionary, "stick it to the man", image that was cool. However, the more you got to know them and see what they did, you learned that the Panthers were serious racist thugs and dangerous to society. So just because someone is "oppressed" does not mean that they are decent people.

Want to see if you are an Islamophobe? Let's presume that you don't like Islamic doctrine, Sharia law as an example, and would like to take the test to see if you are a bigot. Remember, if you are a bigot, then the more you get to know Islam, the better you will feel.

Here are some concepts from Islamic doctrine, so that you can understand it better. Islam says that non-Muslims are Kafirs. Allah hates Kafirs and He even plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, deceived, enslaved, crucified, raped and robbed. How important are Kafirs to Islam? Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (his traditions). Look at how much of Islam is devoted to the Kafir:

Amount of Text Devoted to Kafir
Trilogy: 60%
Hadiths: 37%
Sira: 81%
Koran: 64%

If the Kafir is "bad", then there is a lot of "bad". How does your cultural sensitivity feel now? Feel any closer to Islam, any less afraid?

Maybe, you need a little more exposure to become warmer towards Islam. Jihad should cure your ills. Isn't the jihad thing overblown? There are only a few verses about that, aren't there? Look at the statistics:

Amount of Text Devoted to Jihad
Trilogy: 31%
Hadiths: 21%
Sira: 67%
Koran: 9%

Now that you are learning more about Islam, are your fears subsiding?

Still afraid? Every Muslim will tell you that Islam was the first ideology to give women their rights. If we take everything that is written about women in the Koran and rank it according to whether the woman is held in high status, equal status and lower status, we find:

Women's Status in the Koran
(Fraction of Text — 12, 066 words)
Low Status: 71%
Equal Status: 23%
High Status: 5.3%

How does the women's issue strike you? Are you feeling more simpatico? Less Islamophobic?

So, you took the Islamophobia test. Now that you know Islam better, do you now understand and realize that your Islamophobia was bigoted hatred?

Surely, this test is biased. There must be some goodness in Islam for Kafirs. If you go through the Koran and pick out every single verse that offers good words, doesn't that prove that Islam is good?

If every single verse that seems to promise good to Kafirs is counted up, then 2.6% of the verses offer good to Kafirs. But, wait! There is that contradiction and abrogation contradiction principle. The Koran is filled with verses that contradict each other and in every case of good verses, the 2.6%, are cancelled or abrogated, by later verses. The net result is 0%, nothing, is unmitigated good in the Koran for the Kafir.

You have finished the Islamophobe Test. Feel closer to Islam? Or more afraid? If you feel closer and warmer about Islam, then you were Islamophobic, but now you are cured. If not, then your fears are real, not a phobia. Islam is like the Black Panthers — he more you know, the less you like and the more you are afraid.

Bill Warner, is Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, July 30, 2010.

This article was written by Michelle Phillips and it appeared yesterday in The Washington Times. It is archived at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/ gingrich-us-most-crucial-radical-islamist-battlefi/comments/

Phillips is a student intern with the Washington Times through the National Journalism Center covering international affairs.


Newt Gingrich (Associated Press. From File)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Thursday said the greatest threat to national security is radical Islam, but the greatest battlefront for that threat is at home.

"This is not a war on terrorism ... this is a struggle with radical Islamists," Mr. Gingrich told a group of about 200 people at the American Enterprise Institute.

In his "America at Risk" speech, he drew comparisons to the U.S.' situation in World War II and the Cold War, calling for today's leaders to use some of the same strategies from those earlier conflicts.

The problem is that many leaders are "sleepwalking" and don't face the Islamic threat, said Mr. Gingrich, who is widely thought to be a possible contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

He did not limit the war to the fighting in the Middle East, saying there are two additional, more important fronts: the United States and Europe. He noted that 54 jihadists have been arrested in the U.S. on terrorism charges since President Obama took office.

"Every one of these instances constitutes a breakdown in national security," Mr. Gingrich said.

He emphasized that such talk does not demonize all Muslims.

"Let me draw a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world," he said. "The people who want to worship God in their own way and live under American law — we're not in the fight with them," Mr. Gingrich said in an interview after the speech.

Editor's Note;

These are some Comments by Readers of the original article.

tlwinslow says:

Islam is the only major world religion that takes commands from its god to conquer territory in order to set up a sociopoltical system that makes Muslims superior to non-Muslims and men to women, hence it's subject to drastic legal controls no different than the Ghost Dance religion, Mormonism or Scientology. Too bad, the fact that a quarter of the world's pop. claims to be Muslim scares the U.S. govt. into bowing to it as if it weren't really political, and try splitting hairs to separate good from bad Muslims, when all Muslims get their religion straight from the Quran, which is where the commands to set up Sharia come from. Hence the U.S. must either wake up now and stop the Trojan Horse at the gates by stopping and reversing Muslim immigration, or accept increasing anarchy and subversion of the Constitution by the growing Muslim pop., there's no crystal ball needed here. Too bad too many people won't or can't take the time to study Islam's little known history and strange terminology to understand how deep the supremacy goes, but it's free anytime to all with the Historyscoper at http://go.to/islamhistory.

JDD says:

"We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatic rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.

It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.

It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

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

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

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

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese,

Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts — the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on — before it's too late.

The point is, as history has demonstrated...though you keep quiet, silent...you will not save yourself!"

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, July 30, 2010.

Illegal aliens continuely to demonstrate in spite of the majority of citizens opposing them. (LA Times)

"We live in a topsy-turvey nation and this story should anger all Americans. Suddenly our nation is prosecuting patriots while protecting lawbreakers," said a former NYPD police officer and private security firm owner.

The Utah state employees, suspected of blowing the whistle on more than a thousand illegal immigrants living in the state, have been placed on administrative leave and will likely be criminally charged, according attorneys from a non-partisan, public-interest group.

Last week a list of 1,300 suspected illegal aliens was circulated anonymously to various state and federal agencies as well as media outlets, according to a statement from the Washington, DC-based Judicial Watch.

A letter was enclosed with the 29-page list that included the illegal aliens' phone numbers, addresses and birth dates. The letter, signed "Concerned Citizens of the United States," alleged that they "observed these individuals in our neighborhoods, driving on our streets, working in our stores, attending our schools and entering our public welfare buildings."

Copies of the list and letter was sent to law enforcement agencies, news media outlets and Utah state lawmakers by the group, who demanded that those named be deported.

Calling it the "deplorable" work of a "small rogue group," Utah Governor Gary Herbert quickly launched an investigation and vowed to punish any public employees responsible for participating in blowing the whistle.

So far two workers with the Utah Department of Workforce Services have been suspended and at least eight others are under investigation. All face criminal charges for violating state and federal privacy laws, according to the governor.

"We live in a topsy-turvey nation and this story should anger all Americans. Suddenly our nation is prosecuting patriots while protecting lawbreakers," said former NYPD police officer and private security firm owner Bill Fitzgerald.

Latino Project director Tony Yapias told Reuters that his Utah office was "inundated with calls from concerned Hispanics asking if they were on the list."

Utah Democrat Party officials are proud of their protecting illegal immigrants and providing them with endless public benefits, including discounted tuition at public colleges and universities as well as other perks not afforded under federal law.

Two of the state's largest cities — Salt Lake City and Provo — have official sanctuary policies that forbid public employees or law enforcement officers from inquiring about a resident's immigration status, according to Judicial Watch.

Earlier this year Utah proudly became the nation's first state to offer a special class of driver's licenses for illegal aliens who won't be ineligible to obtain the cards when new federal security standards kick in. For years, Utah was one of only a handful of states to offer illegal immigrants driver's license.

However, some Utah lawmakers plan to introduce legislation similar to the new law in Arizona, which requires state and local police to determine the immigration status of anyone they encounter in the course of their police work whom they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Contact them at (201) 941-5397 or copmagazine@aol.com

This article is archived at
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/ state-workers-who-ided-illegal-aliens-face-criminal-charges

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, July 30, 2010.

Dear friends,

Today, quite a shocking bulletin.

I am sure many of you ask yourselves the obvious question: Why the obsession with Israel? Why with all the persecution of innocents elsewhere in the word, tiny Israel (6 million Jews) occupies such a prominent space in world media, the UN, academia, "human rights" organizations, Internet bloggers, etc. etc. How many other such tiny countries do you hear about so incessantly every day around the clock?

Is it really Zionism, the aspiration of the Jewish people to a country of their own, that is bugging them?

Is it really the fate of the "poor" "Palestinians?" The "Palestinians" whom the entire world rushes to help and aid, "Palestinians" who see themselves as part of the petroleum-rich Arab world? (in case you forgot, here is article 1 of the PLO Charter: "Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation").

I can testify from many conversations I had with Israeli Arabs (about 1.2 million Arabs are citizens of Israel) that the vast majority of them would not dream of living in a "Palestinian" State should it become a reality.

Israeli Arabs live in freedom, have democratic rights and previledges under the laws of one of the most progressive democracies in the entire world. They would never contemplate exchanging that with life in an Arab country under an Arab regime.

I venture to say that the same is true with the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. If their true agenda had been an independent country, they could have achieved it a long time ago. The truth is that for 62 years (and before) their only agenda was the demise of Israel. This is what they live for and what their leaders brainwash them with. This is also what their "friends" and "supporters" wish and push them towards.

Which brings back the question above: Why the obsession with Israel and Zionism? Are Tibeteans, Darfurans, Kurds, Armenians, Chechnians and many other nations less important than the "Palestinians?"

I am sure you know the answer: Neo anti-Semitism. After the Holocaust, old fashion anti-Semitism went out of fashion. Anti-Semites needed a replacement, so anti-Zionism took its place. As we say in Hebrew: The same lady with a different dress.

And one more question: Have you ever heard or read a comment denying the history of the Tibetans people? The answer is NO! Have you ever heard or read a comment denying the history of the Jewish people? The answer is YES! Every day!

Now please read carefully Caroline Glick's shocking latest article.

Your Truth Provider,

This is by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=183073. She is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

She writes: I am sorry I wrote this column. Because an audience that demands an explanation of why evil is evil is an audience that has already sided with evil


It's springtime for Jew haters.

This week Oscar winning conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone joined Helen Thomas and Mel Gibson in the swelling ranks of out-of-the-closet celebrity Jew haters. In an interview with the Sunday Times, Stone said that Adolf Hitler had been given a bum rap and that through "Jewish domination of the media," the Jews have inflated the importance of the Holocaust and wrecked US foreign policy.

In the wake of criticism in Jewish circles, on Wednesday Stone's publicist issued a mealy-mouthed clarification.

Stone failed to retract or amend his statement that "There's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f---ed up United States foreign policy for years."

He also did not retract his view that Jews use the Holocaust to control American foreign policy.

Stone simply referred to his claim that Jews make too much of the Holocaust because the Germans killed more Russians than Jews as "clumsy."

He then broadened his initial allegation that Jews make too much of the Holocaust by allowing that we are joined in our efforts by non-Jews. And since non-Jews are involved also, he was wrong to criticize us.

As Stone put it, "The fact that the Holocaust is still a very important, vivid and current matter today is, in fact, a great credit to the very hard work of a broad coalition of people committed to the remembrance of this atrocity." (Emphasis added.) Stone still believes that the rounding up and exterminating of three-quarters of Europe's Jews is really not as notable or morally troubling as high Russian wartime casualties, but it's not solely Jews' fault that people don't share Stone's views.

Arguably even more despicable that Stone's display of Jew hatred was manner in which it was received. On the one hand, there was the thunderous silence of the media. And on the other hand there were the insistent, repeated attempts to justify his statements.

Readers' talkbacks to write-ups of his remarks were rife with assertions that Stone's statements were not bigoted. Many agreed that Jews dominate the media and since they believe this is true, they argued that saying so is not a bigoted act. Others claimed that while Stone's statements were inaccurate, there is no evidence that he hates Jews and therefore, they weren't bigoted. At any rate, Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times and many others have argued, it would be wrong for Stone be discredited for his attacks against Jews.

It is difficult to imagine that if someone trafficked in ethnic stereotypes about groups like blacks, and claimed that they wreck US foreign policy to serve their own nefarious aims, Goldstein and the talk backers would defend him.

But then anti-Jewish bigotry has different rules than other hatreds.

Stone and his defenders are not alone either in their attitude towards Jews or their denial of their attitude towards Jews. Indeed, they are part of a worldwide trend.

TAKE THE situation in Malmo, Sweden. Last Friday Jew haters set off firecrackers outside a synagogue in Malmo. The blasts came a day after Jew haters posted a bomb threat on the wall of the synagogue for the second time in two weeks. Malmo is a hotbed of anti-Jewish violence and the Jews of the city are fleeing in droves.

Yet in the face of all this, Malmo's non-Jews cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there is a problem with anti-Semitism in their city. Even those who are supposed to be responsible for combating anti-Semitism refuse to acknowledge that Jews in Malmo are being attacked because they are Jews.

Bjorn Lagerback is the man in Malmo who is supposed to care about anti-Semitic violence. Lagerback serves as the coordinator of the local forum in the city charged with combating hate crimes. In an interview with Malmo's The Local cited by the World Jewish Congress, Lagerback tried to impress on the world that the bombing was serious. Not because it was violence aimed at Jews, of course.

No, according to Lagerback, this bombing is serious because it might hurt non-Jews. He said "We condemn this completely. Such an event is not just directed against the synagogue, but also at other targets that could be described as ethnic or religious."

Forget about the fact that only Malmo's synagogues, and not its churches and mosques require around the clock security. If no other ethnic or religious groups were targeted would bombing synagogues no longer warrant condemnation?

The acceptance of anti-Semitism has reached epidemic proportions.

In Amsterdam, anti-Semites are making the mundane act of walking around outside in broad daylight a dangerous prospect for Jews. Jews are regularly attacked verbally and physically by anti-Semites as they walk on the streets of the Dutch capital.

In an attempt to catch and punish anti-Semitic thugs, the Amsterdam police force has dispatched policemen dressed as Jews to pound the pavement. The hope is that these decoys will be able to draw out the offenders and arrest them.

Apparently, some Dutch have a problem with punishing anti-Semitic attackers. As Paul Belien reported in the Brussels Journal, "Evelien van Roemburg, an Amsterdam counselor of the Green Left Party, says that using a decoy by the police amounts to [entrapment], which is itself a criminal offence under Dutch law."

In other words, Van Roemburg thinks that people who walk around while appearing to be Jewish are asking for it.

Van Roemburg no doubt also believes that women in mini-skirts deserve to be raped.

All of this brings us to a discussion of the most endemic form of contemporary anti-Semitism: Anti-Zionism. There is no reason for anyone to be surprised that anti-Semites deny that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. After all, they deny that every other form of anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. Why should anti-Zionism receive special treatment?

It is self-evident that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. To say that Jews — uniquely among all the nations — have no right to freedom and self determination is obviously anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semites give a variety of excuses to justify their rejection of the Jewish people's right to freedom and sovereignty in our homeland. Sometimes they say they have no problem with Jewish nationalism per se. They are simply anti-nationalist generally. But remarkably, these anti-nationalist anti-Zionists invariably just happen to be outspoken supporters of Palestinian nationalism.

Moreover, it is curious that universalist anti-nationalists only have a special term to describe their opposition to Jewish nationalism. No one ever mentions being anti-Irishist, for instance. When someone says they oppose Irish nationalism, the obvious conclusion is that they don't like Irish people. Just so, people who are anti-French tend not to like French people. And yet, the anti-Zionists would have us believe that their opposition to the Jewish state has nothing to do with their feelings about Jews.

Beyond their nonsensical attempts to deny the fact that anti-Zionism is a specific rejection of a specific — that is Jewish — type of nationalism, there is the fact that anti-Zionists tend inevitably to drink from other anti-Jewish sewers as well. Take former British parliamentarian Clare Short for example.

During her just ended career in the British parliament, Short became known as an outspoken anti-Zionist. Short rejected Israel's right to exist and castigated it for its "bloody, brutal and systematic annexation of land, destruction of homes and the deliberate creation of an apartheid system."

But Short's Israel kick didn't end with her frequent condemnations of imaginary but lurid Israeli crimes. As time went by, Short began channeling centuries of British Jew hatred. Like her forefathers who blamed Jews for rain, drought, plague and fire, Shore blamed Israel for global warming.

As she put it in a speech at the European Parliament three years ago, Israel "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming." As Shore saw it, European leaders are properly obsessed with attacking the Jewish state. But because Israel insists on existing and so requires Europeans to condemn it, Israel prevents the Europeans from attending to the threat of carbon which, if left unregulated will "end the human race."

So if the world boils over, the cauldron will be made in Israel.

One of the most prominent anti-Zionists today is Prof. Juan Cole from University of Michigan. Part of being a successful anti-Zionist involves claiming that Jews have no right to the land of Israel. So to be a good anti-Zionist, one needs to deny Jewish history.

To this end, in March Cole published a piece of historical fiction at Salon online magazine. Titled "Ten reasons why East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel," Cole mixed half truths with flagrant lies to justify his denial of Jewish history and belittlement of the Jewish rights.

Cole wrote, "Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent 'Jewish people' in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon."

This assertion is so mendacious that it takes your breath away. As anyone who has actually been in Jerusalem can attest, it is all but impossible to be physically present in the oldest areas of the city and not bump into relics dating from between 1000-900 BCE.

Cole's allegation is the academic equivalent of Louis Farakhan's claim that white people are devils planted on earth by aliens. As an anti-Zionist anti-Semite, it was just a matter of time until Cole travelled into the fetid swamp of denying the historical record to facilitate his false claim that Jews are not a people and therefore bereft of rights as a nation to our national homeland.

And why shouldn't he cover himself in anti-Semitic muck? So far, the stench has brought him great success. The very fact that I felt compelled to write an essay explaining why anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism and why anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is depressing proof that anti-Semites have been wildly successful whitewashing their bigotry.

What makes contemporary anti-Semitism unique is its purveyors' great efforts to hide its very existence. Their motivation is clear. Outside the openly genocidal anti-Semitic Muslim world, most anti-Semites are self-described liberals who claim to oppose bigotry. For these people, pretending away their prejudice is the key to their continued claim to enlightenment.

And so the likes of Oliver Stone publish clarifications. And Cole invents history. And the Europeans blame Jews and Israel and Zionism when Jews inside and outside Israel are assaulted and killed.

And I am sorry I wrote this column. Because an audience that demands an explanation of why evil is evil is an audience that has already sided with evil.

Correction: In Tuesday's column I wrote that the US's upgrade in the PLO's Washington diplomatic mission gave added privileges to PLO representatives in the US. In fact, the upgrade is a symbolic gesture of support for the Palestinians. The representatives do not enjoy diplomatic immunity.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters, July 30, 2010.

This article was written by Dr. Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin and Dr. Joan Jutta Lachkar

Dr. Nancy Kobrin, a psychoanalyst with a Ph.D. in romance and semitic languages, specializes in Aljamia and Old Spanish in Arabic script. She is an expert on the Minnesota Somali diaspora and a graduate of the Human Terrain System program at Leavenworth Kansas. Her new book is The Banality of Suicide Terrorism: The Naked Truth About the Psychology of Islamic Suicide Bombing.

Dr. Joanie Lachkar is a licensed Marriage and Family therapist in private practice in Brentwood and Tarzana, California, who teaches psychoanalysis and is the author of The Narcissistic/Borderline Couple: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Marital Treatment (1992, The Many Faces of Abuse: Treating the Emotional Abuse of High-Functioning Women (1998), The V-Spot, How to Talk to a Narcissist, How to Talk to a Borderline and a recent paper, "The Psychopathology of Terrorism" presented at the Rand Corporation and the International Psychohistorical Association. She is also an affiliate member for the New Center for Psychoanalysis.


While the Saudis might have a lot of oil, they seem to be running short on milk. So much so that one of their imams wrote a fatwa* recently permitting the breast feeding of adult males thereby getting around the gender apartheid of the Kingdom of the Deprived. This would allow the nursing adult male to become mahram[**] and the nursing woman can then be in close quarters with him. To clarify his status changes from say a frequent visitor to more like a quasi member of the family, even called a "milk" brother, sort of like a blood brother.

This is not the first time a breast feeding fatwa has been issued. Several years ago in Egypt one was issued so that men could be nursed at the office by female workers, as if those poor women didn't have anything else to do? Imagine having to also contend with the henna dyed bristly beards of the devout, scratching the tender breasts of a postpartum ummi (mother). Is there no shame?

Seriously, something is going on here. How can we understand it? Let us go a little deeper. After all even Al Qaeda has produced breast implant bombs for female suicide bombers. Why this obsession with the breast? Is Hooters moving to Saudi Arabia soon? Why this obsession with nursing?

Saudi Arabia seems to be grappling with its age-old narrative in the Quran. Could we say that this goes back to even the Biblical narrative that the Prophet Muhammad has co-opted, that he got stuck with a dry desolate desert and the Jews got the Land Flowing With Milk and Honey. A sensitive issue...

As the saying goes, form follows function and function follows fantasy. If one visualizes one's destiny as limited to the desert, one perpetuates that image and only gets a dry infertile breast whereas if one visualizes life, growth, one thinks fertility and greenery and that perpetuates life in that image. Just think — the color of Islam is green; could it be because of unconsciously searching for that fertile land? Israel's flag of blue and white on the other hand looks skyward to the Transcendental.

Yet because Arab Muslim culture is so rife with deprivation and victimhood, nothing is ever enough.

Tragically, they live within a black hole, a vacuum or space that can never be filled. Yet they demand and demand and even when the milk is offered, it is either never enough or insatiable to their desire. More! More! More! There is never enough milk and there is never enough land. The same holds true for other Muslims as well. Even Somalia's name means "Go milk the camel." And the Somalis believe that they are descended from the Arabians!

What does this all mean and how does this impact the Muslim psyche? With deprivation and the accompanying defensive maneuvering, the first thing that goes is reality. Maybe someone needs to suggest to them to do DNA testing at National Geographic to discover that the Arabians actually came out of the Olduvai Gorge in Kenya/Tanzania like everyone else! So what does this have to do with the theme of milk?

The nature of deprivation, shame/blame, preservation of honor, keeps Muslims locked into a cycle of revenge and attack. They perpetually envy the other who has the milk. Ironically the adult male who is to be nursed, is now attempting to get what he didn't get as an infant and now as an adult, he has to be nursed — hence the fatwa. This is why we refer to Muslim society as an "orphan society."

Indeed the Prophet Muhammad himself was an orphan. The generic orphan also plays a leading role in the drama of the Quran. Mother Mary of Christianity becomes the Mother of Orphans in Islam. Yet sadly even though the New Testament with its nursing Madonna and Child has been co-opted, it is not truly Islamic foundational imagery. They borrowed it; they didn't create it.

Saudis and other Muslims do not know how to mourn their losses. They stay glued together like a big enmeshed dysfunctional family defending their wounds and licking them. They bully to get what they want, but even then it is never enough. They avenge by the sword.

Got milk? We don't think so.

[**] In Islamic sharia legal terminology, a mahram (also transliterated mahrim or maharem) is an unmarriageable kin with whom sexual intercourse would be considered incestuous, a punishable taboo. Current usage of the term covers a wider range of people and mostly deals with the dress code practice of hijab. (Wikipedia)

This article appeared in Family Security Matters (FSM).

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, July 30, 2010.

This below is a resume of an Op-Ed written by Edward Jay Epstein that appeared July 29, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal.


In a stunning departure from a decade of assessments, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran declared: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

Unfortunately, as the Obama administration has now acknowledged, the NIE's conclusion was dead wrong, costing us precious time in dealing with a serious threat. What caused such a disastrous mistake?

As James Risen, the New York Times national security reporter, explains in his book State of War, in 2004, a CIA communications officer accidentally included data in a satellite transmission to an agent in Iran that could be used to identify "virtually every spy the CIA had in Iran."

This disastrous error was compounded because the recipient of the transmission turned out to be a double-agent controlled by the Iranian security service.

This allowed the Iranian security service to control the information these agents provided the CIA, which may have been vulnerable to receiving misleading secret intelligence that Tehran had abandoned its nuclear ambitions.

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 Richard H. Shulman, July 30, 2010.


The EU imposed its own sanctions against Iran's foreign trade, banking and energy sectors. The Russian regime contends that the additional EU sanctions on Iran, imposed shortly after the fourth round of UN sanctions, undermine "calibrated" international efforts to deal with Iranian nuclear development (IMRA, 7/29/10 from BBC News via Egypt Daily News). www.imra.org.il/

The Russian statements reveal two problems of logic and motive:

(1) Suppose the purpose of the UN sanctions were to make it too difficult for Iran to proceed with nuclear development suspected of being military. How would national supplements to those sanctions on industries related to that development impede the UN goal?

Now suppose the purpose of the UN sanctions were to calibrate difficulties for Iran below the level needed to deter Iran. EU supplements to those sanctions interfere with international efforts to pretend to be preventing Iranian military nuclear development.

(2) Because Russia agreed to some sanctions, and Pres. Medvedev made a few favorable statements on other matters, the Obama administration hails its policy on Russia as bringing Russia around to the West's view of Iran as a nuclear menace.

The newest Russian statement, by condemning the additional sanctions, fits a pattern of zig-zag. Russia condemns, concedes a smidgen, gets concessions or praise or spares Iran, and now it is back to condemning. The real story is that Russia still is protecting Iran. It is not changing, but deceiving.

The Administration sacrifices U.S. national security and other national interests to Russia in the hope that Russia will make compensatory concessions to the U.S.. Not being asked to sign on the dotted line, Russia offers mostly hints. The new UN sanctions, following three rounds of ineffective sanctions against a die hard Iranian regime, amount to Russian-Chinese stalling.

The U.S. still does not know who are its friends, foes, and friends of its foes. The U.S. still lacks a strategy for defeating Islamo-fascism. That term and synonyms are banned within the Obama administration. Obama refuses to identify the chief enemy of civilization. We lose troops and taxes fighting gunmen, without a strategy that identifies their ideology and prescribes ways of discrediting it so they don't take up arms against us. We let them indoctrinate people until we run out of money, troops, and patience.


Writing in the Egyptian daily, al-Ahram, Ashraf Abu Al-Houl describes Gaza's economy in July. His views on Israel may be taken from his calling Israel enforcement of its blockade a "crime."

Mr. Al-Houl toured the new resorts and the markets. He found them mostly "grand." He was amazed by how well filled were the shops, including with luxuries. The blockade was neutralized before the flotilla from Turkey. It remains as a formal, political blockade, not much of an economic one. The author's view of Israel is that its enforcement of the blockade is a "crime."

Most of the shops get supplied via Egypt. Despite the additional costs of bringing the goods in, their prices are lower than those in Egypt, especially for food. The markets suffer from over-supply and from consumer expectations that falling prices will drop even more. As inventories pile up, Merchants cut back on new purchases.

Prices are not falling in the resorts catering to the newly wealthy smugglers. At one, sandwiches cost about $100. Most of the resorts are connected to Hamas leaders.

The retail industry does not represent the whole economy in Gaza. Unemployment is about 45%! (StandWithUs (www.standwithus.com/, 7/29/10.)

The Egyptian's observations indicate that contrary to rumor, Israel was not starving the people of Gaza. But the average resident is poor, because of the way the Strip is managed and devoted to jihad.

The source article has photographs of water parks in Gaza. Why don't the New York newspapers?


Campus Watch has issued another lengthy correction against the almost daily accusations and paranoia against it from the U.S. Left and apologists for radical Islam. We'll summarize the main ones. The source article provides a link for each complaint and for rebuttals. What is Campus Watch (CW): "Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America, with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students. Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds."

Founded eight years ago, the organization notes the irony that its critics, whose main complaint is being silenced by CW, continue shouting denunciations of it. (The Left often demands that its critics be silenced, as Prof. Steven Plaut has documented for us.)

Dorit Naaman, Alliance Atlantis Professor of Film and Media at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, names CW as part of a big conspiracy, based on a conference that CW was not involved in.

Failing to differentiate CW work from non-CW material in its archives, Nora Barrows-Friedman, writing for the Electronic Intifada, accuses CW of "smear campaigns" against two professors. Actually, CW wrote one article about one professor and nothing about the other. No campaign and no smear.

John J. Mearsheimer and Steven M. Walt, among others, keep accusing CW of being part of an Israel lobby that directs CW efforts. CW is an unaffiliated organization run by Daniel Pipes (shown in photo taken from a website ofhis).. CW challenges Mearsheimer and Walt to produce evidence of Israeli dictation. They do not; they just accuse.

In the Palestine Chronicle, Franklin Lamb calls the Zionist Freedom Alliance "a spin-off of Campus Watch." CW replies, "That's news to us."

Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor of political science Itzhak Galnoor claims that Israel-Academic-Monitor.com is connected to CW. It isn't. [Prof. Steven Plaut, who founded the Israeli organization, probably was inspired by CW. They operate independently and in different countries.]

Sharmila Devi, in the National (Abu Dhabi), claims that Campus Watch criticizes professors for being "anti-Israel and pro-Islam." "In fact, we critique professors for being anti-objectivity and pro-politicization."

In the Socialist Worker, Brian Napoletano claims that CW denounces scholars who criticize Israel and routinely accuses them of anti-Semitism. No, CW criticizes scholars for the substance of their work. [Critics of CW ignore the substance of CW criticism.]

Ben-Gurion University political geography professor David Newman "calls Campus Watch a "disgrace for anyone who believes in the concept of freedom of speech." The professor, like many of the other critics, mischaracterizes free speech. Free speech lets a professor present a lecture and lets CW critique it. If CW is not allowed to critique it, it is denied free speech.

David Newman accuses CW of McCarthyism, because some students go through CW to advise the public of campus discourse. Sen. McCarthy got people blacklisted, and without a hearing.

In "the National (Abu Dhabi), Jonathan Cook associates Campus Watch with the terms 'neoconservative,' 'right-wing groups,' 'climate of fear,' and 'witch-hunt.' The first two labels are misused as epithets. There is no climate of fear against leftist professors. Nobody is being hunted down.

"Guardian blogger Sunny Hundal relies on the old 'according to one critic' trick to make all manner of untrue and nonsensical accusations against Campus Watch. We're still waiting for Hundal to disclose the mysterious identity of his unnamed source..." (Cinnamon Stillwell, CW, 7/29/10.)

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, July 29, 2010.

Follow Israel news on
[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/images/logo-twitter.jpg] and
[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/images/logo-facebook.jpg] .

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs presents a five-minute video that dramatically and clearly delineates Israel's critical security needs to protect it from attack. In addition, the JCPA recently hosted a first-of-its-kind gathering of senior Israeli generals who outlined the basic principles of a defense policy focused on maintaining defensible borders for Israel. It was held in light of recent events, such as the deterioration in relations between Israel and its erstwhile ally Turkey, which underscore how critical it is for Israel to be guided by the principle of defending itself by itself.

The video below, which features state-of-the-art graphics to depict Israel's topography-related dangers, can also be seen on the JCPA website, as can a summary of the generals' speeches.


After the Six Day War in 1967, when Israel was nearly overrun by four Arab armies on three fronts, the United Nations resolved that every country in the region has the right "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats and acts of force." The video shows vividly that if Israel does not control both the Jordan Rift Valley and critical mountains of Samaria, its borders would be rendered absolutely indefensible — and thereby in violation of the spirit of the UN resolution. The video effectively utilizes 3D graphics to show, as no map can, how Israel is protected by the heights of the Jordan Valley on one side, and by those of the Samarian mountains on the other.

"The Jordan Rift Valley on the east forms a natural barrier between Israel and the countries of Jordan, Iraq and Iran," the narrator relates. It rises from 1,200 feet below sea level to a height of 3,000 feet above, "creating a steep virtual wall opposite any force attacking from the east." Here, the film shows a Jerusalem-bound enemy tank failing in its attempt to scale and climb the steep mountainside.

Similarly, the Mountain Ridge of Samaria is dramatically shown to dominate Israel's Coastal Plain, Tel Aviv area, industry, population concentration, and airports. The film shows how Palestinian Authority control of the mountains of Judea and Samaria would mean that Jerusalem, Israel's airports, and virtually every spot in the State of Israel would be within rocket range. "That's why any future arrangement must include Israeli control over key areas of the mountain ridge and a demilitarized Palestinian state," the narrator warns. video

Another point emphasized in the clip is the importance of Israeli control of the airspace over Judea and Samaria. To avoid the threat of fighter jets crossing into Israel — a four-minute fly from Jordan to the Mediterranean — Israel must be able to identify enemy planes before they cross the Jordan River, so that they can be shot down in time. This means, the video reiterates, that Israel must control the airspace over Judea and Samaria.

A summary of some of the main points made by the various generals who took part in the conference:

Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, former IDF Chief of Staff:

"In his major policy speech at Bar-Ilan University in 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu articulated a major shift in Israel's policy — a restoration of Israel's traditional security-based approach to achieving a lasting peace... In the aftermath of Arafat's rejection of Prime Minister Ehud Barak's peace offer, the Palestinian suicide bombing war that followed, Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the Second Lebanon War, the failed Annapolis talks, and the recent war in Gaza, the Netanyahu government is re-adopting the notion that safeguarding Israel's vital security requirements is the only path to a viable and durable peace with our Palestinian neighbors.

"... Until now, the Palestinians have only been asked for a "top-down" peace process, in which their leaders have held meetings, shaken hands, attended peace conferences, and even signed agreements with Israeli leaders. But when a peace process does not sprout from the grassroots of a society, it is both pointless and useless. Until three-year-old children in Ramallah stop being taught to idolize "martyrs" who blow themselves up for jihad against Israelis and Jews, there will only be a "peace process" in the imaginations of the self-deluded."

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan:

"It is commonly misunderstood just how vulnerable Israel actually is. Some 70 percent of its population and 80 percent of its industrial capacity are concentrated in the narrow coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the West Bank. The adjacent West Bank hills topographically dominate the relatively flat and exposed coastal plain, providing a distinct advantage to an attacker... If the West Bank were to fall into hostile hands, the resulting situation would pose a constant threat to Israel's national infrastructure, including Ben-Gurion International Airport, the Trans-Israel Highway toll road [Highway 6], Israel's National Water Carrier, and its high-voltage electric power lines.

By its presence along the eastern perimeter of the West Bank in the Jordan Valley and the Judean Desert, Israel has been able to prevent weapons smuggling and the infiltration of hostile forces... The entire Jordan Rift Valley constitutes a natural physical barrier against attack that averages between 3,000 to 4,600 feet. There are only five east-west passes through which an attacking army can move, each of which can be defended with relative ease. For this reason, the Jordan Valley has been viewed as the front line for Israel's defense in an extremely uncertain Middle East.

The advent of ballistic missiles and rockets has increased the importance of terrain and strategic depth for Israel, since its small standing army may have to fight for longer periods of time without reinforcements from the reserve forces, whose timely arrival may be delayed or prevented by rocket fire. Israel's standing army may also have to operate for a considerable period of time without major assistance from the air force, which may be busy destroying the air defense systems of enemy states and suppressing ballistic missile launches aimed at Israeli cities."

Dr. Dore Gold, on How Washington Has Understood Israel's Security Needs:

"The United States has historically backed Israel's view that UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the wake of the Six-Day War on November 22, 1967, does not require a full withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines (also called the 1967 borders). There is no basis to the argument that the U.S. has traditionally demanded of Israel either a full withdrawal or a nearly full withdrawal from the territories it captured in the Six-Day War.

"In the international legal community there was an acute awareness that Jordan had illegally invaded the West Bank in 1948 and held it until 1967, when Israel captured the territory in a war of self-defense. Israel's entitlement to changes in the pre-1967 lines did not arise because it had been vulnerable, but rather because it had been the victim of aggression in 1967.

"The Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), General Earl Wheeler, said on June 29, 1967: "From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders." Regarding the West Bank, the JCS specifically suggested "a boundary along the commanding terrain overlooking the Jordan River," and considered taking this defense line up to the crest of the mountain ridge.

"President Bush wrote to Prime Minister Sharon on April 14, 2004: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze'evi Farkash explained the importance of the demilitarization of a Palestinian entity, and Brig.-Gen. (res.) Udi Dekel elaborated on the need for Israel's control of the airspace over Judea and Samaria. Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror said that modern history in southern Lebanon, Bosnia, Egypt and Beirut has shown that peacekeeping forces cannot guarantee peace, and generally leave when one side attacks.

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Dan Wyman Books, July 29, 2010.

Dear Friends,

We are excited to offer to you the following fascinating study, just published, on the impact of increased religious observance by one generation on its relations with the generation preceeding. This particular study looks at chanages in generational dynamics in Holland brought about by the increase in ba'a lot teshuvah over the last few decades.

Details follow; please submit your orders to us by phone or email.

Many thanks,

Dan Wyman

by Minny E. Mock-Degen.
Amsterdam: Amphora Books, 2010
Paperback, 315 pages
$50.00 through Aug. 8, 2010
ISBN -EAN 978 90 6446 066 1

The return to Judaism or the teshuvah experience emerged in the mid 1960s when young American Jews became involved in a spiritual search that eventually led them to discover and embrace Orthodox Judaism. It signaled the start of what would become a widespread phenomenon. Within a relatively short period, thousands of Jews in the United States, Israel, Britain, France, the Soviet Union, South Africa, the Netherlands and other countries committed themselves to Orthodox Judaism and became observant. A Jew who returns to Orthodox Judaism is known as a ba'al teshuvah; for a woman the term is ba'alat teshuvah (plural forms: ba'alei and ba'a lot teshuvah respectively).This study of ba'alot teshuvah in the Netherlands is a qualitative and exploratory investigation on how Dutch returnee women and their mothers experienced, perceived and interpreted the return to Orthodox Judaism. In short: How do these returnees and their mothers feel about the religious intensification? In this context the research also pays attention to the ways in which the Dutch returnees became involved with Orthodox Judaism, how they found their religious niche and whether their becoming Orthodox impacted on intergenerational and multigenerational relationships.

Minny Evaline Mock-Degen (1945) grew up in the Netherlands, studied cultural anthropology at the University in Amsterdam, and taught at SOSA (Stichting tot Opleiding Sociale Arbeid). In 1985 she emigrated with her family to Israel, where she started volunteering at a hotline for Orthodox woman and participated in a graduate program in clinical sociology at Neve Yerushalayim, under the auspices of the University of Texas. She later joined the research team of a pilot study in Israel which sought to explore how ba'a lot teshuvah (woman returnees) and their secular mothers perceived the religious intensification and how it impacted on family relations. This participation led to undertaking research among Dutch returnees and their mothers which resulted in a doctorate thesis (2006) at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

This book is a revised and expanded version of Minny Mock's doctorate thesis.

Please order today from Dan Wyman Book, 183 Ainslie St. Brooklyn, NY 11211. Email: dan@danwymanbooks.com; Phone: 718.963.0410

Thank you.

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, July 29, 2010.

Dear Friends,

In addition to the scandalous interrogation of Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira last monday from 4:00 A.M. until noontime, we have just received the response of the civil adminstration which rejected our appeal and has claimed its prerogative to destroy our building. This comes despite the government having built the structure according to its own approvals.

Pay heed to the timing of these events:

22 July — The civil adminstration announces its final decree to destroy our building. See JPost story

24 July — Barak leaves for the United States for meetings with Obama and his government.

26 July — Once again the Rosh Yeshiva is taken for interrogation and is depicted to the public as a dangerous agitator. Is this being done to lay the groundwork for the destruction of our yeshiva?

In our estimation the situation is very worrying. We are urging the public to support us on an emergency footing which will allow us to organize in our struggle and to stand firm. Our role is to educate our students. We are not people seeking confrontation. But, now that this serious matter has been thrust upon us, we must be prepared to deal with it in the most firm, determined and professional manner. This will cost a good deal of money, more than what is currently available to operate the yeshiva.

Click to Donate

We would gladly welcome your ideas & any financial help you can give us. We await your valuable input.

Itamar Pozen

Visit our website: http://www.odyosefchai.org.il


Dear Rabbanim, Print Media, Friends and Family, amv'sh

This is a very bad OMEN. This can not be taken quietly.

A Yeshiva and Synagogue destroyed in the Shomron or anywhere sends a terrible message to the world.

I re-experience the destruction of Gush Katif shuls. A wound still festering, now reopened and in the process of being stabbed once again.

What agitation did the Gush Katif people do to deserve the destruction of their synagogues, still not rebuilt? (All except 1 or 2 out of 26)

Can a Yeshiva and a Synagogue be demolished retroactively at the whim of an Israeli minister heavily involved in politics after many have signed agreed, processed and built. This building has been faithfully serving the Shomron communities as a Beit Knesset and Jewish Center of Learning. It is also a Yeshiva Boys High School. Can this building be retroactively annulled, demolished, erased and blotted off the map? Can it's reason to exist cease based on the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats who say so? What explanation can you offer those high school students? Clearly it is "You have no rights in this place. Leave this area immediately. Your house and home and school and shul are not protected by a security system!!!!

How can this civil administration, ruled by politics, override previous administrations that signed and approved???

What message does this send the world? Better left unsaid and Al Tiftach Peh LaSatan...

Barak is in America and the timing of this is not coincidental! WOW! Can't beat this gift... Destruction in Judea and Samaria, a wonderful present to Obama from BARAK the "Defense" Minister of Israel under Netanyahu!! Beats cigars and watches.

This Yeshiva was built by Israel and has been standing 11 years! It's Rosh Yeshiva is depicted as a dangerous agitator.

So let's talk about agitation! Let's talk about how the government of Israel deals with real agitation from the Palestinians like trespassing, stealing, and arson on farms within Judea and Samaria Let's talk about the same scenario on farms in the Galil and the Negev. Let's talk about how the IDF sits with their hands folded and at times, from orders above, does nothing to protect the property of taxpaying Jews, citizens of the State, living in Judea and Samaria. The IDF is confused as per who they must protect and defend. They know that they must surely protect the stone throwing, arson setting Arabs from those "militant" settlers. If one of those settlers even dare to burn even a tire, that's it for them. Jail,. Isolation.. Even if they had the thought in their mind to commit the crime of burning a tire, now that's reallllllly bad... Compare their pre-sentencing jail term with proven Palestinian terrorists...And which right wing settler has the means to afford to pay the lawyers the fees that are necessary to defend themselves? The Palestinians have pockets that are a bottomless pit and the best lawyers are hired on their behalf. By whom? Shouldn't we ask? Their money flows from the European Union, America, Saudi Arabai and of course Iran and their proxies in Lebanon and Syria etc ...The Police accept the lies of Arabs as testimony without investigation of the facts and then send out stories based on lies and fabrication to the media throughout the world who are very quick to report this "news" . But the IDF is confused as to how to protect the tax paying settlers before they became "militant" having been provoked by destructive, trespassers, stone throwers and arson setting Palestinians.

Why don't the Jewish newspapers carry real stories of agitation instead of prefabricated ones. How much provoking must the settlers take?

PLEASE ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION. Would you willingly allow your home to be trespassed, vandalized, your goats and sheep stolen, Your vineyards ruined, your tractor and farm equipment vandalized and allow your families to be threatened and simply sit there with your hands folded as a sitting duck waiting for even worst things to happen?

Would you throw up your hands and say i had better run away from my million dollar or million shekel house that I have been working so very hard for my whole adult life with the help of family and friends because no one is protecting me and when I defend myself I am called the agitator?

In fact they will turn the table on me and even before I put a legal claim on them they might submit reports to the police that I was the one that vandalized their homes, stole their sheep, burnt their vineyards, destroyed their olive trees, shot them, and their grandmother and perhaps they will add that I beat their child etc, why not? it sounds good, all based on lies and fabrications and then the authorities will put me into jail and I will need to defend myself. Maybe the Police will release me that night because of lack of evidence, but not after all the fabricated charges against me are sent out to world wide press.

Sometimes, they keep big mouths like me in jail or administration detention and won't even tell me the reason SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THEY DID THIS TO YOU????? AND BTW...WHERE WOULD YOU RUN TO BY THE TIME THESE ANARCHIST REACH YOUR HOME????

and let us not sit smugly in the diaspora... Things are progressing at a very fast rate... Chas Veshalom...

Contact Robin Ticker by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, July 29, 2010.

This was written by Danny Ayalon, Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was published in The Wall Street Journal on July 29, 2010.


A couple of years ago, a Palestinian refugee camp was encircled and laid siege to by an army of tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers. Attacks initiated by Palestinian militants triggered an overwhelming response from the army that took the life of almost 500 people, including many civilians. International organizations struggled to send aid to the refugee camps, where the inhabitants were left without basic amenities like electricity and running water. During the conflict, six U.N. personnel were killed when their car was bombed.

Government ministers and spokesmen tried to explain to the international community that the Palestinian militants were backed by Syria and global jihadist elements. Al Qaeda condemned the government and the army, declaring that the attack was part of a "crusade" against their Palestinian brothers.

A Palestinian refugee collects metal and plastic objects at a garbage dump in the Palestinian refugee camp of Beddawi near Tripoli.

While most will assume that the events described above took place in the West Bank or Gaza, they actually took place in Lebanon in the summer of 2007, when Palestinian terrorists attacked the Lebanese Army, which struck back with deadly force. The scene of most of the fighting was the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Northern Lebanon, which was home to the Islamist Fatah al-Islam, a group that has links with al Qaeda.

At the time, there was little international outcry. No world leader decried the "prison camps" in Lebanon. No demonstrations took place around the world; no U.N. investigation panels were created and little media attention was attracted. In fact, the plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon garners very little attention internationally.

Today, there are more than 400,000 Palestinians in Lebanon who are deprived of their most basic rights. The Lebanese government has a list of tens of professions that a Palestinian is forbidden from being engaged in, including professions such as medicine, law and engineering. Palestinians are forbidden from owning property and need a special permit to leave their towns. Unlike all other foreign nationals in Lebanon, they are denied access to the health-care system. According to Amnesty international, the Palestinians in Lebanon suffer from "discrimination and marginalization" and are treated like "second class citizens" and "denied their full range of human rights."

Amnesty also states that most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have little choice but to live in overcrowded and deteriorating camps and informal gatherings that lack basic infrastructure.

In view of the worsening plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon, it is the height of irony that a Lebanese flotilla is organizing to leave the port of Tripoli in the next few days to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. According to one of the organizers, the participants are "united by a feeling of stark injustice."

This attitude exposes the dishonesty of the whole flotilla exercise. Whether it is from Turkey, Ireland or Cyprus, those that participate in these flotillas reek of hypocrisy. There are currently 100 armed conflicts and dozens of territorial disputes around the world. There have been millions of people killed and hundreds of millions live in abject poverty without access to basic staples. And yet hundreds of high-minded "humanitarian activists" are spending millions of dollars to reach Gaza and hand money to Hamas that will never reach the innocent civilians of Gaza.

This is the same Gaza that just opened a sparkling new shopping mall that would not look out of place in any capital in Europe. Gaza, where a new Olympic-sized swimming pool was recently inaugurated and five-star hotels and restaurants offer luxurious fare.

Markets brimming with all manner of foods dot the landscape of Gaza, where Lauren Booth, journalist and "human rights activist," was pictured buying chocolate and luxurious items from a well-stocked supermarket before stating with a straight face that the "situation in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur."

No one claims that the situation in Gaza is perfect. Since the bloody coup and occupation by Hamas of Gaza in 2007, in which more than 100 Palestinians were killed, Israel has had no choice but to ensure that Hamas is not able to build up an Iranian port on the shores of the Mediterranean. Until Hamas meets the three standards laid out by the international community, namely renouncing violence, recognizing Israel's right to exist and abiding by previously signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Hamas will continue to be shunned by the international community.

While Israel's policy is to continue to see that all civilian needs are addressed, it can not allow Hamas to rearm and use Gaza as a base to attack Israel and beyond. For this reason, Israel initiated a blockade, fully legal under international law, to ensure that no items can be appropriated by Hamas to attack innocent civilians. Organizations that wish to join the U.N. and the Red Cross to deliver goods or aid to Gaza are welcome to do so through the Kerem Shalom crossing or even through Egyptian ports. Those that refuse and seek to break the legal blockade to boost Hamas are interested in provocation. If Israel allows these confrontational flotillas to successfully open up a shipping lane for arms smuggling for an Iranian proxy, then the region will suffer from continuous conflict. Actions that embolden the extremists will be at the cost of the moderates and this will pose a grave danger to moving the peace process forward.

The latest flotilla preparing to leave from Lebanon fully exposes not only the hypocrisy but the danger of these provocative vigilante flotillas. The Lebanese flotilla, whose organizers claim injustice while ignoring the dire human rights situation of the Palestinians in Lebanon, amply demonstrate that these flotillas have nothing to do with humanita

Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, July 29, 2010.

This was written by Moshe Arens and appeared today in Haaretz.


Just imagine Israel's position today had the Lavi fighter jet project not been canceled.

Who would have believed it? Some years ago Israel was developing the world's most advanced fighter aircraft, the Lavi, while the Western world's aircraft manufacturers were beating their way to our door, eager to participate in the Lavi project, or trying to sell their competing plane to the Israel Air Force. And now Israel goes hat in hand pleading for a chance to be allowed to acquire the F-35 aircraft, at a price tag of $150 million each. But it's not only the astronomical price. Israel is told that the F-35 must be taken as is — no changes or modifications to suit Israel's specific needs, and absolutely no Israeli systems included. Take it or leave it.

Just imagine Israel's position today had the Lavi project not been canceled. The IAF would be operating the world's most advanced fighter, upgraded over the years to incorporate operational experience and newer technology. Much of Israel's industry would have moved a great step ahead, Israel Aerospace Industries would have become a leading developer of fighter aircraft, and most importantly, a number of options would be open to the IAF in choosing its next fighter.

F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. (AP)

What were the outlandish claims trumpeted by the opponents of the Lavi? The project, they said, was too big for Israel. These narrow-minded skeptics had not believed that we could convince the U.S. Congress to fund most of the project, and certainly were incapable of foreseeing Israel's economic growth in the years to come. Now they are staring at a $3 billion price tag for 20 F-35s. They said Israel should not be developing military platforms but only accessory systems to be mounted on the platforms. Now Israel will not be allowed to mount Israeli systems on the F-35.

And where would we be today if we had believed that nonsense about not developing platforms? Out of the satellite-launching and unmanned-aerial-vehicle business. Where are they today, the people who at the time foolishly led the crusade against the Lavi? Surprisingly, 23 years later, some are still involved in decision-making on national security. They were against the development of the Lavi, against the development of an Israeli reconnaissance satellite, and against the development of the Arrow ballistic missile interceptor. But unfazed, they continue on.

Do they admit they were mistaken? Admitting past mistakes is a rare human quality, but there are exceptions. Dan Halutz, a fighter pilot ace and former IAF commander and chief of staff, at the time like many senior IAF officers a supporter of the cancellation of the Lavi project, recognizes in his recent book that it was a mistake to cancel the project.

So what's the use of crying over spilled milk? Are there alternatives to swallowing our pride and shelling out $3 billion for 20 F-35s? (The original plan had been to acquire 75 aircraft, which would have brought the price above $11 billion, but that was too expensive. ) Before we make that commitment, a little intellectual effort should be invested in looking at other options.

Does Israel still have the technological capability to design a first-rate fighter aircraft? That needs to be examined in some depth. No doubt some of the capability that existed at the time of the Lavi project has been lost over the years, but as has been proved time and again, Israel has a world-class technological capability. Its success in unmanned aerial vehicles is only one of a number of examples.

If it turns out that the capability to design the IAF's next fighter aircraft does exist in Israel, where could we go from there? Not to the U.S. Congress in search of funding, because we would have to remind them that 27 years ago they were fools to invest $1 billion in the development of the Lavi that Israel decided it did not want. We would have to look for partners who are prepared to invest resources in such a project, who have the necessary technological capability, and who are not involved in the F-35 project.

Are there such candidates? In theory, yes. France, with a great aeronautical industry, chose not to participate in the F-35 project. India, with a considerable aeronautical capability and a meteorically growing economy, might be another candidate. And there is Russia. Perhaps none of them would be interested, and perhaps all of them would be. It's worth a try.

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 David Isaac, July 29, 2010.

Recently declassified White House transcripts (featured in an editorial in the Israeli daily Haaretz) show former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger blaming Israel for the problems in the region, accusing Israel of being "deliberately provocative" and attempting "to create maximum commotion in the Middle East."

In the newly released documents Kissinger refers to the Golan Heights as "Syrian territory" and the Syrians as "my friends." He confides to an Algerian diplomat that "a (new Arab-Israeli) war wouldn't be so bad for us. ... We could show (Israel) we are tough." Us? This strongly suggests Kissinger identified with the Arab side in the Arab-Israel conflict.

While these documents do not cover the period of the 1973 war (they cover the end of the Nixon administration and eighteen months of the subsequent Ford administration), they bear out Shmuel Katz's devastating assessment of Kissinger's role during the war as crucial in turning Israel's military victory into a bitter strategic defeat. Just a year after the Yom Kippur War, in his 1974 pamphlet, "The Crisis of Israel and the West" Katz described Kissinger's actions and their repercussions.

When Israel had recovered from her initial, nearly disastrous setback, the resourcefulness, and courage and qualitative superiority of her soldiers so succeeded that — in view of all the responsible military analysts — she was on the brink of achieving the greatest victory in her history. ... [T]he Israel army had created an excellent bargaining position for whatever negotiations might ensue after the Cease Fire had been formalized in a resolution by the UN Security Council. It held firmly a wide salient deep into Egyptian territory proper with the road to Cairo open. The Egyptian Third Army, one of the two Egyptian forces that had crossed over the east bank of the Suez Canal, was encircled and its supplies completely cut off. ...

But in two further decisive steps the U.S. Secretary of State dictated the conversion of Israel's advantageous position into a posture of defeat. He insisted on the unconditional lifting of the siege of the Third Army. Brief Israeli resistance (by the Minister of Defense in a telephone conversation) was brusquely rejected...By February 1974 Israel had by diplomatic negotiation lost the Yom Kippur War, and the aggressor had been awarded the beginnings of a retrospective victory in the Six Day War. The Egyptians moreover made no secret of their confidence that this was only the first step to Israel's being forced out of all of Sinai. The Egyptian President in particular repeatedly gave expression to this confidence, indicating without inhibition that this is what he had been promised by the U.S. Secretary of State whom he trusted absolutely in view of what he had already done for the Arab cause.

Twenty seven years later, in 2001, in a column "In Politics: No Friendships, Only Interests" Shmuel Katz returned to the theme of Kissinger's 1973 game plan, this time with Kissinger's own memoirs as evidence. Kissinger was determined, Katz wrote

on a diplomacy that would result in Egypt's moving over from the Soviet orbit to the American. The price, as became evident, was to be a sacrifice of Israel...That is why the Egyptians to this day celebrate what they claim was a military victory over Israel. That is why, in Israel, the Yom Kippur War is remembered and felt as a bitter defeat. The harm done to Israel was and remains incalculable, not least in that sense of having been defeated.

Moreover, Kissinger accomplished his goals through deception. As Katz details in "The Man with A Plan" (Oct. 23, 2003), with Israel facing a "dangerous shortage of materiel" Kissinger held up the arms shipments to Israel, claiming falsely it was Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger's doing. Kissinger then used Israel's predicament to pressure American Jewish leaders to abandon their efforts on behalf of Soviet Jewry in return for his support in expediting the delivery of the sorely needed materiel — arms and supplies which he was responsible for holding up in the first place.

Kissinger also hinted to Defense Minister Moshe Dayan of a Soviet atomic threat if Israel didn't comply with his demands. Katz says this was a bald-faced lie. The Soviets had made no such threat. Katz writes:

Dayan later realized that he had been hoodwinked, and indeed, on examination of Kissinger's blow-by-blow negotiations with the Russians, there is not a smidgen of a hint of an atomic threat by the Russians. In a public lecture in May 1974, Dayan declared:

"The Americans denied us the fruits of victory. It was an ultimatum. Had the US not pressed us, the Third Army and Suez City would have had to surrender. We would have captured 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers and Sadat would have had to admit it to his people. We might have held them only for a day and let them walk out without their arms, but it would have changed the whole Egyptian attitude about whether they won the war or not."

It is painful to think that someone who fled Nazi persecution as a young boy in 1938 should do so much damage to the Jewish State. Yet, a closer look shows that Kissinger has, at best, a tenuous connection with his Judaism. Rabbi Norman Lamm, former chancellor of Yeshiva University, spotted this early. In his article "Kissinger and the Jews" (Dec. 20, 1975), a devastating critique, he writes, "Dr. Kissinger is an illustration of how high an assimilated Jew can rise in the United States, and how low he can fall in the esteem of his fellow Jews."

Lamm referred to a recent visit by Henry Kissinger and his parents to Furth, their hometown in Bavaria which they escaped before the war. They had only kind words for their native city, "but nary a word about the Holocaust, not a word about the Nazis who drove them out of that city!" On top of this, Lamm reveals that Kissinger didn't want to visit Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial, during his first trip to Israel, and had to be "persuaded." He "accepted only when he was told that every other foreign minister visiting Israel had done so."

This hasn't stopped Kissinger from portraying himself as one with the Jewish community, accepting awards from the Anti-Defamation League and bestowing awards on behalf of Jewish organizations like the United Jewish Appeal.

Kissinger's guilt runs deep. Whether or not he feels it is another matter. Zionist writer William Mehlman offers a remarkable footnote involving Kissinger and Katz sometime after the Yom Kippur War. Kissinger got wind of a rumor — unfounded — that Shmuel had taken out a contract on his life (a fantasy Kissinger apparently believed based on the allegations about his role in delaying the resupply of munitions to Israel during the war).

"Shmuel, informed of what had transpired and anxious to put the rumor to rest, arranged a face-to-face meeting with Kissinger at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. 'From the moment I entered his suite until I left three minutes later,' Katz related to a small circle of friends in Tel Aviv, 'he did not stop shouting at me. He never gave me a chance to refute the rumor. In fact I never got a chance to say a word. Finally, I just turned around and walked out.'"

Mehlman writes, "Whatever debt Henry Kissinger may or may not have felt he owed his conscience, he must surely have learned by now that it wasn't Shmuel Katz who had come to collect."

Kissinger is 87. It doesn't look as if he will make amends in this world. Perhaps in the next.

David Isaac is e-Editor of the Shmuel Katz website. Contact him by email at David_Isaac@shmuelkatz.com or visit
http://www.shmuelkatz.com http://shmuelkatz.com/wordpress/?p=138

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, July 29, 2010.

British Prime Minister David Cameron's July 27 speech see here.) in Turkey will not live on in history. But it should, as an example of the decline of Western diplomacy, of suicide by Political Correctness, as a textbook example of how not to conduct international affairs.

It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster.

Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country, what should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here's what I can do for you, here's what I'd like you to do for me. And here's what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.

Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests.

Cameron did the precise and exact opposite. His message was: The UK needs Turkey. Turkey is wonderful. Its behavior has been perfect. We are desperate for your help.

What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet and says: That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it?

In addition, Cameron committed some other howling mistakes, several of which will amaze you. So please stick with me as I explain and document this. You won't be disappointed. And remember this is not just a matter of one speech, it is a fitting symbol for the entire contemporary Western diplomatic approach to the Middle East and much more to the world as well. By the way, it is doomed to fail miserably.

Before we begin, remember that this is no longer the old Turkish Republic. Cameron is lavishing praise on an Islamist-oriented regime which has aligned itself with Iran and revolutionary Islamist groups. And all of Cameron's pandering, as if he were a Western barbarian in the court of the all-powerful Ottoman sultan, is driving a knife into the heart of a Turkish opposition which is genuinely friendly toward the West and horrified by the current regime's subversion of Turkish democracy.

Cameron began by saying:

"I've come to Ankara today to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country."

Note the cringing here. A proper prime minister might have said: "I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our countries." In other words, the speaker would stress there is a mutual benefit. Instead, this polite approach makes it sound as if Turkey is doing the United Kingdom a favor by having a strategic relationship to it while Turkey doesn't need Britain at all.

And this is precisely the interpretation put on such things in the local context: The Turkish regime can take its Western alliances for granted while taking the side of the West's radical Islamist enemies. And here it is again:

"People ask me why [I'm visiting] Turkey and why so soon. I'll tell you why. Because Turkey is vital for our economy. Vital for our security. And vital for our politics and diplomacy."

So Turkey holds all the cards and the West can do nothing but give concessions in hope of winning favor in its eyes. One should remember that a major theme of Iran, Syria, and this Turkish regime is that nothing can be achieved without them and so the West must bow to their will and do everything they want. Cameron is feeding this monster.

According to him, there are no problems with Turkey on security:

"Turkey is a great NATO ally. And Turkey shares our determination to fight terrorism in all its forms — whether from Al Qaeda or the PKK. [But not, he fails to mention, from Hamas or Hizballah!] But perhaps more significant still is the fact that Turkey's unique position at the meeting point of East and West gives it an unrivalled influence in helping us get to grips with some of the greatest threats to our collective security."

Look, you don't go to a country and criticize it (unless the country is Israel. Now why is that?) but you don't tell them that everything they are doing is great because if that's true they will keep on doing it and know there is no cost. Turkey under this regime is not a pro-Western state helping the West against its "Eastern" enemies — as Turkey was between, say, 1950 and 2000 — or is it a neutral meeting ground. At present, Turkey is on the enemy side.

He continues:

"Which Muslim majority country has a long-established relationship with Israel while at the same time championing the rights of the Palestinian people? Which European country could have the greatest chance of persuading Iran to change course on its nuclear policy?"

Now this is after the Turkish regime trashed the relationship with Israel and stabbed the United States and UK in the back by cutting its own deal with Iran and even voting against sanctions at the UN. This is the policy Cameron praises! And then after all these things he adds:

"Whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East, Turkey has a credibility that others in the West just can't hope to have. So I've come here to make the case for Turkey to use this credibility, to go further in enhancing our security and working for peace across our world."

Does this include Turkish regime support for Hamas and Hizballah, alignment with Iran and Syria? He should be hinting gently that Turkey is losing its credibility because of the regime's behavior. And therefore Turkey needs to change its behavior, a point that the opposition will be arguing in the next election. By this time I can see the opposition tearing it hair out as another Western leader heaps praise on the regime. And have no doubt the regime will use all this in next year's elections:

Extremist? Transforming Turkey toward Islamism? What do you mean? The West loves us!

Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage, that Turkish membership might depend on the regime's behavior. He could have said:

While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if... Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm.

But it gets worse. Cameron is about to insult several of Britain's closest allies, including Germany and France, by making opposition to Turkey's entrance into the EU as a form of racism and Islamophobia. For example, he says that opponents are:

"The prejudiced. Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures."

All these arguments are just plain wrong. The problem precisely is the version of Islam embodied in the current Turkish government. There could be other perfectly pious Muslims ruling Turkey (and Iran, Syria, or the Gaza Strip for that matter) who would interpret Islam in a way relatively compatible with the values of other religions. But not the Islamists!

He also complains of those who "see the history of our world as a clash of civilizations as a choice between East and West. They just don't get the fact that Turkey can be a great unifier. Because instead of choosing between East and West, Turkey has chosen both."

But he doesn't comprehend that the current government of Turkey sees the world as a clash of civilizations. Its foreign minister even wrote a book to that effect, which has never been translated and which the regime is doing its best to conceal. This is not the Turkey of Kamal Ataturk and his successors but rather (at least temporarily) a country ruled by the successors of those who opposed Ataturk.

If I were a German or French journalist my headline would be: Cameron Calls German (or French) policy bigoted and anti-Islamic.

Yet Cameron sails on into even worse grounds. He actually praises a Turkish policy which has gone to the brink of war with Israel, sponsored a flotilla run by radical Islamists intending to create a violent confrontation, and is allied with a revolutionary terrorist group. One has to quote it to believe he actually said the following:

"Turkey's relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey's relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.

"Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

"But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it's Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution."

In other words, Turkey is 100 percent right, I have no criticism of Hamas's behavior, we should accept a permanent revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, genocidal, statelet on the Mediterranean. No problem. And we can ignore the Turkish regime's pro-Hamas policy and provocative behavior because without abandoning that approach Turkey can still play a productive role! This is the diplomatic equivalent of insane behavior on Cameron's part.

And does Israel want this regime to mediate between it and the Palestinians? Even the Palestinian Authority doesn't want that: it knows that the Turkish regime is allied with its Hamas rivals, for goodness sakes! Doesn't Cameron know this?

I don't want to take up too much of your time but I cannot let this next gem pass. True, Cameron urged Turkey to continue internal reforms (but there's no hint of the anti-democratic nature of the regime's manipulation of such reforms, for example, to seize control of the courts) and the massive repression of dissidents. He suggests that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and he even criticizes the Turkey-Iran deal. But note the illogical leap:

"Even if Iran were to complete the deal proposed in their recent agreement with Turkey and Brazil, it would still retain around fifty percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. So we need Turkey's help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community.

"We hope that the meeting held in Istanbul between the Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian Foreign Ministers will see Iran move in the right direction."

That meeting is a conference of Iran's supporters! Why would it lead Iran in the right direction? How about Turkey's opposition to sanctions? And again note the beggar's worldview: "We need Turkey's help..." Why should Turkey help? What will you give the regime in exchange for its alleged help? What behavior will you overlook in exchange for its alleged help? This regime wants to help Iran, not against Iran. Finally, remember that Cameron is a Conservative, the successor of Winston Churchill. That's how deep the appeasement disease has penetrated the Western ruling class.  

Andrew Sullivan Attacks Me Without Bothering to Consider What I Wrote
By Barry Rubin
July 30, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/07/ andrew-sullivan-attacks-me-without-bothering-to-consider

One of the amazing things about the intellectual scene today is that people attack you without any reference to what you actually say. It is as if you were talking to someone deaf who has his hearing aid turned off. You want to explain that there must be a misunderstanding only to find that the person doesn't care: he just wants to scream insults at you so that nobody actually considers whether you are making an accurate point.

When I was growing up, someone considered your actual arguments and responded to them with rational arguments of their own. Some of us still do that. I wrote a serious and sober analysis of what was wrong with the UK prime minister's speech in Turkey, focusing on the basic misunderstanding of proper diplomatic leverage.

Instead, Andrew Sullivan writes: (see here.)

"Barry Rubin joins the chorus from the neocon right claiming that 'Turkey is on the enemy side.'"

Let's consider this sentence. First, rather than argue the facts he merely throws in two words intended to get people to demonize me and not listen to anything I say: neocon right. Hey, nothing more need be said! But the central question should be whether the original statement was true or not, right?

Then there's that word "joins." I've been studying Turkey now for 35 years. I've been there about 25 times. Regarding the direction of the regime, I've been saying the same thing for about two years, long before there was a collapse of Turkish-Israel relations.

If I've joined anyone it's the Turkish socialists and liberals. Here's one of many examples: a Turkish woman from the left who angrily told me, "We've been warning the West about these people for years and the West just won't listen."

In fact, though, I think I was the first person to say that the Turkish regime (NOT Turkey) has gone over to the other side. I have written literally dozens of articles proving it. I have quoted Iran's leader and Syria's government as having publicly stated it. Might Sullivan want to consult the evidence I have compiled? Of course not.

And then he makes a remarkably revealing illogical argument:

"It was once a given on the right that keeping Turkey close to the West was essential in defusing Islamism and winning the war on terror. But once Turkey took on Israel, that ended, because the war many neocons are waging is for Israel, right or wrong, not the West at large."

This has an implication of antisemitism, doesn't it? He's saying that people are only angry at Turkey's rulers because they have fallen out with Israel, referring mainly to the flotilla issue. This makes me think of the argument in the 1930s that people were only critical of Germany because they were Jews or only cared about Jewish interests.

Yes, it has been a given on both left, center, and right that keeping Turkey close to the West was essential. Yet what if the Turkish regime is no longer close to the West? Everyone's opinion is still the same, it's the situation that's changed. To ignore that change is incredibly dangerous. Indeed, I'd say that Turkey's change of sides (perhaps temporary) is the biggest defeat suffered by the West in the Middle East since the Iranian revolution.

So how to keep Turkey close to the West? Act to constrain the current regime and, in appropriate ways of course, to help the opposition win the elections a year from now. Cheering the current regime, letting it claim that the West accepts its policies, assists that increasingly dictatorial government to remain in power.

And if it does fall as I hope? Oh, dear! Then Turkey would have a socialist prime minister instead of a right-wing Islamist one. Seems to me that's what Western liberals and the left should prefer.

As for the claim that it's all about Israel, in fact, I have been talking for months about:

--Internal repression in Turkey, including the arrests of hundreds of peaceful dissidents on charges of attempting to overthrow the government with violence. Turks have been writing eloquently about this issue.

--The regime's campaign to bring the media and court system under government control. The regime and its supporters have bought up much of the media and intimidated the rest. It is now proposing constitutional changes to cripple the judiciary. People in Turkey are scared. Many say they no longer recognize their country.

--Turkish regime support for Iran and its nuclear weapons' program. This now includes cutting a separate deal with Tehran against U.S. wishes and voting against sanctions. The prime minister has stated that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, therefore calling President Obama a liar.

--Close Turkish cooperation with Syria. The regime does not have a "pro-Arab" policy (ask the Egyptian, Jordan, or Saudi governments in private), it has a pro-Arabic-speaking Islamists policy.

--The regime's engagement with Hamas and Hizballah and support for these two revolutionary Islamist groups. As I have pointed out, the regime does NOT support the "Palestinian people" but merely Hamas, a fellow Islamist party.

Much of my material has come from the Turkish opposition, mainly Kemalist secularists and democratic socialists.

Yet none of this matters, right? It's only all about Israel, we are supposed to believe, and talking about everything else is just an excuse!

Sullivan has, however, taught me something important: why such people must keep harping on Israel. Forget about the canary in the coal mine analogy. The Israel card's use is to make people blind, to shut them up, to throw out every other issue and piece of evidence.

They hope that anti-Israel passion (plus dark hints of a Jewish conspiracy) will keep people from actually looking at what's happening. In the phrase of Professor Richard Landes, Israel is a weapon of mass destruction. And the Jews have filled this function many times before in history.

On top of this, my article's theme and tone are quite different from his claims. Here are the key sentences from my article:

"Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country. What should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here's what I can do for you; here's what I'd like you to do for me. And here's what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.

"Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests...

"Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage, that Turkish membership might depend on the regime's behavior. He could have said: 'While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if... Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm.'"

Does that sound like a call for war?

Mr. Sullivan: There is something in diplomacy between war and appeasement. It is called carrots and sticks, costs and benefits, quid pro quo. Cameron's speech was a mess because he abandoned that principle and resorted only to simple-minded flattery. Middle Eastern peoples — Muslim or otherwise — know what that signals: weakness, which invites ridicule and aggressiveness.

Sullivan also ignores my point — which I think is rather significant — that Cameron foolishly insulted France and Germany by strongly implying that the only reason they oppose Turkey's EU membership is because they are bigots. If Sullivan had been Britain's prime minister I guess he would have called them "neocon rightists."

If Cameron had not mentioned Israel at all I would have written precisely the same article on all these points.

Sullivan continued:

"Keep it up, prime minister. Advance the interests of Britain, and resist the war of civilizations the far right wants to gin up. We will only defeat Islamism if we keep an open hand stretched to Islam. Isolating and demonizing Turkey's evolution as a regional Muslim power — prepared to be Israel's ally if Israel stops the persecution and colonization of the Palestinans — is about as dumb a geo-strategic move as one could imagine."

The issue is not a "war of civilizations" but a war of ideologies. Is Sullivan really so dense that he doesn't understand that the people most similar to him in Turkey hate and fear the current regime? Doesn't Sullivan understand that the governments of most Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East don't want the West to support the Islamists?

(Here's a list: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. And even the Palestinian Authority and the democratic forces in Lebanon. These are almost all Muslims, too, aren't they? And then let's add the majority of Muslims in Turkey and in Iran as well!)

Turkey is not evolving into being a regional Muslim power as some kind of national project. This is in fact the policy of one party in Turkey which has less than 30 percent support according to recent public opinion polls, with probably twice as many Turks favoring non-Islamist opposition parties.

And what does deifying the current Turkish government have to do with keeping an "open hand stretched to Islam"? Almost all Turks are Muslims, they just aren't political Islamists. That's why the West gets along with Egypt, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia, for example, who are all Muslims but not on the side of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.

It was a Socialist leader who once said that antisemitism was the socialism of fools. Today, the insane use of Israel as the cause of all issues and problems is the tool used to make fools on the left support the most reactionary forces on the Middle Eastern extreme right. And then, to make it laughable, they do so in the name of fighting evil rightists!

Incidentally, don't think I didn't notice Sullivan's sleazy little trick: he didn't link to my article so those reading his blog item could easily check out what I actually said rather than what he claimed. That's the kind of behavior that tells a great deal about Sullivan's intellectual dishonesty.

Update: Sullivan apparently read this article and added the link. I hope he learned something.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 29, 2010.


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has named a new summer camp, in Bethlehem, after terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led perhaps the worst terrorist attack against Israel. His squad hijacked a civilian bus, and murdered 37 passengers, including 12 children.

This was the second P.A. camp in Bethlehem named after Mughrabi. Schools, youth centers, and landmarks also have been named after her. She is a major Palestinian Arab heroine for her attack on civilians.

P.A. Deputy Minister of Education and Sports explained that P.A. summer camps teach, "through precept and example about the importance of dialog and tolerance in life."

One Voice Palestine, which supports the camp, states that its members are "fed up with the ongoing conflict" and "ready and eager to support a serious process" for peace.

The Fatah Party, which Abbas chaired, called Mughrabi's attack "the most glorified sacrifice action in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle" [Al-Ayyam, July 13, 2008]. "The PA celebrated the 31st anniversary of her killings with an hour-long TV special that opened with the narrator glorifying the attack." (IMRA, 7/29/10 from Palestinian Media Watch. We cited other examples in earlier articles).

Doesn't the glorification of terrorism set a precept about the importance of intolerance? Doesn't commemoration of a terrorist contradict the notion of an interest in peace?

Some readers accuse Israel of being terrorist and of indoctrinating in terrorism, but give no evidence except when they mis-define "terrorism." Here are examples of the P.A and its organizations having committed terrorism and indoctrinating in it by celebrating it. The accusers of Israel ignore these actual examples of terrorism. Do they really object to terrorism?


The usual definition of "refugee," according to the American Heritage College Dictionary, is "one who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war. The flight usually means from the country.

That definition is not applied to Palestinian Arabs. The ones who went to Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and perhaps Jordan did not leave the area of the original Palestine Mandate, the nearest they had to a country [although at that time, most were relatively recent immigrants from surrounding countries, many so recently arrived as under the standard UN definition not to be considered refugees for that reason, too].

Most did not flee in search of refuge from war, their Arab leaders, domestic and foreign, ordered them out. A chief reason was not to keep the Jewish state, which was not expelling the bulk of them, form seeming humane, reasonable, and legitimate.

Most of the people now in the refugee camps did not flee from anything. They are descendants of the Arabs who originally left.

20,000 such people live in a one-square kilometer Balata refugee camp within Nablus, in Judea-Samaria. In "quasi-apartheid" fashion, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) does not let them build outside the camp, vote in Nablus elections, get municipal funds for roads and sanitation, and attend city schools. The camp children attend separate schools, provided by UNRWA, much of which is subsidized by the U.S.. (Sol Stern, senior fellow at Manhattan Institute, in Israel Resource News, 7/29/10)

I consulted Arline Kushner, senior analyst at the Center for Near East Policy Research, where she has written major reports on UNRWA. I asked whether the P.A. applies the same policy to other refugee camps.

Kushner said that the policy has exceptions. Gaza has more non-UNRWA schools than UNRWA schools. Some of the residents of refugee camps vote. More live outside the camps and even run businesses, but they usually live nearby, so they can enter the camps and avail themselves of services meant for refugees. In general, however, the P.A. rejects responsibility for refugee descendants

Refugees have acknowledged in correspondence Kushner has seen that they willingly stay cloistered for the cause of entering Israel. That is one reason they oppose integration in the Palestinian Authority. Once they rioted at the prospect of becoming part of a new Arab state in the P.A. (e-mail, 7/29).

Although the P.A. claims to represent these descendants of refugees, it treats them almost as enemy aliens. That is a hidden scandal. It gives critics of Israel, on the basis of an ostensible concern for Palestinian Arabs, something to criticize the P.A. for.

Israel, by contrast, lets Arab citizens vote, move, and receive national funds for Arab cities in Israel and for Arab citizens in mixed Israeli cities.


Today, not long after CNN fired a senior editor for bias on the Arab-Israel conflict, senior international correspondent Ben Wedeman presented his own bias. This was on Twitter, but the pattern of his reporting indicates that bias influences his reporting.

Security fence in reaction to terrorism (AP/Majid Mohammed)

Mr. Wedeman commended as "excellent," an article by the "harshly anti-Israel" Professor Juan Cole. Prof. Cole's article claimed that Israel's "isolation derives from Israeli policies, of illegal blockades ... and systematic land theft and displacement of occupied civilians under its control, along with aggressive war."

Israel's wars resulted from Arabs committing kidnapping, bombardment, invasion, and other acts of war, not wanton aggression. (For the legality of the blockade, click here. What systematic land theft and displacement of civilians? I have documented extensive land theft by Arabs.)

In his official capacity, Wedeman asserts that Israel prevents peace — PM Netanyahu refuses to make "confidence-building" measures, refuses to enter direct negotiations, and holds eastern Jerusalem that Wedeman writes belongs to the Arabs. Here, CAMERA, the source for this piece, documents the sacrifices Israel made for hoped confidence-building, including roadblock removal and construction freeze, the many invitations PM Netanyahu gave for direct negotiations rejected by Abbas, and the importance of eastern Jerusalem to the Jewish people. It is a mixed area under Israeli sovereignty. [There is no legal basis for assuming the area belongs to the Arabs.]

In 2008, Wedeman asserted that Israel's security fence squeezed the tourist trade almost entirely out of Bethlehem's economy. Actually, since the fence was built, in 2005, the Christmas pilgrimage seasons in Bethlehem rose greatly. [Not because of the fence. I had reported special efforts by Israel to boost that tourism and facilitate entry of Christians to their holy sites.]

Apparently, Wedeman's bias misinforms CNN news coverage (CAMERA, 7/29)


Britain's PM David Cameron visited Turkey and made these points on Turkey, Gaza, and Israel:

1. Britain signed an agreement with Turkey on trade and security and wants Turkey admitted into the EU for regional trade and security and to have more influence over Europe;

2. Turkey and Israel should not abandon their friendship;

3. Israel's attack on the flotilla was "completely unacceptable." Israel should end restrictions on Gaza, so Gaza does not remain "a prison camp."

Some EU members oppose Turkey's admission because of what they consider its poor human rights record (Lawrence Norman, Joe Parkinson, Wall St. J., 7/28/10).

Elsewhere, PM Cameron was said to have acknowledged, in generalized wording, Israel's security concerns.

Considerations Cameron omitted:

1. Whether the EU needs the Islamist influence that Turkey now exerts. European leaders now speculate that their civilization is at a tipping point. Most of these leaders put it as forecasting a Muslim majority. Considering how far Europe is bending with the small Muslim minority, it would not take a majority.

2. Cameron thinks Turkey-Israel relations are up to both sides. What chance has such relations, as Turkey turns Islamist? What future for Turkey-EU relations?

3. The cause-and-effect of the Gaza-Israel problem: (a) Israelis evacuated from Gaza; (b) Hamas made war on Israel; (c) Israel has a legal, partial blockade to keep out heavy arms and terrorists; (d) If IHH merely were charitable, it could have brought goods to Israel to be inspected and trans-shipped to Gaza, but instead it tried to run and therefore ruin the legal blockade. If IHH were successful, heavy arms and terrorists would enter freely; (e) So the IDF enforced the blockade; (f) Radicals attacked the IDF troops.

4. Turkey has two main problems with human rights: (a) Treatment of Kurds; and (b) Military intervention against a government moving to overturn the Constitution. The EU and U.S. condemned Turkey on both counts. That helped paralyze the military. Turkish Islamists now are moving more readily against freedom of press and speech, the independent judiciary, and secular, non-radical indoctrination.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, July 29, 2010.

This was written by Benjamin Joffe-Walt.

Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.


This Nov. 15, 2009 photo shows an employee of the New office begins investigating lost property of ME Jews (Photo by: AP)

Pensioners Ministry: Jewish property in Arab countries valued in billions, and is worth 50% more than the property of Palestinian refugees.

A new department set up by Ministry of Pensioners Affairs to manage the legal claims of Israeli Jews of Middle Eastern descent who lost their property when they left countries throughout the region has begun collecting information.

The office will help identify, locate and seek compensation for the assets of the more than one million Jews who came to Israel from Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria.

The initiative follows a law approved earlier this year by the Knesset requiring the compensation of Jews from Arab countries and Iran to be included in any peace negotiations.

"The Palestinians have been collecting evidence of their losses for many years," said Yoni Itzhak, a spokesman for the Pensioners Affairs Ministry.

"So we are not waiting until there is a negotiation for a peace accord. We need to be prepared, so that if there are negotiations and the Palestinians say, 'We are owed a few billion dollars,' We will say, 'OK, no problem,' and be ready with a much higher figure of what we are owed."

The ministry says that as of 2007 "the estimated value of Jewish property in Arab countries is 50 percent more than the value of the property of Palestinian refugees and is valued at billions of dollars." The ministry did not provide specific figures.

Following the establishment of the state, most Muslim states declared or supported war against Israel, and the status of Jews in these countries became threatened.

According to estimates by the United Nations and a number of civil society organizations, during Israel's first decade about 265,000 Jews left Morocco, 140,000 left Algeria, 135,000 left Iraq, 120,000 left Iran, 103,000 left Tunisia, 75,000 left Egypt, 63,000 left what is now Yemen, 38,000 left Libya, 30,000 left Syria and 5,000 left Lebanon. More than half a million additional Jews have left these countries since.

Most of the emigres headed to Israel, and just a few thousand Jews remain in the Arab world today.

"People often forget that there is also the Jewish side to the refugee story in the Middle East," Itzhak said. "Almost every Jew who left Iran or an Arab country can tell you a whole story about what they left. These people left their things, their houses, their institutions — in some cases because of threats and laws that forced them out. So just like the Palestinians tell everyone that they have the keys to their old homes, we have our keys as well."

The government refers to Jewish emigres from Middle Eastern countries as "refugees", but whether these Jews emigrated for economic or ideological reasons, or were pushed out of their home countries by anti-Semitic and political persecution, is a matter of debate.

What is clear is that Jews who emigrated from Muslim countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa left extensive assets in their home countries, from houses, stores and businesses to land and bank accounts. Estimates of the total value of Jewish personal and communal assets left in Muslim countries range from $1 billion to more than $100b.

Israeli Jews of Middle Eastern descent have been asked by the new department to report the details of their lost assets.

"We have already collected evidence from a few thousand people, but it was being done by a tiny branch of a small department," Itzhak said.

"Now we have set up an entire department to deal with this issue, and we are putting the pedal to the metal are in the process of identifying, registering and assessing the value of everyone's lost assets."

The ministry is also searching public archives for documentary evidence of Jewish communal assets, such as synagogues, hospitals, event halls, retirement homes and ritual baths, which were abandoned when Jews left for Israel.

The new department is also preparing a case to demand damages for discrimination against Jews in the Muslim countries, such as Jews who were prevented from entering educational institutions, Jews who were stripped of their citizenship or other freedoms, and Jews who endured pogroms.

The department plans to collect compensation for Jews of Middle Eastern descent who were never paid their pensions, purchased plots in graveyards, anti-Semitic dismissals, etc.

Once all the evidence is collected, the ministry plans to prepare a legal case for each Jewish Israeli individual of Middle Eastern descent to demand compensation through a process of indirect negotiations with the relevant countries, almost none of which have diplomatic relations with Israel.

The initiative comes against the backdrop of longstanding and extensive Palestinian claims regarding their losses in the War of Independence. The degree to which these Arab fled voluntarily or were driven out by pre-state Jewish forces is a matter of extensive debate among Israeli, Palestinian and international historians.

Following the War of Independence and the subsequent establishment of the state, the Arab refugees were not allowed to return and the government took control of somewhere between 2,000 and 16,500 square kilometers of abandoned or confiscated land, according to differing government estimates at the time.

Following the passage of the nonbinding UN General Assembly Resolution 194 calling for Palestine refugees wishing to "live at peace with their neighbors" to be allowed to return to their homes, Israel passed a series of laws to formalize state ownership over absentee land and property.

"Palestinian refugees' rights, including the right of return, is absolute and recognized under international law," said Nasim Ahmed, senior researcher at the London-based Palestinian Return Centre, which advocates for the rights of Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

"We believe the right of return and claims for compensation by Palestinian refugees is exclusive and cannot be compromised by another claim. We also believe that to dissolve the Palestinian claim is a political tactic which undermines international law."

10. Jews have lived in Palestine for 2000+ years
* Author: Denise
* Country: USA
* 08/20/2010 15:14
RE "No one asked the Jews to come to Palestine." Jews have lived in the area called Palestine for 2000+ years. They are indigenous to the area. Back in the 1940s Jews who lived in Palestine were called "Palestinians". The Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper. The Palestine Brigade was all Jewish.

9. For Algeria the answer is simple

* Author: Mourad
* 08/14/2010 19:36

won't happen and no algerian will accept it so you wasting your time we are not easy and we won't give an inch of property nor a penny of our wealth to these so called immigrant

8. no 4

* Author: hebrew prophet
* Country: israel
* 08/10/2010 11:19

Hey Palestinian Joe in Ireland and his fellow Palestinian Steve in the US Jews don,t need permission from anyone including illiterate camel herders from Arabia to claim what was and is rightfully theirs,the ancient land of Israel has been a Jewish ancestral homeland millienia before Islam raised it,s fascist head and Jews who lost their land ,possesssions etc,due to Islam forcing them out of their countries of birth can and will claim from those Muslim states that stole their original properties ,whether you two Palestinians like it or not ,inshallah?

7. @No 5

* Author: Rick
* Country:
* 07/31/2010 23:09

You've got it exactly backwards, "Jewish land will no longer be usurped by anyone". Now go back to your pub and try not to hit anybody when you drunkenly throw darts.

6. You missed Libya in your list

* Author: Albert Reingewirtz
* Country: USA
* 07/31/2010 23:00

I remember the camps of tents of Jewish refugees from all Arab lands and Persia. I remember the Musrara flooding Jews from Iraq on their beds inside tents while the water reached their mattresses. Where was the UN dedicating an organization for the Jewish refugees? Not a penny from the UN then for Jews but UNWRA was created for the Arab refugees as they were called before the Palestinian nation was invented in the 60's. Jews lived in those lands at least 1000 years before any Arab came out of Arabia and yet communities in existence since antiquity are non-longer. An account is overdue!

5. Property of ME Jews

* Author: Joe Kelsall
* Country: Ireland
* 07/28/2010 21:17

I am not sure of the point of this misleading article. I acre of land in Los Angeles is worth hundreds of times the price of 1 acre in rural Alabama. We are not comparing like with like and I hope whoever is intended to be confused by this information takes this into account. Palestinian land is NOT for sale — at ANY PRICE!

4. Go back

* Author: Steve Benassi
* Country: USA
* 07/28/2010 17:39

No one asked the Jews to come to Palestine.


* Author: JKF
* Country: Canada
* 07/28/2010 16:32

These records need to form part of the recorded historical evidence; they need to be entered, into the pertinent international annals; and also they need to be distributed to pertinent organizations, that will expose the facts on these unjust persecutions. These records need to be placed alongside the recods of the forced displacement of the Jewish communities, and not just from Arab countries, but also from other countries that carrie out significant progroms. Claims for restitution need to be made.

2. Refugees

* Author: Ben Azzai
* Country: GB
* 07/28/2010 14:24

I hope you will include Jews who came to France, the UK and USA as well. They left Arab lands and Iran because they felt endangered. World Jewry worked flat out to help Jewish refugees. I'm old enough to remember the Yom Kippur appeals to raise funds for these refugees. We never thought of locking them in refugee 'prison camps' as political pawns as the Arab states and UN did with Arab refugees. The Arabs had about 25 countries, but no room to accept fellow Arabs in need of support.

1. Restitution (Part 1)

* Author: Michael Davison
* Country: Israel
* 07/28/2010 10:46

Mr. Nasim Ahmed is full of shit. The "right of return" is far from being "absolute", since it is conditional on the returnees being willing to live at peace with their neighbors. Estimates of Jewish losses calculated on the same basis as Palestinian losses comes in at around five times the sum total the Palestinians are claiming. This makes sense when you consider that most of the Jewish population in Arab lands were urban merchants, business owners, doctors, lawyers, bank managers and other high-income professionals, while Palestinians were mostly argarians or small businessmen.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, July 29, 2010.

This was written by Hanan Greenberg for Ynet.

IDF rabbinate completes identification process; bodies to be flown back within hours; rescuers recount harsh weather, tough terrain, difficult emotions


ROMANIA — IDF rabbinate representatives completed the process of identifying the six bodies of the IDF soldiers who lost their lives in the helicopter crash in Romania. The victims' families have been notified.

Earlier, members of Rescue Unit 669 recounted the harsh terrain and weather conditions and difficult emotions they endured during the search for their comrades.

The air force is ready to fly the bodies home, apparently within a few hours. The funeral dates are expected to be announced later.

The searches continued over the last 24 hours, leaving rescuers exhausted at the crash site. "We had to go back and forth over the site to find all remains," said one officer. "It was impossible to stand on the steep slope, so we used ropes."

The rescuers said the weather was poor. On Wednesday afternoon torrential rain fell, making their work even harder. In order to reach the crash site, the unit's members, numbering some 50 soldiers, had to climb for an hour and a half from where they had been dropped off by the helicopter.

"It was a hard physical effort, combined with a desire to get to the site and start work," the officer said.

"We had to climb in a stream bed," a team member told Ynet. "We took ladders to climb over the waterfalls and used ropes to avoid slipping on the rocks. We covered an area of some 80 meters by 30 meters (260 x 98 feet), on a slope of 60%, so in many places it was impossible to stand. We spread ropes over the whole area, and in some places worked while harnessed to the ropes. Every few minutes there was a downpour which completely soaked us."

Search underway in Romania (Photo: Reuters)

"It was very important to us to bring them home," he continued. "Nobody stopped in the middle of the work to rest even though we spent 36 hours getting organized and flying, during which we slept maybe two hours. We had to remind people to drink water."

"We are used to saving lives on rescue operations," he explained. "In this case we were dealing with bodies but we understood how important it was to bring them back to their families. At some point, you hope you won't find them dead, but you realize that success in this operation is to find the bodies and send them home, even if it's in coffins. That's the mission."

'We wanted to get them home'

"This is awful work, because you don't want to miss anything, so you go back and forth over the area," A. said. "We lifted up metal plates, engines, and the helicopter's ramp to check underneath. The weather was particularly difficult, and the fear that stones would fall on us from above. We succeeded in our mission, but I suspect things will come up again when we get back to base."

When they arrived at the crash site they saw the charred remains of the helicopter.

"We were given instructions and guidance by the rabbis," one soldier said. "We looked for bodies in every possible place, including under the metal remains. It wasn't easy but it was clear to us what our work was. Everyone hoped we might return with good news but we rapidly understood this wouldn't happen. In the end we just wanted to get them all home, even in coffins."

Searching without rest (Attila Somfalvi)

"We also gathered up parts of the helicopter," he continued. "We worked without break, almost without resting. Then we picked everything up, dozens of kilos, and carried it all back to the helicopter."

The unit members feel they have completed the mission well, but difficult emotions remain. "Things will come up again in the future," they said.

Some were reminded of the explosion of the armored personnel carrier on Gaza's Philadelphi Route in 2004, when hundreds of soldiers scoured the area looking for body parts — under the assumption that nothing should be left.

"We lifted every part, looked under every stone," they said. "We knew there was a danger of bad weather and stones that could roll down from above, but we kept our eyes on our mission."

In the late afternoon Wednesday, the officers evaluated whether it would be necessary to bivouac overnight. Towards 5 pm, it was decided to call off the search and return to the air force base in Romania. But for the soldiers the mission is still not complete. They are now waiting for the rabbis to identify the bodies, and the mission will be over only when they get back to Israel, they say.

Attila Somfalvi also contributed to this report

To Go To Top

Posted by Remy Ilona, July 28, 2010.


When I ponder over this question what comes to my mind is principally; what is the origin of the Igbos? For certain reasons which I will mention later I have always tried to solve puzzles by first of all looking at the history of the puzzles.

An Igbo as understood presently is someone from the following Nigerian states: Anambra, Enugu, Imo, Abia, Ebonyi. And some indigenes of Delta State. I would also say that the Igbos also include some people that are indigenous in Edo and Rivers states. The Igbos in all the mentioned states inhabit a contiguous territory. I do not think that some people in the Rivers, Edo, Delta States, and even a tiny minority from Anambra State will view my submission agreeably. This is because huge numbers of people who bear Igbo names, speak the Igbo language, and practice Igbo culture in the afore-mentioned states have openly declared that though 'we speak Igbo, bear Igbo names, we are not Igbos'. These people actually speak Igbo. Close examination of their cultural practices reveal that Omenana; the Igbo culture, is also their culture. And clearly culture, and language which is an aspect of culture determines what or who one is; i.e, ones origins. So why do we have people who are Igbos disowning their identity?

I would need a book to answer the question, but because this is a newspaper I'll try to compress my answer. I will get back to the question later, but for now I will try to work on what the tribal origin of the Igbos is, with the objective of trying to discover why there is so much complications with the issue of the Igbo identity.

The Igbos have generally not taken their tribal identity serious.

Igbo laxity has created room for certain people who do not know the importance of history, to introduce dangerous and mischievous distortions, and even fabrications into Igbo history.

Presently we have Igbo "historians" who have without a shred of evidence "proven" that the Igbos existed before the biblical Adam did. And they were scholarly, and bold enough to admit that they got this information from Ile Ife. And that they were motivated by Afro-centrism, and black-colour pride. We also have some who say that the biblical Melchizedek was Igbo, and that it was he who taught Abraham, the Hebrew patriarch the importance of monotheism. Even though some of these scholars lack the basic skills (knowledge of the Hebrew language, Hebrew culture and history); that one requires to understand Hebrew sources, among which is the principal book (the Tanakh), that talked about Adam, Melchizedek, and Abraham; they have rushed to the press with their 'great discoveries'. Some Igbos have also claimed that they originated from Bini. A cursory comparison of the claimants', and the Bini cultures reveals that the claimants were motivated to make the false claim purely by the desire to make mischief, and inferiority complex.

Distortions and fabrications should be kept out of history. Many of the conflicts that have shocked the world, and cost humanity dearly; especially the religious ones, wouldn't have arisen if recorders had written exactly what happened. Many chroniclers have written what did not happen, as what happened, and have led many gullible people into basing their faith on empty lies, and emotions.

So, if the Igbo people have not treated their history as something that is sacrosanct, should it be surprising that some of the Igbos from Edo, Delta, and Rivers, deny that they are Igbos today?

It shouldn't be surprising for many reasons, among which is the one that the groups that deny, do so because they are confused. And the second one which is that they learnt the fine art of self-denial from their kinsmen-those that admit that they are Igbos today. I will throw more light on what I'm getting at with the following illustration by talking about two episodes that were narrated in Things Fall Apart, and No Longer At Ease; two seminal works by that most clever Igbo; Chinua Achebe.

Okonkwo; that great Igbo freedom fighter who stood against desecration of the Igbos through desecration of Omenana, and seizure of the Igbos' freedom by the invading British, died in the struggle. And his first son, Nwoye who had joined the enemies, refused to attend his funeral. And when Nwoye's wife died, the son, Obi, repeated what Nwoye did, by not attending the funeral of his mother, Nwoye's wife.

The Igbos from Edo, Delta, and Rivers, are simply repeating what the Igbos as a people have been doing. The Igbos generally act as if they feel that where they came from is not important. The self-denying Igbos from the afore-mentioned states say that they are not Igbos. In other words; just as the Igbos generally do not attach much importance to their Israelitishness, so do some of the Igbos of Edo, Delta, and Rivers, whom I regard as self-denying Igbos feel that they are not Igbo, and say so.

So at last who are the Igbos? Two Igbos; Peter Opara and Gavriel Ogugua, had after attending a meeting of the World Igbo Congress, visited the officials of the American Jewish Committee, and had told them that: '... Igbos feel a spiritual bond with Jews because, Igbos have not been able to trace their origin back to anywhere else other than Israel"1.

If sharing of a similar culture is indicative of a common origin, I would agree with Opara, and Ogugua, and I agree with them. Credible and authentic research about Igbo origins have pointed only at Israel, as the place of origins of the Igbos.

If this is an established fact, and I say that it is; because studies and comparison of Igbo culture (Omenana), and Judaism (the culture of Israel), asusu Igbo (the Igbo language), and Ibrit (Hebrew language), the Igbo and the Jewish DNA's, and Igbo history, have all indicated that the Igbos and the Jews were originally one people, and that the Hebrew culture which is the basis of their culture evolved in ancient Israel, why haven't the Igbos done the proper thing? The proper thing should be to introduce into the curricula of the schools and other institutions that impart knowledge to the Igbos the information about the Igbos origins. But in the curricula of all the schools, and the programmes of all the other institutions that cater to the Igbos educational needs such as the churches, which have existed for decades, and the synagogues which have started growing among the Igbos, information about the Igbos origins is totally absent. This is also what obtains in most of the print and electronic mass media. Save the National Times newspaper which has been impressive, and the Sun which reports on the subject occasionally, a follower of news is not likely to get enough information about where the Igbos originated from. And the Igbo organizations! Only the Igbo Israel Union (Society), and the Igbo Origin and Culture Research Society have prioritized the very important subject of the Igbos origins.

So in the final analysis I say that the Igbos are the descendant of Israel that migrated from the Holy Land, through North Africa, the Sahara desert, and resettled in the rain forests of what became the South-East of Nigeria.


From: Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Many Igbos are beginning to realize that the Igbo people will only be happy and fulfilled when they do teshuvah, return, and begin to practice Igbo-Jewish culture, which in asusu Igbo (Igbo language) is called Omenana.

We already have a large body of literature about how the Dispersion, the Exile, and the relocation of the Igbo-Jews to the forests (ime ofia) of West Africa isolated the Igbos from other umu Yisrael (children of Israel). And how the Slave Trade and colonialism devastated the Igbo society, and paved the way for the colonialists to demonize Omenana, and attempt to replace it with the colonialists' culture which is at best very strange to the Igbo-Jews and thus unworkable. We also have information about how some Igbo-Jews thought erroneously that Omenana could be discarded, the colonialist's culture adopted, and the Igbo-Jews still thrive. Evidence exists that many Igbo-Jews entertained such thoughts, and even took steps to jettison Omenana. However the effort only resulted in disappointment, misery and unhappiness, because the Holy One of Yisrael, the God of Abraham, known by the Igbo-Jews as Chukwu Abiama made it clear in Deuteronomy 28, that happiness and well-being for Israel lies in practicing the culture embedded in the Tora(Omenana), and unhappiness and ruin, in jettisoning the Tora.

It is the realization of many Igbo-Jews that the Igbo society can only be happy if and when it practices Tora/Omenana that we want to talk about here.

Since some decades this realization that the colonialists' stories and models couldn't be absolute truths nor good for Igbo-Jews has been with many Igbo-Jews. And many have taken steps to return to Tora/Omenana. We can't pretend at this stage that we have a complete record of all the Igbo-Jews who have taken steps to do teshuvah, and how they have tried to achieve the return. Accordingly we'll discuss only the most high profile cases here.

The Igbo Sabbatharians

Some three to five decades ago, some Igbos who had pass through the indoctrination of the colonialists just like other Igbos somehow realized that the Laws, regulations, etc of God-set out minutely in what they know as the 'Old Testament' couldn't be a shadow of things to come. That for a people (the colonialists) who brought laws when they came to Igboland to teach that the era of the Laws (of God for that matter) has passed is grand fraud. To head back to Law, and its observance they began the Sabbatharian movement. This movement believed that the Laws of God are alive, and that their observance will give the Igbos order in their society. Definitely what they began was a return to Tora/Omenana. After all what is Omenana? Omenana if translated to English is: doing (keeping) on the 'Land' the commandments that God gave Israel.

Our work on the Sabbatharians: purchase the hard copy of the monograph in Nigeria. Contact: 080 6530 0351, 080 2223 7028. igboisraelpublishing@gmail.com, remy.ilona@gmail.com, drcaliben@yahoo.com

Contact Chukwukaodinaka Remy Ilona at remy.ilona@gmail.com or at 08065300351 by telephone. Visit his website at

remy.ilona@gmail.com, ilona@derushapublishing.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Edward Alexander, July 28, 2010.

Olympia's Food Co-op has grandly announced its intention to boycott Israeli products unless that country disbands itself as a Jewish state.

To earn a place for its products on co-op shelves, Israel must forfeit its right to defend itself by tearing down its security fence and must bring back the Arab refugees who, in an entirely self-inflicted calamity, fled in 1947-48 rather than accept the U.N.'s two-state solution.

This is a policy of politicide: Israel may not exist as a Jewish state.

The co-op does not require the numerous Islamic regimes or Christian states to justify a place for their products on the sacrosanct shelves of Olympia. No, there is only one country whose "right to exist" — though recognized by the League of Nations nearly a century ago and confirmed by the United Nations in 1948 — is considered a legitimate subject of debate.

Instructing Israel on the most suitable method (one-state solution, no-state solution, final solution) of ceasing to exist is nowadays a ticket of admission to "progressive" circles. The instructors' motto resurrects the Reign of Terror slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — or Death."

Listen to Noam Chomsky: "Unless those who call themselves 'supporters of Israel' are willing to face ... moral and geopolitical realities, they may in reality be supporters of Israel's moral degeneration and ultimate destruction."

If one dare suggest that singling Israel out for destruction if it does not dance to your tune is anti-Semitic, Chomsky has a ready reply: "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem ... It's raised ... because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98 percent control; that's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue ..."

Beautiful and touching words, by no means unusual in the parlance of those who deem Israel uniquely evil and, with help from its "supporters," responsible for every misery on the planet with the (possible) exception of global warming.

(I add "possible" because Clare Short, a prominent member of Tony Blair's cabinet until 2003, charged that Israel is "much worse than the original apartheid state" because it "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming.")

Chomsky is (mistakenly) identified as "a critic of Israeli policy." Nor is he the only beneficiary of the euphemistic redefinition of "criticism" where Israel is its object. A Vassar professor refers to Intifada II, during which Palestinian Arab suicide bombers, pogromists and lynch mobs slaughtered almost a thousand people and wounded thousands more, as "a critique of Zionism."

A writer in the Chronicle of Higher Education assures readers that "calls to destroy Israel, or to throw it into the Mediterranean Sea ... are not evidence of hatred of Jews," but merely "reflect a quarrel" with Israel.

When Harvard and Columbia University were censured in 2003 for honoring and hosting the Oxford poetaster and blood libel subscriber Tom Paulin after he had urged that Jews living in Judea and Samaria "should be shot dead," his apologists defended his right "to criticize Israeli policy."

But surely criticism means trying to see an object as it really is, not destroying that object. Indeed, a critic need not be an enemy at all.

The "critics of Israel" who deny its "right to exist" and threaten it with boycotts and even destruction if it does not disband itself may be dishonest and despicable, but let us not begrudge them their triumph.

In the war of ideas they have beaten us at every turn; and by "us" I mean those Christians and Jews for whom the foundation of Israel was one of the (few) redeeming acts of a blood-soaked and shameful century.

A 2007 BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries showed Israel as the "least-liked" country in the world, and, among Europeans, most disliked in Germany.

Yes, in the very country where the Jews' "right to live" was once a popular topic and "Kauf nicht beim Juden" ("Don't Buy from Jews") a popular slogan long before it reached Olympia, Israel-haters outpolled Israel-admirers by 77 percent to 10 percent.

Still greater triumphs in the contest for public opinion may await these "critics."

Their threats are not idle. On their own, they cannot visit upon Israel the terrible fate they think it deserves as the devil's experiment station, but they know they have a powerful ally named Ahmadinejad, bent on translating politicide into genocide.

The Iranian president daily promises to "remove Israel from the map" with nuclear weapons and watches with glee as the international noose tightens around Israel's throat and the umbrellas go up in Europe and Washington.

Edward Alexander is a University of Washington professor emeritus.

This article appeared in News Tribune
(http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/07/27/1278676/ olympia-food-co-op-joins-long.html?story_link=email_msg)

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, July 28, 2010.

Recently, Israel seems to be engaging in negative sum games: A "humanitarian" flotilla (the Turkish Terrorist Flotilla of Lies) is arranged to end the blockade and siege on Gaza put in place four years ago. Lo and behold, there is now a free flow of goods into Gaza. The mission was accomplished with flying colors. Bonuses must be awarded to those who brought about the desired end!

Israel's ruling elite claims it intended to ease the restrictions all along. Apparently the catalyst worked, but why was it necessary to pay such a dear price of seven soldiers wounded and universal condemnation of Israel?

In December 2008 Israel embarked on an effort to stop the smuggling of ammunition and instruments of war via the tunnels into Gaza and to end the constant bombardment of rockets from Gaza into civilian centers in Israel.

Israel seems to have learned from her previous folly, going into Lebanon, what would later be termed the "Second War in Lebanon." Israel's stated objective was to bring back two Israeli soldiers. Finally Israel was humiliated, and their body parts were later exchanged for hundreds of terrorists. This time around, Israel was very careful not to declare a third objective of Operation Cast Lead: bringing back kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. And so, Shalit remains in captivity to this very day.

The action in Gaza lasted for three weeks, from December 27th, 2008 to January 18th, 2009. The smuggling did not stop, there are today in Gaza more rockets and missiles, more sophisticated, much more accurate and with a far greater reach than ever before.

There are those, both in Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the Israel Defense Forces, who still claim the Operation was an astounding success and brought about the desired results. In a like manner, they (or others) would say that the Second War in Lebanon was likewise beneficial, for the North is quiet.

Both Hamas and Hizbollah are today better equipped and more prepared to attack Israel than before 2008 and 2006 respectively. Rockets are continually launched from Gaza. They are still planning and preparing to kidnap Israeli soldiers and still determined to eliminate the Jewish State.

All that is required is for Iran to give the "go ahead" and Israel, from its southern most border to its northern most border, will be under a Fourth of July attack of missiles.

During the ground incursion into Gaza, Israel did not refrain, for the first time in history, from responding to rockets launched from mosques, UN building or schools. Previously, these were safe havens, but no more. Israel now realizes her enemy is manipulating world opinion.

So, what is wrong with the picture? Israel has become accustomed to internal and external reviews. Yet, these commissions of inquiry and international complaints and lawsuits cannot be accomplished without inflicting pain to the Jewish State.

Principally, debriefing and review are crucial in military action as in many other walks of life, from sports to business. It allows a review in a safe, controlled environment and to draw lessons. It often results in improvements if the lessons are properly implemented.

For military action, debriefing and review must be internal. Instead, in Israel all is done in the public domain, under public scrutiny, available to the world and to our enemies alike. Israel failed to notice Hizbollah's leader, Nasrallah, laughing at her government and leaders, quoting or referencing particular sections from the Winograt Report. In a word; a circus.

I remember sitting at a foreign press briefing during Operation Cast Lead. The IDF Spokesperson's officer-in-charge was asked about Israel's use of phosphorous bombs. She adamantly denied the charges. [She was since promoted to the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel.] A year and a half later, Israel committed to refraining from using these bombs with phosphorus elements to the UN. So were they used or not?

A new report presented to the UN as a response to Judge Goldstone's Report shifts the focus of war from the battlefield to the courtrooms of international public opinion. In these courts, Israel is constantly demonized and found guilty, whatever she does.

What is the utility in responding to the Goldstone Report if no one cares what Israel has to say? Will it prevent lawsuits against Israeli soldiers or politicians when traveling abroad? Will the accusation of committing war crimes be lessened or reserved? Since the answer to these questions is negative, one wonders about the utility in Israel's latest attempt at being whole and holy.

The main messages of the report, as publicized and internalized in Israel are (a) investigating and launching judicial proceedings against soldiers, (b) the need for a "humanitarian officer" in each unit, (c) the incorporation of new guidelines about civilian protection and most egregiously (d) it submits to the international biased allegations. It also opens the doors to further legal action, including in Israel in front of Israel's Supreme Court against Israel and Israelis.

Think of a boxing match. There are clear guidelines that must be adhered to by those engaged in the match. Then, think about such matches conducted in ancient times, or modern gambling matches between vicious dogs or roosters. In all these instances, there are no rules. All punches are allowed, anything that leads to one live victor and one dead opponent.

Likewise here, Israel is trying to comply with unfeasible requirements she is to behave in a certain manner, although she, alone of all nations, already does. All the while, Israel's enemies do everything possible to destroy her: They kidnap soldiers from within Israel, fire at civilian population centers, declare their intention to destroy the Jewish State, hide behind mosques and schools, use ambulances for transport personnel and ammunition, use civilians as human shields and blame Israel for every untoward action they enlist.

The true problem of the new report just released, the third in the series (the first was in July 2009 followed by a second installment in January 2010) is that it impedes the motivation of Israelis to fight for their country.

If a soldier knows that he and she risk their lives during real-time fighting and later will need to defend every action, every thought, every split-second decision, they will prefer to err on the side of triple-extra-caution and thus do nothing.

I am reminded of driving on the streets of Los Angeles. The signal drivers receive is very mixed; at some stoplights, when the time counter is down to zero, the light changes immediately from green to yellow to red in a scope of a second. Thus, the driver needs to stop. At other intersections, the stoplight counter goes down to zero, but the light remains green.

When preparing to stop, looking at the cameras and thinking about the ticket (close to $500 for passing in red), I become confused. Zero time often, but not always, means stop now or get a ticket. Thus, I stop. But the light continues to be green, and those behind me find an outlet to honk, curse and express their opinion about my stupidity.

Better safe than sorry. Why fight at all when the chances are that one will have to spend the time after the war not in recovery and recuperation, but in investigations by military police and the military advocate general? Not to mention the civilian courts, primarily the Supreme Court, and the likelihood of being prevented from leaving Israel to travel overseas.

Our enemies are succeeding in turning our body elements against the body itself. In medicine, this is the description of cancer. Israel must change course and start fighting for her own survival, lest the cancer spread to the point of no return.

Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 28, 2010.


Protest tent over Bedouin land theft (AP/Mohammed Ballas)

An Israeli organization comprising religious and secular-minded people, "Parents of Soldiers," handed out a pamphlet to recruits advising them to follow the IDF code of ethics and protect the State, not expel Jews. The code quotes the Army's duty to protect independence and security, not to harm civilians, and not to follow illegal orders.

The pamphlet refers to the Army expulsion of Jews from houses that the government calls illegal or are in areas the government wants to abandon. When the government abandoned Gaza and northern Samaria, it expelled almost 10,000 Jews from their houses.

A member of Parents, Ron Breiman, also belongs to Professors for a Strong Israel. He points out that the soldiers' duty is to fight the enemy. He said that that mass-expulsion brought to realization his greatest concerns over it. [He must be referring to what Defense Min. Barak recently said was a result, Gaza "filling up" with rockets to fire into Israel.]

Prof. Breiman concludes that, orders of expulsion should not only be disobeyed, they should not be given. Breiman remarked that all proposals for resolving the Arab-Israel conflict seem to involve expulsion of Jews. He said he wants peace, but not a peace based on non-Zionist, unethical expulsion

The pamphlet states, "...You were not sent to serve in a political army that harms its own nation, or that plays a role in destroying our land and treats its citizens like enemies. Remember! Protect the army and its unity from attempts to turn it into a divisive and party-based army, activated by political interests. The expulsion of Jews from their homes is not security — it's politics!" (Arutz-7, 7/27/10). http://www.israelnationalnews.com/

Speaking of politics, the matter of illegal houses is not well understood outside Israel. To Americans, the term, "illegal," carries a negative connotation of law-breaking. In Israel, however, "illegal house" may not involve law-breaking.

As a whole, the so-called illegal houses of Jews in Judea-Samaria do not involve violations of property ownership law or of zoning and building codes. Indeed, the government authorized such construction and may have built the infrastructure pre-requisites.

The problem is that housing construction involves a series of government approvals. Final approval is up to the Defense Minister, who heads a party opposed to Jewish construction. He cites nothing out of order about such construction, and no wrongdoing by the builders, but disapproves of much of it arbitrarily. That makes it more a political than a legal matter.

Some people demand demolition of those houses as a matter of enforcing the law. The simplest way to do that would be to grant final approval. Demolition would mean destroying houses that the government assured people were legal to construct.

If demolition is an important tool of law enforcement, what about the many thousands of houses that Arabs build on land in Israel and in Judea-Samaria that they do not own or do not have building permits for, and some of which is zoned for public amenities and not housing?


The U.S. has raised the diplomatic status of the PLO mission in Washington to that of a "general delegation." The new status is short of what states have, but it gives officials in the mission diplomatic immunity and enables them to display the PLO flag. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) denounced the change: "This amounts to a reward for continuing P.A. incitement against Jews and Israel, promoting hatred and violence, as well as its refusal to negotiate." "The U.S. has given Abbas' PA this upgrade despite the complete absence of Palestinian action to arrest terrorists, and end

incitement to hatred and murder against Israel in its controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps."

President Obama has arranged to double U.S. subsidy of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), bringing the annual total up to $1.3 billion. P.A. Arabs get more foreign aid per capita than does anyone else. Obama had promised to hold the P.A. accountable for its incitement to violence (7/26/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member)

Years ago, when the PLO first was declared a terrorist organization, Americans asked the government to close its offices in Washington and New York. The government refused. Does Obama feel that by inciting to hatred and murder and failing to arrest terrorists, the PLO deserves to be elevated closer to statehood?

Recently, France made a similar change in PLO status.


University of California President Mark Yudof has set up an advisory council on campus bias. None of the appointees has "demonstrable expertise" fighting antisemitism, which plagues U.C. campuses, but two have demonstrable experience fostering or favoring antisemitism. Therefore, while the purpose of the committee is meritorious, the composition of it is meretricious, reports the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).

One of the pair is U.C. San Diego Professor Jorge Mariscal, who praised an anti-Israel event on that campus, "Justice in Palestine Week 2010 — End the Apartheid," whose title, alone, defamed Israel. The event featured Norman Finkelstein and other Israel-bashers.

At U.C. Irvine, events such as "Israel, the 4th Reich" and "A World Without Israel" run for a week or two every year, not to enlighten but to incite. That kind of event slanders the Jewish state in an inflammatory way whose heat then gets directed to scorch Jews on campus. [Many people do not distinguish between the Jewish state and Jews outside the state.[

The other member of the pair is Imam Jihad Turk, Director of Religious Affairs for the Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC). ICSC has committed the very antisemitism that the advisory council is supposed to address. In recent years:

A 1986 ICSC conference prominently displayed the anti-Semitic The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. "In May 2008, the ICSC hosted a conference on the 'Nakba,' i.e., the so-called 'catastrophe' for the Palestinian Arabs when the State of Israel was established. Speakers at this conference, according to The Muslim Observer," called Israel colonialist and worse than apartheid South Africa; falsely claimed that the State of Israel arose by ethnic cleansing; and contends that Israel does not deserve to exist." [That is not criticizing some policy of Israel but the Jewish right to independence.]

"Maher Hathout, a co-founder and current spokesperson for the ICSC, supports attacks on Israel by the terrorist group Hezbollah, and has called Israel a land of 'butchers' who have set up a system of 'racist apartheid.' In January 2008, Hathout gave his Friday sermon at the ICSC on the 'Tragedy in Gaza,' and defended Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel's civilian communities."

More than 700 Jewish UC students protested to the Administration over "anti-Jewish and Israel-bashing speech and conduct on campus." "As noted historian Paul Johnson wrote in his book, A History of the Jews, 'One of the principal lessons of Jewish history has been that repeated verbal slanders are sooner or later followed by violent physical deeds.' This has been true at UC Irvine and UC Berkeley, where Jewish students have been physically assaulted. At least two students actually left UC Irvine because they could no longer tolerate the anti-Semitic hostility there. This past May, more than 60 faculty members at UC Irvine signed a statement saying that students and faculty feel intimidated and at times even unsafe. Jewish students and faculty on other UC campuses are also experiencing problems." (7/27/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member)

(In the past year, we have covered U.C. problems several times.)

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, July 28, 2010.

"We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in, in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess. The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini." Michael Evans, Jerusalem Times, Jan 20, 2007

In 1979, the U.S. Government, notably, Jimmy Carter and company, with the help of its allied forces created the greatest Islamic terrorist nation on the face of the earth and the rise of Islamofascisim elsewhere. In fact, Jimmy Carter by his mere interference in another country betrayed the most valued friend to the West, the late Shah of Iran, and he is perhaps responsible for the formation of Islamicterrorism, not only in Iran, but around the world, including the United States.There have been more than 10,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 with 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured.

"Carter's pro Human Rights campaign shocked the foundations of many American allies including the late Shah of Iran who was running an ancient country with cultural and historical complications that needed time to be corrected."

"In November 1978 then President Carter nominated George Ball as a member of the Trilateral Commission. The commission acted under the direct control of the National Security Council's Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ardent opponent of the Shah of Iran. This commission cultivated a clandestine Iran task force. While serving on this commission, George Ball championed cessation of United States support for the Shah and clandestine support for Ruhollah Ayatollah Khomeini who, albeit in exile, led a proletariat Islamic opposition."

It is interesting that Carter's UN ambassador, Andrew Young, called Ayatollah Khomeini, (an Islamist mass murderer) "a kind of saint." Ironically, after 31 years of devastation of civility by the radical Muslims, Mr. Carter is still active in siding with terrorist groups such as Hamas and other terrorist organizations, something the current administration appears to be following.

"Jimmy Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy has had many catastrophic results. What we encounter today, as Islamic Terrorism mostly backed by the current Iranian regime, is one of the few gifts of Carter's failed foreign policy. Had he shown resolve in dealing with the 1979 revolution and the US embassy hostage crisis, we would not be in this mess we are today. Diplomacy is a great tool to enforce your policies, if other tools of foreign policy including military might and economic incentive and disincentives correctly back it. Jimmy Carter didn't apply these tools properly in order to handle many crises he faced during his 4-year presidency. All the blame does not lie with Carter's failure but he played an important role in this." Michael Evans

To most Iranians, including me, the name of the Ayatollah Khomeini was unheard of until the Western policy makers decided to remove the Shah (the best friend of the West) and install so called a "Holy Man" Ayatollah Khomeini and carelessly forced the Shah of Iran to leave his homeland. For 31 years, the U.S. is still making big mistakes with respect to its policy regarding Iran. It is as though the U.S. is unable to or unwilling to recruit experienced and capable people as advisors on Iranian affairs. For the past 60 years, every U.S. policy with respect to Iran has been failure upon failure. Currently, pro-Islamic Republic lobbyists known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) has been given carte blanche to the Obama administration. Instead of confiscating their assets, sealing their offices, and deporting them immediately, this pro-Islamic Republic group has comfortably found its way into the White House. As early as December 1954, the Shah noted,

"the potentialities of friendly and close relations between the people of Iran and the United States are immense. There is a deep and fundamental identity of national interests which overshadows everything else. We both believe that the individual is the central figure in society, and that freedom is the supreme blessing... Iran has a great deal in common, in convictions with the Western world regarding freedom and democracy."

During the revolution of 1979, the communists of course were very active in the original uprisings against the Shah. A very strange marriage took place early on between the Islamists (who were an insignificant minority) and the variety of communist factions. They buried their hatchets and supposedly "unified" the nation for a "common" cause, which was supposed to be the achievement of democracy and political freedom.

Unbeknownst to most Iranians who jumped on the bandwagon with these two main groups, the communists had the dream of socialism and the Islamists wanted to bring about Islamic fascism. They both lied to the people and betrayed their trust. Periodically the Islamists used the idea of "Taqeyya" or an Islamic lie, took the nation and its revolution hostage.

Then the Islamists started to arrest and murder the communists and anyone else they found to be against the establishment of an Islamic Ummah. This is exactly the way these forms of uprisings turn out. You can see it played out almost as a parallel in the October Revolution in Russia, which was the basis for George Orwell's book "Animal Farm."

For the past 31 years, Iranian people have been kept hostage in their own county by a group of barbaric Muslim terrorists who despise anything Persian and are slowly purging the remnant 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 Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating, and demeaning ideology, Islam.

Iranians are proud spiritual descendants of King Cyrus the Great, the author of the first charter of human rights. Some of Cyrus' children live in the patch of land called Iran. The overwhelming majority — free humans with human beliefs — live in every country, city, and village of the earth.

These world-wide people, one and all, irrespective of nationality, color, or creed are Iranians because they all adhere to the Cyrus Charter; they practice and defend its lofty tenets, and transfer this precious humanity's treasure to the next generation.

What makes people different is not their biology, but the "software" that runs them.

There is ample proof to support the above assertion. A case in point is the present menace posed by the people whose life is programmed by the software of Islam: an ideology anathema to the Cyrus Charter. And the results are self-evident. Hate, superstition, violence, and a raft of other inhuman beliefs drives these religious fascists. These captive followers of the primitive Islamic Charter are both the perpetrators and the victims of much suffering. The result is backward Islamic societies that are intent at dragging the rest of the world into the same sorry state. Misery likes company, it is said.

We recognize that the dysfunctional Islamic software is deeply engrained in the minds of many Muslims who opt to remain in mental bondage rather than purge their minds of the Islamic programming and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life — liberty.

Islamic clergy, the parasitic prime beneficiaries of Islam, are master practitioners of the carrot-and-stick strategy. By drawing heavily from the Quran and the Hadith, the conniving mullahs and imams have assembled a potent arsenal of threats and promises to keep the faithful in line. They had little trouble in so doing, since Islamic scripture is replete with graphic horrific punishment awaiting the wayward and the unbelievers, while the rewards for the obedient docile, if he is male, are described as an endless variety of sensual pleasures. Anyone daring to leave the corral of Islam is apostate and automatically condemned to death. And that's just for starters. The punishment awaiting the ungrateful deserter of the one and only true path, Islam threatens a raft of horrific eternal torment in Allah's hell.

And for the true faithful — he mindless robot — he promised rewards, all physical pleasures, are infinite and eternal.

In spite of these horrid threats and empty promises, more and more people are beginning to recognize Islam for what it is. It is difficult, but not impossible to leave fraudulent Islam's captivity. Millions of Iranians have done so successfully, yet aren't able to announce it for the obvious reason, and hundreds of thousands of non-Iranians have left Islam as well and are enjoying the blessings of liberty.

A great threat facing free people is the recently petrodollar-energized Islam embarking on a campaign of recruiting more people under its dark banner. Millions of disenfranchised underclass in the non-Islamic world, and millions more mentally under-developed, may flock to Islam, deluded by its empty promises.

Islam is no longer in its own self-made cage. It has broken out and has established a powerful presence in much of the non-Islamic world. Islam is a charter of submission. It is a sworn enemy of freedom and views the Cyrus Charter as heresy. Freedom and tyranny are incompatible. Free people must do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty and assist others to break from the bondage of Islamic captivity.

The interdependent world community faces great challenges that demand a united effort, uncompromisingly based on justice, to meet the various ills it faces. We can no longer be complacent about events in a distant world affecting alien people. Distances are bridged and alien people are now diverse members of the human family.

We honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for proclaiming from a Birmingham jail, "Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere." To demand justice for others, he risked his life, left his native Georgia, and ended up in jail in the then-bigoted south — Birmingham, Alabama. We "Iranians" of the world — free humans — must do no less. We must demand justice for our belief-kin who are suffering under the yoke of Islamofascisim in Iran or anywhere in the world.

Now the world is facing wall-builders of a different kind: the Islamofascists who have been at their shameless work for centuries. As their walls built with superstition, discrimination and blood are crumbling; they are intent at building walls in new territories.

But once again, human decency is rising to the challenge, this time in the voices and actions of billions of free people who proclaim: we are also children of Iran in the spirit of Cyrus the Great; "we meet any challenge and pay any price" to defeat Islamofascisim; and, we will not rest until humanity is completely free of the despotic rule of Islam.

We Iranians in spirit — free people of the world — greatly cherish liberty, where the mind is imbued with enlightenment, and every individual by the virtue of being born human is afforded measured freedom. It is within the open expanse of liberty that each and every person can be at his or her best. And when the individual person is at his best, humanity is at its best.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. This article appeared in Family Security Matters (FSM) and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Kunst, July 27, 2010.

Dear "Chosen" Activists:

The Anti-Semitic Oliver Stone's statements and then an apology on 7/27/10, World Jewish Daily, below, reflect the increased attacks upon Israel and Jews.

If the Jews did control the media, they are doing a rotten job if we look to the self-hating Jewish sellouts like NYTimes Thomas Friedman or Trudy Rubin of Philly Inq., to name a few of the sleaze that has brought us to this insanity once again.

But since when did the truth matter, when Israel bashing and Jew bashing has now become a real door opener to another Holocaust and the end of Israel and Jews everywhere are threatened again!

There is also a story below on why we are in this mess, because of the lack of leadership and willingness to constantly let our enemies come ever closer to our demise. Caving into those who would destroy us, in hopes of being 'liked' if we just give up being 'Jews' for 5000 yrs. is much too high a price to pay, but we keep paying it with the sleaze in charge of dictating these insanities.

A key example this week, is PA's Abbas saying that he won't negotiate till Israel goes back to 1948 borders and expects Obama to bring this about with East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, already wrapped up for him, before he will have 'direct talks' with Israel.

This would be hilarious, except that Ehud Barak is meeting with Barack Obama people, this week, on giving away the shop, while BiBi on his last visit with Obama, left open the door of 'negotiating' Jerusalem, when in April, Jerusalem wasn't 'negotiable'.

Then we see the latest public relations stunt from Bibi, which is to practically grovel and beg Abbas for 'direct talks'. Does is get any dumber or more repulsive?

Does it get any more insulting, that now the PLO will get its flag flying in D.C., while Obama folks say 'no change in status', but in France, PLO now is a 'mission' in their pursuit of 'two states'. which is the end of the Jewish state, and total victory for the Nazis and rewarding all of those killers of Jews.

As usual, the Jews have a litany of excuses that this isn't possible and really isn't happening.

So if the Jews, who 'own the media', have pushed us to this brink of insanity and Jewish non-leadership is plugging away at giving the Nazis their ultimate victory, by dividing Jerusalem, then the point of these two issues is that we are our own worst enemy and are constantly inviting our disasters, as much as what the enemy out there is doing.

Today is Shalom International's 317 rally/event and 1214 news interviews since Oct. 2007. We're at Fed. Bldg. in Ft. Laud.

We are the consistant reminder of the need to go on the offense and not keep getting picked off by everyone coming after us, because the world is asking: "WHAT DO JEWS STAND FOR?"

If everyone wants Jerusalem and only the Jews are willing to divide it, according to the demands of our enemies, then what is our point of existance? Shalom International is that 'constant reminder' that Auschwitz and Jerusalem are not negotiable and the public is with us, so what is Bibi's problem?

Would Muslims divide Mecca? That's one thing they have going for them, while we still argue after 5000 yrs.if there is a G-d, which got us to this point in our history, the sell-out Jews only want to talk about the last 62 yrs. and that we beat the enemy in 5 wars and 2 Intifadas and now we are giving it all back to them for a non-existant peace, that will never come, while moving the Nazis closer to finishing us off.

So,if our 3000 yr. old Jerusalem, that millions of Jews were slaughtered for, doesn't matter, why would the world respect these immoral politics, from Jewish people so ill defined and so ill and why would they want us to survive, when we have so little self-respect to survive?

Please reread all of this. It is the essense of the entire picture.

Please help us to help you.

Donate to : "Defend Jerusalem", P.O.Box 4021263, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140, or on paypal, www.defendjerusalem.net

If you understand that my running for Congress as an 'independent' in Dist. 20, against Obama's entire approach to Israel to divide Jerusalem and Israel and America and my willingness to 'impeach' him with legitimate malfeasance and misfeasance, while in office in violations of U.S. laws and if you understand our need to stop the 'Mosque at Ground Zero' and our need to Boycott Turkey and everyone boycotting Israel and our need to stop Iran before it stops the world, then why aren't you behind this national effort, when the person I'm running against is behind everything Obama is doing against Israel and America?

Kindly donate: www.kunstforcongress.com or Kunst For Congress, P.O.Box 402263, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140

paid political advertisement, Robert Kunst, 'independent' for Congress, Dist. 20.

The Oliver Stones and the Ehud Baraks and the Obama's and Bibis are why I must do this or lose it all!

Yours in Shalom,

Robert Kunst is President of, Shalom International. Contact him at 305-864-5110, or at his websites: www.defendjerusalem.net and www.kunstforcongress.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, July 27, 2010.

This was written by Claudia Rosett and it appeared July 23, 2010 in Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/23/iran-united-nations-terrorism- opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html

Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly columnon foreign affairs for Forbes.


Despite sanctions, Iran continues to exploit the U.N. itself.

The United Nations has just created a new "entity" on women's rights, called U.N. Women. Elections to its governing board are now being organized. How long before Iran wins a seat?

If the question sounds absurd, the realities at the U.N. are even more mind-bending. The most recent high-profile outrage on this score was Iran gaining a seat in April on the U.N.'s Commission on the Status of Women. But that's the least of it. The reality is that Iran, despite being under four sets of binding sanctions resolutions by the U.N. Security Council, has learned to manipulate the institution in ways that make a mockery not only of the U.N. itself, but also of U.S. claims of diplomatic competence.

Rarely remarked upon, but even more appalling than Iran's beachhead on the women's rights commission, is Iran's seat on the 36-member executive board of the U.N.'s flagship agency, the U.N. Development Program, headquartered in New York. Iran actually chaired the UNDP executive board last year, during the thick of the bloody protests in which Teheran's mullocracy was beating, jailing and killing protesters calling for democratic development in Iran.

That same UNDP executive board, with Iran still in its lineup today, also serves as the governing body for the U.N. population fund (UNFPA) and the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). Iran's three-year term on the UNDP board expires at the end of 2010. But have no fear that Iran will be shut out of U.N. high councils on the status of women — or, for that matter, issues involving children and food aid. The newly created entity, U.N. Women, with or without Iran on its board, will be holding joint meetings with the executive boards not only of the UNDP, but also of the New York-based U.N. children's agency (UNICEF) and the Rome-based World Food Program (WFP). Iran sits on the boards of both UNICEF and the WFP, where its terms extend, respectively, through the end of 2011 and 2012.

Iran also fields a hefty presence among the governing councils of U.N. outfits involved in matters germane to weapons, outer space and global crime. Through 2012 Iran — the world's leading terrorist-sponsoring state — is a vice chair of the Executive Council of the U.N.'s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Iran sits on two major commissions of the Vienna-based U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), including the UNODC's 20-member Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, where in 2009 it won a three-year-term. And this past April Iran won a seat with a four-year term on the U.N.'s Geneva-based Commission on Science and Technology for Development — never mind its brazen violations of U.N. sanctions on its rogue nuclear program.

As for outer space, there's really no need for NASA to reach out to the Iranian portion of the Muslim world. Iran is already engaged in preemptive outreach. At the U.N.'s Vienna-based Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), the Legal Subcommittee — which works on who controls what in "the rational and equitable use of geostationary orbit" — is currently chaired by the head of the Iranian Space Agency, Ahmad Talebzadeh.

Iran also sits on the governing council of the U.N.'s Geneva-based refugee agency (UNHCR), and on the governing boards of the two U.N. agencies headquartered in Nairobi: the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) and the U.N. Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat). At the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in Rome, Iran has just finished a stint as chair of the governing council — but don't worry, it will be back on the council next year, already listed as a member for 2011-13. Meanwhile Iran currently has an envoy on the FAO finance committee, spanning 2009-11.

It was an Iranian initiative that paved the way for the U.N.'s current Alliance of Civilizations, launched in 2005. President Barack Obama dropped by one of its meetings in Istanbul last year, and the U.S., which declined to join under President Bush, has now signed on as a member. This Alliance, a murky globe-girdling exercise in "bridge-building," is a pet project of Spain and Turkey — where the Islamic ruling party, the AKP, has been unveiling itself as Iran's new bedfellow.

All this comes along with the more prominent use made by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the U.N. stage, where he has spoken every year since 2005 at the annual September opening in New York of the General Assembly. It's a good bet that in just two months he'll be back for his sixth performance. Beyond that, over the past 15 months alone Ahmadinejad has taken the main stage at U.N. conclaves in Geneva (the anti-Semitic Durban Review Conference, April 2009), Copenhagen (the U.N. climate jamboree, Dec. 2009) and New York (the Nonproliferation Treaty review conference, May 2010).

In sum, while it rarely gets much attention, there's a strong Iranian tang to the U.N. alphabet soup. This is a bizarre and alarming scene, given an Iranian regime that continues to indulge in the execution of juveniles and homosexuals; the stoning and mandatory veiling of women; the jailing, torture and murder of democratic dissidents; the spread and support of terrorist groups not only in the Middle East, but around the globe; and the sanctions-busting pursuit of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Some of this orgy of Iranian influence at the U.N. developed on the watch of President George Bush. Yet more has been spawned since Obama took office. What has the U.S. been doing to push back? In Washington, the U.S. Treasury has staff working overtime trying to chase down the constantly morphing networks of Iranian front companies, reflagged ships and other Iranian maneuvers to dodge both U.S. and U.N. sanctions.

What's the State Department doing to help? Officially, State finally shepherded through a fourth round of Iran sanctions at the U.N. in June. But here's how the diplomatic back shop works. When Ahmadinejad decided to attend the Nonproliferation Treaty review conference in New York this past May, Iran at the last minute filed a blizzard of visa applications for Ahmadinejad's entourage, most of them submitted just three working days or fewer before this entourage proposed to touch down in New York. That should have set off big alarms, given Iran's record of exploiting the U.N. system and abusing its U.N. foothold in New York to recruit sanctions busters and oversee a large alleged Iranian front operation, the Fifth-Avenue-based Alavi Foundation, right out of Iran's U.N. Mission in Manhattan — as described in a slew of federal court documents over the past three years.

How did the State Department handle these last-minute Iranian visa requests? There was every opportunity to deliver a solid rebuke simply by letting the applications languish for more than three working days. State is usually more than adept at such delays, for reasons far less compelling. Instead, at Iran's behest, State hustled to approve, pronto, a staggering total of 80 visas for Ahmadinejad's retinue. Iran then complained to the U.N., because along with the 80 approved, one visa request was denied. Within the warped backrooms of the U.N., Iran continues to expand its web of access and influence. Instead of standing up to this, the Obama Administration — now dispensing more than $6 billion per year to bankroll almost one-quarter of the U.N.'s budget — keeps rolling over. Why's that?

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 Ari Bussel, July 27, 2010.

There are several major anti-Israel campaigns underway. Let us look at some ongoing and upcoming events:

1) Israel's alleged Apartheid's regime, ongoing

2) Gaza's humanitarian crisis, ongoing

3) Lawsuits against Israeli officials for war crimes, ongoing

4) Active, economic resistance: Boycott of Israeli products, removing them from shelves, burn Israeli products, Divestment, ongoing

5) Active, academic, medical and scientific BDS (Boycotts, Divestment, Sanctions), ongoing

6) Water, Thirsting the Palestinians, soft prelaunch, major international exposure planned

7) Unilateral self-declaration of Palestine with Jerusalem its capital, advanced planning and preliminary rehearsals

8) Al Aqsa Mosque, Temple Mount Destruction by the Jews, in the last planning stages.

Israel must be aware of some or all of these accusations and campaigns against them. After all, Israel is quite sophisticated. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs has branches the world over and the Government Press Office follows global news, as does the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch. There are NGOs that actually do this for existence, including Jerusalem-based Memri that follows the Arabic news media.

There is also an Information Directorate at the Prime Minister's Office. They must be well versed in the above, as should Israel's Minister for Public Diplomacy and the Diaspora and his staff. Then there are the various "policy advisers" and well-paid strategists (all on the taxpayer's dime) who clearly are aware of these plans.

None of the aforementioned areas of contention should come as news to anyone. After all, they have been readily and repeatedly advertised. Israel's enemies are not shy in announcing their plans. They do so explicitly, publicly and unabashedly.

Israel and her diplomats, elected and appointed officials and respective support staffs are smart people. All are very well compensated. Clearly, there must not be any surprises in this dispatch, not to them.

So what is Israel doing? Has she gone on the offensive? Are there drawer plans for these certain eventualities? Will she react, as in recent years, or come out with a more pro-active approach? What will she do when events take unexpected turns as in the latest Turkish Terrorist Flotilla of Lies?

Like a script, finished and in the process of being filmed, the attacks against Israel are in advanced stages of production. All that is necessary is the addition of an effective public relations campaign to support the upcoming release.

An enormous budget has been allocated for the new release, a war machine against the Jewish State. It dwarfs that of previous films and is greater than the sum total of all combined expenditures on movie releases in Hollywood for the past decade.

What excuses will be provided next for Israel's failures on the Public Diplomacy Front? Lack of personnel? Insufficient funds? Politics? Corruption? The "Other" Party or "Someone Else is at fault," "We did not know," "We did not expect," "Events took an unexpected turn," "It concerns us not," "What is Israel to do?" There is more planning of excuses than strategies to avoid failure.

Wake up Israel's leaders and guards. You are entrusted with preparing for such untold and unforeseen eventualities. The events I mentioned have already been acknowledged and your enemies have warned you time and again. Yet, you see not and listen not. You choose to ignore, and it is inevitable you will pay a price. Former glory will not sustain present failure.

The Israeli public is constantly misled into a false sense of security by the plethora of ministerial and governmental entities entrusted with Israel's Public Diplomacy. More than all other failures, this is the most egregious, for the very existence of structures must be dismantled in order to improve the health and well being of the Jewish state.

Israel must shift her thinking and understand the war machine must be equally divided between two fronts: the armory and public relations.

News Alert for the near future: A defiant Israel is said to continue its harsh stand against the United Nations. In a surprising development, Israel has announced it will not grant entry to the three appointed members of the International Board of Inquiry appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. Observers in Israel report this opposition is unlikely to last.

July 23, 2010, AFP, excerpts:

GENEVA — The UN Human Rights Council named a panel of experts Friday to investigate whether Israel's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla breached international law and urged the Jewish state to cooperate.

The 47-member state Human Rights Council condemned the raid as an "outrageous attack" during an emergency session in June. The decision to set up a panel was made at the same session.

The panel would be completely unbiased: Hudson-Phillips was a judge at the International Criminal Court, de Silva was chief prosecutor of the UN court for Sierra Leone while Dairiam serves on the gender equality taskforce of the UN Development Programme.

Although no exact timetable for the panel's work was revealed, the report on their findings was scheduled to be made to the Human Rights Council during its 15th session in September.
[Mark your calendars — two months for release date.]

News Alert (in the not-so-distant future): Palestinians celebrate the creation of Modern Palestine in the areas once known as the West Bank and Gaza. 120 countries have already recognized the newly established country and committed to send their future ambassadors for a swearing in ceremony to take place the day after the Establishment Day scheduled for ... 2010. Israel has vowed to take all measures to prevent the formation of Palestine, but stopped short of declaring war.

July 23, 2010, AP, excerpts (substitute Israel and Palestine as necessary, and the next campaign is already set):

BELGRADE, Serbia — Serbia and Kosovo are dispatching competing armies of lobbyists to governments that so far have wavered on recognizing the breakaway province.

"We call on those states who have not yet done so, to recognize Kosovo," U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley on said on Thursday. "Now is the time for them, for Kosovo and Serbia, to put aside their differences and move forward."

In its nonbinding decision announced Thursday, the top U.N. court said it did not rule on the legality of Kosovo's statehood, but only on its declaration of independence.

Regions around the world where separatists may be energized by Kosovo's secession include Spain's Basque country and Catalonia, Scotland, Italy's ethnic German-populated Alto Adige, and parts of Romania and Slovakia populated by restive Hungarian minorities.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which have declared independence from Georgia, will also be encouraged by the ruling that states that such unilateral declarations of independence are not illegal under international law. Nearby, Armenian separatists in Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabah region may seek to legitimize their secession dating back to the early 1990s.

In the Middle East, Kurdish politicians in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region have also said they will carefully study the ICJ decision.

So far, only 69 countries of the 192 in the United Nations General Assembly, including the U.S. and most of EU states, have recognized Kosovo since it declared independence from Serbia in February 2008. But a number of important countries, aside from China and Russia, have refused to do so, including India, Brazil, Israel, Egypt, Indonesia, and South Africa.

For Kosovo to obtain U.N. membership, it needs a two-third majority in the General Assembly, plus the approval by all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France.

The EU countries that have not recognized Kosovo are Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Cyprus and Romania — most grappling with separatism issues.

The script from AP, brought almost in its entirety alongside its key elements, is so elegantly played out that one does not need to engage any specialists to create a sequel. All that is needed are the appropriate name substitutions. I am already marking my calendar with great anticipation!

Viva Palestine, the eternal homeland of the Palestinian People, created by those who write fiction! Soon millions of Palestinian refugees will trounce Jerusalem, their never before mentioned capital.

Wake up Israel's guards and generals entrusted with public diplomacy. Where are your leaders Israel, as international public demonization mounts against the Jewish State?

Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 27, 2010.

Wikipedia has released sensitive documents about America's war in Afghanistan. The matter of leaking these secret documents to Wikipedia now shifts to the source of these documents.

I am reminded of the false report traced to the U.S. State Department wherein several State Department Arabists were assigned to infiltrate several of the 16 American Intelligence Agencies to plant erroneous information that Iran had ceased its nuclear development.

The idea was to curtail any plans by the Bush Administration to bomb Iran nuclear development sites. In essence, the Arabist State Department was running its own Shadow Government and making its own secret policy. The Director of the CIA later apologized to Congress for this deliberately false report.

John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the U.N., confirmed at the time of the released false report of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) December 2007 that three State Department agents were assigned this task of subversion. The title of the false NIE implied that Iran had ceased its nuclear research and development. That "false" impression was carried forward in all the world's media. However, John Bolton totally discredited that 2007 NIE.

Ambassador John Bolton said in the Washington Post of December 6, 2007: "That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this "intelligence" torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all."

With that in mind it would not be too far a reach to conclude, subject to a deep investigation, that the Arabist State Department once again leaked documents in their possession to Wikipedia to subvert the war in Afghanistan and put our soldiers at further risk.

So far the Arabist State Department has remained untouchable on many projects — especially in the Middle East. This includes funding terrorist organizations through NGO's and other venues such as the United Nations — as well as undermining the security and sovereignty of our only dependable, democratic ally in the Middle East — Israel.

Iran's head, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared often and loudly, that he plans for Israel to be the first target of his upcoming Nuclear Bombs to "wipe Israel off the map". However, Ahmadinejad has also demonstrated that his missile throw capacity could bring Nuclear Weapons to threaten Europe and the 300,000 to 500,000 American and Allied soldiers in the Middle and Far East.

We have observed many active and retired State Department diplomats on the payroll of Islamic nations upon retirement who lobby Congress and the President to ignore dangerous activities by these Muslim and Arab nations.

Frankly, I don't think there will be a deep investigation of the Wikipedia leaks, particularly if it might lead into the bowels of the State Department.

One last thought! I wonder if this is merely an clever move by President Barack Hussein Obama through his advisors John Brennan and Rahm Emanuel to get the American people riled up so Obama had an excuse to accelerate his withdrawal of American troops?

This below is called "Website Releases Secrets On War: Leaked Documents Paint A Bleak Picture of Afghan War" by Julian E. Barnes &and Siobhan Gorman, Wall St. Journal, July 26, 2010. Write to Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com Jeanne Whalen, Nathan Hodge and Maria Abi-Habib contributed to this article.


WASHINGTON — he release by a Web-based organization of thousands of secret military documents that appear to present a bleak view of the Afghan war drew a range of reactions Monday, underscoring that they could have a profound impact on public perception of the war.

The U.S., the U.K. and Pakistan condemned the huge leak of classified information, while Afghanistan focused on reported Pakistani support for the Taliban-led insurgency and reports of previously undisclosed civilian deaths to demand further tightening of rules of engagement. The Pentagon said it is trying to assess the damage caused.

The release of the documents, which were obtained and made public by the website WikiLeaks, evoked the release of the so-called Pentagon Papers, the secret history of the Vietnam War, which, when published, contradicted the public narrative of that war and played a role in turning public opinion against it.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told a London news conference Monday the documents appear to contain evidence of war crimes, adding it would be "up to a court" to make judgments. He cited especially Task Force 373, which he called a U.S. military "assassination unit" that he said killed seven children in a "botched raid."

Asked how many incidents could potentially be investigated for possible war crimes or other reasons, he said "thousands," adding that the U.S. military would probably be forced to investigate some.

Mr. Assange said information in the documents "really doesn't paint a flattering picture of the Taliban, either," noting that there are many reports of Taliban-planted explosive devices causing "significant loss of human life."

He strongly suggested a coverup of civilian deaths during the war, pointing to U.S. military reports on the number of people wounded or killed during specific incidents. In some of these, a high number of those killed or wounded are classified as "enemy" while very few are classified as "civilians," which he called "suspicious."

WSJ Afghanistan correspondent Matthew Rosenberg speaks with Amol Sharma about the significance of the leak of thousands of documents related to the Afghanistan war and the possible effects on the perception of the war among American and Afghani citizens.

He said the documents don't just "reveal abuses" but paint a detailed picture of "the last six years of war," including the kinds of weapons used and the progress or setbacks experienced.

Coming at a time when U.S. President Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy has come under increasing criticism, the release will likely stoke criticism of the war effort, as well as spark a debate about the manner in which the information was made available.

WikiLeaks allowed three publications — he Guardian newspaper in London, the magazine Der Spiegel in Germany and the New York Times — o have access to the documents for several weeks. Those news outlets released stories in a coordinated manner late Sunday.

The documents are mostly raw field reports, some spare, some mundane and others rich with narrative details. Many of the low-level reports are the kind that some intelligence experts consider the equivalent of second-hand rumors, said one U.S. official.

The White House condemned the release of the documents, as it has in the past when WikiLeaks has made classified material public. Even as it condemned the leak, the White House also noted that the bulk of the material released was from the Bush administration.

An Afghan soldier searched a boy during a patrol in the volatile Arghandab Valley, Kandahar, Afghanistan, Monday.

"On Dec. 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years," Gen. James Jones, White House national security adviser, said in a statement.

WikiLeaks said it was releasing some 91,000 documents, reports that cover the period from January 2004 through the end of 2009. On its website, WikiLeaks also said it would delay the release of 15,000 reports at the request of its source. As it reviewed and redacted those documents, they too would be released, the statement said.

The most surprising finding in the reports may be that the Taliban have used sophisticated heat-seeking missiles against aircraft operated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Afghan resistance fighters used similar weapons, provided by the U.S., to great effect against the Soviet Army in the 1980s. The U.S. military has never publicly acknowledged that the Taliban possess such weapons.

According to the reports, the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence agency provided the Taliban with havens in Pakistan, even as Islamabad was aiding the U.S. war effort. That charge has often been made privately by U.S. officials. Even in public, Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Kabul, has said the ISI retains ties with the Taliban.

Other reports detail missions conducted by Special Operation Forces charged with hunting down top insurgent commanders. The reports claim successes but also note that mistakes have led to the death of Afghan civilians and, as a result, eroded U.S. standing in Afghanistan. The U.S. has increased the number of Special Operations teams and their operational tempo in recent months. Officials say rules put in place by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top commander, have minimized the collateral damage produced by the elite forces' raids.

The reports note that a number of U.S. unmanned aircraft have crashed and collided, undermining the overall success rate. That finding also has been previously reported by news organizations.

The swiftness of the White House's response when the first stories about the WikiLeaks documents appeared suggests it views the release of the reports as potentially damaging to the war effort. The administration has boosted the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 50,000 troops but put in place a tight timeline, insisting it plans to begin a drawdown in about a year.

At the beginning, the war in Afghanistan enjoyed widespread support, even from Bush administration critics who would later oppose the Iraq war. As it has dragged on, becoming the longest armed conflict in U.S. history, doubts about whether the U.S. can be successful in Afghanistan have grown.

Antiwar members of Congress such as Rep. Denis Kucinich (D., Ohio) have seized on new revelations about the war to renew their arguments that the U.S. should begin to withdraw. A minority of lawmakers has so far supported withdrawal resolutions. The House is due to debate a resolution on U.S. involvement in Pakistan this week. The WikiLeaks reports will likely be used as ammunition in that debate.

"However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan," said Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a statement. "Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent."

The release is sure to put attention on WikiLeaks, a Web-based group devoted to publishing state secrets. In April, the organization unveiled classified footage of a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed two Reuters employees. In addition to video shot from a helicopter gunship, the group released a package of documents related to the attack; it sent correspondents to Baghdad to track down survivors of the incident and conduct follow-up interviews. At a news conference in releasing the video, Mr. Assange called the pairing of investigative reporting with leaked footage a "powerful combination."

This month, the U.S. military said it would press criminal charges against an Army soldier, Pfc. Bradley Manning, for allegedly transferring classified military information to an unauthorized source. The charges appeared to be connected to the materials WikiLeaks released in April. The arrest of Pfc. Manning intensified the criticism of WikiLeaks and discussion about whether Mr. Assange was inducing people to leak classified data that could potentially put intelligence sources in danger.

Launched in 2007, WikiLeaks has posted a wide range of leaked documents from the internal correspondence of climate researchers to information on secret sorority rituals. The organization has designs on being seen as a serious newsgathering enterprise. The unusual agreement to team up with the three major news organizations appears to be an effort to build on those aspirations.

U.S. Marines and Afghan National Army soldiers walk during an operation to clear the area of insurgents near Musa Qaleh, in northern Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, on Friday.

In coming days, as officials and experts review the documents, new revelations are likely to come to light. The most important documents may be those dealing with the activities of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and its relationship with the Taliban.

Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, condemned the leak as irresponsible and not reflective of the current situation on the ground in the region, adding that the U.S. and Pakistan are "strategic partners" working to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban. "These reports reflect nothing more than single-source comments and rumors, which abound on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and are often proved wrong after deeper examination," he said Sunday. The Pakistani government, he said, "is following a clearly laid out strategy of fighting and marginalizing terrorists and our military and intelligence services are effectively executing that policy."

Several of the reports provide details behind the long-running U.S. contention that Pakistani intelligence officers — and veterans of the ISI — have been supporting the Afghan Taliban.

One January 2009 intelligence report describes an Afghan Taliban meeting that included former ISI chief Hamid Gul. It focused on plans to launch a truck bomb to avenge the recent killing of Osama al-Kini, an al Qaeda leader killed by a Central Intelligence Agency drone. The participants at the meeting included several older Arab men with large security details, which may have indicated they were members of al Qaeda. Mr. Gul advised the group to focus their operation on Afghanistan "in exchange for the government of Pakistan's security forces turning a blind eye," the report said. Mr. Gul has denied links to terrorism. Pakistani officials strongly dispute the notion the government still provides support to the Afghan Taliban, saying they have severed all ties.

A report from December 2006 describes a member of the ISI running a suicide-bombing network in Afghanistan that trained bombers, conducted reconnaissance, and performed other operational planning and support for attacks such as transporting bombers from Pakistan to Afghanistan. The aspiring bombers receive training at militant camps, including one run by a notorious militant group that has links to al Qaeda, the Haqqani network. According to WikiLeaks reports, the Taliban were expert in using heat-seeking missiles. Still, U.S. officials have never acknowledged the Taliban had access to such weaponry.

One document released by WikiLeaks was a May 30, 2007, report that discussed a CH-47 transport helicopter destroyed by a heat-seeking missile, killing five Americans, a Briton and a Canadian. At the time, a NATO spokesman dismissed witness reports suggesting the helicopter was struck with a missile. The WikiLeaks report shows the military knew that the Taliban had used a heat-seeking device.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 27, 2010.


How to reconcile IDF praise for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) military with IDF suspicion of it? The praise is that they "calmed" the area and repress Hamas.

Yoni Ben-Menachem reported on Israel Radio (7/26/10) that Israeli Central Commander Avi Mizrahi warned his troops that the IDF must be prepared to see the P.A. forces, which U.S. General Dayton is training in Jordan, turn against Israeli troops and civilians.

Gen. Mizrahi explained that the new P.A. military has been trained and equipped by U.S. experts far advanced beyond the hodge-podge gunmen of the Intifada at Jenin. The new P.A. military is a professional, deadly infantry force. It can take the initiative, and is not likely to throw down its weapons, as seen in prior wars. The general explained that with four snipers, it could pin down an area.

The broadcaster went on to attribute to the suspicion Gen. Mizrahi expressed, Israel's precaution in not allowing delivery of the armored personnel carriers already shipped to Jordan by Russia. The U.S. comptroller reacted to the prohibition with a complaint that Israel hinders training of the P.A. military. To Israel, such hindrance means Israeli security.

In the 1996 Hasmonean Tunnel and 2000 second Intifada conflicts, P.A. police turned their guns against Israeli forces. After the Camp David talks failed, the P.A. General Intelligence and Preventive Intelligence forces turned into armed terrorists, attacking Israeli civilians and soldiers. There were other examples.

Israel would not object to Arab autonomy with sufficient forces to maintain internal security; it objects to forces sufficient to attack Israel.

Yes, P.A. forces repress Hamas. But that is a tactical matter of immediate preservation of Abbas' Fatah regime. It is not a strategic alliance with Israel nor against terrorism. Suppose Fatah's strategy shifts to reconciliation with Hamas. Then the P.A. could redirect its new military against Israel.

Israel would face forces trained at battalion level to fight in urban areas and to conquer strongholds, IDF outposts, and settlements (IMRA, 7/26/10).


Fatah convention endorsed violence (AP/Nasser Shiyoukhi)

Adding to the prior article, Emanuel Winston of Winston Mid East Report and Analysis further explains that the U.S. trained the P.A. in intelligence and communications. He presented a JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) report on this, #1009, 7/23.

JINSA shares the Israeli general's concern. Israelis acknowledge that whatever P.A. forces do against Hamas, saves Israel having to do it. The American trainers coordinate the force's action with Israel. But Abbas' P.A. remains hostile to Israel. And U.S. officials already are talking about engaging with Hamas while training a P.A. force ostensibly against Hamas. Meanwhile, the P.A. is chafing at U. S. supervision, demanding that the U.S. stick to training and leave the P.A. independent in determining its security interests. The implication is that whereas the U.S. thinks it is training a force just against Hamas, the P.A. wants to be free to determine whom it is against. [An earlier article documented Abbas' call for war on Israel if negotiations do not give him everything he wants.]

The problem may be that the U.S. states goals in mechanical terms, such as number of units prepared, rather than in broad terms of policy goals, such as P.A. compliance with Roadmap obligations to eradicate terrorism (7/26).

Further considerations:

1. We have documented a number of times that Israel has had to raid terrorists in the P.A., at night, because the P.A. forces do not eradicate terrorism, they block Hamas, but not other terrorists.

2. In the link cited above, one can find documentation for Abbas' pro-terrorism.

3. There is a phenomenon of futile praising of other parties in the hope of motivating them to make peace or provide security. Examples are Israeli praise for P.A. forces, praise for obviously ineffective Egyptian efforts against tunnel smuggling, and Nobel peace prizes in advance of anything more than signatures for Obama, Abbas, and the North Vietnamese leader, Le Duc Tho. TURKEY HELPING SYRIA CRUSH KURDS

Leaders Barzani of Kurds and Davutoglu of Turkey (AP/Burhan Ozbilici)

As Turkey builds relations with fellow Islamist neighbors, reports are coming in of Turkey helping Syria crush Kurds in Syria, Iran crush its Kurds, as well as fight its own Kurds and those from Iraq.

As a member of NATO, Turkey has advanced Western weaponry. Israel still furnishes Turkey with advanced arms, although Turkey's government has turned radical. Israeli officials rationalize their continued sales on the grounds of good relations with Turkey's military. Meanwhile, however, the government of Turkey has indicted many of the top brass there. Badgered by the religious Right and from the liberal side over past interference in government in behalf of the Constitution, the Turkish generals with whom Israeli officials have a relationship are losing power and losing touch.

Al-Arabiya reports that Turkey is using unmanned aerial vehicles supplied by Israel, to track down the Kurds. Israel has no plans to cancel sales of more.

The danger to the whole region but particularly Israel is that the radical regime will direct Turkey's army for jihad, which Israel was able to fend off before, when it had superior weapons to the Soviet ones used by the Arabs. Now Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have the same U.S. weapons as Israel and an understanding of what Israel can do with them.

The same type of danger from Turkey faces Israel and American interests from Egypt, whose regime may end soon. The Moslem Brotherhood may then gain increasing influence over Egypt's first-class military.

Al-Arabiya reports that Turkey is using unmanned aerial vehicles supplied by Israel, to track down the Kurds. Israel has no plans to cancel sales of more.

The Mideast is changing. Israel's concept of it does not seem to be. It tries to retain dead or dying relationships (IMRA, 7/24/10 from Carolyn Glick, Ed. Jerusalem Post).

I followed up with Carolyn Glick to ask whether advanced weapons Turkey acquires from Israel may be given to Iranian laboratories to figure out. Then the Islamist axis could either counter the Israeli weapons or make their own (and not pay Israel). She agreed that indeed there is such a concern (email, 7/27).

Before the Intifada, we reported personal relationships between officials of Israel and of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). We also reported years ago, just as IMRA did on 7/24 about the present, the security cooperation the IDF felt it had with P.A. forces. Those relationships did not stop P.A. troops from suddenly opening fire on IDF troops on joint patrol with them. Neither did those relationships prevent Intifada.

Without taking sides, the Kurdish conflict involves autonomy versus conformity in the several countries in which the approximately 40 million Kurds are located and the terrorism and oppression in waging the conflict.


The parliamentary delegation of Hizbullah and its Amal and Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement) prevented ratification of a France-Lebanon agreement for cooperation on internal, civil, and administrative security.

The objection was to the agreement's stated opposition to terrorism. Hizbullah and allies want the agreement to adopt the Arab League definition of "terrorism" and not the French definition.

The French definition would apply to Hizbullah and Hamas [because they specifically attack civilians]. The Arab League definition exempts militias that attack civilians if fighting what the Arabs call "resistance to occupation."

The government tried to conciliate the Hizbullah bloc by pointing out Lebanon's rights to reject French proposals and to withdraw from the agreement. When that did not work, the government offered to add to a signed agreement an appendix adopting the Arab League definition. The opposition bloc walked out, preventing the parliament from endorsing the agreement (IMRA, 7/27/10).

The difference between the two definitions is that: (1) The new, Arab League definition arrogates to itself a right to murder civilians for its cause, and to call self-defense against that cause "terrorism" if civilians accidentally get killed during self-defense against jihad; and (2) The original definition is based on the traditional international law rules of warfare, which try to keep war between armies and not spread them to civilians and perhaps genocide.


Israeli Defense Minister Barak's warning that, if Hizbullah attacks it, Israel would defend itself against the whole regime, got all the attention, but almost unnoticed is his further alert that U.S. military aid to Lebanon may fall into the hands of terrorists. President Obama announced intent to raise that subsidy to $100 million.

More specifically, Min. Barak put it, "...the walls between the Lebanese armed forces and Hizbullah — it's quite porous. And whatever you give the Lebanese armed forces might end up in the hands of Hizbullah, be it technology or weapons or whatever." (Arutz-7, 7/27/10).

This column's prior analysis made the same point about the Lebanese armed forces and Hizbullah, but warrants clarification. Since Hizbullah and the Lebanese Army are more or less allies, Hizbullah may not need to capture the U.S. arms, if it could direct the Lebanese Army whom to use them against.

A prior article finds the U.S. in a similar position with the Palestinian Authority military. Has the West yet learned that other cultures whom it assists have different goals?


Cpl. Elinor Joseph is proud to be Israel's first female Arab combat soldier. She is building a fine record as a medic, after having served as a border guard and winning the respect of the border population and her fellow troops.

A Christian, Cpl. Joseph realizes she is working for a Jewish state, but this is her country and she wants to help protect its people, including her own family. As she gets to know the people whom she works with and those whom she is assigned to protect, she gets to care for them.

Joseph grew up in a mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhood. Her father was an IDF paratrooper, who wanted her to enlist. An early obstacle to her career choice was her friends' objection. She put the onus on them to show that their friendship for her was genuine and not political. When people tell her she may have to kill Arabs, she deflects the point from one of ethnic solidarity by pointing out that Arabs kill Arabs (Arutz-7, 7/27/10).

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, July 27, 2010.
TO: ddanon@knesset.gov.il, myaalon@knesset.gov.il, mcachlon@knesset.gov.il, hkatz@knesset.gov.il, yiskatz@knesset.gov.il, llivnat@knesset.gov.il, gsaar@knesset.gov.il, zpinian@knesset.gov.il, ypeled@knesset.gov.il, mregev@knesset.gov.il, rrivlin@knesset.gov.il, kshama@knesset.gov.il, ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il, sshalom@knesset.gov.il, yedelstein@knesset.gov.il, meitan@knesset.gov.il, zelkin@knesset.gov.il, oakunis@knesset.gov.il, gerdan@knesset.gov.il, bbegin@knesset.gov.il, iaharon@knesset.gov.il, rilatov@knesset.gov.il, olevy@knesset.gov.il, aliberman@knesset.gov.il, ulandau@knesset.gov.il, slandver@knesset.gov.il, mmatalon@knesset.gov.il, anmichaely@knesset.gov.il, amiller@knesset.gov.il, smiseznikov@knesset.gov.il, amarh@knesset.gov.il, fkirshenbaum@knesset.gov.il, drotem@knesset.gov.il, lshemtov@knesset.gov.il, mgafni@knesset.gov.il, mmozes@knesset.gov.il, umaklev@knesset.gov.il, uorbach@knesset.gov.il, zorlev@knesset.gov.il, dhershkovitz@knesset.gov.il, dazulay@knesset.gov.il, aatias@knesset.gov.il, yvaknin@knesset.gov.il, nzeev@knesset.gov.il, eyishay@knesset.gov.il, amncohen@knesset.gov.il, amichaeli@knesset.gov.il, ymargi@knesset.gov.il, mnahari@knesset.gov.il
Background From David Bedein.

At four o'clock this morning, Israeli security forces swooped down on Shomron Jewish community at Yitzhar, burst into the home of the local Rosh Yeshiva (head of rabbinical school) and arrested him in front of his 11 young children, on charges stemming from a scholary treatise he wrote — many months ago — relating to the dilemma of when it is permitted and not permitted to use force against non-Jews. Some sources say that pro-Palestinian minister Ehud Barak has also given orders to demolish the rabbi's yeshiva in Yitzhar during Barak's seminal visit in the U.S and indeed, a home of a young couple in Shomron was in fact demolished today. All this is being done while the Knesset, Israel's parliament, is in recess and cannot raise a fuss


Dear Chavrei Knesset, amv"sh

What exactly did the Rav say that deserved being awoken at 4:00 am traumatizing his family and dehumanizing him as if he was a criminal? Perhaps it's what he didn't clearly say. Perhaps he didn't clearly spell out or point a finger at the Palestinians who have used their children and ambulances as human shields and lie through their teeth for PR purposes.

For them are we expected to endanger our Soldiers like we did in Jenin?

The hypocrisy of Britain and America! They clearly would never stand for this cowardly excuse of fighting by the Palestinian enemy that endangered their own little Palestinian children and prey on our merciful nature. Mercy on our part thereby endangers human lives and and causes us to be cruel to our very own soldiers. Showing mercy to our enemy that behaves in such a despicable fashion merely encourages and escalates their choice of weapons such as using children and ambulances as human shields.

Restraint on the part of Israel is not in the interest of innocent Palestinian children and GREATLY endangers Israeli fighting aoldiers since it forces our soldiers to sitting ducks or easy targets.

IN Auschwitz the jEWISH prisoners would have embraced an attack on the railroads leading to Auschwitz and the Concentration Camps even if it meant that some Jews would have been killed. All understood clearly that the intention of bombing the tracks was to stop the process of mass murder of millions and not to kill the number of Jews that happened to have been there at the time.

For shame on those reporters that made is seem like the Rav was a racist that treasures Jewish Blood over Gentile blood. What a blatant distortion. It'a obvious to me that it is the intent of such Gentiles that determine the Halacha and not their blood type, race or religion.

Here is an article that slanders Rabbis as being racists against Gentiles based on bloodtype. The headline is quite blatant and accusatory.

    Shapira's distinction between Jewish, gentile blood

Members of Knesset:

Please do what you can to stop the slander and incarceration of G-d fearing Jews and the execution of the destruction of shuls and communities in Yehudah and the Shomron!

Robin Ticker

This email is L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy — Kaplan) a great activist and lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, July 27, 2010.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion. We stand firmly by the Patriots of Israel. We are appalled by the way your government ignores international law and the Treaty of San Remon which established the boundaries of Israel ca. 1920. These boundaries encompassed the region known as Gaza, most of the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, and Judah and Samaria.

We have studied middle east issues for years and we are deplored by the rampant disintegration of your nation by misguided zealots both within and without Israel who are in favor of the "piecing away of Israel" in exchange for a "peace" that consists of air kisses, bribes, and flattery.

Your people, the ones in leadership whose families spent most of their lives running from country to country to save their money and skins are the kind of people who do not want to understand that to have and keep a country you must fight for every inch of your land and not piece it away, chunk by chunk, for any reason, and certainly not to buy favor from the lunk-heads and embedded Saudi lobbyists that infest the US State. Dept.

We are Americans who are appalled by the shenanigans of our US State. Dept. We are equally appalled by Israel's ignorant and morally weak leadership — ignorant because it apparently doesn't want to educate itself about the San Remo Resolution and morally weak because it fails to demand the restoration of all the lands of the Jewish Homeland.

Stop arresting your Patriots — when you do, you merely incite disrespect from the Arabs who already detest you and you also invite sneers from the rest of the world who are willing to hate you because you blow big and crumble easily. In short you leaders are willing to pander to Islamic imperialism. Kindly understand that no matter what "gestures" you offer to your enemies, they are educated to disregard them and consider all Jews fools and knaves because they believe all Jews are as sappy as Israel's lax leadership.

Your supreme High Court is a mess of Jewish contrarians who would, given a chance, reward arabs for keeping slaves. Why? Because these judges are the worst kind of Jews: contrarians and seditionists and smug loud-mouth poseurs.

If you cannot hang together, then each of you will hang separately — so warned Ben Franklin to the founders of the United States. Israel needs similar leadership but unfortunately, lack wise leaders. Instead, they have cunning, short-sighted finaglers such as Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres, both known to have bargained away Israel's sovereign rights through their unlawful acts. They should be arrested, not the poor rabbi who dared speak his thoughts.

Arrest Barak as soon as he steps off the plane. Throw Shimon Peres in jail until he rots. These fools are the bane of the Western world and the destroyers of Israel.

We support Israel because Israel is the shining rock that stands on the Saudi path of Islamic imperialism. Obama will pass. We don't want a president who engages in international bow-movement tours. He'll most likely be a one-termer. We demand that Israel survive. Now you know why. Now you know how.

Viva Israel!
Paul la Demain and the SC4Z

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Temple Mount Petition, July 26, 2010.

Dear friends,

Thank you so much for taking the time to read and sign the petition for the Temple Mount. A few months ago a historic debate was held in the Knesset Law Committee to decide if hearings should be held on the issue of Jewish ascent. A vote to hold the Temple Mount hearings passed by a vote of 12-0 along with 1 abstention. However the head of the Law Committee MK David Rotem of Yisrael Beitenu is stalling the hearings for political reasons.

Friends, now is the time to act! The Knesset is on summer break and will resume in 3 months. This gives us time to rally the world Jewry and all those who love justices and mercy for the sake of the Temple Mount. We have an historic opportunity to return Jewish Prayer to the Temple Mount; we have an historic opportunity to turn the Mount as is written in Isaiah 56:7 into "A House of Prayer for all Nations". Where all Nations can find a common spiritual ground and stand as one before He whose Name is One. Maybe this place can help bring a little peace and tranquility to an increasing volatile world.

Please urge all your friends and family to sign the petition for Jewish Prayer on the Temple Mount and help insure that all humanity can come together and pray together. I have spoken to Knesset Members and they want to hear your voice! They want to be empowered and emboldened to take the courageous steps that are needed to make this dream a reality. Help us reach an ambitious goal of 100,000 on the petition. Check the petition homepage for more actions in the coming weeks and months!

Thank You.

To Go To Top

Posted by Mattot Arim, July 26, 2010.

At four o'clock this morning, Israeli security forces swooped down on Shomron Jewish community at Yitzhar, burst into the home of the local Rosh Yeshiva (head of rabbinical school) and arrested him in front of his 11 young children, on charges stemming from a scholary treatise he wrote — many months ago — relating to the dilemma of when it is permitted and not permitted to use force against non-Jews. Some sources say that pro-Palestinian minister Ehud Barak has also given orders to demolish the rabbi's yeshiva in Yitzhar during Barak's seminal visit in the U.S and indeed, a home of a young couple in Shomron was in fact demolished today. All this is being done while the Knesset, Israel's parliament, is in recess and cannot raise a fuss.

ABROAD: It is vital that Ehud Barak upon arrival in the U.S. be swamped with reasonable requests to cease this barbaric treatment of the Jews in Judea and Samaria and to immediately order the cancellation of the directive to demolish the yeshiva — the pretext being a building code violation from 1998 (12 years ago). This could be a precedent for the IDF to destroy hundreds of public buildings in Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and in Jerusalem. What the Israeli government fears the most is feedback from abroad, so yes, many phone calls can certainly reverse the decisions that have been made. Therefore, foreign citizens pls contact Barak's spokesman, Mr. Seri, at cell phone number 972-50-629-8949.

ISRAELIS AND ABROAD: Use fax or phone to try to get through:

Fax (send to all numbers): 011-972-2-563-2580 (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary who reports directly to Netanyahu. And also: 011-972-2-670-5369, 011-972-2-649-6659, 011-972-2-6513955, 011-972-2-6535178, 011-972-2-5664838

Telephone -011-972-2-670-5532 (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary) and also: 011-972-2-675-3227, 011-972-2-640-8457, 011-972-2-6753333 (if told Prime Minister is not present, ask for any Likud aide or legislator)

Dialling from Israel? Omit 011-972 — instead just dial zero.

If you cannot get through by fax and phone, at least email Israel's ministers and MKs and ask them to get on the phone to Mr. Netanyahu, and to get into the press making strong statements, before it is too late for them to help (Timing Is Everything). You can write to all of the following:

ddanon@knesset.gov.il; myaalon@knesset.gov.il; mcachlon@knesset.gov.il; hkatz@knesset.gov.il; yiskatz@knesset.gov.il; llivnat@knesset.gov.il; gsaar@knesset.gov.il; zpinian@knesset.gov.il; ypeled@knesset.gov.il; mregev@knesset.gov.il; rrivlin@knesset.gov.il; kshama@knesset.gov.il; ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il; sshalom@knesset.gov.il; yedelstein@knesset.gov.il; meitan@knesset.gov.il; zelkin@knesset.gov.il; oakunis@knesset.gov.il; gerdan@knesset.gov.il; bbegin@knesset.gov.il; iaharon@knesset.gov.il; rilatov@knesset.gov.il; olevy@KNESSET.GOV.IL; aliberman@knesset.gov.il; ulandau@KNESSET.GOV.IL; slandver@knesset.gov.il; mmatalon@knesset.gov.il; anmichaely@KNESSET.GOV.IL; amiller@knesset.gov.il; smiseznikov@knesset.gov.il; amarh@knesset.gov.il; fkirshenbaum@knesset.gov.il; drotem@knesset.gov.il; lshemtov@knesset.gov.il; mgafni@knesset.gov.il; mmozes@KNESSET.GOV.IL; umaklev@knesset.gov.il; uorbach@KNESSET.GOV.IL; zorlev@knesset.gov.il; dhershkovitz@KNESSET.GOV.IL; dazulay@knesset.gov.il; aatias@knesset.gov.il; yvaknin@knesset.gov.il; nzeev@knesset.gov.il; eyishay@knesset.gov.il; amncohen@knesset.gov.il; amichaeli@knesset.gov.il; ymargi@knesset.gov.il; mnahari@knesset.gov.il;

Please pass this on to your pro-Israel friends (and friends in Israel).

Contact Mattot Arim by email at mattot.arim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Honest Reporting, July 26, 2010.

Unrwa_logo Hate mail from a UNRWA email address arrived in my in-box today. I'm omitting the first half of the email address so this person doesn't get bombarded with emails.

From: A/RAHIM, Saadi
... @unrwa.org
Date: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:21 AM
To: action@honestreporting.com

Dishonest reporting, That's your true identity, and your true character. Thank God that many people; including Jews, all over the world even inside Israel, whom you like to call self hating Jews; have started to see the big lies of Zionists including yours. I wonder how many truly of those around. If you really want to be fair and honest about it, which I doubt, go back and read history with a fair and nonbiased mind.

I did some Googling, and found on LinkedIn a Saadi Rahim who works for the UNRWA — as an officer in charge of transportation and logistics in Jordan.

What unstated big lies of the Zionists (and HonestReporting) is Mr. Saadi Rahim referring to? These?

  • UNRWA: Perpetuating the Misery
  • UNRWA Knew Camp Was Infiltrated, Did Nothing
  • UNRWA's Hamas Employees
  • What Else is the UNRWA Not Telling Us?
  • Extracurricular Activities

More importantly, by using a UNRWA email address, he may technically be representing the UNRWA. Do Rahim's views of Zionism represent the UNRWA? What does this say about the organization Rahim works for?

Even if Rahim's views don't technically represent the UNRWA, he did use an official email address the same way Octavia Nasr had CNN written all over her tweet.

Honest Reporting monitors the media for inaccuracy and unfairness in how they report the news about Israel. Ther website address is http://www.honestreporting.com. Contact them by email at action@honestreporting.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, July 26, 2010.

This was published July 24, 2010 at O Globo newspaper and by the Brazilian Foreign Ministry's daily selection of media articles.
http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/ selecao-diaria-de-noticias/midias-nacionais/brasil/ o-globo/2010/06/24/bloqueios-e-genocidios-artigo It was written by Jacob Dolinger, a professor at UERJ (Rio de Janeiro State University).


Turkey assumed the defense of "peace ship " and poured their bile on Israel, which had kept relations of mutual cooperation in various sectors. Another manifestation criticism of Israeli policy with respect to the territorial sea of Gaza has one of the most renowned personalities in Britain, Tonny Blair, a participant in the international scheme you want, deaf and blind, to solve the centenary of conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Without going into the event which shook the world so grossly disproportionate to their reaction to the magna violence that have occurred in various parts of the planet, with sacrifice of thousands of lives, we need to analyze the authority of Turkish and English to criticize the lock Sea that Israel imposes on the Gaza coast. In Turkey occurred in 1915, the first great tragedy of the twentieth century — a genocide of 1.5 million Armenian Christians, driven from their homes, taken to the sea and drowned, dragged into the streets and tortured to death — men, women, Old men, children, in an unspeakable massacre, led by government authorities, largely unknown tragedy of humanity.

Hitler, when warned by advisors on the risk of executing the liquidation of millions of Jews, he replied that there was no problem, exclaiming: "Who remembers the Armenians?" he knew that nobody would come to the rescue of the Jews, the Armenians as nobody came forward. After the war of 14/18, the League of Nations and the great powers have behaved cynically, failing to give any support to survivors and rewarding the Turks with an expansion of its territory, to the detriment of the Armenian people, who found himself exiled from his land. The Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, between the great powers and the new Turkish republic, completely ignored the survivors of genocide. The Satanic crime of the Turks against the Armenians took the diabolical crime of the Germans against the Jews. And currently reigns the hypocrisy of Western nations and international organizations with their critical burning to Israel without regard to the terrorist policy of the Palestinian leadership, supported by Muslim governments. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chause.

Successive Turkish governments have refused to acknowledge the genocide committed against its Christian minority, the Armenians.

The current government maintains the same policy.

And nothing to dissuade this cruel indifference, as I said jus — renowned internationalist, is to kill the victims a second time. The British cooperated with Germany by closing the doors of Palestine to the Jews who wished to flee the Nazis. The White Letter May 1939 — just when the war began — has imposed a quota immigration to Palestine to 15,000 Jews a year. At the same time encouraged the arrival of Arabs from different regions for the territory under its mandate.

The mandatory power gave full support to Arab aggression, remaining inert in the face of pogroms perpetrated against the Jewish population and preventing armed defense by victims. In the Middle East, as in all areas colonized by the British Empire, this made it planted the poisoned seeds of future internal crises and armed struggles. The British cruelty during the war years, preventing the saving of hundreds of thousands of Jews escape from Europe to Palestine, culminating in the maintenance of the policy after the war when, in the years 1945-1948, the blocked port Haifa to all victims of Nazi persecution, creatures reduced to abject physical and moral misery, trying to reclaim their lives in the Holy Land.

Vessels approaching the port were sent back to Europe.

Some were taken to Cyprus, the passengers forced into internment camps. Remember the movie "Exodus." The blockade maintained by the government of St. Britannic Majesty before and during the war led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the deepest humiliation of thousands of Holocaust survivors.

Turkish and English should remember his criminal past before taking action against a country that blocks the entry of weapons and missiles to a terrorist group that sets out in its Charter in order to destroy the State of Israel and annihilate its population through the operationalization of its wish through terrorist actions and thousands of missiles on the Israeli population.

Blockades and genocide they have — British and Turks — known experience and would do better to be silent on the defensive policy of the State of Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, July 26, 2010.

This comes from www.takeapen.org


Miss Zuabi,

First and foremost "chapeau" for a very effective P.R. I must admit: I didn't know of your existence until the flotilla provocation. In fact I still don't know anything about you but almost everyone in the country knows of you and that is quite an achievement!

Please allow me then to ask you:

Besides of fame, what were you trying to achieve? You know, as well as we all do, that there is no shortage of food in Gaza, or any other commodities for that matter. Yes, alas, there is a constant shortage of ammunition or materials that could be used in the production of weapons, and so it should remain! Gaza needs no protection! Gaza is not under attack! On the contrary, Gaza is a nasty aggressor who for years has been rocketing civilians on a daily basis! (never heard you comment on that!).

Let's be honest: You did not truly believe that the flotilla was going anywhere! So, what were you thinking when you saw all those hooligans armed with knives and clubs and hatchets, that kept your company aboard the ship? That it was a masquerade ball? Did it occur to you that, as Israel's Parliament Member you should have warned our army of what awaits our soldiers aboard? Did you try to stop that outburst of violence? What did you expect would happen? That maybe like the "Sarajevo Assassination" that ignited 1st World War, your flotilla will ignite the Middle East? And then what?

Let's try to understand your logic:

You feel frustrated, bitter, discriminated, you believe that the regime in Israel is oppressing and ruthless and should be overthrown. Do you have any idea at all what awaits you personally should your aspirations God forbid, be realized? Do you think that in a regime controlled by Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda or Taliban, women have any rights? Particularly independent ambitious women? What about nine year old girls? You may not have children of your own, how about little nieces? Can you imagine life in a regime where any dirty old man can purchase himself a nine year old girl and penetrate her vagina? And appalling as it may sound it would be legal and lawful and even encouraged!!! Did you think of that Miss Zuabi? Do you have any idea what oppressing tyranny is really like?

Did you know that the Islamic revolution in Iran was enthusiastically supported by the intellectuals? Who, like you, considered the Shah's regime an oppressing tyranny that should be overthrown?

Try to find out what they think today (Those who survived...as most of them didn't!!). Ask them about life in the Islamic Republic, about freedom, about human rights, about women's rights. I suggest you read "Reading Lolita in Teheran" by Azar Nafisi, or "A thousand Shining Suns" by Haled Husseini, or "Not without My Daughter" by Betty Mahmudi.

Did you ever wonder why all the so called Arab countries in which over a billion Muslims live are all defined as "3rd world countries"?

Did you ever wonder why although the Shiite leaders condemn western culture as blasphemous and decadent, for their billion subjects the "west" is a desired immigration target?

Did you ever wonder why all those who apply for Family Reunion wish for it to be in Israel and not in Gaza, or "Palestine" or Syria? Is it because of our standard of living? Or our human rights and freedom? Or our social and health security? So maybe, after all, we are not that evil !

Mentioning Palestine and Palestinians: Have you ever wondered whatever happened to the hundreds of millions (yes! Hundreds of millions!!!) refugees scattered all over Europe during and following 2nd World War?

Entire cities were bombarded and destroyed! Dozens of millions of homes ruined! About fifty million lives lost, twice as many wounded and crippled! Hundreds of millions found themselves away from home, out of their countries! So, where are they? They couldn't have vanished! No! They did vanish! They were rehabilitated!!! That is the answer of the "blasphemous" "decadent" west to refugee issues! Any refugees! And indeed the "west" poured incredible amounts of money in order to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees, not knowing or refusing to acknowledge that the Palestinian leaders had no interest in solving the refugee issue! On the contrary, they did everything within their power in order to p r e s e r v e it! At the same time, they did like the idea of the money, so they preserved that too! Very carefully, in their (not so little) own private bank accounts!

In other words, Miss Zuabi, The solution does not lie in destroying Israel and replacing its free democratic regime with an extreme Islamic one. Should that, God forbid, happen, you may enjoy, for a split second, the sweet taste of profound satisfaction, and the next split second you will watch not only your privileges being taken away from you, but all your basic human rights! The Shariah Law does not acknowledge human rights, let alone women's rights: Women are men's property to be treated as they please! But you must know that ...

No, Miss Zuabi, destruction is never a solution! Your solution lies in Education, and more education!!! Not brain wash!!! Not that childish nonsense about Paradise with it's seventy virgins (In any event not meant for you ...) Real free plural western — yes, Western — education that will raise free, moral decent human beings, capable of standing up for their rights without the use of knives and clubs, aware of their duties and place in society.

Miss Zuabi, I so much hope that the day will not come, when from the depth of an open grave into which our bodies would be thrown, I will whisper to you: " I t o l d y o u u u u u ..."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 26, 2010.

What difference will it make if Israel abandons Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley and all those parts of Jerusalem (north, east and south) that were illegally occupied by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967?

If there is one religious leader for Muslims, the Koranic injunction to disperse all "infidels" (non-Muslims) so the Muslim Caliphate is to be pure, then the very word: "Peace" remains a sick delusion.

We are all too familiar with the homily that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Incisive commentary wherein research experiments that have failed will continue to fail when repeated with the same components while yet expecting different results. Albert Einstein said that was insane.

Jews, of all peoples, should not expect new results from a primitive people who produce nothing of real value but who still cling to a pagan mythology which embodies all manner of conquest, murder, human sacrifice (either their own people or a suitable infidel enemy), child abuse (teaching their children to hate and kill). Asking Muslims to abandon their pagan moon god Zin (aka Allah) along with the Koran and Mohammed's thoughts in his "Hadith" (oral laws) is like asking them to stop breathing. We should be stunned by the useless efforts of the nations to pacify and change the ways of Muslims whose entire being is saturated with a poison which cannot be eliminated or treated. Jews, above all, should recognize the facts of aberrant behavior, given their history of being pursued from ancient times to their death.

The Church morphed into a killing machine, using a dead Jew on a Roman torture instrument which, like the swastika, became a mystical symbol which demanded human sacrifice. Granted, each symbol had its high priest cult to guide and provoke — all of which is still with us today. Only Genocide would temporarily quench their blood lust and sacrifice which is why the Muslim "Ummah" (people) cannot be pacified, appeased or reasoned with.

On a practical level, a remnant of Jews have gathered from all corners of the earth in Israel as a refuge from European Christianity and Arab/Muslim countries — only to find that the savage pagans of Islam are still willing and anxious to carry forward the Genocide from which the Jews thought they had escaped.

Granted, Jews have a large contingent of fools who can't seem to remember history and wish to repeat the same failed experiments. It is understandable that Jews, hunted throughout the centuries, want peace and barriers to keep out the packs of predators who desire their flesh.

Every real Jew who harkens to his inborn National Memory knows that Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem will be used as was Gaza as a point from which to launch missiles to kill Jews.

The Christian nations know that the Arab Muslim Charters calling for the elimination of the Jewish Nation/State and her people remains uncancelled and in full force. The Nations know this and have become willing partners because these Charters of death are merely an extension of their own past.


Indeed, solutions exist but, it is doubtful that the Jewish leadership of today has either the courage or the foresight to implement them.

First, we must accept the fact that there will be no peace with Islam. We might reach a stand-off but, no permanent peace. The Muslims' codes mandate against it.

An example of weak leadership can be observed as the so-called Jewish leadership of American institutions are listening to an arch killer of Jews and the facilitator of Yassir Arafat's schemes to eliminate Israel as he lies in English just like Arafat. Mahmoud Abbas, Head of the so-called "Palestinian Authority" is that lying man to whom the Jews listen in rapt attention, with polite applause for Arafat's "money bag-man" who assisted the Munich Massacre of the Israeli athletes — among other Terror acts.

How did this group of "useful idiots" sit there and listen to an unrepentant killer of their own people and then carry his message to President Barack Hussein Obama to pressure Israel into surrendering defensive territory of their ancient homeland so the Jews of Israel could suffer a rain of missiles from Judea and Samaria as they now do from Gaza?

The strong leadership of Ariel Sharon (at the end in the completely wrong direction) followed by Ehud Olmert, with Tzippi Livni and Ehud Barak, are also examples of Jewish leadership gone bad. Earlier one observes Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres sacrificing Jews to Yassir Arafat through the Oslo fiasco.

Are there no Maccabees to be found among such rabble that are today drawn to l eadership positions by money, power, crippled ideology — calling for the genuflecting to enemies who promise death or slavery?

If one reads the biblical instructions in the Torah to the Jewish people, we are not to adopt the gods of others nor use images to worship. Yet, here we are today, observing Jewish leaders who are urging the Jewish people to honor a false messiah from America who in leading both America and Israel into national suicide.

Groveling never brought peace to the Jewish people wherever they happened to be. One can recall the bribes paid to appointed local Commissars in Russia and Europe. Maybe the Jews got a few moments of peace until the Czar or the Church decided the peasantry needed a release from their poverty and called for a pogrom to ease their tensions and, of course, all the loot they could steal from the Jews.

In August 2005, we observed the abandonment of Gaza, a once prosperous Jewish community of 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from 21 towns, exporting unique bug-free produce, organic fruits and vegetables as well as flowers.

As soon as Olmert unleashed the Jewish thugs known as Yassam to drive the Jews from their homes, farms, greenhouses, schools, synagogues and cemetery, the Arab Muslim Palestinians could not restrain themselves from their national tendencies as looters. Instead of retaining the infrastructure built by the Jews but left for the Muslim Arabs to use for their benefit, the Arab Muslims looted, burned and destroyed. The greenhouses which produced insect-free produce were ransacked. Pipes, valves, electronic controls were torn from their frames. Everything the Jews left was looted and destroyed.

Later, when the Arabs tried to grow produce as the Jews had done on arid soil, they could not do it. So, they set up rocket launchers and shot 10,000 rockets, missiles and mortars into civilian Israel.

The Jewish leadership who caused this catastrophe did nothing to stop the missiles for 41/2 years, until their weak attempt in December 2008-January 2009. But, even then they stopped short of clearing Gaza of the Muslim Palestinian Terrorists.

Regrettably, the Jewish leadership was not brought up on charges of collaborating with the enemy and sentenced to punishment in prison or a "Nuremberg" equivalent.

In summation, creating a Palestinian Muslim State of Terror in Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley and dividing Jerusalem herself, should be considered a capital crime.

All of its participants should face a jury of the people whose lives they've destroyed and they should be judged on the basis of all those killed by their perfidy. Let not one ever be buried in the Holy soil of Israel but in a place in the wilderness as was done with the goat Azazel.

Talks are irrelevant for Israel but, very relevant for Abbas, Fatah and the Arab/Muslim countries. These "talks" will be their way into gaining support from Obama and the International community.

Israel will be pressed hard to abandon her real assets — such as Land, Water, Defensive positions for the promises of Islamists and Arabists.

Since the Koranic mandate demands that true Muslims must lie to infidels, none of what they agree to will matter.

Mohammed practiced the art of making false treaties — like the Hudabaiya Treaty — followed by building his military strength and then breaking the Treaty, slaughtering his misled victims.

We are seeing even today the results of criminally weak Jewish leadership, accepting the lies of Islam thus sacrificing their own Jewish people and the sovereignty of their own Jewish Nation/State.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Alexander Bligh, Ph.D., July 26, 2010.

A couple of months ago when President Husni Mubarak of Egypt celebrated his 82nd birthday no one believed that the next Egyptian succession would be acutely relevant so soon.

Along with the 87 year old king of Saudi Arabia (his ailing Heir Apparent is 84) these two moderate Arab countries are poised to enter the eye of the storm any day now. The imminent regime changes in these two countries may revolutionize the pace of regional politics for years to come as well as having major repercussions for the US.

So far President Husni Mubarak has refused to appoint a vice president or to announce his preference for a successor. This and the fact that Mubarak made sure that no other public figure achieves significant national popularity nor gains any independent political standing has been interpreted by many as his intention to leave the position for his son Gamal. Although Mubarak and his son vehemently deny such interpretations, his actions point at this direction.

Technically, the issue of Presidential succession is regulated by the Egyptian Constitution. Article 76, as amended in 2005, created the legal conditions which ensure that the ruling National Democratic Party would have been left without competitors in the next election and that the next president neither comes from legal or illegal opposition circles, nor from the military or security services complex. It envisions the next president as coming from the same establishment as his predecessors, meaning from Mubarak's close circle, the successors of the original 1952 "Free Officers". However, no such figure has emerged yet and with the short time available to make such decision it is difficult to point to a natural successor.

For the short term, until Mubarak leaves the scene, Egypt basic strategic orientation, including peace with Israel and tacit cooperation with potential enemies of Iran is unlikely to change.

Once Mubarak leaves the scene three possibilities emerge bearing in mind that a "black sheep" is always a possibility. All are equal in their chances of materializing:

1. Mubarak's son, Gamal (b. 1963), becomes president in a smooth transition.

2. Muhammad al-Baradai (b. 1942), the former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency becomes president.

3. The radical Muslims use their significant presence within the army ranks to bring to power a figurehead led by a religious cleric.

Each of the three possibilities would entail a different policy:

1. Gamal Mubarak would try to use all of his father's connections and bases of support and with all likelihood would continue Husni Mubarak's policies. Significant segments within the Egyptian public would consider his assumption of the presidency illegitimate, but he would be most acceptable to the US. His succession may herald a long period of competition over the presidency.

2. Muhammad al-Baradai would try to build a Tehran-Cairo coalition dividing between them regional hegemonic position. His accession would be rather dangerous to Saudi Arabia, regional stability and US regional interests (especially: Iraq and Afghanistan). No attempt is initially expected in order to formally destabilize the Israeli-Egyptian 1979 peace treaty.

3. Radical Islam — their rule may be characterized by confrontation with Shiite Iran over the leadership of the Muslim world; Subversion against Saudi Arabia; cutting off relations with Israel and the US and yet being very cautious not to create a casus belli for Israel.


The best course of action at this point is a "wait and see" approach. However, conditions may rapidly escalate and deteriorate and diplomatic and military precautions are called for.

Prof. Alexander Bligh, Ph.D.is an international strategic consultant. Contact him at stalex018@att.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Prowisor, July 26, 2010.

Do you here that? Listen, sshh... Seems quiet, doesn't it.

I have been told that the eye of a hurricane can be very deceiving, apparently also regarding a few months prior to congressional elections.

The sudden drop in pressure and calm from DC does not calm me down, indeed, I take it as a warning to the continuation of the storm, just like the passing of the eye of a hurricane, I've been told the storm is usually much worse in the second half.

The best advice would seem to be to take advantage of this calm and inspect the damage sustained, batten down the hatches, shore up the loosened boards, and strengthen the weak parts of the house. Because, have no doubt, the storm will be back.

The waters of the political arena in the US regarding Israel are definitely stirring, there is an undertow that could drag a buffalo down to the abyss. It seems quiet to those of us that aren't aware of the "ins and outs", but never less, the quiet waters are dangerous, shark infested too.

Congressmen realize that their seats may not last forever, President Obama is not a duck fan, especially not a lame duck fan, and the "Minyan" (quorum) on Pennsylvania Ave. also does not wish to leave the "Bimah" (prayer platform) in shame.

Quite suspiciously "pressure" is being put on PA Prez Abbas to start direct talks, I know he is laughing, in fact it is the big laugh at the new Gaza Strip Mall. When this White House starts showing hints of even "miniscule" support for Israel, time to watch out. The game is called, "lets fool the Jews again", and it's played with loaded dice.

Pretend Palestinian President Abbas claims to have found new friends in the US. We know Peace Now and J Street are his natural allies, but now Abbas claims that the leaders of AIPAC and the "Conference of Presidents" also back him in his claims and desires to set up a new Arab entity in the Middle East on Jewish land.

The scary part is I haven't heard any denials yet.... The worse part is that I believe him.

I believe most people are sitting back in disbelief... that is those that care.

Divide and conquer aren't just words, they are a proven strategy. It is a strategy that our enemies have adopted and are working overtime to fulfill.

The division of our land, our people, anything to weaken us has now become a "cause", hey! Even Oliver Stone is getting involved.

Most of the Jews in the Diaspora do not understand the depth and danger of the "Two State Solution", indeed, most of them do not even venture out (when in Israel) to their own historical sites, their own heritage. They have been infused with fear, and deceit, not just by our enemies, but also by our own.

The "Conservative and Reform Jewish" movement in the US wont even cross the "Green Line" to show it's youth our rich history, in our land, stating its dangerous and the political over and undertones. They prefer to keep them afraid in their own land. Is it no wonder that they are loosing so many each year to assimilation? They wont even show their young their own identity and where they came from. It is not from Europe, nor the concentration camps...IT IS ISRAEL! SHOW THEM!

Imagine if a few years back if we would have acted the same way, I doubt we would have had a nation today.

I am amused how we in Judea and Samaria are often described as "Religious fanatics", I admit to taking pleasure telling the 50% of secular Jews out here that fact. It is no surprise though, especially when the media outlets of the world focus on a few individuals to describe over 300,000, so much for objective and honest reporting.

It comes down to this, there are whole bunch 'o bad folk out there whose main purpose and focus in life is to make life for the Jews difficult. If we stand by quietly, idly and do nothing, they will succeed and the price we pay will be in blood.

There are plenty of "Think Tanks" out there, brilliant Columnists and Bloggers, all ready and willing to give you every bit of information you may need to understand the situation better, but you must make the effort. And when the words do not suffice, and you hunger for more, then you must come and see for yourself.

We must take full advantage of this illusion of calm and act, learn, see, shout, speak, write and do, and now.

If your "movement" will not show you, we will.

If your "leader" will not guide you, we can.

If you want to know where you are from, come visit.

We are here and welcome you with open arms.

The storm is not over, get ready and be prepared.

By the way, I love duck.

Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit
http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com This article appeared in Yesha Views

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 26, 2010.

Since President Barack Hussein Obama was elected, many — including me — have identified him as a Left-Leaning Arabist of Muslim extraction. As Commander-in-Chief he, along with the hostile Arabist State Department have used their privileged offices to subvert the Jewish Nation/State of Israel at every possible level.

Although the Arab and Muslim nations have proven they are the enemies of the Free West, including America, Israel and Europe, the Arabists in American government have bonded with the Terrorist Muslim nations in a Faustian bargain with the devil of oil.

Even as they kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and America — as on 9/11/01, Obama — as Commander-in-Chief — issues orders to first Gen. Dayton and now to Centcom (Central Command) to build the Muslim Arab Palestinian Army (known to be Terrorists) who without question will attack the Jewish Nation/State, using American-taught technology and arms — including secret intelligence, communications skills, as well as sleeper cells placed in sensitive positions.

Clearly, President Obama does not represent the American people or the American Congress who support Israel's right to defend herself and maintain her sovereignty as a Jewish nation.

Given what Obama is doing to bring America to her knees in national bankruptcy and his personal biased hostility to the only democracy in the Middle East, he deserves nothing less than impeachment as a clear and present danger to the American nation and the Jewish Nation/State.

The following analysis by JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) explains Gen. Dayton's role and his replacement — all at the hands of President Obama.


JINSA Report #1009
July 23, 2010

JINSA has long expressed concern about military skills being transmitted by the U.S. to a Palestinian Authority military force while the Palestinian government remains openly hostile to Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East. The Israelis tell us, "The more they do against Hamas, the less we have to do." The Americans tell us, "Everything we do is coordinated with our friends in Israel."

We believe them both, while remaining enormously skeptical about the ultimate wisdom of the plan and right now have a queasy feeling about the future of what has been called "Dayton's Army."

LTG Keith Dayton, USA, who for the past five years was the U.S. Security Coordinator for the Palestinians, is being replaced by MG Michael Moeller, USAF (who will receive his third star along with the assignment). Interestingly, while LTG Dayton's career in the Army centered on EUCOM, the European Command of which Israel is a member, MG Moeller comes to the job from CENTCOM, which specifically does not involve itself in matters involving Israel or the Palestinians.

Until now?

MG Moeller, currently director of strategy, plans and policy at CENTCOM, is said to have had no contact with the Palestinians to date, but is it possible that the U.S. is thinking that Americans working with a Palestinian army should be integrating their thinking with CENTCOM — an operationally largely Arab command — while the Americans working with the IDF continue to be EUCOM? Is someone thinking that a Palestinian army should not be partnered with the IDF, but with Arab armies?

Yes, we are channeling a report from January that said overtures had been made to move the PA to CENTCOM — to which Gen. Petraeus said such overtures had not been made, and we believed him. Yes, we are also channeling a report that said CENTCOM was "red teaming" the idea that the U.S. should engage Hamas (and Hezbollah). The reports were by the same person, and refuted by people we trust, but still, it is hard not to think that somewhere in the U.S., military people are taking the approach that Hamas (and Hezbollah) is not an enemy of the U.S., but only of Israel. From there, they can "solve" the "Palestinian problem" with the "two-state solution" and declare victory.

In fact, Hamas is an avowed enemy not only of Israel, but of Fatah, Israel and America's current Palestinian partner and the object of Dayton's army's training.[1] It is impossible to consider American engagement of Hamas while training the army that wants to destroy it — unless you are training a PA army for national purposes regardless of what the future Palestinian government decides to do with it, for example, use it against Israel, not Hamas.

MG Moeller will take over a force with three immediate issues — one Palestinian and two American.

1) Over the past several months, reports of Palestinian dissatisfaction with LTG Dayton have surfaced along with increased resistance to his management. Fatah clearly wants American money and training, but then wants us out of the way. Salam Fayyad, the American governments' favorite Palestinian, said LTG Dayton is involved in "training and only training," and "does not interfere in the security mission of the Palestinian Security Services." The PA appears to believe LTG Dayton is too "hands on."

2) The U.S. GAO, on the other hand, believes he is too "hands off." On 10 July, GAO issued a critical report entitled, "U.S. Assistance Is Training and Equipping Security Forces, But the Program Needs to Measure Progress and Faces Logistical Constraints." The report says, "Although U.S. and international officials said that U.S. security assistance programs for the PA have helped to improve security conditions in some West Bank areas, State and USSC have not established clear and measurable outcome-based performance indicators to assess progress." The report, quoting State Department officials, notes the failure of the NSF (the "army") to coordinate with the PCP (the civil police) "despite U.S. programs that encourage NSF units to work with the police and other security forces."

Perhaps because they have different end games in mind.

3) The third problem is definitional — Americans often state Palestinian goals in terms that work for the US, not necessarily for the Palestinians (see Andrew Shapiro's definition of Palestinian national goals in JINSA Report #1008). The GAO notes, "[Documents] for the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem identify performance indicators... however, the targets they set to measure progress toward these indicators focus on specific program outputs, such as the number of battalions or personnel trained and equipped, rather than on broader program outcomes such as helping the PA meet its Roadmap obligations to achieve the transformation of its security sector and create a professional, right-sized PASF [Palestinian Authority Security Forces]."

Has anyone ASKED the Palestinians if they PLAN to meet their Roadmap obligations? Has anyone ASKED the Palestinians if they WANT to create a "right-sized PSAF" and what "right-sized" means to them? We didn't think so, but if you don't know that, the PALESTINIAN emphasis on "specific program outputs" unrelated to the UNITED STATES considers the political goals of the Palestinian Army is precisely what we've been worried about.

And the fact that MG Moeller's focus on American security issues is CENTCOM-oriented makes us worry that the Palestinian force will be disconnected not only from American policy goals, but from the IDF that currently shares its obsession with Hamas, but which may find itself with a Palestinian army relating to Arab state armies on its borders.

[1] And similarly, Hezbollah is an avowed enemy Israel, a multi-ethnic and democratic Lebanon AND of the United States and a forward arm of Iran.

email: feedback@jinsa.org
phone: 202-667-3900
web: http://www.jinsa.org
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 515
Washington, DC, 20036

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

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, July 26, 2010.

This was written by Peggy Shapiro and it appeared yesterday in the American Thinker.


They were both teenage Holocaust survivors who experienced the anti-Semitism of the church even before the Nazis entered their hometowns in Poland. The two eighty-three-year-old women, both named Mania, both short with carefully coiffed blond hair, were in the audience with over 4,000 Christian Zionists at the opening plenary of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Summit on July 20. Seven pastors spoke, and the two women listened with incredulity to words which defied everything they had ever experienced.

The ministers proclaimed that "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. It's a Christian issue. It's an American issue." The underlying tenant of CUFI is "I will bless those who bless you [Israel], And I will curse him who curses you [Israel], Genesis 12:3.3. John Hagee, founder of CUFI, reviewed the history of those who cursed Israel. "What you predict for Israel will be your destiny. Pharoah wanted to drown Jewish children, and he was drowned. Haman wanted to hang Jews and he was hung. It has taken Christians 2,000 years to catch on... We will strive to be a blessing to Israel."

The audience, a cross section of America, included high school students, CUFI on Campus groups, senior citizens moving with the assistance of canes, families with children, African-American ministries, Hispanic churches, cowboy churches, urbanites, suburbanites, ranchers, scientists, bond brokers, travel agents and golfers. They were from all fifty states and as diverse as a group can get, yet they spoke with one voice and cheered wildly as the speakers reaffirmed the CUFI pledge that:

The Jewish people have a right to live in their ancient land of Israel, and that the modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of this historic right.

There is no excuse for acts of terrorism against Israel and that Israel has the same right as every other nation to defend her citizens from such violent attacks.

Christian Zionists will "stand up, speak up and never shut up for Israel" until the attacks stop and Israelis are finally living in peace.

No one had stood up or spoken up for the Manias the last time Jews were on the precipice of death. Their non-Jewish neighbors turned their backs and closed their eyes. The world was silent when their homes were confiscated, when they were thrown out of schools because Jewish children were not to be educated, and when their families were starved, tormented, and sent off in cattle cars to their deaths in Auschwitz. Now sixty-five years after their liberation from concentration camps, the women heard words which calmed their souls.

Here were over 4,000 Christians, and behind these 4,000 were more than 400,000 members of CUFI offering themselves as allies to Jews and the State of Israel in the battle for survival. It was time to pick sides and these Christians were mobilizing on the Jewish side. On one side is Israel, a democracy with shared values for human life, freedom of religion, and the dignity of the individual. "On the other are the unsavory characters of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and the United Nations. The US must stand on the right side." Hagee was certain of the winning side.

"Egypt could not enslave Israel; European nations could not assimilate the Jews; dictators and thugs will not annihilate Israel. We are part of the covenant in a battle for the entire Earth... This time Jews do not have to stand alone."

One of the Manias, my mother, turned to me and said, "However long I was destined to live, I will now live ten years longer." The outspoken and genuine support throughout the three-day summit did more than apply a salve to deep wounds; it empowered these women to speak up as they had never done before. My mother, almost manic in her excitement, spoke to dozens and dozens of Summit participants, who listened to her story with compassion and gratitude. Everywhere we went in the giant convention center and later on Capital Hill, people greeted her by name.

It was the last morning of the Summit when she truly found her voice. My mother had never spoken to a Senator before. She certainly had never spoken up to a person in such a high office. When we met with our two senators, they were both very disappointing in their responses to our requests to ask the president to implement the Iran sanctions legislation that had passed the Senate unanimously. One senator, who had actually co-sponsored the bill, never read it and thought is was a resolution asking for the UN to act. The other senator equivocated. When the short meeting ended and the legislators were ready to take photos with their constituents, my mother walked up to one senator. He asked her if she wanted a photo. "No, I want to speak to you." "Hmm. Well I am taking pictures." "I will wait." Wait she did. She asked him about enforcing strong sanctions against Iran and he said he was against war. "I am against war. I was in a war, and I know what it means," She explained. "If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, they told us what they will do, and I believe them. They will kill Israelis and they will attack us. We won't be able to avoid war then." He was not able to placate her with gratuitous statements about his support of Israel. "Those are nice words. I want to know where you stand on issues that will determine the fate of Israel, the U.S. and the world."

THE OTHER MANIA'S SILENCE WAS BROKEN LESS PUBLICLY but even more profoundly. First about her silence. Three years ago, Mania went with my family on a first and last journey back to Poland. She was quiet for most of the trip, muttering only soto vocce disparaging remarks. We were walking through the remnants of the Birkenau death camp and passed a flimsy wooden barrack, which was intended for 52 horses and converted into housing for more than 500 inmates. "I was here," she said quietly. No one had known, not even her daughter the story she was about to tell.

In the summer of 1944, there were orders for the final liquidation of the Lodz Ghetto, where Mania, her parents, and her little sister had survived starvation and typhus. Knowing that the final days were near, her father had arranged for his family and several others to hide behind the false wall of what had once been his store. Two days before they were set to go into hiding, he was grabbed off the street and sent to Auschwitz. Her mother was frantic with the choice forced upon her. The night that the others went into hiding, she fought with herself whether to join them or try to meet up with her husband, wherever he might be, and share whatever fate awaited him. There were no correct answers in this world turned upside down, so she held on to what she knew to be true-keep the family together. The next day, she and her two daughters were arrested and packed into a cattle car. When the car had its determined number of human cargo, the outside bolts slammed shut and the three set off in the dark.

Mania was seventeen when she arrived in Auschwitz after torturous days crammed in a cattle car with her mother and seven-year-old sister. The train doors opened to shouts, barks, clubs, screams and chaos. Her little sister was pushed to one line and she to another. Her mother faced another agonizing decision and only moments to make it. Which daughter would she accompany? She chose the younger. Mania was ignorant of what that decision meant as she was herded into the barracks. She sat on the barrack floor back-to-back with hundreds of other girls, with no room to stretch her legs, no food, no water, and no relief from an awful stench.

When the more seasoned inmates spoke about the ovens, Mania was horror struck to learn that her mother and sister were among the ashes. She did not scream. She couldn't. She had lost her voice. For three days, she sat starved and crushed on the floor and could not utter one word. (Language no longer served her.)

Since that day, she has remained a very quiet woman, speaking only when other options aren't available.

At the CUFI Summit, Mania was not able to articulate her reactions other than, "I can't believe it. I can't believe it." At the Wednesday evening Night to Honor Israel, she was stunned to hear a beautiful rendition of the Israeli national anthem and a medley of songs about Jerusalem, all in Hebrew and all accompanied by thousands of Israeli and US flags waving in a sea of people. There she was, proudly, joyously standing and waving flags. When people started dancing, this woman who never dances, ran up and grabbed the hands of two strangers, and joined in. It was the end of a long day in blazing heat, but she was indefatigable.

We returned home on Thursday and met with the family for Shabbat dinner on Friday night. I was describing our experiences at the Summit when Mania interrupted me. It was the first time in the thirty years that I have known her that she has ever interrupted anyone to say anything.

Christians speaking up in support of Israel and the Jewish people allowed two Holocaust survivors to renew their hope in the world and find their own voices to shout to the world, "Am Yisroel Chai!" Long live the people of Israel.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 26, 2010.

I am here and functioning. Intense summer heat, grandchildren sleeping over... other writing to be done... With it all, I took a look each day at what there was to write about and thought, this can wait another day. :-)

But today I felt it was time.


Those churning wheels are moving (if at all) very slowly. Abbas is playing the same game, in spite of pressure from Obama. He is refusing to come to the table for direct negotiations unless we agree upfront to the '67 lines as borders, freeze additional construction in Jewish communities past the Green Line, etc. etc. We all know the litany.

He has now received the backing of both Fatah and the PLO for this position.


But never mind! Obama is apparently pleased with Abbas and sees the U.S.-PA relationship as "improving." At least this is what we're hearing from the State Department:

Just days ago, the State Department announced that the status of the Palestinian Authority/Palestinian Liberation Organization Mission in the United States will be changed from "bureau" to "general delegation." This will allow the mission to fly the PLO/PA flag outside of its office. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the change represented an improvement in the U.S. relationship with the Palestinian Authority.

In light of that refusal by Abbas to go to direct talks — even as this is being strongly urged by Obama — it is difficult to understand on what basis the "improvement" is being assessed. There has been no mention by the U.S. of "tough decisions" the PA is being expected to make (in parallel with the tough decisions we are expected to make), and there has not even been a stipulation that the PA terminate its blatant and pervasive anti-Israel incitement.

Here we can learn a great deal about U.S. intentions: For anyone hoping that Obama's love offensive with Israel might be serious, this provides food for thought.


Abbas made a statement the other day that caught my eye: He said that Israel was creating stumbling blocks to peace; in fact, he claimed, the IDF had entered the West Bank (i.e., Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria) 900 times in the last three months.

Now, I know that the IDF does nightly incursions into these areas to catch terrorists and uncover weapons caches. But according to Abbas's figure, the IDF is averaging 10 operations per night. This struck me as a bit high, and I currently am awaiting an official answer from the IDF on this. It is a stunning figure if it is true. But in any event the point I want to make here stands:

The very fact that the IDF has to do many operations nightly (be it 10 or 6) into PA areas is one more reason why we cannot pull out. The PA security forces are not, by themselves, equipped (or motivated) to stop terrorism as we do. There would be a serious increase in terrorism, were the IDF to withdraw. This, obviously, is not the case Abbas intended to make. But it stares us in the face.


Recently, Foreign Minister Lieberman made a suggestion: Let's wash our hands of Gaza entirely. Build a fence at the border with Gaza so nothing goes in, stop the naval blockade, and permit the EU and whoever else to build electric generators and desalination plants in Gaza. Then tell the people there they're on their own. They'd generate their own electricity (we now supply 70%!), produce their own water (we help in that respect now too), bring in their humanitarian and commercial goods via the sea (instead of our supervising and monitoring by land), and we'd have no more responsibility for anything, and — in theory — no headaches.

While I understand the desire to be rid of this situation, I consider this a terrible solution. For the most important goal in monitoring what goes into Gaza is to stop the transfer of weapons. That's what the sea blockade is all about. Were we to take down that blockade, Iran would have a field day, freely transferring sophisticated weaponry to the terrorists of Gaza. The rockets and missiles would sail easily over that fence and we'd have headaches aplenty.


I mention this because of a piece written by Yonaton Halevi, a senior researcher on the Middle East and radical Islam for the JCPA, on this very subject. Halevi is looking at an entirely different, and very important, aspect of this situation. For it seems that the PA and Hamas — who, says Halevi, have an identical goal — are opposed to setting Gaza free in the fashion described by Lieberman. The Palestinian Arabs, suggests Halevi, want to "keep the lava of the refugee problem at full boil, as this constitutes the key to the ultimate objective of the historic Palestinian odyssey — the liquidation of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. This is the real reason behind the Palestinian love affair with the "Israeli occupation." (Note: the Palestinian Arabs claim that Gaza is still "occupied.")

This merits a careful read.


A two ship flotilla may be leaving soon from Lebanon, to try, once again, to break the Gaza blockade. In response to a letter addressing this matter sent to the UN by Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev, UN Spokesperson Martin Narisky said:

"There are established paths for the transfer of goods into the Gaza Strip by land. This is the proper way to transfer aid to the residents of Gaza. We prefer that any additional aid will be sent via land, especially during this sensitive time following the recent proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians."

A switch.


With regard to the blockade, you might want to see this:

"The Legal Basis of the Blockade of Gaza," by Ruth Lapidoth, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Hebrew University: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=4402&TTL=The_Legal_Basis_of_Israel's_Naval_Blockade_of_Gaza


I have never found arguments for our retention of the land in Judea and Samaria that are based exclusively on security issues to be satisfactory. For they totally overlook the legal right we have to the land, our history in the land, and all the rest. If doing so doesn't put us at risk from a security perspective, it's OK to give away our heritage?

That said, I concede that there is a certain power (forgive the pun) to this bottom-line argument. It is valid as one reason for not surrendering the land — one very serious and solid reason. And it has impact in places where arguments about our heritage might not carry the day.

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and Director Dore Gold in particular, have actively promoted the argument for secure borders.

Recently, the JCPA put out "Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace." This is a study of the issues that brought together a group of senior IDF generals. The link below brings you to a page that includes a video, a summary of the study, the assessment of each of the generals independently, and an opportunity to download the full study.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 26, 2010.


A U.S. court has fined North Korea for terrorism in Israel by Palestinian Arabs and Japanese. U.S. District Court in San Juan, Puerto Rico ordered defendants to pay $378 million to two families for an attack by the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Japanese Red Army in Lod Airport, Israel, in May, 1972.

The terrorists loaded weapons on an airplane going from Italy to Israel. When they got their baggage, they retrieved the weapons and shot 26 people dead and wounded 80 others. The tried to blow up airplanes, but did not succeed.

Most of the victims were Catholic pilgrims from Puerto Rico. Two of the terrorists were killed, and the third was imprisoned.

The Court found that North Korea provided the terrorists with, finances, intelligence, training, and materiel. For 20 years, N. Korea ran 30 training camps for terrorists, at which N. Korean personnel conducted the training.

More recently, N. Korea helped Hizbullah build the underground bunkers that helped it resist Israeli retaliation. Assistance to terrorism was one reason that the State Dept. listed N. Korea among the terrorist states. The Bush administration removed N. Korea from the list, in the hope that would encourage it to negotiate and negotiate over its nuclear weapons development. N. Korea still was on the list when the suit began, and was a major factor in the court's ruling.

Defense attorneys declare, "For the first time the terror victims are showing North Korea that there is a cost involved for its blatant support for terrorism."

For More Information: info@israellawcenter.org (received from IMRA, 7/24/10).

Years ago, proof came out that Arafat was coached in diplomatic ruses by North Vietnam and given Soviet help, particularly through Communist Romania.


Palestinian Authority head Abbas told his Fatah Party central committee that his trip to Washington won over U.S. Jewry. He claims their support against Israeli PM Netanyahu now, not only from the leftist Americans for Peace Now and J Street, but also from AIPAC, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Anti-Defamation League.

Abbas said that although PM Netanyahu advised those organizations not to believe him, Abbas' speech to them, condemning incitement to violence, violence, and Holocaust denial, persuaded them that Israel has a peace partner in him. Now, he says, they wonder whether he has a peace partner in Israel. He claims they told him they were going to demand of Netanyahu that he disassemble his coalition or agree to a two-state outcome (Arutz-7, 7/23/10).

(For documentation of Abbas' role against peace-making, click here.)


New Yorkers, Democrats, and Republicans are reacting to the proposed mosque near ground zero, as the issue spreads beyond the city.

Republican gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino reportedly said in a radio ad that he would prevent the mosque construction by using eminent domain to buy the land. Mr. Paladino called the mosque disrespectful to people killed at that site and to U.S. troops fighting the terrorism that attacked New York's World Trade Center. He senses widespread opposition to the mosque site by New Yorkers outside of Manhattan. His spokesman suggested to the Wall St. Journal that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is too narrowly focused on Manhattan to see the broader issue and public opinion.

Minimizing Mr. Paladino's vow, Mayor Bloomberg predicted to the Wall St. Journal that the candidate would lose the election. Bloomberg framed the issue as a matter of tolerance.

Speaking for Gov. David Paterson, Morgan Hook agreed with the Mayor on both the election and the issue. Mr. Hook finds that state officials do not believe that the power of eminent domain could apply to this situation. Both U.S. Senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillebrand, do not oppose the mosque. Sen. Gillebrand accused opponents of exploiting the issue for political reasons and based on intolerance.

Another Democrat, Andrew Cuomo, who is a candidate for governor, already had supported construction. Still another candidate for governor, but on the Republican ticket, Rick Lazio, had asked Comptroller Cuomo to investigate the source of funding for the mega-mosque, as have, states Mr. Lazio's spokesman, Barney Keller, Americans from all over demanded.

Two Republicans, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, and Sarah Palin, former candidate for Vice-President, both oppose a mosque being put there (Michael Howard Saul, Wall St. Journal, 7/23/10, A19).

In my series on that mosque, most sentiment on the placards and by the people I interviewed at a rally against the mosque opposed the mosque only at that site.

The series cited indications that the mosque is being funding by radicals; mosque public relations efforts stress moderation. The imam describes the prospective mosque as a center for reconciliation; opponents describe it as symbolizing a successful attack on the U.S. and as a natural gathering place for radicals.

From the New York office of Hudson Institute, director Herb London, who spoke at the rally against the mega-mosque, told me that "nobody is demanding that Muslims not build mosques and worship." Opponents of the mega-mosque object only to that site, as "inappropriate" and a matter of taste and understanding. It is inappropriate where "radical elements of that religion killed 2,800 Americans." So this is "not a matter of the First Amendment" [freedom of religion.] Mr. London said, "Tolerance does not mean license without limits." (Telephone, 7/26/10.)

I also elicited written comment from Narain Kataria of Queens, New York, president of the Indian American Intellectuals Forum.

Mr. Kataria cast his opposition to the mega-mosque as principled dissent, an American right and privilege, not a matter of intolerance. Rather, the use of invective against dissenters is a ploy to silence their Constitutional freedom of expression. Mr. Kataria said:

1. The murderers of the 3,000 civilians at Ground Zero considered themselves devout Muslims. They were indoctrinated mostly in Wahabbi Saudi Arabian mosques. Those mosques foster an "extreme form of Islam" that "extols the virtue of violence and hatred." Their goal is to subjugate the world, and establish Islamic law, in the U.S. and everywhere.

2. About three-fourths of mosques in the U.S. are controlled by Wahabbi Muslims.

3. Turkish PM Erdogan, said "The Mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers." He is describing mosques not just as places in which to worship but also as rallying sites for jihad.

4. Yes, "It is not right to say that all the Moslems are terrorists. But it also is a well known fact that all the terrorists who mercilessly slaughtered innocent men, women and children in Mumbai, Bali, Madrid, Beslan, London, Delhi, Nigeria, Africa and Thailand were the followers of Radical Islam. Since 9/11//2001," they "have killed more than 75,000 people."

"It is inappropriate and unjustified to lightly dismiss the views of those who have seen Islam, Hadith and Sira in action in South Asia. Hindus have suffered unprecedented brutalities and savagery at the hands of Islam during the last 1400 years." They slew millions and "...have converted one third of Hindus in India at the point of a sword." Their way is "incompatible with our Constitution" and democracy.

5. "Citizens who oppose a mosque near Ground Zero believe that it is not only offensive," Kataria states, "but also reprehensible to build the mosque where 3000 innocent people were mercilessly murdered by devout Moslems "


Referring to the Lebanon flotilla, United Nations Spokesperson Martin Narisky said, "We prefer that any additional aid will be sent via land, especially during this sensitive time following the recent proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians."

Israel's UN Ambassador Gabriella Shalev observed that the flotilla's only purpose is to break the arms embargo. She reserved Israel's right to self-defense against arms importation. In addition, she wrote, the flotilla may very well be carrying weaponry or people seeking confrontation.

Israeli Defense Min. Barak finds the flotilla "an unnecessary provocation." (IMRA, 7/25/10.)

Background: There are two land routes to Gaza: (1) Through Israel, from its port at Ashdod overland to Gaza. Israel inspects and then transfers legitimate goods; (2) Through the Sinai. Egypt does not always let convoys through.

The UN statement implies concern that a clash would leave the Palestinian Arab negotiators feeling constrained to break off negotiations with Israel.

The clash with the Turkish flotilla put Turkish PM into position to denounce Israel, thereby boosting his popularity in the Arab world and before Turkish elections. We reported some people's impression that this was intended. What is the intent behind the Lebanon flotilla, whose stated purpose is humanitarian, when the blockade had ended for all but weapons and dual use materials?


Although the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is responsible for providing water to towns in its area, the P.A. village of A'Tawani, in the Hebron Hills area, appealed to the Israeli Civil Administration for water.

To accommodate, Israel is hooking the village up with the Israel National Water Carrier (IMRA, 7/25/10).

Background: Israel has had a long drought and water shortage. It is spending large sums, as we reported, on desalination plants.


Hamas and Hizbullah back Sudan against the UN, as the International Criminal Court issued a second arrest warrant against Sudan President Omar al-Bashir. The warrant is for genocide. Both organizations condemned the international justice system as a tool of the great powers, especially of the U.S..

Ironically, those organizations prompt supporters to use international and national justice systems as tools for publicity against the legitimacy Israel. They sue Israeli leaders.

The second warrant is for: "genocide by killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and 'deliberately inflicting on each target group [of three groups) conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction.'"

The first warrant, still outstanding, is "for five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forced transfer, torture, and rape) and two counts of war crimes (intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities, and pillaging)."

Hamas chief Isma'il Haniyah stated his objection: "Even as the international community remains silent over real crimes and state-sponsored terrorism directed against the Palestinian people in Gaza and those who sympathize with them, [false] allegations are leveled against the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir". Hizbullah echoed the sentiment IMRA, 7/25/10).


The Terrorism Intelligence and Information Center [in Israel] assesses a violent clash by the Lebanon flotilla, not yet headed for Gaza, as likely.

Although most passengers do not seek violence, the organizer, Yasser Qashlaq, may. He already anticipates a clash, but states it would be started by Israelis.

The flotilla sponsor is the Free Palestine Movement, but the Terrorism Intelligence and Information Center believes that the Movement is a front for Iran and Syria. Implication is that Iran and Syria, which sponsor terrorism, want violence.

Mr. Qashlaq made his inclination to violence clear in an interview with Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV on June 19, 2010. He said that "the day will come when the ships will take the remainder of the European garbage which came to my country back to their homelands, Gilad Shalit will return to Paris, and they [the leaders of Israel] will return to Poland. Let the murderers go home. After they return we will pursue them everywhere all over the world and try them in court for the slaughters they have carried out from Dir Yassin to this day."

The Center believes that the purpose of the flotilla is another media circus like the one Turkey achieved (IMRA, 7/25/10).


The UN has a three-member committee to follow up on the Goldstone Report: to evaluate how efficient, independent, and in line with internationally accepted standards Israel's court system is. Is that committee objective?

The committee comprises Christian Tomuschat of Germany, Param Cumaraswamy of Malaysia, and Mary Davis of the U.S., all in the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). According to Gerald Steinberg of NGO-Monitor, critics of the ICJ accuse it of anti-Israel bias, first noticed during Israel's 2002 offensive against Jenin. Mr. Steinberg puts this into the pattern of UN cooperation with ideological NGOs [some of which provided the bulk of the Goldstone Report[, as we documented months ago and again here].

In a 2002 study of counter-terrorism, Mr. Tomuschat suggested, "In such instances, there is little hope that the judicial system of the state concerned will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents. Nowhere have excesses committed by security forces been adequately punished."

"If a state strikes blindly against presumed terrorists and their environment, accepting that together with the suspects other civilians lose their lives, it uses the same tactics as the terrorists themselves. In this perspective, many actions carried out by the Israeli military in the occupied Palestinian territories would also have to be scrutinized very carefully."

"Normally," he went on, "states see themselves as guardians of human rights. However, by ordering the systematic commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity they themselves deserve the same blame as those targeted by them."

In 2007, Tomuschat, discussed Israel's assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin three years earlier: "Targeted killings are as ruthless as the attacks of terrorists." Tomuschat said that Israel's targeted killings are close to being "state terrorism."

Tomuschat asserts non-bias partly on the basis of having participated in forums in Israel.

Tomuschat refused to recuse himself when it was learned that he had helped prepare a report for the Palestinian Authority on legal aspects of the "peace process," in which he advised it to bring a case before the UN General Assembly for referral to the International Court of Justice. He had not disclosed that interest in one side of the Arab-Israel conflict to Israel, when he was appointed to the monitoring committee (IMRA, 7/25/10 from Benjamin Weinthal of Jerusalem Post).

In an earlier report, we quoted an Israeli explanation that targeted killing is a part of warfare that minimizes casualties by not having to bring heavy ground forces into a civilian area against a legitimate military/criminal target. Such forces would encounter resistance and therefore produce more casualties. Israel tries to minimize collateral casualties.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph Rubinek, July 25, 2010.

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U. S. Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid. And we buy their oil with our money?

Jordan votes 71% against the United States

And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States

Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States

Receives $143,699,000 annually.



We need to cut off their allowances


Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers, who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay their taxes (and gasoline).

Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know.

Disgusting isn't it?


To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, July 25, 2010.

We have Created this Mess!
(Translated from Russian. Author unknown)

Only by acknowledging our own mistakes we are able to fix them, change direction and make a difference!

We ourselves (from a common man to the top of the pyramid, including the courts and police) have taught Israeli Arabs that they are allowed to do everything they want.

They can build houses and villas without a mortgage or construction permission. They can pay no municipal taxes. They can live on land which does not belong to them. They can even get electricity for free just because they are Muslims. Those of them who go to Mecca get free immunization (if a Jew goes to Africa, he/she pays for immunizations). They are allowed to have their local councils run a deficit of tens of millions NIS — we pay for them out of our pockets.

They are allowed to have several wives and dozens of children, receiving tens of thousands of shekels a month from National Insurance. (When I retired the National Insurance Leumi told me that the cashier had no money).

They can engage in criminal racketeering in Beersheba and extort money from businesses and yet the police take no action. They can steal equipment from Jewish farmers worth of tens of millions and 'not be found'. They can drive a car even having dozens of traffic violations. They can demand and receive unemployment benefits and work for cash. They can cheer the enemies of Israel during a war, but if a "Katyusha" hits them accuse us of killing them. After all of this — they are still citizens of Israel and they are allowed to vote and elect members of the Knesset.

Their representatives receive a government salary, go into hostile countries and slander the country they are supposed to represent. In the Knesset they feel free to criticize and lecture the state of Israel and the IDF.

All of those 'privileges' they have been receiving from your own hands. And we are still silent in the name of freedom of speech (and fake political correctness and due to gutlessness of the Jewish leadership). Would they be allowed to behave in this way in other countries (especially a Muslim one)?

If and when Israel tries to do something about their dreadful behaviour, we are immediately criticised and demonised: "Racists!", "Discrimination!" This is their tactic and the scam run by their international anti-Semitic backers!

In my own home I feel like a second class citizen. I do not like the fact that they are called "citizens" of my beautiful country. Arabs have become first class citizens in Israel and have been enjoying all of their civil rights without any of the responsibilities! Jews are now the second class people in their own country, carrying the burden of all responsibilities on their shoulders, but still need to fight for their rights.

We need a leadership that understands that if we continue with this shameful behaviour by the state, in a few years, Galilee and the Negev will not will be ours! We need a leader who understands that, with all due respect to every Arab, Israel is more important to Jews than anything else. The whole point of the long overdue and needed leadership is to restore order and remove all this rot from Jewish land!

This letter is dedicated to memory of my mother
Maya (Miriam) Shamrak, who left us last Friday morning.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

There were never any Jordanian or Palestinian nations! There were never countries Jordan or Palestine! In 1922 over 80% of land, which was called at the time Palestine and was designated by the League of Nations to the restoration of a Jewish state — "Eretz-Israel", was ceded to Arabs by the British in a business transaction!

Bad Exchange Rate. Israel has transferred 50 million shekels to Gaza banks and is slated to offer another 50 million shekels (around 26 million U.S. dollars) in total in the recent days. In return Gaza Arab terrorists fired four Kassam rockets at Israeli targets over Shabbat.

No Pressure — Fake Peace Process Goes Nowhere! US President Barack Obama urged Abbas in a telephone call to move from the current indirect or proximity talks to direct negotiations with Israel. But the Palestinian Authority said it would start direct negotiations, suspended since December 2008, only after progress in the proximity talks on borders and security.

New Luxury Mall for 'Poor Refugees' in Gaza. As Hamas leaders complain Israel is causing poverty, a new luxury mall opens in Gaza, complete with air conditioning, Israeli and foreign goods. (It is the best kept secret that so-called Palestinians, due to anti-Semitic international attitude and oil dependency, are the best kept professional refugees in the world!)

Greece Moves into Turkey's Slot. After losing its "only Middle East ally", Israel and Greece are heading for an advantageous strategic partnership. Prime Minister Papandreou hopes for help in overcoming Greece's economic crisis and upgrading his armed forces.

'Progress' Made with Muslim Women's Rights. The Muslim teacher, Abdullah Aal Mahmoud, in what is apparently a mark of progress for Muslim women's rights, states that the Quran teaches the limitations "if the husband wants to use beatings to treat is wife." He ruled that wife-beating should never be done in front of children and "must not cause bleeding or bruises to her body." Breaking bones also is forbidden.

Europe is Always Committed to Enemies of Jews. The foreign affairs chief for the European Union said on Saturday that the alliance is committed to so-called Palestinian statehood and to improving the situation in Gaza. Ashton announced the allocation of additional 40 million euros ($52 million U.S. dollars) in direct financial support from the EU to the PA.

Turkey Betrayed NATO's Trust. Syrian troops have been locked in battle with Kurdish fighters since Assad's army blasted four north-eastern Syrian Kurdish towns in late June. Hundreds of Kurds are reported dead. The Syrian forces are backed by Heron spy drones which Israel sold to Turkey, which has become the first NATO member to share advanced western military technology with a state that sponsors terror. (Once again, the international press has shown no interest to cover this story! Neither do we any hear 'noise' and rebuke from Washington, London and Brussels ! In the past, Israel came under intense pressure from the US not to sell arms even to India.)

Quote of the Week: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." — Plato, Greek philosopher.

Faking Progress of the Fake Peace Process. In a symbolic move, the US on Friday upgraded the status of Palestine Authority's diplomatic mission in Washington. Officials told media that the Palestinian mission in Washington will now be called the "General Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization," with permission granted for flying (this terrorist organisation) the PLO flag for the first time.

Barak Must be Court-martialed!
by Moshe Dann

Israel's chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi, and Navy commander, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, reported that a fierce clash developed aboard the ship as the soldiers dropped on deck from helicopters and were mobbed by passengers... Each Israeli commando who shinnied down the ladder from a helicopter was besieged and separated from the unit, then beaten, stabbed and assaulted with flying objects. Some were pushed down into the hold and stripped of their anti-flak vests first. The soldiers reported they barely escaped lynching or possibly being taken hostage...

Surely the operation's planners (if they were not blinded by political stupidity) must have taken into account that the 600 mixed nationals aboard the Turkish vessel... The Border Police was bettered qualified to handle themselves against the arsenal the activists aboard the Turkish vessel used against the navy men, of firebombs, stun grenades, broken glass, slingshot, iron bars, axes and knives — and with far less risk of loss of life& This error was compounded by the planners seriously underestimating expected resistance and sending the men in armed with paintball guns and pistols with orders to shoot only if their lives were at risk. They did open fire, but only after half a dozen of their number were badly hurt...

"Israel's current Defense Minister Ehud Barak may be the worst General ever produced by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces). Moreover, he should have been court-martialled many times over for his stupidity that cost the lives of so many soldiers" — Emanuel A. Winston:

In 1973, Barak botched a rescue operation during the "Chinese Farm" battle near the Suez Canal and failed to rescue soldiers under the command of General Yitzhak Mordechai.

In 1982, during Operation Peace for Galilee — in which Israel attacked PLO and terrorist groups in Lebanon — Barak commanded the IDF in the eastern region of South Lebanon. He ordered an attack at Sultan Yakoub, in which Israeli soldiers were ambushed by Syrian army commandos and PLO guerrilla units.

Five years later, when the "first intifada" broke out, Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin assigned Ehud Barak, Amram Mitzna, and Dan Shomron — whose political views trumped military necessity — to quell the rebellion. They failed miserably. This not only encouraged Palestinian terrorists, especially Fatah and Hamas, but led to the PLO's rehabilitation and the disastrous Oslo Accords in 1993, which Barak implemented (and still supports by anti-Jewish acts).

In May 2000, Barak ordered a retreat from South Lebanon. Although the action was debatable, the chaotic manner in which it was carried out and the abandonment of the SLA has been widely condemned. Barak's action gave Hezbollah its first victory.

In January 2009, as defense minister, Barak was directly responsible for the Cast Lead operation in Gaza. While the action to stop terrorists and missile bombardment was necessary, it (was a complete failure as there were no clear objectives set and) resulted in the Goldstone Report and international condemnation. Hamas remained in power, more smuggling tunnels were built, and Gilad Shalit is still in captivity.

As prime minister and former chief of staff, Barak receives more than NIS 400,000. In addition the state funded his bureau at a cost of NIS 3.2 million in 2004 and NIS 1.8 million in 2005.

They estimated Barak's total annual income at NIS 10 million. Barak was involved in a number of companies and hedge funds. His business interests today are held by members of his family.

PS: "Barak caused us to run away from Lebanon, supported the disengagement, and managed the Cast Lead debacle, and now he wants to conduct more withdrawals in the future. He's like a battered woman, who instead of standing up to her attacker thinks again and again about how she should make more concessions" said Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau.

Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, July 25, 2010.

You might also like to read:
Nasser in Faked Photo.

This is a remarkable story in human terms but there is an extremely important point for understanding the Middle East embedded in it as well.

On June 14, Palestinian terrorists opened fire on a police car travelling on a road, en route from Beersheba to Jerusalem. One policeman, Yeheshua Sofer was killed. Two others were wounded. Sofer was due to be married in three months. It took a month but members of the cell were finally captured. They spoke quite freely about this attack and others they had planned for killing Israelis.

During the interrogation, one of the leaders remarked that only two weeks earlier his six-year-old daughter had been given a free operation in Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem to remove a tumor from her eye. The operation had been paid for by an Israeli organization.

Reading this, I recall a number of similar past instances. In one famous case, the Palestinian who later attacked Israel had been saved from injuries inflicted by another Palestinian in a quarrel. There have also been examples of terrorists playing on the sympathy of Israelis claiming they needed medical attention — especially in one bloody attack on the Gaza-Israel border — not to mention the use of women and children to smuggle weapons or even to carry out suicide attacks.

The Western reader — if he doesn't go in for some elaborate theory in which somehow Israel is still to blame — might see this and other such cases as examples of human ingratitude, the kind of thing often found in private life. There is also a psychiatric explanation: the person involved is in some way deranged, causing him to behave in an "illogical" manner.

Yet beyond irony and insanity, both falling short of the needed explanation, this kind of situation is important because it challenges the common Western theme of kindness and concession as inevitably leading to moderation and peace. There is another misleading flip side of this view, too: the concept that what seems like inexplicable violence or "fanaticism" is a direct response to ill treatment.

Thus, for those locked into the kindness breeds kindness model (which often does work in personal life), terrorists must be shown to be suffering from poverty or personal suffering (even though statistics show this to be untrue) or understandable outrage at bad treatment (ignoring the possibility of their engaging in alternative behavior, like making a compromise peace or building a democratic society).

Yet the main missing explanation explaining such behavior is ideology and world view. If you think that the divine being has ordered you to wipe out Israel and the Jews (or Christians and the West also), if you have no self-critical facility whatsoever, if you believe (and are told by the West) that you are always a victim, if you put a priority on revenge rather than improving your situation, and if you view your opponent as sub-human (racism is more frequently deployed by elements in some parts of the "Third World" against the West than vice-versa nowadays, whatever was true in the past), then your conscience will be untroubled by having your daughter healed as a gift and trying to kill the maximum number of Israelis thereafter.

Where have things been different? Obviously, one can insist on one's dignity and right to have a country of one's own without developing such behavior. We have seen this in dozens of cases over previous decades. You don't have to invoke such names s Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr or Mahatma Gandhi in this case. Quite average nationalist leaders far from sainthood have pulled it off repeatedly.

Indeed, such an approach is not only more moral but more effective. After all, if you are willing to compromise with your opponent, the latter is more willing and able to give you more of what you want. If the Palestinian movement had adopted such an approach — which is still lacking to this day — there would have been a Palestinian Arab state in 1948 (UN partition), or in 1979 (Anwar al-Sadat peace initiative) or in 2000 (Camp David/Clinton plan), or at many other times in history.

Of course, there are cases — fewer but genuine — of individual Palestinians saving the lives of Israelis who would otherwise have been murdered. But here's the catch: those people have to hide their identities from other Palestinians while to kill deliberately Israeli children, even in 2010, makes one a hero.

Moreover, it is also misleading to conclude that people want to wipe out Israel because it is doing something so horrible — that there is a proportionality at work here — as to justify such treatment. Again, the problem lies in the ideology and worldview of the radicals, as well as their expectation of total victory, that drives the process. Israelis as a whole discovered this between 1992 and 2000. Sympathy, an attempt to provide a balanced narrative, aid, payments, concessions, compromises, offers all failed. Indeed, not only did they fail but in many respects these actions made things worse — at least more dangerous — for those who tried that method.

One of the times I came closer to being killed so far was when an Arab driver returning from taking supplies to the Gaza Strip or bringing workers into Israel so they could make living smuggled in a suicide terrorist. Six months after the day I saw the dead killed by that attack in the street around the corner from my home, a high-ranking U.S. diplomat told me — with pomposity and a slur on Israel that would have marked him as a vicious antisemite if he weren't a Jewish careerist — that no terrorist had ever come into Israel that way.

Incidentally, and this is an absolutely true story, the day before the March 1996 bombing, I had passed by a woman in full Islamist dress (by no means normally dressed for an Israeli Arab Muslim woman who might merely wear modest clothing and a hijab) outside the Dizengoff Center mall looking at the door (and possibly checking out the security) about 20 yards from where the suicide bomber blew himself up some hours later. I thought to myself: what a great democratic and open country this is that in the midst of a terrorist bombing campaign she could walk through Tel Aviv without anyone bothering her in the least. I wondered later if this was coincidental or part of the terrorist operation. If you want to compare the reality of Israel from the way it is portrayed in biased media and academic writings, ponder that story.

These stories are in no way to say that you don't treat children with eye tumors, or not let people make a living or send in supplies, or look askance at people merely because they belong to a specific national or religious group.

But you also let wishful thinking take over your mind or allow hopes of gratitude to bolster your expectations in an irrational manner.

And you never ever strengthen individuals or organizations who want to kill you and wipe you out on the basis of believing that generosity will make them moderate.

This basic calculus, of course, does not apply just to Israel's situation but to a West facing attacks by revolutionary Islamists — including the September 11 terrorists and those in Britain's tube or Spain's railroad attacks — as well. The idea that compromises, concessions, flattery, and gifts are going to buy popularity or immunity will simply not work.

Note to Western leaders, academics, and journalists reading this: Remember to condemn the people who commit deliberate terrorist murders and refuse to make real peace, not the ones who operate for free on the "enemy" side's children and take risky concessions to try to achieve peace.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

This article is archived at
http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/07/ terrorist-whose-daughter-was-cured

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, July 25, 2010.

Before delving into the question of what follows the death of the two-state solution we must get a certificate of death. This may prove to be more difficult than getting a certificate of live birth for President Obama.

Everyone prefers to kick a dead horse, so to speak, than to acknowledge it is dead. The Arabs were against the creation of Israel in the first place. They opposed the Palestine Mandate, The Partition Plan, The Declaration of Independence by Israel and Resolution 242. In 1968 they decided at the Khartoum Conference on the three "no's"; no recognition, no negotiation and no peace.

Nevertheless both Egypt and Jordan broke with this policy and signed peace agreements with Israel. Anwar Sadat paid for this breach with his life.

Arafat had to accept Res 242 as the condition for entering the Oslo accords, He also had to agree to amend Fatah's Charter which called for the destruction of Israel but never did amend it. The Hamas Charter also calls for the destruction of Israel. So the PA is only paying lip service to Res 242 and has no intention of complying with it,

The Arab League has yet to accept Res 242. Instead, at the Beirut Conference in 2002, it endorsed the Saudi Plan with certain amendments and called it the Arab Peace Initiative. Neither the Plan nor the Initiative were ever published officially but a communiqué was issued.

It demanded full withdrawal, a "just settlement" of the refugee problem and the creation of a "sovereign independent" state with East Jerusalem as its capital. In exchange, they would enter into a "peace agreement" and establish "normal relations" with Israel.

Whenever the Arabs talk about peace I am suspect as "peace" in Islam is only achieved when Islam is dominant. Besides Israel will never agree to all these demands.

In effect they substituted these parameters for the ones in Res 242. The US cooperated by including the Arab Peace Initiative in the Roadmap. Obama goes so far as to favour the Arab Initiative over Res 242.

By putting forward these demands, the Arabs have decided to wage war on Israel diplomatically. The peace process demanded by the Quartet (U.S., E.U., UN and Russia) buttressed by the Arab's nebulous offer of peace, enables them to make demands on Israel and to force her compliance. It is not really about negotiating a settlement so much as it is about imposing a settlement. As times goes on Israel's wiggle room gets smaller and smaller.

So, though an ultimate agreement is not achievable because Israel won't agree to the Arab terms and the Arabs won't compromise on them, the Arabs still want to continue the process. Abbas is spared the necessity of compromising and why should he. The Palestinians are doing well economically with the cooperation of Israel and the financial support of the US and the EU. Why look for trouble.

For the U.S., it's the only game in town. They are not prepared to pack their bags and go home or to change the paradigm. Better to go through the motions.

The process is working to Israel's disadvantage so why is Israel content to go along?

So long as the prospect of a two-state solution is out there, Israel does not have to resist calls for bi-national state or for citizenship for the Palestinians. In the meantime, the Palestinians have their autonomy and Israel has its security, insofar as Judea and Samaria are concerned, and an undivided Jerusalem.

While Israel would dearly love to sign a settlement deal to put an end to the deligitimation and demonization, the price is too high. The status quo is better.

But that doesn't preclude putting facts on the ground. Israel must end the freeze and commence building in Jerusalem and the settlements. Aside from strengthening Israel's hold on Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, Israel is thereby putting great pressure on the Palestinians to compromise. Due to such construction, time would no longer on the side of the Palestinians.

That is why the Palestinians have suggested they would unilaterally declare a state or ask the UN to recognize a Palestinian state on all lands east of the '67 borders. Were they to do so, it would be a game changer. Israel has said she wouldn't allow it. It would end the peace process.

There is talk in Israel of extending Israeli law to the major settlements presently under occupation law. The Israelis living in them would dearly love the change and it would not affect the Arabs at all. Such a change would effectively make the settlements part of Israel.

Another factor that argues for the status quo is that Israel is facing a well-armed Hamas and Hezbollah and genocidal Iran who is about to get the bomb. In the next year there may well be war with Iran. Israel wants to have the US participate. This is not the time for dramatic concessions. Israel must know whether Iran will remain an enemy before determining what if any concessions to make. p>In the meantime the mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat intends to implement Jerusalem's ambitious Master Plan presently being finalized. The Plan aims to reverse the current trend whereby Arabs are moving into Jerusalem to be on the west side of the fence and Jews are moving out. The main reasons for this exodus are expensive housing, limited housing opportunities, scant employment opportunities, and relatively low salary levels.

The ultimate goal is to have a demographic balance in the city, Jews to Arabs of 60:40 by 2020. It is now 65:35. This is an urgent task for Israel exacerbated by the defacto construction freeze. Its implementation will not be without international and domestic opposition.

There are currently 300,000 Arabs living in Jerusalem. Reason enough to consider dividing the city. Even that will not be simple. The City of David, Mount of Olives and Rachel's Tomb are all located in that part of Jerusalem east of the '67 line where the Arabs live. Israelis would never agree to part with this part of their heritage.

Five years ago, I advocated annexing Judea and Samaria. Then I was odd man out. No longer.

Haaretz, Israel's New York Times, just published, Endgame.

" Therefore, I say that we can look at another option: for Israel to apply its law to Judea and Samaria and grant citizenship to 1.5 million Palestinians.

"Once the sole preserve of the political margins, the approach is now being advocated by leading figures in Likud and among the settlers — people who are not necessarily considered extremists or oddballs.

"They talk about a process that will take between a decade and a generation to complete, at the end of which the Palestinians will enjoy full personal rights, but in a country whose symbols and spirit will remain Jewish. It is at this point that the one-state right wing diverges from the binational left. The right is not talking about a neutral "state of all its citizens" with no identity, nor about "Israstine" with a flag showing a crescent and a Shield of David. As envisaged by the right wing, one state still means a sovereign Jewish state, but in a more complex reality, and inspired by the vision of a democratic Jewish state without an occupation and without apartheid, without fences and separations."

Just think; no division of Jerusalem, no transfer of Jews, no border dispute, no international forces,, no air-rights dispute, no water dispute and no right of return. The challenge for Israel will be to avoid civil unrest. She succeeded in Israel. She will succeed in the expanded Israel.

Long live the democratic Jewish one-state solution.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@israpundit.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, July 25, 2010.

This comes from Fresno Zionism. Is is archived at
http://fresnozionism.org/2010/07/the-zionist-league-for- preemptive-self-defense/


Recently, a fellow mentioned that he was putting together a new pro-Israel organization and that he was trying to decide what to name it.

He was considering something like "Peace and Justice for the Middle East."

My first thought was that this sounds like an anti-Israel group. All he would need to add would be something about human rights and it would be perfect. Of course this is because the people who want to see an end to the Jewish state have co-opted the language of peace, justice and human rights. They own it now, despite the fact that this entails an Orwellian reversal of meaning.

For example, let's take a local organization, Peace Fresno. They support the 'right of return' for Palestinian Arab 'refugees'. Now I know a number of their members and they say they are against all war. I would like to ask them how the influx of several million violently hostile Arabs into tiny Israel would affect matters of war and peace. Would it make things more peaceful? We know that it would be the beginning of a bloody civil war, 1948 all over again except with ten times the number of combatants. We know this because the Palestinians themselves tell us.

But they would say that the Palestinian refugees deserve justice. Really? Is it just that the Palestinian Arabs, who started the 1948 war under the leadership of the Nazi Mufti al-Husseini and lost it, should have the result of that war reversed after 62 years? Is it just that other refugees, like the 800,000 Jewish ones who fled Arab countries between 1948 and the 1960's were absorbed by Israel and other countries, but the Arab nations refuse to absorb even one Palestinian?

More generally, is it just that there are 23 Arab nations with a combined population of 358 million and one Jewish state with about 5.5 million Jews, and this is intolerable to the Arabs? Is it just that one unelected royal family rules all of Saudi Arabia, where they have institutionalized racism, misogyny and antisemitism? Is it just that Arab terror organizations are rewarded for their murder campaigns?

Peace Fresno also calls for justice for the 'victims' among the 'peaceful activists' (Turkish IHH thugs) on board the Mavi Marmara. Justice must mean that you can beat somebody with an iron pipe until his brains start coming out and he is expected to do nothing. 'Justice' must mean something different for Israelis and Turks.

And Peace Fresno wants no restrictions on traffic of goods or people in and out of Gaza. Their Hamas friends in Gaza need more building materials, so they can rebuild after the recent war that they started and were losing, at least until the incoming Obama administration made Israel stop fighting. They have already started rebuilding — fortifications and tunnels and a big new prison (with a reinforced basement bunker, I'm sure), not homes. That's how to promote peace.

Speaking of human rights, the 'activists' on the Gaza Flotilla, who belonged to multiple organizations with 'peace', 'justice' and 'human rights' in their names, were asked to deliver a message to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped four years ago (when he was 19 years old) and has been held incommunicado — in violation of international law — ever since. They refused, because apparently 'human rights' mean something different for Israelis and Arab residents of Gaza.

So who wants peace? Israel, which wants to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority (PA), or the PA, which refuses to negotiate unless Israel agrees to all of its demands in advance? Hamas, which — still — fires rockets into Israel and continually probes the border, trying to kidnap more Israelis?

Who is more concerned with justice? Israel, whose Supreme Court often issues orders that Palestinian rights require changes in the route of the security fence, whose army command arrests and tries Israeli soldiers for improper behavior in wartime, and which allows security prisoners — even those convicted of multiple murders — access to television and university courses in prison? Or Hamas, which executes 'collaborators' and political opponents without trial, and will not let the Red Cross visit Gilad Shalit in his underground bunker?

But it's no use. The language is corrupted. Better he should call his group "The Zionist League for Preemptive Self-Defense," in keeping with the adage that if you can't be liked, you might as well be respected.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 25, 2010.


Egyptian side of easily-spotted tunnel entrance (AP/Stringer)

Two Egyptian officials separately acknowledged that Sinai-Gaza tunnel smugglers pierced the Egyptian fence placed both above-ground and below-ground to stop them. Smugglers have made hundreds of below-ground openings, one per tunnel.

One smuggler said it took him five hours to burn a hole through the iron fence. A.P. filmed a smuggler utilizing a blow-torch.

Now that Israel lets most goods through, smugglers are not using many tunnels.

Fence construction started last year. The half of the fence already built failed to fulfill its ostensible purpose (IMRA, 7/23/10).

Unstated was whether Egypt intends to build the other half. IMRA reported then that the U.S. seemed to be subsidizing the project with $50-100 million. IMRA head, Dr. Aaron Lerner, predicted failure. He suggested surer methods for blocking smuggling.


According to Hizbullah head Nasrallah, Lebanon PM Saad Hariri told him he will let Hizbullah escape blame for its suspected assassination of his father, Rafik Hariri.

The UN is expected to find Hizbullah responsible for that assassination. PM Hariri is expected to excuse the organization by pinning responsibility on the lower level operatives who performed the assassination, as doing it on their own. Narallah supposes that PM Hariri anticipates that if he blames the organization, he would share his father's fate or a renewed civil war that he would lose.

Haaretz believes that PM Hariri considers survival more important than preserving family honor and punish all his father's murderers. The Israeli daily debunks PM Hariri's distinction in advance as a false rationalization: "Hizbullah is well known for its rigid hierarchy, iron discipline and involvement of senior officials in all decisions at the field level. That makes it highly unlikely that Hizbullah operatives would have been involved in such an incident without the senior leadership's knowledge." (IMRA, 7/23/10).


Hizbullah head Nasrallah (A.P./Mahmound Tawil)
A "top UN official" in New York said that the when the UN releases its finding on the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri, turmoil would erupt in that country. He revealed a blackmail threat from, as Naharnet put it, "a certain party in Lebanon whose members could be tried has sent a message that 'it has the means to make a counter-reaction'" against UNIFIL troops.

The UN official said that the UN refuses to let itself be humiliated, and is asking Lebanon to send another 5,000 Lebanese Army troops to help defend UNIFIL. The official described previous instances of stoning of UNIFIL trips by women and children as organized by a "side." He did not name that "side." (IMRA, 7/23/10).

Earlier articles have reported that Hizbullah is part of the Lebanese government, that Hizbullah is the dominant military force in the country as proved by its victory in a civil war in which the Lebanese Army was neutral, and that the Lebanese Army is slow to assist UNIFIL is timely inspection of illegal Hizbullah military emplacements. Note that the UN official did not identify the "side" that organized the stoning of his troops.

Earlier discussions of the purported evidence seemed to indicate responsiblity further up the chain of command to President Assad of Syria or to Iran.


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explained his opposition to a mega-mosque proposed for a site near the World Trade Center in New York, the Washington Post reported on July 24.

Mr. Gingrich explained that New York City has more than a hundred mosques; this one is not being proposed for lack of access to a house of prayer. He contrasted that number with the number of churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia: Zero. Time to end the double standard, Gingrich said. In fact, he added, Christians and Jews are banned from Mecca.

Gingrich framed the issue not as a matter of tolerance in America but as a matter of American submission to aggressive jihad. He explained that the mega-mosque is important for what it means to Muslims, who perceive symbolism that unsophisticated Americans do not. The proposed mega-mosque is called "Cordoba House." "It refers to Cordoba, Spain — the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex. Today, some of the Mosque's backers insist this term is being used to 'symbolize interfaith cooperation' when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance."

After all, Gingrich points out, the large, proposed mosque complex would overlook "the World Trade Center site — where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks..."

Adding to the suspicion, Gingrich said that the Mosque officials refuse to divulge the source of the estimated $100 million cost of the proposed complex.

Gingrich challenged those who back the mosque in the name of tolerance: let them demand that Saudi Arabia show the same tolerance to other religions! (IMRA, 7/23/10.)

Somewhat fewer than 3,000 were killed in New York. The same plot killed a small number in Pennsylvania.

The U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, and held off Saddam from conquering that country. U.S. troops were not allowed to practice Christianity openly. We reported some time ago about Christian Bibles being confiscated on arrival at the airport.

Saudi Arabia is not known to have Jewish residents.


The U.S. appears to have ignored evidence of illegal fund raising for Hamas at U.C. Irvine. Because the US. declared Hamas a terrorist organization, raising funds for it violates the law. In September, 2009, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) began furnishing the Justice Dept. with evidence.

What had happened? At U.C. Irvine, the Muslim Student Union sponsored a talk by British MP George Galloway on May 21, 2009. He touted an organization, Viva Palestina, which brings convoys of goods and money to Gaza. Gaza is controlled by Hamas. As a videotape shows and witnesses confirm, MP Galloway and the Muslim Student Union passed around collection boxes.

The previous March, Galloway brought in a Viva Palestina convoy. In front of top Hamas officials and on Arab TV, he said, "We are giving you now 100 vehicles and all of the contents, and we make no apology for what I am about to say: We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine." Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that Hamas' minister of social affairs hailed Galloway as a 'hero.'"

Later that October, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, run by Steven Emerson, documented Viva Palestina's objective as not charity but support for Hamas. The Project reported, "Viva Palestina's most visible leaders call for the elimination of the State of Israel ... They treat Hamas leaders as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people and provide both material and moral support to the terrorist organization."

Based on this evidence, ZOA urged the U.S. Justice Dept. to investigate for violation of federal law. The request was seconded by U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The Conference is an umbrella organization, in which ZOA is one of about 52 members groups.

In November, the FBI asked ZOA for a copy of the campus fundraiser videotape. ZOA supplied it, and offered to furnish witnesses. The FBI did not ask for the witnesses' names. There is no indication that the Justice Dept. is proceeding on this.

ZOA suggests that it is bad enough if an American campus is used to raise funds for terrorism, but it would be more frightening if the Justice Dept. abdicated its responsibility to prosecute it (7/23/10 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member)


Israeli right-wingers are proposing a kind of "one-state solution." Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ahrens of Likud and some Jews of Judea-Samaria propose annexing Judea-Samaria and granting its Arabs citizenship, under certain conditions. The primary condition is that they would have to accept Jewish sovereignty. Another condition is that the Islamist Movement in Israel be banned.

Mr. Ahrens says he is afraid that some day the Arabs of Judea-Samaria may, like Hamas, fire rockets into Israel. He concludes that making them citizens would eliminate their bellicosity.

Most of the other arguments put forward are lengthy and emotional references to earlier Zionist figures (IMRA, 7/24/10).

Considerations not dealt with in the news of the proposal:

The Jewish homeland already has been divided. Israel comprises 17% of it, Judea, Samaria and Gaza comprise 4%, and Jordan comprises 79%. The 4% includes strategic heights and natural tank traps, as does the Golan Heights now part of Israel, that in Israeli hands makes for secure borders and in Arab hands would facilitate conquest of Israel.

Gaza's omission from the proposal is another division, contradicting Ahren's principle of not dividing the homeland.

Why does Mr. Ahrens differentiate the Arabs of Gaza from the Arabs of Judea-Samaria? As we have documented, the leaders of both areas state their view that the whole of Israel belongs to them. Both sets of leaders honor terrorism.

If, based on the stated conditions, many Arabs do not want to join the new state and do not want to move away, Israel would, in effect, still have a division, but by population rather than geographically. It would have hundreds of thousands of new Arab citizens sympathetic to the non-citizens opposition to Zionism.

The early Zionists were idealistic toward the Arabs. They lacked experience with them. Not a valid basis for contemporaries who have had much, sad experience to predicate proposals on disproved assumptions. In the two generations since then, Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs made more than one attempt to eradicate the Jews. Why would Arabs indoctrinated in hatred of Jews, as we have documented, be more cooperative with the Jews than were their forebears?

It sounds determined to say that before letting additional Arabs into the Jewish state, Israel first should ban the Islamist Movement. If those Israelis who set this condition are so determined, why can't they impose the ban now, and see how it works? If they can't impose the ban now, how later, when the demographics are less favorable?

They say they would condition citizenship on acceptance of Jewish sovereignty. How do they now they could believe a pledge of allegiance from those whose ideology includes deception of non-believers?

Ahrens did not give any signs of understanding and considering the religious basis for the jihad against Israel.

While still a minority, the prospective citizens could agree to Israel remaining a Jewish state, though it clashes with their view of Islam. The addition of up to two million Arab citizens would make the minority very large. Sooner or later, they may no longer agree to Israel being a Jewish state. Then what would the Jews there do?

When the Palestinian Arabs find that they get concessions because they are willing to fight, and to fight in a terrorist manner, might they not conclude that they could get more concessions by fighting more?

Has Ahrens considered all the alternatives, or only the politically correct ones? How would he deal with the perilous or inconsistent aspects of his proposal?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, July 25, 2010.

In Israel, a bitter battle is being waged between two camps on the left. On Dr. Yehuda (Yehouda) Shenhav's book 'The Time of the Green Line' Yehouda Shenhav, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University.

This article was written by Aryeh Tepper and it appeared April 28, 2010 in Jewish Ideas Daily http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/detail/continue-reading- kulturkampf-on-the-left

Aryeh Tepper recently completed his Doctorate at Hebrew University in the Department of Jewish Thought. He writes for Jewish Ideas Daily.


Political struggles are usually waged between the left and the right. In contemporary Israel, a bitter battle is being waged between two camps on the left.

The issue that divides the two camps is Zionism. The Zionist left wants to consolidate a Jewish-democratic state within the "green line" — hat is, the borders that existed from 1949, fixed by the armistice that ended Israel's war of independence, until the June 1967 Six-Day war — and to help engineer a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The post-Zionist or "radical" left is in favor of a one-state solution, i.e., doing away with Israel as a Jewish state and creating a "state of all its citizens" in its stead.

To the Zionist left, the post-Zionist left isn't so much post- as anti-Zionist. But to the post-Zionist left, the Zionist left isn't liberal — or leftist — at all. The latter position is argued vehemently in The Time of the Green Line, a recently published Hebrew book that offers a deep critique of the liberal Zionist left from a radical perspective. Its author is Yehuda Shenhav, an established public intellectual with academic credentials.

Shenhav puts forward two large claims about the Zionist left, the first being that it lives in a state of complete denial regarding the fundamentals of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. According to Shenhav, the Zionist left has persuaded itself that the basic point of contention in the conflict lies in the results of the Six-Day war, which ended with Israel having seized the Sinai peninsula (long since returned to Egypt), Gaza (now under Hamas), the Golan Heights (claimed by Syria), and, especially, the West Bank with its large Palestinian population. Therefore, reasons the Zionist left, once Israel hands back the West Bank, "1967" will have been reversed and peace will become possible.

To Shenhav, this is a delusion. Zero hour for the Palestinians, he contends, was and remains not 1967 but 1948: i.e., the founding of Israel itself. Averting its eyes from this fact, the Zionist left has fabricated an artificial starting point in time (1967) and space (the green line) in order to preserve to its own satisfaction the basic legitimacy of Israel's establishment in 1948. The trouble is that the Palestinians will never agree to this construction of history, because it fails to take into account their most fundamental grievances.

Shenhav's second claim is that the Zionist left's stubborn fidelity to the notion of a specifically Jewish state is inherently anti-democratic. How so? Democracy, writes Shenhav, is more than a matter of individual rights; it is also a matter of collective rights. So long as the collective rights of native Palestinians living within the state of Israel go unrecognized — and, in a state that calls itself Jewish, they are by definition unrecognized — hat state, no matter how much it pretends otherwise, cannot be regarded as democratic in any meaningful sense.

Predictably, the heated contentions of The Time of the Green Line have ignited reciprocal heat from the Zionist left. Thus, Gadi Taub, a prominent intellectual and one of Shenhav's favorite targets, has attacked the book as meretricious and utterly irresponsible. An example: in his final chapter, Shenhav offers a number of one-state schemes for sharing the land, including something called "consociational democracy"; in doing so, he silently passes over the inconvenient fact that this fanciful arrangement has already been tried and found wanting in such distinguished islands of tranquility as Cyprus and Lebanon. "Any reasonable person," Taub sums up, "realizes that the one-state solution would constitute a chronic civil war," a war from which posturing professors like Shenhav will be able to escape while those "with nowhere to go — both Jews and Arabs — will end up ... drowning in rivers of blood."

Taub's assault on the fantasy of a one-state solution — he demand, as he puts it, that of all the parties to the conflict, the Jews alone must surrender their right to self-determination — is cogent enough. Unfortunately, it is not matched by a sustained engagement with Shenhav's point about the arbitrary character of 1967 and the green line. But that is also understandable. The dimming hopes of Zionist leftists are now pinned to the latest in a very long string of efforts to "solve" the Israel-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the 1967 paradigm. Today's version is associated with the proposal of the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and east Jerusalem within two years.

Fayyad is backed by the Obama administration, the international community, the Zionist left, and liberals everywhere. If he succeeds, alternative ways of thinking about the conflict will have been rendered ipso facto irrelevant. But what if Fayyad's plan fails, like so many others before it? Will Zionist leftists (like Taub) urge Western peacemakers to go back to the drawing board yet again?

An Israeli rightist might charge that the clash over Shenhav's book reflects the incoherence of both sectors of the Israeli left, an incoherence born of the refusal to face the hard reality of Arab obduracy and determination. Be that as it may, one can easily imagine the counter-charge: namely, that the Israeli right, in declining to count the diplomatic price the country is paying for clinging to the status quo, is at least as blind as the Israeli left. What, then, is one to conclude? Perhaps only that the harsh light of the Mediterranean sun remains too intense for anyone to gaze into it without the aid of colored glasses.

This article is archived at
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/detail/continue-reading- kulturkampf-on-the-left

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Babu Suseelan, July 24, 2010.

How can a soft Jihadi who misdiagnoses the social disease effectively suggest a remedy? we listen to soft Jihadis, many of them are hard core hidden Jihadis with a mask. They are propagating Jihadism at the expense of gullible infidels. Soft Jihadis are telling us what we want to hear. And more often than not, soft Jihadis do not want to address Islamic reality.

To understand hidden agendas of soft Jihadis we need a renewed sense of social responsibility. What we really need is to reexamine our pacifism, tolerance of intolerance and carefully observe soft Jihadis hidden agendas. Everywhere we turn today, we are bombarded by pseudo secularist, Marxist liberals, and soft Jihadis with slogans that exhort us to keep an open mind and not be judgmental. In the middle of all this soft Jihadi muddle is an attitude that prevents any discussion of Jihadi terrorism and evil promoted in the name of Islam. In the real sense, soft Jihadis are engaged in mind manipulation to make us zombies.

To move, let alone root out the dead weight of Jihadism, we need an intellectual assault on the political Islamic dogma paraded as religion. Pure Islam promoted by soft Jihadis is against democracy, secularism and freedom of the will. These are essential in a democratic society to make a choice. Soft and hard Jihadis cannot make a choice. Islam forbids choice, freedom of thinking, coexistence with infidels, and all inclusive thought system. In this new world soft and hardcore Jihadis must make a choice between right and wrong, good and evil.

After years of aggressive war, looting, plundering and invasion of non Islamic countries by fanatic Islamists, soft Jihadis are still carrying the dysfunctional, destructive dominant Islamic values.

Jihadis are anchored in their destructive, sixth century wrong Islamic values. Choice and selection of positive values is a fearful burden for Jihadis. They cannot overcome their limitation since they are permanently imprisoned in Islamic prison serving life term. jihadis often appearing to cling tenaciously to a dysfunctional dogma that is dangerous. They, perhaps by provocative means, instigate death and destruction of kafirs. The subtlety consists in the deftness with which soft jihadis manipulate the system and capitalize upon it, all deliberately of course.

In this context, citizens living in democratic countries have a choice to make to save our life and liberty. we have to force Jihadis to freedom.


There are several soft Jihadis like John Esposito working for Islamists for few Jihadi breadcrukmbs. How can these soft Jihadis who misdiagnoses the social disease effectively suggest a remedy? we listen to soft Jihadis, many of them are hard core hidden Jihadis with a mask. They are propagating Jihadism at the expense of gullible infidels. Soft Jihadis are telling us what we want to hear. And more often than not, soft Jihadis do not want to address Islamic reality.

To understand hidden agendas of soft Jihadis we need a renewed sense of social responsibility. What we really need is to reexamine our pacifism, tolerance of intolerance and carefully observe soft Jihadis hidden agendas. Everywhere we turn today, we are bombarded by pseudo secularist, Marxist liberals, and soft Jihadis with slogans that exhort us to keep an open mind and not be judgmental. In the middle of all thissoft Jihadi muddleis an attitude that prevents any discussion of Jihadi terrorism and evil promoted in the name of Islam. In the real sense, soft Jihadis are engaged in mind manipulation to make us zombies.

To move, let alone root out the dead weight of Jihadism, we need an intellectual assault on the political Islamic dogma paraded as religion. Pure Islam promoted by soft Jihadis is against democracy, secularism and freedom of the will. These are essential in a democratic society to make a choice.Soft and hard Jihadis cannot make a choice. Islam forbids choice, freedom of thinking, coexistence with infidels, and all inclusive thought system. In this new world soft and hardcore Jihadis must make a choice between right and wrong, good and evil.

After years of aggressive war, looting, plundering and invasion of non Islamic countries by fanatic Islamists, soft Jihadis are still carrying the dysfunctional, destructive dominant Islamic values.

Jihadis are anchored in their destructive, sixth century wrong Islamic values. Choice and selection of positive values is a fearful burden for Jihadis. They cannot overcome their limitation since they are permanently imprisoned in Islamic prison serving life term. jihadis often appearing to cling tenaciously to adysfunctional dogma that is dangerous. They, perhaps by provocative means, instigate death and destruction of kafirs. The subtlety consists in the deftness with which soft jihadis manipulate the system and capitalize upon it, all deliberately of course.

In this context, citizens living in democratic countries have a choice to make to save our life and liberty. we have to forceJihadis to freedom.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 24, 2010.


The FBI told BurstNet Technologies that thousands of blogs on one of its sites contain links to terrorist material. BurstNet reports that those materials include lists of Americans to be assassinated and instructions on making bombs. As a remedy, BurstNet shut down the Blogetery website, which offers free space.

BurstNet did not have to go as far as it did, because the FBI did not oppose the whole clientele. BurstNet offered another reason. It stated that Blogetery violated the terms of service. Blogetery claims that 73,000 blogsites were canceled, but BurstNet estimates the number as far fewer.

Another site, lpbfree.com, also was closed.

Opposing the change are the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They complained that innocent sites suffered unfairly.

A Congressional Committee earlier had expressed concern over terrorist use of Internet, but the Committee and many who testified before it would not go so far as to recommend shutting such sites. For example, Brian Jenkins of the RAND Corp., called online terrorist recruiting largely a failure. Why? He explained that only about 15 Americans recruited to terrorism each year.

FBI Director Robert Mueller emphasized not how many were recruited so far, but the potential effect on the growth of "home-grown" terrorism (Arutz-7, 7/23/10).

I asked the Center for Democracy and Technology whether it thought Burstnet's reaction to a violation of terms of service was warranted. Speaking for the Center, John Morris cast the issues in a different light. Mr. Morris told me that the Center leaves matters of terms of service violations up to the responsible parties and is not issuing criticism but expressing concern. The Center is concerned about the "fragility" of freedom of the press on Internet. Poof! Tens of thousands of writers cut off. Internet freedom of expression hangs on the thread of owner discretion; when discretion frays?

Morris explained that section 230 of the pertinent federal statute protects Internet service providers from liability for the content on their sites. If this vital section 230 were repealed, Internet service providers would be inclined to censor their sites to prevent lawsuits against them. Censorship invites abuse (Telephone, 7/23).


Yossi Evan-Kama's recent exhibit at the Shenkar College of Engineering and Design, renders a fictional account of a right-wing revolution in Israel, including calls by rabbis to kill Jews who are not religiously observant. Rabbis whom he named objected. He apologized.

Mr. Evan-Kama explained that for authenticity, he used a list of rabbis, but altered most of their names. He said it was carelessness and not intent to include actual names; he has nothing against those particular rabbis.

The exhibition included scenarios of the political and religious right starting a civil war in which they bombed dozens of people, and a black Star of David inside a white circle on a red background, which some critics noted is similar to Nazi symbolism. The head of Shenkar College is Yuli Tamar, former Education Minister. Danny Dayan, head of the Yesha Council, shuddered at the notion that someone who gives a platform to such hate-filled propaganda, called art, was in charge of educating Israel's children.

Rabbi Azriel Ariel of Ateret, among the libeled rabbis, remarked that the exhibit reflects hatred, a form of "mental illness" from an "inner emptiness." (Arutz-7, 7/23/10).

The artist apparently found no rabbis who do suggest murdering non-religiously observant Jews. Usually, fiction bear a resemblance to reality.


Introducing the original story, Prof. Steven Plaut cited several other cases of Israeli government prosecution of Israelis who defended themselves from Arab attack. In the current case, Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice doubled a Haifa court's 'sentence of police officer Shahar Mizrachi, to 30 months in prison with common criminals such as ones he had gotten convicted.

The officer's crime was catching a car thief in the act and shooting him to stop it. The police chain of command insists that Mizrachi acted properly. This car thief was an Arab. According to Prof. Plaut, Arab police who have shot Jewish criminals were not prosecuted (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/22/10). I do not know the circumstances.

Maariv editor Ben Bror Yemeni has fleshed out the case. First, officer Mizrachi has some not so benign experience with car thieves. He was badly injured by another car thief, getting away in a stolen car. With that car, the thief struck Mizrachi's partner, putting him into a coma from which he has not emerged.

This time, the thief threatened Mizrachi with a screw driver, jumped into the stolen car, and tried to run Mizrachi down. Hence the shooting. Why the prosecution? (Plaut, 7/2/10).

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 23, 2010.

This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared July 23, 2010 in the Spectator (UK)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6155919/ cognitive-dissonance-on-middle-east-groundhog-day.thtml


Khaled abu Toameh asks a question:

When was the last time the United Nations Security Council met to condemn an Arab government for its mistreatment of Palestinians? How come groups and individuals on university campuses in the US and Canada that call themselves 'pro-Palestinian' remain silent when Jordan revokes the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians?

The plight of Palestinians living in Arab countries in general, and Lebanon in particular, is one that is often ignored by the mainstream media in West. How come they turn a blind eye to the fact that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and many more Arab countries continue to impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians?

...A news story on the Palestinians that does not include an anti-Israel angle rarely makes it to the front pages of Western newspapers. The demolition of an Arab-owned illegal building in Jerusalem is, for most of these correspondents, much more important than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from a series of humiliating restrictions.

Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs.

Can someone imagine what would be the reaction in the international community if Israel tomorrow passed a law that prohibits its Arab citizens from working as taxi drivers, journalists, physicians, cooks, waiters, engineers and lawyers? Or if the Israeli Ministry of Education issued a directive prohibiting Arab children from enrolling in universities and schools?

I think we all know the answer.

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to know why the Middle East 'peace process' aiming to bring about a 'two-state solution' never gets anywhere, they will find the answer here in Professor Efraim Karsh's superb and truthful summary of the tragic history of the past century. As he writes, a 'two-state solution' has been agreed over and over again during that time by the Jews, the British, the Europeans and the Americans. The only people who haven't agreed, and have instead repeatedly and without interruption tried to annihilate the Jewish state, are the Arabs.

And as Karsh observes, nothing has changed today. It is not just Hamas which refuses to accept the existence of Israel in a 'two state solution', but Fatah, headed by the 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas. As Karsh writes:

In a televised speech on May 15, 2005, Abbas described the establishment of Israel as an unprecedented historic injustice and vowed his unwavering resolve never to accept it. Two-and-a-half years later, at a U.S.-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, he rejected Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's proposal of a Palestinian Arab state in 97 percent of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip, and categorically dismissed the request to recognize Israel as a Jewish state alongside the would-be Palestinian state, insisting instead on full implementation of the "right of return."

In June 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke with longstanding Likud precept by publicly accepting a two-state solution and agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state, provided the Palestinian leadership responded in kind and recognized Israel's Jewish nature. The Arab world exploded in rage. Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, whose country had been at peace with the Jewish state for 30 years, deplored Netanyahu's statement as "scuppering the possibilities for peace." Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat warned that Netanyahu "will have to wait 1,000 years before he finds one Palestinian who will go along with him."

At Fatah's sixth general congress, convened in Bethlehem in August last year, the delegates reaffirmed their longstanding commitment to "armed struggle" as "a strategy, not a tactic . ... This struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated." More recently, even as Abbas has publicly mouthed the Obama formula for "two states living side by side in peace and security," he pointedly insists on preconditions impossible for Israel to accept.

The Peel Commission had the principle right. While a two-state solution "offers neither party all it wants, it offers each what it wants most, namely, freedom and security." It is a great historical irony that this "half-a-loaf" solution should have been repeatedly advanced as a response by others­Europeans, Americans, Israelis­to the actions of its most implacable opponents, who have then repeatedly proceeded to repudiate it in word and deed. On the Palestinian side, not a single leader has ever evinced any true liking for the idea or acted in a way signifying an unqualified embrace of it. The same is true, with the partial exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, for the larger Arab world.

Nearly two decades and thousands of deaths after the launch of the "peace process," one might hope that Western policy makers would at last begin to take the measure of what the Palestinian leadership tells its own people and wider Arab audiences. For the lesson of history remains: so long as things on the Arab side are permitted, or encouraged, to remain as they are, there will be no two-state solution, and therefore no solution at all.

But instead, it is Israel that has been turned by the west into the pariah state. Go figure.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Mandel, July 23, 2010.

Since arriving in office, the Obama administration has delved deeply into its thesaurus to find ways of speaking about Islamism without mentioning it. In his June 2009 Cairo speech, a not atypical example, President Obama referred repeatedly to 'extremists,' 'violent extremists' and 'violent extremism.' He even referred at one point to anti-Israel terrorism by its Palestinian euphemism — 'resistance.'

Add to this the philological ingenuities of his officials: 'man-caused disasters' (terrorism) and 'overseas contingency operations' (fighting Islamists in Afghanistan), and the omission of any mention of the terrorism and the ideology animating it is virtually uniform in this administration.

However, following last week's terrorist outrages against Ugandans, Obama has referred now to 'terrorists' while also hitting on a new term: 'racist.' As an administration official helpfully explained, al Qaeda does not deploy its black African recruits except in their "lower level operations." Are we then to assume that the administration would be pleased to see a higher proportion of black Africans in al-Qaeda's operational cadre?

A cynic might argue that this reaction to the terrorist outrages affords hope that this race-preoccupied administration might be about to take Islamists seriously, if only because of al Qaeda's contempt for inclusiveness and diversity. Unfortunately, any such hope would be frivolous.

Consider, for example, the rationale advanced by the Obama administration for banishing the words 'Islamism' and 'jihad' from the governmental lexicon.

In May, John O. Brennan, Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, contended that to use such terms "would lend credence" to the notion "that the United States is somehow at war against Islam ... Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."

Yet, according to all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, jihad has always constituted a struggle by all means, including waging war, to establish and extend Muslim dominion over non-Muslims. Purification is seen to reside in attaining this objective, not in some conception of personal or communal development that Brennan artlessly drapes over it. The United States is not at war with Islam, but Muslims who wage jihad are at war with the United States.

Then consider who else of Brennan's ilk Obama has appointed — or sought to appoint — to senior posts:

Rashad Hussain, envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the 57-member inter-governmental group of Muslim majority states: A former Justice Department official and White House deputy counsel, Hussain claimed in a 2007 article that restrictions placed on non-immigrant visitors from countries which have produced Islamist terror threats are "racist." Hussain has also called the prosecution of a Florida professor who was found to have been illegally funding the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (presumed politically correct name: Palestinian Extremist Man-Made Disaster-Causers) "politically motivated persecution."

Dalia Mogahed, adviser, White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships: Executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, Mogahed has been a promoter-apologist of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which are tied to the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. Mogahed claims that "misinformation" campaigns have tried to "disenfranchise them." In fact, CAIR's founder is on record praising suicide bombers and saying he would like the Quran to be the highest authority in America. Officials of both CAIR and ISNA have been indicted for funneling money to foreign terrorists.

Chas. W. Freeman: A former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman was nominated last year by Obama to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council before vulnerabilities in his record of close ties to tyrannies like China and Saudi Arabia compelled him to withdraw. Freeman regards Palestinian terrorism as "resistance" and believes that America has shown Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist terrorist group that calls in its Charter for the world-wide murder of Jews, "unreasoning hostility."

This impossible to satirize line-up suggests that this administration cannot win — itself an objective consciously discarded in Afghanistan by Obama in favor of 'shoring up security in the country' — over an unnamed enemy waging an unrecognized war.

Daniel Mandel (PhD Melbourne, 1999) is a Research Fellow in the Department of History at Melbourne University and author of H.V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist (Routledge, London, 2004). He is director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Middle East Policy.

This appeared today in the Washington Times
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/ jul/23/fighting-unnamed-enemy-waging-unrecognized-war/)

To Go To Top

Posted by Bostom, Andrew, July 23, 2010.

Imam Feisal Rauf, the central figure in the coterie planning a huge mosque just off Ground Zero, is a full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism....Wahhabism. Whether in the form promoted by Saudi money around the globe, or in the more openly nihilist brand embraced by terrorists, Wahhabism is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Nazism or, closer still, the "state Shintoism" of imperial Japan. We would never have allowed a Shinto shrine at the site of the Pearl Harbor carnage — especially one to serve as a recruiting station for Tokyo's militarists while World War II was still on. For the same reasons, we must say no to a Wahhabi mosque at Ground Zero

This fact alone should compel Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg to withdraw their support for the proposed mosque.

In August 2007, the NYPD released "Radicalization in the West — The Homegrown Threat." This landmark 90-page report looked at the threat that had become apparent since 9/11, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna, NY, to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ.

The report noted that Saudi "Wahhabi" scholars feed the jihadist ideology, legitimizing an "extreme intolerance" toward non-Muslims, especially Jews, Christians and Hindus. In particular, the analysts noted that the "journey" of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadis often begins in a Wahhabi mosque.

The term "Wahhabi" refers to the 18th century founder of this austere Islamic tradition, Muhammad bin Abdul al-Wahhab, who claimed inspiration from 14th century jurist Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah.

At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia — including within America — and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.

He also lionizes as two ostensible "modernists" Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897), and his student Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905). In fact, both defended the Wahhabis, praised the salutary influence of Ibn Taymiyyah and promoted the pretense that sharia — despite its permanent advocacy of jihad and dehumanizing injunctions on non-Muslims and women — was somehow compatible with Western concepts of human rights, as in our own Bill of Rights.

In short, Feisal Rauf's public image as a devotee of the "contemplative" Sufi school of Islam cannot change the fact that his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers.

Indeed, even the classical Sufi master that Rauf extols, the 12th-century jurist Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, issued opinions on jihad and the imposition of Islamic law on the vanquished non-Muslim populations that were as bellicose and bigoted as those of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Also relevant is the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow program run by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization founded by Rauf and now run by his wife. Among the future leaders it has recognized are one of the co-authors of a "denunciation" of the NYPD report, a counter-report endorsed by all major Wahhabi-front organizations in America. Another "future leader" of interest to New Yorkers: Debbie Almontaser, the onetime head of the city's Khalil Gibran Academy.

More revealing is the fact that Rauf himself has refused to sign a straightforward pledge to "repudiate the threat from authoritative sharia to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims," a pledge issued nine months ago by ex-Muslims under threat for their "apostasy." That refusal is a tacit admission that Rauf believes that sharia trumps such fundamental Western principles as freedom of conscience.

Wahhabism — whether in the form promoted by Saudi money around the globe, or in the more openly nihilist brand embraced by terrorists — is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Nazism or, closer still, the "state Shintoism" of imperial Japan. We would never have allowed a Shinto shrine at the site of the Pearl Harbor carnage — especially one to serve as a recruiting station for Tokyo's militarists while World War II was still on.

For the same reasons, we must say no to a Wahhabi mosque at Ground Zero.

Andrew G. Bostom, M.D., M.S. (Providence, RI), is the author of the highly acclaimed The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. More on his work can be found at www.andrewbostom.org, including a preview of his eagerly anticipated forthcoming book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, July 23, 2010.

This was written by Rami G. Khouri and it was published at the New York Times

Rami G. Khouri is editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.


BEIRUT — I was intrigued to see several recent calls for bids by the U.S. Agency for International Development for programs that would, among other things, train young Arabs how to better use the Internet and other digital technologies for political activism, advocacy, greater transparency and accountability, and other such democratic practices.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has repeatedly stressed Washington's commitment to such programs as part of President Barack Obama's call for greater engagement between the United States and Islamic societies.

Two important questions come to mind, which I hope the U.S. government is pondering seriously. The first is about the actual impact on the political culture of young Arabs and Iranians who use the new media. The second is about the most appropriate way for the United States, or any other foreign party, to promote this sector.

We are witnessing a continuing social revolution in how youth throughout the Middle East use Web sites, cellphones, chat systems, blogs, Twitter, Facebook and other rapidly evolving new media.

Millions of young people communicate with each other digitally, express their views and identities, and sometimes mobilize for causes as disparate as promoting a new movie, arranging a dance party, sharing photos or bemoaning a tired old dictator. In some countries like Iran and Egypt, we are told, tens of thousands of bloggers are at work expressing their independent views and challenging the established order.

But what do young people actually do, or aim to achieve, with the new media? Are the new digital and social media a credible tool for challenging established political orders and bringing about political change in our region?

My impression is that these new media today play a role identical to that played by Al Jazeera satellite television when it first appeared in the mid-1990s — they provide important new means by which ordinary citizens can both receive information and express their views, regardless of government controls on both, but in terms of their impact they seem more like a stress reliever than a mechanism for political change.

Watching Arab pundits criticize Arab governments, Israel or the United States — common fare on Arab satellite television — is great vicarious satisfaction for ordinary men and women who live in political cultures that deny them serious opportunities for free speech.

Blogging, reading politically racy Web sites, or passing around provocative text messages by cellphone is equally satisfying for many youth. Such activities, though, essentially shift the individual from the realm of participant to the realm of spectator, and transform what would otherwise be an act of political activism — mobilizing, demonstrating or voting — into an act of passive, harmless personal entertainment.

We must face the fact that all the new media and hundreds of thousands of young bloggers from Morocco to Iran have not triggered a single significant or lasting change in Arab or Iranian political culture. Not a single one. Zero.

This is partly because the modern Middle Eastern security state is firmly in control of the key levers of power — guns and money, mainly — and has learned to live with the digital open flow of information, as long as this does not translate into actual political action that seeks to change policies or ruling elites.

How should interested foreign parties engage in such an environment?

The first thing is to rid themselves of some nagging blatant contradictions that largely nullify their credibility, and, in fact, make them look pretty silly.

One cannot take seriously the United States or any other Western government that funds political activism by young Arabs while it simultaneously provides funds and guns that help cement the power of the very same Arab governments the young social and political activists target for change.

Feeding both the jailer and the prisoner is not a sustainable or sensible policy. I would not be surprised if some wise-guy young Arab soon sends a tweet to Hilary Clinton saying, "you're either with us, or you're with the security state."

This is an awkward and untenable position for any foreign government that wants to promote political activism and pluralism in the Middle East. It damages Western government credibility, leads to no significant changes in our political cultures, and often discredits the local activists who become tarred with the charge of being Western lackeys.

The antidote is simple, but humbling: lower the contradictions in Western policies towards Middle Eastern governments and activists, and grasp more accurately the fact that young people use the digital media mainly for entertainment and vicarious, escapist self-expression.

Like I said, the United States and other Western governments should apply more honesty and intellectual rigor to their assault of our digital world than they did in their military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

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 Barry Rubin, July 23, 2010.

If you have any belief that there is going to be Israel-Palestinian peace in the near future or that the Palestinian public has been in any way prepared for a two-state solution by its leadership here's a simple point that proves the contrary.

The year is 2010. A child born on the day the Oslo agreement, the basis for a supposed peace, was agreed to by Israel and the PLO would soon be celebrating his 18th birthday and be an adult. The "peace process," however, is still in diapers. Yet according to the latest Palestinian poll, 82 percent of West Bank residents won't give up the demand that any peace agreement must let all Palestinians who were refugees in 1948 or their descendents return to live in what is now Israel. In fact, even if compensated for lost property they still demand repatriation. The Palestinian Authority has done nothing to oppose this position, which makes peace with Israel impossible, on the contrary it has consistently supported the idea.

This has always been a peculiar concept. If Palestinians were nationalist they would not go and live in another, non-Palestinian and even non-Arab and non-Muslim country. The point of this demand is, of course, to eliminate Israel's existence over time. The amount of bloodshed that would ensue if this idea was implemented would be catastrophic.

And don't get me started on the ridiculousness of trying to make peace with a revolutionary Islamist, genocide-seeking Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip.

Remember, though, that the American people — and others in the West — are smarter than much of their elites. The respected Gallup poll last February, at a time when President Obama was evincing anger at Israel, shows that 63 percent of Americans support Israel as compared to only 15 percent backing the Palestinians. This is a record, except for a short period in 1991 when Israel was under Scud attack and the PLO was siding with a country, Iraq, that U.S. forces were fighting.

Asked if they were favorable toward Israel generally, 67 percent of Americans said "yes," one of the highest scores of all countries.

Will peace some day come to the Middle East? Of the respondents, 67 percent said "doubtful" and 30 percent said "there will come a time." Among Republicans only 25 percent said there would be peace some day while the number was 39 percent, still quite low, among Democrats. So the claims of the media, academics, and government officials have not persuaded people. (And the question underestimated this factor since "there will come a time" could mean in 50 years.)

By the way, it is being said that U.S.-Israeli security ties are stronger than ever before now under the Obama Administration. This is a bit misleading since many of the programs cited were agreed to under the preceding president. I would phrase it in this way: they are as strong as they have ever been. Here's a detailed account: Glenn Kessler, "U.S.-Israeli security ties grow amid diplomatic disputes," Washington Post, July 16, 2010.

Unfortunately, that's just in the United States though — forgive me for saying this — that's the place that counts most. Professor Richard Landes has a portrait of the UK today, however, that is profoundly disturbing, and I'm told by people there is pretty accurate, about just how bad things have become.

Since presumably after reading this you will be quite depressed, for encouragement read a poll of British Jews which shows overwhelming support among them for Israel. Then to follow that up read Robert Fulford's view that all the anti-Israel boycott and disinvestment movements have produced close to zero material effect in practice (though obviously the propaganda value is something else).

Another interesting new report is this one showing how at least seven and probably all nine of those killed had previously declared their desire to become martyrs in the operation and at least eight of them were members of the radical Islamist IHH group which had previously sent armed fighters to other countries and functions largely as a support group for Hamas. Thus, these were not innocent humanitarian-oriented bystanders but among those who launched an attack on Israeli soldiers and kidnapped three of them.

The U.S. government is now thinking of designated the IHH main group in Turkey as a terrorist group. But there's a problem here: the IHH is very close to the Turkish regime so if the IHH is terrorist than the Turkish Islamist regime is sponsoring a terrorist group, right? Presumably we won't hear more about any classification of the IHH as terrorist no matter how much evidence there is. Watch this one.

Khalid Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post, whose work is awesome in part because it is so vastly serious to everyone else doing the Palestinian beat, writes:

"In recent weeks Hamas leaders are beginning to show signs of optimism. Since the late May incident involving the Turkish flotilla of aid ships, some Americans and Europeans have been campaigning in favor of engaging Hamas.

"Al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists around the world all have their eyes set on the Gaza Strip. They are waiting to see if Hamas manages to win recognition of the international community.

"A victory for Hamas is a victory for Islamic fundamentalists not only in Gaza, but in many different places, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Iraq.... It does not seem that Hamas has any incentive to change its position amid increasing calls in the West to "break" the isolation of the radical Islamist movement. On the contrary, talk in the West about the need to launch dialogue with Hamas has only served to toughen their stance....

"Not only is Hamas unwilling to accept the three conditions imposed by the Quartet members, but it has now toughened its position on the issue of reconciliation with Fatah...."

Among the latest members of the pro-Hamas camp are Muhammad el-Baradei, "reformist" candidate for the presidency of Egypt. He says that if he is elected he will accept Hamas's rule of the Gaza Strip and open the border completely to them. That's quite a reform.

Speaking of aggressive Islamism, here's the latest in Gareth Jenkins remarkable and scholarly analysis of how the Turkish Islamist regime uses false conspiracy charges to arrest and intimidate opponents. This story is either not covered at all in the West or the media actually swallows the repressive regime propaganda that it is arresting real conspirators! Jenkins has actually read the charges and finds them ridiculous.

I think there's a pattern here: the exact opposite to the one believed in the West.

Remember Fatah, the group controlling the Palestinian Authority (PA)? Well it has come out against direct negotiations with Israel. But wait! Isn't President Obama always saying the PA is really moderate and wants peace? Well, I keep saying that Fatah is still controlled by radicals who are far from ready for a peace agreement with Israel. Who are you going to believe?

And what happens when the PA, including Mahmoud Abbas himself, openly opposes the direct talks that Obama wants? Does there come a point when the U.S. government realizes that its big problem is the PA and not Israel?

Speaking of people throwing a pie in the face of Obama and dissing [American slang for disrespecting] U.S. interests, how about the open Russian declaration that it is going to help Iran get around sanctions? This follows U.S. government hints that since Russia voted for the UN sanctions it won't actually be expected to apply them.

Do you know what this means? The sanctions are not so much a hurt-Iran-to-discourage-nuclear weapons plan but a make-lots-of-money-for-Russia-by driving-out-Western-dealings-with-Iran-so Moscow-can-get-the-business.

At the same time, despite these shortcomings, the Obama Administration should get credit for the following: keeping strong U.S.-Israel security ties, working hard now on anti-Iran sanctions (though Congress deserves much of the credit), and beginning to lay the groundwork for containing Iran.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, July 23, 2010.

We read somewhere that during the time of Jesus, a Jew who appointed himself a community spokesman, cursed his fellow Jews because they failed to save Jesus from the Roman Centurions and he, the community loudmouth, cursed and damned the members of his religon forever and ever more. This Jew, who did nothing himself to save Jesus, was the first Jewish Contrarian — a Jew who was willing to promote the collective damnation of innocent and unarmed Jews who could not possibly prevail in a battle against the Roman troops. Here was born the first self-loathing Jew who wanted other Jews to loath themselves, too. Some call this sort of Jew a "leftist". We we have a different view because with hindsight one can see that this Contrarian Jew was then, in his time, as cowardly as was the Egyptian born terrorist, Yasser Arafat, in his time. Both men, each of a different millenium, instead of sacrificing themselves, urged others to sacrifice themselves for their ambitious notions. Look at Yasser Arafat, the Egyptian-born fascist muckraker: here was a self- aggrandizing conniver, entirely opposed to strapping on his own bomb belt and blowing himself "to paradise" for the cause he and his Saudi sponsors invented.

Today, in Israel, aided and abetted by ignorant sentimentalists, there are clutches of Jews who cling to the notion that their knee-jerk contrarianism is a badge of their intellectual purity. They feel they must trumpet a position contrary to whatever the majority view might be. Should the majority favor democracy, the Jewish Contrarian will wrack his or her brain to oppose a democratic state that gives equal rights to Jews — the Contrarian Jew demands the rights of a democracy, but only for Muslims: Jews should sacrifice themselves for Muslims. Should the majority oppose slavery, the Jewish Contrarian will argue in its favor and predictably, voice no protest against the slavery that fuels the productive engines of adjacent Islamic states. If the majority of Israelis support the state of Israel as a Jewish State, the Jewish Contrarian will do his or her utmost to open the floodgates to invading Islamics with the aim that "Israel should be a state for all people" which raises the entirely false inference that it isn't so now. (It already is — simply because it is an all-inclusive Jewish State.) Should the majority of Israelis seek to enforce their boundaries, the Contriarian will be the first to throw a wrench into the mandates of international law enacted during the Twenties to protect the boundaries set for Israel during the last century. And so it should come as no surprise that the Contriarian Jew will gather stones to be hurled by Islamics at innocent Israeli women and children. Similarly, the Contrarian Jewish Israeli will smugly undermine the legal rights of all other Israeli Jews and reward the foreign invaders occupying the Jewish Homeland, and so forth and so on.

It should come as no surprise then, that a mind schooled in Jewish knee-jerk contrarianism would align itself with an opposite view when it comes to the idea of freedom and security for all Jews in the Jewish Homeland. (A Jewish Homeland that has been vastly diminished by the ultra vires acts of the British during their brief period of mandate over the Jewish Homeland.)

We therefore do not wonder that there are Jews to be found in Israel who will oppose their own nation for the simple reason that other Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists support the nation of Israel. The latter do not question Israel's sovereign rights. They do not question its existence — only Jewish Contrarianists do. Some would call them guilty of treason. Or Traitors. Many do. Our opinion comports with such views. We think that the notion that a Jew can with impunity destroy the very nation that protects them is a notion that destroys not only Israel, but also and equally the democratic values that stem from Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. In short, we have sadly reached a conclusion that the Jewish Contrarian clings to his or her Jewishness only for the sake of having an excuse to hate and to destroy the nation of Israel instead of building Israel into a nation that stands strong against Sharia, fascism, and Islamic imperialism.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the Secular Christians for Zion. (SC4Z) Have a good day.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 23, 2010.

What is troubling is that Jews, and particularly successive governments for the Jewish Nation/State of Israel, accept absurd international laws and rules that impinge upon the sovereignty of Israel and the Jewish people in their ancient homeland from over 3,822 years.

More troubling is that most Jews and most governments of Israel do not adequately protest accepting the diktats of hostile nations, hostile religions, hostile institutions like the United Nations and its various adjunctive bodies.

Most troubling is that Israel and the many leaders of the Jewish people world-wide accept diktats from leaders of formerly friendly nations which amount to voluntary national suicide.

Why doesn't Israel, her sovereign government and world Jewry follow the International Laws described below? Why have Israel and world Jewry denigrated these International Laws that inure to Israel's benefit?


Original Message From: Fishbein Associates, Inc.

To: Fishbein Associates, Inc.
Sent: Thu, Jul 22, 2010 9:41 am


Finally we see clearly exposed the right of Israel UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW to the Land of the Mandate of Palestine. What is incomprehensible to me is the inability of the various governments of Israel to state their case and the rights of Israel to the world. They should shout it and hammer it continuously at the UN and to all the hostile governments of the world and of Eurabia in particular.

"The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law" by William Mehlman writes on "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel" by constitutional scholar and lawyer Howard Grief. Read Mehlman's article here.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 23, 2010.


A convert to Islam, Zachary A. Chesser of Fairfax County Virginia, exchanged e-mails with terrorist recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki, himself a convert and now in hiding. Then he posted to the Internet a statement that the producers of "South Park" may be assassinated for portraying Mohammed in a bear suit.

Mr. Chesser was arrested the second time he tried to fly to Somalia. That time, He had his infant son with him. The government says he told his wife he was taking the son in order to "provide cover," presumably to seem less suspicious. However, he was on the no-fly list.

Another American convert to Islam, who admits being radicalized by Mr. al-Awlaki, is Paul G. Rockwood of King Salmon, Alaska. Mr. Rockwood pleaded guilty to making false statements during an investigation of terrorism. He was sentenced to eight years. Rockwood had prepared a list of 15 people whom he believed should be slain for "desecrating Islam."

"Homegrown terrorists" are a growing menace (Scott Shane, NY Times, 7/22, A15).

As earlier articles have shown, violent felons were converted to a violent version of Islam, because the prison imams were radical. Chesser and Rockwood were converted outside of prison. Can psychologists fathom why such people new in their faith, are ready to murder non-believers? Is there some way to persuade them to wait for further seasoning, and not be presumptuous? Does a high percentage of converts select a radical ideology? If so why? Could they be persuaded that murder over alleged insult is extreme, and that they should try argument?

To Go To Top

Posted by Cindy D., July 22, 2010.


Dhimmitude: I had never heard the word until now — Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting.

It's on page 107 of the healthcare bill.

Someone looked this up on Google and yes, it exists! It's a REAL word. Amish are also excluded. I think I could become Amish a whole lot easier than to become a Muslim.

Word of the Day: Dhimmitude

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

How convenient. So I, Ann Barnhardt, a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.

Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the Muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"

I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it — quickly.

Can this possibly be true?? YES!!
See below for http://www.dhimmitude.org/


The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule

Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a.

This similarity, which includes also regional variations, has created a uniform civilization developed throughout the centuries by all non-Muslim indigenous people, who were vanquished by a jihad-war and governed by shari'a law. It is this civilization which is called dhimmitude. It is characterized by the different strategies developed by each dhimmi group to survive as non-Muslim entity in their Islamized countries. Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad.

Dhimmitude encompasses the relationship of Muslims and non-Muslims at the theological, social, political and economical levels. It also incorporates the relationship between the numerous ethno-religious dhimmi groups and the type of mentality that they have developed out of their particular historical condition which lasted for centuries, even in some Muslim countries, till today.

Dhimmitude is an entire integrated system, based on Islamic theology. It cannot be judged from the circumstantial position of any one community, at a given time and in a given place. Dhimmitude must be appraised according to its laws and customs, irrespectively of circumstances and political contingencies.

For books by Bat Ye'or, see http://www.dhimmi.org

Editor's Note: The language of the bill does not have specific exemptions for Muslims and/or Amish (or so we have been told. Probably fewer people have read the entire final version than have read Einstein's original papers on relativity). It does have exemptions usable by members of religious faiths that do not want to be forced to take out health insurance. Muslims could base their rejection on the Koran's ban of products that involve uncertainty, gambling and the charging of interest. However, unlike the Amish, who reject Social Security because they believe in self-sufficiency, Muslims don't have any problem applying for welfare.
To Go To Top

Posted by Steve Kramer, July 22, 2010.

There's a bogeyman out there: the impending inundation of Arabs into Israel. "Dateline Jerusalem: A demographic study released Tuesday predicts that in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Arabs will outnumber Jews by the year 2020." (www.encyclopedia.com article from 2002)

A similar dire prediction appeared on "60 Minutes" in 2009: "Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid — have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life."

Doomsayers have been predicting the demise of the Jews in the Middle East for ages. Benjamin Netanyahu wrote "A Place Among the Nations" before his first term as prime minister. In it, he debunked the demographic bogeyman which is frequently cited as the reason Israel must quickly make peace with the Palestinians. The erroneous prediction goes something like this: the number of Muslims west of the Jordan River is rising rapidly compared to the Jewish population. There will soon be more Muslims than Jews in this region, spelling the downfall of Israel as a Jewish state. Why? Because Israel will be forced to give citizenship to all the Palestinians! So, Israel must "give" the Palestinians a state immediately to prevent this from happening. (This prediction ignores the fact that nearly all Palestinians living in Jerusalem have been offered Israeli citizenship — don't ask why — but have refused it. They have, however, accepted all the benefits of citizenship without the obligations by acquiring Jerusalem residency certificates.)

Netanyahu pointed out that this demographic threat has been raised against the Jewish state time and time again, yet it has never materialized. At the time of Israel's independence, Jews were about 86% of the population. More than sixty years later, Jews make up about 80% of Israel's population.

In the capital, Jerusalem, there is a similar pattern. Jews have been in the majority since the mid-19th century. Currently, Jews make up about two-thirds of the population and the ratio has remained remarkably constant over the decades.

Yoram Ettinger, a well-respected consultant in Israel and an expert on this subject, has cited a list of failed predictions: In March 1898, the world-renowned Jewish historian and demographer Shimon Dubnov submitted to Theodor Herzl a projection aimed at defeating the idea of reconstructing the Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel. According to Dubnov, 'The establishment of a substantial Jewish community in the Land of Israel is a messianic dream ... In 2000, there will be only 500,000 Jews in Palestine.' But in 2000, there were five million Jews west of the Jordan River.

During the 1940s, Professor Roberto Bacchi, the founder of the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, flooded David Ben-Gurion's office with projections that Jews would become a minority by 1966. He contended that in 2001 there would be — under the most optimistic scenario — only 2.3 million Jews, constituting a 34% minority, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. But in 2001, the Jews had a 60% majority.

In 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was advised by Israel's demographic establishment to roll back to the 1949 ceasefire lines (the Green Line), lest there be an Arab majority by 1987. But in 1987, Jews maintained a 60% majority, in spite of an unprecedented rise in the Arab population's growth rate. The change in Arab demographics was triggered by a remarkable decline in infant mortality, an impressive increase in life expectancy, and a substantial reduction in emigration — all enabled by access to the Jewish state's health and employment infrastructures.

Prof. Bacchi did not believe that a massive Jewish aliyah (immigration) would take place in the aftermath of the 1948-49 War. One million Jews arrived following that war. During the early 1970s, he projected no substantial aliyah from Eastern Europe and from the USSR, because Western Jews could, but would not migrate; while Eastern Jews wanted to, but could not. Almost 300,000 Jews arrived at that time.

During the 1980s, Bacchi's followers in Israeli academia dismissed the possibility of a wave of aliyah from the USSR, even if the Communist gates might be opened. One million Jews relocated from the Soviet Union to the Jewish homeland. [More than 100,000 Ethiopian Jews also immigrated to Israel in the same period.]

In defiance of fatalistic projections and irrespective of the absence of demographic policy, in 2009 there was a robust 67% Jewish majority west of the Jordan River, excluding Gaza. According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the annual number of Israeli Jewish births has grown by 45% from 1995 (80,400) to 2008 (117,000), while the number of Israeli Arab births has stabilized at 39,000 annually. The sharp decline of fertility rate among Israeli Arabs has been the outcome of their successful integration into Israel's education, employment, commerce, health, banking, cultural, political and sports infrastructures.

In 1969, the Arab-Jewish fertility gap was five children per family. In 2008, the gap had shrunk to less than one child per family, as Arab births trended downward and Jewish births trended upward. The Jewish proportion of total Israeli births has increased from 69% in 1995 to 75% in 2008.

The secular Jewish sector has been the one mostly responsible for this development, especially the new immigrants from the former USSR. They are shifting from a fertility rate of 1 birth per woman to between 2-3 births. Israel's Jewish overall fertility rate (2.8 births) is the highest in the industrialized world, while the forecasted decline in the Arab fertility rate has occurred 20 years faster than projected. (From Ettinger's recent article: "Debacle of Demographic Fatalism" at
www.shalom-magazine.com/Print.php?id=500309; see also www.theettingerreport.co.il. Another site: www.izs.org.il, lists many articles on this topic.)

The Jewish pessimists and other fatalists, from the Zionist point of view, seem to ignore the fact that Jews are still coming to Israel from throughout the Diaspora. The difference today is that Israel is drawing immigrants for economic reasons as much as it draws them for security reasons. Israel is a magnet for high-tech entrepreneurs, whether it's software, hardware, bio-tech, or the next new development. Israel has the world's highest number of start-up companies per capita in the high-tech field. Despite its small size, Israel has more start-ups in these fields than all other countries except America! Israel has largely escaped the "great recession" which has plagued world economies and was the first developed country to increase its bank interest rate, a positive economic development.

Nor should Israel's extremely high fertility rate, far higher than other Western countries, be downplayed. This is a strong, positive factor in Israel's continued success.

Compare Israel's profile with its Palestinian neighbors. In the Palestinian Authority, there is currently a very high growth in domestic national product, albeit from a very low base. College graduates are on the rise there and the fertility rate is in a decline — all positive signs for the PA economy. These trends, perhaps, may indicate a growing wish for a peace settlement. For sure, they indicate a slowing in population growth. As for benighted Gaza, its family size has recently declined from 6.9 to 6.3, a dramatic drop.

Israelis are surrounded by Middle Eastern Arabs by a ratio of 50:1. Despite that, Israel is growing stronger. The West Bank Arabs, those who want prosperity, emulate the Israelis. The Gazans, suffering under the boot of Hamas, are incapable of improving themselves or of joining with their northern cousins, at least for the foreseeable future. Regardless, Israel can thrive in the Middle East.

Yoram Ettinger has often written that the upward trend in Jewish demography has critical national security implications that defie demographic fatalism and its policy derivatives. Well-documented demographic optimism should be accorded due consideration by Israel's leadership and by Israel's friends, but it is ignored.

My conclusion: there's no demographic imperative for Israel to beg the Palestinians for "peace".

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture."

To Go To Top

Posted by Samara Greenberg, July 22, 2010.

Participants in a terrorist rehab program are seen drawing in art therapy class.

The German government set up a hotline today aimed at helping Islamist extremists looking for a way out of terrorism. The hotline service, dubbed "HATIF" after the Arabic word for telephone, stands for Out of Terrorism and Islamic Fanaticism in German. The HATIF hotline will provide callers with advice, as well as help with changing locations and taking "appropriate measures" if the individual has been threatened.

According to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the number of members and supporters of radical Islamist groups in Germany increased by around 5 percent in 2009. Germany now has 29 Islamist organizations with an estimated 36,000 members, the largest of which is the Turkish association Milli Görüs. Moreover, homegrown terrorism is of great concern to the government.

Today, exit programs are the new trend in fighting Islamic extremism. Set-up in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Jordan, Singapore, Iraq, Malaysia and Egypt, the programs' success rates fluctuate. Saudi Arabia, for example, with the best-funded program, has seen a 10 percent recidivism rate.

Germany's program is undoubtedly different than the others, however. Unlike terrorist rehabilitation centers, which are typically offered to prisoners captured in action, the HATIF hotline seeks to help those interested in giving up terrorism on their own.

Nevertheless, the success of any exit program relies on each individual's desire to leave extremism; no one can be forced to give up a terrorist group. Therefore, while such programs may support counterterrorism efforts, they are no substitute for them. Indeed, if Islamic extremism continues to increase in Germany and elsewhere, exit programs should not be the government's sole counterterrorism measure.

This appeared June 19, 2010 in the Jewish Policy Center ZBlog
(http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/blog/2010/07/ a-new-trend-in-counterterrorism)

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 22, 2010.


President Obama condemned al-Qaida for its racist attitude toward black Africans. Elaborating, the White House explained that al-Qaida and the groups it inspires do not value black lives or skills, just uses them as cannon fodder. Al-Qaida also sacrifices innocent blacks.

Obama did not condemn al-Qaida for its war on Jews. President Obama ignores Bin Laden's saying, 'the war is between us and the Jews': his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri endorsing 'every operation against Jewish interests'; slain al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi describing Jews as 'the grandchildren of monkeys and pigs'; al-Qaeda's Sulayman Abu-Ghayth seeing the conflict as one 'between us and the Jews who are enemies of Allah' and al-Qaeda speaking of 'bastard Jews.'" (7/19/10 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member)

You will notice that Islamists have racial animosities toward all Jews. Their declared enemy is broader that Israel. Therefore, people who oppose Israel but not all Jews, need to be careful that in opposing Jewish statehood, they do not assist the Islamists to take Israel down, kill all its Jews, and pursue Jews elsewhere, whether those Jews were Zionists or not. It would help if anti-Zionists who claim they are decent people were to condemn Islamist antisemitism. Obama failed that test.


Israeli security forces arrested a year-old Hamas cell in Judea-Samaria. The cell had gotten some training. It assassinated an Israeli policeman, and wounded two others. They planned kidnapping, but were apprehended before doing it.

Are they guilty? The produced the weapons used and reenacted the assault.

One of them admitted taking his six-year-old daughter to Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, where an Israeli charity paid for the removal of a tumor from his daughter's eye (IMRA, 7/19/10).

Between UNRWA and Israel's welfare system, many Arabs around there have developed a welfare mentality. They take charity for granted and retain pre-existing hostility.

Israel imagines that its charity wins goodwill. It does for some; it does not for others. Thousands of foreign Arabs come to Israel for medical treatment every year. Yet it always is Israel that is asked to make "confidence-building" concessions. In any case, no change in Arab hostility toward Israel is discernible. Beneficiaries simply "game the system."

Note on modern Zionism: The preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, adopted by the League of Nations and endorsed by the United Nations states, "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"


Israel's chief of staff revealed more about Hizbullah/s buildup in Lebanon, on a trip to Italy. He told the media that Hizbullah "is building an underground infrastructure of command centers and rocket launchers, mostly within the Shiite villages in southern Lebanon, as well as [in] other parts of Lebanon".

Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi accused Hizbullah of exploiting the civilian presence and the UNIFIL non-presence to hide facilities for attacking Israel (IMRA, 7/19/10).


Here is a case of Egypt's jihad against converts to Christianity. Islam authorizes capital punishment for Muslim converts to Christianity. Islamic law is the basic law of Egypt, but Egypt applies punishment differently. Egypt initially harasses, beats, and confines apostates to the house.

Apparently Nagla Imam, a prominent female lawyer and human rights activist in Egypt already confronted Islamic abuses while still a Muslim. She campaigned against polygamy.

Ms. Imam called in to the weekly Arabic satellite station Tarek TV show, I Was a Prisoner, whose host, Nabil Bissada, was imprisoned and tortured in Egypt for helping Muslims convert to Christianity. The program explores human rights deficiencies in Muslim countries, as does program guest and source of this article, Raymond Ibrahim of Pajamas Media.

Imam related having been fired for converting. She was not allowed to change her ID to "Muslim." [Should ID identify one's religion?] She organized other converts to Christianity into a public demonstration against the government over this. Police beat, threatened, and dispersed the demonstrators, and a mob assisted. A girl whose arm was broken was denied medical treatment.

The Saudi TV station, Al Arabiya, displayed a video of her suggesting that Jewish women be harassed sexually. Imam denies it, accusing the station of doctoring the film. [Her denial is consistent with her being a feminist and a brave human rights activist who believes in freedom of conscience.]

A couple of weeks ago, she was arrested. The official in charge beat her badly and told her to stay in her house. He threatened to send people to assassinate her, if she did not return to Islam.

Her Muslim relatives abandoned her and her two children. Neighbors bang on her house and cut off her electricity. Al Azhar University declared her a heretic who must not leave her house. She has disappeared, whether voluntarily or involuntarily is not known (IMRA, 7/19/10).

Compare the angry accusations that Israel is a theocracy, though it is a mixture, with the harsh reality of Egypt. Will anger be spared for those who beat and murder apostates?


Ron Tira, author of The Nature of War: Conflicting Paradigms and Israeli Military Effectiveness (2009), is a reservist in the Israeli Air Force's Campaign Planning Department. He wrote "Strategic Assessment", Vol. 13, No. 1, July 2010.

The Assessment is well organized, detailed, and thoughtful. Here are just a few of its points.

A persuasive argument for the U.S. to approve an Israeli raid is that a successful raid would make feasible a U.S. withdrawal from its current wars without concern that Iran would fill the vacuum.

After an Israeli raid, the U.S. may drop its objections and seek the possible gains.

Rather than immediately develop nuclear weapons, Iran develops different infrastructure approaches to them and duplicates its abilities. This policy discourages a raid as futile and staves off a siege until the last minute.

Iran conducts itself to draw the world past red lines and to gain time. Iran takes turns being defiant and conciliatory, until the West does not know what Iran's intentions are.

The U.S. failure to adhere to the deadlines it gave Iran emboldens Iran to disregard other deadlines (Arutz-7, 7/19/10).

To make U.S. withdrawal feasible, Iran may have to be damaged much more than in its nuclear facilities.

Deferring the actual manufacture of weapons in order to enable multiple means of making them deceives people into denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The human mind has two specialties: (1) Deceiving other people; (2) Deceiving oneself.


The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) acknowledges that a member has the right to bar individual inspectors whom it considers to have treated it unfairly.

Iran is passing a bill that would, it claims, treat the IAEA with the same cooperation that IAEA shows Iran.

Iran accused the IAEA of treating it on political grounds. It accused two inspectors of fabricating data and leaking it.

When Britain, France, and Canada voted for sanctions against Iran, Iran barred 38 inspectors, mostly citizens of those countries, from returning to Iran (IMRA, 7/18/10).

Bar enough inspectors, and the treaty becomes unenforceable, if it ever were enforceable. That is carrying the terms of the treaty far enough to defeat the purpose of the treaty. Did the drafters of the treaty take into consideration that some members would violate and sabotage the treaty, and routinely would call all criticism lies. Jihadists deal with criticism by calling it lies or insults.

The news brief states what the parties said but not what the facts are. Did certain inspectors leak reports? If so, why?

What was the reason for barring inspectors from certain countries? Citizens of those democracies generally are free to follow professional guidelines rather than national policy. By contrast, citizens of dictatorships such as Iran, are not free about that. Some Mideast societies assume that foreigners represent their ethnic groups, because people in the Mideast often do. False assumption. Prejudiced.


The government of Britain again is making an effort to reform its libel law, used as a tool of jihad.

What is the problem with Britain's law? (1) Defendants are presumed guilty. The law puts the burden on someone accused of defamation to prove his innocence; (2) The grounds for suit presumably is the "public interest," but the standards for that are loose; (3) Too broad a jurisdiction, enabling people to sue foreigners in Britain; (4) Defendants need not publish in Britain, so long as a copy is available to British Internet users; and (5) Encourages frivolous cases and bullying cases, because anyone may sue without having to put up legal fees, but the loser in this stacked judicial setup has to pay the legal fees for both sides plus punitive damages. In Britain, defense against libel suits costs 2.4 times as much as in the rest of Europe.

The notorious example of abuse of the law was by a wealthy Saudi, Sheikh Mahfouz, who has business interests in Britain, sued authors who lacked the funds to defend themselves. He got them to withdraw publications. They lost their freedom of the press.

Although reform is popular, the powerful trial lawyers may be able to defeat it, again. They would argue that the "no win, no fee" arrangement enables poor people to sue. Yes, but it encourages frivolous cases and makes it more difficult for poor people to defend (Jeffrey Azarva, 7/16/10 2:48 p.m. from MEFNews, 7/18).


We covered before the legal basis of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza, but Ruth Lapidoth, Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of

Jerusalem, has more on it.

The rules of naval warfare have not been codified in a treaty. The rules are in the form of binding custom, according to international law. The U.S. and British manuals explain them, as does the San Remo Manual prepared by experts.

Formal declarations of war no longer are necessary. But the rules of armed conflict apply. Those rules allow Israel to control shipping headed for Gaza, even while still on the high seas and regardless of cargo. Israel may not enter another state's territorial waters to enforce the blockade or block another country from access to the sea.

What makes a blockade legal? It must be declared for a specific area, announced, non-discriminatory, and permit humanitarian aid for civilians. Any ship stopped must individually be notified of the embargo [and given an opportunity to turn back without penalty]. Blockades may not just be declared, they must be enforced, to be legal. With rare exceptions, the blockade must apply to all, equally.

The 1994 San Remo Manual states that when and through which port the humanitarian aid enters is up to the blockader. The blockader may authorize a neutral party to supervise the distribution of the aid so that it does not go to combatants.

Suppose a ship attempts to run the blockade. Merchant ships may be visited, searched, captured, and if resistant, attacked. The rules for neutral warships are not clear. In general, warships may be searched and captured, but it is not clear whether they may be attacked except in self-defense.

Although Gaza is not part of a state, the conflict is an international one. Some people suggest that Israel is an occupier of Gaza, but the Hague convention of 1907 defines occupation as controlling the whole area. Israel controls just the sea and air space of Gaza, not the land mass nor governance of the population (IMRA, 7/18/10).

What state's territory would Israel be occupying — Gaza is not part of a state. One cannot be an occupier of an area not part of a state. Gaza is the unallocated part of the Mandate, to which Israel is chief heir.

The Oslo Accords recognize Israel's overall security control of the Territorites.


A poll finds that about half the Israelis would like the ancient Temple rebuilt on top of the Temple Mount, and a fourth of them would not like it. By about the same percentages, however, the do not want the government involved and do not expect it to be rebuilt.

Muslim reaction can be imagined, considering that they have gotten the government of a supposedly Jewish state to hand over day-to-day control over the Mount and forbids Jews from praying on the Mount (Arutz-7, 7/19/10).

For the benefit of certain readers who over-simply Israel's status as a theocracy, this is exhibit A for the case that Israel is not. On the other hand, Islam has become the established religion in every Muslim-majority state except, for now, Turkey. Do anti-theocracy people have any indignation, that arouses them against Israel, to spare for the dozens of Muslim states which, unlike Israel, put other religions at a disadvantage?

The poll shows that I under-estimated sentiment in favor of a Third Temple, but not the likelihood of attaining it. That likelihood is lessened by a Supreme Court that keeps carving power off religious courts. It would further diminish if foreign relations were taken into account.

The likelihood would increase if Israel resumed control over the Temple Mount, stopped illegal Muslim building and destruction of ancient Jewish artifacts, and allowed Jewish prayer on the Mount. The likelihood also would increase if Israel ended the mistaken but politically correct notion that the Mount is equally holy to three faiths. Muslims paid it little attention when they controlled it, but raise religious concerns when they do not control it. That puts religion at the service of politics.

Certain principles of Jewish law are eternal, but certain customs get reformed. Personally, I would not like to see a resumption of animal sacrifice, the practice at the former Temples.


Now Obama is not defaming Israel as an insulter of the U.S. but is praising it as worth "eternal bonds" with the U.S. Now he boasts of increasing aid to, and "security cooperation" with, Israel. He is proposing a couple of hundred million additional dollars, to help Israel expedite its inferior Iron Dome anti-missile system.

Iron Dome can handle only short-range missiles, and only provide the range is very short.

The news brief states that the subsidy has strings attached, but just mentions a hope that Israel can make peace (Arutz-7, 7/19/10).

A less expensive, earlier available, and pretty much all-purpose system was passed up, because it was inferior, too, but only in lobbying.

If you U.S. politicians spend too much on election advertising and public relations, think of how much they spend of our taxes to make up for gaffes and to appease the electorate. Presidents cram a lot of spending in during the election season, to make the economy rise until after the election, when such funds are depleted.

Obama acts as if he suddenly has fallen in love with Israel. But his basic policies have not changed. His boost to security cooperation apparently has not changed his red light for an Israeli elimination of Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. The U.S. still gives billions to Israel's jihadists and other enemies.

Some people will pretend that Obama is not trying to heal the damage his policies and actions against allies have caused his reputation. They will see the increased spending as evidence of Jewry's power. Actually, the tens of millions of Evangelists and the millions of other Americans who favor Israel are a greater factor. AIPAC is unable or unwilling to get the U.S. to stop arming the common jihadists enemies of the U.S. and Israel.


Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman proposed that Israel sever all supply connection with Gaza. He would let foreign governments accelerate economic development in it.

The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) rejects the proposal. It objects on the grounds that it contravenes unnamed signed agreements and unnamed international legitimacy. It objects on the grounds that it would divide the P.A.. It objects on the grounds that it would mean abandoning Jerusalem. Finally, the P.A. asserts that this plan would satisfy in Israel just the "extremist right wing," whatever that is (IMRA, 7/18/10).

Why would a leftist proposal to completely abandon Gaza satisfy the right wing?

What has Jerusalem to do with it?

Why would it divide the P.A.? And what is wrong with that, considering that the Arabs already are divided into more than 20 states?

When Israel stopped some transshipments of goods into Gaza, the P.A. complained that Israel is an occupying power responsible to maintain the people of Gaza. The P.A. wanted to have its cake and eat it, too — make war on Israel and have Israel supply the electricity and other goods needed for the war. Although Israel abandoned Gaza, the P.A. still calls Gaza occupied. But the P.A also demands that Israel end the "occupation." Lieberman's proposal would seem to do that, but now the P.A. denounces doing that. The P.A. would have us believe that international law now requires Israel to "occupy" Gaza.

What a morass of self-contradiction! The lesson here is that the Arab side will take up any argument that supports its case, however self-contradictory the argument and however poor the case.

All the P.A. objections are in the interest of Fatah's maintaining power and maintaining a club for getting more territory. To hell with the welfare of the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, the P.A. indicates, if it means that Fatah does not control them.

For all the talk of right-wing governments and Israel being Zionist, the government rarely asserts its claim to the Territories. That talk is a case of foreign anti-Zionists trying to have their cake and eating it too. Here, the government acts leftist and appeasement minded, but the foreign anti-Zionists still denounce the government as far rightist and awfully Zionist.

Israeli officials may be foolish and naïve. It is foolish to think that economic development of Gaza would reduce Hamas strength instead of bolstering it. The attempted Israeli government decency never gets recognized by Israel's enemies. Antisemites just want to smear Jews' reputations. Jihadists do not relent, they fight to the death.


Omar Aladdin, a Palestinian Arab from the village of Umm Salamuna, is an activist against the security barrier there. He previously served time in an Israeli prison. Mr. Alladin was arrested again, three months ago in Bethlehem, on suspicion of attempting to rape an American Muslim fellow-protestor. He was released after having agreed to apologize to the woman. Before his arrest, he said there was nothing to apologize for.

The victim had managed to escape. A villager who saw her said she seemed in a state of shock.

Fellow protesters and the Palestinian Authority have pressed the woman not to publicly state her story, for the good of the cause. Consequently, she retracted her complaint.

Haaretz has learned that activists know of other such attacks by other Palestinian Arabs against foreign activists. This subject apparently comes up in "various popular committees." (IMRA, 7/18/10)

Who corrupts whom?


Thomas Friedman condemns the CCN firing of an editor favoring Lebanon terrorist, Fadlallah. His reasons:

1. The last resort of firing has become the first reaction. People should not immediately be dismissed for minor political incorrectness.

2. We need people from the Mideast to interpret events there for us.

3. The editor was right, Fadlallah can legitimately be mourned for having championed women's rights in Lebanon (NY Times, 7/17/10, Op.-Ed).

Mr. Friedman is such an important journalist, that his comments constitute news. I agree with his first argument, but find it does not apply. The editor was fired not for minor political incorrectness, but for supporting a major terrorist mentor, one who is complicit in the Hizbullah murder of dozens of U.S. peacekeepers in Lebanon.

His second argument sounds reasonable on the face of it, but falls flat when one thinks of that editor, an apologist for terrorism.

Think of the late Prof. Edward Said, prejudiced like Friedman, claiming that Western scholars are ipso facto biased. He drove most Mideast specialists out of their field. Into that field came many Middle Easterners who promote jihad. They have created a problem of subversion that if we had a normal atmosphere free of political correctness, we might address.

Think of the US, needing translators but suspicious of Arabic-speaking Israelis. The US hired Arabs some of whom informed terrorists what documents the U.S. possesses and who mis advised the U.S. of the contents.

The third argument places Muslim women's rights above American national security. If Arab women gain equal status with their men before their men drop bigotry and jihad, the women would strengthen jihad against America.

The editor could have issued a balanced statement that Fadlallah was a terrorist enemy of the West responsible for many murders, but his attempt to reform wife-beating were constructive. Can't consider him a humanitarian, when his concern for how women are treated is matched with his assumption that Americans and Israelis lack human rights and should be killed.


In the southern Gaza Strip, eight masked men attacked a wedding on a family's 2.5acre plot. The assailants dispersed the crowd by setting off two percussion grenades and firing into the air. They beat those who remained with the clubs.

Police came right away. "The police attempted to disperse the family members using clubs and gun butts, and the family members threw stones at them in return. The police arrested sixteen persons, including the bridegroom's father and two of his brothers. They were released on" 7/17/10. Later they claimed to have arrested four of the assailants, minors who are known to be radical [you know, "children" like the ones a reader claimed Israel arrests in Judea-Samaria].

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights deplores the improper use of guns and "security chaos" in Gaza (IMRA, 7/18/10).

No speculation was made about the motive. A family with 2 1'2 acres probably is prominent. Does it have political enemies or financial rivals? Did it serve alcohol? Why belabor it with clubs? Why did police initially arrest family members? Why did police try to disperse family members on their own land? Was the attack ordered by Hamas, or was it really due to "security chaos?" If due to chaos, why doesn't Hamas, which is very strict and has overwhelming force there, end the chaos?


Photo-journalist Tom Gross proves that the media is faking a Gaza humanitarian crisis. Mr. Gross believes that the Palestinian Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza should have a separate state. [Why not let them go to Jordan, where Palestinian Arabs already have a state?]

Gross wants journalism to be fair about these issues. The Media is not fair when it focuses on the sordid parts of Gaza, and ignores the prosperous parts of Gaza. Reporters could just as easily pretend there is a humanitarian crisis in Israel, by focusing on poorer areas. It is misleading.

The media ignores the new mall in Gaza on opening day and a new Olympic-size municipal swimming pool that most Israeli towns do not have, in order to claim that Gaza lacks building materials and water. To relieve the non-existent humanitarian crisis, the EU pledged two days earlier tens of millions of euros more for Gaza, in addition to prior hundreds of millions. Hamas converts much of the subsidy into arms. That, too, the media and EU ignore. They continue to give Gaza 1000 times as much aid per capita as most of Africa, in some of whose countries life-expectancy is 30 years less than Gazans'.

The media has been emphasizing supposedly humanitarian flotillas to Gaza. [They really are embargo-breaking attempts made so Hamas can ship in heavy arms for war]. One flotilla was from Turkey. Turkey has a powerful and growing economy, but compare it with Gaza:

Life expectancy: Turkey, 72.23 years, Gaza, 73.68 years.

Infant mortality: Turkey, 24.84, Gaza, 17.71 per 1,000 births.

Literacy: Turkey, 88.7%, Gaza, 91.9%. (It is much lower in Egypt and other Arab countries, where Israel did not establish colleges and universities in the 1970s and 1980s.)

GDP: Gaza's is higher than most of Africa. (Source for the comparisons and for aid to Africa: CIA World Factbook.) [I thank a reader for pointing out that originally I had understated Turkey's GDP. The CIA World Factbook that my source used actually had a figure 10 times what the source said it did. Wikipedia has a similar estimate to the CIA's.]

In an earlier story, also summarized from Tom Gross, we reported that Gaza has luxury restaurants and fully patronized food markets, while the media claims people are starving. His photo of the 12-page Roots restaurants, popular for Gaza weddings, and of the toy store hardly resemble the "World War II-era concentration camp" that some Western journalists [and one of my readers] have claimed Gaza resembles." (IMRA, 7/18/10).

The false comparison is part of the pretense that Israelis are like the Nazis. Unfortunately, audiences get taken in.


Fatah broadcast the other day an interview with a Palestinian Arab child's understanding, from the Fatah Movement's Sixth General Conference, that he is a future combatant (IMRA, 7/18/10), presumably against Israel.

The interview should be thought of in conjunction with Fatah refusal to recognize Jewish sovereignty over Israel. Therefore, Fatah wants war.

By contrast, Israeli society teaches its children to hope for peace.

The Arab boy's concept leads to an interesting question. Jihadists believe in terrorist, but pretend their attacks on Israeli civilians are justified on the grounds that all Israelis were, are, or will be soldiers. Not all Israelis serve in the military. An elderly Israeli is a civilian. But suppose for the sake of argument we accept the jihadist excuse. Now, those same jihadists make much of Israeli self-defense that targets Hamas troops but strikes some civilians whom the troops use as shields. Are those Arabs really civilians. Think of the children among them, called future soldiers. If Israeli children may be targeted as future soldiers, why not Arab children?

I think the Geneva Convention has it right, that civilians may not be targeted. But the jihadists do not agree. They think like war criminals.


During his discussion with U.S. envoy Mitchell, P.A. head Abbas raised another pre-condition for direct negotiations with Israel. Abbas demanded that foreign troops be permitted in. To justify this demand, he pointed out that former PM Olmert had offered it. However, Olmert did not get that mere negotiating point ratified. Therefore, contrary to Abbas' rationale, Netanyahu is not bound by it.

In discussing a foreign troop presence recently, Israeli Foreign Min. Lieberman said that any such force would have to be a powerful combat unit, like the French Foreign Legion. In other words, it should not be like the EU border inspectors who fled when Hizbullah threatened them and whose absence permitted the arms smuggling and subsequent war in Gaza.

The P.A. also wants to place its police stations all over Judea-Samaria, including near Jewish communities. The IDF seems amenable, as based on its recent [and undeserved] compliments to the P.A. forces on security. Those forces are being trained by the U.S. military and being given 50 armored personnel carriers, although Oslo forbids them from becoming an army (Arutz-7, 7/18/10). and PM Netanyahu says that the P.A. must be demilitarized.

Abbas' form of jihad could be defined as relentless pressure by any and all means for taking over a non-Muslim society. These means may not be ethical, but they work. Note the unending demands, like a boa constrictor's continuous swallowing of more and more of its prey. This tactic must be frustrating to Western negotiators who do not understand it and the jihadist rejection of peace in the first place.

Judging by UNIFIL, foreign troops would be placed to let terrorists through but block Israeli pursuit. For Lieberman to consider this demand is another of his many leftist points of appeasement, concealed by strident rightist language. Foreign troops would significantly degrade national security and endanger Israeli retention of the communities it built in that part of its own homeland.

It is dishonest of the IDF to praise P.A. security forces, while the P.A. fosters terrorism, which its security forces do not prevent. The IDF is too political to be trusted on these matters. IDF political and ideological naivete got a number of Israeli troops shot by the Arabs with whom they went on joint patrols. Imagine how foolish are hold joint patrols! In his first term, against pleas for common sense, PM Netanyahu authorized rifles for P.A. troops, who, when the P.A. started an Intifada, shot Israelis with them.

To permit near Jewish communities the troops of the P.A., which honors terrorists, threatens war, and whose broadcasts urge murder of Jews, is to pave the way to murder. Those murders likely would conjure calls for removing the Jews "for their own safety," an outcome that the U.S. and the Israeli left want. History records that the British appointed a terrorist Grand Mufti, removed police protection from Jews, and then after an Arab massacre of dozens of Jews in Hebron, removed the rest of the Jews of Hebron for their own protection. The murdering Arab populace was not removed. The complicit British authorities were not removed. ...and that's the rest of the story.


President Obama demanded that P.A. head Abbas turn to direct negotiations, but Abbas turned away from them. He demanded as the price for direct negotiations with Israel that Israel agree to 100% withdrawal including from annexed parts of its capital and that any concession that previous Israeli negotiators had offered in the context of their negotiations and their election be treated as permanent.

Abbas had recently met with U.S. envoy Mitchell. Mitchell called their meeting "constructive" and "fruitful," and began to achieve President Obama's vision for comprehensive peace" (Arutz-7, 7/18/10).

Direct negotiations permit less intrusion by interested third parties, more understanding, and less disavowal later. The Arabs want the State Dept. urging Israel make one-sided concessions to narrow the negotiations gap that the Arabs widen.

Abbas also demanded that Israel freeze Jewish construction in the Territories and in eastern Jerusalem permanently. His one-sided, apartheid-like demands amount to Israeli surrender on major issues that are supposed to be negotiated, leaving Israel without negotiating cards. To put that in context, remember that Abbas' broadcasters preach the duty of killing Jews, Abbas refuses to ever recognize a Jewish state, continues to demand that Israel be filled with Arabs sure to take it over with who knows what harm to the Jews, and his mentor Arafat preached the doctrine of using whatever territory Israel relinquishes as a base for conquering the rest.

Some Israelis ask why should they pay to negotiate with aggressors whom they defeated. That sentiment would be more enforceable if Israel exercised its right to annex more territory whose legal status remains as unallocated parts of the Mandate to which Israel is chief heir and which Israel gained in self-defense and needs for secure borders against anticipated future Arab aggression.


The Regavim Movement
www.regavim.org.il/pic/File/doch%20hashvahot.PDF seeks to prevent illegal takeover of state lands. It compiled statistics for the years 2005-2009, on Israeli Supreme Court handling of mirror-image petitions from the Left against Jewish construction in Judea-Samaria, and from the Right against Arab construction in Judea-Samaria. The facts and legal questions brought by both sides were the same. Both sides petitioned for law enforcement on construction. The first question is whether the court may intervene against duly constituted authority.

The analysts sought to be objective, by not comparing procedural treatment independent of the merits. Here is what they found:

Percentage of petitions where a temporary injunction was issued
Right: 0% Left: 90%

Percentage of petitions where a conditional court order was issued
Right: 0% Left: 35%

Percentage of petitions where the president [of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch] seated herself at the head of the judicial panel
Right: 0% Left: 57%

Average number of days provided to the Government to respond
Right: 88 Left: 25

Average days before first hearing
Right: 389 Left: 177

Average number of hearings per petition
Right: 0.5 Left: 1.9

An example of the Supreme Court attitude: "In the course of a session regarding Supreme Court case Rahelim (Supreme Court Case 2295/09) on April 26th, the attorney representing the respondents, the residents of the Israeli settlements and the Shomron Regional Council, expressed his surprise aloud in the presence of the president of the Supreme Court and stated that he is unable to explain to his clients why the petitions regarding illegal Palestinian construction are rejected by reason of the state's scale of priorities, but in the case of Jewish construction the petitions are considered binding and valid."

"The president's response was: 'I believe that the gentleman understands why..."

The Court's bias is obvious. Its danger to Israeli democracy is clear. The public's loss of confidence in their judiciary, based on unequal enforcement of the law, is understandable.

Why unequal? The Court considers Judea and Samaria as "occupied territory" and the government as an "occupying power." The Court does not have the Zionist vision of "a nation returning to its land...after two thousand years of exile and redeeming it from its desolation." The Court considers the Arabs in Judea-Samaria an "occupied and oppressed people" rather than "an enemy that desires to destroy us and expel us from our ancestral home."

These are ideological issues properly taken up within the political process, not the judicial process. The Supreme Court is wrong to usurp the political decision-making and in order to consistently rule in favor of one side (IMRA, 7/17/10).

In evaluating whether Israel's Supreme Court is democratic, it helps to put the Court into perspective. Israel lacks a Bill of Rights and a Constitution with separation of powers between judiciary, legislature, and executive branches. The Court imposes its own, leftist preferences on other issues, too, regardless of law and facts, and making up theories to justify what amounts to legislation. The judges are selected by a closed process within the already leftist judicial circle. The prosecutors mostly are leftist. The police, often brutal against Jews, act under political orders and in fear of Arab riots and that enforcing the law against Arabs would get them persecuted by the government. Police have special orders to harass settlers and seldom protect them from Arab rustlers and land-thieves. The Army, another agency of law enforcement, is run by leftist generals who often seek to become political leaders. The Defense Minister, notorious for withdrawal appeasement, rules against questionably illegal Jewish construction and not against definitely illegal Arab construction. The government denies right-wingers broadcasting licenses for national news. Until recently, most of the print journalism was leftist. The government subsidizes the film industry, which largely is leftist. University social studies departments are controlled by leftists, who use their power to indoctrinate. Prime Ministers elected for promising security tend to compromise security at the behest of the U.S..


David Kay, former UN chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), contrasts expectations with results on Iraq and Iran.

As sanctions on Iran rise, so does Iranian rhetoric. Sanctions aim to force Iran to submit to inspections. However, Mr. Kay finds inspection largely ineffective. Inspection cannot prevent a country from developing nuclear weapons, especially if the country is big, determined, and capable, like Iran.

Inspectors would need access to all resources with which Iran could develop nuclear weapons and delivery methods. Iran would have to fully declare its nuclear components, uranium enrichment, plutonium activities, and missile testing, production, and deployment. Iran does not cooperate, it obstructs.

Iran hides its nuclear activities and foreign and domestic support networks. It denies IAEA interviews with technical staff. It will not disclose what it did with N. Korea and Pakistan, which spread nuclear technology.

Iran now has learned how to handle every aspect of nuclear weapons development, including IAEA inspection. IAEA lacks sufficient staff. Most of the countries from which such a staff could be drawn either would not be trusted by Iran or could not be trusted by IAEA.

The staff does not get backed up by UN officials. For example, in the 1980s, inspectors were suspicious of Iraq's nuclear program, but their leaders ignored them. After the 1991 Gulf War, the IAEA leaders initially rejected inspection reports of massive Iraqi violations. Then IAEA leaders called Iran in compliance with the treaty. When the 20 years of Iranian secrecy were revealed, the UN withheld authority to confront the government. The violators feel immune, and inspectors feel useless (Wall St. J., 7/17/10, A11).

Mr. Kay describes the real world. In the real world, things do not work as the UN Charter states, countries are not truthful, and rogues plan violations. It does not take a court case to prove what already is known and must be acted on. The stakes are too high for decent countries to be naïve about this.


In the past few weeks, south Lebanese villagers barred UNIFIL peacekeepers from inspecting for Hizbullah military buildup, threw stones at UN troops, and wrested weapons from some. In an exceptionally polite reaction, UNIFIL commander Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta Cuevas broadcast to the Lebanese that he loves their country, seeks to ensure their safety, and may have made mistakes, but meant well.

Villagers claim they had reacted only to the French regiment for using "sniffer dogs," breaking into houses, and searching contemptuously.

A Hizbullah member of Parliament complained that the French conducted an exercise involving a response to a Hizbullah attack on Israel. Why imagine that Hizbullah may be the aggressor, he asked? [Not kidding; he did.]

A Lebanese newspaper editor accused UNIFIL of provoking the villagers, so as to create a scandal causing UNIFIL to be disbanded and the French troops to go home. This would embarrass Hizbullah and [by ending the truce agreement] give Israel an excuse to attack.

Lebanese officials accuse UNIFIL of not always cooperating and of patrolling villages without them. UNIFIL explains that its 12,000 troops conduct 350 patrols a day, and that the Lebanese troops in southern Lebanon are too spread out to be available. The Lebanese Army responds that its 6,000 troops in southern Lebanon suffice to accompany UNIFIL troops, if asked. [They take their time to arrive, giving Hizbullah time to cover evidence.]

UNIFIL commanders, ambassadors from UNIFIL national contingents, and the head of the Lebanese Army spent a week negotiating. They agreed: (1) All UNIFIL patrols would be in cooperation with the Lebanese Army; (2) No more dogs on patrol; (3) Only Lebanese soldiers would search houses; and (3) UNIFIL would avoid entering houses and yards.

The arrangement turns UNIFIL into a reporting team unable to enforce the truce.

The article ends with derision of Israeli military intelligence, which claims impressive and detailed knowledge of targets in the villages. Israeli intelligence lacked critical knowledge about the flotilla, does not know whether Syrian President Assad wants peace, did not foresee the results of Lebanon's election, was surprised by PM Hariri's submission to Syria, and had an inadequate list of targets for the war with Hizbullah. The journalist points out that the IDF has not provided public proof of its accusation that Syria furnished Scud missiles to Hizbullah (IMRA, 7/17/10).

Let us first dispose of the assessment of Israeli intelligence. The journalist, Zvi Bar-El of Haaretz, lumped in military and non-military intelligence. His points are valid, although in the case of Scuds, the IDF may feel that showing the proof is tantamount to disclosing its means and sources of intelligence. These criticisms of Israeli intelligence merit special discussion among Israelis, but are irrelevant to the UNIFIL problem.

The UNIFIL problem is a typical Middle East and UN mess. Truth is elusive.

(1) Arabs commit aggression, but the prejudiced world does not care.

(2) Israel failed to pursue the war far enough to accomplish anything lasting, but went far enough to get into trouble. [Same in Gaza, later.]

(3) The UN sets up a ceasefire that enables the aggressor build-up.

(4) UN peacekeepers are too few, too dependent upon national contingents, too poorly armed, and too biased to be effective.

(5) The UN and the leftist Israeli press fail or refuse to understand that Hizbullah is officially part of the government and unofficially dominates it and the Lebanese Army. The UN never should have given the Lebanese Army a role in curbing its Hizbullah allies.

(6) It is all right to report what the various parties assert, but readers deserve clues about the parties' prejudices and ways. Jihadists are aggressors and deceivers. Accepting blame is difficult, but Arab culture has particular difficulty accepting blame. Arab culture and that of neighboring Muslim states accuse without basis and along conspiracy lines, a reaction that is spreading into Western culture. Journalists should question the accusations. Arabs do find the use of dogs offensive.

(7) Investigation is needed, but who can be entrusted with it? UN investigations reflect their components' national and ideological biases. We have reported that mortal flaw in the Goldstone investigation. Lebanon is a party to the controversy. Israeli governments have their appeasers and military blind spots. Besides, who in the world trusts any other group, unless it is prejudiced in the same way? Who could get in, to investigate, without having to fight their way in?

There are IDF photographs of Hizbullah installations. To me, they are fuzzy. If the IDF can make them clear to other intelligence agencies, that would be a start in determining the situation in those villages.

As earlier reports show, Hizbullah bought up southern Lebanese villages and moved in Shiites whom it could trust. We know that Hizbullah has smuggled in arms, contrary to the truce. Hizbullah does use human shields. Therefore, while a court might not be able to gather sufficient proof for a verdict, we can. It is fair to conclude that Hizbullah has thoroughly violated the UN ceasefire. Israel would have a right to act on that, not that I am suggesting that it does or how it should.

We end, here, with a further flaw in Mideast agreements. They lack much on how to proceed when the agreement fails. Who will acknowledge that Security Council Resolution 1701 failed?


On the 10th anniversary of Bashar Assad's reign, his present from Human Rights Watch (HRW) was denunciation for breaking his promise to reform the political system.

Although the younger Assad has made a few economic reforms, in banking, tourism, foreign investment, and private education, he has not made any political reforms. His people remain as oppressed by his regime as by his father's. HRW reports that the secret police arrest without warrants, torture without restraint, and censor the wide Web as by banning Facebook.

Assad gives free room and board to political dissidents, human rights activists, and journalists. At first he let small gatherings discuss politics, then he moved the discussants to Syrian prisons (IMRA, 7/17/10).

I think that when a tepid reformer loosens controls, people loosen self-restraint. This lack of order frightens dictators back into repressing freedom.

Assad has a particular problem. This problem that helps keep him dependent upon dictatorship and upon Iran. Assad belongs to the near-Shia minority sect of Alawites. If he gives the Sunni majority an opening, they would overthrow his Alawite rule in favor of their own.

HRW is doing its job, with Syria. Otherwise, most anti-Zionists show no concern for the millions of oppressed Syrians, even while they profess opposition to Israel on behalf of Arabs whom they claim Israel is oppressing. Their inconsistency puts their idealism and their criticism of Israel into doubt.

Note to readers: I copied these guidelines for readers' comments from another website, because of their similarity to Examiner.com's:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

Enforcement is at Management discretion. On that website, editors review comments before letting them be posted. The posting of a comment is no indication of editorial endorsement.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, July 22, 2010.
This was written by Ariel Rothfield of the Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University, on assignment in Jerusalem with Israel Resource News Agency

Canadian former Justice Minister Reveals: US government gave $107 billion in contracts to firms trading with Iran, while sanctions were in place


In a Jerusalem press conference held on Tuesday, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler called for more "threat specific" sanctions to be placed against Iran.

According to Prof. Cotler, Iran remains in violation of four distinct threats: the nuclear, the state-sanctioned genocidal incitement, the support for Genocidal Terror, and the massive repression of human rights.

The world has been taking action only against the nuclear threat, while ignoring the Iranian regime's other offences.

Human rights violations in Iran attracted world attention for a short while after the disputed 2009 elections, but the outrage over Neda's death has died down and new "Nedas" — an everyday event — are ignored.

According to Cotler's report, Iran has the highest number of juvenile executions in the world. From 2005 until 2008, the country executed 26 offenders, making up 80 percent of total amount in the world.

"Iran has emerged as a clear and present danger to international peace and security, to the Middle East and regional stability, and increasingly and alarmingly so, to the rights of its own people," Cotler said. "Unless we have what I call a comprehensive set of remedies and sanctions, for the four fold critical mass of threats, we will not begin to properly hold up Ahmadinejad's Iran to account."

The solution he offered was a 200-page report called "The Danger of a Nuclear, Genocidal and Rights-Violating Iran: The Responsibility to Prevent Petition." Endorsed by 100 scholars, former world leaders, parliamentarians and human rights activists, the report contains witness testimony and documentary evidence of each of the four threats.

"We want to sound the alarm and wake up the international community," Cotler said.

"The Western belief is that if we turn a blind eye, we will be better off," said former High Court of Justice president Meir Shamgar, who also spoke at the conference. "This is exactly what occurred in the 30s."

To fix this problem, the report proposes an 18-point road map for action. It calls upon the international community to heed their obligation and stop such violations before they begin. Incitement to Genocide is considered an early warning sign of potential Genocide, and is also a prosecutable crime in itself.

"There had been a critical mass of precursors to genocide in Ahmadinejad's Iran, constituting thereby not only the prelude to a preventable tragedy, but a crime in and of itself under international law," said Cotler. "Simply put, Iran's leaders have already committed a crime of incitement to genocide."

Additionally Cotler said violations could be prevented by limiting foreign visits from Iranian leaders and by freezing their assets.

If governments terminate their contract with companies doing business with Iran, these leaders will stop getting money in their pocket, he said. Which would help to stop the repression of the Iranian population.

However, Cotler warned that in order to succeed, countries like the US need to stop sending "mixed and disturbing messages to the corporate world regarding doing business in Iran."

According to the report, the US government gave $107 billion in contracts to firms trading with Iran, while sanctions were in place.

"The United Nations Security Council Resolution has been honored more in the breach than in the observance," Cotler said. "So in the matter of sanctions, not only is it crucial that they be adopted, but that they be enforced and done multilaterally."

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, July 22, 2010.

This was written by Fred Barnes and it appeared as an opinion piece in todays' Wall Street Journal. Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel.

This article is archived at
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704684 604575381083191313448-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwMjEyNDIyWj.html? mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1


When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.

My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month — a wise decision.

It's thanks to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn't revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired.

This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks.

WSJ.com Columnist John Fund reports on a media scandal. Also, Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady breaks down the President's pledge to end bailouts and analyzes the Fed Chairman's latest visit to Capitol Hill.

JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. ... This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire.

Among journalists in general, there's always been a herd instinct. Eugene McCarthy, the Minnesota senator and Democratic presidential candidate, once described political writers as birds on a telephone wire. When one bird flew to the wire across the street, they all did. In Mr. Ackerman's case, I'm glad none of the birds joined him across the street.

We've often seen media groupthink in campaigns. In 1980, most of the media decided that President Jimmy Carter was being mean-spirited in his re-election effort with his harsh denunciations of Ronald Reagan, his Republican opponent. The media turned the meanness issue into major story. In 1992, journalists treated the economy as if it were dead in the water, though a recovery from a mild recession had begun early the previous year. I could go on.

I think JournoList is — or was — fundamentally different, and not simply because one of its members proposed to make palpably false accusations. As best I can tell, those involved in JournoList considered themselves part of a team. And their goal was to make sure the team won. In 2008, this was Mr. Obama's team. More recently, the goal seems to have been to defeat the conservative team.

Until JournoList came along, liberal journalists were rarely part of a team. Neither are conservative journalists today, so far as I know. If there's a team, no one has asked me to join. As a conservative, I normally write more favorably about Republicans than Democrats and I routinely treat conservative ideas as superior to liberal ones. But I've never been part of a discussion with conservative writers about how we could most help the Republican or the conservative team.

My experience with other conservative journalists is that they are loners. One of the most famous conservative columnists of the past half-century, the late Robert Novak, is a good example. I knew him well for 35 years. He didn't tell me what stories he was working on nor ask what I was planning to write. He never mentioned how we might promote Republicans or aid the conservative cause, nor did I.

What was particularly pathetic about the scheme to smear Mr. Obama's critics was labeling them as racists. The accusation has been made so frequently in recent years, without evidence to back it up, that it has little effect. It's now the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.

The first call I got after the Daily Caller unearthed the emails involving me was from Karl Rove. He said he wanted to talk to his "fellow racist." We laughed about this. But the whole episode was also sad. I didn't sputter at the thought of being called a racist. But it was sad to see what journalism, or at least a segment of it, had come to.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 21, 2010.

I begin today with a link to a shortened version (a trailer) to a new video called, "For the Sake of Nakba," produced by the Center for Near East Policy Research.

Please! Take five minutes to see it, bookmark it, and share it absolutely as widely as you can.

Regularly I receive links to various videos that are referred to as "must see." Or, "this will blow your mind." All of this, and more, applies to this trailer. Let's get the movement started, and let's see this making the rounds of the Internet.


"Nakba" means catastrophe in Arabic, and it is how the Arabs refer to the founding of Israel. In this film you will see how UNRWA — that purportedly benign humanitarian agency that cares for the poor suffering refugees — promotes "the right of return" and the destruction of Israel via jihad.

Everyone but everyone needs to have this information in order to be well informed.

In fact, while you are sharing this, please make certain that your elected officials in Congress have the information. Provide the link, and the one short paragraph of explanation, above, about Nakba and what you will see in the film. Ask your elected officials what they are doing to block UNRWA's current policies. The US provides UNRWA with more than 30% of its budget — Congress has clout, if it chooses to use it.

For your Congresspersons:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW _by_State.shtml

For your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm

Ask everyone you send this to, to do the same. A groundswell of protest can make a difference and Congressional action on UNRWA would have a huge impact on the situation here.


Just because something is anticipated doesn't mean it needs to be accepted with equanimity.

We knew that Obama's lovefest with Israel was just an act, that his intentions towards us had changed not an iota. Now, already, we are confronting the confirmation of this. And it is enraging.

This came through yesterday from JINSA — one of the most trustworthy and on-the-mark agencies around — in its Report # 1007:

"Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, was dispatched last Friday to the Brookings Institution to advance the charm offensive that seeks to convince Israelis and American supporters of Israel that the Obama Administration is Israel's best friend. He worked hard, but his bottom line was that Israel — not the Palestinians and not the Arab states — needs to do more for peace, specifically the 'two state solution' to which the administration is wedded but which appears increasingly unlikely."

JINSA cited a "sometimes reliable source" as having said: "Officials acknowledged that the White House, which endorsed $20 billion worth of arms sales to the Middle East in 2009, has not approved any Israeli requests for combat platforms or other major military sales in 2009 and 2010." JINSA will be confirming this.


What the US has provided is $205 million for Israel's Iron Dome rocket defense system. But lest you imagine that this was motivated by a genuine concern for our security, take a look at what JINSA tells us Shapiro said about it, not once, but twice:

First: "It is our hope that the Administration's expanded commitment to Israel's security will advance the process by helping the Israeli people seize this opportunity and take the tough decisions necessary for a comprehensive peace."

And then: "Bolstering Israel's security against the rocket threat will not by itself facilitate a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Conversely, a two-state solution will not in and of itself bring an end to these threats. But our support for Iron Dome and similar efforts do provide Israel with the capabilities and the confidence that it needs to take the tough decisions ahead for a comprehensive peace."

In case anyone was in doubt, JINSA clarified what is meant by the term "tough decisions": "a euphemism for ceding territory, ceding political rights, ceding security control to others."

"There was more in the speech that is worth noting," wrote JINSA, "and we will, but it will take a while before we get over the idea that Obama Administration support for Israel's defense — such as that support is — is a function of the administration's determination to have Israel take actions that increase the risk to its people." (emphasis added)


I am not exactly happy about what follows here, either. But in this instance we are doing it to ourselves:

Israel has provided a response to the UN regarding the Goldstone Report. Commitments have been made by us regarding ways to reduce civilian casualties in future conflicts. Most notably, these include:

[] Restricting the use of white phosphorous as a smoke screen. This use of phosphorous is legal under international law — it is not using the phosphorous as a weapon. But, OK, it can inadvertently cause civilian damage sometimes.

[] Integrating a Humanitarian Affairs Officer into each combat unit.

This is particularly bad news. In all instances — whether taking on Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hamas in Gaza, or terrorists in Judea and Samaria — we are dealing with those who do not play by the rules and could not care less about loss of civilian life. Yet it is our forces that will be monitored every step of the way and forever held accountable.

This inhibits our ability to defend ourselves, for we will be afraid of being second-guessed after the fact. Not only is this not a way to win a war (and winning is the critical point here), there is no other fighting force in the world held to such standards. No one imagines that the US military must have a "humanitarian affairs officer" in each combat unit — not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan — in spite of civilian casualties. While the irony is that we are the most ethical fighting force in the world.


The report to the UN further speaks about investigations into the actions of our soldiers, with specific mention of two IDF soldiers who have been indicted for putting a Palestinian minor at risk, and a soldier who is suspected of killing a Palestinian civilian.

It is appropriate for us to stay on top of such incidents, and to levy charges and penalties where appropriate. But what sticks in the craw is our need (or perceived need) to report this to the UN. Fighting is not a clean endeavor, and even in the most humane of forces incidents will occur (sometimes because of maliced motivations and sometimes because of poor judgment in a difficult situation). Not only are we making ourselves accountable to some of the biggest bums going — representatives of nations who have no regard for human rights — this all feels as if it's a sort of acknowledgement that there was some merit to the Goldstone Report. Or so it will be interpreted.

The standards to which we are being held, and to which we are permitting ourselves to be held, exceed the standards applied anywhere else. It is a part of the international effort to deprive us of legitimacy.


Speaking of holding Israel to a different standard, we have an article by Khaled Abu Toameh, written for Hudson NY, which asks:

"When was the last time the UN Security Council met to condemn an Arab government for its mistreatment of Palestinians?

"How come those who call themselves 'pro-Palestinian' turn a blind eye to the fact that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and many more Arab countries continue to impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians?

"A news story on the Palestinians that does not include an anti-Israel angle rarely makes it to the front pages of Western newspapers.

"The demolition of an Arab-owned illegal building in Jerusalem is, for most correspondents, much more important than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in Lebanon are denied the right to own property, do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs." (emphasis added)


This report, written by Joe Klein, which first appeared in Time Magazine, has now been picked by several other sources.

"An Attack on Iran is Back on the [US] Table":

"...when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Fox News on June 20, "We do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons," he was reflecting a new reality in the military and intelligence communities. Diplomacy and economic pressure remain the preferred means to force Iran to negotiate a nuclear deal, but there isn't much hope that's going to happen. So the military option is very much back on the table.

"Intelligence sources say that the U.S. Army's Central Command, which is in charge of organizing military operations in the Middle East, has made some real progress in planning targeted air strikes — aided, in large part, by the vastly improve human-intelligence operations in the region. 'There really wasn't a military option a year ago,' an Israeli military source told me. 'But they've gotten serious about the planning, and the option is real now.' Israel has been brought into the planning process. One other factor has brought the military option to a low boil: Iran's Sunni neighbors really want the U.S. to do it."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,2003921,00.html

This, my friends, is good news.


So is the fact that Russia has decided not to deliver to Iran the S-300 surface to air missile defense system — it has already been sold to Iran, but the most recent sanctions preclude delivery.


Evelyn Gordon has written a fascinating piece in the Commentary blog on how Israel can win the PR war. In essence, it recommends going on the defensive instead of being defensive. You've heard this theme here before.

Gordon cites PR guru Frank Luntz:

"...when people have preconceived notions about Israel, it's very hard to dislodge those notions — to convince them, for instance, that Israel did not wantonly target civilians in last year's war in Gaza, or has not created a humanitarian crisis there by its blockade. But it is possible to persuade them that no matter how bad Israel is, its enemies are much, much worse — and therefore even someone who dislikes Israel should nevertheless back it against those enemies."

Says Gordon, another PR expert, Sarah Kass, explains it thus:

"Israel's enemies are conducting a classic PR offensive, designed to keep the focus relentlessly on Israel and away from themselves. Thus they never talk about themselves; they talk only about Israel.

"Israel, however, does the opposite: it talks almost exclusively about itself, constantly trying to defend its own actions rather than focusing on its enemies' actions. And to listeners, this just sounds like 'whining.'

"What Israel should be doing is exactly what its enemies do: focusing relentlessly on the other side. For only in that context — a battle against a truly evil enemy — can Israel's defensive measures ever be understood."


This approach works. Luntz told of a meeting he had with "high income, high education, politically connected" Brits who were "so hostile to Israel" that "I'd given up ... There was no message that resonated remotely well with them. And I finally said 'to hell with it. We'll give them the Hamas Charter'."

At the end, "28 of the 30 said, 'How dare Israel negotiate with these people?'"
(Note: We're not negotiating with Hamas, but never mind, the sentiment is what counts here.)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/ evelyn-gordon/330276
(Thanks BudnPhyl)


The Turks are strengthening its ties to Hamas, as the Turkish FM has met with Mashaal.

But there seems to be a trade-off here: We are now hosting a Greek prime minister for the first time since 1992, as George Papandreou (son of Andreas) is moderating his stance towards Israel. Analysts feel that the tensions between Israel and Turkey (historical rival, if not arch enemy of Greece) is a factor in what's happening.


Fatah officials are saying they will back direct talks between the PA and Israel, provided that Abbas's terms are met. We are already familiar with those demands, which include an understanding about borders and security up front.

Muhammad Dahlan, a member of the Revolutionary Council of Fatah (that name has a moderate ring, does it not?), says that "Fatah wants to see real progress on the issues of borders and security. We also want a complete freeze of settlement construction, including natural growth, especially in occupied East Jerusalem."

Especially, huh?


The best response is Ari Harow's piece, "Why Jerusalem Matters," from the JPost, on eve of Tisha B'Av.

"On this Tisha Be'av day, as we approach direct talks with the Palestinian Authority, it is imperative that we state loudly and clearly that Jerusalem is our heart and soul, our national raison d'etre. Guaranteeing a united Jerusalem without one iota of hesitation or equivocation is not a matter of choice, but rather a national obligation."


Harrow, by the way, until quite recently was bureau chief for PM Netanyahu. Hope his former boss is paying attention.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, July 21, 2010.

It seems that the Hebrew University intends to challenge Ben Gurion University and Tel Aviv University as the worst center for academic fascism in Israel.

Just a few days back we posted a piece on the saga of the Hebrew University leftist sociology professor accused of raping at least 10 of his students. The Hebrew University circled their wagons around him, backed him, protected him, and he is still on the payroll, teaching (and fondling?) his students. That article is here.

The same leftist Israeli media that had a field day attacking (and continuing to report in detail every nuance concerning) a prominent Rabbi accused of making sexual advances on his male students have completely forgotten and suppressed that story of the accused tenured rapist.

But the Hebrew University DOES fire some faculty members. Maariv today reports (only in Hebrew — at
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/135/354.html) that the "Hebrew" University of Jerusalem has just decided to fire Dr. Ron Baratz, of its philosophy department. Baratz is the most popular teacher in the department. His student ratings appear here:
http://www.dargoo.co.il/displayRanking.asp?lecturerID=3186 and they average a 5.0, the highest you can get (an average I can only dream of for myself!).

Baratz's felony? It seems he is guilty of being a non-leftist. And the Hebrew University thinks that disqualifies him to work there. This is not MY take on the firing, but Maariv's!!! Baratz has worked with the Zionist student organization Im Tirtzu, another felony. And he works with the Likudish Shalem Center. Oh the Humanity!

His firing has set off a firestorm of rage against the "Hebrew" University. The Maariv web page has almost 600 talkbacks on it, many from LEFTIST students who support Baratz, say he was their best teacher, and denouncing the university! Many of his faculty colleagues from the Left have also expressed outrage at the firing.

Ron's email is here: baratz@pluto.huji.ac.il in case you want to send him a note.

It is kind of a shame that he is not a leftist rapist, because then he could keep his job and salary and maybe even purchase vibrators with his research funds (as Hebrew University Prof. Eyal Ben-Ari did!! For details, see this:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/1/21 )

"Dissent or Destruction?"
By Edward Alexander
July 21, 2010
FrontPage Magazine
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/21/ israels-critics-and-israels-enemies/

Edward Alexander is the co-author, with Paul Bogdanor, of The Jewish Divide over Israel: Accusers and Defenders (Transaction Publishers).

A recent addition to the ever-burgeoning genre of books instructing Israel on the most suitable method of ceasing to exist (one-state solution, no-state solution, final solution) is adorned by the following from Noam Chomsky:

Constance Hilliard raises very critical issues...and unless those who call themselves 'supporters of Israel' are willing to face these moral and geopolitical realities, they may in reality be supporters of Israel's moral degeneration and ultimate destruction.

It is commonplace that moral passions are far more imperious and impatient than self-seeking ones, and who could have a stronger sense of his own moral rectitude than a man who has been an apologist for Pol Pot in Cambodia, a collaborator with neo-Nazi Holocaust-deniers in France, and a cohort to anti-Semitism-deniers everywhere?

"Anti-Semitism," Chomsky has declared, "is no longer a problem, fortunately. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control; That's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue..." Beautiful and touching words, but words by no means unusual in the parlance of those who deem Israel uniquely evil and, with help from its "supporters," responsible for every misery on the planet with the (possible) exception of global warming. (Here reality outpaces my rhetorical flourishes: Clare Short, a member of Tony Blair's cabinet until 2003, charged that Israel is "much worse than the original apartheid state" because it "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming.")

Chomsky is generally and mistakenly identified as "a critic of Israel." But he is by no means the only beneficiary of the flagrantly euphemistic redefinition of "criticism" where Israel and its numerous enemies are concerned. Examples, in fact, abound. A Vassar professor (writing in Judaism Magazine, no less) referred to the second Intifada, during which Palestinian Arab suicide bombers, pogromists, and lynch mobs slaughtered a thousand people (most of them Israeli Jews) and wounded thousands more, as "a critique of Zionism." A Panglossian writer in the Chronicle of Higher Education assures readers that "calls to destroy Israel, or to throw it into the Mediterranean Sea...are not evidence of hatred of Jews," but merely "reflect a quarrel with the State of Israel." Some critique, some quarrel. When questions were raised in November 2003 about the indecency of Harvard and Columbia honoring and playing host to the Oxford poetaster, blood libel subscriber, and London Review of Books regular Tom Paulin after he had urged that Jews living in Judea/Samaria "should be shot dead" and announced that he "never believed that Israel had the right to exist at all," his apologists in Cambridge and Morningside Heights defended his right "to criticize Israeli policy."

But the prize for redefinition of the term "criticism" should probably go to the Swedish Chancellor of Justice Goran Lambertz who, in 2006, ruled that repeated calls from the Grand Mosque of Stockholm to "Kill the Jews" by dispatching suicide bombers to Israel and other Jewish population centers, was not racial incitement to murder. Rather, ruled this Solomon, they:

Should be judged differently and therefore be regarded as permissible because they were used by one side in an ongoing and far-reaching conflict where calls to arms and insults are part of the everyday climate in the rhetoric that surrounds this conflict.

Just what, then, does "criticism" mean? The Victorian poet and critic Matthew Arnold defined criticism (by which he did not mean merely literary criticism) as "the attempt to see the object as in itself it really is." Writing in 1865, he believed he was still living in the shadow of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, but also in the new age of science. He wanted criticism to model itself on the disinterested observation of science and not the fierce political partisanship that derived from the Revolution. Like science, criticism should espouse no party and no cause except the cause of truth. Its proper aim is to see the object as it really is, not to destroy the object. Dickens, a few years earlier in Tale of Two Cities (1859), had encapsulated the murderous aspect of French politicide by mocking its two favorite slogans: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — or Death" and (Chamfort's version) "Sois Mon Frere, ou Je Te Tue." (Be my brother, or I'll kill you.)

The "critics of Israel," who deny its right to exist and threaten it with destruction if it fails to dance to their tune, may be dishonest, despicable, consumed with blood-lust, but let us not deny them their triumph. In the war of ideas, they have beaten us at almost every turn — and by "us" I mean those for whom the foundation of Israel was one of the few redeeming acts of a blood-soaked and shameful century. A widely-publicized 2007 BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries shows Israel as the "least-liked" country in the entire world. Among Europeans polled, Israel was most disliked in Germany. Yes, in the very country where the Jews' "right to live" was once a popular topic, Israel-haters outpolled Israel-admirers by 77% to 10%. And still greater triumphs than those in the war for public opinion may yet await these "critics."

Their threats to Israel are not idle ones. On their own, the Chomskys, Paulins, Norman Finkelsteins, Tony Judts and Alexander Cockburns of this world cannot visit upon Israel the terrible fate they think it deserves. But they know they have a powerful ally named Iran, which is under the leadership of someone bent not merely, on politicide (like the "critics") but on genocide; someone who daily promises to "remove Israel from the map" and watches with glee as the international noose tightens around Israel's throat and the umbrellas go up in Europe and Washington.

Note how many articles are suddenly appearing in the Israeli press about academic freedom — and this one actually appeared in Haaretz and was actually written by a TAU prof! And it actually favors academic freedom! This is shocking because Haaretz generally opposes academic freedom for non-traitors, and certainly opposes pluralism and diversity of any sort ... in Haaretz!!

"What do boycotts have to do with academic freedom?"
by Asher Maoz
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/what-do-boycotts- have-to-do-with-academic-freedom-1.303132

The writer is a professor of constitutional law at Tel Aviv University

The pretension of wrapping political critique in academic garb will end up curtailing the right to criticize — as if people who do not enjoy academic freedom should not express their opinions.

A university lecturer calls the naval commandos who raided the Mavi Marmara cold-blooded murderers. Another lecturer refuses to permit a student returning from reserve duty to enter the classroom in uniform. A third tells his students that he does not believe reserve duty in the territories justifies absence from class — but he is prepared to excuse the absence of students who attend a protest at a checkpoint.

Yet another lecturer calls for a boycott of Israel because of the occupation. His colleague calls for an academic boycott of Israeli universities, including the one that employs him. Another lecturer's students claim he silences them when they disagree with him.


But the greatest threat to academic freedom is the academic boycott. This weapon — even if those who preach it are trying to target government policy — strikes a mortal blow at the freedom to research and develop, because it cuts the scholar off from sources of funding for his research and from colloquy with colleagues, which is essential to academic research.

Nor can we ignore the fact that those who call for a boycott will not be harmed by it themselves. They will enjoy the best of both worlds — both the rights conferred by belonging to the boycotted university and the right to exemption from the very boycott they advocate.

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@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, July 20, 2010.

Part I is below.


Some believe the Jewish Temple still exists, but is invisible to the ordinary person. Part of the belief is that it ascended to heaven and will reemerge when the Messiah arrives. I must admit when first presented with this concept, I found it quite incredible. I now retract my own doubts, for I witnessed the impossible, making it easier for me to grasp the enormity of the pronunciation. All that is needed is to change our frame of reference.

Imagine you live in a house. You go down to the basement and drill a hole into the ground, a well of sorts. One such hole can be used to dump garbage or sewage, a disposal or storage tank. Another can be used to bring up water from the underground, like a well.

Now you are standing some distance underneath, inside the ground. You are in a large cistern, with arches overhead and a pool of water beneath. Above the ceiling is another world altogether, a house and adjacent to it a church. The house is unaware you exist, the occupants believing they are on solid ground. All that was needed was a change of the frame of reference.

Still in the house, that is not imaginary at all, you decided to dig further and found a chamber, at times a whole set of chambers, thus extending your house to much greater dimensions. We are Alice who wonders through the cabinet to another wonderful world.

Now, join me on a tour. We enter just to the northwest of the Western Wall (Kotel, in Hebrew), at the corner of the 2,000 square meters (21,500 square feet) plaza before the Kotel. It is a very hot and humid, sunny day outside, and we are delighted to escape to the coolness. Our first stop is underneath an arch. We are part of a group of some 50 people, and the arch is enormous, allowing us to stand in comfort as other groups arrive.

Our guide points to the several levels below us. We stand above an abyss watching the ongoing archeological excavations. The site is quite amazing, cool and comfortable, as we start on our journey into the earth, along the Western Wall.

"Wait," I say. "The Western Wall is outside, extending 19 meters high (62') and 57 meters long (187'). There are 28 stones that make up the height of the Kotel outside." But apparently there are 17 additional stones underneath, unexposed, at a depth of additional 13 meters (43'). Taken altogether, from base to full height, the Kotel is only a portion of what once was the Western Wall. It once extended 60 meters (197') into the air.

Our guide explains we are stopped under an arch of a bridge leading into the Temple Mount. Currently, it is completely underground, but once was a major engineering structure.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews would ascend to Jerusalem three times a year and roads were needed to accommodate them. A water supply was also necessary, both for drinking and for bathing (physical and spiritual purification) before entering the Temple Mount. The area bustled with commercial activity, from money exchange to various vendors, not much different from today.

We continue our descent into the tunnel. Think of a rectangle within a rectangle. The Kotel outside is like a window on the side of a building, the Western Wall. 2,000 years ago, it was several floors above ground and there were several floors further above it. The Wall itself extends a length of 488 meters (1,600') to a height of 60 meters (192'). Thus, we still have some 320 meters of the Western Wall under the streets and houses of the Old City of Jerusalem.

If you told me there was an ancient city beneath the streets of Jerusalem, I would not have believed you. But as we walked alongside the full length of the Western Wall, as we reached the point closest to where the Holy of Holies once stood (and some say still stands) and as we continued to the point where the very rock of the mountain was the corner stone for the Jewish Temple, I could not contain my amazement.

Once there was a road that surrounded the Wall where people congregated, traded and rested. The road begins at the same corner point, then disappears into the ground, as it was along the base of the Wall. We were walking along another road, midway up the wall and way above us were today's houses, stores and streets of the Old City.

Below us are huge, carefully crafted stones, with outer-edge frames, each stone hewn in Herodian style some 2,000 years ago. They constitute a pile that has become the ground on which the road where we now walk was constructed.

1,940 years ago this coming Tuesday, the 20th of July, on the Ninth of the month of Av, 70CE (AD), the Romans destroyed the Second Temple that was surrounded by four supporting walls, one on each side of the four winds. The Romans chiseled away the stones of these supporting walls, one at a time, throwing them to the surrounding plazas and streets underneath. We know that since the stones still lie there. Some of the stones were enormous, weighing upwards of five tons (ten thousand pounds).

The idea was the utter and complete destruction of Jewish presence via the obliteration of the very essence, or heart of the Jews. Tear the heart out, kill the Jews! Stone after stone they continued, from a height of 60 meters they managed to descend some 30 or 40 meters. This was an enormous achievement, but their hatred was both a catalyst and driving motivation. Nothing would stop them.

Not quite, for the demarcations of God's Temple were magically protected. The Romans were forced to stop after immense effort, leaving a magnificent base of the Western Wall, unexposed above ground and yet accessible in a city-underneath-the-current-Old City.

As with most things in the Bible, there is a "logical" explanation that helps rational skeptics, comprehend the "magic." One of the stones "mid-way" was 3.5 meters (11.5') tall and 13.6 meters (44.6') long. Some estimates put the weight of this "single stone" at 570 tons, or about 1.14 million pounds. As much as the Romans tried, they were unable to break or move it and it remained, protecting all the layers beneath. An amazing engineering feat or glorious plans by the Almighty?

As we began ascending at the end of the tour, we exited into the Via Dolorosa, emerging from the Jewish holiest site to that of the Christians'. The security guards surrounding the group now became very attentive as a group of innocent tourist is ripe prey for the predators surrounding us.

We were reminded that the third element of the three major monotheistic religions is not peaceful, its intentions threatening and methods unmistaken. We were thankful for the security guards, saddened by the very need, alarmed by the threat.

We completed the walk back to today's Western Wall Plaza above ground.

From 1948 to 1967, under Muslim rule, Jews were forbidden to pray next to the Western Wall. Today the threat is even greater, for the mountaintop may serve as a catalyst, a ruse, a convenient opportunity for the break of the great clash of civilizations — modernity and 7th Century, 21st Century and barbarism — he spark that could ignite World War III.

For the past 43 years, excavations at the Western Wall "Jewish side" were conducted most carefully, under both religious and scientific supervision including historians, archeologists and engineers. Part of the Western Wall was exposed, along with the plazas, roads and bridges made of arches leading to the Temple Mount. But we do not know what was exposed on the other ("Muslim") side and what purpose it may ultimately serve.

On the "Jewish side," millions of tourists pass, of all faiths, of all nationalities. They come, they respect and are gifted with an experience they will cherish the rest of their lives. On the "Muslim side," where the Jewish Holy of Holies once stood, and is now lifted into the atmosphere to avoid desecration by hatred and calls to murder the Jews, there must be the very same spaces. Another city-underneath-the-City. What evil secrets does it shelter within?

The two are separated by one wall that has stood now for close to two thousand years and was formed by massive, ancient stones, glued by a magical construction. Immovable, either by man or by the forces of nature, they mark and protect, they remind and separate. They are a monument to the story that cannot be rebuked by the removal of tons of earth mixed with historical, archeological and Biblical artifacts by the other side.

There, in the spaces of the "Muslim side," preparations are undoubtedly underway for the day when the work of the Romans will be completed. Muslims will be called to ascend to the Temple Mount, and protect it from the Jews, Zionists and Israelis. Yet, what the Romans were unable to achieve 1,940 years ago, what Hitler was unable to complete 65 years ago, and what they are attempting to usher in the very near future, will not succeed.

They will fail once again for there is a greater design, a protective "magic" that surrounds the Holy City. Who knows, if we truly believe, possibly the Temple will once again descent from Heaven to Earth, and we will witness the miracle in our lifetimes.

You are invited to take the same journey via a virtual tour at thekotel.org, or come and visit Israel and Jerusalem, the Kotel and the Western Wall Tunnels to live this experience yourself.

Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Asher Eder, July 20, 2010.

"Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world."
— Winston Churchill (2)

The anti-Semitic world has a hard time with us Jews and we should feel pity for all those who work relentlessly to give us a bad name. They want to boycott us in academia, journalism, European governments, the market place, and even just in the streets of daily life. Indeed, we must admit that we are a real nuisance. It is not easy to live with us Jews; we are troublemakers and annoyingly irritating. There is no way of escaping this fact.

The problem with us Jews is that we are constantly breaking the rules. For thousands of years we have survived empires that did everything to try and destroy us — whether it was the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Germans, or others. In the 20th century it looked as if they had finally succeeded. Six million of us were killed in the Holocaust. But instead of us Jews disappearing, we decided that after two thousand years of exile it would be better to go home and rebuild our own country. And so we did. And what took other nations hundreds and hundreds of years to build, we did in only a few. What was possible we did very quickly, and what was impossible took us a little longer. Not only did we violate the rules of history in exile, but we became the greatest "chutzpah-niks" on earth while rebuilding our 4000-year-old homeland. Who would deny that this is highly irritating?

And now they want to boycott us. But how can they? It would be suicide. Truly boycotting Jews, after all, would mean a lot more than targeting a few Israeli products or some Universities. Anti-Semites would have to boycott many products on which their lives depend. Medications for all sorts of illnesses, produced by Teva and Abic, are only one example. What about Multiple Sclerosis? Israelis discovered a blood test by which one can distinguish between mild and severe cases. And think of people who suffer from spinal injuries, paralysis, breathing problems, depression, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, smallpox virus, DNA breakdown, etc. In all these areas of medicine, Jews in Israel have made major contributions towards healing and improving the quality of life for people around the world.

If not for these remarkable Jewish discoveries, most anti-Semites, if not all, would be confined to bed with serious illnesses, and some would have died long ago. So, please have some pity on them! They have a really hard time with us!

What about Windows Operating Systems, voice mail, AOL Instant Messenger (invented by four Jewish kids!), the latest developments for the cellular phone, and anti-terror systems, all developed by Jews in this terrible, obnoxious country called Israel? And let us not forget that Israel produces more scientific papers and has more start-up companies, per capita, than any other nation. Except for Silicon Valley, it has the highest concentration of high tech companies in the world. It ranks #2 in the world of venture capital funds! Would you not feel a little jealous? Is some pity for the anti-Semite not in place? Not only would many be ill, or dead, but those remaining alive would not dare to board a plane or be able to write anti-Semitic slurs using their computers. For that matter, even communicating by cell phone with their fellow anti-Semites would be impossible!

And then there is this man called Jesus. He was a Jew who introduced some very important Jewish moral ideals to the Western world. He takes center stage in the New Testament, the most admired book in lands where millions of anti-Semites live. Not only that, but he is the most admired man in the entire West, worshipped by millions as nothing less than the son of God. Just imagine — a Jewish boy! And if this is not enough, everyone knows that if he would be alive today, he would not eat at the anti-Semite's home but would ask for a kosher restaurant run by a Jew with a beard and peyoth (side curls). How terrible! How do you expect the anti-Semite to react?

Without some of the Jewish teachings of this man, much of so-called Western civilization would still find itself in a primitive, cannibal-like stage in which anti-Semites, while sipping coffee in a restaurant and thinking how to become more sophisticated anti-Semites, would have to run like the devil so as not to get eaten alive by one of their fellow men. But how paradoxical! Anti-Semites are dead scared of this very man. Why? Because it is this man who brought these Jewish ethics and moral standards to our western world: the very same ethics and standards that these anti-Semites wish to destroy! So who would not hate the Jews for giving birth to this disturbing man? Anti-Semites do not spit on the Jews because they are Jesus killers, but because they are Jesus givers! They want to re-enact the crucifixion of their "savior" by torturing the Jews who gave them this irritating Jew. So have some mercy. These are hard times for anti-Semites!

And then, every anti-Semite knows that the USA and Britain would not be what they are today without their Jews. These countries would probably look more like jungles with underdeveloped economies, bad health facilities and lack of scientific discoveries. Their laws, although secularized, are deeply influenced by the Torah and the spirit of the great Jewish prophets. These laws would probably be non-existent, and the anti-Semite would not have the freedom of speech he now so enjoys.

Indeed, it does not make sense. Here is a country in the Middle East, no larger than a piece of real estate and so small that it is nearly invisible. One needs a magnifying glass when searching for it on a map. Its main inhabitants, the Jews, and their brothers and sisters all around the world amount to less people than a slight statistical error in the Chinese census. Or, as Sir Isaiah Berlin once said, " have enjoyed rather too much history and too little geography." (3) Yet, we are one of the oldest, if not the oldest nation in the world! For most of our existence we have lived in foreign countries, without an army to protect us and mainly poorer than the poor. But we contribute, per capita, more to this world than any other nation. Just think about it: Would you not get depressed if you were an anti-Semite?

And then this: For as long as we have existed, we Jews have not had heroes like Julius Caesar, Titus and other men of military superiority. Instead, we opposed all those "heroisms" that other nations see as their raison d'etre. In fact, we could not understand what there was to admire! We, alternatively, loved our peace-seeking, spiritual leaders such as Moses, Isaiah and Amos. Instead of getting carried away with heroic battles, beautiful women, orgies and other indulgences, we have an unbridled passion for studying and for knowledge. We are obsessed with our Holy Book, which constantly reprimands us and is so demanding. So what do we expect from the anti-Semite who realizes that the Jews poke fun at everything that he holds dear? That they would love us?

Yes, for all these thousands of years Jews did not really know (and still seem not to know!) how to fight a war, but paradoxically, we manage to stand up against millions and millions of enemies who surround us. And like the anti-Semite, everyone knows that the Jew will again outlive them, as we have for the past 4000 years. If this is not irritating, what is?

But let us not make the mistake of falling into the trap of arrogance and haughtiness. It is not our doing that we are an unusual people "that shall dwell alone and not be reckoned among the nations." (Bamidbar 23.9) It is an ultimate Power that designated us as His instrument in history, commanding us to serve the rest of mankind and remind them of Him and His moral demands.

But for anti-Semites, God and His far reaching ethics are irritating. They wish to rid themselves of Him so that they can "get on with their lives." Add to this the fact that anti-Semites make sure that the Jew, his country and his people are the most debated topics in the world, and you understand why they have such a hard time. Under these circumstances, who would not be on the verge of a nervous breakdown? Have some rachmanuth (mercy) on all of those anti-Semites who must cope with these terrible traumas. Understand their frustration and their need to let it all out! And where will they end up? On the couch of a psychiatrist who uses methods developed by a Jew to relieve them of their depression! So, you get the picture? Es is shver tzu sein an anti-Semite! (4) Boycott? Come on! Suicide, you mean! He who laughs last, laughs best.


(1) This essay with slight differences was published in my book, For the Love of Israel and the Jewish People. Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2008, p.209-212.

(2) Quoted by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in The Controversy of Zion. London: Sinclair-Stevensohn, 1966, xi.

(3) The Origins of Israel. 1953, p.143.

(4) Based on a famous Yiddish expression, "Es is shver tzu sein a Yid" — "It is hard to be a Jew."

Contact Asher Eder by email at avrason@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by David Isaac, July 20, 2010.

In "Weinberger's Conversion," (June 3, 1983), Shmuel Katz wondered at then-US Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger's intriguing "metamorphosis" from someone who had publicly hectored and engaged in "outrageous behaviour towards Israel" to "a great admirer of Israel who cannot find a hard word to say about us."

Of course, "Weinberger's Conversion" wasn't a conversion at all, but "transparently an expression of the new tactics of the administration as they have matured in the last couple of months." After the failure of "the great Master Plan," which was to see Israel bullied into negotiations to hand over Judea and Samaria, "it was no doubt a relief to be able at least to mend a fence with Mr. Begin," Katz writes.

Has Obama converted to Zionism?

One can't help draw similarities between "Weinberger's Conversion" then and Obama's "conversion" this week in his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Obama described the bond between the two countries as "unbreakable." Unfortunately, Obama's "conversion" is about as genuine as was Weinberger's, in reality, simply old strategy clothed in new tactics.

Remember, it was only in March that the president unceremoniously ushered Netanyahu in through a back door, denied him a photo op, and then left in the middle of the meeting to go have dinner with his family — behavior that everyone agreed was unprecedented. It was also the president who demanded a "total settlement freeze" and sent his Secretary of State to harangue Israel's prime minister, demanding a stop to all construction in Jewish neighborhoods built in Jerusalem after 1967.

The Obama administration's change in attitude is partly motivated by election concerns. Not only did polls in Israel show that a very high percentage (75%) of Israeli Jews felt Obama's behavior toward Israel was unjustified — making the possibility of forcing a change in Israel's leadership unlikely — but also on the domestic front Jewish support was eroding.

As important as Netanyahu may have felt this meeting was in order to satisfy an electorate back home that feels dependent on U.S. support, Obama needed it far more in order to shore up American Jewish support for the mid-term elections.

Another, more worrisome, reason behind Obama's new approach is Israeli weakening on key issues. In this sense, the meeting is a reward to Netanyahu for "seeing the light." Weinberger's "conversion" was also in part motivated by Israeli softening on key issues. We see the same sort of bending over by Israel today. Obama mentioned Gaza during the meeting, 'commending' Netanyahu for allowing more goods into the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. We don't yet know what other concessions Netanyahu might have made behind closed doors.

Remarkably, in an interview with CBS News' Katie Couric the day after his meeting, Netanyahu vociferously defended Obama. Couric brought up the fact that "71% of the Jews in Israel surveyed said they dislike President Obama." Netanyahu responded, "Well, maybe they don't have the opportunity to have the kind of conversations that I had. And maybe they're not aware also of the ongoing cooperation between Israel and the United States."

So here we have an Israeli prime minister who has the people of Israel on his side, providing him with the sort of popular backing he needs to resist American pressure, and rather than take advantage of it, he undermines it and bolsters what is clearly the most anti-Israel administration yet.

The fact is, when it comes to brass tacks, or "tachlis" as they say in Israel, nothing fundamental has changed. Obama continues to call for "two states living side by side in peace and security" — a fantastical scenario which ignores the Arabs' true, and oft-repeated, aim to wipe Israel off the map.

At the same time, we hear Netanyahu going on about how committed he is to peace, promising to push the "peace process" forward within weeks, adding for emphasis, "When I say the next few weeks, that's what I mean."

Reading Shmuel Katz's writings, one is struck by a disturbing similarity between Benjamin Netanyahu and Menachem Begin. Shmuel says that Begin had convinced himself that he was the man who would bring Israel peace. In the end, he lost Israel the Sinai peninsula and paved the way for further withdrawals.

Whatever was going on in Begin's mind seems to have also infected Netanyahu. He, too, has made peculiar sounds over the years to the effect that he is uniquely positioned to bring peace. His last such remark was two days after his meeting with the president while speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations. Netanyahu said he intended "to confound the skeptics and critics" when it comes to 'negotiating a peace'.

Where Israel's leaders are concerned there has been more than enough confounding. Honesty with the Israeli people and the courage to stand up to American pressure would be far more surprising... and appreciated.

This is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, July 20, 2010.

This is by Geert Wilders and it is archived at


I first visited an Islamic country in 1982.

I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh. We were two almost penniless backpacking students. We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea.

I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people. I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were.

While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.

I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.

It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, "cast terror into their hearts" (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of "imperialists" and "Zionists", aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.

I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?

In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and "the curses it lays on its votaries."

"Besides the fanatical frenzy, ... there is this fearful fatalistic apathy," he wrote. "The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. ... The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. ... Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it." And Churchill concluded: "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

The "indecently" dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice," as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. "It is sinful to approach them," the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.

Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father's "face darken and he is filled with gloom" (sura 43:15). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love — that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice."

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.

I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that "Nothing can be compared with Allah" (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.

Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps — let us certainly hope so — only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the "fearful fatalistic apathy" Churchill referred to.

The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: "About the immediate causes of things — precisely how they happen — they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. 'Do you think it will rain?' you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. 'If God wills,' is the answer. You pass the native hospital. 'Are the doctors good?' 'In our country,' the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, 'we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.' All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. ... They have relapsed — all except those who are educated according to Western methods — into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy."

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.

As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: "Fatalism is no option; 'Inch' Allah' is a curse; Submission is a disgrace.

Free yourselves. It is up to you.

Geert Wilders

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, July 20, 2010.

This was written by Clifford May and it is archived at

Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and the Chairman of the Policy Committee department within the Committee on the Present Danger. He works as a columnist, with his writings appearing in National Review Online and in The American Spectator.


Last month, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, the mufti of Jerusalem, called on Palestinians to defend the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which he said was "threatened by the plans of the enemies of God," by which he meant Israelis.

It should go without saying that this is a lie. Israel poses no threat to Al-Aqsa, now or ever. On the contrary, Israelis have always recognized and respected Islamic sovereignty over Islamic religious sites within Israel — despite the fact that Jewish holy places have been desecrated by Palestinians, Jordanians, and others. The notion that the Israelis would raze Al-Aqsa to build a temple on its ruins — as the mufti has also claimed — is a ludicrous slander.

What should not go without saying is how serious it is that such an allegation has been leveled by Jerusalem's senior Islamic religious authority. Under sharia, Islamic law, to be an "enemy of God" is to be the worst sort of criminal. Just a few weeks ago in Iran, five people were declared mohareb (enemies of God) — and then hanged.

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, must know all this. Yet he says nothing about it. Nor do most Western diplomats, politicians, and journalists.

Also overlooked is the historical context. In the 1930s, the mufti of Jerusalem was Haj Amin el-Husseini. He, too, despised Jews — there was not yet a state of Israel to despise. After participating in a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in 1941, Husseini moved to Berlin. There he became Hitler's ally, the "most important public face and voice of Nazi Germany's Arabic-language propaganda," in the words of historian Jeffrey Herf, who adds: "Husseini was a key figure in finding common ideological ground between National Socialism, on the one hand, and the doctrines of Arab nationalism and militant Islam, on the other."

Herf's groundbreaking study, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, draws on archival resources not previously mined to explore the extent and significance of this collaboration. His nuanced conclusion: "Nazi Germany's Arabic-language propaganda was neither an imposition of a set of hatreds previously unknown to the traditions of Islam nor a matter of simply lighting the match to long-standing but suppressed anti-Jewish hatreds." Rather, the Nazis and their Arab partners drew on and emphasized "the most despicable and hate-filled aspects of the cultures of Europe and of Islam."

They also added this audacious twist: They claimed they were the ones under attack. Their purpose, they insisted, was merely to protect themselves from a malevolent conspiracy. Over and over again, Nazi diplomats and their allies drove the message that Churchill had started the war against Germany "to expand British power," and that Roosevelt was behind Churchill "as the exponent of world Jewry."

Herf elaborates: "In Europe, the Nazis presented their policy of 'extermination' and 'annihilating' the Jews as a desperate and justified act of self-defense. In their propaganda directed at the Middle East, they urged Arabs and Muslims to take matters into their own hands and 'kill the Jews' before the Jews were able to kill them. In both its European and Middle Eastern dimensions, the propaganda rested on the identical logic of paranoia and projection."

And here we are, more than a half century later, with the current mufti of Jerusalem fabricating crimes against Muslims for which Jews deserve to be put to death. Meanwhile, Hamas leaders openly declare their intention to annihilate Israel and exterminate Jews — claiming they, too, are acting in self-defense, and calling themselves a "resistance" movement.

The number of people who appear to be buying these fictions is not insignificant. Few scholars have examined the links between Nazi and Islamist ideas in the 20th century. Few journalists are examining their venomous legacy in the present era.

Herf, obviously, is an exception — as is author and social critic Paul Berman, who recently observed that a taboo has developed: Most intellectuals determinedly ignore the fact that "Nazi inspirations have visibly taken root among present-day Islamists, notably in regard to the demonic nature of Jewish conspiracies and the virtues of genocide."

This means, Berman added, that "the Islamist preachers and ideologues have succeeded in imposing on the rest of us their own categories of analysis." That amounts to a victory for them and, of course, a defeat for us.

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 19, 2010.


Syria has just banned the face-covering veil, niqab, for students and teachers in public and private university's. The government justified this as protecting the country's secular identity. As in some European countries, the government of Syria considers the full veil destabilizing. Head scarves still are permitted (Wall St. J., 7/20/10, A13).

Syria's dynasty, drawn from the Alawite sect, has had an on again, off again conflict with the Moslem Brotherhood. Clothing can be used to conceal identity, repress identity, and isolating non-followers who than can be intimidated. TURKEYARRESTS AL QAIDA MEMBERS

Turkey has arrested 29 suspected members of al-Qaida, in several Turkish cities.

In 2003, an al-Qaida cell in Turkey committed two suicide bombings that killed 63 people. The targets were a synagogue, a British bank, and the British consulate. Seven people were jailed for life, for those crimes (IMRA, 7/21/10). http://www.imra.org.il/


The al-Qassam website states that al-Jazeera reports that 70% of the medical supplies donated in a humanitarian gesture to the people of Gaza have expired. They now do more harm than good.
http://www.qassam.ps/news-3157-Graveclothes_and_expired_drugs_ donated_for_Gaza.html

Some of the clothing donated are "graves clothes."

The report quotes Munir al-Bursh, who manages the file of contributions in the Ministry of Health (IMRA, 7/21/10). http://www.imra.org.il/


Reporting from New York, Petra, the Jordanian News Agency, http://petra.gov.jo/Artical.aspx?Lng=1&Section=1&Artical=209350 described a UN seminar to take place in Lisbon on July 22 and 23 on the role of the media in advancing the "peace process."

Attending will be "current and former policy-makers, government officials, diplomats, civil society organizations, members of parliament, academics, and journalists."

The reported purpose of the seminar is "enhancing dialogue and understanding between Israelis and Palestinians as well as sensitizing public opinion to the Palestinian cause and the peace process."

The panels will consider the roles, in making peace, of the Israeli and Palestinian Arab mayors, women, and new and traditional media in reducing tensions and encouraging peace.


Israel presided over the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding by 86 other countries, members of the ITF (Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research) and the ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights).

Israeli Deputy Foreign Min. Danny Ayalon remarked on "...elements that deny the Holocaust and are preparing the next one. We must preserve the memory of the Holocaust so that similar horrors and hatred will never be repeated and the world will become a safer place." (Arutz-7, 7/22/10). http://www.israelnationalnews.com/


In apartheid South Africa, the black and "colored" majority were kept apart from whites in most aspects of life, including hospitals, ambulances, sports, movies, swimming pools, park benches. White dominance was the law.

Blacks had to carry passbooks. Violations led to deportation to Bantustans.

Many types of work were barred to non-whites [or were paid less]. Miscegenation was a crime. Whites got a paid education, blacks were restricted. Blacks were not allowed alcohol.

Those practices do not apply in Israel. The large Arab minority have equal rights, as stated in Israel's Declaration of Independence. Israeli Arabs have 11 deputies, of whom three have been Deputy Speaker of Knesset. Arab diplomats represent Israel in a number of foreign countries. Arabs study in all Israeli universities [including the one built in Judea-Samaria by "settlers"]. All Israeli children are entitled to free public education, regardless of color or religion.

Israel has granted residency rights to immigrants from all over, without having to convert. Israel brought in 70,000 Ethiopian Jews, blacks, who have been integrating.

One difference is that Jews are drafted, Arabs are not, but may volunteer, as a few do.

Like many countries, including the U.S., Israel has a security fence. The U.S. fence keeps out mostly aspirants for jobs. Critics misleadingly call Israel's fence an apartheid fence. It is not. It serves to bar terrorists who, in the past, succeeded in murdering thousands of Israelis and crippling thousands more. To prevent that, the wall is worth its inconvenience to Arabs, whose collective conduct requires security measures.

Israel is more tolerant than any of its neighbors that criticize it (Flame ad in July Commentary).


The oil trucks line up for days at the Kurdistan side of the border with Iran, waiting to pass into Iran. Kurdish authorities issue them the permits, contrary to U.S. sanctions and to Iraq's need for some of the refined products. The proceeds are not included in Kurdistan's official budget and are not shared with the central government of Iraq (IMRA, 7/20/10 from Agence France Presse, which interviewed some Iraqis).


White phosphorus bombs legally may be used on military targets. The U.S. used them in Iraq in 2004 for smokescreens, lighting up a battlefield, or driving troops out of bunkers. Israel used them smoke and light, in Gaza.

Israel was criticized for it. Israel told the UN it will curb their use in civilian areas harboring enemy troop installations. Israel also will assign a humanitarian officer to combat missions (Arutz-7, 7/21/10).


Feisal Shahzad, the Times Square, New York bomber, clarified his use of inferior explosives despite his having been trained in superior ones. He explained that the government was more alert to purchases of deadlier explosive materials than of milder, dual purpose ones. That is a plus for government protection against the worse bombs, and a minus for government protection against poorer bombs.

Mr. Shahzad preferred a less detectable way to murder a smaller number of us New Yorkers, than a more detectable way to murder a greater number Devlin Barrett, Wall St. J., 7/20/10, A2).

People had supposed Shahzad incompetent for using poorer explosives.

The government cannot be everywhere, in our vast country, whose government permits the enemy to be anywhere.

Shahzad was acting in the name of Islam. If asked, Muslims here might answer that he was not in the spirit and rules of Islam. They should not have to be asked. New York Muslims, who say they want to build a mega-mosque near Ground Zero to demonstrate assimilation into American, should be active in the media and Internet, disavowing terrorists who claim to represent them. The media would welcome this. Why do the Muslims not do it? Could it be due to the fact that radical Saudi Arabia subsidizes 80% of U.S. mosques? How many Muslim Americans are intimidated by their own co-religionists in what is supposed to be a free country? If many, we need police investigation. If few, why don't the ordinary congregants form patriotic organizations to show illegitimacy to the Shahzads? Muslim organizations presently rationalize terrorism and object only to defenses against it.


Expressing dismay over what he calls Russian President Medvedev's "misunderstanding" of Iran's nuclear program, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said that Iran has proved its peaceful intent. He suggested that Russia turn to Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal that he alleged threatens the region.

What was the proof? He said the proof is Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) (IMRA, 7/19/10).

For a couple of decades, Iran has been devious and uncooperative with the IAEA. That is on the record. In response to some IAEA complaints, Iran has coughed up some information, like the uncooperative dog whose master presses its throat to make it cough up garbage grabbed from the sidewalk.

Nor would ostensible cooperation prove anything. From The Islamic Bomb and Deadly Business, both written by Herb Krosney, the methods rogue states use for clandestine nuclear development and to deceive the IAEA can be seen to be similar to have been exposed also as Iran's methods. Standing in the swamp of deceit, Iran protests it is clean and dry. Believe Iran if you wish. But then you deceive yourself.

How free of duplicity is Medvedev? He criticizes Iran's nuclear develop when it practically has the bomb, thanks partly to Russian tutelage in nuclear industry that Russia is still engaged in. Honest Russia, honoring contracts. It is enough to restore one's faith in human nature.

Israel has had nuclear capability for some decades. It never used nuclear weapons and never exploited its capability to blackmail its enemies. Unlike Iran, which threatens to destroy Israel, it did not threaten to destroy its enemies. It reserved its capability as a deterrent. Now imagine Iran demonstrating that it has nuclear weapons. Can you also imagine Iran not using them and not exploiting them to blackmail other countries? To ask is to answer.


Like light disappearing into a black hole, the U.S. wastes funds — they disappear

into the UN treasury. A former UN undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services reported, "There is no transparency [at the UN], there is a lack of accountability. I do not see any signs of reform in the Organization."

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen adds, "The stew of corruption, mismanagement, and negligence long-plaguing the UN has reached a boiling point. " She adds, the UN Has abandoned the principles of its Charter, come under strong influence by rogue states, condones enemies of freedom and human rights, neglects international security, and is biased against Israel.

The congresswoman suggests that the U.S. withhold UN dues until the UN reforms. She has introduced the UN Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, (HR 557) which would condition resumption of dues on sweeping UN reform. Her bill has 100 co-sponsors (Israel Resource Review, 7/20/10).


Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, age 82, is reported by intelligence sources to be afflicted with terminal cancer, leaving the future of Egypt uncertain. The supposed array of successors include his son, who is known for economic reform, Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, or former IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei? One question is whether the non-aggression pact with Israel would be retained by his successor

Egypt had denied the rumors of the illness. The President appeared well at his meetings, thanks to temporary medical effects (Arutz-7, 7/20/10).

Will Mubarak make some dramatic move in his last year or two? Will he abdicate in favor of a successor? Will the Moslem Brotherhood gain power? If they do, they would inherit a first class military paid for largely with $30 billion of U.S. taxes.


After Turkey called Gaza Israel's "open air jail," Daniel Pipes compared Israel treatment of Gaza with Turkey's treatment of Cyprus.

1. When Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, it used napalm. Israeli troops in Gaza used only conventional weapons, and produced few civilian casualties. [Total Arab casualties were about 1,400, of whom 400 were civilians, but since Hamas illegally fought among civilians, that Hamas war crime resulted in most of the civilian casualties, for which Hamas is legally responsible.

2. Turkey forced most of the Greeks out of the 37% of Cyprus that it occupied. Israel did not force Arabs out of any part of Gaza.

3. Turkey brought in 160,000 citizens of Turkey to settle on formerly Greek-owned property, more than doubling the Turkish population on the island. Israel previously had removed its own, 9,000 citizens from Gaza. [Nor had those Israeli citizens displaced Arabs when they acquired the land they lived on. As heir to the Mandate, which recognized the historical Jewish connection to Palestine, and which recognized the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute their homeland there, and since Gaza is an unallocated part of the Mandate and not part of a Palestinian Arab sovereignty, Israel has a better legal claim to Gaza than do the Palestinian Arabs.]

4. Bülent Akarcal?, a senior Turkey politician, said "Northern Cyprus is governed like a province of Turkey." Hamas, an enemy of Israel, runs Gaza.

5. Turkey pretends that the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which it established, is autonomous. Gazans have real autonomy.

6. Both Cyprus and Gaza have separation fences. Israel's fence keeps Arab terrorists from easy access to the State of Israel. Cyprus' fence keeps apart the two groups within what had been a single country. [This point may not take into account that when Archbishop Makarios was ruler, he moved toward "enosis," or union with Greece. That made Turkey worry what would happen to the rights of Turkish Cypriots.]

Northern Cyprus, occupied territory, is more of an open air jail than is Gaza (Daniel Pipes, The Washington Times, 7/20/10).

The people of Gaza suffer from Hamas dictatorship, terrorism by non-Hamas radicals, and Hamas' state of war. Mr. Pipes does not mean that Gaza is free, only that Israel is not the one oppressing it.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald M. Steinberg, July 19, 2010.

Long after the age of prophecy has ended, it is difficult to distinguish between those who have something serious to say and the many false prophets in our midst.

In the final days of the First Temple, with the Babylonian army nearing the city walls, the prophet Jeremiah warned Jerusalemites of destruction and exile if they did not change their ways. The prophet was ridiculed and pursued, with catastrophic results.

Since then, the Jewish people have been plagued by a continuous stream of imitations — self-proclaimed Jeremiahs warning of gloom and doom, but without the prophetic insight or divine license.

With the creation of Israel and the challenges faced by the restored Jewish state, the number of modern day Jeremiahs has grown exponentially. Artists, professors, columnists, bloggers, NGO officials and politicians have assumed the role and adopted the rhetoric, if not the substance, of morality. Indeed, the prophecy of doom has become a major industry.

But a great deal of caution needs to be exercised in drawing analogies between our times and the events from 24 centuries ago, when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and exiled the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

Now, long after the age of prophecy has ended, it is difficult to distinguish between those who have something serious to say and the many false prophets in our midst. Self-appointed and self-promoting messengers come from the fringes of the political, religious, and social spectrum — Left and Right, ultra-religious and fundamentalist-secular — and seek to impose their private views and psychoses. They are usually unable to gain support through the electoral system, and thus hostile to democracy, but have access to large amounts of foreign money which is used to impose their agendas.

This is far from Jeremiah's model.

A close reading of the biblical text shows that the original Jeremiah clearly did not want the job (like his professional colleague Jonah), and frequently pleaded to be released from this extremely unpleasant task. In contrast, modern self-appointed prophets have huge egos. From within the country and the from the Diaspora, they desperately seek the attention accompanying warnings of the imminent demise of Israel or the disappearance of the Jewish people. These are not people who dislike the limelight and argue with God to avert the forthcoming punishment.

In recent years, the Jeremiah industry has flourished by claiming moral infractions by the IDF in defending the country from terror attacks. Otherwise invisible individuals (including failed politicians) have gained a huge amount of attention and funding from those eager to spread allegations of Israeli abuses, regardless of whether or not they are backed by serious evidence.

Many claim, like Jeremiah, to "love Israel" and to possess "the truth."

Furthermore, Jeremiah delivered his rebukes from Jerusalem, as a Jew, facing the people whom he sought to influence, rather than from a distant and safe observation point, like Babylonia. In contrast, many of today's Jewish "prophets," such as Jeremy Ben-Ami (J Street), Daniel Sokatch (New Israel Fund) and intellectuals Tony Judt, Peter Beinart and Naomi Klein, promote simple solutions for the challenges facing Israelis, while living in New York, Washington, Toronto and London. Those self-proclaimed prophets who maintain an Israeli address focus most of their attention on, and receive the money that gives them influence from, these distant power centers.

Other Israel-focused gloom-mongers greatly exaggerate the political and military threats, warning that any sign of flexibility or closing down of outposts will bring instant destruction. For some Jeremiahs on the Right, the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, and the more recent settlement freeze designed to restart talks with the Palestinians, are portrayed as the equivalent to the destruction of the Temple and exile.

Iran is also a popular topic for the prophets of imminent disaster.

While the dangers are real, the painters of these black scenarios understate Israel's power and resilience. What is needed in response to such threats is a careful assessment of the situation and best options, and not obsessive panic pumped up by headline writers and bloggers with little understanding of the details.

Turning inward, we have the constant warnings that the Jewish people are on the verge of disappearance due to religious fanaticism, on one side of the scale, or religious pluralism and ignorance of the sources on the other. Jews have survived and evolved under adverse conditions for more than 4,000 years, and predications of the end of Jewish history are also exaggerated.

None of this should be confused with a call for complacency.

The Jewish people have suffered a number of massive tragedies after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and exile, including the expulsion from Spain and the Nazi Holocaust. Pollyanna-ish predictions of instant and painless peace agreements, or of Jewish continuity without education, are no better than nightmarish prophecy.

Mr. Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University. This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, July 19, 2010.


Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il and visit
http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see other examples of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Resource Review, July 19, 2010.

This was written by Rhonda Spivak, an attorney, writer, and member of Canadian & Israel Bar Associations, now edits Winnipeg Jewish Review


Fatah's Ahmed Qurai[Abu Allah], Former Palestinian Prime Minister, and Israeli Opposition Leader Tzipi Livni, former Foreign Minister in Jerusalem's King David Hotel. (Photo: Rhonda Spivak)

JERUSALEM — Opposition leader Tzipi Livni, head of Israel's Kadima party, shared a podium in English with former Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei [Abu Alla] of Fatah at Jerusalem's King David Hotel on July 11th, 2010.

This was the first time the two had met since they engaged in substantive talks on a weekly basis when Livni was Foreign Minister in Ehud Olmert's government after the Annapolis conference.

Throughout her speech Livni repeatedly referred to the need for a "two state" solution and used the words "two states for two people" and similar phraseology, while Qurei, on the other hand, did not utter the words " two states" or "two state solution" even once. In addition Livni spoke of the need to "divide" the land that is between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan River at several points in her remarks, but Qurei did not use similar terminology of "dividing" the land.  

Professor Tamar Herman of the Israel Democracy Institiute. Both Livni and Qurei were "insincere" in suggesting that the issue is one "leadership" not "public opinion." (Photo: Rhonda Spivak)

Livni and Qurei's speeches were part of a conference titled "The Israeli-Palestinian Proximity Talks: Lessons from Past Negotiations," which was organized by Hebrew University's Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace in conjunction with the German based Konrad Adenaur Stiftung group.

While Qurei did refer to the Oslo Accords as "the most important historical breakthrough in the history of the conflict," and also refereed to his negotiations with Livni after Annapolis as "serious negotiations", once can not help but wonder why he chose not to utter the words "two-states" even once?

Is it possible he did not do so, because on the Palestinian street, more people are talking about "a one state solution," or waiting to obtain all of 'historic Palestine', such that Fatah determined that was no point for it to waste any efforts on uttering "two states" when Livni is not even in power.

Regarding the resumption of negotiations, Qurei did not soften the official Fatah stance. He said "I don't think it is possible for PA leadership to go to direct negotiations "without the stopping of settlements." He referred to Netanyahu, saying "you know that he continues the settlements," despite the apparent settlement freeze.

Qurei also said that Netanyahu "is taking unilateral actions in Jerusalem", regarding home demolitions and other matters, such as construction of roads. "The Jerusalem situation is a time bomb," he said. Notwithstanding the rivalry between Hamas and Fatah, it is interesting to note that Qurei made an effort to support the rights of members of Hamas's legislative council, to remain in Jerusalem. (is that a sign that his radar is more attuned with Hamas than Israel? )

"No one can accept that Israel has released representatives of Hamas Legislative council [from prison since 2006] and then is making them leave Jerusalem," Qurei said.

Qurei also said that he doesn't see any "signs of encouragement", and that "We [Palestinians] want a process to solve the problems, not a process to manage the problems."

He also complained that Netanyahu had deviated from the course taken by the government in which Livni had served. "If there is no stable policy, there will be no process," he said.

Qurei said that the lack of progress was not a "problem of public opinion" but a problem of leaders," such as "their tactics and personal motives"( although presumably he was directing those remarks at Netanyahu and other leading members of his coalition, and not PA President Abbas).

Qurei ended his comments by saying that he personally believes that "people on both sides will support any just agreement that will be reached [emphasis added]." Here again rather than saying "two state solution," as Livni did throughout her speech, Qurei used the much more nebulous phrase, "just solution."

Livni and Qurei shook hands after he finished his remarks.

During her own talk, Livni mocked the Netanyahu government for not getting direct peace talks off the ground. She said the Annapolis talks, which took place while she was foreign minister, "didn't fail, didn't end, it was stopped" by elections.

"Less than two years ago, we met at this hotel a few times a week," she said, referring to her meetings with Qurei.

"The press wasn't here because it was not news. It was just the ongoing relations between the Israelis and Palestinians."

Livni said of Qurei. "He was a tough negotiator if I may say. I was also I think a tough negotiator.

Livni stressed that to make progress in the process, "It's not about public opinion. It's about decision making [by] leaders. I believe that the role of a leader is to make a change in the long run for their people."

She said that negotiating requires "trust", that "the other side wants to end this conflict on the basis of two states."

"Now there are no talks about how to end the conflict," she said

Livni added that "I know" that an agreement providing for a two state solution "will be supported by the vast majority of Israelis, and "I hope" this will be supported by the vast majority of Palestinians [emphasis added]."

Livni warned that 'time works against the vision of two states," and that it was not in Israel's interest to "wait until someone forces us," or "puts completely different maps before us." She rejected the notion that Israel "should wait for a better partner."

" The idea of two-nation states represents the best interest of Israel. It's about our future and existence of Israel and of the Jewish people."

Livni referred to the framework that she and Qurei had agreed on in their negotiations.

"We decided we needed to engage on all core issues. We decided that negotiations should be discrete. We decided that nothing would be agreed on until everything was agreed on and we decided to negotiate on all issues simultaneously."

Livni made it clear that even if an agreement were reached with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, the agreement would not be implemented with Hamas in power in Gaza.".

"If we had an agreement, we won't give the keys to Hamas"

But having a two-state solution is going to "force the Arab world to decide whether to support the agreement," and it will make "the Palestinians have to decide" what they want...So it's a "win, win situation."

Livni warned that while Israel would have to make concessions for peace, the lack of peace would prove more costly.

"The price of not having an agreement for Israel is higher than the price of having an agreement," she said.

She ended her remarks by saying "This is the time of decisions."

Both Livni and Qurei were ushered out of the room with no time given for questions from the audience of several hundred people.


After the two had left the room, Prof. Tamar Herman, Senior Fellow of the Israel Democracy Institute said that she felt both Livni and Qurei were being "insincere" when they said that the conflict "is not a problem of public opinion but one of leaders." She said that Livni herself had said that her talks with Qurei had to be "closed talks" without the public, because public opinion is a very important factor in the conflict. She noted the irony of coming to the room to say that this is an issue of leadership and downplaying public pinion, while at the same time both sides "spend fortunes on polling public opinion."

She also made a rather stinging criticism of Livni, saying "I don't recall Mrs. Livni ever talking so much about the need to have two states when she was Foreign Minister."

Walid Salem, a Palestinian, who is the Director of the Center for Democracy and Community Development in Jerusalem, who spoke after Livni, took issue with Livni's comments that even if an agreement with the PA were reached, it would not be implemented in Gaza with Hamas in power. He chided Livni for not going far enough in her positions. His view was that any agreement would have to be implemented immediately and that it was not acceptable to say "we are ready to have an agreement but we will postpone its implementation." He insisted that Hamas would have to be engaged in an agreement.

He suggested "creating a parallel process" which would engage Hamas by having Israel and Hamas agree to some sort of "hudna."[ time limited cessation of violence], which "would be continuous and renewed."

He also suggested using the Arab Peace Initiative as part of the process as a way of "pressuring Hamas to support the peace process."


One final point to remember when Livni spoke about "not giving keys to Hamas," is that in the January 25, 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won over Fatah in both the West Bank and Gaza. There is therefore no reason to be confident that Hamas won't soon hold the "keys" for the West Bank, not just Gaza, after any agreement with Israel is signed.

[The final results of the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections were that Hamas won the election, with 74 seats to the ruling Fatah's 45 seats. Of the Electoral Lists, Hamas received 44.45% and Fatah 41.43% and of the Electoral Districts, Hamas party candidates received 41.73% and Fatah party candidates received 36.96%. www.answers.com/topic/palestinian-legislative-election-2006)]

And guess what? At the time Hamas beat Fatah in January 2006, the Palestinian Prime Minister was none other than Ahmed Qurei.

One final point-The latest poll by the Palestine Center for Public Opinion shows that Hamas's popularity in the West Bank has increased in the last few weeks. [(http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48722)].

Contact Israel Resource Review (Israel Behind the News) can be contacted by email at newsletter@israelbehindthenews.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, July 19, 2010.


This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.


I've been asked many times how I manage to travel far and wide each week to capture a new photo from somewhere in Israel. The answer is obvious, isn't it? It takes only eight hours to drive from Eilat to Metulla! In truth, I have very little time to devote to landscape photography, so I often combine a shoot with other assignments, which do take me to some of Israel's far flung locales.

This week's photo was shot early one Spring morning while driving from Jerusalem to an assignment near the Gaza Strip. Just before I reached Rehovot, a gap opened in the dark clouds and an eerie, other-worldly light spread out across the horizon. I wasn't drawn to the beauty of the moment, but I sensed something unusual and fleeting. Experience has taught me that these are the best opportunities to create photographs whose power derives from recording something in a way we rarely see it.

I didn't have much time to scout the location, so I pulled off the road into a small Eucalyptus grove and drove to where the trees opened up to reveal the view seen in this shot. The dramatic sky sets the mood of the photo, so I allotted a full third of the image to the sky alone. The wheat stalks bending in the wind also give a hint of the inclement weather. And I like the way the blue-gray of the sky complements the new green growth of spring. Much of Israel looks just like this shot, but rarely is it clothed in such flattering dress.

TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D200, 18-70 mm zoom @ 18 mm, f18 at 1/8 sec.

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
http://www.cafepress.com/halevi18. He is available for public relations and editorial photography, celebrations and simchas.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 19, 2010.

Tonight begins a time of fasting, and of mourning. This is primarily for the destruction of the two Temples in Jerusalem, but our tradition tells us this was also the day on which multiple other calamities have befallen us over the centuries, such as the Jewish expulsion from Spain.

It is a time of introspection for the nation. Especially is this the case today, as we face threats and must examine our actions in several regards. Yes, we must be strong. Yes, we must make proper decisions with regard to our security and our rights. But we are taught that we must also look inward at our own behavior. Baseless hatred (sinat hinam) is said to have been the reason for the destruction of the Second Temple


Perhaps of particular note here is the linkage of this day with the sin of the spies. The Torah tells us that Moshe sent 12 spies into Caanan, which had been given to the people by G-d, to check it out. Ten returned with a report that was dire, causing the people to be afraid to enter. The gift that G-d had given the people was defamed: there was no trust that G-d would keep us in the land, and no confidence in our ability to manage ("we were as grasshoppers").

Thus do I write about balancing the scales, which is what Rav Kook said we were obliged to do. Balancing the scales: Accepting and appreciating this land as the gift from G-d that it is.

Books can be written — and undoubtedly have been written — on what this means. I ask that you contemplate this for yourselves.


For a special video from Aish that addresses these issues and the lesson of Tisha B'Av:


I would also like to share here a moving video called "Home Game."

Five years ago, the Israeli citizens of Gush Katif were forcibly removed from their homes. This is a story of one of those communities — Netzer Hazani. The expulsion was planned for the day after Tisha B'Av. Three weeks earlier, the annual Gush Katif basketball tournament — in which the youth of the communities participated — was begun. The final game, traditionally scheduled for right after Tisha B'Av, was to take place the very day that the expulsion was to happen, in Netzer Hazani — with the community's kids competing for the championship. The game was not cancelled. These kids, with an incredible spirit of courage (defiance?) played amidst what was happening about them.

See this film made by the kids. Remember what happened. And then vow — in the spirit of Tisha B'Av — that something like this should never happen again.


Last night I attended a panel discussion, sponsored by The Legacy Heritage Fund, in conjunction with the Global Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), the Menachem Begin Heritage Center, and the South African Zionist Federation in Israel (Telfed).

The subject was "Combating Israel's Delegitimization: Debunking the Apartheid Myth."

The program began with a video clip designed to show us what we are up against: Azmi Bishara — former Israeli Member of Knesset who fled the country when accused of aiding Hezbollah during the war — charging Israel with apartheid.

In the course of the program, it was noted more than once that Bishara was himself evidence for the ludicrousness of the charges he was leveling. In a genuine system of apartheid, he could never have been elected to the Knesset.


Professor Gideon Shimoni — originally from South Africa, and former head of Hebrew University's Institute of Contemporary Judaism — then examined the true nature of apartheid, as it existed in South Africa. In doing so, he was able to clarify how different it was from anything that goes on here.

The manifestations of apartheid within the society of South Africa existed for over 100 years, even though it was not institutionalized more formally by the National Party until 1948. The conflict that developed over this had nothing to do with nationalism. The issues were inclusion and sharing, and were predicated purely on race. A white minority manipulated the conditions of all non-whites, while refusing to negotiate any of the pertinent issues.

More was involved than exclusion from democratic electoral rights of anyone who was not white: whites determined which schools non-whites could attend, and what hospitals would treat them. Non-whites were sometimes forced to move to specifically designated areas.


Here in Israel, tensions are not racial at all, but ethnic — regarding peoplehood. And the basis of those tensions is a struggle between two national movements. The tension arises with Palestinian Arabs who are not seeking inclusion within our system. What they want is separation, via their own state. This in no way parallels what transpired in South Africa, and is emerging from an entirely different set of circumstances.

What is more, Arabs who are Israelis have full entry into the system. It's not just with regard to democratic process: Arabs in this country are treated by the same hospitals that treat Jews. In fact, Arab doctors, who may have been trained in the same medical schools Jews attend, often practice in the same hospitals. This totally puts the lie to the charges that our system is race-based.

There are semantic distortions involved in apartheid charges leveled against Israel. Apartheid becomes a code word, a generic pejorative label separated from context.


Dr. Dore Gold — former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, and head of the JCPA — made different arguments. There are two parts to the apartheid charge, he noted. The first part involves a white minority that suppresses a non-white majority, but the second part of the charge involves colonialism. The white minority in South Africa was European (Afrikaners, who were originally Dutch or Huguenot) — occupiers enforcing their will upon the majority indigenous population.

It is this that is the most serious charge made against Jews in Israel: We are said to be outsiders, occupiers, enforcing our will on the indigenous majority population. And it is this that must be most vociferously refuted. It is not remotely the truth, and carries with it serious implications.

The Mandate for Palestine of 1922 recognized our pre-existing right to this land. Actually, since 1863, Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem. The rise of Israel is anti-colonial.

This is part of the attempt to delegitimize Israel: it is representing Israel as alien here, without rights.


DJ Schneeerweiss — originally from Australia, currently Coordinator of the anti-boycott strategy of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs — says he prefers to turn around what Dr. Gold referred to with regard to the delegitimization of Israel. He doesn't wish to do our detractors' work for them, and so refers to the assault on Israel's legitimacy.

The assault, he said, is broad, as there are attacks on supporters of Israel, as well as on Israel. Words count and there is currently an attempt to brand us. This is not about facts, it's a PR barrage. They merely have to make the label stick, and they know what will follow. It's a case of the malevolent leading the ignorant.

A variety of strategies are necessary:

There is loss of context today, as Jewish history is less well known. We must educate, telling our story.

There is an attempt to dismiss our humanity. Stories must be told that redress this, showing the human side of Israel.

Explain to people how ostracizing Israel can effect their lives because of all the helpful scientific and medical innovations that come out of Israel.

Expose the truth about those who oppose us, who are themselves anti-human rights. (Note: the nations making the claim of apartheid against are not exactly paragons of a modern, liberal society that support human rights.)

Reclaim liberal language: Refer to the rainbow character of the Israeli people (i.e., make the point that we are not all white). Promote our peace credentials.

Refute arguments, as appropriate. Engage via dialogue and argument.

Using the "virus" analogy, we must inoculate society against these charges so that they don't become mainstream. We shouldn't delude ourselves that every instance of such charges can be eradicated.

It is important not to over-react. Sometimes ignoring a charge is the best way to go, as making a fuss leads to more press for the "apartheid" accusations.

We must stay our course and build our resources via speakers, writers, etc. We can win this!


To those who are fasting: an easy and meaningful fast.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sarah Stern and Kyle Shideler, July 19, 2010.

There is a country in the Middle East accused of a brutal decades-long occupation. A country where a blockade causes starvation among a civilian refugee population. A country which violently cracks down on those who oppose it, shooting into crowds of protestors, while it receives substantial aid money from the United States as an ally in the War on Terror even as it undermines our war efforts by pursuing its own agenda.

We're talking about Yemen, of course.

Who else did you think we meant?

The country of Yemen on the southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula has long been a simmering pot of violence.

One conflict is geographical, as much of largely secular southern Yemen (which was the independent Democratic People's Republic of Yemen from 1967 until 1990) claims to suffer from an unwanted occupation from their more theocratic and traditional northern counterparts. This long conflict between the North and South has long been a sort of proxy between various influences in the region, whose participants included at one time or another: The Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, British, and the Soviets.

Another conflict is with the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels on the border of Saudi Arabia near the city of Sa'dah, stemming all the way from an ancient feud which goes all the way back to the rebellion of the Zaydi tribes in 1905.

A third, and much newer conflict is with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), although some assert that the Yemeni government's stance on Al Qaeda is closer to cooperative then conflicting.

In November of 2009, the government of Saudi Arabia, which is allied with Yemen against the Shiite rebels, placed a naval blockade along the coast of the Houthi-occupied Northern Yemen. The goal, to prevent the Iranians from resupplying their proxy fighters. As former Ambassador Dore Gold pointed out during the now infamous Mavi Marmara incident, there was no outcry against Saudi Arabia or Yemen for this action.

Astoundingly, the purpose of the blockade, preventing Iranian arms from reaching the conflict, was identical to the purpose of the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza which receives harsh international criticism.

In Southern Yemen, a land blockade meant to put pressure on separatists there has caused dislocation, and dwindling food and medical supplies. But unlike the Israeli checkpoints into Gaza, which permit around 15,000 tons of supplies to cross every week, there was no such humanitarianism on display in Yemen. In January of this year, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees asserted that as many as a quarter of a million refugees have been dislocated in Yemen due to fighting.

Yet unlike the Palestinians, which have a billion dollar a-year agency (UNWRA) devoted specifically for their needs, the Yemeni refugees were faced with cuts in food assistance, when donors could not be found. Those who did contribute, not surprisingly, were largely Western countries, including the United States and France, while neighboring Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, have provided little or nothing.

Police in Yemen have opened fire on Southern protestors, and conducted torture and the Yemeni military has shelled Southern homes with little provocation. American and British flags are often present at such demonstrations of secessionist protestors, although they are generally being waved in solidarity, not burned as they routinely are in Gaza and the West Bank.

And while the world screamed in protest when Israeli bulldozers demolished Palestinian houses, either for lacking legal permits or for being the hiding places of smuggling tunnels, there was no similar outcry when the Saudis annihilated an entire village, including a mosque, in Northern Yemen during its intervention against the Houthi Rebels.

Yet despite its ham-handed and bloody tactics, American assistance continues to flow to the Yemeni government. Jonathan Schanzer who testified before Congress on the subject wrote in the Washington Times,

"Yemen's willingness... to confront the serious threat Al Qaeda poses to the nation's stability has been inconsistent in the past, but our recent intensive engagement appears to have had positive results."

That was the State Department's assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Jeffrey D. Feltman, at congressional hearings on Yemen earlier this month. He repeatedly assured the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he was "encouraged" by Yemen's new attitude.

This encouragement convinced international donors in late January to pledge $5.2 billion in aid to Yemen. It also prompted Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates this week to more than double U.S. military aid to Yemen. Taxpayers will now fork over $150 million, up from last year's $67 million.

This is a mistake. Mr. Gates and his advisers ignore Yemen's terrible track record. If our aid was based on Yemeni performance, Yemen wouldn't get a dime.

Schanzer goes on to point to the repeated steps by the Yemenis to undermine our war effort against Al Qaeda, including routinely releasing dangerous terrorists from prison.

Part of the reason Yemen may be so ready to release wanted terrorists from its prisons, is that the government may use Al Qaeda terrorists as mercenaries in its fight against the Shiites, and as a tool in order to extort additional aid money from the West. From Jane Novak, writing at the Long War Journal:

Musid Ali, Director of the Yemeni American Anti-Terrorism Center, in commenting for this article said the Yemeni regime is responsible for the recent attacks, a serious charge as several foreign tourists were killed. The attacks, he said, "are a result of the good relationship between the regime and al Qaeda." The purpose of the attacks is to "make the west in general and the US in particular believe that Yemen is an ally of the US against al-Qaeda, but what is clear to the Yemeni people is the strong relationship between al Qaeda and the regime." As such, the counterterror assistance provided by the US in terms of funding, training, and equipment has been used "only against the Yemen people."

Indeed the Yemeni government itself is suspected of being riddled with Al Qaeda supporters, who pass information from the Yemeni government to AQAP, and who help facilitate jail breaks, and attacks. Yet the United States continues to provide military assistance, including training, arms and munitions to the Yemeni government, with no real clear assurances whether such assistance is helping further U.S national interests such as fighting Al Qaeda, or the Iranian backed insurgency, or whether it is being used to target southern political opposition, under the guise of fighting terror.

The importance of Yemen in the global war on terror has escalated since American-born, Yemeni cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki fled there. Al-Awlaki was the confidante and spiritual mentor of many terrorist plotters, including three of the 9/11 hijackers, The Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, Chrismas Day "underwear bomber," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, as well as inspiration for Time Square failed bomber Faisal Shazhad.

Yet incredibly $150 million in military aid does not even buy the United States the ability to extradite al-Awlaki from Yemen, in the event he should be captured. Yemeni authorities say instead that Awlaki will be tried in Yemen for terrorists' acts he may have committed there, even though Yemen's track record of keeping terrorists behind bars is abysmal at best, and conducting jihad against foreigners outside of Yemen is not even a crime, according to Yemeni law.

This is not to say that regardless of the Yemeni government's actions, Yemen is not a crucial battleground in the war on terror, or that the United States should cease to be engaged here. On the contrary, the area is vital to both regional and American security. The region is vital for several reasons, as outlined by former EMET Speaker of the Truth, Middle East analyst Walid Phares. In this video lecture, Phares outlines the strategic interests at play for both Al Qaeda and Iran. From Yemen, Al Qaeda is pushing to acquire coastal territory which will enable it to link up with Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Shabaab in Somalia and cut off the Red Sea. It is also seeking a base of operations for movement into the crucial region of Saudi Arabia where Mecca and Medina, the two holiest sites in Islam are located. Similarly the Iranians seek to utilize the Houthi rebels to also control the Red Sea, linking up with Iranian naval bases in Eritrea and to help foment trouble among Shiite dominated Saudi provinces.

Yemen provides a particularly interesting case study because it contains within itself, three of the primary conflicts which exist throughout the Middle East. One, the conflict between the expansionist revolutionary Shiites of Iran, and their proxies, against their Sunni Arab counterparts. Secondly, the conflict of traditional versus secular Arabs, in Yemen depicted geographically between North and South. Finally it depicts the conflict between Global Jihad and revolutionary Islamism, in the form of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in their efforts to infiltrate and overthrow the traditional governments of the region, especially Saudi Arabia.

None of which, it is worth adding, have anything at all to do with Israel.

Meanwhile, within Yemen, the government and its allies the Saudis engage in all the behaviors which Israel is accused of doing, but does not actually do. They have implemented a blockade, as Israel has (no one has complained about the Saudi blockade). They do not permit humanitarian supplies to reach the citizens of an area they are accused of occupying (while Israel does). The U.N actually downgrades its assistance to Yemeni victims (while Palestinians have an entire agency devoted to them). They wantonly destroy civilian homes (Israel practices tight controls, including the "knock on the door" policy, warning terrorists and their families to depart before even valid military targets are destroyed). Yemen receives economic and military hand outs even as it fails to provide measurable results for American National security (Israeli intelligence and military sharing has provided numerous advantages to the United States, including in the form of intelligence against terrorists, IED detection and disabling technology, and many others.)

In this sense, Yemen shows us the double standard imposed by the world, which deems actions performed by Israel as bad, yet the same actions conducted by Arab states are deemed morally neutral, or at least, worthy of ignoring.

In reality solving the three conflicts which make up Yemen's troubled history, would do more for regional, and indeed international security, than any number of peace agreements between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Let us point out that far greater Yeminis have been killed over the many years of in the internecine conflicts between the Yeminis and themselves than have Palestinians or Israelis. Barak Salmoni, author of the Rand Corporation study Regime and Periphery in Northern Yemen: The Huthi Phenomenon, calls Yemen, "longest running conflict in the Middle East with 25,000 to 50,000 casualties."

Yet, for far too many people, Middle East Peace remains synonymous with the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel.

It is essential that people understand the real root causes of Middle East conflict, as demonstrated in a single country, Yemen. Many of these root causes point to something endemic within the sociological norms and culture of Arabic society.

Sarah Stern founded Emet (Endowment for Middle East Truth).

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, July 19, 2010.

A Wall, that is all that separates two titans from a clash of civilizations, a 7th Century Islam against a 21st Century Judaism. Two monotheistic religions, both claiming to be derived from the same Patriarch Abraham and to be able to co-exist, find themselves in modern times on a deadly collision course.

All that contains the conflict is a wall, the Western Wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Many significant events took place at the top of this mountain: Tradition says that the world was created here. Later, Abraham brought his son and was willing to sacrifice him as an offering to the God of the Hebrews. The Holy of Holies, the center of the First and Second Temples, stood here.

Today, Muslims control access to the area, Jews are forbidden to pray — even silently — and a person whose lips move in silent prayer will be arrested. This said, most Jewish people refrain from ascending to the area to avoid possible sacrilegious contamination because of a lack of absolute certainty over the location of the Holy of Holies.

Millions of Jews and members of other religions visit the Western Wall every year. As it ascends 19 meters (62') into the air, it showcases 28 stones, starting with larger stones and ending with smaller ones. The different sizes are indicative of the eras when they were placed. It is customary to write a wish on a piece of paper and place it within the stones, and people of all religions do so.

There is another wish others attempt to deposit in this holy place. They are not as careful to place their "note" in between the stones. On the contrary, they amass a large quantity of stones of various sizes and throw them over the top of the Western Wall onto the many people praying in the plaza below. Their intent is to maim and kill, cause a provocation, do evil.

They are often instigated by the religious elders to incite hatred of the Jews and Israel. Their wish is singular: to see the destruction of the Jewish State and the completion of the Final Solution, the extermination of the Jewish People from earth. They are unabashed in words and actions, yet they enjoy full autonomy from the Israeli authorities.

Thus, several years ago, they excavated 300 — 400 truckloads of archeological artifacts from beneath the Temple Mount and dumped it unceremoniously in a ravine, like garbage. Why would anyone do that?

This destruction is designed to remove any connection between the Jews and their holy place, between the Jews and their history, and between the Jews and their capital. This is just another step in the delegitimization of the Jewish state. History erased, evidence removed, as they intend to do with Israel and wipe her off the map of the nations.

Imagine if anyone were to do such damage in Mecca or Medina. Actually, there is no need to imagine, as no one would remain alive. In Israel, it seems, everything is permitted.

Today, one must think very carefully before drawing a caricature of the Muslim prophet or satirizing him on television. It was less than five years ago Danish cartoons caused a worldwide upheaval, well planned and even better executed, and early this year the South Park creators had to fear for their lives.

The Muslims have zero tolerance for other religions, and extend zero courtesy to anyone having expectations similar to their own. It is their "right" and "duty," and if you disagree, a Fatwa religious edict will be pronounced on your life to teach you and others a lesson.

By extension, Israel's mere existence, not to mention her enemies' accusations of colonialist ambitions, occupation zeal and atrocities and lack of respect to other religions necessitate action. The Muslim Hadif, teaches the Muslims the very method:

"Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."

"Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!"

On the Temple Mount today, there are two identifiable structures — the Dome of the Rock, a golden dome recognizable around the world, built in 691AD. To the south a smaller, much less impressive and definitely less recognizable dome, the Al Aqsa (the "end" or "edge") Mosque, considered the third holiest place for Islam. Muhammad is said to have arrived on a horse to this very "end" or "edge," prayed and ascended to heaven.

So holy is the Al Aqsa Mosque that the keepers of the Holy Sites have not visited it even once, definitely not for lack of permission Israel would have been only too glad to extend. Jordan and Saudi Arabia did contribute some fifteen million dollars back in 1994 to redo the outer gold covering.

Calls to protect the Al Aqsa Mosque are a wonderful catalyst. Rumors and innuendoes spread like fire in the Muslim world, and when the Zionist Jews are blamed for threatening the Al Aqsa Mosque, nothing else is necessary. Riots are orchestrated and people willingly give their lives for the dream of defeating the Zionist Regime — from Indonesia to Gaza, Egypt to Syria, Turkey to Iran.

Exactly ten years ago, then Israeli Opposition Leader, General Arik Sharon, went to the Temple Mount. That presented the most "opportune time" to start the Second Intifada against Israel.

In recent times, one hears more and more often that the Al Aqsa Mosque is in danger. Rather than contradicting these stories, the Muslim clergy helps spread them. Has Israel prepared for this eventuality that seems a self-fulfilling prophecy with each passing day?

The sanctity of their holy place apparently allows them to use it as a storage location for stones and other methods of upheaval. One does not know what else has been amassed at the Temple Mount or what is being contemplated and prepared. Perhaps even toppling the Dome of the Rock and blaming the Jews? What is evident, though, is that tones of earth mixed with priceless and irreplaceable archeological artifacts have been removed.

It cannot be ruled out that the Muslim clerics would bring about the collapse of part of the Dome or the Al Aqsa Mosque. Their hatred against Jews is so much greater than their love and appreciation of their religion, or is it the actual teachings of their religion that are the basis for this behavior?

The situation is so fragile that it is compared to one sitting on a barrel of explosive powder playing with matches.

A caricature in a Facebook group "We want Masjid e Aqsa (Al Aqsa Mosque got it all wrong: The sharks are contained inside, the Jewish Sovereign protecting the sanctity of all religions, pilgrims and visitors. The Israelis are the Coast Guard, there to protect and save. If it were not for Israel, the third holiest place for Islam may not be standing today. Muslims, as we see repeatedly in Iraq and elsewhere, do not care about their holy sites or the lives of other Muslims when it comes to furthering their agenda.

What a world we live in!

Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

Photos of the Western Wall, Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque used by permission by Ron Peled, www.allaboutjerusalem.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters, July 19, 2010.

The Calgary Herald recently reported on a trial that has come to a conclusion. Aset Magomadova had been accused of killing her 14-year old daughter Aminat. On February 26, 2007, Magomadova had strangled her daughter to death, using her hijab.

Magomadova, a refugee from Chechnya, had admitted second degree murder, and on Thursday last week, she was given an astonishing sentence — a three year suspended jail term, during which Mrs. Magomadova would have to abide by terms of probation or return to court.

Magomadova had argued that on the morning of the murder, Aminat (pictured) had threatened her with a knife and attacked her with a chair The mother claimed she was acting in self-defense. In her "self-defense" Magomadova had tied a headscarf around her daughter's neck and then pulled it for 150 seconds, until Aminat's body went limp. However, though a knife was found in the room, Aminat Magomadova's fingerprints were not on the alleged "weapon". Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio rejected a plea of self-defense.

He stated: "This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control. It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event."

On the morning of the murder, Aminat was due to go to court for assaulting a teacher, and had refused to go.

The circumstances of Magomadova's life are bizarre. She has only two children, Aminat and a younger brother who suffers from a disease that will waste away his body and eventually kill him. There is no father, as he was killed in a bomb blast, and Aset Magomadova has only part of one foot left after a bomb attack. She herself had been imprisoned for several months, suspected by Russian authorities of being a terrorist.

The circumstances of the case have been heard by a judge. The prosecutor thought that the mother should receive a 12-year jail term, and Mrs. Magomadova (pictured above) will have to undergo grief, anger and bereavement counseling as part of her probation.

The case is bizarre, and the mother obviously lied about the self-defense issues. This particular case does not appear to be an honor killing, but it does mirror some other cases of honor violence, where the life of a girl or young woman is seen to be worth less than that of a boy.

In Chechnya, where the Magomadova family had lived before arriving in Canada, the culture places little value upon the life of a girl. In February last year, according to Russsia's St Petersburg Times, the Putin-sponsored leader of the region defended honor killings. The Chechen president, Ramzan Kadyrov, was speaking in Grozny, the capital, after seven young women had been found shot through the head.

Kadyrov stated that the women had "loose morals" and for that they had deserved to die at the hands of their male relatives. He argued that women were the property of their husbands. He is imposing Islamic customs such as polygamy, and most Chechen women are now expected to wear Islamic headscarfs.

Human rights activists estimate that every year, dozens of women are killed in Chechnya.

Gistam Sakayeva, a women's rights activist in the region, said: "What the president says is law. Because the president said this, many will try to gain his favor by killing someone, even if there is no reason."

Kadyrov suggested that the women were going to be leaving the country to work as prostitutes, which is why they were killed. As in so many cases of "honor killings", there is enough evidence to suggest that some, if not all, of these the Chechen women were innocent.

Other countries

Honor killings do happen with remarkable frequency in traditional Muslim communities, even though Muslims always blame such incidents upon local "culture" and deny that Islam has any relation to the killings.

In Palestinian communities, such killings have been steadily on the increase. And the murders do not always involve male relatives killing women who were thought to have "transgressed." On January 27, 2002, a Palestinian woman, Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud, murdered her daughter Rofayada. First she tried to get her daughter Rofayda to slash her own wrists, but the girl refused. Then she wrapped a plastic bag around her daughter's head, and slashed her wrists. She then clubbed her daughter's head with a stick, killing her. Rofayda's crime had been to have got pregnant. She had become pregnant because her two older brothers had raped her in their shared bedroom in Ramle. Amira Abu Hannan Qaoud made no attempt to kill her sons. Only the girl, an innocent victim of rape, was seen to merit punishment.

In 2006, again in Ramle, 26-year old Basel Abu-Dahal stabbed his 24-year old sister Miriam 29 times in broad daylight. Passers-by ignored the girl's screams, and allowed Abu-Dahel to kill his sister. Miriam's crime, according to Abu-Dahal at his trial, was connected with "the improper way" in which she had raised her daughter.

In Jordan, legislation introduced in 1960 makes it easier to commit honor killings:

Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code states that "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery with another, and he kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty".

It adds that "he who discovers his wife, or one of his female ascendants or descendants or sisters with another in an unlawful bed and he kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, benefits from a reduction of penalty."

Yet this article contradicts Article 6 of the Jordanian Constitution that guarantees the rights of all Jordanian citizens regardless of their gender.

Article 98 is almost always cited alongside Article 340 in cases of honour killings. It has been a further deterrent for potential perpetrators. Article 98 stipulates that a reduced sentence is applied to a person who kills another person in a "fit of fury".

In 2005, one campaigner against the frequent honor killings in Jordan, Rana Husseini, said that almost 70 per cent of all the girls who die in honor killings are virgins. The same researcher/campaigner claimed in 2009 that there were about 25 honor killings annually in Jordan, and 5,000 around the world.

Honor killings are common in Pakistan (where they are called Karo-kari) in Bangladesh, Jordan, Palestinian territories, in Turkey, particularly its southeastern region. Honor killings happen among groups who are not officially Muslim but who live in Muslim regions, such as the Yezidi and the Druze.

Du'a Khalil Aswad was a 17-year old Yezidi (Yazidi) girl who was brutally kicked, beaten and stoned to death, her agonized last moments captured on a mobile phone camera. This event took place on April 7, 2007, in Bashika, northern Iraq. In the five years between 2002, when a law prohibiting honor killings was introduced in the region, and 2007, 40 honor killings were recorded Du'a Khalil Aswad was accused of being seen with a Sunni man, but her autopsy proved she had been a virgin.

In March 2007, Doaa Fares, a finalist in a Miss Israel contest, had to withdraw from the beauty pageant. She was Druze, and two of her uncles, accompanied by two others from her village, threatened that they would kill her for bringing shame to her family. In 2006, a total of 17 women were killed in Palestinian territories in honor killings.

If Rana Husseini's claim is true that globally 5,000 young women are killed in this manner, it would mean that 13 women die every day, somewhere in the world, on account of "honor".

Phyllis Chester writing in the Spring 2009 edition of Middle East Forum, quoted a 2002 document (United Nations Population Fund, Chapter 3) in which the figure of 5,000 women being annually killed in honor killings. This document quotes a report by Asma Jahangir, who also heads the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. In 2000 Jahangir made a report for the UN Commission of Human Rights.

On the order of clerics, an 18-year-old woman was flogged to death in Batsail, Bangladesh, for "immoral" behaviour, according to the report. In Egypt, a father paraded his daughter's severed head through the streets shouting, "I avenged my honour."

The [2000] report says that "honour" killings tend to be more prevalent in, but are not limited to, countries with a majority Muslim population. It adds, however, that Islamic leaders have condemned the practice and say it has no religious basis.

Phyllis Chester wrote of the denial by Muslim "representatives" when confronted by unpleasant facts about the rising cases of honor killings in North America:

In 2008, after Kandeela Sandal was murdered for honor by her father in Atlanta because she wanted a divorce, Ajay Nair, associate dean of multicultural affairs at Columbia University, told the media that "most South Asian communities in the United States" enjoy "wonderful" relationships within their families and said, "This isn't a rampant problem within South Asian communities. What is a problem, I think, is domestic violence, and that cuts across all communities." In October 2008, Mustafaa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas branch of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), dismissed any Islamic connection to a prominent Dallas honor killing, labeled as such by the FBI, arguing, "As far as we're concerned, until the motive is proven in a court of law, this is [just] a homicide." He continued, "We [Muslims] don't have the market on jealous husbands ... or domestic violence ... This is not Islamic culture."

The case labelled for the first time by the FBI as an American honor killing was that of sisters Sarah and Amina Said, who were apparently killed by their Egyptian-born father, His motives had apparently been that the two girls had acted in Western ways and had dated non-Muslims.


One of the first known honor killings in Canada occurred with a Sikh family. Sikhs's ancestral homeland is the Punjab area of India and Sikhism evolved as a fusion of Islam and Hinduism. In 2000, a woman who was said to be a prominent figure in Vancouver's Sikh community gave an order — via a cell phone — for her daughter, who at that time was in India, to be murdered. The girl, Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu, had her throat cut when her mother commanded it.

Amin Muhammad is a psychiatrist at the Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, who has been researching the growing trend in Canada of honor killings. He related three cases:

A 14-year-old female rape victim is strangled to death in March 2004 by her father and brother because she has supposedly tarnished the family name.In April 2004, a man brutally kills his wife and daughter after finding out that his brother had previously molested them.

A teenage girl with a Turkish background has her throat cut by her father after he learns she has a Christian boyfriend.

He warned: "You will see, 10 years down the road, this will not be very new for even a society like Canada. A special watch is warranted from a legal point of view."

In March 2005, a man from Kitimat, B.C., a man was found guilty of the second-degree murder of his daughter. Rajinder Singh Atwal had killed his 17-year old daughter Amandeep in July 2003. Her "crime" had been to have a live-in relationship with a man called Todd McIsaac. She then agreed to holiday with her family and her father stabbed her 11 times. He told a hospital that she had committed suicide.

In September 2006, Khatera Sadiqui and her fiancé, Feroz Mangal, were sitting together in a car parking lot in the Elmvale Acres Shopping Centre in Ottowa. They were shot. Khatera died from her wounds and Feroz Mangal was seriously injured. Khatera's brother, Hasibullah Sadiqi, was the prime suspect. Feroz died shortly after the attack. On May 30, 2009, Hasibullah Sadiqui was found guilty of the "honor killing" murder.

In July 2009, three members of a Canadian Muslim family of Afghan origins were arrested. A car had submerged in the Rideau Canal in Kingston Ontario, drowning four people who were inside the vehicle. Those who died were three sisters aged 13, 17 and 19 and another woman, 52-year-old Rona Amir Mohammed. The family came from Montreal and had been on the return journey from a holiday at Niagara Falls.

Both the parents and a brother of the three girls were subsequently charged with murder. The older woman in the car was the first wife of the girls' father. Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba, and their son Hamed were all charged. It was claimed that "the daughters were beaten regularly, either by him or his son Hamed, because their behaviour was a disgrace to him in his eyes."

Dr. Shahrzad Mojab of the University of Toronto claimed that: "The fathers and the brothers claim the act happened out of passion or love for the daughter or the sister. They argue she had to be sacrificed.... I've seen letters written from daughters to fathers who know what will happen. They are filled with references to love and how much they loved each other."

Other Canadian academics have tried to explain honor killings. As reported in Canada's National Post, Aysan Ms. Sev'er, a professor of sociology at University of Toronto Scarborough, tries to remove religion from the equation and place it all about "patriarchy". Most monotheistic religions are patriarchal, and Islam is the most patriarchal of all monotheistic religions, but Sev'er would rather not mention the"Islamic" aspect of Islamic patriarchy.

She stated: "A few women are really sacrificed to terrorize all women, to push them into submission, where they are not in the position to defend themselves or even their daughters or sisters.... In Canada, we have been extremely culturally sensitive, and that's a good thing. But in this particular case, we may have pushed the pendulum a little to the other side, in the sense that there are cultural components in these types of crimes which we cannot ignore."

Last week, Rona Ambrose, Canadian minister for women's affairs, warned members of the South Asian community in Mississauga, Toronto, that "honor killings" would not be tolerated in Canadian society.

Ms. Ambrose made her announcement shortly after a Sikh man, Kamikar Singh Dhillon, was convicted of murdering his daughter-in-law Amandeep Khaur Dillon on January 1, 2009. The father-in-law had tried to inflict stab wounds on himself, and had killed Amandeep with multiple stab wounds to the young woman's face, head, throat and upper body. In June, the killer admitted that he had been worried that his daughter-in-law would leave his son. He alleged that Amandeep was maintaining an affair.


The reasons why Canada should have more recorded honor killings than the United States is probably as a result of a more "multicultural" approach to housing and community cohesion in Canada. Whereas American migrants are expected to integrate or at least aspire to the values and aims of the country at large, in Canada, ghetto communities are developing, particularly around Toronto and Montreal. These ghettoes are not dissimilar to those which now exist in most European countries.

In Britain, honor killings happen in Turkish, Kurdish and other communities, but the vast majority of such cases seem to take place in Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. The Pakistani communities have existed since the 1960s as countries apart from mainstream Britain, where there is no integration with people from outside of the community, the predominant spoken languages tend to be Urdu or Bangla, and there are no moves by government or local authorities to encourage assimilation or integration.

The rates of honor killings happening in Britain are estimated to be as high as one a month. Pakistani and Bangladesh communities not only resist integration with the indigenous British communities, they prefer to involve their offspring in arranged marriages, involving potential spouses from "home" villages in the old country, often first cousins. As well as literally encouraging a rise in certain medical conditions due to inbreeding, these arranged marriages often involve compulsion.

Multiculturalists downplay the significance of forced marriages, and expect all people to accept the notion of parents choosing their offspring's marriage partners. Forced marriages are sometimes hard to distinguish from arranged marriages, and non-compliance with a family's choice of marriage partner is known to have caused honor killings in Britain and other European countries. The London Times of July 24, 2006, stated:

Between 2003 and 2005, 518 forced marriages were recorded in London, and in 2005 more than 140 in Bradford. Campaigners say those are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Most cases in Britain involve Muslim families, although the practice is not restricted to any particular religious or ethnic group. Most victims are aged between 16 and 20 and many suffer physical assault, death threats and false imprisonment, usually at the hands of close family members.

Suicide rates among young Asian women are more than three times the national average and about 12 women every year die as a result of so-called "honour killings".

America Next?

Honor killings will continue to thrive in places like Italy, Sweden, France, Britain, Germany Turkey, Canada, etc, as these nations have a poor sense of their own national identity. Migrants are not truly expected to assimilate, and in such an environment, it becomes almost a tabu for authorities to enter ghetto communities and insist that vulnerable women are protected.

Political correctness and multiculturalism are allowing such unassimilated ghetto communities to thrive, and tacitly allowing women to become victims within these patriarchal and backward communities. Yes — I used the word "backward," knowing how un-PC a term it is. However, it is an accurate term. When communities attempt to maintain rural village systems, traditions and values of an undeveloped country hundreds or more miles away, while living in large sprawling conurbations, the rural village attitudes will always collide with those of the larger urban environment. Within that larger environment lie temptations and expectations that would never exist in a rural community.

America has some communities like Dearborn, Michigan, that are becoming Islamic ghettoes, and there are South Asian communities developing in most American cities. The key to preventing honor killings in America is to ignore multiculturalism altogether and insist that all migrants prove their commitment to integration. If a person would not let his daughter marry an American girl, then that person obviously has no respect for American values or American life, and should not be deemed fit to become a naturalized citizen.

Until very recently, America held on tight to its own values and traditions. With its new elite of "progressives", there is a danger that multiculturalism — a process that has been discredited by its appalling and divisive examples in Europe and Canada — will prevail. And then, for a young girl growing up in any of the patriarchal and backwards ghettoes that multiculturalism creates — a girl who wants to live like other Americans, dress like other Americans, date like other Americans — she will find that her opportunities and her future will become increasingly bleak.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, July 19, 2010.

Academic freedom continues to be destroyed by the tenured Left. Academic freedom today increasingly means that faculty members have the right to agree with radical leftists and Marxists but not the right to disagree with them. And criticism of radical leftist academics is never permitted. It is considered "McCarthyism."

The absurdities surrounding the leftist take on academic freedom have never been so glaring as in a pair of events, involving two very different professors in Israel, both allegedly involved in "sexual insensitivity."

Ben Gurion University in Israel has long been something of a public laughingstock. Outside its science and engineering departments, it is largely a parody of a real university. It hires and promotes large number of anti-Israel faculty extremists, in many cases people whose academic records consist of nothing more than churning out anti-Israel hate propaganda. The political science department there is without a doubt Israel's worst; it does not contain a single non-leftist and it fired the one non-leftist who had worked there on grounds of incorrect thinking. It and other departments in the humanities and social sciences at Ben Gurion University see their mission as indoctrinating students into Marxism and far-leftist hatred of Zionism. Ben Gurion University hosts Neve Gordon, the Israeli equivalent of Norman Finkelstein, best known for his campaign for a world boycott against Israel. Gordon has built an academic career upon denouncing Israel as a fascist, apartheid regime, engaged in state terror, a country whose existence Gordon wants ended. Gordon recently hosted a convicted Palestinian terrorist [1] in his own home for several months, to serve as a moral role model for Gordon's own children.

The tenured extremism at Ben Gurion University [2] has long been defended by the university officials on grounds of "academic freedom." But that just made the recent firing of professor Yeruham Leavitt all the more outrageous. Leavitt is actually a retired professor who was retained by Ben Gurion University to teach an ethics course to students in the Clinical Pharmaceutical Department. Alas, Leavitt, was guilty [3] of political incorrectness, and was fired for that. The very same President of the University, Rivka Carmi, who defends having dozens of radical tenured traitors on her academic staff, defended the decision [4] to fire Leavitt because he had made "offensive" and "insensitive" statements.

Just what was Leavitt's horrific crime? In the ethics class the subject of children being raised by homosexual couples came up. Leavitt expressed skepticism [5] as to whether such arrangements are healthy for the children. He also claimed in class that homosexuals who wish to do so can suppress or ignore their sexual urges, much like he himself does when he sees a pretty young coed. The university reacted in a statement,

"The lecturer made a categorical comment on the homosexuality phenomenon. During his hearing, (Leavitt) did not apologize for his offensive comments and even repeated them. Ben-Gurion University sanctifies freedom of thought and expression, but the lecturer blatantly crossed the line."

Leavitt actually favors airing different views in the classroom. He was quoted in the local press [6] as insisting he is in favor of pluralism and equality. "In my many lectures on medical bioethics I have always tried to instill pluralistic culture while stressing multiple opinions and making them heard in a respectable fashion," he said. The President of Ben Gurion University issued a public letter in which [4] she defended the firing of Leavitt, making it clear that politically incorrect comments will not be tolerated in Ben Gurion University, but treasonous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic pronouncements are protected speech and students will be tested on them. Even the far-leftist Israel Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which ordinarily does not favor freedom of speech for non-leftists, attacked the University for firing Leavitt.

Leavitt was quoted in the press as saying, "My embarrassing dismissal from Ben-Gurion University constitutes a severe violation of basic rights, including the right to dignity, academic freedom and freedom of expression."

Now one can agree or disagree with Leavitt's comments. Sexual psychologists seem to be divided over the matters he discussed. Even if one believes he is wrong, since when is being wrong a basis for firing faculty members? If it were, most of Ben Gurion University would be a ghost town. It should also be borne in mind that he was teaching an ethics course, where ethical debate and controversy are the focus of the class.

Ben Gurion University's anti-democratic officials claimed that a student in Leavitt's class had felt offended by what he said about homosexuals. But Ben Gurion University has always refused to take action against any of its many far-leftist faculty members who routinely denounce Israeli soldiers as Nazis, who endorse terrorist attacks against Jews, who call for the extermination of Israel, and who dismiss Jews as moral inferiors. They do so even when many of the students in class are themselves reserves soldiers, and some are people who have lost fathers and brothers in Middle East wars. No one has ever thought that offending the feelings of these people should serve as grounds for dismissal of the tenured extremists.


For the second of our Tales, let us introduce Eyal Ben-Ari [7]. He is a far-leftist full professor of sociology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, a department famous for employing far-leftist and Marxist anti-Israel radicals. He claims to know something [8] about the sociology of the military. He is an anti-Zionist extremist with a track record of turning out anti-Israel propaganda, such as claims that Israel is an ultra-militarist society [9]. Much of his propaganda is misrepresented as scholarly research [10]. Ben-Ari has also served as a consultant to the Israeli army over the role of women in the military.

He is now famous for two things — his supervising a ludicrous thesis claiming that Jewish soldiers are racists because they do not rape Arab women, and for himself being arrested under suspicion of multiple counts of rape. From his role in that now famous "rape thesis," it was already known that Ben-Ari had goofy ideas about sexual (mis-) behavior. But it turns out that the ultra-feminist Israel-bashing professor of sociology practices what he preaches.

In the summer of 2008 Ben-Ari was arrested after numerous complaints had been submitted to the police that he had raped his female graduate students. According to the leftist daily Haaretz [11], "Both professors and students Thursday described a reign of terror at Hebrew University's sociology department that kept female students from reporting his sexual harassment." Complaints had come from at least 10 women students. Ben-Ari was suspected of indecent acts and extorting sexual favors from students and doctoral candidates. He allegedly threatened their grades and funding if they refused to comply. One student published a blog of her being harassed, under the byline "A.-from the Sociology Department." Ben-Ari was accused of taking his female students on sexual trysts with his university research funds. He purchased for one of them a vibrator [12] and then submitted the bill for reimbursement to the Hebrew University's Shaine Center. He was not the first Hebrew University professor arrested for sexual misbehavior [13].

The head of Ben-Ari's own department admitted publicly that Ben-Ari was harassing female students. In a letter published on the Internet he confirmed in a letter that there exists a "reign of terror" in the department. "Neither academic freedom nor academics can exist in this environment," he wrote. Moreover, complaints about Ben-Ari had been brought to the attention of the university administrators years before Ben-Ari was arrested. The University officials had buried them and stonewalled, [14] refusing to take action until the police got involved, and even then circling their wagons to support Ben-Ari.

Ben-Ari was the supervisor of what may be the most embarrassing piece of pseudo-research ever to emerge from an academic institution. Shortly before he himself was arrested for rape, one of Ben-Ari's MA students, Tal Nitzan, received a Hebrew University award for her "research" purporting to prove that the absence of cases of rapes of Arab women by Israeli Jewish soldiers [15] indicates that the Jewish soldiers are racists.

The Hebrew University graduate student claimed [16]in her thesis that the Jews are racists and oppressors, people who do not even regard Arab women as worthy of being sexually abused. She and her "research" were awarded an honor for these impressive "discoveries" by the same Shaine Center, a Hebrew University sociology "research" center dominated by far leftists. Under Ben-Ari's supervision Nitzan claimed that abstaining from rape is just as inhumane and oppressive as "symptomatically raping" and in fact replaces it, because it just serves to reinforce the intolerance felt toward Arabs by Jewish soldiers. These racist soldiers think of Arabs as so inferior and horrid that they do not even feel a compulsion to rape them. While giving some shallow lip service to how the "question" of rape refusal is "very complex," Nitzan's own "answer" was quite simple and straightforward — it reflects Jewish racism against Arabs.

Israel, she claimed, is so racist and anti-Arab that abstaining from rape is part and parcel of its determination to enforce rigid "lines of division." She asserted that individual soldiers who refuse to rape represent an intentional policy of oppression roughly similar to when governments order mass rape, because in both cases the "policy" serves to subordinate and dehumanize the oppressed victim population. The thesis drew its "scientific" conclusions from interviews with 25 reserve soldiers, ages 23-32, who served as combat troops in the "occupied territories" during the intifada. None of the comments by any of these soldiers supported or provided any confirmation, even the most indirect, to any of the lunatic "conclusions" reached by Nitzan. (I know, because I read the whole piece.)

When the world media first discovered this "thesis," they had a field day. The Hebrew University was transformed overnight into a laughingstock, particularly when the President and the Rector of the University jointly issued an announcement defending [17]the student and dismissing those who expressed outrage over the contents of the thesis. Israeli feminists were strangely silent [18], no doubt to show their solidarity with the far-leftist Ben-Ari and Nitzan. The same ultra-feminists in Israel, who insisted that an (unmarried) cabinet minister be indicted because he gave a French kiss to a woman in his office, have had nothing to say about the behavior of this member of the Tenured Left.

The police later closed the file on Ben-Ari and never indicted him. There are rumors that the Hebrew University pulled strings to prevent an indictment. Ben-Ari still teaches his wacky sexual political "ideas" to hapless students in the sociology department there, to the chagrin of the female students [19] who claim they were molested by him.

Ben-Ari has not been dismissed for his "sexual insensitivity." Unlike Leavitt, Ben-Ari is a far leftist. Could that have anything to do with the difference in his treatment?


[1] recently hosted a convicted Palestinian terrorist:
http://www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level% 20pages/BGU%20-%20Neve%20Gordon%20-%20home %20spa%20for%20terrorists.htm

[2] tenured extremism at Ben Gurion University:
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ third%20level%20pages/BGU%20-%20Israel%20David% 20-%20scolds%20BGU%20administration%20indifference %20to%20Far%20Leftist%20events%20on%20campus.htm

[3] Leavitt, was guilty:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/ yeruham-leavitt-ben-gurio_n_636927.html

[4] defended the decision:
http://thejewishpress.blogspot.com/2010/07/ leftwing-fascism-comes-to-ben-gurion.html

[5] Leavitt expressed skepticism:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3914683,00.html

[6] He was quoted in the local press:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3914994,00.html

[7] Eyal Ben-Ari: http://sociology.huji.ac.il/ 2006/staff/ben-ari/

[8] claims to know something:

[9] ultra-militarist society:
http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Military%20and% 20Militarism%20in%20Israeli%20Society::3000569688;_ ylc=X3oDMTB1c21tcDhkBF9TAzk2NjMyOTA3BHNlYw NmZWVkBHNsawNib29rcw--

[10] misrepresented as scholarly research:

[11] According to the leftist daily Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/professors-accused-of- sexual-harassment-led-reign-of-terror-says-colleague-1.250938

[12] one of them a vibrator:

[13] arrested for sexual misbehavior: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742 150222&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[14] officials had buried them and stonewalled,:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/three-students-file- harassment-complaints-against-professor-1.251160

[15] to prove that the absence of cases of rapes of Arab women by Israeli Jewish soldiers:

[16] graduate student claimed :
http://www.jewishpress.com/displaycontent_new.cfm? contentid=28129&mode=a§ionid=14&contentname=Guilty_ By_Reason_Of_Innocence%3A__New_Insanity_From_Israel% 27s_Academic_Leftists&recnum=1

[17] jointly issued an announcement defending :
http://wordsandwar.com/2008/01/03/ complete-story-of-no-rape-racism-essay/

[18] feminists were strangely silent:
http://www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level% 20pages/Editorial%20-%20Seth%20Frantzman% 20-%20Eyal%20Ben%20Ari.htm

[19] to the chagrin of the female students:

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@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

This is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, July 18, 2010.

Yesterday, Abbas reformulated his terms for entering direct negotiations, namely Israel must agree to the idea of a third party guarding the borders of a future Palestinian state before direct peace talks can start and Israel must also agree in principle to a fair land swap that would compensate the Palestinians for West Bank land absorbed by Jewish settlements in any peace deal.

He can say what he want, but what are the parameters based on past agreements?

While many people argue that we know what the ultimate deal will look like, namely the creation of an independent, viable, contiguous, Palestinian state with the '67 borders with minor swaps, a divided Jerusalem and a just solution to the refugee problem. The truth is quite the opposite.

The peace process began with UNSC Resolution 242 whose goal it was to achieve a "peaceful and accepted settlement.' Thus any settlement must be agreed upon and not imposed. The resolution required "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.' Thus not all territories must be withdrawn from. In fact Israel has already withdrawn from more than 90% of such territories by withdrawing from Sinai and Gaza. Little noticed is that this requirement requires no withdrawal from territories occupied in the '48 war of independence.

This resolution also provided that such a settlement must include "termination of all claims or states of belligerency' and the recognition that "every State in the area' has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.' This is the basis for Israel demanding an end-of-conflict agreement.

At the Rabat Conference in 1974, Jordan and all Arab countries recognized the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.' with respect to Judea and Samaria. (West Bank)

Egypt signed such a peace treaty with Israel in 1980. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994..

Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, Israel must now reach on agreement with the Palestinian Authority which replaced the PLO as the negotiating party. The Oslo Accords did not predetermine the disposition of Jerusalem, borders, Israel settlements and refugees other than to label them as final status issues to be negotiated. The Oslo Accords envisioned a settlement pursuant to the parameters of Res 242.

In 2003, the Roadmap was accepted by the PA and by Israel albeit subject to 14 reservations. Chief among the changes to the peace parameters of Oslo was the insertion of the Saudi Plan later adopted as the Arab League Initiative. This plan was at odds with Resolution 242 in that it required the withdrawal from all occupied territories subject to minor swaps of land of equal value, the division of Jerusalem and a just settlement of the refugee problem pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 194 which provided

"that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return.'

This resolution, having being passed by the General Assembly, is not binding.

PM Sharon objected strenuously to the insertion of the Saudi Plan but Secretary Powell overcame his objections by ramming it down his throat arguing "the Roadmap is only a process'.

Sharon had one more bite at the apple when he was negotiating with Pres Bush for a letter of commitment and principles in conjunction with the proposed disengagement from Gaza.

Dore Gold of the JCPA commented on the significance of this letter.

  • President Bush's April 14, 2004, letter to Prime Minister Sharon represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, as compared to the Clinton Parameters advanced by the former president after the failed Camp David Summit of July 2000 and in subsequent months.

  • In his plan, Clinton provided conditional approval of settlement blocs, but insisted that there needed to be "territorial swaps' of land from pre-1967 Israel in exchange for any West Bank land Israel would retain. Bush does not insist on any land swaps involving Israeli territory.

  • Clinton spoke of Palestinian refugees finding homes in other states including Israel, while Bush states that Palestinian refugees should be settled in a future Palestinian state "rather than Israel.'

  • The Clinton Parameters dropped the idea of defensible borders and replaced them with "security guarantees' including a proposed "international presence' in the Jordan Valley. In contrast, Bush refers to "defensible borders' in the context of preserving and strengthening "Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself.'

  • According to the Clinton Parameters, Israel's security needs "need not and should not come at the expense of Palestinian sovereignty or interfere with Palestinian territorial integrity.' In contrast, Bush allows for Israel to continue to control airspace, territorial waters, and land passages in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank "pending agreements or other arrangements.'

  • During the Clinton era, the signing of a peace treaty was supposed to produce security for Israelis. Under Bush, security must be achieved first, as a prerequisite for peace. Given the threats Israel still faces from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat's own Fatah Tanzim, the approach taken in the Bush letter represents a significant improvement for Israel and for the prospects of a lasting peace.

  • The Clinton Parameters explicitly envisioned the re-division of sovereignty in Jerusalem according to a formula whereby "what is Arab should be Palestinian' and "what is Jewish should be Israeli.' Bush's letter is silent on the issue of Jerusalem. While support for a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty is missing, at least there is no attempt to return to the Clinton formulations.

Thus the Clinton Parameters were much in line with the Saudi Plan and the Bush letter flew in the face of both of these and resorted to Res 242 which provided the original parameters of Oslo.

In June of last year Secretary Clinton disavowed the Bush letter saying it "did not become part of the official position of the United States government.' Israel begged to differ.

When Obama was interviewed by Yonit Levi for Israel TV on July 7th, he said at 40 seconds of Part 2, "our view on settlements is consistent with all the previous administrations' and continued "that view was always voiced not in the spirit of trying to undermine Israel's security but to strengthen it'. He made it clear he was talking about the freeze which he called the "moratorium.'

Keep in mind that there are two separate but inter-connected issues here, namely where Israel can build in the interim and what lands she is expected to cede in the final agreement. Bush's letter clearly referred to the parameters for final settlement but such parameters have implications for where he permitted Israel to build in the interim. Israel and the bush administration had agreed that Israel could build within the construction line of the settlements in Judea and Samaria and could build unabated in the settlement blocks. Obama is flat out wrong to say that his view on settlements is consistent with that of Bush.. It isn't. By demanding the freeze, Obama was against Israel building anywhere east of the green line.

JPOST reported on July 5th,

"according to proposal, Obama would publicly hint at acceptance of then-US president George W. Bush's 2004 letter to then prime minister Ariel Sharon, and Netanyahu would say that while settlement construction would continue inside the large settlement blocks, it would not be restarted outside of those areas. '

The Washington Times reported the next day, on the significance of the Bush letter and reported that Dan Shapiro, the White House National Security Council's senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, "declined to say whether the 2004 letter reflected the Obama administration's understanding of the parameters or borders of a final settlement to the conflict.'

So this proposal is still out there. Pres Obama must accept the terms of the Bush letter for there to be any progress. Even then, there will be great debate on what blocs to be included. Negotiations will include whether Israel will cede Arab east Jerusalem, (where the Palestinians live) to the PA and whether it will allow a token return of refugees, both in line with Clinton. To my mind if Israel gets to retain more land and settlements it will be more flexible on accepting a token number of refugees. Thus all the issues are inter-related.

In the interview above referred to Obama was asked if he was still demanding a freeze and he replied that he now only sought direct negotiations. Make of that what you will.

Still to be debated are whether Israel will get defensible borders and whether Bush will be followed in placing Israel security needs above Palestinian sovereignty.

The fact that the PA doesn't speak for Palestinians living in Gaza, is ignored. The fact that Hamas is dedicated to Israel's destruction is also ignored. The fact that the PA continues to incite contrary to the Roadmap is also ignored.

Bottom line though is that all issues are to be negotiated and agreed upon. This requirement is in both Res 242 and The Roadmap. Failing agreement, which is likely, will Obama or the UN attempt to impose a plan, even though it is illegal to do so?

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@israpundit.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 18, 2010.

This was written by Moshe Eyal, Executive Director, Arzey Halevanon Pre-Military Torah Academy, POB 1060, Maale Efraim, ISRAEL 90638.


Dear friend

I have always found it hard to understand Chazal's words, "all those who mourn for Yerushalaim merit to see Yerushalaim in her rejoicing" ( Ta'anit 30: ). Chazal promise that we will rejoice with Yerushalaim, but despite this promise, for over two thousand years, Jews continue to mourn over the destruction of Yerushalaim and have not yet merited to share in her joy.

We tend to interpret this verse as referring to the future or, in other words, if we have mourned properly, then at techiyat hametim, the resurrection, we will have the zechut of seeing the rejoicing of Yerushalaim.

However, if we read carefully, we notice that Chazal use the present and not the future tense, and in light of this, it is hard to accept the time honored understanding that we are speaking of some time in the future.

The following anecdote gave me a different perspective in understanding Chazal's words:

Rabbi Chanan Porat (please daven that he have a rerfua shelema: Chanan ben Shlomit), the head of the "Orot" movement, was born in Kibbutz Kfar Etzion — one of the settlements in the Etzion bloc — and in the War of Independence in 1948 was among the children who, together with their mothers, were forced to leave their home. The men remained to protect the kibbutz and most of them were killed.

After the war, every year on the date of the fall of Kfar Etzion, the mothers would gather the children and traveled to a point from where they could see from afar the lone tree that still stood amidst the ruins of the kibbutz, and recall their home that had been destroyed.

Little children go along with their mothers. We can imagine that as the children grew older they may have argued, "Ima, enough. We were there already; I know what it looks like. Why do we have to go again?"

The mothers were relentless. They continued to return, together with their children, year after year.

With time the children grew up, most became soldiers. Chanan was one of the paratroopers who freed the Kotel in the Six Day War.

Right after the war, Chanan and his fellow "children of Kfar Etzion" requested permission from Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to rebuild their home. After repeated entreaties, Eshkol gave in to their persistence, and said to them (in Yiddish) "shoin kinderlach", "all right kids, get going" and allowed them to rebuild Kfar Etzion.

In late 1967, Kfar Etzion was the first Jewish settlement to be built over the Green Line.

I would like to stress that Kfar Etzion was not the only settlement destroyed in the War of Independence. Atarot, formerly north of Yerushalaim, was rebuilt as "Bnai Atarot" (the sons of Atarot") close to Lod in the Ben Gurion airport area. Massuot Yitchak, another religious settlement destroyed in the Etzion bloc, was rebuilt near Petach Tikva.

The only settlement rebuilt on its own land, by its own children, is Kfar Etzion.

Who really rebuilt Kfar Etzion — the children or the mothers?

The mothers, persistently, year after year, instilled in their children the memory, the awareness, of their home that had been destroyed. The children, for their part, took the very first opportunity available to realize their mothers' dream.

If we were to personify Kfar Etzion, we could say that when the destroyed kibbutz saw the mothers and their children return year after year, it was happy, because it knew that its rebuilding would come, that it was only a matter of time.

The same applies to Yerushalaim. When she sees her children all over the world mourning her destruction, she rejoices, for she knows that she will be rebuilt, that it is only a matter of time.

When you and I work on projects connected with building the Jewish state in the Land of Israel, when we mourn the destruction of Yerushalaim, we are ensuring that Yerushalaim will be rebuilt, and at the very same time we merit to see her joy.

May we continue to work together to strengthen the State of Israel and may we merit the realization of the pasuk: "rejoice for joy with her all who mourn for her" (Isaiah 66)

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli Pollack and Mordechai Kedar, July 18, 2010.

For years now, Israeli academic institutions have been under attack by Israeli teaching staff members who travel the world and urge lecturer unions to boycott Israeli universities. Some of these Israeli professors go even further by encouraging economic bodies to withdraw their investments from Israel in general and from the universities in particular, boycott Israel and its academic institutions, and impose sanctions on them.

These people justify their activity by arguing that academic freedom grants them the right to undermine the economic stability of the institutions they draw their salaries from, while the State — which pays their salaries — must continue doing so even though they incite against it and threaten its very existence.

As academicians ourselves, we are in favor of academic freedom and have no problem in principle with a researcher who argues — in an academic convention or journal — that the State of Israel is an apartheid state, for example. After all, any decent convention or worthy journal would provide a proper platform for views that would easily refute such foolish claim while referring to highly significant differences between Israel and apartheid South Africa. The academic value of such claim would be the same as claiming that the earth is flat.

If a lecturer makes such claim in class, academic decency obligates him to present opposing views, and if he does not do so he's supposed to be called to task by his superiors due to the intellectual shallowness he imparts to his students. Hence, the academic environment is capable of properly contending with such claim, as long as it maintains its decency and fairness, which are supposed to prevent other ethical deviations such as plagiarism or false accusations.

The problem starts when the event where such foolish claims are uttered is not academic, but rather political in nature (for example, the "Israel apartheid Week.") It's even graver when an Israeli academician urges the pension fund of Finnish miners (for example) to withdraw its investments from Israel and from his university while boycotting them and imposing sanctions on them.

This kind of activity is not academic, but rather, purely political. The moment an academician undertakes such acts he deviates from his field and operates as though he's a political man. In the political arena, there is no significance to academic freedom, just like academic freedom does not grant anyone the right to drive on the wrong side of the road or park illegally, even on campus.

Rules needed urgently

Freedom is not unlimited: Freedom of speech does not include the right to yell out "fire" in the theater for no reason, while freedom of occupation, which grants any carpenter the right to drill holes, does not allow him to drill a hole in a ship carrying other passengers. Similarly, academic freedom is limited to academic activity and related areas and does not apply to political activity.

Academic freedom does not grant academicians the right to risk their colleagues' place of employment, and should such academicians believe their university deserves to be boycotted, they should be honest with themselves and start the boycott themselves by resigning and shunning their salary and the research budget they received.

There is no reason that would require a State, just like any other organization, to fund and sponsor people who travel the world and call for boycotts and sanctions against it, as such people threaten the State's legitimacy and thereby its existence as well.

An academician who exploits academic freedom for political activity necessarily pushes the institution he draws his salary from into a political position, even though he was not authorized by his employers and colleagues to do so. He therefore endangers their academic standing among global colleagues as well as their economic situation, as a decline in investments and donations as result of their actions would undermine the university's resources.

Recently, 14 Tel Aviv University donors urged the education minister to intervene. These and other donors may withdraw their support should their public call remain unheeded. As academicians, we feel threatened by the non-academic political activity of some of our colleagues, who hence threaten our status in the global academic community, the institutions we're members of, Israeli academic in general, and the whole State of Israel.

The education minister, who is in charge of university budgets, must urgently form a committee that would set ethical rules for non-academic activity in order to protect academic freedom against misuse, and to protect higher education institutions from economic and scientific collapse — this, as result of the reckless activity of people who turned themselves into politicians in an academic guise.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar and Professor Eli Pollak are members of Israel Academic Monitor This appeared in Ynet News

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 18, 2010.

Athens unveils its first Holocaust memorial

The Holocaust memorial in Athens in the shape of a broken Star of David

It has taken nearly 70 years, but tomorrow, as the sun sets over Athens, a monument to honour Greece's Holocaust victims will finally be unveiled.

Athens is the last EU capital to commemorate those who perished at the hands of Nazi forces.

"To get here has been difficult but now it is done the message is simple. We have not forgotten and we will not forget," said Benjamin Albalas, resident of the Jewish community in Athens.

Greece lost more of its Jewish population in the Final Solution, proportionately, than almost any other country in Europe during the second world war. Around 65,000 men, women and children were dispatched to their deaths in Auschwitz between 1941 and 1944.

An estimated 1,000 Athenian Jews were packed off to the concentration camp in April 1944 after thousands fled or went underground. Arriving there after a two-week train journey, they were met by Dr. Josef Mengele. "He selected 320 men and 328 women for his own research,'" writes the historian, Mark Mazower, in his book Inside Hitler's Greece. "The others were immediately gassed and burned in crematoria."

What remains of the country's Jewish community today had campaigned long and hard for the memorial to be erected. The quest began in earnest last year when the municipality of Athens donated a prime piece of real estate, overlooking the ornate cemetery where Pericles delivered his famous funeral oration in honour of the Athenians killed during the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC. Few areas resonate as much with the ideals of freedom, equality and democracy.

More symbolically, the site is also close to the synagogue in Melidoni street where, under a ruse of food hand-outs, the Jews of Athens were trapped and captured by the Germans.

The acclaimed Greek-American artist DeAnna Maganias conveyed what the Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel describes as "man's inhumanity to man" in a plaque on the site. Carved in the form of the Star of David acting like as compass, the sculpture points to the cities and villages across Greece from where tens of thousands of Jews were gathered and deported. The community chose it on the basis of its "simplicity" and "ingenious design".

"In keeping with the Jewish tradition it symbolised death and the memory of death in a quiet and calm way," said a committee member who oversaw an international competition for the memorial. But the marble monument, which is set in a herb garden, is also about healing. While six of the work's pieces are triangular, conjuring broken-off pieces of the star, the central piece, a massive hexagon block, remains intact and is reminiscent of rejuvenation and survival.

"The herbal garden is a symbol of healing and place," said Maganias. "The idea is that people walk around the monument. The orientation of the star, engraved with the names of cities and towns from which victims were deported and the smell from the herbs aim to act as a catalyst of memory."

The unveiling of the monument comes against a backdrop of growing attacks against Jewish targets in Greece. In January Crete 's historic synagogue was firebombed twice following the vandalism of cemeteries nationwide. Constantine Plevris, a prominent neo-Nazi accused of inciting racial violence with a book glorifying Hitler, was also acquitted by the supreme court.

"Incidents of antisemitism are definitely on the rise and our fear is they will increase with the economic crisis afflicting Greece," said David Saltiel, who heads the Central Jewish Council representing the country's 7000 strong community.

"We feel especially depressed by the decision of the supreme court. This monument, which as a community we dedicate to this city, is a reminder of what can happen when a society loses its tolerance for people who are different."

Mary Michalidou, an expert on monuments in Greece, agrees that Athens ' Holocaust memorial is long overdue. "But," she says, "while it should have happened earlier, its location aesthetically and symbolically couldn't be better. It will now rank among Europe 's best Holocaust monuments."

To Go To Top

Posted by Eretz Israel Shelanu, July 18, 2010.

This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in The Spectator (UK)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6143404/ summing-up-for-a-legal-lynching.thtml


Remember Judge Bathurst Norman, who summed up for the jury that went on to acquit the seven defendants who had attacked a Brighton factory that sold armaments to Israel by commenting that

'you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time'.

Well, Jonathan Hoffman has obtained the 87-page transcript of that summing up — and it's far, far more extraordinary and appalling even than the remark above suggested. Here is a flavour of what he has posted up from it on the Cifwatch blog, with his own gloss (the judge's comments are set here in bold type):

Democracy would not exist unless there were reporters and members of the public who were prepared to stand up for what they believe to be right, and sometimes, as in the case of the suffragettes, even to go to prison for their beliefs. As Edmund Burke says: "For injustice to flourish, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing." Indeed, people like Mr Osmond [Christopher Osmond, the leader of the seven who admitted causing £187,000 of damage to the EDO factory] who put themselves in harm's way to protect others may, in fact — there may be much to be admired about people like that. Perhaps if he had done it in this country in the last war he would probably have received a George Medal.

... Page 67: He [Osmond] knew of the Philadelphi corridor, the corridor made around the boundaries of Gaza by the illegal demolition of Palestinian homes by the Israeli army, during which Rachel Corrie, one of the International Solidarity Volunteers bravely stood in front of a bulldozer which was being driven by an Israeli soldier and was effectively murdered when he drove the bulldozer over her in 2003.

Now for the truth. Corrie was not "murdered". The IDF investigation concluded that the driver of the bulldozer could not see her and that her death was an unfortunate accident. The IDF Judge Advocate's Office concluded:

The driver at no point saw or heard Corrie. She was standing behind debris which obstructed the view of the driver and the driver had a very limited field of vision due to the protective cage he was working in.

An autopsy revealed that the bulldozer never rolled over Corrie: she was killed when debris dislodged by the bulldozer struck her head.

Page 14: I am going to start with the background relating to Israel and Palestine and to the evidence which points to the war crimes being committed by Israel in Gaza, an area over which Israel has imposed a blockade. The evidence shows that those war crimes are committed against the civilian population of Gaza and against the property of its residents, including the United Nations by the Israeli Forces.

This is pure demonisation of Israel to the Jury. There is no evidence that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. Israel did pay the UN compensation for UN properties in Gaza that were damaged but what Bathurst-Norman failed to tell the Jury was that Hamas terrorists deliberately hid among civilians and in the vicinity of UN installations. There is no such country as "Palestine" — surely a Judge briefing a Jury has an obligation to be accurate about such things?

Page 14: Now you have to look at the evidence coldly and dispassionately. It may be as you went through what I can only describe as horrific scenes, scenes of devastation to civilian population, scenes which one would rather have hoped to have disappeared with the Nazi regimes of the last war, you may have felt anger and been absolutely appalled by them, but you must put that emotion aside.

Good grief. The judge even compared the Israelis to the Nazis — all because they defended themselves against attack by the direct heirs to those who were actually in alliance with the Nazis in pursuit of the annihilation of the Jews during World War Two. This is of course the most offensive and grotesque collective libel, which demonises Israel wholly unjustly and, indeed, in the most cretinous way — and by implication also downgrades the Nazi genocide.

When this kind of rank bigotry flows from rogue politicians or far-left journalists or academics, that's bad enough. But for a judge to abuse the task of summing up evidence to a jury by turning it into a platform for his own personal prejudice is startling even by the standards of Britain's degraded and vicious Judeophobic public discourse.

This was a summing-up for a legal lynching. If the senior judiciary does not institute action against this judge for such a gross abuse of his position, we shall have to conclude that they too see nothing wrong with it — and thus have abandoned all claim to objectivity, fairness or due process in the justice system. We shall have to conclude that, for the English judiciary, there is now one law for the gentiles and another law for the Jews.

This article appeared in The Spectator
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6143404/ summing-up-for-a-legal-lynching.thtml

To Go To Top

Posted by Ruth Lapidoth, July 18, 2010.

  • The relations between Israel and Hamas are in the nature of armed conflict. Nowadays no formal declaration of war is needed. Hence the rules of the laws of armed conflict apply. This means that Israel may control shipping headed for Gaza — even when the vessels are still on the high seas.

  • The rules of naval warfare have not been fully codified in a treaty and are in the nature of binding customary rules. They can be found in the relevant manuals of Western armies (in particular the U.S. and Britain) and in the San Remo Manual prepared by a group of experts.

  • In order to be legal, a blockade has to be declared and announced, effective, non-discriminatory, and has to permit the passage of humanitarian assistance to the civilian population. In addition, the San Remo Manual of 1994 includes two conditions: first, the state which applies the blockade may decide where and when and through which port the assistance should reach the coast. In addition, the state may require that a neutral organization on the coast should verify who is the recipient of the assistance. In Gaza, for instance, does it reach the civilians or Hamas?

  • A ship that clearly intends to breach the blockade may be stopped already when it is still on the high seas. Stopping the flotilla heading for Gaza in international waters 100 kilometers from Israel was not illegal; in time of armed conflict, ships intending to breach the blockade may be searched even on the high seas.

  • Israel is within its rights and is in full compliance with international law because it has fulfilled all of the above-mentioned conditions for a lawful blockade. E.g., in January 2009 Israel notified the relevant authorities of its intention to establish a blockade of the Gaza coast.

The full article is at JCPA Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol 10, No. 4.

Ruth Lapidoth is Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She is with the Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 17, 2010.


Hundreds of Israelis are in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York, suing Arab Bank, based in Amman, on the grounds that its branch in Ramallah, Palestinian Authority, provided services or maintained accounts that financed terrorist attacks on their relatives. Services allegedly were furnished to the Saudi Committee for the Support of Al Kuds Intifada and other organizations.

Judge Nina Gershon ruled that jurors may infer that such services were furnished, because defendants failed to turn over certain pertinent documents. Defense attorney Bob Chlopak contended that the Bank turned over hundreds of thousands of documents, but was constrained by foreign law from turning over the rest. Where the Bank could, it got waivers from foreign bank secrecy laws.

Defense counsel submitted evidence that Israeli forces had raided the Bank and found no evidence of untoward financing. Arab Bank is the largest one in the Arab world. It has 500 branches (IMRA, 7/15/10).

Usually, lawfare is a form of aggression. Now it is being used more as defense from aggression. One hopes the tactic is not abused by the Israeli plaintiffs, the way it has been abused by Islamists in Europe and the way the American bar has become a way of gouging the whole U.S. economy. The Trial Lawyers' Association lobbies for what is one of the greatest cripplers of the U.S. economy, suits without merit or without significant benefit for any injured parties but with fortunes for litigators.


The energy ministries of Russia and Iran signed a long-term agreement for financing and cooperation in building up the Iranian energy industry. U.S. sanctions do not hinder Russia. It wants to make the money (IMRA, 7/15/10).

Russia thus continues to undermine sanctions. The Obama administration has defended its major concessions to Russia on U.S. national security, some of which could frighten Eastern European allies back into the Soviet orbit, on the grounds that Obama has secured Russian cooperation on the critical issue of stiff economic sanctions on Iran to cripple its nuclear development. The new agreements demonstrate that such cooperation was not secured. Tepid UN sanctions were secured. Just a photo-op, not U.S. national security.

The U.S. concessions were more major than most Americans realize, based on their analysis in the Wall St. Journal, recently. And speaking of the Soviet orbit, Russia is reviving the KGB power to warn people they are funning afoul of the "law." This is part of the country's sinking back down into dictatorship.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, July 17, 2010.

Posted in response to the Washington Post's recent disparaging anti-Israel propaganda and the commentary accompanying the WP article, all designed to undermine and weaken the resolve of Netanyahu and subvert the government of Israel:

"All of these comments are useless and truthless. The borders of Israel (then known as Palestine, and now called Israel) were defined by the San Remo Resolution ca. 1920, long before the UK sponsored the establishment of the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia in 1932 when the terrorist chieftain, known as Abdullah the First, seized the tribal lands of the Arabian Peninsula. Abdullah of the House of Saud utilized the same terrorist techniques and propaganda ploys currently inflicted upon the hapless nation of Israel. Israel's uneducated, ignorant, and readily tempted leadership succumbed to the bribes and blandishments of the US State Department without any understanding of the sub rosa conflict that to this day exists between the British Foreign Office and the US State Dept.

Regardless, the so-called "Israeli settlements," decried by the Islamic invaders and their European pro-jihadi sympathizers, are in fact legal communities established in accord with the laws and treaties still binding the US and European states that arose pursuant to the San Remo Resolution. For the true history of the region once universally recognized as "Palestine — The Jewish Homeland," and how the UK undermined and violated the treaties that still bind it, read Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international law: "The Legal Foundation of the borders of Israel under International Law." Available at www. amazon.com. It's an eye-opener that shows the reader how to connect the dots that link the UK's not so covert relationship with the Saudis and why the UK still thinks it can dislodge US influence throughout the region and replace it with their own. The French, however, have their own ambitions and agendas and they wait with baited breath on the sidelines. Read the book — it;s a WOW! Then read Craig Unger's book: "House of Bush — House of Saud" and learn how the Saudis bend the US State Dept. to its will." Paul la Demain Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z)

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, July 16, 2010.

There is something that troubles me each year as the fast day of Tisha B'Av approaches.

I guess, to put it simply, it boils down to this: why are so many Jews still sitting by the rivers of Brooklyn as they remember Zion?

It is here in Israel, and here alone, that our national destiny is playing itself out, and there is much work that needs to be done.

As I suggest in the column below, if the Jews of Monsey and Teaneck, of Flatbush and Boro Park, of Manchester and Golders Green, would only take the fateful step and come home to Jerusalem, it could have a profound impact on the nature and direction of Israeli society.

This article appeared today in the NY Jewish Press

Have a Shabbat Shalom,
Michael Freund


Next week, Jews around the world will gather together to mark Tisha B'Av, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, which is the saddest day on the Jewish calendar.

We will sit down on the floor and read the prophet Jeremiah's Book of Lamentations while abstaining from food and drink and mourning the calamities and disasters that have befallen our people throughout the centuries on this day.

They range from the Biblical sin of the spies in the desert who spoke ill of the Promised Land, on through the outbreak of World War I, the outcome of which paved the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.

In the medieval period, Tisha B'Av coincided with the expulsion of the Jews from various European countries.

It was in 1290, on Tisha B'Av, that King Edward I of England signed the edict ordering the expulsion of all Jews from his realm. This disgraceful act was replicated by the ironically-named Philip the Fair of France in 1306, and later by Spain's Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492.

But, of course, the central theme of the day lies in recalling the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, both of which fell, centuries apart, on Tisha B'Av.

According to The historian Josephus, in Book 6, Chapter 9 of The Jewish War, some 1.1 million Jews died at the hands of the Romans during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and another 97,000 were taken captive. Many were either sold into slavery or fed to the lions.

It was analogous to a demographic and spiritual Holocaust, one that nearly shattered the Jewish people and sparked a long and painful exile from which most of world Jewry has yet to emerge.

Think about it: all the tragedies and suffering that have befallen the Jewish people over the past 2,000 years — the Crusades and the Inquisition, the Cossacks and the pogroms, on through the Nazi Holocaust — can be traced back to that fateful day, the 9th day of the Hebrew month of Av, when the flames rose up over Jerusalem and consumed the Temple that lay at its heart.

Had the city not fallen, had the Jews not been defeated, the exile might never have occurred, along with all the death and destruction that have accompanied it throughout the ages.

So there is much to contemplate and grieve for on Tisha B'Av, which is why it has become such a central part of Jewish life.

And this, of course, is as it should be. Our collective memory of the past, as well as our attachment to our heritage and our history, is what has sustained us even during the darkest of periods. Doing so ensures that we do not forget who we are, both individually as well as a people.

Nonetheless, there is something that troubles me each year as Tisha B'Av approaches. I guess, to put it simply, it boils down to this: why are so many Jews still sitting by the rivers of Brooklyn as they remember Zion?

With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, each one of us has been granted the opportunity to make aliyah, a gift that previous generations could only dream of.

Every Jew who does so is in effect turning back the clock on Tisha B'Av, and inflicting his own defeat on the Roman forces of Vespasian and Titus.

Millions of Jews have already answered the call, leaving behind places such as Moscow and Manhattan to come and build the re-born Jewish state.

But Israel needs more Jews. It is here, and here alone, that our national destiny is playing itself out, and there is much work that needs to be done.

If the Jews of Monsey and Teaneck, of Flatbush and Boro Park, of Manchester and Golders Green, would only take the fateful step and come home to Jerusalem, it could have a profound impact on the nature and direction of Israeli society.

An influx of tens of thousands of observant Western Jews, committed to tradition and to upholding Jewish values, would immeasurably strengthen the country and place it back on the proper course. What a boost this would be to the people of Israel!

So by all means, go to synagogue next week and sit and mourn for the Jerusalem of the past, as our ancestors have done for generations.

Just make sure once you get up from the floor, that you dust yourself off and come help us to build the Jerusalem of the present, and the future.t>

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 during his first term in office.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 16, 2010.


Two IDF soldiers were convicted by court martial of several counts of mistreating a Palestinian Arab. In 2008, the Arab was bound and blindfolded. The Israeli officer and enlisted man threatened him and shot at his foot with a rubber bullet (NY Times, 7/16/10, A6).

Caution should be exercised in interpreting prepositions, such as "at," in English-language news released by Israelis. It is not precise. Israelis may say, in English, that Hamas fired rockets "toward" an Israeli town, when they mean "at." "At" indicates intent. "Toward" does not necessarily indicate intent.

Likewise, "at his foot" is somewhat ambiguous. It probably means that they aimed at his foot and missed, but perhaps it doesn't. If up close, a rubber bullet is more dangerous. In many stories, I find details inconsequential to the bigger issues, but in this case, the missing detail would be definitive. What were the circumstances, and what was the motive? If the motive were harassment, the conviction is deserved.

The U.S. has a prisoner named Jonathan Pollard. He has been mistreated, too. Some readers insist that he continue his already disproportionate sentence, and call anyone unpatriotic who disagrees.

Who is patriotic, the person who says that the U.S. should continue singling out that one prisoner to serve past five times the customary sentence for what he was convicted of, or the person who wants to uphold U.S. justice?

Who is patriotic, the writer who reports the brutal treatment of U.S. prisoners, whether it be in Iraq or whether it be of Pollard, initially put in a mental war for no cause, kept naked in a cold cell, and deprived of medical treatment, or readers who do not mind police state tactics by the U.S. government? Police state tactics are un-American and endanger Americans.

Who is patriotic, the writer who points out: (1) U.S. officials' several subversive actions, including support for development of Saddam's chemical weapons; (2) The danger to U.S. agents in the USSR when agents here divert themselves and make a Jew the scapegoat for the agents' deaths without charge or evidence; and (3) Later finding a couple of other Americans who informed the Soviets of our agents' identity; or a reader who continues upholding the discredited, defamatory leak that Pollard was responsible? American counter-espionage cannot be effective if blinded by prejudice.

When a reader ignores the substance of an argument, and repeats discredited assertions, he no longer is discussing, he is fighting and venting. That does not help our country. Nor does it belong in a journal.


The Oxford Research Group in Britain reports that Israel is ready to raid Iran's nuclear facilities but is not ready for the repercussions. The group is funded partly by the Ford Foundation, has issued earlier reports advocating negotiation with Iran and treating Hamas positively.

Israel has prepared itself with long-range bombers and armed drones.

Oxford predicts that Israel would strike not only completed nuclear weapons and missile sites, but also the factories, research centers, and university laboratories, in order to destroy the infrastructure that produces the weapons and the program's managers in Tehran. These predicted strikes would hit service staff not directly involved in the nuclear program. Staff living quarters may be near enough to be struck, too. Israel would have to repeat the raid, as Iran rebuilds. A long war would ensue.

The nuclear program would be severely damaged, but the country likely would unify around its President Ahmadinejad.

How would Iran react? Oxford predicts that it would withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and would work to develop nuclear weapons. This time it would burrow deeper underground, in facilities it even now is constructing. Iran also would have its surrogates launch missiles at Israel.

Iran would use the attack as a pretext to punish uninvolved parties. Thus it would seek to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, causing prices to sky-rocket. It would strongly support militias fighting against the U.S.. (Arutz-7, 7/16/10).

The description of Oxford is made to caution readers that Oxford appears biased. This is especially true in view of its funding by the Ford Foundation, which definitely is biased and at least once had to promise to stop it, but has reneged, as reported earlier.

The report is daunting. Much of it makes sense. One point not stated in the news brief is what alternative Israel has to waiting for the anticipated Iranian nuclear attack. The report's logic is peculiar about that, when it suggests that an Israeli raid would cause Iran to build nuclear weapons. What does Oxford think Iran has been doing, and why, does Oxford suppose, Israel would raid Iran's facilities if Iran were not and showed the treaty supervisors that it is not?

The mention of Israel's wider-ranging targeting of Iran's nuclear military industry sounds improper but is a fair description of strategic bombing. What would be the point of destroying a couple of nuclear devices and their missile launchers, while leaving intact the factories that make them and the laboratories that design them? Service personnel present, who help make the facilities run, take their chances by working there. So long as Israel does not specifically target unskilled civilians, the raid as described is legal and sensible.

Would Israel survive the rain of tens of thousands of missiles fired by Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas? What about others? How would it deal with those? Israel could have had a fairly effective anti-missile system in place now, but its officials chose the less ready, less effective, and costlier Iron Dome system. The people of Israel will pay the price of their officials succumbing to the lure of Iron Dome lobbyists. U.S. military procurement often is mercenary or political, too, rather than rational.

Israel would be paying a price for having let Hizbullah survive and Hamas survive. The same may go for the Palestinian Authority forces, trained by the U.S.. Appeasement then meant more deaths now. Appeasement of diehard enemies never works.

I have suggested before that the first raid would not be the last, so long as an imperialist regime rules Iran. Whether the country would unify around the regime we do not know, though it is probable. However, the regime has such a grip on power now, that it would not be dislodged before the regime could have nuclear weapons, anyway.

It is unfortunate that Iran would take out its anger on innocent parties. This is what comes of relying upon negotiations for too long and on sanctions too weak. Israel had urged the U.S. not to pursue Iraq, but to pursue the radical Iranian regime in the first place. President Bush wanted to, but his ideological opponents in the State Dept. sabotaged his efforts, and he was not a strong enough executive to insist in the face of media maligning of him and of the Democrats stalling all his nominations and legislation, including bills that would have ameliorated the financial crisis.


Netanyahu and Obama (AP/Carolos Martinez Monsivais)

Time Magazine assesses relations between President Obama and PM Netanyahu. It feels that Netanyahu outmaneuvered Obama. Obama was unable to pressure Netanyahu any further; domestic politics will prevent further pressure until Obama's eighth year in office, if he were reelected. Obama can only pretend he is making "progress."

The magazine's journalist, Tony Karon, stated that Israel has "broadened and deepened" its hold on Judea and Samaria, in the past two decades. Probably, we are told, Netanyahu will not move against "the hard-line settlers who claim a biblical duty to colonize" Judea and Samaria. Not mentioned was that Israel withdrew from northern Samaria, as well as Gaza.

The Palestinian Arabs believe there is no point in direct negotiations, they must have third-party intervention (Arutz-7, 7/16/10).

Two friends of mine said last night that Obama buried the hatchet on U.S.-Israel relations. I advised them not to accept politicians' statements and conventional wisdom at face value. This is especially true about Obama, who, as I have given many examples of, changes his word sometimes daily, and Netanyahu, who talks tough while secretly betraying his word, as my articles on his secret building freeze exposed. Like most radicals, Obama does not change his policy, he changes his story, pulling back, now, to wipe egg off his face.

In some ways, Israel has narrowed and shortened its hold on Judea and Samaria. It built a security fence that keeps some Jewish communities out and others penned in at the bottom of hills from which Arabs can fire down at them. That was in my news a couple of years ago.

Israel has restricted Jews' construction and funding, but lets Arabs continue to squat on public land and rustle or destroy crops from Jewish communities. I've had articles on rustling. Israel has removed most roadblocks and checkpoints. Israel lets in foreign activists, who harass Jewish residents and police. Their stone-throwing is well known, their leading Arabs onto fields in Jewish communities I reported. Israeli courts favor Arab claimants over Israelis, at least for a while, then police usually fail to enforce evacuation and demolition orders against Arabs dwelling illegally. Israel released many terrorists, in lopsided exchanges. Israel let the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) build up a stronger military, but does not give Jewish communities the ability to defend themselves from the P.A.

The Jewish communities should be organized into a powerful national guard that can neutralize P.A. troops that may not just attack them, but may attack mobilizing Israeli troops in a regional war. The P.A. role probably would be to delay that mobilization. Instead, Israel arrests Jews who do defend themselves.

If the government of Israel wanted to strengthen Israel's hold on Judea-Samaria, it would have changed its policy so as to permit Jewish communities there to build to the end of the municipal boundaries. It would have approved the final stages of construction whose earlier stages it had approved, instead of calling them illegal purely for left-wing politics. It would have annexed the nearer communities, and taken them off the negotiation table. It would have let the P.A. weaken, instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars illicitly shoring it up despite the P.A. goal of breaking Israel down.

The mention of Biblical duty for Jews is put sneeringly. Anti-Zionists, however, does not sneer at the Arabs for acting out of religious conviction. This self-contradiction indicates shallow analysis or insincerity.

Likewise for people who mock genuine Jewish national sentiment for their historical homeland, but do not mock synthetic Arab national sentiment for an area to which three-fourths of their families are recent immigrants and in which the Arabs have little history. The presumed Muslim religious ties to Jerusalem are a recent, political confection, as earlier reports have shown. Jordanian rulers of the Temple Mount, 1948-67 had let it become the site of an informal garbage dump, and never visited it.

The Arabs demand third-party negotiation in order to get the West, which Islamist theory poses as the primary enemy, to force Israel to accede to demands calculated to get Israel destroyed. That is not sincere peace-making. So why should Obama play the jihadists' game of pressuring Israel? Does either politician represent his country's national interests?


Libyan dictator's son, sponsor of the ship bound for Gaza, explained why the ship landed in Egypt, instead. He said it was because the Israeli government agreed that Libya may support building in Gaza. He said the agreed figure was $50 million, to go through UNRWA. He characterized that as a "big victory."

Problem is, Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli PM Netanyahu, heard of no such figure or agreement. Of course, he said, Israel already had said that it would let into Gaza construction materials for projects supervised by the UN (Kareem Fahim, Mona el-Naggar, Wall St. J., 7/16/10, A10).

How to account for the discrepancy? Accurate, conventional reporting is difficult. Accurately reporting what elusive and ambiguous diplomats and politicians claim is more difficult. Most difficult, I find, is reporting news from Arabs, for they have a shame-honor complex that makes it most difficult to admit defeat or error. Also, Muslims permit deception in support of religious objectives. And so we find that an Arab diplomat will make a statement that he or another denies or says is unauthorized or claims means something else, although the English meaning is clear.

One example is that those who drafted UN Security Council Resolution 242 made plain in advance that the English version was to be the official one, and that the wording was crafted deliberately so that Israel would not have to evacuate from all the Territories, in exchange for genuine peace. Now the Arabs claim the withdrawal was to be total.

Another example is the definition of "terrorism." In English, it refers to deliberate targeting of civilians in violent attacks for politic purposes. To gain Western approval, Arabs denounce terrorism. But they use that English-language term to exclude terrorism and to include Israeli self-defense. So they give one impression to Western audiences, but mean the opposite.


Accompanied by secret service agents, Israeli police raided the Judean home of the parents of Chaim Perlman, a suspect in the murder of some Arabs. However, the secret service may have been concerned over this: "tapes released Thursday and posted on Arutz Sheva's Hebrew page, a Shin Bet agent can be heard encouraging Perlman to murder Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah and to carry out "a small fireworks display" in an Arab village. Perlman rejected both suggestions."

On tape, an agent talked about murdering other Arabs, too. This is attempted entrapment, going beyond seeking confessions for crimes committed, which crimes Mr. Perlman denies. The agents paid Perlman for their meetings. Financially embarrassed, Perlman became dependent upon the meetings and loosened his tongue to keep them thinking something might come of the meetings (Arutz-7, 7/16/10).

His tongue was not as loose as the Shin Bet's. If the Shin Bet got someone assassinated because of its agents' provocation, shouldn't that secret police unit be indicted?

A similar tactic was used by the agent who worked with the alleged assassin of PM Rabin. Among other things, that agent beat up some Arabs and got the blame laid upon "settlers." Standing while Netanyahu was addressing an electoral campaign audience and where Netanyahu could not see him, the agent held before the news cameras a collage showing Rabin in Nazi uniform. The media took the bait and attributed the insult to Netanyahu. The Left then claimed that Netanyahu and his whole Party and the whole Right and religious Jewry of Israel created a climate of hatred of Rabin that incited the convicted assassin to kill Rabin. [The evidence I reviewed shows it is impossible for him to have done the assassination. The evidence is explained in several books by Barry Chamish.]

The term, "extremist," has been applied to "settlers." Why not to the government, that tries to get them to murder people, in order to be able to smear their whole movement?


A car bomb blew up five police officers and four other people in Tikrit, where many of Saddam's supporters favor the insurgency. The police were the targets, but presumably not the four others.

In Babil Province, in the south of Iraq, a gunman shot one policeman and wounded two others.

In Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, a motorcyclist shot a police officer dead.

Another bomb affixed to a bus claimed another victim, this time, in Baghdad.

A suicide bomber in Pakistan's Swat Valley attacked near a bus terminal, killing five and wounding at least 58 more (New York Times, 7/16/10).

Earlier articles show radical Muslims killing Muslims and others all over the world. The theme of such news is that radical Islam is a danger to the whole world, regardless of the existence of Israel. Focusing on Israel diverts attention from the greatest global menace since the Cold War and the World War.

How do readers respond? Some respond logically. Others, however, comment that I am anti-Muslim and anti-American, that I am off the topic of Arab-Israel conflict, and that Israel is responsible for the U.S. strife with radical Islam. Maybe they are anti-Muslim and anti-American, since they express neither objection to the deaths of the Muslim victims I cite nor sympathy for efforts to defeat radical Islam that does conflict with the U.S..

What do those reader comments indicate? (1) Inability to grasp the global nature of jihad; (2) Refusal to acknowledge it; (3) Unconcern about the subject, they just use it as an outlet for antisemitism.

One critic shows an ever zanier outlook, in asserting that President Obama and PM Netanyahu both are puppets of some Europeans. That is not even a sane conspiracy theory. Lacking facts, make up a nutty theory or change the subject, don't defend a view, just assert more accusations.

Another nutty conspiracy theory makes up a contention that there is some sort of "radical" Zionism, which is left undefined and therefore cannot be refuted. But the millions of Muslim radicals bombing here, there, and everywhere, that is real but that this reader ignores as if unaware of it.


Germany already has designated the Turkish charity, IHH, as a terrorist organization. The U.S. Senate sent President Obama a letter pointing out IHH terrorist connections and the violence it conducted on the flotilla, and suggested it be considered for designating as terrorist.

Up to now, the Obama administration has resisted efforts to investigate IHH and designate it as a terrorist organization. State Dept. spokesman Mark Toner said that it takes a long time to designate an organization as terrorist (Arutz-7, 7/16/10).

Why does it take a long time? Too many layers of State Dept. bureaucracy, or foot-dragging by Obama? Why the resistance? Is defending civilization against its greatest contemporary danger of low priority to Obama?

One thing about IHH. Whereas many Muslim charities ignore the needs of non-Muslims, IHH made a significant contribution to disaster-struck Haiti.


Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) challenges the credibility of Hanan Ashrawi, member of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) parliament. (1) PMW released a report about P.A. glorification of terrorists; (2) Ashrawi reacted in an Op-Ed in The Hill; and (3) PMW countered her in The Hill.

PMW's counter-attack noted that although the original PMW report documented a hundred examples of P.A. glorification of terrorists — inexcusably depicting them as role models — [as we have been reporting for some time], Ashrawi's reaction ignored the whole issue it supposedly was reacting to. The P.A. message, from Abbas on down, is that murdering young children, their mothers, and other civilians is honorable. PMW finds it deplorable, a great hindrance to peace.

What was Ashrawi's case, in The Hill? She tried impugning PMW by improperly suggesting that violence she attributed to one of its supporters, The Central Israel Fund, rubbed off on PMW. [The news brief did not discuss this violence.] The Fund subsidizes 250 organizations of all sorts, none involved with PMW.

PMW supports not violence but peaceful coexistence. Indeed, PMW head Itamar Marcus reviewed Israeli textbooks, and criticized the negative passages it found. PMW sponsored Peace Camp Canada for Jewish and Palestinian Arab youth. Deputy PMW director Barbara Crook sponsored an interfaith dialog weekend in Ottowa, featuring Jerusalem kadi Mohammed Zibdi.

PMW's documentation led Secretary of State Clinton and State Dept. spokesman Philip Crowley, in March and April, respectively, to condemn P.A. glorification of terrorists. U.S. law forbids U.S. funding of organizations that glorify terrorists. Congress is interested in the illegality of U.S. subsidy of the P.A..

Ashrawi's 2002 statement on terrorism did not condemn terrorism as criminal. "She said killing Israeli civilians should be stopped "... because we do not see results from these actions... We believe that these operations do not advance the fulfillment of our endeavor, for freedom and independence..." [Al Quds, June 19, 2002]. She also called suicide bombings "military actions [that] are defined positively or negatively not by their own criteria but rather according to the achievement of political goals..." (IMRA, 7/15/10). Abbas talks the same way.

The P.A. does not seek to gain freedom. Freedom? It represses its own people. It could have negotiate independence. No, what it seeks is to eradicate the Jewish people's freedom. Opposing that return to Jewish helplessness against genocidal ideologies, is Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement.


What was the result of Obama treating Israel's PM Netanyahu decently, this trip? Answering the same questions as on previous polls, 1% fewer Israelis still thought Obama's policy anti-Israel (IMRA, 7/15/10).

Obama can fool all of the Jews some of the time and some of the Jews all of the time, but he cannot fool all of the Jews all of the time. Israelis seem to be learning that public relations efforts may be tactical rather than represent permanent, substantive improvements.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Maayana Miskin, July 16, 2010.

Police raided the home of Jewish terror suspect Chaim Perlman's parents in the Judean Jewish community of Tekoa early on Friday morning, conducting an extensive surprise search that Perlman's friends say indicates panic over the affair.

Shin Bet (ISA, Shabak) agents took part in the raid as well. Perlman's friends expressed concern, "We're afraid that the Shin Bet will use any legal means — and any illegal means — to force Perlman to confess to the crimes they've accused him of. The way they turned his parents' home inside out this morning demonstrates the pressure they're under, and the panic over the exposure of the affair," they told Arutz Sheva's Hebrew-language news service.

Accusations that Perlman murdered two Arabs in Jerusalem and attempted to murder others led to the exposure of Shin Bet incitement. In tapes released Thursday and posted on Arutz Sheva's Hebrew page, a Shin Bet agent can be heard encouraging Perlman to murder Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah and to carry out "a small fireworks display" in an Arab village. Perlman rejected both suggestions.

The agent also told Perlman that he would have killed activists aboard the flotilla ship Mavi Marmara, one of whom was MK Hanin Zouabi, and that he would be willing to sit in prison in order to "get" MK Taleb A-Sana.

The tapes prove that the Shin Bet went beyond attempts to get Perlman to talk, crossing into incitement to murder, sources close to Perlman said. Friends also accused the Shin Bet of taking advantage of Perlman's tenuous financial position by paying him money at each meeting, creating a situation in which he became dependent on his meetings with Shin Bet agents and was coerced into telling them what they wanted to hear.

Perlman denies the accusations of murder and attempted murder. Friends say the charges were announced only after the Shin Bet discovered that Perlman had evidence of the attempted incitement.

Gilad Pollak, a friend of Perlman's, said it was clear before the affair broke that Perlman was facing some sort of personal crisis. "He had trouble looking us in the eyes," he recalled. Pollak said Perlman told a friend, "Given my financial situation, I would even confess to murdering Arlozorov," a reference to pre-state Zionist leader Chaim Arlozorov, who was assassinated in 1933.

The Shin Bet takes advantage of Perlman and others like him in order to justify the existence of its Jewish affairs branch, which seeks out Israeli Jewish extremists and terrorist cells, Pollak accused. "They try to justify their budget," he said.

Maayana Miskin is a columnist for Arutz-Sheva, where this article appeared.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 16, 2010.

A correction: Congressman Mark Kirk of IL is running for the US Senate, but he has not yet achieved that position. Thus, my reference to him as Senator Kirk the other day was premature. (Thanks for catching this, Jeff.)


What sort of strength am I seeing?

Let's start with the rally against the mosque being planned for Ground Zero. I thank the many people who wrote to me about this. Seems the mainstream media didn't see fit to report on it in any significant way (which tells us a great deal about mainstream media). But last month there was a major rally at Ground Zero protesting the building of that mosque. It was organized by the founders of Stop the Islamization of America: Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and other groups.

Fern Sidman, described this rally, which brought out in excess of 5,000 people, in Frontpage magazine:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/08/ rally-against-the-ground-zero-mosque/

There have been other sorts of protests since, and there is a movement to declare the building on the site where the mosque is slated to be erected an Historic Landmark, which would prevent its demolition. Americans in large numbers, it seems, are not prepared to sit still for the construction of that mosque, and this is an encouraging sign.


I have just learned of a group called Idahoans United for Israel. Director Allen Gorin wrote to me that, "You should know that even in states like Idaho, with very few Jews, Israelis are viewed as the guys with the white hats!"

All right!


A new right-wing, staunchly pro-Israel group, "Emergency Committee for Israel," has been established under the leadership of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and American Values leader Gary Bauer. Its members say they are tired of "political correctness" and polite criticism of the Obama administration.

For starters they are taking on Joe Sestak, a Democratic congressman from PA who has demonstrated something less than staunch support for Israel; he is supported by J-Street, which has contributed $75,000 to his campaign.

Additionally, Kristol has questioned whether AIPAC has been treading too softly with regard to Obama.

You can read more about this group here:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid= C836810D-18FE-70B2-A8458AC95E84BDD5


Leaders of several American Jewish groups are said to be expressing concern that this new organization might be "polarizing." Head of ADL, Abe Foxman, is quoted as saying, "I think it will have an effect on the political debate. That's troubling in the sense that what we've always striven to do is make sure that support for Israel in the US is a bipartisan effort."

Give me a break! This group was formed because the "bi-partisan effort" has been insufficiently supportive of Israel during difficult times. Apparently Fox thinks being wishy-washy on Israel is all right as long as everyone hangs together.

Maybe (it should only be) the new group, rather than polarizing, will open dialogue that will eventually move other groups to be more forthright and dynamic in their support of Israel.


We may not always know what we're doing, but we're not stupid: A poll here in Israel indicates that Obama's recent "charm offensive" (in the words of the JPost) had very little effect. Only 10% of Israelis think the administration is pro-Israel. That's up from 1% before the offensive. Perhaps it's Obama who is stupid for thinking that we might be so easily swayed.


Mitchell is back in town, and he has his work cut out for him. For Fatah is urging PA president Abbas to continue to refuse to enter direct talks with Israel in spite of the pressure the US is applying.

Fatah put out a statement, reported by AFP, that said:

"The lack of credibility and confidence resulting from the Israeli rejection of the indirect talks, which have achieved no progress, will become entrenched as 'givens and facts' if there is a transition to direct talks.

"That is something the Fatah leadership has not and will not accept."

The next step? Undoubtedly, leaning on Netanyahu to accede to some of the PA demands in order bring it to the table.


See commentator Moshe Dann on "Why peace won't happen":
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3920255,00.html


More after Shabbat...

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

To Go To Top

Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., July 16, 2010.

No...this is not a repeat post of Muslims trying to do the same exact thing in Brooklyn NY. This time they are showing no respect to their neighbors in Chicago. Muslims are constantly demanding respect, yet they do not care about wants and beliefs of non-Muslims. Islam is one-way street, and we should return the favor. Say no to Muslim immigration, and Mosque construction.

Hat tip to Dee.

This is called "Muslim prayer center, residents collide near West Chicago" and it by Jake Griffin.


Leaders of the Islamic Center of Western Suburbs want to convert a house at 28W774 Army Trail Road near West Chicago into the organization's prayer center and food pantry, but neighbors are fighting the plan.

Kevin Wiley has been waiting for Monday for two years.

That's the day when DuPage County's Zoning Board of Appeals opens a hearing into a proposal to convert a house at 28W774 Army Trail Road near West Chicago into the headquarters for the Islamic Center of Western Suburbs.

The leaders of the Muslim group want to turn the house they bought out of foreclosure into a prayer center and food pantry. Neighbors like Wiley want the group to stop using the house for anything other than a residence until the county decides whether to allow a different use.

"First it was the landscaping issues they did without the proper permits that changed the floodplain and caused my basement to flood twice," Wiley said. "The thing that bothers us the most is the constant rotation of different people coming and going every day."

This is the third time the issue has been in front of the county's zoning board. The Islamic Center's new attorney, Kevin Gallaher, said he is aware of the history surrounding the proposal and is hopeful a resolution satisfactory to all sides can be reached.

"There's been some miscommunication along the way on the part of all parties," Gallaher said. "All sides need to come to an understanding as to what the ultimate use of the property will be."

Islamic Center leaders are seeking a "conditional use" permit that will allow them to operate the property as a religious facility. They also are asking for more parking.

"They're trying to convert a residential property into something it wasn't intended to be," said neighbor Ron Cwik.

Adding to the controversy is a private driveway the Islamic Center shares with Ray and Jackie Sitkiewicz. The couple told the county board last month that many times they've found themselves either unable to enter or leave their property because cars of people worshipping at the house five times a day block the drive.

In January, the county cited the Islamic Center's leaders for zoning violations related to parking and non-permitted uses of the property. The state's attorney's office is seeking more than 25,000 dollars in fines it claims the center has racked up since the beginning of the year for failing to comply with the county's orders. But the case was once again held over for another month last week to see what comes out of Monday's meeting, Gallaher said.

Compounding the confusion is the state department of revenue's decision last year to grant a complete property tax exemption for the parcel. That amounts to more than $8,600 off the tax rolls, Wayne Township Assessor Michael Musson said.

Sue Hofer, a spokeswoman for the department, said the decision was based on a recommendation from the county's board of review.

"We have no way of determining local land use," she said. "Our job is to determine whether the use of the property is consistent with the law."

Hofer said the Islamic Center's paperwork was complete and included federal nonprofit documentation.

DuPage Supervisor of Assessments Craig Dovel said that while his office does make a recommendation in conjunction with the board of review, the state is ultimately responsible for deciding whether to grant an exemption. Dovel and Board of Review Chairman Tony Bonavolonta said the county doesn't check for zoning violations before making any recommendations.

"We don't question a religious use," Bonavolonta said. "We just forward that onto the department of revenue."

However, Hofer said the state relies on county officials to make sure a property owner seeking a tax exemption is legitimate.

"They are our eyes and ears on the ground," she said.

Wiley said none of the government agencies are looking out for the residents.

"See? That's insane with the tax exemption," he complained. "By them saying they are using the property for religious purposes, they are admitting to the zoning violations."

The county has been dealing with church-related zoning issues for several years, but the county board rejected a measure that would have imposed significant limitations on locations more than a year ago. The county is being sued by another Muslim organization after a proposal to open a similar prayer center and food pantry near Naperville was rejected recently.

County board member Jim Zay said the issue of zoning for religious facilities in residential areas needs to be addressed.

"It's not about the church, it's about property rights," he said. "People coming into a single-family area have the right to assume it's going to remain a single-family area.

John J. Facino is with Wake Up America. Write to wakeupamericans@comcast.net

This article appeared in the Christian Post
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100708/muslim-mob- kills-wife-children-of-christian-in-pakistan/archives/oldindex.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Steve Kramer, July 15, 2010.

While I've been vacationing in America and promoting my book, "Encountering Israel," I've often been asked about the possibility of peace breaking out between Israel and its neighbors. Sorry to say, I believe that there is no chance of a breakthrough in negotiations with the Palestinians (or the Syrians, for that matter). Three reasons are that the Arabs still hope that Israel is a temporary presence in their midst; that the Arabs can't abide Jews living among them; and that the Palestinians are primarily engaged in a civil war between Arab nationalists (Fatah party) and Islamists (Hamas party).

A. The Arabs despise the idea of a Jewish state on "Arab" land, as they call the Middle East.

The reason that Westerners haven't caught onto this is that it's advantageous for the Arabs to talk about peace negotiations when they make statements in English. Among themselves it's a different story.

Jews (and Christians) are not eligible to rule over Muslims anywhere and that goes double on "Arab" land. The proper role for us, the infidels, is as second-class citizens, subservient to the Muslim rulers. The term for this status is "dhimmitude".

From Wikipedia.com: "The term was coined in 1982 by the Lebanese president and Maronite militia leader Bachir Gemayel, in reference to perceived attempts by the country's Muslim leadership to subordinate the large Lebanese Christian minority. In a speech of September 14, 1982 given at Dayr al-Salib in Lebanon, he said: 'Lebanon is our homeland and will remain a homeland for Christians... We want to continue to christen, to celebrate our rites and traditions, our faith and our creed whenever we wish... Henceforth, we refuse to live in any dhimmitude!'"

The Palestine Authority (PA) is the negotiator recognized by Israel and the West as the representative of the Palestinian Arabs. There is a misconception that the PA, which is an arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), has accepted the reality of Israel, the Jewish state.

The PLO charter (1964/1968) states:

1) Declaration of intent to destroy Israel and "liberate" all of Palestine:
Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

2) Defiance of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine:
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

3) Denial of the historic connection of the Jews to the land:
Article 20: ...Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood.

4) Strategy to eliminate Israel:
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

True, the Palestinian National Council (PNC) did convene on 24 April 1996 and passed a resolution in which it "amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel" and assigned to a legal committee the task of redrafting the charter within six months. However, the charter itself was never formally changed or re-drafted. The original charter is still displayed on the PLO website. (See www.mideastweb.org/plocha.htm)

B. While Israel's population is about one-fifth Arab, only a token handful of Jews are permitted to live in Arab countries.

Ironically, Israel is labeled an "apartheid" nation despite civil rights being accorded to all its citizens, including its non-Jewish ones. (I am not denying the fact that minorities in Israel don't have the same status as most Jews. This is the same situation found in every Western country, not to mention the non-democratic nations, where it is much worse.)

If there ever will be a peace treaty between the PA and Israel, it must allow Jews to live in "Palestine", as Arabs do in Israel. If not, then the West is complicit in attempting to found a racist state, though that doesn't seem to bother Western diplomats. The reality is that approximately 20% of the total population beyond the Green Line (1949 Armistice Line) are Jews, living in areas that the Palestinians claim for their own state. (Notice the symmetry with the Arab population of Israel.) Accommodation must be made for these half-million Jews or no peace will result. That doesn't mean that every Jewish community beyond the Green Line must be incorporated into Israel. But it does mean that perhaps 100,000 Jews will remain in communities located in "Palestine". If the Arabs can't accept having Jewish citizens, how can one reasonably expect Israel to take the extraordinary step of accepting a racist, militant state as its neighbor?

C. Hamas is acknowledged as a terrorist entity by the West and few will deny that it is an armed wing of Iran's Islamist rulers.

Hamas is subjugating the population of Gaza to its undemocratic rule and is attempting to usurp power from the PA in the West Bank. If not for the presence of Israel's soldiers in the West Bank, the Fatah party would have been overthrown already and Hamas militants would be in charge there.

Unlike the PA/PLO, Hamas makes no bones about its raison d'être: the destruction of Israel. There would be no peace negotiations at all if Hamas wrests control from the PA. While temporary ceasefires with infidels are permitted by the Koran, a Jewish state in the Middle East is verboten. The Gazan Arabs, about one-third of the Palestinians, are being left out of the current negotiations. Since the PA can only negotiate on behalf of West Bank Arabs, no meaningful peace treaty can conceivably result.

Because of the above arguments, I foresee no possibility that the present peace negotiations will bear fruit, even if direct talks were to occur. PA President Abbas doesn't have the will or the power to overcome Arab rejection of a Jewish state. He has even stated recently that he would join in a war against Israel should the Arab states start one: "We are unable to confront Israel militarily, and this point was discussed at the Arab League Summit in March in Sirt (Libya). There I turned to the Arab States and I said: 'If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it.' He [Abbas] said: 'The West Bank was completely destroyed and we will not agree that it will be destroyed again,' in addition to 'the inability to confront Israel militarily.'" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), July 6, 2010] via Palestine Media Watch: www.palwatch.org

Lately, there are signs that President Obama has realized that putting pressure on Israel to "give" the Palestinians a state has backfired, hardening the Arab line. If this impression is not a mirage, perhaps the Obama administration will bring pressure to bear on the Arabs to begin to think about compromising their demands regarding the Jews and Israel. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel has already committed to the idea of a Palestinian state and has even suspended building in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a "confidence building measure." It's time for the Arabs to reciprocate.

Despite being a die-hard optimist, I don't foresee peace breaking out in the Middle East for at least a generation or two. And that goes for those parts of the region far from Israel, such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture."

To Go To Top

Posted by nathan Schanzer, July 15, 2010.

This was written by Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Schanzer and it appeared in Weekly Standard Blog and is archived at
http://schanzer.pundicity.com/7720/ the-end-of-palestinian-democracy


Saturday, July 17, was the day Palestinians were slated to hold a municipal election in the West Bank. But the elections were scrapped. Initially, only groups like Hamas rejected the vote. Then, last month, the Palestinian Authority (PA) opted to postpone the elections entirely. The legislative process came to a screeching halt. The ongoing civil war between Hamas (which controls Gaza Strip) and Fatah (which controls the West Bank) puts the Palestinians in a state of limbo, with no new elections planned.

What does this mean for Palestinian democracy?

Palestinian intellectuals and activists have long argued that democracy is a natural fit for the Palestinians. After the Israelis conquered the Palestinian territories in the 1967 Six Day War, they ensured that the Palestinians elected their own leaders through municipal elections in 1972 and 1976. Two decades later, during the first intifada, Palestinians built upon this tradition by electing uprising leaders.

Academics and advocates argue that decades of Israeli "occupation" makes Palestinians hungry for an accountable government. Others argue that the corrupt Fatah-dominated PA has exacerbated that hunger. Finally, advocates for the Palestinian cause will say that the Palestinian Diaspora, given its exposure to university educations and Western political systems, is ready and able to embrace democracy.

Prompted by the Oslo peace process, Palestinians put these theories to test. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) resembled a Western-style parliament. The Palestinians cast ballots in legislative and presidential elections. By 2000, as the Oslo process came to a head, a Washington Institute for Near East Policy monograph projected that "the PA [Palestinian Authority] could become a democracy."

All bets were off, however, after PA chairman Yasir Arafat launched the al-Aqsa Intifada later that year. First, the rule of law disintegrated as Palestinians turned to terror. Then, after a spate of suicide bombings in 2001 and 2002, Israel retaliated against the PA, which was a partner on several attacks. Israel's military destroyed key PA governmental targets and other infrastructure.

As the PA became increasingly feeble, Islamist groups like Hamas grew in power. Indeed, when Arafat died in 2004, few analysts knew who really controlled the Palestinian streets.

Amidst this chaos, in January 2005, the Palestinians went back to the polls. They officially elected Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah's second-in-command, as head of the PA. But Abbas could not control the streets. Nor could he beat back Hamas, which continued to amass power through municipal elections held between December 2004 and December 2005.

Finally, in January 2006, the Palestinians held what were widely seen as free and fair legislative elections. It was touted as a testament to their political sophistication, supposedly confirming what so many analysts had posited over the decades. However, the election was also the undoing of the Palestinians.

Hamas won the election, claiming 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats. Fatah was humiliated. But with support from the West, Fatah refused to hand over power, and further refused to join a coalition with Hamas.

A bitter deadlock kept the Palestinians paralyzed until the civil war of June 2007. Hamas conquered Gaza in a battle that killed 161 Palestinians and wounded some 700. The political fallout was also considerable: Hamas controlled Gaza, while the West Bank remained in Fatah hands.

Repeated attempts by the Saudis, Egyptians, Yemenis, Turks, Mauritanians and others have failed to foster reconciliation since the 2007 war, while the two sides (from their two different territories) continue to trade barbs.

Given this context, the decision to hold municipal elections this month was questionable from the start. Indeed, little could have been accomplished under these circumstances.

But this was not the reason the West Bank leaders cancelled the vote. The real reason was that Fatah could not agree on the candidates they would stand up for election. More importantly, as journalist Khaled Abu Toameh notes, Fatah feared another electoral humiliation.

How can the U.S., in good faith, sponsor a state that would not be a functioning democracy? If the Obama administration wants to continue to hold out hope for Palestinian statehood, it must find a way to revive the flat-lining Palestinian political system. The odds of success grow increasingly dim.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. Contact him at js@defenddemocracy.org. Asaf Romirowsky is a visiting fellow at the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET).

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Bars, July 15, 2010.

This was written by Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-MI).


"I cannot recall at any time when the gap between the kind of words which statesmen used and what was actually happening in many countries was so great as it is now. The habit of saying smooth things and uttering pious platitudes and sentiments to gain applause, without relation to the underlying facts, is more pronounced now than it has ever been in my experience."

So wrote Winston Churchill on November 17, 1932.

By 1938, as Nazi Germany used the "plight" of the Sudeten Germans as a pretext for an imminent invasion of the sovereign democracy of Czechoslovakia, British Prime Minister and principal appeaser Neville Chamberlain was still parsing his words and pursuing an undetected course amidst the immediate crisis. As David Faber records in his book "Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II":

While (Chamberlain's) bold stroke in flying to see Hitler had captured the imagination of even his critics, few of them realized that he had gone to Germany hoping not only to solve the Czech crisis, but also to establish a personal relationship with Hitler, and to build a lasting Anglo-German settlement.

In the end, Chamberlain "solved" the crisis by appeasing Hitler and betraying Czechoslovakia. Poland became Nazi Germany's next target; and World War II commenced.

Today, the crisis is an Iranian regime on the brink of possessing nuclear weapons.

Though it has promised to ensure that Iran would not "acquire a nuclear capability," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' recent memo reveals the open secret that the Obama Administration lacks a coherent policy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed power. Americans and the world wonder why.

The reason is that, like Chamberlain and the Czech crisis, President Obama does not view solving the Iranian nuclear crisis as an end unto itself. President Obama's over-arching goal is to establish a long-term "settlement" between the Iranian regime and the United States.

The President's intention was patent in his Inaugural Address: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Thus did the President alert the Iranian regime that, despite whatever it does to its own people and others, he hopes our nations could, as the bumper sticker implores, "co-exist" until Tehran's butchers see the light and unilaterally chang their evil ways.

This morally ambivalent end alone explains the Obama Administration's limp rhetoric and actions toward Iran and their cohorts and abettors.

To date, the Obama Administration's public overtures to the regime; dining with the regime in New York; begrudged recognition of Iranian freedom seekers' struggle and suffering; failure to enforce the Monroe Doctrine as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force intensifies its presence in Venezuela; lapsed sanctions deadline; nebulous plan of military options; and tepid support for the Iranian Sanctions Act all evince the Administration's desire to entreat with Tehran's despots rather than stop them.

Indeed, in response to the Gates Memo the Administration argues that it is considering "the full range of contingencies" regarding Iran's nuclear capacities. Of course, this would inherently entail a contingency where a nuclear capable Iran — one that has the ability to produce a nuclear weapon but has yet to do so — remains within compliance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In light of the Administration's nuclear posture review, as a practical matter, it appears all American options are no longer on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran (or likely even to respond to an Iranian chemical, biological or cyber attack).

So too, apparently viewing Israel as Chamberlain did Czechoslovakia, the Obama Administration's heavy-handed treatment and consequently strained relationship with our ally; and signals the mullahs that even the security of America's allies is negotiable in the quest for a long term strategic settlement with Iran.

And not to be overlooked for its linkage to the current crisis, to obtain support for Iranian sanctions, however ineffective they may prove, the Administration has placated a revanchist Russia with the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and failed to press communist China on a slew of human rights and trade violations. These two nations are the most notorious enablers of Iran's military and economy; and, not surprisingly, these two nations pose the biggest obstacles to effective international sanctions against Iran.

In sum, though it has professed its commitment to a "nuclear-free world" fantasy, in real world actuality the Obama Administration has exacerbated the Iranian nuclear crisis, in the over-riding hope to strike a sustainable accommodation with the Iranian regime.

Likely, this deluded rapprochement would entail Iran refraining from weaponizing its nuclear capabilities; and behaving to hasten the United States' exit from Iraq and Afghanistan. In exchange, Iran would have a nuclear "capacity" and a free hand within its Middle Eastern sphere of influence — one which would ultimately serve as a base for increasing its exportation of terrorism.

To seal the deal, with the intercession of Russia and China and after a suitable period of weak to mild sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, the stage would be set for President Obama to fly off to Tehran and achieve "peace for our time." (That time being 2012, perhaps?)

Since President Obama has already received a Nobel Peace Prize for his "new approach" to American foreign policy, there is only one more thing his efforts to appease Iran might reap — the whirlwind.

If consulted by the Nobel selection committee, those who have learned the lessons of history would have reminded those esteemed Norwegians how, after the 1938 Munich Accord, Prime Minister Chamberlain was roundly hailed as the "flying messenger of peace." As Chamberlain put it: "I want to say that the settlement of the Czechoslovak problem which has now been achieved is, in my view, only a prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace."

Tragically, this did not prove Herr Hitler's view, as the clear eyed Churchill understood at the time: "I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat... And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning."

In our time, clear minds know we heirs of liberty cannot barter with butchers. To prevent an Iran possessed of nuclear weapons, America's sole goal must be the regime's peaceful implosion beneath its own citizens' aspirations for freedom — the freedom for which peaceful Iranians like Neda Soltan and Taraneh Mousavi are being imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the mullahs.

In addition to wholeheartedly supporting the Iranian freedom movement, the United States and her allies must implement a constructive quarantine of Iran. First, this policy requires an unequivocal reaffirmation of our support for our democratic ally Israel, including the rejection of American attempts to impose its own "two state solution" upon both Israelis and Palestinians. Second, we must not blanch in continuing to secure and support sovereign democracies on Iran's border, notably Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, America and the free world must adopt a stronger, integrated approach to our bi-lateral relations with Iran's protectors, namely the People's Republic of China and Putin's Russia, to induce their support of sanctions with teeth against the Iranian regime. Fourth, pressure must be increased upon Syria to end its mutual defense pact with Iran, and stop aiding Iranian-sponsored terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas.

More steps toward the implosion of the Iranian regime will be required and more opportunities to hasten its demise will arise as the above steps are implemented. True, many on the Left will be eager to decry this necessary course; however, those same critics will be equally chary to admit that, on the Obama Administration's present course, the outcome will be a nuclear Iran's cancerous influence spreading throughout the region and the world.

Presently, the crisis persists; the consequences mount; and the crux of the matter remains.

Like Churchill, will America see the facts beneath the platitudes; adopt a constructive quarantine policy; and get it right in our time, before commences the next reckoning for a naive Administration's appeasement of a brutal, belligerent regime?

Let us pray the Obama Administration does, whether the Iranian regime likes it or not.

Michael J. Bars is in the Office of U.S. Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI-11), 1632 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, (o) 202-225-8171, (m) 202-257-0697.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 15, 2010.


[Although revealing much about Turkey's performance in Cyprus, the source article may go too far. This is a sensitive subject. People of one nationality condemn whoever gives a hearing to the other. One side may be 80% right, but discusses the issues as if 100% right. Please explain your disagreement with the report, instead of calling names over it.]

In the Republic of Cyprus, Greeks and Turks got along poorly. Each nationality committed crimes against the other. In 1974, more radical Greeks tried to make a union with Greece [which made the Turks there feel that their security was in danger.] In response, Turkey invaded Cyprus. Cyrpriot armed forces were no match. The Turkish air force bombed Famagusta, seized it, looted part of it, and they sealed off the wealthy tourist section, to this day. The Greeks fled to the southern part of the island.

Turkey seized half the capital, Nicosia. It erected a wall in between. "The wall of occupation running through central Nicosia does not attract 'solidarity' protesters or leftist professors from the West. They are too busy denouncing and attacking Israel for building a security fence around Jerusalem, a fence to keep the Palestinian (Arab) suicide bombers from mass-murdering Jewish children." Besides, they know they would face harsh imprisonment.

Even Turkey does not recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Many UN resolutions demand that Turkey evacuate and return stolen property. Turkey ignores the resolutions. Turkey, however, denounces Israel for ignoring world public opinion.

Turkey accuses Israel of occupying territory, but Turkey occupies half of Cyprus. Turkey challenges Israel's blockade of Gaza, but itself closed off sections of Famagusta. Turkey demands that Israel let descendants of Arab refugees into Israel, but does not let into its portion of Cyprus the Greeks whom it frightened out.

"Since its brutal invasion, Turkey has moved countless thousands of its own citizens and regular troops onto northern Cyprus. This is the very same Turkey that venomously denounces Israel when it builds "settlements" in the suburbs of Jerusalem for Jewish civilians on lands they have purchased legally."

Turkey demands self-determination for western Palestinian Arabs, but does not allow "Turkish Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Azeris and others to exercise any of it, even in the form of limited language autonomy."

Turkey denounces Israel for allegedly repressing Arab human rights, but Israeli Arabs have more freedom than do Turks in Turkey. Minorities in Turkey have been forcibly Turkified. Censorship is rife.

"The state of human rights in Turkey, according to numerous human rights NGOs, continues to be atrocious. Women in Turkey are mistreated; until very recently women students applying to universities had to pass a virginity test. The Turkish military police routinely kill civilians. Journalists have been assassinated. Islamofascism is growing stronger and local Islamic fundamentalist terrorists filled the [top deck of the ] Gaza 'peace flotilla' sponsored by Turkey. Those are the terrorists whose suppression by Israel has now become the focus of Turkey's demand for an Israeli apology." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/14/10.)


Unloading Libyan Ship in Egypt, for Gazans (AP/Nasser Nasser)

A cargo ship of humanitarian goods chartered by Libya terminated its voyage at an Egyptian port. Egypt's Red Crescent will transmit cargo to Gaza.

Israel had warned the ship against trying to sneak into Gaza (Wall St. J., 8/15, A13).

Other sources say that about eight Israeli warships barred the way to Gaza.

Some of those sources told conflicting tales about what Libya's ship had done and would do. I waited for definite facts, before reporting on it.


On the seventh anniversary of the first accusation that Pres. George W. Bush had lied us into the Iraq war, Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief-of-staff, assembles the evidence to the contrary. Mr. Rove feels that his biggest mistake was in not doing so years ago. Leaving the accusation unanswered weakened the national unity needed in fighting international terrorism.

The analysis that Iraq had nuclear weapons came from some intelligence reports [foreign and domestic]. Those reports were accepted not only by Bush but also by leading Members of Congress. 102 Democrat Members voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force against Iraq. In debate, 67 of them said that Saddam had these weapons.

Sen. Kennedy voted no, but a month earlier had warned against tolerating Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass-destruction. Kennedy was the first to accuse Bush of having distorted the military intelligence and the truth.

Also a month before the vote, former Vice-President Gore said that Saddam has stashed biological and chemical weapons throughout the country. In June, 2004, however, he accused Bush of lying and of treason.

Even earlier, in December, 2001, Senate Intelligence Chair Bob Graham organized a bi-partisan letter to President Bush warning that Saddam may have nuclear and other weapons of mass-destruction. Two years later, Sen. Graham demanded bush's impeachment for having agreed with him.

In October, 2002, Sen. Jay Rockefeller said that Saddam's weapons of mass-destruction threaten the U.S.. In July, 2004, Sen. Rockefeller accused Bush of using "bad information" to help make the case for war.

Bi-partisan commissions found errors in the intelligence, not lies in Bush's use of it (Wall St. J., 7/15/10, A15).


A Knesset shocked into speechlessness, heard expert testimony that Israel lets the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) take hundreds of millions of dollars a year, rightfully belonging to Israel. Working only from official sources, economist Nahum Gutentag of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel laid out the facts.

In the 1994 Paris Agreement, Israel agreed to collect and transfer to the P.A. the V.A.T. involving the P.A.. But Israel lets the P.A. keep hundreds of millions of dollars the P.A. is not entitled to, and that Israel is entitled to.

When Israel Arabs buy goods in P.A. cities, the P.A. is supposed to transfer the V.A.T. to Israel. It does not, and Israel does not demand it. Millions of dollars are involved.

Israel lets some P.A. merchants operate without tax invoices. As a result, there is no record of what V.A.T. they should send Israel.

Israel's National Insurance treasury holds sums intended for P.A. residents who formerly worked in Israel and accrued those sums. Instead of locating the former employees and paying them, Israel turns the whole sum over to the P.A.. Israel does not know whether the P.A. distributes the funds to the individuals entitled to them.

There are other examples. The sums that Israel lets the P.A. keep enable the P.A. to use other funds to wage a kind of war on Israel. The P.A. struggle includes legal battles against IDF officers, boycott of Israeli goods, and attempts to get Israel academia boycotted (Arutz-7, 7/15/10).

The Israeli government is diverting Israeli funds to an enemy. That seems like treason. The process is not part of democratic budget-making, but surreptitious. That probably means malfeasance. Building up the P.A. economy, Netanyahu's idea for making peace, not only is an unproven remedy. It is patently foolish, because the P.A. refuses to make genuine peace, recognize Jewish sovereignty, and end its attempts to destroy Israel. The fallacy in Netanyahu's position, assuming he is sincere in it, is the assumption that prosperity fosters peace. The evidence contradicts that assumption.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 15, 2010.

Dear Friend,

We are sending you "On the Perversion of Justice" — a comprehensive report published this week about the Israeli Supreme Court.

Since our inception, The Legal Forum has made every effort to bring about changes in the national court system. It has been the position of The Legal Forum that the composition of the Supreme Court is not representative of Israeli society or opinion, and this is significantly because of the appointment process for judges which created a very one dimensional perspective within the court. Our initial approach was a small step, to successfully force the publication of the minutes of the selection process. We succeeded in this and as a result, the law was changed to include greater public representation on the selection committee, thus weakening the Supreme Court's influence in selecting new judges. A few months ago our efforts resulted in the rejection of the judges' nominees and the election of two individuals who bring some diversity, and in our opinion, the beginnings of balance, to the Supreme Court. We have done much and it remains our goal that the selection committee and the resulting judicial appointees should ensure a fairer representation of the various segments of the population.

This campaign clearly indicates our bias regarding the Supreme Court. Furthermore, The Legal Forum has fought many battles, and despite the perversion of justice so often encountered there, occasionally won its battles in the Supreme Court. We believe that for both these reasons we must declare a conflict of interest that does not allow us to investigate the Supreme Court.

For these reasons we enlisted a third party, Regavim, to work with The Legal Forum in preparing and publishing a report on the Supreme Court. This report, based on objective parameters, substantiates the claims that for many years the Supreme Court judges have allowed their political views to influence their professional judgments. Attached please find a copy of the report that is currently being deliberated in the Knesset. The English follows the Hebrew.

We continue our efforts to bring about a change so that the Israeli citizen will once again be able to trust that justice and equality are truly the guidelines of the judiciary system, as befits a democratic country.

This below was written by Hillel Fendel, senior news editor for Arutz-7 (www.INN.com). It is archived at


The Regavim Association has issued a report showing that the Supreme Court gives blatant preferential treatment to left-wing associations.

Regavim's full name is the Association for the Preservation of State Lands — from being taken over by hostile elements. Its report is based on the results of a four-year study of the Supreme Court's approach to law suits brought by various groups — and especially in the pre-ruling stages, when the legal merits of the various cases are not yet known.

The report shows the Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch, in particular, is biased towards the left wing.

The preferential treatment towards lawsuits brought by the left wing is manifest in the following areas: Rushed proceedings, Beinisch's participation on the judicial panel, the issuance of restraining orders against the State, intervention in government decisions, and especially the final rulings.

The report includes many petitions brought against illegal construction, Jewish and Arab. The seriousness with which suits against Jewish construction is taken is shown to be much greater than similar petitions against illegal Arab building.

"The Court's approach to the various suits brought before it was analyzed based on objective and quantifiable parameters," the report states, "and the findings show clearly that while left-wing petitions receive serious and rigorous consideration, similar suits brought by those identified with the right-wing [nationalist camp] are treated lightly and with derision."

Among the parameters analyzed were the time it took for the Court to respond to a petition; the number of sessions held on the matter and the duration over which they were spread out; the panel of justices appointed to deal with them; and the issuance of restraining and interim orders.

Regavim explains that its report concentrated on the procedural matters of a given suit, which take place before its merits are considered. "At this stage," the report's author, Betzalel Smutrich, explains, "the decisions reflect the judges' basic positions and biases, if any, towards the matter. This is why the tremendous differences between the right-wing and left-wing petitions, as we show in the report, cannot be attributed to scholarly legal hairsplitting."

"The facts described in the report clearly indicate a consistent and conscious policy that is based on political outlooks," Smutrich says, "and it is led unequivocally by Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch."

Smutrich stopped short of calling for Beinisch to disqualify herself from political lawsuits, however — presumably because she is not likely to do so.

"The public cannot be expected to place its trust in its judges under such circumstance," he concluded.

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, July 15, 2010.

In a wrap-up speech at Vigil 9000, ending the 3-day event marking Jonathan Pollard's 9000 days in prison, Esther Pollard used the opportunity to appeal to President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Before beginning her appeal to the two leaders, Mrs. Pollard praised and thanked all of the participants who showed up in strength at the marathon event. She said that she and Jonathan were deeply touched by the droves of people who came to show their support. Mrs. Pollard pointed out that because it was an on-going event in a large open plaza, 24 hours a day for 3 days, the endless stream of people pouring in, leaving, returning, and the crowd ebbing and flowing, renewing itself over and over again, was phenomenal!

Mrs. Pollard proudly pointed out that thousands had participated in the "Take-a- photograph-for-Jonathan" event at the site; thousands had written postcards to Jonathan at the write-in tables; and some 25 thousand Pollard prayer cards had been handed out to individuals at the event. In short, public response was overwhelming! Jonathan, she said, was greatly strengthened by the knowledge that so many people care and took the time to come and show support, even despite the blazingly hot temperatures.

In her appeal to President Obama, Mrs. Pollard first noted that the Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem had been dimmed the previous night, in solidarity with Jonathan on his 9000th day in captivity. An appeal from the People of Israel to President Obama was then screened upon the Old City Walls urging him to free Jonathan. She read the full text of the appeal that had been projected, as follows:

"Dear President Obama,
As the world's standard bearer for human and civil rights;
As a true believer in freedom and justice for all;
After an unprecedented period of twenty-five years of incarceration;
We, the citizens of Israel, turn to you: Let Jonathan Pollard go!
And then, G-d shall surely bless America!"

Mrs. Pollard explained that the appeal from the People of Israel on the Old City Walls was a follow-up to a similar appeal by the People of Israel last week, which ran as full page ads in the pages of Roll Call and Politico, the two prestigious newspapers published on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. She held up a copy of the ad, which boasted a watermark background of the American Flag and the Israeli Flag joined in friendship and solidarity. Mrs. Pollard read the text of the message to the President aloud as she displayed the graphic ad:

"A Message to President Barack Obama from the People of Israel"

"Dear President Obama,

We hope that your visit with PM Benjamin Netanyahu on July 6th 2010, will be an historic date for both our nations; an opportunity to demonstrate what real change means...Your principled signature on Jonathan Pollard's pending clemency papers would be the consummate act of friendship towards the People of Israel.

Mr. President, please send Jonathan Pollard home to Jerusalem, to his wife and to us, the People...Twenty five years is a long time. Please send Jonathan home with Mr. Netanyahu now.

With heartfelt thanks,

The People of Israel"


Based on these two appeals, Mrs. Pollard called out President Obama urging him to make this important gesture by releasing Jonathan Pollard and sending him home. She said that there are many reasons, political, social, international, and humanitarian, which make this the right time for a gesture of friendship and conciliation towards the People of Israel.

Mrs. Pollard added that as the wife of Jonathan Pollard, she wanted to add to the appeal of the People of Israel. She noted that while Jonathan is strong emotionally and spiritually, her fears for his physical survival are great. She said that after 25 years in American prisons, including nearly 7 years in solitary confinement in the harshest conditions, Jonathan is in extremely poor health, so much so that she fears for his life. She urged the President to please respond to this appeal from the heart, by responding from the heart and releasing Jonathan now. She offered her thanks along with the thanks and blessings of the People of Israel.

Mrs. Pollard then addressed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. She did her utmost to convey a message of courage and strength to the Prime Minister. She urged Mr. Netanyahu to "Stand strong!" and "Have no fear!" She appealed to him, saying, "Mr. Prime Minister, the People of Israel want Jonathan Pollard home! Stand with us, Mr. Prime Minister, and we will stand with you! Stand with us, and you will have our full support and appreciation!" She reminded Mr. Netanyahu that the Americans need to know that there is an address for Jonathan in Israel, that the Government of Israel accepts responsibility for the release of its agent. She urged Mr. Netanyahu to do the right thing, "The People of Israel strengthens your hand, Mr. Netanyahu! Take responsibility for your agent! Do what is right in the eyes of G-d and Man, and HaShem will surely bless!" Mrs. Pollard declared.

Mrs. Pollard ended her speech expressing hers and Jonathan's sincere thanks to the core organizers of the 3-day event, apologizing in advance for not being able to name every name, but acknowledging that without Nissan GanOr, Asher Mivtzari, Adiel Elya, Yisrael Cohen, Effie Lahav, Lilach Amrusi, Adi and Tzippi Ginsburg, Ora Mivtzari, Hillel Maeir, Shlomi Boxer, Ayelet and a host of other devoted and dedicated volunteers, this event would never have happened!

J4JP and The Committee to Bring Jonathan Pollard Home want to add our thanks and blessings to all who attended, supported, assisted, and volunteered, for making Vigil 9000 such a success! We thank all those who continue to work and pray for the speedy release of Jonathan Pollard.

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, July 15, 2010.

This was written by Elliott Abrahms, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. It appeared in the New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/07/14/ 2010-07-14_the_two_faces_of_mahmoud_abbas_he_say s_one_thing_to_the_palestinians_another_to_.html


"I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we're not doing that," claimed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during his visit to the White House in June.

It is unfortunate for the prospects of Middle East peace that this denial by Abbas (who is also head of the PLO and Fatah) was just plain untrue. In fact, this two-faced stance of Abbas and his cronies — proclaiming peaceful intentions to the international community while inciting their population to hatred of Israel — is one of the primary impediments to any sort of solution to the longstanding crisis.

And yet there are countless examples of pronouncements or actions by Abbas and other Palestinian leaders that suggest a glorification of violence and terrorism and undermine the belief that they seek peace. This very month, for example, Abbas publicly mourned the death of Mohammed Oudeh, mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre: "The deceased was one of the prominent leaders of the Fatah movement and lived a life filled with the struggle, devoted effort, and the enormous sacrifice of the deceased for the sake of the legitimate problem of his people."

Abbas also told Arab journalists in Amman, Jordan, that "We are unable to confront Israel militarily, and this point was discussed at the Arab League summit in March in [Libya]. There I turned to the Arab states and I said: 'If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it.' "

Why should Israelis, or Americans for that matter, believe his commitment to peace in English, when in Arabic he treats war as an acceptable option?

President Obama is well aware that popular incitement remains a thorn in the side of serious talks. In May, the President said that he had "mentioned to President Abbas in a frank exchange that it was very important to continue to make progress in reducing the incitement and anti-Israel sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools and mosques and in the public square, because all those things are impediments to peace."

At a dinner for Abbas during his Washington visit, I confronted him with several recent examples of incitement, as well as the denial that he made to the President. His reply was that of a bureaucrat, not a peacemaker: He did not deny the allegations, but said that if true they should be raised at a tripartite committee (the United States, the Palestinian Authority and Israel) that had been established by the Oslo Accords.

If peace is our goal, such a response is deeply inadequate. Abbas should handle incitement by stopping it, not seeking committee meetings — and especially not by denying that incitement occurs in the first place. Of course, it's easy to see why, politically, Abbas and others in the PLO and Fatah leadership avoid confronting these organizations' long involvement in terrorism, but if they cannot do so, the chances for real peace are slim. A leadership whose maps do not even show an entity called Israel is unlikely to tell Palestinian refugees that it has given up their "right of return" or that their long-hoped-for Palestinian state within the 1967 borders will not include control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

In fact, the critical insight achieved by the Bush administration was that the character of that state, and of Palestinian society, are more important than final borders in achieving and maintaining peace.

Is terrorism defended and glorified by the top officials? Are terrorists who murder children branded as heroes whom schoolchildren should admire? Is war with Israel a tactic that must be set aside only for pragmatic reasons, and even then only as a short-term strategy?

Obama is right to keep raising this subject with Abbas, but Presidents have been raising it for years. As the Palestinian leadership never seems to pay any penalty for its words, America's seriousness about the peace process is in doubt.

If the Obama administration is dedicated to a major peace effort in the coming year, the incitement issue should be at the top of its agenda. Because when direct negotiations do finally begin, the key test of Palestinian commitment to peace will not be what Abbas and his colleagues say to Americans in English, but what they say in Arabic to Palestinians — about Israel, about terrorism and about real peace.

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 Michael Freund, July 15, 2010.

Even as Israel comes under increasing attack around the world, a band of left-wing Israeli campaigners is busy protesting Jews moving into Jewish-owned homes in Jerusalem.

Incredibly, they prefer to raise their voices on behalf of the neighborhood's unlawful Arab tenants, rather than championing the rights of its legal Jewish owners, simply because they oppose a Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem

As I suggest in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, when Jews seek to discriminate against their fellow Jews, and aim to deny them the right to live in a certain area because they are Jews, it is a recipe for dissension and disaster.

Indeed, these protesters seem to have forgotten a key lesson of Jewish history: only by standing together, united as one, can we repel the threats which loom over the horizon.

Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly. This article appeared today and is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=181440


Michael Freund


Each week for the past nine months, a small band of noisy left-wing protesters has been gathering in the heart of Israel's capital.

Though claiming to be motivated by the highest of ideals, these would-be campaigners for human rights appear to have trouble respecting even the most basic of society's ground rules.

The demonstrators have repeatedly clashed with Israel's police, broken through security barriers, attempted to block roads, and even sought to storm privately-owned property.

Mustering all the indignation at their disposal, they have waged an increasingly strident battle in an attempt to draw attention to their crusade.

Thus far, over 100 have been arrested, and 44 have been slapped with indictments for a variety of offenses.

And just what, you might be wondering, could spark so much ire? What possible "injustice" could prompt people to come out in such a regular, and raucous, fashion?

Why, it must be Jews moving into Jewish-owned homes in Jerusalem, of course!

The scene of the action is the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood, which the media prefers to call by its Arabic name (what a surprise....) of Sheikh Jarrah.

Located just north of the Old City, the area is home to the tomb of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simeon the Just), a High Priest who served in the Second Temple and who was among the last members of the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Knesset HaGedolah) more than two millennia ago.

For centuries, the site was popular with Jewish pilgrims, and in 1876, the tomb and a surrounding plot of 18 dunams (approximately 4.5 acres) of land were purchased by a committee of Jews.

Dozens of families subsequently moved in, with the neighborhood eventually serving as home to a thriving community of hundreds of Jews.

But in 1936, Arab rioters assaulted the area's Jewish residents, and during the 1948 War of Independence, Jordan invaded and captured the neighborhood, bringing about a temporary end to the Jewish presence there.

The Jordanians allowed Arabs to move into the deserted Jewish residences, effectively creating a cadre of squatters.

But after the liberation and reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War, efforts began to correct this historical injustice by restoring the area to its rightful Jewish owners.

Sanctioned by the courts and with the backing of police, Jewish families have been moving into homes in the neighborhood for years, in some instances forcing out Arab residents who had no legal or moral right to be there.

And this — believe it or not — is what incenses the left-wing activists so much. Tossing aside the area's historical Jewish connection, they choose to ignore the fact that the Jewish presence is being renewed after it was snuffed out by Arab violence and hatred several decades ago.

Instead, they prefer to raise their voices on behalf of the neighborhood's unlawful Arab tenants, rather than championing the rights of its legal Jewish owners, simply because they oppose a Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem.

It is a matter of such profound hypocrisy, and short-sighted ignorance, that it almost seems to defy rational comprehension.

And that is precisely what lies at the root of the problem: a virulent strain of senseless hatred which overwhelms the mind's capacity for coherent thought.

On a recent Friday, this antagonism was very much on display, as the demonstrators sought to turn up the heat still another notch.

On July 9, nine protesters were arrested in a particularly violent scuffle with law enforcement after they sought to barge into one of the Jewish-owned homes.

As a senior official of the Jerusalem police told Ha'aretz, "Once again, as in past weeks, the leftists are complaining after they broke the law."

"Dozens of protesters," the officer noted, "left the protest area set by the court, blocked the road and tried to break into the homes of the Jews. The police force ordered them repeatedly to go back to the protest area and they refused."

Among those taking part in the demonstration were author David Grossman, former Attorney-General Michael Ben-Yair and former Meretz MK Zahava Gal-On.

There is something truly pitiful about all of this, coming as it does at a time when Israel is under increasing attack in the international arena.

After all, there is so much advocacy work to be done, so much effort that needs to be made to defend the Jewish state from its growing number of detractors abroad.

But rather than joining forces to confront this challenge, this gallant band of left-wingers invests its energies in trying to undermine the right of Jews to live in any part of Jerusalem. How sad. And how pathetic.

Indeed, this coming week, the people of Israel will commemorate Tisha B'Av and the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

According to the Talmud, it was our own internal discord which brought about our downfall.

The historian Josephus also describes how the bitterly estranged Jewish factions of the time battled each other, even as the Roman legions advanced and surrounded them.

Now, we find ourselves encircled yet again, with our foes busy tightening their grip.

Then, as now, our only hope lay in casting aside senseless hatred and forging a unity of strength and purpose as we defend what is rightfully ours.

When Jews seek to discriminate against their fellow Jews, and aim to deny them the right to live in a certain area because they are Jews, it is a recipe for dissension and disaster.

Only by standing together, united as one in defense of Jerusalem and our land, can we repel the threats which loom over the horizon.

What a shame — what a terrible and tragic shame! — that despite the passage of nearly 2,000 years, the protesters in Sheikh Jarrah and their like have yet to learn this most basic of lessons.

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 during his first term in office.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, July 15, 2010.

This was written by Steven Plaut. A slightly abridged version of the following appears at


Famagusta, Cyprus; Summer of 2010

The Ghost Town lies near the very center of the city, just outside the Venetian walls. But it is home only to snakes, scorpions, and rats of a hundred varieties. Signs on the fences around the Ghost Town showing armed Turkish soldiers threaten those taking photographs with arrest or worse. The crumbling buildings inside the perimeter are frozen in time in 1974, as if they are in an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Nothing has changed since central Famagusta was converted into the Ghost Town by the military invaders. It is said that the car distributorships in the Ghost Town even today are stocked with vintage 1974 models. For years after the rape of Famagusta, people told of seeing light bulbs still burning in the windows of the abandoned buildings. The few who have been allowed to enter the Ghost Town (called Varosha) tell of homes with uneaten breakfasts still on the tables, unmade beds. Books are opened to the exact pages that were being read when the barbarous invasion commenced. Hollywood studios could clothe whole movie sets with the 1974 fashions still in the closets of the homes. Three years after the invasion, the scene was described by Swedish journalist Jan-Olof Bengtsson. In the newspaper Kvallsposten about his visit to the Swedish UN battalion in the port of Famagusta in 1977, he wrote: "The asphalt on the roads has cracked in the warm sun and along the sidewalks bushes are growing. Today — September 1977 — the breakfast tables are still set, the laundry still hanging and the lamps still burning. Varosha is a ghost town."

The Turks currently placing themselves at the forefront of the assault against Israel for its "illegal occupation" of its own Jewish homelands, and for supposedly mistreating Palestinians, are the very same people who continue the massive crime against humanity in the form of the Famagusta Ghost Town. Born in ethnic cleansing, it is the enduring testimony to the illegal land grab on Cyprus by Turkey, the mass expulsion of the ethnic Greek Cypriots from the northern 40% of the island, the theft of their property, and to an unknown number of murders of Greek Cypriots by Turkey. The illegal "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is recognized by absolutely no one, not a single country besides Turkey itself. Since its brutal invasion, Turkey has moved countless thousands of its own citizens and regular troops onto northern Cyprus. This is the very same Turkey that venomously denounces Israel when it builds "settlements" in the suburbs of Jerusalem for Jewish civilians on lands they have purchased legally.

Famagusta was first erected in the 13th century BC. During the Iron Age, it was known as Salamis, and its kings traced their ancestry to Teucer, brother of Ajax, a hero of the Trojan War. Phoenicians came and went, as did the Assyrians and Persians. Greek settlers came to dominate its population. The Romans turned Famagusta-Salamis into a port of significance and major administration center. Some Jews migrated in from their homeland, producing the wine used in the Jerusalem Temple described in the Talmud, and later learning to manufacture silk.

The Byzantines strengthened the town's defenses, after it became a target for raids from Arab Moslems. In one of these, the mother of the Prophet Mohammed accompanied the troops and died during the raid. She is buried near the Cyprus airport, and the site has become a shrine of pilgrimage for Moslem believers. Crusaders from northern Europe took the island in the Middle Ages, but positioned their capital to the west of Famagusta. The town remained the main port for the entire island.

Crusader knights took refuge there after being expelled from the Holy Land by the Saracens. In time the island was taken over by Venice, in part to prevent her Italian rivals in Genoa from grabbing control of the strategic island. The Venetians gave the center of Famagusta its defining character, with its massive defensive bulwarks, gates and towers. The winged lion of St. Mark, the patron of Venice, still looks down from the walls. Shakespeare's mythical Othello served as ruler of Famagusta, and the largest Venetian fortress in the wall is obligingly called Othello's Tower even today.

In 1571 the Ottoman Turks lost patience with their Venetian allies and seized the island, taking Famagusta only after a nine month siege. It was the last Christian stronghold to fall. The majority ethnic Greeks of the island maintained their cultural identity, speaking their own language and stubbornly preserving their Christian Orthodox faith, in spite of attempts by the Latins and Ottomans to expunge it from their midst. The impressive main cathedral of Famagusta was converted into a mosque, and remains so to this day.

The Turkish colonialists turned the island over to the British colonialists in 1878 as part of a deal to get Great Britain to back the Ottomans in their fight against subjugation by the Russian Czar. Britain wanted Cyprus to serve as a naval base guarding the access to the Suez Canal, and governed the island with a policy of benign neglect. In the 1940s the British grabbed ships filled with Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler and seeking refuge in the Land of Israel. They imprisoned the Jewish refugees on the island in camps around Famagusta.

After an armed campaign by Cypriots to drive the Britain from the island, the Brits left in 1958 and Cyprus became a republic. Things were not well, however, in the inter-communal relations between Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks, with growing incidents of atrocities and violence taking place. Crimes were committed by both sides. After a particularly horrific set of attacks, and partly in response to attempts by some radical Greek nationalists on the island to seek amalgamation with Greece, the Turks invaded the island militarily in the summer of 1974.

Turkish tanks landed on the northern shore west of Kyrenia and quickly drove out the weak Cypriot armed forces from the northern part of the island. Within two days they had taken Famagusta. The Turkish air force bombed the helpless town. The entire Greek population, fearing massacres at the hands of the invaders, fled south to the areas beyond the reach of the Turkish army. Evidently to show the Greek Cypriots who was the new boss in town, the Turks sealed off the wealthy tourist area of Famagusta altogether, denying civilians access. The new Ghost Town was filled with valuable Greek property, including homes and luxury hotels. It had been the capital of the Cyprus tourist industry, thereafter forced to relocate to the south. The artifacts and museum of the Ghost Town were looted.

Meanwhile, the Turkish tanks rolled onward until Turkey had conquered exactly half of the Cyprus capital of Nicosia. There it erected a wall running through the center of the city, a wall still there — many years after the similar wall in Berlin fell. To cow the Greek Cypriots of southern Nicosia, the Turks created the world's largest flag on a mountainside facing the city. Other Turkish flags fly over the northern half of the city and Nicosia mosque minaret speakers are said to have their volume dials turned to the maximum just to antagonize the ethnic Greeks beyond the wall.

The wall of occupation running through central Nicosia does not attract "solidarity" protesters or leftist professors from the West. They are too busy denouncing and attacking Israel for building a security fence around Jerusalem, a fence to keep the Palestinian suicide bombers from mass murdering Jewish children. No Rachel Corries come go Nicosia to defy the Turkish occupation army. They know they would be jailed without hesitation in a nice Turkish Midnight Express, or worse.

Countless UN resolutions since 1974 have demanded that Turkey leave the island and restore property stolen by Turkey to Greek Cypriots. The same Turkish government that regularly denounces Israel for daring to defend its own civilians from Arab terrorists and for otherwise disregarding anti-Israel world opinion has never paid those UN resolutions any mind.

The Turkish rapists of Famagusta, the Turkish occupiers of northern Cyprus, are angry at occupation. But only by Israel. They send "Peace Flotillas" filled with armed terrorists to challenge the closure of Gaza by Israel, but never question the closure of Famagusta's Ghost Town. Turkey demands a right of return to Israel for "refugees" claiming to be "1948 Palestinians," never mind there are 22 Arab states in which the same "Palestinians" can live comfortably, but refuse to even take under consideration a right of return for Greek Cypriots to their own property lost in 1974.

Turkey insists that "Palestinians" be granted statehood and "self-determination," while refusing to allow Turkish Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Azeris and others to exercise any of it, even in the form of limited language autonomy. While Arabs living in Israel enjoy levels of freedom a hundred times better than do Turks living in Turkey, the Turkish government continues to denounce Israel for its oppression of Arab "human rights." On the very day recently when Turkey murdered 120 Kurds, it denounced Israel for committing "war crimes," supposedly committed when the Israeli army invaded Gaza in response to the thousands of rockets fired at Israeli civilians.

The respect for human rights in Turkey is notable for its absence. Kurdish, Armenian, and other ethnic minorities have been forcibly Turkified. Religious minorities, such as the Alevi, are persecuted. Censorship is commonplace. Kurdish areas have been subjected to martial rule.

The operations of the Turkish military against the Kurds make Israel's recent incursion into the Gaza Strip (in Operation "Cast Lead") look like a May Day picnic. Until 2003, it was forbidden to speak Kurdish on the radio or television; the Kurdish alphabet still cannot be used. The state of human rights in Turkey, according to numerous human rights NGOs, continues to be atrocious. Women in Turkey are mistreated; until very recently women students applying to universities had to pass a virginity test. The Turkish military police routinely kill civilians. Journalists have been assassinated. Islamofascism is growing stronger and local Islamic fundamentalist terrorists filled the Gaza "peace flotilla" sponsored by Turkey. Those are the terrorists whose suppression by Israel has now become the focus of Turkey's demand for an Israeli apology.

When Israel invaded Gaza to put a stop to massive rocket attacks against its civilians by Hamas terrorists, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced Israel for supposedly "massacring innocent women and children." He repeatedly accused Israel of "mass murder" in Gaza. Erdogan ranted at length about how Israel had turned the Gaza Strip into an "open-air prison."

But, in fact, the largest ongoing "open air" human rights violation and crime against humanity is on display for all today, behind the barbed wire and fences of the Ghost Town of Famagusta.

To Go To Top

Posted by Eye on the UN, July 14, 2010.

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on WeeklyStandard.com.


Among the multitude of attacks on Israel that the United Nations has sponsored over the decades, last year's Goldstone report on the 2009 Gaza war stands out for its dangerous distortions of fact and law. Now the UN Human Rights Council has sponsored a second-team of investigators to press forward with the report's implementation. Just as with round one, the United Nations has guaranteed the result of round two by selecting individuals whose independence is compromised from the start.

This second rendition of Goldstone was crafted by a March 2010 resolution of the Human Rights Council. That resolution first declares that Israel — and only Israel — committed "unlawful acts" in the Gaza war. And then it establishes a committee of experts to monitor and assess all judicial and other proceedings taken by Israel to respond to the General Assembly's endorsement of the Goldstone report and its long list of supposed Israeli crimes.

The mandate also asks the new committee to assess the proceedings of the enigmatic "Palestinian side." In the many resolutions on the Gaza war from the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council no mention is ever made of "Hamas," which keeps with the UN fiction that the war entailed wanton Israeli aggression in a vacuum. Instead of eight years of rocket attacks on Israel's civilian population and an elected government that openly advocates genocide, the resolution creating the Goldstone inquiry describes the problem with the Palestinian side as "crude rockets...result[ing] in the loss of four civilian lives and some injuries."

The fact that the mandate of the Goldstone inquiry was tainted from the outset, and that its successor is cut from the same cloth, did not deter three more lawyers from taking this latest UN job. They are German Christian Tomuschat (chair), Malaysian Param Cumaraswamy, and American Mary Davis. As it turns out, the takers and their UN associates have more in common than first meets the eye.

The members of the new committee were appointed on June 14 by the UN high commissioner for human rights, South African Navi Pillay. One of Pillay's two legal advisers, and chief of her office's "rule of law" branch, is Palestinian Mona Rishmawi, former executive director of the Palestinian NGO al-Haq and until 2000 a prominent director of a unit of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

All three of the new committee members are affiliated with the ICJ. Committee members Christian Tomuschat and Param Cumaraswamy were members of the ICJ's executive committee during Rishmawi's term at the ICJ. Cumaraswamy was ICJ's vice president until 2006. Currently both are honorary members. Mary Davis is currently on the board of the American Association for the ICJ.

The ICJ has been closely connected with the Human Rights Council's campaign to vilify Israel over the Gaza war, and in particular, the Goldstone report and its follow-up. In January 2009 the Council held a special session to denounce Israeli actions and adopt the resolution that gave rise to the Goldstone inquiry. Of the thousands of UN-accredited NGOs, the ICJ was one of two-dozen that spoke. It claimed Israel had violated international law during the conflict and called for the inquiry's creation. Then, on October 16, 2009, when the Council held a special session to endorse the Goldstone report, the ICJ was again one of the few NGO speakers. This time it specifically called the Israeli investigations into the Gaza conflict "ineffective as they lack safeguards of independence and impartiality..." On June 24, 2010, soon after the appointment of the three senior ICJ members to the Goldstone follow-up committee, the ICJ issued a public statement coming to the defense of Goldstone, his apartheid-era past, and his report.

The mandate establishing the committee that is now populated by ICJ members, however, demands the assessment of the "independence" and "effectiveness" of Israeli proceedings and their conformity with international standards. Not only has the ICJ already expressed an opinion on the subject to be assessed, in its statements it claims that the prosecution and punishment of Israeli "civilian leaders and military commanders" for Goldstone's list of crimes is "essential" to conform to those standards.

In effect, therefore, the new committee will constitute a direct assault against the individuals at the helm of Jewish self-determination.

The committee's work will be coordinated and facilitated by a UN secretariat official selected by High Commissioner Pillay, South African lawyer Ahmed Motala. No doubt, Mr. Motala was delighted to get the assignment. On January 5, 2009 in the middle of the Gaza war, he wrote on the South African website www.thoughtleader.co.za the following: "The war in Gaza and the killing of innocent Palestinians is not about Hamas, but entirely about the forthcoming elections in Israel...What better way to gain the support of the Israeli electorate than to...kill innocent civilians...The costs of victory in an election in Israel are being paid for by the blood of innocent Palestinians."

Lawyers Motala, Tomuschat, Cumaraswamy, and Davis will now work together to implement what might even be described as a blood libel at the center of the Goldstone report. In the report's words: Israel "deliberately...terrorize[d] a civilian population," and Israeli "violence against civilians w[as] part of a deliberate policy." Rather than being motivated by self-defense, Israel's political and military leadership allegedly set out to murder the people most deserving of protection, and this new UN cabal will pronounce on the willingness of Israel's judiciary to respond accordingly.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States, and the United Nations apparatus are furiously pretending this is all about law — they call it "accountability" and an "end to impunity." Not surprisingly, the loudest calls are coming from states that care nothing for either concept when it comes to their own citizens, or accountability for the many heinous acts Palestinians perpetrate on each other.

In reality, of course, from conception, the target of the Goldstone report and its follow-up has always been Israel. Though the battleground has been painted over to look like a courtroom, the battle is political. Today it happens to take the form of a partisan committee charged with investigating the independence of Israel's own investigations, supported by pro-Palestinian advocates doubling as UN human rights officials.

The only way to respond is to challenge the legal bona fides of the report and its progeny and expose the venality of the political agenda inseparable from them. The case must begin by refusing to lend any credence to this latest mutation of the UN virus.

"EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies." Visit www.eyeontheun.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, July 14, 2010.

The Supreme Court has rejected a request by long-term Jewish security prisoner Shlomi Dvir to allow his wife and children to visit him without a partition in between them.

This, despite the fact that a similar request by Arab terrorist prisoners was accepted just several weeks ago.

The Court ruled that it saw no reason to intervene in the decisions of the Israel Prison Service on the matter — decisions that are known to be initiated by the Jewish Department of the Israel Security Agency (Shabak).

Dvir was sentenced nine years ago to 15 years in prison for his role in a failed bombing of a girls' school in eastern Jerusalem, following the terrorist murder of five-year-old Danielle Shefi in her home in Adora, near Hevron. Ofer Gamliel, Dvir's neighbor both in the Jewish community of Bat Ayin in Gush Etzion and in prison, was similarly sentenced to 15 years for the same incident. Both Dvir and Gamliel are not allowed vacation time — a right normally accorded to prisoners each month — nor are they permitted to be visited by non-family members. Even their children are not granted the same cultural program rights granted to other prisoners' children.

The Israel Prison Service enacted about a year ago a new framework for family visits. Instead of the families sitting together in one room, a partition with windows was installed, with the prisoners on one side and the families on the other. The Gamliel family refused to visit at all under these circumstances, until finally the authorities relented and agreed to allow them one non-partition visit each month.

The Dvir's, however, found themselves unable to follow this course, and their only physical contact with their father came when they were able to crawl through the window in the partition — depending on whether the jailers that day turned a blind eye or not.

The Dvir family, therefore, petitioned the Court to allow them to visit without a partition — leading to today's rejection by the Supreme Court.

Atty. Wurtzberger's View

Attorney Naftali Wurtzberger, hired by the Honenu Legal Rights Forum for the case, later told Israel National News, "The judges stated they did not wish to intervene in the security decisions of the jails... There was some discomfort when it was mentioned that the Court did intervene on behalf of terrorists recently — but they did not substantively relate to that ruling..."

Wurtzberger said there was a veiled hint on the part of State Prosecution representatives that if the Court allowed the improved visits, the Prison Service could respond by harming Dvir's rights in other ways, such as moving him out of the religious ward. In response to a question, Wurtzberger acknowledged that the lack of fairness "does arouse some despair..." Asked if he retains confidence in the judicial system, he said, "There's certainly a feeling of trying to climb up a slippery wall ..."

A Third Off for Good Behavior?

Is there a chance that Gamliel and Dvir will be released on parole after serving 2/3 of their sentences? Ofer Gamliel's wife Michal says, "Maybe." She told Israel National News that though it is generally accepted that if a prisoner does not receive vacation rights, he similarly will not get a third off for good behavior, and though the Shabak does not appear to want to allow any leniencies for her husband or for Dvir, "there is a chance that if there is a public outcry, something could change. It could be the difference between him being in prison for ten years or for 15."

She suggested that the public begin with phone calls and letters to Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, "who has promised to help in the past, both in terms of a pardon and the proposed law to link the release of Arab terrorists with the release of Jewish — but he has done nothing yet." Minister Ne'eman can be faxed at (+972-2) (or 02, in Israel) 628-5438, and emailed at .

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus, July 14, 2010.

Background to Op-Ed:

After PMW director Itamar Marcus's press conference in Washington with Congressmen Brad Sherman and Steve Rothman to release the PMW report "From Terrorists to Role Models, Palestinian Member of Parliament," Hanan Ashrawi wrote an Op-Ed in the influential Washington newspaper, The Hill, to attempt to challenge Palestinian Media Watch and defend the Palestinian Authority. Itamar Marcus's response, documenting the current PA leaders' and Ashrawi's response to terror, was published yesterday in The Hill.

"The Hill has a print circulation of above 21,000, more than any other Capitol Hill publication. It is aimed at the 100 senators, 435 House members, 40,000 aides and tens of thousands in the influence industry whose work affects the lives of all Americans." [from The Hill web site, http://thehill.com/ ]


In an attempt to distract Congress's attention from a new Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) report documenting the Palestinian Authority's terrorist glorification, Hanan Ashrawi rushed to publish an article in The Hill to malign PMW. More striking still, although Ashrawi's article was in response to PMW's new report released in Congress, she did not allot even one sentence to name, review or even criticize the report's content. Why is Ashrawi so anxious to keep the contents of the PMW report from Congressional review?

Possibly because the report, From Terrorists to Role Models: The Palestinian Authority's Institutionalization of Incitement, documents 100 examples of the Palestinian Authority policy of turning terrorist killers into heroes and role models — a practice as disturbing as it is indefensible.

The PMW report documents, for example, that the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led a bus hijacking in which 37 civilians were murdered, has been immortalized through the repeated naming of sites and events after her, including two elementary schools, a kindergarten, a computer center, a summer camp, football tournaments, a public square and street, an adult education course, a university club, a dance troupe, a military unit, a dormitory in a youth center and more.

Significantly, this terror veneration is coming from the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It was PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas himself who funded the computer center named after bus hijacker Mughrabi, and it was Prime Minister Salam Fayyad who sponsored a sporting event named after Abu Jihad, who planned and directed the bus hijacking. The message the PA leaders are disseminating could not be more problematic: We, the Palestinian President and Prime Minister, believe that murdering brothers 6-year-old Roi and 3-year-old Ilan Hochman and their mother Rebecca, along with 34 other civilians on a bus, was an act worthy of honor.

The PA's message that terrorists are role models is as damaging to peace as it is odious.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Ashrawi wants to distract Washington from the report, by attempting to wrongfully link PMW to extremist violence through one if its supporters, the Central Fund of Israel. PMW receives grants from CFI, which funds more than 250 organizations and gives financial aid to a range of non-profits, including soup kitchens, Ethiopian immigrants, and educational programs. There is no connection between PMW and any of the other 250 recipient organizations.

In fact, far from supporting or being involved in extremist violence, PMW's senior staff has vigorously promoted peace and coexistence. To name just a few of our peace-promoting activities, I wrote a report on Israeli schoolbooks for the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace that documented and criticized any negative content that was found. Associate Director Barbara Crook sponsored an Interfaith Dialogue weekend in Ottawa, featuring Kadi Muhammed Zibdi, kadi of Jerusalem, and was a sponsor of Peace Camp Canada, a program for Israeli and Palestinian youth.

There is still another reason for Ashrawi to try to keep the contents of PMW's report quiet. The US government has already responded to these PMW findings by emphatically condemning PA terror glorification. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley: "We also strongly condemn the glorification of terrorists... We will continue to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement." [April 8, 2010] Hillary Clinton likewise condemned a group that "... glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis." [March 22, 2010]

Moreover, US law prohibits the use of American funds for terror glorification. As the United States today is funding the Palestinian Authority, American money is indirectly being used to glorify Palestinian terrorists. Congress will soon be questioning if funding the Palestinian Authority violates American law.

Finally, it is important to note Hanan Ashrawi's famous statement on terror. At the height of the Palestinian terror campaign in 2002, after hundreds of Israeli civilians had been killed in suicide bombings, Ashrawi and others issued a public declaration. However, she didn't condemn suicide terror or say killing civilians was wrong. She said killing Israeli civilians should be stopped "... because we do not see results from these actions... We believe that these operations do not advance the fulfillment of our endeavor, for freedom and independence..." [Al Quds, June 19, 2002].

She went on to refer to suicide bombings as "military actions [that] are defined positively or negatively not by their own criteria but rather according to the achievement of political goals..." So is it any wonder that today she attempts to evade PMW's report exposing Palestinian Authority terror glorification?

Hanan Ashrawi owes it to the readers of The Hill to at least address the findings of the PMW report. Will she join the US administration and Congress and condemn terror glorification? Or will she defend Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad's honoring of terrorists? We are waiting for her answer.

Itamar Marcus, founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch, released the Palestinian Media Watch report with Rep. Brad Sherman and Rep. Steve Rothman on May 6 2010.

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 14, 2010.

As I write, it appears that we have won the day with regard to the Libyan ship that had been headed for Gaza. Last report is that it changed course during the night, and that the captain had indicated he would dock in the Egyptian port of El-Arish. The ship is being watched closely, in the event that it again shifts course and heads for Gaza.

Apparently there had been some indirect communication between Israel and the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, the organization headed by Moammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, that underwrote this venture.


What our government found particularly satisfying was the international support received for our refusal to let this ship proceed.

US State Department spokesman Phillip Crowley said yesterday:

"We have urged the Libyan government to avoid unnecessary confrontations...

"We, along with our partners in the in the Quartet, urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that cargo can be inspected by the government of Israel, and transferred via land crossings into Gaza."

The EU issued a similar statement.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon called this a victory for Israel.


A word about Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and his Foundation: According to the IsraelMatzav blog, citing CBS, "the Obama administration" has committed to a grant of $200,000 for this organization. Senator Marc Kirk (R-IL) wants it withdrawn because Saif was responsible for securing the early release from prison of the Lockerbie bomber and bringing him back to a hero's welcome in Libya.
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/07/libyan-ship- heading-for-gaza-sponsored.html (thanks, Cheryl H)

Based on my experience in these matters, however, I would like to make an educated guess about something here. While I certainly don't quarrel with the Senator's objection to providing a grant to this foundation, it seems to me that saying it came from "the Obama administration" is a bit vague. My hunch would be that this came from US AID and Obama knew nothing about it. US AID, which operates with shocking lack of accountability, does just fine on its own, thank you, with regard to funding of dubious projects. Not long ago I wrote about US AID underwriting of a PA Tourist Ministry booklet that described the "State of Palestine" as if it were a reality.


There were Arabs, waiting at the Gaza coastline and expecting to be able to welcome the Libyan ship, who are a tad disappointed. Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyah called the ship "our sailing hope at sea," and had urged that it not be diverted by "tricks" from its original course.


Statements made by Hanin Zoabi — shortly after she entered the Knesset as a member of the (Arab) Balad Party — made it clear that she was big trouble. Last March, for example, she said she welcomed Iran's development of nuclear weapons because it was "more useful to the Palestinian issue and more standing against occupation than a lot of the Arab countries. This is our interest..."

Israel has an enormous (I would say, excessive) tolerance for Arab dissidents within the Knesset who make anti-Israel statements and sometimes act in ways that are not in Israel's interest. But yesterday Zoabi got her comeuppance. Because she had traveled as a passenger on the Turkish flotilla ship, the Marmara, and referred to the blockade of Gaza as "the big crime of Israel," she was stripped of her Knesset privileges, including such things as use of a diplomatic passport and enhanced freedoms regarding international travel. She was accused by some Knesset members of being a traitor, and I would say that was fairly accurate.


Israeli courts have tended to work against actions to chastise and limit the participation of Arab MKs who are clearly not interested in Israel's wellbeing as a Jewish state.

The former head of the Balad Party, Azmi Bishara, resigned from the Knesset and fled the country after he was accused of assisting Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War. Until now, he has actually (I kid you not — I couldn't make up anything this perverse) been receiving his Knesset pension because the court ruled that Israeli law does not permit it to be revoked. Well, the Knesset is in process of changing that law.

A new law, referred to as the "Bishara law," has passed through the Ministerial Committee on Legislative Affairs and is expected to pass in the Knesset, but has not yet. It would prevent Bishara from receiving Israeli funds, but would also apply to others within a defined category.


A correction from yesterday: I wrote that Jerusalem and the Golan, where civil law has been applied, are "fully Israeli" and have a different status from Judea and Samaria. I have been advised — and I appreciate this advice — that while, indeed, civil law does apply to both Jerusalem and the Golan, Jerusalem has been officially annexed and the Golan has not.


We've been hearing about a consistent drop in Obama's popularity on the part of the American electorate. But here is information — encouraging indeed — regarding the degree to which American Jews in particular have become disenchanted with the president.

Says commentator Marc Thiessen, writing in the Washington Post:

"The drop in Hispanic support [12%] is dwarfed by the astounding 36-point drop in support for Obama from one of the most reliable Democratic constituencies: Jewish voters. Jewish Americans are outraged with Obama, says former New York Mayor Ed Koch. And it's not because Obama's middle name is Hussein."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071202539. html?hpid=opinionsbox1
(Thanks Craig K.)


We probably can count this as good news too:

Riad al-Maliki, foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority, during a visit to Bulgaria today, said negotiations with Israel without the participation of an international party would be meaningless.

"We have always said, we need a third party. Without the presence of a third party it would be a waste of time."
(Translation: We don't believe we can get what we want unless the US leans on Israel for us.)

We don't know, of course, if this is going to be official PA policy, although we do already know this is the way PA officials think. If Abbas does refuse to come to the table, then Netanyahu's (potentially risky) "I'm willing and eager to negotiate" approach will have paid off.


The IDF has now declassified information on how Hezbollah has turned south Lebanese villages into military bases.

Since the 2006, Hezbollah has focused on moving military installations from open areas to 100 civilian villages, in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is exceedingly important for the world, and in particular journalists, to understand this process. When there is war with Hezbollah (and it's likely coming) the deliberate large scale use by Hezbollah of human shields is going to generate more civilian deaths — whatever precautions Israel may take. Everyone needs to understand, up front, where the fault will lie.

The IDF spokesman's site below provides maps and a 3-D video explaining how Hezbollah has been going about this.
http://idfspokesperson.com:80/2010/07/08/intelligence- maps-how-hezbollah-uses-lebanese-villages-as- military-bases-7-july-2010/


As to that impending war, Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, writing in the Washington Times, says:

"The discovery of a gigantic natural-gas reservoir less than 100 miles off Israel's coast seems like great news for the diplomatically and militarily embattled country. The gas finding will strengthen Israel's energy security, enable it to become an important gas exporter and contribute wealth to its economy.

"It also could be the pretext for the next Middle East war.

"Ten years after Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah is struggling to find a cause that would enable it to continue its 'liberation war' against Israel.

"...days after Israel announced its gas discovery, Hezbollah claimed that the deposit extends into Lebanese waters and that it would not allow Israel to 'loot' Lebanese gas resources.

"The discovery blows fresh wind into Hezbollah's sails, giving it a new cause to fight for and a new opportunity to hurt the Israeli economy. Furthermore, by opening a new front in the Mediterranean, Hezbollah is gaining legitimacy for holding onto its arms. Even non-Shiite sects in Lebanon accept Hezbollah's role in protecting Lebanon's waters. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt recently said that Hezbollah's 'weapons are important to defend the oil in the Sea of Lebanon and national resources in the country.'"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/13/ hezbollah-finds-new-anti-israeli-cause/


Luft speaks of Hezbollah in this regard, but keep in mind that Hezbollah is now part of the Lebanese government. And it was Lebanon's Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, who claimed that part of Israel's newly discovered gas field lies within Lebanon's territorial waters.

The field, called "Leviathan," was discovered in June off the coast of Haifa. It is estimated to contain 15 trillion cubic feet of gas, enough to potentially enable Israel to become an energy exporter. Earlier, a field called "Tamar" was discovered not far from this latest field. "Tamar" alone is believed to contain enough gas to supply Israel for the next twenty years, and "Leviathan" is thought to be twice as big.

In response to the Lebanese challenge, about three weeks ago, Uzi Landau, Minister of Infrastructure, replied, "We will not hesitate to use our force and strength to protect not only the rule of law but the international maritime law."


A recent edition of the JPost magazine had a feature article on the Jewish community of Toronto, considered to be one of the most vibrant Zionist communities outside of Israel. In that context, I would like to mention one energetic group, Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights. They have a brand new website: http://www.cilr.org:80/.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion D.S. Dreyfus, July 14, 2010.

The raucous land-marking commission meeting at 914 Lexington, in the Hunter College Auditorium, was attended by roughly 250 people, and ran from early afternoon, 2 pm, until after 5 pm. Moderator of the Commission: John Tierney.

A description of the requisites for landmark status was read, and the mission of the hearing was laid out for the audience and prospective slate of speakers.

Speakers on mics were given a timed period to address the 15-person commission, males and females, after which, a bell was rung to let the speaker know his/her time had expired.

Roughly 35 speakers addressed the assembly and the commission seated on the stage. Of this figure, some 95% were in favor of land-marking 45-47 Park Place, the former Burlington Coat Factory, now being bruited as the site of a $100 million mega-mosque cum social centre. The building was built in the late 1850s in the Italian Renaissance palazzo style. The views of the 9/11 survivors and families, NYPD and NYFD, as well as those opposing the mosque erection on varied grounds including inappropriateness and disturbance of the memory of the 9/11 dead, far outweighed the assertions and testimony of those opposing land-marking status.

The Burlington building, though unlovely in the traditional sense, is one of the city's few remaining iron-works edifices, and buildings in the ironwork mode, by the same architects, have already been landmarked. Those asking the building to pass into the hands of the controversial Cordoba Initiative asserted that the new mosque would serve the community and act as a locus for ethnic and religious interaction and exchange.

Many of the speakers seeking landmark status for this century-plus building were heckled time and again by some male person who screamed "Bigot! Fascist! Right-wing hater!" despite numerous calls for him to be removed. when he rose to go to relieve himself, he was escorted out by local and Hunter College police, who collected his incendiary handmade scrawls and Communist circulars.

Among the notables speaking at the afternoon session were Islamic expert Robert Spencer and former Congressperson Rick Lazio, who both spoke eloquently to the positives of land-marking this traditional building.

The commission was addressing solely the issue of whether he building should be landmarked, although many of those speaking did bring in the more-than-backdoor element of two-faced Imam Rauf and his highly public wifelet, and the reasons a mosque in this hallowed area might be distinctly insulting and trying to Americans could not help but be brought up repeatedly. The chair chided several speakers that the issue at the podium was strictly land-marking, not theism or Allah or the 3,000 dead.

This reporter spoke on her personal observations of the meaning of Cordoba to muslims, in which a 600-700 year old 'loss' of Spain still counts in the day-to-day prayers an reality of many millions of North African muslims, no less than the umma at large, which still keens for the loss of their brief rule over Andalusia/Spain, a mere 700 years ago. The choice of name, it was repeatedly pointed out, meant that the mosque was being built under the rubric of reconquista, rather than interethnic peace-making.

Of media there was a plethora, homing in especially on the [late-ousted] heckler and those rare birds who decried land-mark status. TV, print, bloggers. They stayed until at least 4 pm.

Afterwards, all those defending the mosque were huddled together outside, comparing notes, assessing the options. Nothing done and no defender speaking appeared to be random.

It is not immediately clear, despite the vast preponderance of the public who declaratively denounce establishing this mosque in this sanctified site near the World Trade Center attack, that the mayor, Bloomberg, and upcoming pol, Andrew Cuomo, will vote the public interest and majority. Past history is any guide, both will deliberately ignore the recommendations of the majority for their more narrow interests. these include construction jobs, money for the city, and potential ancillary work attached to hiring once the mosque might be established. It is not clear that workers would be American, that monies accruing would be legal (an investigation is going forward on the outside sources of the millions being proffered for this Cordoba Initiative), or that the staffing in any eventuality would again be American citizens.

A vote on the determination of the building status is expected to come in August.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 14, 2010.


Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the shrinking U.S. expedition in Iraq, says that Iran-backed militias in Iran now pose a greater threat to the military and political security of Iraq than does al-Qaeda.

Iran subverts more at the political level than at the military. At present, Iran is using its proxies to gain influence over Iraq. Iraq is having difficulty fashioning a government from elected parliamentary delegates. Some Iraqi leaders have "ties" to Iran.

Recent successes in eliminating al-Qaida leaders restrict the insurgency's level of capability, but not its ability to carry out planned raids (Ben Lando, Wall St. J., 7/14/10, A9).

Iran's ability to subvert through surrogates exposes President Obama's withdrawal as premature. Those militias must be eradicated, first. But have Iraq leaders with ties to Iran and needed coalition partners the will to do this?

Proxy militias are the way Iran gained control over Lebanon and it exerts much control over Hamas and part of Fatah by subsidizing their militias. Iran has had some troops in Iraq and Lebanon.

Iran also used Hizbullah and its own experts to commit terrorism in South America. It is working out uranium deals and military arrangements in that continent. Iran has stated its ideology of Persia be damned, its identity is Muslim, it must become the regional hegemon, it wants to destroy Israel, and it wants to seize global leadership from the U.S. and impose its medieval ideology upon the whole world.

Therefore, apologists for Iran to assert that Iran poses no danger to the world, because it hasn't invaded other countries for centuries are disingenuous.


Turkey's foreign Minister Davutoglu praised Israeli admission of failed intelligence and tactics in dealing with the ship from Turkey. He demands, however, that Israel apologize and submit to an international investigation. He called it criminal of Israel to have attacked a civilian ship in international waters.

In Germany, the government seized the assets of a more-or-less German affiliate of IHH, and closed the organization, for having sent millions of dollars to organizations controlled by Hamas. The head of the Turkish IHH said that this blocks humanitarian relief for Gazans. But a German court had ruled in 2004 that charities may not support violence and intolerance and many not donate to the civilian branches of terrorist organizations. A member of the Turkish IHH board denied doing so and denied ties to Turkish IHH (Marc Champion, David Crawford, Wall St. J., 7/14/10, A12).

Denial is the radicals' first reaction. The U.S. government is partly responsible for their getting away with much of their deception. The U.S. refuses to define and expose the ideology of radical Muslim terrorism. This ideology permits any deceptive and violent means. Its loose alliances slip by the more formal minded Westerners. It means relying upon unreliable international organizations for action and for investigation.

Pres. Bush started to expose the ideology, but gave up, probably from a combination of partisan harassment that blocked his nominations and legislation and his own confusion in adhering to State Dept. backing of certain terrorists in the Palestinian Authority. This is a case of anti-Zionist State Dept. officials harming U.S. national security by assisting a branch of radical Islam against an ally, as if jihad were not global. As the three musketeers said, it is "all for one and one for all."

As explained weeks ago in my series on the flotilla, international law permits enforcement of an embargo just outside territorial waters, to prevent greater confrontation in territorial waters. The boats preparing to disembark from Gaza to meet the flotilla would have posed just such a predicament. Therefore, enforcement was legal.

To call "civilian" a ship that had martyrdom-seeking Islamists aboard, spoiling for a fight and prepared for it, is misleading. What was Israel's intelligence lapse, whose admission Davutoglu praises? Primarily, it failed to discover that violent extremists were aboard. But they were, Turkey permitted them aboard, and therefore, Israel would be entitled to ask Turkey for the apology. However, Israel does not want to provide grist for PM Erdogan's demagogic mill.


Gaddafi of Libya (AP/Abdel Magid al Fergany)

Why is a Libyan-run ship now attempting to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza port, bearing food that Israel regularly lets through its own port, after inspecting it?

The Intelligence and Terror Information Center, in Israel, believes it has figured out why. Like the ship loaded in Turkey, radical Muslim demagogues challenge the embargo not for humanitarian purposes — by definition, radical Muslims are inhumane. Of course, one reason is to gain for Hamas the ability to bring in heavy weapons for waging war. That is far from humane.

More importantly, the ship sponsors challenge the embargo to ride the wave of ensuing publicity to gain Muslim popularity. Turkey's Erdogan succeeded in doing so. Now Gaddafi is trying the same (IMRA, 7/14/10).

What makes it popular? Do the Muslim masses favor anything that assists any Muslims against any non-Muslims regardless of merit? Perhaps, but the emotions stirred may depend upon how the issue is presented. The Muslim public has not yet caught on to their leaders' routine, deceptive rabble-rousing of them. Consider the decades of the old canard that "the Jews" are plotting to tear down the mosque on the Temple Mount and have done much toi undermine it. What does that tell us about the supposed moderate Muslim majority?

Defying Israel is a tactic that Arab leaders have used for decades, to boost their popularity. What does that tell us about the supposed moderate Muslim majority desire for peace? Look how readily Turks were changed from sober and constructive to saber-rattling and destructive!

This is disturbing, especially to those of us trying to distinguish between radical and moderate Muslims.


Mr. Barroso with Finland PM (AP/Virginia Mayo)
The EU and the U.S. protested the Jerusalem municipality's demolition of three illegal houses built by Arabs in Jerusalem. There are about 20,000 such houses in Jerusalem. Only a tiny fraction of them are slated for demolition, and only a fraction of those have been designated to be demolished. The Mayor asked the State Prosecutor why so few. He has not gotten a cogent answer.

The City said that the demolished houses were vacant. Local Arabs said that two had been occupied.

The State Dept. objected to the demolition on the grounds that it "undermines trust." The European Union's European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso objected on the grounds that demolishing Arabs' houses and erecting Jewish ones in Jerusalem contravenes international law and prevents a "two-state solution." (Arutz-7, 7/14/10).

The answer for the Mayor is that PM Netanyahu talks tough and acts weak, as if a toady for the U.S. that pressures him.

The U.S. never has explained what it means, "undermines trust." Actually, who can trust a government that does not enforce its own laws? Why should Israel have to earn the trust of jihadists who commit aggression, break their peace agreements, and seek to destroy Israel? Why should Israel trust them? Why should Israel trust the U.S., which is party to those agreements and does not object to Arab violations of them?

Likewise, the EU has not explained why Arabs are entitled to steal public land set aside for public immunity, but Jews are not allowed to erect houses on land they own.

The EU might say international law opposes a country that acquired land in war from transferring its citizens to that "occupied" land. Occupied from whom? There was no sovereignty there. Can't say it belongs to the Arabs. Israel annexed it, as it has the right to do as primary heir to the Mandate and to protect against further aggression. Nor is Israel transferring its citizens there, they build on their own. Nor is what Israel does what the Geneva Convention was devised to prevent — ousting and displacing an occupied population with one's own. Nobody is ousted when Jews buy land.

So long as the Arabs are jihadists, there is no solution except a Zionist one. The Palestinian Authority does not want a "two-state solution." Abbas refuses to ever recognize Jewish statehood, but demands sovereignty for Muslim Arabs as such. He wants the right to bar Jews from his state, and also the right to flood Israel with Arabs. The Arabs would drive out the Jews. That is his purpose.

An anti-Zionist reader suggests a single state. He contends that such a state would have no strife, all would be equal. That is the most unrealistic Idea of all. No Arab state treats minorities equally. Half the Israeli Jews had to flee from persecution in Arab states. Arab states and Palestinian Arabs tried to dispossess and exterminate the Jews of Israel. Abbas' ideology, in which he indoctrinates his people, holds that Israel belongs to the Arabs and the Muslims should kill the Jews. In short, anti-Zionism favors apartheid and amounts to genocide.


Palestinian Arabs try to rape female anti-Zionists and cover up the crimes by intimidating people who might complain. Apparently the women dress too revealingly for Arab male self-control.

Israeli police had just released Omar Aladdin from prison for terrorism. He joined one of the weekly violent attacks on Israel's security fence by foreign anarchists, Israeli leftists, and Palestinian Arabs.

Mr. Aladdin then pretended that he was fleeing from Israeli security forces. Some anarchist women hid him in their room. He tried to rape one, a Muslim woman named Fegin (names authentic).

Why does Israel let into the country and into the Territories foreign anarchists who have come just for sedition, often violent? (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/14/10.)

Earlier articles have identified Israeli radicals as either Islamists or as Far Left Jews who distort their country's history, endorse terrorism, stone their own troops, and suggest boycotting Israel. Psychotic. An anti-Zionist reader ignores those actual radicals in order to accuse Zionists of being radical. He claims most Jews are not pro-Zionists. Are they lying to pollsters whom they tell the favor Israel being a Jewish state? Even most of the leftist parties in Israel depend on Zionist votes, so they claim they can maintain national security — as Rabin, Barak, and Sharon falsely promised.

It is not radical to want to preserve one's national heritage and homeland, which is what Zionists want. It is radical to want to surrender one's people to jihadists who would just as soon murder them as dispossess them.

Anti-Zionists toss around epithets for the sake of throwing mud. They ignore the issues presented them. For example, some of today's articles presented a number of facts and interpretations. Several readers call the articles names, but did not show anything wrong with them. They do not seek dialog, they just want to denounce.

P.S.: I did not mean to suggest that the Arabs discriminate in favor of female anti-Zionists. They are equal opportunity rapists, not caring about politics, gender, or age. Rape, being a form of aggression, has been attempted against Jewish girls in Hebron.

Some far leftist at an Israel university wrote a paper denouncing Israeli soldiers as racist for not raping Arab women. She accused the soldiers of feeling they are too good for the Arab women. Evidence? None, an attempt to gather evidence would disqualify her theory.

Now are these leftist Israelis crazy radicals or are Zionists, who love their homeland? And if the Zionists are crazy for it, what about Palestinian Arabs who deny the area's Jewish history, claim an ancient history there that they do not have, and will kill people for exclusive possession of it for religious reasons? Our anti-Zionist reader does not object to jihadists' exclusive claims and even closes his eyes to their existence.


Using public dancers among their troops, the IDF made an educational video about Hebron that has stirred controversy from the Left.

The troops danced on the main thoroughfare in the Israeli zone of Hebron. They were positioned above the ancient Jewish cemetery restored from Jordanian army desecration. The cemetery marks the 67 victims of an Arab pogrom, which British troops did nothing to halt, and of more recent murderers from the Palestinian Authority, who violate their peace agreements.

The Wye arrangement completely bars Jews from 97% of the city and lets Arab traffic through the remaining 3%. The Arab zone has a modern, new market that is prospering. Since the Arabs continue trying to murder the Jews, Israeli administrators had to institute some security measures to protect Jews in the 3%.

Leftists complained that the IDF imposes on people, making children go through metal detectors and adults go through screening, keeping Arab traffic sparse. Actually, the film was made at 4:30, when most of the Arabs were in mosque. Hence, little Arab presence at that time.

Anti-Zionist critics call this self-protection from bigoted murderers "apartheid," but the apartheid is all the Arabs', whose attempted murder and dispossession reflects their unwillingness to live with Jews (Hebron Jewish Community, 7/14/10).

An anti-Zionist critic also called a prior article's description of the demolition of a few Illegal Arab houses in Jerusalem, "apartheid." (See above: EU-US-protest demolition of 3 illegal houses.) Demolition of illegal houses and not of legal houses obviously is not apartheid. But the Arab, EU, and U.S. objection to Jewish construction there and not to illegal Arab construction is discriminatory. The article showed there is no valid objection to Jewish building.

More important, the article explained that Jews were living in the same areas as Arabs, both in Arab states and in the Mandate, until the Arab states drove most of their Jews out and the Arab states and Palestinian Arabs tried to drive out and even exterminate the Jews of Israel. Now that is apartheid! Since I thus proved the danger of a joint state, for the anti-Zionist reader to call the Jewish desire for self-determination apartheid is to support the Muslim Arab desire for apartheid by dispossession and extermination.


Sports event in Gaza (A.P./ Hatem Moussa )

Here are some selections, with my comments in ellipses, about a glimpse of life in Gaza afforded by the New York Times. Dreary it is. Question is why.

The journalists refer to "the 1948 war that created Israel." [The war did not create Israel. The UN General Assembly recognized the Jewish right to declare independence, and it did. The war was an Arab attempt to squelch Jewish sovereignty, to dispossess and loot the Jews, and, as boasted, to kill them off. The Arabs wanted exclusive control over the country, the Zionists did not insist on the same for themselves. The NY Times habitually phrases historical background so as to let the Arabs off the hook for their aggression and to imply that the Jews should be on the hook.]

"There are plenty of things to buy in Gaza." The problem is welfare instead of jobs and not much to do in leisure time. One of the stated reasons for lack of work is that Abbas' Palestinian Authority pays civil servants not to work, lest that seem to recognize Hamas rule. [Hamas is too lawless for business to thrive as much as it might. UNRWA spent a fortune keeping Palestinian Arabs in a state of welfare dependency. A growing problem with leisure time is that medieval-minded Islamists blow up music stores, churches, UNRWA children's camps, and some other forms of recreation.]

The biggest problems are the blockade and factional rivalry. [The reporters identify who is imposing the blockade, but not that it is a reaction to Hamas' movement of terrorists and arms. That puts the onus of the blockade unfairly on Israel and Egypt, instead of on Hamas.]

John Ging, head of UNRWA in Gaza, attributes the personal hardship and industrial constriction from a shortage of electricity to Hamas-Fatah rivalry. When they don't pay for electricity, they don't get it.

"...Hamas took over full control by force three years ago, a year after it won an election." [Hamas won the legislative branch not by so many votes but by the electoral system that gave it disproportionate representation. It did not win the executive branch. It has not held an election since. Neither has Abbas.]

As a result of the three-week war, children in Gaza have psychological disturbances, particularly bed-wetting. [So do Israeli children, from having to run and take shelter from rockets. I have not seen a NY Times story on that, but perhaps missed it.]

It is difficult to tell from the article what the people think. Some reflexively blame Israel for their problems. Some blame Hamas, for seizing an Israeli soldier, an act which led to the blockade. They also blame Fatah, for its inadequacies (Michael Slackman, Ethan Bronner, 7/14/10, A1).

I find the report fairer than usual. It missed a major problem caused by both factions. Arafat converted foreign aid into a bloated bureaucracy and military, dependent upon him. He and his aids stole much of the foreign aid. Hamas spends money on war. They could have made peace and built up their economy.


According to Agence France Presse, Russia now shares the U.S. opinion that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons and is taking a harder line on Iran. Russia also has been moving closer to the U.S. on various issues (IMRA, 7/14/10).

According to the Wall St. Journal, however, Russia's line on Iran is not hard and Russia has not moved closer to the U.S.. Instead, Obama has appeased Russia in several key areas of nuclear weaponry and regional hegemony. Russia has outfoxed Obama and probably has more contempt for the U.S. now.

Russia is bringing Iran's nuclear plant on line soon. No hard line on that.


From exile, Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud warned his fellow princes that their reign was untenable; they had better flee before the people cut off their heads. His letter is not available to the public, but its authenticity is implied by official Saudi denunciation of it. He is not warning about al-Qaida, but about the Saudi economy being unsustainable. Forbes Magazine explains why.

Saudi Arabia is the pre-eminent extractor of oil, but for how long? It recently boosted oil extraction capability, but has discovered no new oil fields since the 1970s. Its reserves may be shrinking significantly. Who knows what its reserves really are? The government keeps foreign surveyors out. It may exaggerate volume in order to inflate prestige.

The 4,000 princes take a telling toll on national wealth, at tens of thousands of dollars a month, each. They and their families number 30,000 souls, but polygamy may boost that to 60,000 in 10 years.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, July 14, 2010.

As you know, Israel is awash with Western anti-Semites who are foolishly allowed by the Israeli government to enter the country. Once here they join the violent hooligans from Israel and abroad who attempt to sabotage Israel's security fence/wall each week, while violently attacking Israeli soldiers and police. The same pusillanimous government orders the police to coddle the anti-fence stormtroopers treats them with kid gloves.

Until now I was definitely opposed to allowing these bimbos and thugs into Israel. But I must say that today I am having second thoughts. On re-consideration, perhaps there IS some benefit in allowing the "anarcho-fascists" and the "solidarity" protesters to come and riot in Israel against the fence, now that they are being raped by Palestinian "activists."

Haaretz today (July 14) reports that our peace partners in the Palestinian Authority are trying to cover up the attempted rape of a Western anti-fence "anarchist" protester by an upstanding Palestinian opponent of the occupation. The rapist is named (I am not making this up) Omar Aladdin, from a village near Bethlehem. The story in Hebrew is here:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1179618.html. Young Aladdin decided to rub something more than his lamp, when he saw an American Moslem chick who went by the name of Fegin, I guess named after the Dickens' character.

It seems that Aladdin was foolishly released by Israel from being hosted in one of its establishments for convicted terrorists. Like in the Sopranos, his first thought on leaving prison was to get himself some female anatomy, and he did not seek it in the form of a genie djinn inside a bottle. He told a group of Western gyno-anarchists rooming in his village that he needed to be hidden from the Israeli police. So they decided to offer him accommodations in their village hostel rooms.

Now I must tell you that way back in my bachelor days I tried to come up with imaginative one-liners, generally unsuccessfully, that could get me into the living quarters and the trousers of pretty young anarchist women, but I never was clever enough to come up with "The Shin Bet is after me!"

Anyways, it worked. And in the middle of the night young Aladdin decided to rape the American Moslem girl of the bunch. The peaceniks of the Palestinian Authority then threatened all sorts of unpleasant consequences to young Fegin if she attempted to press charges or publicize the attempted rape. Haaretz adds that this is NOT the first rape or attempted rape of Western gyno-anarchists by Palestinian progressives opposed to the occupation. The homes in the villages where the "Solidarity" babes spend the night before throwing rocks at the Jews attract large numbers of horny Palestinian villagers, who rarely get to see the female form when it is not being hidden behind bulky robes and scarves.

Me? I say let's import whole bus loads of anarchist anti-Semitic women and send them out to the Palestinian villages in thong bikinis!! Ditto for all the women on the Gaza flotilla ships.

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@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Jewish Internet Defense Force, July 13, 2010.

This was written by W.G. Dunlop, AFP. It is archived at
http://www.thejidf.org/2010/07/online-islam-magazine- teaches-bomb.html


If you have ever wondered how to make a bomb at home, what to pack for jihad, or how to communicate in encrypted messages, a new English-language Al-Qaeda magazine has the answers.

The first edition of Yemen-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's (AQAP) Inspire magazine was released on Sunday, according to SITE Intelligence, a US service that monitors Islamist websites.

Inspire — a 67-page publication provided by SITE from jihadist forums that are sometimes password-protected or otherwise difficult to access — appears to have been designed with care.

The magazine, which is packed with sleek pictures of Al-Qaeda leaders and bright graphics, can also be viewed on the popular online document-sharing website Scribd at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34187004/ in?secret_password=ghctd4w5rbkj4tui6k2.

Its cover features an image of a silhouetted man with a rifle under the headline "May Our Souls Be Sacrificed For You!," an article attributed to radical US-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

With article titles such as "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" by the "The AQ Chef," or a packing list included in "What to Expect in Jihad," parts of the magazine have a friendly, if extremist, scouting manual feel.

But despite its sometimes-friendly tone and snazzy layout, its intent is, very literally, deadly serious.

The "Make a Bomb" article notes that a device made in "one or two days could be ready to kill at least ten people," while one made in a month "could kill tens of people."

The article, which addresses "Muslims in America and Europe," then details the construction of an explosive device using sugar, crushed match heads, a pipe, a Christmas tree-type light, a battery and a clock.

It includes images of the different steps.

The aim, according to "The AQ Chef," is "conveying to you our military training right into your kitchen, to relieve you of the difficulty of travelling to us."

The instructions appear in a section entitled "Open Source Jihad," which is described as "a manual for those who loath the tyrants."

"What to Expect in Jihad" offers advice for those who decide to take the fight abroad.

"When coming to any land of jihad, it is important to be able to speak the local language fluently," the article advises.

It also suggests that would-be mujahedeen (holy warriors) bring a friend with them, and that they learn as much as possible about local culture before travelling.

The article also offers packing advice, saying that, "When on jihad, one has to bear in mind that they will have to pack light."

It goes on to recommend that mujahedeen bring a "well-built backpack," several pairs of weather-appropriate clothes, "body-cleansing items" and "flexible boots."

Items such as computers and MP3 players can also be brought along. The article warns, however, that cell phones with SIM cards in place can be "dangerous," and, along with cameras, should not be used without permission.

Religious books make up most of the section on reading material to bring.

In another article, the magazine provides instructions on sending and receiving encrypted messages using a computer programme called "Asrar al-Mujahedeen," or Secrets of the Mujahedeen.

"Spies are actively paying attention to... emails, especially if you are known to be jihadi-minded," the article says. Thus, the programme is a better option.

It also notes that "the enemy" has created a knock-off Asrar programme meant to monitor jihadi correspondence, and advises users to perform an authenticity check.

Among various other sections are a poem praising Omar Faruk Abdulmutallab, who is accused of trying to blow up a US airliner on December 25, and transcripts of previous messages from bin Laden and his number two Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The magazine also contains what it says is an interview with AQAP leader Nasser al-Wahaishi, and the article attributed to Awlaki, which is on the controversy surrounding cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

That article argues for the killing of anyone who defames the prophet, especially those involved in the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," which was satirically proposed by a Seattle-based cartoonist.

"The large number of ('Draw Mohammed') participants makes it easier for us because there are many targets to choose from," the article says.

The Jewish Defense League promotes Jewish identity and Jewish rights. An activist organization, it was founded in 1968 by Rabbi Meir Kahane, HY"D. It continues to confront the all too real dangers presented by the white supremacy, neo-nazi and Islamic fascists. Contact them at jdlnews@jdl.org.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 13, 2010.

It's helpful sometimes to start with positive news. We should never think that it's all bad.

The Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee has approved the construction of 32 new units in Pisgat Ze'ev, which is an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood over the Green Line.

This decision was delayed for weeks because of the visit of Netanyahu to Washington — to avoid charges of sabotaging his meeting with the president. Now it is said that construction can begin immediately.

The 32 units represent just a small part of a larger project of 220 units that is in the works. Another 48 units are expected to be approved next week.

According to YNet, Attorney Elisha Peleg, a member of the committee and head of the Likud faction at the Jerusalem municipality, has said, "We will continue to build Jerusalem in all of its neighborhoods, without political considerations, in the planning and construction committee."


Of course, the furor has already begun, with PA officials claiming that we're destroying chances of peace, etc. etc. Especially in light of Netanyahu's recent comment on Jerusalem, we must hope that the municipality stands strong.


The latest not-so-good news comes from the PA side: Reportedly, Abbas might reconsider and come to the table for direct negotiations after all. This will be determined after Mitchell's next visit, which is to take place soon.

It is quite clear — but I feel the need to make this explicit — that a promise by Israel to make such gestures as taking down some checkpoints is not what would be bringing the PA back to the table. Hardly.

PA officials are saying they've now had "direct assurances" from Obama. Exactly what those assurances are is left unsaid, but they are claiming that the president briefed them after his meeting with Netanyahu.

If this is true, it is not exactly surprising, but would be MOST unsettling. We still don't know what Netanyahu promised Obama — and there is certainly no reason whatsoever to trust the president when he offers conciliatory words regarding his deep and abiding concern for Israel.

But I wonder if there is not something additional going on. For Netanyahu met Obama a week ago. Would the PA have first been briefed now? On Saturday, three days after that meeting, Abbas was still saying there was no reason to go to direct talks. Obama is undoubtedly applying a great deal of pressure. It would be the style of PA officials, when pressed, to make it appear that they weren't conceding anything, but had been "given" something.


The PA position, which really hasn't changed, is that before they go into direct talks they want answers on whether Israel will be willing to freeze construction (after September) in Judea and Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem.

This is where we come smack up against the announcement regarding building in Pisgat Ze'ev. I must assume that if Netanyahu had made a commitment to Obama regarding no building in eastern Jerusalem, he would act now to stop the building. Whether or not it actually moves ahead is not an insignificant matter.

The PA, additionally, wants to know if Israel will commit to recognizing the pre-'67 line as the future border for a Palestinian state.


It may be that PA officials are simply posturing to appease Obama, and that they intend to blame Israel for lack of cooperation and refuse to come to the table. The blame game works both ways.

What is certain is that — no matter if they sit at the table — no deal will be reached. Quite simply, if Abbas wishes to live (and I mean this literally) and perhaps retain his position, he cannot accept as his closing deal — which would include "end of conflict" — anything that Israel is prepared to offer.

In the end he would walk away as Arafat walked away from the offer made by Ehud Barak in 2000. It is said that no PA leader can accept less than what Arafat demanded. Abbas knows that Hamas waits eagerly to be able to finger him as the sell-out.

Perhaps Netanyahu is not intimidated by the possibility of Abbas coming to the table because he is counting on being able to throw up his hands and say, "See, world, I tried my best, but look what I'm up against."


There has been talk for many months about a bill that would require a public referendum within 180 days if our government made a decision to cede land in the Golan Heights or Jerusalem. Only the approval of 80 members of Knesset (out of 120) would render the referendum unnecessary.

At one point I was quite excited about the possibility that it would pass, thus tying the hands of the prime minister with regard to his ability to unilaterally commit to giving away these significant parts of Israel. There was a great deal of discussion on the issue — including expression of concern about how the referendum would be structured. In December, in the course of a Knesset debate at the time of the first reading of the bill, it became clear that a majority of the members of Knesset supported this.

Since then, however, it has been lost in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation. It eludes me as to why it ended back there if there had been one reading: I see it as a delaying tactic. As wise and sensible as such an approach sounds to some of us, it is something of a political hot potato. Those on the left oppose it, because it makes less likely the possibility that the government could concede these areas in the course of "peace" negotiations. That is the point, is it not? The prime minister is also undoubtedly opposed. Whether he would choose to give away these areas or not, he would not want his freedom to do so restricted. (When does a head of state ever willing accept additional limitations placed on his or her power?)


Right now, passage of this bill would have a significant impact on the possibility for direct negotiations. The PA would know, up front, it was not going to get any of Jerusalem, even if there had been Obama reassurances.

And precisely because of the current political situation, those on the left are saying passage of the bill now would be an affront to Obama — and would undercut Netanyahu's declarations about putting everything on the table for discussion. While those on the right are thinking, "If not now, when?"

Enter MK Yariv Levin (Likud), Chair of the Knesset House Committee and one of the bill's initiators. He says he will not wait for a vote in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation, but will soon be bringing the bill to the Knesset for its required second and third readings.

If only!

You can be sure that I will monitor this carefully. Given various legalities and political pressures, I hardly see this as a done deal.


A note of explanation: Some of you may be wondering why this bill wasn't worded to apply to surrendering land in Judea and Samaria as well. While it is fervently to be wished for — that our government should be prevented from facile decisions to give away any part of the land — there is legally a difference between Judea and Samaria on the one hand, and eastern Jerusalem and the Golan on the other.

Civil law was applied to all of Jerusalem and to the Golan. These areas are considered to be fully Israeli. Foolishly, the same was not done with Judea and Samaria. These areas remain a theoretically contested region that Israel administers.

Thus a bill that restricted giving away any part of these areas would have a tougher time passing in the Knesset. (Certainly a higher percentage of Israelis would consider a surrender of some of Judea and Samaria than would permit giving up of some of Jerusalem.) As I understand it, it was thought wiser to present a narrower bill that has a better chance of passage.

In point of fact, if a national referendum prevented surrendering any of Jerusalem, there would be no deal and no surrender of Judea and Samaria anyway. For the PA would accept no deal that didn't include Jerusalem.

Finally, I add that there are those today pushing for applying civil law at least to the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, if not to all of the region. This is past due if only because residents of Judea and Samaria live under different (military) administrative law, when they should be counted as equal to every other Israeli citizen.


The investigation of the Turkish flotilla incident by a committee headed by Maj.Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland has ended and the report has been presented. In brief he faulted the IDF for "mistakes," but not failures. He criticized the lack of a back-up plan, and inadequate sharing of intelligence. He said, however, that the commandos conducted themselves with "professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness," and that the actions taken on the ship that resulted in nine deaths were justified.

The Turkish foreign minister, while welcoming this report, says his government will continue to push for an additional international inquiry.


Now, hopefully having learned the necessary lessons from the confrontation with the Turkish ship, we are on the edge of confronting a Libyan ship.

The ship, known as the Almalthea, which left from Greece over the weekend flying a Moldovian flag, is reportedly being"shadowed" by the Israeli Navy; if it were to continue on course, unimpeded, it would reach Gaza tomorrow. Oue navy in touch with the ship; the message that has been delivered is if it does not change course by midnight tonight and head for El-Arish, Egypt, it will be intercepted.

Allegedly, the ship is carrying 2,000 tons of food and medicine, under the auspices of a charity chaired by the son of Muammar Gaddafi. But there are no limits to the amount of food and medicine that Israel would permit into Gaza via land crossings. Carrying these goods by sea is an exercise in futility, unless the intention is simply to break the blockade. Once unloaded in Egypt and inspected, all humanitarian goods would be transferred to Gaza.


It should be worth your while to read JINSA Report 1005, "The President's Tin Ear."

This examines the "disconnect [on Obama's part] between words, attitudes, facts and policies that makes a lot of people — not just Jews, not just Israelis — anxious."


Brigitte Gabriel — an American journalist with Christian Lebanese roots and founder of ACT! for America — has written a stunning response to journalist Helen Thomas, in which she documents Jewish rights to the land better than many Jews might be able to do it:
Read it, and share it:
http://bigjournalism.com/bgabriel/2010/06/10/ dear-helen-from-one-american-lebanese-journalist-to-another/

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, July 13, 2010.

They Hate Each Other Badly!

If they treat their Muslim Brothers this way, what attitude to ward Christians, Jews and other infidels would you expect from expanding militant Islam? After Israel you are next!

July 1, 2010 — At least 35 people have been killed and at least 175 people injured by suicide bombers in a Sufi Shrine in Lahore, Pakistan. Both Sunni and Shiite Muslims worship at the shrine, which holds the remains of Abul Hassan Ali Hajvery, a Persian Sufi.

July 8, 2010 — A string of attacks against Shiite pilgrims in the past three days killed 70 people in Baghdad. (Shiite Muslims, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, have been doing and will do again the same to Sunni and other Muslim minorities!)

July 9, 2010 — At least 15 people were killed on Thursday by bombs targeting the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who defied violence to take part in the final day of a Shia religious holiday in Baghdad's Kadhimiya district.

July 9, 2010 — A suicide bomber on a motorcycle struck outside a government office on Friday in a tribal region where Pakistan's army has fought the Taliban, killing at least 48 people and wounding around 80.

You have your Chance NOW — Don't Blame Israel Later! In an in an official letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev requested the international: "Israel calls upon the international community to exert its influence on the government of Libya to demonstrate responsibility and prevent the ship from departing to the Gaza Strip." "Israel reserves the right under international law to prevent this ship from violating the existing naval blockade on the Gaza Strip," Shalev told Ban Ki Moon.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Almost 2 million Haitians are still homeless! But the UN and the 'humanistic' international press are only concerned and preoccupied with terror infested, artificially invented so-called Palestinians!

They Hate Everything — Even World Cup. Terrorists bomb crowds watching World Cup match, murdering 64. Police suspect an Al-Qaeda-linked Somali group.

The Blackmailer's Paradox. This case is called "The Blackmailer's Paradox" in game theory. The paradox is that the rational (Israel) is forced to behave irrationally by definition... The relationship between Israel and the Arab countries is conducted along the lines of this paradox. At each stage of negotiation, the Arabs present impossible, unacceptable starting positions. They act sure of themselves and as if they totally believe in what they are asking for, and make it clear to Israel that there is no chance of their backing down.

Even Arabs cannot live with a Nuclear Iran. The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al-Otaiba, said on Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear sites eclipse the short-term costs.

Islamic Terror Closer than You Think. Mexican authorities succeeded in preventing Hizbullah from opening a terrorist base in South America and the United States. Hizbullah planned to draft Shi'ite Muslims living in Mexico and provide them with training in terror tactics they could use against Western and Israeli targets.

Any Excuse will Do! Syrian President Bashar Assad came out four-square behind Turkey in its diplomatic crisis with Israel and warned that Israel undermine stability in the Middle East. "The chances of peace grow slim, and the prospect of war grows." (There is nothing to undermine! For years Turkey and Syria have been in a state of mutual hate over a territorial dispute for a long time, but their hate for Israel is more 'important'!)

Quote of the Week: "Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our over-dependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel's right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction." — former Spanish Prime Minister Jos9 Mar=a Azna — Why didn't he shock anti-Semitic Europe by this clear admission of truth when he was the Prime Minister of Span?

Children of Israel. Israeli twelfth-grader from Beersheba, Eli Goudinevsky, was notified that he won the gold medal of an international competition called The First Step to a Nobel Prize in Physics. Evelyn Jenis from Beersheba, Daniel Achdut from Netanya and Dorin Yerhi from Arad won a silver medal.

Attempt to Remove UNIFIL from Lebanon. A southern Lebanon village backed by Hizbullah overpowered United Nations troops on Saturday, seizing weapons and wounding one U.N. soldier. Increasing tension in southern Lebanon, where UNIFIL officers have said they cannot carry out a mandate to keep Hizbullah from being armed, despite UN Resolution 1701 that ended the second Lebanon War.

Why not Kurdistan? The Kurds have been have been fighting a 26-year battle to create their own autonomous state in the south-eastern portion of Turkey. Turkish Kurdistan — or Northern Kurdistan — comprises nearly a third of the area of Turkey, including some 17 provinces. As many as 40,000 people have died in the conflict. (No international support for Kurds! No condemnation of Turkey for committing genocide of Kurds and Armenians!)

Sanctions are "Pathetic". The latest sanctions against Iran are pathetic, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday, warning Western powers that they would regret their bullying: "They know that there is a sleeping lion in Iran which is waking up and if she wakes up all the relationships in the world will change" (Sanctions will not stop the Iranian nuclear weapon program.)

It is Like 'Jenin Massacre' BS Again! The United Nations has cancelled an emergency session intended to discuss the Gaza bound flotilla. Assembly President Ali Abd al Salem Tarkey recently sent a letter to UN member states announcing that he had decided not to call the Assembly to discuss the issue. (There is always a lot of anti-Israel noise, empty rhetoric, but when the know that they are wrong — it is all quietly dropped to avoid embarrassment.)

Does Turkey Need UN Assistance? Ben-Dror Yemini of the Maariv newspaper has pointing out that humanitarian conditions in Turkey are actually worse than those in Gaza, the country (as do most of the Muslim inept countries) needs help: "Infant mortality in Gaza is 17.7 per thousand; in Turkey it is 24.8. Life expectancy in Gaza is 73.7, whereas in Turkey it is 72.2"

UN Contradicts Itself in Blaming Israel. The IMRA news analysis agency reports that while Hizbullah brags about crippling the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UN chief Ban Ki-moon blames Israel for "stirring up trouble." (To please Muslim countries — Always blame Israel! This is the main rule of the UN.)

They Hate Israel but Love Jewish Medical Care. Hamas sends up to 100 patients a month to Ichilov hospital in Tel Aviv alone. The hospital treats patients from hostile Arab countries as well.

Hypocrisy in Action:

" Obama Now Says He Courts Muslims to Help Israel..." — Is it a desperate and twisted SPIN before the elections?

"Obama urges Israel to seize chance for peace..." — One can't have peace if there is no peace partner!

Must Israel Arrest the US Spies to Free Pollard? The largest spy swap between the U.S. and Russia since the Cold War unfolded on Thursday as 10 people accused of spying in suburban America pleaded guilty to conspiracy and were ordered deported to Russia in exchange for the release of four Russian spies. (The 'friend' of Israel is still holding Jonathan Pollard who is serving a life sentence in prison.)

True Colours of the 'Peace Partner'. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Arab leaders that the PA is ready to wage war on Israel if the rest of the Arab world does: "If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favour. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it." (Where is the pressure, rebuke etc... from Obama?)

Why Israel Will Never Get a Fair Shake.
John Hawkins

"Never again"! It's what the world said after the Holocaust. Fast forward sixty five years and the only thing standing between seven million Jews in Israel and a 2nd Holocaust is their ability to fight for their own survival and the increasingly inconsistent support of the United States (only when it suits this 'friend')... No matter how grave the provocation or how clearly Israel is in the right, the world's judgment is always against Israel. Why?

Anti-Semitism: During World War II, with a few exceptions, nations all over Europe couldn't wait to ship their Jewish population off to the gas chamber and undoubtedly...

The Have-Nots vs. the Haves: To many people on the Left, the actual facts on the ground are of secondary importance to the identities of the combatants... the "have-nots" are always right simply by virtue of the fact that they're "have-nots." The Israelis are a civilized, prosperous, educated, Western pro-American nation with a modern military up against poor, ignorant, uncivilized savages...

Israel's Situation Outside of People's Reality: Most people, especially most Westerners, cannot truly imagine what it's like to be in Israel's position. Despite their fantastic military, Israel is an isolated, postage-stamp-size nation that's only 8 miles across at one point. They are surrounded by enemies, all of whom would like to kill them down to the last child — and they will if the Israelis ever become weak or drop their guard. Additionally, the Israelis are locked in an eternal struggle with genocidal Palestinians who have the support of the world, despite the fact that they have no interest in peace today, tomorrow, or ever if it means living next to Israelis...

Colonialism: Today, there's still a deep sense of guilt in Europe about colonialism. They look back at conquering, subjugating, and ruling other nations for profit as a terrible chapter in their history. So, when Western European nations look at Israel, they see... a dark echo of what they believe was one of the most shameful times in their nation's history.

Fear of Islam: The West has been completely intimidated by Islam... In Britain, even Catholics are calling for Muslim prayer rooms in Catholic schools. Here in the US, we're building a mosque at Ground Zero...

Geopolitics: Yes, Israel is prosperous for its size, but it's a teeny, tiny isolated nation. The simple reality is that if another country has to choose between having a good relationship with Israel and having a good relationship with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, and the rest of its hostile neighbours, it's much more economically rewarding to stand against Israel...

The Blame Game: Failing nations around the world often try to gin up anger at scapegoats to distract their citizens from the poor job their rulers are doing. The United States plays this role for many nations. To a lesser extent, so do the British... Do you think the Saudi royal family would rather have people talking about the Palestinians or why that country is still run by a monarchy in the 21st century? Do you think Iran wants people talking about the Palestinians or the fact that their economy is in shambles and the people are ready to revolt? Even if there wasn't a single Middle Eastern leader who was a raving anti-Semite, there would STILL be every incentive to gin up hatred against the Jews.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jewish Activists Network, July 13, 2010.

This week we have Mike Guzofsky from Israel, a former Kach activist. Mike will discuss his experience with Rabbi Meir Kahane and the difficulty they encountered in discussing important positions that impact on Israel's survival. Topics will include:

  • The meaning of real Jewish leadership: those who look out for the good of the Jewish people — not for their own political fortune.

  • Examples of difficulties faced by those who discuss ideas that are not popular with heads of government and organizations, in this case, Rabbi Meir Kahane and Kach's challenges in discussing and advocating for the expulsion of the hostile Arab population from Israel in order to save Israel from disaster.

Please join us, listen and call!

Phone number on or off the air: 718-569-0921

For more information contact us at media@jewishactivistnetwork.com

620 on the AM dial (NYC, nearby NJ and parts of LI) and streaming at www.jewishactivistnetwork.com

To Go To Top

Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., July 13, 2010.

This article appeared on the Yid with Lid website:

This is an interview by Barry Rubin with Zeyno Baran, senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and editor of The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular. (Palgrave-Macmillan), 190 p., $21.60

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), and editor of the (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), The Israel-Arab Reader, the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley)

Yid with Lid writes: "PajamasMedia published my interview with Zeyno Baran on her book. It is available here. For your convenience I'm including the text here. If you reprint or forward please be sure to credit PajamasMedia."


Barry Rubin: Zeyno, you begin your book with this sentence: "The most important ideological struggle in the world today is within Islam." Can you explain the nature of this struggle and how it is going?

Zeyno Baran: This struggle is essentially a Muslim civil war over whose definition of Islam will be accepted as "mainstream": will it be the version of the Islamists (shared by all political-religious radicals, both non-violent and violent) or that of traditional Muslims (cultural, secular, and pious) One will become accepted by a majority of Muslims, and by extension, of non-Muslims. Since the 1970s Islamists have made tremendous headway in this struggle thanks to money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region; they were thus able to establish institutes and networks all over the world to spread Islamism.

Today, many Muslims don't even realize what they believe to be authentic Islam is in fact a primarily political ideology of recent origin. Non-Islamists are still lacking in the financial resources — whether state or private — necessary to organize effectively against the Islamists; this is true as much in the West (the focus of this book) as in Muslim-majority countries. So, in the short term I argue that Islamists will continue to be winning in this struggle. That said, I believe in the longer term both non-Islamist Muslims and non-Muslims will eventually wake up to the realization that Islamism is a serious ideological challenge to universal human rights.

Barry Rubin: Precisely what is a "moderate Muslim"? Hasn't that term been subject of a lot of misuse and misunderstanding?

Zeyno Baran: You are exactly right — the misuse of the label "moderate Muslim," by Islamist groups operating in the West, has indeed led to major misunderstandings. This is precisely why I used this term in this book — to clear up this misunderstanding and reclaim the term from the Islamists, many of whom represent themselves as "moderates" to Western policy makers. American and European policy makers have accepted as "moderate" people who do not commit violence; to me, however, that is a very narrow definition.

An Islamist that participates in the electoral process yet does so with the goal of limiting women's rights or of introducing a sharia regime is not moderate. The contributors to this book are all true moderates — those who fully support both universal human rights and the teachings of the Islamic faith. Being "moderate" does not mean they are not pious, which is another common misunderstanding of the term.

Barry Rubin: Why is it wrong to base the definition of a "moderate" Muslim on simply those who don't use violence?

Zeyno Baran: The true divide within Islam is not between violence and nonviolence, but between moderation and extremism. Few Muslims resort to violence — but many more share the thinking of the violent extremism. Unless the ideology of Islamism is understood as the root cause of the violence, I don't believe we'll see an end to the terrorism and radicalism among Muslim communities. Moderation has to start with thought; if we are giving a free pass to those with extremist ideologies as "moderates," then the true moderates will continue to be weakened.

Barry Rubin: How have the U.S., Canadian, and European governments helped the radicals and hurt the moderates?

Zeyno Baran: Western governments, in their desire to "engage with Muslims," have often reached out to well-established Islamist organizations as their "partners". In doing so, these governments did not realize that they were lending legitimacy to these Islamists in the internal struggle against their moderate opponents. With the Islamists being the main "go-to Muslims" for Western governments, it has been much harder for the true moderates to make their voices heard.

Barry Rubin: Why are Western media and institutions so easily fooled by radicals, and why do they seem to favor them?

Zeyno Baran: I think when Western media and institutions look for "Muslim voices," they automatically gravitate to those who most closely resemble their preconception of what an "authentic" Muslim sounds like — a conception that has, of course, been shaped by Islamist propaganda. In recent years, an "authentic" voice has been one that is opposed to US policies, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is strongly critical of Israel. Many in the media share these views as well, so it is in some ways a natural fit.

The true moderates are often accused of being neo-conservative or "not really Muslim" when they support US policies or express a more balanced view of the state of Israel; these ideas seem to Western journalists and policymakers to be "un-Muslim," as if there were a single Muslim way of thinking! Certainly, the Islamists argue there are certain "Muslim opinions" on some issues — such as the Middle East peace process — but that's because they are trying to establish their own view as the single dominant one. It is as wrong as saying there is a "Christian opinion" on an issue, given the vast range of views held by individual Christians.

Barry Rubin: How does assimilation and acculturation work with Muslim immigrants in the West and how should it work?

Zeyno Baran: Each country has had different policies and different experiences, but in general, European countries for many decades paid little attention to assimilation; in particular, the UK and the Netherlands followed an openly multiculturalist policy that avoided any mention of assimilation and/or acculturation. This led to Muslim immigrant enclaves being formed in parts of European cities; when an area becomes heavily Islamic, then Islamists come in with their institutions and mosques, and establish themselves as the interlocutors between the immigrant community and Western authorities.

Even after many of these governments decided to change their policies and developed programs for increased acculturation, they continued to work with the Islamists, whose ultimate responsibility is not to Muslim immigrants, but to the global Muslim umma (community) as they understand it. Since these "representatives" had no interest whatsoever in promoting the integration and assimilation of European Muslims, this led to frustration on the part of Western governments and societies, which began wondering whether Muslims can ever truly become "Western." In turn, this frustration — directed towards all Muslims, not just the extremists — fostered a sense of anger and victimization on the part of the Muslim immigrants, who felt they would never be accepted as long as they remained Muslim.

A better way to ensure social cohesion would be to address the pragmatic needs of Muslim immigrants — jobs, education, equal rights — in accordance with the social norms of the country, with a sensitivity to different religious/cultural backgrounds. In practice, this would mean allowing the establishment of dignified prayer places for Muslims, while not assuming all Muslims go to the mosque all the time, or that the mosque is the only social place for Muslims. There need to be many other places where Muslims can go to socialize with each other and non-Muslims; these will develop naturally if Europeans can move away from characterizing these populations as "Muslim first."

Barry Rubin: Has the concept of multiculturalism helped or hurt in this struggle?

Zeyno Baran: Despite being born of good intentions, the Western policies of multiculturalism have made it harder for Muslims to become Western. The pendulum of respect for cultural/religious difference has swung too far, and Muslims have been trapped into their Muslim identity as "the other," instead of being assisted in becoming one of "us."

One of the recent and most clear examples of this is the wearing of the burqa in the West. For years multiculturalists have looked the other way when seeing women covered from head to toe in a style contrary to most Western norms as well as to Islam itself. Islam simply mandates modesty in dress, which for many women traditionally meant the headscarf, but never the full covering. Yet, until recently, in another unintended consequence of multiculturalism, few Westerners were willing to tackle this issue as they did not want to be seen as intolerant or bigoted. The few that have spoken out have been silenced with threats of being labeled "racist"; thus, intolerable forms of social behavior have continued to the point where they have become acceptable.

Barry Rubin: How can Western societies "win over" Muslims without losing their own identity or surrendering to the Islamists?

Zeyno Baran: The question is which Muslims? The Islamists would never be won over since their long term goal is to see a world that is ruled with sharia. If Western societies continue to try to judge their success in "winning over Muslims" by giving into Islamist demands, then they'll continue to lose their identity and their basic freedoms. But if Western societies were to side with non-Islamist Muslims, and learn from them how best to counter the short- and long-term goals of the Islamists, then I would say there is a great possibility that the West will not only successfully defend its own values and norms, but also help Muslims usher in a desperately-needed Islamic Renaissance.

Barry Rubin: How can moderates justify their interpretations of Islam when they appear to differ with the most important and basic Islamic texts?

Zeyno Baran: Many of these texts have been written centuries ago and in a particular context. Many moderates read them recognizing that what may have been a great social advancement in the 8th century cannot be taken literally in the 21st century. Over the centuries, there were many different voices widely debating how to interpret the Qur'an or t