HOME Featured Stories June 2008 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 30, 2008.

Sunrise at the Dead Sea (Yehoshua Halevi)


Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: I am fond of quoting the master photographer Ansel Adams, who said in a moment of spiritual musing, "Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter." This image required little more than setting my camera on a tripod and waiting for the curtain to rise. I did make a conscious decision to compose the shot in two equal halves, but beyond that, it's all God's show. I have been asked several times about this photo, Is the color real? A more appropriate question would be, Is this how it really looked? The answer, then, is that it depends who's looking.

One of the most important lessons a budding photographer can take into the field is an understanding of the difference between how our eyes see and how a camera records what it "sees." Simply put, cameras attempt to replicate images the way our eyes see them. As good as cameras are at doing this, they are still not as good at "seeing" as the highly complex human eye-brain system. One of the innovations in digital camera technology is the white balance setting, which gives the camera a reference point for color. You tell the camera what kind of light you are working in (sunlight, shade, fluorescent, etc.) and it uses a preset formula to establish the color relationships so that the resulting images look natural. Most people are satisfied to use the automatic setting and never give this a second thought. In this shot, however, in the fatigue of dawn, I mistakenly left the camera on a white balance setting that allowed more of the cool blue light to be recorded and filtered out the warmer, red and yellow light of the rising sun. The camera did what it was told to do, and my eyes, although surprised by the dramatic results, were nevertheless quite pleased."

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website: http://www.goldenlightimages.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008.
This was posted by Marisol on the Jihad Watch website.

Caption: "You can't stop them. But you can protect yourself. Your creator has your best interests at heart."

France 24 has posted this image, which is circulating via e-mail in Egypt to promote the use of the hijab and niqab by Egyptian women. From France 24
(http://observers.france24.com/fr/content/20080626-egypt- burqa-niqab-islamic-extremism-propaganda):

One of our Observers in Egypt received this image in a forwarded email. The message to women: Cover up to protect yourself. We ask our Observers if whether covering up really deters unwanted attention.

According to observers in Egypt, the hijab has crept up in popularity in recent years. It's not obligatory to cover up in the Arab republic and the government does little to promote the concept, but many Muslim women choose to cover their hair and bodies. This viral campaign, spread via forwarded email, suggests that women go one step further to "protect themselves". One of our Observers for Egypt told us that the person behind it is promoting the adoption of the niqab –– a garment which covers everything but the eyes. Where the email originated, however, nobody seems to know. Despite efforts by some to track it through various sources, its origins remain unknown.

The message is the same as that of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, who in 2006 outraged Australians by comparing un-veiled women to uncovered meat.

As usual, the notion of men having the responsibility to control themselves, or even being able to do so, is completely absent.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008.

This was written by Sultan Knish and it appeared yesterday on his website
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/06/ every-murderer-hero-cult-of-jihad.html

Jihad. We write it in capital letters. We argue over its definition. We place it on the same grandiose level as its perpetrators do.

But Jihad is a very simple thing. It is the religious sanctification of the most cowardly and brutal crimes imaginable, from robbery to rape to murder to mutilation to massacre. Without Jihad a murderer is a murderer. With Jihad every murderer becomes a hero.

As much as it rests on the occasional fanatic, Jihad rests on the criminal. It might be the fanatics who blow themselves up, but it is the criminals who create the drug, smuggling and car theft networks that finance the Jihad. It is the criminals who kidnap and behead hostages ranging from aid workers to the children of tribal leaders they want to blackmail. It is the criminals who create Jihad states to bleed dry.

It is in Iraq that the Jihad has shown its truest face, as Al Queda recruiting primarily from criminal classes unleashed a wave of brutality and death that alienated even its former Sunni allies. Yet it's also the raw reality of Jihad.

At the heart of it Jihad is Indulgence, much like those distributed for the Crusaders. An Indulgence for Muslims to act out their worst impulses and crimes and be celebrated as heroes for it.

Do you want to rob? Do you want to behead? Do you want to butcher children? Do you want to rape and mutilate? The socially acceptable and approved thing for a Muslim with such impulses is to become a Jihadist.

The social covenant between the so-called Moderate Muslims who don't actually put themselves on the line and the various fanatics, lunatics, murderers, rapists and criminals of the Jihad is that the Jihad will turn itself against their foreign enemies, and in turn they will receive the sanctification and admiration of the Muslim world.

A Muslim murderer who kills for the Jihad becomes a hero, never mind that he's killing innocent vacation goers. A Muslim rapist in Sydney is a hero of the Jihad for "fighting for Muslim beliefs". A Muslim drug dealer in Paris is a hero for laundering Jihadi money.

In Iraq, Al Queda broke this covenant and was reviled for it. Of course Muslim terrorist groups had commonly fought and oppressed Muslim civilians and each other, but never so blatantly or ruthlessly. It does not however change the general Muslim willingness to excuse Jihadi violence. Particularly when those atrocities are aimed at non-Muslims.

The religious santification of crime in the Muslim world under the banner of Jihad directs violence outward and creates a feeling of pride among Muslims who know their societies are inferior to the West and must invent imaginary conspiracy theories to account for it. The butchered reporter in Pakistan, the bombed nightclub in Bali and the raped woman in Oslo give Muslims a sense of pride from their complicity in these crimes.

The support of "Moderate Muslims" for Jihad is no different than that of the ordinary German who cheered Hitler. The timid sadist must always have monsters who do his work for him. The average Muslim may not be able to set off a roadside bomb or drive by a car in the West Bank taking aim at the children in the backseat –– but he can fund those who do and go to a rally and wave their flag if he or she is feeling bold enough.

As Jihad makes every murderer into a hero, so too it makes every Muslim supporter into a murderer by vicarious proxy. Those who shout "Heil" in the stands and hold up signs reading, "We are all Hizbullah" are no less accountable than those who pull the triggers.

A society, a culture, a religion that sanctifies murder has become a Cult of Death. And though that cult may be driven by impotence and bitter resentment over its own inferiority, it has no less marked itself as an evil thing that the civilized world cannot –– and dare not tolerate or abide.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, June 30, 2008.

This is pretty long. It's somewhat difficult to follow.

But most important: it's probably the most disturbing testimony of incompetence freely presented by a serving prime minister in the history of the Jewish State.

The following is the English translation prepared by Prime Minister Olmert's own office of the PREPARED remarks Prime Minister Olmert presented before the cabinet yesterday.

I repeat for emphasis: this is not a translation of rambling remarks he made over cigars and drinks with his pals that were captured by a microphone he thought wasn't on. These are the remarks Mr. Olmert painstakingly prepared for presentation before his cabinet before the cabinet vote to accept the bodies-terrorist trade.

These remarks are available on the official website of the Prime Minister's Office:
www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2008/06/ spokecaptives290608.htm

The original Hebrew is also available:
www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Communication/Spokesman/2008/06/ spokecaptives290608.htm

Outline of the Deal for the Release of the Israeli Soldiers Kidnapped in the North

Olmert: captive soldiers probably dead, exchange must go through.

–– Today's discussion is exceptional when compared with the topics raised in Government meetings every week. - A political or party-based decision is not what is asked of anyone, but rather: a personal, moral decision.
–– The Government is being asked to, and each of its members must, disassociate themselves from the public discourse, from the headlines in the media, from the personal appeals and deal with our personal and collective soul searching as citizens of this country.
–– I wish to be absolutely clear: our approach to the release of living soldiers must be different than our approach to bringing back soldiers who are no longer alive.

The facts were presented to you and have been known for quite some time:
A. As far as we know –– two soldiers, Udi Goldwasser and Eldad Regev –– are no longer alive.
B. As far as we know, they were killed during the kidnapping or died from their wounds soon after the incident.
C. It is highly probable that the kidnapping which led to their deaths was, at the outset, based on the Hizbullah's desire to bring about the release of Sami Kuntar. This is with the knowledge that they do not wish to, or cannot uphold the commitment provided in the earlier agreement regarding the imparting of details on Ron Arad.

In this context, I wish to point out:
There is a fundamental difference between the report we have about the fates of Udi and Eldad compared with the fate of Ron Arad. It has been over 20 years since Ron's disappearance –– we have no certain information about what happened to him at all. The report handed over does not improve this situation, even if according to the opinion, based on a superficial reading by the mediator, this report is more detailed than previous reports. It does not provide us with an unequivocal answer.

On the other hand –– we know what happened to Udi and Eldad. The decision to bring the matter to a religious resolution –– was born out of the numerous reports that have accumulated about them.

This decision began with Ofer Dekel, who is charged with dealing with this matter. It passed investigatory processes by our Intelligence bodies, a special committee comprised of senior officials from Intelligence bodies dealt with it and reached a unanimous conclusion. It was adopted by the Committee of the Heads of the Services, as well as by the Chief of General Staff, and was transferred to the Chief Military Rabbi to be dealt with as is customary.

It is possible that were it not for this initiative, the details of which were known to both the mediator and the Hizbullah, the negotiations would have continued and perhaps would have ended differently. I do not know.

However: the question, one of the relevant questions for us now, is whether or not it is right that we adopt the outline of the deal, the details of which were, in large part, already known; or accept the religious process which will end with the declaration that Udi and Eldad are fallen soldiers. However, if we accept this outline, doubt will continue to gnaw away, including the possibility of being cut off from them for many, many years, as happened in the case of Ron Arad.

–– This drama, it should be remembered, unlike claims made in the Ron Arad case, occupied us while we were fighting in Lebanon and the entire time since then.
–– The insistence on Resolution 1701, which includes detailed reference to the return of the soldiers.
–– The demand to immediately implement the UN Secretary General's mechanism in order to lead to an operation that would assist in rescuing the kidnapped soldiers.
–– The activation of a mediator on behalf of the UN Secretary General.
–– The appointment of a special mediator on my behalf –– Ofer Dekel, who did not rest from his intensive, unceasing and unprecedented efforts in this regard.
–– Countless meetings in various places around the world –– in order to set in motion every factor that could assist in a solution to this issue.
–– Meetings with family members with willingness unparalleled in any other country in the world facing the problem of missing or kidnapped soldiers.
–– The Arad issue is part of the decision today, but in the case we are discussing, unlike the Ron Arad case, there is not, nor can there be for anyone, a basis for the claim that every effort is not being made relentlessly in order to bring about a solution. And it should be said in all honesty: these were the shortest negotiations among all previous negotiations.
–– The goal and the assumption according to which we have been acting the whole time was that we are acting to bring back people who are still alive. Today we know for certain that there is no such chance for this. This knowledge: must be the basis on which we conduct the discussion today.

I said at the outset, and I reiterate now, what is on the agenda is not the negotiations in the South about which we spoke earlier in this discussion. The discussion is being held on the question of what we should do with the data which is known to us, what the significance is of making a positive decision or rejecting it, and if there is the possibility of continuing the negotiations, with regard to the families, with regard to our commitment to returning the soldiers, with regard to the future influence on similar situations in which we will be forced to bargain, including the Shalit case.

In this regard: there is no escape from dealing with the fundamental and essential issue of what the obligation is for a country which sends its soldiers into battle, and they are taken captive while in its service.

From our earliest days, we are taught that we do not leave men behind, wounded in the battlefield, and that we do not leave soldiers in captivity without attempting to rescue them with all our abilities and power.

However, over the years we also learned that this obligation has limits. A country must have limits even when dealing with the price of freedom for soldiers, and the price for their very lives.

We never thought that the question of cost could be separated from the total context which is open to discussion, from the repercussions possible in the future, and primarily from the fact that we live in a region in which the rules of the game and the basic human patterns of behavior according to which we act –– are not shared in our environment.

For several years, alongside the emotional argument which breaks out and is, at times, exaggerated, alongside the completely understood emotion of the families of the kidnapped soldiers who naturally and justifiably win the sympathy of a large part of the Israeli public, there is a gnawing doubt that this same expression of our obligation, at almost any cost, is an incentive to continue this pattern of kidnappings, of blackmail, of undermining our internal morale, of an attempt to forcibly erode our deterrence capability, and eventually our ability to withstand the challenges which we will continue to face, against the enmity, the extreme fanaticism and the cruelty of our neighbors.

More than once I heard, even from public, security and military authorities, and also from our highest political echelons –– that boundaries must be defined, limits must be determined and we must stand by them under all circumstances, as difficult as they may be.

And I also heard, always when we need to make a decision, that this process will be undertaken the next time if, Heaven forbid, there is one.

We always felt the permeating doubt and tremendous damage caused by the compromise, and we always avoid the desire to deal with the obligation to withstand the test; and doubt lingers, even when we promised that next time we would act differently, that in fact, next time as well –– we will return to the patterns we already determined, and to which we have accustomed our enemies.

Has the time not arrived to make a change? Is now not the time, because we know that these are not soldiers who are still alive, but unfortunately fallen soldiers –– to say here and now, so far and no further? One thing is certain to me –– we cannot avoid determining organized, agreed-upon and firm procedures to deal with this issue in the future, and we will do so soon.

There is nothing in these statements to cast even a shadow of doubt on the amazing work done by Ofer Dekel. Were it not for his persistence and determination in carrying out his mission, and at the highest level of priority, our present situation would certainly be much worse.

However, even Ofer reached the conclusion months ago and until recently, that the soldiers should be declared dead and he jumpstarted the process, with my approval, but in the military-security framework, and in accordance with considerations and information that he had in his possession before the decision.

I know deep in my heart what the mood is outside the walls of this building, and I do not dismiss the headlines and news reports.

Unlike the others, I sat with the families a number of times, and I looked not only into their eyes, but I also felt their longing, and the tremendous emptiness that accompanied them in their lives.

As I did with many bereaved families, when I met them and witnessed their pain, and accept with love their cries of pain, even when it is directed at me. I have no one else to pass these cries onto, but can only hear them and absorb all that is a part of them. And later –– to live with my pain. However, also with my conscience.

In a number of cases, I shared my opinion with the family members, and I did so with a profound sense of belief that in my role as Prime Minister who must see the total reality, and that which will be, there are things I cannot do or agree to –– even if the family members see things differently, and this is inevitable. It is not easy. It is much easier to be cut off without looking straight into the eyes of the families and saying that the responsibility I bear obligates me to see things from a different perspective.

We all bear the responsibility here, it does not end in the obligation to empathize with the pain of the families and their hearts' desire, but it is also to be able to say things and act in a manner which is obligated by what the future places on us. It was always so with every prime minister –– and it is so for me as well. And I am not settling an account with anyone who served before me and made decisions in his time and place.

Now I must make a decision. All I said up to this point –– is a summary of my beliefs and feelings. However, I am not free to absolve myself of the general responsibility for the resolution of this meeting today –– and its repercussions. This perhaps expresses the surfeit of responsibility borne by a prime minister unlike that of the ministers, each according to his role.

Nine days ago, Ofer Dekel, who is charged with the negotiations for the return of the kidnapped soldiers, presented the final outline according to which the deal was formulated. With every fiber of my being, I felt that this outline did not satisfy my expectations and hopes. On the other hand –– I was tormented by the knowledge that at the stage we had reached, the choice again is not between going through with this deal and formulating a different, more appropriate deal. If I thought there was a chance to formulate a different, more appropriate, more balanced deal at this stage, I would not hesitate to tell you and the entire people of Israel so, as well as the families of the kidnapped soldiers –– that there is no escape from making a further effort and eventually reaching another result, even at the cost of more exhausting and painful waiting.

I asked myself: is it possible? I tried to think of any other possible outline, of any crack through which it would be possible to change the need for a decision regarding this outline, out of a belief that it will be possible to formulate a different outline. I carried in my heart the deep frustration and sorrow what occurred during the Ron Arad case, and of the profound disappointment in ourselves that we did not learn from the past to do that which may, may have been possible then in order to find him and know with certainty what his fate was. And I reached the conclusion that it was not advisable for the State of Israel to follow this path once again.

Some may say –– that reaching this stage in which we were left with the cruel choice of receiving bodies or of, Heaven forbid, losing any connection with their fate for many years, was not necessary and was not obvious.

It is very possible. This is certainly an issue that should be studied and analyzed, and we will need to learn the inevitable lessons from it, but for now- –– I believe that this is the only realistic choice, and in this choice –– the moral weight tends towards the painful compromise over the decisive refusal.

I listened attentively to the brave, honest and clear analysis of the Head of the General Security Services, Yuval Diskin, and of the Head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan. I admire these two men very much for their contributions, wisdom and unparalleled experience. I heard too the incisive words of Ilan Biran, who dealt with the Ron Arad issue untiringly for seven years. My heart tells me they see a realistic, genuine and inevitable picture. However, I believe that the circumstances we have reached, perhaps not in our favor –– in which our kidnapped dead are within our grasp –– we missed the deadline to change the terms which should be undertaken according to the analysis they presented.

Let us not delude ourselves. The strength of the pain over returning our dead –– will not be less than the feeling of affront from the celebrations that will be held by the opposing side. I hope that the Israeli public will know to draw the necessary conclusion from this so that it will be more prepared and mature for the next time, which already lies in wait for us. Sooner or later, we will be back here in order to be tormented yet again. I pray that our public discourse will not disparage the cost of this deal two days after it is completed, when we all understand its full significance for the future.

I hope that the satisfaction that comes from the resolution of the doubts of the Regev and Goldwasser families will grant us the peace of mind and perhaps the comfort that we must take this step.

I will not conclude my remarks without saying something to the people of Israel: I know that some of the public and its spokespeople, who until last night made its demand from every stage and microphone that there is a need to agree to this deal because its costs are not intolerable, that it was time to end this painful affair –– will suddenly allege weakness, concessions, a lack of determination on the part of the Government when faced with the sounds of jubilation from the squares of Beirut.

Our agony, the cries of pain which were heard, are not an expression of weakness –– but rather of unparalleled moral strength.

More than once, world leaders with whom I spoke about this situation and about Gilad Shalit and Ron Arad and our missing soldiers –– expressed their amazement about the emotional burden which Israeli society places on itself in this regard.

I recoil from the aggressive voices which accompany our public discourse in these matters, and at times miss the restraint and internal discipline shown by other peoples.

However, we are not like them, and probably never will be. A nation which is tormented by the fate of one man is a strong nation with stamina and a deterrence capability and endless determination. A nation which concedes in order to ensure life, save its wounded, bring home its dead –– is a nation which creates unbreakable bonds of mutual obligation.

If we succeed in defining boundaries, lower the tone of our discourse and show inflexibility in our internal existence, and continue to fight for our lives, defend our soldiers and take care of our kidnapped soldiers –– we will project the genuine strength –– which is wondrous in its uniqueness –– which is part of our nation.

Therefore, at the end of this long process, the essence of which I presented to you today, I reached the conclusion as Prime Minister of Israel that I must recommend to you to approve the proposed resolution which will bring an end to this painful episode –– even at the painful price it costs us.

"Today, at the end of the meeting, the Government will discuss various issues related to the calm in Gaza [and] all issues related to advancing the steps regarding the release of Gilad Shalit. As you know, close to the Cabinet decision on the calm, I left for Egypt to discuss the issue with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and I also discussed this with senior intelligence officials. Ofer Dekel, who has been appointed by me to conduct the negotiations, had already visited Egypt and should further technical clarifications vis-à-vis the decision prove necessary, in the wake of the High Court of Justice decision, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the official who was in charge of the contacts that were held with Egypt on the issue, will give them at the end of today's meeting.

At the start of the meeting, we will discuss the issue of the abducted soldiers in Lebanon, Udi Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Every week at the Cabinet meeting, sensitive and important issues arise that determine the daily life and quality of life in the State of Israel, and sometimes even life itself. Even in the routine context of the importance of Cabinet discussions, there is no doubt that today's discussion is very special, exceptionally sensitive and perhaps has deep national-moral consequences that are not typical of the important discussions held around the Cabinet table.

For two years, the Government has held negotiations via the UN Secretary-General's special mediator, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution #1701, after the Government conditioned its acceptance on the explicit, unequivocal and sharp demand to include in it the release of our abductees. We were not prepared to adopt the resolution without this issue which is of supreme moral importance to us. Throughout this period, our enemies, Hezbollah, tried every possible manipulation of Israeli society's deepest and most exposed feelings in order to influence the mood here also in order to exploit Israeli society's special moral sensitivity so as to prevent us from achieving a quick result on correct and balanced terms appropriate for such issues.

I admit that I have deliberated for a long time on this issue due to its many facets –– morally, in regard to the background in which we are dealing with matters, from the perspective of the history that has accompanied these contacts and, mainly, with regard to future consequences. Indeed, I have deliberated very deeply. Even people who bear supreme responsibility in positions like mine are allowed to deliberate. Sometimes, it must be said in all honesty, it is an obligation, before reaching a decision, the consequences of which will be part of our daily lives for years to come. I have been dealing with this throughout the recent period and even the conclusions that I have drawn are not free of doubts and dilemmas that we will have to deal with for many years to come.

The Government will discuss the issue today and will make a decision today. The issues will be presented in all aspects and details necessary to make this decision. In the end, we are the ministers who bear the supreme, collective responsibility for Government decisions and we will need to bear this responsibility in such a way that we will be able to look in the eyes of the members of the Goldwasser, Regev, Arad, Haran and Shalit families, and in the eyes of every citizen of the State of Israel, and mainly so that we will be able to face our own consciences and say that our consciences were clean at the time we made these critical decisions."

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008.

This comes from yesterday's Joshua Pundit
(http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/ sarko-disappointment.html). It was posted by Freedom Fighter.

When he first was elected president to replace the odious Jacque Chirac, Americans were elated and gloried in the nickname given him by the French press, 'Sarko The American'. Based on recent events, I'm afraid, at least from the anti-jihad standpoint that a better nickname for him may turn out to be Sarko the Disappointment.

In Afghanistan, where the French agreed to send troops as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the French contribution remains minuscule so far, in spite of Sarkozy's promises to increase troop levels.

They have a mere 400 combat troops stationed in the volatile southern and eastern regions, plus another 40 involved behind the lines training the Afghan army. Along with these forces, the French have another detachment of 650 men that are primarily involved in support duties in the more secure areas of the country.

As a comparison, the French have over 2,000 men stationed in the Balkans and another 2,500 troops, along with 1,500 sailors in Lebanon as part of UNFIL, where they are doing absolutely nothing to implement UN Resolution 1701 calling for an arms embargo and the disarmament of Hezbollah.

While Sarkozy has announced that he wants to bring France back into NATO, so far that hasn't happened, and given the recent revelations on the state of the French military, it's an open question on how much of an asset France would be to NATO even if they were part of it.

In the Middle East, President Sarkozy has made a number of warm public statements about his support for Israel, the Iranian threat and France's commitment to Israel's security, signifying a change from the hostility of the Chirac years. In practice..well, not much has changed.

France still retains a de facto embargo on arms and strategic materials to Israel, as does Britain and a number of other EU states (Germany is a notable exception).

In a recent visit to the Middle East, Sarkozy made a speech before the Israeli Knesset, once again extolling his friendship for Israel and declaring that Iran's nuclear program was "unacceptable".

And yet, at the same time, France has made agreements to sell nuclear technology to a number of Arab states, most of whom can be said to be hostile to Israel. Those states include the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Libya and Algeria. Or to put it another way, Moamar Qaddafi is now getting the same sort of aid Saddam Hussein did, and from the same source!

The irony is ummm...murderous.

After signing the deal with Algeria last month, Sarkozy said: "The sharing of civilian nuclear technology will be one of the foundations of a pact of confidence which the West must forge with the Islamic world."

The technology for a civilian nukes program and a military one are exactly the same, and so far we've had two 'Islamic bombs' to deal with already, in Pakistan and Iran. Things have worked out so well, haven't they? The French providing some more of these regimes with nuclear toys could be called a lot of things (suicidal comes to mind) but a 'pact of confidence'?

In his speech to the Knesset, Sarkozy also decided that he had a right to tell Israelis where they might live and build homes, calling for Israel to halt construction of homes in East Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank).

He also called for the establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capitol. "We must tell friends the truth and the truth is that Israel's security can never be assured unless an independent, modern, democratic and viable Palestinian state is established finally beside it...There can be no peace without recognising Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of freedom of access to the holy places for all religions."

I recognize that France has already ceded parts of its capitol to the Arabs, but I don't see that it has worked out all that well for the French.

Sarkozy's statement was greeted with wild applause throughout the Muslim world, as you can imagine. Of course, it probably never occurred to Sarkozy that in an independent, modern and democratic Palestinian state, there would be no problem with Jews living there.

Or that his description of Jerusalem with freedom of access to the holy places for all religions is what the Israelis have established..and exactly what the Arabs never permitted during their 20 year occupation of East Jerusalem and what the Palestinians have also promised to forbid in the future should the Israelis be silly enough to give them control of it.

As part of Sarkozy's cozying up to the Palestinians, he had his Interior Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, make a pilgrimage to Ramallah to lay a wreath of flowers at the tomb of Yasir Arafat, something even Condi Rice couldn't quite bring herself to do. And of course, pony up with some cash, $21 million to fund an industrial zone in the Bethlehem area supposedly to boost the Palestinian economy.

Based on the famous Palestinian transparency and desire for peace, Its a safe bet that most of that money will be end up being used by Fatah to line the pockets of Abbas' cronies,consolidate its dictatorial hold on the West Bank and to fund the war against Israel. In contrast, French support for Israel so far has been limited to a few innocuous, friendly remarks.

Sarkozy seems to be pursuing this course for the same reason Chirac did –– to increase France's influence and make it a global player with weight out of all proportion to its actual power. And it appears that it will continue to pursue this course of action regardless of the ultimate cost to the West, or ultimately, to France itself. This will involve considerable alignment of France with the Arab world policy-wise, just as it did during the Chirac era.

The face and the rhetoric may be a bit different, but the destructive policies remain the same.


Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, June 30, 2008.

Dear friends,

Articles by Moshe Arens, the former Israeli defense minister, are rare pieces of sanity published in Israel's liberal newspaper Haaretz. Here is his article on the painful question of handing over terrorist murderers in exchange for Israeli abducted soldiers and civilians. Moshe Arens is in full agreement with Caroline Glick whose article in the Jerusalem Post I sent you a few days ago. See below.

Your Truth Provider,


There was a time, not so many years ago, when the policy of Israeli governments, when one of its citizens or soldiers was abducted by a terrorist organization, was to send the Israel Defense Forces to free the hostages. It was clear that negotiating with the terrorists and agreeing to their outrageous demands was simply setting the stage for further kidnappings and higher demands in the future. It was a good policy, even though it involved risking the lives of the hostages and of those sent to free them.

When in past years a policy of negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages was adopted, it only proved the original premise. The terrorists' demands continued to escalate, and each "deal" with them only provided an incentive for further kidnappings and for ever more outrageous demands before the hostages would be released. The terrorists may have released the hostages –– dead or alive –– but each surrender to their demands only provided an incentive for additional kidnappings of Israelis and escalating demands, and put at risk Israelis, as yet unnamed, whom the terrorists would abduct in the future. In other words, they served as an incentive for the further abduction of Israelis.

In June 2004, under then-prime minister Ariel Sharon and then-defense minister Shaul Mofaz, a deal was struck with Hezbollah for the return of three dead Israeli soldiers –– Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Omar Suad –– and the release of Elhanan Tennenbaum, in return for about 450 convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons. Whereas the three soldiers had been kidnapped while on duty in the IDF, Tennenbaum had been kidnapped while on an illegal trip in Abu Dhabi in pursuit of what he thought would be a profitable drug deal. There was no justification for the arrangement Sharon's government made in this case. One might have hoped that it would serve as a benchmark not to be exceeded n the future, and as a lesson in how not to negotiate with terrorists.

Making decisions in negotiating with terrorists for the release of Israeli hostages is an agonizing matter, and ministers are not to be envied the responsibility they carry on their shoulders. However, certain principles that need to be applied are almost self-evident:

1. Whatever deal is to be struck, it should be done immediately after the kidnapping. (Remember Ron Arad.)

2. The price to be paid for the return of the living is not to be the same as the price for the dead.

3. Remember the Israelis who are being put at risk in the future as a result of giving in to the demands of the terrorists.

It is clear that in the case of the negotiations for the return of IDF soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, these principles have not been observed. In full knowledge that they have been murdered by Hezbollah, the price that Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak now seem prepared to pay is scandalous. Samir Kuntar is not just a terrorist "with blood on his hands," but a cold-blooded murderer who killed a small child and her father. If anything, this deal is worse than the Tennenbaum deal.

And now Gilad Shalit. Any fool understands that the Israeli government held one significant lever on Hamas in this case –– the continued blockade of Gaza and the continuation of IDF attacks on Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. The impression given by the government that agreeing to a cease-fire with the terrorists was part and parcel of a deal for the release of Shalit was nothing less than a cheap political manipulation. One can only imagine the price that the terrorists are asking now that they are holding not only Shalit hostage, but also the residents of Sderot, Ashkelon and the settlements in the area. The Olmert government has completely mishandled a most important security matter.

Now that the Olmert government is tottering and seems to about to topple, its spokesmen are insisting that in view of the many dangers Israel is facing, this is no time to change governments. In other words, don't change horses midstream. But Olmert has provided additional proof, as if additional proof were needed after the fiasco of the Second Lebanon War, that his government cannot be trusted to deal with the dangers on the horizon. The sooner they go the better

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 30, 2008.

Going traveling? Take Blondi with you. This comes from Yossi Zur.

On March 5th 2003 Asaf, a young high school boy was on his way back from school. A suicide murderer that exploded on Asaf's bus killed him and sixteen other innocent men, women and children.

Asaf was almost seventeen years old when he died and he is my son.

As every young man does, Asaf would have finished high school and army service and would have gone on a trip to see the world:South America, the Far East, India or maybe Australia and New Zealand. He wanted very much to go surfing at the famous beaches in Hawaii and Australia. Asaf wanted to hike the high treks of Nepal and the Himalayas.

Now I am sending Asaf on his world tour.

Without a passport or a back pack, I am sending you only this picture and his spirit and ask you to help take Asaf to wherever you go. India, Thailand, New Zealand or the Chinese wall.

You'll find his picture and a video at: http://www.blondi.co.il/bwt2008/archives/oldindex.html

Wherever you go, take out his picture, photograph it in the place you are and email it back to me (mailto:Yossi@Blondi.co.il Yossi@Blondi.co.il).

If you are not travelling take the photo in your city or town, at the mall, city stadium and even your front or back yard.

I will build Asaf's world tour photo album and post it on the internet. This way Asaf will be at all those wonderful places in the world he wasn't lucky to see.

You can print a few copies of the attached picture and leave copies on your way, hang it on a bulletin board at the hotel or the guest house you stay in. leave it along the trek, put it in the visitor's book you write your experiences in.

Help me get my son around the world and make his world tour go through each country on the globe.

Yossi Zur, Asaf's father

Email: Yossi@Blondi.co.il
Web: www.Blondi.co.il

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, June 30, 2008.

"Palestinians will work on preventing attacks against Israel as long as there is a negotiated peace process that still provides hope for an agreement. Palestinians will renew their struggle against Israel, including the armed struggle, when they perceive that the occupation will not end and the Palestinian state will not be established next to Israel." –– Gershon Baskin

Where do you get this from? There is nothing in their words or deeds that suggests that this is true. What's wrong with the Palestinians demonstrating that they are capable of being peaceful, tolerant, cooperative neightbors. If they could do that, then they wouldn't need an inviable microstate in 6000 sq. km. They could live as a peaceful minority within the State of Israel. The world has 5000 minority ethnic groups living peacefully in 190 countries w/o a violent struggle for an independent state. Jews have been doing that for 2000 years.

The 3 million Palestinian Arabs can live as a peaceful minority within Israel or they can go to 22 other countries and become part of the majority. Alternatively, they could form a commonwealth government federated to Israel. An independent Palestinian microstate would just lead to demands to form a binational state with Israel, and ultimately the demise of the Jewish state.

Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008.

This was written by Aaron Klein and appeared yesterday in WorldNetDaily

Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, is known for his regular interviews with Mideast terror leaders and his popular segments on America's top radio programs. His newly released book is "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans –– to a Jew!"

JAFFA, Israel –– A Hamas investigation replete with video confessions has discovered that militants from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization received instructions to disrupt a cease-fire that Israel agreed to last week with the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip.

WND last week exclusively quoted sources in Fatah's declared military wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group, stating they received "understandings" from Abbas' office they are to fire rockets into Israel to sabotage the truce.

U.S. and Israeli policy considers Abbas to be "moderate."

Hamas has been abiding by the truce while Fatah's Brigades took responsibility for firing at least three rockets from Gaza last week.

Now Hamas officials told WND yesterday an investigation concluded that Abbas' officials instructed the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to launch rockets into Israel.

The Hamas officials said they obtained videotaped confessions from Brigades members allegedly admitting to receiving attack instructions from Fatah. Hamas said it may release the videos on the group's Al Aqsa Television Network later this week.

A senior source in Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades told WND last week his group received "understandings" from Abbas' officials that Fatah wants to see the cease-fire "collapse."

The senior Brigades source hinted a top Abbas official gave the Brigades specific instructions to launch Gaza-based attacks against Israel to precipitate an Israeli military response that would initiate a cycle of Hamas reprisal attacks that would, in turn, scuttle the cease-fire.

The Brigades source refused to say which Abbas official may have given his group instructions, but WND understood from informed sources it was Tayir Abdul Al-Rahim, the secretary-general of Abbas' office, who communicated specific instructions to the Brigades to shoot rockets at Israeli population centers.

This past Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces confirmed three Qassam rockets were launched from Gaza into southern Israel. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades took responsibility for the attacks.

This weekend, at least four mortars were fired from Gaza, according to the IDF.

Earlier this week, WND quoted a top PA official complaining the truce between Hamas and Israel enhances the position of Hamas and amounts to the Jewish state's tacit recognition of the terrorist group's control of the Gaza Strip.

Officially, the PA, headed by its president, Mahmoud Abbas, endorsed the Gaza truce agreement, which went into effect 11 days ago, hours after Hamas and other local Palestinian groups took responsibility for firing nearly 30 mortars and rockets from Gaza into nearby Jewish communities.

But unofficially, the PA has been expressing to Israeli and American diplomats its strong opposition to the truce, explaining the cease-fire puts Hamas in a more powerful position.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "sold us out," said the top PA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"It is not possible that Israel agreed to the truce with Hamas without U.S. approval," he said. "Israel has now negotiated indirectly with Hamas and is doing business with them. Hamas is the dealmaker and power broker."

The PA official's main complaint was not that Israel was negotiating with a terror group but that the Jewish state, he argued, was enhancing Hamas at the expense of the PA.

The official said the PA took particular offense at talk of eventually expanding the truce to the West Bank, which until now has been considered the territory of Abbas' Fatah organization.

He said if Hamas was seen as the main power broker in the West Bank, it would be a "disaster" for Fatah and the PA.

The official described the mood at Abbas' headquarters following the truce as "one of mourning."

"It's our Tisha B'Av," he said.

Tisha B'Av is the Jewish fast day known as the "saddest day" in the Jewish calendar. It commemorates tragedies that befell the Jewish people, including the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the First and Second Jewish Temples.

Hamas has controlled the Gaza Strip since last summer, when it expelled the U.S.-backed Fatah organization from the territory.

The Gaza cease-fire officially went into effect last week. Israel has said it will hold off all military operations in Gaza in exchange for a complete cessation of Palestinian rocket attacks and violence.

Hamas, for its part, reportedly instructed its members to refrain from carrying out any attacks.

In spite of the attacks launched from the Gaza Strip, Israel yesterday eased its blockade of Gaza by reopening some border crossings and by allowing a larger number of shipments to enter and may open border crossings closed in recent months.

Israeli security officials have warned in briefings to the Knesset that Hamas would use the truce to rearm itself and strengthen its forces against an ultimate Israeli military incursion into Gaza. The officials said more Israeli troops would likely die fighting in Gaza, because of the off-time Hamas is likely to use to prepare itself for battle.

In a briefing to the Knesset earlier this month, Yuval Diskin, director of Israel's Shin Bet Security Services, identified a recent surge in terrorist activity and arms smuggling in the Gaza Strip. He also said Hamas stepped up the pace of training its gunmen and attempted several major attacks in recent days that were foiled by Israel.

Cease-fire 'victory for resistance'

Last week, WND quoted Gaza-based terrorist leaders calling the cease-fire a "victory" for Palestinian "resistance." The terrorist announced the truce will be used by local terrorist groups to re-arm and prepare for battle against the Jewish state.

"We are humiliating the Israelis. They kept threatening to make a huge operation in Gaza, but they were the ones who begged us to go into the cease-fire," said Muhammad Abdel-Al, a leader and spokesman for the Hamas-allied, Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees terror group.

Along with Hamas, the Committees took responsibility for firing a massive onslaught of rockets and mortars just before the truce was agreed upon.

"[The rocket attacks] prove we are not going into this cease-fire from a weak point but from a point of force and power," Abdel-Al said.

Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' so-called military wing, told WND his group will use the truce to rearm itself.

"The hudna (temporary truce) will be used for more training, arming. ... We don't have any intention to stop from bringing in weapons from the Sinai into Gaza," said Abdullah.

He called the cease-fire "one more sign of the collapse of the Israeli army, that this big Israeli army with the so-called best air force in the world didn't succeed to stop the rockets, and they accepted the truce."

The term "hudna," dates back to Islam's founding in the 7th century, when Muhammad declared a 10-year hudna with the tribe that controlled Mecca. Later, after re-arming, Muhammad attacked the tribe, claiming it had broken the truce. In 1994, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat invoked Muhammad's hudna when he justified the launch of the second intifada during the Oslo peace process.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted in 2003 that Hamas had agreed to 10 cease-fires in the previous decade and returned freshly armed after each one.

"It is important to note," the institute said, "that all cease-fire offers have been presented at a time when Hamas needed a moment to step back and regroup after an organizationally exhausting confrontation with a more powerful foe (either Israel or the PA)."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 30, 2008.


Terrorism has arisen among India's Muslims. Muslims and other religions there held a mass-conference in which they all denounced terrorism. It is wrong to attack civilians, they said, Islam is a religion of peace.

IMRA wonders whether this denunciation is any more sincere than others by Muslims, who, when pressed, make an exception for what they call national liberation from Israel or the US(= Islamic domination). Their definitions were vague and no groups of terrorists and their causes were identified (IMRA, 6/1. I think that so general a statement is like S. Arabia's stance: train people to want holy war, but condemn them if they bring that war to S. Arabia.


Acting on his own, an Israeli aide to PM Rabin once advised Syria that Israel would relinquish the Golan Heights for a peace treaty. The PM did not give permission for that. Now Syria takes that as a solemn promise (IMRA, 6/14).

Any statements made during Israeli bargaining but not in an agreement, any hints, the Muslim Arabs take as a commitment. Their own, actual signed commitments, however, they say mean something else or lapse because the Islamic decade has ended or the Muslim who signed it is out of office, or simply is disregarded. That is about as extreme a double standard as can be.

Western media follow suit. They claim that what Israeli negotiators once offered becomes the base for new bargaining and it is up to Israel to close the gap. They don't claim that what Arab negotiators once offered becomes the base for new bargaining and it is up to the Arabs to close the gap.

So unpatriotic are Israeli leaders, that they don't discourage expectations of concessions from them by stating that concessions thought of by predecessors have become even more untenable after years of Arab aggression.


An Israeli broadcaster reported an IDF officer's assessment that removing more checkpoints from Judea-Samaria would enable terrorists to bombard Israel. Later, the half-hour news summary mentioned that Sec. Rice was coming to demand that more checkpoints be removed. It did not refer to the IDF assessment of danger from such removal.

Sec. Rice said that the removal of IDFcheckpoints around Jenin gave Arabs more access (IMRA, 6/15). But the P.A. did nothing to reduce terrorist access.


Jordan refused the Israeli delegation entry to the regional conference on economic development and tourism (IMRA, 6/15).

That is a treaty violation.


The US persuaded Israel to allow the P.A. to run counter-terrorism efforts in several P.A. cities. Israel has been observing that the P.A. police impose order, but do not combat terrorism.

Terrorists have infiltrated the P.A. police. Police weapons provided by the US have gotten into the hands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The result is that in Ramallah and Jenin, terrorism has increased. IDF officials strongly condemn the program, closely monitored by US Gen. Dayton in Jenin (IMRA, 6/15).

Will Israel have the moral courage to warn that the experiment is failing and if it doesn't improve in a few weeks, it would close it down? Would it dare to complain that the US, in its naivete (or is it malice) has gotten involved in promoting terrorism, and that all along that has been the import of US policy towards the P.A.?


Sec. Rice said, "I should say that, of course, there are obligations on the Palestinian [Arab] side as well and we're going to work through those in the trilateral that we will hold tomorrow morning as well." Dr. Aaron Lerner notes her mentioning Arab obligations as an afterthought. Obviously she is not interested in P.A. compliance. The P.A. has never complied with its agreements.

She also said that Israel would benefit from a democratic, peaceful neighbor, meaning statehood for the P.A. Dr. Lerner said that is not the point, since there is no chance of such a cultural revolution. The question is whether Israel could live with a belligerent state (IMRA, 6/15).

My additional answer is that Israel would not benefit from a democratic, peaceful state carved from the cradle of Jewish civilization and depriving Israel of secure borders and much of its water supply.

It isn't a proper role for the US to be demanding dangerous concessions by Israel and subsidizing a P.A. that continues advocating terrorism and bigotry. It undermines US goals in Iraq to subsidize Saddam's allies in the P.A..

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, June 29, 2008.

This is from Etgawal via La. La writes:

Islam is not a religion. it is a social system regulating every aspect of human behavior according to the whims of whomsoever is 'imam' and his construction of his book of islam. Under islam, it's obey or die. No different from the Third Reich.

This is from Susan MacAllen If you agree with this article, then please pass it on.

In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978, even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens.. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 –– a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies –– it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant:generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism.

How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets –– all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious –– and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes –– once so welcoming –– began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

An article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending. Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.' Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane. Forced marriages –– promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death –– are one problem.' 'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough –– a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.'

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and Canada: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden –– before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa –– who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers –– and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years –– one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe –– even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.'

The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said. A large thorn in the side of Denmark's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,' Hvilshoj says, 'There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.'

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time –– in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Canadians clamour for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history... we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top>
Posted by Sacha Stawski, June 29, 2008.

This was written by Benjamin Weinthal and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid= 1214726153485&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Neither Black September, a Palestinian terrorist group with ties to Fatah, nor incompetence on the part of German authorities was responsible for the murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympic Games on September 5, 1972; rather, according to a German sports historian, the athletes sacrificed themselves voluntarily.

The Israeli Embassy in Berlin has demanded that German politicians take action against University of Göttingen professor Arnd Kruger, whose alleged anti-Semitic lecture has created a public row.

Der Spiegel's Web site reported Saturday that Kruger, director of the Institute for Sport Studies in Göttingen, Lower Saxony, had said the murdered Israeli athletes had prior knowledge of the planned massacre and consciously decided to stay at the Olympic village to sacrifice themselves for the Jewish state. Kruger supported his martyr theory by saying there is a "different perception of the human body" in Israel compared with other industrialized nations. He also said that "Israel is trying to prevent at all costs living with disabilities" and had a higher abortion rate than other Western countries.

At the Munich Olympics, terrorists associated with the Black September group killed two members of the Israeli team and took nine hostage. The group demanded that Israel release hundreds of Palestinians security prisoners in exchange for the hostages.

The Palestinian terrorists eventually murdered all of the athletes and coaches, and a German policeman. Lax security in the Olympic village and German police incompetence are typically cited as the main contributors to the deaths of the athletes.

Alex Feuerherdt, a journalist who has written extensively about anti-Semitism within the German soccer federation, told The Jerusalem Post, "First, a police psychologist assigned at the time claimed that the murder of the Israeli athletes was the fault of the Israeli operatives. Now a sports historian tells us that these athletes died as martyrs for Israel. These are nothing but anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. What absurd theory will come next? That the Palestinian terrorists in Munich in 1972 were actually Mossad agents?"

Kruger's statement prompted Ilan Mor, the chargé d'affaires at the Israeli Embassy in Berlin, to criticize the rise in anti-Semitism masquerading as criticism of Israel.

"This is the worst form of dehumanizing the state of Israel," Mor told Der Spiegel, referring to "a form of the new flared-up anti-Semitism in Germany, packaged as criticism of Israel."

Kruger declined to respond to a Post e-mail. Reached on his cellphone Sunday, he said he "cannot speak because he is driving" and asked to be telephoned in an hour. Multiple calls to his landline and cellphone were not returned.

Kruger issued a written statement to the university confirming his thesis, and insisted that he was not an anti-Semite.

Elke Wittich, a sports journalist for the on-line magazine Sports Wire.de and the weekly paper Jungle World, told the Post this was not the first time Kruger disseminated his theory about the cause of the massacre in 1972. She said that the academic had previously published an article in the college's magazine in Göttingen blaming the Israeli athletes for their own murders. The free college publication has a circulation of 12,500.

Despite his visual impairment, race-walker Shaul Ladany was able to escape the terrorist attack, and this served as evidence that the other athletes could have escaped, Kruger wrote in the magazine.

Wittich said several neo-Nazi forums were citing Kruger as a hero, and questioned why the University of Göttingen permitted Kruger to spread his bizarre anti-Jewish theories.

At an academic conference last week, Kruger equated the massacre by Arabs of Jews in 1929, who remained in Hebron during the pogrom, with the alleged failure of the Israeli athletes to vacate the Munich Olympic village.

German pundit, Henryk M. Broder responded to Kruger's theory in his "The Axis of Good" blog on Sunday: "It is not easy to convey to people who believe in progress that anti-Semitism has nothing to with education or lack of education –– that it occurs among members of the educated classes just as often (and sometimes even more often) than among the uneducated... In the 1930s, the Nazis claimed that Jews had declared war; academics like the former Nazi military psychologist Prof. Peter R. Hofstaetter were still arguing this in the 1970s and 1980s. Part of the anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist mantra today is the claim that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis and accepted the death of Jews to achieve their goal, the creation of Israel," he wrote.

The University of Göttingen plans to review the results of a German Federation for the Science of Sports inquiry on Krüger.

Martin Krauss, a journalist who covers sports for the weekly German-Jewish newspaper Die Jüdische Allgeimeine Zeitung, told the Post that if Der Spiegel's report was accurate, Kruger ought to be dismissed.

Contact Sacha Stawski at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Olivier Guitta, June 29, 2008.

After the Hezbollah (the Party of God) coup in May and its "official" endorsement by Lebanese political forces and the international community in Doha, Lebanon is still very much facing an explosive situation.

Last week's heavy fighting between Sunni militants and Alawites ? an offshoot of Shiism ? (Syrian President Bashar Assad is an Alawite) in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli left at least nine dead and many more wounded.

One may deduct from this latest violence that the Doha agreement that allowed the election of the pro-Syrian Gen. Michel Sleimane and de facto handed Hezbollah the keys of the country, is not going down well with the Sunnis, the Druze, a large portion of the Christian community and finally some anti-Hezbollah forces within the Shiite community. In fact, they feel that once again the United States and France have sold out Lebanon to fit their geopolitical interests.

For instance, a majority politician expressed his resentment of the major world powers: "They wanted Munich! Today, Iran controls the country. Tehran has restored its "border" with Israel, that had been destroyed during the war of 2006. Bravo to the international community!" Blame is not limited to France and the U.S. but also to the majority's leadership and in particular the Future Movement, Saad Hariri's party. The Hariris know that they will pay dearly among their base their decision not to call to take up arms against the Shiites. Indeed, scores of Tripoli residents that long regarded the Party of God as the "resistance" of Lebanon, view it now as the party of the devil. Already, in Tripoli, the Salafist extremists, are gaining ground. A group of them told the French daily Libération: "Hariri is our leader, we respect and support him. Now, this is the nice option. If it fails, we have another option called Ben Laden." Interestingly, Omar Bakri, the extremist preacher and

alleged al-Qaida's mouthpiece who was kicked out of England after the July 7, 2005 bombings, now residing in Tripoli, confirms this trend:" Today, angry Lebanese Sunnis ask me to organize their jihad against the Shiites. I did not believe in the emergence of al-Qaida in Lebanon. But they are the only ones who can defeat Hezbollah. After the Afghans, after the Europeans converted to radical Islam by Al Zawahiri, the next al-Qaida generation will be Lebanese."

Hezbollah is obviously not sitting on its hands and is preparing its next move. As the Kuwaiti daily al-Seyassah reported last week, clashes occurred between farmers in the region of Jezzin (Christian region in the South, located at the southern tip of Mount Lebanon) and Hezbollah fighters.

The farmers have been unable to exploit their land transformed by Hezbollah in a closed military zone. Since August 2006 and the ban for Hezbollah to cross the Litani river, the Party of God has built a new line of defense in the region of Jezzin, where it has stepped up purchases of land to achieve the junction between the south of the Bekaa, in the east and the Shiite regions to the west. But the farmers are far from happy about this and that is why fighting erupted. The incident, during which explosions and gunfire were heard, has allegedly resulted in four deaths.

Hezbollah, which has imposed a full "black out," preventing journalists and the army access to the area, denies and refuses to explain the origin of the explosions. Confirming this worrisome Hezbollah activity in the south are sources close to NATO who stated that Hezbollah has two plans in the offing to neutralize the UNIFIL forces in case of a new conflict with Israel. The first one entails Hezbollah storming UNIFIL posts in a peaceful manner with large waves of civilians. The second is a full-out war in case of retaliation by UNIFIL. Hezbollah units have been recently training with anti-tank missiles to handle the Leclerc tanks of the UNIFIL forces. Nonetheless, Hezbollah thinks that in case of a war with Israel, UNIFIL would stay on the sidelines.

UNIFIL is the not the only foreign force that Hezbollah could strike. Indeed, Hezbollah has been indirectly targeting the U.S. forces in Iraq. A senior Hezbollah official was recently arrested in Sadr City and dozens of Hezbollah operatives are allegedly training Shiite and Sunni radical groups in Iraq. This veiled war could explain why according to analyst Elizabeth Picard the U.S. administration recently asked Israel to hit hard at Hezbollah during the May crisis. Hezbollah could also decide to strike at U.S. interests in the U.S., Canada, South America, Africa or Europe.

To add to the already potentially explosive cocktail, the well-informed Jane's revealed that Syrian troops are deployed in Lebanon. With so many players present in that small country, the likelihood of a new armed conflict is growing by the day. Lebanon could end up being the next stage of the war between the West and radical Islam.

Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 29, 2008.

Another reason for this deep and abiding hatred for non-Muslims is a backward society, locked in the time warp of the 7th Century by the Mullahs who condemn their people to jealousy and hatred for any people who trek forward and accomplish.

Every country's Foreign Ministry with well-educated bureaucrats would know that making an agreement with Islamic-driven nation is like using disappearing ink. The leaders of Arab and/or Islamic countries make agreements with impunity, knowing they can and will break them at any time convenient or necessary to them.

In fact, according to Islamic law, they must break said agreements made with ‘infidels' (non-Muslims) within 10 years...according to the Hudaibiya Treaty Mohammed made in the 7th Century with the richest of the Jewish tribes, the Banu Quraizah (allies of the Quraish Tribe). He made that treaty while he was militarily weak so he could worship at Mecca. But, in two years he returned with a strong army, broke the 10 year treaty, brutally murdered and decapitated all the men, captured and enslaved the women and children of the Banu Quraizah Tribe. (1)

The very day Yassir Arafat signed the Oslo Accords he told his Arab audience in Arabic that the Oslo Accord was like the Hudaibiya Treaty. He would break it as soon as he was stronger. And, of course, he did –– as often as he could. He unleashed his PLO Terrorists to rise up in their various ‘intifadas' no matter how much the Jews foolishly offered them ancient Land G-d gave to the Jews in perpetuity. (2)

So-called diplomats in America, Europe, Asia and Russia know that when a Muslim/Arab leader is displaced by age, assassination or overthrow by a religious sect, the next leader must disavow all prior "peace" agreements in order to justify their new order of rule. The diplomats know the Arabs pay lip service to keep prior agreements if it serves the "Jihad".

For example, Bashar Assad, President of Syria replaced his father, Hafez al-Assad when he died. Assad's families and a small contingent of Alawite Muslim generals rule Syria with an iron hand and they easily control Bashar. The Alawites are roughly 10% of Syria's population with the Sunnis about 80%. When (not if) the Sunnis overthrow the Alawites and Bashar, there will be a "New Order" of conduct and all prior agreements will be declared null and void. That would include Ehud Olmert's transfer of the Golan Heights in a bid for a Gaza-like peace.

The Alawite minority with long-term pre-planning will escape to the sea-side fortress city of Latakia which the Assad family and the Generals have fortified with the best armaments taken from Syrian Army stores.

When the Sunnis control Syria and the Golan Heights, which Olmert-Livni-Barak –– encouraged by Condoleezza Rice –– wish to surrender to Syria, Israel will once again be under the guns, missiles and rockets of the radical Islamists.

Any prior agreements which Israel has or will sign, will be null and void (following Mohammed's Hudaibiya Treaty). Be assured that the neither the U.S. State Department nor the European Union will object.

As for the U.N., it votes and performs as if it's a radical Third World nation controlled by the Arab Oil Bloc.

We have already seen how the Muslim Arabs behave when offered Jewish "Land for Peace" after the abandonment of Gush Katif/Gaza and 4 North Samarian communities in the name of peace. As forecast by this writer and many others, "Judenrein" (Jew-free) Gaza has morphed into a Global Terrorist firing base for Kassam rockets, mortars and Katyusha missiles.

Oslo failed and Gaza was even worse as Israeli leaders showed their inability to conduct the affairs of the nation and keep their citizens safe.

All the explosives, ammunition and high tech weaponry were sent by Iran and Syria, to be smuggled into Gaza with the assistance of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. The nations, including the Bush-Rice regime, had detailed intelligence about it but didn't give a damn.

Remember when Israel made a grand gesture for the Camp David Accords? Israel surrendered the entire Sinai Desert with the oil fields discovered and brought to production by the Israelis that could have kept Israel energy independent. This "gift" of infrastructure, military bases, cities and homes as well as the energy was valued at $17 Billion at the time –– probably many times that by today's inflated dollars. This was another failed gesture to appease the Arab Muslims.

All Israel got in return was a piece of paper with all sorts of "peace" agreements and side letters but, the writing by the State Department, President Clinton and then President Anwar Sadat was in disappearing ink. None of the responsibilities stipulated for Egypt were kept –– except for the absence of a full scale assault until Egypt wishes to join Syrian, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Hamas, Hezb'Allah and the Muslim Arab Palestinians in their next war, their "Final Solution to their Jewish problem" of the State of Israel in the Muslim crescent of the Middle East.

When Mubarak dies, retires or is assassinated, Egypt will likely come under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. All prior agreements made with Israel, with America as the guarantor, will disappear in an instant. The Muslim Brotherhood will control the vast Egyptian Army and the now (at least) $80 Billion of advanced armaments given (virtually free) to Egypt by America (who gave Egypt the money to pay for them) so Egypt could act as U.S. representative to occupy the Saudi oil fields as American care-takers. No doubt, Egypt, under the Muslim Brotherhood will occupy Saudi Arabia but, not on behalf of American interests.

That has been the Arabist State Department's policy since the time Jimmy Carter effectively toppled the Shah of Iran and brought to power the then-exiled Ayatollah Khomeini. With the fall of Iran, America lost her Iranian "cop-on-the-block" the U.S. had used to protect the Gulf Oil States and the immense high tech American arms stockpile. America also lost their Phoenix missile system and the F14 Tomcat advanced fighter jet which were passed on to the Soviets. Ex-President Jimmy Carter (called the worst President in U.S. history) is still stumbling around the Middle East, causing as much trouble as he can.

Perhaps you are starting to get the idea that trusting Muslim/Arab rulers to remain compliant and keep peace agreements is like squeezing Jell-O. Of course, if you are a Super Power like America, Russia or China, you can play that game of "pretended" agreements which you know won't be kept –– because history tells you so.

But, if you are a minuscule country like Israel, squeezed between hostile Muslim nations pledged to "Jihad" (holy war for Islam), with hundreds of thousands of hostile "Palestinians" festering inside your country, you cannot abandon defensive territory as confidence building gestures to strengthen your enemies who vow to destroy you.

The surrender of Land does, indeed, establish confidence but, it's the kind of confidence that assures the Muslim Arabs that Israeli leaders are weak and ready to accept and encourage defeat. Regrettably, Israel's present leaders meet the criteria of being weak, corrupt, crooked, incompetent –– except in maneuvers to keep their power –– even if Israel is forced to accept a re-partition at their hands.

Recently, MK Aryeh Eldad, reading from Israel's established and mandatory laws, states clearly that any Israeli attempting to give away their G-d given Land is either to be imprisoned for life or executed. Either sentence would be satisfactory for the Olmert, Kadima, Labor, Shas government coalition.


1. "War on Jihad" www.aronjihad.org/islam200905.html

2. "ARAFAT OPTS FOR THE ‘HUDAIBIYAH' TREATY" by Emanuel A. Winston June 27, 2002 www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/june/win1.htm

Here is a short list of articles we have written about the HUDAIBIYA TREATY:

"CNN: EYELESS IN GAZA" January 1999
"MUSLIM BAIT & SWITCH" September 9, 2004 &
"BEWARE MUSLIM BAIT & SWITCH" September 13, 2004

P.S. [I definitely remember reading that Hosni Mubarak (Egyptian President since Sadat was assassinated) declared that the Camp David Peace Treaty was null and void after 10 years (like the Hudaibiya Treaty) –– but, no one noticed. However, I can't find the reference –– GW]

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@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, June 29, 2008.

I dedicate this poem on the 60th Anniversary of the State of Israel.

Why Not A Jewish State?

All of Us
Have Promises to Keep

All of Us
Have Our Promised Lands to Reach

All of Us
Have our Egyptian bondage to Break

So Why Not(!)

The Jews of all oppressed Peoples
Have the right to a State

Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 29, 2008.

Comprehension of what is going –– or, rather, WHY it is going on –– eludes me, my friends.

Announcement has been made of the Cabinet vote of 22-3 in favor of releasing Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar, Palestinian prisoners, and bodies of Hezbollah guerillas for the bodies of Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev –– who at this point are clearly thought to be dead. The ministers who voted against were Roni Bar-On (Finance), Ze'ev Boim (Housing) and Daniel Friedmann (Justice).

For the details of the agreement, see:


This vote came in spite of the advice of top security officials (the heads of Shin Bet and Mossad) that this was a bad move and would encourage further abductions. It even gives the message that it's OK to kill those Israelis who are abducted, and Israel will still trade.

Olmert's statement on the matter before the vote was that "...I came to the conclusion that as the prime minister of Israel I should recommended approval of the resolution that will bring to an end this painful chapter, even at the painful price that it extracts from us."

In the course of his statement, he indicated that release of Kuntar was probably the reason that Goldwasser and Regev were abducted in the first place. And we give them what they were seeking??

It must be noted that the families of Goldwasser and Regev have received a lot of publicity regarding their right to have their loved ones returned to them, and the pleading they've done to make sure the government would make this possible. Olmert and company undoubtedly hope to capitalize on popular sentiment in this regard.

Amongst leaders and potential leaders here, it was only former Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon who raised the question of the price being too high.


And Samir Kuntar? We held this Lebanese Druse –– who was a member of Palestinian Liberation Front –– in prison for years, but the death penalty would have been more appropriate (if we routinely levied a death penalty, which we don't).

In 1979, he entered Nahariya, Israel from Lebanon, by boat, with a group of three fellow terrorists. Entering the apartment of the Haran family, and knowing the police were on the way, they took Danny Haran and his four year old daughter, Einat, hostage and brought them down to the beach. When a shoot-out with police erupted, Samir Kuntar shot Danny in the back at close range in full view of his four year old daughter. Then he drowned Danny in the sea to make certain he was dead, and proceeded to smash Einat's head against the rocks, while she screamed, "Mommy, Daddy help me!" Then he crushed her head with the butt of his rifle.

This subhuman we release from prison? A great deal has been made of the feelings of the Goldwasser and Regev families, but what of the feelings of the Haran family?

It should be noted, by the way, that Kuntar is a declared recidivist. He has already announced that he will return to terrorism. And this we release from prison.

Wrong, shamefully, pathetically wrong.


So the Kuntar family and other despicable beings in Lebanon are celebrating tonight.

The Israeli government should collectively hang its head in shame.


Meanwhile, Palestinian Media Watch reports that the PA, our alleged partner in peace negotiations, has made the claim that Kuntar represents "heroism." PA TV has broadcast a picture of Kuntar alongside a map of Israel completely covered with the Palestinian flag.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 29, 2008.

Redacted from Editors at Family Security Matters

There has been much talk about Shari'a compliant finance (SCF) in recent months, but many Americans are still in the dark about exactly what it is and what it portends for the American economy and the freedoms Americans enjoy. This may be why the judge in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas last fall, declared a mistrial and five of six defendants face a retrial (one was found not guilty of most of the charges against him).

Terror expert Douglas Farah surmised at the time that part of the reason might have been because "perhaps the prosecution tried to cram too much information in with a group of jurors largely unfamiliar with anything to do with the case." Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism had a heated exchange with Alan Colmes of Fox News about whether the mainstream news media had even managed to get the story right.

SCF is a part of Shari'a law (also known as Islamic law), and dates back to the 9th Century. Shari'a law encompasses every facet of one's life, and those who seek to impose it upon Muslims –– and the world –– look to regulate everything from aspects of religious and social customs to political and military responsibilities. Shari'a law is, in fact, the law in countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran. The Taliban also recognizes Shari'a law, and subjected all of Afghanistan to it before U.S. forces entered that country after 9/11.

Earlier this year, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury faced a firestorm after he suggested in a BBC interview that the adoption of Shari'a law in Britain "seems unavoidable. As a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system." While his seemingly willing acceptance of this might shock, UK Muslims on welfare are eligible to receive extra benefits if they have more than one wife –– even though polygamy is considered illegal under British law. In essence, the Archbishop was correct when he said "certain conditions" of said Shari'a law are already recognized in today's British society!

Here is a partial listing of the effects of Shari'a law:

  • Women must obtain permission by their husbands or other male family members to do just about anything, including leaving the house –– which she must do in the company of a male family member.

  • Women and girls who are considered "disobedient" may be beaten into submission. (Mahmoud Salash, an imam in Lexington, Kentucky, said men "should beat them lightly" and it is acceptable because "it's in the Koran.")

  • Those who dishonor the family are subject to "honor killings." Typical reasons include a woman being raped or a woman dating/marrying a man against the will of her family. (Earlier this year, two girls in Irving, Texas were the victims of an alleged "honor killing" by their Muslim father, who is said to have disapproved of their American boyfriends and lifestyle.)

  • Dhimmitude (inferior status) of non-Muslims.

  • Death for those who slander Islam and for Muslims who leave the faith (apostates).

Under SCF provisions, profits must not benefit from anything considered haram (forbidden) in Islam such as gambling, alcohol, entertainment, pork products, etc. As such, Western financial institutions wishing to obtain some of the billions of petrodollars from the Middle East are offering services that meet these requirements. Still, not all profits will meet these stringent constraints and so to "cleanse" or "purify" them, they are donated to Islamic charities. Charity sounds well and good until you stop to think that some of these charities could support Islamic Jihad. In fact, the three largest Shari'a-compliant charities in the United States were closed down by the government for funding terrorist organizations: the aforementioned Holy Land Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

How many Americans would approve of SCF if they knew its full implications? Deroy Murdock makes an apt comparison:

Turn your clock back 70 years. Imagine that Wall Street banks and brokerage houses sold Nuremberg-compliant bonds and stock funds in 1938. American Nazi sympathizers bought financial instruments certified by Berlin-based advisors as free of "Jewish profits" from, say, Salomon Brothers and Bloomingdale's. In turn, a percentage of such funds' gains underwrote pro-Nazi charities, like the German-American Bund, and similar organizations in the Fatherland, like the Hitler Youth.

By investing in SCF schemes, Western financial institutions not only give Shari'a law credence but also ultimately aid Islamists in their attempt to use our own financial system against us. As it is, the West is subject to the ups and downs in the Middle Eastern oil industry. Could SCF be the next sub-prime crisis in the making? Think about it: the more money that is invested in the Middle East, the greater ability for the Middle East to pipe the tune the West dances to.

Make no mistake. So-called "Sharia-compliant financing" is neither about religion nor about God. It is about Islamist control and collectivization of Muslims against "the West" and free markets. Transnational Islamist movements of Muslim theocrats seek SCF systems as nothing more than a ruse. Islamist theocrats exploit Western deference to religious freedom in order to lay the foundations of economic systems which feign religion in order to strangulate the economic freedoms of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadar, June 29, 2008.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is President of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. He is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. Contact him by email at Constitution@usa.net

It has been reported that Hamas is demanding 1,000 terrorists now in Israeli jails in exchange for IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been held hostage for two years in Gaza. Hence, let's consider an article by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed's on the subject of prisoner exchange in Jewish law, but only insofar as it refers to the imprisonment of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg in the thirteenth century.

"Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293 c.e.), known as the Maharam, was one of the greatest of the early Jewish codifiers. At the age of seventy he was taken captive and placed in a prison in France. Emperor Rudolf I proceeded to demand an exorbitant sum for his release.

"To understand the full significance of this act it is important to realize that almost all of the rabbis and leaders of the Jewish communities in that generation were the Maharam's students...Even the great rabbis of the generation that followed were greatly influenced by the teachings of the Maharam. The most famous of his students was Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, known as the Rosh, whose rulings are cited extensively in Rabbi Yosef Karo's Shulchan Arukh.

"Because the Maharam was such an important a figure, Emperor Rudolf I hoped to extort a huge ransom from the Jewish community. Indeed, the emperor's evil scheme nearly succeeded. The Maharam's students and admirers were prepared to raise the sum necessary to free their master. They felt that though the law forbids paying more for a captive than the accustomed amount, when the captive at hand is the leading Torah scholar of the generation, and the entire community is in need of him and his Torah wisdom, it is permissible to pay any fee.

"But the renowned Maharam would not permit it to be paid, for he understood that such an act would only encourage the enemies of Israel to imprison other rabbis in the future and demand huge sums for their release. As a result, Rabbi Meir spent the final seven years of his life in prison –– and it was there that he died."

Rabbi Melamed goes on to say:
"Although … there are opinions that when the captive's life is at stake it is permissible to pay even more than the generally accepted amount, in wartime it is forbidden to give in to any such extortion whatsoever. The rule is that in times of war one does not submit to any of the enemies' demands. In fact, even in a case when the enemy only stole some straw and hey from a border village, the response must be a strong military one. For, as soon as one gives in to them regarding a small matter, they will gain confidence and increase their efforts to strike at us (see Eruvin 45a).

Therefore, if an enemy of Israel takes even a single hostage, we must go to battle against them in order to save the captive, for if we allow them to succeed in taking one hostage they will gain incentive and step up their efforts to strike at us." [added by me: WHICH WILL COST MORE LIVES]

HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 29, 2008.

(IsraelNN.com) The 1st World Conference of the Noahide Nations is underway in Florida.

The conference is taking place at the Ft. Lauderdale Airport Hilton Hotel, and is designed to bring Jews and Noahides together. The organizers stated that for this purpose, the location was specifically chosen for its proximity to a large Jewish populace.
Listen now at mms://msmedia.a7.org/shows/ts/tovia080618-2.mp3

The conference speakers include IsraelNationalRadio (INR) director Yishai Fleisher, speaking on "INR Support for the Future of the Noahide Movement," and show host Rabbis Chaim Richman, and other rabbinic scholars.

The four-day event features workshops and symposiums led by Jewish and Noahide scholars in the fields of Torah study, science, history and government.

Conference organizer Ray Pettersen, of the Dallas-based Noahide Nations, said, "Our world is plagued with violence and diminishing human dignity. Yet, we are also blessed with an unprecedented outpouring of Torah knowledge that is both timeless and even technological. That knowledge, coupled with a heightened sense of the need for community is the underlying theme of this summer's conference."

On display at the conference is what the conference organizers call the "Golden Crown of the High Priest of the Third Temple." The crown is actually a headplate known as the Tzitz, fashioned out of pure gold by the Temple Institute in the Old City of Jerusalem and completed last December. The Temple Institute stated at the time that the Tzitz "is ready to be worn by the High Priest in the rebuilt Holy Temple in Jerusalem." The words "Holy for G-d" are engraved on the headplate, in accordance with Exodus 28:36.

Last month, Rabbi Yaakov Cohen, Sheikh Abdaal Salaam and Reverend Michael Kroop addressed a Hebrew University audience on the topic of how the Seven Noahide Laws can help bring world peace. Rabbi Cohen, of The Institute of Noahide Code, who organized the conference, said the goal was to "use the Noahide laws as a starting point for dialogue between representatives of different traditions."

The seven Noahide laws, by which Gentiles are bound according to Torah law and which are being accepted by increasing numbers of non-Jews, are the following:

1. Belief in one G-d; no idol worship
2. Respecting G-d: Do not blaspheme His Name
3. Respect for human life: Do not murder
4. Respect for family: Do not commit immoral sexual acts
5. Respect for others' rights: Do not steal
6. Creation of a judicial system
7. Respect All Creatures: Do not eat live animals or be cruel to them

At the Florida conference, Pettersen presented Oscar-winning actor Jon Voight with the Zedekah Award for his charitable efforts and public support for the State of Israel, and Vendyl Jones received the Noah Award for his lifetime of work in spreading Torah and the Seven Laws of Noach. Other speakers include Rabbis Y. Hollander, Joel Bakst, and Michael Katz, as well as Dr. Andrew Goldfinger, Judge Rabbi Sander Goldberg, Jim Long, and more.

Hillel Fendel is senior news editor at Arutz-Sheva.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, June 29, 2008.

This was written by Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and is from The Sunday Times, Times Online

Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel's Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.

The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran's nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran's nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.

The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel's own nuclear weapons are believed to be made.

Major-General Mohammad Jafari, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, told a Tehran daily: "This country [Israel] is completely within the range of the Islamic Republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime –– despite all its abilities –– cannot confront it."

An editorial in a government newspaper, Jomhouri Eslami, said: "Our response will hit right at their temple."

The sabre-rattling coincided with a visit to Israel yesterday by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, for talks with his Israeli opposite number, Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi. This intensified speculation that Israel was seeking US approval for a possible attack on Iran.

"Although the visit had been planned well in advance, we got the feeling he was coming to make sure we'll obey the strict timetable agreed with the US," said an Israeli defence source. He refused to elaborate.

President George Bush has approved the linking of Israel to a US infrared satellite detection system that could spot Shahab missile launches within seconds.

This should enable the Israeli air force to destroy such missiles in the booster stage. The system will also give the Israelis about 15 minutes to seek shelter before any warhead hits.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 28, 2008.

Occasionally, it is useful to hear what opponents of Israel say, especially if such opponents are self-flagellating pro-Palestinian Jews, believing Israel can do nothing right, and those Arabs who despise Israel are indeed victims of the Jewish oppressor. Of course, I would not recommend doing this right after a meal unless a bucket is within easy reach.

The other day I bravely tuned in the liberal public radio station out of New York City, WBAI, whose views on Israel are so bizarrely skewed against the Jewish State even Al Jazeera Israel-bashers might blush. Mimi Rosenberg, 'Israel Apartheid' junkie and hostess with the leastest when it comes to Israel, indeed demonstrating her incredibly meager grasp of the beleaguered democratic nation's history, indeed demonstrating that her show 'Building Bridges' goes one way straight to Hamas headquarters, interviewed one so-called professor, a kindred spirit self-flagellating Jew (the name escapes me at the moment, but it doesn't matter) who even discussed Hamas' anti-Semitic charter, yet still blamed Israel for abusing Palestinians that in fact elected Hamas to govern Israeli abandoned Gaza, suggested the Jewish State had no right to put the squeeze on denizens of that strip of land still allowing their Arab brethren to fire missiles at Israel, and on and on ad nauseam until unexpectedly asserting one opinion making the whole time spent seething over his inflammatory vacuous lecture worthwhile. He, in effect, stated Barack Obama's perspective was no better than John McCain's when it comes to Israel. Wow! When someone of that ilk so puts down a politician, he has in fact enhanced the good name of that politician immeasurably. If Obama' s perspective on Israel disgusts self-flagellating Jews, he could very well be a true friend of Israel. At the least we might say Obama has one good reference.

It is good for Israel that both U.S. presidential candidates are viewed with disdain by those with liberal pro-Palestinian viewpoints, but one must further wonder why those with such a bent, indeed prone to champion today's collective underdog, are loathe to also view Israel as an underdog. Could they be upset at the Jewish state's presumed affiliation with a hawkish U.S. White House, or more likely could their knee jerk brains blow several circuits when confronted with the fact that against all odds Israel has crafted herself into a huge Middle East success story? Might they shudder at the notion that although many Israeli Arabs castigate the nation that feeds them, indeed provides them with many more freedoms and opportunities than would neighborhood Muslim regimes; such ingrates knowing where their pita is buttered rarely if ever opt to leave.

Take note of such inconvenient truths WBAI employees as well as kindred spirit producers and talk show hosts! Ask yourselves why those facts are not emphasized, as well as the fact that tormented Israel must fight to stay alive every minute of the day; then ask yourselves how under those circumstances she still maintains a first world economy boasting a disproportionate number of Nobel prize winners to boot! Is it improper to be successful, Mimi? Do you lose your status as an underdog and become a pariah when you transcend the odds and succeed, or are we witnessing plain old fashion anti-Semitism at work, and in your case a creepy Jewish anti-Semitism that makes any thinking Jew want to retch!?! Does the concept suicide bomber thus the need for walls and check points ever override your self-hating instincts Mimi? Do you ever muse over the plight of Sderot citizens who never know when a Hamas launched missile might snuff out the life of a precious Jewish child? Have you not contemplated Hamas' despicable current charter, its raison d'etre, including the following excerpt?

The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Are you upset that your would-be darling Obama has enough sense not to buy into your distorted views concerning Israel, understanding her trials and tribulations, seeing the terrorist Hamas organization for what it is?

WBAI and similar media outlets fight the good rhetorical fight for many worthy causes, including the ongoing genocide against Black Africans in Darfur Sudan perpetrated by Janjaweed terrorists at the behest of a sadistic Arab government in Khartoum, including ongoing horrific violent crimes occurring against citizens of other third world regimes, including the exploitation of labor worldwide, including the overall economic abuse and selective persecution of hapless folks in local neighborhoods and afar, yet unconscionably drop the ball when it comes to Israel. Could it be that Israel's public image is so tainted, exacerbated by misguided Jews who refuse to comprehend Israel's geographic plight, exacerbated by misguided Jews obsessed with the misleading concept of occupation when it comes to Judea and Samaria, exacerbated by misguided Jews who refuse to recognize the folly of abandoning Gaza, exacerbated by misguided Jews who in general just don't get it when it comes to their homeland, unfair treatment by folks in the media who should be Israel's allies becomes inevitable? Shows like 'Wake-up call', another forum on WBAI, should every once in a while support the beleaguered Jewish state, but unless such misguided Jews themselves wake up, including talk show hosts like Ms. Rosenberg, that possibility will remain lower than the possibility that fundamentalist jihadists will lay down their arms and respect the right of Israel to even exist. Perhaps a 'disappointing' Obama or Bush 'clone' McCain, from the skewed perspective of liberally foolish folks in the media, will help reverse Israel's public relations failures brought about in part by self-hating Jews. Let us be audacious and hope so!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, June 28, 2008.

This article is called "Your Brain Lies to You" and was written by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt. It appeared yesterday in the New York Times

Sam Wang, an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton, and Sandra Aamodt, a former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience, are the authors of "Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life."

To everyone who publishes pro-Israel messages:

This article, in the NY Times, presents research about the brain and how it stores lies. It reinforces what we have been telling Israeli supporters over the past three years. The article, below, will give you much-needed insight as to why the Arabs have successfully sold their lies to the public and why Israel fails when they attempt to rebut them. The Arabs apparently understand how the brain lies. So study this article.

Unfortunately, far too often Hebrew and Jewish scholars do not understand the psychology underpinning successful propaganda and thus they inadvertently reinforce Arab/Islamic lies when they attempt to rebut them. This article offers advice to Obama which is the same advice we have been giving you over the past three years –– that is, the more you ring your enemy's bell, the more the brain remembers the lie your enemy is telling about you. Here is an excerpt from the article:

"Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man."

How to go about this? Do not preface your message with a scholarly ten-page regurgitation of the Arab imperialist's lies and then conclude with a dry, unimpassioned defense of Israel. Begin your propaganda with a strongly stated declaration in favor of Israel, even exaggerate –– after all, this is propaganda, and you want to win. Repeatedly emphasize your enemy's bloody flaws. Their disgusting practices. Their unquenchable greed. And don't let the enemy interrupt you. Talk over their voices. When you find a successful chord, play it again and again. And this advice holds true for rebutting Israel's enemies within –– that is, the self-loathing, self-soiling Jews who declare their eagerness to "make painful concessions" to the enemy. When you defeat an enemy, you must bring them to their knees. And then keep their land to remind them that they are the defeated aggressors. This is how France became France and, most importantly, how the new state of Saudi Arabia originated: the Islamic terrorist Abdul Aziz butchered village after village and seized the major portions of the Arabian peninsula, then gave his family name to the territories he conquered when Saudi Arabia was coalesced, in 1932, into the backward, tyrannical, undeservedly monied, state it is today.

When Iran brays about demolishing Israel, immediately state in rebuttal that Iran will never recover the territory they will lose if they dare declare war against Israel. Do not begin your rebuttal with an "even-handed" ten page scholarly, analysis of Ahmenejad's "thinking."

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the NON-evangelical Christians for Zion.

FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories –– and mislead us along the way.

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.

Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like "I think I read somewhere" or even with a reference to a specific source.

In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.

Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.

In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.

Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke –– or about a presidential candidate.

Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.

Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students' impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.

In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes's ideal.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, June 28, 2008.

"That Israel will pay a price in blood if the deals go through is a certainty. That more Israelis will meet the fates of Schalit, Regev and Goldwasser is a certainty. The only thing we do not know today is the names of the victims. They could be any one of us. Indeed, they are all of us. For all of us are equally targeted simply by virtue of the fact that we are Israelis." –– Caroline Glick

Dear friends,

For once, I am on the side of the Israeli government, as long as its debate and decision on the painful subject is done in the context of what is good for Israel, rather than what is good for the ministers' personal politics.

The subject is the imminent release of hundreds of "Palestinian" murderers in an exchange for three abducted Israeli soldiers of which two are presumed dead.

After you read the latest masterpiece article on the subject by Caroline Glick (see below), I would be interested in your opinions. It appeared June 26, 2008 in the Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214492517226&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

This debate in Israel has a direct association with the debate in the USA over the fate of terrorist detainees, caught red-handed (with blood on their hands). After all, we (Israel, the US and all other civilized nations) are involved in the same war, shoulder to shoulder.

On Sunday Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will bring the matter of IDF reserve soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser before his cabinet. The two reservists, who are presumed dead, have not been heard from since they were kidnapped to Lebanon by Hizbullah on July 12, 2006. Olmert will instruct his ministers to vote on whether Israel should release Samir Kuntar and three Hizbullah terrorists from its prisons to secure the return of their bodies.

On April 21, 1979, Kuntar and four other terrorists infiltrated Israel from Lebanon. Kuntar entered the Nahariya apartment belonging to Danny and Smadar Haran and their daughters, two-year-old Yael and Einat, a four-month-old baby. Kuntar forced Danny and Einat to the beach below. There he shot Danny in the head and then drowned him in the sea. He crushed Einat's skull on a rock with his rifle butt. Smadar evaded capture by hiding in a crawlspace of their apartment with Yael. While trying to keep Yael silent, Smadar inadvertently suffocated her.

Kuntar has pledged that if released, he will join Hizbullah and continue his quest to bring about the destruction of Israel. He has no regrets.

As the government ministers vote to release Kuntar and his associates in exchange for Goldwasser and Regev's bodies, Ofer Dekel, Olmert's point man for hostage negotiations, will be sitting in Cairo. There he is negotiating the price of releasing IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who for two years has been held hostage by Hamas and its fellow terror groups in Gaza. Unlike Regev and Goldwasser, Schalit is presumed alive. His captors have forced him to send messages to his parents demanding that Israel release Palestinian terrorists in exchange for his freedom.

According to the Egyptian media, Hamas is demanding 1,000 terrorists now in Israeli jails in exchange for Schalit. Most of them are convicted murderers. For its part, the government has expressed its willingness to release murderers for Schalit. But it is still unclear how many.

Among the many killers whose release Hamas demands are the masterminds of the Seder massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya where 30 people were murdered on March 27, 2002. According to the Arab media, most of the masterminds of suicide bombings in recent years are on Hamas's list.

It is impossible to know precisely how many Israelis will be killed in the future if the deals now on the table are approved. But past experience shows that at a minimum, dozens of Israelis now innocently going about their business will be murdered by the terrorists Israel releases. And at a minimum, one or two Israelis will be abducted by Hamas or Hizbullah or one of their sister terror organizations. They will be abducted in Israel or while they are travelling abroad and they will be brought to Lebanon or Gaza and the cycle of blood extortion and psychological warfare will begin anew.

That Israel will pay a price in blood if the deals go through is a certainty. That more Israelis will meet the fates of Schalit, Regev and Goldwasser is a certainty. The only thing we do not know today is the names of the victims. They could be any one of us. Indeed, they are all of us. For all of us are equally targeted simply by virtue of the fact that we are Israelis.

Given these certainties, it is obvious that the deals now on the table ought to be rejected completely. And yet, they will both almost certainly be approved. The fact that this is the case is yet another damning indictment of Israel's elected leaders and its media. In equal parts, they share the blame for the fact that Israel is about to accede to Faustian bargains that will bring untold suffering to the country.

TO DATE, the only clear public call to reject these deals was made by former IDF chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe Ya'alon. At a conference on military leadership Tuesday, Ya'alon argued against the deals explaining, "In some situations, the price to pay as part of the deal is much heavier than the price of losing the captive soldier."

Ya'alon's statement should have been a springboard for a reasoned debate. But the local media would have none of it. Rather than enable a responsible debate, the media called on Schalit's father, Noam Schalit, to rebut Ya'alon.

Noam Schalit brutally and unfairly denounced Ya'alon as a political operative. In his words, "No politician or political operative has the right to determine the fate of an IDF POW, except a commander during battle. Ya'alon was an army commander, but today he is mainly a politician and a political operative. He and anyone else can determine a POW's fate only if it concerns their own son."

Piling on, Goldwasser's father, Shlomo Goldwasser, said, "Such words can only be spoken by a man whose son is not held captive by the enemy. He would have spoken differently had the matter been a personal concern of his."

The brutal truth is that the hostages' fathers have things precisely backwards. With all due respect, it is they that should not be listened to.

Through no fault of their own, the Regev, Goldwasser and Schalit families have become the mouthpieces of Hizbullah and Hamas. This is as natural as it is tragic.

The moment their sons were abducted, the Schalit, Regev and Goldwasser families also became prisoners. In constant agony over the fate of their sons, these families are incapable of acknowledging the cruel and devastating fact that the safety of three soldiers cannot be placed above Israel's national security. In their unmitigated suffering, they cannot come to terms with this horrible fact because for them the country, and indeed the world, is made up of their loved ones. This is the natural human condition. Each person's world is defined by the presence and absence of his loved ones. For the Goldwassers, Regevs and Schalits, Israel is a meaningless, cold, dark place when it doesn't include their sons Ehud, Eldad and Gilad.

And it is precisely for this reason that they cannot be allowed to dictate policy. It is precisely for this reason that the only ones who can responsibly weigh Israel's options for releasing them are those who are not personally affected by their plight.

IN 2005, then-prime minister Ariel Sharon had his ministers vote on a proposed deal in which Israel would release hundreds of terrorists in exchange for the bodies of IDF soldiers Benny Avraham, Omar Suweid and Adi Avitan, and for Elhanan Tenenbaum, an Israeli drug dealer held hostage by Hizbullah. Among the few ministers who voted against the deal was former Prisoner of Zion Natan Sharansky.

Sharansky recalls that Sharon called him the evening before the vote in an effort to secure his support. "He told me, 'As a former prisoner, you above all should understand our moral responsibility to bring about their release.'"

Sharansky responded that, indeed, "As a prisoner, it is important to know that your country is doing everything it can to secure your release. But it is also true that you are not willing to be released at any price. There are things that are more important than your personal survival."

It is a stinging indictment of Israel's political and media culture that the debate about these life-threatening deals has been dominated by the impassioned and tragic pleas of the hostages' families. As Sharansky notes, if as Messieurs Schalit and Goldwasser argue, issues of paramount national security are to be determined by the parents of soldiers, then no government can ever commit forces to battle. It is an abdication of national responsibility for Olmert to send the Goldwasser, Regev and Schalit families to his colleagues to beg them to vote in favor of these blood deals. And it is an abdication of responsibility by the media when they provide these terrified, victimized families with an open microphone to rail against our politicians for refusing to have mercy on them.

Due to Hizbullah's and Hamas's deliberate, evil designs, the Goldwasser, Schalit and Regev families find themselves set apart from the rest of their countrymen. And since their personal suffering is easier to understand than the general suffering of the public if the murderers go free, it is difficult, but not impossible to understand what is at stake.

Again, that the price is not clear is the fault of the media and the pandering politicians. Disgracefully, both have left the Israeli people as a whole unrepresented in this debate.

AND THIS is not a unique situation. In recent years, led by the hydra of its media and self-interested politicians, the Israeli public has had next to no representation in the public square. This came across clearly in the politicians' handling and the media's coverage of the other major story of the week. That story of course was the backroom deal forged Tuesday night between the Labor Party and Kadima that torpedoed the opposition's plan to hold a preliminary vote Wednesday to dissolve the Knesset and move to general elections in November.

The deal, in which Kadima committed itself to holding a primary for its leadership post in September, guaranteed the Kadima-Labor-Shas government another nine months in power. Olmert, Labor Chairman Ehud Barak and their surrogates have defended the deal by arguing that what Israel needs most now is political stability. The only one harmed by their decision, they proclaimed, is Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu. The media parroted their arguments, scoffing at Likud politicians for "sewing their ministerial suits too early."

As with the hostages-for-terrorists deals, by personalizing the issue at hand, both the politicians and the media ignored the public. The reason that "stability" can only be assured by preventing elections is that for the past two years, public opinion polls have consistently shown that the public wants to replace the Kadima-Labor-Shas government with a Likud-led government. It is not the personal ambitions of Likud politicians that were scuttled on Tuesday night. It was the public's will.

It may seem crass to conflate issues affecting Israel's national security with issues affecting the identity of Israel's national leadership. It can be argued that they are unrelated. But the fact of the matter is that in both cases, no one is representing the public interest. In their rush to treat general issues as personal stories, whether of victimized families or of ambitious politicians, both our media and our leaders behave as if there are no general consequences for their actions.

Personal stories are always powerful. Whether they are tragic, titillating or irritating, they never fail to attract our attention. But their attraction must not dwarf matters of national concern. Looking ahead, Israel's troubles will not end until our leaders and our media finally accept that Israel's collective fate is not the personal affair of any one of us.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 28, 2008.

Having sex with underage children is popular in sharia countries.

This is from Islam Review
Write to Feedback@IslamReview.com


65.4 "If you divorce your (child) wife before she reaches menstruation age her idda is three months".

According to this aya a muslim man can marry (and have sex with) even a one day old infant girl.


There is no argument on this point among Islamic authorities whether shia or sunni. they all agree that a muslim man can have sex with baby girl.

This is what Imam Khomeini, the top shia authority says:

"A muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her". (Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990)

Here is what the the top sunni authority says (on a Saudi website) about having sex with a one day old baby girl.
Go to "site video" and click on "sex with a one day old girl"


Prophet had special feelings for cute little baby girls.

**Ibn Ishaq: Suhayli, 2.79: In the riwaya of Yunus Ibn Ishaq recorded that the apostle saw Ummu'l-Fadl hen she was baby crawling before him and said, 'If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.' (p. 311)

** Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was fatim (age of nursing) and he said, "If she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her." (Musnad Ahmad, Number 25636)


Our prophet fell in love with Aisha when she was shown by Allah to him in his dreams when she still an infant.

Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth(as an infant) and said to me, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered it; and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this dream is from Allah, He will cause it to come true.' "


Whenever Prophet visited Abu Bakr house he made Aisha sit in his lap and played with her..


When Ayesha reached the age of 6 Prophet decided to marry her. He asked her father for her hand.

Abu Bakr: Rasulullah you must be joking. She is hardly six years old. And you are in your fiftees.

Prophet: She is old enough for me.

Abu Bakr: Didn't you marry off your own daughters when they were much older.?.

Prophet:That was before aya 65.4 was revealed. Now a muslim can marry even a day old infant girl.

Abu: "But Rasulullah you called me your brother, how can you marry your foster niece".

Prophet:" But you are not my real brother you are only a " brother in Islam"."*

*Muslim Book 62, Number 18:

Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Abu: "But Rasulullah, last week you turned down Hamza's daughter (who was ugly and in her teens) You said you cannot marry your foster niece**.

** Bukharihari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 37:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "

Prophet: " Allah had shown Ayesha to me in my dreams, that was Allah's indication for me to marry her, I am helples in this matter".


Abu was concerned about the welfare of her tiny tot sleeping with a horny old man who was given the libido of 30 men by Allah.

Abu: " I will let you marry her only on one condition, you will have to abstain from having sexual intercourse with the little one before she turns 9".

Prophet was disappointed but he had no choice.

Prophet: "O.K. but I will not abstain from using other halal methods of pleasuring ".




Sahih Dawood Book 1, Number 0270:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

One night prophet entered upon me and said: Uncover your thighs. I, therefore, uncovered both of my thighs. Then he put his cheek and chest on my thighs.


Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:

'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle me, he used to order me to put on an Izar and start fondling..


Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:

Narrated Aisha:

"Allah's Apostle used to think that he had sexual intercourse while he actually had not"


Bukhari,Book 002, Number 0572:

Ayesha said " Whenever I found dried semen on the garments of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), I scraped it off with my nails.


Allah was very happy for the prophet when finally Ayesha turned nine.. He sent Gibraeel to congratulate him and to witness the consummation. Prophet introduced Allah's envoy to Ayesha.

**Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 112:

Allah's Apostle said (to me), 'O Aish ('Aisha)! This is Gabriel greeting you.' I said, 'Peace and Allah's Mercy and Blessings be on him, you see what I don't see' " She was addressing Allah 's Apostle.(only prophets can see angels)


Sunan Abu Dawood Vol3 Bk36 N0 4917

Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he had sexual intercourse with me. I was nine years old.

Sunan Nasai Bk of Marriage, No 3256

A'ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was six and had sexual intercourse with me when I was nine and I was playing with dolls.


Although Prophet slept with hundreds of slave girls captured women and concubines in addition to his large number of wedded wives, Allah only sent quranic revelations to prophet when he slept with Aisha.

Tabari Vl7, page :7 Ayesha said "Inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket".

Bukhari Vol 5 Bk57 N 119

Prophet said, By Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman except Aisha."


When a pedophile found out that sex with children is halal and Sunna he converted to islam and changed his name to Mohammed. Here is the news from England.

Paedophile changes name and converts to Islam in jail

Daily Record.co.uk
Apr 7 2008
Exclusive by Amy Devine
A pedophile has converted to Islam and changed his name behind bars.
Paul Falconer, 40, now insists bosses at Peterhead prison call him Mohammed.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio HaDaR Tezza, June 28, 2008.

How many lives did it cost not to have applied the existing death penalty –– it never was for terrorists except for Eichmann –– for human beasts like Samir Kuntar, who in 1979, coming from Lebanon on a dingy, murdered entire families in Naharya, then had his fun murdering a father in front of his four year old daughter, so that her daddy's death were the last thing seen by the baby before her own head was smashed against a rock by the same speaking biped, as he himself proudly declared??

The life of Leon Klinghoffer, zt"l, the murdered paraplegic, then thrown into the ocean to the fish by Abu Abbas' terrorists under Arafat's command, during the highjacking of the ship Achille Lauro in 1985, was just one of the many lost lives because of the immoral choice to leave predators like Kuntar alive: the liberation of Kuntar was the request of the terrorists who highjacked the Achille Lauro.

Many have been the people successfully kidnapped by Hizbollah and many the attempted kidnappings with dead soldiers, to exchange them with predators like Kuntar, comfortably held in an Israeli jail with free Red Cross and press visits, contrary to what happens to our people kidnapped by the muslim bipeds: our kidnapped soldiers disappear into nothing, in total isolation, and often they are given back piece by piece or just vanish.



Contact Sergio at nutella59@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 28, 2008.

This was posted by Freedom Fighter on the JoshuaPundit website
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/ explosives-sniffing-police-dogs-offend.html

Not only that, but their complaints are being taken seriously!
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Muslims_object_to_ sniffer_dog_checks/articleshow/3172842.cms)

Apparently there have been numerous complaints by Muslims over the use of sniffer dogs to detect explosives by British police in areas like airports and subway terminals because Muslim culture considers dogs to be unclean animals.

There are even verses in some of the Hadiths calling for the killing of all dogs as a holy act unto Allah, and in case you didn't realize, this was what was behind Muslim cabbies here in America refusing to pick up blind people with seeing eye dogs.

Apparently Muslims also have a problem with electronic body scanning machines as well.

Considering that none of these measures were in widespread use before some of their co-religionists decided to start blowing up the rest of us, it seems to me that the least Muslims in the West could do would be to go along with the program and be inconvenienced like the rest of us....or return to places where the cultural norms are more to their liking.

According to a British Transport Police spokesman, they will still continue to use the dogs for now, but will instruct their personnel to be more 'culturally sensitive' and are considering only having the dogs sniff luggage rather than potential passengers.

Of course, most homicide bombers place the explosives on their persons, so sniffing luggage is not exactly going to get the job done, is it?


Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 27, 2008.


At Masada, some date seeds were found. They were about 2,000 years old. They probably had been in fruit stored by the defenders against Roman siege.

One of the seeds has sprouted into a four-foot tree. If female, it may bear fruit in a few years. It is the oldest seed to have germinated (Arutz-7, 6/13).


For two years, the government of Israel has threatened often to invade Gaza, to stop its barrage of Israeli cities. It keeps finding different excuses for not invading, some excuses being contradictory. They appear to be merely excuses, not reasons. The Israeli media takes the threats seriously (because it assists the government, but the Arabs no longer take the threats seriously).

Israelis suspect that politicians are afraid that the public would lose patience with it for its invasion force taking many months to clear out the terrorists. This is a government that puts off difficult decisions more than most governments. The politicians are thinking now of coming elections and how they would appear in light of an invasion (sorry, lost source.)


Hamas has news websites in Arabic and in English. The one in Arabic reported that its men were preparing explosives to use against Israelis, but they blew up prematurely, destroying the house and killing some of its men and family, all martyrs.

The one in English reported that "Zionist" airplanes blew up a house of women and children (IMRA, 6/13). It is the Muslims who deliberately attack civilians.

Why the contradictory messages? The one in Arabic seems to admit the uncomfortable truth, that they jeopardize their own civilians and, for religious reasons, call them heroes. The one in English seems designed to produce anti-Israel propaganda and sympathy, as if the Muslim Arabs care about civilians, their own or enemy ones, though they don't.


He told the Israeli communities bombarded from Gaza to have more of a fighting spirit and stop complaining (IMRA, 6/13). What the civilians want is that the Army fight. It is Vilnai's government that lacks a fighting spirit!


I cannot forgive Pres. Bush nor most of our modern Presidents for their efforts to appease the Arabs by rendering Israel defenseless, or is it to render Israel defenseless and incidentally appease the Arabs? Some of those Presidents pretend to be friends of Israel. It's taking a long time for our society to acknowledge the enmity of Arab oil suppliers and that terrorists who are anti-Israel also are anti-US, and that that includes Abbas and Fatah.

Neither do I condone Pres. Bush's efforts against most environmental protection. Pres. Clinton was supposed to be an environmentalist, but he waited until the last months of his eight-year reign to propose major fuel-saving measures, such that the incoming Pres. Bush was able to overturn them.

I am reassessing Pres. Bush. Like many friends, I was suspicious of his raft of measures favoring business and the rich. We thought it was just class warfare. My friends still do. Perhaps it is they who are engaged in class warfare, for the Democrats would punish business for prospering. Bush's reforms worked.

Other countries that emulate them, prosper. Countries that have lowered taxes and reduced onerous government regulations found their economies growing much faster, as did America's. There would have been more reforms, but the Democrats and liberal critics beat Bush down instead of helping reform. No matter how fast our economy grew and reduced unemployment, they carped. Bush was not a forceful leader who knew how to explain his ideas persistently.

As time goes on, more of Bush's program turns out to have been sounder than his critics. He opposed the Kyoto treaty as unfair to the US and unfeasible. For that he is much criticized. Now it turns out that China emits more greenhouse gases than does the US, but Kyoto did not require much of China. Compliance would bankrupt us, and for dubious advantage. Bush was right.

I think that the Democrats acted in a partisan way, blocking appointments to the point of sabotage, and not trying to understand Bush's proposed reforms. Making reform that has been put off is like trying to lose weight. The longer the task is put off, the longer and more trying it becomes. Reform is difficult in a democracy, where protest is allowed and people promote their interests at the expense of the nation's. People demand subsidy until the forces that produce them can't keep up and the country loses business and debt becomes onerous.

In Germany, people complained about the reforms, disregarded the benefits they produced, and got the government to backtrack.

I'm not rich. This year I suffered from high taxes that the Democrats refused to lower. In a couple of years, the Democrats intend to let his tax reductions lapse, sothat they can spend much more on programs that probably won't work and which would reduce the competitiveness of American business. The Democrats don't realize that in a global economy, and one in which the US does not dominate; we cannot prosper unless we are competitive.

Recently, private American freight railroads were freed of excessive government regulation. They prospered and became cheaper than fuel-guzzling trucking. Nevertheless, Congress proposes regulating them, again, which would hobble their initiative. The Democrats propose regulating much else, besides. As if the government knows better.

In recent years, the federal government, acting politically correct rather than economically, intimidated mortgage lenders to lend to unstable house-purchasers. That exacerbated the problem. In addition, lenders leveraged poor mortgages on their own, but Sen. Obama refers to "the failed economic policies of Pres. Bush." They were Sen. Obama's failed policies as much as anyone's, because Congress bears responsibility for policy. In any case, Obama does not specify which ones failed. His audience just wants to hate Bush, so they don't feel a need to sort out the issues, separating what works from what doesn't.

Obama does cite the war as a cause of public debt, but not Congress' excessive spending by both parties. Obama considers the war unnecessary to start and to win. He doesn't understand that we have to fight back against the totalitarian aggressors of our time, and that once started, pulling out precipitously would give those aggressors a rallying point and victory, and that if we hadn't entered the war, a responsible President and Congress would have been obliged to spend large sums building up our forces so they could handle the new threats. That build-up still is due. I have no confidence that Obama would keep us as relatively safe as did Bush.


Hamas enforces a strict Muslim code in Gaza. It brooks no opposition nor even independent, non-political gatherings. The people don't mind being completely controlled. They see their future as separate from Abbas' less austere P.A..

Hamas easily seized Gaza after having provided services the corrupt Fatah regime failed to. Hamas rules efficiently, but the Israeli blockade keeps the people poor. Well, Gaza always was poor. The blockade lets through truckloads of goods, but the people suffer from it cruelly. Much else comes in through tunnels from Egypt. Hamas taxes a $5,000 tunnel shipment $3,000. The local government cannot afford to treat sewage; fish are more contaminated.

Hamas is offering Israel a truce (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 6/15, A1).

Abbas' part of the P.A., is not under blockade, but also does not properly treat sewage. When Egypt ran Gaza, it forbad local employment except as terrorists. When Israel liberated Gaza, it built much infrastructure, revived the water supply that the Arabs ruined on their own, and raised the standard of living significantly. Considering the high taxes for making war, the unmentioned Hamas theft of fuel and other goods Israel lets through, and the discouragement to business investment in a place dedicated to war and arbitrary dictatorship, no wonder the people suffer and are poor! The blockade is a reaction to Hamas' war. That war is cruel to innocent Israelis, but the article discusses only hardship to the civilians, who approve of their dictatorship. I don't think that a people favoring terrorist war on peace-seeking Israel, deserves sympathy as much as their Israeli victims. Why does the US insist that the two, divisive parts of the P.A. be contiguous?


This Sunday NY Times had two cartoons about the campaign, both, as usual, favoring Obama. In one, McCain waffled. In the other, Fox News reported that Obama sometimes doesn't war a flag pin, does terrorist fist jabs, is a closet Muslim, and is rumored to have fathered two black children (6/15).

McCain deserves the criticism. Obama, who zig-zags constantly, deserves much more criticism. It would be farer to at least show both of them waffling.

Fox's criticism is silly. That's an easy target. Serious criticism would be that Obama originally was a well-regarded Muslim, but now lies that he wasn't. Is he lying because he always does? Then he is an apostate subject to assassination. Or is he still sympathetic to Islam and the most un-American and stupid candidate since Carter?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, June 29, 2008.

I appreciate Google's usefulness and innovative ways to help us access information. I think its search engine is indispensable. But I don't appreciate arbitrary inclusions/exclusions. Google has refused to remove the Jew Watch blog, a vicious frontrunner in the "I hate Jews" race. You might bleep back at me: free speech, free speech. O.K, so why is Google shutting down anti-Obama sites that it made available? According to today's Atlas Shrugs, the NoObama or NOBAMA bloggers that have been locked out of their own blogsites include:

Blue Lyon @ http://bluelyon.blogspot.com
Come A Long Way @ http://comealongway.blogspot.com
Hillary or Bust @ http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com
McCain Democrats @ http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com
NObama Blog @ http://nobamablog.blogspot.com
politicallizard.blogspot.com @ http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com
Reflections in Tyme @ http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com

So nu, what happened to free and unfettered speech?

What is even worse, Google is beginning to contaminate its own information presentations. Google Earth is fascinating. Kids and grownups enjoy it so much they don't even realize they are swigging a dollop of geographic information while they play. But read the article below. More of this kind of partisan politics, we won't be able to trust google. What a shame.

This was written by Andre Oboler and it was published as a Jerusalem Issue Brief (Vol. 8, No. 5, 26 June 2008) by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). Contact JCPA at http://www.jcpa.org

Dr. Andre Oboler is a social media expert. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Lancaster University, UK, and is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He is currently a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and edits ZionismOnTheWeb.org –– a website countering on-line hate.


  • Virtual Israel, as represented by Google Earth, is littered with orange dots, many of which claim to represent "Palestinian localities evacuated and destroyed after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." Thus, Israel is depicted as a state born out of colonial conquest rather than the return of a people from exile. Each dot links to the "Palestine Remembered" site, where further information advancing this narrative can be obtained.

  • Many of the claims staked out in Google Earth present misinformation, and sites known to be ruins in 1946 are claimed to be villages destroyed in 1948. Arab villages which still exist today are listed as sites of destruction. The Google Earth initiative is not only creating a virtual Palestine, it is creating a falsification of history.

  • The concept of "replacement geography" replaces the historical connection of one people to the land with a connection between another people and the land. The inclusion of virtual Palestine, superimposed on Israel in the core layer of Google Earth, is an example of replacement geography advanced by technology.

  • Those wishing to explore Israel in Google Earth are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest. Google should remove the narrative and treat Israel as it treats every other country on the globe. The core layer of Google Earth should be ideology free and not serve as a platform for indoctrination or a campaign to wipe Israel off the virtual map.

    The influence of the Internet on our lives is increasing. News, advertising, employment, education, and networking are being affected. Israel's security is especially vulnerable to the manipulation of geography. The online world allows the creation of a virtual reality that at times bears only passing resemblance to facts on the ground. The gap between reality and virtual reality is further exploited by political activists promoting what we term "replacement geography," a means of controlling the virtual representation of land in place of controlling the land itself. In an information age, control on the common map may be worth more in negotiations than control on the ground.

Google Earth

With a user base of 400 million,[1] Google Earth uses satellite imagery combined with maps, terrain, and 3D buildings to present the earth at various levels of magnification. Key features (geography, place details, pictures, etc.) are included with the download of Google Earth in what is known as a "core layer." Users can also download "custom layers" created by other users, which provide educational, historical, or special interest information to be accessed by those wishing to take the Google Earth experience further.

The Google Earth website was the 8th most searched for website in the UK at the start of 2006.[2] The user base in June 2007 was 200 million,[3] up 100 percent from reports10 months earlier.[4] The application has broad appeal, with almost a quarter of the visitors to Google Earth over the age of 55.[5] Google Earth has been used by campaign groups to raise public awareness; examples include grass roots environmental campaigns that created a layer with information against deforestation; a WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) layer showing large-scale environmental and socioeconomic shifts; and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum which created a layer with information on the crisis in Darfur. These projects were custom layers which users could add to Google Earth.[6]

Virtual Reality

Virtual Israel, as represented by Google Earth, is littered with dozens of orange dots. Orange dots represent contributions from the user community, and those appearing by default have been accepted into the core layout by Google Earth. In the case of Israel, most of these dots claim to represent "one of the Palestinian localities evacuated and destroyed after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." For example, Ramat Aviv, the site of Tel Aviv University, appears as Al Shaykh Muwannis. While generally Google Earth does not erase Israeli towns and kibbutzim, it has heavily integrated a politically motivated Palestinian narrative into the map of Israel. As a result, Israel is depicted as a state born out of colonial conquest rather than the return of a people from exile. Each orange dot links to the "Palestine Remembered" site, where custom layers which further advance this narrative can be obtained.

Early press reports portrayed the virtual Palestine initiative as documentation of fact and included Israeli comments that it was "biased but legitimate."[7] Later research showed that many of the claims staked out in Google Earth were presenting misinformation. Kiryat Yam was wrongly claimed to be built on the Palestinian village of Ghawarina. Many sites known to be ruins in 1946 are claimed to be villages destroyed in 1948. Arab villages which still exist today are listed as sites of destruction.[8] The Google Earth initiative is not only creating a virtual Palestine, it is creating a falsification of history.

Google Earth's core information also includes other problems. Previously, areas beyond the "green line" were labeled as "Occupied Territories," a phraseology which is sometimes used to justify terrorism, rather than "disputed territories."[9] The area listed as "occupied" also included the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[10] Google Earth places Mt. Scopus and its Hebrew University campus in Jerusalem within Jordanian territory prior to 1967, even though it was an area where Israel exercised control during that period, according to the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

In March 2008 the Gaza Strip was still listed as "Israeli-occupied," despite Israel's full withdrawal in 2005 and the military takeover of the Strip by Hamas in mid-2007. By May 2008 (after press coverage), the label was changed to read "Gaza Strip." A note states: "Many sources still regard the Gaza Strip as 'Israeli-occupied' despite formal Israeli withdrawal in September 2005."[11] There is still no mention of Hamas' control.

Politically-Loaded Geography

"Replacement geography" builds on the concept of "replacement theology," a position that spurred anti-Semitism within the church and which, starting with Vatican II, has been removed from Christian doctrine. Indeed, it has been stated that recognition of the State of Israel by the Vatican completed this process.[12] Replacement theology stated that Christians had inherited the covenant and replaced the Jews as the chosen people. The concept of replacement geography similarly replaces the historical connection of one people to the land with a connection between another people and the land.

This was famously applied by the Romans when they renamed Judea to Palaestinia, and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina in 135 CE in an effort to destroy the Jewish people after the Bar Kokhba revolt. In more recent times, replacement geography has resulted in the destruction of Jewish artifacts at the Temple Mount.[13]

The inclusion of virtual Palestine, superimposed on Israel in the core layer of Google Earth, is an example of replacement geography advanced by technology. Those wishing to find directions, explore the cities of Israel, or randomly wander across this small piece of land are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest. This is the sort of replacement the ancient Romans tried and failed to achieve. The promotion of a replacement narrative works against a compromise solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, inspiring absolutist positions rather than a negotiated settlement.

Main Implications

Generally, Google allows all kinds of organizations or individuals to create overlays with their own information on its map. These overlays are only available to those who specifically request them, but they are not automatically incorporated into the core map of Google Earth that every user entering its website can see. Disturbingly, Google has incorporated the Palestinians' overlays and their accompanying narrative into its core maps of Israel. As Google maintains editorial control over its core layer, it has responsibility for its content, which it clearly has not adequately exercised.

Google Earth presents a tremendous challenge by allowing historical revisionism. Maps of the world have changed with evolving historical circumstances everywhere. Yet theoretically, with this tool, organizations seeking to make a claim for Mexican sovereignty over territories incorporated into the U.S. in the nineteenth century could raise such arguments by revising the map of Texas or California. Rather than serving as an educational resource, Google Earth could simply evolve into a website for political warfare.

For those who do not physically visit Israel, the "facts" on this virtual ground are real. It is to be expected that people will form their opinion on issues such as borders, land rights, and historic connection based on sources like Google Earth. The social propagation of a narrative of Israeli aggression and ethnic cleansing –– an aspect of "Anti-Semitism 2.0"[14] –– is spread through Google Earth.

Without a response that includes new information about the historical connection of the Jewish people to Israel throughout the ages, as well as modern Israeli history and the Israel of today, the world's opinion of Israel can only grow dimmer. An increase in content –– assuming Google will eventually add it to the core layer, something that is far from certain –– would address the vast imbalance, yet do little for the user experience.

A far better solution would be for Google to remove the narrative and treat Israel as it treats every other country on the globe. Both the Palestinian narrative and promotion of Israel can have their place, but this should be in optional layers. The core layer of Google Earth should be ideology free and not serve as a platform for indoctrination or a campaign to wipe Israel off the virtual map.


1. Mike Swain, "Amazon Tribe Using Google Earth to Battle Illegal Loggers," Daily Mirror, 21 June 2008,
amazon-tribe-using-google-earth- to-battle-illegal-loggers-89520-20615602/

2. Quentin Reade, "Google Earth's Popularity Booms," Web User Magazine, 25 January 2006, http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=73488

3. Stefanie Olsen, "Do-Gooders Doing Google Earth," CNET News.com, 7 June 2007, http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-6189464.html

4. David Meyer, "Google, Microsoft Vie for Earth Domination," CNET News.com, 12 September 2006,

5. Quentin Reade, "Google Earth's Popularity Booms," Web User Magazine, 25 January 2006, www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=73488.

6. Stefanie Olsen, op. cit.

7. Gal Mor, "Palestinian Villages Commemorated on Google Maps," Ynet News, 13 July 2006.

8. David Shamah, "Digital World: Google Earth's 'False Flags'," Jerusalem Post, 4 March 2008.

9. Dore Gold, "From 'Occupied Territories' to 'Disputed Territories'," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 470, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 16 January 2002.

10. "Google's Latest Anti-Jewish Outrage," WorldNetDaily, 11 March 2008. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58658

11. See in Google Earth, 22 June 2008.

12. Padraic O'Hare, The Enduring Covenant: The Education of Christians and the End of Antisemitism, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997).

13. Mark Ami-El, "The Destruction of the Temple Mount Antiquities," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 483, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1 August 2002,

14. Andre Oboler, "Online Antisemitism 2.0. 'Social Antisemitism' on the 'Social Web'," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 67, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1 April 2008.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, June 25, 2008.

This was written by Gershom Gale for yesterday's Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1213794282406

The Sanhedrin is the name of the 71-member Jewish court that was alone empowered to rule on such nation-affecting matters as who is or is not a prophet, pass final judgments on capital cases and issue rulings that would affect the religious practice of all the world's Jews.

The first Sanhedrin was formed shortly after the giving of the Torah, when God told Moses to "assemble 70 of Israel's elders... the ones you know to be the people's elders and leaders.... I will cause some of the spirit that you possess to emanate, and I will grant it to them. You will then not have to bear the responsibility all alone" (Numbers 11:16).

The Lord then "caused the spirit that had been imparted on Moses to emanate, and He bestowed it upon the 70 elders. When the spirit descended on them, they gained the gift of prophecy and did not lose it." These 70, with Moses, comprised the first court.

The nation was then commanded to obey all (majority) Sanhedrin rulings, on pain of death: "If you are unable to reach a decision in a case involving capital punishment... where there is a dispute in your territorial courts, then you must set out and go up to the place that God your Lord shall choose. You must approach the Levitical priests, and the supreme court that exists at the time. When you make the inquiry, they will declare to you a legal decision... you must do as they tell you, carefully following their every decision. You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you, and follow the laws that they legislate for you. Do not stray to the right or left from the word that they declare to you. If there is any man who rebels and refuses to listen to the priest or other judge who is in charge of serving God your Lord there, then that man must be put to death" (Deut. 16:8, Deut. 17).

Its mention in Chronicles, Josephus and of course the Talmud proves that this institution was fully functional at least until 70 CE, when the Second Temple was destroyed. Some of the later Sanhedrin members are said to have had divine inspiration, such as the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

To become members of the Sanhedrin, initiates had not only to scale the pinnacle of a nationwide educational system, but experience ordination by a laying-on of hands.

Some believe that until at least one genuine bearer of the tradition comes forward to anoint the 70 other would-be Sanhedrin members, a modern body cannot be said to have divine approval. That "Judaism's Supreme Court" will in fact reconvene, however, is implicit in God's promise that "I will restore your judges as at the first" (Isaiah 1:26).

Of course, even with that authority, Sanhedrin members are merely mortal, and are nowhere described as infallible. The Torah and Talmud thus provided several legal (i.e. God-approved) means of redress in the event of Sanhedrin error.

In Jerusalem recently interviewed Rabbi Yeshayahu Hollander, a member of the nascent Sanhedrin responsible for relations with the gentile world and reestablishing the other functions performed by the Sanhedrin. His answers were then vetted and affirmed by Rabbi Yoel Shwartz, head of the beit din (rabbinical court) of Bnei Noah and a teacher at the Dvar Yerushalayim Yeshiva, and Rabbi Yehiel Sitzman, who is active in helping guide gentiles who wish to follow the laws which Judaism teaches they are obligated to observe.

Of course, interacting with the gentile world was only one of the Sanhedrin's functions; the larger purpose of "Judaism's Supreme Court" was to act as a unifying influence on the Jewish world.

For example, a functioning Sanhedrin issuing authoritative rulings (something which can't happen until the court is situated on The Temple Mount and its rulings earn the approval of a majority of world Jewry) could end Judaism's current division into Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and haredi streams, update such things as the halachic position on electricity, Internet, organ transplants and bioengineering, and unify Shabbat observance and standards of conversion.

There have been earlier, unsuccessful attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. What makes this attempt different?

This is the first attempt to reestablish the Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel at a time when the people of Israel represent the majority of the inhabitants... Today Israel is the center of Jewish life. Thus it has now become a duty for the Jews in the Holy Land to try to establish a Sanhedrin.

But even this "new" Sanhedrin did not at first see itself as official. Is this still the case?

Yes. To be "official" the basic requirement from a practical standpoint is that the top level of talmidei hachamim [Talmud scholars] either be part of the Sanhedrin or recognize it.

Is a certain level of ruah hakodesh (divine inspiration) in at least one member necessary, as in the times of the original Sanhedrin?

Maimonides does not list ruah hakodesh as a definite prerequisite.

What relationship is envisioned between the Sanhedrin and the gentile world in general? With the Bnei Noah in particular?

It is our duty to strive to bring the Torah to all the nations. This is indicated in many places... The nations are already coming to learn, as we see by the developing Bnei Noah movement –– those wonderful non-Jews who have taken upon themselves to observe the Seven Noahide Laws [sometimes called "The Noahide Covenant" or more figuratively "The Rainbow Covenant"]. Many Bnei Noah also take on additional commandments.

There is a thirst for the word of the almighty, and it is our duty to meet this need. This Word was especially given at Sinai to Israel, whose role is to be "a kingdom of kohanim [priests] and a holy nation" [Exodus 19:6] which means, among other duties, that it is the duty of the Jews to teach the nations, just as it is one of the duties of the kohanim to teach the Jews, as Malachi says: "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts" [Malachi 2:7]. Bnei Noah join the Jews in observing Psalm 105:1: "O give thanks unto the Lord, call upon His name; make known His doings among the peoples."

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Zalmi, June 26, 2008.

This comes from Zalmi's website and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steve Kramer, June 26, 2008.

Who's Bat Ye'or and why should you care about her? Bat Ye'or (a pseudonym of Gisele Littman), born in Egypt and educated in Switzerland, currently lives in France and writes primarily about the history and status of non-Muslims in the Middle East. She is very significant because of her definitive work on the concept of "Eurabia". She is also an authority on dhimmitude, the institution of inferiority, humiliation, and obedience which Muslims impose on unbelievers by military or political force. Bat Ye'or admits her writings are "a gloomy look at the future of Europe". We recently heard her speak in Tel Aviv at an event marking the translation of her seminal work "Eurabia –– the Euro-Arab Axis" into Hebrew.

Ye'or doesn't come off as an intellectual. She's very matter-of-fact in her statements, which are frequently based on pronouncements from the EAD (Euro-Arab Dialogue). The EAD was originally set up by the European Community, precursor to today's EU, to fulfill an idea promoted by Charles DeGaulle, based on his experience in dealing with Algeria's breakaway from France. The EAD's goals were to ensure the supply of oil for the energy-thirsty continent and to deflect terror away from Europe. These needs became pressing after the 1972 murder of 11 of Israel's Olympic athletes in Munich, and in 1973, when Arabs first used their "oil weapon" to pressure militarily superior Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

The European goals are clear and simple. What about the Arabs' goals? According to Bat Ye'or, their goal of Jihad is equally clear and simple: Jihad is clearly delineated in the Koran as the religious duty to conquer the entire world for Islam. The two ways to achieving Islamic rule are by acculturation or by force. In either case, the result is the same: Sharia (Islamic) law governs. It's Bat Ye'or's contention that the EAD has effectively turned Europeans into dhimmis.

Now there is Jihad and there is jihad, just as there are two meanings for the word revolution (war / dramatic change). Someone can go on a jihad to clean up the environment. It's the classical Jihad that Middle East experts like Bat Ye'or discuss in their books and statements. Their definition of Jihad includes four stages. To convert the infidels is the simplest way. To encourage them to submit to Islamic rule (become dhimmis) is next best. If the Muslims are unable to achieve either of these, a temporary interruption of conflict is acceptable. (This is the current modus operandi against Israel: war interrupted by periods of "calm", to enable Islamist forces to strengthen themselves.) Last, when Muslims become strong enough, outright war erupts. Iran is currently orchestrating the last two stages against Israel through its puppets, Hizbullah and Hamas.

Returning to the EAD, Bat Ye'or described the price that Europeans have paid to the Arabs to guarantee their supply of oil and to steer terrorism away from Europe. A main tenet of the agreement was that Europe would align its foreign policy with the Arabs against Israel and America and towards the PLO and Yasser Arafat. This would lead to the delegitimization of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state. In addition, Europe was required to open its borders to Muslims from the south, N. Africa, and the east, the western Mediterranean countries. Europe would allow a one-way population and culture transfer in the Arabs' favor. Obviously, no Europeans were moving en masse to Turkey or Morocco. There would no transfer of European culture and languages south and east to Muslim countries, thereby assuring that the vast majority of immigrants would fail to assimilate into their host countries in Europe and would remain largely segregated.

It wasn't really a fair fight to begin with. After enduring what was basically a 31-year war (WWI and WWII), Europe chose the way of "peace": any policy that avoids war is preferable to confrontation. Multiculturalism was the route to achieve this goal. The Germans accepted millions of Turks; the French millions of N. Africans. Even other smaller countries (Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary) now have Muslim populations of up to 10%. Britain, for instance, made it a policy to give Muslim radicals refugee status with the proviso –– which failed –– that terror attacks would be perpetrated outside of her boundaries. A charitable interpretation of European intentions credits their diplomats with good intentions coupled with a woeful lack of foresight. But for the Muslims, the EAD was the thin edge of the wedge. Jihad would follow once the Arabs had gained a significant foothold on the European continent.

Ye'or described some of the gloomy trends throughout Europe since 1974, when the EAD was founded: the rise of the supranational European Parliament, which has eroded the power of individual states and opened the continent to the possibility of an Islamic takeover; the emergence of a self-imposed dhimmitude, whereby Europeans kowtow to Arab money and influence, while demonstrations against Arab influence are automatically designated "Islamophobia"; the rise of the cult of "Palestinianism", by which Israel may ultimately be forced into one large state with an Arab majority; the Islamic threat to replace the Jewish and Christian faiths; and the replacement of European identity by Muslim identity.

There is a brighter, countervailing reaction which has been evident since 2005. Bat Ye'or mentioned the more conservative leaders who have been elected lately in France, Germany, and Italy. She welcomed the outcry against the murder of Theo van Gogh after his release of a film critical towards Islam. And Bat Ye'or didn't discount the disgust around the world at the rioting which greeted the newspaper publication of the "Mohammed cartoons". These reactions may signal a revolt by stalwart Europeans to the threat of their homeland being appropriated by Muslims, whose population is growing while the native European birthrate is below replacement level.

Because Bat Ye'or's thesis is controversial, an academic from Tel Aviv University, Uriya Shavit, was asked to respond to her remarks. He stressed that the continent is not yet "Eurabia" and mentioned the recently elected conservative leaders. He pointed out that Europe's Muslim population is not solely Arab, but consists of Turks, Indonesians, Arabs, and others. He stressed that oil is the source of Arab power and that if the commitment is made, the West can limit its dependency on oil, thereby reducing Arab clout.

Bat Ye'or agreed with his points but stated that European policy continues to stress Palestinianism, apart from what recently elected leaders may think. For example, the European media coverage of Israel's 60th anniversary of independence featured the "nakba" (the Palestinian "catastrophe" of 1948) as much as it covered Israel's birthday. She noted the influence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which is subtle but pervasive. In conclusion, Bat Ye'or pointed out the dire consequences of European pacifism when confronted with Jihad.

A question from the audience was posed by another well-known academic in Middle Eastern Studies. He asked Bat Ye'or how could she be so certain that the Europeans had jumped into bed with the Arabs? She asked him a simple question, "Have you read my book?" If so, he should have been familiar with all the documentation needed to recognize what a European sell-out the EAD represents.

The West ignores Bat Ye'or only at its peril. I think the tenuous "calm" or "cease-fire" that Prime Minister Olmert recently negotiated with Hamas perfectly illustrates the need for the clarity and directness that Bat Ye'or epitomizes. Olmert insists that the cease-fire agreement includes a halt to weapons smuggling from Gaza. Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh denies (June 29) that Hamas agreed to any such thing. Who are you going to believe?

Contact Steve Kramer at sjk1@jhu.edu

This was written for this week's Jewish Times.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, June 26, 2008.

(IsraelNN.com) Shomron Regional Council Head Gershon Masika said Wednesday that the struggle over the community of Migron, which the government has slated for demolition, will be "a second Amona" and will make that confrontation look like no more than an "opening shot." %ad%

In an interview for this weekend's issue of SOS-Israel's leaflet, "Eretz Yisrael Shelanu," Masika said: "The attempt to make ourselves look beautiful for the general public and show them that we are nice, not 'extremists,' and want to connect to them with love, doesn't work. The general public understands nuances and it understood that in the struggle for Gush Katif we were not determined enough to hold on to the land.

"The result of the policy that led to the expulsion is that nobody gives a hoot about the expellees. They were thrown to the dogs and they are down and out and humiliated in refugee camps. Experience has thus shown that we need to change the policy. Our line of argumentation is not political, but very simple: the Land of Israel is ours and we will not give up a single grain of sand. Besides that, the concessions cause Jewish blood to be spilled."

'Go on the offensive'

"It is time to switch to an offensive war and stop being on the defensive all the time," Masika said. "We need to shout that the emperor has no clothes. The governments took us from bad to worse, from concession to concession, and brought us down to the gates of hell. They have no ideological or security value anymore, and they only serve our enemies."

Asked about the events at Yitzhar last week, he said: "The evacuation did not proceed with ease. There was serious resistance with dozens wounded on both sides. And the main thing is that by the grace of G-d, on the same night of the destruction of the structure, the new caravan at Givat Shaked was built, which shows great determination.

"As council head I tried to be there and prevent the violence and rioting by the uniform-wearers against the wonderful, devoted and ideological youth that is worthy of all praise. We admire this wonderful youth, that is the pride of Judea and Samaria and gives us great pride."

Not lambs any more

"The lesson of Gush Katif is that going like lambs to the slaughter yields no benefit but only means going from bad to worse, to a complete destruction of the State of Israel, of the military, of the communities, a deep chasm through society and bleeding wounds that will apparently never heal."

Masika, who was elected in the aftermath of the Disengagement and is not considered a part of the old Yesha leadership establishment, explained: "When you demand your rights without caring about the cost, the treatment you will receive will be, at the very worst, what the Druze got and what the Bedouins in the Negev got. They don't give a second thought to anything and that is why they are not uprooted, even though this is not their land."

"If the country does not wake up at the last minute, Migron will be a second Amona, with all of the serious meaning that involves. The reason the residents of Gush Katif were thrown to the dogs was that the eviction was wrapped in promises that supposedly, it would improve the security situation, and also improve the evacuees' lives. In fact they saw that the eviction not only did not improve anything, it actually made security worse and the evacuees reached rock-bottom."

'Daring struggle' ahead

"We will fight for every clod of earth. As the Arabs –– lehavdil –– say, that the land is sacred and one may not give up a single grain. Our struggle for the land is an existential necessity. We received it from the Kadosh Baruch Hu rightfully and no one is permitted to give it up. And the main thing like I said is that this is simply a security matter for the lives of millions of Jews. The State of Israel also understands that the planned eviction will not go smoothly. There will be a determined struggle and daring here with no compromises, and Amona will seem like an opening shot compared to it.

"I learned two things from the Expulsion, Masika added: "The real field of battle is the political one. That is why we must unite all of the forces in a single bloc with no differences, and the uniting cry should be the one uttered by Mattityahu the Maccabee, "mi leHashem elai!" ("Whoever is for the Lord –– let him come to me!"), and then we will be able to infuse the public with a new spirit.

"With HaShem's help, the day is not far when the leadership shall come out of the religious and hareidi public. Only we have the values, the clinging to Torah and Land and soil, as opposed to the alienated and disconnected secular leadership."

Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-7

To Go To Top

Posted by HaDaR, June 26, 2008.

Democracy IS NOT hiding the truth from the public!

Releasing live terrorists for corpses will encourage the killing of hostages since even as bodies they can be ransomed for very live arch terrorists This below is by Dr. Aaron Lerner and is entitled, "Decision making with blinders: The Olmert Cabinet's upcoming vote to release Kuntar," and is from IMRA.

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il

April 22, 1979: Samir Kuntar shoots Danny Haran in front of his 5 year old daughter, Einat, and then smashes in Einat's skull against a rock with his rifle.

This is the monster that the Government of Israel intends to decide this Sunday to trade for two apparently dead soldiers.

But that's only part of the story.

The gross manipulations and machinations that have proceeded the upcoming Cabinet vote serves as a frightening indication of the absence of a serious and proper decision making process in the Olmert administration.

Here is a review of this most bizarre situation:

A key argument that has been raised by supporters of the trade of Kuntar for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev is that Goldwasser's wife, Karnit, is a live hostage since, under Jewish law, she cannot remarry until it is determined that her husband is indeed dead.

Is the Rabbinate unable to make this determination in the absence of a body?

Well, at this very moment the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Rabbi Avichai Ronsky, is studying the evidence.

One would think that the Olmert Cabinet would want to know Rabbi Ronsky's finding in this very painful and crucial matter before approving the trade.

But the opposite is the case.

In fact, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert instructed IDF Chief of Staff Ashkenazi to order Rabbi Ronsky to postpone his determination until after the Cabinet vote.

Ashkenazi explained to Olmert that he was not in a position to issue such an order to Rabbi Ronsky.

This crucial Cabinet decision vote is slated to be made early next week regardless of if Rabbi Ronsky completes his work before the vote or not.

This is indeed shocking.

This goes far beyond the deliberate misrepresentation of the consequences of a bodies for terrorist deal (as if the concern is that it would encourage more kidnappings when in fact the overarching concern is that it will encourage the killing of hostages since even as bodies they can be ransomed for very live arch terrorists).

We have here an open and deliberate move by very highest echelons of the Olmert Administration to knowingly bar vital and extremely relevant information from the decision making process.

In this instance, this is taking place for all the world to see.

But who is to say that this is the exception and not the rule?

And this at a time that the Olmert administration faces many challenges and decisions –– and may very well be embarking on what might be a "diplomatic fire sale" as it struggles to come up with some "achievement" it can point to before it finds itself struggling for survival at the ballot box.

HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 26, 2008.

Below I have sent you the story of baby-killer Samir Kuntar. It was written by Smadar Haran Kaiser and appeared May 18, 2003 in the Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&contentId=A2740-2003May17 Smadar Haran Kaiser is a social worker. She is remarried and has two daughters.

Now, the widow of Danny Haran, who lost her husband and two baby girls to Kuntar, reveals that the mastermind behind Kuntar –– and the terrorists who threw Leon Klinghoffer overboard in his wheelchair on the Achille Lauro –– was picked up by our troops in Iraq this past April. She wants America to try him for destroying her family. So do I.


Abu Abbas, the former head of a Palestinian terrorist group who was captured in Iraq on April 15, is infamous for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. But there are probably few who remember why Abbas's terrorists held the ship and its 400-plus passengers hostage for two days. It was to gain the release of a Lebanese terrorist named Samir Kuntar, who is locked up in an Israeli prison for life. Kuntar's name is all but unknown to the world. But I know it well. Because almost a quarter of a century ago, Kuntar murdered my family.

It was a murder of unimaginable cruelty, crueler even than the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, the American tourist who was shot on the Achille Lauro and dumped overboard in his wheelchair. Kuntar's mission against my family, which never made world headlines, was also masterminded by Abu Abbas. And my wish now is that this terrorist leader should be prosecuted in the United States, so that the world may know of all his terrorist acts, not the least of which is what he did to my family on April 22, 1979.

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar. By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

The next day, Abu Abbas announced from Beirut that the terrorist attack in Nahariya had been carried out "to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty" at Camp David the previous year. Abbas seems to have a gift for charming journalists, but imagine the character of a man who protests an act of peace by committing an act of slaughter.

Two of Abbas's terrorists had been killed by police on the beach. The other two were captured, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Despite my protests, one was released in a prisoner exchange for Israeli POWs several months before the Achille Lauro hijacking. Abu Abbas was determined to find a way to free Kuntar as well. So he engineered the hijacking of the Achille Lauro off the coast of Egypt and demanded the release of 50 Arab terrorists from Israeli jails. The only one of those prisoners actually named was Samir Kuntar. The plight of hundreds held hostage on a cruise ship for two days at sea lent itself to massive international media coverage. The attack on Nahariya, by contrast, had taken less than an hour in the middle of the night. So what happened then was hardly noticed outside of Israel.

One hears the terrorists and their excusers say that they are driven to kill out of desperation. But there is always a choice. Even when you have suffered, you can choose whether to kill and ruin another's life, or whether to go on and rebuild. Even after my family was murdered, I never dreamed of taking revenge on any Arab. But I am determined that Samir Kuntar should never be released from prison. In 1984, I had to fight my own government not to release him as part of an exchange for several Israeli soldiers who were POWs in Lebanon. I understood, of course, that the families of those POWs would gladly have agreed to the release of an Arab terrorist to get their sons back. But I told Yitzhak Rabin, then defense minister, that the blood of my family was as red as that of the POWs. Israel had always taken a position of refusing to negotiate with terrorists. If they were going to make an exception, let it be for a terrorist who was not as cruel as Kuntar. "Your job is not to be emotional," I told Rabin, "but to act rationally." And he did.

So Kuntar remains in prison. I have been shocked to learn that he has married an Israeli Arab woman who is an activist on behalf of terrorist prisoners. As the wife of a prisoner, she gets a monthly stipend from the government. I'm not too happy about that.

In recent years, Abu Abbas started telling journalists that he had renounced terrorism and that killing Leon Klinghoffer had been a mistake. But he has never said that killing my family was a mistake. He was a terrorist once, and a terrorist, I believe, he remains. Why else did he spend these last years, as the Israeli press has reported, free as a bird in Baghdad, passing rewards of $25,000 from Saddam Hussein to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? More than words, that kind of cash prize, which is a fortune to poor families, was a way of urging more suicide bombers. The fortunate thing about Abbas's attaching himself to Hussein is that it set him up for capture.

Some say that Italy should have first crack at Abbas. It had already convicted him of the Achille Lauro hijacking in absentia in 1986. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now wants Abbas handed over so that he can begin serving his life sentence. But it's also true that in 1985, the Italians had Abbas in their hands after U.S. fighter jets forced his plane to land in Sicily. And yet they let him go. So while I trust Berlusconi, who knows if a future Italian government might not again wash its hands of Abbas?

In 1995, Rabin, then our prime minister, asked me to join him on his trip to the White House, where he was to sign a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat, which I supported. I believe that he wanted me to represent all Israeli victims of terrorism. Rabin dreaded shaking hands with Arafat, knowing that those hands were bloody. At first, I agreed to make the trip, but at the last minute, I declined. As prime minister, Rabin had to shake hands with Arafat for political reasons. As a private person, I did not. So I stayed here.

Now I am ready and willing to come to the United States to testify against Abu Abbas if he is tried for terrorism. The daughters of Leon Klinghoffer have said they are ready to do the same. Unlike Klinghoffer, Danny, Einat and Yael were not American citizens. But Klinghoffer was killed on an Italian ship in Abbas's attempt to free the killer of my family in Israel. We are all connected by the international web of terrorism woven by Abbas. Let the truth come out in a new and public trial. And let it be in the United States, the leader in the struggle against terrorism.

ADDENDUM June 27, 2008:

A number of you have pointed out to me that the article by Smadar Haran Kaiser was published in 2003 and that in 2004, there were reports that Abu Abbas had died in U.S. custody in Iraq. However, according to Jerusalem advocate Nitsana Darshan Leitner, there has never been conclusive evidence of this. And Kuntar is about to be released by the Israelis in a deal with terrorists.

Nitsana explains.

When Abu Abbas (AKA Muhammad Zaydan) was first reported to be arrested by US troops in Iraq in April 2003, our organization Shurat HaDin immediately wrote to the Israeli government asking that they extradite Abu Abbas and place him on trial in Israel. In addition to his involvement in the Haran family murders and the murder of Leon Klinghoeffer on the Achille Luro, Abu Abbas's group, the PLF, was also responsible for the murder of a Russian-Israeli teen in Neve Yaakov named Yuri Gerstein in 2003. (This was after Israel allowed Abu Abbas to relocate to Gaza as part of the reckless Oslo Process! I had filed several petitions in the High Court of Justice demanding that Abu Abbas be arrested for the Achille Lauro and Haran attacks. But the High Court repeatedly said that they would not interfere with the government's decision to allow Abu Abbas in. Abu Abbas was even spotted on a walking tour of the Old City and at Orient House at one point. This continued until Abu Abbas eventually was accused by the Shin Bet of a ordering bombing near Haifa, an attack on the airport and the murder in Neve Yaakov. Before the Shin Bet caught him he had again fled back to Iraq).

When the Prime Minister refused to agree to file an extradition request for Abu Abbas in Bagdad, we filed a High Court petition seeking to compel the Justice Ministry to go after him. As the date for the petition's hearing stretched on, there were reports in the media that Abu Abbas had died on March 9, 2004. Shortly afterwards, the Israeli State Attorney sent us a response to our petition saying that Abu Abbas had indeed died in US custody in Bagdad. At the eventual High Court hearing, I argued to the Court that Israel had no conclusive proof that Abu Abbas was actually dead other than a report from the US Army in Bagdad. There was no death certificate just some oral confirmations from the US to Israel. Moreover, the PLO and Abbas' organization the PLF were not reacting like he was dead. No big funerals nor fiery speeches nor vows of vengeance against the US and Israel. No demand he be allowed to be buried in Gaza or Ramallah. No violent protests by his terrorist faction. It all passed by pretty quietly. As such, one could never get over the feeling that Abu Abbas hadn't really died in US custody and something funny was amiss. (Conspiracy theorists could point to the fact that Abbas' neighbor in Bagdad, Abu Nidal, had been killed a few months earlier by Saddam Huessein on allegations he had crossed sides and become a CIA agent). We, however, simply had no accurate evidence to counter the State's Attorney. And thus, the High Court ruled against us and declared that they were convinced Abu Abbas was indeed dead. They rejected our demand for extradition.

So this is how it stands, Israel does not pursue Abu Abbas and considers him to be dead. Unfortunately, for the widow of Danny Haran, the Achille Lauro victims and the parents of Yuri Gerstein, this Palestinian arch-terrorist will never receive the justice he deserves.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 26, 2008.

I have just returned from two weeks in the US and will now be picking up my postings, which I hope to run several times a week. I have returned with a sense of disgust at what is happening here, and, quite simply, bewilderment that it could be so. But that bewilderment is hardly new. I am determined –– may the Almighty bring me the strength –– not to be defeated by this state of affairs, but rather to fight it to the best of my ability.


With more to follow soon, let me here touch on the temporary ceasefire, or tadhiyah, with Hamas in Gaza, which was put into place last week. In my opinion –– and the opinion of many other analysts –– this agreement (which is not written) is a colossal mistake that weakens our deterrence power and strengthens Hamas. Hamas has said forthrightly that it will not halt smuggling of weapons. According to YNet, "The smuggling operation is a huge, well-oiled machine which cannot be stopped by a verbal agreement with Egypt."

Of course they won't halt strengthening of forces and building of weapons inside of Gaza either. We're being set up for a harder hit from Hamas down the road just so that Olmert can avoid military action now and claim to have brought quiet to Sderot. Talk about short-sighted!


What is more, our cessation of operations in Gaza was not tied in any way to the release of Gilad Shalit, in spite of the fact that Olmert had not so long ago insisted that there would be no ceasefire unless we got Shalit in return. In fact, we have now resumed indirect negotiations –– via Egyptian mediation –– with Hamas for Shalit's release, which means we are once again considering their demands for the release of some of their terrorists from our prisons.


And there's more, as Israel is preparing to open crossings into Gaza –– something else we said we wouldn't do unless Shalit was released.

On Tuesday the terrorists broke the ceasefire. when three rockets were fired into Israel. Islamic Jihad took credit. But Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya declared that no action would be taken by Hamas against "militants" who break the ceasefire: "No one will enjoy a happy moment seeing Hamas holding a rifle in the face of a resistance fighter." So what good is a ceasefire, if not everyone is on board?

Olmert offered up words of indignation but did nothing about this.


For additional insight into this situation, I recommend a piece from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "Hamas's Interest in the Tahdiyah (Temporary Truce) with Israel," by Jonathan Halevi:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID= 1&TMID=111&FID=375&PID=0&IID=2181&TTL= The_Hamas_Interest_in_the_Tahdiya_(Temporary_Truce)_ with_Israel_with_Israel_Axis


There is potentially one redeeming factor here, which doesn't actually excuse Olmert's position on this matter but mitigates it a bit. There is the possibility that Israeli leaders are planning a major operation in Gaza and setting the scene for it in the manner I've been describing.

Olmert and company are regrettably obsessed with looking like the "good guys" in world opinion. According to this logic, if we first demonstrate that we tried ever so hard to create a peaceful situation and then Hamas breaks the ceasefire (which it is a good bet Hamas will do), then we will have more support for going in militarily. There is some thought that this may be what is happening.

This seems to me pathetic. As to world opinion, why not simply call the world's attention to the fact that Hamas has been holding our soldier for two years, and has already amassed in Gaza more than 120 tons of explosives, more than 1,000 machine guns, 32,000 Kalashnikovs, 4,000 RPG launchers, hundreds of rockets, dozens of anti-aircraft missiles, and several hundred mortar shells, while training an army of 11,000? All of this –– which is hardly evidence of peaceful intentions –– provides more than sufficient rationale. Ultimately, anyway, we must act for our own defense whether the world gets it or not.


Hopefully, more to follow tomorrow...

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 26, 2008.


Contact Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, 011.972.52.383.7020

In an unprecedented admission, the office of Israel's Prime Minister revealed today that it is, in fact, allowing the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza due to "Israeli diplomatic considerations."

In a response letter sent to Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of human rights organization Shurat HaDin –– Israel Law Center, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) wrote that the transfer of funds to the Hamas controlled government in the Gaza Strip does indeed regularly take place after "consultations among the relevant bodies." Shurat HaDin had accused the Israeli government of secretly transferring hard currency to the Hamas.

"At this point," states the PMO's letter, dated June 25, 2008, "due to conclusions that there is an Israeli interest that the transfer of funds continue, a decision was made to continue to transfer certain sums of money to the Gaza Strip."

The PMO's letter was dispatched to Shurat HaDin, an organization representing hundreds of terror victims in an ongoing global battle against terror funding, in response to a series of warning letters from the group to the Prime Minister, the Bank of Israel and the Israel Postal Bank, in which Shurat HaDin demanded that all transfers of funds to the Hamas terrorists and Hamas controlled organs in the Gaza Strip be immediately terminated.

In the initial letter of warning sent by Shurat HaDin on behalf of victims of Hamas terror attacks to the PMO, Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner wrote:

"The currency of record in the Gaza Strip is the New Israeli Shekel (NIS)." Most of the financial activity in the Gaza Strip runs on a cash basis, using the NIS. Tens of thousands of Hamas terrorists and governmental official get their salary in Israeli currency –– in cash. Thus, the transfer of large sums of cash into the Gaza Strip is, by definition, an act that directly fuels the terrorist activity of Hamas and is therefore a violation of the Terror-Funding Act of 2005 and the domestic and international laws against money laundering."

The warning letters from Shurat HaDin also note that a portion of the cash funneled into Gaza by Israel is used to replace Israeli currency in Hamas' coffers that has physically deteriorated and another portion serves the international money laundering trade, most notably the money "smuggled" by Hamas from Iran via the Egyptian border.

Without these criminal acts, Hamas' financial hold on the Strip would collapse and thus these measures are directly responsible for shoring up the Hamas control over Gaza and its continued terrorist activity launched from the region.

THE PMO'S LETTER REVEALS FOR THE FIRST TIME, that the Israeli government allows and encourages the financial support for the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip –– knowingly and willingly.

In reaction to the PMO's letter Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner stated that "the government of Israel cannot fight against the Hamas terrorist organization with one hand, and continue to secretly finance it with the other.

Hypocritically, the Prime Minister demands governments around the world isolate and and embargo the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and stop transferring funds to them while at the same time he authorizes the transfer of Israeli currency into the hands of the enemy.

This government claims to be fighting against the smuggling of tens of millions of dollars and euro into the Gaza Strip via the Egyptian border, all the while participating in the laundering of this money by exchanging them for New Israeli Shekels."

"There can be no doubt that the Israeli government's policy of transferring shekels is assisting the Hamas terrorists with their missile attacks on the Negev communities. If the Prime Minister does not immediately halt the currency transfers to Gaza, Shurat HaDin will take all legal means available against the government to bring this terror financing to a close."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, June 26, 2008.


The US has held off turning over evidence against PM Olmert. It claims it doesn't want to seem to interfere with Israeli governmental matters (IMRA, 6/11).

The US interferes intensely in internal Israeli affairs. Delay, however, hinders justice. The US isn't interested in justice. It prefers to bolster the crippled Prime Minister who, as the US wishes, desperately makes concessions to the Arabs in the hope that he can pretend for a while to have accomplished something.


A Canadian magazine argued in strident terms that Islam threatens Western values. Members of the Canadian Islamic Congress demand that the Magazine publish a rebuttal, compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings, and self-respect," and should be barred from such writing. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will rule on whether the magazine violated the law.

Unlike most Western democracies, the US allows magazines to write like the Canadian one, publishing "even false, provocative or hateful things –– without legal consequence." The US does not want government deciding what speech to allow. The anti-hate laws don't deal with facts but feelings. Canada prefers to arbitrate which opinions are permissible, in favor of societal harmony. Anthony Lewis would prohibit speech likely to inspire murder, not necessarily immediately. The limit in the US is incitement to immediate riot or posing immediate danger.

The Canadian plaintiff argued that innocent intent, fair comment on true facts, publication in the public interest, and responsible journalism are no defense against prosecution (Adam Liptak, NY Times, 6/12, A1).

Censorship is appealing, because one supposes the censor would share one's values. Suppose he doesn't? Government, which tends to try to control society, and lobbyists who try to control government, should be left out of it. Let the people decide. I'm proud of the American way in this issue. I'm worried about eroding democracy in the other states.

Truth should be a defense. If the accusations are true, then the group being criticized deserves the criticism. In the adjudicated case, the accusation is true. Islam is threatening Western values and is trying to bring down Western civilization. I would rather have somebody warn society about it, than be denied it lest Muslim offenders take offense at the truth about them.

The Canadian law is phony, because Muslims preach hatred without penalty! In Israel, they urge the murder of Jews, but only right-wing Jews are called racist.


The government proposes spending millions on a system for warning residents near Gaza when mortars are approaching, instead of invading Gaza and catching the terrorists who otherwise would fire those mortars (IMRA, 6/12). Residents would have a few seconds to run and hide in a shelter.


Losing militarily, Islamists have seeking to subvert the US ideologically. In Texas, a school brought in Islamist guest speakers from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, known for pro-terrorism sympathy. This was done under the guise of an Islamic Awareness presentation. The school apologized.

In Florida, a school admittedly broke the law by having a presentation on the Koran and Islam, and without having screened the speakers or notifying parents. The school stopped calling on the Islamic presenting organization.

A Michigan school had a Saudi Bedouin tent program. Students participated in Islamic rituals. Female students were segregated, sidelines, and shrouded.

A Minnesota charter school run by Muslims used public funds to promote Islamic religious practices. ACLU's Minnesota branch objected, the school system confirmed the complaints, and the school officials promised to stop those practices.

The New York City madrassa on public funds (Mayor Bloomberg doing) keeps promoting Islam. Two imams are on its school board.

Many school textbooks' sections on Islam are written by Islamist organizations. The books are "factually inaccurate, misrepresent and in some cases, glorify Islam, or are hostile to other religions." Trouble is, Saudi subsidies tempt people to accept propagandistic books, though parents are protesting in various areas and some are getting those books removed.

The US government subsidizes a university Middle Eastern Studies Center and approved a K-12 curriculum it developed but which S. Arabia financed. S. Arabia also finances training for teachers! The trainers are accused of promoting hatred of other religions. Arabia pays, the trainers evidence bias.

So far, the big effort has been to keep Church and State separate, but communities only now are gearing up to keep Mosque and State separate (Cinnamon Stillwell, MEFNews, 6/12).


That's what is reported. Israel doesn't like the ceasefire arrangement proposed by Egypt, but doesn't want to reject it lest Mubarak feel insulted. Israeli Defense Min. Barak also doesn't want to be diverted from politics by war, so the offensive into Gaza that he said was imminent he is putting off. A ceasefire would boost Hamas' combat forces when the offensive does start (IMRA, 6/12). How would Barak's politics look, when avoidable casualties mount?

Not to insult Mubarak is a reason? Mubarak insults Israel often. He doesn't worry about it. But Israel doesn't want to jeopardize its ties with Egypt. What ties? Mubarak insults Israel. Egypt breaks its treaty with Israel. Egypt doesn't even have an ambassador in Israel, so hostile is it. Egypt tries to protect the terrorists from Israel. Egypt doesn't stop arm smuggling into Gaza. But Israel would accept a poor deal so Mubarak gets credit for a deal.


Israel hosted an international conference on national security, at an Israeli hotel. It asked the hotel to fly the flags of all the participants. That included the P.A. flag. People complained to the hotel manager, but he was acting at government request. Israel does this with other conferences, too (IMRA, 6/12).

Not being a state, Israel should not fly its flag. That's the legal aspect. The moral aspect is that the P.A. is at war with Israel. Israel should not fly the P.A. flag. It mocks the Jewish people. Since the P.A. is one of the dangers to Israel's national security, Israel should not invite the P.A..

Unfortunately, the governing class of Israel is leftist. It wants there to be a P.A. state at Israel's expense. Many Israeli professors cheer on terrorism against their own people. Israeli government policy echoes that sick Left.


Most Israeli security analysts consider it axiomatic that if Israeli troops undertake a strong offensive against Gaza, they must exit soon afterwards. They do not explain why, they just assume it. As a result, they do not allow enough time for the offensive to end the problem of terrorism. Therefore, total costs of a brief offensive would exceed those of a lengthier one (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 6/12).

The analysts don't really analyze, then, do they? They assume. They unnecessarily restrict Israel. That ill serves their country. Israeli "intelligence" has failed badly at times when it has too many preconceptions.


Defense Min. Barak observed that the coming primaries have affected policy in self-serving ways and diverted politicians' attention from analyzing policy. He accuses PM Olmert irresponsibility –– delaying the ceasefire. [He did not explain how it was being delayed, when Hamas rejects some of Israel's key conditions.]

Barak denies that his withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon allowed Hizbullah to gather 42,000 missiles. He claimed he withdrew in response to Hizbullah's rise and Olmert shouldn't have left Hizbullah in position after the war to build such a force.

How can the Defense Minister consider it more responsible to make a ceasefire, during which Hamas could accumulate missiles and other forces, so that when the truce ends, the IDF would sustain many more casualties? (IMRA, 6/13.)

Hizbullah was a small force and not winning, when Barak fled Lebanon. That allowed it to build up. Olmert did the same, with his war. If Barak had kept the IDF in Lebanon, Israel could have built up a free Lebanon and certain kept that border safe for itself. Barak was irresponsible, Olmert was irresponsible, and so were Rabin, Peres, Sharon, and Netanyahu.


Eleven of the 12 members of the Israeli Cabinet have declared against a ceasefire with Gaza and in favor of a decisive offensive. Some of them spoke publicly about it and eloquently, declaring the lack of an offensive a failure of governmental leadership. When it came to the vote authorizing a ceasefire, however, almost all voted for it or abstained (IMRA, 6/12).

Israeli officials posture. They are not decisive. The party system, proportional representation, the leftist monopoly of the media and academia, and foreign bribery, as contrasted with an independent media, objective academics, district representation, a vigorous education and instilling of Jewish values, brings out the worst in Israeli politicians. The public should find new parties with new leaders, leaders having values, and should demand reform of the system.


Abbas ordered the execution of dozens of Arabs accused of helping Israel prevent terrorism. International protest stayed his hand (IMRA, 6/13) but the so-called collaborators remain punished. Abbas does much more for terrorism than against it. There is no good reason to consider him moderate.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Horowitz, June 26, 2008.

"God is our objective, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."
–– Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

Dear Friend,

Thanks to the support of Center members like you, I've traveled to dozens of campuses this year exposing the ideology of the radical Muslims dedicated to our destruction.

As you might expect, at the majority of these engagements I've been heckled, jeered, and cursed and threatened –– standard operating procedure for any leftist group trained in Marxist tactics. And in nearly every case, the demonstrators were either members of the Muslim Student Association or their sympathizers.

One school in particular stands out: the University of California-Irvine –– a school that actually celebrates jihad and terror. In fact, UC-Irvine leads the nation in openly supporting Islamo-Fascism.

You see, for the second straight year –– with the approval of the faculty and administration –– UCI held nothing less than a "Celebrate Terrorism Week." This year UCI, UCSB, and other college campuses held commemorations of what the radical Muslims call "the Nakba" –– the catastrophe: The creation of Israel 60 years ago.

Last year's UCI event was titled: "Holocaust in the Holy Land." For the second straight year speakers talked about Israel's "holocaust" against Palestinians. Once again, those who denied the Nazi Holocaust happened at all were cheered.

As I have at universities across the nation, I called on the Muslim Student Associations at UCI and UCSB to denounce the call for genocide. Neither group would stand against genocide.

Please donate: at https://www.frontpagemag.com/Secure/Contribute.aspx"

I've reproduced a cartoon attack on the Center's work exposing the threat of jihad in America –– and, of course, an attack on me, as well –– by the Muslim Student Association at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Take a good look at it. You can almost feel the hate and anger which these students have for anyone who dares disclose what is at the heart of the Islamo-Fascist movement. It oozes off the page, directed at me, in this case, for exposing the professors and students on our campuses who serve as apologists for the butchers of jihad.

Of course, thanks to your support, that is precisely what we're doing with our Terrorism Awareness Project (TAP).

We are peeling off the veneer that shrouds the various pro-terrorist supporters across the nation. And we're also proving that the link between the Brotherhood and student Muslim groups in America is undeniable.

Founded in Egypt in the late 1920s, the Muslim Brotherhood has long used violence as the primary means to its end –– strict compliance to Sharia law, death to all Jews, the oppression of all non-believers. As their motto proclaims, "...death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations." The ultra-radical, rabidly violent Muslim Brotherhood lurks behind the scenes of Muslim Student Associations across the nation! This should concern every American!

The theme of our most recent IFA week was "Declaration Against Genocide" –– the one sounded by Islam's prophet Mohammed. It calls for the obliteration of all Jews.

"The Prophet... said: The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

This hatred has infiltrated our colleges without a doubt. In fact, Southern California University's Muslim Student Association has the call for genocide on its web site, verbatim.

Radical Islam by its very nature is the epitome of fascism. And across our nation, our universities –– funded by your tax dollars –– are harboring what amounts to indoctrination cells of Islamo-Fascism.

So, today, as part of TAP, we're launching an effort dedicated to exposing the bond between the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Student Associations! It's that important.

We've hired a talented researcher to head the project, and we're completing our first booklet detailing the relationship between the violent Brotherhood and American MSAs.

Now I'm asking for your courageous support again. We must raise $146,700 for the research, writing, publication and distribution of our new booklet, "The Muslim Students Associations and The Jihad Network".

Will you help us today? Simply click on any of the blue links within this letter and make a contribution of $25, $50, or, if possible, $100 today. In fact, if you're able to make a contribution of $25 or greater today, I will rush you a FREE copy of "The Muslim Students Associations and The Jihad Network" as fast as it comes off the press!

But please help us as soon as possible. This is only the beginning of our work to expose the Brotherhood's insidious infiltration of our campuses. I've always been grateful for your support, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

David Horowitz
President and Founder

P.S. Remember: If you can support the Center with a gift of $25 or more right now, I will rush you a FREE copy of "The Muslim Students Associations and the Jihad Network" as soon as it's off the press. Thanks again.

David Horowitz is publisher of Front Page Magazine (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com), a leading publication in the fight against terrorism. He founded The Freedom Center. Email him at info@horowitzfreedomcenter.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, June 26, 2008.

Remember the Israeli definition of "cease fire?" We cease they fire!

The next question: will Israel –– as usual –– feel noble and insist that they are obligated to continue the ceasefire. For a people that has produced so many lawyers, can't anyone tell them that if Party A breaks the contract, Party B has no obligation to fulfil its side of the bargain.

Caroline B. Glick
Jewish World Review
June 24, 2008 / 21 Sivan, 5768

What on earth could have prompted the Israeli government to negotiate the current "cease-fire" with Hamas? What could have brought the government to negotiate with this Iranian proxy group which makes no bones about its intention to use the lull in fighting to expand its arsenal and army ahead of the next round of fighting? What could have motivated Jerusalem to pave the way for Hamas's acceptance as a legitimate regime in the international arena?

The most vocal advocate of embracing Hamas has been Defense Minister Ehud Barak. And on the heels of the "truce," Barak and his associates are now pushing for the government to approve Hamas's demand that Israel release of up to a thousand terrorists from its prisons in exchange for Gilad Schalit, who was illegally kidnapped to Gaza two years ago.

In an attempt to explain his actions, Barak spoke last week to sympathetic Ha'aretz columnist Ari Shavit. In a supportive column, Shavit explained that Barak himself is under no illusion about the nature of Hamas or the chances of reaching a long-term accommodation with the Iranian-controlled jihadist movement that seeks Israel's destruction. The rationale for the move, he explains is Barak's assertion that the only way to justify a military operation –– which will involve military and civilian casualties –– is to first demonstrate that Israel had no other recourse but to act in its own defense.

As Shavit put it, "Since the repercussions of an operation could be grave, it is necessary first to try the other alternative –– so that every mother liable to lose her son in the Gaza alleyways will know. So that every civilian in the Gaza envelope liable to get hit during the fighting with Hamas will know. So that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will know that Israel did not choose a military move, which the Egyptians fear, before giving a chance to the diplomatic move they initiated."

SINCE THIS is the line being offered by the government today to justify its actions, it is worth considering it. The first question that arises is whether Barak's expressed concern about mothers of soldiers and Israelis who live within Hamas's rocket and missile range is genuine.

At Sunday's cabinet meeting, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin gave the government his first post-cease-fire intelligence briefing. Diskin told the cabinet ministers that since Thursday, Hamas has stepped up its arms smuggling and military training. The significance of his statement is clear. The Hamas that Israel will confront in the aftermath of Barak's cease-fire will be a more formidable foe that it was before the cease-fire. And consequently, more soldiers will need to sacrifice their lives in the postponed confrontation. And since Hamas is using this lull to expand its arsenals, it will no doubt expand the range of its missiles.

Consequently, more Israeli civilians will be attacked by Hamas rockets and missiles in the inevitable, delayed showdown than would have been under fire if it had been launched this week.

In other words, far from being informed by his concern for Israeli civilians and the families of soldiers, Barak's embrace of Hamas as a negotiating partner has ensured that more Israelis will be burying their loved ones when the cease-fire leads inevitably to war. Indeed, it is because of this that residents of Sderot have been the loudest proponents of military action and the angriest opponents of the government's cease-fire agreement with Hamas.

So if Barak is unconcerned with the lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians, who is he playing to in negotiating the cease-fire?

LIKE MANY Israeli leaders in recent years, Barak is concerned with how the Israeli appeasement lobby will react to a confrontation. He hopes that by appeasing Hamas now, these people –– many of whom are Labor Party members and voters –– will forgive him when the inevitable occurs.

Israel's appeasement lobby is comprised of Israeli Arabs, the Meretz party to which post-Zionist Labor voters and politicians can always defect, university professors, and small but well-funded pressure groups like Uri Avineri's Gush Shalom organization and Peace Now. Here it bears mention that the Labor party's membership drives in Arab villages in recent years have given its Arab members –– who vote as a bloc –– a controlling influence over the results of Labor party primaries that determine the identity of the party leader and Labor's Knesset faction. Many Labor leaders –– like former party chief Binyamin Ben Eliezer who was unseated by Arab Labor party members –– have bemoaned this fact and noted that Arab members of Labor don't even vote for the party in general elections.

WHAT IS most disturbing about Barak's pandering to Israel's appeasement lobby is that past experience has shown clearly that Israel's appeasement lobby is itself unappeaseable. That is, there nothing that Israel's enemies can do that will cause members of Israel's appeasement lobby to support IDF operations.

On June 1, 2001, a Palestinian bomber exploded himself at the Dolphinarium nightclub in Tel Aviv and murdered 21 Israeli teenagers. The public outcry was deafening. Popular support for a counter terror offensive aimed at destroying the Palestinian Authority and killing or expelling arch-terrorist Yassir Arafat was at an all-time high as the dimensions of the massacre, and the identity of the victims became clear.

Yet then-prime minister Ariel Sharon ignored the public and refused to act. As his spokesmen made clear, Sharon was concerned that the Israeli appeasement lobby would join forces with Europe to condemn such an IDF operation. And so, in an attempt to appease his far-Left antagonists, Sharon waited ten months to act. During that time, he engaged in fruitless US and European sponsored talks with the Palestinians. He bowed to their pressure and began referring to Judea and Samaria as "occupied," and so demoralized his own constituents. And as he took these steps, another 250 Israelis were murdered by the Palestinians.

Sharon approved Operation Defensive Shield in the aftermath of the Palestinian massacre of 30 Israelis celebrating the Passover Seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya. While his supporters often laud Sharon for his courage in acting, the fact is that had Sharon not acted after the Passover massacre, the public and his party would likely have booted him out of office.

Sharon's long refusal to defend his citizens from murder by the Palestinian massacre machine did not win him any sympathy with the appeasers. During Defensive Shield Uri Avineri from Gush Shalom and Israeli professors like Niv Gordon rushed to Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah to act as "human shields," physically opposing IDF operations. Israeli professors signed petitions calling for foreign divestment from Israel and urged their students to refuse to serve in reserve duty. Arab Israeli leaders like MKs Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara similarly joined forces with Arafat. And of course, Europe experienced its worst wave of anti-Semitic attacks since the Holocaust as European leaders, joined by then UN secretary general Kofi Annan, and their media organs and international human right organizations lined up behind Arafat and accused Israel of committing war crimes.

IN THE end, the only ones who actively supported the IDF's 2002 counter-offensive were the Israeli public, the US public and world Jewry. And ironically, these were the same forces that would have supported an IDF offensive after the Dolphinarium massacre ten months earlier. The US government –– which did not stridently object to Operation Defensive Shield –– acted no differently than it would have if Israel had taken action at that earlier juncture. So Sharon's decision to avert confrontation for ten long months –– during which 250 Israelis were murdered and thousands were wounded –– accomplished nothing.

But what about Barak's argument about Egypt? Will Egypt support a future IDF operation in Gaza when the cease-fire it has mediated falls apart? The answer here is similarly obvious: Of course not. Since 2000, when Egypt began hosting "cease-fire" talks among various terror masters in Cairo, the Mubarak regime has done more than any other government to legitimize Hamas.

Moreover, in diplomatic forums, Israel has no greater enemy than Egypt. Cairo uses every international and regional stage to attack the Jewish state.

Then too, Egypt has permitted Hamas to use its territory as its logistical base for arming Gaza and sending hundreds of terror operatives to Iran and Lebanon for training.

Egypt has done all of this because it believes that its national interests are advanced by weakening Israel. Were Egypt to support an Israeli offensive against Gaza, it would be strengthening Israel. And so under no circumstances will Cairo ever support an IDF operation against Hamas. Pretending it will is to engage in reckless fantasizing.

SO THEN, why has Barak led the government to embrace Hamas as a negotiating partner and a legitimate regime in Gaza?

We are left with two possible explanations. Either Barak is risking the lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians to pander to the most radical elements of Israeli society while seeking to win sympathy points from Cairo in a general election campaign, or he is gullible enough to believe that Israel's radical left and the Egyptian regime are moved by facts rather than interests.

It is hard to know which explanation is more distressing. Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

by Hana Levi Julian
June 26, 2008

For the third time in a week, Palestinian Authority terrorists violated the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire with Israel early Thursday afternoon.

A Kassam rocket was fired at the western Negev city of Sderot shortly after 1:00 p.m. No one was injured and no property damage was reported in the attack.

Prime Minister Ehud Omert's spokesman Mark Regev told Israel National News that no decisions had yet been made on a response to the attack. "We'll wait and see. Obviously we'll be having discussions," he said. Israel limited its retaliation to the previous attacks by closing the Gaza crossings for two days, which had been opened in accordance with the agreement.

Islamic Jihad terrorists announced that they would consider Israel has having violated the tahadiyeh, or temporary truce, if the Gaza crossings remained closed. IDF soldiers spotted the terrorists cell that had launched the attack, immediately following the barrage of three Kassam rockets fired at Sderot on Tuesday, but did not open fire. Two Israeli civilians suffered shrapnel wounds and a number of others were treated for severe emotional shock, included several children.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 26, 2008.


Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at fred343@gmail.com and see other of his bird graphics at

To Go To Top

Posted by Yosef Rabin, June 26, 2008.


1 –– Secure the Jewish Peoples right to pray on the Temple Mount!
2 –– Secure Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount!
3 –– Bring at least 600,000 Jews from all overt the world together for an awesome, holy and Jewish cause!

We will continue this campaign from now until after the fast of Tisha B'Av. Tisha B'Av is the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the two Temples that WE HAVE THREE GOALS!

1 –– Secure the Jewish Peoples right to pray on the Temple Mount! 2 –– Secure Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount! 3 –– Bring at least 600,000 Jews from all overt the world together for an awesome, holy and Jewish cause!

We will continue this campaign from now until after the fast of Tisha B'Av. Tisha B'Av is the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the two Temples that once stood on the Temple Mount. The fast will begin at Sundown (7:57pm) on Saturday August 9th and will conclude 20 minutes after sunset (8:20pm (Gra)) on Sunday August 10th.

1st Temple was built by King Shlomo in 950BCE and was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE

2nd Temple rebuilt in 353 BCE and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE

May the 3rd and everlasting Temple be rebuilt soon!

Please sign and pass on the petition!

The fast will begin at Sundown (7:57pm) on Saturday August 9th and will conclude 20 after sunset (8:20pm (Gra)) on Sunday August 10th.

1st Temple was built by King Shlomo in 950BCE and was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE

2nd Temple rebuilt in 353 BCE and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE

May the 3rd and everlasting Temple be rebuilt soon!

Please sign and pass on the petition! http://www.petitiononline.com/har1/petition.html

Contact Yosef Rabin at yosefrabin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 25, 2008.

Perhaps you recall a series of five movies starring Charles Bronson called "Death Wish" starting in 1974. His daughter was raped and then killed herself, fleeing her tormenters. Bronson, as Paul Kersey a well-known architect, began a mission of vengeance. He had a hand gun and roamed places like Central Park in New York City where thugs frequently decided he was an easy ‘mark' to be mugged, robbed or killed. He shot them dead. Soon New York's murders, robberies and rapes declined and the people were delighted. (So were the Police, although they couldn't say so.)

I was thinking about this after I read about a Jewish, kippah-wearing boy, 17 year old Rudy Haddad, walking in a Jewish quarter, the 19th district of Paris on June 21st. Rudy was attacked by 15-30 "African immigrants". No one ‘said' they were Muslims. They beat him with iron bars and fractured his skull. He has just awakened from a coma. This horror story has NOT been covered in the mainstream media. (See the article from Phyllis Chesler below.)

In January 2006 Ilan Halimi was brutally tortured for 3 weeks by gangs of African Muslim immigrants, along with the neighbors in Paris. He finally died on February 13, 2006. 19 of the gang are facing trial for his torture and murder.

What justice it would be to wander the streets of Paris, with an automatic weapon, looking like a vulnerable Jew and simply kill any and all who came to assault a Jew. No arrests –– just seeming executions.

Laws are evolved by civilized people for civilized people –– NOT for murdering thugs, especially those who believe their religion needs the fresh blood sacrifice of their victims. Muslims in France and England have invaded and brought with them the hate of their teachings in Islam. I speak of thugs and street gangs who look for victims, particularly Jews, to savagely beat and kill.

Charles Bronson's screen vigilante's solution was fast and simple. No pity; no courts; no arrests –– just kill them as they come at you. Their rules are No Pity, so let all play by their rules.

The article below is called "Young Jewish Boy Savagely Beaten in Paris." It is by Phyllis Chesler and it appeared today on the Chesler Chronicles –– Pajamas Media website.

Dr. Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women's studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women's Health Network (1974). Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com.

Sometimes, novels are prophetic. I am thinking of George Orwell and Jean Raspail who both imagined life in the late 20th and early 21st century. Raspail is the novelist who imagined that a dark-skinned barbarian horde would take over France. His work, The Camp of the Saints(1973) was originally condemned as "racist." Slowly, over time, European government leaders began reading his novel and consulting with Raspail. I have written about his work before HERE and HERE in my book, The Death of Feminism.

In January of 2006, Ilan Halimi was brutally tortured for three full weeks in Paris by gangs of African Muslim immigrant torturers. The media did not describe them as "Muslims," but rather as "youth," "militants," "gang-members, "immigrants," and "immigrants from Africa." Neighbors took turns and joined in torturing Halimi. Other neighbors heard his screams and did nothing. Some came to watch. Halimi died on February 13, 2006. The ringleader of the gang, Youssouf Fofana fled to Ivory Coast in Africa but was extradited back to France. He and 18 others are facing a trial in his torture and murder. American expatriate journalist, Nidra Poller, has written about this horrific case.

Now, a visibly Jewish, kipah-wearing 17 year-old, Rudy Haddad, walking in a Jewish quarter, was set upon by 15-30 "African immigrants." No one is saying whether they are Muslims or not. Alright, Martians from Africa beat Haddad with iron bars and fractured his skull. Haddad, like Halimi, and like their attackers, are also of African or possibly Arab descent –– as was Sebastien Selam who was murdered in Paris in 2003. Haddad has just come out of a medically induced coma. According to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report:

"While French officials were quick to condemn the attack, most fell short of identifying the crime as anti-Semitic, saying the police first needed to complete their ongoing investigation. French President Nicolas Sarkozy told reporters while visiting Israel this week that he was "particularly shocked by what happened to a young French boy, on the pretext that he was wearing a kipah," the AFP news agency reported. In an initial presidential statement Sunday, Sarkozy denounced the attack but did not draw such conclusions." Read the JTA Report at

However, various representatives of the French Jewish community have denounced this horrific crime as "anti-Semitic" which, when last I checked, is also considered a form of racism.

So, where are all the anti-racists now? I hear no condemnations. The silence is chilling. And all too predictable. Where are the mainstream media? Where is FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the International Herald Tribune? (Only ABC ran a Reuters' 190 word story earlier today). When I googled this story, the first three pages consisted of stories filed by small bloggers and mainly by Jewish and Israeli media. (Military Photos carried a story as well). But where are The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times? For heaven's sake: Where is Le Soir, Le Monde, and Figaro? Has France's Channel 2 covered this?

Arguably, Channel 2 bears a great responsibility here for that is the channel that broadcast the fake murder of Mohammed al-Dura and that sued for defamation when Philippe Karsenty described the coverage as a hoax. As we all know, the French Court found that Karsenty's criticism was not "libelous." Charles Enderlin, of Channel 2, has vowed to appeal this decision and has gotten 300 of his journalist-buddies to form a circle of support for him.

I think that Haddad's grieving family and the Chabad community (to which Haddad was apparently connected since he was on his way to pray at the Beth Chaya Mouchka Lubavitch synagogue), might explore a lawsuit (or at least a demonstration) against the state-owned Channel 2 and against Enderlin. If you think this is a far-fetched suggestion, please consider the other options.

Indeed, what is to be done? Do Jews world-wide, beginning in Europe, and particularly in the 19th arondissement in Paris, need Israeli Defense Forces to guard them as they walk to Parisian synagogues?

Do French police officers need to guard individual Jews just as they have been forced to guard each and every synagogue and Jewish Center ever since Palestinian terrorist leader Yaser Arafat began his murderous campaign in the late 1960s of airplane hijackings, hostage taking, and synagogue and airport bombings, etc.?

Must France, and for that matter, all Europe, start deporting African and/or Muslim immigrants? (Oh I can just hear the civil libertarians shutting down their minds. Even I'm slightly queasy about this suggestion). Or must France consider deporting only African and/or Muslim immigrant gang-members? (What if a gang member reforms and is rehabilitated and we deport him back to a country which practices torture and kidnaps young children as soldiers in their barbarian armies?) Well then, how about deporting African Muslim immigrant gang members who have previously been convicted of violent crimes? (But you can't hold someone's past against them, it may not predict their future, they may turn over a new leaf, etc.) Alright, then. What is the magic formula that will allow Europeans to act against the barbarians in their midst without having to live with something that is worse than barbarism, namely, that most-dreaded of accusations: "Racism?"

Clearly, Europe is willing to sacrifice its Jews to African immigrant and/or to Muslim barbarism. Will it prove willing to allow secularists or Christians to also be sacrificed to barbarism as well?

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@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 25, 2008.


An Israeli lawyer mounted a worldwide appeal in behalf of a P.A. Arab who tipped Israel off in advance to terrorist attacks, under sentence of death by the P.A.. The P.A. said it would not carry out the sentence (IMRA, 6/10).

Maybe, or will the P.A. would carry out the sentence eventually? I guess that gunmen will fetch him from prison unopposed, and execute him brutally.


Just as it was initialing a free trade agreement with the EU, the GCC complained about the EU tendency to improve trade and cooperation with Israel. Israel, claims the GCC, violates the human rights of the Palestinian Arabs. As for GCC practice, the State Dept. calls it inhumane. The GCC dismisses the US report as politically influenced (IMRA, 6/10).

"Politically influenced?" How so? Not said. The GCC simply defames the US. Actually, the US strives for good relations with the GCC, but does have to monitor human rights.

The accusations against Israel are politically and religiously motivated. Fact is, the P.A. violates the human rights of Jews and Arabs.


Israeli Arabs are distributing 20,000 booklets to Israeli Arab students. The booklets were written by Palestinian Arab children in Israel, the P.A., Syria, and Lebanon. They present the Arab myths about the formation of Israel and omit factual matters that mitigate against hatred of the Zionists. The project is an attempt to signify that Israeli Arabs maintain solidarity with the other Palestinian Arabs [many of whom live in Jordan, which is in Palestine] (IMRA, 6/10).

Still don't think of masses of Israeli Arabs as a fifth column?


Right after Israel took risky steps to accommodate the P.A., such as to let more P.A. workers into Israel, the P.A. Prime Minister urged the EU not to upgrade relations with Israel, on the grounds that Israel oppresses P.A. Arabs. Upgrading would be worth billions to Israel. In retaliation, Israel withheld excise taxes from the P.A. for a week and deducted P.A. debts to Israeli companies. The US asked Israel to explain (IMRA, 6/10.) as if P.A. complaints aren't slander! Withheld for a week? Big deal! Why not retract the concessions?


Hamas is preparing for a broad Israeli attack. It requests a ceasefire without pledging not to use the time to smuggle arms into Gaza, in further preparation. (IMRA, 6/10).

Is an Israeli attack inevitable? Yes. Hamas is bombarding Israeli cities and expanding its range of attack. This is intolerable. But it also is building up forces to deter Israeli counter-attack, as has Hizbullah, which Hamas emulates.

Since an Israeli attack is inevitable, when should it be made? The sooner Israel destroys Hamas, the fewer the bombardments and casualties from the invasion. Indeed, unless Israel rolls back its enemies, its enemies will roll over Israel.

Another factor motivates Olmert. He worries whether he can survive in politics and avoid jail. His actions obviously reflect that concern. It is one reason he should resign or his Cabinet should dissolve his regime. A Prime Minister should not jeopardize national security for personal reasons.

[Other reasons for Olmert and his Foreign and Defense Ministers to resign is that their short-range perspective and appeasement-minded ideology, and lack of intelligence outside of politics and corruption, render them incompetent.]

How does Olmert's personal concern affect his policy? It elevates immediate public relations to top priority. His appeasement-mindedness and desire to please the hostile State Dept. keep him from decisive action against Hamas. A strong attack would mean a spike in Israeli casualties. He probably thinks his people would hold those casualties against him. [I would hold against him the fact that the casualties would have been much less had he attacked months ago and, indeed, had he started annexing Jewish and vacant parts of Gaza rather than abandoning Gaza to terrorists who now fire upon Israel.]

For those reasons, some commentators anticipate a medium level attack on Gaza, followed by a ceasefire. The medium level attack would mean modest casualties. The ceasefire would keep Gaza from the headlines, no longer a continuing embarrassment. This would enable Olmert to pretend to have accomplished something. It would lessen public outrage when he offers an excessive amount of land to the P.A., while he would claim to be making peace.

Of course, this would not make peace. To the contrary, It would strengthen the Islamists. If Israel were democratic, Olmert could not be so anti-Zionist. Although he has lost the confidence of the people, who oppose his giveaways, he is propped up in power by other political parties fearing a loss of seats in new elections. He gets away with all this because the one-sided media, partly under government control, favors appeasement. It makes excuses for him and fails to draw stronger conclusions for the people.


The decorated unit slated to be first into Gaza wrote to the Chief of Staff asking that if captured and alive, they not be exchanged for a large number of enemy prisoners, and if dead, not be the excuse for release of any enemy prisoners (IMRA, 6/10).

Brave soldiers. They put their country and their people before themselves. Now contrast that with the Olmert regime, which puts public relations and disproved theory before the country, and with Olmert, Sharon, and Barak, who, prosecutors allege, raise funds illegally, and with Peres, who evaded prosecution.


I'll allow some exaggeration because this is diplomacy and the text is written by diplomats who always allege sentimental historical connections between their country and some other, whose present regime is as low as can be. That country in this case is Syria. Pres. Sarkozy praised Pres. Assad for the agreement ending Hizbullah's show of force in Lebanon (IMRA, 6/10).

The agreement advanced and recognized informally Syrian and Hizbullah hegemony over Lebanon. Nothing to praise, much to disgust!


The NY Times had called Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor "an inexcusable and short-sighted aggression, but the memoirs of the editor then in charge admitted his mistake. Now the Times calls a potential military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities a "disaster." What would be a disaster if Iran developed nuclear weapons. We no longer seem able to stop it except militarily.

The Times calls Israel's partial economic shunning of Gaza "collective punishment." Self-contradictorily, the Times calls for collective punishment of Iran by slowing gasoline sales to Iran. Having less gasoline wouldn't stop Iran from nuclear development and probably wouldn't deter it (NY Sun, 6/11, Ed.).


Racing to conclude agreements with the Arabs, PM Olmert urges concluding them now, while the US president is the friendliest one. Implication: other ones would demand more of Israel. Cited as evidence is Bush's letter acknowledging that Israel should keep its settlement blocs in Judea-Samaria, a letter that the US could not disavow (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 6/11, p.7). Bush already has. He's no friend of Israel. They just assert he is. What he does contradicts that.


An Israeli reserve general posits a third alternative to ceasefire and invasion. He suggests waiting for popular pressure over deprivation in Gaza to accumulate against Hamas build up in Gaza until Hamas collapses. Hamas has lost popularity to Abbas.

As the general sees it, a ceasefire would let full supplies into Gaza and the pressure out. Hamas would rearm. An invasion would cost Israel casualties but make the Arabs rally around Hamas (Arutz-7, 6/11).

If the general favors the pressure on Gaza, why doesn't he recommend intensifying the pressure, instead of relieving it, as Israel is doing, as by giving money to Abbas, who passes some on to Gaza?

He might have mentioned what a chance waiting takes. It lets Hamas build up more forces, though slowly. Arabs have a way of blaming Israel for their own faults, so it isn't clear they would destroy Hamas. He knows that waiting lets Israeli towns be bombed, more as enemy rockets improve.

I see Hamas as part of the ring of missile forces around Israel, soon if not already capable of destroying Israel. I think that Israel must remove each of those enemies, Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and perhaps more, the harsher, the better. Otherwise, one day, a hundred thousand missiles will start to descend upon Israel and end its existence within a week.

The cost of invasion is not just an extra cost, as the casualties, destruction, and demoralization from the constant and growing bombardment takes its toll. But the general has defined invasion poorly. He assumes one insufficient to root out terrorism. That may be what Olmert wants to do, but invasion should be all-out.


Arab News claims that S. Arabia increased oil output significantly. New oil fields are announced in Brazil, Ghana, and Greenland, but only interruptions in oil delivery as from storms or ruptured pipelines affect the price. Inventories pile up, but the market does not respond to supply-and-demand. Hedge funds have turned to oil, and keep bidding the price up (IMRA, 6/11).

Our president and the candidates are silent about the cause of rising prices. The NY Sun, however, finds no energy gain from corn-based ethanol and a waste of resources. It notes that the US has tremendous reserves it refuses to tap, in the West and offshore (6/11). When we devise a plan for conservation, I would want to develop those reserves, except where they would ruin the environment.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by HaDaR, June 25, 2008.

This is the demonstration that numbers, truth, sanity or quality don't go necessarily together...

Just like a friend's 12 year old son told me recently: "There are billions of flies who eat sh.. and think it's the best; that doesn't mean that they are right because they are more than we are, or that it's the best food, or that we should do the same"

Whoever says that it must not be a war against Islam, that it is not a war of civilizations, is full of it and leads the civilised word to disaster and bloodshed through a typical "ostrich" policy, since on the other side they have been preparing their revenge and their re-conquest for a very long time (just watch their TVs filled with programs on Salah Din EVERY DAY!)

It is absolutely not a racial issue. Political or national issues are not the problem. Islam, their religion, their culture is the issue!

This comes from Carl in Jerusalem's website:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, which aired on LBC TV on June 19, 2008: Let's go to the videotape. A transcript follows.


Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: Marriage is actually two things: First we are talking about the marriage contract itself. This is one thing, while consummating the marriage –– having sex with the wife for the first time –– is another thing. There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a one-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of nine, seven, or eight. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife... But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for having sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and traditions. In Yemen, girls are married off at nine, ten, eleven, eight, or thirteen, while in other countries, they are married off at 16. Some countries have legislated laws forbidding having sex before the girl is eighteen.


The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.

Interviewer: When she was six...

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: He married her at the age of six, and he consummated the marriage, by having sex with her for the first time, when she was nine. We consider the Prophet Muhammad to be our model.

Interviewer: My question to you is whether the marriage of a 12-year-old boy with an 11-year-old girl is a logical marriage, which is permitted by Islamic law.

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: If the guardian is the father... There are two different types of guardianship. If the guardian is the father, and he marries his daughter off to a man of appropriate standing, the marriage is obviously valid.


People find themselves in all kinds of circumstances. Take, for example, a man who has two, three, or four daughters. He does not have any wives, but he needs to go on a trip. Isn't it better to marry his daughter to a man, who will protect and sustain her, and when she reaches the proper age, he will have sex with her? Who says all men are ferocious wolves?

And having sex with a 9-year old girl is 'normal?' You've got to be kidding.

HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Center for Security Policy, June 25, 2008.

This comes from the July 25, 2008 Newsletter from Center for Security Policy. Contact them at shariah@centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Understanding Shariah law is integral to understanding the dangers of Shariah-compliant finance. Shariah law is Islamic law dating back to the 9th century and is today the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and the law under which the Taliban operates. Recent polls reveal that only 10-15% of Muslims worldwide want to live under this all-encompassing system of Islamic jurisprudence that covers all aspects of a Muslim's life including religious, social, political, and military obligations. However, with a current population of 1.5 billion Muslims, this translates to a huge pool of Jihadist recruits and supporters –– a base of approximately 150 –– 225 million Muslims.

Shariah law authorities, some of whom are now being paid handsomely by Barclays, Dow Jones, Standard & Poors, HSBC, Citibank, Merrill Lynch, Deutschebank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Credit Suisse and others have the power to dictate Shariah compliance as deemed by "scholarly consensus" on matters of finance, family, penal law, apostasy, and war. Examples of authoritarian Shariah law include: 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; the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape; honor killings of those, principally women, who have dishonored the family; death to apostate Muslims who chose to leave Islam; inferior status of non-Muslims, and capital punishment for those "slander Islam."

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, June 24, 2008.

Well, Sarkozy was in Jerusalem this week, and standing before the Knesset he called for Israel to agree to have Jerusalem divided, with half turned over to the savages. He also called for ethnic cleansing of the Jews living in the West Bank

These French politicians have long believed that peace could be created by turning Israel into a sort of Vichy appeasement regime. But now that they want to purchase peace with land, they may be on to something important.

Never one to back down from a challenge, I have prepared a set of proposals for consideration by the French people, so they too can achieve a full, lasting, and just peace with their historic opponents.

First, we all agree that territory must not be annexed by force. Therefore, we can also agree that Germany has a moral right to demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine, for the French aggression in 1945 and its consequent occupation must not be rewarded. "A full withdrawal for full peace" should operate here. Further, France must agree to the return and rehabilitation of all ethnic Germans expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after World Wars I and II, as well as all those they define as their descendents.

But this, of course, is just the first step toward a solution, as no aggression can be rewarded and France has much other stolen territory to return. It took Corsica from Genoa, Nice and Savoy from Piedmont; as the successor state, Italy must get back all these lands. By similar token, territories grabbed from the Habsburgs go back to Austria, including Franche-Comt., Artois, and historic Burgundy. The Roussillon area (along the Pyrenees) must be returned to Spain, its rightful owner. And Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, and Gascony must be returned to their rightful owners, the British royal family.

Not even this not enough for the sake of peace. Brittany and Languedoc must be granted autonomy at once, recognizing the Breton and Occitan Liberation organizations as their legal rulers. This leaves the French government in control over the Ile de France.

That, however, still does not solve the problem of the Holy City of Paris, sacred to artists, gourmets, and adulterers. The Corsicans obviously have a historic claim to the Tomb of the Emperor Napoleon, their famed son, as well as the Invalides complex and beyond. For the sake of peace, is it not too much to ask that Paris be the capital for two peoples? The French authorities must agree to prevent French Parisians from even entering the sacred tomb area, lest this upset the Corsicans.

The Saint Chapelle and the Church of Notre Dame of course will be internationalized, under joint Vatican-art historical auspices. Indeed, the French should consider it a compliment of the highest order that so many people see Paris as an international city.

The French have nothing to complain of. They will enjoy the benefits of peace and retain control of the Champs Elysees.

Actually, come to think of it, even the Champs Elysees may be too much. Recalling the French position that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, perhaps the true French capital is not Paris at all, but Vichy.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, June 24, 2008.
This is a news item from Arutz-7

(IsraelNN.com) The father of kidnapped IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit told demonstrators at a rally in Jerusalem outside the Prime Minister's Residence Sunday night that Ehud Olmert is delaying his son's release from captivity by Hamas terrorists.

"Mr. Prime Minister, you had two whole years for negotiators, for bargaining, for checking options, even for talking to Hamas," said the elder Shalit. "With your unbelievable worthlessness you failed to work for my son's release. Now is the time for a decision," he declared

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, June 24, 2008.

Hamas celebrated its first anniversary of power in the Gaza Strip amidst massive misinterpretations regarding the situation there.

Ironically, Hamas's victory and survival has less to do with Israel than the rotten strategy of Yasir Arafat. He ruled the Palestinian movement for 35 years by establishing a weak, anarchic, corrupt, and factionalized structure which he played like a violen. After Arafat's death, Fatah paid the price by collapsing in the Gaza Strip, first electorally then militarily. Having proved a failure in government, Fatah then showed itself a failure as an opposition.

Hamas's power rests repression, radical ideology, international protection and an incompetent enemy. A Palestinian storeowner told an American reporter, "What can we do? Hamas is even stronger than a year ago. They can take me and put me away whenever they want." This is the kind of situation which elsewhere makes the West, especially the left, sneer at dictatorships that –– as was once said of Italian fascist Benito Mussolini –– take away freedom but take credit for making the trains run on time.

Yet while the world prevents Israel from defeating Hamas through military action and very tight sanctions, Fatah is its own worst enemy in combating Hamas.

President George Bush recently stated that a Fatah-ruled Palestinian state should be quickly developed since, "It will serve as an alternative vision to what is happening in Gaza."

This is rubbish. No matter how much money the West pumps in, the nationalists are not going to offer an attractive regime. Fatah's lower level of still-considerable repression is counterbalanced by the corruption and anarchy included in the package. Jawad Tibi, a former Fatah cabinet minister, explained, "Hamas is Fatah with beards."

True and that lack of differentiation is the problem. Moreover, Fatah continues its own old tricks. When it does arrest those involved in terrorism, they are quickly released. Incitement to commit violence continues on the Palestinian Authority (PA) media, and the PA is far more eager to reconcile with Hamas than to make peace with Israel.

Yes, the PA's survival is a U.S., Western, and Israeli interest but let's not get sentimental or naïve about these weak, corrupt, and largely radical allies of necessity. As for Hamas, it possesses three key weapons.

* The mainstream appeal of extremism and terrorism. "Hamas is strong and brutal but very good at governing," Eyad Sarraj told the New York Times, which describes him as a British-trained psychiatrist and secular opponent of Hamas, After all, he continues, it's distributing gas coupons, getting people to pay electricity bills, and keeping the city clean.

Suddenly, people considered "progressive" see the up side of having a police state. Imagine this kind of thinking applied to other dictatorships all over the world: they are brutal but boy do they keep law and order! Sarraj also forgets that Hamas's war policy resulted in reducing the gas and electricity supply.

But Sarraj is no moderate. In 1999, he wrote that Palestinians were better off without the peace process. Refusing to recognize Israel had been a "nuclear weapon" and armed struggle a great asset. Giving these up was a mistake, Sarraj insisted, and might lead to ending the conflict without eliminating Israel.

Sarraj, while a member of Gaza's tiny left, advocated a strategy parallel to that of Hamas today. Perhaps that's why he protested Arafat's repression but now seems content to accept Hamas's, however much he dislikes its Islamism. The continued extremism of mainstream Palestinian activist opinion makes Hamas's rule seem an acceptable tradeoff because of its militancy.

* The success of ideological demagoguery. One Hamas supporter told a reporter: "Israel is trying to pressure us to make us forget that the real problem is the occupation." Of course, there is no Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip, which is one reason why Hamas was able to seize power. "We can take it," she continued, "The Koran teaches that in the end we will be victorious."

This expresses widespread sentiments: Israel is the only enemy; everything else is irrelevant, suffering isn't important, victory is inevitable. Shortly after Hamas seized power, Sarraj told a Canadian reporter about how Hamas threw Fatah men off the tops of buildings, murdered them in hospital beds, and tortured them in a "horrific" manner.

But that isn't important. Whether Hamas brutalizes Palestinians, creates conditions that destroy living standards, drags people into endless war, turns Gaza into a mini-Iran, or causes numerous casualties, its militancy and refusal to compromise is what counts. That may seem irrational to Western observers but that's how Palestinian politics work.

* Pretended moderation as a scam. Since Westerners can't understand the culture of ideology and extremism, they're sure Hamas will moderate. This is supposedly proven when Hamas leaders say that if Israel only returns to the 1967 borders; gives the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip to a Hamas-ruled state; and lets millions of Palestinians live in Israel, they'll make a truce until they decide otherwise.

This is a very silly evaluation, reminding me of an American high school textbook which said Israel should try this idea and if that didn't work we would all know better.

Finally, there's the strange conclusion that since Hamas isn't about to fall from power, this proves sanctions have failed. One could say it shows economic and military pressures should be raised further. But at least it should be understood that the sanctions' purpose is to make Hamas less able to kill even more people, take over the West Bank, damage Israel, or turn Gaza into –– to stand Bush's view on its head –– an "attractive alternative."

Any policy that prevents those things seems pretty valid; any Westerner favoring a strategy that strengthens Hamas should be forced to live under its rule.

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 Yid With Lid, June 24, 2008.

There is evidence that the Barack Obama birth certificate provided by Senator Obama's campaign and the Daily Kos is a fraud. Israelinsider has compared the Obama-issued birth certificate to an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual (see below) The authentic one includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature –– features that Obama's alleged certificate lack, as well as a certificate number referencing the birth year that was blacked out in the image claimed as genuine by Obama's campaign. According to Hawaiian authorities, authentic certificates are printed and sent by mail: there are no electronic-only copies.

The issue go way beyond whether Obama is a legitimate citizen or not. Because if Senator Obama II fails to provide proof of his "natural born" American citizenship verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality, a legal, and political battle that America does not need right now:

The article below is entitled "Analysis: Faked birth certificate suggests Obama may not be US citizen" and was written by Rueven Koret. It appeared today on Israel Insider

[Editor's Note: As an aside, in the summer of 2006 during the Second Lebanon War, Reuven Koret was one of the first to denounce the Qana "Massacre" as a hoax –– and was proven right.]

The "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be a photoshopped fake.

The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks. But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document –– features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack.

The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation
website [photobucket.com/images/birth%20certificate%20obama/] –– including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack –– one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.

That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.

Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject [sraelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12932.htm], but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet.

An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable.

Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."

Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 birth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta.

So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama –– because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" –– must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document –– notably in very low resolution –– on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image –– what now appears to be a crude forgery –– raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide.

Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II, as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified?

There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive. Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking.

Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later –– and there is no evidence that he was –– he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and –– if forgery or misrepresentation were involved –– he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.

But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too.

Because the consequences were he to admit, or should it come out, that he was not born in Hawaii would be so grave as to make it tempting to take the gamble and hope that no one dares call his most audacious bluff by demanding proof. Talk about the audacity of hope.

But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack.

The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting.

There is one simple way for the candidate to clear up the issue once and for all: produce for public inspection and objective analysis the paper copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate –– if one exists. If he's lost the original, he can request a certified copy. Ordinary citizens are required to produce one to get a passport or a driver's license. Surely it's not too much to ask from a man who aspires to hold the highest office in the land.

The issue is not whether Obama is black or white, Christian or Muslim. It is whether he was born in the USA and thus a citizen eligible according to the Constitution to run for President.

If proof of citizenship does not exist, then surely it would be wiser to admit it now.

Because if Barack Hussein Obama II does not produce definitive proof of his "natural born" American citizenship with original, verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his personal credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality.

UPDATE 6/26:

Janice Okubo, in response to an Israeli Insider question on Tuesday, would not confirm nor deny whether she had told a St. Petersburg Times reporter whether she had said the birth certificate was "real", citing the statutory stipulation that "Hawaii state law (HRS §338-18) prevents disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute." This would, however, seem to negate the propriety of any disclosure by her of confidential information.

Jim Geraghty of The National Review Online, following up on this Israel Insider report, said he had contacted Okubo
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q= ZTIzMDE2OTJiOTkwNmE3MTQwOWZiODYyZTBiMzdhMmI=:

"I spoke to Ms. Okubo late Wednesday afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama's certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is exactly the same" and it has 'all the components of a birth certificate' record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily Kos is not genuine."

"The 'embossed seal' in question is, she said, probably on the back of the document provided to Daily Kos, but not visible (as in another certificate posted on Israel Insider for contrast). She thinks the difference in visibility can be attributed to the pressure used when applying the seal."

Geraghty's interpretation of Okubo's comments is inexact and tendentious. First, her observation that "the form is the same" is not contested, here or elsewhere. No one is doubting that the form that appears on the various websites (including this one) is a replica of that used for valid certificates. Therefore Geraght's interpretation that follows "In other words" is clearly his own conclusion, not hers.

Indeed, Okubo confirms to Geraghty that the image is lacking the "embossed seal" (and the official signature) that are required for the certificate to be valid. While "she thinks" that the difference in visibility might be attributed to varying "pressure," she admits that she does not know and has not seen the original.

Contrasting the purported Obama image with the DeCosta sample, it is hard to imagine the embossed seal and signature being of such light pressure that they would become completely invisible. An inked date of June 6, 2007, in reverse, does come through. But in any event, Okubo's confirmation that the premsumptive birth certificate is lacking the required stamps makes it all the more imperative for Obama to release the original paper certification, the only valid kind, and not an easy-to-photoshop electronic facsimile thereof. It should not be hard to produce, since Hawaii provides for family members to request them.

Even though Geraghy notes that Obama "initially refused to provide his birth certificate," he has suggested that it is "rather unlikely" that Obama was born in Kenya, since it would require that the candidate and his family do a lot of lying. In fact, there were reports of Kenyati relatives claiming he was born there, and there is the mysterious disappearance of his grandmother, who may indeed know something about this subject.

After all, being born in Hawaii is part of the "family legend" and it would be unreasonable to expect this to vary from interview to interview, especially when a non-Hawaiian birth would invalidate Obama's run for the presidency.

It is indeed hard to believe that Obama could have gone through his life without having to prove that he was an American citizen. But the credulity with which the mainstream media has automatically accepted as valid the image that appears on the radical left Daily Kos blog and on the Obama campaign's polemical "Fight the Smears" website makes it clear that many have been unwilling, now and in the past, to demand proof of an authentic document. They prefer to accept on faith that the candidate or his campaign would not lie about such a thing, assuming he has nothing to hide and no motive to lie.

But until the certified paper birth document is produced –– either by media pressure or a legal challenge in any state –– the fact remains that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President according to the Constitution.

[Editor's Note: This comes from http://terryfrank.net/?p=3424]

The other salient aspect is that Obama already is ineligible with or without the birth certificate. His mother was only 18 at the time. The requirement for native American birth is that the mother must reside in the USA 10 years, 5 of which must be after the age of 16. So 16 + 5 =21. She was 3 years shy of eligibility and Obama is NOT native born in compliance.

I read a few comments on other forums belittling the importance of the birth certificate and Obama's suspected failure to register for the draft. Here's the draft registration requirement.

* Selective Service Registration: Defense Authorization Act established Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 3328

The law says that all men living in the United States who are ages 18 through 25 must register, except those who are in valid non-immigrant status (e.g., students, visitors, and people who have been permitted to come to the US for limited periods of time, etc.). The Selective Service interprets this to mean that undocumented men must register. Failing to register is a federal crime, with a penalty of up to five years in prison or a $250,000 fine or both.

By John Galt

UPDATE July 5, 2008:

Israel Insider reported:

Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.

The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the diligent detective work of independent investigative journalists (led by JimJ and Texas Darling) and imaging professionals such as Polarik in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate The Daily Kos, a "progressive" blog site, and the Obama campaign's "Fight the Smears" website, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance. Moreover, the blog and the campaign have been negligent in allowing the promotion of obviously forged and fake official documents together with the purported image of Obama's birth certificate.

The Yid With Lid "explores themes of Political relativity." This appeared today and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 24, 2008.


The NY Times editorialized against the suspicious appearance of no-bid contracts that Iraq is signing with US oil companies to refurbish the industry there. Are the contracts corrupt?

Why does Iraq's oil industry need rehabilitation? "Years of UN sanctions and war." Not war, but Islamist sabotage (Sunday Opinion, 6/22).

Sanctions didn't do it as much as Saddam's spending on pals and palaces. The editorial forgot that Saddam had let the industry run down even before sanctions.


The IDF issued new standing orders to its troops. Unless fired upon, or they have good intelligence that armed Arab militiamen at the border intend to attack, the Israeli troops are not to fire upon them (IMRA, 6/23).

The trouble with that is that the militiamen are likely planning trouble, such as planting roadside bombs. Further trouble is that Israel adheres to its truces but the Arabs don't. Until the Arabs learn to keep their word, it doesn't pay to make truces with them. Truces are no good anyway. They don't resolve anything and are a Muslim tactic for gaining a breathing spell. My reading of military history taught me that when one has enemy forces on the run, keep in pursuit and annihilate them. Otherwise, it gets harder, later.


Pres. Sarkozy assured the Knesset that France always will be Israel's friend, will protect Israel, and is a country in which Jews are safe. Then he urged Israel to expel the Jews from Judea-Samaria and divide Jerusalem (Arutz-7, 6/23).

The "Jerusalem Post" called Sarkozy Israel's best French President in decades (NY Sun, 6/23, p.6), the way Clinton and Bush were called the best US Presidents for Israel. All three work to dismember Israel.

Jews are not safe in France. Its Jews often are attacked, usually by Muslims. The growing Muslim population in France talks about taking over from the French of declining birth rate. Apparently he wants to take Israel down with France.

One French President cannot sincerely promise that his successors won't become like DeGaulle, and turn on Israel. Take Sarkozy, for example. He already has turned on Israel. No friend of Israel suggests an ethnic cleansing of Jews from the cradle of Jewish civilization and dividing its capital that never was an Arab capital. Rather than make peace, as Sarkozy said it would, it strengthens the jihadists, as some of his Knesset critics said it would. Sarkozy is for appeasement, which France should know doesn't work. He talks strong but proposes weakness. He's not much different from Israel's enemies

His statement, I think, is the result of having a supposed Jewish state, supposed, because it doesn't protect its Jews or Judaism much. If there were no Israel, these foreign politicians wouldn't pretend to be a friend of the Jews.


The US finally acknowledged that Putin is a dictator. Turkey's Islamist President does much of what Putin did. He won power during an economic crisis in which the regime's corruption and incompetence cost it popularity. In office, he devoted himself to accumulating power by overcoming constitutional restraints and undermining the secular nature of the state. He is breaking campaign promises and increasingly shattering the impression he had given of being moderate.

Turkey's Supreme Court overturned his law allowing head scarves to be worn on campus. Some US commentators called the ruling undemocratic. Actually, the Supreme Court is the Constitution's guardian (Michael Rubin, MEFNews, 6/7).

So is the Turkish Army, but the West tells it to stay out of constitutional issues, even though they would keep Islamists from destroying the Constitution. US officials have too much to say for the little they know. They see foreign countries from an American perspective (but not always from American needs). The same situation abroad has a different meanings there. Take head scarves.

From an American perspective, it doesn't matter what kind of hat someone wears. In a country that Islamists are striving to take over, it does matter. Identifying people helps segregate them and intimidate some. It is part of the Islamist means of gaining dominance.


An Iranian official said that just by mentioning a possible US or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, an Israeli caused the price of oil to jump by $11 a barrel. War news does that. He said that if Iran actually were attacked, the price would soar until it caused a world depression, and Muslims would rise up against the US, including in Iraq (IMRA, 6/7). But the US would lack the oil to wage war.

If Muslims have such solidarity, they reject infidels' right to defend themselves from Islamist aggression. Muslims do tend towards religious chauvinism. Let this be a warning. The US ought to ascertain the cause of the oil price increases, so it might counter them. Difficult to do when the administration encourages consumption and candidates do not try to discourage it and don't study it.


Iraq offers voters parties whose slate is picked by bosses, who may be sectarian. Candidates play up to the bosses. This is divisive rather than democratic (Scott Carpenter & Barry Rubin, MEF News, 6/9). That's Israel's system! Now Iraq's system must be reformed. Else, Bush will have failed to democratize it.


Some abandoned properties contain too much toxic material for developers to afford the clean-up. In stepped New York State. It arranged subsidies for redevelopment. Unfortunately, its rules allow most of the money to go to large-scale developers of properties with lower costs of clean-up. The legislature has suspended the program so it can figure out how to correct it (NY Sun, 6/10).

That's the way government often does things. Lobbyists and legislators distort the stated intent of legislation.


The NY Times is reporting what I had, half a year ago, that anti-terrorist efforts in southern Asia are working. Indonesia has a more conciliatory approach, the Philippines a more military one. Both countries have ground terrorist forces down to a fraction. Muslims seeking independence for Mindanao claim they are not terrorist and should be treated differently. The news brief stresses that the gains may be transient. The US has helped those countries greatly (6/9, A1).

Just as the governments adjust techniques to fit their situations, so, too, terrorists may adjust their techniques. Until they are down, they are not out.

The NY Sun, being fairer, has editorials in which it welcomes what it considers progress in those it usually criticizes. Thus the Sun editorial welcomed candidate Obama's appointment as an economic advisor an upholder of Walmart, which the newspaper considers an important source of savings for consumers and jobs for workers. (It puts rivals out of work, though.) The Times, whose editorials constantly berate Pres. Bush for mistakes in Iraq, should have had an editorial praising the effective US help to Indonesia and the Philippines against terrorism.

I found another difference between the two newspapers on 6/10. The Times presented Obama's economic policies (and his many misrepresentations of McCain's). The Sun noted that Obama declared himself a partisan of free trade, though during the primary, he warned that he would pull out of the N. American Free Trade Agreement, unless it restricted trade more. He was appealing to the same industrial workers or unemployed as Clinton, in falsely blaming their loss of jobs on NAFTA, although the US car industry (management and unions) made its own troubles. Then a protectionist, now a free trader? Sounds like his usual zig-zagging.

In my opinion, McCain is not fully correct, knowledgeable, or honest, but Obama is mostly incorrect, ignorant, and dishonest. He is slicker than Bill Clinton.


A poll found that Abbas gained a modest increase in popularity at Hamas' expense. Part of the reason is that Hamas was unable to make a ceasefire with Israel (IMRA, 6/9). But Israel will give it that ceasefire! See next section.


After the UNO determined ceasefire lines in Lebanon, the Olmert regime launched a hastily set up ground offensive it knew would not have time to affect the pre-determined outcome. Israelis got killed so their rulers could pretend to have shown initiative in the war.

The ceasefire allowed Hizbullah to rebuild and become stronger than before the war. That was a strategic failure for Israel (and for the US), now threatened by Hizbullah. Reinforcing Hizbullah's status, Israel has been arranging a prisoner exchange with it that favors it.

Next, Israel is negotiating a land-cession deal with Syria. All this confirms Hizbullah's dominance in Lebanon and vindicates Syria's alliance with Iran.

Now the Olmert regime intends a modest invasion of Gaza, not enough to destroy Hamas, but enough to pretend to have forced Hamas to accept a ceasefire. Olmert probably hopes a ceasefire would divert attention from casualties from Hamas rockets at a time when he is being investigated for corruption. He will get more Israelis killed for nothing. The Leftist media would refrain from saying so, because he is a leftist. The small opposition media would refrain from pointing that out, lest it be accused of undermining troop morale.

The deal would allow Hamas access to Egypt's border and a port if not also an airport. That means heavy weaponry for Hamas, a proxy army of Iran. It also would help Hamas take over Judea-Samaria (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 6/9). Hamas and Syria would be able to threaten Israel, same as Hizbullah.

I'm not sure how Ms. Glick means this would help Hamas in Judea-Samaria, but it would give Hamas more prestige. Odd that the US doesn't object about letting Hamas have more prestige, when it keeps demanding that Israel reduce its anti-terrorism in Judea-Samaria, in order to give Abbas more prestige over Hamas. It is odd, until you realize that the US sacrifices its own interest in stopping anti-Western jihadists so long as those jihadists help bring down Israel.

I think that the Right should criticize a small invasion as futile, but they should start doing so before the invasion. Unfortunately, there isn't much of a Right and not much media freedom. I don't count Netanyahu as on the right.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Rob Muchnick, June 24, 2008.

On the website of AIPAC –– the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in the US –– there is an article discussing the importance to the Jewish People of the liberation of the Temple Mount during the Six-Day War. Yet at AIPAC's last 7600-person annual convention in Washington, DC, the only mention of Jerusalem Day was provided by the five-person Manhigut Yehudit delegation.

Was it just an oversight? Of course not. The folks who produced this multi-million dollar "show" do not make such mistakes. They could not celebrate the liberation and re-unification of Jerusalem as that would be a direct slap in the face of fellow conference attendee –– and Israeli Prime Minister –– Ehud Olmert, who is actively trying to re-divide Jerusalem and give it and the Temple Mount to Mahmoud Abbas ...

Let's be honest, dear readers, the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People as an eternal inheritance from our Maker. As the socialist David Ben-Gurion even said (when the socialists were still true Zionists) –– "no Jew has the right to give any of it away". Let me add that no Jew can give any of it away –– even to a real "man of peace".

At AIPAC's show, Olmert, McCain, Obama, Hillary, Rice, the AIPAC leaders, and all of the other notable speakers went on and on about how Mahmoud Abbas is so truly interested in peace, and how Israel must grant him a viable and contiguous state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. All of these so-called friends of Israel of course gave lip-service to the fact that Israel must have "secure borders", but they so easily glossed over the fact that by granting Abbas these terms Israel will be cut in half and militarily indefensible –– not to mention it would lose its eternal, spiritual heart ...

It is a mark of shame for AIPAC that they have created such a tremendous tool, which could be used to benefit the Jewish People, but now it serves only the interests of the corrupt Oslo Gang, which would gladly see Israel destroyed before it relinquishes power.

(Jews used to be revered by others as "the Book People"; Romans feared us and renamed Judea and Samaria in order to eradicate us from their version of history by calling them Palestine. If we are serious about ending Islamic terror in Israel, achieving unity of Jewish people and reuniting all Jewish land, regaining self-respect is the first priority! This policy of appeasement and self-hate must end!)

Rob Muchnick is a member of Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership), which is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 24, 2008.


When I read the reports out of the Leftist-dominated Media (especially in Israel), they bend, twist and otherwise warp the news –– as if returning the bones and "body parts" of dead Israeli soldiers was such a 'wonderful humanitarian gesture'.

Don't they know that captured Israelis are generally first tortured and later murdered but buried in a known location so the Muslims can later dig up "body parts" to trade for convicted Arab Terrorists in prison?

Why is it that Arab Muslims believe that one Jewish hostage is worth 400-1000 Muslim Arab inmates in prisoner swap –– including those Arabs with Jewish blood on their hands? Is it because they know Jews value their people far more than Arabs do their own?

Being taken prisoner by Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Al Aksa, Syria, Iran, etc. is a deadly experience. They honor no international laws according their prisoners humane treatment but, they screech, howl and demand that all international humanitarian laws be applied to prisoners held by Israel. The Muslims who have migrated to Europe and America take advantage of the benevolent laws in these nations to preach hatred and fund Terror.

In America and Europe Muslims demand full compliance with international law on prisoners who have ignored all law in their grisly acts of murder. They use the laws of civilized nations to commit murder by atrocity and to penetrate that society with the full intent of subverting it.

Muslim Arabs have proven themselves to be a cruel and vicious lot when it come to treating their prisoners with any sense of humanity. They count on Leftist Pacifists to come to their aid, making them dupes and co-conspirators to "Jihad" (aka murder in the name of Islam).

Syria, for example, used to cut off the testicles of live Israeli prisoners and stuff them into the mouths of their screaming prisoners before they slit their throats or beheaded them with a dull knife –– as happened with Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg.

Yassir Arafat used to tie his prisoners (Jews, Christians or Muslims) to four cars and pull his victims apart –– like the Romans who thought drawing and quartering was an entertaining spectacle for the masses.

Yes, indeed, throughout their history Muslim Arabs have behaved as a savage, cruel species who represent the worst of the human race.

During Arafat's 12 year war in Lebanon (1970 to 1982), Arafat's Palestinians used Christians as a live blood supply for his wounded Palestinians. When the Israelis drove Arafat and his Palestinians out of Lebanon, they found prisoners stacked up like cordwood in the hospitals –– totally drained of their blood.

Human sacrifice from their earliest times was part of the culture of those who today are called "Arabs" and "Muslims". Granted Egypt and Iran do not consider themselves as Arabs but most of them are Muslims. In fact, the term "Aryan" is derived from the same root as "Iran".

When Israel trades hundreds of Muslim Arab prisoners who were caught (often at great risk to Israeli Jewish soldiers), tried and convicted for their crimes, they simply go back to their trade of Terror through murder in the most hideous ways conceivable.

Israel gets back bones and "body parts" but the released Terrorists return to generate more Jewish bones and "body parts".

To lie to an "infidel" (non-Muslim) in order to later entrap and kill is their way of life as permitted within Koranic law. When you hear a Muslim speak of the "peaceful" character of Islam, he really believes what he is saying. But, Islam doesn't mean "peace"; Islam means "Submission". The "peace" a Muslim is speaking about is when Islam is the dominant religion and he is enjoying the fruits of "peace" (meaning control) under Sharia law.

Islam's victims are not so fortunate. The history of Islam from Mohammed in the 7th Century onward, speaks of a non-productive people who raid, pillage, rape, enslave, murder and live on the production of the peoples they conquered with the sword. When that is used up, they move on to other victims with the doctrine that they are entitled to be served by others in deference to their superiority of Islam under Allah.

I suppose historians can speak of the bestial cruelty of other nations and religions who conquered, looted and slaughtered. But, somehow, that society encompassed by Islam never gave up its ways of unspeakable cruelty.

Now it is 2008 and the Muslims glorify their sacrifice of humans, be it their victims or even themselves or their own children in suicide missions where the Mullahs promise an immediate trip to Allah's Courtyard, that is "Warriors' Heaven" –– with 72 virgins and rivers of honey.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current President of Iran, brags that he will destroy the nation of Israel and then conquer Europe and America to enslave the people in a Global Caliphate under Islam's Sharia law. Blowing up "infidels" with nuclear weapons or simply using poison gas in subways is normative and acceptable to radical "Islamists".

When a particularly grisly Terror attack is successful, those "peaceful" Muslims give out candy and shoot off their guns as they celebrate their delight. Remember the TV scenes of the Muslim Arabs celebrating in Gaza after 9/11? If not, that's because the videos were censored very quickly and pulled from view.

Muslims can be nice, friendly sweet people when they are in the minority in another's land. But, as soon as they gain "critical mass" (like a nuclear bomb before it explodes) then they begin to push violently for dominance. It is encoded in their religion and no amount of friendly Western appeasement will change that.

I suspect that soon the West, in its Judeo-Christian tradition will get fed up and drive the Muslims back to their lands where they can practice their religion as the Mullahs so order.

However, in the meantime, until we Westerners smarten up to the threats and stakes of NOT combating this for our very lives, we are in harm's way and at great risk to losing everything we hold dear: our families, our lives, our homes, our lands. So......


It's long past time for the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and all the people to get back to the critical business of defending themselves and the nation. Delete the weak, corrupt government that floated to the surface because they are not any part of the people. Those (except for some) came to the Government, not as patriots, but because of their greed for power, privilege and money....always the money.

Our enemies have grown in strength, both in numbers, arms, training and feeling free to kill Jews with impunity. There are no punishments that the Israeli government enacts against murderers which cannot be reversed. Murdering Terrorists may be convicted, jailed and fed well for years but, they can always depend upon being released to kill again by a Left Liberal weak, corrupt government. They are even afforded excellent education while in jail from fellow Terrorist inmates to "improve" their killing techniques. If ever they were innocent, peace-living civilians, that time has long since past.

Unlike the Israeli Leftists, the Muslim Arab Palestinians who aren't currently engaged in Terror, are fully supportive of the Terrorists who bomb, shoot rockets and kill Jews. They shield them (willingly or not), allow them to hide –– using their women and children as "human shields". In school, summer camp and on TV, they educate their children to grow up into Terrorists, and give them refuge after their Terror actions. To this, the so-called "ordinary Palestinian" people are pledged –– whether as a people or as Muslim "Jihadist" operatives.

The Israeli government has proven itself to be not only useless in these perilous times but they have cravenly become allies and enablers to our most fearsome self-declared enemies.

As I said before, they are useless to the point of being traitors. They eagerly offer up the Land and her people as if they were human sacrifices. If time permitted, they should be indicted, tried and (if convicted) hung as traitors.

But, there is no time and the fight is with Muslim Arabs –– be they so-called "Palestinians", Syrians, Iranian, Egyptians, Lebanese, Saudis, if or when they attack. Doubtless, there will soon be a saturation missile attack coming from Hamas, Hezb'Allah, Syria and/or Iran.

The so-called Israeli Arabs have 10 or 11 Members sitting in the Knesset, voting the Jewish State out of existence. Would any of the above mentioned nations allow a Jew to sit in their government? I think not. The Israeli Arabs will do as much damage as they can once the neighboring hostile states and their Terrorist proxies launch the next assault which ties up the IDF on Israel's borders.

Those capable Israeli civilians, especially those who have been in the IDF and had military training, must be armed and trained to defend their local communities. They should resume the civil defense patrols. The fence that Israel is building is not sufficient to keep the Terrorists out of the civilian communities. The settlements in Judea and Samaria must be militarily strengthened with defensive arms, able to hold off rampaging hordes of Arab Muslims for as long as the IDF must fight hostile adversaries attacking on the borders.

You do know that the traitorous government of Ehud Olmert is following the policies of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres are making every effort to strip communities' armories of weapons in addition to the Police, with Court backing, removing the citizens' personal and community weapons –– even those of the community's self-defense units?

This is a war that Israel did not start, nor will it end until a great number of Arab Muslims are dead and they admit defeat. They will offer no quarter, no pity and will kill any soldier or civilian in the most gruesome method possible.

When the Americans fire-bombed Dresden during WW2, all people in Dresden were viewed as the enemy. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, killing all the people, under the world's first nuclear bombs, it was because the American government knew that everyone who was an enemy would kill the Americans and Allies when they or if they could. America knew it was at war, while the Israeli government has yet to grasp that critical fact.

Israel faces irredentist enemies who delight in killing Jews, be they infants, children, women, elders, husbands, father, brothers... The slaughter of the innocent was their "Rules of Engagement" for war. Therefore, it is time for the Jews to fight back without their so-called "Rules of Battle Purity" –– without the so-called restrictions of the Israeli gentlemanly "Rules of War".

Collateral damage (as in Dresden) must be the rule NOT the exception. The rule must be to win at any cost to our self-declared enemies. The Government of Failure must be put under house arrest lest they interfere with the defense of the Nation and her people and her G-d given Land (as they have for their entire terms of office).

We are told that Mahmoud Abbas, current President of the Palestinian Authority (aka Abu Mazen) and Head Commander of Fatah, the Tanzim, the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade and other factions of the PLO will move in lock-step with the Terrorists in Gaza, Hamas –– under the rule of Ismail Haniyeh, to march 'en masse' through Israel's borders and cross over unless stopped.

These are the militia, the real armies, of the Terrorists –– whom the Leftist Media like to call "militants" instead of their real name: Terrorists. If the Media and the world nations finally called them by their real name of Terrorists, maybe we Western nations (including Israel and America) might have a chance to defeat them, defend our people and survive ourselves. They are the enemy and must be treated as the enemy. Whether it's by rifle-fire, air-fuel bombs, artillery, armed drone planes, a well-armed Jewish civilian militia –– all methods must be used to route these merciless enemies. Give them the same pity they would give you and your family.

Will the Jew killers of Europe condemn us? Of course, but only because they are the supporters and suppliers of the Muslims who are doing what they would like to do to the Jewish nation and her people –– again. Don't wait until the Muslim migrating into Europe increase their critical mass and continue their assault on the host nations! Maybe (only maybe) then they will wake up.

If you think about fighting the enemies of the Jewish people, some will recall their past savagery. Some will recall in 1948 (and years before, especially the big pogroms of 1929 to 1936) how the hordes of Muslim Arabs overran the Jewish communities and slaughtered everyone they could catch. They tortured their victims and to complete their rage, they mutilated the dead. This was the clarion call by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem: "Itbach al Yehud!" (Kill the Jews!).

It's not only retribution for the past, it's what they still do according to their "blood-cult" of their violent Islamic society –– and what they plan to do in the future. Understand that the return of Israeli soldiers' "body parts" recently was NOT done as a kindness or confidence-building gesture, but to rub our soft, Western humanitarian feelings into the hate, cruelty and blood-lust with which they conduct their wars against all "infidels" (non-Muslims). LEARN!

War is never civilized. It is brutal, pitiless and cruel. Winner survive; losers die or become slaves. The leaders of Israel today are losers because they wish to be losers. As PM Ehud Olmert said: "I'm tired of fighting; tired of being courageous; tired of winning." The true fact is that Olmert never fought as a soldier –– which became the way for him and his dysfunctional family.

Well, he's going to lose, if allowed, and let's NOT let him take the rest of our country and our people –– wherever they live –– with him.

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@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Devolin, June 23, 2008.

This appeared today in Magic City Morning Star

Myles Kantor has written, "A people's true character emerges as a majority. And when they lived as majorities over Jews, the peace-loving adherents of the Koran distinguished themselves with repeated viciousness and persecution." I have written elsewhere that a religion cannot be accurately judged by the behaviour of its exceptional personalities but only by how it manifests itself within the masses of those that adhere to its tenets. In this respect the religion of Islam has proven to be an insalubrious ideology. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why, whenever reports of terrorism and violence are mentioned in the press, one inevitably thinks of Muslims and Islam. This phenomenon is not to be blamed on Muslims in particular or on those who cogitate toward such conclusions, but rather guilt should be affixed precisely to the religion of Islam as being the solitary source of such terrorism and violence and, consequently, such mass paranoia.

By now it should be obvious to anyone following the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearing regarding certain of Mark Steyn's publications in Maclean's magazine from his controversial book America Alone that Islam is on trial here and not Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn's offence, if one can wrestle beyond the tedious language of the plaintiffs, is that he writes truthfully about Islam and that hateful and violent behaviour more often than not attributed to Muslims the world over. The censorship and litigious habits of Islam's champions and the darker, malefic aspect of the religious ideology they defend are the issues of the day here and not the person of Mark Steyn or Maclean's magazine.

Islam is on trial in Canada because ordinary Canadians have long ago noticed that the atrocities associated with terrorism being perpetrated in places of conflict all over the world are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Hence we are concerned, and logically so, that these same atrocities might someday take place on Canadian soil. This concern is not an example of Islamophobia, as Barbara Hall of the BC Human Rights Commission contends; rather this is a quite unremarkable example of national prudence and self-preservation.

Why is it a crime to be afraid of a faith group whose religion [Islam] designates Jews as the descendents of swine and monkey and forbids friendships with and affection toward "non-believers"? Why is it a crime to be afraid of a faith group whose zealots feel jubilant about recording the beheading of innocents like Daniel Pearl on video? Although Canada's various human rights commissions would condemn many Canadians as being Islamophobic for saying so, many Canadians perceive such intransigent jubilance as peculiar to the religion of Islam.

Sam Harris writes, "Nothing explains the actions of Muslim extremists, and the widespread tolerance of their behaviour in the Muslim world, better than the tenets of Islam." Terrorism is only partially the crime of the terrorist; in a much greater degree it is an explanatory manifestation of Islam. Sophists like the Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui and the unctuous BC Human Rights Commission are presently attempting to obfuscate the malevolent reality of Islam by making it a crime for Western journalists like Mark Steyn to articulate into print this same reality.

Simply put, the BC Human Rights Commission and Haroon Siddiqui are interested only in censoring the truth about Islam. You can tell the world that Islam is responsible for Algebra and some really neat architecture in India, but you are cannot opine to the world that Muslim suicide bombers in Gaza relish killing Jewish children in Israel because their Koran tells them that all Jews are inherently evil. "You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews..." (Koran 5:80-82)

Far from putting Mark Steyn's veracious book to the test, the BC Human Rights Commission is putting Islam and its apologists to the test: if censorship of the truth about Islam, as narrated in Western media, is translated into law, then Canadians will know for certain that Islam has something ominous to hide behind that censorship. The Yiddish proverb is true: "A trick is clever only once."

Haroon Siddiqui has written recently in the Toronto Star that, "Beyond the law, there's self-restraint. Most media exercise it every day. We do not publish racist cartoons and anti-Semitic rants." This is true in Canada, Mr. Siddiqui, but let's make known to all Canadians the type of "racist cartoons and anti-Jewish rants" found in media outlets and newspapers in Middle Eastern countries where Islam is the predominant religion. Let's see how Islam manifests where Muslims are the majority and Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians are the minority. This is a veridical example of Islam. This is the Islam many Canadians are afraid of. This is the Islam presently on trial in British Columbia.

Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. Contact him at devolin@reach.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald Steinberg, June 23, 2008.

Response to Nicolas Kristof's op-ed "The Two Israels"

Letter to the Editor
New York Times

In his oped, Nicolas Kristof (June 22, "The Two Israels") illustrates the danger of the "halo effect" that surrounds many powerful non-governmental organizations, which use distorted human rights claims to promote ideological agendas. While otherwise very professional journalists question and independently verify the claims of governments, corporations, and others, the statements of groups that assert moral objectives tend to be taken at face value. In this article, Kristof extols B'tselem and Machsom Watch (the women who "volunteer at checkpoints to help Palestinians through"). As documented by NGO Monitor, both are political organizations based in Israel that have appropriated human rights rhetoric for partisan goals, mix fact with fiction, and grossly distort history in order to promote their private agendas.

For example, Kristof repeats the simplistic statements of these NGOs regarding Hebron –– a city of immense religious and historical importance to the Jewish people –– without mentioning the impact of the 1929 massacre and expulsion of the entire Jewish community. A limited return to this historic city was only possible after 1967. Since this context is inconvenient for promoting B'tselem's political objectives, which would mean again removing the Jewish population from Hebron, these political activists focus instead on one-sided human rights allegations in which Palestinians are always victims, and Israel is always the oppressor.

Seduced by the "halo effect", Kristof uses B'tselem's very narrow window to strip the wider context and sell his own interpretation of the conflict and strip it of the wider context. Following B'tselem's lead, Kristof also ignores the human rights violations of Jewish Israelis in Hebron, including the murder of a 10 month old baby –– Shalhevet Pas by a Palestinian sniper. And claims regarding the impact of Israel's separation barrier and checkpoints completely erases the fact that hundreds or perhaps thousands of Israeli lives that have been spared by preventing the entry of suicide bombers. This is also a primary human rights issue, which the activists in B'tselem and Machsom Watch find inconvenient, and which no human rights group has documented using video cameras.

Expropriating human rights rhetoric for partisan claims, erasing the context and complexity of conflict situations, and applying human rights exclusively to one side of a conflict is morally unacceptable. Such biased approaches from NGOs have severely undermined the ethical foundations and credibility of human rights, which are by definition universal and must be applied equally.

Gerald M. Steinberg is editor of NGO Monitor and director of the Program on Conflict Management at Bar-Ilan University. Contact NGO by email at mail@ngo.monitor.org and visit the website: www.ngo-monitor.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, June 23, 2008.

Sarkozy comes to Israel and shoots off his big mouth about segregating Jews into smaller and smaller regions of its homeland. Yeh rite, like Jews should let this old geezer meddle into Middle East morass. All he wants is to save France from more Muslim madness. Well, France asked the Muslims into their tent, and they, not Israel, must pay for their foolishness.

OK... you scared old guys want to segregate Jews into smaller and smaller regions? Well, what's sauce for the gander is sauce for you goose. So how about this? Move that old gooser Peres back to the Jewish ghetto (or what remains of it) in Poland, and ship that horny old goose to Riyadh after the France government cedes the South Coast of France to Islam? (That's only fair ... Besides, most of the South coast of France is already owned by "Ummah" and there are more mosques in Southern France that churches.

France should take this advice seriously and meanwhile understand that the US and Israel will "always be a friend to France." But we cannot make the same promise to that senile old Polish Jew, Peres. Nor should we ever promise any favors to Islam's cocksure old goose, Olmert and his so-called "lefty cronies." As for Olmert: Be merciful to Olmert and send him to Riyadh –– perhaps Idi Amin and family has vacated his palatial digs, no?

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the NON-evangelical Christians for Zion.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Olivier Guitta, June 23, 2008.

Embarking upon what was described as his European farewell tour, U.S. President George W. Bush made a point last week of focusing on the Iranian issue with his European allies. Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he was ready to add more sanctions to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program. At the same time, the Iranian media revealed that in the past few months, Iran, anticipating this move, had withdrawn close to $75 billion of deposits from European banks. This is just an example of why the international sanctions have been somewhat weak. Indeed, Iran has quickly adapted and found a way around the sanctions.

Iran's main conduit in avoiding sanctions has been Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. There are historical reasons for this: since the beginning of the 20th century, Dubai and Iran have enjoyed close trade relations. Also, Dubai welcomed several waves of Iranian immigrants.

Not a week goes by without an Iranian minister or official visiting Dubai.

The 350,000 Iranians of Dubai compose the third largest community after the Indians and the Pakistanis. The large fortunes belong to families of Iranian origin. There are 8,200 Iranian companies today in Dubai compared to 6,500 in 2005.

Dubai has become Iran's back-up base and Iranian companies that do business abroad prefer to be based in the emirate. More than 200 flights each week link Dubai to the main Iranian cities. The port ships merchandise of all kinds to Iran, from cars to electric machinery and food.

The official trade figure between the two countries is $6 billion annually, but the smuggling amounts to an estimated additional $1.2 billion a year. Out of that $1.2 billion figure about $250 million stems from U.S. goods, supposedly banned from entering Iran.

These goods are mostly transported by boat and are never controlled by U.S. warships patrolling the Gulf. Dubai authorities are very lax in enforcing any kind of trade ban and let this traffic thrive.

Dubai is not only a great trade hub for Iran but also a financial one. In recent years, Dubai has become the main place for Iranian capital. According to one economist, Dubai received 50 percent of the $20 billion that left Iran in the past 10 years. Dubai is literally the cash cow for Iran in the sense that it accepts billions of dollars of Iranian deposits in cash.

Recently a diplomat said regarding Dubai: "One can show up at a bank with $300 million in cash in a suitcase, the bank will accept the deposit without any problems."

And this is common practice even after the United States put pressure on Dubai to give up this cash transaction business. Another worrisome trend is Iran's ability to use investment funds domiciled in financial tax havens. There are rumors that Iran would like to open a huge $90 billion fund within the Dubai Financial International Center.

Apart from the U.N. sanctions, the U.S. Treasury has led an aggressive campaign to apply targeted financial sanctions. It has succeeded in getting help from various governments and more importantly from large Western banks. This had promising results and it has been tougher for instance for Iranian industrials to obtain letter of credits.

But once again, Iran is finding a way around. In fact, letter of credits are now opened by Pakistani banks, second-rate banks in China, or Arab banks in Dubai or even Western banks such as German saving banks or Swiss cantonal banks, for instance.

In fact, these banks that have no commercial interests in the United States are happy to do business with Iran by increasing their usual fees by 10 percent to 15 percent.

It just goes to show how difficult it is to impose worldwide sanctions on Iran.

Indeed there will always be firms or banks or governments for that matter that will see opportunities to do business with the Islamic republic. Since 2003, Iran signed for $20 billion worth of contracts with foreign companies.

Also a troubling statistic: from March 2007 to January 2008, non-oil exports have increased 13.8 percent. Also, China, Iran's largest trading partner, is allegedly on the verge of opening a tax-free zone in the Gulf that will primarily serve Iranian clients. Interestingly, a number of U.S. companies are always present in trade shows organized in the tax-free zone of the Iranian island of Kish.

Even though it is creating small problems for Iran, the international community must now realize that the sanctions passed have had overall a negligent effect on Iran's economy.

Unfortunately, the pressure applied to the mullah's regime in Tehran is not having the desired effect. Tehran is far from giving up its "God-given right" to a military nuclear program and on the contrary, it actually seems even more emboldened to challenge the international community. In light of this, the odds of military action is growing by the day.

Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 23, 2008.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy asked the Knesset on Monday, June 23, 2008 to recognize that "France will always be Israel's friend" and then called for the division of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from parts of their National Home in Judea and Samaria.

The current Israeli government seems to have difficulties educating its guest as to the history of the Jewish people and remind him that on July 24, 1922, France, as a member of the League of Nations recognized

"The historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

France, is a signatory to the "Mandate for Palestine," a historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the whole of Jerusalem. It was also entrusted, however, with the duty to encourage "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

Nearly 30 years ago, Professor Yehuda Z. Blum, then Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations had the perfect observation which should have been read to President Sarkozy:

"A corollary of the inalienable right of the Jewish people to its Land is the right to live in any part of Eretz Yisrael, including Judea and Samaria which are an integral part of Eretz Yisrael. Jews are not foreigners anywhere in the Land of Israel. Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew, is in fact advocating a concept that is disturbingly reminiscent of the 'Judenrein' policies of Nazi Germany banning Jews from certain spheres of life for no other reason than that they were Jews. The Jewish villages in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district are there as of right and are there to stay."

France failed to keep its commitment.

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 eli@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Hana Levi Julian and Hillel Fendel, June 23, 2008.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy asked the Knesset on Monday to recognize that "France will always be Israel's friend" –– and promptly called for the division of Jerusalem and for the expulsion of the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Speaking in French from the Knesset podium at a special session held in his honor, Sarkozy said, "Israel will always be every Jewish person's sanctuary. It is the only place where Jews will always be safe." He also called on the Palestinians to stop terrorism against Israel.

Having received a red-carpet welcome from the Israeli government, Sarkozy vowed, "France will always be Israel's friend and will always stand in the way of those calling to destroy it."

Stop Construction, Deport Jews, Divide Jerusalem

He emphasized, however, that there will never be peace in the Middle East until Israel stops building in Judea and Samaria, and said that the Knesset should pass a law to compensate and deport all the Jews currently living there.

Sarkozy further said that Jerusalem must be divided into two capitals, including one for a future Palestinian state.

The speech was the first by a French president in the Knesset since Francois Mitterrand addressed the plenum in 1982.


In response, Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik warned that terror has no boundaries, and that both Iranian nuclear power and Islamist terrorism "will reach Paris after Jerusalem and Tel Aviv."

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in his greetings to the French president, said, "We thank you for your courage, for your principles and for your friendship. On behalf of the Israeli people and the State of Israel, I salute you ... Israel is now hoping for just one more miracle –– the miracle of peace. We believe it will come."

Opposition leader and Likud party chairman MK Binyamin Netanyahu said, in his address at the session, that "Israel will never cede the Golan Heights and will never agree to divide Jerusalem."

Arab MKs jeered the Likud lawmaker as he addressed the Knesset, forcing the Speaker to threaten the hecklers that she would expel them from the legislative chamber if they continued to interrupt the speech. "This is very unpleasant," she rebuked them.

Orlev: French President Needs Lessons in History, Geography

MK Zevulun Orlev, Chairman of the National Religious Party, said afterwards, "Sarkozy should stay here a bit longer in order to learn some history, namely, that Jerusalem never beloned to Islam, but only to the Jews. He should also take a geography lesson, and visit Sderot and the transient camps of the Gush Katif expellees before he proposes another [Jewish] expulsion and retreat to the 1967 borders."

"His friendship with Israel must be based on those two lessons," Orlev said.

MK Benny Elon (National Union) said he agrees that there should be two states, but with slight differences than Sarkozy's proposal: "One state should be Jordan, on the east bank of the Jordan River, and Israel on the west side. No other state should be established between them. If Sarkozy agrees with me about these borders, we'll be able to come to an agreement on the rest."

MK Ruby Rivlin (Likud) said, "Dividing Jerusalem into two entities will not bring peace, but will rather eternalize the conflict –– and the settlements are not an obstacle to peace, but rather that which helped give the Jewish People a permanent presence in its land."

Sarkozy's Schedule

President Sarkozy visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial museum Monday morning, accompanied by President Shimon Peres. The distinguished visitor is also scheduled to meet with the parents of kidnapped IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who are French citizens, and with MK Netanyahu. Sarkozy will also meet with Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas before wrapping up his three-day visit on Tuesday.

Prime Minister Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said that diplomatic talks between France and Israel will focus on Iran's nuclear program and on the newly-revived Israeli-Syrian peace talks. Olmert initiated resumption of indirect talks with Syria through Turkish mediators in Ankara several weeks ago. Arab media report that he allowed the issue of ceding the Golan Heights to be placed on the negotiating table.

On July 13, Sarkozy will host a conference in Paris where he hopes to bring together Prime Minister Olmert and Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Hana Levi Julian is a writer for Arutz-7. Hillel Fendel is senior news editor of Arutz-Sheva.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 23, 2008.


The US and Israeli media have emphasized objections to the proposed US-Iraq treaty on future relations. These objections come from pro-Iranian Iraqi legislators. Most of the objections involved proposed long-term US bases in Iraq.

The proposed treaty really should be thought of more as a peace treaty and an alliance of sorts. Iraqi and US troops have been fighting together against Iran's proxies and other militias, and winning. Prime Min. Maliki, head of Iraq's democratically elected government, himself an Islamist and originally sympathetic to Iran found Iran's profession of friendship for Iraq contradicted by its proxies blowing up parts of Iraq and its attempt to dominate Iraq.

Presumably objection to Iran's bid for hegemony was the subject of PM Maliki‘s recent visit to Iran. The day after he returned, his ambassador to Iran received a package-bomb. Iranian police denied it was a bomb, claiming it was equipment for fish tanks.

In any case, the US is winning a great strategic victory in Iraq, not that most Americans or Israelis notice. (Democrats refuse to see it.)

Iraq has ceased its extensive propaganda against Israel and the Jews. It finds Iran, Syria, and S. Arabia its enemies, responsible for killing many thousands of them. Iraqis consider the Palestinian Arabs as Hussein's henchmen. Nor can Iraq's Shiite leadership depend on other Sunni regimes. It needs allies. Israel, anyone? If Iraq can sign the treaty with the US, it could work out one with Israel.

Israel has had alliances with Turkey and Iran, before their Islamist phase. Now Iraq is turning democratic. Perhaps it would be interested in working out a strategic alliance with Israel. There are many potential benefits.

Such an alliance would help keep Jordan secure and Israel less isolated. If Iran blocked Iraq's oil-export ports, Iraq could use israeli ports. Israel would get reliable access to fuel from Iraq, now that its supplier, Egypt, is turning fickle. Lebanese Shiites might be drawn to Iraq, rather than to Syria. Syria would start to worry, perhaps doubting its alliance with Iran.

The people of Iraq know that Israel is not their enemy. Unlike what the Left says, peace is made not with enemies but with former enemies. Perhaps Iraqis are ready for peace (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 6/24).

This is Glick's usual brilliant analysis. But it seems to be too theoretical. She does depict her proposals as something to be tried, not to be taken for granted. What are Iraqis' real attitudes towards Israel? Can they reverse hatred of Jews?

Do they need Israeli allies more than they can bear Muslim obloquy over it? Is their democracy multi-ethnic and solid?


Iran is vulnerable to a boycott by foreign oil refineries. It does not have enough refineries of its own, though it has the raw materials. To end this vulnerability, Iran is building seven refineries (IMRA, 6/7).

The State Dept. undermined a Pentagon strategy of helping dissidents overthrow the expansionist government of Iran. Israel hoped the rest of the world would act. The world never does. Now the only option there is time left for is to blast Iran's nuclear development. Unfortunately, the US relies on diplomacy, which Russia and China block, not that the Democrats noticed the US trying diplomacy and Russia and China being obdurate about it. The lesson here is, wait and the enemy gets out of the trap.

The US is facing a shortage of electricity because, as the NY Sun keeps reminding us, that none were built since the 1970s. It does not explain why. It hints that the reason is government regulation, but gives readers nothing to evaluate with. Readers can't open a dialogue with the newspaper, it seems. I tried informing the paper that its TV listings show the wrong numbers for several stations. They keep printing the wrong ones.


The news brief put it that wary of Israel's plan to invade Gaza, exterminate Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and then gradually turn Gaza over to Abbas, Abbas is trying to work out a coalition government of some kind with Hamas (IMRA, 6/7).

He has negotiated coalition with them, before. Avoiding the appearance of being Israel's man in Gaza is only another motive added to his existing motives. Like his mentor, Arafat, prefers national unity against Israel. Conclusion: Abbas has no irreconcilable differences with Hamas. Terrorism is not abhorrent to him. He has been miscast in the West as anti-terrorist. His negotiations with Hamas would protect terrorism.


Have Israeli license plates? One such car got stoned in Wadi Ara, an Arab-populated part of Israel (IMRA, 6/7).

Such attacks are increasingly common, including in the Galilee, by the Bedouin near Beersheba, and by Arabs allowed residency in Israel's capital which is Jerusalem. I mention the city for the benefit of US officials, who deem it to be Tel Aviv. The US thinks that it is its prerogative to designate the capital of Israel. It does not do that for other countries whose territory is in dispute.


Katrin Bennhold reported abut a State Dept. program bringing young, rising, European Muslims to the US. Here, it is hoped, they would see the error in the cultivated impression of the US as plotting against Islam. She put it in her own words, "A factor continuing to fuel anti-Americanism, he said, is the perception that Washington's unstinting support for Israel is unfair to the Palestinians" (6/8, A12) [the Arab ones].

An accurate way of wording it would have been, "the perception that Washington gives unstinting support for Israel is unfair..." The premise, that the US gives "unstinting support for Israel" is as much a misperception as the Arab notion that that support is unfair. The Times puts it as if the "unstinting support" is factual and only the perception of that being unfair is at issue.

The statement makes it seem as if the US does not help the P.A. (not to mention its other help for Muslims such as rescuing Bosnia and Kosovo). The US subsidizes the P.A., trains its troops, presses Israel to cease most anti-terrorism efforts and to cede territory, and is trying to get it sovereignty. US help going to genocidal terrorists, I would call that help unfair.

"Unstinting" help for Israel? See above. When Israel declared sovereignty, the US embargoed arms shipments to it and although it recognized Israel, it then tried to rescind statehood. The US has reversed most of Israel's military gains against the Arabs and seeks to reverse the rest. The US tries to blackmail Israel by withholding military sales and threatening to do other things. It arms Israel's biggest enemy, Egypt. Although the US forgave Egypt's debt to the US, it does not forgive Israel's. The US does not contradict Islamic propaganda, such as that the Iraq war was waged in behalf of Israel, The US votes for some of the UNO resolutions against Israel, all of which are unfair. The list is long and I've cited it before. This is enough for now.

The misstatement is a minor bias. But it is not alone. It is part of a constant slanting of impressions that favor the Arabs and only the Arabs. In 15840, for example, I noted the practice –– not just an isolated lapse, but a practice –– of writing about a disputed incident as if the Arab accusation is factual, though the Arabs usually are propagandistic and the Israelis, usually objective. All the Times slanting is one way. One may deduce that this derives from the paper's traditional anti-Zionism and its adherence more to advocacy journalism than to journalism's code of ethics.


He said that P.A. negotiators consult Arab countries, and if the P.A. doesn't get what it wants from negotiations, it will resume trying to take over Israel (IMRA, 6/7). Thus it remains an uncompromising Arab-Israel conflict.


Al-Jazeera's best commentator interviewed Israeli professor Mordechai Keidar, in Arabic, after Israel decided to build housing in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line.

Mr. Rayyan asked, isn't that decision meant to degrade Israel-P.A. relations. Dr. Keidar replied, Jerusalem has been the Jewish people's for 3,000 years and will belong to them forever. Israel doesn't need foreigners' permission to build there.

The interviewer said, if you mention history, then you cannot deny that the Koran refers to Jerusalem, so don't make statements offensive to Muslims. Keidar pointed out that the Koran does not mention Jerusalem. Rayyan said the Muslims interpret a statement as referring to Jerusalem, but Keidar said it does not mention Jerusalem. (Islam has another interpretation, but this one which has become popular for political expediency. The Koran refers to "the furthest mosque." When written, it could not have meant Jerusalem, since the Muslims had not yet gotten people there. It is not an offense to point out their mistakes.)

Turning to the present, Rayyan asked, doesn't the decision contradict the Road Map, which prohibits Jewish building in Jerusalem. Keidar pointed out that the Road Map does not mention Jerusalem, Rayyan should consult the Road Map.

At this rate of building, Rayyan argued, Jerusalem will absorb the whole W. Bank. Keidar replied that just as Israel does not concern itself with building in Kuwait, no outsider should concern himself with building in Jerusalem, which is a Jewish city (IMRA, 6/7).

Good for Dr. Keidar! He made statements that Jews are forgetting, the State Dept. ignores, and the rest of the world doesn't know. The best case for Israel is first, to show the evil behind the Arab cause, second to make an affirmative case for Israel, and only third to defend against the unending stream of false accusations against Israel. Why be defensive and accept the framing of the dispute on Muslim terms? Being unending, one can keep refuting the slander without making one's own case or showing up the other side's evil motive.


The government is afraid that accepting a ceasefire with Hamas would appear as a concession to it. Therefore, Israel is likely to make a modest incursion, trumpet the casualties it inflicts, and then claim to have solved the problem but actually depart and leave Hamas to rebuild forces. Defense Min. Barak's supporters along the border want Israel to invade Gaza in sufficient force to make it like Judea-Samaria, where IDF troops and intelligence agents can go anywhere, any time, and keep terrorism tamped down (Dr. Lerner, IMRA, 6/7).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, June 23, 2008.

GAZA CITY (AFP) –– Smuggling into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip will not stop, the head of the territory's government, Ismail Haniya, said on Friday, threatening an already tenuous two-day-old truce with Israel.

During Egyptian-mediated negotiations, Israel "wanted to force Hamas to stop what they call the smuggling of contraband across land and sea borders," Haniya told worshippers before Friday prayers.

"They also said that (the release of detained Israeli soldier) Shalit must be part of the truce deal. But we have not agreed to these demands because they are unjust and go beyond the capabilities of this government," he said.

Reacting to Haniya's remarks, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert underlined that the Egyptian-brokered truce explicitly stated that arms smuggling into the impoverished territory must halt.

"The agreement with Egypt states clearly that there must not be any contraband arms heading for Gaza and no attacks from Gaza towards Israeli territory by any of the armed groups," Mark Regev said.

"Those people in Gaza who claim this is not true are seeking to weaken the peace," he added.

Israeli security sources say Hamas has smuggled more than 100 tonnes of explosives into Gaza, including rockets and anti-tank missiles, since the Islamists seized control of the strip in June 2007.

As well a halt to militant rocket fire and Israeli strikes on Gaza, the deal calls for Israel to progressively ease its blockade of the overcrowded strip of land where most of the 1.5 million population depend on aid.

Israel has also been pushing for progress over the release of Israeli Corporal Galid Shalit, who was captured by Palestinian militant groups including Hamas in a deadly cross-border raid on June 25, 2006.

Hamas has repeatedly stated that Shalit's release and the Gaza truce were separate issues and that Hamas would free him in exchange for 450 prisoners held by Israel.

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 Jonathan Spyer, June 23, 2008.

Israel's announcement of a willingness for peace talks with Lebanon is one of the early fruits of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent visit to the region and her unexpected visit to Lebanon. French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Lebanon and upcoming visit to Israel is also crucial here.

In the wake of the recent Doha agreement, the US is keen to bolster the position of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and the March 14 movement of which he is a part.

The Cedar Revolution, and the Saniora government which resulted from it, is considered by the US administration to be one of its most significant diplomatic achievements in the region.

Doha stipulated the creation of a new cabinet in Lebanon that would include opposition (i.e., Hizbullah and allied) representation. The US is evidently concerned about preserving the standing of Saniora and March 14 in the ongoing Lebanese political standoff.

This concern, it is understood, is shared by Sarkozy, who is considered a moving force behind the current initiative. The government of Israel is apparently willing to adopt a newly conciliatory stance on the Shaba farms in order to play its role within this process.

Rice, in Beirut, expressed her concern at Hizbullah's prominence in Lebanon and said that the administration intended to address the "real reasons and underlying causes" of this. When asked to define these, she said, according to a report in the Beirut Daily Star, that the issue of the Shaba farms must be resolved "within the context of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1701 rather than Resolution 425."

Resolution 425 appeared to close the issue of the Shaba farms, since the UN Security Council ruled that Israel was in full accordance with this resolution after its May 2000 withdrawal to the international Blue Line border between Israel and Lebanon. Resolution 1310, adopted in 2000, confirmed this.

Resolution 1701, meanwhile, adopted after the 2006 Second Lebanon War, implicitly reopened the matter by taking "due note" of Saniora's seven-point plan, which asks for the Shaba farms to be placed under UN jurisdiction. The resolution also calls for the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon.

The US administration wants to bolster Saniora and simultaneously remove the rationale for Hizbullah's continued bearing of arms. Hizbullah currently uses the Shaba farms as its central rallying cry; hence, the apparent idea is to induce Israel to cede the farms, probably to UN control. This, it is expected, will simultaneously remove Hizbullah's reason for maintaining its armed capacity –– and enable Saniora to pose as the "liberator" of Shaba.

The idea is likely to backfire. First of all, while Hizbullah has declared itself opposed to the idea of placing the Shaba farms under UN jurisdiction, this will not prevent it from declaring any Israeli withdrawal as its own achievement, a delayed result of the shock and fear –– and subsequent flexibility –– induced in Israel by the 2006 war.

There is no reason to assume that this version will be any less credible than that offered by Saniora. This is particularly so because the call for the "return" of the Shaba farms is associated with Hizbullah and was picked up by other elements in Lebanon only later.

Also, Hizbullah will claim that Israeli concessions on this issue are proof positive of the successful application of violence against Israel, since the international community declared the matter closed in 2000 and then reopened it as a result of the war of 2006. (This claim is factually accurate.) Such a path is also unlikely to lead to Hizbullah's disarmament. Hizbullah is, after all, both a local Lebanese actor and a client and creation of Iran.

There were those after May 2000 who assumed that once Israel had abandoned the security zone, the former aspect of Hizbullah's identity would take precedence over the latter. This, of course did not take place. Should Shaba be ceded, Hizbullah already has a list of subsequent "grievances" against Israel that will be used to justify further "resistance."

These include the seven Shi'a villages that existed in the Galilee prior to 1948, and the large Palestinian refugee presence in Lebanon. The movement has indeed already issued a statement saying that "anyone who believes that placing [the] Shaba farms under UN mandate will mean eliminating the rationale behind our resistance is mistaken."

The US and France want to strengthen their partner in Lebanon, who recently suffered a military humiliation. They want to show that aligning with the West brings results, while the allies of Iran are the forces determined to prevent tranquillity. For the reasons cited above, reopening the issue of the Shaba farms is unlikely to produce these desired results. Rather, the impression given is more likely to be one of confusion, disunity and lack of resolution among pro-Western forces in the region.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel. This article appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post.

To Go To Top

Posted by John David Lewis, June 22, 2008.

This essay was published yesterday on The Objective Standard website
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2008/06/ israel-and-front-line-of-civilization.asp The original article has live links to additional material.

I just returned from a speaking engagement at Tel Aviv University (pictures from the trip are on my website). My honorarium was four days of sight-seeing in Tel Aviv, Abu Gosh, Jerusalem, En Gedi and Masada, and a series of meetings with writers, policy analysts, academics and writers. I came back with one overriding conclusion, which stands for me stronger than it did before my trip: Israel stands at the front-line of the war between civilization and barbarism. As Eric Hoffer wrote over forty years ago, "as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us all." ("Israel's Peculiar Position, LA Times 5/26/68)

Israel is America's best friend in the world today. It is Western in every fundamental respect: Its secular government has prevented both civil war and tyranny since its founding; its citizens' rights are largely protected; its press is free and open; its court system is independent of executive fiat; and its economy is vibrant. It has its share of lunatics, but they have not taken over the culture. It is "middle-eastern" only in location.

While driving through Israel, one cannot help but remember that the area can become a military front at any moment. A sign in the road points left to Ramallah, home of Yasir Arafat –– you can drive there (we did not), but an Israeli soldier will soon stop you to warn that the army cannot protect you if you go further. Straight ahead is the road to Jerusalem, which is just a few miles away. It's all so close.

In less than half hour's drive, the seacoast climate of Tel Aviv changes to the desert climate of Jordan. Bedouin camps –– temporary structures, some with camels in front –– squat between towns with high-tech industry. Jerusalem itself is deeply permeated with religious fanaticism of all kinds, and with neighborhoods defined by ethnic identities. The line that divided Israeli tanks from those of Arabs during the numerous attacks on Israel is a street –– you can walk down it.

On the highway –– a modern road built by the Israelis –– I see towns surrounded by trees. The trees were nearly all planted by the Israelis. This is something little known in the U.S.: The Israelis have planted tens of millions of trees in a desert that had never before been planted, and they remain committed to planting in the Negev Desert, especially near Beer Sheva. Trees did not exist here before 1948. The so-called "Green Line" originally dividing Israel from its neighbors is called such because it literally is a line of green.

At one point we come over a hill, and there are two towns ahead. The one on the left is an Israeli "settlement" –– to use the popular phrase in the western press today –– and on the right is an Arab town. To the left is a sea of trees among the buildings, and to the right, none. What the press and politicians in America call "illegal settlements" are Israeli towns, with factories, high-tech industries, and homes –– built on hills where there was previously nothing but sand –– bringing economic life and civilization to the desert.

There can be no basis for calling these towns "illegal" because, prior to Israel's establishment of civilization in the area, no law and no government existed there (so-called "International Law" notwithstanding). It is also little known in the United States that when the Israelis announce their intent to withdraw from these areas, thousands of non-Israeli inhabitants –– Muslims and Arabs –– pick up and move to Israeli-controlled areas (Daniel Pipes has recounted some of this). Life under Hamas is hell, life in Israel is good, and most locals know it.

As usual, Israel is blamed for the inability to make peace with a foe that is dedicated to destroying her. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expresses a dominant view in the U.S. State Department when she rants against Israeli towns as an "impediment to peace." Yet observe the Palestinian leadership's response to Rice: "With the arrival of that black scorpion with a cobra's head, Condoleezza, I began to worry that she would use her venomous fangs and hiss to kill this initiative and new spirit that we should protect" said Hamas Minister of Culture 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh,in remarksaired on Al-Aqsa TV on June 15, 2008.

The deepest cause of the conflict between Israel and those purporting to lead the Palestinian people is philosophical: the deep inculcation of jihad into the minds of Palestinian youth, in the form of a violent ideology that has nothing to offer except the destruction of Israel and claims to paradise as a reward for death. Samples of this ideological material have been collected at the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center; follow the link to "Captured Material."

Until the motivations for jihad against Israel are admitted, confronted, and repudiated, the causes of war will remain in place, festering in the minds of each new generation of children. All else –– the "settlements," the check-points that prevent non-Israelis from freely partaking of the Israeli economy, the claims to economic devastation, the "historic connection" to a soil that the Palestinians never planted –– is pretense. To see this, all one need ask is why Israel's return to the 1967 borders would remove a cause of war, given that Israel was attacked when she held those borders. And, of course, for Israel to retreat to those borders now would leave foreign enemies a few miles from Tel Aviv. This would be national suicide for Israel, a new holiday for Hamas, and the end of civilization in the Middle East.

The Israelis have made the desert bloom. Tel Aviv –– with its skyscrapers and trees –– was entirely undeveloped before the Israelis came and replaced primitive huts with modern buildings. The first Israeli settlers purchased land from inhabitants, and built a city where none existed. Today, their economy is robust and is expected to grow nearly 4% in 2009. And remarkably, despite the constant threat of war and the ceaseless missile attacks, Israeli society is largely unmilitarized. Yes, there is a draft –– but outside of a military base I saw no soldiers in Tel Aviv, and rarely saw a military vehicle on the highways.

By driving enemies back and building walls to keep them out, the Israelis have been able to create a peaceful island in a sea of violence. (When was the last time you heard of an "Israeli Day of Rage" and saw Israelis shooting automatic weapons into the air in celebration?) Given the intensity of attacks on Israel, one must wonder whether this ability to live in peace isn't the real bone of contention with her enemies.

My trip to Israel made even more obvious to me that Israeli interests and American interests are in perfect alignment. The achievement of Israel's goals –– a permanent end to the war, and the establishment of peace under a rational government –– are American interests. And the Israelis know it. Never in any country I've visited (I've been to over a dozen) have I seen so many American flags. Never have I walked into a shopping mall and seen a line of life-size mannequins of American soldiers with the host country's flag on their shoulders. If only the American people and their politicians knew that I is from the Picasa Web Albums set entitled "What Freedom Looks Like at Night." It can be found at
http://picasaweb.google.com/boaz.onroad/ WhatFreedomLooksLikeAtNight/photo#5146164273586907762

Dr. John David Lewis is Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University, and Senior Research Scholar in History and Classics, Social Philosophy and Policy Center. He is author of Solon the Thinker and Early Greek Lawgivers. Visit his website: www.classicalideals.com

To Go To Top

Posted by A Recovering Presbyterian, June 22, 2008.

For those interested in the topic, I came across two more reactions by non-Presbyterians to the PC(USA)'s recent revision (gutting) of its paper on anti-Jewish bias.

Christianity Today featured a piece by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, "The Presbyterians Giveth, the Presbyterians Taketh Away"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/ juneweb-only/125-53.0.html He addresses most of the problematic issues in the second document and in the act of replacement itself. He begins with a rather startling comparison:

"Think back some 40 years to the release of Nostra Aetate, the revolutionary Vatican document that inexorably changed the nature of Catholic-Jewish relations. It firmly confronted old church attitudes and teachings that Jews suffered under for centuries. It unequivocally asserted the historical and theological dignity of the Jewish people.

Imagine if, a week later, Pope Paul VI stood on the porch of Castel Gandolfo and announced, "There has been a terrible misunderstanding. All we meant is that when we complain, as we must from time to time, about price-gouging around Christmas by pushy Jewish merchants (by that we only mean some of them, of course), we should not go so far as to blame them for the crucifixion. That hurts their feelings.""

Dexter Van Zile provides a thorough treatment in "Presbyterian Officials Prepare for General Assembly With Bait and Switch Tactics."
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1499. He examines in detail one example of anti-Jewish bias in Presbyterian materials directly mentioned in the first "Vigilance" document. (Specifically, Van Zile explores the sources embedded in the overture to the 2004 General Assembly, "On Confronting Christian Zionism".) He also provides some other examples of compromised PC(USA) resources. Sadly, this is far from an exhaustive or even representative list –– the sheer number of such items makes such a list prohibitive. However, Van Zile's article is an excellent starting place for those who seriously wish to investigate the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s anti-Jewish problem.

Will Spotts

Contact A recovering Presbyterian at wspotts@zoominternet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Morris Sadek, June 22, 2008.

this comes from AFP

Police arrested 20 people when hundreds of Egyptian Muslims attacked Coptic Christian property after a woman who converted to Islam went missing, a security official said on Saturday.

At least five people were also slightly hurt when police used tear gas to disperse protesters in the village of Al-Nazla, in the province of Fayyum 100 kilometres (62 miles) south of Cairo on Friday, the official said.

The woman later returned home with her 10-month-old baby after a three-day visit to relatives in the capital, security officials said.

Muslim villagers went on the rampage after word that the woman had gone missing from her home and was said to have abducted by her Christian family. Al-Nazla residents threw stones at houses and shops owned by Copts ... because the villagers believed that the woman had been kidnapped by Christian members of her family," the official said on condition of anonymity.

"Some 50 Coptic homes and businesses, including pharmacies, grocers and electrical appliance shops were sacked," he said.

Coptic resident Sayyed Ghattas said "I was surprised at this attack by people with whom we were on good neighbourly terms and who, all of a sudden, turned on us. This matter had nothing to do with us."

Earlier this month the Coptic Ecclesiastical Council issued an unusually strongly worded statement urging President Hosni Mubarak to guarantee the safety of Christians in Egypt.

The statement referred to a violent attack on a monastery in May in which four Copts were injured, and called on Mubarak to prevent "more armed attacks on monks" and "insults to the cross."

That attack, in the southern town of Mallawi, sparked fears of sectarian strife in an increasingly religious, Sunni Muslim-dominated society in which tensions with Christians are already running high.

Egypt's Copts –– the largest Christian community in the Middle East –– account for an estimated six to 10 percent of the country's 76 million inhabitants and complain of systematic discrimination and harassment.

Casualties include:

* Stones were hurled at St Mary's church shattering the windows
* Stones were also hurled at the house of Father Shenouda Moussa
* A hairdresser's salon was vandalised and the hairdressers beaten. It was however spared from burning because the owner of the building is a local Muslim
* A chemist owned by a Christian local, Dr Adeed suffered some damages
* Damages to two phone/internet facilities owned by Christians
* A truck owned by Gamil Hanna was completely destroyed
* A chicken farm owned by Gamil Hanna Farag was looted and burned
* A two story building owned by Boulos Fouad was burned
* Mr Ezzat Labib, member of the city council was beaten and his brother Kamal Labib also seriously injured
* The mob attacked the house of Hanna Melik and beat him and his family
* A wholesale deli owned by Milad Awad was looted * Mrs. Mimi Awad's home was broken into and burgled

Morris Sadek Esq is a lawyer at the Court of Cassation, Egyptian special Legal Counsel and the DC Bar, United States of America. He is President of the National American Coptic Assembly USA.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, June 22, 2008.

This is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/ JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1214132656424

Kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit. Photo: Channel 2

The day chosen for the worldwide act of solidarity marks two years since Schalit was kidnapped.

According to the initiative's slogan, the aim is for individuals to express that "I too have been waiting for Gilad Schalit for two years."

The Israeli Facebook group called "The petition for the release of Gilad Schalit" has been promoting the joint action and is backed by approximately 4,500 members. The group claims that Schalit is "one of us and his place is with us."

Members are able to invite other Facebook participants to the group and post messages on the group's main page. Some of the messages include links to related Web sites and on-line petitions.

Dana Lazar, an Israeli college student who plans to change her Facebook picture to that of Schalit on Wednesday, believes as a former Israeli soldier, it is her duty to do so.

"When you are a soldier you want your government and country behind you. By changing your picture you make other people stop their lives to think and care," she said.

Like Lazar, others in the group consider their effort just a small way to reach out to other Israelis.

"The purpose of posting Schalit's picture is not necessarily to impact the government, but to impact Israeli society," said Gery Klein, a political science student at Bar-Ilan University and a member of the Facebook group. "It's not a beginning and it's not an end –– it's a continuation of a struggle," he said.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, June 22, 2008.

This comes from the website of Carl of Jerusalem

A French Jewish teenager was severely beaten on Saturday night in eastern Paris. 17-year old Rudy Haddad was identifiably Jewish –– he was wearing a kippa (skullcap). Haddad was beaten with iron bars, which probably are not lying around in the streets of Paris (at least they were not when I was last there in the fall of 2005). That indicates that the attack was probably premeditated. And the identification of his attackers as 'African youths' makes it more likely than not that they were Muslims.

A police source says that Haddad is suffering from 'severe neurological problems' as a result of the beating. If anyone has his Hebrew name and his mother's Hebrew name, I will be glad to add them to this post. He is in a coma in the intensive care unit of a hospital.

The reason why France continues to have a 'problem' with anti-Semitism is that it continues to treat it with multi-culti kid gloves. For an example, one need look no further than French President Nicolas Sarkozy's 'condemnation' of the attack.

Sarkozy issued a statement "renewing total determination to fighting all forms of racism and anti-Semitism."

Excuse me, but what was anyone other than Haddad attacked? Was anyone other than a Jew attacked? Then why the multi-culti politically correct statement about "all forms of racism and anti-Semitism" (which reminds me of how Arab countries occasionally condemn terrorism against Israel by condemning "all forms of terrorism including state terrorism" –– a meaningless statement if I ever heard one)?

Until the French leadership is willing to look the problem in the eye and identify it by its name in unadulterated form, the Rudy Haddad's of France will unfortunately continue to be terror victims.

Refuah Shleima (a full and speedy recovery) Rudy, and please consider coming on aliya (immigrating to Israel) with your family when you recover. You're 17-years old and ought to have your whole life ahead of you. There's no sense in staying in a country where you're not wanted when you don't have to stay there.

UPDATE 6:44 PM. Here are some more details.

A 17-year-old Lubavitcher Hassid was walking near his home in a Jewish neighborhood in France on Friday night when he was brutally attacked by several youths with metal pipes. Passers-by alerted police, and he was brought to a hospital, where doctors are working to save his life.


Because of the Sabbath and its prohibitions on carrying items outside, the victim had no identification on him. He was identified only hours after the attack, when his family notified police that he was missing and the connection was made.

UPDATE: July 24, 2008, www.IsraelNationalNews.com

(IsraelNN.com) Rudy Haddad, the 17-year-old Jewish day school student who was brutally attacked Saturday night by a gang of 30 youth of Africa origin, has come out of a coma but is in the intensive care unit at the Cochin hospital in Paris. He suffered several broken ribs and a fractured skull.

Police arrested five suspects, but several media reports stated that as many as 30 attackers joined the assault, some of them using metal bars. Haddad's father said that there were 15 attackers.

UPDATE: July 26, 2008, www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=20228

Five youths detained after a Jewish teenager was beaten into a coma by a gang in Paris have been released without charge, AFP reported Wednesday quoting judicial officials.

The minors, aged 14 to 17, were held for questioning as witnesses following the attack this past Shabbos in the multi-ethnic 19th district of the capital –– reported HERE on YWN.

The Paris prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin said Tuesday the 17-year-old victim, Rudy Haddad, was beaten by a gang after street brawls between Jewish teenagers and youths of north African and sub-Saharan descent.

The boy was so badly beaten by a gang wielding metal bars that he went into a coma from which he only emerged on Monday.

According an informed source, he is slowly recovering but remains "very traumatized" and is encountering memory problems.

A probe for "murder attempt aggravated by its anti-Semitic character" has been launched against the perpetrators, a group of six or seven youths of black African origin, who remain at large.

The prosecutor has confirmed the anti-Semitic character of the aggression and said anti-Semitic insults –– like "dirty Jew" –– were shouted during the aggression.

Sources quoted in the press reported that several brawls broke out in the area Saturday afternoon between Jewish and North Africans and black youth groups and that Haddad was attacked later on the day when he was walking alone in Rue Petit, near a Lubavitch Shul.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 22, 2008.

Who is more likely to substantially bring down the price per barrel of oil, U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama or U.S. presidential candidate John McCain?

Whichever candidate can convince the American electorate he will metaphorically wave his magic wand and perform this presumed miracle will win the coveted office in a landslide, indeed become head honcho of the free world if he succeeds. That world teeters on the brink of economic recession (or worse). Filthy rich oil producing terrorist financing regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Venezuela get richer and richer while bizarrely no leader of the presumed civilized free industrial world to date even lifts a finger to stop this perilous trend. Yet, the entire evil operation of worldwide energy extortion can be put out of business if speculators in arcane virtual oil futures are properly regulated. Period! F. William Engdahl, associate of the Centre for Research and Globalization, author of A Century of War: Anglo American Oil Politics and the New World Order, meticulously analyzes why oil prices are rising to the moon in a Global Research article dated 05/02/2008 suggesting 'Perhaps 60% of today's oil price is pure speculation.' The implications are enormous! The price of oil, thus the economies of rogue perilous terrorist financing regimes, can be brought down if oil market trading wizards are reined in allowing the civilized world to breathe a sigh of relief, and all it takes is one intrepid world leader with sufficient clout. Are you up to that task Obama? Are you up to that task McCain? Below is one excerpt from Engdahl's article.

A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on "The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices," noted, "...there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices."

What the Senate committee staff documented in the report was a gaping loophole in US Government regulation of oil derivatives trading so huge a herd of elephants could walk through it. That seems to be precisely what they have been doing in ramping oil prices through the roof in recent months.

The Senate report was ignored in the media and in the Congress.

Precise details are delineated throughout the body of the author's expose, left to those with some understanding of market operations, but it takes no expert to realize that these white collar thieves can be thwarted if the next U.S. president has the will to so use his bully pulpit and accomplish the momentous task. Indeed, more can be accomplished through regulatory mechanisms than any 'shock and awe' strategy or long term military occupation, both quite unnecessary if rogue regimes and by extension their terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hizbullah are punished economically by substantially reducing their raw material revenues. Will Obama or McCain walk the walk in lieu of merely spewing tough rhetoric? What could be more urgent then busting highjackers commandeering a speculative gravy train, pulling boxcars of world class nations linked together, about to fly off a cliff overlooking catastrophe canyon? Those two political heavyweights must know what's at stake. Talk all you want about aborting Iran's nuclear ambitions, but one good shot in the economic solar plexis and that becomes a fait accompli. How can America's high leadership sit around with their thumbs up their 'you know whats,' watch pump prices triple in less than one presidential term in the White House, watch more and more citizens trade meals for fuel, and not do something? Do they like fiddling while their modern day Roman Empire burns? Don't they grasp how simple it would be to put the kabash on the real 'evil doers'? Can't they just instruct those anti-regulation free market ideologues in the U.S. Congress to do what's best for the country they were elected to steward as well as the planet? Maybe it takes a change in administrations, replacing those with perhaps personal agendas and interests relating to fossil fuel. Note the following excerpt from Engdahl's article.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate.

In June 2006, oil traded in futures markets at some $60 a barrel and the Senate investigation estimated that some $25 of that was due to pure financial speculation. One analyst estimated in August 2005 that US oil inventory levels suggested WTI crude prices should be around $25 a barrel, and not $60

$135 per barrel and growing is the current situation. No doubt, the diminished value of Uncle Sam's greenback causes an upsurge in pricing, but speculators apparently are responsible for the lion's share of Saudi Arabia's, Iran's, Sudan's, and Venezuela's among other despotic regimes' ill gotten gains. Might we speculate whether Obama and/or McCain will be willing to firmly confront the speculating firms on Wall Street and worldwide exchanges, as well as a hesitant U.S. Congress composed of members with varying attitudes, telling them in no uncertain terms to lay down the law, exhorting that body to pass legislation implementing and financing regulatory mechanisms to successfully attack this cancerous blight that eats away at the pocketbook and soul of civil mankind, alas our besieged planet's presumably premier intelligent species yet to substantially and wisely begin phasing out of oil altogether by developing a cheap and efficient alternative energy source? Of course, cheaper oil doesn't help that essential initiative, but first things first. First save the patient then fix the patient! Choke the malignant tumors by cutting off their blood supply; then wean the patient back to full strength with a proper diet.

Israel, a nation bereft of oil reserves yet tormented by oil producing regimes, should assume a more proactive role by directly engaging both U.S. presidential contenders, imploring them to throw their weight around even now and begin defusing a crisis exponentially expanding in intensity. Albeit an arcane concept, so much depends on prudent regulation of that complex oil futures market. The devil indeed is in the details, and in this case those details, mastered by but a relatively few oil traders, has put the much of the world's economic vitality in jeopardy. We might soon observe if either candidate is up to this immense task. We might soon observe if Wall Street and kindred spirit traders will continue calling the shots at the expense of so many. Stay tuned!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by HaDaR, June 22, 2008.

What wouldn't this US Government do to please Saudi Arabia?

This was written by Yitzhak Benhorin and was published today in Ynet News

US-funded network airs anti-Israeli reports

New investigation into US government-funded Arabic news network reveals anti-Israeli content including Hizbullah leader's speech, live coverage of Tehran Holocaust deniers' convention

American taxpayers are paying for an Arab television network that broadcasts anti-Israeli diatribe, according to a joint investigation by 60 Minutes and ProPublica, an independent, non-profit investigative journalism newsroom led by Paul Steiger, former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal.

The anti-Israeli content was aired despite the fact that Al Hurra management promised Congress nearly two years ago that they would take measures to prevent such mistakes, which had occurred repeatedly before. The joint investigation will be broadcast on 60 Minutes on Sunday.

The Virginia-based Al Hurra was created four years ago by the Bush Administration to counter what was seen as an anti-American bias at Arab satellite news channels like the Qatar-based Al Jazeera. Nearly half a billion dollars has been spent since its inception and its top executive, Brian Conniff, assured 60 minutes that things had improved editorially.

But 60 Minutes and ProPublica monitored the broadcast last month and found a Palestinian guest named Hani El-Masri on its flagship show "Free Hour" calling Israel a "racist" state that is conducting its own "Holocaust" against Palestinians. His exact quote, unchallenged by the host or balanced by another panel member, was "(Israel) is the occupying and racist state that imposes the stifling and deadly blockade and perpetrates a holocaust against 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza."

Conniff, who speaks no Arabic, said he was unaware of this and after looking into the matter said, "Any implication that Al Hurra is anti-Israeli is absolutely wrong." Asked if this latest example is part of a pattern, Conniff told 60 minutes reporter Scott Pelley, "No. There's absolutely no pattern." He points out that the previous examples were discovered a year and a half ago.

At that time, members of Congress threatened to hold up funding because Al Hurra broadcast a live hour-long speech by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah –– whose group is considered by the US to be a terrorist organization.

A few weeks later, an Al Hurra reporter named Ahmed Amin delivered a biased report from the Holocaust Denier's Conference in Tehran. He said that while some participants were sure that millions of Jews died in Germany, "the group did not reinforce their statements with scientific evidence, but instead they were content to tell stories passed on to them by their ancestors."

Soon afterward, irate members of Congress were assured that Ahmed Amin would be fired, but the investigating groups learned that 18 months later he was still on the US government payroll. He was fired only after 60 Minutes and ProPublica began inquiring.

Larry Register, the news director of Al Hurra who made the decisions to cover both the conference and Hizbullah speech, was forced to resign. He defended his decisions by saying he was trying to make Al Hurra more credible and relevant to people in the Middle East, and that the Nasrallah speech was big news, pointing out that every other Arab channel carried it live. "I considered it newsworthy," he said.

Jim Glassman, who until last week chaired the US government's Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees Al Hurra said in response to the findings, "We are not allowed to provide a platform for terrorists. We are required to provide balance and objectivity. Our idea with Al Hurra was to create a network to provide high quality, professional journalism with American standards. I think we've done that."

But there are many critics of Al Hurra, including US diplomats, who complain in internal documents about the poor quality and lack of professionalism of the Al Hurra broadcast, overseen much of the time by non-Arabic speaking directors. Register's response to this was that governments and journalism don't mix. "You can't make independent decisions if you have a government over you telling you what you can and can't do. It's a no-win situation, as I painfully found out," he remarked.

HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, June 22, 2008.

Nicholas D. Kristof called me a few days ago and we spoke for a while on the phone. Obviously he visited Hebron, but did not see fit to interview me at the time, preferring a phone conversation. That fact, in and of itself, is unfortunate, for had he spent some time with me on site, seeing Hebron through Jewish-Israeli eyes also, perhaps his column would have been written differently. Perhaps, on the other hand, Kristof came to Hebron with an agenda and interviewed me only to be able to include a 'soundbyte' with a 'setter' in order to fulfill the seemingly 'objectivity obligation' of professional journalists.

His 'agenda' is all too plausible, considering, for example, the books he suggested as reading material, including one by Akiva Eldar, who is one of the leading leftist columnists in Israel, writing for the most leftwing daily in the country.

This thought is reinforced with Kritsof's reliance on "B'tzelem" –– an Arab-Palestinian 'human-rights' organization, which cares only about Arab human rights, but has no interest in Israeli-Jewish human rights. It is composed of Arabs and extreme left wing activists, whose goal is Israel-bashing.

Of course, Kristof quotes only one short sentence from our interview. He seems to have forgotten a number of points broached during our conversation:

Kristof claims: More than 1,800 Palestinian shops have closed, in some cases the doors welded shut, and several thousand people have been driven from their homes.

The number 1,800 is greatly exaggerated. According to ranking IDF sources the number is closer to nine hundred. (This is one of the problems with foreign journalists who are quick to accept anything and everything given to them by B'tzelem or other left-wing organizations without demanding proof of their statements.)

Why are any stores closed in Hebron? Ten years ago they were all open. However, with the outbreak of the 'Oslo War' (the 2nd Intifada) in October, 2000, Arab terrorist gunman began shooting at the Jewish neighborhoods in Hebron from the very hills transferred to them by Israel as part of the Hebron Accords, implemented in 1997. People were shot at on the streets, and in their cars and homes. An infant was murdered by a sniper, others were wounded and a suicide bomber exploded on the main road, killing the Levy couple from Kiryat Arba. The IDF had no choice but to close stores in Hebron because of the security threat they posed. That threat still exists today. Terrorists are frequently apprehended, admitting that they planned to kill a Jew.

At the same time it must be noted that the Arabs of Hebron have access to about 98% of the entire city, whereas Jews have access to 3% of the city. The "Arab" side of Hebron, under the control of the Palestinian Authority is called "The Safest Place in the territories" by Danny Rubenstein, another Ha'aretz writer

He writes: Most Israelis imagine Hebron to be the site of harsh conflicts between Jewish settlers and Arab residents. But the truth is that with the exception of the point of contention at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, this is the quietest and safest city in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

While Gaza is the scene of daily shootings and infighting between a variety of groups, and one might say that personal safety in Ramallah and Nablus is also precarious, Hebron is tranquil.

There are no militias, no armed gangs and no hooligans. There is a traditional tribal social structure, no refugee camps inside the city and the town's large and powerful families do not permit lawlessness...The market... is a source of pride among Hebron residents. It is clean and organized. Trade between merchants is documented on computers and municipality officials say there is no more modern and efficient market in the entire PA. Nor is there a market like it in Jordan or even in Tel Aviv.

I totally and utterly reject the statement that thousands of Arabs have been driven from their homes. This is totally false. There are Arabs who have left of their own accord, but none have been expelled, as is written in the article.

The Abu Aisha baby story is also a fairy-tale. Did the author request proof, or accept it at face value? There is absolutely no impediment to an Arab ambulance reaching her home. It should also be noted that her home is a five minute walk to the checkpoint leading to the Arab side of the city. She and her neighbors have never had any problems getting to, or leaving their homes.

Kristof writes: "Even if the Hebron settlement were not illegal in the eyes of much of the world, it is utterly impractical. The financial cost is mind-boggling, and the diplomatic cost is greater."

Firstly, the Hebron Jewish community was recognized and given legitimacy by Arafat himself, when he signed the Hebron Accords in January, 1997.

2. The claims that Hebron's Jewish community is illegal according to international law are nonsense. Jews lived in Hebron for thousands of years until being expelled in 1929, following the massacre which left 67 Jews murdered and scores wounded.

3. What 'the eyes of the world" think is absolutely irrelevant. The 'eyes of the world' were blind to the annihilation of 6 million Jews 60 years ago. Only yesterday we read that the UN opposes any military strike against the Iranian nuclear plants. What would they prefer: that Israel go up in flames?!

4. The IDF is stationed in Hebron for more than one reason. Of course, they are here to protect the city's residents and over half a million annual visitors. However, they are also in Hebron to prevent the city from becoming a terrorist nest, as was Jenin and other Samaria cities, when the IDF evacuated them. Terrorists from Hebron have perpetrated mass murder in Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel. Only a strong IDF presence in the city can deter such attacks.

As for the checkpoints, that is the only point the author allows me a reaction in his article. No point could be more valid.

The other so-called facts Kristof mentions in the article are nothing more than well-polished regurgitations from the Arab propaganda machine. Again, no proof of facts, only oft-repeated claims, with nothing to back them up.

Kristof told me that he's not stationed in the Middle East. This is quite clear from the ignorance he portrays in this column. I would suggest that the next time the NY Times desires to print a column about Hebron, they should instruct their reporter to visit both sides, and examine the issues accurately and objectively, rather than publish such a biased, imprecise article.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 22, 2008.

Sometimes it's a good idea to review what was said in the past and check if the forecast stood the test of time. I wrote this and it was published in March of 2000.

March 25, 2000

It would appear that the casual use of the expression "The Promised Land" has lost its meaning to those who would undo that Promise.

Perhaps you will recall that G-d Promised the Land first to Avraham and the Jewish People and then conveyed that promise to Moses. There were no qualifications in fine print. G-d made a Promise within His unbreakable Covenant with the Jewish people which did not mention Rome, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, France, England, America or any other country or people.

Now, with arrogance and evil intent, the nations of the world come to inform the Jewish people and G-d that they, the nations, have the right to add a codicil or addendum to G-d's Contract (Covenant) with the Jewish people.

The Pope came to Mount Nebo, purportedly the place where Moses stood to view the Land of Israel promised to him for the Jewish People by G-d for the unending generations of the Jewish people. There seems to be no embarrassment as all the media call Israel the "Promised Land", completely ignoring to whom it was unequivocally promised.

Certainly the Land was not promised to the arch terrorists Yassir Arafat or Hafez al Assad and the Arabs who continue to teach hatred of the Jewish people. But, this coalition of evil intent converges on what they call "The Promised Land" to first dilute the Jewish claim to the Land, no doubt to be followed by total ethnic cleansing. Do you not find it puzzling that the Arab nations who cover millions of square miles and possess untold oil wealth, hunger for that minuscule strip of land called Israel?

We appreciate the words of peace coming from a frail old man but the divided message that Jerusalem does not belong to the Jews is unacceptable.

Those millions of true Bible believing Christians who support Israel's primary claim to "The Promised Land" will not be offended by the word 'evil'. They know what was Promised and to whom. Those who would deny that Promise by war, terror or this false 'Process' called 'peace' have brought evil into the world by trying to undo G-d's Authority and Judgement.

"Pope John Paul II gazed toward Israel today, March 20, from Mount Nebo, where the Bible says G-d showed Moses The Promised Land. As he landed in Amman Jordan, he claimed that "In this area of the world there are grave issues and urgent issues of justice, of the rights of peoples and nations which have to be resolved for the good of all concerned...for the "displaced people in your midst," a reference to Palestinian refugees."(1)

These are 'code-words' for 'take The Promised Land of Israel away from the Jews and give it to the Arabs'. These 'code-words' are well-known by those who closely follow the war waged by the world against Israel. If the Pope (and the nations) said, "There will be peace if we follow G-d's Word, and leave The Promised Land to the people to whom He Promised it" –– then indeed there would be a true, just and lasting peace.

Surely, Hell must have opened its portals as we hear that President Clinton will meet with Hafez al Assad of Syria on Sunday March 26 [2000] to discuss the future of Israel. We have watched the gatherings of evil as they converge to lay their spurious claims to Jerusalem, presumably to entrap G-d in His dwelling place on earth. Why else through centuries of conquest have the Christians built churches on the Temple Mount, the Holy of Holies? Why then would the Muslims come to kill the Christians and build mosques, also on the Temple Mount and over the ruins of the Christian churches? Whoever was in power –– each denied freedom of worship to the other, while both refused it to the Jews. Are these peace-makers? I think not.

Countless invaders, weighed down by their earthbound minds, came to the Holy City of Jerusalem, with extreme prejudice, to capture her stones, plunder the Holy Articles from King Solomon's Holy Temple that the Jews used to serve G-d. Can we ignore the carved frieze depicting roman conquerors, carrying the Holy Menorah, booty from the desecrated Jewish Temple back to the "Holy" Roman Empire treasury where it was entombed in its vaults.

These aggressive conquerors believed that, if they captured the Holy Temple and its artifacts, they would firmly establish their claim to be the true representatives of G-d on earth. How does one actually go about capturing G-d and then binding Him to your wishes? The answer is, they could not, with all of the invaders and their nations, eventually becoming extinct.

Once again they came, first laying siege and, failing that, joining forces with other countries –– Muslim and Christian –– claiming entrance into the City of Jerusalem under a false banner of 'peace'. Was there ever a more unholy cabal than institutional Christianity and Islam, the quintessential Amalekites, joining forces to command G-d's Recognition? They do not come to worship peacefully at His Holy Mountain as they claim. They come with guile, backed by force, to demand that G-d bow to them. They come to tell G-d that he has made a 'clerical' error and it is their names which should be affixed to the Covenant –– not the Jews.

Was there ever such an arrogant, cursed rabble who come to attempt to finish killing G-d's Chosen servants? To be sure, they have found allies among some Jews who are willing to lick the boots of these would-be conquerors and play the role of infamous court Jews. No doubt, they will be dealt with as were the worshipers of the Golden Calf. Moses gave the Jewish people a choice at Sinai –– to join Moses in accepting G-d's Commandments or remain with those who worshiped the golden idol. That choice is once again being offered to the nations and the Jewish people. You will recall, those who worshiped the beast were slain by G-d.

Muslim/Arab terrorists and Muslim/Arab countries' armies have been in a constant state of war with the Jews ever since the Jews returned to their Promised Land. The Jews are tired of fighting off the Arabs while losing their sons and daughters to their assaults. That is natural but, giving up G-d's Land, Promised to them, will not appease the conquerors. It is merely an invitation to war consistent with shrinking the tiny country of Israel until she appears weak enough to overpower. The Muslims and Christians (or rather the UN-Christians) believe they need to displace the Jews in order to eliminate any Jewish claim to G-d's Covenant so that they can claim that Covenant and to be G-d's Chosen.

Displacing the Jews from their Promised Land is not the way to win G-d's favor. Ever since the Jews returned to the Land G-d Promised to them, they have welcomed Christians and Muslims equally to freely worship in their own churches and mosques. They have even passed formal laws, insuring free unimpeded passage for those who come in Peace. Arafat and the Palestinians have already demonstrated and announced that they have no intention of allowing the Christians free passage into areas over which they have control.

The Pope has tried to negotiate a document with Arafat which states that Christian holy places under the Palestinians will not be taken over by the Palestinian Authority. This already indicates that the Pope knows exactly what will happen under Muslim control. The churches and shrines of Jerusalem have never enjoyed such freedom as they have under the Jews. But, clearly, that was not enough. The Christians want the City internationalized, with joint ownership, insuring the freedom of worship which they, in fact, already have.

What is really being said is that neither the Church of Rome nor the Muslims whose holy center is in Mecca, want the Jews to have the symbols of a people made whole in their own Land and in the capital chosen by G-d for them. Because the Jews have the City of Jerusalem, therefore, Rome and Islam want it.

The Palestinians have already stated that, when they get full control of Israel's second most holy city of Hebron and the burial caves of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, no Jew will be allowed in to pray. Think of that –– The father of the Jewish people has been claimed as a Muslim. Just as Jerusalem suddenly became Islam's third holiest city in 1967 after Jerusalem was re-united, the Tomb of the Patriarchs was turned into a mosque and the Jews will be locked out as they were before when the Machpelah was under Muslim rule. Jerusalem will suffer the same fate if she is ever allowed into the hands of a people who recreates history to suit their own purposes. Regrettably, the Church of Rome knows this but, because it also suits them, they accept and perpetuate the Big Lie.

G-d will not welcome killers and liars into His Courtyards of Heaven. As is said: "I will cleanse the nations of their wrongdoings, but for the shedding of Jewish blood I will not cleanse them; the Lord dwells in Zion."(2)


1. "Pope Begins His Holy Land Pilgrimage in Jordan: Prays at Site Looking to Promised Land" by Alessandra Stanley, New York Times, 3/21/2000

2. Joel 4:23

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, June 21, 2008.

This is a news item from Agence France-Presse . It appeared in today's Gulf in the Media

The oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states are projected to earn close to 1.3 trillion dollars in oil revenue in 2008 and 2009, a Kuwaiti economic report said on Saturday.

The six-nation alliance –– Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia –– earned 364 billion dollars from oil in 2007, the Al-Shall Economic Consultants said in its weekly report.

The GCC oil revenues are projected to reach 636 billion dollars in 2008 and 657 billion dollars in 2009, Al-Shall said.

Oil powerhouse Saudi Arabia's earnings in the two years will be just under 700 billion dollars. The kingdom posted 194 billion dollars in oil revenues in 2007.

The six states, which boast just less than half of the world's crude proven reserves, produce around 16 million barrels per day, or just under one-fifth of the world's consumption.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, June 21, 2008.

Today, journalism students, in our course, "Absolutely Introductory Basic Rules of Journalism, we will discuss the absolutely introductory basic rules of journalism.

I don't think I'm an old fogey but in my hazy memories of the good old days I think there was a time when reporters were supposed to represent both sides of the story. I hear some gasps of amazement in the classroom. Yes, it is true. Nowadays we are more enlightened and the process goes something like this:

1. Decide which side is the good guys. This can be based on your ethnic-communal background (unless you are Jewish since then you must lean over backward to prove yourself fair by supporting the other side), political ideology, or –– if all else fails –– which ever side is weaker. (The word "underdog" might not be PC any more so I will avoid it.)

2. Slant your article completely in favor of the "good guys" because they are after all the good guys. Writing an advocacy article for them is thus a good and moral deed. There can be no compromise with evil and since the bad guys lie all the time why even bother to listen to their arguments.

Incidentally, questions of past credibility are irrelevant. If one side can be shown to have lied repeatedly that doesn't count. Pointing this out could get you accused of racism or imperialism, while the "good guys," once so designated, are allowed to lie because they are pursuing a "good cause." Governments are held to lie always, especially if they are democratic ones.

While the above is written to be humorous and is no doubt somewhat exaggerated it does give a pretty good idea about the genesis of all too many newspaper articles nowadays.

Consider, for example, Dalia Nammari, "Israel curbs Palestinian building on disputed land," AP. The article has 1,107 words long which by contemporary standards is quite long. Number of words used to explain Israel's position: 76. Number of words used to advocate the Palestinian cause? You do the math.

Basically, as so often happens, the reporter serves as the mouthpiece for one side (it always seems to be the same side) in language calculated to tug at the readers' heart-strings. Here's the lead:

"AQABEH, West Bank –– The elders of this West Bank village hold their meetings under a carob tree, sitting on boulders arranged in a circle. It looks idyllic, but is born of necessity, the council doesn't have a meeting hall."

"Aqabeh, home to 299 people, has never received Israeli construction permits despite many requests, its mayor says. After losing a battle in Israel's Supreme Court in April, the village now lives with the threat of seeing 37 of its 47 structures demolished, according to a U.N. count. That includes 27 homes, a clinic, a mosque and a kindergarten that was co-financed by a U.S. charity, the Building Alliance. All were built illegally, Israel says."

Let's stop here a moment and rest under the shade of that carob tree. Israel's Supreme Court has often ruled against the Israeli government. For example, in response to Palestinian suits, the route of the security fence has often been altered at great expense to the Israeli taxpayer so as to make the lives of Palestinians easier. (Occupying powers usually don't let people from the side carrying out terrorist attacks against them to sue and win in court. Why, that might even be a good topic for a 1,107 word article some day!)

Why, then, did these villagers lose in court? The reporter might be expected to tell us, but that could ruin this touching story.

The article continues:

"Aqabeh's plight is similar to scores of Palestinian villages in `Area C,' the nearly two-thirds of the West Bank that remained under full Israeli control following a 1990s interim agreement with the Palestinian leadership."

Very cute. But wait a minute. Perhaps the reporter could tell us what percentage of the West Bank villagers live under Israeli rule in Area C. If we are talking about villages (not the town of Hebron) I would suspect the answer would not be much above 1 percent.

But wait, the article continues:

"On that land are Israel's 121 West Bank settlements, as well as military bases. But so are 150 Palestinian villages, home to tens of thousands of people."

So which is it? The answer is that even if villages are located in Area C, local control in most cases belongs to the PA, not Israel.

Note the deliberate dishonesty: yes, lots of land is in Area C but by the Oslo agreement's design Israel has full control over unpopulated land. Virtually all the villages are under Palestinian Authority (PA) rule.

And by the way, what is the housing situation for 99 percent of the West Bank villages? I would bet that they either have to pay off PA officials or just do what they want without regard to regulations.

But in one of the two sentences in which Israeli officials are allowed to speak, we get an interesting hint about that:

"Maj. Peter Lerner, an Israeli military spokesman, said demolition orders are usually issued early in cases of illegal construction, but are often ignored by residents."

So in fact Israel does not try to enforce these orders most of the time.

Why would Israeli authorities try to stop buildings from being constructed? The article tells us it is pure meanness or because it wants to take lands in future. But the overwhelming main reason for such denials is that the buildings would be close to roads or in other strategic locations where they could be used for ambushes. We aren't told this, in fact there is no mention of the fact that the Palestinian side is carrying out a war on Israel involving terrorism, which makes conditions significantly different than in a peaceful environment.

To a large extent, this article is merely an extended version of an interview with the village's mayor who is allowed to say whatever he wants, no matter how fantastic. For example, he says:

"Since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967 eight villagers have been killed by stray bullets or by picking up unexploded munitions, and 42 have been wounded. The Israeli military could not confirm those numbers."

Now there are 299 people in the village. We are to believe that 50 of them –– which would in practice mean one person in each family –– has been killed or wounded by Israeli bullets. Is there any documentation for this? Are there any newspaper clippings, reports to humanitarian organizations, etc? And if so why aren't these cited.

I feel confident in suggesting that the mayor is lying and that the reporter is going along with the lies. As an Arab proverb goes: "How do you know it is a lie? Because it is so big."

Or this one:

"Aqabeh Mayor Sami Sadiq says Israeli officials told residents in 2004 that only buildings in the center, on 3 percent of the village's land area, would be safe from demolition. If all demolitions are carried out, two-thirds of the village's residents would be left homeless, he said."

Well, did they or is this a propaganda fantasy? The important thing to remember here is the test of logic. The village must be many decades, even centuries, old. So does this mean that 97 percent of the village dates from the last few years? It appears to be nonsense.

The article states, "Sadiq has been confined to a wheelchair since being hit by three stray bullets while cultivating his family's land in 1971, he said." Well, it should have been easy for the reporter to check this out since he would have filed compensation claims with the Israeli government. There would be documentation.

Sadiq's credibility doesn't strike me as being too good:

"In the past four decades, some 700 residents have left Aqabeh because of the many troubles, he said, mostly moving to neighboring villages outside of Area C that have approved zoning plans and where it is easier to build."

So there were 1,000 residents and now there are 300 but –– let's use our brains, people –– if that were true the village wouldn't need to be expanding, would it? Seventy percent of its housing would be empty. It would look like a ghost town. So why didn't the reporter mention this?

Why go on with more examples? This is nonsense on the face of it. In a world where professional standards applied, AP would be humiliated at making mistakes unacceptable in a high school newspaper. The reporter would be immediately fired and a stern memo sent to all staff members on avoiding such stupidities in future.

I must be an old fogey because I keep expecting things like this to happen.

And what really scares me is that I didn't even have to go hunting to find such propaganda masquerading as journalism –– it was the first article I read in a 25-page compilation of AP stories.

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 Avodah, June 21, 2008.

This is a news item from Arutz-7
ww w.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/148593

(IsraelNN.com) The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) announced Friday that the organization would no longer accept donations from Israeli billionaire businessman Lev Leviev because the latter invests in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

However, in the past the international organization has been criticized for supporting radical Arab organizations such as the Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation, demonizing Israel during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. At least one UNICEF official has also been described as "agent of Palestinian terrorist propaganda" by the esteemed Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 20, 2008.

All of the Muslim Arabs in 1948 (and for decades before) swore to attack the Jews –– and later the newly born State of Israel and kill every Jew. They did attack with 7 armies and they lost in a humiliating defeat against untrained Jews, many cadaverous Holocaust survivors without weapons. The Muslim Arabs 'Lost' the Land they gambled away and called it their nakba (catastrophe). (They didn't adopt the name "Palestinians" until 1967.) While the Jews were (reluctantly) ready to accept the 1947 partition plan of the U.N., the Muslims rejected it and, therefore they 'Lost' the Land the U.N. had voted for them.

Then in 1956, Egypt's President Gamal Abdul Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, threatening Israeli, French and British shipping –– as well as closing the Straits of Tiran through which Israel's oil shipments from Iran transitted. This was a casus belli (an act of war). Egypt had also received a huge arms shipment from the U.S.S.R. Nasser vowed (again) to eliminate the Jews. (1) The Arab Muslim countries' leaders and the religious Mullahs incited the Muslims, telling them they would soon "dance in the blood of the Jews".

The Jewish Israelis won that war (although President Ike Eisenhower forced the British, French and Israelis to retreat). The Arab Muslims continued their ongoing Terrorism and massive arming. But, Israel won the next 5 wars (1967, 1969-70, 1973, 1982, 1991). Every time the Arab Muslims vowed to kill all the Jews and to confiscate their assets and Land. The attacking countries of Egypt, Syria and (in 1967) Jordan promised to keep the Jews' Land as permanent occupiers.

Between wars, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim despots funded, trained and armed Terrorists to keep up a war of Terror –– called Low Intensity War...(tell that to its victims)!

Today's question is: Why must Israel, under unrelenting pressure from the U.S., from Europe, give up Land given by G-d to the Jewish people in perpetuity? The Muslim Arabs have 22 states already, covering more than 6 million square miles. The total states of the Muslim world have a majority (usually over 80%) with a world total of 52 states, covering altogether 11 million square miles. (2)

What right do the nations of the world have to tell Israel that, having survived 7 wars of in which the Muslim Arabs pledged annihilation that the Land given by G-d and defended in those wars of survival must be given to a hostile Muslim world who still vow to kill them all?

According to Dr. Samuel P. Huntington, Professor at Harvard, in his 'CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS & THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER' he says: "The rise of Western power took 400 years. Its recession could take [a long time]...[because] The open democratic societies of the West have great capacities for renewal...,.[However,] The West's share of most...of the important power resources peaked early in the 20th Century and then became to decline relative to those of other civilizations .... At the peak of its territorial expansion in 1920, the West directly ruled about 25.5 million square miles or close to half the earth's earth. By 1993 this territorial control had been cut in half to about 12.7 million square miles.

"The territory of independent Islamic societies, in contrast, rose from 1.8 million square miles in 1920 to over 11 million square miles by 1997....In terms of total population, in 1993 the West ranked fourth behind the Chinese, Islamic and Hindu civilizations." (3)

The Muslim Arabs gambled away any rights they might put forward in their furious rage against a Jewish State. Their primitive hatred of Jews goes back to the 7th century, when Mohammed brutalized the Jews, Christians and any other people who refused to bow down to worship their moon god, zin –– later to be called Allah. That ideology remains today and has gained new energy, as they plainly say that all the nations of the world must adopt Allah and Islam. Their oft-spoken goal is to conquer with force and create a World Caliphate, ruled by Islam.

Why bestow any more Land on a savage people who butchered their way through the centuries in the belief that they had both the right and the obligation to kill "infidels" (non-Muslims)?

Why listen to American Arabists, either in the White House or the U.S. State Department, who press Israel to appease these pagan killers?

One can understand the Europeans recommending that the Jews simply surrender, given that their record of butchery, torture, confiscation of property, hatred by the Church against the Jews, makes it a habit they don't know how to change or think they ought to –– break.

Some things just don't change. It's not surprising to see the Bush, Rice, Baker team bond with the oil nations against Israel's life-and-death sovereignty. Condoleezza Rice clearly has a gaggle of dumb advisors who urge her in the direction they want her to go but, she accepts their hostile advice and then adds her own bias from her childhood.

As a child, Condi Rice saw what southern white bigots did to the blacks. One of the 4 girls blown up in the Birmingham Church was reportedly a friend of hers. She carried this trauma through to her adulthood. She 'adopted' the Muslim Arab Palestinians Terrorists and Arab Muslims in general as analogous to the blacks of her youth. (She has said so; we're not making this up.)

Then Rice, like other blacks, did a psychological transference and made the Jews of Israel analogous to the white trash of her youth. (If you've forgotten this sordid bit of American history, rent the movie "Mississippi Burning" with Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe to remind you how bad it really was –– now that it is hidden away from view.)

Rice, like other blacks of today, has an inner compulsion to "get even" with someone and there were simply too many whites to attack safely. So Rice (and others) seem to have chosen the "Chosen" people –– the minuscule community of "white" Jews in Israel (although the Jews of Israel who were exiled 2000 years ago –– have returned from at least 70 countries of the world and are every color of the rainbow –– including black Ethiopians.)

Sounds crazy but, that's probably why there is a known infamous cabal of blacks like Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Idi Amin (in his time), Cong. John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, and other blacks who have chosen to become Black Muslims. African-Americans in prison have been easily recruited to become Muslims and the front line in black hatred against "infidels" (non-Muslims) as well as whites.

Blacks (or, if you prefer, the latest PC, Politically Correct term: African-Americans) are ignorant of Islam's contempt for Blacks. Muslims usually referring to them as low people, worthy only to be slaves. In fact, it was usually the Muslim slave raiders who captured the black Africans, sold them to the slavers on ships to become slaves in North America. By the way, the Muslims are still enslaving the Blacks (both men and women) in many countries of Africa. But, the U.N., under pressure from the Arab Bloc (especially the Saudis) doesn't want to address this vile practice.

Tell that to a black who is or wants to become a Muslim and he will tell you it's a lie. But, they may not have read the Koran in Arabic with its numerous insults and contempt for blacks –– as well as Jews.

Granted, Muslims, Arabs, Islamists hate the Jews with a savagery you cannot imagine. Muslims, like ignorant, poor blacks cannot see themselves as a low, uneducated, unproductive people. They view themselves as superior because (it feels better) and they worship a moon god once called Zin, now called Allah. Muslims want to be considered a great people. But they are not except for their skill at killing people –– and because of their Black Gold (oil), they can extort vast quantities of treasure from all the countries and peoples of the world. Doesn't that make them superior? I think not!

Condoleezza Rice fits into this crowd and she hates –– with a smile –– but with a bitter tongue. One is reminded of Barack Obama. All this psychological bitterness is there within him (and his wife Michelle) but it will not fully surface until Obama and Michelle come to their full power IF they gain the White House. Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim or a half Black man? His handlers are trying very hard to hide his true background but, it does seep out. Muslims will consider him a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. In Islam, if your father is a Muslim, you are a Muslim. Your religion is determined through patrilineal descent. Is it not surprising that Arab and Muslim nations are cheering the prospect of Obama and Michelle becoming the driving force in the White House?

If Muslims consider him a Muslim who is now denying his faith in order to get elected, then he is at great risk of being assassinated for what Koranic law would consider his heresy. This is the main issue.

How he views himself and others outside his faith, whatever it may be, will determine how he treats Jews and Israel. His speech at the AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) was brilliantly written (probably by a very good Jewish speech-writer) and very well delivered by Obama, who is an excellent orator. But, speaking skills do not generate the judgement and experience necessary for America's Chief of State and top world leader.

One becomes accustomed to blacks' hatred without reason –– of Jews. But, Rice, given the position she has been awarded by the Bush family, is a different matter entirely. Rice has no problem evacuating Jews from the Land given to them by a G-d she doesn't believe in. She would be pleased to uproot thousands of Jewish men, women and children from their homes and gardens, farms and factories, schools and synagogues –– and cemeteries. She has bitter accusations against any Jews building in Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem –– because the Muslim Arab Palestinians want these areas for their state.

From Condoleezza Rice on June 14th regarding proposed building of 1300 homes in the Jerusalem suburb of Ramat Shlomo: "Ongoing Israeli construction in areas the Palestinians want for their future state has the potential to harm the negotiations." (4) How can we accept this blind biased hatred?

What god do you believe in, Condi? Is it Allah; or is it the Jew Jesus? Or, surely, it must some sort of a pagan deity who will appreciate your vicious hatred of the Jewish people and their precious Land G-d gave to them.


1. "The Art of Strategic Counterintelligence –– CIA: The Musketeer's Cloak: Strategic Deception During the Suez Crisis of 1956" by Ricky-Dale Calhoun
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/ csi-publications/csi-studies...

2. "Majority Muslim Countries" Wikipedia (mostly from the CIA World Factbook)


4. "Rice: W. Bank building may harm talks" by Mark Weiss & AP JERUSALEM POST June 14, 2008

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@gwinston.interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, June 20, 2008.

This was written by Caroline Glick in the The Jerusalem Post and it is archived at
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213794285097&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's liquidation sale of Israel's strategic assets opened officially this week. Iran's proxies have pounced on the merchandise.

The first asset sold was the security of southern Israel. The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's "cease-fire" with Hamas transferred all power to determine the fate of the residents of southern Israel to Iran's Palestinian proxy.

Under the "agreement," Hamas will refrain from attacking Sderot, Ashkelon, Netivot and surrounding kibbutzim for as long as it serves its interests. Since temporarily halting its attacks on southern Israel is the only thing that Hamas has agreed to do, it will use the lull in fighting to build up its arsenal and its military infrastructures in Gaza. When it has built up its forces sufficiently, or when its Iranian overlords give it the order, Hamas will again attack southern Israel. And when it reengages, it can be assumed that it will do so with a vastly expanded missile range. So under the guise of the "cease-fire," Hamas will place hundreds of thousands more Israelis at its mercy.

The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's agreement with Hamas does more than sell out the security of the South. The agreement also divests Israel of its former ability to isolate Hamas diplomatically. Fatah's renewal of negotiations toward reconciling with Hamas is a direct consequence of Israel's actions. As these talks unfold, it is clear to all concerned that they will not lead to any sort of power sharing agreement between the two parties. Hamas today holds all the power in Palestinian society. Israel's acceptance of Hamas's power over the safety of Israeli citizens only amplified this fact. Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas –– who cannot even travel to Nablus without IDF protection –– is not approaching Hamas as an equal, but as a supplicant.

Moreover, Israel's willingness to allow Gazans to enter Israel, and its acceptance of Hamas's control over the Rafah international terminal that separates Gaza from Egypt, constitutes de facto Israeli recognition of the Hamas regime in Gaza. And the direct consequence of Israel's diplomatic and strategic capitulation to Hamas is that no one in either the Arab world or the West today will agree to isolate or boycott Hamas.

But the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government apparently doesn't care. Israel's leaders actually don't want anyone to isolate or boycott Hamas anymore. The government's reported negotiations regarding the deployment of an all-Arab "peacekeeping" force in Gaza in a later phase of the "cease-fire"make clear that Israel is pushing for Hamas's international legitimization.

Afterall, unlike Israel, Hamas would never allow any government that doesn't recognize its legitimacy to deploy forces in its territory or along its borders. So any Arab force that deployed in Gaza or along Gaza's borders would have to recognize Hamas's regime. Beyond that, of course, Israel's advocacy of such a force indicates that the government has no interest in ever confronting Hamas militarily and is ready to tie the hands of any future Israeli government to do so since the presence of Arab forces in Gaza will render it much more difficult for Israel to defend itself. For if such a force is deployed, any future counter-terror operation in Gaza is liable to cause casualties among foreign Arab soldiers and so risk escalating the conflict to the level of regional war.

Israel's decision to embrace Hamas is so outrageous that even the US State Departmentapparently hasn't had a chance to get its bearings. Reacting to the news on Wednesday, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said, "Saying you've got a loaded gun to my head but you're not going to fire today is far different from taking the gun down, locking it up, and saying you're not going to use it again." The agreement "hardly takes Hamas out of the terrorism business," Casey added.

The "cease-fire" with Hamas also has direct implications for Judea and Samaria. If Hamas holds its fire for six months, then Israel will be obliged to end its counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria. That is, if Hamas keeps its powder dry until January, Israel will effectively enable it to assert its control over Judea and Samaria and so place Iran in control of the outskirts of Jerusalem, Kfar Saba, Afula and Netanya.

IF THE US was aghast at the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's capitulation to Hamas, UN officials are aghast at its second asset drop. This week the government conducted its second round of negotiations toward the surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria. Speaking of the surrender talks toa group of Israeli diplomats, Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, condemned the move, arguing just by holding the negotiations, "Israel has given Syria a huge gift, without thus far receiving anything in exchange."

Larsen continued bitterly, "Syria is receiving legitimacy for free. Europe is courting the Syrians because of the negotiations with Israel, and they are no longer being asked to give anything in exchange."

Indeed, far from moderating their behavior, the Syrians seem only to have strengthened their already intimate ties with Iran since Israel initiated the surrender talks last month. Reacting to the second round of talks, Iran's Ambassador to Syria, Sayyed Ahmed Moussavi, told a German news agency that Iranian-Syrian ties have strengthened still further over the past four months. Moussavi, who also serves as a general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and as a senior adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hinted that Iranis planning on sharing its nuclear arsenal with Syria. As he put it, "Islam taught us to pass on our knowledge and we can pass our [nuclear] experienceto Syria if it wants it."

In its rush to obliterate Israel's defensive positions, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government apparently doesn't care that Iran may well attack Israel with nuclear warheads launched from a post-withdrawal Golan Heights. What is most important to the government is to make Syria look good. And so, following the second round of negotiations with the Syrians, Olmert practically got down on his hands and knees to beg Assad to meet with him face to face when they visit Paris together next month. The two have been invited by French President Nicholas Sarkozy to participate in the launch of his Mediterranean Union initiative on July 13. Assad, no doubt enjoying the moment, rejected Olmert's pleas. As Larsen warned, Assad has no reason to pay for something he is already getting for free.

APPARENTLY, THE Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government couldn't suffice with capitulation on three fronts in one week. And so it moved to a fourth one. Far from displaying alarm or anger over US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's decision to visit Beirut and give the US's blessing to the new Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese government, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert joined her defeatist bandwagon. He announced that he wishes to open negotiations with Iran's Lebanese proxy and to that end he is willing to surrender strategically critical Mount Dov –– or what Hizbullah refers to as Shaba Farms –– to Hizbullah. So eager is Olmert to surrender, that even after Hizbullah's puppet Prime Minister Fuad Saniora rejected his offer, he reiterated it.

Like Assad and Hamas, Hizbullah sees no reason to honor Olmert and his colleagues with direct talks. As Hizbullah parliamentarian Nawar Sahili said this week, "If they really want to give us back our land, they can withdraw."

Finally, there is the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's handling of the Israelis oldiers being held hostage by Hamas and Hizbullah. The government agreed to the "cease-fire" with Hamas without securing Gilad Schalit's release from captivity. Rather than acknowledge that they have likely signed his death warrant, the government insists that it's not done capitulating. It will begin begging Hamas to accept hundreds of Palestinian murderers jailed in Israeli prisons in exchange for Schalit next Tuesday.

As for Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, who were kidnapped to Lebanon by Hizbullah two years ago and haven't been heard from since, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government is poised to spring arch-murderer Samir Kuntar from prison together with three other Hizbullah terrorists in exchangefor their release –– dead or alive.

In a naked attempt to divert the public's attention away from its surrender drive,Thursday morning the government initiated a violent confrontation with Israeli residents of Samaria by ordering the destruction of homes in the community of Yitzhar. In other words, while surrendering to Iranian proxies on four fronts, the government has turned its guns against Israeli citizens.

THE GOVERNMENT'S actions no doubt increase prospects for a major war. But beyond that, it is important to note that Israel is discarding its strategic assets in the face of the burgeoning threat of nuclear annihilation. No doubt buoyed by the government's strategic incapacitation, Iran mockingly told the Europeans that it will be happy to consider their European-American offer to build Iran nuclear reactors and normalize relations with it –– so long as it is understood that they will accept their largesse while continuing their uranium enrichment activities. In Israel's 60-year history, there is no precedent for the government's actionsthis week. And if history is any guide, Israel can only expect more of the same in the government's remaining time in office –– however long that mightbe.

Until Olmert was elected prime minister in 2006, Defense Minister Ehud Barak enjoyed the distinction of being the worst prime minister in Israeli history. And Barak's behavior in his waning days in power is instructive for understanding what we can expect from Olmert and Livni and Barak today.

In July 2000, after he lost a no-confidence vote in the Knesset, Barak went toCamp David and shot for the moon, offering PLO chieftain Yasser Arafat a statein all of Gaza, 90 percent of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem. Arafat rejected his offer and went to war. Facing the rejection ofthe Israeli electorate at the polls, rather than curtail his capitulation efforts, Barak redoubled them. As Arafat's soldiers were busy blowing up buses and lynching Israeli soldiers, Barak offered Arafat still more land in Judeaand Samaria and the Temple Mount.

And today, with Barak at his side, Olmert –– who similarly has been rejected by the electorate –– is repeating Barak's move fourfold. And he can be expected to continue on this course until elections are held and he is sent packing.

Next week the Knesset is expected to vote on a motion to disband and move to general elections. It is far from clear that the vote will pass. Barak and his Labor Party may well decide that capitulation suits them just fine and remainon board Olmert and Livni's sinking ship.

As the Israeli public stares at the wreckage and danger that has marked this disastrous week, hopefully it understands that this is what happens when we elect bad leaders. All of this was eminently predictable in 2006 when Kadima and Labor both ran for office on capitulationist platforms. Choices have consequences. And we will be suffering with the consequences of the 2006 elections until its winners are finally thrown from office.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 20, 2008.

This was written by Dr. Joel Fishman, a Fellow of a research center in Jerusalem. Contact him by email by writing to joel.fishman@gmail.com

On Tuesday evening, June 17th, the Egyptian government announced that a truce agreement between Israel and the Hamas in Gaza would commence at 6 A.M. on Thursday, June 19. This understanding means essentially that Israel indirectly recognizes and is negotiating with a terrorist organization dedicated to its destruction. Earlier in the week, there were acrimonious debates and exchanges of recriminations regarding the question whether or not Israel should enter Gaza with massive armed force in order to bring an end to acts of terror which include the launching rockets and mortars against the civilian population of the Western Negev and of Askelon. On June 16 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement informing the public that "the very fact that Hamas carried out a violent coup against the more pragmatic Palestinian Authority, led by Abu Mazen, proves that they are not willing to participate in the process of achieving peace through compromise between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that was sarted in 1993 with the Oslo Accords."

It is likely that any arrangement with the Hamas will be temporary and last only as long as it suits them. In exchange for an undetermined pause in hostilities, Israel plans to give up the advantages of relative military strength, while its enemy prepares for the next round, training its forces, building fortifications, and smuggling in new weapons. The prototype for this transaction was the Truce of Hudaybiyyah of 628 CE which Muhammad signed with the Quraish tribe of Mecca at a time when his forces were relatively weak. Later, when he gained more followers, he broke the treaty and defeated this tribe. According to the website, Israel Forum, "This truce became a model and a precedent in Islamic law for all agreements with infidels, never lasting more than ten years (with the possibility of another ten years extension, no more)." Within a broader perspective, the major objective of any guerilla movement, as Mao once wrote, is simply to stay in existence. In this respect, the State of Israel has been needlessly helpful to the Hamas.

The implications of the alternative policy choices: a truce or possible military actions in Gaza have not been the subject of a serious public debate, and some of the main issues have been obfuscated. Also, the tendency of the media to present recent developments mainly in the perspective of the present, as if they were entirely new, is misleading.

About a year ago today, on June 20th 2007, Israel lost Ze'ev Schiff, one of its finest military analysts. Twelve days before his passing, one of his last articles, "An Israeli Defeat in Sderot," appeared in Ha'aretz. Although a year has passed, his article has reatined its value. If Schiff were alive today, he could have written the same article with only minor changes. Some of his conclusions are as follows:

1. Israel has been defeated in Sderot;
2. The enemy has silenced an entire city and brought normal life there to a halt;
3. The people in Sderot do not feel that the country is standing behind them;
4. The government did not succeed in turning bombarded Sderot into a national defense project, which reinforces the assessment that this government is incapable of leading the nation in a major military confrontation;
5. The enemy that defeated Sderot is a terror organization that is militarily weak, yet in spite of its weakness, it has succeeded in achieving deterrence vis-à-vis Israel, just as Hizbollah did;
6. Israel finds itself in a military draw with Hamas. That is a serious national failure, which ... is worse than the failure of the Second Lebanon War;
7. Contrary to the tradition established by David Ben Gurion, it is the enemy who has brought the fighting to Israeli territory.

More rockets have fallen on Sderot since Ze'ev Schiff first wrote, and more mortars have fallen on the surrounding region. Several Grad missiles have hit Ashkelon. People are leaving some of the areas near the Gaza border. It is noteworthy that Schiff's description of defeat was closely associated in his mind with the government's abandoning the traditional "core values" of Israeli society. He also called the situation a "national disgrace."

The government of Israel has been slow to act effectively against Hamas terror, particularly the launching of rockets and mortars on Jewish towns and agricultural settlements. One of the reasons is that both the government and the army have been unable to respond to the challenge of political warfare. Although the army has done fairly well with the logistics and creative problem solving relating to combat in densely populated areas, as was the case with Jenin in 2002, it has made the mistake of "taking the purely military viewpoint." The army and the political leadership failed to defend Israel's legitimacy and the exercise of the sovereign right to protect its own civilian population. This failure has become painfully apparent as Israel finds itself in a state of protracted conflict.

In the past, the State of Israel insisted on the principle of accountability in its dealings with regimes which allowed their territories to be used as a staging point for terror. At present, it is clear that the State has given up its traditional policy of making others pay the price for terror against Israeli civilian populations. Indeed, the fact that Israel has not insisted upon its legitimate claims in the war of words and ideas represents a serious omission on the part of the government.

Under the present circumstances, a massive military operation in Gaza could be a serious mistake. The population is heavily armed and the area is densely populated. Further, there is also no compelling reason for Israel to incur losses in order to make way for the weak and discredited regime of Abu Mazen. If long-term results are to be achieved in Gaza, it is necessary to bring about a fundamental regime change in the spirit of the American occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II.

It would be necessary to remake and reform the Hamas institutions of civil and political society and create a totally new entity not associated either with the Palestinian Authority or with the Muslim Brotherhood. A new basic law would have to replace the Hamas Charter. This endeavor would require sustained police action; legal reform, rebuilding the judiciary, and the education system; political purges, censorship of the press and of the sermons in the mosques; and the rewriting of school textbooks. Such a program would place upon Israel the responsibility to provide for the health, welfare and feeding of the civilian population of Gaza, a heavy burden which is beyond its capability and resources.

It is likely that the new truce agreement will not result in a cessation of hostilities. Since this understanding will enable the enemy to prepare for the next round, Israel must also prepare for the worst case scenario. What is left, effectively, is the option of deterrence. Israel should launch a permanent and effective information campaign in order to safeguard its right to defend itself and to discredit the enemy. It should endeavor continuously to undermine the support of the Gaza population for the Hamas regime and to the extent possible, gain some understanding in the Arab world. It is inconceivable that a terrorist organization engaged in the murder of Israeli civilians should benefit from rights conferred by international law. Thus, Israel must be prepared to stand up against heavy international pressure. In combination with a vigorous information campaign, Israel must be prepared to employ measures of forceful deterrence and r etaliation. Certain military options, such as artillery and rocket attacks, aerial operations, as well as targeted assassinations, may be employed to convince the other side that any attack on Israeli civilians will result in costly and painful consequences.

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 eli@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Devin Sper and Sivan Raine, June 20, 2008.

Once again Israel is being blamed in advance for the inevitable failure of another round of Middle East diplomacy. It is incumbent on all of us concerned with Israel's image in the world that we not leave such accusations unchallenged. The latest criticism comes from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Speaking at a press conference hosted by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on June 15th, Rice maintained that: "Israel's persistent building of Jewish homes on disputed land undermines the U.S.-backed attempt to write an Israeli-Palestinian peace draft this year and invites questions about Israel's motives, Israel must understand the pall its actions cast over talks and on the confidence of the United States, European nations and others that Israel is bargaining in good faith."

We have heard similar criticism of Israel so often over the last 30 years that it has become the background noise of Middle East diplomacy. Nevertheless, we ignore such statements at our own risk. In essence, statements like Rice's seek to lay the blame, in advance, for the inevitable failure of the latest round of the peace process on irrelevant Israeli actions and not on the plan's inherent conceptual flaws. Although demonstrably false, the constant repetition of such accusations has and will have serious long term consequences for Israel's international reputation and diplomatic room for maneuver.

To accept Condoleezza Rice's statement that Israel is negotiating in bad faith, one must accept not only the false dichotomy of land for peace but also that Israel must unavoidably hand over any and all land her enemies covet; including Jerusalem (the location of the building permits to which Rice refers). In other words, we must believe that Israel does not really want peace because she permits the building of badly needed homes in her capitol city. We must further suspend reason and believe that even if Israel were to give part of Jerusalem over to some other sovereignty, Jews should not be permitted to live in certain neighborhoods of their holy city. Is this the supposed "peace" we are striving for?

Rice went on to say that she believes "that the actions and the announcements that are taking place are indeed having a negative effect on the atmosphere for the negotiation." Are we really to believe that Israeli housing is the primary reason for the negative atmosphere in the area? Might not the Palestinian's election of Hamas, labeled by Rice's own State Department as a terrorist organization, with their open rejection of all previously signed peace agreements and daily violations of them have more to do with the hostile atmosphere? Are not six years of Palestinian missile attacks on Israeli towns an impediment to peace negotiations? Thousands of missiles reigned down on the citizens of Galilee by Hezbollah in direct contradiction of the Geneva Convention are not more detrimental to an atmosphere of peace? The unprovoked kidnapping and continued captivity of Israelis by both Hamas and Hezbollah violate no tenant of diplomacy?

East Jerusalem, which includes the ancient Jewish Quarter in which Jews have lived for millennia and the holiest sights in Judaism, was annexed by the Knesset soon after the Six-Day War and has been sovereign Israeli territory ever since. The position of every Israeli government has remained consistent: Jews have the right to live anywhere they wish to in Israel's capitol city. To legislate otherwise would be a violation not only of Jewish sensibilities but of basic human rights. Regardless of our satisfaction with Olmert's government, it deserves credit for standing firm on this issue.

It is of no consequence whether Rice sincerely believes her statement or made it merely to appease her Palestinian hosts. Jewish history teaches us that we ignore libel at our peril. There are too many governments around the world that will no doubt seize on Rice's criticism as justification for their continued vilification of Israel. Jerusalem and Zion is sacred not only to Israelis but to Jews everywhere and we ought not to remain silent in their defense.

Devin Sper is a senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Middle East Studies and author of The Future of Israel, winner of a 2005 GLYPH award. He writes on the Center for Advanced Middle East Studies (CAMES) website
http://www.camesinfo.com/. Visit Sivan Raine's website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, June 20, 2008.

This is by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed and it appeared today in Asharq Alawsat,

Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed is the general manager of Al-Arabiya television and the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior columnist in the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is currently based in Dubai.

Paradoxically, Iran, an extremist theocratic Shiite regime with Ahmadinejad at its helm, is orchestrating and funding the activities of extremist Sunnis in the region.

The paradox is most striking in the case of Al-Qaeda, the most extremist Sunni organization, which has joined, in the full sense of the word, the Iranian apparatus. The alliance between the two enemies began in the wake of the defeat of Al-Qaeda and the organization's flight from Afghanistan to all Sunni countries. The first group of Al-Qaeda, which was led by Egyptian national Saif Al-Adel, and included Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's son, fled to Iran immediately after the fall of the Taliban regime. I do not know whether the first group of Al-Qaeda entered Iran by mistake, after its members roamed aimlessly in the rugged mountainous region on the Pakistani-Afghan border, or as a result of contacts who arranged for the Iranian hosting. We were initially puzzled by the rumors that Iran had arrested a group of fleeing Al-Qaeda members who crossed its border from Afghanistan, only to realize later that the story had far deeper implications.

The investigators of the attack that Al-Qaeda carried out in Riyadh found evidence indicating that the operation came from Iran and that the perpetrators were Al-Qaeda members. This was confirmed after satellite mobile telephone recordings were discovered between Saif Al-Adel and the Saudi commander of the group. The communication clearly showed that the call originated in Iran. Those concerned with this were surprised because Iran did not deny the call, but quickly admitted that it had a number of Al-Qaeda members in a certain prison. It justified the incident by saying that the group members perhaps broke the rules of their hosting. Crude though it was, the justification might have been deliberate. Perhaps Iran wanted to tell concerned parties that it was now in control of Al-Qaeda. In the past four years, the largest number of Al-Qaeda members have made Iran their headquarters. It has even been suggested that Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who some consider to be Al-Qaeda's actual leader, is also being hosted by Iran, as evidenced by his many relaxed audio and video statements, and especially his famous public criticism of the late Al-Qaeda agent in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, for attacking Shiites.

Like any other extremist Sunni organization, Al-Qaeda does not consider Shiites and other Muslim sects to be Sunnis or followers of the Prophet's family, and therefore it must fight against them. I do not want to give further evidence of Iran's pragmatism. It is an extremist, theocratic Shiite regime that holds Sunnis as infidels. Proof of this is that Iran's followers committed massacres and evicted people from their homes in a way unprecedented in Iraq's history. Iran today wants to attain its goals regardless of the weapons used. It funds and sponsors all extremist Sunni groups like the Palestinian Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other extremist Sunni groups in north Lebanon and North Africa. It was recently suggested that Iran even supports the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement, which attempted to stage a coup against Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir's regime. I still doubt the veracity of this story.

Regrettably, in politics Shiite and Sunni extremism and differences are being used. The differences between Shiites and Sunnis were originally acceptable in an ideological framework, although I maintain that differences are fabricated. I do not rule out the possibility of a dispute erupting in the future between Iran and Iraqi Shiites, because Tehran aims to dominate Iraq. If it tries to control Iraq, Iran will clash with major forces in Iraq. Those who wager on political sectarianism had better think hard before they are shocked by the realities of political opportunism.

Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 20, 2008.

This was written by Robert Spencer and it appeared in Jihad Watch

Muslims in Germany: "It appears the quiet settling-in period has been replaced by a loud and demanding phase"

In a long history of the presence of Muslims in Germany, Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Marburg, rather offhandedly admits that Muslims are transforming German society along Sharia lines and have become "loud and demanding." She says this is just a "phase," although she should know, but does not mention, that this is entirely to be expected given the supremacist elements of Islam vis-à-vis the "People of the Book," the all-encompassing nature of Sharia (including its political elements), and the deeply traditional imperative to impose it, and not compromise upon it.

But don't be concerned: Al-Qaeda is the only group with this ideology, and as Al-Qaeda implodes, the ideology is being discredited! Germany? Islamic supremacism in Germany? Preposterous –– it is all about Iraq! Go back to sleep!

"How Islam Came to Germany," by Ursula Spuler-Stegemann in Spiegel
(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,559927,00.html) June 16 (thanks to Jim Jatras):

Muslims have achieved a great deal and changed a number of things that many Germans once took for granted. Nowadays, there are women-only swimming days for Muslims with female supervisors, where the pool windows are draped with heavy curtains to prevent outsiders from peering inside. Crosses have been removed from many hospitals and schools, and special Islamic prayer rooms have been introduced to factories and public buildings. And there have been many other changes. Muslim parents now seek to exempt their daughters from overnight school field trips and co-ed sports classes. The question of whether public employees should be allowed to wear Islamic headscarves has been referred to the courts, along with the issue of religious studies in schools. Germany has already begun providing university education for its Muslim religious instruction teachers and imams.

It appears the quiet settling-in period has been replaced by a loud and demanding phase. This raises concerns among many Germans that the minority society may come to dominate the majority society.

Since Muslims are the first immigrant group to come to Germany with a ready-made societal system and a supremacist notion that that system must one day replace the system of the infidels, those concerns are well founded.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, June 20, 2008.

1.   AH, Haaretz, the Palestinian newspaper printed in Hebrew, the daily whose idea of "pluralism" is based on Brezhnev's Pravda, the newspaper in which Israel (and America) are always wrong and the Islamofascists are always right, the newspaper of Post-Zionism and Post-Judaism, where Israeli survival is an archaic idea whose time has past.

Haaretz, or Al-Ard in Arabic, has for many years adopted the quaint custom of anti-Semitic newspapers elsewhere in referring to suicide bombers and mass murderers of Jews as "activists" and "militants." Yet suddenly, this week the "T" word appears on Haaretz' front page. "T" as in terrorist.

How come? Well, the news story concerns Eden Natan-Zada, a mentally ill Israeli soldier (actually a deserter) who shot up Shfaram in October 2005 and killed several Druse and Arabs. Shfaram is about 40 minutes outside Haifa. He was then attacked by locals in the crowd who lynched him, killing him.

Ever since, the Israeli Attorney General's office has been mulling over whether to prosecute the members of the mob who killed the by-then-disarmed Natan-Zada. This week, the prosecution decided not to prosecute.

This is newsworthy because there have been cases in which Arab terrorists were apprehended live after they murdered Jews and who were then summarily executed by those who captured them. In every one of these cases, those who dispatched the terrorhoids were prosecuted. The most famous incident being the Bus 300 affair (see

Now after the Natan-Zada incident, I called for the prosecution NOT to indict those who killed the perp. I also insisted that killing terrorists should never be considered a crime, even when Jews kill captured Arab terrorists, and that the decision not to prosecute should be regarded as case precedent for ALL who kill terrorists, even when the killers are Jews. I thought that those who executed the terrorists in the Bus 300 affair should have been given medals. I am all in favor of lynching terrorists captured immediately after they commit mass murder.

Now Haaretz is also in favor of such lynching, but only when the perp is a Jew and the victims Arabs. Haaretz is NEVER in favor of punishing Arab terrorists who murder Jews, and of course opposes the death penalty for terrorists. Which brings us to the Haaretz editorial in the very same issue (June 16) in which it cheers the decision by the AG not to indict the killers of Natan-Zada. Every second word referring to Natan-Zada in the Haaretz articles about the decision refer to him as a "terrorist." He of course was not, although he was a killer, and probably was not legally sane.

In the very same issue, it runs an editorial demanding that a Jewish farmer in the Negev who shot Arab burglars who had broken into his small ranch be indicted! In January 2007 one Shai Dromi shot two Arabs who had broken into his homestead, trying to steal his sheep, and he killed one and injured the other.

The Attorney General prosecuted him. The Knesset decided to take an uncharacteristic stand against this case of judicial activism and judicial tyranny by starting to pass (it already passed its "first reading") a special law, known in the media as the Shai Dromi Law, declaring that people who kill or injure burglars and intruders into their homes will not be prosecuted. The farm lobby took time off from lobbying for cheap water and subsidies to back the bill.

Haaretz of course is outraged! This law would be nothing less than a "license to kill." (See http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/992997.html) What about their Miranda rights?

I cite the editorial:

'The new law will lead to killing to no avail, and could include people accidentally harming members of their own family. True, a man's home is his castle, and he has to be granted the right of self-defense therein, but it is not permissible to shed the blood of someone who enters the house, even if he is a burglar. The place of thieves is in prison, but they must not be turned into the victims of executions. Nor is it reasonable to extend the rights granted to a person in his home to his yard, store or flock as well.'

So when is it okay in Haaretz' opinion to kill intruders? When they are Jewish "intruders" in "Palestinian lands," of course!

2.  "Israel's Truce With Hamas Is a Victory for Iran" by Michael B. Oren in yesterday's Wall Street Journal at wsj.ltrs@wsj.com

Mr. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present (Norton, 2008).

Proponents of an Israeli-Palestinian accord are praising the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that went into effect this morning. Yet even if the agreement suspends violence temporarily –– though dozens of Hamas rockets struck Israel yesterday –– it represents a historic accomplishment for the jihadist forces most opposed to peace, and defeat for the Palestinians who might still have been Israel's partners.

The roots of this tragedy go back to the summer of 2005 and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The evacuation, intended to free Israel of Gaza's political and strategic burden, was hailed as a victory by Palestinian terrorist groups, above all Hamas.

Hamas proceeded to fire some 1,000 rocket and mortar shells into Israel. Six months later Hamas gunmen, taking advantage of an earlier cease-fire, infiltrated into Israel, killed two soldiers, and captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

Hamas's audacity spurred Hezbollah to mount a similar ambush against Israelis patrolling the Lebanese border, triggering a war in which Israel was once again humbled. Hamas now felt sufficiently emboldened to overthrow Gaza's Fatah-led government, and to declare itself regnant in the Strip. Subsequently, Hamas launched thousands more rocket and mortar salvos against Israel, rendering parts of the country nearly uninhabitable.

In response, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) air strikes and limited ground incursions killed hundreds of armed Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel earned international censure for collateral civilian deaths and "disproportionate" tactics. Israel also imposed a land and sea blockade of Gaza, strictly controlling its supply of vital commodities such as a gasoline. But the policy enabled Hamas to hoard the fuel and declare a humanitarian crisis.

Israel never mounted the rolling, multi-month operation that the IDF had planned. Traumatized by his abortive performance in the Lebanon War, hobbled by financial scandals, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert balked at a military engagement liable to result in incalculable casualties and United Nations condemnations, but unlikely to halt Hamas aggression.

Like Hezbollah in 2006, Hamas won because it did not lose. Its leaders still walked Gaza's streets freely while children in Sderot and other Israeli border towns cowered in bomb shelters. Like Hezbollah, which recently wrested unprecedented powers from the Lebanese parliament, Hamas parlayed its military success into political capital.

The European Parliament demanded the immediate lifting of the Gaza blockade, and France initiated secret contacts with Hamas officials. A minister from the Israeli Labor Party, Ami Ayalon, went a step further by calling for Hamas's inclusion in peace talks –– a recommendation soon echoed by Jimmy Carter and the New York Times.

The Egyptian-brokered cease-fire yields Hamas greater benefits than it might have obtained in direct negotiations. In exchange for giving its word to halt rocket attacks and weapons smuggling, Hamas receives the right to monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the West Bank, where Fatah retains formal control.

If quiet is maintained, then Israel will be required to accept a cease-fire in the West Bank as well. The blockade will be incrementally lifted while Cpl. Shalit remains in captivity. Hamas can regroup and rearm.

The Olmert government will have to go vast lengths to portray this arrangement as anything other than a strategic and moral defeat. Hamas initiated a vicious war against Israel, destroyed and disrupted myriad Israeli lives, and has been rewarded with economic salvation and international prestige.

Tellingly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who once declared Hamas illegal, will soon travel to Gaza for reconciliation talks. Mr. Abbas's move signifies the degree to which Hamas, with Israel's help, now dominates Palestinian politics. It testifies, moreover, to another Iranian triumph.

As the primary sponsor of Hamas, Iran is the cease-fire's ultimate beneficiary. Having already surrounded Israel on three of its borders –– Gaza, Lebanon, Syria –– Iran is poised to penetrate the West Bank. By activating these fronts, Tehran can divert attention from its nuclear program and block any diplomatic effort.

The advocates of peace between Israelis and Palestinians should recognize that fact when applauding quiet at any price. The cost of this truce may well be war.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, June 20, 2008.


The family of Yossi Shimoni has informed us that with G-d's help they were able to raise the necessary funds for Yossi's medical treatment and have asked to refrain for further contributions.

However, they have asked that people continue to pray for the recovery and good health of Yosef Chaim ben Mazal Tov. Thank you!

Tomorrow we'll read the Torah story of twelve spies, 10 of whom slandered Eretz Yisrael, preferring remain in the desert rather than continue on to the Land promised to Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya'akov as well as to the rest of the people as they left Egypt on their way to the Holy Land.

That illness, infecting our national body, is still trying to eat away at the Jewish people. We witness this unfortunately, every day, with proposed 'piece plans' which are based upon the principal of 'land for piece.' If these offers were authentic –– attempting to achieve real peace, in other words, the Arabs agreeing to leave Israel for one of the 22 Islamic countries in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, we might be able to relate to them seriously. But as we all know, 'land for piece' is a one way street. Israel is expected to relinquish its homeland for promises written on paper, worth nothing more than that.

We experience such 'spy stories' all the time here in Hebron. Attempts to expel us from our homes and property, Jewish homes, purchased or constructed, continue uninterrupted. We are still considered to be an 'obstacle to peace.'

Not too long ago a group from one of our illustrious government offices visited Hebron. Standing at Ma'rat HaMachpela, discussing various possible improvements at the site, one of the young attorneys suddenly exclaimed, "but there's a problem here because Ma'arat HaMachpela is registered as belonging to the Waqf, the Muslim religious trust, (the same people who prevented Jews and Christians from accessing this holy site for 700 years). One of those present from Hebron replied, "!I seem to recall someone else registered here, even before Muhammad –– I believe Abraham was his name."

Classic spy. Just like those who cannot comprehend the value of a bunch of rocks taking precedent to peace. After all, that's what the Wall is, a wall of stones. Right?

For years 'the left' as we call them here, have been trying to infiltrate Hebron. Some of them are actually officially recognized by the State of Israel. TIPH, an internationally-affiliated observer organization is certainly anti-Israel, anti-Hebron, and might also be labeled anti-Semitic. I've written a number of articles about them over the years, the last of which was posted a few weeks ago.

However, they're not the only ones. Other foreign organizations, like CPT, invaded Hebron over a decade ago, aiding and abetting the enemy, assisting them however possible, while ignoring any Jewish rights or claims to Hebron. Without almost any prior knowledge about Hebron they had decided who were the 'good guys' and who were the 'bad guys' even before the plane landed.

Over the past few years, and particularly following the expulsion from Gush Katif, the Israeli left put Hebron in their sights. Organizations such as Breaking the Silence and Bnei Avraham have been described by Hebron police as being 'more dangerous that the extreme right.' Their stated goals are 'educational tours' of Hebron, but their actual aim is the destruction of Hebron's Jewish community. Funded by the European Union, the British embassy, and others, including left-wing Jewish organizations, groups they bring into Hebron are taken to Arab houses where they view plays about Jewish-'settler' oppression of 'poor palestinians' and hear various and numerous lies about the 'ethnic cleansing' of Hebron. (What the visitors are not told is that in reality it is the Jews who are being 'ethnically cleansed' from Hebron, not the Arabs.)

It is clear that the European Union is not funding Yehuda Shaul (as reported by an article by Donald Macintyre in the Independent on April 19
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ our-reign-of-terror-by-the-israeli-army-811769.html?r=RSS]) in order for them to show foreign and Israeli tourist a fun day in the sun. Recently a group of anarchists, in coordination with Breaking the Silence, conducted a demonstration in Hebron, carrying signs in Arabic and blocking the main road between Hebron and Kiryat Arba. As a result of this demonstration the police banned the group from returning to Hebron. As a result of political pressure and intervention by the courts, the group may return to Hebron only in coordination with the police and security forces. A few days ago they conducted a march, with such Knesset members as Yossi Beilin and Zahava Galon, from Ma'arat HaMachpela to Tel Rumeida. They too, of course, visited a 'poor Palestinian family.'

Spies, spies and more spies.

But, and this is a big but –– we have to remember that even amongst the spies there were two who rejected the rejection of Eretz Yisrael by their seeming compatriots. Joshua and Kalev stood up against the others and proclaimed: Eretz Yisrael is very very good. It is written that Kalev arrived in Hebron to worship at Ma'arat HaMachpela, and the spiritual energy he absorbed there allowed him to remain firm in his belief of a strong Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. He overcame the evil shortcomings of the ten spies who preferred the desert to the land.

Why did the spies reject Eretz Yisrael? Many reasons are given, but the one that seems to make the most sense is written in the holy Zohar. The spies, leaders of their people, realized that in Israel a new generation would take command and they would be retired from their leadership positions. They preferred their comfort to the good of the Jewish people. For that they were severely punished. The rest of the people, who believed their slander, spent the next forty years in the desert as punishment for their lack of faith. And more significantly, the impressions of their rejection of Eretz Yisrael has remained with us, through the present.

However, just as Kalev and Joshua were a minority, but were right and were rewarded for their courage, and the Jews did finally come into Israel, so too today, the right will overcome the seeming might. All of those who believe, as they should, in the Jewish G-d-given right and legitimacy to Eretz Yisrael will be rewarded to see the fruits of their labor and those who believe the opposite will face the disgrace of the ten spies who rejected G-d's word. In the end, it's not the numbers that count, not the quantity, rather the quality wins out. No doubt, the quality of our land far outweighs the quality of those who prefer to pussyfoot with our enemies, whose desire is to again exile us and destroy the Jewish state of Israel.

We will follow in the footsteps of the good spies –– Kalev and Yehoshua and repeat, time and time again: It is a very very good land.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by HaDaR, June 20, 2008.

This was written by Noam Bedein April 27, 2008 and it appeared in Arutz-7

Noam Bedein is Director of the Regional News Service for Sderot & the Western Negev, a project of the Sderot Information Center for the Western Negev, Ltd,

The Anatomy of Last Year's Ceasefire Disaster That Everyone Has Forgotten About

"Hamas could learn both positive and negative lessons from the last round of escalation. On the positive side, it succeeded in consistently and systematically launching rockets at Israel, extending the rockets' range to Ashkelon, and it had victories in the battle for hearts and minds." –– from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center's (ITIC) summary of the recent escalation of rocket terror

There is talk circulating about the opportunity to communicate and reach an understanding with Hamas, to give Hamas a chance to foster a ceasefire with Israel.

How many people remember that there was, in fact, such a 'ceasefire' with Hamas-controlled Gaza only one year ago? How many people remember what occurred during that 'ceasefire'?

Well, the people in Sderot and the western Negev remember. Even if no one else does. p> Let us refresh out memories. From November 26, 2006, until May 15, 2007, a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel went on for almost six months. One cannot ignore the statement made by Hamas five days before the ceasefire: "Hamas's military wing will stop the rocket fire when residents evacuate the city of Sderot." (from November 21, 2006)

During that 'ceasefire', Gazans launched 315 missiles targeted at Sderot and the western Negev, according to an IDF spokesman. There was not one IDF response to the rocket fire during that ceasefire period.

During a recent presentation at the IDC in Herzliya, to the cream of the crop of students of Israeli intelligence, the audience reacted with disbelief when they heard that there already was a 'ceasefire' last year, and that it wasn't kept in the slightest.

Mecca Agreement

During that 'ceasefire' period, on February 27, 2007, there was an agreement reached between the Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). The agreement took place three months after the ceasefire went into effect; after 160 missiles had been fired at Israel since the day the 'ceasefire' commenced. Mashaal promised, in Moscow, to stop the Kassam rocket attacks. Two days later, seven missiles were launched from the Gaza Strip towards Israel.

The question begs to be asked: What kind of Western democracy in the world would allow for a one-sided ceasefire? What other state would allow for a rocket to explode within its territory?

Israel is going to celebrate 60 years of its independence in a few more weeks, as for the first time in 40 years a significant portion of its population are living under rocket threat. In the north, Hizbullah threatens with rocket fire from southern Lebanon. In the southern area of Israel, Hamas continues to fire from Gaza at Sderot, the western Negev and now Ashkelon. Hamas is also developing rockets that will reach Ashdod. At this point, up to half a million Israelis will be under rocket fire.

No family in the state of Israel should have to live under rocket threat. At 60 years of independence, Israel's goal should be to end the rocket terror upon its citizens. It all starts with Sderot.

Also, what most people forget is that Israel's adversaries are not advocating a 'ceasfire'; they promote a hudna.

A hudna means no more than a temporary respite in the war between Islamic forces and non-Islamic forces. The authoritative Islamic Encyclopedia (London, 1922) defines hudna as a "temporary treaty" which can be approved or abrogated by Islamic religious leaders, depending on whether or not it serves the interests of Islam; and a hudna cannot last for more than 10 years.

The Islamic Encyclopedia mentions the Hudaybia treaty as the ultimate hudna. Yasser Arafat also talked about a hudna in his speeches when he would refer to the Oslo Accords. In the words of the Islamic Encyclopedia, "The Hudaybia treaty, concluded by the Prophet Mohammad with the unbelievers of Mecca in 628, provided a precedent for subsequent treaties which the Prophet's successors made with non-Muslims. Mohammad made a hudna with a tribe of Jews back then to give him time to grow his forces, then broke the treaty and wiped them out. Although this treaty was violated within three years from the time that it was concluded, most jurists concur that the maximum period of peace with the enemy should not exceed ten years, since it was originally agreed that the Hudaybia treaty should last ten years."

HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 20, 2008.
Lack of Authority and Unwarranted Tampering with International Law

Two distinct issues exist: the issue of Jerusalem and the issue of the Holy Places. Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice and a renowned editor of International Law Reports concluded:

"Not only are the two problems separate; they are also quite distinct in nature from one another. So far as the Holy Places are concerned, the question is for the most part one of assuring respect for the existing interests of the three religions and of providing the necessary guarantees of freedom of access, worship, and religious administration [E.H., as mandated in Article 13 and 14 of the "Mandate for Palestine"].

"As far as the City of Jerusalem itself is concerned, the question is one of establishing an effective administration of the City which can protect the rights of the various elements of its permanent population –– Christian, Arab and Jewish –– and ensure the governmental stability and physical security which are essential requirements for the city of the Holy Places."

Israel reunited Jerusalem as one city in 1967, after Jordan joined the Egyptian and Syrian war offensive and shelled the Jewish part of Jerusalem.

Israeli leaders vowed the city would never again be divided. Despite the disgraceful treatment of the Jewish Quarter and the Mount of Olives under the Jordanians and despite the Arabs' violation of their pledges to make all holy sites accessible to Jews and Christians, one of the first acts Israel undertook after reuniting the city was to guarantee and safeguard the rights of all citizens of Jerusalem.

This included not only free access to holy sites for all faiths but also represented an unprecedented act of religious tolerance. Israel granted Muslim and Christian religious authorities responsibility for managing their respective holy sites –– including Muslim administration of Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount. Eventually, however, the Waqf, which holds administrative responsibility over the Temple Mount, violated the trust with which it was invested to respect and protect the holiness of the Temple Mount for both Muslims and Jews.

Palestinian terrorism has targeted Jerusalem particularly in an attempt to regain control of the city from Israel. The result is that they have turned Jerusalem, literally the City of Peace, into a bloody battleground and have thus forfeited their claim to share in the city's destiny. Secretary Rice's positions on Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria including Jerusalem defies international law and make Palestinian Arabs believe that terror works.

The outcome of consistent Arab aggression was best described by Professor, Judge Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice:

"As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem." [italics by author]

"... no legal right shall spring from a wrong."

Jerusalem –– the spiritual, political, and historical capital of the Jewish people –– has served, and still serves, as the political capital of only one nation –– the one belonging to the Jewish people.

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 eli@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 20, 2008.

This article was written by Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt.
Ethan Bronner contributed reporting from Jerusalem. It appeared today in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/ 20iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON –– Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country's air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel."

But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.

Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack," Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable."

But Mr. Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power.

Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz's statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.

Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.

"They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard," a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.

Any Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Much of the program's infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel's ability at this time.

But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran's ability to detect planes flying at low altitude.

Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel's attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded.

For both the United States and Israel, Iran's nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran's work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued.

In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran's suspected work on nuclear matters was a "matter of serious concern" and that the Iranians owed the agency "substantial explanations."

Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq's nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein's program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea.

The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria.

Pentagon officials said that Israel's air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission.

Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel's military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah.

"They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they're ready," the Pentagon official said. "They' re not taking any options off the table."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by HaDaR, June 20, 2008.

This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared today in Arutz-7.

(IsraelNN.com) Arab terrorists shot and wounded three people who were hiking between the Jewish communities of Nevei Tzuf and Nachliel in Samaria, northwest of Ramallah, Friday afternoon. Two of the victims are in moderate and very serious condition from bullet wounds in the back and stomach, and a third person suffered lighter wounds. Two other hikers escaped injury and notified authorities.

Rescue teams administered first aid at the scene and an army helicopter flew the victims to Sheba Hospital at Tel HaShomer Medical Center in Tel Aviv. Medics encountered delays because the wounded were in a hard to access location. IDF soldiers are searching for the terrorists.

Area residents and leaders have warned that that the recent "good will measures" implemented by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to ease travel restrictions and remove roadblocks in Judea and Samaria would lead to an increase in terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

Spokesmen for the nationalist Jewish Front organization blamed Defense Minister Ehud Barak for the shooting, noting that he ordered the lifting of travel barriers for Arabs in the area. "The time has come for the Defense Minster to worry about the security of Jews and not the quality of life for Arabs," the Jewish Front stated.

HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 20, 2008.


Rivka Meirchik was kept in jail for more than two months, without charg, before she got to appear in court. In less than a minute, the judge remanded her to prison, still without charges. The judge accepted police evidence, and refused to let her attorney say anything. The judge left the courtroom, refusing to set a hearing within the subsequent two days, as required by Israeli law.

[She was arrested for refusing to identify herself, and then was accused of resisting arrest. That's her crime. "Resisting arrest" usually is a police lie.]

Put in solitary confinement, she was denied phone and visitation rights. Although she has severe food allergies, the prison did not get her food she can tolerate, except for fruit. She was said to appear emaciated, when she got her half-minute in court. She was brought there in leg irons and handcuffs (IMRA, 6/5).

I would remark that they are treating her like terrorists, except that terrorists usually are not held in solitary confinement and are allowed visitors and phone calls, though their abuse of those rights to promote terrorism has incurred restrictions. They get more of a hearing and an opportunity to point out any hardship or police misconduct they suffer. But Rivka Meirchik is just a dissident Jew in the supposedly Jewish state. She has no rights recognized there.


No wonder the Nobel committee gave a peace prize to ElBaradei, head of the IAEA! It is anti-American and favors the sponsors of terrorism. So does he. "For under ElBaradei's leadership, the IAEA has devoted itself to performing two tasks. It seeks to be informed of rogue regime's illicit nuclear weapons programs before those programs are exposed in the media and cause the IAEA embarrassment; and it works to ensure that nothing will be done to thwart these rogue regimes' nuclear weapons programs."

He criticized Israel and the US more for destroying a nuclear plant that Syria had pledged not to build than Syria for building it and for stonewalling IAEA inspection of the site. "Why has he been easy on Iran's nuclear bomb development? "You do not want to give additional arguments to new crazies who say, 'Let's go and bomb Iran.'"

Recently, however, he issued a stern report on Iranian military development. Probably he was emboldened to do so, because the US has backed down from combating terrorism except in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Israel is on its own (IMRA, 6/6). These international agencies do more harm than good. Their worst harm is in paralyzing action by decent countries.


That's the editorial offered by the NY Sun. It asks whether we should judge candidate Obama by his long association with his violent Marxism friend William Ayers, by his long association with his anti-American and antisemitic pastor, or by his new role at AIPAC as supportive of Israel and increasingly firm against Iran?

The editors believe he has matured. It cites Pres. Truman's earlier antisemitism but later recognition of Israel. It cites Pres. Nixon, no friend of the Jews but who "raced to re-supply Israel…"

What candidates tell AIPAC, the editorial acknowledges, they don‘t always do when elected. Example is Pres. Bush, who exercised a waver not to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, though he had promised to. Clinton exercised that waiver, too. Bush nevertheless was the most pro-Israel US president (6/6).

The examples are based on misconceptions. Obama is maturing? Why is it only in the last couple of weeks, when his previous stands antagonized too many voters and his excuses wore thin? He had used his radicalism to appeal to primary voters and now appears more centrist to appeal to the general voters. I find that behavior cynical demagoguery. I think he is dangerous.

Truman's recognition of Israel was done as a personal favor to his former partner and Chaim Weizmann. Truman's real attitude towards Israel was revealed by his ensuing embargo on arms to the Mideast while Britain was arming several Arab states preparing to invade Israel. How many Jews were killed as a result?

Pres. Nixon did not race to re-supply Israel. Just the opposite. Kissinger delayed the re-supply so as to chasten Israel, making it more amenable to his pro-Egyptian policy. PM Meir became desperate for re-supply. How many Israelis were killed because of Nixon? In fact, the re-supply was done by Gen. Haig, when Nixon was out of commission for a while, and it had to be done or the Soviets would have invaded Israel and gained a foothold in the Mideast.

The waiver in the law on the State Dept. does not apply to moving the embassy. I read the law. The myth was exposed but not widely enough. Hence people perpetuate the myth, instead of prosecuting presidents for violating the law.

Another myth is that Clinton and Bush, Jr. are good friends to Israel. It isn't good friends that arm terrorists and demand that Israel curb defenses and cede parts of its homeland that would afford secure borders for Israel and half its water supply. It isn't good friends that refuse to move the embassy to Jerusalem, even to western Jerusalem. The implication is that the US still adheres to the State Dept. notion that since the General Assembly suggested that Jerusalem be internationalized, none of it should be recognized as part of Israel. Ominous!


The two countries signed an agreement of military cooperation. The news brief, like most such briefs, did not define how they intend to cooperate (IMRA, 6/7).

The full story might not seem so nice. It might mean that Spain, which leads much anti-Zionist diplomacy, would help S. Arabia in a war on Israel. It more likely gives Spain an opportunity to sell to S. Arabia the means to do so.

There also are notices of agreement by Arab and European colleges to cooperate. What do academically-minded European colleges and indoctrination-minded Arab colleges have in common? Perhaps the Europeans intend to show the Arabs how to train students better in what they need for warfare.


Ethan Bronner's headline is, "Strikes Kill Israeli Worker and 4-Year-Old Gaza Child." The accusation against the IDF is made by unnamed Arab "witnesses." The Israeli Army believes that its missile struck the intended terrorist target, not civilians. It is checking. Israelis are quoted as explaining that the fault for any injured civilian is Hamas' for fighting from amongst civilians, citing the recent finding of missiles and launchers near a schoolyard (6/6, A13).

Here is a disputed report, but those who read just the headlines are given the impression that Israeli forces killed another Arab child. That is not objective reporting.

Neither is it sensible. The P.A. Arabs have built an industry of fabricating casualties to blame on Israel. The al-Dura case is one example. The casualties are non-existent and acted out for the cameras. Another type of example is deaths from natural causes being attributed to Israel. Another is false claims of medical harm to sickly Arabs barred from passing checkpoints. The claimed patients, who in any case have to right to expect medical treatment from their declared enemy, were not barred. Naturally, they are examined for terrorism, since terrorists have exploited permission to enter Israeli hospitals.

Just about all Arab claims of being attacked by settlers have been disproved. The attacks, if any, are by the Arabs against settlers. Many Arab land claims have proved fraudulent. Deceit is an approved Muslim Arab tactic. Arab witnesses are notoriously propagandistic. By contrast, the Israelis usually report objectively, bending over backwards to investigate, punishing soldiers who are aggressive, to the point that terrorists get away. The Times has access to the same news as I. Why doesn't it know or acknowledge these things? I think that the answer is its anti-Zionist bias.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Supporters of the New Jewish Congress, June 20, 2008.

Help us reach 600,000 please sign and pass it on!

For all those with Halachic concerns please read http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df7mjrh_27g3tj8bdz

To: The State of Israel

The Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people; yet Jews are denied the right to pray in groups, and even as individuals; this refusal is accompanied by their constant degradation, and they are granted no opportunity for any religious expression whatsoever on the Temple Mount.

It is our position that if the stature of the Jews on the Temple Mount were to change positively, in a manner that would reflect their status as law-abiding citizens, sons of the nation that is sovereign on the Mountain and as people who have basic human rights in the Jewish state, then the standing of the State of Israel would immediately improve. This would effect a positive change for the benefit and security of all its citizens.

Ever since the Six Day War, many Jews to whom the Temple Mount is precious (and what Jew does not hold the Temple Mount as precious?) have demanded the right to pray at this sacred site. These demands have been based on their understanding that arrangements could be made that would reflect the reality of the current situation. However, let it be known that the Jewish people will never accept the total refusal of Jewish communal prayer on the Mountain.

We demand that the Government of Israel allow the Jewish people to have freedom of religious expression on the Temple Mount. Additionally, the government must establish special fixed days for Jewish communal prayer in fixed locations on the Temple Mount. This move will serve as evidence of Jewish sovereignty on the Mount.

*The Three Pilgrimage Festivals of Israel which are Sukkot, Pesach and Shavuot.

* The 14th of Nisan, the eve of Passover, is the day on which our holy Torah obligates each Jew to bring the Passover offering (it should be noted that this right has already been recognized by Israel's High Court of Justice, #2955/07 ).

* Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur

* The eight days of Chanukah

* The Three Fast Days of the 10th of Tevet, the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av

* Israel Independence Day and Jerusalem Day

* The Hakhel Ceremony at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year

This will serve as a preliminary step in confirming the Jewish people's inexorable connection with the Temple Mount, location of the Holy Temple, under the sovereignty of the people of Israel.

The Undersigned

Sign the petition at

The Open the Temple Mount to Jewish Prayer! Petition to The State of Israel was created by Supporters of the New Jewish Congress (NJC) and written by Yosef Rabin (Text taken from NJC Letter) (613yos@gmail.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Pipes, June 20, 2008.

If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the "global war on terror," the "long war," the "global struggle against violent extremism," or even the "global struggle for security and progress."

This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing "an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, "the defeat of the global terror network" –– whatever that undefined network might be.

"Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.

But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that "We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a "struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms "Islamic radicalism," "militant Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.

By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East." That is where things now stand, with U.S. government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as "death cult," "cult-like," "sectarian cult," and "violent cultists."

In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari'a).

Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.

First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.

Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.

The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.

To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.

In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.

Daniel Pipes is the founder of Campus Watch and director of its parent organization, the Middle East Forum.

This appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, June 20, 2008.

This was written by Sever Plocker and it appeared yesterday on Ynet News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3557796,00.html Sever Plocker is chief economics editor of Yediot Aharonot, Israel's largest Hebrew daily newspaper,

Instead of refusing to talk with Hamas, Israel granted it priceless legitimacy When we talk about a "lull agreement with Hamas," the word "lull" isn't the problem. Rather, the agreement with Hamas is the problem.

En route to the truce agreement, the government shattered the most important strategic advantage it possessed ever since Hamas came to power: The advantage of refusal. The refusal to engage in dialogue with Hamas, the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of its rule, the refusal to compromise with it, and the implied refusal to give Hamas international legitimacy.

This refusal had much power because it was premised on a moral worldview that even Israel's critics adopted, either wholeheartedly or not: One does not get into the same bed with someone who in advance declares his intention to kick you out of that bed. One does not fall for the honey trap of appeasement deals with the devil.

The Israeli public was mistakenly presented with only two options –– a massive military operation, or appeasement. There was a third way too: Ongoing blows delivered at terror centers and leaders.

In June 1940, Germany sought to embark on secret indirect talks with Britain. Winston Churchill rejected these feelers out of hand. If we embark on any kind of contacts, he warned, we shall quickly find ourselves on a slippery slope that would ultimately lead to acceptance of the evil Nazi regime, based on the argument that this is reality and that it "represents the Germans." Churchill was not tempted, and saved civilization.

Yet the lesson of June 1940 is sometimes forgotten.

The State of Israel did not need Hamas' recognition. We're doing quite well without it, thank you. Hamas, at the current stage of its political development, desperately needed Israel's recognition, as the doors to the family of nations were closed to it. Otherwise it would have forever remained outside the fence of the Arab mainstream, ostracized and rejected, just like al-Qaeda.

Hamas would have capitulated

In the wake of al-Qaeda's global terror campaign, international consensus emerged in respect to boycotting the organization: No one was talking to it, no one was looking to cut deals with it, and no one engaged in negotiations with it, either directly or indirectly. It was isolated, ostracized, and fought against.

The refusal strategy led to al-Qaeda's decline, its significant weakening, and a gradual evaporation of the bewitching influence it had on hundreds of millions of Muslims. Its stock dropped considerably: At the end of the day, only few people are willing to be considered the friends of a pariah.

Had Israel persisted in its refusal to recognize Hamas, the regime in Gaza would have collapsed or fundamentally changed. Yet surprisingly, Israel deserted the path of refusal a short time after it managed, through great efforts, to convince Europe, the United States, Russia, and the United Nations to establish a united refusal front. Yet Jerusalem was the first to cut out a window in the boycott wall. Without making any diplomatic-ideological-strategic concession, Hamas was recognized by Israel as the legitimate master of the Gaza Strip, the authentic representative of the Palestinian people, and a partner for agreements of one kind or another.

This is a priceless gift for Hamas. Without it, it would have capitulated. Under the pressure exerted by the Palestinian and Arab street, in the absence of any military choice, and with a sense that the oxygen of its zealous rhetoric is running out, Hamas would have ended its attacks unilaterally, drafted a new charter, agreed to hand over Gilad Shalit to Egypt, and accepted the ultimate conditions presented by Israel and the international community for minimal recognition of it. We were within reach of this.

Yet it was not Hamas that capitulated. Israel capitulated.

And now we are left to hope that the Israeli government won't repeat the same mistake in the north and refrain from engaging in "indirect" negotiations with Hizbullah on the matter of drawing the border between us and Lebanon.

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 Steve Kramer, June 20, 2008.

There's a big contrast between most bar/bat mitzvah celebrations in America and those in Israel. Movies have been made about over-the-top "theme" parties in the US, with models, celebrities, and famous entertainers overshadowing the true significance of the event. Obviously, those parties are not the norm, and there are probably a few similar ones here in Israel each year (that I'm not invited to). But our celebrations are generally modest affairs with a simple ceremony in the synagogue on a morning when the Torah is read and a separate party at a convenient time for the guests. Some American families choose to forego a stupendous affair and bring their celebration to Israel, incorporating the ceremony into the context of Jerusalem and other areas of our land, the true center of Jewish existence.

Richard and Lisa Baker of NRDC Equity Partners live in an upscale Connecticut community with their three children. Knock-out bar mitzvah extravaganzas aren't uncommon in their neighborhood. But when it came time to plan their oldest son Henry's bar mitzvah, the Bakers wanted something more. That's where the Forgotten People Fund [www.fpf.org.il] came in. FPF is an example of the kind of grass-roots charity that Israelis specialize in. With a totally volunteer workforce, FPF is able to service many of the needs of the large Ethiopian community in Netanya with an overhead of only 1%. FPF raises funds to help pay for necessities like school fees and books, summer camp, clothing, scholarships, dental and special medication costs, vitamins, bus cards, food vouchers, utility bills, and taxes. It also pays for pro-active programs like nutrition seminars, pre-army courses, support for soldiers, cultural exchanges, seniors' activities, and academic and social activities for kids.

One of FPF's most significant programs is providing bar and bat mitzvah experiences for Ethiopian families who would otherwise be unable to provide them. The Bakers, along with their obviously mature son Henry, decided that he would share his good fortune with 15 young men in far-off Israel, expanding his bar mitzvah into an experience that they and the Ethiopian families will never forget. FPF was able to find an appropriate religious junior high in Netanya to work with the Bakers, who provided a dedicated computer to the school with which the boys and Henry could talk (via Skype) in the months leading up to the celebration. Arranging all this was not a simple proposition, but FPF and the family's liaison in Israel were able to bring off the affair in a fabulously successful manner.

Mid-morning on June 12, the Bakers and their three children arrived at the Shapira school in the Dora neighborhood of Netanya, which has a large population of Ethiopian and other recent immigrant children. The students had already participated in their daily morning prayers before school began. The 15 boys, all attired in new clothes and sports shoes purchased through the FPF for the occasion, participated with the Bakers in an English-language word game to break the ice. A translator was on hand to help when translation from Hebrew was required. After that we all went upstairs to the auditorium where the entire junior high school population was gathered to enjoy the program. There were a few speeches by the principal and the school rabbi, and then a performance by the school's female singing troupe. After that, two professional musicians brought enough conga drums onto the stage for all of the bar mitzvah boys, including Henry, to bang on during several musical numbers. The Bakers then presented each of the boys with a tefillin set and prayer book. We went back downstairs to enjoy some canapes and drinks and to greet the boys and their families.

Understandably, all the boys were a bit shy with Henry and his family. But in the evening, at the FPF-organized party in an ocean-side restaurant, all that stiffness evaporated. There were about 150 guests, including the boys and their families, teachers, some other Shapira students, and some of us FPF supporters who paid our own way. The disc jockey kept the music going and the wait staff kept bringing out platters of food. After a short while the dancing began and things really began to loosen up. A student choir entertained us between courses and the dance floor became more crowded, with the teachers, the parents, the Bakers, and the kids all joining in. There was a loud and long "Hava Nagila" with each and every bar mitzvah boy being hoisted on a chair and gyrated up and down. Some even got two chair rides. A professional hip-hop dancer led the kids in learning some of his convoluted steps as the temperature on the dance floor rose. Next, along with couples dancing to an African beat, a line of young and old dancers snaked around the floor amidst the tables, accompanied by much bumping and laughing. Before dessert was served, the Bakers had the pleasure of distributing gift packages to all the boys, which included MP3 players and other goodies.

Feeling the warm fellowship and camaraderie that was evident that evening was really enjoyable. Everyone participated as equals, though we were Jews from very disparate backgrounds and economic circumstances. All could feel the obvious pleasure everyone was having. As for the Bakers, they couldn't have created a more special event for Henry and the family no matter the cost. The joy that they brought to their own children and to 15 others who couldn't have dreamed of having this kind of party is unequaled.

Afterwards, Lisa Baker told Anne Silverman, co-founder and head of FPF, how greatly affected she was by the entire affair. Lisa plans to maintain her relationship with FPF and vows that Henry's experience will be replicated by others in their community. In addition, she plans to interest her friends in joining the Adopt-a-Family program, which provides for the assistance that a specific family requires during the year and allows the donors to be kept abreast of how their donation is being spent. Without a doubt, the Bakers and the FPF produced a win-win proposition for everyone involved: the school, the bar mitzvah boys and their families, and the Baker family themselves. And what was the theme of Henry's bar mitzvah? To multiply the impact of his bar mitzvah 15 times over, once for each of the young men and their families from Netanya.

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."

To Go To Top

Posted by A Recovering Presbyterian, June 19, 2008.

[For background, click here.]

Yes indeed, the PC(USA) has reacted with lightning speed to display its sensitivity to the very real concerns of many in the Jewish community about Presbyterian anti-Jewish bias.

A number of Presbyterians –– in an effort to be fair minded –– have asked for an explanation of the replacement of the May 2008 version of the PC(USA)'s Office of Interfaith Relations paper on vigilance against anti-Jewish bias with a vastly different June effort.

Director of the Presbyterian News Service Jerry Van Marter has provided comments that will no doubt enlighten the world about the thinking of influential Presbyterian insiders. The Presbyterian News Service, while editorially independent, is, nonetheless an official news agency of the PC(USA) and is accountable to the General Assembly Council and ultimately to the General Assembly. Its status as an official news agency necessitates that it reflects on the PC(USA) as a whole.

Jerry Van Marter, coordinator of the Presbyterian News Service, suggested Jewish critics were overreacting.

"The Jewish groups go nuts every time we make any statement they interpret as favorable to Palestine or the Palestinians," Van Marter told NJJN.

Van Marter said church leaders amended their first statement "to make it more balanced, and apparently it still doesn't satisfy our Jewish friends. It is tough for Presbyterians because there is a Christian population in the occupied territories. The Christians are a very small minority, and they are shrinking because they are caught in the crossfires. The Presbyterian Church understands precisely why Jewish groups are upset, because we refuse to be one-sided. We've been on record for a two-state solution for 60 years now."

Still, said Van Marter, Presbyterians are not of one mind about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Van Marter's comments appear in the New Jersey Jewish News.

In all honesty, I have nothing to say in response to this except that I find it truly unbelievable.
Will Spotts

Contact A recovering Presbyterian at wspotts@zoominternet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ruth Matar, June 19, 2008.

Dear Friends,

Some of you have written to ask me why I am focused on Barack Obama as a candidate for the American presidency. And why am I so concerned about the likelihood of America having its first Black president, especially, since so many Americans are excited about this possibility? (Obama was born to a white American mother and a black Kenyan father.)

Actually, if Obama were elected he would be the first Arab-American president, and not the first Black president. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro, and 87.5% Arab. (His father's birth certificate even states that he is Arab, not African Negro.) In Barack Obama's school in Indonesia he was registered as Arab Muslim.

So what, you may say, what difference does all this racial discussion make?

Quite frankly I fear Obama becoming the American president because I am part of two racial groups which Obama is antagonistic against. I happen to be both White and Jewish!

Obama is antagonistic towards 'Whites'! From his book Dreams from My Father "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to 'Whites'."

Also, from Dreams from My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

Obama is definitely antagonistic towards Jews! There is proof positive. I received an e-mail dated June 12, 2008 from Dr. Paul Eidelberg, the founder and president of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. He is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer.

This e-mail deals at length and in frightening detail with the "Jewish Lobby" and its detrimental effect on America. I will quote the actual language of the e-mail later on in the article.

This shocking e-mail reminded me very unpleasantly of the days when I was nine years old and living with my family, in my place of birth, Wr. Neustadt, Austria. I spent most of my days hiding in our coat closet with my doll and teddy bear, waiting for the dreaded knock of the SS on our front door. (SS is short for Hitler's Schutzstaffel, the group primarily was responsible for the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Nazis during the Second World War. They were set apart from other Nazi organizations by their distinctive black shirts and the insignia of the death-head.)

The knock did come soon thereafter, but that is another story.

From my hideout I did understand some, if not all, of my parent's conversation. The gist of it was that Hitler blamed us Jews for everything that was going wrong and that we had to escape.

I think you understand the feelings that I had when I read the e-mail from Obama's official website. "Read this latest gem from the BARACK OBAMA 2008 OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN WEBSITE (which was scrubbed once the blog world started looking at this outrage):

If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media.

All Jewish lobbies and organizations are interconnected and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. The leaders of the numerous Jewish Lobby Groups go to the same synagogues, country clubs, and share the same Jewish investment bankers. And this inter-connectedness extends to the Jews who run the Federal Reserve Bank, US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.

In other words, "Jews stick together." Americans must know how extremely powerful the Jewish Lobby is and how it operates to undermine America's interests both at home and abroad. At home –– by corrupting America's political system, and abroad –– by dictating American Foreign Policy against America's best interests."

I really did not understand until I read this statement which had been on Barack Obama's official campaign website before it was scrubbed that Obama may truly an anti-Semite.

On February 21, 2008 there was an article published by the Jerusalem Post, by Marc Zell, in the online edition entitled "Obama and the Jews."

Less than two weeks before the critical primary elections in Ohio and Texas, Democratic voters have made it very clear: Barack Hussein Obama is for real.

Leading in the popular votes cast, delegates pledged and total delegates (meaning principally the back-room machers euphemistically referred to as "superdelegates"), Obama has a decent chance to become the 2008 Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Obama has become a rallying point for millions of disgruntled voters who yearn for a new style of politics in the world's greatest democracy.

Since the Republican race is all but over and Senator John McCain will likely win the nomination of his party in Minneapolis in early September, it is not idle speculation to consider an Obama-McCain contest in the November general election. Such a contest has potentially enormous consequences for Israel and the Jews.

It is no secret that Obama's candidacy has been supported financially and politically by many prominent members of the American Jewish community. Even previously outspoken Clinton-supporting spokespersons for Democrats Abroad here in Israel have been hedging their bets recently in articles and interviews, suggesting that an Obama Administration would augur well for Israel. Incredibly, citing unenthusiastic, canned pro-Israel campaign statements, these dyed-in-the-wool Democratic sycophants would urge Jewish voters to cast their fate and Israel's with Obama rather than with the Republican candidate, McCain.

With all due deference to the Obama celebrity supporters like Steven Spielberg and George Soros, can Jews herein Israel and in America and other friends of Israel risk a vote for Obama in November? A quick look at the facts should switch on a big red light in most peoples' minds.

First and foremost among the considerations that should trouble friends of Israel is the foreign policy team Obama has selected to advise him. The composition of a candidate's advisory panel is usually a very good indicator of where the candidate will come out on the issues if elected.

This was the test this writer applied to George W. Bush in 2000 at a time when most pundits in Israel and in the Jewish community predicted that his Middle East policy would be a carbon copy of his father's, meaning trouble for Israel. But Bush, the son, had selected a blue-ribbon team of pragmatic and conservative advisors whose views on the Middle East were markedly pro-Israel and pro-democracy. Subsequently, the W. Bush Era became among the closest allies of Israel in her 60-year history.

The opposite is the case with the Obama team. Headed up by Jimmy Carter's ("Israel is an apartheid state") national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's team includes such problematic figures as Anthony Lake, Robert O. Malley and Susan Rice.

One commentator, citing an article by the staunchly left-wing Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, has noted that an Obama presidency including a foreign policy team that included the foregoing and their ideological soul-mates, "would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat)" and is the candidate apt to be "least supportive" of Israel.

Brzezinski has been disseminating vitriol about Israel for three decades and recently publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer study which concluded that US policy towards Israel was the result of Jewish pressure and inconsistent with American interests. More recently Brzezinski called for the US to initiate dialogue with Hamas, described Israel's action in the Second Lebanon War as a killing campaign against civilian hostages and earlier this month made a trip to confer with Syria's President Assad, ostensibly unbeknownst to the Obama campaign.

Robert O. Malley, another former Carter Administration diplomat and President Clinton's special advisor on Arab-Israeli affairs, is an unabashed advocate for the Palestinians, co-authoring a spate of anti-Israel propaganda with former Arafat advisor, Hussein Agha, including a tract that blames Israel for the failure of the 2000 Camp David talks and another piece which blames the Bush Administration for continuing Israeli-Palestinian strife.

And then there is Susan Rice, foreign policy advisor to the ill-fated John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004, where she concocted the idea of solving the Middle East problem by appointing none other than Jimmy Carter and James Baker as negotiators, an idea which was later repudiated by her own boss as being unbalanced against Israel. Nor are these the only "bad apples" in Obama's foreign policy bin...

Another problematic indicator is candidate's close association with Jeremiah Wright, Jr., pastor of the Trinity United Community Church (a member of the United Church for Christ, which itself has been rebuked for anti-Israel bias), who is well known for his virulent anti-Israel remarks, including a call for a divestment campaign against Israel for the "injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism."

Nor should bring much solace to Jewish voters and friends of Israel that Reverend Wright counts among his closest friends, the nefarious anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan for whom Judaism is a "gutter religion" and Jews are "bloodsuckers." Obama could have picked any one of hundreds of churches in Chicago's South Side; he picked Jeremiah Wright's parsonage, which awarded Farrakhan with the Jeremiah Wright Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer Award in 2007. And Wright's church is the single largest beneficiary of Obama's charitable giving. Even Jewish columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post felt compelled to ask Obama to clarify his relationship with these anti-Jewish and anti-Israel community leaders, questioning why Obama has stayed steadfast in his allegiance to Pastor Wright over the years.

Obama is only a first-term senator and has therefore only participated in a handful of votes that bear upon Israel and the Middle East. He also has a penchant for missing controversial votes where he would have to put his personal policies in the public record. However, his public statements on a variety of issues present a number of troubling issues for Jews and friends of Israel. Here are a few samples:

  1. Obama openly advocates outreach toward and diplomatic engagement of Iran even though Iran has recently referred to Israel as a "filthy bacteria" and has repeatedly called for the annihilation of the Jewish State, including recent hints that this will be accomplished by a nuclear attack

  2. "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people."

  3. "[T]he creation of a wall [referring to Israel's security fence] dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this [the Bush] Administration in brokering peace... ."

  4. "I am opposed to the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in the administration to shove their ideological agenda down our throat." [note that only Jews are singled out despite the fact that the policies in question were promoted by the entire Administration]

  5. "Reverend [Al] Sharpton is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What [Reverend Sharpton's] National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up." [National Action lead a protest against the Jewish owner of Freddy's Fashion Mart in New York in which picketers, sometimes joined by Sharpton himself, repeatedly screamed epithets about "bloodsucking Jews" and "Jew bastards."]

Obama was the only Democratic candidate who said the onus was on Israel to change its policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians in order to achieve peace.

Barack's problematic and unrecanted public statements and associations raise enough serious questions that should cause Jewish voters and friends of Israel to think twice about supporting him in November.

But there is one other troublesome factor that voters in the Democratic primaries have thus far failed to credit seriously, viz.: Obama aspires to become president of the greatest democracy and still the only remaining superpower on the planet, having held a senate seat for less than five years and having had no previous administrative or national experience.

While it may have suited Democratic voters to cast their votes for Obama during the primaries as a protest against the Democratic political establishment (much as they did in 2006 to deny (now Independent) Senator Joseph Lieberman the nomination of his party for the Senate seat from Connecticut), one would like to think that the American electorate will again demonstrate its maturity and seriousness during the General Elections in November 2008, when their votes really count.

The Presidency in this day and age is no place for a neophyte, however charismatic. Those of us Americans who live in the Jewish State clearly understand what is at stake and what kind of risk Obama poses to the region and the world. There is every reason to hope that our compatriots in the United States and friends of Israel and freedom generally would agree.

* * *

Dear friends, I feel very strongly that true friends of Israel cannot risk a vote for Obama in November.

With Blessing and Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr Aaron Lerner, June 19, 2008.

Two items on the Cease Fire.

1. "PM Spokesman Regev to IMRA: Palestinians can do everything but shoot"

IMRA asked Mark Regev, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Foreign Press Adviser, the following question in English, on 19 June 2009 five hours after the "calm understanding" went into effect in the Gaza Strip:

Is the manufacture and assembly of rockets prohibited in the Gaza Strip during the calm period and if so is this an actionable violation –– Israel has the right to act against such activity?

Mark Regev called back shortly later with the following statement:

The understanding with Egypt talks explicitly about the total cessation of hostile fire from Gaza into Israel and about an arms embargo on Hamas. That's what the agreement explicitly relates to.

IMRA: So they can run their rocket production and assembly lines inside the Gaza Strip without it being a violation of the agreement.

Regev: Once again. They cannot import any military equipment into Gaza for the production process.

IMRA: Right. But whatever they have at hand they can use to manufacture and assemble.

Regev: They cannot shoot it.

IMRA: They can't shoot it. Very good. Now they can also set up bunkers. They can bring in bulldozers and equipment and set up bunkers lining the border with Israel and build tunnels as long as they don't go through them and as long as they don't shoot from them Right?

Regev: They cannot shoot at us.

IMRA: They can't shoot but they can do everything else.

Regev: That's what the agreement is about. You are correct.

IMRA: Thank you very much.

Regev: Always a pleasure sir.

2. "Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman, Arye Mekel clueless on calm understanding"

IMRA interviewed Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman, Arye Mekel, in English, on 19 June 2009 five hours after the "calm understanding" went into effect in the Gaza Strip:

IMRA: Is the manufacture and assembly of rockets prohibited in the Gaza Strip during the calm period and if so if this an actionable violation –– Israel has the right to act against such activity?

Meckel: I don't know what is in there. There is nothing written. Everything is a matter of understandings. There is no document. Therefore, I can't tell you because, you know, it is not written anywhere.

IMRA: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out a briefing note today that on the one hand says that "The goals of the calm are the total cessation of terrorism and firing at Israel by all factions, the end of Palestinian smuggling and military build-up." but on the other hand it says "Any terrorist act originating from the Gaza Strip –– regardless of which organization is responsible –– will be considered as a fundamental breach of the understandings."

Since on the one hand it says that a military build-up is prohibited but on the other hand it doesn't include that as something that Israel will respond to you am I to understand that Israel isn't planning to respond.

Meckel: I wouldn't read anything into these sentences. Basically there is no document therefore nobody knows what Israel will respond to. It is not something that is written or signed or anything like that.

IMRA: From an Israeli "hasbarah" (AL: information) standpoint, is Israel telling the world that it will only respond if there is firing or shelling?

Otherwise Israel won't respond?

Meckel: Any form of terror will be a violation of the understandings.

IMRA: If tomorrow or this afternoon there is a photo op at a rocket assembly plant at Gaza City –– is that an "act of terror" or what?

Meckel: I leave it to your judgment.

IMRA: For purposes of hasbarah, is the Government of Israel explaining now to the world, as a warning, that it would consider the construction of rockets or the building of bunkers to be an "act of terror" or Israel is leaving it open and not explaining to the world what its position is on this matter.

Meckel: We are saying that any act of terror will be a violation of the understanding.

IMRA: Does Israel consider it to be an "act of terror" if the Palestinians construct rockets and missiles in Gaza? Is that an "act of terror"?

Meckel: I think I already answered all your questions.

IMRA: Well, you have answered by not answering.

Meckel: Who are you anyway?

IMRA: I am Aaron Lerner, I am from IMRA. I am still trying to understand for purposes of hasbarah. Israel is telling the world that it considers the construction of rocket and missile in the Gaza Strip to be an "act of terror" or Israel is not taking a position on this?

Meckel: I told you. Any act of terror will be a violation.

IMRA: Is Israel considering it to be an "act of terror" to ...

Meckel: You ask it another ten times.

IMRA: You are not answering the question. You are not answering if Israel would consider it to be an act of terror.

Meckel: I am sort of busy here.

IMRA (in Hebrew): You are not giving an explanation.

Phone line cut off. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, June 19, 2008.

Palestinian Rocket Report

An Egyptian-brokered, six-month truce between Israel and Hamas took hold this morning. Both sides have voiced their misgivings about the potential for the ceasefire to last. Indeed, just before the calm took hold, 30 rockets were fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into Israel. Looking forward, there are numerous reasons to believe that this ceasefire will backfire on Israel, or even weaken its advantage over Hamas.

The Jerusalem Post notes that previous declarations of tahdiyeh (Arabic for "period of calm") casts doubt on "the likelihood of this latest truce holding at all." In February 2005, a similar ceasefire was announced, lasting until June 2006. "But the interim was fraught with rocket attacks on Israeli territory." At one point, "dozens of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, killing a 22 year-old woman."

But, even if the calm lasts to term, one key question lingers: how can it strengthen Israel's long-term strategic position?

Celebrated historian Michael Oren notes that the ceasefire is providing Hamas with an opportunity to "regroup and rearm." As far back as 2002, Seth Wikas of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that throughout the Oslo years (1993-2000), Hamas offered nine ceasefires to Israel. In many cases, they followed periods of confrontation with the Fatah-backed Palestinian Authority, Hamas' political rival. Wikas notes, in fact, that all Hamas ceasefire offers have come at a time when "Hamas needed a 'breather' –– a moment to step back and regroup after an organizationally exhausting confrontation with a more powerful foe (Israel or the PA)."

In this case, the siege of Gaza has undoubtedly been a drain on Hamas. By granting a ceasefire, Israel is providing Hamas this much-needed "breather," during which Iran can help train additional fighters and provide Hamas with more advanced weapons in preparation for the next round of conflict with Israel.

The tahdiyeh provides Hamas with other perks, too. Oren observes that the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire "yields Hamas greater benefits than it might have obtained in direct negotiations. In exchange for giving its word to halt rocket attacks and weapons smuggling, Hamas receives the right to monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the West Bank, where Fatah retains formal control."

Thus, the Palestinian Press is proudly touting the ceasefire as a Hamas victory over the "Zionist enemy." Isam Shawar in the Palestinian newspaper Filastin notes that, "Hamas proved that it is impossible to destroy or even weaken... In the end, Israel found that a truce with Hamas is the best and least damaging solution." Ibrahim Ibrash in the Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam further states that by accepting the truce, "Israel accepts coexistence not with a national unity government of which Hamas is a part, but with a Hamas government and authority exclusively."

As Jonathan Dahoah Halevy explains, the agreement is an "important achievement for Hamas. Hamas will gain the recognition it wants as the legitimate ruler of the Gaza Strip. Despite the fact that the Israeli government has defined Hamas-ruled Gaza as a hostile entity, Israel agreed to the continuation of trade with it, and even recognized the hostile entity's authority to operate the Rafah crossing. Hamas regards that as immensely important and wants to exploit it as a lever to open the door to official relations with Europe, and to have itself removed from the various lists of terrorist organizations."

Among the other disconcerting results of the agreement was the announcement by Robert Serry, the U.N.'s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, that the truce could create conditions for the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers in the Gaza Strip. The U.N., of course, has a sub-dismal record of protecting Israel, from allowing five Arab nations to invade the Jewish state in 1948 to watching Hizbullah launch more than 10,000 rockets into Israel in 2006.

It must also be noted that the so-called "armed wing" of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, noted on their English-language website that they viewed the ceasefire as a means "to promote the option of resistance." A brief survey of the rest of the site reveals that the group is eager to renew its war with Israel.

This comes as no surprise. As Wikas notes, throughout Hamas' string of ceasefires in the 1990s, its leaders "continued to support the goals of the original Hamas charter, i.e., the creation, through religiously sanctioned violence, of an Islamic state" in place of Israel.

Thus, Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a Tel Aviv University think tank, notes that the truce "will just be a postponement of the unavoidable clash which might take place under even worse conditions, in which Hamas will have more sophisticated weapons and be better trained."

Prime Minister Olmert recently stated that the release of abducted Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier Gilad Shalit was one of the key conditions for truce. Indeed, many Israelis believe that recovering Shalit would outweigh all other risks associated with the tahdiyeh. Yet his release was never stipulated, and the Hamas website now has a prominently-positioned posting entitled "Truce Without Shalit." Should this kidnapped soldier not be recovered –– and perhaps even if he is –– the dangers of the tahdiyeh appear to vastly outweigh the benefits.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former Treasury intelligence analyst, is Director of Policy for the Jewish Policy Center, editor of inFOCUS Quarterly, and author of the forthcoming Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine (Palgrave, November 2008).

This article appeared today on the Jewish Policy Center website

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June 19, 2008.

This was written by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. It appeared June 3, 2008 in the Wall Street Journal.

Sadr City in Baghdad, the northeastern districts of Sri Lanka and the Guaviare Province of Colombia have little in common culturally, historically or politically. However, they are crucial reference points on a global map in which long-running insurgencies suddenly find themselves on the verge of defeat.

For the week of May 16-23, there were 300 "violent incidents" in Iraq. That's down from 1,600 last June and the lowest recorded Since March 2004. Al Qaeda has been crushed by a combination of U.S. arms and Sunni tribal resistance. On the Shiite side, Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army was routed by Iraqi troops in Basra and later crumbled in its Sadr City stronghold.

In Colombia the 44 year old FARC guerrilla movement is now at its lowest ebb. Three of its top commanders died in March, and the number of FARC attacks is down by more than two-thirds since 2002. In the face of a stepped-up campaign by the Colombian military (funded, equipped and trained by the U.S.), the group is now experiencing mass desertions. Former FARC leaders describe a movement that is losing any semblance of ideological coherence and operational effectiveness.

In Sri Lanka, a military offensive by the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has wrested control of seven of the nine districts previously held by the rebel group LTTE, better known as the Tamil Tigers. Mr. Rajapaksa now promises victory by the end of the year, even as the Tigers continue to launch high profile terrorist attacks.

All this is good news in its own right. Better yet, it explodes the mindless shibboleth that there is "no military solution" when it comes to dealing with insurgencies. On the Contrary, it turns out that the best way to end an insurgency is, quite simply, to beat it.

Why was this not obvious before? (And why is this not so obvious to the Israelis, never mind the US. Jsk). When military strategies fail –– as they did in Vietnam while the U.S. pursued the tactics of attrition, or in Iraq prior to the surge, the idea that there can be no military solution has a way of taking hold with Civilians and generals eager to deflect blame. This is how we arrived at the notion that "political reconciliation" is pre-condition of military success, not a result of it.

There's also a tendency to misjudge the alms and ambitions of the insurgents –– to think they can be mollified via one political concession or another. Former Colombian president Andres Pastrana sought to appease the FARC by ceding to them a territory the size of Switzerland. (Just the Israelis have foolishly given up Gaza and in the suicide business of giving up the Golan and Judea and Samaria, G-d forbid. Jsk). The predictable result was to embolden the terrorists who were adept at sensing and exploiting weariness.

The deeper problem here is the belief that the best way to deal with insurgents is to address the "root causes" of the grievance (a la Cond. Rice –– jsk) that purportedly prompted them to take up arms. But, what most of these insurgents seek isn't social or moral re-dress. It's absolute power. Like other "libertarion movements" (the PLO comes to mind), the Tigers are notorious for killing other Tamils seen as less than hard line in their views of the conflict. The failure to defeat these insurgencies thus becomes the primary obstacle to achieving a reasonable political settlement acceptable to both sides.

This isn't to say that political strategies shouldn't be pursued in tandem with military ones. Gen. David Petraeus was shrewd to exploit the growing enmity between al Qaeda and their Sunni hosts by offering former insurgents a place in the country's security forces as "Sons of Iraq." (The liberal use of "emergency funds" aka political bribes also helped.) Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has more than just extended amnesty for "demobilized" guerillas; he's also given them jobs in the army.

But these political approaches only work when the intended beneficiaries can be reasonably confident that they are joining the winning side. Nobody was abandoning the FARC when Mr. Pastrana lay prostrate before it. It was only after Mr. Uribe turned the guerrilla lifestyle into a nightmare that the movement's luster finally started to fade.

Defeating an insurgency is never easy even with the best strategies and circumstances. Insurgents rarely declare surrender, and breakaway factions can create a perception of menace even when their actual strength is minuscule, It helps when the top insurgent leaders are killed or captured: Peru's Shining Path, for instance, mostly collapsed with the capture of Abimael Guzmán. Yet, the Kurdish PKK is now resurgent nine years after the imprisonment of Abdullah Ocalan, thanks to the sanctuary it enjoys in Northern Iraq.

Still, it's no small thing that neither the PKK nor the Shining Path are capable of killing tens of thousands of people and terrorizing whole societies, as they were in the 1980s. Among other things, beating an insurgency allows a genuine process of reconciliation and redress to take place, and in a spirit of malice toward none. But, those are words best spoken after the terrible swift sword has done its work.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Saul Goldman, June 19, 2008.

This was written by Sam Ser and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213794275309&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

'Anti-Semitism inherent in Islam can only be eradicated'

With common motifs spanning from North Africa to India, from the eighth century to the 21st century and from Sunnis to Shi'ites and Sufis as well, anti-Semitism cannot be explained by cultural influences but is, in fact, inherently Islamic

Andrew Bostom has bats in his belfry. He literally has bats flying around in his home. Speaking with The Jerusalem Post about the release of his new book, The Legacy of Anti-Semitism in Islam, Bostom is still breathing heavily from chasing away the unwelcome guests.

In his writing, Bostom tries to chase away a different kind of demon: the pervasive belief that the anti-Semitism common to so many Muslims today is a modern, and alien, influence on what more than 1 billion people call "the religion of peace."

One look at the cover art of The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism is all it takes to discern what Bostom thinks of that. Alfred Dehodencq's vividly colorful but starkly ominous painting "Execution of a Moroccan Jewess" is a recreation of the actual public execution, in Tangier in the 1830s, of 17-year-old Sol Hachuel, who was falsely accused of converting to, and then renouncing, Islam. In an introductory note on the painting and on the heartbreaking tale, Bostom asserts that Sol's cruel fate was shared by countless Jews over more than a dozen centuries, wherever Muslims ruled. Then, in the several hundred pages that follow, he proves it.

The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism calls to mind the work of Bat Yeor, who over the past 20 years has practically single-handedly forced recognition of the oppression inherent in what she calls dhimmitude –– the institution of inferiority, humiliation and obedience that Muslims demand of non-Muslims under their control.

But Bostom, who considers Bat Yeor a mentor, goes a step further. He provides an extraordinarily thorough look at the history of Islamic anti-Semitism in practice, from the dawn of the religion until today and in every place where Muslims predominated, using first-hand accounts of renowned Muslim scholars and historians as well as Western observers. The questions facing Muslims today –– Will they deny this religiously motivated hatred? Excuse it? Use it for political gain? Reject it and reform Islam? –– all require an in-depth examination of the Koran, the hadith (sayings and deeds of Muhammad and his companions), and the sira (the biography of Muhammad) as the textual roots of this hatred. And that is what Bostom provides in The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism.

What makes this work truly unique, though, is that Bostom had virtually no knowledge of Islam prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks. He is an epidemiologist and clinical nutritionist from New England who spends the vast majority of his time researching renal diseases.

"I wanted to know what had motivated the terrorists," says Bostom, who grew up in New York. So, on the afternoon of September 11, "I grabbed a couple of books at a bookstore on the way home and read them that night. But they were so treacle-y and so transparently apologetic." The contradiction between the Islam espoused by the terrorists and the religion described in the books, he says, "just didn't make any sense."

In search of deeper analyses of Islam, Bostom began exhausting the resources of local libraries.

"I was quite interested in learning more about the history and the theology of jihad," he says. (The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism is essentially the continuation of his 2005 book The Legacy of Jihad in Islam.) "The model for me was to go back and look at essays written by great Orientalists and materials that I felt had fallen by the wayside. Of special interest were materials that were not available in English, for which I sought out Arabic and Farsi translators. Almost all my primary sources were Muslim scholars."

WHILE SEARCHING for the roots of jihad, Bostom found the roots of Islam's Jew-hatred. More often than not, they were intertwined.

"As I was putting the first book together, I came across Ahmad Sirhindi," he explains. "He was an Indian Sufi who was enraged by the reforms of Moghul Akbar, who abolished the jizya [poll tax]. This enraged the orthodox ulema [scholars], one of the chief representatives of whom was Sirhindi. Amongst his virulent tracts against the moghul he says, 'Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.' Now, this is a 16th-17th century anti-Hindu ideologue, and there's no evidence that he ever had contact with a Jew. So I was like, 'Where on earth did this come from?'"

Bostom looked first to the Koran for an explanation.

"When I put together the Koranic verses on the Jews," he continues, "they read like an indictment, prosecution and conviction. It was virulently anti-Semitic. Going into the hadith and the histories of Muhammad –– where his assassination is attributed to a Khybar Jewess, for example –– only strengthened this conviction.

"So when I juxtaposed that with the notion that there was no theological anti-Semitism in Islam, it was stunning. It's just so in-your-face that to claim that the foundational sources don't create anti-Semitism or aren't inherently anti-Semitic... it's absurd."

Forced conversions, rapes, pogroms, the wholesale slaughter of Jews in North Africa during the Almohad invasions of the 12th century and innumerable other incidents catalogued in The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism attest that this Jew hatred was more than a literary holdover of Muhammad's contempt for the Jews for rejecting his prophecies. Bostom also makes it plain that, with common motifs spanning from North Africa to India, from the eighth century to the 21st century and from Sunnis to Shi'ites and Sufis as well, anti-Semitism cannot be explained by cultural influences but is, in fact, inherently Islamic.

It is that point, Bostom says, that must be addressed if any change is to occur.

"The history has to be recognized and the doctrine has to be changed," he says. "I think these institutions are crying out to be reformed, and the history that they've engendered, to be owned up to. That's the most important thing that I think has to happen."

WITH The Legacy of Jihad in Islam and, now, The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism, Bostom has spent the past several years pointing out the ugly sides of Islam. That makes the 52-year-old a target for accusations that he is anti-Muslim –– accusations that he says are unfair and that only serve to distract from the problems at issue.

"First of all," he says, "I'm not talking about specific Muslims, I'm talking about doctrine and history. But when I point out what this doctrine and history is, the response I get from Muslims is, 'What's wrong with it?' Bat Yeor writes that all the major scourges of the West have been recognized, while those of the Muslim world have not. This fundamental absence of mea culpa in the Muslim world is a problem, and I think it's at the heart of the failure of these institutions to reform themselves. [Pointing this out] is not a question of demonization. It's a question of very destructive institutions that have to change. And it's not going to change by applying whitewash to these doctrines, whether by Muslims or by non-Muslims."

There is a sense of urgency in Bostom's words, though not a sense of panic. He cites the recommendations of Ibn Warraq, the formidable secularist thinker who wrote the foreword to both of Bostom's books, regarding educational reforms for the Muslim world. He urges Muslims "to say that radicalism is a dead limb that has to be chopped off because, frankly, their society is bigger than just that."

And ultimately, when asked what he expects people –– Muslims and non-Muslims –– to do with the information in The Legacy of Jihad in Islam and The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism, Bostom answers: "I want them to understand the magnitude and the depth of the problem. And I want them to understand that this problem will not go away without discussion, without a mea culpa on the part of the Muslims, and that it's the obligation on the part of the non-Muslims to encourage these reforms to take place.

"I think that it can't be left up to Muslims themselves, because that hasn't worked. Of course, in the long term, it will have to come from within. But in the meantime," Bostom concludes, "non-Muslims are going to have to defend themselves and to demand a change."

Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net

To Go To Top

Posted by JCPA, June 19, 2008.

This was written by Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, who is a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is a founder of the Orient Research Group Ltd. and is a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was published as a JCPA Jerusalem Issue Brief by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (http://www.jcpa.org).

  • Hamas regards the temporary cease-fire as a tahdiya and not a hudna. A tahdiya –– "a period of calm" –– is used by Hamas to describe a simple cease-fire. A hudna implies recognition of the other party's actual existence, without acknowledging its legitimacy.

  • In an interview with Al-Jazeera (April 26, 2008), Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal clarified that for Hamas, a tahdiya is "a tactic in conflict management." He added that it "is not unusual for the resistance...to escalate sometimes and to retreat a bit sometimes as the tide does....The tahdiya creates a formulation that will force Israel...to remove the siege...and if it happens it will be a remarkable achievement."

  • Official sources in Israel have explained that Hamas' interest in a lull in the fighting is a result of its "distress." But the organization did not experience "distress." Hamas has introduced and maintained law and order in Gaza, strengthened its overall control, suppressed opposition, and achieved broad popular support for its policies.

  • An important objective for Hamas is winning the Palestinian presidential election, which will be held when Mahmoud Abbas finishes his term of office in December. The lull will permit Hamas to prepare the field to take over from Abbas. Hamas is liable to claim that, according to Palestinian law, administrative authority should be passed on to the chairman of the parliament, who is a Hamas leader, or should be decided by the parliament itself, where Hamas has an overwhelming majority.

  • One diplomatic consequence of the tahdiya will be increasing pressure on Israel to accept a future reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. That could lead to increasing demands on Israel to negotiate a permanent status arrangement with a joint Hamas-Fatah government, while Hamas remains committed to its political program of the elimination of Israel.

  • The cease-fire also grants Hamas a golden opportunity to expand its military build-up for the next round of terror and violence. Emulating Hizbullah's strategy, Hamas is striving to acquire longer-range and more destructive missiles to be used for deterrence and as a sword on Israel's neck.

After eight years of armed Intifada, countless Palestinian terrorist attacks, and more than 7,000 rockets fired against civilians in Israel, the Egyptian government succeeded in securing an agreement by Israel and Hamas for a cease-fire that took effect at 6:00 a.m. on June 19, 2008. Officially, the Israeli government argues that there is no understanding with Hamas, but only with Egypt. However, that formalism is not necessarily the perception of the international community.

The main terms of the unwritten agreement include the following:

  • All Gaza-Israel violence stops for six months. After three days, Israel will ease its blockade of Gaza, allowing more vital supplies in.

  • A week later, Israel will further ease restrictions at cargo crossings.

  • In the final stage, talks will be conducted about opening the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt and for a prisoner exchange to free IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for two years.(1)

Hamas regards the temporary cease-fire as a tahdiya and not a hudna. The difference between the two Arabic terms is substantial. Hudna means "truce," which is more concrete than tahdiya –– "a period of calm" –– which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire. In traditional Islamic thought, a hudna is negotiated between an Islamic entity and a non-Islamic entity, but it can be reversed the moment the Islamic side has gained sufficient strength to resume fighting. Nevertheless, a hudna implies recognition of the other party's actual existence, without acknowledging its legitimacy.

A tahdiya has less standing than a hudna. Khaled Mashaal, Hamas' leader, and his deputy in leadership, Musa Abu Marzouq, elaborated in recent months their interpretation of a tahdiya. In an interview with Al-Jazeera (April 26, 2008), Mashaal clarified that for Hamas, a tahdiya is "a tactic in conflict management and a phase in the framework of the resistance [meaning all forms of struggle]." He added that it "is not unusual for the resistance...to escalate sometimes and to retreat a bit sometimes as the tide does....The tahdiya creates a formulation that will force Israel...to remove the siege...and if it happens it will be a remarkable achievement....We are speaking of a tactical tahdiya....As long as there is occupation, there is no other way but resistance."(2)

When asked about Mashaal's "tactical tahdiya," Musa Abu Marzouq explained that "the tahdiya is not a strategy or a goal itself, but it is a tactical step in this conflict....Our goal is to liberate our land and to bring about the return of our people. The resistance is a tool to reach this end."(3)

Official sources in Israel have explained that Hamas' interest in a lull in the fighting is a result of the "distress" it has suffered from the extended blockade of Gaza.(4) Israel's policy did in fact cause difficulties for Hamas, but these hardships do not explain Hamas' strategic motives for the lull. The organization did not experience "distress" –– neither in a strengthening of the opposition to the Hamas administration, nor in an increase of popular protests against it. In fact, the opposite is true. Even the official Israeli evaluation of Hamas' first year of rule since its military takeover in June 2007 suggests that Hamas has managed to introduce and maintain law and order in the Gaza Strip, strengthen its overall control, suppress opposition, and achieve broad popular support for its policies.

Hamas' Motivation: Legitimacy and Recognition

Hamas' motives have nothing to do with "distress," but rather with "opportunities" –– that is, the objectives it seeks to attain in the international arena and especially in its own internal political arena. First, the lull in the fighting is meaningless for Hamas; it is not a cease-fire or a truce, but a "temporary" cessation of hostilities with Israel. Next, Hamas is not committed to continuing the lull when the six months run out, and it can use any excuse it chooses to continue its terrorist campaign: Israeli building in the settlements, Israeli measures taken in Jerusalem, or IDF anti-terror measures in the West Bank. Hamas can also send other Palestinian organizations to do its dirty work.

The tahdiya agreement for a lull is an important achievement for Hamas. Hamas will gain the recognition it wants as the legitimate ruler of the Gaza Strip. Despite the fact that the Israeli government has defined Hamas-ruled Gaza as a hostile entity, Israel agreed to the continuation of trade with it, and even recognized the hostile entity's authority to operate the Rafah crossing. Hamas regards that as immensely important and wants to exploit it as a lever to open the door to official relations with Europe, and to have itself removed from the various lists of terrorist organizations.

Another important objective for Hamas is winning the Palestinian presidential election, which will be held when Mahmoud Abbas finishes his term of office in December. Hamas wants to present itself in the contest as a legitimate ruling body worthy of inheriting the presidency. High-ranking Hamas figures have already stated that the organization will not recognize Abbas' authority as president after December 2008.(5)

Hamas is liable to claim that, according to Palestinian law, administrative authority should be passed on to the chairman of the parliament, who is a Hamas leader, or should be decided by the parliament itself, where Hamas has an overwhelming majority. In other words, for Hamas, the lull in the fighting will permit the movement to prepare the field to take over from Abbas, thereby complementing its military takeover of Gaza. Hamas' challenge is also the motivation behind Abbas' desire to talk to Hamas about reaching an understanding about new elections, and it explains why Hamas has rejected the suggestion.

Main Implications of the Tahdiya

Hamas wants to exploit the lull in the fighting to upgrade its status in the international community in order to gain legitimacy for its campaign for the presidency after Abbas' term is over in December 2008.

The cease-fire grants Hamas a golden opportunity to expand its military build-up for the next round of terror and violence. Emulating Hizbullah's strategy, Hamas is striving to acquire longer-range and more destructive missiles to be used for deterrence and as a sword on Israel's neck.

Israel has acknowledged Hamas, albeit unwillingly, as the de facto ruling power in Gaza. Israel's acceptance of the cease-fire is a blow to the international war on terror and gives immunity to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza, including al-Qaeda affiliates.

Another diplomatic consequence of the tahdiya will be increasing pressure on Israel to accept a reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah in the future. That could lead to increasing demands on Israel to negotiate a permanent status arrangement with the joint Hamas-Fatah government, while Hamas remains committed to its political program of the elimination of Israel. It is important to recall that the entire Israeli-Palestinian negotiating track since the convening of the Annapolis conference was premised on the exclusion of Hamas and the ultimate achievement of an agreement between the Israeli government and the government of Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah alone.

Delaying the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit to a later phase of the Israel-Hamas arrangement can have a demoralizing effect in Israel, for it sends a message that the recovery of captured soldiers is not the highest priority.


1. http://www.startribune.com/world/20167939.html?

2. http://aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/41C8CBD6-5D3A-4F4B-B952-

3. http://www.alwatan.sy/dindex.php?idn=32872

4. http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/22/1291534

5. http://www.al-sharq.com/DisplayArticle.aspx?xf=
2008,June,article_20080608_103 &id=worldtoday&sid=arabworld

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, June 19, 2008.

In yet another almost predictable slap in the face to the American Jewish Community and to Israel, yet another Chinese spy has been sentenced to a ridiculously light sentence relative to the seriousness of the espionage he committed, and particularly when compared to the life sentence that Jonathan Pollard is serving.

In addition to a 24 month sentence, Meng was fined $10,000 because he benefited financially from his espionage activities. Jonathan Pollard, on the other hand, who did not benefit financially from his espionage activities, was never fined. Moreover, Pollard unlike Meng, was also never formally accused, indicted, or convicted of harming the United States.

With the change in sentencing guidelines since Jonathan Pollard was sentenced, today Pollard would be facing a maximum 10 year sentence. Meng was facing a maximum of 25 years.

Would someone like to tell us why Pollard is serving his 23rd year of an unlimited life sentence, while Meng gets 24 months?

This is from the Associated Press.

SAN JOSE, Calif. –– An engineer who admitted he tried to sell fighter-pilot training software to the Chinese Navy was sentenced Wednesday to 24 months in federal prison, in the first sentencing for a newly defined intellectual property crime.

Xiaodong Sheldon Meng, 44, was sentenced on the rare charge of committing economic espionage against the U.S. It's the most serious crime under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 and involves stealing trade secrets to benefit a foreign government.

Only five cases have been filed under the law, three of them in Silicon Valley, which authorities say is fertile ground for trade secret thieves looking to make a quick buck or bolster the technological and military development of foreign nations.

Meng didn't speak during the half-hour hearing in U.S. District Court in San Jose. He stood with his hands clasped and head down as Judge Jeremy Fogel handed down a sentence in line with the U.S. Attorney's Office recommended punishment and Meng's plea agreement.

Fogel commended Meng's attempts to turn around his life following his arrest in 2004 but said Meng's crime hurt United States national security and deserved prison time.

"This is a case where the court has to be merciful but it has to be very firm," Fogel said.

Could have gotten 25 years

Meng had faced a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison after pleading guilty to two felony counts: economic espionage and exporting controlled military technologies. Because of his lack of a criminal record before this case, prosecutors agreed to seek a far shorter sentence.

Outside court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krotoski said it was Meng's focus on profits, not a foreign allegiance, that drove him to steal the trade secrets and to try to sell them to the highest bidder. As such, Meng's crime shouldn't be punished as harshly as someone convicted of spying on the U.S., he said.

Meng is a Chinese national with Canadian citizenship who lives in Cupertino, about 45 miles south of San Francisco.

"People have this image of a spy, but you can cause a lot of harm without being a spy –– you can damage national security," Krotoski said in an interview.

Meng's defense lawyer, Manuel Araujo, said he believed the punishment for his client was still too severe. He described Meng's actions as "stupid" but said his client has undergone a "profound metamorphosis."

"For him as an individual it was too harsh," Araujo said. "He's a good man who got caught up in the fast and loose trading of trade secrets. The sentence might open the eyes of people who don't realize the consequences of these actions."

Investigators say Meng went around giving sales pitches to Asian military officials for software stolen from his former employer, San Jose-based Quantum3D Inc.

No word on whether sale made

He was indicted in December 2006 on 36 felony counts alleging he attempted to sell the purloined programs to the Royal Thai Air Force, the Royal Malaysian Air Force and the Navy Research Center in China.

Authorities have declined to say whether any of the secrets were successfully sold. Krotoski said officials in China apparently didn't know Meng was trying to sell them stolen trade secrets –– just that they were dealing with a program of high value to the U.S.

In addition to serving the prison sentence, Meng is to pay a $10,000 fine.

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com and visit the website: http://www.JonathanPollard.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Spencer, June 19, 2008.

Muslims win battle to prevent criticism of Islam at UN Human Rights Council

"On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women." Of course, these have already been linked to Islam by Muslims themselves, and Pakistan and Iran weren't protesting then. In any case, one of the members of the "humanist group" mentioned in this article is a friend, and I will soon have much, much more information here about this incident.

Free Speech Death Watch: "Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates," from AP, June 19 (thanks to Twostellas):

GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council. Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be "very complex, very sensitive and very intense", council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday. Scholars: Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva.

I.e., soothing, smiling deceivers.

While Costea's ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.... On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women. The interventions sparked a heated debate which threatened to sour the mood of the meeting. The council's resolutions carry no legal weight but are intended to throw a spotlight on governments that abuse their citizens. "This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it," Costea ruled after an emergency break to calm the situation.

Read the entire story including the transcript at

Contact Robert Spencer at the website: www.jihadwatch.org

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 19, 2008.


The speaker praised Pres. Truman as a friend of Israel, because he recognized Israel. [The recognition was a personal favor. Truman then embargoed arms shipments to Israel. HST was no friend. His friendship for Israel is a myth. It is an example of how ignorant people, including most Jews, are about the Mideast.]

Candidate McCain wants the US to maintain Israel's military "qualitative edge," because it has small margin for survival. [A "small margin" means Israel needs more than an "edge." The term, "qualitative edge" is one of those constantly and unthinkingly repeated catch-phrases that is not prudent and not honored. It keeps the Arabs tempted to make war and inflict high casualties on Israeli. The US arms some of Israel's enemies, much with taxpayer funds. Egypt already has military superiority over Israel in certain respects. What did McCain learn on the Senate Armed Services Committee all those years? Not much about Israel.]

He pointed out that even under the supposedly moderate Pres. Khatami, Iran continued its secret nuclear weapons development. A US summit with Iran would dishearten dissidents there. [The latter point is more perceptive than Obama's. McCain shows some understanding that moderation among Muslims may be just in how they present themselves rather than in their policies.]

As for the P.A. Arabs, McCain continued, most want a better and less violent life. Hamas doesn't. [McCain does not understand their culture nor their polls. Their culture is violent, their religion, intolerant, their means, barbaric. They have been indoctrinated into putting war against non-believers before prosperity. Who among them opposes violence? Not Abbas, he praises terrorists.]

After citing the massive bombardment of an Israeli city and the personal grief that results, he said, "No nation in the world would allow its population to be attacked so incessantly, to be killed and intimidated so mercilessly without responding. And the nation of Israel is no exception. Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are engaged in talks that all of us hope will yield progress toward peace." [Glad he recognizes and sympathizes with Israeli victims of Muslim aggression and brutality. But when he says that no country would allow its population to be attacked without responding, he should have put it, "no other country." Israel does let its people get attacked. Its few raids on a small percentage of terrorists does not count. It does not do. The negotiations don't count, and they have no plan for stopping Hamas, not that Fatah would be any better, for its members attack Israelis too. Why doesn't McCain know that? It is because he is uninformed and takes his cues from the biased reporting and general but faulty suppositions.]

He said that US progress in Iraq results from "the new strategy that Sen. Obama vehemently opposed" and "predicted would fail when he voted to cut off funds for our forces in Iraq. He now says he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq one to two brigades per month until they're all removed." Obama would withdraw troops "regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of the consequences for our national security, regardless of Israel's security and in disregard of the best advice of our Commander's on the ground. This course will result in a catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to make a forced retreat we risk all out civil war genocide and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Al Qaeda terrorists would rejoice in the defeat of the United States; allowing a potential terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends and would invite further intervention from Iraq's neighbors, including a very much emboldened Iran." [Excellent analysis. Here he has analyzed the conventional information better than Obama.]

Finally, McCain praised Israel as a "great democracy" that loves justice, just like the US, its partner in seeking peace (IMRA, 6/4). [Israel wants peace, but the State Dept. wants to dismember Israel. McCain does not know that the State Dept. is Israel's worst enemy, having curbed and worked to reverse all its military victories and make its borders insecure. He has the popular misconception that Israel is democratic. Few know that it treats dissident Jews unjustly]


Oh how he favors Israel and the Jewish people! His speech was full of emotional platitudes, which apparently is all that one needs to impress AIPAC. He, too, mentioned a "qualitative advantage" for Israel's military, without suggesting that the US stop subsidizing Egypt's military. If we cut out subsidy of Arab armies, etc., we could cut out subsidy of Israel, and save $6 billion a year.

He, too, made it seem as if the only terrorists in the P.A. are in Gaza and that the US is working with moderate Palestinian Arabs who crack down on terrorism. Actually, Abbas is a life-long terrorist and still indoctrinates in favor of aggression against Israel. His police commit terrorism and his organization, Fatah, never ceased. The checkpoints in Judea-Samaria, after all, were erected to curb his terrorist forces. He does not crack down on terrorism, he protects it. He protects it by shielding fugitives, getting terrorists released though many resume terrorism, honoring terrorists, and running or allowing the P.A. media, schools, and mosques to preach bigotry and murder. Candidate Obama misrepresents the existing situation.

What to do? Obama said, "Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps –– consistent with its security –– to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements –– as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis."

"Egypt must," huh? Who will make it? Would Obama cut off military aid to Egypt, a proven aggressor, unless it stops working against Israel and peace? He didn't say. Then why should we give him any credence?

The steps Obama recommends for Israel are not "consistent with its security. "Ease the freedom of movement" means taking down the checkpoints that bar terrorists. It does not occur to Obama to ask why, if Abbas were so moderate, and if his people were so non-violent, is terrorism from his area a constant menace to Israel. Asking that would involve independent thought. Our candidates rarely indulge.

What the anti-Zionist regime agreed to, often under US pressure, should not be held against Israel for not conforming with, when the Arabs don't comply with any of their agreements and are continuing the struggle against Israel. He should ask why the US demanded such conditions that strengthen the P.A., committed to war on Israel. Why shouldn't Israel build communities in certain parts of Judea-Samaria, its homeland? Well, because Obama wants an Arab state there, though neither he nor anybody else has explained, at least not without misrepresenting history and international law, why there would be one. He said such a state should be peaceful. There is nothing about the P.A. that is peaceful. It is a bigoted, aggressive, violent, lawless place, whose entire culture mitigates against peace and, so far, against prosperity. May it become too poor to afford weapons!

He says that the new Arab state should be contiguous and Israel should have secure borders. He said it emotionally, which probably impressed the impressionable audience. But what he said is inconsistent. A contiguous P.A. means a non-contiguous Israel. Did he look at a map, and see that to make the two parts of the P.A., with Israel in between, means cutting a corridor through Israel and making it non-contiguous?

Without the Territories, Israel cannot have secure borders, as a report by the US Chiefs of Staff pointed out. Have the candidates heard of that report? It was sober. They sound drunk.

The rest of his speech was about the use of diplomacy (IMRA, 6/4). It was too general. We should say this and we should propose that. He accused the Bush administration of not saying and proposing those things, although they did. He gives no indication why he should be thought better able to do it.

What is frightening about his speech is its not appreciating the limits of US power. He wants to work with Russia and China, but they and the UNO are rogues. The US economy lacks the power needed to police the world. Obama would spend our resources and indebt us further. We'd end up with less power. As for terrorism, he, too, would favor some terrorists. No sense of reality!


"The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967." Abbas said about candidate Obama's support for keeping Jerusalem undivided and Israel's capital (IMRA, 6/4). I think that that Obama is pandering as usual for votes. What is Obama trying to do, forfeit the endorsement of Hamas and Iran?

What does the world know about Israel? Does it know that the Old City of Jerusalem was seized in naked aggression by the Arab Legion, invading from Jordan? Does the world know that the Old City, including the holy places, was oppressed, neglected, and used as a base for firing into the New City? Does it know that in 1967, Israeli forces liberated the city from that oppression and neglect?

Does Abbas know that? He's just making propaganda.


The government of Israel wants a ceasefire, to still criticism of it for not protecting cities of Israel under bombardment from Gaza. The government knows that Hamas would use a ceasefire to build up its forces. Built up forces eventually would inflict more casualties and better defend itself from retaliation. But that would be a couple of months away. The regime does not think that far ahead (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 6/5). By contrast, the Arabs do plan ahead.


In violation of that Resolution, Hizbullah is fortifying villages both on the border and deeper into Lebanon. Syria is arming it. Hizbullah has extorted enough legislative votes to veto action against it. Israel's Foreign Min. Livni takes credit as her one foreign policy achievement for having obtained that Resolution, but not blame for its foreseeable failure (IMRA, 6/4). She may replace Olmert!

The Arabs often accuse Israel of violating UNO resolutions. Their accusations fail to differentiate between voluntary and mandatory resolutions. 1701 is mandatory. The Arabs are the violators of it and of other resolutions.


Shurat Ha-Din is suing through US courts an Israeli company having businesses in the US and supplying gas to Gaza. Hamas steals more than half of that gas. This means that the company is indirectly supplying Hamas, a terrorist organization. US law prohibits aid to terrorism (IMRA, 6/4). Why not sue companies supplying the rest of the P.A., since they are terrorist, too?


Candidate Obama depicted the unsettled Arab-Israel conflict as giving an pretext for Islamists to attack Israel, etc.. Candidate McCain derided the notion that Islamists need a pretext for what their ideology commands them. Settle the Arab-Israel conflict, and Islamism still would confront us. [Can't settle the Arab-Israel conflict without deeply reforming Islam. Basic to Islam is recapturing territory formerly conquered by Islam.]

What Obama has been saying lately contradicts his long-held views (Daniel Pipes #860, 6/5.) That's politics, Obama style.


The Israel Electric Company is going to pay homeowners four times the going rate for electricity, for electricity generated from solar panels the owners install. Installation costs about $12,000 per house (Arutz-7, 6/5).


S. Arabia and the UAE each donated $50 million for victims of China's earthquake. That is more than any other country gave (Arutz-7, 6/5).

Israel sent rescue teams. That is more helpful. China does not need money. It has extensive reserves of money and it spends increasingly on its military.

Formerly, the Arabs donated only to Muslim states or causes. Saudi Arabia donated mostly for mosques and murder.


Secretary-General Ban condemned Gaza terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and an Israeli raid on terrorists, which is said to have killed an Arab girl, by mistake. He said Israel has a right to defend itself but must exercise caution against striking civilians (IMRA, 6/5).

Israel hardly kills civilians, because it does take precautions. It doesn't need admonition from Sec. Ban. Why did he utter one without suggesting any way by which Israel could have taken more precautions? I think he was trying to be even-handed. That is unethical. Israel sometimes suspends raids in order to protect those bigoted civilians in Gaza. Hamas seeks out Jewish civilians to murder. Even-handedness between them is blind morality that restrains Israeli defense and comforts terrorist planners. The terrorists know they won't get condemned much, not when Israeli defense is equated with their offensiveness.


As Sen. Obama boarded a plane for the campaign stop in Florida, his aide handed him a copy of his speech for that day. Opening the folder, the candidate found two speeches.

"Al," he inquired, "which speech do I give, today? The one lamenting US foreign policy being hostage to the Israel lobby, or the one to AIPAC upholding the security of Israel, 'side-by-side' with another Palestinian Arab state made contiguous by bisecting Israel and depriving Israel of secure borders?"

The term, "side-by-side," is an outrageous deception. It invokes a sentiment of neighborliness, whereas the Palestinian Arabs are raised to hate and kill Jews.


When I first started my column on the Arab-Israel conflict about 13 years ago, nationalism already was held in ill repute by liberals. They were remembering its abuse by German, Italy, and Japan, leading up to WWII. They did not object to certain other nationalism, such as by the Arabs or Chinese. Their inconsistency seems to be part of an anti-Western, anti-American, or anti-Zionist ideology. Thus they criticized Israeli restrictions on citizenship but not Arab restrictions.

More recently, some liberals told me the US should submerge its sovereignty into international organizations. Considering how undemocratic and incompetent such organizations are, I disagree. One friend defended the International Criminal Court, which the US refuses to join. I replied that its judges may be biased against the US. She claimed they would be professional, but we know that many countries have political judges, just as the Olympics do.

The NY Sun recently described attempts by government and individuals in Britain to arrest an Israeli general, a US officer, and a US Ambassador for alleged war crimes. Foreign countries are asserting jurisdiction over what occurred in foreign countries and in which they have no specific interest. The charges, however, are motivated by politics and religious bias, not concern over criminality. The trumped up charges are liable to be heard by a kangaroo court. The US is right to keep off that bandwagon. We owe thanks to Pres. Bush for it.

If only Bush were tougher. He has backed off from standing up for freedom. I wish that he had continually challenged the assaults on our freedom by Muslims, internationalists, etc.. Unfortunately, he couldn't take media criticism. It was a storm of bullying. I meet Europeans who revile Pres. Bush, to me. I don't take it from them, especially not from Europeans or liberals, who don't understand world affairs, not that I am a fan of Bush.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sacha Stawski, June 18, 2008.

This article was written by Esther Shapira, producer at Hessen Broadcasting and already had questioned the official Palestinian version of the Mohammed Al Durah case in her 2002 documentary film "Three Bullets and a Dead Child".

It appeared on the European Forum on Antisemitism

A few weeks ago, a French appellate court overturned the defamation conviction of Philippe Karsenty, who operates an independent news agency. Karsenty had described the Al Durah case as a "masquerade" that "does dishonor to France and its state-run television".

The pictures went around the world in autumn 2000: Gunshots strike a Palestinian child in his father's arms –– shots fired by Israeli soldiers. And the French television reporter's voiceover: "Mohammed is dead, his father gravely injured." Ever since, young Mohammed Al Durah has been fêted as a martyr in the Arab world and the picture used for political purposes. But did it really happen that way? A few weeks ago, a French appellate court overturned the defamation conviction of Philippe Karsenty, who operates an independent news agency. Karsenty had described the Al Durah case as a "masquerade" that "does dishonor to France and its state-run television".

Three shots supposedly struck Mohammed, then 12 years old, at least one of which was purportedly fatal. Talal Abu Rahme, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 state television, filmed the dramatic scene that unleashed worldwide indignation and pilloried the Israeli army as cold-blooded child murderers. The scene became a beacon, young Mohammed an icon of the Intifada. Mohammed the martyr. The scene shot by Talal Abu Rahme was broadcast countless times on Palestinian TV, with one image spliced in: an Israeli soldier, shooting. Through this manipulation, the clip acquired the unambiguousness lacking in the original footage.

In the Arab world, however, no further evidence was needed. Countless streets and squares were named after Mohammed Al Durah; films, songs and poems lauded the martyr and stamps, even toilet paper, were manufactured with his likeness. Tunesia renamed the street in front of Yassir Arafat's former villa "Mohammed Al Durah Street", Egypt did the same with the street in front of the Israeli embassy. In Mali's capital, there is a "Square of the Palestinian Child Martyrs". Enraged demonstrators demanded Israel's destruction, and Muslims were exhorted to avenge Mohammed Al Durah on TV and the Internet, in Friday sermons and leaflets –– a call that became grisly reality with the Islamists' brutal beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl. In the video of his execution, the "death sentence" was justified as revenge for the "murder" of Mohammed Al Durah.

Yet we still don't know what actually happened that day –– on the contrary. Eight years later, there are more questions and doubts about the scene than there were at the time. Supposed certainty has yielded to the suspicion that possibly we were duped by a huge Palestinian propaganda hoax. But didn't we see with our own eyes how young Mohammed was shot and finally lay dead in the lap of his gravely wounded father? No, we did not. Fifty-four seconds of the footage that Talal Abu Rahme shot that day at Netzarim Junction were made public, and only 31 seconds show father and son. Charles Enderlin, the correspondent who edited the film and provided the commentary, was not himself at the scene. He relied on his cameraman's account. In the film's voiceover, it's said that the gunfire came from the direction of the military outpost. And then the decisive sentence: "Mohammed is dead, his father gravely injured."

The power of news images and commentary is so great that most viewers are certain that they saw how father and son were struck. But in fact, the film footage shows not one single shot and no blood. We see the two sitting next to each other, see the father looking and gesticulating in the direction of the Israeli outpost, then a hand covers the lens and at the decisive moment, clouds of dust obscure the view. When the picture again becomes clear, Mohammed's head lies in the lap of his father, who seems listless and leans against the wall, his head tilted to one side.

Actually, nothing is visible that provides evidence for the assertion that the child is dead, the father gravely injured. Yet it took over a year until clear questions emerged from cautious doubts and inconsistencies openly came to light. Those who wanted precise knowledge about the incident and persistently inquired were immediately suspected of pursuing a political agenda. France 2 also tried through judicial means to quell any doubts as to the authenticity of the broadcast images. Yet all attempts to nip inquiries in the bud failed –– the scene had gained too much symbolic impact. For some, it was visible proof of Israel's murderous policy of occupation and of the legitimacy of the struggle to annihilate the "Zionist creation". For others, it was a key scene in the media war, a prime example of Palestinian propaganda, "Palliwood". What, in the meantime, is unequivocally certain?

France 2 always maintained that they released all footage of the scene. This is false. There are at least 10 additional seconds that show father and son. The supposedly final image, for which Charles Enderlin supplied the voiceover "Mohammed is dead", is not the last image that was shot. The take was cut before one sees how Mohammed Al Durah, allegedly dead, raises his head and looks into the camera. The additional seconds of footage were first shown in the Paris courtroom on November 14, 2007. France 2 had taken Philippe Karsenty to court for libel; he had publicly maintained that France 2 falsely spread information that Mohammed Al Durah had been shot dead in the scene. Yet fundamentally, not Karsenty, but France 2 and its correspondent Charles Enderlin were on trial. It was a matter of the station's credibility. So Karsenty's acquittal also is an accusation against Charles Enderlin and France 2. The verdict confirms that the Mohammed Al Durah case is by no means closed. And during the trial, the list of inconsistencies in the media version of the shooting of Mohammed Al Durah by Israeli soldiers became significantly longer.

For seven years, France 2 said there were 27 minutes on the videocassette. Then, to an astonished audience at the Paris court, the station said there had been an error. There were only 18 minutes. At first glance, these were so unspectacular that it was unclear why they were kept so long under lock and key. They showed youths throwing stones and incendiary devices at the Israeli military outpost without any discernable reaction from the Israeli soldiers. They showed "for camera only" scenes that, however, could be recognized as such only by a practiced observer. "For camera only" –– this is what Israeli soldiers call it when demonstrators simulate injury and have themselves picked up by ambulances. Some inconsequential interviews followed. Only then came the well-known sequence with father and son, now for the first time with the 10 seconds in which the allegedly dead boy suddenly raises his head and briefly looks into the camera.

What did Talal Abu Rahme really film on that day? What happened to Mohammed Al Durah?

The list of contradictions grows longer. Ballistic analysis shows that, from their position, the soldiers could hardly have been the shooters. Measurements of the bullet holes in the wall speak against this scenario. It's also highly improbable that sharpshooters would need 45 minutes to hit a stationary target. But that's how long father and son were under sustained fire, according to Talal Abu Rahme's testimony. And why would soldiers fire at those two, of all people, while leaving those attacking the outpost with stones and incendiary devices completely alone?

Finally there are the contradictory statements as to the length of the filmed footage. Talal Abu Rahme said he shot 6 minutes of the dramatic scene. Charles Enderlin initially maintained that all the footage was released. According to him, it was only 31 seconds. He later added that the scene had been cut by just one take, which would have shown the child's horrible death throes. Yet nothing of those death throes is visible in the now-released images. Why not? Either there is more raw footage than stated, or the pictures do not exist.

Is an image true to life or genuine, is it realistic or real? Such fine points have long played no role whatsoever on the media war front. The more an image is seen, the more it is assumed to be true. The media image becomes the reality, the basis of public opinion. Its verdict cannot be appealed.

In the cemetery near El Bureish in the Gaza Strip, one grave stands out. It is the grave of the martyr Mohammed Al Durah. Emblazoned on the white marble is the inscription: "Those who die in battle do not really die, but live on" –– in paradise, as every devout Moslem is convinced. And in the memory of viewers, who see only the picture they know.

Contact Sacha Stawski at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 18, 2008.

A funny thing happened right after Iran promised not to build a nuclear bomb. It built one anyway. There is absolutely no way the presumably sane world, relying on toothless sanctions and rhetorical blather, can be assured the Persian pariah state, 'coincidentally' drenched in oil, will not go nuclear. Period! Will feckless fossil fuel dependent industrial nations patrol Iran, let alone invade or even bomb Iran, fearing that will no doubt lead to a disruption of their liquid energy supplies? Will a heroin addict commit an act disrupting his next fix? C'mon! Get real! There is absolutely no way the West will stop a turbaned Dr. Strangelove cadre of religious zealots from spinning those nuclear centrifuges, unless they embark upon the path less taken, alter their mindless feckless strategies, and actually THINK! Why not give mouthpiece AhMADinejad and those crazy Mullahs an offer they can't refuse? Tell them in no uncertain terms that if their regime actually builds a nuke, no doubt detectable by satellite technology, it will be in charge of monitoring each and every terrorist organization on the planet, each and every kindred spirit regime on the planet, and if just one nuclear incident happens anywhere on the planet, the default responsibility will belong to the Persian upstart nation that would not listen, a presumption will be made that Iran incited that incident, and guess what pal, your toast!!! In other words use a customized M.A.D. a/k/a mutually assured destruction strategy that's not mutual, indeed only maximizes the possibility of obliteration for the Persian Shiite pseudo-empire should it be foolish enough to recklessly stay the nuclear course. Would such a threat deter lunatics that believe in the coming of a 12th Imam whose Holy Grail is to slay the infidel? Would nuclear missiles aimed at Tehran from every direction knock some sense into their addled brains? I think such brinkmanship just might work! Even bizarre Mullahs, when push truly comes to shove, will fold like cheap accordions hawked at an Iranian bazaar, their survival instincts overriding visions of a Shiite style Islamic caliphate that just might glow in the dark.

Still, how can we be sure much of the world, of course not including Israel, really feels threatened by a potentially nuclear Iran? It takes no rocket scientist to figure out that a 'believable' promise of 'shock and awe' aimed at those in power would put the kabash on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Hmmm! Let's dig a bit deeper. Iran's nuclear ambitions surely rattle Israel who it threatens to 'wipe off the map.' But what about the United States; what about Europe? Are not these two presumed allies in the midst of a currency war? Are not American dead presidents, etched onto challenged petrodollars, spinning in their graves, aware European icons, etched onto petroeuros, might replace their function as the planet's primary oil trading currency, aware that Iran continues to expand its Bourse, an international oil trading exchange that accepts euros not dollars, when and if effectuated a formidable competitor with petrodollar exchanges, as potent as any nuclear threat to Uncle Sam's economic security, yet as potent as any incentive for Europe to let the Iranians keep spinning their centrifuges as long as they keep on turning the tide toward the petroeuro? Thus the world's superpower uncle and his buddy Israel are in a bind, truly supported by no other nations, including Asian nations, in need of Iranian oil, perhaps willing to dump trillions of U.S. Treasury notes on the open market at a steep discount rather than get involved in Middle East entanglements. Going it alone, even posturing, has a huge downside, especially when a harried Uncle Sam is spread so thin militarily, has surely lost the stomach for further commitments, a fact undoubtedly not lost on Iranian strategists, thus any truly threatening rhetorical bluster coming from but two mouths would likely fizzle exacerbating the ongoing scenario for the U.S. and Israel.

Of course, one powerful way to avoid this dire scenario is to convince the U.S. and Europe to merge their currencies, negating a destructive competition, economically allying two major forces thus enabling them to confront Iran's nuclear proclivities in tandem, along with Israel, no doubt convincing kindred spirit nations to do the same. Such a logical move of course would be politically daunting, necessarily overcoming widespread patriotic fervor attached to tampering with national currencies. Indeed, what if that merger does not make it past square one, again forcing the U.S. and Israel to confront an ever strengthening bogeyman in another way? How about fomenting an internal revolution, a scenario that would require overcoming Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard? Is this another long shot? Perhaps, but worth developing! Indeed, there are few good alternatives, aside from merging the dollar and the euro, in dealing with this oil rich fundamentalist Shiite Islamic nation, extending its tentacles by sucking in Syrian Alawites as well as financing terrorist organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas. Even Sunni heavyweights such as Saudi Arabia would rather make nice nice with its nuke-in progress Persian imperialist OPEC associate, knowing where its pita is buttered, knowing that any disruptions in oil flow due to hostilities would drain the House of Saud of much needed cash to buy even more skyscrapers in America and elsewhere.

Not a pretty picture but do not despair! Raw material based economies like Iran rise and fall with the demand for their 'precious' commodities, in this case commodity. If the per barrel price of oil falls substantially, everything else collapses. When 'elite' Revolutionary Guard members begin missing paychecks, perhaps they too will clasp hands with Iran's youthful Western-wannabes, assisting in the literal or figurative tar and feathering of loose lips AhMADinejad, Ayatollah Khameni, their sycophantic minions, and anyone else perceived to be responsible for an economy in shambles. So how does one substantially lower the per barrel price of oil? In the long run, the best way is to develop a cheap efficient alternative fuel. In the short run-here we go again-merge the dollar and euro into one currency. Today's per barrel price is calculated in U.S. greenbacks, ever diminishing in value over time. By stabilizing the dollar, indeed combining it with the euro, it will take less dollar/euros or 'duros' to purchase one barrel of oil. In fact, the merged currency's value could surge presuming a cooperative combined U.S./European Union economy continues to improve. Israel will surely benefit as her virulent enemy Iran morphs into a tolerant more Westernized nation. 'You may say I'm a dreamer, a la John Lennon, but is there a better way?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Eugene Narrett, June 18, 2008.

Since the Israeli government, pressed vigorously by the U.S. State Department, expelled 9,000 Jews from their homes, farms, schools and synagogues in Gush Katif and Northern Samaria in August 2005, jihadists have showered rockets and mortars on towns, cities and farmers within the 1949 borders of Israel. While this jihad has continued, the response by a corrupt and defeatist Israeli regime has been minimal.

During this same time, the 9,000 deported Jews have been dumped throughout Israel in trailer parks. The jobs, permanent residences and compensation they were promised has been lacking. That the "world community" does not mention or care about these brutally displaced Jews is not unusual; but there also has been a failure of mainstream American Jewish leaders to speak publicly against the ethnic cleansing and its bitter aftermath. The "two-state solution" means more expulsions of Jews.

The betrayal of the expelled Jews (whose deportation is supposed to bring "peace") and the failure to totally suppress the rocket war on Israel dismays lovers of Israel. One such person is Bernard ("Buddy") Macy of New Jersey who in the past three years has become an impassioned advocate of justice for the deportees and for accountability and meaningful action from American Jewish organizations on behalf of an intact Israel.

Macy had served as a recording secretary, fundraiser and trustee for the Jewish Federation in northern New Jersey for 25 years. In February 2006, he resigned to protest the national UJA/UJC refusal to begin emergency funding for the refugees and for the organization's silence about the brutal ethnic cleansing of Jews from Amona, 18 miles north of Jerusalem. Since then, Mr. Macy has pressed actively for mainstream Jewish leadership to assist and educate Americans about the embattled position of the Jewish people in the Promised Land.

In response, he has heard that "we don't need another meeting," in other words, "go away and don't disturb our cozy ties to policymakers in Washington." This dismissal now includes the refusal of two prominent American Jewish leaders, Howard Rieger of the United Jewish Communities and Malcolm Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to participate in a debate/discussion about the mistreatment of Israel's internal refugees and the fact that Israel's government refuses to respond to the war against it with military action that would truly protect its citizens, suppress Hamas and establish a basis for true peace.

Clearly, these topics are of great importance to all Americans and, in fact, to all people. Yet as often happens when the official truth will not bear scrutiny, genuine discussion remains unheard. But the matter is still open; like poverty in the attic, hard truths will not go away.

On May 30, 2008, Macy e-mailed Rieger and Hoenlein with an invitation to join in a debate with Dr. Arieh Eldad, member of the Knesset, retired brigadier general and head physician in the IDF, and me, both of whom were prepared to debate. His e-mail and follow-up telephone calls to Rieger and Hoenlein went unanswered. The "leadership" still ducks discussion; no surprise: their posture as champions and helpers of the Jewish people in the Promised Land would be discomfited by a full airing of what they have done (helped sell the "peace processing" of Israel) and failed to do (be genuine, vigorous and public defenders of Israel's biblical heritage and legal rights to all the land west of the Jordan River).

Education is essential to leadership, but we find in all fields that education has been corrupted by those in positions of authority. This betrayal of trust is at the core of many crises in the modern West and its taproot, Israel. In a follow-up email this week, Macy wrote his readers that by refusing an informative discussion, Rieger and Hoenlein "have once again demonstrated that they are unfit for their positions of Jewish leadership." The same could be said for AIPAC, which serves our diplomatic echelons by "koshering" all candidates for president, even one with ties to Hamas and Fatah.

Among the points obscured from Americans and from Jewish communities around the world is the fact that the Road Map phase of the peace process, an Orwellian misnomer, demands the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the historic heartland of the Jewish people and their holiest sites, even from the Temple Mount where Jews are forbidden to pray. True Jewish leadership would alert American and world Jewry and their friends to these brutal facts; but those in office do not truly lead. The same is true in Israel, which has not had genuine Jewish leadership in the 60 years since the state was re-born. If it had, the military victories of 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982 would have been secured, not thrown away; we would live in a different and better world.

Just as Americans watch the jobs, education, borders and health system disintegrate while Congress fiddles and candidates emit sound bites, the failure of American Jewish leadership and the erosion of the status of Israel in Washington was clear at the State of the Union address when ALL members of Congress applauded plans to carve a state for a "non-people" called "Palestinians" from the center of Israel. Talk of surrendering the Golan Heights, site of much Jewish history and of one of the six "cities of refuge," elicits nothing from the ostensible leaders of American and world Jewry.

Throughout the West, as in Israel, failures of leadership signal civilizational collapse. Jewish "leaders" say nothing while Israel, pressed relentlessly by the "Quartet," delivers fuel, food and water to those showering her with rockets. Jews are discriminated against fiercely by Israeli courts; as WND's Aaron Klein has detailed, Jewish-owned land is given to Arabs who build while Jews are expelled. But American leaders are silent, and people go about their lives ignorant of the catastrophe hovering over Israel, Jews and the West.

All Americans need to hear the facts about these matters and to see how official Jewish leadership relates to the land and people of Israel. The burial of history threatens us all and is part of the godless new world emerging from many parts of our culture.

True Jewish leaders would declare unequivocally that a "Palestinian" state carved from the heart of Judea and Samaria would be a terrible blow to regional and world peace and a lethal offense against truth and memory. Dr. Eldad, head of the new HaTikva ("the hope") Party and whose father was a distinguished professor who worked for Jewish independence, notes that a "Palestinian" state will lead to the destruction of Israel.

The range of opinion in the American Jewish community is not being heard in the media. The American people do not favor a two-state solution and if better informed would oppose it even more strongly. Nor do they believe that true peace will result from arming jihadists termed "moderates." These matters need a public airing. If the emperor is naked, let us dress him with an honest and honorable policy that sustains our friends and disarms our enemies.

Eugene Narrett received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in NYC. He is the author of four books on Israel and geopolitics and has taught and created curricula in the Humanities since 1978.

This appeared today in World Net Daily

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, June 18, 2008.

Each year, the organized Jewish community in the United States spends tens of millions of dollars monitoring and tracking anti-Semitism, thanks in no small measure to a duplication of efforts among various Jewish organizations.

The result is that money that could be spent to strengthen Jewish life and Jewish education is instead frittered away needlessly. And ironically enough, as I argue in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, this plays right into the hands of the anti-Semites themselves.

Comments and feedback may be sent to letters@jpost.com or to me directly.

Michael Freund

What a colossal waste of Jewish resources. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent monitoring and examining, exploring and investigating the extent of global anti-Semitism.

Reports are compiled, press conferences are held, and trends are carefully studied and assessed, all as part of a monumental effort to track the spread of that age-old virus known as Jew-hatred.

On the governmental level, the US State Department maintains an Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism, while Israel runs its own Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism.

Universities from Yale to Hebrew U have created centers to study the phenomenon, and then, of course, there is the alphabet-soup list of American Jewish groups, such as the ADL and AJC, all of whom make a fine living by sounding the alarm over anti-Jewish bigotry.

And yet, despite it all, confusion still reigns regarding the very nature of the beast. Who hates us so much? And why?

You'd think that after pouring so much time and money into the issue, we'd have a better grasp of the subject.

Now consider the following. The Anti-Defamation League, based in New York, which bills itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency," spent over $76 million in 2006.

That same year, the American Jewish Committee laid out more than $48 million, while the American Jewish Congress shelled out another $6 million.

All told, these three self-styled US Jewish defense agencies, which are devoted to combating anti-Semitic hatred, spent over $130 million in just one calendar year.

Now, according to the ADL's own figures, the total number of anti-Semitic incidents reported in the US that year was 1,554.

That comes out, on average, to a whopping $83,655 per incident that these organizations are costing the Jewish people.

Is that really justified?

NOW, DON'T get me wrong. I'm all in favor of countering anti-Semitism and standing up to our foes. It is essential to educate the public, spotlight media bias and denounce those who hate us with all our might.

And yes, the three groups in question all do engage in a variety of activities beyond just combating anti-Semitism.

But at a time when budgets are tight and Jewish needs are growing at home and abroad, do we really need several overlapping Jewish organizations doing pretty much the same thing? Frankly, this is profligacy at its worst. And it comes with a hidden, yet painful, cost to the Jewish people and their future.

Indeed, just think about what all that money could achieve if it were put to better use, such as funding scholarships at Jewish day schools, subsidizing trips to Israel for Jewish youth or underwriting the costs of Jewish books.

If even half of the $130 million spent by these groups each year were to go towards strengthening Jewish education, it could have a far more profound impact on Jewish life than the issuance of additional reports on anti-Semitic outbreaks.

TAKE, FOR example, the mounting tuition crisis facing many American Jewish parents. Two months ago, the New York Jewish Week reported that tuition at Ramaz, a leading Manhattan yeshiva day school, will top $30,000 for 12th grade this year.

While other Jewish schools may be somewhat less costly, amounts such as these are proving increasingly prohibitive for many parents, and will ultimately deter at least some of them from giving their child a proper Jewish education.

Imagine if the organized Jewish community instead decided to divert that same $130 million each year towards scholarship funds. It could literally change the lives of thousands of young Jews and keep more of them Jewish.

But that, unfortunately, isn't happening. And as economists like to point out, every decision contains within it an "opportunity cost", such that money spent on "combating anti-Semitism" is therefore no longer available to educate Jewish children.

Consequently, at a time of declining Jewish demography, rising intermarriage and growing assimilation, the US Jewish community's spending priorities are strikingly out of touch. They reflect the realities of America back in the 1950s rather than today.

And so the wasteful expenditure of funds on outmoded and increasingly irrelevant Jewish organizations in effect only serves to further undermine the Jewish future by draining away scarce funds. Ironically enough, that is precisely what the anti-Semites themselves want to see happen.

SO I suggest it is time for US Jewry to rethink its priorities, and reorient its expenditures.

Instead of worrying so much about the haters, let's start concerning ourselves more with those whom they hate.

And let's start spending more of communal funds to ensure that Jewish youth continue putting on yarmulkes, rather than worrying so much about the anti-Semites who occasionally try to knock them off.

Fighting Jew-hatred is important, and needs to remain a priority. But when it comes to investing in the Jewish future, and ensuring our survival as Jews, everything else simply pales in comparison.

Michael Freund is the head of Shavei Israel and a columnist for the Jerusalem Post.

This appeared in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659757369&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

To Go To Top

Posted by The Patriot Post, June 18, 2008.

Foreign jihadis such as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed now have constitutional rights


"The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
–– Thomas Jefferson


"All hail the imperial court. In a bitterly divided 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in Boumediene v. Bush that alien enemy prisoners, waging a jihad against the American people and captured by our military in a war authorized by Congress, have a right –– under our Constitution –– to petition our courts for their release. So doing, the Court invalidated laws it had only recently implored Congress to enact, laws that provided these prisoners with generous protections never previously extended to enemy operatives in American history. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, dictates that Americans must regard enemies as if they were mere criminal defendants, entitled to an exacting legal process –– access to discovery, witnesses, counsel, etc. –– that will, as a practical matter, make it impossible to detain them without shutting down interrogations prematurely and informing the enemy of our national-defense secrets. There can be no justification for this stunning conclusion... The runaway justices say that foreign al-Qaeda killers detained in Cuba can march right into the federal district courts and demand what, suddenly, are their constitutional rights. In those courts, judges –– without guidance and emboldened by the high court's usurpation of war powers –– will be encouraged to make it up as they go along: More access to classified information? Subpoenas commanding the testimony (and cross-examination) of our soldiers regarding the circumstances of capture? Miranda warnings? Prompt access to counsel, which is certain to halt any questioning –– and thus any revelation of lifesaving intelligence –– before it can even start? Full-blown trials in the criminal-justice system with the same presumptions of innocence, privacy, and other privileges vested in American citizens? And who will adjudicate the resulting mess? Our imperial court, of course."
–– National Review


"Now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to affirm a variety of rights of terror suspects held at Guantanamo, a new book is out exposing the harsh realities of Gitmo –– the diet on which detainees have gained weight –– the soccer fields and basketball courts –– the letters home about mild weather and beautiful sunsets –– and the detainees who don't want to leave." –– James Robbins Break "Once upon another time, namely Franklin Roosevelt's, most of a group of German saboteurs that had infiltrated this country were caught, tried by a military tribunal that was convened by executive order for that purpose, promptly convicted and then executed –– all within seven weeks. Can anyone imagine that kind of swift and effective justice from this court?"
–– Paul Greenberg


Sympathy for the devil: "Next, we turn to the Supreme Court, which... handed the Bush administration a stinging defeat. The justices ruled 5 to 4 that foreign terror suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison do have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in court. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the president and the Congress can't switch the Constitution on and off at will." –– ABC's Charles Gibson on the court's spin on the Constitution Break "The ruling essentially tells the Bush administration no more halfway justice at Guantanamo, that the detainees there, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy, 'have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.' That simple statement gives the 270 detainees the right to challenge their detentions, not at a military tribunal, but in front of a U.S. judge. ... Lawyers for the detainees called it a victory for America's reputation around the world."
–– CBS's Wyatt Andrews [Not to mention a victory for our enemies.]

Contact The Patriot Post by email at patriot-ED13688348@m1.PatriotPost.US

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, June 18, 2008.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Tuesday that in his estimate, the calm in Gaza will be "fragile and short."

"We have to make the most of the calm but prepare for an incursion. We are on a collision course." He said that the IDF's cumulative attacks on Hamas made the calm more likely than it would have been otherwise.

The Head of the Research Department for Military Intelligence, Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, told the committee that Hamas does not see itself as responsible for making sure the other terror organizations respect the calm. "The ones responsible for calming the other groups are the Egyptians," he said. He also estimated that Hamas will try to use the period of calm to dig tunnels into Israel, and will continue to smuggle weaponry into Gaza

Calm to begin on Thursday

A senior Egyptian source announced Tuesday afternoon that a lull in the hostilities between Israel and Hamas would begin on Thursday morning. Egypt's government news agency quoted a senior Egyptian political source, who claimed that both sides had agreed to implement the first stage in Cairo's plan for a ceasefire, which would include an end to mutual attacks.

Hamas, too, was quick, on Tuesday evening, to announce the upcoming ceasefire. arch-terrorist Mahmoud A-Zahar called a news conference and said that the calm would begin Thursday at 6:00 a.m. He added that there was "no connection" between the calm and a deal for the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit. He did say, however, that if Israel respects the calm, this would "advance" the release of the captive soldier.

Earlier on Tuesday, the IAF successfully targeted the gunmen involved in the 2006 kidnapping of Cpl. Shalit.

A-Zahar also said that "the calm is a victory for the resistance organizations who took up arms, and its meaning is that the [Israeli] siege on Gaza has failed."

Barak: too soon to announce calm

Israel, however, has not come out with statements similar to those by Egypt and Hamas, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak said it was too early to make such proclamations. Barak added however that the two sides were "examining the possibility" of announcing a calm.

Speaking at the "Sheatufim" philanthropic conference in Beit Yehoshua on Tuesday, Barak said that "the IDF is prepared for any development, but it is important to maximize the chance for a truce in order to promote calm among the Gaza Belt communities, in addition to negotiating the release of Gilad Shalit."

"The test will be in the implementation," he explained. Barak said. "It is hard to estimate how long [a calm] would last," he added.

Gilad in Cairo

Senior Defense Ministry official Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad will be holding talks in Egypt Tuesday evening with the head of Egyptian intelligence, Gen. Omar Suleiman, regarding the plan for a 'calm' in Gaza. Egypt's intelligence chiefs met with a Hamas delegation from Gaza in the last few days, and the delegation is still in Cairo. According to Haaretz, Egyptian officials may conduct a series of consultations with both sides, according to a model similar to that used by Turkey in mediation between Syria and Israel.

Vice Prime Minister Chaim Ramon reiterated his opposition to a calm with Hamas in a speech at a memorial ceremony for terror victim Nir Regev Tuesday. "It's another victory for radical Islam," he said. "It [Radical Islam] won in Lebanon and now in Gaza. So why be moderate? After all, why is Hamas seeking an agreement? Because this will be their chance to represent Gaza as a Hamastan state."

Ramon: calm is Hamas victory

Ramon warned, "there will be an [IDF] incursion in the end,but it will take a much higher toll in lives. The reason Hamas wants the calm is that it can no longer stand the siege and the actions we are taking against it."

Nachi Eyal, the head of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, said in response that Ramon is "the father of the Disengagement doctrine and the evacuation of Gaza, and instead of handing out advice he should resign and go home." Ramon "is the last one who can give Israel advice," he added.

Gil Ronen is a writer for Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews).

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, June 18, 2008.

This comes from the Sultan Knish website:

Do you know how powerful AIPAC is?

It's so powerful that the Bush Administration is currently telling Jews in Israel that they can't live in parts of Jerusalem and Samaria, because they really belong to the Marxist Fatah terrorist group that the US has lavished billions on and whose leader, President Bush has praised effusively, despite Fatah's role in the murder of both Israelis and Americans.

No other country in the world gets this treatment from America.

Condoleeza Rice hasn't traveled to Turkey 22 times to tell it to get out of Cyprus. In 2003 Turkey received a 1 billion dollar economic assistance package. In response Turkey blocked the US entry into Iraq crippling the war effort and is doing its part to destabilize Iraq with occasional invasions and bombings. That's because Turkey was holding out for 32 billion. Washington had been prepared to go only as high as 26 billion.

In 1992-93, the US turned over over 1500 tanks and over 50 fighter planes to Turkey, yet without being attached to any US veto over how Turkey fought terrorism... as is always the case when it comes to Israel.

Clearly we can see how powerful AIPAC is.

When Bush arrived for the AIPAC dinner, his speech told AIPAC deletes Israel would have to make sacrifices and concessions. When was the last time a President came to a major lobbying group and told them they have to make sacrifices? Yes folks, that's how powerful AIPAC is.

Today under the All-mighty AIPAC, which as all good disciples of Walt and Mearsheimer know controls American foreign policy, the US is pressuring Israel to divide its own capitol. Clearly AIPAC's power has no limit.

Yes the US gives Israel billions in foreign aid. The US also gives Egypt, Jordan and a raft of Muslim countries billions in foreign aid. Israel got 2.1 billion in military aid in 2003. Egypt got 1.3 billion in military aid. Israel is pro-American. The majority of Egypt's population thinks America is the Great Satan. Israel has provided the US with classified Soviet equipment, intelligence, reliable points of operation and an unshakable alliance. Egypt has provided the US with another third world Muslim dictatorship to sink money into, albeit one that doesn't even have any oil. Egypt began receiving foreign aid in exchange for ending its ties to the USSR. Today Egypt gets foreign aid in exchange for not allying with America's enemies, despite the fact that it gives nothing back.

Do you want to know how really powerful AIPAC is?

The US has pumped billions into the Palestinian Authority, a hive of terrorism, corruption and greed. In 2007 alone the US kicked in over half a billion to the Fatah run PA. 150 million of it came in cash. The PA received "the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere," according to former World Bank country director for Gaza and the West Bank, Nigel Roberts. Do you know where a good deal of that money keeps going? Look at the dead Israelis. That's your answer.

That's how powerful AIPAC is. That's how in control AIPAC is.

When he was running for office Bill Clinton promised Jewish voters that he would move the embassy to Jerusalem, as is the normal case in every country. He lied. Then Bush promised the same thing. He lied too. On and on, Clinton and Bush have prevented the embassy from being moved. Both Clinton and Bush created "peace plans" that would split up Jerusalem. That's how powerful AIPAC is.

The same folks who rant on about AIPAC talk about US foreign aid to Israel. They don't talk about the price of that military aid. The US holds veto power over Israeli military action, even in self-defense.

In 1967 the US didn't have that power and when Egypt, Jordan and Syria gathered to make war on Israel. The Johnson administration fumed over the Samu Incident and took Jordan's side. But Israel was free to strike first and disable the armies of 9 Arab nations that had been gathered to destroy it.

In 1973 US foreign aid was high and the US had veto power. This time Israel was not allowed to strike first. This time the enemy struck first on Yom Kippur and Israel was nearly cut in half and overrun. Israeli soldiers fought desperate pitched battles, outmanned and outgunned, including some of the bloodiest on the Golan Heights where handfuls of brave soldiers and officers put up a last ditch resistance against Assad's Republican Guard, kissing cousins of Saddam's Baathist regime in desperate battles that made names like Zvika Greengold and Shmuel Askarov into legends. By the time the Nixon administration realized it had gone too far and began sending aid, there would have been no Israel if not for those brave men who stood and fought the enemy. And when Israel began to turn the tide, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger flew off to negotiate a cease fire while rejecting Israel's request to first settle the status of POW's, something that would have saved Israeli soldiers in captivity from brutal torture and mutilation.

And yes AIPAC was around then too. Since then the US has repeatedly pushed plans that would have Israel turn over the Golan Heights high ground that those men fought and died for to Syria.

Yes, AIPAC is all powerful indeed.

The US pours billions into foreign aid for Israel's enemies. The US pays the salaries of Fatah's milita thugs who shell Israeli towns and carry out drive by shooting attacks on Israeli families driving home at night. Behold the might of AIPAC.

US Congressmen blame Israel for the Gulf War, fought to liberate Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The war that left Israel helpless in the face of Saddam's attacks, warned by the Bush Administration that any Israeli planes that tried to take out Saddam's missiles, would themselves be fired on by Coalition warplanes. Because nothing could be allowed to interfere with the Arab support for the war. Behold the might of AIPAC.

Today the power of AIPAC is legendary, refered to as the Israeli lobby, the Zionist lobby when its opponents are trying to be disingenious, the Jewish lobby when they aren't. It's been described as more powerful than the NRA, yet the NRA has been triumphant while Israel is being progressively carved up.

There are a hundred lobbies, particularly industry lobbies, from the telecommunications industry, agribusiness, oil, pharmacheutical, that routinely get everything they want along with huge grants. Americans pay more for their medications, are subject to more corporate abuses and have less recourse than ever before. From Eminent Domain used to seize homes for private business interests to the Orphan Works Act which will make casual corporate appropriation of art and photos a fact of life to Mandatory Arbitration which denies the most basic individual right to legal recourse, corporate lobbies have never had it so good. And their success shows how laughable the idea of the all-powerful AIPAC really is. compared to the real power they wield and the results they have to show for it AIPAC isn't a tiger, it's a kitten.

Beyond the usual appropriations of foreign aid, much of which are used to fund defense contractors in the same Congressional districts that approve them, what exactly does AIPAC have to show for it all? The answer is damned little. Today the US is pushing the knife down across Israel. The Bush Administration has ignored its own commitments to Israel which justified Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Today Gaza is shelling Israel from the old Jewish towns and the burned out rubble of destroyed synagogues and Condoleeza Rice is making yet another trip to pressure Israel into turning the West Bank and half of Jerusalem to another bunch of terrorists and murderers.

Yes AIPAC is all powerful indeed.

AIPAC's power comes not from its effectiveness, but the myth of its effectiveness, a myth rooted more in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, than in any tangible results. The myth of the All-Powerful Jew who is at once weak was the same bigoted propogandist's cartoon of the hooknosed Jew and his all powerful influence that animated both German Nazism and Soviet Communism.

When WW1 was fought the anti-war movement claimed that the Jews were behind it. The anti-war movement on the far right and left has dusted off those claims again, as they commonly do, except this time they have a name that's shorter and punchier than the Elders of Zion. AIPAC. It even comes with its own acronym.

The same bunch of liars, loons, nuts, idaaaaaaaaaaaaaasiots and crazed bigots who crawl with Jewish obsessions the way a stray dog crawls with lice, develop the same material that is then upsold and mainstreamed for the Washington Post, the Atlantic, the New Yorker and Salon, by way of the Huffington Post and DailyKos. Their myth of the All-Powerful AIPAC is the myth of the All-Powerful Jew, a myth that liars and bigots, radical socialists and far right nationalists have always needed to explain their own miserable inadequacies and failures and to give the mob something to bay about.

The military industrial complex is a vague diffuse thing. But the Jew is a very real image. Shout that the Military Industrial Complex controls America and you need a book to understand it. Shout that the Jews control America and you can leaf through the book and get right to the hating.

Yet if Israel controls America, the reasonable person must ask why Israel's territory keeps shrinking, why the US holds Israel to standards that no other country is held to, why every other country is free to fight terrorism, while Israel's terrorists are funded, armed and trained by the US.

If the Israel lobby was only a fraction as powerful as its enemies say it is, families in Israeli towns wouldn't be shelled by terrorists whose salaries are paid by Washington D.C. If AIPAC was the all-devouring force its enemies describe it as, Israel would be able to build houses in its own capitol without having to ask Condoleeza Rice for permission. At the very least the US embassy might actually be in Israel's capitol, instead of Rice flying to Israel with another plan to carve up that same capitol for those same people shelling Israeli towns on the US dollar.

There is no All-Powerful AIPAC. AIPAC is nothing but a shortcut, a way for politicians to cheaply impress Jewish voters and solicit Jewish donations and votes. For its membership AIPAC is a lazy way to show concern. For its officers AIPAC is a means of meeting and greeting politicians while holding rubber chicken dinners. AIPAC is not helpless, but neither is it any more than a crossroads where politicians promise what they don't intend to deliver and give eloquent speeches they take back after a week in office... serving the same function as so many other lobbies do.

For antisemites, the acknowledged and the unacknowledged, AIPAC is something far more potent –– the very essence of the Jewish myth, the tentacled Jewish octopus reaching its way into every office and organ of government. For them AIPAC is the Jewish Bigfoot come to life and rampaging across Washington D.C., strangling Congressmen, compelling obedience and forcing George Bush to phone Sharon every time he needs instructions. Old bigotries don't go away and the power of antisemitic myths is not banished by electric lights and cable modems. It's simply distilled, cooked, boiled in the lunatic mind and poured out to fit the mold of a new generation.

Behold the All-Powerful AIPAC.

But let us step away from that myth for a moment and return to Zvika Greengold, born in a Kibbutz named after the Ghetto Fighters who fought their own last stand against the Nazis, fighting alone in a single damaged tank against brigades of Syrian armor.

That night, the information officer finally gets through to command HQ and asks for instructions for the following day. Silence.

"What?" he hears... "You're still alive?"

Taken aback, but recalling the last wishes of his late brigade commander, he replies slowly, "Yes, we're still alive" and replaces the receiver.

That is the real Israel and that is the real Jew who shell-shocked, battered and beaten has fought his way through thousands of years of recorded history to be here today when the Pharaohs and Emperors, Tyrants, Caliphs, Kings and conquerers who have trampled us have come and gone. The world calls on the phone, unable to believe that this "fossil of history" is still alive, despite everything.

"Yes, we're still alive," the Jew says and replaces the receiver, turning to face whatever may come in the long night.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 18, 2008.


"In accordance with political echelon directives, the IDF has formulated an extensive plan to ease restrictions for" the P.A. Arabs. The changes include a 40% increase in P.A. Arabs allowed to work in Israel, 5,000 more allowed to stay overnight, many checkpoints removed and others made more convenient for Arabs, more industrial zones to build, a hospital in northern Samaria, legalize thousands of" illegal P.A. Arab houses (while it denies final approval to Jews' houses), train more P.A. police and open more police stations (IMRA, 6/3).


The government plans to spend a hundred million dollars improving the infrastructure and on family subsidies for people to move into Siderot and the surrounding area (IMRA, 6/3).

The newcomers would take the place of thousands who fled the unremitting bombardment from Gaza. It would be cheaper and saner to invade Gaza and remove the terrorists. Then people would return to Siderot on their own.

One can just see the ads: "Move to Siderot for subsidy and free fireworks from Gaza. The government will buy exploded rockets as scrap metal."


Persecution preceded the Hamas regime but has accelerated under it. "The targets have included churches, Christian and United Nations schools, the American International School, libraries and Internet cafes."

On May 31, "...gunmen attacked the guards at the Al Manara school, stole a vehicle belonging to the Baptist Holy Book Society which operates the school and threatened the society's director." Hamas doesn't punish the perpetrators and doesn't stop the attacks. Al-Qaeda admits it intends to drive the remaining Christians out (Arutz-7, 6/3).


Police withhold wiretap evidence that exculpates suspects (Arutz-7, 6/3).


Egyptian maps do not refer to Israel. They show a single entity, "Palestine." (Arutz-7, 6/3).

Egypt was supposed to recognize Israel and to have made peace with it.


Syria gave out word that it would not let the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) inspect nuclear sites still suspected of being active, only the bombed one that Syria cleaned up and paved over. Not much use, the IAEA! Actually, it is counter-productive, between its loopholes and biases.

After hearing about Syria's nuclear development, several other Mideastern countries embarked upon their own nuclear development. One of them is Jordan. It claims that its development will be peaceful.

Do you believe that? They always say it is peaceful. However, as they develop expertise and set up dual-possibility usage, they can come very close to having a bomb. Then it is just a short sprint to the nuclear bomb club. Iran already is sprinting, even while it both threatens to destroy other countries and claims its development is civilian. If civilian, it wouldn't have perfected certain processes and capabilities exclusively military.

The UNO Human Rights Council is hearing demands to expel a Jewish observer organization whose delegate criticized the Council's deficiencies and Hamas' genocidal charter. His alleged sin is veering off the agenda, the actual sin is criticizing the Council. The agenda is Israel. Israel is always the agenda. The mass-murderers and bigots who control the Council specialize in Israel, which does not violate the rights of Muslims. Israel does violate the rights of Jews, but the rest of the world doesn't care and most Jews don't know about it.

A friend called up excitedly to alert me that candidate Obama was about to address AIPAC. I asked her what is he lying about, this time? Turns out that, just for them, he said Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital, and got a standing ovation. Too convenient for suddenly eliciting Jewish support. And the audience fell for it! The newspaper showed a picture of Sec. Rice, too, receiving a standing ovation at AIPAC. She is Israel's foremost foreign adversary (Peres and Olmert being its foremost domestic adversaries). Like the other US officials, she doesn't admit to being anti-Zionist. She must have told the delegates that she favors Israeli security, and they don't seem aware that she spends half her time demanding that Israel cease most of its security efforts and join the US in supporting certain anti-Israel terrorists. Upon receiving a standing ovation from that crowd, she must feel particular contempt for us Jews. We don't know who our enemies are.

At AIPAC, PM Olmert said he might make a peace with Syria that would preserve Israeli security and isolate Iran. Fat chance of weaning Syria from Iran, which props up Syria's economy and may be helping it to regain control over Lebanon! Olmert's offer of the entire Golan, which has natural barriers to Syrian invasion, would make Israel most insecure. How could Syrian then resist the temptation to invade? Syria is not benign. An indicator of Syria's attitude is that after having been offered the whole Golan, Syria now is demanding Lake Kinneret (30-40% of Israel's water supply) and some Israeli cities. There's no end to Arab demands!


The number of terrorist attacks has fallen drastically since 2004. A major reason is Muslim disillusionment with the terrorists for attacking them.

Another reason is, "After 9/11, the president mobilized all forms of American power against bin Laden and his global jihadist movement. The constant pressure –– cutting off the movement's funding, bringing down the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, hunting down jihadist affiliates in the Philippines and the Horn of Africa, spying on the terrorists' global communications –– put the enemy on the defensive for the first time."

"Then the President denied the jihadists an ally by removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Bin Laden declared Iraq the 'central front' of his war against the West, and the Sunni insurgency helped Al Qaeda in Iraq gain a foothold there. Bush changed strategy last year, sending reinforcements to Iraq and ordering General Petraeus to secure the country's population. The results have been dramatic. By the time the first reinforcements arrived in Iraq, the Anbaris were already turning against al Qaeda. The Americans helped to almost completely eliminate the group in Anbar. Al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run."

Terrorism, however, is gaining in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza (and Abbas' P.A. and in Europe).

The Left analyzed the situation all wrong. It contended that Iraq was lost, that Iraq would cause a buildup in al-Qaeda, that military power would do us no good, that a war on terrorism is futile. Pres. Bush has demonstrated that we can win the war on terrorism.

The Left still wants to flee from Iraq. They would turn looming victory into defeat (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/4 from Matthew Continetti). One of those defeatists is running for President.

Someone observed that the success of the surge in Iraq shows that we entered the war with too few troops. We needed the larger number from the outset.


Syria is providing Hizbullah with additional weapons, such as missiles and rockets, while negotiating peace with Israel (IMRA, 6/4).

Smell a rat? Syria could even make peace, but let Hizbullah carry on a war.


A reporter asked the State Dept., "On the settlements issue, do you draw a distinction between expansion of existing settlements and the creation of new ones?"

"MS. PERINO: No, we –– well, I would have to go back and look at exactly what the road map language has. I don't think I have it with me here. But we know that even if it is a settlement that exists and there's expansion of that settlement, that that is part of the problem in terms of Palestinians feeling that that is not acting in good faith when it comes to their negotiations. Obviously the Israelis see it from a different point of view,..." (IMRA, 6/3.)

Did the US draw up a confused document or does the US no longer state frankly what the Road Map means? Why should Israel be bound by Map infringement on its freedom, an infringement to which PM Sharon objected at the time?

If the Map is clear on this, then the US should state what it means and not let the Arabs pretend, as they do with UNO Resolutions and International law that this clearly stated document means something it doesn't.


Egyptian diplomats are lobbying their European counterparts to disapprove of a plan for more trade with Israeli that could bring the Jewish states billions of dollars. Israel protested to Egypt.

Egypt is said to be retaliating against Israeli complaints that it allows arms smuggling into Gaza. The complaints led to a US bill that would reduce some US aid to Egypt unless Egypt eliminated the smuggling (IMRA, 6/3).

I don't believe that explanation. Egypt usually leads diplomatic efforts against Israel. Israel is slow to learn that Egypt has remained an enemy. It prefers to believe, contrary to the evidence, that Egypt has made peace with Israel.


The head of the Intl. Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) criticized Israel for having bombed Syria's nuclear reactor instead of asking the IAEA to inspect it and to get Syria to demolish it.

Now Syria is barring the IAEA from inspecting three other suspected sites. This indicates that Syria would have barred it from inspecting the reactor (IMRA, 6/3). Not likely that Syria would heed an IAEA request to demolish a nuclear reactor.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 18, 2008.

This was written by Ali Waked and it appeared today in Ynet News. Reuters contributed to this report

Damaged interests in Africa and having Livni declared persona non grata –– hours after Egypt's foreign minister threatens to use diplomatic muscle against Israel, sources familiar with Israel-Egypt relations tell Ynet exactly what kind of an impact Jerusalem can expect

Less than a day after Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit threatened to employ Cairo's diplomatic clout to strike at Israel –– sources familiar with Israeli-Egyptian relations reveal the plan of action to Ynet.

Egypt wields considerable influence in numerous countries all around the world and has the capability of using that power to damage Israeli interests, said the diplomatic sources on Monday, particularly stressing Cairo's sway over the continent of Africa.

"Egypt can strike at Israel on the diplomatic field and have Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni declared persona non grata in many nations, as well as deal a diplomatic blow to Israeli relations with those countries," one source said.

The source estimated that unless the current level of tension abate, Egyptian embassies worldwide would be ordered to move to a far more aggressive brand of diplomacy against Minister Livni and Israel in general.

"One more mistake on Livni's part –– as far as Egypt is concerned –– will be one mistake too many and may prove devastating for her and perhaps for the future of her career," said the source, who asked to remain anonymous.

The boiling point

Egyptian-Israeli ties have been particularly strained since Israel said this month it had sent a videotape to Washington that Israeli officials said showed Egyptian security men helping Hamas militants smuggle arms across the border to the Gaza Strip.

Livni also said last week that Egypt had done a terrible job of trying to stop arms smuggling to Gaza via Egypt's Sinai peninsula, and said there could be regional implications.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused Israel of fabricating evidence to implicate Egyptian security men in arms smuggling and said Livni had crossed "red lines".

Egypt also accused Israel last week of encouraging pro-Israeli groups in the United States to lobby members of the US Congress to the detriment of Egyptian interests. Cairo said Israel was trying to distract attention from Jewish settlement building.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, June 17, 2008.

While media attention has been focused on the Palestinian track where no progress has been made and no real pressure applied, serious work has been going on with Syria.

You will recall that the Iraq Study Group under Baker recommended in November '06, that the US should engage Syria and Iran about Iraq without preconditions. While Bash and Rice rejected the recommendations publicly, they went about following them.

The Annapolis Conference held one year later was part of that new dialogue. Syria was induced to attend because, there was added to the agenda, under the title "Comprehensive Peace", the Syrian tract and the Lebanon tract. Syria left empty handed and began plotting moves to get satisfaction. In late January, Hezbollah started challenging the Siniora government in Lebanon. This culminated in a mini civil war followed by the Doha Compromise in the last week of May, which strengthened Hezbollah and installed General Sulieman as President. He is known as a Syrian ally.

Much to my surprise, the US backed the agreement and Israel used that as an occasion to announce peace talks with Syria under the auspices of Turkey. Evidently informal talks had been going on for some time. The timing of the announcement may have had more to do with Doha than with Talanski.

Just three weeks later Israel is conceding the Shebaa Farms. This can only signal a final deal with Syria is in the offing.

On Sunday two French emissaries visited Damascus with the offer of Shebaa farms. The next day, Condi Rice departed from her stated mission of moving the Palestinian tract forward to go to Beirut to cement the deal. Finally the EU announced an upgrading of ties to Israel with a perfunctory nod to the peace process.

The French are hoping to have both Syrian President Assad and PM Olmert attend their Conference of Mediterranean States on July 13 at which time the two would "meet". Finally, without interminable negations for the release of Goldwasser and Regev, as is the case with Shalit, we hear that the two are expected to be released within weeks.

All these events are connected and suggest that a deal has been cut for he return of the Golan and final peace with Lebanon and Syria. It may be that the real reason for the "lull" with Hamas is to enable these events to play out. As I suggested in another article another reason for accepting the lull may be the belief that a future worse conflict can be avoided.

Bush gave a telling interview in Paris a few days ago in which he said

"When you go to the Middle East and you sit in my seat and listen, yes, there's concern about the Palestinian state. But the dialogue has shifted dramatically from 'solve the Palestinian state and you've solved the problems in the Middle East' to, now, 'solve the Iranian issue and you solve the problems in the Middle East'."

And so it has.

The US strategy is to first get Syria sorted away and then work on Iran with the full cooperation of the EU.

If all this comes to pass as I have suggested, a peace deal will be forced on Israel, and the PA the terms of which may already have been agreed to between Israel and the US. Just today Condi Rice is interfering in negotiations between Israel and the PA by siding with the division of Jerusalem. So much for allowing the parties to negotiate final status issues.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, June 17, 2008.

It is difficult to grasp. It is even difficult to accept. But it is no longer possible to deny the almost unthinkable truth.

Today the People of Israel and the State of Israel are facing a "clear and present danger" that is far more immediate –– and arguably no less lethal –– than any of the perils brewing in Tehran: The government of Israel.

There are doubtless those who would protest that such a harsh accusation is outrageously unreasonable. But they must confront the facts. They must not be allowed to ignore the undeniable:

It was the government of Israel that threw caution to the wind and –– in spite of dire warning as to the consequences –– initiated the Oslo process which brought carnage to the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa...

It was the government of Israel that –– in spite of the dire warnings as to the consequences –– foisted the disengagement plan on a misinformed, misled public and brought death and destruction to the civilian population in the South

It is the government of Israel that sits idly by while the forces of radical Islam in Gaza stockpile deadly ordnance, enhance the methods of their delivery, expand the ranks of their forces, and upgrade the level of their training –– with the same indifferent impotence as it did with regard to the forces of radical Islam in the north.

And now, the government of Israel has, what can only be described as brazen impudence, to inform its citizens that it is planning to expose them to even more –– and equally easily foreseeable –– dangers by considering the transfer of the Golan to Syrian control.

Indeed, if even the upbeat assessments of the Israeli representatives at the renewed peace talks are accurate, the notion of withdrawing from the Golan is still unacceptably rash and wildly irresponsible. For Assad's current sincerity (or lack thereof) is entirely irrelevant in appraising the proposed evacuation.

What is vital is not whether he appears genuine in his intent to honor any agreement with Israel, but whether he will be able to do so over time in the future. As the Gaza experience shows, regime changes can no longer be dismissed as a mere figment of the right-wing's demented imagination, nor as nothing more than rejectionist scare tactics. They must be considered a tangible possibility and factored in the decision-making process by responsible government.

There is an array of crucial questions that have to be given convincing answers before the possibility of relinquishing any element of Israeli control in the Golan is even countenanced:

  • What would be the Israeli response should Assad's minority regime be overthrown by radical successors who repudiate the agreement with Israel? In fact, the very agreement with the "Zionist entity" may be the catalyst for such a coup d'état –– especially if Assad was sincere in honoring it!

  • Moreover, still under the assumption of "Assadian" sincerity, if the Syrian ruler did indeed repudiate his ties with Tehran and the Hizbullah as demanded by Israel, who would keep him safe from vengeful Shi'ite wrath? The fate of Rafik Hariri in Beirut and Imad Mugniyah in Damascus demonstrate that in the Middle East neither high public office nor clandestine lifestyle can protect an intended victim from a determined assassin.

  • However, an actual overthrow of the current regime is not essential. If internal pressures, mounted from rejectionist elements, force Assad to retract all or some of his obligations, what is Israel's contingency plan? What would be Israel's response to a gradual renewal of support for Hizbullah and ties with Iran?

  • What if more clandestine Syrian "strategic" installations were uncovered? Could they be attacked –– or only politely protested?

  • What if "militants" established a presence in the demilitarized Golan –– with or without the tacit collusion of Damascus –– and rained rockets down on the north as happened in the south?

  • How does Israel plan to operate the national water system should the Syrians expropriate the water resources of the Golan and prevent them from reaching the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee,) or pollute them before they do? Water experts have consistently warned that this would have catastrophic effects for the country's water supply.

  • Media reports indicate that nearly all senior security officials –– apart from the head of the Mossad –– support the evacuation of the Golan, allegedly because otherwise the Syrians would be compelled to initiate hostilities. This leaves one to wonder why if the IDF cannot deter Syrian aggression with their capital Damascus in easy striking distance, how on earth will it do so when it is not?! Is there seriously any IDF general who believes that Israel's military position would be improved if the IDF deployed in the Galilee and the Hula valley rather than on Mt. Hermon and commanding ridges that control the approaches to Damascus?

  • And then of course there's the cost: With Washington openly unenthusiastic about dealings with Damascus and burdened by huge military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, where will Israel find the tens of billions of dollars that such a measure would require? For example, for evacuation of towns, villages, and farms; for the relocation, rehabilitation and compensation of their residents; for the evacuation of the military camps and installations etc.

  • What sacrifices should be made to allow such huge allocations of resources? Social welfare cuts? Slashes in university budgets? Cancellation of infrastructure projects? Withdrawal of medical services? How would the huge diversion of funds be possible with out siphoning off resources needed to deal with the Iranian threat?
  • The Israeli public must insist on convincing answers to all these questions before any negotiations on the Golan are even contemplated; it must demand they be provided before even considering disturbing the status quo on the most tranquil border the country has had for three and a half decades.

    In a democracy, the citizenry is ultimately responsible for its own fate –– and the citizens of this country have learnt, by bitter experience, that they can no longer unconditionally entrust their security to their government's judgment. It has been found too faulty too often.

    Contact Martin Sherman at ms6747@gmail.com.

    This article appeard in Ynet News
    www.ynet.co.il/english/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/ 1,2506,L-3548617,00.html

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Editor, Front Page Magazine, June 17, 2008.

    This was written by P. David Hornik and it appeared appeared in Front Page Magazine

    On Friday the Israeli Interior Ministry announced plans to build 1300 homes in Ramat Shlomo, a Jerusalem neighborhood in a part of Jerusalem that was occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, here for yet another visit, didn't like it a bit.

    As she told reporters on Sunday, "It's important to have an atmosphere of trust and confidence. Unfortunately I do believe, and the United States believes, that the actions and the announcements taking place are having a negative effect on the atmosphere for negotiations."

    She also complained about slow progress in improving Palestinians' quality of life in the West Bank –– "I recognize that we haven't made the progress that we would like to in terms of movement and access and removal of barriers. Particularly I am concerned about the outposts, which are illegal, even under Israeli law, and so I would hope to see more movement."

    She put the onus on Israel, in other words. Only one report that I've seen –– and it's in the Israeli press –– has her also saying, "While the issue of settlement construction may hinder the peace process, we have to bring the attacks on Israeli citizens to a stop. There is a lot we have to discuss." Oh yes, that little detail.

    If Rice's scolding had any benefit at all, it's that it evoked a little backbone –– almost –– even from Ehud Olmert, no one's idea of Mr. Ramrod-Straight. He told Rice Sunday evening that "We are not confiscating additional Palestinian lands but building in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem which are expected to remain in Israeli hands."

    Olmert, in other words, invented a nonexistent Israeli sin of "confiscating Palestinian lands" to make up for defending a fundamental Jewish value of living in Jerusalem. His spokesman Mark Regev was a bit more forthright, stating that "It is clear that the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem will remain part of Israel. It is not realistic that we freeze the lives of people in Jerusalem" –– the closest one can imagine to a little character being shown by the immediate Olmert circle.

    One wonders if, while she's here, Rice bothers reading the Israeli press. On Sunday she could have read in the Jerusalem Post –– a mainstream paper that favors a Palestinian, Muslim-Arab state in Judea and Samaria –– that

    As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Jerusalem on Sunday, top Israeli defense officials and IDF officers slammed two American-backed initiatives to deploy additional Palestinian forces in the West Bank, saying they are allowing terrorism to flourish.

    According to the defense officials, since 600 Palestinian Authority soldiers, who were trained by US defense contractors in Jordan, were allowed to deploy in Jenin last month, there has been an increase in terrorist activity in the city. On Sunday morning, a 20-kg. bomb detonated next to an IDF force in Jenin without causing any casualties.

    ...Terror suspects arrested by the PA forces were usually released in a few days or just hours later, another defense official said....

    Weapons provided by the US to the PA are finding their way to Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists in Jenin as well as in Nablus, where 3,000 PA policemen and soldiers have been deployed over the past year, a top officer in the Central Command said.

    In addition, defense officials said terrorists have infiltrated the ranks of the PA police and military....

    A certain problem of U.S. blinders when it comes to the Palestinians? No sign that Rice has become cognizant of such a problem or that it has affected her view of the Palestinians at all. And having managed not to be in Israel since the first week of May, when she made another bold effort to get Israel to take down checkpoints, Rice presumably missed the May 19 story about the

    20-year-old Palestinian carrying four pipe bombs [who] was shot dead...at an IDF checkpoint located south of Nablus in the West Bank....

    Corporal Michal Ya'akov of the military police recounted the incident: "A young Palestinian who seemed confused arrived at the checkpoint.... I asked him what it was that he had on his body."

    ...the Palestinian responded by saying "nothing" in Arabic while lifting his shirt and exposing the pipe bombs, which were strapped to the right part of his body.

    "I identified the explosive devices and yelled 'explosives in the checkpoint.'... The Palestinian raised his arms up for two seconds, then pulled them down and reached for the explosive device," she [Ya'akov] said. At this point the checkpoint commander shot the man dead....

    The Hawara checkpoint has seen several terror-related incidents in the past. A week-and-a-half ago a Palestinian was caught there with a 6-inch knife....

    The report goes on to recount several more such incidents –– and this is only one, albeit a major one, of the many checkpoints, roadblocks, and barriers in Judea and Samaria, which exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect Israeli citizens from being stabbed, blown up, poisoned, and the like.

    It's impossible to know what causes Rice to see the main problems in this corner in the world as Israeli building of homes in places she considers off limits to Jews, and a lack of "movement and access" for Palestinians requiring "removal of barriers." The best conjecture probably lies in her statement that "I know what it's like to hear that you can't use a certain road, or pass through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I know what it is like to feel discriminated against and powerless," which she followed with a description of her childhood in Birmingham, Alabama.

    In other words, her seeing the Palestinians in the image of southern blacks under Jim Crow –– a perception so cockeyed that it alone should have disqualified her from holding such an office. (To begin with, nobody had to inspect southern blacks at checkpoints because they didn't carry knives and bombs, seek to murder anyone, or seek anything but the rights they were denied –– but it should be too obvious to need spelling out.)

    Reportedly there's not much concern in Israel about Rice's latest round of criticism, and focus on the central Jewish value of Jerusalem, because she's seen as part of a distinctly lame-duck administration whose days are numbered. She has, though –– with the blessing of her boss, President George W. Bush –– further eroded the legitimacy of Israel's security concerns and Jewish essence, and whoever is her successor, if so inclined, will find it all the easier to continue her destructive path.

    P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 17, 2008.

    "According to UNRWA there are 4 million Palestinian refugees today. They are the only refugees whose refugee status is transmitted automatically to the next generations. Moreover, according to UNWRA, whoever lived in Palestine for only 2 years before leaving it, qualifies as a Palestinian refugee. UNRWA employs 22,000 people and spends 400 million dollars a year".
    –– from The Hostages of Hatred, a film by Pierre Rehov

    Compare and Contrast
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/abuanan/&no=5&tt=37 aerial image of "'Palestinian' refugee 'camps'" –– Wehdat, Jordan

    contrast with the tented refugee camps in Darfur
    http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F% 2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p% 3Ddarfur%2520refugee%2520camps%26sado%3D1%26fr2%3Dtab-web% 26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=300&h=200&imgurl=www.bu.edu%2Fbridge% 2Farchive%2F2005%2F04-29%2Fphotos%2Fdarfur02.jpg&rurl=http% 3A%2F%2Fwww.bu.edu%2Fbridge%2Farchive%2F2005%2F04-29% 2Fdarfur.html&size=19.4kB&name=darfur02.jpg&p=darfur% 20refugee%20camps&type=JPG&oid=aac83e6cc4c73176&no=2&tt=210

    The essay below was written by Hugh Fitzgerald and it appeared May 29, 2008 on Jihad Watch

    UNRWA is at this point a wholly-owned subsidiary of the PLO, or the "Palestinian" Authority, or of the Arab League, or of the two slightly-diverging branches of the PLO, the Fast Jihadists of Hamas and the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, who share the same ultimate goals but differ only on tactics and timing. Those goals are an end to a non-Muslim nation-state called Israel, with its Jews being forced to cry "give me dhimmitude or give me death."

    The personnel of UNRWA, save for a camouflaging handful at the top, are all Arabs –– all "Palestinian" Arabs, adept at promoting the Arab cause, and in misusing funds, and demanding still more, as those funds are used to promote that cause. The cause is not of Arab well-being, but of Arab rage, and Arab propaganda, against the scarcely-to-be-discerned-on-a-world-map tiny Infidel nation-state of Israel.

    No one ever dies, practically, who has ever been on the UNRWA rolls. And all kinds of local Arabs, who never lived in, and therefore never left, "Palestine" –– in Lebanon, in Jordan, in other places –– all saw the UNRWA gravy-train and signed right up as that shape-shifting thing, "refugees."

    UNRWA is corrupt and corrupting. It is a crock, a disgusting, if so far successful, effort to monopolize the attention and money of the U.N. and the soi-disant "international community" for the sake of the Jihad against Israel. Meanwhile, all the real refugees, the ones deserving of the most sympathy –– that is, not the children or grandchildren of this unique (and ever-expanding) group of local Arabs who are now so carefully called "Palestinians" –– are neither encouraged nor permitted to hand down forever the doubtful-in-the-first-place self-description of themselves as refugees. Hundreds of millions of much more worthy-of-attention refugees exist right now have existed during the past fifty years all over the world. None of them have received the same kind of monomaniacal attention that the "Palestinians" have. None have been the recipients of the endless billions of Western aid. None have been the cynosure of all those ngo'ed and quango'ed and international-community eyes. None have come to be regarded as their pet project by some dopes, along with, of course, the perennial antisemites who make up a small, but nonetheless very committed group. Jimmy Carter, for example, belongs to both groups, dopes and antisemites, though he would deny membership in at least the latter and assume that no one would think him, a "nuclear engineer," a member of the former.

    About 560,000 Arabs actually left Mandatory Palestine in the months before the Arabs attacked the nascent state of Israel, and then during that war. And, during that period and in the few years following, Jews in all the Arab countries were subject to intermittent pogroms. About a million Jews fled, with certainly far more than 560,000 of them coming to Israel. That is what is called an "exchange of populations," and it happened after World War I, with Greeks in Turkey and Muslims in Greece, and after World War II, during the Partition, with Muslims going to Pakistan (West and East) and Hindus going to India from the territories assigned to Pakistan.

    Those Arabs –– or some of them –– who did leave may well believe, at this point, that they really do constitute a separate "Palestinian people," but most of them know perfectly well that they are simply the local Arabs, sharing the same language, religion, culture, and all the other identifying characteristics of a people with Arabs of the same cult in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and so on.

    And they know, some of them, that their own connection to the land that Israel now possesses is quite recent, for in the nineteenth century the Ottoman vilayats that went later into forming the Mandate for Palestine were reduced to ruin and desolation, and the biggest town, Jerusalem, had a mere 15,000 residents. When the Zionists arrived, this was a late-19th century equivalent of the oil boom in the Gulf, and Arabs swarmed in, before and during and after World War I, and continued to arrive. More of them arrived as illegal immigrants than did Jews, who were kept out, in many cases, by the unsympathetic British authorities. How many Arabs know this? How many, for that matter, Israelis know this?

    And, of course, how many in the "international community" know much, know anything, about the land ownership? 90% of the land was owned by the Ottoman state. It then devolved to the Mandatory Authority, and was held essentially in trust for the intended beneficiary of the Mandate for Palestine. There were other mandates for the Arabs, and besides, they already had vast swaths of territory under their control, as all of the Arabian peninsula, that never fell within the League of Nations' Mandate system.

    Those Arabs who were called, however inaccurately, the "Arab refugees," after the Six-Day War started to be called "the Palestinians," for obvious propagandistic effect. And those "refugee camps" are not, as the name suggests, places full of transitory tents. They are whole cities, even in "impoverished Gaza." There "the worst human rights crisis in the world," according to the well-known antisemite Jimmy Carter, is currently to be seen. And he knows this because the "Palestinians," including those who staff UNRWA, tell him so.

    Almost all of the Arab states have decided not to allow, uniquely among their "Arab brothers," the "Palestinians" to acquire citizenship or, in Lebanon, to hold jobs. They would, ideally, like those "Palestinians" to be as ostentatiously wretched as possible (even though plenty live very well, their UNRWA dole supplemented by all kinds of activities, not all of them criminal in nature). And while even some of the "Palestinians" have publicly (well, publicly to fellow Arabs) discussed how the Arab states urged the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine to flee, and therefore have a responsibility to help pay for them, no Arab states, though many are swimming in gold, have felt the slightest need to help those "Palestinians."

    Of course, the invention of that "Palestinian people" –– and the careless way in which Israelis, too, contribute to the propaganda of their enemies by appearing to accept that very notion –– did a great deal to harm Israel (and the rest of the West) by providing a "national-liberation" cover for what was, is, and always will be a classic Jihad against an Infidel nation-state. That Jihad will not end, nor will its supporters be assuaged, by a further reduction in the size of Israel. The Arabs sometimes have a habit of letting things slip. Zuheir Mohsen, the leader of the terrorist group As Saiqa, happened to give an interview to James Dorsey for the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, in which he said this:

    The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

    For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

    Read the U.N. records, the records of what every Arab said, whether in a threatening or a cajoling tone, from 1948 or well before 1948, right up to the Six-Day War, and even for a short period beyond. It is only then that, out of the blue, comes this phrase "the Palestinian people."

    Before all that "Palestinian people" business, and before Israel came into the possession of the unallocated parts of the mandate, the "West Bank" and Gaza that Jordan and Egypt had seized in 1948-1949, and which Ben Gurion, unduly cautious, had not had the wit to seize back, there were far more people who had not been subject to a decades-long onslaught of Arab propaganda, and saw things more clearly.

    One such person was Elfan Rees, the Adviser on Refugees to the World Council of Churches on Refugees, who in 1957 wrote this in "The Refugee Problem Today and Tomorrow":

    I hold the view that, political issues aside, the Arab refugee problem is by far the easiest postwar refugee problem to solve by integration. By faith, by language, by race and by social organization, they are indistinguishable from their fellows of the host countries. There is room for them, and land for them, in Syria and in Iraq. There is a developing demand for the kind of manpower that they represent. More unusually still, there is the money to make this integration possible. The United Nations General Assembly, five years ago, voted a sum of 200 million dollars to provide 'homes and jobs' for the Arab refugees. That money remains unspent, not because these tragic people are strangers in a strange land, because they are not; not because there is no room for them to be established, because there is; but simply for political reasons.

    And that is where things stand now. These are the shock troops of the Jihad. They are no longer, if they ever were, a "tragic people." They have managed to turn themselves into people battening on a steady diet of hysteria and hate. Just look at every photograph of those car-swarms in Gaza, and those Hitlerian rallies, and those Der-Stuermer like photos and television shows that the "Palestinian" Arabs feed themselves.

    And as long as they are the spoiled children of the "refugee" world, as long as they hog the money and the limelight at the U.N. and in all of its constituent succursales and meetings (in Durban on "Racism" that turned into a kind of lynch-mob against Israel, in Cairo on "the family" that turned into a kind of lynch-mob against Israel, and so on), several hundred millions real refugees who are not political pawns, including a great many who are refugees because they are non-Muslims or non-Arab Muslims who have been fleeing the discrimination, persecution, and murder that Muslim Arabs have inflicted on them, will never get the attention they rightly deserve.

    Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Jonathan Spyer, June 17, 2008.

    At this past Sunday's cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert issued a public statement relating to the revived negotiations with Syria. The talks, the prime minister wished to assure us, were "serious" and would be conducted with "all due caution." All the ingredients familiar from peace processes past were present in Olmert's statement: the gravitas; the quiet sense that history is presenting us with a chance that must not be missed; the necessary discretion. However, in the manner now familiar from Olmert's tenure as prime minister, what we were presented with was the form of something, without its content.

    The revelation of negotiations with Syria last week came wrapped in the packaging of a diplomatic breakthrough. But it was nothing of the kind. The basic flaw relates not to Israeli domestic politics (though this may certainly be a factor). The reason why the current negotiations are almost certain to lead nowhere relates to the Syrian regime, and to its perception of its own interests. Syria should not be expected to break with Iran, for the following, central reason: The Iranians and their friends are winning. The Iran-led bloc can look around the region today, and feel a quiet sense of satisfaction. In all the various areas in which it is engaged in its long war with the West, Iran is gaining ground.

    Hamas, hosted by Syria and increasingly sponsored and trained by Iran, is holding on in Gaza. In doing so, the Hamas enclave there offers living proof of the muqawama (resistance) doctrine to which the Iranian-led bloc adheres. According to this doctrine, Iran and its clients can paralyze their enemies' decision-making ability, by making the cost of a preferred action too high. Israel knows that it ought to conduct a large-scale military operation in Gaza, in order to remove a regime that makes any peace process with the Palestinians an impossibility. But Israel doesn't act, because of the cost in lives that such an operation would entail. For Iran and its allies, this confirms a basic dictum: namely, that the shiny outward appearance of Western and Israeli strength conceals an inner weakness –– a lack of will.

    Iran and its clients have just scored an additional major victory in Lebanon. This, similarly, was gained by raw intimidation. The result was that in Doha last week, Hezbollah gained the key demand for which it has been campaigning over the previous 18 months: veto power in a new cabinet.

    This is of direct relevance to the Syrians. The Assad regime's interests have been aptly described as regime survival, returning to a position of influence in Lebanon and regaining the Golan Heights –– in that order. If Assad is currently interested in talking, it's because he genuinely would like to gain the third item on this list –– but not if it has implications for the other two items, which are more important. If quitting the Iran-led bloc is the price, it has direct relevance to both the stability of the regime and the Lebanese question.

    Hezbollah's new strength in Beirut will enable it to block and perhaps kill the tribunal investigating the murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. The tribunal has been one of the chief fears of the Assad regime since the assassination, in February 2005. More fundamentally, the rise of Hezbollah to the status of arbiter of power in Lebanon represents a very significant and clear gain for the Iran-led bloc in what has been one of the key arenas of its contest with the United States and its regional allies.

    Now, if Syria were to depart the Iran-led bloc, its place in all of this would evaporate: no more blocking of the Hariri tribunal, because there would be no more backing of Hezbollah. No return to Lebanon –– with its many economic opportunities –– because its new American friends will want to respect Lebanese sovereignty. No more influence over the Palestinians through the support of Hamas. Instead, the Assad regime would gain the basalt plateau of the Golan Heights –– the absence of which causes it no tangible discomfort –– and would in return become a vulnerable, minority-led dictatorship with no immediately obvious justification for its own existence.

    Why would the Syrians go for such a deal? Why would they leave the tutelage of a power that appears to be successfully defying the West over its nuclear program, and whose allies are managing to hold up well across the region? The answer is that they wouldn't, which is why the process is packaging without substance.

    Indeed, the very desire of Israel at the present time to break with American attempts to isolate Syria offers further proof that defiance works. Who is splitting whose alliance in this process, exactly?

    The bottom line is that peace will become a possibility in the region only when the pro-Iranian alliance is challenged and faced down. The attempt to decouple elements of it at the moment of its ascent is worse than useless. It conveys confusion, disunity and hesitancy at a time when the precise opposites of all of these are urgently needed.

    Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel.

    This article appeared May 30, 2008 in Haaretz.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 17, 2008.


    Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at fred343@gmail.com and see other of his graphics at http://fred343-fredfoolswithfotos.blogspot.com/

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Barry Rubin, June 17, 2008.

    Exaggerations of Israel's demise are greatly exaggerated, to paraphrase Mark Twain.

    The question is: why is this suddenly happening now and –– even more important –– what is the impact of this fad going to be? The answer to the second question is very surprising so keep reading.

    The suddenness of this trend is illustrated by a telling anecdote. Two years ago, a young senator named Barrack Obama went on a trip to Israel with a group. In his reactions at the time, Obama said that Israel was so strong that it could easily make big concessions for peace.

    Now, in his recent interview with Atlantic magazine doomsayer-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama said the exact opposite: Israel may disappear unless it makes big concessions for peace.

    First, one common thread is this: it is the latest trick for pretending that Israel should take big risks and make large concessions without getting much in return. Remember, there was the Oslo peace process which included the return of Fatah to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, its arming and supply with hundreds of millions of dollars plus Israel's offer to return the Golan Heights to Syria; the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, the pullout from the Gaza Strip.

    Given this experience, someone might conclude that concessions didn't work and that the Palestinians and Syria were not ready for peace. But such a conclusion is not permissible for those wedded to certain notions. Instead, they say: ignore all that because no matter how high the price you must make concessions and take risks in order to survive. Is this obvious nonsense? Yes. But obvious nonsense backed by the New York Times and McClain's in Canada, etc., drowns out the point that it is obvious nonsense.

    Second, of course, this expresses wishful thinking. A lot of people want Israel to disappear and thus feel good in asserting it is going to happen. The line in "pro-Palestinian" circles in the West seems to be that it doesn't matter that they lose all the confrontations, that their state-building effort has collapsed, and that the movement is more split than at any time in the last forty years. More important, they say, they now have control of the narrative. That and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

    There are also some ideological reasons on the left, or what passes for it nowadays, that have invested heavily in the idea of Israel disappearing. One is that nationalism is obsolete.

    This is clearly absurd. It might be disappearing in Western Europe –– I mean European nationalism, not that of the new immigrants –– yet it is not a generalized global phenomenon. Quite the opposite.[i] But the people who think this way want nationalism to die in their own countries very badly and detest those who have pride in their heritage.

    Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of such intellectuals are Jews. To have Israel as daily disproof of their thesis is particularly humiliating to them. Who cares about the lives of millions of Israelis, for them it is like a teetotaler with an alcoholic cousin, or a racist with an African-American one.

    There is also something here involving their own definition of Jewishness. Many have nothing to do with their background except when using it to denounce Israel (or exalt past Jewish suffering or great revolutionary "heroes" to magnify themselves). They have never understood Zionism and, despite their self-proclaimed humanitarian credentials, could not care less about the fate of Israelis.

    Finally, there is the most interesting and new aspect of the Israel-is-dead movement, what it tells about the politics of the new-new left and the many people its ideas have influenced. It is also closely related to the let's-kill-Western-civilization movement, too.

    Here are its mantras:

    –– If anyone is your enemy you have failed and cannot win. This is because all conflicts are bad and nothing can be gained from war,

    –– If people are fighting against you, especially if they are "Third World," non-Christian, and have an ideology, you cannot win. This is because nothing is worth fighting or dying for and no one would be carrying a gun if they could be drinking a latté instead. These people are the living embodiment of the negative radical Islamist stereotype of the West, effete cowards. It is, however, worth noting that the Nazis and Communists thought the same thing and were shown to be dead wrong.

    –– As a result of this thinking, though, the crowning argument is: If the other side won't give in, you must surrender.

    Maybe that's another reason why Israel irritates them so much, just as ideologues in past centuries hated the Jews: it defies their ideological system.

    Briefly, let me suggest that on the list of countries and societies unlikely to survive, Israel is at the bottom, not top, of the ratings. Take any Middle Eastern state and it is full of dangerous, perhaps fatal, problems: inept governments, stalled development, massive population growth, bitter rivalries. You want to put your money on the future of Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Egypt?

    Israel is the state and society in the region most likely to survive over the next century.

    And what about Europe? Aside from the EU's project of dissolving away those countries, plummeting birth rates, loss of self-confidence, and rapidly rising immigrant populations do not make their futures look bright. Sweden, Norway, and Holland are all well on the way to the cliff edge. One after another, European countries will be passing Israel in their proportion of Muslim population. If we speak of urban areas, those with the greatest cultural and political influence, they are already doing so.

    Even if you attribute nothing but good and moderate intentions to the immigrants, if they don't integrate into the existing society then they are going to transform it to the extent that countries like Britain, France, or the Netherlands as we have always known them could be said to have disappeared.

    Remember also that Israel's enemies are overwhelmingly outside its borders; the opposite is true for the Middle Eastern and European states. And it's easier for a coherent society to survive an external threat than a disintegrating one to weather an internal challenge.

    The bookies better set Israel's odds as better than the rest or they are going to lose a lot of money.

    You might remember that I promised at the start of this article to surprise you with the conclusion. So here it is?

    What effect does all this talk about Israel disappearing have? Simple. It assures radical Islamists and radical Arab nationalists that they will win. Thus it encourages Arabs, and especially Palestinians, to keep fighting rather than to make peace and act moderately or constructively.

    It promotes terrorism, recruitment to terrorist groups, violence against moderates, and dictatorships. After all, if victory is in sight why stop fighting? If triumph is possible than it follows logically that anyone who wants to make peace is a traitor who should be killed.

    While the authors of the Israel-is-dead movement enjoy career benefits and feel good, thousands of Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians will die as a result of what they are writing. Israelis will die, too, but not enough to make their predictions come true. Any possibility for peace will be set back for many years; any hope of a better life for the Arabs themselves will be postponed until after the predicted apocalypse.

    As William Shakespeare had Mark Anthony say of other men who brought disaster to the cause they supposedly revered:

    "O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth/
    "That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!..../
    "Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!"

    [i] For a devastating analysis on this issue, see Jerry Z. Muller, "Us and Them," in Foreign Affairs,
    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87203-p0/ jerry-z-muller/us-and-them.html

    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
    www.gloriacenter.org/index.asp?pname=submenus/articles/ 2008/rubin/5_18.asp

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Judith Klinghoffer, June 17, 2008.

    Slowly but surely it is beginning to dawn on a world mesmerized by the Democratic primary contest that an oil cartel has been picking our pocket with impunity by willfully failing to adjust its output to the additional needs of China and India. More specifically, Americans are beginning to wonder at the logic of continuing to keep Saudis safe. Hence, the US-Saudi oil axis faces a day of truth when president Bush will deliver diplomatically to his Saudi hosts the message NY senator Chuck Schumer delivered most undiplomatically:

    We are saying to the Saudis that, if you don't help us, why should we be helping you?

    And the Saudis are only NOT helping, they are hurting.

    The Saudis have let their output fall from 9.5m to 8.5m bpd over the last two years, camouflaging the move behind the accession of Ecuador and Angola to the group (which boosted nominal supply). OPEC failed to compensate for a 330,000 bpd drop in Nigerian production in April, allowing the market to tighten further.

    Saudi behavior baffles none other than Dr Fadhil Chalabi, a former OPEC secretary-general and now director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies:

    "They have about half a million barrels a day of good crude that they could put on the market. The puzzle is why they are not doing it. The soaring price is obviously telling us that the world needs more oil,"he said. "I can't understand why the Saudis would risk their strategic relationship with the US over this.

    "They need the US more than ever given the growing influence of Iran in the region," he said.

    Prior to President Bush's visit, the Saudis put out the word out that they would promise Bush to produce more though they would not help lower the price of oil regardless of Congressional threats to proceed with legislation penalizing the OPEC producers' cartel for "anti-competitiveness practices". But when Bush arrived they rebuffed him completely arguing that they had already increased production by 300,000 barrels per day earlier this month. Consequently, the Saudi oil minister insisted, all is well:

    "Supply and demand are in balance today... The fundamentals are sound."

    Ouch! but why?

    The short answer is: OPEC, including the Saudis, want to prevent oil from becoming obsolete. Alternatively, they want to make as much money as possible as long as possible and to be able to use their sovereign wealth funds to maintain the economic leverage they currently enjoy.

    And what will it take to change their mind? For what are they bargaining? That answer can be found in the Financial Times editorial entitled Time to convene a summit on oil:

    First, they want to see energy demands curtailed rather than supplies increased so that oil will continue to be able to meet that need.

    Second, they want oil consumers to continue to promote investment in oil and to promise NOT to invest in or subsidize seriously the development of alternatives to oil.

    Third, if alternative energy is to be developed, it should not substitute for oil, merely supplement it.

    Fourth, they want "to smooth the recycling of billions of dollars in oil revenues from producers back into consuming countries." In other words, end the growing scrutiny of sovereign wealth funds.

    Such demands make perfect sense from the oil producers' point of view as it will enable them to maintain their noose not only around the West's neck but also around Asia's neck. Indeed, I cannot imagine anything more dangerous than meeting these demands because it is bound to exacerbate the current world wide competition over energy supplies and even lead to another world war. Asians are particularly and justifiably annoyed with Western calls to limit their development.

    Nor should the dangers posed by sovereign wealth funds be downplayed, fashionable as it may be to do so. It is particularly useful to recollect the warnings issued by the editors of the FT as late as July 2007. Everything written then has only become more pressing now:

    The sheer volume of money placed at their disposal –– ING estimates that they manage $2,200bn, which could grow to $7,000bn to $9,000bn by 2015 –– adds a new dimension to the perennial sensitivities of cross-border buy-outs. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in calling for a European system to vet acquisitions by these funds, responds to genuine concerns over their opaque nature and potential to act through political motives. ... Yet the rapid growth of sovereign wealth funds poses risks beyond that of national security. There are worries over competence within some funds; concerns that their scale and ability to affect asset prices could lead to market volatility; and suspicion that they could help countries preserve a favourable currency regime. If decisions are swayed by political considerations, they could also undermine market discipline that matches rewards to sound corporate governance.

    Hence, the FT's editors call for an oil summit at which the oil producers' demands would be met is most disconcerting, as is their columnist Martin Wolf's idealistic recommendation that scarce oil be shared and shared alike:

    ... do try to reach global agreement on a pact on trade in oil based on the fundamental principle that producers will be allowed to sell their oil to the highest bidder. In other words, the global oil market needs to remain integrated. Nobody should use military muscle to secure a privileged position within it.

    Yes, and my grandmother has wheels. What is called for is a realistic recognition that the time has come to reduce, not enhance OPEC's economic power and that we will all pay dearly if we squander the opportunity to develop alternative energy sources (though not food based biofuel which leads to higher food costs), presented by the current high price of oil. For ultimately, nothing less is at stake than the peace and prosperity of our global community.

    These are comments submitted by American Thinker readers of the article:

    How about 500K bpd as the charge for protection. No pay, no protection and possible invasion. See if that makes their tent flaps, flap in the breeze.
    Posted by: Joe G. | May 17, 2008 11:17 AM

    Absolutely spot-on until the last paragraph. The "alternative sources" position is nothing more than wishful thinking. If such sources were viable, they would be producing now. Science proceeds in leaps and it is inherently unpredictable. We can't decide to make fossil fuels obsolete and do it any more than we can decide to make cancer obsolete. We can work towards that goal, like we work towards alternative fuels. We don't shut down chemotherapy centers while we devote all efforts towards some magic all-purpose cellular cure. Similarly, we have vast oil resources available to us at this moment. The Gulf of Mexico is in the process of being handed over to the Cuban-Chinese connection and the Sierra Club et al. are running this country's energy program. Peace and prosperity are the product of strength; strength is not derived from windmills, solar panels or anything other than fossil fuels. This stuff used to be called "natural resources" and it built this country and our way of life. The process of science will be proceeding as we continue to grow and flourish. Eventually, probably within the next century, breakthroughs will have occurred and gasoline, like the horse, will have a place in history. It's up to us to determine whether the Chinese and their pals are the ones driving the engine.
    Posted by: Julie Mckinley | May 17, 2008 11:58 AM

    We are reaping the bitter harvest of being crisis oriented instead of having had an energy security plan in place that provides us with a reliable, abundant, and, dare I say it, cheap, supply of energy. This piece merely complains about control of sources of petroleum of sovereign nations and cartels. Who are we to tell them how and when to market their resources? We are not developing our own resources in an effective manner. We will not drill. We will not develop new refining capability. We will not install new nuclear power generation facilities (instead we generate electricity with nat gas, an incredible waste of a precious resource). We bow down to environmentalism and act like neurotic self-destructionists about our economy and way of life (if you want to see REAL pollution, go to China!!). We install a few windmills and pat ourselves on the back. We drive in hybrids and pat ourselves on the back. Etc. Etc. Unfortunately, that will not get the job done! So, rather than look at ourselves and devise our own solutions for our problems, we prefer to be outraged about what people in other countries are doing to us. It's not a demand problem with others limiting our supply, it's a supply problem with us limiting our own supply.... We are the problem, but we could also provide our own solution.
    Posted by: amctavish | May 17, 2008 12:44 PM

    Congress has done nothing meaningful since 9/11 to help the US have real choices for alternative energy. We still can build many more nuclear plants, expand hydro-electric power options, open ANWAR to oil production, oil shale development, improve wind efficiency, etc.. On all these issues politicians, especially the treasonous Democrats, have failed to help the country. Even this Friday the Democrats on the the Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday blocked the Republican attempts to end its moratorium on oil shale development in Colorado. According to IBD: "This was no minor thing. Estimates put the amount of oil locked in shale in both Canada and the U.S. at more than 1 trillion barrels. Pulling out even a tenth of that would quadruple our current reserves."
    Posted by: OrthodoxNet | May 17, 2008 12:51 PM

    its easy to blame the arabs when the real problem is we allow a few fools to keep us from using our on oil.why should the saudie's help us we we wont help ourselfs
    Posted by: rmbechel | May 17, 2008 01:07 PM

    The Saudis are business people trying to strike the best deal they can both now and for the future. It is the height of hubris for any country to tell them how to do business. If we don't like it, we have to take our business elsewhere. If there is no other elsewhere, then we better start producing oil ourselves –– just like the good old days when we used to do that!

    As much as I hate the thought of paying the Saudis all this money for oil so that they can finance international terrorism, I find it just as appalling to be begging them to sell it to us.

    Meanwhile the liberals dig their heels in over nuclear power, increased drilling, and more refineries.
    Posted by: Ken | May 17, 2008 01:27 PM

    Supply and demand... U.S. pop growing toward half a billion by 2050. Mostly because of immigrants/offspring ...
    Posted by: Maggie | May 17, 2008 01:35 PM

    The facts are that we are in the position we are in because we let Environmentalism and NIMBY(not in my back yard) run amok. The idea that we have not added between 50 and 100 nuclear facilities in the last 25 years is the defination of absurd. The same can be said for the continued non-drilling in Alaska and offshore. We can only blame ourselves, we elected these idiots both locally and at the national level.
    PC will be out end
    Posted by: Lee –– Missouri Ozarks | May 17, 2008 03:18 PM

    Its hard to tell whether the biggest threat to our security is OPEC or Congress. OPEC usually seems to be acting well within the range of there own self interest, but I can't say as much for congress. Instead of acting to increase the supply of our own petroleum resources our congressional cowards:

    -restrict off shore oil exploration and production off both east and west coasts
    –– prevent drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico
    –– support so called environmental restrictions that prevent building refineries
    –– block drilling in a tiny corner of ANWAR
    –– effectively block drilling in the Chukchi Sea
    –– promote wasteful ethanol programs
    –– threaten oil companies with counterproductive retribution for making a profit
    –– Do nothing to promote the construction of nuclear power plants

    If Congress were to act to open up oil production,and move aggressively to develop other energy sources we would soon see a very different attitude in OPEC.
    Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 03:29 PM

    Julie McKinley:

    'The "alternative sources" position is nothing more than wishful thinking. If such sources were viable, they would be producing now.' Actually, there is a perfectly viable source –– the nuclear source, the most viable source. The only reason that it's not being used now on in a serious way is because the US Federal Government has issued restrictive legislation which: 1) fails to provide enough nuclear fuel 2) discourages utilities and the USN to recycle spent nuclear fuel (which is reusable) 3) discourages utilities from building new nuclear reactors.
    Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 17, 2008 03:34 PM

    The real problem is that the Saudi's are producing flat out. Those water drive resorvoirs have a definite end.
    Posted by: Clifford Hair | May 17, 2008 05:11 PM

    I am all for nuclear energy but until they can make a car run on plutonium we still need to explore and develop our domestic oil resources.
    Posted by: Jeffrey Shandorf | May 17, 2008 06:08 PM

    We created the cartel, we can break it. It requires resolve that the chattering nannys in our country do not have. We have oil, we just need to go get it. At this point it will take a while. If in fact a few hundred thousand barrels a day can change the picture we can do it. The problem is that being a rich nation we have spawned a bunch of folks who take their well being for granted and have not worked in a productive sense a day in their lives. We have created any number more lawyers than we need, many graduating from raidcally activist law schools. That is why we have this problem. Oil is messy but it can be produced with minimal damage. We have reserves all around this country that are economic at these prices. The problem is, it take years to get through the legal process. Too many folks believe transportaion runs on hot air. I love folks who object to all of this driving their eight cylinder vehicles, coming out of there fully electrfied homes where everything is instant on, having hot water to wash with and so on. I just listened to someone go on and on about plug in cars and hybrids. So I said how are you going to make the power? Gas, nukes, coal how are is it going to generated ? The look was sort of like you mean it doesn't just come out of the socket. This reminds me of the person who twenty years ago told me I was wrong when I said a cow had to calve to continue giving milk. I think dairy farmers would know I was correct, but then if you only get milk from the store what is a cow? If you take petrol for granted what is a well? If you take electricity for granted what is a generating station? We have the ability to solve this.
    Posted by: Jeff Rogers | May 17, 2008 08:01 PM

    Like paying the Saudis? Thank a Democrat. Like the Chinese drilling off our shore, thank a Democrat. Like 4.00 gas, thank a Democrat. There is nothing this country could not do if it were not for Congress. Maybe it is time to take the pitchforks to WA DC?
    Posted by: DaveT | May 17, 2008 08:09 PM

    Mazurak is correct the Saudis are not raising production because ... they can't. Their fields are beginning to produce alot of water. Water can become the limiting factor in the ability to produce oil because it has to be processed at surface and disposed of. In oil industry terms –– their wells are beginning to run "dry". Bush had to ask just to show everyone that he is concerned, he knows the real situation.

    Indonesia another OPEC country –– has become a net oil importer and is desperately attempting to reverse this situation. Chavez and Putin have put their respective oilfields in the toilet by forcing out western oil companies and thus losing the expertise necessary to increase production. China, India and any other developing economy are factors in increasing demand. Plenty of evidence points toward a supply demand imbalance.

    The oil industry is responding but large quantiities of new reserves are only going to be found in deepwater or shallow water remote locations –– or in areas currently off limits to Exploration (Angola, Brazil, US OCS, etc).
    Posted by: RJL | May 17, 2008 08:30 PM

    I agree with both sides of this issue. We need to blame ourselves for not developing alternative fuels years ago. This research should have gone into high hear after the 1973 embargo crisis. Will we never learn? And I also blame Congress. They allow 10% of the country dictate what the other 90% want to do. We need to take our government back from the NIMBY Liberals.
    Posted by: Pam Littleton | May 17, 2008 09:35 PM

    Maybe the "world" encompassed by the borders of USA is "mesmerized" by the Democratic primaries but the remaining 99% of the World does not care, couldn't be bothered and probably is unaware of the tedious electoral procedures of the US. We in Australia get our elections (including the Federal election) over and done with in no more than 6 weeks. Then we get on with our lives.
    Posted by: John McMahon | May 17, 2008 10:09 PM

    Why is it that we Americans allow the "14%" to make all our decisions for us??? Why are we dependant on Saudi oil when we have our own sources. What is stopping us from drilling our own wells and taking care of our own. When did we become so whiny and dependant.How can we reverse this trend? If it is imposed by only 14% of the population how did they get so much power???and how do we shut them up and put them outside to play or better yet.....in "time out?"
    Posted by: Marsha Williams | May 18, 2008 01:28 AM

    American troops still defend an anti American Europe because it is in her interest to do so. Thus will America continue to defend the Persian Gulf oil kleptocracies no matter how anti Western their oil producing policies are, not because America likes them but because it is in her interest to do so. The Saudis and all the rest of those tin pot dictatorships know this and so do the Americans.
    Posted by: Ken Besig | May 18, 2008 01:40 AM

    Jeffrey –– AFAIK, no plutonium-powered cars nor electric plug-in cars are currently being produced anywhere in the world, but there are alternatives to cars: bullet trains, which can be powered by nuclear reactors (as in some European countries). The newest bullet trains (e.g. TGVs and AGVs) offer a speed of up to 224 mph (360 kph), wireless broadband, restaurant cars, onboard telephones, and even compartments where you can plug-in your computer to use it onboard the train. The only reason why bullet trains don't exist in the US is that cash-strapped state governments can't afford them, and the Federal Government, which has a $3 trillion budget, is not paying for them, even though a bullet train network in the Midwest would cost less than $10 bn. On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak does not need to upgrade the tracks, merely to buy new rolling stock. However, the President's proposed FY2009 budget is reducing funds for the USDOT across the board. The entire FRA will need to content itself with a $1.094 billion budget if the President's request is approved by lawmakers.
    Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 18, 2008 02:02 AM

    I'm a transmission planning engineer and can give the following characterization to renewables: 1. Wind-a limited use, not very reliable source, likely will stay "exotic"
    2. Solar PV-quite bad without storage, use must be "diluted"
    3. Solar thermal-seems to be promising, latest technologies could allow 500-1000MW plants, with storage that can operate 24/7. Still it'll take decades to test and develop and will occupy huge swathes of land: mirrors, toll towers, etc are vulnerable and invasive. This resource needs more testing & techn. advancement

    Summary: renewables likely will have a limited (~20%?) practical use... Nukes are good but as a base-load and cannot integrate renewables. Thus, some coal/gas is still needed (unless unexpected technological breakthrough happened!)
    Posted by: Alex | May 18, 2008 02:45 AM

    It's possible that the Saudi's –– and OPEC generally –– are thinking shorter term. It's apparent that Barack Hussein Obama is a sentimental favorite of many Arabs and Africans. That's understandable, just as John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a sentimental favorite of many Catholics and Irish. But I also think it's possible that their desire to see Mr. Obama in the White House extends beyond mere sentimentality. They could see in him someone who is much less inclined to think of the United States' traditional "national Interest" as defined by previous generations of American administrations –– in effect, someone who is far more willing to see the world "their way" and radically redefine America's stance on many issues in their favor. Other OPEC members and would-be third world wanna-be "leaders" like Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would look forward to dealing with a President Obama for their own, similar reasons.

    By keeping the current price of oil extremely high and putting the squeeze on the American consumer, they perpetuate the general feeling of angst currently pervading the country and which generally, during an election year, manifests itself as a rebellion against the perceived "party in power" at the time, usually defined in the public mind as whichever one holds the White House (this mood is certainly being abetted by the mainstream press which ignores the overwhelming dominance of the Democrats in the Congress since 2004). This tool was used before in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan and the Saudi's colluded to drop oil prices to record lows and destroy the only access the Soviet Union had to hard currency to bail out its collapsing economy. This tool is crude (no pun intended) and lots of nations suffer in the short term but such is the way these things work.

    The major members of OPEC have powerful reasons to want Barack Obama as the next President of the United States and they have a powerful and simple method to manipulate the presidential election and help sway the American electorate, not so much in favor of Democrat Obama but against his Republican opponent. It will be interesting to see if oil prices come down significantly after the election –– particularly if Obama wins.
    Posted by: james | May 18, 2008 05:41 AM

    let us face an important factor and a known, but not
    so well known fact. This 21. Cent.belongs to Islam,for this reason they have to subtly and gradually impose their culture,religion and restrictions of freedom on our western society. Their aim is, to destroy first our culture and democracy to eventually establish a word –– wide Islamic Umma. Confront the Saudis with this, if they are honest,which they are of course not,as the Koranic laws tell them they are at liberty to tell an untruth as long as it serves the interests of Islam.They might ask you,how do you know this? Wahabism is out for world domination and Wahabism is the main religion of the Saudis.You can be easily aware of this,because Islam has already infiltrated many of our institutions including schools.It is high time that we wake up and observe.
    Posted by: Sigvard von Brevern | May 18, 2008 07:57 AM

    what can be said that hasn't been said by all. the ground work is being done for the next world war while our elected folks are looking into the real problems like NFL spygate. Will we be able to wake up or go on the ash heap of history like so many self absorbed civilizations in the past.
    Posted by: r.p. | May 18, 2008 08:35 AM

    Alex –– normally I wouldn't argue with a transmission planning engineer, but: a) solars' storage may work 24/7 but solars themselves don't. Solars don't work during nights, only during days. 2) 1000MWs is very little. A single Areva EPR nuclear reactor is 600MWs more powerful. And if America cannot recycle its spent nuclear fuel, France can. There is already a huge nuclear waste recycling facility in La Hague (50), France.
    Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 18, 2008 12:07 PM

    If I was President I would tell Al Gore and his new agers to shut up now. The lies are starving people around the world and giving Islam a step ahead. Many countries have oil and we are one of them. I say dril and hurry up..and some say building refineries takes ten yrs,,hurry up! And despite all who don't care or believe, Israel is going to hit oil. In Ezekiel, he tells us they become the wealthyest nation in the world,,they aren't now, so how do you think they will?? Zion oil will hit oil. And why in the devil did we ever build the Saudi's refineries? Oh, thats right, the global freaks, on both sides, left and right. and consertive,,gone long ago. How blind. Will there be war? you can bet you life on it. Not only nation against nation, but civil wars, black against white, and ethnic against ethnic..anyone who can't see that, go read your bible that most won't or don't know how to read. It has never been wrong. And guess what, Israel will win this last war too. IN the meantime, lies are in all gov, just as it is written. the rich want to rule the poor and will for awhile,,denial is everywhere in and out of religions..It doesn't matter what you think, it is what G-d says will be..He never does anything, but to tell us first. more up to date than the times. You see, Sunni against Shiite is ongoing, and Islam is here too. You can sleep for a while but one day you will be too hungry to eat if you had it..ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ and when they say peace, then comes sudden destruction..you can take that to your bank..
    Posted by: kim segar | May 18, 2008 12:32 PM

    Whatever is wrong with the USA, the professional, political parasites are to blame. They cannot lie their way out of anymore catastrophies. Their greed and hunger for power is in plain sight. They do not give a rat's @$$ about me, you or our country. Their ONLY concern is keeping their position of power. Until "WE THE PEOPLE..." vote EVERY incumbent out of office our country will continue on a deadly spiral into socialism. Obama and Clinton know that socialism has been, is and always will be a miserable failure. Yet both of them are hell bent on destroying our country with socialism.
    Posted by: FromTheTop | May 18, 2008 12:36 PM

    The insanity of the oil situation is quite simply this, we are spending billions every day for foreign oil. That money is used by Muslims who sponsor terrorist that are sworn to kill ALL infidels in their quest for their Caliphate of world dominance. The health, welfare and safety of wild animals is more important to professional, political parasites than ours. Why do you continue to vote for these morons? Everything is going to be worse than today. Tomorrow prices will rise on everything you purchase...because we are dependent on foreign oil. All we get are stupid, lamebrained excuses by these morons who insist on creating fuel from FOOD. Why do we allow these fools to remain in office?
    Posted by: FromTheTop | May 18, 2008 12:53 PM

    Here is the list of demands handed to me recently by Saudi Officials: Green Cards Access to the CIA FBI and other acronym driven security thingies. Women. Lots and lots of white women. College. We want to go to college. Flight schools. Truck driving schools. We don't have these things in Saudi Arabia. We want to buy the following bits of inconsequential property. ANWR in Alaska. The Northwestern part of North Dakota. Louisiana. The Gulf of Mexico. This is just for starters. We will be back at Christmas time with a new list. PS. The King wants another segway.
    Posted by: Jewel Atkins | May 18, 2008 01:51 PM

    Saudi Arabia wants to be rich(er). That's the long and short of it. Since OPEC is a monopoly, and oil is an essential good, they can charge whatever they want short of a price that provokes a severe response from the U.S.

    In the short term, the one bit of leverage I think we have to possibly persuade the Saudis to supply more oil is the Palestinians. Tell Abdullah that unless the price of oil goes down to $50 a barrel, we'll look the other way and leave the Palestinians to fend for themselves at the mercy of Israel.
    Posted by: PNC | May 18, 2008 05:10 PM

    The sad reality is that Americans are not going to accept "radical social reengineering" that would be required to lick this problem. If we were, it would have already started. And any President (either party) knows that if they even attempt it, there will be a revolution. The ruling elites are scared to death of the middle class. What a mess.
    Posted by: Dave | May 18, 2008 06:01 PM

    In response to PNC above, personally I don't think any of the Arab countries care about Palestine or the Palestinians... they just use them for political necessity. If they truly were concerned with them, they would have created a state for them long ago. And the Palestinians themselves don't care about a nation of their own, they're just bent on the destruction of Israel.
    Posted by: Willi Schumacher | May 19, 2008 01:46 PM

    The Saudis know that their huge lake of oil under their Eastern Province is drying up and past the peak of production. As Judy Klinghoffer notes in her AmericanThinker piece, increasingly water is the product of their drilling. Using the OPEC cartel they want to simply maximize their declining revenues, which current speculation in the oil markets readily assures them trillions that flow into their coffers for reinvestment via sovereign wealth funds and export of Wahhabi xenophobic hate to the rest of the World, including the Muslim ummah. But Saudi Arabia is not alone in that regard, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation, has become a net oil importer as its reserves have plummeted. The big major oil finds are in the Gulf of Guinea and West Africa, offshore of Brazil and even the US Gulf of Mexico, that the Chinese and Cubans are exploiting. If the current speculative 'bubble' bursts, as all bubbles inevitably do like the 'dot.com' one of 1999-2000 or the current housing bubble and credit crisis, then the flow of funds in Saudi and Gulf Emirate coffers will slow. Iran will also be effected profoundly by the oil price bubble burst as it subsidizes and rations domestic consumption. So, perhaps we have a multi-pronged approach to fend off 'what the Saudis want'. It would include Congressional investigation of the current oil price bubble and fostering market conditions that blow it up. Nevertheless, we should, even if oil prices fall to 'real cost levels' of $40 to $65 a barrel, promote the opening of US domestic and federal waters to oil production. Good examples are North Dakota and the Gulf of Mexico. We should convert the hundreds of years of coal using available technology into synthetic gas to drive our cars, trucks, airplanes and even peak power plants powered by gas turbines. Then, prior to the bow wave of nuclear energy plants (approximately 138 currently under construction) arriving on stream by 2015 wean us off hydrocarbons by converting our vehicle fleets to 'plug ins'. There are credible oil shale developments in the Green River and Bakken Formation, but require significant capital, even at these towering market prices. These suggestions and conservation would help, materially, and not subject us to either the Saudi plan to control alternative energy source development and finally break the OPEC cartel.

    So, ask yourself a question. Just who is behind a 30% run up in oil prices in the past five months, while world oil demand has increased by less than 1%? Something fishy is going on, and causing speculation. Find out who is doing it and you may be surprised as to how rapidly the oil price bubble deflates producing a Bronx cheer to the Saudis and other OPEC cartel members. But let's get going on a rational energy plan and use the markets to prioritize the solutions. Congress has to wake up on this soon, especially as this is an election year. After all their overall rating is far below that of even President Bush 18.7% versus 27%.
    Posted by: Jerry Gordon | May 20, 2008 08:31 AM

    Dr. Judith Apter Klinghoffer is the author of Vietnam, Jews and the Middle East: Unintended Consequences, the co-author of International Citizens' Tribunals: Mobilizing Public Opinion to Advance Human Rights and a History News Network blogger.

    Contact her by email at jklinghoff@aol.com

    This article was posted on the American Thinker

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 17, 2008.

    This comes from MEMRI Islamist Websites Monitor Project. It is Special Dispatch No. 1961, and was issued yesterday. To view the MEMRI Islamist Websites Monitor Project, visit http://memriiwmp.org/

    Numerous postings on Islamist websites in the past two years reflect the mujahideen's growing interest in the state of the U.S. economy. As was argued in a 2007 MEMRI analysis,(1) many of the jihadists and their supporters have come to view their struggle against the U.S. and the West as an economic war. More specifically, they have come to the conclusion that it is financial, rather than military, losses that will prompt the U.S. to change its policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Consequently, they emphasize the importance of targeting U.S. interests around the world, and of directing their military jihad primarily at targets that affect the U.S. economy.

    "The Dollar Can Expect Two Additional Blows That Will Break Its Back"

    The mujahideen's growing interest in undermining U.S. economy is reflected, for example, in an article in the 26th issue of the GIMF's e-magazine Sada Al-Jihad (Echo of Jihad), recently posted on Al-Hesbah and on other Islamist websites.(2) The article, titled "Why the Dollar Collapsed and How America Controls the Price of Oil," discusses the factors that contributed to the devaluation of the dollar in recent years.

    The author lists among the key factors the economic damage caused by Hurricane Katrina; the losses caused by the September 11 attacks; the cost of the war on terror and of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the U.S.'s persistent trade deficit and growing government debt; investors' growing faith in the Euro; the recent subprime crisis in the U.S.; and the fact that financial institutions around the world have started to reduce their dollar reserves, thereby flooding the market with dollars and decreasing the demand for this currency.

    The author ends his analysis with the following threat: "The dollar can expect two additional blows that will break its back... [namely] the announcement of the return of the Caliphate..." and the reinstatement of the gold standard in international monetary trade.

    "Get Rid of [Your] American Dollars... and Buy Gold"

    A recent posting on the Al-Ikhlas forum urges the mujahideen and their supporters to sell their dollars, if they have any, because Al-Qaeda is planning a strike inside the U.S. so that it will undermine the American economy: "[I advise you] to get rid of [your] American dollars... and buy gold instead... or real estate. The next attack inside the U.S. is imminent... Zawahiri will convey his instructions [regarding this attack] in his next [message]... This attack will put an end to the so-called United States of America and destroy its economy completely... The day of the attack is very near..."(3)

    Given that it is highly atypical for Al-Qaeda to give prior warning of its attacks, the message is probably an attempt to pressure Muslims to sell dollars, in order to generate pessimism in the dollar market and thus accelerate the drop in its value.


    (1) See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 387 "The Battle... Is Economic Rather than Military" –– An Economically Oriented Concept of Jihad Emerges in Islamist Discourse," September 11, 2007,
    (2) http://www.myhesbah.net/v/showthread.php?t=182568.
    (3) http://www.ek-ls.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152815.

    Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Lee Caplan, June 17, 2008.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: See below for background.]

    This was written by Avi Tuchmayer and it appeared June 8, 2008 in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNN.com)

    (IsraelNN.com) The Women in Green organization protested Tuesday at the Jerusalem International Convention Center at Binyanei Hauma to call for the release of Itzik and Danny Halamish, residents of the Gush Etzion community of Ma'aleh Rechavam. The two brothers are currently serving eight months in jail for allegedly shooting Arabs who infiltrated the community in February, 2004.

    The protest coincided with the "Third Annual Conference on Quality of the Government."

    Women in Green Chairwoman Nadia Matar told IsraelNationalNews.com that although the protest was small (approximately 20 people participated), the experience of standing to support the Halamish brothers was powerful and inspiring.

    "We protested outside the conference for about an hour, then went to the Jerusalem Central Bus Station across the street to pass out flyers and to educate people about the fate of two innocent Jews who are not guilty of anything more than trying to protect themselves, their neighbors and their community.

    "There, in the bus station, we could really feel the power of Am Yisrael rising up. People just don't know anything about this story because the mainstream media has censored itself away from reporting on the story at all, but once people learned about it they showed a genuine desire to help. We came away truly inspired, and would like to go back to the bus station to hand out flyers at least a couple of times a month," she said.

    Aharon Halamish: Case is a 'Stain' on Israeli Justice System

    The protest was particularly notable due to the presence of Aharon and Edna Halamish, parents of the prisoners and residents of the Samaria town of Ofra. Aharon Halamish noted that the conference seemed to have few attendees, but said that the passersby that he spoke to outside the convention center were sympathetic to his sons' plight once they heard about it. He also said his family is concentrating efforts now on obtaining a pardon from President Shimon Peres.

    "We aren't asking Peres for mercy," he said. "We are asking him to correct a total miscarriage of justice, one that is a stain on Israel's system of justice. The district court that sentenced them to prison admitted that there had been problems with the trial, but they chose to maintain the verdict and sentence because of 'technical reasons.' They had obviously decided on an outcome in advance, worked towards obtaining that verdict and stuck to it once they had it."

    The Halamish family has called on the public to help pressure officials to release the two brothers, Itzik and Danny. Faxes calling for their release should be sent to President Shimon Peres at (02) 561-1033.

    Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Avodah, June 17, 2008.

    Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Judah HaNassi would say: Beautiful is the study of Torah with the way of the world, for the toil of them both causes sin to be forgotten.

    Ultimately, all Torah study that is not accompanied with work is destined to cease and to cause sin. –– Ethics of the Fathers 2:2

    Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 27, 2008.


    Although al-Qaeda is like a headquarters of terrorism, affiliated organizations and radicalized individuals can continue terrorism even if al-Qaeda were destroyed. Some isolated terrorist organizations may set up alliances with major ones. What needs to be destroyed more than al-Qaeda is its ideology (lost source).


    Wikipedia is a website that accepts anonymous articles. Usually its articles are anti-Israel. They get accepted without fact-checking. Therefore, Wikipedia has become a source of misinformation for many people disinclined to do real research, using sources that have academic integrity.

    The organization, CAMERA, invited volunteers to submit their own articles to it for editing, so as to provide researched information to counter the bias. An Arab sympathizer mischaracterized CAMERA's effort to gain some fairness as a plot to control the site and in a biased fashion.

    Wikipedia personnel fired the editors who sought balance (IMRA, 6/1).


    A terrorist had an explosive device at home. He mishandled it, killing one family member and wounding about ten more. Children and women were wounded (IMRA, 6/1).

    Have you heard any of the humanitarian organizations chastising the terrorists for injuring and endangering their own civilians? I haven't. They seem only to accuse Israel, which strives not to injure enemy civilians. I think that Israel tries too hard, risking its own people's lives.


    The head of Afghanistan warned the Taliban to stop raiding his country from Pakistan, or his army would pursue them into Pakistan. Pres. Karzai said he is within his rights. US and NATO forces already have drones raid Taliban camps just over the border in Pakistan.

    The new rulers of Pakistan made a truce with the Taliban and al-Qaida. The result is a 50% increase in raids into Afghanistan (Tom Coghlan, NY Sun, 6/16, p.6). Meanwhile, the Taliban entrench themselves in Pakistan. Eventually, they would turn to conquering Pakistan. Pakistan's rulers made a mistake. Can't make deals with evil forces. How do you evaluate Karzai's threat?


    The Jerusalem Inst. For Jewish Studies released some population statistics. Fertility rates among Arabs fell and among Jews rose. They almost are even, in the capital city. There remains a sizeable Jewish exodus. No explanation was given for any of this (IMRA, 6/1).

    From where the Jews are moving and from what I know of Jerusalem, I'd say it all is explained by modernization among the Arabs and an increasing proportion of Jerusalemites being religious, with high birth rates. Secular Jews often don't feel comfortable among sizeable numbers of strictly observant Jews.


    Egypt confiscated 30 anti-aircraft missiles en route to be smuggled into Gaza. There they would imperil low-flying helicopters. Assuming that some such missiles have been brought in already or soon will be, the IDF now will take such weapons into account. (How it takes it into account was unstated.) Losing some of its freedom of action is the price it is paying for not having paid a price in invading Gaza in force and rooting out all the terrorists (IMRA, 6/1). A stitch in time saves nine. Helicopters were one of the chief means of liquidating terrorists.

    Hamas kept warning of surprises it would spring on the IDF. That must be one.


    Cabinet Member Mofaz criticized Defense Min. Barak for negotiating, even indirectly, with Hamas, without Cabinet approval. A Minister should not make foreign policy on his own. His movement towards a truce with Hamas would give it a victory (and the opportunity to bring in more arms to kill Israelis with, later). Others criticized Barak for declaring Olmert unfit to continue in power, yet he fails to leave the coalition and dislodge Olmert from power (IMRA, 6/1).

    The Cabinet used to be a coalition of equal ranking party leaders. Since then, the Prime Minister, in that country without a Constitution imposing limits, has usurped the role of the Cabinet. When PM Sharon assumed the right to fire Cabinet Members until he was left with yes-men, he downgraded the Cabinet to bureaucrats. In that country whose government assumes the right to forbid or license so much more than the US government, the Prime Minister required Israelis to get more approval for construction in the Territories from the Defense Minister, whose policy was his own. In the case of Hamas, either Barak is working with Olmert's approval or Olmert is too weak to control him. After all, if Barak pulls his party out of the coalition, Olmert's regime falls and then he has no leverage with prosecutors sitting on half a dozen criminal investigations of him.


    An historic monastery was attacked for the 18th time. Dozens of assailants kidnapped three monks, leaving one person dead and several wounded. Hundreds of Copts protested that their complaints of constant attacks and Muslim harassment are ignored by police in this increasingly Islamic state (IMRA, 6/2).

    Sometimes police don't ignore complaints –– they arrest the complainers. This oppression isn't news except probably to readers of the NY Times. The Times omits much news that would show Egypt to be more with the evil axis than with us, and Islam to be no religion of peace and tolerance, with just a few fanatics making all the difficulty. Full reporting would give many readers the idea that Israel cannot make accommodating deals with the Muslims.


    A Saudi Sunni cleric criticized Shiites for destabilizing countries in the region, such as Iraq and Lebanon. S. Arabia's main oil-bearing region is where its Shiites are a majority (IMRA, 6/2).

    He is right. On the other hand, stability before meant that Sunnis oppressed Shiites. Oh, how secure life would be for them all if they practiced tolerance and non-violence and democracy!


    This is in addition to Israel letting foreign Arabs settle in Israel and letting Israeli Arabs bring in Islamist preachers.

    Israel allows within its borders an Islamist "Islamic Movement." Some Israeli Arabs study in Jordan and become influenced by Islamist notion of the duty to fight infidels. So it was that two Arabs from Lod plotted to kidnap Israeli Jews, and a third failed to report them. All were arrested (IMRA, 6/2).

    Israel violates the Talmudic injunction against tolerating the intolerant. Its police were vigilant, this time and many times. Luck doesn't last. If Israel doesn't expel its Muslims, at least it should bar Islamist organizations and enforce the law against Arabs and do something against the Arab drive to take over the country. It would have to stop imagining that Israeli Arabs are not enticed by the Islamists.


    They plan that Hizbullah would return the bodies of two, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and get ten Hizbullah bodies, four live prisoners, many Palestinian Arab prisoners, and maps of mine fields (IMRA, 6/2). That's a mediated deal? It sounds like Hizbullah's demands. Trade Olmert for dead bodies!


    Negotiations have been going on for an accommodation in Lebanon, a deal between Syria and Israel, and a truce with Hamas. The US disapproves but has been sidelined. "Peace" cannot be stopped (NY Times Op.-Ed., 6/3).

    The negotiations have nothing to do with peace. The US was right to oppose them but wrong not to have appropriate the force needed to have helped Lebanon maintain independence. The accommodation with Hizbullah curbed Lebanese independence and gave free reign to Hizbullah, which intends anything but peace. A ceasefire with Hamas does not mean peace but war with a better armed Hamas, which is why Islam approves of truces. Whatever Syria promises, a treaty with Israel would better position it for war. Its alliance with Iran and the terrorists indicate that it has not abandoned its mode of aggression.


    PM Olmert's said that Jerusalem's unification was made to "ensure Israeli sovereignty in historic and sacred Jerusalem forever." He said Israel believes in freedom of religion. Meanwhile, his negotiations are arranging to split Jerusalem, and part with its most historic and sacred area, the Temple Mount (IMRA, 6/2).

    As for freedom of religion, Islam doesn't believe in it. In any case, the Arabs denied freedom of religion when they controlled the Old City of Jerusalem, they destroy ancient Jewish tombs and synagogues in the P.A., and they threaten to bar Jews from the holy tombs of Hebron if they regain control over it.

    Olmert's stated sentiment exploits fellow Jews' feelings that his devious policy contradicts.


    The government of Israel, slow to deal with its growing water shortage, now has a $2 billion plan. The plan involves new pricing arrangements, more conservation (hopefully), more desalination, and more recycling (Arutz-7, 6/2).

    The plan didn't say whether it would price water so as to discourage the present, profligate usage. No mention was made of the gift of water made in the treaty with Jordan. No mention was made of desalination's lavish use of fuel to evaporate and separate sea water from salt. Al Gore won't like it. The plan did not indicate the annual shortfall, the shortfall accumulated from past years, nor how fast the plan would catch up. This doesn't mean the plan is deficient; perhaps the reporting of it is. Many plans do not organize the facts into a cost-benefit analysis.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Avodah, June 17, 2008.

    This was written by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich and was published in the Jerusalem Post
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1212659749702

    The Israel Parkinson Association welcomed with "excitement and joy" the results of a study showing Parkinson's drug Azilect (rasagiline), developed by Profs. Moussa Youdim and John Finberg of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, to be effective at slowing the progression of the chronic and fatal neurological disease, a first for any drug.

    The ADAGIO study, which treated 1,176 patients with early Parkinson's at 129 medical centers in 14 countries over a period of 18 months, is one of the largest ever conducted on Parkinson's disease. The treatment groups received Azilect, and their progress was compared with control groups.

    Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has the rights to Azilect, just as it has control over and manufactures Copaxone, the other drug developed wholly in Israel (by Weizmann Institute of Science researchers) for multiple sclerosis. Azilect's impressive results were announced by Teva on Monday.

    Parkinson's disease is an age-related degenerative disorder of the brain whose symptoms can include tremors, stiffness, slowness of movement and impaired balance. An estimated four million people worldwide suffer from the disease, which usually affects people over the age of 60.

    In the randomized, double-blind ADAGIO study, the drug was found to be effective, safe and well tolerated.

    Teva intends to submit these results to the regulatory authorities in the US and Europe. Based on these results, the drug could become the first Parkinson's disease treatment in the world to receive a label for "disease modification." Azilect received the approval of the US Food and Drug Administration for sale in the spring of 2006.

    Israel Parkinson Association chairman Daniel Neuman said that "as Israelis, we are proud that the hope for all the world's Parkinson patients emanates from Israel, as Azilect is a blue-white, Israeli-developed drug.

    "Last year, we tried but failed to persuade the Health Ministry's public committee that recommends new drugs for inclusion in the basket of health services to put Azilect on the list, arguing that it was a vital drug. Now we believe that the results of the ADAGIO study will pave the way for inclusion" of Azilect in the basket, which will require all the health funds to provide it at state subsidy to relevant patients.

    Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 16, 2008.

    Israel Does amazing things for the world.

    But hardly anyone knows

    Help us spread the word


    Contact Barbara Sommer by email at sommer_1_98@worldnet.at.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Phyllis Chesler, June 16, 2008.

    This is called "Help! The Visitor." and I posted it today on the Chesler Chronicles

    Has everyone seen Thomas McCarthy's universally praised film The Visitor? Or at least read the reviews about it? Having no idea what the film was about, I slipped in yesterday expecting to see a "romantic comic drama" which is how the snapshot review described it.

    What I saw instead was a poignant, touching film about illegal immigration in post 9/11 America which, I now understand, has been embraced by almost every film critic.

    Now, guess where the illegal immigrants are from. Which country or countries with terrifyingly surreal human rights records and almost permanent civil wars do our sympathetic heroes hail from? Congo or Sudan perhaps-or is it Rwanda or Somalia? How about Algeria, the former Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Chile, even Mexico since Mexican immigration is such a hot-button issue for us?

    Of course, the illegal immigrants Tareq, Zainab, and Mouna (played movingly, brilliantly, by Haaz Sleiman, Dana Jekesai Gurira, and Hiam Abbass), are all Muslims from Syria and Senegal. They encounter a heartless, Orwellian American Immigration Department which detains, transfers, and deports charming and innocent Arab Muslims. We, the viewer, share the hero's growing involvement in their plight. Richard Jenkins plays the professor-hero, Walter Vale, who is inevitably drawn into their plight.

    And, by the way, Mouna is Tareq's mother and she is an utterly charming and beautiful character. Mouna lives in Michigan where there is a large, radically Muslim population. Mouna's getting into bed with Walter her last night in America is not something that someone who lives in Dearborn, Michigan is going to do. This highly Westernized portrayal caters to Western sensibilities at the expense of reality. This is similar to what the film Paradise Now also did in terms of having a West Bank heroine who lives alone and lives quite an independent life. This kind of freedom is familiar to the West but forbidden and dangerous on the West Bank.

    The Visitor presents a familiar story line which I have previously written about. For example, I have written about two British films: One, envisions the assassination of President George Bush and the other is a fictional feature titled The Children of Men. Both films show innocent, highly sympathetic Arab Muslims who are wrongly accused, on the run, living in hiding. I have also written about a movie in which a Arab Saudi-like Prince is seen as the potential liberator of his people, especially women, but of course, he is assassinated by CIA operatives.

    While I personally know and love many sympathetic Muslim and ex-Muslim immigrants and totally understand that post 9/11 policy has led to tragic consequences for those Arab and non-Arab Muslims in flight from tyranny-I am equally concerned with the single-mindedness of the pro-Arab propaganda. Hollywood has not been making many films (and certainly no good films) about Arab Muslim terrorists. (There is The Kingdom, which I have also reviewed, but it received almost universal negative reviews. I thought it was an important film). They exist and the threat they pose is real but Hollywood is too politically correct to dramatize it. Their villains are still mainly white neo-Nazis, Nazi-era Nazis, and CIA agents.

    Mind you: I am not saying that such villains do not exist; they do. But c'mon, Hollywood, the media, and the university world are afraid to describe anyone as "Arab" or "Muslim" lest the mere description of reality be seen as "racist." Thus, countless mainstream media articles refer to the ethnic Arab Muslims who are gang-raping and genocidally slaughtering black African Muslims and Christians in Sudan as "insurgents," "rebels," "men on horseback," "government sanctioned troops," and sometimes as "Arabs" but rarely as Arab Muslims.

    I have an Israeli friend who covers Culture for a variety of Israeli newspapers. She told me that many of the best Israeli filmmakers are focused on portraying Israel's (small) role in Palestinian suffering. No Israeli filmmaker has depicted the (much larger) role that Arab and Palestinian leaders have played in Palestinian suffering. No Arab filmmaker has dared do so either. The Israeli films that are critical of Israeli policy are celebrated both in Israel and abroad. It speaks well for Israel that its artists and thinkers are free to criticize Israeli policy; if they are Jews, whether they are religious or not, they are actually fulfilling a Jewish religious commandment.

    The problem: No Arab country allows its thinkers to publicly criticize its policies and thus, the Muslim world as well as Europe and America have come to believe that only Israel commits terrible human rights abuses. This belief is out of proportion to reality.

    Who is funding what amounts to a perpetual propaganda machine against Israel and America? Inch by inch, film by film, people are becoming dangerously brainwashed. Thus, psychologically: All Arab Muslims are innocent victims; all Americans and Israelis are evil. Where will this end? What will become of us in the West?

    I realize that most Westerners who are critical of their government's policies do not really want to live in Afghanistan or Iran –– but they fail to understand that if they don't temper and balance their righteous criticism of western democracies, we might just end up living under even more repressive regimes.

    Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and s co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Avodah, June 16, 2008.

    This was written by Carl in Jerusalem and was posted today on his website:

    Now this is an idea whose time has come.

    This is from "Congressman Wants Iraq To Recognize Israel", a news item in today's Arutz-7 (www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/148282).

    More than 60 Congressmen are supporting a non-binding resolution that would demand that the Iraqi government recognize Israel or lose billions of dollars in American aid. Neither the Bush administration nor the Israeli government has raised the issue.

    Florida Democratic Congresswoman Alcee Hastings thought about introducing the resolution after a recent flight of Congressman visiting Israel was not allowed to fly to Baghdad from Israel. "As we got on the C-130 taking us back, we were advised we'd need to land in Amman, Jordan, touch down and then take off again to Israel," she told the New York Jewish Forward. "This offended me deeply," she added.

    I wonder if President Bush had to touch down in Amman or Cairo when Air Force One flew from here to Saudi Arabia. And by the way, I can think of a few other countries that ought to have to recognize Israel or lose their US aid. Let's start with the 'Palestinian Authority' and Lebanon.

    Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 16, 2008.

    This was written by Jeff Jacoby and it appeared today in Jewish World Review.

    The agonies being inflicted on Zimbabwe by its corrupt and brutal president are worsening. Earlier this month, the government of Robert Mugabe ordered international aid agencies to put a halt to the operations that have been keeping hundreds of thousands of Zimbabwe's people alive. With most of the country's population out of work and in dire poverty, the food and other humanitarian assistance provided by groups like CARE and Save the Children are more desperately needed than ever. By shutting them down, Mugabe and his henchmen were knowingly condemning countless vulnerable Zimbabweans to death.

    Mugabe claimed, preposterously, that the humanitarian agencies were trying "to cripple Zimbabwe's economy" and bring about "illegal regime change."

    Actually, it his own demented and dictatorial misrule that has destroyed the country, turning what was once a prosperous land into the world's most rapidly collapsing economy. And it is his determination to cling to power by any means –– including starving and terrorizing voters who support a change in government –– that has filled Zimbabwe not just with hunger and sickness but with savagery and bloodshed as well.

    Less than two weeks remain until the presidential election runoff between Mugabe, Zimbabwe's autocratic president for the last 28 years, and the popular opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who leads the Movement for Democratic Change. Tsvangirai and the MDC won the first round of elections in March, and supporters of Mugabe and his ZANU-PF ruling party have been waging a vicious campaign of intimidation and violence against them ever since.

    Opposition rallies have been obstructed by police, and Tsvangirai has repeatedly been detained for hours at a time. On Thursday, the MDC's secretary general, Tendai Biti, was arrested and charged with treason. Thousands of opposition supporters have been attacked, arrested, or forced to flee for their lives. Homes have been torched; scores of people have been killed.

    International aid workers say they were shut down to keep them from witnessing the government's increasingly lethal crackdown.

    The depravity of those attacks is suggested by UNICEF, which has said that 10,000 children have been driven from their homes by the violence, and that schools taken over by progovernment forces are being used as torture centers. Peter Osborne, in a dispatch from Zimbabwe for The Mail on Sunday, a British newspaper, itemizes the methods of abuse favored by Mugabe's men: pouring boiling plastic on victims' backs, burning their extremities, and administering whippings violent enough to transform an adult's buttocks into a horrifying "mess of raw flesh."

    The latest description of Zimbabwe's reign of terror comes from Human Rights Watch, which in a new report documents numerous cases of brutal repression by Mugabe supporters.

    "ZANU-PF and its allies have ... established torture camps and organized abusive 're-education' meetings around the country to compel MDC supporters into voting for Mugabe," the report says. Hundreds of voters have been flogged with sticks, whips, bicycle chains, and metal bars. In one "re-education" meeting May 5, "ZANU-PF officials and 'war veterans' beat six men to death and tortured another 70 men and women, including a 76-year-old woman publicly thrashed in front of assembled villagers."

    In other meetings, military officers have threatened to kill anyone who votes for the opposition. "Each villager would be given a bullet to hold in their hands. Then a soldier would say, 'If you vote for MDC in the presidential runoff election, you have seen the bullets, we have enough for each one of you, so beware.' "

    Mugabe's savage onslaught is likely to achieve its goal. Faced with starvation, dispossession, and threats of revenge, how many Zimbabweans will muster the courage to stand against him?

    But why do the rest of us do nothing? Why is the free world so indifferent to the enormities committed by Mugabe and his bullies? Where are the worldwide demonstrations outside Zimbabwe's embassies? Where are the international boycotts, the UN resolutions, the presidential and papal condemnations? Where is the International Criminal Court indictment of Mugabe for his long career of murder, torture, and other crimes against humanity?

    Let us be honest: If the people of Zimbabwe were being terrorized by a white despot –– if it were a white ruling party whose goons were beating them and burning their homes –– the whole world would be aroused on their behalf. Surely they deserve no less just because their oppressor is black.

    Contact Shaul Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Aramy, June 16, 2008.

    This was written by Jonathan Foreman and it appeared in the June 2008 Standpoint Online

    British newspaper writing is famously more vigorous and readable than its American equivalent. But this comes at a price: there's a good chance that anything you read in a British newspaper isn't true.

    When I worked as a leader writer for an American ­paper I was embarrassed when I was told that it was official policy not to trust any item in any British paper except the FT. American journalists work within a stringent code of ethics. If a journalist for a major paper or TV network is found to have run a false story –– perhaps because it was "too good to check" –– ! then his or her career is generally over. In Britain, getting caught telling or repeating a lie is much less serious than cheating on expenses. This is especially true in the world of foreign reporting.

    Take the broadsheet reporters who claimed there had been a massacre at "Jeningrad" in the West Bank on the dubious word of a single source. Even after all parties to the conflict pointed out that this massacre was a fantasy, the hoodwinked correspondents retained the trust of their editors.

    There was the highly regarded foreign correspondent who won a prize for articles which included an interview with a top Taleban official who turned out not to exist at all.

    Nevertheless I continued to insist to my American bosses that we should generally trust British papers. Then I came across a story in an English broadsheet announcing that a British Special Boat Service commando was being considered for the Medal of Honor, America's highest military decoration and the equivalent of the Victoria Cross. After forwarding the piece to my boss, I was assigned to write a leader about this wonderful example of transatlantic appreciation.

    The defence correspondent of the British broadsheet in question had given no source for his claim. But less than five minutes research revealed that it was legally impossible for foreigners to be awarded the Medal of Honor. (The SBS commando did exist and had fought with extraordinary bravery.) Nevertheless the broadsheet had reported a mere rumour as fact. Apparently it was one of those stories that are simply "too good to check."

    Contact Aramy at Aramy964@gmail.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 16, 2008.


    I have recently received the following message from one of my readers, the 'Jew-lover'. Unfortunately, there are still too many people like him around. At least this one does not hide his real state of mind and attitude behind fake smiles and 'well-mannered' back-stabbings. Personally, I hate the silent or polite bigots. (WARNING: decent people will find this statement disturbing):

    "Mr. Kike, Your Shamrak report is just another example of why you kike bastards need a REAL holocaust, the joo lies about the fake one in WWII. Keep spinning your kikes lies, but you cocksuckers' day is coming. The world will be a far better place when the last sheeny vampire breathes it's last foul breath! Hopefully, it will start with a nuclear bomb on Jerusalem! Have a nice day, joo! You bastards don't have many left!" –– Walt M.

    HAMAS CLAIMED CREDIT FOR MORE THAN 60 ROCKETS and mortars that pulverized southern Israel Thursday afternoon, one day after the Israeli government announced it was inclined to agree to a truce with the group. –– The Israeli prime minister's spokesman Mark Regev said: "The barrage of rockets today shows that Hamas has no interest in calm and is committed to violence, terror and murder." –– It took so long for Olmert's government to 'realise' it! Who needs another 'calm', only by the removal of the terror-infested population from Jewish land will Israel have peace!

    INVADE GAZA AND FINISH THE JOB. Former Gaza Arabs who aided Israel in the war against terror say the only way to end rocket attacks is to return to Gaza and clean out the weapons. Approximately 80 families living in the rocket-battered city of Sderot are Arabs from Gaza who were collaborators for Israeli intelligence before the destruction of Jewish communities and the IDF withdrawal from the area three years ago. Many of them are now advising the Israeli government to return to Gaza and clean out the area of terrorists and their weapons in order to bring peace. (Just another pretend Gaza operation is not enough. Gaza must be cleared of its terror-loving population and reunited with Israel!)

    JORDAN –– 'FRIENDLY' AND 'MODERATE' NEIGHBOUR. The Israeli delegation to the regional conference in Jordan on the subject of economic cooperation was refused entry into Jordan on Sunday.


    Several years ago I asked Tzipi Livni, possibly the next leader of Kadima, why Israel does not take seriously and do anything about the "Media War' or Asymmetrical Propaganda War. She dismissed the question without even trying to understand the issue or its importance. Israel needs a new and intelligent Jewish national Zionist Leadership! Another apathetic and pathetic, self-serving and corrupt leadership will bring only more pain and suffering.

    Coming Home at Last. An Iraqi Jewess kidnapped from her home 55 years ago, finally escaped and is making her way to Israel, where she will join the surviving members of her immediate family. Hannah Menashe was 21-years old, already married to a Jewish man, and on the verge of making aliyah (emigration to Israel) with her parents and seven siblings, when an Arab neighbour abducted her and she "disappeared off the face of the earth." Only after her abductor died was Menashe able to flee Iraq. She found her way to an Israeli consulate in Europe and told them she was Jewish and wanted to join her family in Israel.

    Lebanon Rejected Talks. Lebanon rejected a call made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for peace talks and demanded that Israel withdraw from disputed territory along their international borders. (Israel's enemies do not want even to consider peace, but Israel is blamed by the UN and other 'Jew-loving' organisations!)

    Lateral Environmental Thinking. As part of a government initiative to better the environment by using alternative energy, the Jerusalem Municipality will install solar panels on 20 city schools in the coming years. The project will cost NIS 100 million, but the municipality will not be paying for the panels. Instead, the government will compel energy companies to pay for the rentals.

    Another 'Work Accident'. At least four Arabs, including a baby, were killed on Thursday afternoon in a powerful blast that ripped through home of a bomb-making terrorist. More than 25 people were wounded. As usual, Hamas blamed the deaths on the Israeli Air Force and fired a number of rockets into Israel in 'retaliation'. Hamas later admitted that it was work accident –– While Hamas terrorists were preparing an attack on Israel blew themselves up.

    Still Delusional. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has maintained that democracy will overcome terrorist parties and that the democratic victory of Hamas actually was good because it proved that Hamas is not responsible (True! The bloodthirsty, terror infested population of so-called Palestinians is!). Writing in the prestigious Foreign Affairs Journal, she stated that a new Arab state within Israel's current borders must "build effective democratic institutions that can fight terrorism and extremism." (No she is not delusional, just another puppet in the anti-Israel game!)


    "I am disgusted! Up there in the Knesset it's like a Roman orgy. When I was a kid I had heroes for politicians. Now I have criminals." –– Avi Meir, a shawarma vendor in Jerusalem's busy Ben-Yehuda shopping mall.

    "The quality of our leadership is deteriorating and the public is tired of politics." –– Former Labor Party Knesset Member Ephraim Sneh.

    "There would be nothing easier than to end the terrorism from Gaza –– but we as Jews take more moral responsibility and therefore exercise more self-restraint than any other nation in the world." –– Israel's former Defense Minister, Binyamin Ben Eliezer –– Wouldn't it be more moral to end terror by defeating the enemy, liberating Jewish land from Arab occupation and saving not just Jewish lives, but Muslim ones as well?

    Government in Waiting for Collapse. The decision by the security cabinet to pursue the possibility of reaching a period of "calm" in Gaza shows that the Olmert government has lost the ability to make decisive moves. "The decision not to decide shows the urgent need for swift elections and the creation of a new government, that will be able to reach decisions", said MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud).

    Help to Terrorists Comes from Everywhere. Gaza-based terrorists for the first time have used a Russian-made Fagot guided anti-tank missile. The missile can be controlled after it is fired, and it has a maximum range of 1.5 miles. Advanced weapons brought into Gaza by sea or through smuggling tunnels, many of which are supplied from Syria and Lebanon. (No one is calling for an end to the sale of Russian weapons to Arabs!)

    Hamas Water Greed. The Hamas terrorists entered and seized vehicle and keys to the building, which has been the headquarters for operations funded by the European Union (EU). This gives the terrorists access to revenue for water well taxes and may also allow them to get their hands on money from the EU.


    Mark Zuckerberg, 23, a former Harvard student shot to international fame by creating the Facebook networking site. –– Well, not exactly a "Contribution to Humanity", but something to brag about!

    Microsoft Opens R&D Center in Israel. Microsoft chief executive officer Steve Ballmer opened a new research and development center in Herzliya Pituach. Microsoft plans to employ 750 workers at the new center. Ballmer compared Israel with California's Silicon Valley because of the large number of startup opportunities in high technology.

    Anti-Semitism in Oxford. An Israeli graduate student who received a two-year research scholarship to the prestigious University of Oxford has decided to give up his scholarship for the upcoming second year due to anti-Israel attitudes and anti-Semitism he was exposed to on the campus. (It seems that nothing has changed in Great Britain since the expulsion of Jews some 718 years ago! The anti-Semitic environment in many western universities has become intolerable. Interestingly, the major instigators and perpetrators of this ugliness are non-Muslim students and members of academia! It seems that the lessons of Nazi Germany have been forgotten and the cadaver of traditional European anti-Semitism has been resurrected.)

    "Chicken or Egg" Schizophrenia. An Egyptian scholar, Dr. Abd-al-Rahman Reihan, claims that archaeological evidence in Dahab in the Sinai Peninsula shows that the Star of David, traditionally thought to be a Jewish symbol, is actually Muslim. Reihan claims that several incidences of the Star of David occur as a decoration in Muslim archaeological sites across the Sinai during the Fatimid/early Crusader period (969-1187). Reihan has previously claimed that the menorah (another traditional Jewish symbol) is in fact a Roman invention from the times of the Emperor Titus.


    Maps sold in Cairo's main bookshops omit Israel, with the area comprising Israel and the occupied territories simply labelled "Palestine" in Arabic. Sixty years after its creation and 30 years after the Camp David accords paved the way for a 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, Israel exists only virtually as far as its neighbour to the west is concerned. Breaking ranks with other Arab states, Egypt was the first to recognize the state of Israel, followed by Jordan and Mauritania. The other 18 member states of the Arab League have not followed their example... "No, there are no maps with the name Israel. We follow the rest of the Arab world in this, peace treaty or not", said Ibrahim Mahmoud, who works in a Cairo bookshop...

    (By signing a fake peace agreement with Israel, having no intention to honour it, Egypt gained control of Sinai and has being receiving 3 billion dollars of foreign aid a year from the United States along with a degree of international respectability. Since the Camp David agreement, Egypt has done almost nothing to improve its relationship with Israel, but on the contrary plays underhanded anti-Israel games! At any time Egypt is ready to break the peace with Israel and there will then be no need to reprint the books and maps.)

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 16, 2008.


    Jordan's bar association protested against the invitation to the US Ambassador to attend some ceremony at a courthouse. The invitation was rescinded. The head of the bar association called the US an "occupier of Iraq" (IMRA, 5/30).

    Jordan is called moderate, but Islamists run all the professional organizations.

    The allies inflicted some casualties in Iraq, but the Islamists and Saddam caused several times as many. The US therefore saved thousands of lives there. We also poured a fortune into reconstruction of a country that Saddam had let wear out before we inflicted modest damage and whose terrorists continue to wreck infrastructure. Saddam poured money into war, subversion, and palaces. Now we help defend the country, but do not rule it. It is not fair for Jordanians still to call the US an "occupier." More egregious, some Americans call it that.


    PM Olmert's chief colleagues said that their political party must revise its line-up (sack Olmert) or prepare for elections. They said that they cannot continue on under his leadership without rotting moral values.

    Some Members of Knesset wondered how those colleagues uphold moral values by remaining in Olmert's Cabinet while talking about moral values while he tries to remember what he did with all those cash-filled envelopes (IMRA, 5/30).

    They say he has expensive collections. Perhaps he just was collecting envelopes.


    After coming in for criticism from its usual critics, the Israeli government reversed itself and now will let Gaza students of higher education out to utilize their scholarships. The diplomatic officials who made the later decision explained it as a way of giving the students something good to do for themselves and their future country other than terrorism (NY Times, 6/2).

    Those Israel officials assume that that higher education keeps people away from terrorism, the students would use their skill to build a state, and that such a state would not harm Israel. Experience, however, shows that since P.A. Arab aspirations are to destroy Israel, educated Muslims, especially Western-educated ones, bring their skills to the terrorist cause. Their state would be stronger in fighting Israel. Let Israeli officials study terrorism before expressing opinions about it.


    My friends ask, "Whom are you voting for?" They neglect the issues, which most of the candidates hide from.

    For three weeks in succession, NY Times Sunday Opinion cartoons made fun of Clinton and spared Obama. Have you noticed this pattern? If he is held above criticism, perhaps we should defeat him, lest he get away with megalomania.

    Obama suggests running out of Iraq. His opponents could practically defeat him on that one piece of nonsense, alone, if explained carefully. They don't. They must think that Americans don't understand more than isolated sound bytes, or else that is all the candidates are capable of. They don't focus on an opponent's misconceptions thoroughly and persistently, until clear to everyone. They do fasten on violations of political correctness.

    Muslims assert a religious entitlement to Palestine, whereas most Jews asert Israeli security needs. Israelis are too modern to insist upon Jewish religious entitlement to the Land of Israel, but not too modern to deny the Islamic claim. This inconsistency forfeits a double propaganda advantage to the enemy. The US government states that both sides are entitled to share the land, without explaining why, and without being challenged over the injustice of that. Apparently no candidates knows that when Jordan was split off the Mandate, the Arabs got 79% of the land. Bush's proposed sharing is 83% for the Arabs, including most of the Jews' religious and historical places, and only 17% for the Jews. The candidates' support for another partition is unfair and unaware. By the way, the Arab states encompass more land than does the US.

    Here are some misunderstood issues. Education may determine American prosperity, but is failing. Americans think that education depends on how much money is spent on schools, but we already spend the most, while the curriculum is biased and dumbed down and the teaching methods often are proven failures.

    Americans think that health depends on how much is spent on medicine and by whom, but they pollute food, air, and water, eat junk, and visit doctors who don't think but prescribe drugs that cause much illness and often don't solve any. Environmental concerns have been hijacked by a confused notion of global warming, while pollution is unaddressed and Americans over-indulge.

    Democrats think that war is voluntary, but a new fascist ideology in religious garb is seeking world domination and opening many fronts.

    Westerners are confused about immigration. How do we get the workers we need, not those who absorb our resources or try to take away our culture?

    The falling dollar is ignored and some candidates want to pile on more debt. WAR, INC.

    War, Inc. is a movie about an entirely privatized US war in the Mideast. I think it could have been good satire if it showed real problems not diverted by a silly plot.

    Unlike the audience, I found only some of the jokes funny, others silly, and the rest I missed because the actors spoke too fast or unclearly. The audience liked the anti-Bush jokes, unfair as they were. I wonder why the movies I see about such wars do not make fun of Bush's critics. I believe in equal opportunity humor. Apparently Hollywood doesn't.


    Israel has let the P.A. open three police stations in Judea-Samaria. Israel explains that this is to reduce tensions (IMRA, 6/3). "Tensions" never defined.

    Do such measures ease tension? Never measured, so far as I have heard. Why base policy on assumptions? Why not use sociologists to provide insights useful in making policy?

    The assumption is that tension between the P.A. Arabs and Israel is due to Israeli restrictions upon them, and that such tension is bad. This is not logical. The Arabs started the wars before Israel controlled the Territories. Therefore, tension preceded Israeli restrictions. Tension is generated by Islamic notions of superiority over infidels and injustice in not being in control over them. Some might call that superiority complex arrogance. Muslim leaders fan discontent.

    Certain restrictions may justifiably be resented. Every week and every day, however, the P.A. foments tensions, by propagandizing against Israel and the Jewish people and blaming them for every Arab problem. Easily inflammable, the Muslim Arabs are driven into terrorism. Restrictions are in self-defense. Removing them for the sake of removing restrictions may facilitate terrorism. It also pleases the State Dept., but the State Dept. is anti-Zionist, so pleasing it harms Israel. The only question is whether the restrictions are useful and reasonable.


    The NY Sun has a daily column of election news briefs. It needs a companion column called "Candidates' Waffles." Sen. McCain would have some entries, but most would follow Sen. Obama's constant shifting under criticism. He shifts on the same issue day-to-day. One is reminded of the prosecuting attorney's grilling, "You told the police you were present on April 5, but you testified here that you were absent on April 5. Were you lying then or are you lying now?"

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Family Security Matters, June 16, 2008.

    This comes from CRC Open Sources and is available at
    http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/ id.369/pub_detail.asp

    For the past several months, I have written quite a bit about the odd alliances and the seemingly unlikely coordination of effort between Sunni and Shiia in the broader Islamic jihad against the West.

    Those who don't fully understand the depth and scope of what the Jihadists are doing worldwide, will argue that Sunni and Shiia don't work and play well together. That may be true in a world where only Sunni and Shiia kingdoms exist. But as long as radical Islam has greater enemies to contend with –– like Israel, the U.S., and the greater West –– these two unlikely Muslim sects (and their various subsets) will coordinate efforts and generally support one another.

    In a book published last month by the National Intelligence University and the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Ely Karmon –– a senior research scholar at Israel's International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism –– writes:

    "Little is known about the Iran-Hizballah-al-Qaeda connections, but there is no doubt that several dozens or possibly hundreds of Sunni jihadi operatives are in Iran, and Ayman al-Zawahiri has hinted in the past of a possible cooperation with Tehran. In his famous letter sent to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in July 2005, Zawahiri noted that 'more than one hundred prisoners-many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries-[are] in the custody of the Iranians.' The attacks against the Shiites in Iraq could compel 'the Iranians to take counter measures,' and therefore, al-Qaeda 'and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting' them. The Iranians could use al-Qaeda for their own needs in the Middle East or beyond, and some al-Qaeda operatives could be impressed by a nuclear Iran and agree to cooperate."

    The letter Dr. Karmon is referring to is one sent from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, which was seized during counterterrorism operations in Iraq. The letter was released July 9, 2005 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    Karmon's book (actually a monograph) is entitled, Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas –– A Coalition Against Nature, Why Does It Work?

    Contact Family Security Matters at info@familysecuritymatters.org

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 16, 2008.

    This comes from the Jerusalem Prayer Team. The Jerusalem Prayer Team, America's largest Christian coalition praying for the peace of Jerusalem, was founded by Michael Evans, the author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move." Contact them at www.JerusalemPrayerTeam.org and address email inquiries to jpteam@sbcglobal.net

    Dear Everyone,

    The number of participants who have taken our Save Jerusalem vote continues to grow steadily. Click here to view the latest vote count.

    Please encourage your friends and family to cast their votes as well to help us reach our goal of 200,000 signatures. Every person who raises a voice against the division of Jerusalem is another step forward in our mission to guard, defend and protect the Jewish people and Eretz Israel until Israel is secure, and until the Redeemer comes to Zion.

    The Jerusalem Prayer Team is a prayer movement of people around the world with the goal of enlisting one million people in America to pray daily and 100,000 houses of worship praying weekly for the peace of Jerusalem. It is a non-denominational organization that receives no support from the Nation of Israel.

    Contact Barbara Sommer by email at sommer_1_98@worldnet.at.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Shoshana Lepon, June 16, 2008.

    Update on Shmuel ben Miriam –– Jerusalem 18-yr-old who was hit by car on Pesach.

    Baruch Hashem, he's now breathing on his own, talking, eating. He's in Tel HaShomer in rehabilitation. Working on moving arms and fingers. Not yet moving lower half of body.

    Still needs lots of davening to come out of it whole.

    Thanks for all your prayers & concern.

    Shoshana Lepon

    Contact Shoshana Lepon at anonymom2000@yahoo.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Sergio, June 16, 2008.

    Some people cannot live in peace until Hebron is Judenrein again, as it was from 1948 to 1967, 19 years out of over 3500 years!

    Peace Now calls for suspension of police commander who said extreme left-wing activists provoke settlers in hope of producing violent response. 'They have become an even greater threat than the anarchists,' said Commander Peled

    This was written by Efrat Weiss and it appeared today in Ynet News

    "The activity of some leftist organizations in Hebron is more dangerous that which is being conducted by their right-wing counterparts," a senior Shai District Police official told Ynet Monday.

    "Organizations such as Bnei Avraham (which is committed to 'disturbing the occupation, disrupting the segregation and apartheid regime') and Breaking the Silence are wolves in sheep's' clothing", the official said in light of the growing tensions between left and right-wing activists in the West Bank city.

    The head of the Israel Police's Hebron district, Commander Avshalom Peled told Ynet that "from my experience in the Hebron and Gush Etzion area, the activity on the part of the militant left can be severe and dangerous."

    Hebron police have recorded a drop in disturbances involving Jewish settlers over the past year and noted an improvement in the dialogue between the settler community and police.

    "In the past we did not have any problems with the leftist organizations, but all this changed recently," another police official said. "Their activity has become more extreme in nature, and it may result in (an eruption of violence)."

    Police claim that on April 25 members of Bnei Avraham and Breaking the Silence took advantage of the fact that they were permitted to tour Hebron to hold an illegal rally and provoke settlers.

    "The leftists antagonize the settlers in the hope that the settlers will attack them," a police official said.

    "The left-wing organizations have become an even greater threat than the anarchists."

    Peace Now: Suspend police chief

    The 'Peace Now' movement issued a call for the immediate suspension of Commander Peled. Movement chairman Yariv Oppenheimer sent a formal request to Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter following the Ynet report.

    "It would be preferable if the Hebron police focused on laying its hands on Rightist rioters rather than try and bury the shameful situation it is responsible for," the movement said.

    MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz) also responded to the report. "It would seem as though the police are working for the Kahanist and fascist groups in Hebron. I call on the internal security minister to conduct an investigation into the conduct of police forces in Hebron," said Gal-On.

    Contact Sergio at nutella59@gmail.com

    You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, June 16, 2008.

    This was written by Joshua Teitelbaum and was published as a JCPA Jerusalem Issue Brief.

    A Refutation of the Campaign to Excuse Ahmadinejad's Incitement to Genocide


    * Over the past several years, Iranian leaders –– most prominently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad –– have made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. While certain experts have interpreted these statements to be simple expressions of dissatisfaction with the current Israeli government and its policies, in reality, the intent behind Ahmadinejad's language and that of others is clear.

    * What emerges from a comprehensive analysis of what Ahmadinejad actually said –– and how it has been interpreted in Iran –– is that the Iranian president was not just calling for "regime change" in Jerusalem, but rather the actual physical destruction of the State of Israel. When Ahmadinejad punctuates his speech with "Death to Israel" (marg bar Esraiil), this is no longer open to various interpretations.

    * A common motif of genocide incitement is the dehumanization of the target population. The Nazi weekly Der Stürmer portrayed Jews as parasites and locusts. Ahmadinejad said in a speech on October 26, 2005: "In the Middle East, they [the global powers] have created a black and filthy microbe called the Zionist regime."

    * Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, has made statements about Israel similar to Ahmadinejad. On December 15, 2000, he declared on Iranian TV: "Iran's position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region."

    * Michael Axworthy, who served as the Head of the Iran Section of Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, notes that when the slogan "Israel must be wiped off the map" appeared "draped over missiles in military parades, that meaning was pretty clear."

    * There is an ample legal basis for the prosecution of Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity.

    Click here to read the Full Report.

    Contact JCPA by email at jcpa@netvision.net.il

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Avodah, June 16, 2008.

    This comes from yesterday's People's Daily-China

    A group of Hamas-controlled policemen appeared to be very interested while listening to a weapon expert who spent most of the time responding to their curious questions on explosives.

    During the whole one-hour lesson, the officers, who were of various ages and many of whom bearded, kept on asking questions and the trainer, captain Fares al-Ashi who once received training in South Carolina of the United States, took the time answering.

    "These information are important for the youths (the trainees)," al-Ashi said. "We give them general information about the explosives, those manufactured locally and the Israeli ones, because those people always reach the dangerous sites before we, the explosive squad, do."

    The lesson was part of a new training program that the Hamas police launched last month, nearly one year after the Islamic movement seized control of the security establishment in the Gaza Strip.

    Major Khalil Hejjo, chief of the training administration in the police, said the program was "a big achievement" made by the police which took a new shape after it became completely under Hamas' control.

    "In the past, a brigadier general used to run this administration in addition to 250 officer trainers, but now, seven trainers and I oversee the whole programs," Hejjo explained.

    The program is called "martyr Aziz Massoud course" for rehabilitating officers. "Every program should carry the name of a martyr," Hejjo said.

    Massoud was killed in February in an Israeli airstrike on a car alongside four members of Hamas' armed wing, Ezz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades.

    "He was one of the police trainers," Hejjo added.

    The course is not limited to Hamas supporters and also involves200 officers "who represent all the political factions," according to Hejjo, who was a member of the police when it was under Fatah control and continued to work under Hamas.

    The program, which lasts for four months besides a fifth month for exams, includes physical exercises as well as lectures on human rights, civil defense and explosives.

    Hamas completed its Gaza takeover one year ago. As a result, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas withdrew his Fatah movement from coalition with Hamas, deposed Hamas Premier Ismail Haneya and formed a Fatah-backed cabinet based in West Bank.

    Hamas refused Abbas' decisions and kept ruling Gaza after making several reshuffle on the deposed government. Later, Hamas took over most of the institutions and municipal councils and replaced their directors with pro-Hamas managers.

    The political challenge between Hamas and Fatah make a political separation between the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

    However, a few days ago, Abbas implicitly gave up a condition stipulating that Hamas steps back from controlling Gaza in order to open a national dialogue. Hamas welcomed the call.

    Critics said that such training, in addition to taking over Palestinian National Authority's national and civil institution, tighten Hamas' grip on the impoverished territory and decrease chances of success of expected dialogue.

    Source: Xinhua

    Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Barry Rubin, June 16, 2008.

    Golda Meir once said that a bad press was better than a good epitaph. In other words, pragmatic considerations must take precedence over public relations.

    Sometimes it seems as if contemporary Israeli governments have forgotten that concept. Yet in general, especially where it counts, this principle continues to prevail in Israel.

    Not so in the Arab world. There, maintaining a rhetoric of war, militancy, and refusal to compromise –– as proof of the regime's impeccable Arab nationalist and Islamic credentials –– has always been a powerful factor in governance. This method has great benefits by mobilizing popular support for dictators and a high cost because it blocks their making peace and leads them into costly foreign adventures.

    For rulers, the good news is that they remain perpetually behind the steering wheel; the bad news, at least for their citizens, is that the vehicle never gets anywhere good. But this is not to say that the masses are mere dupes in this process. Tempting as it is to say, dictators bad; people good, the fact is that even if the masses don't (in the words of George Orwell's classic on modern dictatorship, 1984) love the ruling Big Brother, they at least like what Big Brother says.

    What Big Brother, and all his helping little brothers, says, however, has changed internationally if not locally. The old script, still used in Arabic, was very macho: We'll fight forever, spill oceans of blood, and win completely in the end.

    The new script, available only in English, is: we're poor victims who want peace and. In tune with current world thinking, this generates much sympathy.

    But the resulting public relations' victories avail them not.

    First, let's ask: what, in material terms, has the shift in Western opinion and media coverage actually cost Israel? It's easy to say Israel has been restrained from triumphs by Western pressure as a result of this change. Yet that situation dates back to the early 1970s, before the public relations' blitz, and has more to do with geopolitics than public opinion.

    One can argue that there have been some costs to Israel (beneficial advantages from the European Union) and some benefits to the other side (more money to the Palestinian Authority). There's been a lot of personal discomfiture for Israelis treated as pariahs and Jews abroad dismayed by waves of hatred and misunderstanding.

    Yet this has amounted to relatively little material disadvantage for Israel and not much real benefit for its adversaries. After all, there's still no Palestinian state, Palestinians are more divided than ever, Hamas is isolated, there's not much pressure on Israel for concessions, the Israeli presence on the Golan Heights remains, Israel's economy thrives, Israel's relations with the major European countries are good, the international campaign against Iran's nuclear drive is as strong as can be expected, and so on.

    In short, the radical Arab nationalists, Islamists, Arab regimes, and Palestinian movement have squandered their public relations' victories in the West. The main reason for this is their extremist goals. They are like a bettor who wins at the gambling table but never cashes in his chips since defeat makes him more determined and success makes him over-confident.

    If, for example, Palestinian leaders had wanted a deal to get an independent state or Syria had preferred to get back the Golan Heights in exchange for full peace they would have succeeded. A good press and favorable Western opinion, reflected through government policies, would have helped them make a better deal. As it is, however, they are merely enabled to continue their endless struggle with a smile on their faces.

    A second way they have lost is by failing to be constructive. Aid given Palestinians was thrown away rather than used to build a productive stable society. The same principle applies to many Arab countries, with a partial exception for high-income, low-population Gulf Arab oil-producing states. Fickle fortune doesn't favor one forever. If you don't grab an advantage it flies away. The moving finger writes and having writ moves on, as Omar Khayyam put it. And sometimes, within a very short time, the very same finger that once praised you gives you, so to speak, the finger.

    Third, specific actions undermine temporary popularity. Such events as September 11, the London subway bombings, the Islamist specter, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's demagoguery turn off the Western audience.

    Finally, what Arab nationalists and Islamists often cite as their strongest card that time is on their side –– because of high birth rates, which also mean lower living standards, or due to Israel's impending miraculous collapse –– is among their worst mistakes. You could call it the vulture strategy, wait around in hope your adversary will die. They go on fighting and suffering –– postponing peace, progress, and prosperity –– while Israel, despite costs, prospers and its people live much better lives.

    Rather than being used as part of an integrated strategy to obtain the best possible deal, public relations' successes act as morale builders to keep fighters going in the belief that victory is inevitable. In short, the more sympathetic stories about suffering victim Palestinians, the stronger the impetus to continue policies ensuring Palestinians continue in that status.

    One reason for this malady is that most Arabs and Muslims are misled by a history often characterized by the cycle famously described by the historian Ibn Khaldoun. City-centered civilizations grown rich and decadent were destroyed by warlike tribes who reveled in battle. Sheep-like peasants were preyed on by nomadic warriors who raided them like wolves, killing and pillaging.

    This was before, however, developed societies built technology, organization, discipline, and identity which gave them real military superiority beyond the strong right arm of individual hero warriors who courted death in battle. Now would-be conquerors sacrifice all for a future that'll never come. A strategy based on loving death and hating life reaps the commensurate result.

    Jews know well from history that it is wrong to say "sticks and stones" are physically damaging while "words will never hurt me." Experience has shown that one day, blood libel; next day, pogrom. Yet Golda Meir was in fact right: progress trumps propaganda; quality triumphs over quantity; building beats destroying; and pragmatism is superior to ideologically-based wishful thinking.

    Having a nice scrapbook of press clippings doesn't equal victory. Indeed, it can spell defeat.

    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 A Recovering Presbyterian, June 15, 2008.

    In May 2008, the Office of Interfaith Relations of the Presbyterian Church released a statement entitled "Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias". The revised document that appeared in June was a disappointment. As Will Spotts expressed it in an essay entitled "Vigilance Against Vigilance", the Presbyterian Church was inoculating itself against awareness of its institutional anti-jewish bias. To read his initial analysis, click here.

    The May document can be found at https://www.presbyweb.com/2008/News. Scroll down to May2008Statement.pdf to view/download it. The June document is also available at https://www.presbyweb.com/2008/News. Scroll down to June2008Statement.pdf to view/download it.

    A variety of people have responded to the recent revision of the document produced by the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Office of Interfaith Relations. I would like to highlight a couple of these responses.

    First, I must point out that it is commonplace among churches embracing anti-Israel activism to emphasize Jewish support for their actions and statements. Usually examples of fringe groups and individuals are employed for this purpose. But the fact remains that broad-based Jewish groups have all criticized the antisemitic overtones present in this church sponsored activism. The PC(USA)'s May document acknowledged and rejected this antisemitic element; their June document did not. This is not a matter of support for Israel or Palestine –– contrary to what some may assert; it is not a matter of taking sides in the conflict; it is not a matter of trying to simplify a very complex situation. Instead, the important feature is whether or not mainline US denominations are saying antisemitism is OK with them. The members of these denominations need to make a decision –– whether or not they will tolerate their church involvement in the propagation of hate. 1. The President of the Union for Reform Judaism, the Executive Vice President of United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and the Executive Vice President of the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation released a letter to Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick. Among other things they indicated:

    "Candor compels us to respond immediately and clearly to the "expanded" and "revised" publication of "Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias," and to tell you as plainly as we know how that the new statement marks a new low-point in Presbyterian-Jewish relations."

    They went on to say:

    "The revised statement, which is currently prominently displayed on your website, does more to excuse anti-Semitism and foster anti-Jewish motifs then it does to dispel them."


    "Friends, or even dialogue partners, do not engage in actions that can so easily and plausibly be seen as "bait and switch" tactics.""

    2. Another communication was issued jointly by the American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; B'nai B'rith International; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Hadassah: The Women's Zionist Organization

    Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; The Rabbinical Assembly; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Union for Reform Judaism; Women's League for Conservative Judaism; and the Women of Reform Judaism.

    ""We are deeply distressed by the revisions made to the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s recent statement calling for "Vigilance against anti-Jewish ideas and bias."

    The revised statement is infused with the very bias that the original statement condemned. We are disappointed that after taking steps toward better relations, the church has rescinded many of the positive statements it made about rooting out anti-Jewish invective. It is even more disturbing that this occurs after Jewish groups had warmly welcomed the original statement, and only days before the church's upcoming biennial. As such, we can no longer welcome its publication and must rescind the letters and statements in which we welcomed the original document.

    We resent the implication in the revised statement that some Jewish criticism of Israeli policy justifies the PC(USA)'s one-sided stances. It does not. There is legitimate criticism of Israeli policies that comes from both Christians and Jews. However, some criticism crosses the line. Sadly, many PC(USA) statements have and continue to cross this line.

    A 2004 policy stated that Israeli occupation is "at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict." A 2007 church teaching resource claims a two-thousand-year continued Christian presence in the Holy Land, but writes Jews out of the history until the middle of the twentieth century. A 2008 church statement termed the rockets that Hamas has fired into Israeli civilian areas as "provocative acts of retaliation." The newly revised statement on anti-Jewish bias describes Israel as "the oppressive force in the Israeli-Palestinian situation," dismissing the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish terror that has killed and maimed Israeli civilians in buses, restaurants, and markets. Each statement and action moves beyond legitimate criticism and rewrites history or assigns excessive blame to Israelis, even for violence directed against them.

    A further example of blaming Jews for that which harms us is the revised language on Palestinian liberation theology. Gone is language recognizing that such theology presents "unique problems" and is "troubling in its demonization of Israel." Instead, the burden is shifted to Jews who, the statement claims, "inevitably construe" calling the Jewish state a crucifying power as anti-Jewish. We know that we do not shoulder alone our horror over statements by liberation theologians such as "the Israeli government crucifixion machine is operating daily," or "Israel has placed a large boulder, a big stone that has metaphorically shut off the Palestinians in a tomb, similar to the stone placed on the entrance of Jesus' tomb" or "security is a pagan god that Israel worships." Christians and all people of good will also construe such rhetoric as echoing classic anti-Jewish accusations.

    The revised statement inserts a litany of church policies against Israel, including targeting corporations for "engagement" as a viable approach to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No recent church policy has caused greater harm to Presbyterian-Jewish relations. In contrast, the church has yet to take any action to "engage" corporations that foster anti-Israel terrorism through investment in state sponsors of terror, including Iran and Syria. This demonstrates a continued one-sided and distressing approach to peacemaking.

    The revised statement also adds a most troubling interpretation of the biblical promise of land. The original statement recognized both a universal gift of land and one made specifically to the Jewish people. This is replaced with a re-interpretation that the Jewish covenant instead includes a promise of land to "the Jewish people and to all the descendants of Abraham." In June 2006, Jewish organizations broadly welcomed the call for a "new season of mutual understanding and dialogue" issued by the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In January 2007, after the issuance of an anti-Israel PC(USA) statement, we questioned whether that new season had arrived. Today, we note with profound hurt that the season for which we continue to hope has indeed not yet arrived.""

    3. A variety of Presbyterians have also responded negatively to this tactic –– which is troubling on many levels. I lack the space to reproduce these here, but I think their concerns are well expressed in this letter to Presbyweb written by Rev. John Wimberly:
    The decision by the PCUSA to release a revised statement on Anti-Semitism, totally undermining the previous statement, is the most disappointing development in interfaith relations in my 34 years of ministry. I simply don't know how we can release a document, receive high praise from the Jewish community, withdraw it and release a new document which profoundly angers the Jewish community and all of us who have spent a lifetime trying to build trust between Presbyterians and the Jewish community. This is beyond bad process. This is bad ministry. Who will trust our words in the future? Why should they?

    John Wimberly
    Pastor, Western Presbyterian Church
    Washington, D.C.

    Contact A recovering Presbyterian at wspotts@zoominternet.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, June 15, 2008.

    I received a phone call this morning from a friend. Ron wanted me to listen to Chabad's Jewish radio program in town, where the plight of Sderot's children would be discussed...the town in the Negev that's under constant bombardment by Arabs years after Israel's total withdrawal from adjacent Gaza. The plan evidently involves moving the kids elsewhere, out of harm's way.

    Like many other Diaspora Jews, I'm also deeply concerned about the resurrected Jewish State. But Israel itself has been making serious blunders over the last few decades –– and, especially, the past several years –– which greatly exacerbates its situation.

    Something about this rubs the wrong way... big time.

    I know, it's easy for me to be brave when it's not my own town in Florida being targeted. But it goes far beyond this...

    The Arabs have always planned to make life so unbearable for Jews in Israel that they'd want to abandon the Zionist dream.

    When a pressured Prime Minister/ General Ariel Sharon came up with his controversial unilateral withdrawal plan for Israel from Gaza a few years back, many of us had mixed feelings. One of our main fears was that it would just bring Arab terror that much closer to Israel proper, while caving into yet another step in the Arabs' post-'67 War destruction-in-phases plans for Zion. We instinctively knew that Arabs would not take advantage of this to begin a state-building process for their 22nd state and second, not first, within the original 1920 borders of the Mandate of Palestine (Jordan created from almost 80%of this back in 1922).

    Yet, we hoped we would be proven wrong.

    And, after all, David Ben-Gurion himself looked to Israel's own Negev Desert as a major area for a growing Jewish population, not Gaza –– despite the latter being used as an invasion route to attack Jews from since the days of the Pharaohs.

    Sad to say, the Arab leopard does not change its spots, and the whole area –– despite scores of millions of non-Arab Kurds, Berbers, Copts, Jews, black Africans, and so forth –– is still regarded as "purely Arab patrimony." Episodes such as the Gaza withdrawal only confirm the success of the overall Arab game plan for the region. The Arabs' ANFAL campaign against Kurds in Iraq and genocide against black Africans in the Sudan are just a few of many other examples.

    So, back to Sderot...

    I'm all for building strong defenses and shelters to try to keep the town's citizens as safe as possible from Arab mortars, rockets, and such. But evacuating Jews in Israel proper because of Arab terror is a line which I believe will lead us down a very dangerous slippery slope. Today Sderot, tomorrow Ashkelon, etc. and so forth as Arab missiles gain in range and power.

    Jews should not be the ones having to evacuate...

    Imagine, as Presidential hopeful John McCain, has said himself, that it was an American border town in Arizona, Texas, or elsewhere being subjected to this terror.

    Would the world expect an America which dwarfs Israel to evacuate its own land, or would it expect the aggressors to halt their destructive, murderous behavior? Certainly Mexico has its grievances with America...McCain and President Bush's home states were once part of Mexico.

    Now, what do you think we –– or any other nation –– would do (have done) under such circumstances?

    Okay? So now here's the plan...

    Since Prime Minister Olmert's crew lacks the backbone (and a few other analogous body parts) to spell it out and carry it through (letting the Arabs' good buddies in the American State Department dictate most of Israeli policy instead), let me propose that a major, well-advertised, televised news conference be held to which many of the world's leading media and diplomats will be invited. It will be broadcast live all over the world, carried by radio too, in many different languages, will explain much of what I have already covered above, and will be delivered by a handsome orator with the talent of the late Abba Eban. Yep, the John F. Kennedy factor won't be ignored either.

    After this general overview of the situation Israel faces, the following will next be stated...

    My friends...Please understand that Israel would love nothing more than to be able to live in a true, mutually respectful, peace with our Arab neighbors. Unfortunately, the problem has never been how big Israel is, but that Israel is. For this problem, there is no compromise solution, and poll after poll conducted amongst Arabs has shown this to still be the case. Continuous unilateral Israeli concessions only convince Arabs of Israel's weakness and the success of their own long term strategy for Israel's demise.

    In light of this, and in consideration of the current main Arab target of terror, please note the following...

    Sderot will not undergo any evacuations.

    If evacuations are called for, then they will not be those of Jews.

    We will soon be delivering to our Arab neighbors one last call for them to begin their own # 22 state-building process, rather than continuing to persist in their quest to destroy our one, tiny, sole state. Gaza was a test of what the future might hold...and the Arabs have flunked it –– pure and simple.

    If, as we fear, they ignore our plea and continue to wage terror, destruction, bodily harm, and murder, then we will be forced to respond to these open acts of war the way others have and would respond.

    Indeed, we have been far more patient than any other nation regarding those who openly seek our destruction. And, in this, the Hamas-led Arabs only differ in timing with those led by Abbas's Fatah...by the latter's own words. The quarrel between the two factions is largely about who will control the billions of dollars that will be pouring in from abroad –– not over acceptance of a permanent Jewish neighbor.

    Those ruling Gaza were openly elected by that Arab population –– the same population which shields them as they launch their terror. Furthermore, the same situation awaits us in Judea and Samaria, aka the "West Bank," unless a reasonable territorial compromise is arrived there as well. Secretary of State Rice might wish us to believe otherwise, but it is our children in the line of fire –– not hers.

    Let it be known that the next act of Arab terror launched against us will be met by the following sequence of events. We will not pursue tit-for-tat or targeted responses any longer, for those have proven to be virtually useless.

    When the next mortar or rocket lands, we will proceed as follows:

    We will drop by air –– as we've done elsewhere before –– numerous warnings, in Arabic, to the Gaza population. Unlike Arab terror, we will let Arabs know where not to be in advance.

    They will be told that two days following the next terror attack will be answered by a massive artillery bombardment of the entire width of the area in Gaza from which mortars or rockets may be launched from. This is similar to what America calls its Powell Doctrine. The two-day grace period will provide time for Arab evacuation of the area. Note also that we put ourselves at risk by doing this, with the probability of being subjected to massive foreign pressure, and so forth.

    Because of the latter, it has also been discussed that we carry out our plan according to the Arabs' own rules, and launch our response unannounced –– without telegraphing our plans or punch. Unlike our neighbors, however, we cannot get ourselves to behave as such.

    The day afterward the artillery assault will bring a massive aerial bombardment.

    As the Perfidy and other clauses of the Geneva Conventions openly state, warring parties cannot use their civilian populations as human shields, and when they do so, this will not remove such locations as legitimate targets...Any civilian casualties will thus be on the Arabs' own shoulders.

    Article #51/7: The presence of the civilian population shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attack...

    Article #58b: The parties to the conflict shall...avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.

    There will be no massive infantry invasion, subjecting Jewish soldiers to the deadly surprises Arabs think they have in store for them.

    After the bombardment, a fifteen-mile buffer zone will be created which will be a mine field, posted for all to see and keep out of.

    If terror continues after our initial responses, we will repeat the above process, extending the mine field, and so forth.


    We advise our Arab foes to forget about crying to their hypocritical friends in the United Nations, the American State Department, and elsewhere. We have already displayed a patience far beyond what any of those folks would display themselves given the same circumstances which we have daily faced.

    Finally, we are holding this news conference today because we truly hope that we will not have to put these plans into motion.

    But we refuse to put up with the murder and destruction any more.

    Now, I will open the floor to questions from this distinguished audience...

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Michael Freund, June 15, 2008.

    This was written by Anshel Pfeffer and it appeared in Haaretz

    Jin Jin and Nina Wang are students in Hebrew University's preparatory program. They will soon commence their BA studies, but they already have long-term dreams. Jin wants to eventually serve as a diplomat in the Foreign Ministry. Wang hopes to use her diverse knowledge of languages to represent Israeli companies in China. The two women belong to one of the smallest Jewish communities in Israel –– immigrants from Kaifeng, China –– which numbers just 10 souls.

    Jin, 22, and Wang, 21, arrived in Israel at the beginning of 2006, together with two other friends from Kaifeng on tourist visas. They received temporary resident status after they begun conversion studies and received citizenship after undergoing a conversion ceremony in a rabbinical court. Wang explains that as children their parents and grandparents "told us we are Jews and that one day we'd return to our land." Jin Jin boasts, "We have a family burial plot that goes back dozens of generations, and we have genealogy books showing our connection with earlier generations of Jews."

    Kaifeng Jews do not object to undergoing a "giyur l'chumra" –– a conversion ceremony done for the sake of removing any doubt, in contrast to other groups such as Ethiopian Jews. According to them, their families intermarried with local Chinese over time, and didn't maintain Jewish traditions save for abstaining from pig meat, the one trait that differentiated them from their neighbors.

    Most researchers, including former skeptics, now concur the community descends from Jewish traders who came to Kaifeng, the capital of the Chinese empire from 960 to 1127, and probably other cities. Evidence as to when they arrived ranges from the late Second Temple period to the seventh century. If they disagree on the timing of the Jews' arrival, scholars are almost certain they came as traders via the Silk Route. At some stage, according to community tradition, the emperor bestowed upon them Chinese family names, which they bear with pride to this day.

    Civil wars and natural disasters tragically decimated the community in the mid-19th century, when its synagogue was said to be destroyed. Communal life has been virtually non-existent during the past 70 years. An estimated 600-1,000 people who identify themselves as Jewish descendants now reside in Kaifeng.

    The town's Jews reconnected with mainstream Jewry thanks to visits by Jewish tourists, who brought learning materials and religious objects to local Jews. Jin's uncle Shlomo Jin went to the Israeli embassy in Beijing eight years ago seeking to immigrate to Israel. Embassy officials didn't want to hear about it, so he eventually came to Israel with his family via a European country.

    Shavei Israel, an organization which reaches out to lost Jewish communities, helped community members get accepted into a conversion program.

    The girls describe their year in the conversion institute as stressful. "We felt we needed to learn because that's what we lacked," says Wang. In contrast to other conversion candidates, they didn't feel insulted by being required to strictly observe Jewish commandments.

    Michael Freund, the head of Shavei Israel, estimates the potential number of immigrants from Kaifeng to be no more than a few hundred. However, he described the community members as "people with very high motivation and we need to help them." Neither the Israeli government nor the Jewish Agency currently encourages the immigration or conversion of Kaifeng Jews, but Jin Jin and Nina Wang believe that within a generation a proper community of Jewish Chinese immigrants will be established in Israel.

    Michael Freund is the head of Shavei Israel and a columnist for the Jerusalem Post.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 15, 2008.

    This was written by Jonathan Rosenblum and it comes from the Aish website:
    http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/Pallywood0.asp This article originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post.

    Charles Enderlin is not going quietly into the night. On May 23 a French appeals court dismissed the libel suit he and France2 brought against media critic Phillippe Karsenty, arising out of the latter's charge that Enderlin and France2 had duped the French public with their September 30, 2000 broadcast of the "death of Muhammed al-Dura" at Netzarim Junction. In his voice-over that night, Enderlin, who was not at Netzarim Junction during the events in question, unambiguously claimed that the boy in the film clip had been killed by Israeli fire that deliberately targeted him.

    With the dismissal of his suit, Enderlin joined Oscar Wilde and Alger Hiss in the pantheon of those who brought libel suits and ended up destroying their own reputations. He has announced, however, that he will appeal to the French Supreme Court. And his friends in the French journalistic community are circulating a petition claiming that he is the victim of insane conspiracy theorists.

    My friend Larry Derfner apparently shares that view. He wrote in the Jerusalem Post on May 28 that anyone who believes that France 2's broadcast was a hoax belongs in an asylum along with 9/11 deniers. According to Derfner, Karsenty, Boston University history professor Richard Landes, and Luc Rosenzweig, former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, are victims of Jewish paranoia.

    Larry admits that every word Enderlin said in his voice-over was false: There is no evidence that the boy and his father were targets of Israeli fire. Nor was he killed by Israeli fire. Yet, he writes, evidence of a journalistic hoax does not amount to .001 percent of the evidence that Shimon Peres masterminded the Rabin assassination. At most, Karsenty, Landes, et al. have gathered a few of the "oddities" favored by wacked-out conspiracy theorists.

    Enderlin distributed the France 2 clip free of charge, and it was subsequently broadcast thousands of times. The image of the terrified boy cowering behind his father quickly assumed iconic status. It featured prominently in mass anti-Israel demonstrations in Europe, where it was juxtaposed to the image of the Jewish boy with his hands raised in the Warsaw ghetto.

    To heighten its impact, Palestinian TV cropped into the France 2-clip pictures of an Israeli soldier firing. The image of "Muhammed al-Dura" beckoning other Palestinian children to join him as martyrs in paradise features prominently in the Palestinian death cult. His name was invoked by the Ramallah mob that disemboweled two Israeli reservists, in Osama bin Laden's 9/11 video, and in that of Daniel Pearl's beheading.

    For the Palestinians, media is a pure propaganda tool.

    One would have thought that those who doggedly exposed one falsehood after another and provoked Enderlin and France 2 into their ill-fated libel suit are deserving of praise, not ridicule. At the very least, we would expect their accusers to show some minimal familiarity with the evidence they have amassed and to make some attempt to refute it.

    Let's consider some of the "oddities" that are firmly established. Palestinians regularly fake media images and lie shamelessly. Recall Hamas legislators meeting by candlelight with the curtains drawn in what turned out to be the middle of the day, or the 5,000 Palestinians reportedly massacred in Jenin, or the family of eight supposedly killed by Israeli fire on Gaza Beach, who turned out to have stepped on Hamas-laid mines. Professor Landes coined the name Pallywood for these Palestinian media hoaxes, and documents a slew of them at his Web site Second Draft.

    For the Palestinians, media is a pure propaganda tool. Thus Riccardo Cristiano of Italian national TV felt compelled to compose a craven letter to the Palestinian Authority stating that his station would never have broadcast the Ramallah lynch because it fully understands the rules of reporting from the PA.

    From the general to the particular. The sole footage of "Muhammed al-Dura's death" was that of Palestinian cameraman Talul Abu-Rahmeh working for France 2. Abu-Rahmeh is a liar. On October 3, 2000, he testified under oath to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights that there had been 45 minutes of sustained Israeli fire directed at the man and boy. As an experienced war reporter, he could verify that they could have only been hit by Israeli fire. Abu-Rahmeh claimed to have filmed 27 minutes of the fusillade. Later he told German documentary filmmaker Esther Schapira that he had filmed six minutes.

    We now know that the boy could have only been hit by Palestinian fire. The story of a 45-minute fusillade was on its face laughable: Had Israeli soldiers wanted to kill Palestinians, they had dozens of rioters immediately in front of the Israeli stockade from which to choose. Moreover, Abu-Rahmeh's entire footage of the man and boy consisted of 58 seconds comprised of six spliced scenes.

    The rest of his 27 minutes of footage –– only 18 minutes of which France2 produced when ordered to do so by the French appeals court –– consists of obviously staged scenes, according to three veteran French journalists who viewed it. The "al-Dura" footage was shot in the same area that Abu-Rahmeh and other Palestinian cameramen spent the day shooting such staged scenes.

    Abu-Rahmeh once declared, "I went into journalism to carry on the fight for my people," and was certainly not above employing his camera for a bit of deception. A Reuters clip from the day shows him filming another staged scene involving a Molotov cocktail. That scene was inexplicably omitted from the rushes produced in the French court.

    Whether Charles Enderlin knew from the first that his voice-over was false is unclear. That he lies is certain. He drew for gullible journalists a false map of Netzarim Junction, which wrongly placed the Israeli position in a direct line of fire to the man and the boy. Worse yet, he repeatedly claimed that he had edited out the last three seconds of the "al-Dura" footage because the boy's death throes were too painful to watch.

    Enderlin drew twitters of laughter in the French courtroom when he offered that perhaps the crowd was anticipating the boy's death.

    There were no such death throes. In those last three seconds, the boy lifts his head, peeks out from under his arm (with which he is shielding his eyes) prior to resuming a prone position –– albeit with his leg still held aloft. A nearby mob chants, "the boy is dead, the boy is dead," before he even lies prone the first time. Enderlin drew twitters of laughter in the French courtroom when he offered that perhaps the crowd was anticipating the boy's death.

    Not only is there no dead boy on the film. There is no sign of blood or wounds of any kind. In other footage from the scene, civilians are seen passing by the crouching man and boy –– some running, some strolling but all apparently oblivious to any rifle fire. (See Nidra Poller, "Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair," Commentary, Sept. 2005).

    Over the years, more holes have developed in the al-Dura story. Phillipe Karsenty revealed that Jamal al-Dura had been treated many years earlier in an Israeli hospital for the same wounds later shown to journalists as corroboration. And Sami el-Soudi, a Palestinian journalist working for Metulla News Agency, found records of a boy named Muhammed al-Dura admitted to a Gaza hospital four hours before the filming at Netzarim Junction.

    As his original tale unraveled, Enderlin adopted a fallback position: Even if his voice-over was totally wrong, it still reflects the "reality" of the Israeli occupation: Israelis killing Palestinian children. That too appears to be Derfner's position: Nothing must be allowed to absolve Israel of guilt for the occupation.

    The al-Dura affair, it turns out, was not just about Israeli culpability, but about the very concept of Truth itself.

    Fortunately, this time the good guys won.

    Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 15, 2008.

    The interview appeared on The Observer, The Guardian


    "We need more sanctions. The next step is for the Europeans and the United States and Russia and China to understand that diplomacy only works if there are consequences. It is the international issue that faces us all. If the people in the Middle East do not think that the United States and Europe, for example, are going to work to provide security, they will find ways to secure themselves. And what the Middle East does not need is a nuclear arms race. It does not need the instability that comes from an innate fear that the West is not strong enough or willing enough to take on the problem.

    When you go to the Middle East and you sit in my seat and listen, yes, there's concern about the Palestinian state. But the dialogue has shifted dramatically from 'solve the Palestinian state and you've solved the problems in the Middle East' to, now, 'solve the Iranian issue and you solve the problems in the Middle East'.

    I have made it clear that it's difficult for the United States to resolve an issue in a one-on-one situation with people like Ahmadinejad. The only way to achieve consequences through diplomacy is for there to be a universal application –– in this case, of sanctions. Unilateral sanctions do not work."


    "We didn't realise, nor did anyone else, that Saddam Hussein felt like he needed to play like he had weapons of mass destruction. We thought for certain there were WMDs. That having been said, I still strongly defend the decision. The world is better off without Saddam in power.

    I feel a sense of pain for those who were tortured by Saddam, by the parents who watched their daughters raped by Saddam, by those innocent civilians who have been killed by inadvertent allied action, by those who have been bombed by suicide bombers. I feel a sense of pain for death. I feel a sense of pain for the families of our troops. And a responsibility to make sure they understand the sacrifice won't go in vain. They want to know whether or not the President, if he believes it was necessary, whether he is going to see this thing through. Nothing is worse than a politician making decisions based on the latest poll when people's lives are at stake.

    I think the Iraqi people –– yes, some have suffered, no question. But they're living in a free society. Do they like the fact that violence is still there? No. But I do know that life is improving. I do know they live under a government they elected. There's still a lot of work to be done, don't get me wrong. But freedom trumps tyranny every time."

    Tony Blair

    "The relationship with Tony Blair, first of all, is a relationship forged by fire. I have this idealistic streak and so does Blair. But we also understand that this idealism is a practical response to the world. He understands, like I understand, this is an ideological struggle. These [terror] acts are not isolated acts of lawlessness. We're in a war.

    A lot of people hoped this wasn't a war –– they just kind of dismiss it as, oh, there's some irritated guys making some moves. We viewed it as an ideological struggle that requires response through good intelligence, sometimes military action –– obviously, sometimes law-enforcement –– all aiming to dismantle cells and protect our people. But that ultimately freedom has to defeat the ideology of hate.

    It's convenient for the western press to use words like 'warmonger' or 'religious zealot' or 'poodle'. These are just words that people toss around foolishly. They retreat to the convenient rather than trying to probe the depths of a relationship or the depths of somebody's feelings on the basis of philosophy."

    The oil crisis

    "There is no magic wand. It took us a while to get to where we are. It's going to take us a while to get out of it. And the truth of the matter is that there's either got to be more supply or less demand. And demand doesn't decline overnight.

    During my trips to the Middle East, I talked to King Abdullah about increasing the supply of oil, on the theory that if you harm your consumers with high prices they will find other ways to power their economies –– and that he should not want to see the kind of worldwide contraction as a result of consumers spending money on energy that ends up overseas, as opposed to spending money on opportunities in their respective economies.

    So I think people, if they take a sober look at the world's supply, there's just not a lot, relative to demand. But if I might repeat, the solution to the price of hydrocarbons is either more hydrocarbons or less usage of hydrocarbons.

    What people don't understand is that hydrocarbons are necessary as we transition to a new era, based upon new technologies. New technologies don't happen overnight."


    "We have gone beyond the Iraq period. Democracy is succeeding there. We're beginning to see progress. And there are a lot of issues that we're focused on that send a signal that co-operation is necessary to change the conditions of the world for the better –– co-operation on Aids, co-operation on malaria, co-operation on trade hopefully, discussion about climate change, co-operation in Afghanistan. The agenda is varied and it's profound.

    Europe used to be inward-looking right after World War Two –– necessarily so, to rebuild. America helped. Now we can be outward-looking as we help others.

    I'm a believer that liberty is transformative –– the power of liberty is universal, that moral relativism must be rejected and that we've got to have confidence in liberty to help others so that we are more secure ourselves."


    "First, I'm not going to be around to see it. There's no such thing as objective, short-term history. It takes a while to be able to have enough time to look back to see why decisions were made and what their consequences were. I'd hope it'd be of somebody who would use the influence of the United States to help transform societies by working on disease and hunger and freedom. And the liberation of 50 million people from the clutches of barbaric regimes is noteworthy, at a minimum.

    You've got to have a set of beliefs that are the foundation for your very being. Otherwise, these currents and tides, and 24-hour news, and politics will kind of leave you adrift. And I tell people that when I get home, I'm going to look in the mirror and say I didn't sacrifice my core beliefs to satisfy critics or pundits.

    And when I talk about freedom, it's not just freedom from tyranny; it's freedom from HIV/Aids, freedom from malaria, freedom from hunger. For two reasons. One, it's in our national interests that we defeat hopelessness. The only way a suicide bomber can recruit is when he finds somebody hopeless. And secondly, it's in our moral interests. A nation is a better nation when it feeds the hungry and takes care of the diseased."

    After the White House

    "I'm going to think about writing a book. I'm going to build a presidential library with a 'freedom institute' ... not, you know, like some headquarters for the Republican party, but aimed at promoting the universal values that need to be defended. I'm very worried about isolationism and protectionism."

    Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 15, 2008.

    This was written by Ron Prosor and it comes from the Aish website:
    http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Hatred_in_Britain.asp This article originally appeared in the telegraph.co.uk

    Throughout its modern history, Britain has prided itself on its liberal society, which cherishes human rights and values civil liberties.

    That pride was well founded, both in the international arena, when Britain stood alone in Europe facing the dark forces of the Third Reich, and in the domestic field, when Britain led the way in establishing a national health service, granting women the right to vote and protecting the basic social rights of the working class.

    During a previous posting to Britain, I developed a keen admiration of this record, and of the core British values of fairness, decency and common sense.

    Since returning to these shores as Israel's ambassador last November, however, I have been dismayed to find that, as far as Israel is concerned, these values are under threat.

    Fairness is all too frequently absent in a debate that has been hijacked by extremists.

    Israel faces an intensified campaign of delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards. Britain has become a hotbed for radical anti-Israeli views and a haven for disingenuous calls for a "one-state solution", a euphemistic name for a movement advocating Israel's destruction.

    Those who propagate this notion distort Israel's past while categorically denying Israel's right to exist as a liberal Jewish-democratic state. No other country in the world is constantly forced to justify its own existence.

    At the end of last month, members of the University and College Union (UCU) passed a motion that in effect called for a boycott of the Israeli academia.

    The concept of an academic boycott is a ludicrous oxymoron, undermining the democratic principles of free speech and free debate. Academics, who are supposedly society's guardians of knowledge, objectivity and informed debate, have seen their union held hostage by radical factions, armed with political agendas and personal interests.

    British academia has built its reputation on freedom of expression and the pluralistic exchange of ideas. Alarmingly, these values are under threat in an institution that should be safeguarding them.

    The boycott campaign, which has been gathering force since 2002, is a license to harass, humiliate and victimise purely on grounds of nationality.

    In recent years, cases of discrimination have included two Israeli academics being ousted from the editorial board of a journal and an Israeli postgraduate who was refused doctoral supervision because he had served in the Israeli army.

    Over-simplifications, half-truths and lies have been swallowed as reality and disseminated as truth. Israel has been cast as a pantomime villain. A climate of hatred is fomented on campuses. The complexities of the situation are overlooked, as are the responsibilities of other actors in the region.

    The pattern is exacerbated when coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is routinely tainted with bias and a surprising lack of context.

    Double standards are rife. Israel's military reaction to the attacks it faces is given in-depth, microscopic coverage. Yet the attacks to which Israel is responding are often ignored. Terror attacks, ambushes, suicide bombings, the constant barrage of rockets being fired on Israeli citizens are frequently disregarded.

    The average British citizen is painfully unaware that, since Hamas seized control of Gaza last year, 1,400 rockets and 1,500 mortar bombs have landed on Israeli soil. No government in the world would tolerate such a sustained attack without taking action.

    Israel is a democracy under fire, but when this context is neglected, it clears a path for the unhealthy, unacceptable demonisation of Israel. While Israel faces many challenges, it is still the only functioning democracy in the region, and the only state in the area that offers minorities full civil equality and freedom of speech.One of my greatest sources of pride is the open discourse conducted within my country. Critical debate thrives and Israelis scrutinise every aspect of our policies. We are not afraid of criticism.

    I am concerned, however, that in Britain the most extreme elements of the debate have been allowed to hijack the mainstream. Those who share the values on which British democracy is built must say "no" –– no to the delegitimisation of Israel, no to the demonisation of Israel and no to the double standards to which Israel is subjected.

    I implore the British public to prevent the radical fringe from monopolising British-Israeli discourse. It is vital that British values of fair play and even-handedness are brought to the debate. The time has come for the silent majority to speak up and say "yes"; yes to context, yes to democracy and yes to an understanding of the challenges Israel faces as a democracy under fire.

    Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 15, 2008.

    In response to dozens of letters of complaint, the manager of Jerusalem's Inbal Hotel says he feels he had no choice, but he's sorry for flying the flag of the Palestinian Liberation Organization-Palestinian Authority last month.

    The flag was flown for two days at the end of May, when the hotel hosted the International Security Forum, chaired by Public Security Minister Avi Dichter of Kadima. Government representatives from various countries, as well as from the Palestinian Authority, took part, and flags of each participating country –– or "political entity," in the case of the PA –– waved proudly in the breeze of the hotel.

    News of the enemy flag adorning the popular Jerusalem hotel spread quickly after Arutz-7 blogger Yisrael Medad published a letter by Yonatan Adler informing of the Inbal-PLO flag display. Various grassroots organizations quickly took up the gauntlet, and letters by citizens expressing extreme concern began arriving at the Inbal Hotel.

    By last week, Inbal's General Manager Rodney Sanders had answered at least a few of them. His first letters expressed regret that the letter-writers were offended, but by the end of last week, at least one writer received a straight-out apology.

    Sanders wrote, "I, too, felt uncomfortable when asked, even by the Israeli government, to fly the colors of the Palestinian Authority at the hotel... We were instructed by the Israel Ministry of Public Security and the organizing committee to fly the flags of all those participating in the conference, including that of the Palestinian Authority."

    Sanders explained that Minister Dichter "chose the Inbal Jerusalem Hotel to be the venue for the International Security Forum, a conference on 'Challenges to Homeland Security,' of which MK Avi Dicter was the chairman. US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertkoff and a dozen other internal security ministers from Europe and beyond were invited and Minister Dicter also invited the Palestinian Minister of Interior."

    "While not meaning to add to anybody's distress," Sanders continued, "I think it important for me to mention that other prominent hotels are often asked by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs to host Israel-Palestinian negotiating sessions. Sometimes this also involves flags."


    "I would like to apologize for placing the flag on the building," Sanders then wrote, adding, "I have now since learnt how sensitive this issue is to the feelings of our nation and our people, but I believe I had no choice but to follow the request of the Ministry."


    Susie Dym, spokesperson of the Cities of Israel grassroots organization, commented afterwards, "Our activists feel that the people of the Inbal Hotel must be proud Israelis with a strong backbone. If the manager of the hotel had acted so, Minister Dichter of Kadima would have learned how to straighten the national back, and the peace negotiations would have gained greatly from this. We will not respect a hotel that does not know how to respect itself and its country."

    Some activists say the campaign should be pursued by faxing protests to Minister Dichter, at 02 (9722, from outside Israel) 542-8039.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Batya Medad, June 14, 2008.

    Making a mistake once is normal; twice isn't, and multiple times a sign of serious mental illness.

    "Any man is liable to err, only a fool persists in error."
    –– Marcus Tullius Cicero


    The continuation of the "Peace Process" is proof of the foolishness of the masses, the media the politicians. For decades Israel has been lusting for "peace."

    It has brought is war, terror and lost us of the respect and fear of our enemies.

    Peace comes from strength, when our enemies know that if they touch us they will be destroyed. The "do anything for peace" philosophy just encourages our enemies to attack, terrorize us, because then they know that we will do anything to stop them but fight.

    I am disappointed and frustrated that I don't see a sign of any politicians or political party here in Israel telling people the truth, clearly.

    And even more upsetting, those who may have policies which are realistic have no chance of getting elected. They don't know how to campaign. They don't understand politics and human nature.

    Being right isn't enough to get elected.

    Politics is a science; there are known, tried and true techniques. G-d willing...

    Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website. This essay is archived at http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2008/06/we-gave-peace-chance-and-it-failed.html

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June14, 2008.

    This is redacted from Editors at Family Security Matters

    There has been much talk about Shari'a-compliant finance (SCF) in recent months, but many Americans are still in the dark about exactly what it is and what it portends for the American economy and the freedoms Americans enjoy. This may be why the judge in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas last fall, declared a mistrial and five of six defendants face a retrial (one was found not guilty of most of the charges against him).

    Terror expert Douglas Farah surmised at the time that part of the reason might have been because "perhaps the prosecution tried to cram too much information in with a group of jurors largely unfamiliar with anything to do with the case." Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism had a heated exchange with Alan Colmes of Fox News about whether the mainstream news media had even managed to get the story right.

    SCF is a part of Shari'a law (also known as Islamic law), and dates back to the 9th Century. Shari'a law encompasses every facet of one's life, and those who seek to impose it upon Muslims –– and the world –– look to regulate everything from aspects of religious and social customs to political and military responsibilities. Shari'a law is, in fact, the law in countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran. The Taliban also recognizes Shari'a law, and subjected all of Afghanistan to it before U.S. forces entered that country after 9/11.

    Earlier this year, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury faced a firestorm after he suggested in a BBC interview that the adoption of Shari'a law in Britain "seems unavoidable." As a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system." While his seemingly willing acceptance of this might shock, UK Muslims on welfare are eligible to receive extra benefits if they have more than one wife –– even though polygamy is considered illegal under British law. In essence, the Archbishop was correct when he said "certain conditions" of said Shari'a law are already recognized in today's British society!

    Here is a partial listing of the effects of Shari'a law:

    • Women must obtain permission by their husbands or other male family members to do just about anything, including leaving the house –– which she must do in the company of a male family member.
    • Women and girls who are considered "disobedient" may be beaten into submission. (Mahmoud Salash, an imam in Lexington, Kentucky, said men "should beat them lightly" and it is acceptable because "it's in the Koran.")
    • Those who dishonor the family are subject to "honor killings." Typical reasons include a woman being raped or a woman dating/marrying a man against the will of her family. (Earlier this year, two girls in Irving, Texas were the victims of an alleged "honor killing" by their Muslim father, who is said to have disapproved of their American boyfriends and lifestyle.)
    • Dhimmitude (inferior status) of non-Muslims.
    • Death for those who slander Islam and for Muslims who leave the faith (apostates).

    Under SCF provisions, profits must not benefit from anything considered haram (forbidden) in Islam such as gambling, alcohol, entertainment, pork products, etc. As such, Western financial institutions wishing to obtain some of the billions of petrodollars from the Middle East are offering services that meet these requirements. Still, not all profits will meet these stringent constraints and so to "cleanse" or "purify" them, they are donated to Islamic charities. Charity sounds well and good until you stop to think that some of these charities could support Islamic Jihad. In fact, the three largest Shari'a-compliant charities in the United States were closed down by the government for funding terrorist organizations: the aforementioned Holy Land Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

    How many Americans would approve of SCF if they knew its full implications? Deroy Murdock makes an apt comparison:

    Turn your clock back 70 years. Imagine that Wall Street banks and brokerage houses sold Nuremberg-compliant bonds and stock funds in 1938. American Nazi sympathizers bought financial instruments certified by Berlin-based advisors as free of "Jewish profits" from, say, Salomon Brothers and Bloomingdale's. In turn, a percentage of such funds' gains underwrote pro-Nazi charities, like the German-American Bund, and similar organizations in the Fatherland, like the Hitler Youth.

    By investing in SCF schemes, Western financial institutions not only give Shari'a law credence but also ultimately aid Islamists in their attempt to use our own financial system against us. As it is, the West is subject to the ups and downs in the Middle Eastern oil industry. Could SCF be the next sub-prime crisis in the making? Think about it: the more money that is invested in the Middle East, the greater ability for the Middle East to pipe the tune the West dances to.

    Make no mistake. So-called "Sharia-compliant financing" is neither about religion nor about God. It is about Islamist control and collectivization of Muslims against "the West" and free markets. Transnational Islamist movements of Muslim theocrats seek SCF systems as nothing more than a ruse. Islamist theocrats exploit Western deference to religious freedom in order to lay the foundations of economic systems which feign religion in order to strangulate the economic freedoms of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yoram Ettinger, June 14, 2008.

    This Cloakroom is based on data reported by Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohana, a top Israeli expert on the Palestinian issue (HaUmma Quarterly #141 and 142, autumn and winter 2000) and Prof. Efraim Karsh, Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London (Commentary Magazine, May 2008).

    While the surrounding Arab countries –– assisted by Palestinian Arabs –– invaded the newly established Jewish State:

    1. The British Mandate urged Arabs and Jews (November 30, 1947-May 14, 1948, before the outbreak of the war) to evacuate small mixed towns, where they constituted a minority. Arabs complied, while Jews defied. Consequently, Alan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner, stated: "Arabs are leaving the country with their families in considerable numbers, and there is an exodus from the mixed towns to the rural Arab centers...The panic of the Arab middle class persists and there is a steady exodus of those who can afford to leave the country (December 1947, five months before the 1948/9 War)."

    2. The Arab Higher Committee (the effective leadership of Palestinian Arabs) instructed/forced Arabs in Jaffa, Jerusalem, Haifa and other urban centers to relocate "until Jews are obliterated," while British troops were still there, pleading with them to stay. The London Economist (Oct. 2, 1948): "The most potent factors [in the flight] were announcements made by the Palestinian-Arab Higher Committee, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit, intimating that those remaining would be regarded as renegades." Arab over-confidence prior to the war (600,000 Jews vs. 27, 000,000 Arabs) was crashed by defeat, intensifying the flight of Arabs."

    3. Leaders of Arab countries and the Arab Liberation Army enticed urban and rural Arabs to evacuate, in order to facilitate the Arab onslaught, and then inherit the homes of the Jews. Abu Mazen (Filastin A-Thawra, March 1976): "Arab armies forced Palestinians to leave their homes." Khaled al-Azam, Syrian Prime Minister in 1949 (memoirs, 1973): "We brought destruction upon the refugees, by calling on them to leave their homes." The Jordanian daily, Filastin (Feb. 19, 1949): "The Arab States...encouraged the Palestinians to leave their homes, temporarily, not interfering with the invading Arab armies." Al-Ayyam daily (May 13, 2008): "The Arab Liberation Army told the Palestinians –– 'Leave you houses and villages, and you will return in a few days. Leave them so we can fulfill our mission...'"

    4. Lack of leadership and no sense of shared-destiny. High Commissioner, Cunningham (before the outbreak of the war): "The collapsing Arab morale in Palestine is in some measure due to the increasing tendency –– of those who should be leading them –– to leave the country... In Jaffa, the mayor went on a 4 day leave 12 days ago... In Haifa, the Arab members of the [mixed] municipality left some time ago...The Chief Arab Magistrate has left... The Effendi [aristocrat] class has been evacuating in large numbers and the tempo is increasing..." Lack of national cohesion was reflected via inter-regional, urban-rural, inter-urban Palestinian animosity and the eventual rejection of the refugee camps by surrounding Palestinian and Arab communities.

    5. The 1936-39 Palestinian violence, with more Arabs than Jews murdered by Arab terrorists, triggered a large wave of Arab migrants, who sought refuge in their countries of origin –– Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan (most coastal Arabs migrated to the area, from the surrounding Arab countries, as well as Sudan, Algeria, Libya, Bosnia during 1831-1947). The 1947-8 pre-war urban and rural anti-civilian terrorism instigated a similar flight. US Consul General, Robert Macatee: "A Jewish woman, mother of 5 children, was shot in Jerusalem, while hanging out clothes on the roof. The ambulance rushing her to the hospital was machine-gunned, and the mourners following her to the funeral were attacked..."

    6. Rumors of bogus Jewish atrocities. Jordanian daily, al-Urdun, April 9, 1953: "Arab leaders were responsible for the [Arab] flight, disseminating exaggerated rumors of Jewish atrocities, in order to incite the Arabs, thus instilling fear in the hearts of the Palestinians." Yahya Hammudah, former (1966) PLO chairman to the Christian Science Monitor: The Jews did not expel us from Lifta [in Jerusalem]; the entire village left following the killing of a 35 person Jewish convoy in April 1948, in order to pre-empt a vicious Jewish vengeance. Jordanian daily, al-Urdun, April 9, 1953: "Arab leaders were responsible for the [Arab] flight, disseminating exaggerated rumors of Jewish atrocities, in order to incite the Arabs, thus instilling fear in the hearts of the Palestinians."

    7. Over 300,000 left before the eruption of the full scale 1948/9 War, while the Arabs had the upper hand, and while the US Department of State and CIA –– as well as some of Ben Gurion's colleagues –– urged him to avoid declaration of independence, "lest he be responsible for a second Jewish Holocaust in less than ten years." Ismayil Safwat, Commander in –– Chief of the Arab Liberation Army (March 23, 1948): "The Jews have not attacked any Arab village, unless attacked first." John Troutbeck Head of the British Middle East Office, Cairo (June 1949): "The refugees speak with utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. They know who their enemies are, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who –– they declare –– persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes..."

    8. Arab Street and Arab media amplification of unexpected Jewish victories and fall of Arab military leaders –– such as the fall of Abdel Qader Husseini in the critical Castel Battle –– Arab evacuation –– triggered a Domino Effect of further Arab flight.

    9. An exchange of populations occurred when 820,000 Jewish refugees were expelled from –– or fled –– Arab countries, while 315,000 Palestinian refugees were created by the aforementioned developments. A mega-million population exchange took place between India and Pakistan (Hindus and Muslims) and in East Europe (Poles and Germans). 100 million refugees were created via wars since World War II and 80 million refugees during 1933-45. Most of them are no longer refugees.

    10. The 1948/9 Palestinian-Arab refugees totaled 315,000, in contrast to conventional "wisdom." 800,000 Palestinian Arabs resided within the "Green Line" before the war and 170,000 remained at the end of the war. Of the 630,000 gap, 100,000 were absorbed after the war by Israel, 100,000 (middle and upper class) were absorbed by surrounding Arab countries, 50,000 were migrant laborers who returned to their countries, 50,000 were Bedouins who joined their tribes in Jordan and Egypt and 10,000-15,000 were war fatalities.

    11. The Palestinian-Arab 1948 goal. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Palestinian leader in 1948, requested (1940) that Germany and Italy acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine, and in other Arab countries, along lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." (Fritz Grobba, Peoples and Powers in the East, pp. 194-7, 207-8, Berlin, 1967; Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, p.37, Harper, 1988). Jamal Al-Husseini, acting Chairman of the (Palestinian) Arab Higher Committee threatened on Nov. 24, 1947 that "Palestine shall be consumed with fire and blood," if the Jews get any part of it.

    The misrepresentation of the Palestinian-Arab refugee phenomenon –– just like Abu Mazen's Palestinian hate education –– constitutes the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian/Arab Vision. It is intended to de-legitimize and de-humanize the Jewish State, while legitimizing the "Claim of Return" as a means to destroy Israel. The misrepresentation of the Palestinian-Arab refugee phenomenon is much more significant than the seemingly-moderate Arab/Palestinian exchanges with Israeli and Western policy-makers and public-opinion molders.

    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. Previous issues are at

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Phyllis Chesler, June 14, 2008.

    For years now I have maintained that the hottest and most important war is the war of ideas or rather the propaganda war unleashed by ideologues in both the East and the West. The Arab and Islamist world is canny, strategic, and clever; they are also unbelievably bold liars. (Remember the Al Dura Affaire and the alleged massacre in Jenin). The politically correct West falls for the lies and treats them as sacred political truth.

    Here are some recent examples of how the West is actively and foolishly collaborating in Big Lies to its own disadvantage.

    Today, the BBC has defended the "grisly beheading of a Muslim by a Christian zealot in a new drama. The beheading scene comes in an episode dealing with the excavation of medieval soldiers from the time of the Crusades. It leads to the hunt for the cross on which Jesus was crucified which the Crusaders may have brought back from the Holy Land. Also keen to find the cross are right-wing Christian fanatics who also want to use violence to drive Muslims out of Britain."

    Who created this program at the BBC? Have they lost their minds? Were Muslims living in Britain in the middle ages? Who has really been be-heading people today: Christians or Muslims? Who today is persecuting and exiling infidels (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bahai, etc.) from allegedly Muslim lands? Why present, even as fiction-especially as fiction-the exact opposite of both historical and contemporary reality?

    But there's worse. Just the other day, the British government gave a $70,000.00 grant to a Muslim hate site (Muslimyouth.net) in which suicide bombings and the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Ken Bigley are praised. This grant was awarded only weeks before the anniversary of the London 7/7/05 bombings by Islamists.

    No doubt, the British government believes that such funding is a form of diplomacy and "sensitivity."

    But, Islamist immigrants in the West and Islamist totalitarian regimes also indulge in propaganda. The tyrannies of the Third World expend vast resources to tell Big Lies about Western democracies. Their persecution of Christians in Muslim countries is only exceeded by the brazen way in which they create "no go" areas for-Muslims-only throughout (Christian) Europe.

    Two Muslim believers in "violent jihad" are now on trial in London. They had planned to create a secret Muslim state in the heart of Scotland where disgruntled Muslims who felt "oppressed" could live. By the way: These two charmers possessed videos of beheadings of American hostages in Iraq.

    Perhaps the BBC will fictionalize their story by reversing it and showing us Christians beheading Muslims in Iraq.

    In addition, those countries who do not allow civil and human rights to flourish within their borders, do not hesitate to denounce and call for reform in Western countries. For example, a recent United Nations Human Rights Council recently argued that Britain should abolish its monarchy. Oddly enough, this august body has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka. What-and no discussion of abolishing the Saudi monarchy?

    According to the Telegraph, the UN report was also critical of the UK's treatment of immigrants from Sudan." What? No critique of the ethnic Arab Muslim genocide and gender cleansing of black African Sudanese? Well, of course not.

    Finally, "Syrian representatives accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination."

    Truly, this is a Mad Hatter's party given the savage suppression of both women and feminist activists in Iran and the nature of Muslim countries in which historically, all Jews were persecuted and ultimately forced to flee and all Christians currently remain endangered. Indeed, a few days ago, a Jordanian court annulled the marriage of a Muslim who converted to Christianity. According to the report, "Islam, Jordan's official religion, forbids conversion to another faith." The convert is on the run with his wife and children because another convert to Christianity had been seriously attacked in Jordan.

    Quo Vadis my friends?

    Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and s co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Maurice Ostroff, June 14, 2008.

    Whenever one remonstrated with a pro-Arab re the multiple Arab atrocities, the standard reply was: what about Deir-Yassan? The Arab story was that the Jews had massacred innocents during the 1968 War of Independence at Deir Yassan –– there was no other example they could muster. Then it turned out that there had been no massacre –– at least according to the Arab villagers who'd actually lived there. The Arab leadership had distorted the facts. Their efforts boomeranged in that many Arabs hearing of "Israeli brutality" feared for their lives and ran from Israel. Many of them and their descendents now live as refugees in Arab countries, supported by UNRWA, not by their Arab brethren.

    In many cases, the facts haven't caught up with the original distortions, particularly because these distortions/inventions were perpetuated by a rabid anti-Zionist, Israel Shamir. It turns out Shamir was a Swede, not a Jew, and "had worked for Zavtra, Russia's most anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder –– a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance." [ Click here.]

    Below is the exchange in chronological order between Maurice Ostroff and Ronnie Kasrils, South African Minister of Intelligence.

    "Sixty years after Deir Yassin"
    by Ronnie Kasrils,
    The Electronic Intifada,
    8 April 2008

    As a 10-year-old growing up in Johannesburg, I celebrated Israel's birth, 60 years ago. I unquestionably accepted the dramatic accounts of so-called self-defensive actions against Arab violence, to secure the Jewish state. The type of indoctrination South African cartoonist Zapiro so bitingly exposes in his work, raising the hackles of scribes such as David Saks of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. When I became involved in our liberation struggle, I became aware of the similarities with the Palestinian cause in the dispossession of land and birthright by expansionist settler occupation. I came to see that the racial and colonial character of the two conflicts provided greater comparisons than with any other struggle. When Nelson Mandela stated that we know as South Africans "that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians," [1] he was not simply talking to our Muslim community, who can be expected to directly empathize, but to all South Africans precisely because of our experience of racial and colonial subjugation, and because we well understand the value of international solidarity.

    When I came to learn of the fate that befell the Palestinians, I was shaken to the core and most particularly when I read eye-witness accounts of a massacre of Palestinian villagers that occurred a month before Israel's unilateral declaration of independence. This was at Deir Yassin, a quiet village just outside Jerusalem, which had the misfortune to lie by the road from Tel Aviv. On 9 April 1948, 254 men, women and children were butchered there by Zionist forces to secure the road. Because this was one of the few such episodes that received media attention in the West, the Zionist leadership did not deny it, but sought to label it an aberration by extremists. In fact, however, the atrocity was part of a broader plan designed by the Zionist High Command, led by Ben Gurion himself, which was aimed at the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the British mandate territory and the seizure of as much land as possible for the intended Jewish state.

    There are many accounts that corroborate the orgy of death at Deir Yassin, which went far beyond the Sharpville massacre of 1960 that motivated me to join the African National Congress. [2] My reaction was: if Sharpville had appalled me, could I be indifferent to the suffering at Deir Yassin?

    Fahimi Zidan, a Palestinian child who survived by hiding under his parents' bodies, recalled: "The Jews ordered [us] ... to line up against the wall ... started shooting ... all ... were killed: my father ... mother ... grandfather and grandmother ... uncles and aunts and some of their children ... Halim Eid saw a man shoot a bullet into the neck of my sister ... who was ... pregnant. Then he cut her stomach open with a butcher's knife ... In another house, Naaneh Khalil ... saw a man take a ... sword and slash my neighbor ..." [3]

    One of the attacking force, a shocked Jewish soldier named Meir Pa'el, reported to the head of his Haganah command:

    "It was noon when the battle ended...Things had become quiet, but the village had not surrendered. The Etzel [Irgun] and Lehi [Stern] irregulars ... started ... cleaning up operations ... They fired with all the arms they had, and threw explosives into the houses. They also shot everyone they saw ... the commanders made no attempt to check the ... slaughter. I ... and a number of inhabitants begged the commanders to give orders ... to stop shooting, but our efforts were unsuccessful ... some 25 men had been brought out of the houses: they were loaded into a ... truck and led in a 'victory parade' ... through ... Jerusalem [then] ... taken to a ... quarry ... and shot ... The fighters ... put the women and children who were still alive on a truck and took them to the Mandelbaum Gate." [4]

    A British officer, Richard Catling, reported:

    "There is ... no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews. Many young school girls were raped and later slaughtered ... Many infants were also butchered and killed. I also saw one old woman ... who had been severely beaten about the head with rifle butts ..." [5]

    Jacques de Reynier of the International Committee of the Red Cross met the "cleaning up" team on his arrival at the village:

    "The gang ... were young ... men and women, armed to the teeth ... and [had] also cutlasses in their hands, most of them still blood-stained. A beautiful young girl, with criminal eyes, showed me hers still dripping with blood; she displayed it like a trophy. This was the 'cleaning up' team, that was obviously performing its task very conscientiously."

    He described the scene he encountered on entering the homes:

    "... amid disemboweled furniture ... I found some bodies ... the 'cleaning up' had been done with machine-guns ... hand grenades ... finished off with knives ... I ... turned over ... the bodies, and ... found ... a little girl ... mutilated by a hand grenade ... everywhere it was the same horrible sight ... this gang was admirably disciplined and only acted under orders." [6]

    The atrocity at Deir Yassin is reflective of what happened elsewhere. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has meticulously recorded 31 massacres, from December 1947 to January 1949. They attest to a systematic reign of terror, conducted to induce the flight of Palestinians from the land of their birth. As a result, nearly all Palestinian towns were rapidly depopulated and 418 villages were systematically destroyed.

    As Israel's first minister of agriculture, Aharon Cizling, stated in a 17 November 1948 Cabinet meeting: "I often disagree when the term Nazi was applied to the British ... even though the British committed Nazi crimes. But now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being is shaken." [7] Despite these sentiments, Cizling agreed that the crimes should be hidden, creating a lasting precedent. That such barbarism was conducted by Jewish people a mere three years after the Holocaust must have been too ghastly to contemplate, as it would constitute a major embarrassment for the state of Israel, held-up as a "light unto nations;" hence the attempts to bury the truth behind a veil of secrecy and disinformation. What better way to silence enquiry than the all-encompassing alibi of Israel's right of self-defense, condoning the use of disproportionate force and collective punishment against any act of resistance. Precisely because Israel was allowed to get away with such crimes, it continued on its bloody path. According to Ilan Pappe, "Fifteen minutes by car from Tel-Aviv University lies the village of Kfar Qassim where, on 29 October 1956, Israeli troops massacred 49 villagers returning from their fields. Then there was Qibya in the 1950s, Samoa in the 1960s, the villages of the Galilee in 1976, Sabra and Shatila in 1982, Kfar Qana in 1999, Wadi Ara in 2000 and the Jenin Refugee Camp in 2002. And in addition there are the numerous killings B'Tselem, Israel's leading human rights organization, keeps track of. There has never been an end of Israel's killings of Palestinians." [8] The slaughter of 1,500 Lebanese civilians in Israel's indiscriminate bombardment of that country in 2006; the daily deaths in the Palestinian territories, the 120 in Gaza in a week –– including 63 on a single day –– in March 2008, one third of whom were children, form part of the same bloody thread that links Israel's shameful past with that of today.

    Israel will soon mark the 60th anniversary of its establishment. In so doing, Israelis and the Zionist supporters would do well to acknowledge the reasons why, for Palestinians and freedom-loving people throughout the world, there will be no cause to celebrate. Indeed, it will be a period of mourning and protest action; a time to recall the countless victims that lie in Israel's wake, as epitomized by the suffering inflicted on the inhabitants of Deir Yassin, the original site of which is ironically located just a stone's throw away from where the present day Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, was built.

    Unless Israel confronts the past, as so many have attempted to do in South Africa, it will continue to be viewed with revulsion and suspicion. Israelis will continue to regard Arab life as worthless and will continue to live by the sword and deceit, feigning surprise when Palestinians violently respond. Without dealing with the agony it has caused there can be no healing and no solution. To do so is to create the basis for all life to be cherished and for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace, with justice. By being aware of the roots of the conflict, and pledging our solidarity, we South Africans can do our bit to help bring about a just solution and the freedom that Nelson Mandela referred to. I believe that South Africans like Zapiro are doing just that.


    [1] Nelson Mandela, International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Pretoria, 4 December 1997.
    [2] See Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel, (Pantheon, 1988); David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, Faber and Faber, 2003; Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press, 2004); Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications, 2006.
    [3] David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, Faber and Farber, 2003, p. 249-50.
    [4] Yediot Aharonot, April 1972. This letter only came to light with Pa'el's consent in 1972. David Hirst ibid p. 251.
    [5] David Hirst, ibid and Report of the Criminal Investigation Division, Palestine Government, No. 179/110/17/GS, 13, 15, 16 April 1948. Cited in David Hirst, p. 250.
    [6] David Hirst ibid and Jacques de Reynier, A Jèrusalem un Drapeau flottait sur la Ligne de Feu, Editions de la Baconnière, Neuchâtel, 150, p. 71-6 and Hirst ibid p. 252.
    [7] Tom Segev, The First Israelis, Owl Books, 1998, p. 26.
    [8] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications, 2006, p. 258.

    An open letter to South African Minister of Intelligence Services,

    To: Ronald Kasrils
    From: Maurice Ostroff
    May 20, 2008

    Dear Minister Kasrils,

    I refer to your April 8 article "Sixty years after Deir Yassin", published on the Pro-Palestinian web site Electronic Intifada and republished on dozens of other web sites. It is obvious that anyone who forms an impression of Israel from your articulate description must develop as deep an antagonism as you evince.

    Your strong anti-Israel attitude, originating as you explained, from the well publicized horror stories about a massacre of Palestinian villagers at Deir Yassin in 1948, would be perfectly justified if the information on which your opinions are formed, were based on fact.

    The influence of your publicly expressed views are reinforced by your status as South Africa's Minister of Intelligence Services and I assume that in view of the great responsibility resting on your shoulders, you take great care to assess the authenticity of every scrap of information that comes your way. I believe I am justified in assuming that as a man of integrity, you would reconsider your opinions if and when relevant additional information became available.

    May I therefore hope that you will welcome evidence about Deir Yassin, even though it may conflict with earlier information on which you have relied? The incontrovertible fact is, that the story of a massacre at Deir Yassin, which is at the root of your animosity to Israel, was a complete fabrication by none other than the editor of Palestine Broadcasting Service's in 1948, Hazem Nusseibeh, on the direct instructions of the secretary of the Arab High Committee, Hussein Khalidi.

    Why incontrovertible? Because during a 1997 BBC TV interview, no less than Nusseibeh himself, admitted that he was instructed by Khalidi to falsify claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin so as to encourage Arab regimes to attack Israel.

    You can view a video clip of this interview at http://deir-yassin.tripod.com/

    Remember this occurred in April 1948, before the state of Israel was declared. 50 years later, Nusseibeh, told the BBC that the fabricated atrocity stories about Deir Yassin were "our biggest mistake," because "Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims." This statement adds a new facet to research about the reasons so many Arabs fled in 1948.

    According to Nusseibeh, Khalidi said to him: "We must make the most of this" and the story was created in collusion with survivors of Deir Yassin and Khalidi. The press release stated that the children of Deir Yassin were murdered and pregnant women were raped, though neither ever happened.

    In the same program series, a former resident of Deir Yassin confirmed there were no rapes but Khalidi convinced them that they had to say there were. "We said, there was no rape." But Khalidi said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews".

    The many articles about an alleged massacre at Deir Yassin that were soon circulated around the world were all based on this fiction.

    You have been led to believe that that Deir Yassin was a quiet village just outside Jerusalem, whereas in fact it was a heavily armed Arab village harboring some foreign militants who together with the villagers were attacking nearby Jewish neighborhoods and traffic on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway.

    If Dir Yassin was in fact a quiet village, it would have enjoyed the same fortune as other quiet villages such as the nearby village of Abu Ghosh, which remained neutral in 1948. In an article in the Jerusalem Post in 1997, Sam Orbaum quoted Mohammed Abu Ghosh as saying, "What we did, we did for Abu Ghosh, for nobody else. Others who lost their land, hated us then, but now all over the Arab world, many people see we were right. If everyone did what we did, there'd be no refugee problem ... And if we were traitors? Look where we are, look where they are."

    Deir Yassin was probably one of the earliest examples of the effectiveness of the well-funded Arab propaganda machine and the ineptness of Israel's PR response. It was certainly an example of Israel's mea culpa (my mistake, signifying I am guilty) syndrome, which continues to this day. So convincing was Khalidi's fabricated story, that even the Zionist Leaders initially accepted it.

    In your writings you frequently refer to the statement by then agriculture, minister Aharon Cizling, who said in a cabinet meeting "Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being is shaken". Cizling's outburst should be seen as a manifestation of Israeli sensitivity to reports, albeit false, of Jewish atrocities. He was so deeply moved by the fabricated reports of behavior that is not tolerated in the IDF doctrine, that he used the exaggerated and offensive Nazi comparison.

    Israel continues to repeat the mea culpa error, hastily admitting guilt before examining the facts, as for example in the notorious Al Dura affair in which the young boy and his father were caught in crossfire between Palestinians and Israelis. Israel immediately admitted that it was possible that Al Dura had been hit by an Israeli bullet, although no bullet was ever retrieved as no post mortem was held.

    Now years later, the French courts ruled yesterday in favor of Philippe Karsenty who accused France2 and Charles Enderlin of staging the entire episode, but in the meantime Al Dura has become an international icon of Israel's supposed cruelty.

    Your negative views about Israel are even more understandable when you quote Ilan Pappe as a source of your information. It is therefore relevant to point out that when Pappe was a professor at Haifa University, he vigorously defended Teddy Katz, a student whose Master's thesis was proved in a court of law to contain fabricated evidence of a fictitious massacre of unarmed civilians at a village called Tantura.

    I would appreciate a considered response, which will be distributed in the same manner as this open letter.

    Maurice Ostroff

    From: Ronnie Kasrils
    To: Maurice Ostroff
    June 13, 2008

    Dear Mr. Ostroff

    Further to this issue, I am sending you the attached article by Israel Shamir, a Russian-Israeli writer for your elucidation.

    "Remembering Deir Yassin "
    Israel Shamir,
    Arab News
    April 9, 2001

    On a beautiful spring day, when the skies of the Holy Land are a tender blue and the grass is a verdant green, air-conditioned buses ferry tourists from the City of the Plain to the City in the Mountains. A small distance past the halfway point, just beyond the reconstructed Ottoman inn of Bab Al-Wad, the Gate of the Valley, the bus drives past the red-painted skeletons of armored vehicles. This is where the tour guides make their routine pitch: "These vehicles are in memory of the heroic break-through of Jews relieving the blockade of Jerusalem imposed by the aggression of nine Arab states". The number of Arab states varies with the mood of the guides and how they size up their audience.

    The battle for the road to Jerusalem was a high point of the 1948 civil war in Palestine, and it ended with the Zionist Je ws of the Plain capturing the prosperous West End of Jerusalem with the white stone mansions of the Arab nobles and the German, Greek and Armenian merchants. In the course of these battles they also subdued the neutral, non-Zionist Jewish neighborhoods. Zionists expelled the Gentiles in a massive sweep of ethnic cleansing and contained the local Jews in the ghetto. In order to achieve this feat, on their way to the city they razed Palestinian villages to the ground.

    The rusted junk is barely an adequate backdrop for the standard Israeli narration, and it would not qualify for a realistic film production. It is a staged scene that lacks the authentic look that movie directors require. The story of the blockade and aggression is a theater play, not a cinema script. It is an encore performance for tourist indoctrination on the non-stop trip to the Wailing Wall and the Holocaust Museum.

    The war for this road was over in April 1948, weeks before Israel declared its in dependence on May 15, before the hapless rag-tag units of Arab neighbors entered Palestine and saved what remained of the native population. As T.S. Elliot observed, April is the cruellest month. And so it was that fateful April when the Palestinians were doomed to start a journey to five decades of exile. Its apotheosis was reached near the entrance to Jerusalem, where the Sacharov gardens lead to a cemetery, to a lunatic asylum and to Deir Yassin.

    Death has many names. The Czechs call it Lidice, the French word is Oradur, in Vietnamese they use My Lai, for every Palestinian it is Deir Yassin. On the night of April 9, 1948, the Jewish terrorist groups Etzel and Lehi attacked the peaceful village and massacred its men, women and children. I do not want to repeat the gory tale of sliced off ears, gutted bellies, raped women, torched men, bodies dumped in stone quarries or the triumphal parade of the murderers. Existentially, all massacres are alike, from Babi Yar to Cha in Saw Gang to Deir Yassin. Yet, the Deir Yassin massacre is special for three reasons.

    One: It is well documented and witnessed. Other Jewish fighters from the Hagana and Palmach, Jewish Scouts, Red Cross representatives and the British police of Jerusalem left complete records of the event.

    Two: The horror of the massacre triggered the mass flight from nearby Palestinian villages and gave the Jews full control of the western approaches to Jerusalem.

    Three: The careers of the murderers. The commanders of the Etzel and Lehi gangs, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, eventually became Israeli prime ministers. None of them expressed any remorse, and Begin lived the last days of his life in the house with a panoramic view of Deir Yassin. No Nuremberg judges, no vengeance, no penitence, just a path of roses all the way to a Nobel Peace Prize. Begin was proud of the operation, and in his letter to the killers he congratulated them for fulfilling their national duty. "You are creators of Israel's history", he wrote. Yitzhak Shamir was also pleased that it helped to achieve his dream: To expel the nochrim (non-Jews) from the Jewish state.

    But there is yet another reason why this event was historically significant. Deir Yassin demonstrated the full scope of Zionist tactics. After the mass murder became known, the Jewish leadership blamed ... the Arabs. David Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, announced that the Arab rogue gangs had perpetrated it. When this version collapsed, the Jewish leaders began the damage-control procedures. His public relations techniques remain a source of pride for the good-hearted pro-Zionist "liberals" abroad.

    "What a horrible, dreadful story", a humanist Jew told me when I drove him by the remaining houses of Deir Yassin, then added "But Ben Gurion condemned the terrorists, and they were duly punished".

    "Yes", I responded. "They were duly punished and promoted to the highest government posts."

    Just three days after the massacre, the terrorist gangs were incorporated into the emerging Israeli Army, the commanders received high positions, and a general amnesty forgave their crimes. The same pattern, an initial denial followed by apologies and a final act of clemency and promotion, was applied after the first historically verifiable atrocity committed by Prime Minister Sharon. It was at the Palestinian village of Qibya, where Sharon's unit dynamited houses with their inhabitants and massacred some sixty men, women and children.

    For Sharon, it was the usual path of roses all the way to the post of prime minister. It sometimes appears that to become the prime minister of Israel it helps to have a massacre to your name.

    The same pattern was repeated after the massacre of Kafr Kasem, where Israeli troops lined up the local peasants and machine-gunned them down. When the denial failed, and a Communist MPs disclosed the gory details, the perpetrators were court-martialed and sentenced to long prison terms. They were out before the end of the year, while the commander of the murderers became the head of Israel Bonds.

    Now, with the passing of fifty years, the Jewish establishment has decided to, once again, take a stab at Deir Yassin revisionism. The Zionist Organization of America pioneered the art of denying history and published, at the expense of American taxpayer, a booklet called Deir Yassin: History of a Lie. The ZOA revisionists have utilized all the methods of their adversaries, the "Holocaust deniers": They discount the eye-witness accounts of the survivors, the Red Cross, the British police, Jewish Scouts and other Jewish observers who were present at the scene of massacre. They discount even Ben Gurion's apology, since after all, the commanders of these gangs became in turn prime ministers of the Jewish state. For the ZOA, only the testimony of the murderers has any validity. That is, if the murderers are Jews.

    Still, there are just people, and there is an organization called Deir Yassin Remembered, which fights all attempts to erase the memory. They publish books, organize meetings, and they are working on a project to build a memorial at the scene of the massacre, so the innocent victims will have this last comfort, their names and the memory saved forever. It will have to do, until the surviving sons of Deir Yassin and neighboring villages return from their refugee camps to the land of their fathers.

    To: Mr. Kasrils
    From: Maurice Ostroff
    June 13, 2008

    Dear Mr. Kasrils,

    Thank you for your email and for taking the trouble to send me the interesting article "Remembering Deir Yassin" by Israel Shamir. If I had read this article without the benefit of being exposed to alternative credible information, I would certainly be as antagonistic to Israel as you are.

    And we do have the benefit of additional sources of information.

    On the one hand we have the evidence I sent you of an interview with the BBC, in which Hazem Nusseibeh, editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's news in 1948, admitted that prominent Arab leader, Hussein Khalidi, had fabricated the claims of atrocities at Dir Yassin in order to provoke Arab countries to invade the nascent Jewish state.

    I also referred to a 1948 Dir Yassin resident Abu Mahmud, who said the villagers themselves denied the atrocity claims at the time. They told Khalidi there was no rape but he said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews."

    These statements are verifiable on a video clip available at http://deir-yassin.tripod.com

    On the other hand we have the article by Israel Shamir in which he says that he does not wish to repeat gory details, but then immediately proceeds to do exactly that, alleging horrifying allegations of "sliced off ears, gutted bellies, raped women, torched men, bodies dumped in stone quarries and the triumphal parade of the murderers".

    How do we weigh the contradictory evidence of Shamir who was 10 months old at the time of Deir Yassin against that of the persons who were there at the time and who subsequently told their stories to the BBC? Certainly, no one can responsibly present Shamir's version without at the very least drawing attention to the existence of the plausible contradictory evidence.

    There is also good reason to be cautious in evaluating Shamir's story. In an article "The Spider Web" on his web site, Shamir exhibits a tendency to depict fanciful theories as reality. He speaks of a conspiratorial 'Judaic' link, possibly a False Flag operation, connecting the wave of terrorist acts in Russia (the school, the planes, the Underground explosions) and in Beer Sheba, Israel.

    In "The Marxists and the Lobby –– Part II" Shamir writes that the blindness of Winston Churchill turned him into a Zionists' dupe and caused him to push for the WWII with its millions of victims.

    In "A Discussion of Anti-Semitism", Shamir equates the Allied armies in WW2 with the Nazis. He writes

    "ALL participants in WWII were homicidal racists, in modern terms. While the German Nazis killed a lot of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally deranged, the democratic US deported thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent or locked them up for years in concentration camps; the Soviets deported ethnic Germans, Chechens and Crimean Tatars and destroyed their centuries-old villages and homes. Britain invented concentration camps in the Boer War when Hamsun was a child, and deported the ethnic Germans from British Palestine".

    Even pro-Palestinian activists Ali Hasan co-founder of Electronic Intifada and Hussein Yusuf Kamal Ibis consider Shamir's anti-Israel writings to be so extreme that it damages the Palestinian cause. In an article "Serious Concerns About Israel Shamir" they described an Easter message from Shamir as containing "the most odious characterizations of Jews as "Christ killers, the staple of classic European Christian anti-Semitism".

    They refer to a speech by Shamir at Tufts University in which he was quoted as saying: "Palestinians are perfect mammals; their life is deeply rooted in the ground...Israeli people represent a virus form of a human being because they can live anywhere.

    As mentioned in a previous letter, you and I share an appreciation of Bertrand Russell, and in evaluating the available information, his advice is highly relevant. He wrote, "If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something, which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence".

    Thank you again for your email. I very much appreciate your taking the time to respond to my letter.

    May I hope that you will reconsider some of your opinions in the light of the above data?

    Maurice Ostroff

    Contact Maurice Ostroff at maurice@trendline.co.il and visit his website:

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 14, 2008.

    Sunset near Sderot (Yehoshua Halevi)


    Yehoshua LaLevi writes: HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Many years ago, I photographed a sunset at the Grand Canyon. There was an observation point along the road where about 25 tourists had gathered, but as soon as the sun dipped below the horizon, all but three of us went on our way. One of the other photographers quipped to me, "This is where you separate the amateurs from the pros!" Why? Because the best light from a sunset often occurs about 15-20 minutes after the sun disappears. He was right, as the best shots of the evening came a short while after the crowd had vanished.

    Despite being among the most commonly photographed subjects, sunsets frequently yield disappointing results. After all, how can you take a wide expanse of sky, the unique mood of twilight and a process that often lasts more than an hour and reduce it to the blink of an eye? Well, you can't really. Although I've taken many very satisfying sunset photos, I still find myself chasing after a good one and studying the sky in the late afternoon to see if clouds and weather patterns will combine for a good celestial show.

    This shot was taken near the city of Sderot, on the way back from a trip to Gush Katif two years ago. I was traveling with friends when we noticed the colors forming in the sky with only a few minutes to spare before the sun disappeared. We jumped out of the car and looked for some high ground. Often with sunsets, I'll look for some interesting terrain to add to the composition, but in this case the horizon was just a straight line over flat ground, which didn't add any interest to the photo. Choosing to include only sky, I then focused on forming the best possible composition. Placing the fireball at the bottom of the frame was a bit unconventional, but it seemed to fit nicely at the tip of the downward spiral formed by the clouds and colors. Finally, the narrow, vertical format accentuates the patterns in the sky and the downward motion of the setting sun. In retrospect, this was the right cropping decision, but I still hedged my bets by taking a few horizontals as well, and sticking around for another 10 minutes.

    Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website: http://www.goldenlightimages.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Martin Sherman, June 14, 2008.
    Martin Sherman analyzes MK Eldad's call to enforce death penalty over territorial concession

    The recent furor over MK Eldad's call to enforce the death penalty against politicians promoting territorial concessions has given the above clause stark relevance and ignited fierce public debate –– fueled mainly by ignorance. Thus an orderly debate of the matter seems both urgent and appropriate

    The existing Israeli Penal Code –– 1977, Article 97(b) explicitly states:

    A person who, with intent that any area be withdrawn from the sovereignty of the State or placed under the sovereignty of a foreign state, commits an act calculated to bring this about, is liable to life imprisonment or the death penalty.

    Regarding the severity of the penalty prescribed, it ought to be pointed out that Article 96 sets forth the following limitation:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of this Chapter (State Security, Foreign Policy, and Official Secret –– MS) the Courts will not impose the death penalty unless the offence is committed in a period in which military actions are being conducted by Israel or against it.

    Clearly even without the recent official declaration of Gaza as a "hostile entity," it is difficult to see how the current period cannot be considered as anything else but one "in which military actions are being conducted by Israel or against it." Another aspect of the severity of the penalty prescribed in article 97 is reflected in Article 98 (Causing War) which states:

    A person who, with intent to bring about military action against Israel, commits an act to bring this about is liable to fifteen years imprisonment; if he intends to aid and abet the enemy he is liable to the death penalty or life imprisonment.

    From this, two things emerge. The first is that Israeli law considers the bringing of war upon the country a lesser offence than an attempt to remove territory from its sovereignty –– since it carries a far lighter sentence. The second is that in the eyes of the prevailing law in Israel, the removal of territory from Israeli sovereignty is equivalent –– at least in terms of the severity of the prescribed penalty –– to aiding and abetting the enemy.

    At this point it is difficult to avoid broaching several disturbing questions, for it would seem that almost all Israeli governments (or at least numerous ministers and prime ministers who served in them) since the 1977 Camp David Agreements –– and certainly during the last decade and a half since Oslo –– have grossly violated article 97(b) of the Penal Code...and are thus liable for the penalties prescribed therein.

    Clearly, given today's political realities, no one realistically expects the wholesale execution of government ministers –– past or present. Yet the failure of the Israeli legal establishment to activate –– or alternatively, to eliminate –– such a grave and far-reaching clause raises serious doubts as to the criteria that guide the conduct of the affairs of the nation and in particular the equitable dispensation of justice.

    In this regard it should be pointed out that since its enactment in 1977, the Israeli Penal code has been continuously updated –– including during Olmert's incumbency –– yet there has be no attempt to remove, or modify, Article 97.

    Of course, one could try to explain away some of the inaction by more abstruse legal interpretations. One could, for example, claim that the legislative intent was to include only areas over which Israel officially claimed sovereignty. But what about the Golan and east Jerusalem –– areas over which Israel has effectively extended its sovereignty? Should not those who purposefully act to remove these areas from Israeli sovereignty or place them under the sovereignty of a foreign state be considered in violation of the law? And if not, why not?

    Some, like Ariana Melamed, in her recent article "Words can kill" invoke Article 94 which translates roughly into the following:

    "An act will not be considered a violation according to this article if it reflects an act of good faith or if it is committed in good faith with the intention to bring about, in ways that are not illegal, changes in the mode of operation of the state or any one of its organs, of a foreign state or one of its organs, or any institution or organization of states"

    However in interpreting Article 94 it must be noted it refers to other articles such as:

    Aiding and abetting the enemy in war(99); Intention to commit treason (100); Serving in forces of the enemy (101); Helping enemy prisoners of war escape (102) ; Dissemination of subversive propaganda (103).

    This of course raises some intriguing questions:

    1. How is one to reconcile "good faith" with acts of aiding and abetting the enemy in war; intending to commit treason; serving in enemy forces...? What does this entail for the validity of Article 94, its interpretation and scope?

    2. While the legality of certain unspecified acts in the context of these articles may be debated, the act of "removing land from Israeli sovereignty" is a specified action which has been designated illegal and carrying the heaviest of penalties. How then can any act of this kind be considered falling under the provisions of Article 94 as being "not illegal"?

    3. Surely the existence of "good faith" should be required to be demonstrated in court –– unless any act in contravention of Article 97 is to be considered "in good faith"? And even if one might have assumed "good faith" in the heady days of the early '90s, how can one assume it today after decade-and-a-half of disastrous failure of the policy of transfer of land to non-Israeli control. Surely at some stage "good faith becomes "bad judgment"?

    One could also raise the possibility that the legislative intent was to preclude official government organs and personnel from the prohibitions prescribed in article 97(b). But even if we embrace this improbable position, thorny problems persist. For if this was the original intent, why was it not explicitly specified? Moreover, why was/is the law not enforced against those individuals who were not part of the governmental apparatus and overtly acted to foster transfer territory from undisputed Israeli sovereignty to that of an alien entity?

    It was only in 1999 the Administration and Law Arrangements Law passed in which appears to specify conditions under which the government can withdraw sovereignty from territories where it previously prevailed (an absolute majority in the Knesset and a referendum –– once the Basic Law specifying the conditions for the conduct of referendum, is passed.)

    However, even if the later law is seen as taking precedence, this still leaves open the question of the status of those individuals and organizations (government and non-government) that acted to transfer territory to foreign sovereignty prior to 1999, and of that non-government ones who did so after 1999.

    These are questions that cannot be left unanswered. For if the legal establishment genuinely wishes to address and curb the growing erosion in the public trust and confidence it enjoys, it must act vigorously to narrow the growing gap between its own code of conduct and the prevailing public perceptions of common sense and precepts of elemental natural justice.

    EDITOR'S NOTE: This comment by a reader of the original article was an interesting amplification of Martin's thesis.

    7. Let's be very clear

    Mr. Sherman, you explicitly state the existing Israeli Penal Code –– 1977, Article 97(b): A person who, with intent that any area be withdrawn from the sovereignty of the State or placed under the sovereignty of a foreign state.....etc. What a similarity with article n° 5 of the resolutions voted unanimously by the 51 members of the League of Nations the 24th of July 1922 to assign the Mandate of Palestine to Britain in order to bring about the realization of the Jewish National Home (a Jewish State) in that country. The Golan Heights were an integral part of the Palestinian territory. Article 5 of the League's resolutions stated: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power".

    Nevertheless, Britain, in a treacherous and arbitrary fashion, breached article 5, by ceding the Golan in 1923 to France, the Mandatory of Syria in the sole interest to secure Mosul and its oil fields in Irak. Israel's decision to impose its Laws on the Golan Heights the 14th of December 1981, RIGHTED the WRONG done by the British in March 1923.. The Mandate of Palestine, voted by the League of Nations in 1922, granted the Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan (a territory that includes Judea, Samarya, the Gaza Strip, the whole of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights). Due to article 80 of the UN Charter, the "Mandate for Palestine" is valid to this day.

    Now, Mr. Sherman, think about the following: have the OSLO AGREEMENTS not only violated 97(b) of the Penal Code, but mainly the decisions voted by the League of Nations in 1923? (It is necessary to remind that the Sinai Desert was Egyptian territory with a recognized border since the beginning of the 20th Century) Refering to the League's resolutions is an impossible task for the Israeli leadership, who made this document disappear from the country's history, to prevent any relation by the public, of the none implementation of the League's resolutions and the Shoa

    FO, Belgium

    Contact Martin Sherman at ms6747@gmail.com.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 13, 2008.


    Israel reduced its unemployment to a 24-year low of 6.3% (Arutz-7, 5/29). The US rate is 5%.


    The lawyer for one of the former AIPAC officials going on trial for sharing classified information said that the government deceived AIPAC into thinking the charge was espionage and that the AIPAC employees knowingly committed it. The government showed AIPAC part of a tape out of context. The government is stretching legal interpretation even to suggest there was an offense. The certainly did not inform a foreign government but fellow Americans, as lobbyists commonly do. Their intent was benign and not to break the law. The government used entrapment. The government's goal is to stop leaks.

    AIPAC fired the officials. At government request, it denied them legal assistance. Defense counsel says that under those circumstances, AIPAC should rehire the pair and the Jewish community should support them and tell the government it is acting wrongly (Arutz-7, 9/29). It won't. Official US Jewry is cowardly.

    I think that the US seeks to discourage lobbying for Israel. The real problems are: (1) The US lets dangerous spies go, if agents for governments that the US is appeasing; and (2) The US acts high-handedly towards friends of Israel.


    The NY Times had a sympathetic story about Jews, the ones in Baghdad. Very few are left of the formerly 130,000, a wealthy community left behind when most of the Jews returned from Babylonian exile to Jerusalem about 600 BCE. The few remaining in Iraq rarely leave their street or attract public notice, lest extremists murder them.

    In modern times, the Jews were beset by a pogrom in 1941, by WWII, and by the Holocaust (Stephen Farrell, 6/1, A1).

    Although Mr. Farrell admitted Jewish residency in ancient Jerusalem, the newspaper usually does not rebut Palestinian Arabs claiming that the Jews did not live there then. Why doesn't the paper set the record straight, instead of letting Muslim propaganda make false claims unchallenged?

    The article should have mentioned that during the war, a pro-Nazi cabal temporarily seized the country and that the would-be murderers today are Muslim. Otherwise, this was a rare article sympathizing with oppressed Jews.


    Sweden is hosting a conference on Iraqi reform. About 600,000 members of ancient Christian sects fled Iraq, of whom 35,000 went to Sweden. They are demonstrating against ethnic cleansing of Christians: "including abductions and assaults of girls and women, and the forcing of women to wear veils in line with strict Islamic doctrines" and forced conversion and church-bombing.

    The Christians don't object to the attention given Kurds, other Sunnis, and Shiites, but want to have a safe, autonomous area in Iraq (IMRA, 5