| HOME | Featured Stories | June 2008 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
ISRAEL IS BEAUTIFUL: SUNRISE AT THE DEAD SEA
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 30, 2008. |
|
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
|
|
EGYPTIAN HIJAB CAMPAIGN COMPARES UNVEILED WOMEN TO UNWRAPPED CANDY
THAT ATTRACTS FLIES
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008. |
| This was posted by Marisol on the Jihad Watch website. |
|
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
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. 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
|
|
EVERY MURDERER A HERO –– THE CULT OF JIHAD
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008. |
|
This was written by Sultan Knish and it appeared yesterday
on his website
|
|
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
|
|
OLMERT RAMBLINGS COMPETENTLY PROVE HIS INCOMPETENCE
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:
The original Hebrew is also available:
|
|
Outline of the Deal for the Release of the Israeli Soldiers
Kidnapped in the North
–– 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 facts were presented to you and have been known for quite some time:
In this context, I wish to point out:
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.
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
|
|
SARKO THE DISAPPOINTMENT
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008. |
|
This comes from yesterday's Joshua Pundit
|
|
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. Pity. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
BARGAINING FOR THE LIVING AND THE DEAD
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
Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.
|
|
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.)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 |
|
WHEN YOU GO ON VACATION, TAKE BLONDI WITH YOU
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/index.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: 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.
|
|
GERSHON, WHERE'D YOU GET THIS FROM?
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 |
|
TAPED CONFESSIONS CLAIM GAZA PEACE DOUBLE-CROSSED BY ABBAS' FATAH ORGANIZATION
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 |
|
ISRAELI MEDIA SHUN CONCLUSIONS; US PLAN PROMOTES TERRORISM IN P.A.
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 30, 2008. |
|
INDIANS ANTI-TERRORIST 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. ANOTHER DOUBLE STANDARD 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. ISRAELI MEDIA DON'T OR WON'T REACH CONCLUSIONS 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. PEACE WITH JORDAN? Jordan refused the Israeli delegation entry to the regional conference on economic development and tourism (IMRA, 6/15). That is a treaty violation. U.S. PLAN FAILING TO CURB TERRORISM IN P.A. 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.? RICE & ABBAS PRESS CONFERENCE 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 |
|
SALUTE THE DANISH FLAG –– IT'S A SYMBOL OF WESTERN FREEDOM
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 |
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
|
THE LEBANESE POWDER KEG
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). |
|
WHY PRETEND? READ THE HUDAIBIYA TREATY
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: "WORDS ARE NOT BINDING" August 1998
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 |
|
POEM FOR ISRAEL: WHY NOT A JEWISH STATE?
Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, June 29, 2008. |
|
I dedicate this poem on the 60th Anniversary of the State of Israel. |
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: INSANITY PLUS
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 |
|
SHARI'A (ISLAMIC LAW): NO INTEREST LOANS AND OTHER FALLACIES
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:
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 |
|
PRISONER EXCHANGE IN JEWISH LAW
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.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). HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
FIRST WORLD NOAHIDE CONFERENCE BEGINS
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.
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 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. |
|
IRAN READY TO STRIKE AT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR HEART
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 |
|
LIBERAL MEDIA NO NOTHINGS BASH ISRAEL
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 |