HOME Featured Stories June 2009 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 30, 2009.

Sea meets land at Habonim Nature Reserve along Israel's central coast

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

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

It's so hot in Israel this week that I thought a refreshing image of our watery coastline might offer a tiny bit of relief. This shot was taken at Habonim Nature Reserve along Israel's central coast near Zichron Ya'akov. I had been camping for several days and had an opportunity to study the layout of the park and find an optimal shooting location. There are numerous rocky points that jut out into the sea, affording a chance to shoot the incoming waves from an unusual perpendicular perspective rather than the more typical head-on view one has when standing on the beach.

The continuous action of the ocean is similar to the dancing flames of a fire. No wave is alike and the pattern of crest, foam, and spray is constantly changing. My goal with this photo was to capture all of these elements simultaneously while also showing some aspect of the landscape not buried in rushing water. Since I was not racing against rapidly changing light, I stood quietly for a few moments and studied the scene, picking up on the rhythm of the waves and honing in on the key areas of the composition where timing would be critical. I prioritized my exposure to a fast shutter speed and clicked off a few frames, then turned off my camera and returned my mind to admiring the setting.

When photographing in nature, photographers have to be careful not to lose sight of the moment as they push themselves to create an image that will only be appreciated in another time and place. It's a challenging paradox, but I have found that without that meditative immersion in a place, its beauty will not reveal itself to me. It's nice to take home a memory, but if you never really visited in the first place, then what is the point of going?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Saul Goldman, June30, 2009.

Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 30, 2009.

Anti-Israel activity and campaigns in the medical press are unfortunately nothing new; however they have reached a new "low" in the last few months. The most recent manifestation of the anti-Israel phenomenon infecting the medical world is a letter spearheaded by Dr. Derek Summerfield and signed by 725 physicians, "publicly protesting and appealing against the recent appointment of Dr. Yoram Blachar, longstanding President of the Israeli Medical Association, as President of the World Medical Association."

The "facts" set out in the letter are nothing new. There were allegations made against Israel of torture, but no names were provided. An effort was made by the Israeli Medical Association to speak personally with each and every physician who signed the letter. Most were never employed by, nor had any connection to, the Israeli Prison Services as claimed in the letter. All of the three physicians who were employed there vigorously denied any involvement in interrogations, torture or medical approval for the above.

The letter further states that Dr. Blachar has made statements which were untrue on at least 10 occasions in the Lancet and the BMJ. No basis is made for these claims other than the opinion of the authors.

Finally, Summerfield goes so far as to accuse the IMA ethics chairman, Prof. Avinoam Reches, of being personally involved in torture. Whatever political views one may hold, we firmly believe that politics has no place in medicine. Medicine is meant to serve as a bridge, not a divide. The intermingling of medicine and politics is dangerous, particularly when opinions, presented as facts, are printed on the pages of medical journals.

The current situation is viewed as extremely dangerous for the future of Israeli medicine, of academic freedom and international cooperation.

ACTION — IF YOU ARE INVOLVED IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION, a letter of support for Dr. Blachar, for the IMA and for Israeli medicine can be found: here.

Please sign your name and country and in the 'Notes' section please include your title, field of medicine (or other) and place of employment. Please send this letter on to others whom you feel might be similarly interested in expressing support.

Thank-you for your support,
The Canada-Israel Committee

 Editor's Note: Read Barron, "Following the Herd" for another example of Summerfield's distortions and lies.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, June 30, 2009.

Military wisdom from 40 years ago.

Immediately after the June 1967 Six Day War, a secret memorandum was issued by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). Their conclusions were that any peace settlement between Israel and the Arab belligerents would only succeed if Israel retained certain territories vital for its continued existence and survival.

The areas the Joint Chiefs declared as the minimum defensible borders for the Jewish state included the Golan Heights, the western half of Samaria (the northwestern part of the West Bank), all of Judea (the southern part of the West Bank), the Gaza Strip and several portions of the eastern Sinai Peninsula.

This, of course, occurred before the world became obsessed with the creation of an Arab terror state within the narrow territory between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan.

Since that report in 1967, the Begin government gave away all of the Sinai. Under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his deputy, Ehud Olmert, Israel gave away the entire Gaza Strip in 2005, with catastrophic consequences for the Jewish state.

Ehud Barak, Israel's present Defense Minister, had years earlier withdrawn from the southern Lebanon security strip, thus allowing the Islamist Hizbullah to fill the vacuum with dire consequences for northern Israel. A conflict broke out — the Second Lebanon War — disastrously mismanaged by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was launched too late and ended too soon.

After Israel endured over 10,000 incoming missiles from Hamas-occupied Gaza, a war was finally launched by Israel. It too began too late and ended too soon, and the Islamist Hamas continues to pursue its ambition of finally destroying Israel.

Israel is under the greatest pressure in years from an American administration to give away the ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria. President Barack Obama is perceived by many to be a clear and present danger to the very survival of the reconstituted Jewish state.

In the aftermath of the Six Day War, the US Joint Chiefs were not interested in Jewish patrimony or Biblical history. They were solely concerned with the strategic necessities for Israel's survival in a very bad neighborhood. That is why they set out what the bare minimum retention of territory for Israel should be.

Col. Irving Kett (USA, ret.) also prepared an Army War College study on Israel's security needs in 1974. His study was called, "A Proposed Solution to the Arab-Israel Conflict". In it, he strongly suggested that, from a military point of view, Israel's borders should be constituted to make it a compact state with natural boundaries on all sides — the Jordan River to the east, Golan Heights to the northeast, the Litani River in the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the west and the historic boundary with the Sinai Peninsula to the south. As a direct result and consequence of Arab aggression, most of those borders had been attained by Israel at one time or another.

Irving Kett had not been aware that another memorandum had been produced earlier, on June 29, 1967, for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara by General Earle Wheeler, chairman of the JCS, at the direction of President Lyndon Johnson. That study was declassified in 1983 and, as I mentioned earlier, it recommended that Israel keep all of Judea, the western half of Samaria, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and two significant parts of east and south Sinai. The similarity between the memorandums is quite remarkable.

Colonel Kett pointed out what the IDF has always known, but what too many Israeli politicians preferred to ignore; namely, that there is vital strategic value in the mountain range which forms the spine running through Judea and Samaria. The highlands run some 54 miles from Jenin in the north to Hebron in the south and dominate Israel's coastline. The spine is 12 miles wide and Israel simply cannot afford to vacate it.

It was assumed for years by both the Israeli military and politicians that if a Palestinian Arab state came into existence it would have to permit an Israeli defense line on the Jordan River (the Allon Plan), and that such a state would have to be demilitarized.

The answer, of course, would be to have made permanent the suggested boundaries proposed in both Kett's memorandum and the earlier JCS report of some 40 years ago. Events have moved on since then. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank would never agree to this and Hamas in Gaza would scornfully dismiss it out of hand. The Arabs have become even more vicious in their anti-Jewish rhetoric and behavior, and a jihadist Iran has all but encircled the Jewish state through its Islamist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon.

The Arab-Israel conflict is not, and never has been, merely a war over territory. It is, and always has been, a religious war. Islam will never accept a non-Muslim state, whatever size or shape it may be, within lands previously conquered by Muslims in the name of Allah.

The "two-state solution", so beloved of President Obama and President George Bush before him, requires Judea and Samaria to be given away to the Palestinian Arabs. But the Arabs have no intention of making peace, which should be enough for an Israeli government and Prime Minister with intestinal fortitude to defy the world's pressure for the Jewish state to slowly and surely disappear. After all, Prime Ministers David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir all said "no" to American presidents in the past and prevailed.

Interestingly, Colonel Kett had also suggested that the Palestinian Arabs be resettled in a state in the Sinai. The other famous suggestion has been that Jordan is Palestine, which is based upon the historical fact of the first "two-state solution" enacted in infamy by Great Britain some 87 years ago.

Even President George W. Bush, when visiting Israel as Governor of Texas, was moved to utter, "The whole of Israel is only about six times the size of the King Ranch near Corpus Christie." Yet even he, after becoming president, called for a "two-state solution" west of the Jordan River.

Pushing Israel back to the "Auschwitz borders", as Abba Eban called them, where the Jewish state is only nine miles wide at its most populous region, is what the "two-state solution" is all about. The dread euphemism "Final Solution" comes to mind.

Hopefully Binyamin Netanyahu stressed the territorial insanity of that fact over and over during his meeting with Obama in the White House.

Victor Sharpe is author of the book "Politicide — The attempt to murder the Jewish state" and "The Blue Hour and Other Strange Tales." His essays and articles have appeared in many places including Outpost, FrontPageMag.com, Wall Street Journal and London Daily Telegraph.

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 30, 2009.

This was written by Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington, D.C. It appeared in the Jerusalem Post.


Norway recently assumed the chairmanship of an international task force on Holocaust education. Yet the Norwegian government also recently launched a year-long celebration of the life and work of a supporter of the Nazis. The object of this adoration is Knut Hamsun (1859-1952), author of such acclaimed novels as Hunger, Pan and Growth of the Soil, which won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1920. Among the latter book's most ardent fans was Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, who had it translated and published in a special edition for German soldiers during World War II.

The feeling was mutual. Hamsun welcomed the Nazi occupation of Norway, met personally with both Goebbels and Adolf Hitler, and in 1943 sent his Nobel Prize to Goebbels as a gift.

After the war, Hamsun was arrested for treason but escaped trial after he was found to suffer from "weakened mental capacities." He was, however, found to be civilly liable, and received a substantial fine, because of his membership in the Norwegian fascist party Nasjonal Samling, led by the infamous Vidkun Quisling.

NONE OF THAT has stopped the government of Norway from undertaking "Hamsun 2009," commemorating Hamsun's 150th birthday with a year of public events, exhibits, commemorative coins, a new 27-volume collection of his writings and, on August 4 (Hamsun's birthday), the opening of a $20-million, six-story Hamsun Center in his home town of Hamaroy, complete with the unveiling of a huge bronze statue of the honoree.

Queen Sonja personally kicked off the festivities, joining members of the Hamsun family for a viewing of the National Library's exhibit of Hamsun's handwritten manuscripts. The exhibit included an article Hamsun wrote hailing Hitler as "a warrior for mankind, and a prophet of the gospel of justice for all nations." Afterward, the queen would say only, "I think we'll have to keep two thoughts in our head at the same time."

Evidently she meant thoughts about both Hamsun the writer, on the one hand, and Hamsun the Nazi supporter, on the other. A third thought might be in order — a thought about the fact that the royal family was forced to flee Norway when the Nazis, so admired by Hamsun, occupied their country.

THE CONTRAST between the experience of the royal family in the 1940s and the behavior of the Norwegian royalty today is not the only irony in this story. Consider the fact that the only other Norwegian to win the Nobel Prize for Literature in the past 100 years was Sigrid Undset, a fervent anti-Nazi — in other words, Hamsun's moral opposite.

Undset (1882-1949) won the Nobel Prize in 1928 for her novels about life in medieval Scandinavia, including the trilogy Kristin Lavransdatter. Joseph Goebbels had no interest in Undset's works; the accolades of her countrymen, and her readers around the world, had to suffice. Undset fled Norway in 1940 to escape the Nazis. Taking up residence in New York City, she soon became cochair of the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe (better known as the Bergson Group), which pressed the Roosevelt administration to rescue Jews from the Nazis.

While the Nazis, cheered on by Hamsun, were deporting more than 700 Norwegian Jews to Auschwitz in the autumn of 1942, Undset was a leading activist in the Bergson Group's campaign of rallies, newspaper ads and Washington lobbying for US action to save the Jews. Yet there is no word from Oslo about any plans by the Norwegian government to hold any year-long celebration of her life and work, nor to erect a statue of her, nor even to sponsor an exhibit acknowledging her literary and moral achievements.

ALL OF WHICH would be bad enough, but to make matters worse, Norway recently assumed the chairmanship of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education Remembrance and Research, a group of 26 European countries organized in Stockholm in 1998 to promote awareness of the Nazi genocide. In an essay published last week, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, challenged Norway's chairmanship of the task force. "This country is unfit to hold such a position when in the same year it has held major memorial activities for the Nazi-admirer Hamsun," Gerstenfeld wrote.

Each of the countries belonging to the task force has pledged to carry out the eight-point final declaration of the Stockholm Conference. Point number six is particularly relevant to the Knut Hamsun controversy: "We share a commitment to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and to honor those who stood against it."

This puts the Norwegian government in something of a bind, because instead of honoring "those who stood against the Holocaust," such as Undset, it is honoring someone who stood for it.

In the 1940s, Undset and Hamsun made their choices: Undset sided with good, Hamsun with evil. Today, Norway too must make a choice, between venerating the memory of the Holocaust, and desecrating it.

It cannot do both.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 30, 2009.

This was written by Jack Kelly and it appeared in the Jewish World Review.


Manuel Zelaya, a Hugo Chavez wannabe, was elected president of Honduras in November, 2005. He wanted to serve a second term. But there was a difficulty. Under the constitution of Honduras, the president may serve only a single four year term.

Mr. Zelaya proposed to circumvent that difficulty by holding a popular referendum on whether he should be allowed to run for a second term. But there was a difficulty with that, too. The constitution of Honduras provides only one way for the constitution to be amended. That is by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the national congress in two consecutive regular annual sessions.

The supreme court of Honduras ruled the referendum was unconstitutional, and the national congress passed a law forbidding referenda within 180 days of a national election. (Honduras' next is this November.) But Mr. Zelaya pressed on. When the army — acting on an order from the supreme court — refused to distribute ballots for the referendum (which had been printed in Venezuela), the president fired its chief of staff. The supreme court unanimously declared the firing illegal, and Honduras' attorney general asked congress to oust the president.

Push came to shove on Sunday (6/18). The army, acting on a warrant issued by the supreme court, arrested Mr. Zelaya and sent him into exile (in his pajamas, to Costa Rica). This was described as a "coup" by the news media, and was denounced by, among others, Hugo Chavez, who threatened military action to restore Mr. Zelaya to power, and the Obama administration.

It's the administration's view the coup was an "illegal and illegitimate act that cannot stand," officials, briefing on background, told journalists. Mr. Zelaya must be returned to power, they said.

"Knowing trouble was brewing in Honduras over several weeks, the Obama administration warned power players there, including the armed forces, that the United States and other nations in the Americas would not support or abide a coup," the AP quoted "officials" as saying. "They said Honduran military leaders stopped taking their calls."

It seems more accurate to say that Mr. Zelaya, with Venezuelan help, was trying to execute a coup against the Honduran constitution than to accuse the military — which was acting on orders from the supreme court and with the support of the legislature (124 of 128 deputies in the unicameral congress endorsed Mr. Zelaya's removal Sunday afternoon) — of having done so.

Daniel Lopez Carballo, a retired Honduran general, told CNN that if the military hadn't acted, Mr. Chavez, the Venezuelan dictator, would have been running Honduras by proxy.

Typically in a coup, the military seizes control of the government. But the military quickly surrendered power to an acting president — from Mr. Zelaya's own party — chosen by the national congress.

The streets of Tegucigulpa were quiet after Mr. Zelaya's removal, perhaps because not many Hondurans like him. In a Mitofsky poll taken in April, Mr. Zelaya had an approval rating of 25 percent, the lowest of 18 regional leaders.

So Mr. Obama is intervening on the wrong side. But if you take him at his word (a dangerous thing to do), the wonder is that he is intervening at all. This is the guy, you'll remember, who was so concerned about being perceived as "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs that he, alone among Western leaders, refused to denounce the blatantly stolen election in Iran, or to express support for those who protested the theft.

Mr. Obama is now doing with regard to Honduras what he has refused to do with regard to Iran: organizing an international coalition to pressure the country to reverse course. Why threaten Honduras, but not Iran? Honduras is no threat to us. Iran is. A large majority in Iran oppose the government's brutality. Apparently, a large majority in Honduras support what the army has done.

There is a disturbing consistency to Mr. Obama's apparent inconsistency on Honduras and Iran. In both the case where he has intervened, and in the case where he hasn't, he has taken the side of anti-American dictators (in Mr. Zelaya's case, a wannabe dictator) over the vast majority of their people.

"We're getting a close look at Obama's priorities, and they are hideously out of step with democracy and the rule of law," said Web logger Ed Morrissey.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, June 30, 2009.

Coordinated Arson-Rock Attack

In what appears to have been a coordinated attack on Jews from Yitzhar, in Samaria, a group of Arabs set fire to agricultural fields on Monday evening and then released a barrage of rocks at people responding to the arson. IDF forces responded to the incident and dispersed the attackers.

Yitzhar residents said Arabs from the neighboring village of Assira al-Kabaliyeh set fire to agricultural land belonging to the Jewish community. When people from Yitzhar went out to the fields to try and put out the flames, they came under a rain of rocks thrown by a gathered group of Arabs.

A 17-year-old Jewish youth was hit in the eye by a rock thrown by one of the attackers. He was hit as he attempted to stop the flames from spreading in the Shalhevet Yah neighborhood on the outskirts of Yitzhar. The youth was taken by ambulance to the Beilinson Hospital in Petach Tikva with light head injuries.

Not prepared to withdraw, Yitzhar residents responded to the provocation and a confrontation ensued. However, even after the initial fire was extinguished by Yitzhar residents, the clash continued.

Responding to reports of the violence, IDF forces were dispatched to the scene. The soldiers employed riot control measures to break up the Arab mob and end the confrontation.

According to eyewitness reports, some of the Arabs continued to throw rocks and set fire to other sections of the Yitzhar fields as they withdrew. There were no injuries reported among the soldiers.

Yitzhar, a Jewish community about eight kilometers southwest of Joseph's Tomb in Shechem, has been the scene of repeated clashes between Arabs and Jews claiming rights to the community's land. Founded in 1983 on a strategic hilltop, Yitzhar is home to about 500 people.

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, June 30, 2009.

This is very good news for Lieberman and very bad news for Netanyahu. As I predicted before the elections, Lieberman has become the big winner. At nearly every turn of the political wheel of fortune, Netanyahu looses and Lieberman wins.

Netanyahu's in character betrayal of his voters when he capitulated to the enemy's demands for an Arab terror State in Yeshah drove off tens of thousands of Likud voters. He followed this up by an even more noxious act of betrayal by imposing a tax on the poor. This has lead to his condemnation by the most loyal and faithful block in the Likud, the merchants of Machenah Yehudah.

It seems that Netanyahu can not make a move that does not seriously harm the Likud and elevates Lieberman. If the Likud is to survive and not be supplanted by Lieberman's group, it must rid itself of Netanyahu. The sooner the better.

Stop complaining and fight back!

Here's how:

Have a nice day


French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for the removal of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in a blatant move, probing deep into Israel's internal political arena.

According to a Channel 2 News report on Monday night, the meeting in Paris last week between Sarkozy and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was not a cordial as the Prime Minister's Office wishes us to believe.

Channel 2 reported the French president told the prime minister that Lieberman most be removed from his post due to his extremist views, suggesting that he replace him with former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, today the opposition leader.

Drawing an extreme example, Sarkozy reportedly added that even Jean-Marie Le Pen is a nice person when one meets him.

Tzachi Moshe, media advisor to Minister Lieberman, stated if the statements attributed to the French leader are correct, then his statements represent blatant interference in Israel's internal affairs and his words are "grave and serious". Moshe called for an across the board condemnation of the president's interference in internal affairs, expecting a response from all political parties regardless of affiliation.
(Yechiel Spira — YWN Israel)

Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Dann, June 30, 2009.

The Iranian nuclear issue is moot. It became moot when George W. Bush left the White House.

Nothing will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power — especially not President Obama. It's doubtful that Israel would risk a pre-emptive attack and its aftermath.

Israeli politicians, military egos, and media pundits, however, have created a hysterical state of mind which is now being used to garner support for destroying more Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. This provides Prime Minister Netanyahu with a perfect excuse; dealing with Iran is more important than West Bank outposts.

Sound logical? Most PR does. But it presents a totally false symmetry. What does Iran have to do with settlements?

The idea that evacuating Jews will bring Arabs into a coalition against Iran and promote regional strategic cooperation is delusional. With Iran in full support of Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and other Muslim countries, who cares about a few Jews living on hilltops?

Obama has painted himself into a corner. Unwilling to take on Iran militarily, he has turned against the closest and most vulnerable target, Israel. And Netanyahu — as in previous confrontations over policy differences — may be wobbling, yet again.

Remember his excuses for signing the [1] Wye Agreement in 1998, which turned over major cities and vast tracts of land to the PA? "Now they will be accountable," he burbled.

He went along with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's [2] "disengagement" from Gaza because, he said, his role as finance minister was too important to leave. He failed to lead Israelis fed up with corruption and ineptitude after Israel's botched action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It could be another set-up, or a new dance step.

Iran needs the American bogeyman to unite; America needs the threat from Iran to whip Israel into major security surrender; and Netanyahu needs both to build a strong coalition and stay in power. He's been through all of this before; he won't make the same mistakes.

Whether or not Iran has the capability of launching a nuclear-tipped missile from its territory is unclear. Thanks to Pakistan and North Korea, Iran may have acquired the technology for a smaller nuclear devise mounted on ballistic missiles that could be launched by small groups anywhere, most likely via Hezbollah and Hamas proxies.

The obvious advantage of Iran's use of a proxy is that it's harder to trace its origins, thereby offering Iran protection from retaliation, at least for a while, if at all.

This situation severely limits Israel's options, primarily its reliance on anti-missile defense. Chances are good that an incoming missile will be intercepted, which would then entitle a response with full force.

Ironically, once it achieves nuclear capability, Iran is more identifiably dangerous, and therefore more limited. The more threatening Iran becomes, the higher the stakes, the more intense a confrontation and the likelihood of a serious response. This offers the only real chance to prevent Iran from attacking.

The United States, Britain and France (at least) must warn Iran that launching a missile — any missile (since it can be assumed to be a WMD) — would result in the total annihilation of Iran by a combined international force. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's refusal to make this clear weakens any opposition and offers no incentives for Iran to change course.

The warning to Iran must be clear, unequivocal, and substantive, obligating the "great powers," including NATO, to become part of a control mechanism, and one that will act decisively. There can be no question about the ramifications of a first-strike launch using WMD.

The advantage of such a system is that it virtually locks in all participants and everyone knows the rules. Iran's success up to now has been due to the lack of rules, clear red lines, and meaningful consequences. The responsibility for prudence and self-preservation as well as the system itself, therefore, is incumbent on every player. And once armed, there is no withdrawal.

Without doubt, Iran, like Pakistan and North Korea, will try to distribute and build facilities for WMD, and they may be initially successful, as occurred recently when a nuclear facility was being built in Syria. It would appear, however, that these initiatives could be readily eliminated.

Countries which have WMD and threaten others should be ostracized. This could easily become part of the UN Charter and other international bodies. In this way, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons could be a blessing in disguise, if it prompts a new way of thinking about the problem and how to contain it. As more nations acquire nuclear weapons they can learn that it's also a responsibility.

This, however, has nothing to do with Jews, settlements, elephants, or camels.

And if you think Obama knows the dance floor, Bibi can show him a trick or two.

Moshe Dann, a former asst professor of History (CUNY), is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il

This article was published on Pajamas Media http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-bibi-two-step/?print=1

To Go To Top

Posted by Meir Panim, June 30, 2009.

Untitled Document

MEIR PANIM SUMMER CAMPS offer needy Israeli children a refuge from the harmful influences of the streets and hunger during the long summer days.

The Meir Panim summer camps are located in 10 distressed cities throughout Israel. During the summer camp program, hundreds of needy children are given:
· Nourishing meals - the only one they may have that day!
· Structured activities · Sports · Arts & crafts
· Academic assistance      · Day trips      · Love and support

  Sponsor One Day of Food & Activities for
a Needy Child
$1 80
  Sponsor One Week of Food & Activities for
a Needy Child
$ 375
  Sponsor Two Weeks of Food & Activities
for a Needy Child
$ 750
  Sponsor Full Summer Camp for a Needy Child 
Other (every dollar counts!)
Donations are tax-deductible. Tax ID # 20-1582478.

Call Toll Free:
1-877-7-DONATE  (736.6283)

Email: info@meirpanim.org

5316 New Utrecht Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11219

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 30, 2009.

It's hardly a new refrain in these postings: the sense that the world is upside-down and crazy. Unfortunately, that sense is only growing stronger.

Several people forwarded to me in recent days a quote from columnist Burt Prelutzky, that says, in essence, when Obama receives his physical, he should have a brain scan, because there has got to be something terribly wrong "with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran."

Not funny at all, really, because it cuts too close to the bone of truth.


From a purely informal source in the US (and I readily acknowledge that this is not confirmed) comes information that a Democratic Congressperson in a key position is saying that even Obama's people are finding themselves unable to convince the president to cool it a bit on the issue of settlements.

It seems that when it comes to a complete settlement freeze Barack Hussein Obama is mushuga al ha-devar. On this issue he's crazy — obsessed. Obsession is a good word, for it has been pointed out that if his goal is promotion of a genuine peace negotiation, what he's doing — which hardens Israeli hearts against him — is counterproductive.

Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the Washington Post, described the situation accurately when he recently wrote that "Obama began with a broad strategy of simultaneously pressing Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states to take concrete steps toward peace", but that this has "narrowed to a single point: a standoff with the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu over whether 'natural growth' would be allowed in Jewish settlements."

MK Otniel Schneller, of Kadima, please understand, has now lambasted Obama administration officials, charging that they hold beliefs influenced by "far-Left opinions outside of the Israeli consensus" (about which more below). Schneller, who is interested in promoting a "peace deal" with the Palestinians, says that "the most dangerous thing to the peace process is to push the Israeli public into a corner." He calls the current Obama demand "extortion."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1246296531821


The other side of the coin, in terms of what Obama's position does, is to make the Arabs, who think they have a free ride, more intransigent. The Jerusalem Post editorial today alludes to a recent article by David Ignatius in the Washington Post that quotes an Arab diplomat as telling him that what Arabs demand is not a settlement freeze but rather an imposed settlement.

The editorial carries this one step further, indicating that Obama has also been hearing this from "some in the ostensibly pro-Israel community in Washington, led by J Street." J Street, funded by George Soros, is at the heart of what Schneller was referring to in terms of "far-left opinions." J Street may proclaim itself pro-Israel in its own fashion, but in my book it is solidly anti-Israel. And dangerous.

The painful fact is that Soros, having done funding for his campaign, has the ear of Obama. Any American, Jew or non-Jew, who genuinely cares about Israel, and is not yet aware of this, needs to (in the words of the late, great advice columnist Anne Landers) "wake up and smell the coffee."


The heat is on our government from all sides with regard to freezing of the settlements. From the Quartet, and from various European nations, including those just visited by PM Netanyahu.

Additionally, Sweden, which is no friend to Israel, is poised to assume the EU presidency. NGO-Monitor has just released information detailing "Swedish government funding for radical [anti-Israel] NGOs under the guise of human rights and humanitarian aid."
See http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=44191.


The question then is how well Netanyahu and company will continue to hold in the face of all of this. There are mixed messages, and concern grows.

We're hearing talk about a "compromise" on the subject, some way to reach a meeting of the minds between Jerusalem and Washington. That has to be bad news. In some quarters it's said we may ultimately agree to a "temporary" freeze, for three or six months. That would be very bad news indeed.

Right now DM Barak is in New York, and today held a four hour meeting with George Mitchell.

Immediately before he left, the Defense Ministry revealed that it had improved the construction of 50 homes in the Samaria community of Adam — part of a master plan for 1,500 homes for the Binyamin region. This may or may not have been timed to deliver a message. (In due course I'll have more to say about these plans.)


Emerging from the meeting, half of which was held privately between the two parties, Barak told reporters that he and Mitchell were "not stuck on the issue" of settlements, and that he had indicated to Mitchell that Israel will consider "any positive contribution to the peace efforts." He said there were still gaps between the sides (the US stance has not softened), but that efforts would continue to reach understandings.

What understandings? Vague diplomatic talk. We will have to see what emerges, or ensues in follow-up talks. But the reference to gaps, and efforts to downplay the settlements as focus of the talks is encouraging. It would certainly seem that Barak did not acquiesce today to a freeze, even a temporary one, on the building in settlement blocs.

This broadly comports with what YNet had reported: that a forum, which included Barak, PM Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Lieberman, and Ministers Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon, met yesterday in preparation for Barak's meetings with Mitchell. It was decided that settlement construction would not be frozen now, and that there would be an attempt to convince the US that discussion on this could be delayed until talks with the Palestinians were under way.

Talks with the Palestinians? Let us hope they continue to balk. We may have a deliberately devised catch 22 here: with the PA saying they won't talk because we haven't frozen settlements.

~~~~~~~~~~ And so, my friends, it's time to let our voices be heard again.

Here in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has to be thanked for not caving, and urged as strongly as possible not to cave to Obama in the future.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)

In the US, forget the obsessed Obama. Contact your own Senators and Congresspersons. Tell them you are adamantly opposed to pushing Israel on a settlement freeze. Ask them for a greater focus on what the PA will do to stop incitement.

For your Congresspersons:

For your Senators:

Remember, folks, numbers count. Circulate this request, please!


An unsettling sign of caving to Obama, however, has come with agreement on another front: some withdrawal of IDF forces from major PA cities, to allow day-to-day takeover by PA security forces being trained by General Dayton — forces, it should be noted again, that, according to reliable reports, Dayton himself indicated might turn on Israel within two years if they don't get what they want.

The PA is looking for a situation in which the IDF would be prevented from returning to these cities. The IDF maintains the right to return if necessary.

If this has a deju vu feeling it is because we've been on this merry-go-round before. Ultimately, it is the IDF that controls terrorism in those cities, and ultimately, we always have to return.

The concern — the deep concern — is with regard to the security risk in the interim.


French President Sarkozy was way out of line in recently urging Netanyahu, according to a Channel Two report yesterday, to "get rid of Lieberman" and (are you ready for this?) replace him with Livni.

Our Foreign Ministry responded that this represented "intolerable intervention in internal Israeli affairs." And Netanyahu has in turn responded appropriately, indicating that Lieberman was an important part of the government team. Today he told more than 20 ambassadors from EU nations that he has complete confidence in Lieberman.


All is not grim, however, in spite of the above.

According to Reuters, the US has given assurances that it will continue to support Israel at the UN. Additionally, US loan guarantees have been re-approved.


President Peres left Sunday for a four-day visit to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan — the first visit by an Israeli president since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the two Muslim states. He is being accompanied by a delegation of 60 senior officials of leading Israeli companies in the fields of water technology, agriculture, communications, medical technology, and defense.

Azerbaijan stood its ground against an irate Iran, even though Iran re-called its ambassador and expelled Azerbaijan's ambassador in protest. In fact, according to Yediot Ahronot, an Iranian official went to Azerbaijan a month ago to persuade Azerbaijan to cancel its visit from Peres. Baku's response: "We don't tell you whom to meet when you meet with Armenians, and you won't tell us whom to meet either. Azerbaijan is a sovereign country, and no one will tell it whom to receive."

So, we have friends, and in this case a Muslim friend, to boot.


According to Arutz Sheva, the "Religious Zionist Budget" will not be cut in the coming year. This budget provides funds for strengthening Jewish identity, supporting hesder yeshivas (which combine Torah study and IDF service), and bolstering youth groups associated with the religious Zionist movement.

Sounding good from here.


Also sounding good: The IDF Spokesperson's Office has confirmed that the Navy has seized a "Free Gaza Movement" boat, "Arion," that was headed for Gaza in violation of the Israeli blockade on the Strip. The boat was taken to Ashdod, and the crew detained by the IDF.

This is something the Olmert government never had the guts to do.


And one last, important, piece of good news for today:

Drawing on the principle of "universal jurisdiction," which is — as I recently wrote — being abused for political purposes, a Spanish court had been proceeding with the investigation of the IAF bombing in Gaza on July 22, 2002 that killed Hamas terrorist Sheikh Salah Shehadeh and 14 others. The original complaint was lodged by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) and involved war crimes allegations against seven senior Israeli officials, including former IDF chiefs of staff Dan Halutz and Moshe Ya'alon, and former defense minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer.

Today, Spain's National Court, in a 14 to 4 vote, decided not to proceed with the case. The legal reasoning that was applied has not yet been announced.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, June 31, 2009.

Obama thaw on Israeli settlement construction follows Iran setback, Saudi brush-off.

This below is a DEBKAfile special that comes from today's IsraPundit


The Obama administration signalled a new mood of compromise on settlement construction just ahead of the key talks in New York between Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak and prime minister's adviser Yitzhak Molcho and US envoy George Mitchell Tuesday, June 30.

While the Israeli delegation was still airborne, the US state department spokesman Ian Kelly said: "We've been working with all the parties to try and come up with... an environment conducive to the resumption of negotiations. I'm not going to prejudge what happens tomorrow."

Asked by reporters if that meant the US administration was ready to compromise and accept a suspension of settlement activity instead of a total halt, Kelly said that some level of flexibility was part of the negotiation process.

"Working our way to our resolution, I'm not going to say we're not going to compromise. Let's just see what happens."

At the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "I don't want to get ahead of some very important meetings tomorrow between Ehud Barak and George Mitchell, except to say that we're optimistic about making progress."

DEBKAfile's political analysts attribute this large crack in US president Barack Obama's unswerving push for a total halt on settlement activity on the West Bank to four new developments:

1. The prospect of direct US-Iranian dialogue on the nuclear issue has vanished into the blue yonder as relations go from bad to worse in the aftermath of Iran's disputed presidential election. A tough US stance against Israel as a bargaining chip with Iran is no longer relevant.

2. Saudi Arabia has made it clear that even if the Netanyahu government surrenders to the US demand for a total halt in settlement activity, Arab concessions will not be forthcoming. There will be no visas for Israeli tourists or permission for Israeli airliners heading east to transit Saudi skies.

The Obama administration had factored Arab reciprocity into its campaign to halt Israel's settlement activity. When it was denied, the White House saw no point in continuing to lean on Israel.

3. More and more former Bush administration officials are challenging the administration's insistent denial of Bush administration understandings with Israel on settlement expansion to accommodate natural growth. These officials emphasize that the understandings exist both orally and in writing.

4. Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, backed by government and popular majority, stuck to his guns and resisted Barack Obama's demand to halt settlement activity of any kind.

Monday, June 29, the Washington Post offered three reasons for the White House's decision to ease up on its "absolutist" position:

"First, it has allowed Palestinian and Arab leaders to withhold the steps they were asked for... Second, the administration's objective... is unobtainable... No Israeli government has ever agreed to an unconditional freeze and no coalition could be assembled... to impose one. Finally, the extraction of a freeze from Netanyahu is, as a practical matter, unnecessary... both the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments have gone along with previous US-Israeli deals by which construction was to be limited to inside the periphery of settlements near Israel — since everyone knows those areas will be annexed to Israel in a final settlement..."

In view of the US administration's newfound flexibility on the settlement issue, Israeli government circles see the tables turned and the American squeeze deflected to coercing the Palestinian Authority to return to the negotiating table.

Egypt has set July 7 as the deadline for the warring Palestinian factions — Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah and the Islamist Hamas which rules Gaza — to get their act together and achieve a united national front ahead of peace talks with Israel.

Netanyahu, after accepting the two-state principle, pulling Israeli troops out of four Palestinian towns, thinning out West Bank roadblocks and making his point to Washington on the settlement freeze, is ready to invite the opposition Kadima party and its leader, Tzipi Livni, to join a national unity government under his rule.

Foreign minister Avigdor Liebermann and his nationalist Israeli Beitenu party might present an obstacle. Therefore, some political circles in Jerusalem assign the anonymous leak to the media Monday, June 29, which cited French president Nicolas Sarkozy as bluntly advising Netanyahu when they met at the Elysee last week to get rid of Avigdor Lieberman and replace him with Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, as a prod for Lieberman to step aside.

Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, June 30, 2009.

The article below was written by M.K. Moshe Arens and appeared in Haaretz

"The right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria is a basic principle not subject to negotiations. The Israel prime minister has to make this crystal clear."


Dealing with U.S. President Barack Obama constitutes a major challenge for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been a long time since America last had a president as powerful as Obama, who controls both houses of Congress and is wildly popular among the American public. It is from this advantageous position that Obama has decided to confront Israel, and now the Israeli prime minister has to decide how to respond.

Meanwhile, the world's troublemakers in Tehran, Damascus, and Pyongyang are getting away with murder. As for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad, Obama has decided to sweet-talk them. Meanwhile Kim Jong-il is still waiting to see how the U.S. president will deal with him, as North Korea continues to threaten the world with its nuclear-tipped missiles. The exception to it all is Israel — Obama is telling Jerusalem in no uncertain terms what he expects from it. No doubt about it, the American leader has decided to use strong-arm tactics on America's long-time ally.

He has carefully and deliberately targeted the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria as the focal point of the pressure he has decided to apply on Netanyahu. For years these settlements have been castigated by Israel's enemies, and even some of its friends, as constituting an obstacle to regional peace — a sentiment also echoed by the Israeli left. With that kind of backing, Obama must have concluded that Netanyahu will have no choice but to buckle. That is why he and Hillary Clinton are keeping up the pressure.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements... It is time for these settlements to stop," he declared in Cairo. To leave no room for doubt, Clinton emphasized that Obama was referring to all settlements, including Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Those who choose to take comfort in Obama's choice of words — he referred to "legitimacy" rather than "legality," and talked about "continued" Israeli settlements — are only fooling themselves. Obama has targeted all Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria as well as East Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods, and he does not intend to let go easily.

Netanyahu made a serious error of judgment in trying to parry Obama's opening serve by explaining the need for additional settlement construction due to the "natural growth" of the Jewish population there. Referring to the space required for kindergartens, nurseries and homes for newlyweds does not convince someone who does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement construction. Expecting heartfelt sentiments from your opponent in this game is not going to get us anywhere. Obama is playing hardball. While efforts to assuage the concerns of the Israeli public regarding relations with the U.S. — by saying that the settlement issue is negotiable — may leave an impression in Israel, they are falling on deaf ears in Washington.

The right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria is a basic principle not subject to negotiations. There is more at stake here than mere rights to natural growth. Britain tried to abrogate these rights in the infamous MacDonald White Paper of May 1939. That document ended up in the trash bin of history. The Arab Legion tried to deny this right from 1948-1967, after destroying the Jewish settlements in the area, only to be driven out in the Six-Day War. And today, too, no coalition of friends or foes is going to succeed in this endeavor. The Israel prime minister has to make this crystal clear. The gauntlet has been dropped and it has to be taken up.

Succumbing to the pressure that is being applied on the settlement issue will only result in additional pressure on other issues, and before long Israel's position on matters of principle and substance will begin to crumble. This is not going to be easy, but Israel's staunch supporters in the U.S. will stand by it. It will be a test for the American Jewish leadership — and for the people of Israel.

Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org. Barry Freedman is Executive Director. If you would like to be on AFSI's email list then contact them at: afsi@rcn.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, June 30, 2009.

This was written by Michael Slackman and it is archived at


CAIRO — The powerful Guardian Council touched off scattered protests in Tehran Monday night when it formally certified the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a second four-year term, saying there was no validity to charges of voting fraud.

As the certification was announced, security and militia forces flooded the streets, and protesters who were already out marching down Tehran's central avenue, Vali Asr, broke into furious chants. The marchers were quickly dispersed, but other Iranians, urged by opposition Web sites, went to their rooftops to yell "God is great!" in a show of defiance.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the Guardian Council's secretary, sent a letter to the interior minister saying the panel had approved the election after a partial recount, according to state television.

"The Guardian Council, by reviewing the issues in many meetings and not considering the complaints and protest as valid, verifies the 10th presidential election," Ayatollah Jannati wrote. The letter made scant mention of the sweeping public anger and accusations of fraud.

Earlier in the day, apparently in an attempt to create a semblance of fairness, state television said the Guardian Council had begun a random recount of 10 percent of the ballots in Tehran's 22 electoral districts and in some provinces. The recount only aroused new skepticism, however, when the official news agency, IRNA, said that in one district, Mr. Ahmadinejad won even more votes than he had in the first count.

Opposition candidates had refused to participate in the review by sending representatives, saying that the election should be annulled because of widespread fraud.

"There is a serious crisis of confidence and danger between the state and a large section of the population," said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. "I think this anger and discontent right now might have been managed and controlled, it might not erupt again in the next two days or week. But it has not been resolved."

"It is a divided country now," said an Iranian political analyst who would speak only anonymously to avoid retribution. "We have two completely different world views. Ultimately, it is the competition between tradition and modernity."

Speaking to reporters in Washington on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Iranian government was facing an enormous credibility gap over the election, something the day's events in Iran did little to address. "I don't think that's going to disappear by any finding of a limited review of a relatively small number of ballots," she said.

Asked whether the United States would recognize Mr. Ahmadinejad as Iran's president, she said only, "We're going to take this a day at a time."

The decision to certify the election seemed to reflect a growing split among the Iranian leadership about how to respond to a nation that has been left badly scarred after widespread protests, and a violent government crackdown that left at least 17 dead and hundreds more injured, hospitalized and jailed.

One group of officials under the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Mr. Ahmadinejad appeared to be trying to resolve the internal dispute by shifting some blame to foreign powers, particularly Britain, and by continuing reliance on the hammer-fisted policy of dispatching the police and militia members to beat protesters.

But there appear to be a growing number of officials and clerics who are deeply concerned about the unrest. On Monday, the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Parliament was scheduled to visit the holy city of Qum to meet with two grand ayatollahs. A day earlier it met with two former presidents, Mohammad Khatami and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in an effort to ease the strains that have developed since the June 12 election. The speaker of Parliament, Ali Larijani, a former nuclear negotiator, has emerged as a powerful opponent of Mr. Ahmadinejad.

It is not clear how far those seeking some kind of reconciliation will be able to push their drive, as the current hard-line leadership of Mr. Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei has continued to lash out at the opposition and insist that Iran's troubles are a result of meddling by foreign powers.

The nation's intelligence chief charged that the protests were inspired by Western and "Zionist" forces, and Mr. Ahmadinejad called Monday for an investigation into the shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan, the young protester who became a symbol when a video of her dying moments in the streets was seen all over the world.

Witnesses said she was shot by a member of the Basij, the government militia. But now the government is pressing an account that foreigners killed her to undermine its credibility.

Political analysts inside and outside the country doubted that the millions who participated in the rallies would believe the government's version. But there are millions more citizens who may, because they receive virtually all of their information from state media — primarily television — and because of Iran's history of exploitation by the West.

On Sunday, the authorities arrested nine Iranian staff members of the British Embassy in Tehran, and while five had been released Monday, four remained in custody for what the intelligence service said were efforts to incite and organize the protests.

But as the arrests ratcheted tensions up between Iran and the European Union, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman tried to ease back on Monday, however slightly. "Reduction of ties is not on our agenda with any European country, including Britain," the spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi, said.

Iran's economy, even before the electoral crisis, was suffering from the drop in oil prices, with inflation of at least 15 percent — and by some estimates 25 percent — and damaging unemployment. On Sunday, the government announced that it had to end all subsidies for gasoline used by private vehicles, a decision that was expected, but given the timing, suggested serious strains to the state budget.

Antagonizing the European Union, Iran's largest trading partner, could do further damage. There was already some indication that some of Iran's most powerful groups, close to the supreme leader, were growing anxious over the state of the nation.

European security experts, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, confirmed reports in Italian and Turkish newspapers that large sums of money had been sent to havens outside the country from banks controlled by the Revolutionary Guards.

There was another lesson from Sunday that challenged the government's belief that it can return to a state of normalcy by crushing protests and talking about recounts without also offering hope of an objective review.

The Iranian calendar is filled with a large number of national, religious and cultural memorials, holidays and observances. On Sunday, one memorial turned into a protest by thousands of people, forcing a recognition that without shutting down civil life for a vast majority of Iranians, there would be no way to prevent large crowds from gathering.

"I think the memorials and the various anniversary dates, particularly for the most recent martyrs, present the greatest of threats to the regime of gatherings that could gather steam and momentum," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. "I expect authorities will continue to do all they can to prevent people from gathering in large numbers in such occasions."

Mona El-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo.

Editor's Note: The cartoon is not part of the original article. It comes from the June 30, 2009 Atlas Shrugs website


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 30, 2009.


A new restaurant was opened as a gathering place for leftists. Uniformed and armed Israeli soldiers are barred. The restaurant's rationale is that it opposes all forms of oppression, including killing animals for food and the Israeli "occupation" of Judea-Samaria (Prof. Steven Plaut.

Unable to persuade the majority to adopt their views, the leftists seek to force their views upon the majority. This majority is growing, because leftist concessions to the Arabs have gotten thousands of Israelis killed.

Suppose that ban extended to all food stores. Who then would defend those leftists from the Arabs, who have tried a number of times to wipe out the Israeli Jews?

What "occupation?" The Territories are within the Mandate that recognized the Jewish people's pre-existing right to recover them. Foreign powers later conspired to deprive the Jewish people of them, but that does not negate Jewish rights. Repeated Arab aggression against Israel brought the Territories under Israeli control. That is where it belongs. Incidentally does the restaurant allow Arab customers, or does it boycott them, too, for their actual oppression

What happens when Israel relinquishes control over territory? IDF forces left Lebanese soil. Result: Hizbullah oppresses the Lebanese and made and prepares war on Israel.

Israel abandoned its own communities in Gaza. Result: Hamas oppresses the Arabs and made and prepares war on Israel.

Can't just let territory fall into the hands of a terrorist enemy. Those vegans ought to learn from Israel's mistakes. Let them put pressure on the Arabs, who are the aggressors, not on defenders of Israel!

If you want an outstanding vegan or vegetarian meal in Jerusalem, at modest prices and with friendly service, try the Village Green near Zion Square. They won't bother you over politics.

For more on discrimination in Israel, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d22-Discirmination-in-Israel NO NEW CLASSROOMS FOR JEWS IN SAMARIA

Defense Min. Barak authorizes or rejects building plans in Samaria and outside the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli population there is growing. [Many being Orthodox, have large families.] Barak rejected the building of 20 new classrooms for children
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/11).

Isn't that carrying appeasement-minded politics too far?


Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed Iran's motive for nuclear weapons. He said many people suppose that it merely is a status symbol. Netanyahu thinks otherwise. He pointed out that Iran furnishes allies with thousands of rockets for murdering Israeli civilians
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis6/11).

A regime bent on mass-murder does not seek nuclear weapons just for show.

Can sanctions stop Iran? After all these years of attempted sanctions, leaving Iran just months from nuclear weapons, sanctions have proved futile.


In addition to demanding that Israel give up the strategic mountain provinces of Judea and Samaria, plus Gaza Strip, U.S. envoy Mitchell demands that Israel cede the strategic Golan Heights. He depicts this as part of peace-making
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/11).

The U.S. would strip Israel of strategic borders past which the Arabs repeatedly launched attacks on Israel. It would give those regions, some of which now are parts of the State of Israel, to Arabs who still want to destroy what would be left of Jewish sovereignty. That is not peace-making. It invites war by boosting the prospects of victory, irresistible to jihadists. Foolish, if peace were the U.S. goal. Futile, if long-term Arab friendship, were the U.S. goal. Effective, if destruction of the Jewish state is the U.S. government's goal.

For more on U.S. diplomacy with Syria, click here: (Diplomatic butter-up with Syria)

To see how the U.S. is opening up another front against Israel, click here:
(http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d19-US-encourages-Palestinian-Arabs-to-war-on-Israel


In Gaza, a father admitted murdering his daughter as an "honor killing." In Israel, an Arab was indicted for murdering his daughter in another "honor killing." In the other part of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), male and female relatives admitted murdering a youth on suspicion of his assisting Israel. P.A. police have not uncovered any evidence that the youth did. The P.A. commander said he'd bring the youth's killers to justice
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/12). The reason given, even if true, does not warrant taking the youth's life into their own hands. If assisting Israel means helping it squelch terrorism, then what the jihadists call a crime is honorable.

I think the Arabs should redefine "honor" and due process.

Sometimes the Arabs attributed murders to the anti-sin motive, but really were extorting property or taking personal vengeance.

To appreciate Arab Muslim culture more, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d25-Psychiatry-Islamist-style (psych, Islamist style and here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d18-Why-Palestinian-Arab-terrorism


The Turks have come to sound like the Arabs and like Iran's leaders. For example, Turkey's Islamist media calls Jews names such as "blood-sucking vampires." For another example, the pro-government media called the Gaza incursion genocide and a crime against humanity. They did not say the same when visited by Sudan's vice-president (Haymi Behar in Jewish Political Chronicle, Spring 2009, p.7 from Ynet, 3/1/09) who actually commits genocide.

I'm not sure the Muslims mean their epithets only symbolically. They take the Koran literally, and it calls some or all Jews pigs and apes.


The Arab world is displaying a Turkish miniseries. The programs depict Israel as helping organized crime spread prostitution and drugs throughout Turkey. Turkish Jewry reports other TV programs there being antisemitic (Elgar Lefkovits, Op. Cit., p.9 from Jerusalem Post, 2/25).

Bad enough that among the people there is solidarity with foreign Muslim aggressors, but worse the government indoctrinates in bigotry. How fast Turkey descended into primitive religious hatred! Wild lies instead of facts.

Speaking of lies, what say you now about President Obama's claim that Islam is tolerant? Not when it is in a militant phase. Minorities never have security. Jews in Turkey fared much better under secularist regimes and my grandfather was the Sultan's clock repairman before that.


Turkey used to be the most popular destination of Israeli tourists. Almost 10,000 Israelis have canceled season-start trips to Bodrum, Turkey, alone. They were prompted by the insulting treatment of their President by the Turkish President in Davos. Turkey's Minister of Tourism feels that his own President's outburst boosted Turkey's popularity among the Arabs (Op. Cit., p.9 from Dagan News Agency, 4/3/09).

The Turkish President did not insult personally his Israeli counterpart. Personally, I consider Pres. Peres a most subversive, anti-Zionist conspirator.

Turkey formerly ruled over the Arabs and repressed them. Somehow, the Arabs don't blame Turkey for past colonialism


Anders Rasmussen was Prime Minister of Denmark when a private Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad. The Prime Minister defended the rights of a free press. In any case, it was beyond his power to censor.

Nevertheless, when most NATO members supported Mr. Rasmussen's nomination to head NATO, Turkey objected. It acceded only when given: an EU concession in negotiations on Turkey's membership application, the appointment of two Turks to senior NATO posts, and an apology by Rasmussen. This was a step away from freedom of the press, because the government accepted a penalty imposed by Turkey. [Muslims often defame non-believers but bridle at non-believer criticism of themselves, whether the criticism be valid or not.]

For 20 years, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) systematically used accusations of "Islamophobia" and of "insults to Islam" to cow critics. It is getting the UN to abandon human rights and freedoms. The US resists some of the UN resolutions against freedom of speech and religion, but does not make "a vigorous counterattack in defense of freedom." [Therefore, the resolutions keep coming. We should be trying to defeat their radical ideology.]

In 1990, the OIC issued the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. They patterned it after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but subordinated rights to undefined Islamic law. It subordinated freedom of speech to their laws against blasphemy. The UN didn't adopt it but nevertheless cites it.

The OIC attacked human rights reporting. In 1994, the UN special rapporteur on Sudan reported that Sudan's capital punishment for anyone older than seven and convicted of apostasy or adultery violated Sudan's commitment to human rights agreements. Sudan called the report blasphemy, because it criticized Sudan's Islamic law. Sudan warned him he might be condemned to death.

In 1997, OIC members Egypt, Bangladesh, Algeria, Pakistan, and [reputedly moderate] Indonesia, etc., condemned the UN special rapporteur on racism of blasphemy for reporting antisemitism in Muslim states. The next report exempted the Muslim world from that scrutiny. In 2002, the OIC bloc got the UN Human Rights Commission to end special reporting on human rights in Iran.

That year, in response to the Danish cartoons, the OIC got the special rapporteur on freedom of expression to include instances when freedom of expression is racially or religiously discriminatory (Paul Marshall, Jewish Political Chronicle, spring 2009, p.10 from the Weekly Standard, 4/16/09).

Making concessions to Islamists curbs our own freedom to prevent their conquering us. The OIC represents 57 Muslim governments. Its position is against freedom. How can they claim Islam is consistent with democracy?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Mr La, June 30, 2009.

Lily Steiner is West Coast executive director of American Friends of the Ariel University Center (AUC).


Obama and the State Department are just ignorant, there is no other suitable word for it, polite or otherwise. They have not taken the time to go and visit what they negatively call Settlements and what I proudly call Settlements. Same place, same set of facts, different perspective because they have not been to see it work.

A place where Jews, Arabs, Russians, Ethiopians, every religion, nationality, age and creed live, work, innovate and get along — this is anyone's definition of Peace in the Middle East. Ownership of land and boarders can come later, but talk about reality on the ground, and where it is happening.

This type of peace exists now in the Middle East — it exists in lots of places within Israel, and it has always existed in areas that are labeled as Settlements. From the very first settlement, before the creation of the state of Israel, Jews have always reached out to their Arab neighbors and successfully integrated them into their lives and celebrations. They have done and do this out of innate hospitality, but also for selfish reasons; there are 22 Arab countries, each of them enormous both in geographical size and population, it was never Israel's intent to take them over or conquer them, but to live together with them in Peace.

How stupid do you need to be to believe Israel wants to conquer the whole of the Middle East for a Jewish Homeland? First of all there are not enough Jews in the whole world to populate it, and second of all, it is just a ridiculous premise.

The facts show that Israel shares it knowledge and natural resources with the world as well as its Arab neighbors, despite the political conflicts and war, and it is much greater giving than getting on Israel's part.

If you want Peace, get the Arabs to model some of what is going on in the settlements, on Arab lands, and then it won't matter who has sovereignty over it. Ariel is the newest University in Israel. It has 11,000 students, 500 are Arabs — the number would be higher, but the Arabs are afraid their own families and friends will kill them if they are found to be studying at an Israeli institution. Ariel University is in the heart of the largest Settlement, it is a Settlement to be proud of, both the city and the University. Every University classroom has an Israeli Flag. Every student, including the Arabs, must take a course in Jewish Heritage each semester. There are no problems, all the student¹s cross the green line to come and study each day. This Settlement should be expanded, not stopped on threat of destruction — it is a MODEL OF PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Just because the Arab PR machine coined the phrase "Settlements are block to Peace in the Middle East" does not make it true, it is just a case of tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people will believe it. Even the President and State Department of the U.S.A.

I am not asserting that there has never been a crazy person in a settlement, but I am yelling from the rooftops that there are thousands of individual stories of cooperation and living and caring together in the settlements than there are negative incidents. It is always, and I will state this again, it is ALWAYS the attacks by Arabs on the settlements, which create the negative press for the settlements, when these settlements are the victims in the attacks.

We have the model in Gaza of what happens when Settlements are disbanded. Even the Arabs, who lived and thrived there, did not pick up and continue a lucrative industry that would have made them and their children proud, instead, they destroyed it and so now remain poor and beholden to their extremists. They then compound this by assisting in the distribution of arms and ammunition to destroy the very Jewish people who were helping them feed and clothe their children before they forced them to leave.

I want to call on all Settlers to make yourselves known. Write about who you are and what you do and let the world see that you are kind, and creative; professionals, blue collar workers, what you do with your lives and your families. I know you help with sick, orphaned and troubled teens, I know you have interests as far reaching as classical music to obscure bohemian pottery and rock music, but let the world know, connect to people with the same hobbies, interests and dreams, and let them know you are proud to be Settlers and why you are proud — you took a piece of land that the Arabs never believed would be anything but desert and you make it bloom and flourish each and every day.

Share your stories of Peace in the Middle East today, let everyone know about the Arabs that live and work among you happily and who given the choice would never chose to be a citizen of a Palestinian State, because there is no Peace in Arab communities or villages with anyone other than other Muslims.

What the stupid, blind, idiotic world is suggesting is not Peace in the Middle East, but an apartheid that will forever separate the Jews and the Arabs. Settlements should be applauded and looked up to as a model upon which to base Peace. Each and every person who went out and made a home for themselves in the areas won by Israel in 1967 when it was attacked on all fronts by its Arab neighbors, each and every person who took a risk in developing a home in these uncharted areas that were left barren and empty for so many years, each of you should be so proud of what you have achieved and accomplished — and if you do not live there and do not know what those achievements and accomplishments are, then go and visit, go and look, and see the reality, not the empty words of those that do not want to live in peace and do not care if their children ever do. Be proud to be a settler, you have done wonderful things — now share them with the world.

Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 29, 2009.

From Le Soir Brussels: "Nato Can Take Teheran In 7 Days In Order To Restore Democracy Like They Did In Serbia And Iraq."

This was written Hana Levi Julian and it appeared in Arutz-7


Iran is continuing its crackdown on dissidents protesting irregularities in the country's presidential elections with the arrest of 70 academics who met on Wednesday with challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The Kalemeh web site, which is linked to Mousavi's campaign, reported that it was not known where the professors were taken. Other prominent dissidents, as well as at least 10 foreign journalists and some 26 Iranian reporters, have "disappeared" in a similar manner in recent days.

Despite the risk, protesters clashed again Wednesday with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's special Basij militia force, which has brutalized many of the demonstrators since the June 12 elections.

Email readers, click here to see the footage. WARNING: Many of the images snapped during and after the violence are graphic and disturbing.

Water cannons, tear gas canisters and batons wielded by riot police did not stop the protesters from continuing to defy a government ban on gatherings and demonstrations to protest the results of what they insist was a rigged election.

The crowd, which massed outside the Iranian parliament building, was forced back by armored vehicles. "Basiji [militiame beat people down like animals," a local source told The Jerusalem Post. "It was like they were beating up dolls. The security forces were out for blood. Hundreds of them charged out of nowhere. The next thing we saw was fire, blood, and clouds of tear gas."

A massive demonstration was planned for Thursday by Mousavi, who called for a 'Sea of Green' to blanket the central square in Tehran in what he said he hopes will be the largest protest on the streets of Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Mousavi's trademark campaign color was green.

At least 17 people were reportedly shot to death by Basij militiamen, according to the AFP news agency, but it is impossible to know whether the number is accurate because of constrictions placed upon journalists in the field. Protesters said many more were wounded as well.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran both stressed in statements issued to the media that the government is holding hundreds of activists without access to lawyers or their families. Most have not been charged, and many risk being tortured.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, June 29, 2009.

The Christian Action Network (CAN) runs afoul of bureaucratic political correctness.

This was written by Patrick Poole and it appeared June 25, 2009 on Pajama Media
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ maine-fines-group-for-inflammatory-anti-muslim-message/

Patrick Poole is an anti-terrorism consultant to law enforcement and the military.


An organization in the national spotlight recently for producing a documentary identifying several dozen potential terrorist training compounds in the U.S. has offended the sensibilities of Maine bureaucrats, who have fined the organization $4,000, alleging among other things that the group sent out mailings containing an "inflammatory anti-Muslim message."

The group in question, the Christian Action Network (CAN), received notice of the fines and the fundraising ban in a May 6 letter from Elaine Thibodeau of the State of Maine's Department of Professional and Financial Regulation.[1] Enclosed in the letter was a prepared consent agreement for CAN to sign agreeing to all of the state's allegations, waiving all rights to appeal, and agreeing to pay the $4,000 fine. As part of the consent agreement, CAN is required to agree to all of the state's allegations, including their assertion that their mailing amounted to hate speech.

"These bogus charges and fines the State of Maine has imposed are nothing but an attempt to stifle our free speech and silence our organization from speaking out about the steady creep of radical Islam in America," CAN president Martin Mawyer told Pajamas Media. "We fully intend to appeal the state's penalties because if they successfully silence us here, we will quickly find that we won't be able to speak out anywhere."

CAN was in the news earlier this year following the release of their documentary, [2] Homegrown Jihad, which details dozens of compounds across the U.S. operated by Pakistani Sheikh Mubarak Gilani, who has previously been identified in State Department reports as a terrorist leader, and his group, Jamaat al-Fuqra.[3] The documentary looks into the past terrorist acts of the group in the U.S., including the assassination of two moderate Muslim leaders, the firebombing of non-Muslim religious facilities, and an investigation[4] by Colorado authorities that led to convictions and lengthy prison sentences. These activities have been covered in several FBI domestic terrorism reports and a more recent assessment[5] by the Center for Policing Terrorism. Other prominent convicted terrorists, including "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid, D.C. Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, and NYC landmarks bomb plotter Clement Rodney Hampton-El, have been identified as former members.

But what has Maine bureaucrats roiling is a fundraising mailing sent by CAN (a copy of which was provided to Pajamas Media) regarding a public school curriculum used in California requiring students to pray to Allah, dress up as Muslims, adopt Muslim names, and learn the five pillars of Islam. Since Christians and Jews are not given similar accommodations, CAN encouraged their supporters to send a petition to Maine Gov. John Baldacci asking him to prevent such instruction in Maine public schools.

Among the stated allegations in Thibodeau's letter and the consent agreement is that this amounted to hate speech, claiming:

5. The correspondence contained an inflammatory anti-Muslim message.

In two separate rounds of correspondence with Thibodeau, I inquired what basis the state used to determine that the mailing was "inflammatory," but she refused to address that question on both occasions.

In addition to running afoul of ideological sensibilities of Maine state employees, Thibodeau makes two regulatory claims that prompted the $4,000 in fines. The first claim made by the state is that CAN was not properly registered when the mailings were sent. The second is that CAN used Maine Gov. John Baldacci's name without his permission.

CAN responds that they made all efforts to comply with state law and promptly provided additional information requested by Thibodeau's office. And they provided Pajamas Media with documentation that seems to flatly contradict the State of Maine's allegations. While Thibodeau's letter claims that CAN's charitable solicitation license expired in November 2007, CAN produced copies of canceled checks cashed by the Maine state treasurer that accompanied their 2008 renewal and registration.

Nothing in what the state has sent to CAN indicates that 2008 registration was in any way defective (or even mentions it), which creates problems for the state's position, for if the previous year's registration was in order, and CAN claims to have received nothing to indicate otherwise, their fundraising mailing would have fallen within the 90-day renewal period when the mailing was sent. The state's claim that their 2009 registration was out of order and that they were fundraising without a license would therefore be moot as the mailing was sent prior to the renewal period's expiration.

In support of their position that CAN was not properly registered this past April, Thibodeau's office claims that several pages of CAN's annual audit were not properly transmitted with their application and notified them of the error by email on April 6. Her letter acknowledges that they received the missing pages on April 21, postmarked on April 13. This constitutes the grounds for the state's $1,000 fine. Thibodeau confirmed that the state doesn't send out any official notice that an organization's application has been approved.

"They have created a black box registration process where if they don't like what you're saying, they will go back through your application and determine that your application wasn't correct, and suddenly you're violating the law," Mawyer said. "That's what we believe has happened in this case."

Perhaps more troubling for free speech advocates is the state's claim that CAN needed the governor's permission in order to use his name on the petition that the group urged supporters to send to him:

8. Governor John Baldacci did not give written consent, or any other consent, to the Christian Action Network to use his name for the purpose of soliciting contributions.

This was the stated basis for assessing the heavier $3,000 fine. Thibodeau's letter and the consent agreement also allege that the use of Baldacci's name was intended to suggest his endorsement of CAN. But Mawyer notes that the U.S. Postal Service examines all of their fundraising solicitations, including looking for any implied endorsements, before they are mailed.

"It would be a violation of federal law for us to make any false representation concerning any endorsements, which is one reason why we submit all of our fundraising letters to the Post Office for their approval prior to anything being sent out under our non-profit mailing permit, as was the case with this fundraising package," Mawyer said. "We have had the Post Office reject packages in the past, and we have rewritten them to get their go-ahead. Now Maine is telling us in essence that even if we get federal approval beforehand, the state retains the right to reject their interpretation and impose their own standard if they disagree with the content of your mailing."

It is particularly telling that while the state claims that CAN implied the governor's endorsement, they did not assess any fines based on this allegation, perhaps with the problem of the Postal Service's prior approval of the CAN mailing in view. But the free speech chilling effect from Maine could be enormous as their interpretation of state law could virtually outlaw any issue mentioning government officials without obtaining their prior written consent. As Mawyer observes, "Imagine not being able to criticize a public official without their express written permission or without any reference to them whatsoever."

One important outstanding issue following the rounds of correspondence between Pajamas Media and Thibodeau concerns a public complaint received by her office about the content of CAN's mailing cited in her May 6 letter. Her letter gives specific dates on all other matters except this one. Mawyer's concern is that the complaint may have not only preceded the state's notification of the missing pages to the application, but also their decision to consider CAN's solicitation license invalid. I specifically asked twice on what date the complaint was received and Thibodeau refused to address the question both times.

"There's little doubt that our documentary on Islamic terrorist camps operating inside the U.S. and our statements of concern about the spread of radical Islam is at the heart of the state's actions. And we can't help but conclude based on the available evidence that if we were ACORN, or any other group advocating some left-wing cause, they would be using a less-than-rigorous scrutiny in their interpretation of the law," Mawyer said. "Would they ever dare consider applying these standards to CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations]?"

CAN is appealing the fines issued by the State of Maine and is also considering a lawsuit to prevent bureaucrats from using rulings after the fact to go after charitable organizations running afoul of political correctness. If Maine were to prevail in this case, they fear that it would not only be used by groups like CAIR to attempt to discredit CAN's investigative work, but also be an invitation for Maine and other states to use bureaucratic interpretations to go after other organizations making similar "inflammatory anti-Muslim messages."


[1] http://www.maine.gov/pfr/index.shtml

[2] http://www.christianaction.org/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=13

[3] http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/ terroristoutfits/jamaat-ul-fuqra.htm

[4] http://www.ago.state.co.us/pr/121001_link.cfm.html

[5] http://www.centerforpolicingterrorism.com/pdf/JAMAATAL-FUQRA2.pdf

Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, June 29, 2009.

This was written by The Iconoclast and it appeared in New English Review


This coming week, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) will hold its annual convention in Washington, DC. The Obama Administration has done a literal two step. As reported by IPTNews," FBI Replaces Brotherhood-Tainted Liaison with Brotherhood-Tainted Liaison", the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI have simply exchanged one Muslim Brotherhood Front, CAIR, for another, the ISNA. This is in furtherance of outreach to the American Muslim community following the President's Cairo U. speech. In a controversial move the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that it will send representatives to attend the ISNA convention. IPT News report noted that there is serious dissension in the DOJ and FBI over this ISNA issue. There is good reason for these internal DOJ and FBI concerns given the recent convictions in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial. The federal prosecutors had named CAIR, ISNA and several other Muslim Brotherhood front groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. This trial resulted in May convictions of five officials of the Muslim charity on charges of funneling over $12 million in funds to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two of the HLF officials fled the US in 2004 for Syria when the indictment in the original trial was handed down, as we have posted. The ISNA has admitted ties to Hamas.

The Investigative Project alerted us to an Indianapolis NBC affiliate WTHR investigation of the ISNA, which has its national headquarters in that area. The report, "Images in Conflict," was done back in 2004 but is still relevant. You can watch the WTHR report on YouTube, here and here.

In the transcript of the WTHR investigation of ISNA were these revelations:

On Holy Land Foundation and Hamas connections

Tucked away on the farmland of rural Plainfield, Indiana, are headquarters to one of the largest Islamic organizations in the country — the Islamic Society of North America.

Its charismatic leader, Dr. Sayyid Syeed, promotes ISNA as a mainstream organization of American Muslims. He preaches family values, unity and acceptance of all religions.

"Here we are Muslims, young and old, men and women," he said in a Friday prayer service earlier this year. "We respect Christianity. We respect Judaism.... America should be proud of this community."

It's talk that is worlds away from the beliefs of Islamic extremists.

But although ISNA is a well-respected Islamic organization that's received accolades from Indiana's late Governor and even grant money from the federal government, some charge it is a supporter of extreme ideology.

Steven Emerson, author of the bestselling "American Jihad: The terrorists Living Among Us," dedicated an entire section of his book to ISNA as a supporter of militant Islamic groups.

Emerson says ISNA's popular annual conventions, attended by thousands of Muslims, serve as gathering places for some Islamic extremists to raise money and share ideas.

"I think ISNA has been an umbrella, also a promoter of groups that have been involved in terrorism," Emerson told Eyewitness News. "I am not going to accuse ISNA of being directly involved in terrorism. I will say ISNA has sponsored extremists, racists, people who call for Jihad against the United States."

In fact, we found about a dozen charities, organizations or individuals under federal scrutiny for possible ties to terrorism that are linked in some way to ISNA — ties sources tell us have also placed ISNA under the federal microscope.

ISNA has provided convention booth space and helped raise money for a number of Islamic charities later linked to terrorism by the federal government — groups like the Holy Land Foundation.

ISNA has also supported Hamas leader Mousa Marzook, who was deported from the U.S. in 1997 and is on the State Department's designated terrorist list. Marzook thanked ISNA in an open letter of appreciation for support of his legal defense fund.

"It doesn't hurt it you give a few words of support or if you give a few words of sympathy," Syeed said. "The issue is, do I get involved in some major campaign? Then it would be a problem."

Emerson said ISNA took Marzook on "as their poster child."

"Go ask ISNA whether Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are terrorist groups," he said.

When we asked, Syeed said: "That's not us."

But does he condemn the groups?

"We will condemn anywhere there is hate, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever."

On convicted felon Sami Al Arian, Triple I-T and Saudi funding

Recently indicted University of South Florida professor Sami Al Arian is one controversial figure ISNA supported. In a federal indictment, Al Arian is accused of heading the U.S. front for the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The DOJ links him to the death of 100 civilians overseas, including two Americans. When Al Arian was arrested, ISNA issued a statement critical of the government.

Syeed downplayed the action.

"Sometime we might have said that so-and-so should not be targeted just because he's a Muslim," he said. "But once you know there's a definite case in court, ultimately it will be the court that will decide. No one else will decide."

Before coming to ISNA, Syeed was a long-time employee of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, an Islamic think tank in Virginia known as Triple I-T. Federal authorities executed a search warrant there last year. The reason — major donations made, while Syeed was there, to an organization founded by Sami Al Arian.

"It was a surprise for me, a shock for me," Syeed said.

He said he no longer has any ties to Triple I-T. But according to the group's website, Syeed is still on the advisory board of its journal. Triple I-T leaders say they have no ties to terrorism, and no charges have been filed.

Some of ISNA's own members have raised concerns on another issue: large donations from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia follows an extreme version of Islam known as Wahhabism, and questions continue to swirl around Saudi connections to terrorism, including the attack on 9-11.

Thus, in light of the Holy Land Foundation and Al-Arian convictions, ties to the extremist Triple I-T and Hamas, you can understand why there is dissension in the Justice Department FBI `substitution' of the ISNA for CAIR at the behest of the Obama White House.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Emerson, June 29, 2009.

The American Civil Liberties Union released a report (together with a You Tube video) attacking the U.S. government's efforts to shut down terrorist-financing charities. The report was based on 120 interviews, 115 of which were conducted with Muslim community leaders and other Muslims "directly affected by" U.S. government policies regarding the charities.

It suggests (contrary to a substantial body of evidence) — that the U.S. government was wrong to have acted against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation and other charities accused of raising money for terrorist organizations. The report also perpetuates the myth that the United States government may be planning to prosecute persons for unwittingly contributing to charities that were fronts for terrorism.

The ACLU asserts that post-September 11 policies targeting these charities have a "disproportionate" effect on Muslims and "are undermining American Muslims' protected constitutional liberties and violating their fundamental human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom from discrimination."

It recommends a series of policy changes which include repealing Executive Order 13224, issued shortly after September 11, which creates mechanisms for designating persons and organizations as "specially designated global terrorists" (SDGTs). The ACLU also calls on the FBI to employ the" least intrusive means" necessary to accomplish its investigative objectives and urges the federal government to ban law enforcement practices that "disproportionately" target people "based on ethnicity, national origin or religion."

In his June 4 Cairo speech, President Obama asserted that there are too many impediments to Muslim efforts to fulfill their obligation to give charity, or zakat. As we have previously noted, this is patently untrue. The only way "loosen" restrictions would be to effectively to cripple current U.S. law barring material support for terrorism.

The ACLU recommendations mean "more money for Hamas," said Dennis Lormel, who created the FBI's terror financing section. Terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah use the charities to build hospitals and provide food to the poor to win the trust of local Muslims. They then use "this credibility to enlist children as suicide bombers," Lormel said.

But if the ACLU had its way, the U.S. government would lose critical tools for preventing U.S. charities from sending money to terrorist organizations. Using the "least intrusive means" would make it much more difficult (if not impossible) to shut down terrorist — financing charities like HLF, Lormel told IPT News, because they could deny the government the ability to use methods like wiretaps which were critical to building a case against the group for providing funds to Hamas.

Ending the SDGT designations would take away a valuable deterrent to abuse. "We know from experience that people stop donating to these charities once they are designated as supporters of terrorism," added Lormel, a 28-year FBI veteran who oversaw its stepped-up efforts to shut off the flow of funds to terrorist organizations after September 11.

The ACLU complaints about the "disproportionate" impact of these investigations on Muslims overlook the reality that most of "the terrorist violence we've seen the past eight years comes from the Muslim world," says Jonathan Schanzer, who worked as a Treasury Department counterterrorism analyst in the George W. Bush Administration.

One myth running through the ACLU report is that the government may be preparing to prosecute persons who contributed to such charities out of ignorance.

American law makes it illegal to provide support to any entity designated a terrorist group by the federal government. But the 1995 executive order signed by President Clinton and legislation enacted the following year by Congress cementing it into law do not affect donations to relief agencies that have not been so designated.

Virginia Imam Mohamed Magid claims that Muslims have a legitimate fear that they could innocently contribute to a charity today and find themselves under investigation several years later if the government concludes that the charity is financing terror.

But for someone to be convicted of a crime, prosecutors must prove they knew that money would go to benefit a terrorist organization. Before the Treasury Department shut down the HLF in 2001, it had been considered the largest Muslim charity in the United States. Five leaders of the organization were convicted and sentenced to long prison terms for providing $12 million to Hamas. But Jim Jacks, the lead federal prosecutor in the HLF case, notes that only leaders were charged — not the people who contributed money believing it would be used for humanitarian projects.

"There was never an instance where a donor has been prosecuted or sanctioned for making donations to the Holy Land Foundation," Jacks said. "The people who were prosecuted and held accountable were the people that set up and ran the Holy Land Foundation and knew what they were doing." Lormel said the procedure used in the HLF trial has been implemented across the board. "The government has not gone after donors in any of the other [terror-financing] cases," he said.

The ACLU suggests in its report that that the HLF, Global Relief Foundation (GRF), Al-Haramain and Benevolence International Foundation cases were little more than witch hunts targeting Muslims who were not involved in terrorism. But in each of these cases, the government has presented substantial information linking the groups to terror.

In the HLF case, the five defendants were convicted after a two-month trial on all counts of conspiring to provide money to Hamas. Jurors convicted the five after hearing testimony from expert witnesses such as Matthew Levitt, former deputy assistant Treasury secretary, who explained the connection between Hamas' military and social branches and how the HLF used zakat committees to route money to Hamas. During the sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis repeatedly said the evidence was clear that "The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas."

In the GRF case, the Treasury Department detailed the group's connections to al Qaeda and the Taliban, including contacts with Wadih el-Hage, Osama bin-Laden's personal secretary, who was convicted for his role in the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

After years of wrangling with Saudi Arabia, the Treasury Department last year designated Al-Haramain's worldwide operation for having provided material and financial support to al Qaeda. In Bosnia, for example, they found links between Al-Haramain and Al-Gama al-Islamiyya, an Egyptian terror group that signed Osama bin Laden's Feb. 23, 1998 fatwas against the United States. In Bangladesh and Kenya, Al-Haramain members were implicated in assassination plots against U.S. citizens. These are just a small fraction of the connections between Al-Haramain and terrorist organizations cited by the Treasury Department in designating it a supporter of terrorism. In the case of the Benevolence International Foundation, the group was designated for supporting terrorism because of memos like this, in which members of the group establish a terrorist base in Sudan. The designation occurred in 2002 after Bosnian authorities uncovered ties between Benevolence International Foundation and Al Q aeda.

But in attempting to manufacture a case that the U.S. government is persecuting Muslims, the ACLU chose to overlook considerable evidence showing that these charities are involved in terrorism.

This appeared today in Jewish World Review.

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, June 29, 2009.

A senior Israeli government official said that Israel is "fed up" with American statements against Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, the Hebrew-language Yisrael HaYom (Israel Today) newspaper reported Monday. As Defense Minister Ehud Barak flies to Washington for meetings with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, the unnamed senior official stated, "Israel will demand that any compromise be part of a wider program of regional peace, and only after agreement on the basic principles outlines by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his [recent] speech at Bar-Ilan University."

The Prime Minister declared for the first time that he would accept the creation of a new Arab state on part of the land of Judea and Samaria on condition that it be de-militarized and that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has categorically rejected both conditions after having been encouraged by American and European support for the Arab-world demands that Israel surrender all of the land restored to the Jewish state in the Six-Day War in 1967, including the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Government sources told Yisrael HaYom that during Defense Minister Barak's visit, "The Americans will hear decisive statements regarding the possibility of freezing construction for Jews in Judea and Samaria. Israel will be prepared to listen to a freeze only if it is temporary and if the Americans will explicitly state" that it will later approve building in communities with a high concentration of Jewish residents.

Israel has stated for public consumption that good relations with the U.S. are important, but any freeze, even temporary, is likely to meet stiff opposition from Shas and Likud party ministers. Shas leader Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) said, "This kind of thinking is incorrect. The discussion needs to be not only about 'settlements' but also about obligations of the PA." The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) is thoroughly opposed to any restrictions on building for Jews but is willing to vacate certain hilltop communities, also called "outposts."

Pinchas Wallerstein, a long-time leader in Yesha, wrote in a local newspaper in Samaria this week that if an outpost was built on Arab land that cannot be purchased by Jews, the Yesha Council would agreed to transfer it to another location on condition that the current building freeze is removed.

He charged that the new American government is trying to take "Barak Hussein Obama's pound of flesh for the Arab world towards which he now sets his sights." President Obama stated in his Cairo University speech earlier this month that "the U.S. does not view the settlements as legitimate." he has issued repeated calls for a halt to building for Jews,

Even the Washington Post, which usually sides against Israeli policies in Yesha, is concerned with the Obama administration having painted itself a corner in the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Jackson Diehl, the newspaper's deputy editorial page editor, wrote Monday morning: "The administration made the mistake of insisting that an Israeli settlement 'freeze' — a term the past three administrations agreed to define loosely — must mean a total stop to all construction in the West Bank and even East Jerusalem.

"This absolutist position is a loser for three reasons. First, it has allowed Palestinian and Arab leaders to withhold the steps they were asked for; they claim to be waiting for the settlement "freeze" even as they quietly savor a rare public battle between Israel and the United States. Second, the administration' s objective — whatever its merits — is unobtainable. No Israeli government has ever agreed to an unconditional freeze, and no coalition could be assembled from the current parliament to impose one.

"Finally, the extraction of a freeze from Netanyahu is, as a practical matter, unnecessary. While further settlement expansion needs to be curbed, both the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments have gone along with previous U.S.-Israeli deals by which construction was to be limited to inside the periphery of settlements near Israel — since everyone knows those areas will be annexed to Israel in a final settlement."

This article appeared in Arutz-7,

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph Levy, June 29, 2009.

My Comment: makes you wonder why the sudden change?? The article below was written by Nir Hasson and appeared in Haaretz


Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat is set to announce a plan to freeze demolition orders on around 70 percent of unauthorized construction in the east of the city, Haaretz has learned. The municipality would also negotiate compensation terms with families evicted from the remaining 30 percent.

The plan represents a departure from earlier statements, in which Barkat spoke out against illegal construction by Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

According to various estimates, Jerusalem has some 20,000 unauthorized buildings, home to around 180,000 people. The demolition of each house requires considerable legal efforts and a heavy police presence, amid fears that protests by residents and housing activists can escalate into riots. In recent years, the municipality did not have the time or resources to demolish more than 100 houses a year.

"Since the mayor took office, the municipality has been working on housing planning in the east of the city, which includes increasing construction opportunities in some areas, expanding housing in others and stopping illegal construction in areas where no construction is allowed," the mayor's office said in a statement.

"The reality on the ground is being taken into consideration in the planning process when possible. City Hall will present the plans when the time is right."

Upon taking office in November, Barkat spoke out several times against unauthorized construction, which soon provoked a clash between him and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In March, Barkat told reporters that Clinton's statements against house demolitions in East Jerusalem were "air" and that avoiding demolitions could "send the wrong message out to lawbreakers."

He was quoted by The Associated Press as saying he rejected "the claims we're throwing people out of their homes. If you're building a house without the appropriate permits you need to be prepared to suffer the consequences." Sources close to Barkat said they were "astonished" at the forcefulness of the American reaction to what they perceived to be a purely municipal matter. The deputy mayor for East Jerusalem affairs, Yakir Segev, who is preparing the plan with Barkat, said it was the permits policy that pushed residents to build illegally, as only 18 permits were issued in 2008.

"To get a construction permit in East Jerusalem you have to be more than a saint," said Segev. On the other hand, he said the municipality simply did not have the means to enforce all the demolition orders, and that there was no formal way to resolve the crisis.

Gray houses

Sources at City Hall told Haaretz that these two factors prompted the municipality to begin working on a new solution. The program was inspired by the Goldberg Committee's report, which recommended the legalization of certain unauthorized Bedouin villages in the Negev.

In the Jerusalem plan, retroactive construction permits will not be handed out, but homes will be listed as "gray houses" — they will stay illegal but all legal actions against them will cease. Their new status will allow City Hall to collect municipal taxes, which will be invested in a separate municipal company to improve East Jerusalem, while the residents will be able to legally sell their houses if they wish.

Owners of houses that do not receive formal status will have the chance to take part in negotiations on voluntary eviction with compensation. Barkat is currently seeking a project manager for the program. Sources in the municipality said the role had been offered to former Meretz MK Ran Cohen, but Cohen declined.

Ralph Levy blogs at Politics1_Politics1 and can be reached by email at stargate_time@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald M. Steinberg, June 29, 2009.

European efforts to play a major role in Arab-Israeli peace discussions have again been overshadowed, this time by US President Barack Obama's initiative. To raise Europe's visibility, the rate of official visits has increased, and a number of academic conferences on Europe's role are taking place. For example, yesterday the Hebrew University began a three-day conference with the ambitious headline "Strengthening the Forces of Moderation in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Role of the European Union After the Gaza War."

For diplomats and policy-makers, a "frank and honest exchange of views" on the problematic European track record in academic settings could be very helpful in correcting decades of misjudgments. For example, during the Oslo process, the European Union and its member states were convinced that Yasser Arafat was a "force of moderation," providing him and his corrupt Fatah cronies with suitcases of money, justified as necessary to "grease the wheels" of the peace process and Palestinian state building. Instead, the cash went to foreign bank accounts and terror.

In Europe, there have been very few independent analyses of these and other diplomatic and policy failures. Fearing embarrassment and worse, officials rejected calls for an independent investigation, until the European Parliament forced the European Commission to hold an inquiry (known as the OLAF report). But years later, this report remains top secret, meaning that few if any lessons were apparently learned.

Given this record and the difficulties that Europe has in analyzing itself, serious academic research and conferences can play a very positive role. Unfortunately, many of these discussions of European policy feature speakers and officials who prefer to preach to Israelis rather than investigating their contribution to failure. In parallel, important issues related to policy failures are conspicuously absent from such conferences.

ONE SUBJECT consistently avoided in the quasi-official research and conference framework is the massive European funding for radical nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) whose activities fuel the conflict instead of "strengthening the forces of moderation," as proclaimed in the title of this conference. Through the "Barcelona program" and aid schemes, the European Commission and member governments provide tens of millions of euros every year to Palestinian, Israeli and other NGOs. The ostensible objectives include promoting democracy, peace, development and human rights, but the results are often counterproductive and fuel the conflict.

These NGOs lead the demonization and delegitimization of Israel, through labels such as "apartheid" and "war crimes," based on the strategy adopted at the 2001 Durban Conference NGO Forum. For example, European NGO funding is the primary engine behind the "lawfare" assaults against Israeli military and civilian officials — a form of soft-war aggression through the courts which accompanies the "hard war" of terrorism. The current case in Spain (chosen for its lenient universal jurisdiction policies) is led by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which is funded by the European Commission, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and other governments. Indeed, PCHR is a central force in the NGO demonization and political warfare against Israel.

These European-funded "lawfare" cases are part of the much wider process, conducted through highly political NGOs in Israel that seek to overturn the government's policies — groups like B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Machsom Watch, Bimkom, Ir Amim, Adalah, Mossawa, etc. (The EU claims to fund these NGOs under the guise of limited projects, but the amounts often constitute the bulk of the total operating budget.)

AN EXAMINATION of the activities of European funded NGOs demonstrates that they do not contribute to "strengthening the forces of moderation." Many are active in promoting anti-Israel boycott campaigns, one-state proposals (meaning the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state) and submitting tendentious claims to UN "investigatory" committees.

A serious discussion of these issues would ask questions like: How does this happen? Who guides these decisions? Why are European government funds for NGOs used to undermine compromise, mutual acceptance and the two-state solution that Europe claims to support?

The chaos in EU funding for NGOs and frequent overlaps add to these problems — there is no coordinator or central data source. European transparency regulations are ignored in this area, and no records or protocols are available for NGO allocations under European Commission programs. The names and possible conflicts of interests of the policy-makers are hidden from public scrutiny. Evaluation processes, if any, are secret, making it difficult to explore constructive changes.

When NGO Monitor was unable to obtain the most basic documents and threatened a lawsuit under the EU's own transparency rules, European officials sent a CD containing about 50 documents, most of which had all the relevant information deleted including the names of NGO partner organizations and the evaluation criteria. It was impossible to decipher the few meaningless statements and figures that remained, making constructive evaluation impossible.

These issues should be high on the agendas of discussions and conferences, such as the one taking place at Hebrew University. Unfortunately, these "difficult" subjects and conflicts are largely avoided. Comfortable but misleading headlines, such as "Strengthening the forces of moderation," take precedence over the open examination of European support for "lawfare," the "right of return" and Palestinian rejectionism.

Gerald Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 29, 2009.
The article below was written by Caroline Glick and it was today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246296529986&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com

My comment written as message to Caroline,

I agree with most of what you wrote here but not with your conclusion. He is, in a sense, Carter-like. He came out of nowhere, the electorate refused to look at who he really was and they elected an idea and got an unfulfilling real person, he is really too inexperienced to maintain the position and it all got exposed after he was elected president. But Carter was a much lower tech president in a much slower world and the art of communication is very different today. Carter had little experience or capability in communication and this is, of course, where Obama excels. He has a whole network of communicators around him who constitute a massive safety net, pinned up by the likes of Soros and lots of big money. They talk ideologies that the public, by and large, does not perceive or begin to understand. Did you ever walk out of a lecture and hear the other students say "Wow, that must have been really good, I didn't understand a word he said". The voters, the administration, the money, they are all too invested in him to "allow" him to fail. Finally, this communications thing is very malleable. I don't believe we will see the total failure in Washington that we saw under Carter, we will see a bigger and bigger, deeper and deeper hole being dug and Obama and his administration like spiders doing a dance on a web strung across the top, trying to stay level with the ground around them. Either the next president will have to climb out of a deep deep hole to re-float the ship of America freedom and democracy, if he is capable, or if he is not up to the task we are seeing the beginning of the demise of the American era. All in all, Obama has too many people, too invested in him, to allow abject failure.

That is another article I've been wanting to write titled "Not With a Bang but a Whimper". We are used to seeing history through the lens of our history textbooks and that was all about memorizing dates. Things happened on specific dates that we could list on our tests. So the fall of the Roman Empire "happened" this era began and ended, that era began and ended. Someone must have snapped their fingers and it was done. We have even begun to see the Holocaust as an event that began and ended, we barely have the perspective that allows for the build up and the lengthily destruction of that evil empire. We are loosing context, cause and effect, as we have for most of history unless we are the professor who specializes in that particular era. In fact, when we hear that professor speak it is an epiphany that it was such a complex progression and that in the current parlance, it was so nuanced. (I hate that word because the way most people use it implies that it only applies to the issue they are discussing and the world itself is not completely "nuanced", but that is another whole rant). Anyway, back to bangs and whimpers, we are taught and view the world as a series of bangs and we expect things to happen in bangs. So people are watching for the American bang and all they are getting is a series of whimpers. We are seeing the demise of America in a series of whimpers and we do not recognize it because it is not what we expect to see. Historical perspective will eventually expose the bang and I wonder how many people will recognize it then.



For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections.

Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."

While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom — which is what they are actually fighting for — most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.

Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates — presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice — to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.

After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.

Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."

No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime — which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs — reach such an agreement.

IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.

So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.

Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.

Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei — whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" — who sets Iran's foreign policy.

While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.

Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.

TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.

Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military — backed by Congress and the Supreme Court — ejected Zelaya from office.

And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."

His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.

Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."

But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.

FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.

While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed — as it has in North Korea — or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.

Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.

So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?

The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.

For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.

Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.

And then they will sink him.

Contact Paul Rotenberg by email at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoula Horing, June 29, 2009.

It seems obvious by now that President Obama seeks a clash and confrontation with Israel in order to improve U.S. relations with the Arab and Muslim world. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that the U.S. president is picking a public fight with a supposed ally over the recycled and mostly mythical controversy that construction for natural growth inside already-existing Jewish settlements is the major obstacle to peace in the Middle East? But the warning signs indicate a much more dangerous scenario for Israel. It appears that President Obama's public confrontation and dictates are not only to pressure Israel to withdraw to the suicidal borders of 1967, but he is attempting to change a 40-year-old pillar of U.S. foreign policy of supporting and allying with Israel in the Middle East.

President Obama seems to have adopted the point of view held for may years by those who are called " Arabists" in the tradition of former President Carter, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and ex-Sec of State James Baker, who believe that the reason there is no Middle East peace is that the United States has failed to become engaged in Middle East diplomacy and failed to pressure Israel to capitulate to Arab and Palestinians demands, including a settlement freeze and the two-state solution. Of course, those who are prone to take the Arab side have long believed that U.S. alliance with Israel is to blame for the conflict between the Arab/Muslim world and the U.S., resulting in anti-American hatred and terror. They advocate good relations with the strategically important, numerically superior, oil-rich Islamic nations of the Middle East at the expense of the United States' special alliance with Israel.

Political sources close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's senior political consultant, David Axelrod, are behind the clash between the administration and Israel. Israel historically has depended on the White House to balance the weight of the State and Defense departments, whose officials usually lean toward the Arab side. Israeli officials say that under Obama, the White House has become the main problem.

Weakest link

President Obama chose the settlement dispute because he perceived it as the weakest link in Congressional and American Jewish support for Israel, as both have been exposed for years to the Arab propaganda campaign of misinformation and historical revisionism.

In his Cairo speech, Obama claimed that the settlements are" not legitimate and undermine efforts to achieve peace." This is the first and only administration since Carter to repeat the illegitimacy claim, which has no basis in international law.

In 1967, Israel entered the West Bank in a war of self-defense after being attacked by Jordan. This is why, when it adopted Resolution 242 in November 1967, the U.N. Security Council did not call Israel to withdraw from all territories it captured. Rather, 242 allows Israeli presence in some of the West Bank territories. The previous occupier of the West Bank had been Jordan, which conquered the area in 1949 in an aggressive conquest. Jordanian sovereignty in the territory was not recognized by the international community, apart from Pakistan and Britain.

Prior to the 1949, the governing document for legal rights in the West Bank was the 1922 League Of Nations Palestine Mandate, given to the British in order to establish a Jewish home in Palestine. There was never an Arab or Muslim state called Palestine or any other name in any area west of the Jordan River; only a Jewish one. Palestine was a geographic name for the area given by the Romans 2,000 years ago after they destroyed the Jewish state called Judea. It seems that, legally, Israel has a better title to the area than Jordan or any other future Palestinian entity.

Negligible issue

The claim that settlement activity is an obstacle to peace because it will diminish the territory of a future Palestinian entity is baseless. First, the amount of territory taken up by the built-up area of all 121 settlements in the West Bank, with 245,000 residents, is estimated to be just 1.7 percent of the territory. Most of the settlements are located in major blocs, very close to the 1949 armistice line. Many of them are suburbs of Jerusalem, such as Gush Etzion, Maale Adumim and Ariel. The argument that a settlement will undermine a future territorial compromise lost much of it force after Israel dismantled settlements in the Sinai in 1982 as part of its peace treaty with Egypt and unilaterally withdrew 9,000 Israeli settlers and dismantled all settlements from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Moreover, for the last five years, since the advent of the "Road Map" international peace plan, all Israeli governments, including the present one, have adhered to guidelines that were discussed with President Bush but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements; no Palestinian-owned land would be expropriated or otherwise seized for the purpose of expanding exiting settlements; public funds would not be earmarked for encouraging settlements; no new outposts would be built; and construction would be confined to within the boundaries of existing settlements for "natural growth."

So the public fight initiated by the Obama administration with a democratic ally was not over physical expansion of settlements into disputed territories but over a negligible issue such as construction for "natural growth" inside existing settlements for a population growth, This encompasses things like adding a room to a house or a floor to a house when a baby is born, or adding another classroom to a school or kindergarten. For the last five years, the major settlement blocs are becoming more populated, but not geographically larger, which does not affect Palestinian life, interfere with Palestinian mobility or agricultural activity and does not take land that Palestinians owned or used.

It has been understood in the last decade by both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush that, in any final peace treaty, Israel will keep the major close-in blocs of settlements and compensate the Palestinian accordingly with land swaps from within Israel itself. President Clinton agreed to that in 2000 at Camp David and in 2001 at Taba, Egypt. President Bush agreed to this principle in a 2004 letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Stating that "in light of new realities on the ground ... it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

The two-state solution

In his Cairo speech, Obama's reiterated his position that the only solution to the Middle East conflict is the so-called two-state solution. But in fact, whenever an Israel government has offered the Palestinians a sovereign, Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, Palestinian Authority leaders rejected the offer and never even made a counteroffer. In 2001 in Taba, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to Arafat — in the presence of President Clinton — an independent Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank with a divided Jerusalem. Arafat rejected the offer and started the second intifada, a campaign of terror which resulted in the death of over 1,000 Israelis.

In December, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, made Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — in the presence of President Bush — an unprecedented peace proposal in which Israel would retain only 6.5 percent of the West Bank, and, in return, the Palestinians would receive full territorial compensation from inside Israel. Jerusalem would be divided on a demographic basis, with the Palestinians having sovereignty over the Christian and Muslim quarters in the Old City, with the Temple Mount — the holiest site of the Jews — to be entrusted to a special international regime. Olmert also accepted the principle of a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and offered to settle thousands within Israel. But the so-called moderate Palestinian leader rejected this offer to end the "occupation" and achieve a two-state solution.

It seems the Arab world still has only a one-state solution for the Middle East. It is a "final solution" that eliminates Israel altogether.

Pressure will intensify

Now, even though Netanyahu has explicitly agreed to the concept of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state, a true and secure peace for Israel will not occur under Obama's watch. Instead, unfair pressure, public confrontations, dictates and blame will intensify against Israel. A "two-state solution" might appease the Arab/Muslim world, but it will endanger Israel's security.

In a recent poll, just 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the views of President Obama to be pro-Israel while 50 percent considered the policies of Obama to be more pro-Palestinian. Eventually, the majority of Jews in the U.S. who voted for Obama will have to decide who they need and support more — Israel and its people, or Obama.

Shoula Romano Horing was born and raised in Israel. She is an attorney, a national speaker and a radio host in Kansas City, Mo. Her e-mail address is Shoula1@aol.com

This article appeared 26 June 2009 as an opinion piece in the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 29, 2009.

This was posted yesterday by Freedom Fighter on the JoshuaPundit website


Ever since the UK caved in[1] and allowed sharia courts legal jurisdiction in civil matters, the face of used-to-be-Great Britain has changed remarkably, as sharia courts metastasize and dispense Islamic justice[2] behind closed doors..

The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.

However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.

Commentators on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act.But the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals. {...}

Mr MacEoin said: 'Among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts.'

Examples set out in his study include a ruling that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim.

Further rulings, according to the report, approve polygamous marriage and enforce a woman's duty to have sex with her husband on his demand.

The report added: 'The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK.

'Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.'

It said: 'Sharia courts operating in Britain may be handing down rulings that are inappropriate to this country because they are linked to elements in Islamic law that are seriously out of step with trends in Western legislation.' {...}

The Civitas study said the Islamic courts should no longer be recognised under British law.

Its director Dr David Green said: 'The reality is that for many Muslims, sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat.'

Intimidation? Death threats? Unfair to women? No, really?

I can't imagine what else the British government expected when they allowed British justice and common law to be bypassed in favor of a 7th century barbarism that only contributes to British Muslims being separated from the country's mainstream. It's a green light to Islamist separatists like The Muslim Council Of Britain to essentially create a state within a state.

A prediction: don't be surprised if our Dear Leader, the self-proclaimed Defender of the Islamic Faith[3] makes a push for a similar layer of sharia courts in America. Remember, you heard it here first.  


[1] http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bye-byebritain.html

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/
Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice- closed-doors.html

[3] http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 29, 2009.


China demands that an international treaty on global warming exempt India and China, now creating the most greenhouse gases. China argues that since the U.S. developed by burning fuel, China and India should have that privilege.

The U.S. did not know it was harming the environment. Now China does know that it harms the environment. Its pollution sickens its own people and spreads abroad. I think that the Chinese position is reckless. President Bush was correct to reject the Kyoto accords, for they embodied China's position.

China and India are making America's worst domestic mistake. They are building roads and buying cars. That will use up the world's fuel sooner, warm the globe sooner, and pollute more. People will spend time in traffic, instead of on more efficient mass-transit or working near home. How old-fashioned!.

Since the end of the gasoline era is in sight, it may well be in their lifetimes, those Chinese will have cars without fuel. Meanwhile, they drive up our Con Ed bills.


Interesting story, the NY Times reporter escaping from Taliban captivity! He enters war zones to get the other side's story. They kidnapped him. Why?

They didn't demand money or political concessions. We do know that totalitarian Muslims fear independent journalism. They often don't care how sympathetic or willing to listen the reporters are. If the reporters are Westerners, Radical Muslims may turn on them. This isn't a case, then, of grievances. This is a case of barbarism against civilization. I estimate that Radical Islam is 90% wrong and civilization is 90% right. Radical Islam's whole cause is wrong, but civilized countries aren't angelic. They may exploit or make unfair demands. Example: the U.S. armed Saddam with weapons of mass-destruction against Iran. The U.S. must learn to refrain from such callous, self-defeating expediency. At least civilized countries don't promote hatred of other faiths, their conquest, their murder, and imposition of backward dictatorship upon them.

Some readers mistake my arguments against military and political Islam for bias against religious Islam, and object to it. But I don't object to the religious aspects of Islam, they are not my business. I object to political and military attempts to impose Islam on others. I treasure freedom, warts and all. If bias concerns those readers, why don't they object to the bias by Radical Islam? They can see only one side, the least meritorious one. They also jump to conclusions from a single article of limited scope, and complain that I omitted other sub-topics. The other topics usually are in some of my 360 other articles.


President Obama is making it increasingly clear that he is not going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Therefore, his demand that Israel jeopardize its national security and national identity to the Arabs, in return for U.S. action to stop Iran, becomes increasingly absurd
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/7).

This policy never was logical. Neither was it challenged by the conventional media and conventional politicians, however illogical the policy. Those parties almost always get it wrong, but those are the ones whose views get most heard. Not enough people have learned to get their information from a variety of sources including non-conventional ones.

To start a string on Obama's policies on Israel, click here: (Obama duplicityon Israel, Iran)


Hamas seized thousands of tons of medical equipment, moved it to warehouses or used it for its gunmen, and sold the rest to citizens.

Hamas also seized 46 ambulances donated to the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. After stripping them of medical supplies, It repainted them and used them as troop transports
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/8). That is besides stolen food.

Compare the Radical Muslims' actual depravity with their false accusations of same against Israel. The Radical Muslims think evil of the Jews because they are taught to but also, in my opinion, because that is how they act, so they expect others to act likewise.

For more on Hamas' callous abuse of its own people, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d22-Hamas-human-shield


Under-Secretary of State Burns said that the U.S. seeks Egypt's help on a variety of issues. "The peace process between the Palestinians and Israel, the scene in Iraq and Sudan as well as a number of issues of bilateral concern were discussed" (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/8).

It would be about time that Egypt helps. I remember when it helped terrorists escape U.S. pursuit. Egypt is a dictatorship that favors jihad against Israel, not peace. Egypt has helped block action against Sudan's genocide. The U.S. tends to get burned by reliance upon Muslim "allies" — remember the CENTRO alliance? The U.S. called S. Arabia an ally, while it was the main sponsor of jihad. The U.S. had better be careful. So should everyone else. The U.S. does not always act in good faith.

Will Egypt deal in good faith? For ideas on that, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d11-Egypt-rejects-Obama-diplomacy

For a piece showing we can't rely on Egypt, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d22-Muslim-Brotherhood-gains-in-Egypt


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and President Obama have devised a new demand of Israel. The P.A. will claim that its retrained forces have lived up to their end of the bargain, so Israeli forces should withdraw from all checkpoints and P.A. cities. The P.A. will further demand that the IDF not be let back in.

The bargain was that the P.A. would show that it can eradicate terrorism, in return for removal of IDF forces. The P.A. did not fulfill its task. Terrorism was not eradicated. The P.A., itself, continues to advocate bigotry and terrorism. Few terrorists have had success, not because of P.A. police, but because of IDF raids and checkpoints. Whenever Israel reduces its raids and checkpoints, terrorism ramps right back up
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/9).

The P.A. and Abbas remain dedicated to jihad and approving of terrorism when practical. Jihad overall is anti-American. If Obama endorses the P.A. position, the proof would mount that he is anti-Israel, anti-peace, and anti-American, in fact if not entirely in theory.

For those who just started reading my articles, I made similar criticism of President Bush and his mentor, Secretary Rice. This is not a partisan issue. The State Dept., which guides our Presidents, doesn't care about political parties but about its biases and its turf.

To help gauge Abbas' sincerity and flexibility in negotiation, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d26-Abbas-refuses-to-negotiate-with-Israel


This is taken from Israel's plan to boost the economy of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Area C is controlled by the P.A., Area B by Israel. "These projects, conducted based on a master plan meeting Western standards, including amenities such as gardens etc., enable Palestinian villages in area B to legalize previously unauthorized construction spilling over into area C, expanding the boundaries of these villages, and enabling them to develop within these expanded boundaries. It should be noted that these projects have made it possible to cancel demolition orders previously issued for these areas and leave existing construction in place." (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/10).

Why doesn't the U.S. object to that natural growth and illegal construction? Why doesn't Israel? Israel discriminates against Jews, just as does the U.S. against the Jewish "settlers."

To help evaluate State Dept. sincerity on settlements, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d22-US-ducks-question-on-honoring-Bush-letter- resassuring-Israel-on-settlements

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, June 29, 2009.

This was written by Sarah Honig as a Another Tack column in the June 25, 2009 Jerusalem Post


When I grew up, got to meet and even strike up a friendship with my childhood idol Dosh (the late Kariel Gardosh), I asked him which, to his mind, was his most enduring political caricature. For that, he replied, we need to return to December 1956, approximately a month after the Sinai Campaign and the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Dosh noticed that while the international community was seething about Israel's feisty self-defense, it wasn't overly perturbed about the human rights and self-determination brazenly crushed beneath heavy military armor right in Central Europe.

Dosh produced far more dramatic and memorable cartoons, but he estimated that the situation portrayed in this one would always stay topical.

The hypocrisy, Dosh recalled, was hardly surprising but nevertheless galling, particularly the shamelessness of it. So he compressed it all into one frame. In the background a house labeled Hungary is going up in flames. In the foreground UN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjold, in firefighter gear, wields a hose labeled UN. But he's not dousing the blaze. He's drenching little Israel — Dosh's iconic sandal-clad Srulik — who stands soaked, angry and perplexed as he's subjected to more wet punishment.

Dosh produced way more dramatic and memorable cartoons, but he estimated that the situation portrayed in this one would always stay topical. He predicted that Israel would always be the world's whipping boy, thrashed for the misdeeds of others and used for diversionary tactics. Instead of dealing with urgent crises and genuinely alarming dangers, the powers-that-be will rage at Israel to draw attention away from their own dereliction and cowardice.

"The old czars," Dosh noted, "used to say, 'Beat the Jews and save Russia.' Today it's 'beat the Jews and save the world.'" He reckoned "this would stay true even when nobody remembers Hammarskjold."

IF DOSH only knew how right he was. Today he'd probably have produced a very similar pen-and-ink commentary, but with Iran burning and Barack Obama extinguishing — Israel. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As pro-democracy demonstrators are killed in Teheran and as its ayatollahs further their designs to arm themselves with nukes, the leader of the free world harps on Israeli settlements. You can almost understand where he's coming from. Iran is a tough customer, and crazy too. It's tempting not to rile it and to deflect criticism by focusing on some lonely remote outposts in the middle of Judea and Samaria's barren moonscape.

Not only isn't Israel scary like Iran, it'll broadmindedly collaborate in an effort to appease its detractors. How facile it therefore is to claim that peace and bliss on earth hinge on tearing down a few Jewish tents, rickety lean-tos, ramshackle sheds and decrepit trailers. It's true heroism to take them on in the guise of securing global propriety. It's plain to see that no greater peril plagues humanity — if we only avert our gaze from Iran, that is.

Accordingly, to stress the need to downplay the Iranian fuss, Obama gave his people a lesson in moral relativism: "It's important to understand that, although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised." Not unexpectedly, Obama informed the unenlightened masses that he won't take sides:" I take a wait-and-see approach... It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections."

Of course it's one thing to entertain such notions, but quite another to broadcast them out loud. All sorts of perceptions may prevail in the Oval Office and shape policy, so long as they're not ballyhooed. Blabbermouth statecraft, however, is a bad idea. Noisy hype doesn't go unnoticed, especially not in the nuance-sensitive Mideast. Obama may arrogantly consider himself superclever, but his overtly declared nonintervention is equivalent to intervention. His error is eerily reminiscent of the series of egregious errors toward Teheran during the term of Jimmy Carter, the past-president most like Obama, though hardly as radical.

IN HIS MEMOIRS, Ayatollah Khomeini's first foreign minister Ebrahim Yazdi writes that "the shah was doomed the minute Carter entered the White House." The novice president indiscreetly sent all the wrong signals, beginning with an exceedingly public cold-shoulder to the shah. The mullahs were heartened and exuded confidence. Increasingly shaken, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi sought to ingratiate himself to Carter by relaxing restrictions on opposition agitators. That further emboldened the religious fanatics and spawned unrest. Carter admonished the shah against quelling the disturbances by force.

Willy-nilly, Carter's bungling was instrumental in installing a reactionary, repressive theocracy in Teheran. Under the banner of freedom, Carter helped the forces of medieval darkness. The shah was a goner and the ayatollahs repaid Carter by holding 52 American embassy staffers hostage for 444 days until he was replaced by Ronald Reagan.

Carter's indisputable legacy was the bloodshed of the Iran-Iraq War, the carnage at the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center and Israeli Embassy, the burgeoning of Hizbullah and Hamas, the co-option of Syria/Lebanon and Gaza into Iran's evil sphere, massive worldwide terror-mongering and lately nuclear ambitions and rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map.

During the entire embassy standoff fiasco, strikingly ineffectual Carter dithered piteously. Yet he compensated for inaction on one front by hyperactivity on another. As per the Dosh depiction, he turned the water-jets on Israel.

CARTER'S ENTIRE diplomatic energy reserves were misspent on pressuring Menachem Begin at Camp David, and quite ruthlessly. His latent anti-Semitism would finally manifest itself with the publication of his Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. His misguided liberalism in international affairs led Carter to bolster the worst despots in our time while lashing out at one of the most intrinsically democratic of societies anywhere — Israel.

Unrepentant, Carter hobnobbed with Gaza's terror-kingpins last week and spuriously censured Israel for treating Gazans "more like animals than human beings... Never before in history has a large community been savaged by bombs and missiles and then deprived of the means to repair itself... This abuse must cease. The crimes must be investigated. The wall must be brought down, and the basic right of freedom must come to you," he told Hamastan's ayatollah-proxies, without a word about Israel's pullback from Gaza, the uprooting of 21 settlements and the atrocities that Gaza subsequently unleashed on Israel.

Carter is Obama's mentor and Obama is the new Carter. Their motto is: In democracy's name be kind to democracy's most rabid enemies and be nasty to embattled democrats. Hence, while it's "not productive" for Obama to meddle in Iran, it's imperative he meddle in Israel. Deja vu. As in Carter's administration, a lopsided artificial balance must be struck in pseudo-sophisticated statesmanship.

In other words, no matter where fires flare uncontrollably, the fire hoses will be aimed at Israel. This is why Dosh's nearly 53-year-old caricature remains ever-relevant — just as he predicted.

Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, June 28, 2009.

You know, this really isn't difficult to understand.

But, some background first...

One would think, with all the hatred towards Jews and Israel spewing forth out of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs' mouths, that Iran has always been the bitter enemy of the Jewish nation.

Not so...in fact, the Kurash Prism is an ancient Iranian document which gives testimony to Cyrus the Great's decree allowing the Jews to return to Judea, freeing them from their captivity in Babylon in 539 B.C.E. It corroborates the Jews' own Biblical account beautifully in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And then there is the Book of Esther, again, in the Hebrew Bible as well, again testifying to this age-old relationship between these two ancient peoples.

Jews were grateful to their powerful Iranian liberators and served in their armies throughout their empire. At the fortress in Elephantine, Egypt, for example ancient documents related to this were discovered along with a synagogue built there for Jewish soldiers serving under the Iranian ruler.

Centuries later, when Judea fought for its freedom and independence against the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E, it was Iran, again, which came to the Jews' aid. And centuries later still, on the eve of the Arab explosion out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E., ancient documents record a Jewish army aligning itself with Iran against the hated Byzantines.

So, what happened?

Well, for one thing, there was that not-so-little thing briefly mentioned above...the Arab conquest.

After Muhammad and his successor imperial, Caliphal armies burst out of the Peninsula in all directions, both Israel/Judea/Palestina and Iran fell to the Arabs' jihad in the spread of their Dar ul-Islam.

In the Middle East, especially, often internal differences due to ethnic and national conflict are reflected in religious expression. The Khorasani and other mawali–disgruntled Iranian converts to Islam — thus became followers of the martyred 'Ali...Shiites...in opposition to the brand of Islam of their Arab conquerors, the Sunni Umayyads. They supported the Abbasids, who would soon conquer the Umayyad seat of Sunni Arabism in Damascus. Baghdad would next become the new capital of Islam. Struggles between the Shi'a and Sunni continued, but by the 16th century the former became the adopted religion of state by Iran's Safavid Shahs.

While the fate of Jews under both branches of Islam was fragile, to say the least, in some ways it was even worse at the hands of the Shi'a.

Thus, as the centuries progressed in a henceforth Muslim Iran — and a Shia one, at that — Jews would soon find themselves in an awkward position whereby their very lives and livelihoods depended upon a powerful, more secular political ruler (Shah) who could act more on their collective behalf against the powerful force of the hostile religious establishment, the ulema and the mullahs.

While some pre-Islamic problems are noted in the Book of Esther, the fate of Iranian Jews had far more ups and downs clear up to the present time due to the situation brought on with the Arab Muslim conquest of the land. And since Jews were largely dependent on the political power of the Shahs, if the latter were unjust or whatever, the masses — stirred up by the mullahs — frequently took it out on the Jews.

Okay...let's jump to the present.

Recently, Iran held a presidential election in which the mullahs' front man, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supposedly defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi. Major demonstrations against Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have broken out by numerous people who feel that the election was stolen. The mullahs' Revolutionary Guards have given warning that their patience is wearing thin.

Whatever the differences in foreign policy which might exist between the two candidates (probably not many), the protests are mainly over internal matters...freedom, in all of its true democratic forms, as the main example.

And this, my friends, is the real reason for folks like Ahmanejad's professed hatred of the Jews and the Jew of the Nations...

Undemocratic, oppressive dictators always make sure that they have at least one great, external bogeyman to channel internal frustration, unrest, and violence against.

Who better than the world's scapegoat and whipping post par excellence...the Jew?

Hopefully, more and more Iranian people will start to see through this injustice as they rethink that age-old relationship between their own nation and that of the Jews.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website:

This article appeared on the Last Crusade website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 28, 2009.

Americans thought they were electing a President for a democratic nation. Little did they know they were about to elect a King to rule over all Americans.

Kings have their own self-centered agendas, often believing their rule is one of destiny, chosen by their gods. To what gods has Barack Hussein Obama pledged his allegiance? Who will be his chosen friends and new allies in the world?

Many have wondered about Obama's true agenda. Where does his heart and soul lie? Perhaps he is, as claimed, a true Christian or, in his other self, he is the Muslim as he was born.

While Obama's words for Israel speak of "peace", his actions and those he has gathered around him speak of an agenda that sides with Islam's goal to eradicate the Jewish State from the Earth.

Perhaps Obama is not an evil man but, his soul has bonded (as if they are his true blood brothers) with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, among others — while they act as enemies of the democratic nations of America and Israel.

Some will think that Obama made a Faustian bargain with the devil to claim his destiny as King of America. In doing so, he has taken on the obligation of rule in his mind by divine right. Obama would not be the first ruler/dictator whose supreme arrogance led him to believe he was doing his god's work. We have seen such self-delusion in Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, the Iranian Ayatollahs, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Hafez al Assad — even back to ancient times.

Perhaps it starts merely as ambition but, that ambition grows uncontrollably and soon there stands a man who believes the gods smile upon him — That he is to be lord and master over a whole nation, perhaps even the world.

But, to fulfill his destiny he has to take up the sword against the One G-d and His chosen people, the Jews. Such dictators propagate the belief that the nation of Israel must be cut down, along with the Jewish people IF Obama and his followers are to lead the world — or at least America.

Perhaps, not so strangely, the nations and civilizations who attacked Israel at any point in historical time to conquer the Jews in order to add the One G-d of the Jews to their panoply of gods have all vanished. Only the Jews have remained a a people for over 3000 years. Now Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people in their ancient homeland and with their ancient language.

We observe in our own time that the more American Presidents move against the Jewish State, the more catastrophes are visited upon America — including hurricanes, volcanoes, great heat or cold, drought, plagues of dire illnesses and now the financial melt-down of the American economy.

It takes either a very brave man or a fool to challenge the G-d of the Jews. One can, of course, be both a brave man and a fool.

When Obama made his speech in Cairo deferring to the Muslim world, it was obvious that another catastrophe would inevitably follow soon. We now watch in horror as the Iranian Republican Guard and Security Forces viciously slaughter their own people who are demonstrating unarmed in the streets. Eyewitnesses describe the Hamas and Hezb'Allah Palestinians beating and breaking of bones of innocents. The young people protesting the fraudulent election call these Arabic-speaking Palestinians "animals" and "thugs" for their virulent attacks.

This people's resistance to their country's fraudulent election may spark a revolution in Iran from the radical Islamic dictatorship — despite the Ahmadinejad government's violent attacks. Such a real peoples' revolution could likely send a message to the other 56 Islamic nations to similarly rise up against repressive Muslim rule.

We observe North Korea preparing more accurate missiles and rockets with greater range — accompanied with nuclear tests. All this prepared potential for a Nuclear Holocaust is proceeding in several countries now (especially Iran and North Korea) — under Obama's watch — as he ramps up his adversarial attacks only against the Land of Israel and the Jewish people — in obsequious deference to Islam.

I know there is more, perhaps worse, coming. Whether it will be called Armageddon among other catastrophic prophecies, only time will tell.

America is a great, noble and generous country. Her people are extraordinary when it comes to rescuing other nations from tyrants. Regrettably, all that can change in the hands of a regime where her leader, along with others, believe they can run the country without the interference of America's legal Constitution.

That attitude is prevailing as friends and allies are betrayed and America's Treasury is raided as if a Coup d'etat has already been implemented and Obama "owns" the Treasury with all that pours into it as either taxes or confiscation.

Perhaps the destiny Obama seeks as an articulate amateur are the failures he is stimulating. The talk in Washington among the insiders is that Obama will no longer listen to anyone, believing he is the messiah who can therefore do no wrong.

Hopefully, America and Israel can survive his one term in office.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, June 28, 2009.

This comes from the June 26, 2009 One Jerusalem website:


This week Obama's favorite think tank, The Center for American Progress, issued a report
(http://middleeastprogress.org/bulletin-email/) detailing Obama's determination to take Jerusalem from the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

The study's premise is that the Old City of Jerusalem is a problem. This means that the State of Israel must give up control of the Old City. (It should be noted that reports of the Center of American Progress have repeatedly stated the thinking of the Obama Administration. One Jerusalem brought the Center's influence to public attention and it was the basis for our predictions that Obama would give a speech to the Muslim World and try to negotiate with Iran's mullahs.)

The Center's report on Jerusalem focuses on what entity should replace the State of Israel as the administrator of the Old City, i.e. The Temple Mount, Churches, etc. It does not entertain the idea that Israel should continue in this role. It does not acknowledge that since the State of Israel wrested control of the Old City it has been secure and open to all people. This reality was certainly not the case from 1948 to 1967 when Jewish population was forcefully ejected from the Old City and its synagogues and schools destroyed.

In other words, Obama begins with the premise that the current successful situation must be replaced to satisfy the Palestinians. The plan they highlight creates a third party administrator of the Old City. This, of course, will be a failed experiment. At best it will create a situation that the Old City will be the center of dispute and conflict. For one, Israeli security will be replaced by some international body: The Ant-Israel United Nations?

Obama's determination to bend over backward to satisfy the political whims of Israel's enemies is clear, disturbing, and dangerous. It must be stopped.

If you want to be part of saving Jerusalem from Obama we urge you to take a few minutes to bring this blog post to the attention of friends, relatives, and supporters of Israel. Urge them to sign our petition to keep Jerusalem united under the State of Israel so they can stay informed about what is happening and they can participate in action items we will bring to your attention during the coming months.

To sign the petition, click here.

If you care about the future of Jewish controlled Jerusalem now is the time to get involved.

Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, June 28, 2009.


Worldwide "Obama Outpost" Fundraiser!

Obama tells Jews to stop building homes — in Israel!

Tamar Yona, Israel National News
"Yup! Those pesky (wink) settler youth had the chutzpah — the audacity, to rebuild the Obama outpost after it was destroyed in a middle of the night raid a few days ago by security forces. Whether you agree with these kids or not, you have to admire their tenacity...this silly little shack is enraging the world."

Your contribution of $10 will be greatly appreciated!

Send your $10 to

Please forward this to your list, NOW!
Thank you. Buddy/



News Item — Arutz-7, June 5, 2009.

(IsraelNN.com) A new settlement point was erected Friday next to the Samarian Jewish community of Kokhav Ya'akov.

Youngsters who built the site named it after United States President Barack Obama. They called it "a sign of appreciation for the activity of the president, who has caused a dramatic rise in the number of outposts put up in the area."


From Fundable.com

The plan is simple:

  1. Tens of Thousands of Jews and pro-Land of Israel supporters will make a small $10 donation. Those small donations will form a mass donation that will facilitate for the building up of Obama's Hilltop!

  2. Send a short email to Obama letting him know a donation has been made in his honor.
    SEE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

    Dear President Barack Obama,

    A donation has been made in your honor to strengthen the "Obama Hilltop Outpost" located 6 miles south of Jerusalem in West Bank, Israel. Your current foreign policy, which objects to any Jewish communal growth in the liberated territories of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem, contradicts the most sacred values of the Jewish Nation.

    It is written in our holy Torah, "Then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you ...The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors." (Deuteronomy, 26:3-5). The Jewish Nation throughout the world will continue to support Jewish building and growth in all parts of our sacred land of Israel.

    (Your Name)

  3. Please also sign the petition to major Jewish organizations. http://www.PetitionOnline.com/1eys/petition.html

Why is what we are doing important?

As Obama leads the world to demand an Arab State in the middle of the Land of Israel, we must all send a very strong message that the Jewish People and all supporters of the Land of Israel will not allow for its destruction! In addition this project will help strengthen the morale of the courageous Jewish youth that go out and rebuild over and over again.

Why $10 and not more?

We understand that Obamas Outpost will be destroyed many times. Do to the difficult economic times we do not want to make any serious financial demands on anyone. However if thousands of us make that small $10 donation it will become a very hefty sum and no one will feel the loss personally. As a community it will help strengthen our resolve.

The website demands that a minimum amount be entered, if this is minimum goal is not reached no one gets charged. However even if the minimum is met, donations can still be made until the clock runs out.

Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, June 28, 2009.

June 27, 2009

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's big policy speech received global attention. Not so that of his Palestinian counterpart, Salam Fayyad. Fayyad's June 22 presentation deserves careful analysis.

Fayyad is prime minister for one reason only: to please Western governments and financial donors. Lacking political skill, ideological influence, or strong support base, Fayyad does keep the money flowing since he's relatively honest, moderate, and professional on economic issues.

But his own people don't listen to him. Most PA politicians want him out. International pressure keeps him in.

So here's the Fayyad paradox. If he really represented Palestinian stances and thinking, there'd be some hope for peace. Since he's so out of tune with colleagues, though, Fayyad sounds sharply different from them. And even he's highly restricted by what's permissible in PA politics, limits which ensure the PA's failure, absence of peace, and non-existence of a Palestinian state.

His first problem is that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and seeks the PA's overthrow in the West Bank. Most Fatah and PA leaders prefer peace with Hamas rather than Israel. Make no mistake: this is a mutually exclusive choice. If Hamas merged with the PA the resulting would be far too radical to negotiate a solution, not to mention being en route to becoming dominated by Tehran-allied radical Islamism.

Moreover, to keep the door open for such conciliation, the PA can't come closer to making a deal with Israel. But that's not all. In veiled — an appropriate word here — language, Fayyad says Palestinians must avoid "politicizing" the Gaza issue so that any sanctions continue against the Hamas regime there.

By not opposing the suicide bombers, Fayyad follows suicidal policies. By fighting any isolation or sanctions on Hamas, the PA ensures that Hamas tightens its hold on the Gaza Strip and so doesn't need to accept PA leadership. By supporting Hamas's ability to attack Israel without costs, the PA ensures its Islamist rival can appear to be the more effective fighter against Israel, thus undermining the appeal of PA leadership or of any peaceful solution.

Second, while not directly endorsing terrorism and violence — in contrast to most of his colleagues and the PA's own institutions — Fayyad argues that Israel holding any Palestinian prisoners in jail is "a violation of international law." In other words, if a Palestinian attacks or murders Israelis, Israel has no right to imprison him. What option does it have? Only to set them free to try again. Here, too, he supports and glorifies cost-free terrorism.

Indeed, only a few days before, some of his top officials sat in the audience of a show in which the ruling Fatah party bragged that it was the proper Palestinian leader because it was more effective at anti-Israel terorrism than Hamas.

Third, Fayyad argues that it's not the PA's job to convince Israel by its behavior or to negotiate bilaterally on the basis of mutual concessions and compromises. Instead, as other PA leaders have openly stated recently, the PA's strategy is to get the world to pressure Israel to give it everything it wants.

While presenting his speech partly as a response to Netanyahu, Fayyad confronts none of the Israeli leader's points, merely dismissing his position as a vague, which it certainly wasn't." (Ironically, in contrast to most Western observers, Fayyad acknowledges that Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution six years ago).

But it's Fayyad who is vague — Netanyahu gives a list of specific Israeli conditions; Fayyad does nothing of the kind. In fact, he does something peculiar. According to him, Netanyahu is presenting an "Israeli narrative" about the conflict, while Palestinians say they have their own "narrative," but Fayyad says he won't talk about it!

Why is he so vague rather than giving his own case? Because he cannot do so. The Israeli narrative as laid out by Netanyahu is clear: Jews want and merit a state; the conflict is due to an Arab refusal to accept that state's existence. This Israeli narrative does not prevent a two-state solution, one state for each people.

The Palestinian narrative, to this day, is that Jews have no such right to a state and that all the land is rightly Palestinian, Arab, and (for most) Muslim. This Palestinian narrative does prevent a two-state solution, and its continuity — even reinforcement by Hamas most of all but also by the PA — is the cause for the peace process's failure and the fact that it will continue to fail.

That is what Fayyad cannot admit. Indeed, the main Palestinian strategy debate is merely about the most effective way of wiping Israel off the map.

He does claim that Palestinians' "main aspiration" is to have their own homeland, which he promises will live in peace, cooperation, and respect with its neighbor. But he cannot say it would resettle all Palestinian refugees within its borders, won't bring in foreign troops, will end the conflict permanently, or will provide Israel with security guarantees. It will certainly never recognize Israel as a Jewish state even while the PA's own constitution defines Palestine as an Arab and Muslim state.

Fayyad might prefer such an outcome, but that's not the Palestinian position and he knows it.

Fayyad says the PA has done a good job and that "the citizens sense this progress." Why, then, is the PA afraid to hold elections, even in the West Bank? It is no secret that the PA isn't popular and fears Hamas's appeal. He speaks of building a strong economy, dealing with poverty, developing social services yet gives no sense of how this might be done. Even given massive international subsidies, the PA's management remains poor, riddled with corruption and incompetence. Fayyad can do nothing to reform it since the political elite isn't with him and he has no power over the warlords and their gunmen who are often the real powers in the West Bank.

Finally, he predicts a Palestinian state within two years. Yet he has no way to make this happen except to prove that the real reason the peace process hasn't succeeded is the misconception "that it is always possible to exert pressure on the weaker side in the conflict as if there is no limit to the concessions that it could offer." In other words, the reason why peace has not been achieved is because the PA had to make all the concessions.

The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. Israel withdrew from most of the territory, allowed 200,000 Palestinians to come in, backed the formation of the Palestinian Authority as the power ruling the territories, cooperated in the establishment of security forces, agreed to billions of dollars in international subsidies for the PA, and so on.

And what concession did the Palestinians make? They said to international audiences — though not in their own media, mosques, schools, or internal statements — that they accepted Israel's existence and sometimes — but far from always — when it suited them, stopped some terrorist attacks. That's it.

Yet, even aside from the fact that the one-sided process favored the Palestinians, doesn't Fayyad see the irony in his words? He advocates precisely the same approach he claims has caused the peace process to fail. He views Israel as the weaker side — in relation to the West — and yet thinks those other countries will force it to make concessions without limit.

By feeding the PA's false belief that the West will pressure Israel into giving them a state in the borders they want, without concessions, restrictions, or even PA implementation of past promises, the U.S. and European governments are doing a very effective job in sabotaging any possibility for peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's big policy speech received global attention. Not so that of his Palestinian counterpart, Salam Fayyad. Fayyad's June 22 presentation deserves careful analysis.

Fayyad is prime minister for one reason only: to please Western governments and financial donors. Lacking political skill, ideological influence, or strong support base, Fayyad does keep the money flowing since he's relatively honest, moderate, and professional on economic issues.

But his own people don't listen to him. Most PA politicians want him out. International pressure keeps him in.

So here's the Fayyad paradox. If he really represented Palestinian stances and thinking, there'd be some hope for peace. Since he's so out of tune with colleagues, though, Fayyad sounds sharply different from them. And even he's highly restricted by what's permissible in PA politics, limits which ensure the PA's failure, absence of peace, and non-existence of a Palestinian state.

His first problem is that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and seeks the PA's overthrow in the West Bank. Most Fatah and PA leaders prefer peace with Hamas rather than Israel. Make no mistake: this is a mutually exclusive choice. If Hamas merged with the PA the resulting would be far too radical to negotiate a solution, not to mention being en route to becoming dominated by Tehran-allied radical Islamism.

Moreover, to keep the door open for such conciliation, the PA can't come closer to making a deal with Israel. But that's not all. In veiled — an appropriate word here — language, Fayyad says Palestinians must avoid "politicizing" the Gaza issue so that any sanctions continue against the Hamas regime there.

By not opposing the suicide bombers, Fayyad follows suicidal policies. By fighting any isolation or sanctions on Hamas, the PA ensures that Hamas tightens its hold on the Gaza Strip and so doesn't need to accept PA leadership. By supporting Hamas's ability to attack Israel without costs, the PA ensures its Islamist rival can appear to be the more effective fighter against Israel, thus undermining the appeal of PA leadership or of any peaceful solution.

Second, while not directly endorsing terrorism and violence — in contrast to most of his colleagues and the PA's own institutions — Fayyad argues that Israel holding any Palestinian prisoners in jail is "a violation of international law." In other words, if a Palestinian attacks or murders Israelis, Israel has no right to imprison him. What option does it have? Only to set them free to try again. Here, too, he supports and glorifies cost-free terrorism.

Indeed, only a few days before, some of his top officials sat in the audience of a show in which the ruling Fatah party bragged that it was the proper Palestinian leader because it was more effective at anti-Israel terorrism than Hamas.

Third, Fayyad argues that it's not the PA's job to convince Israel by its behavior or to negotiate bilaterally on the basis of mutual concessions and compromises. Instead, as other PA leaders have openly stated recently, the PA's strategy is to get the world to pressure Israel to give it everything it wants.

While presenting his speech partly as a response to Netanyahu, Fayyad confronts none of the Israeli leader's points, merely dismissing his position as a vague, which it certainly wasn't." (Ironically, in contrast to most Western observers, Fayyad acknowledges that Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution six years ago).

But it's Fayyad who is vague — Netanyahu gives a list of specific Israeli conditions; Fayyad does nothing of the kind. In fact, he does something peculiar. According to him, Netanyahu is presenting an "Israeli narrative" about the conflict, while Palestinians say they have their own "narrative," but Fayyad says he won't talk about it!

Why is he so vague rather than giving his own case? Because he cannot do so. The Israeli narrative as laid out by Netanyahu is clear: Jews want and merit a state; the conflict is due to an Arab refusal to accept that state's existence. This Israeli narrative does not prevent a two- state solution, one state for each people.

The Palestinian narrative, to this day, is that Jews have no such right to a state and that all the land is rightly Palestinian, Arab, and (for most) Muslim. This Palestinian narrative does prevent a two-state solution, and its continuity — even reinforcement by Hamas most of all but also by the PA — is the cause for the peace process's failure and the fact that it will continue to fail.

That is what Fayyad cannot admit. Indeed, the main Palestinian strategy debate is merely about the most effective way of wiping Israel off the map.

He does claim that Palestinians' "main aspiration" is to have their own homeland, which he promises will live in peace, cooperation, and respect with its neighbor. But he cannot say it would resettle all Palestinian refugees within its borders, won't bring in foreign troops, will end the conflict permanently, or will provide Israel with security guarantees. It will certainly never recognize Israel as a Jewish state even while the PA's own constitution defines Palestine as an Arab and Muslim state.

Fayyad might prefer such an outcome, but that's not the Palestinian position and he knows it.

Fayyad says the PA has done a good job and that "the citizens sense this progress." Why, then, is the PA afraid to hold elections, even in the West Bank? It is no secret that the PA isn't popular and fears Hamas's appeal. He speaks of building a strong economy, dealing with poverty, developing social services yet gives no sense of how this might be done. Even given massive international subsidies, the PA's management remains poor, riddled with corruption and incompetence. Fayyad can do nothing to reform it since the political elite isn't with him and he has no power over the warlords and their gunmen who are often the real powers in the West Bank.

Finally, he predicts a Palestinian state within two years. Yet he has no way to make this happen except to prove that the real reason the peace process hasn't succeeded is the misconception "that it is always possible to exert pressure on the weaker side in the conflict as if there is no limit to the concessions that it could offer." In other words, the reason why peace has not been achieved is because the PA had to make all the concessions.

The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. Israel withdrew from most of the territory, allowed 200,000 Palestinians to come in, backed the formation of the Palestinian Authority as the power ruling the territories, cooperated in the establishment of security forces, agreed to billions of dollars in international subsidies for the PA, and so on.

And what concession did the Palestinians make? They said to international audiences — though not in their own media, mosques, schools, or internal statements — that they accepted Israel's existence and sometimes — but far from always — when it suited them, stopped some terrorist attacks. That's it.

Yet, even aside from the fact that the one-sided process favored the Palestinians, doesn't Fayyad see the irony in his words? He advocates precisely the same approach he claims has caused the peace process to fail. He views Israel as the weaker side — in relation to the West — and yet thinks those other countries will force it to make concessions without limit.

June 26, 2009

Volcanoes are classified historically as active, dormant, and dead. The second group is merely inactive at present but could blow any time. As a terrorist organization, Fatah, the leading group in the Palestinian Authority (PA) which supplies nearly all of its leaders, is dormant, not dead.

The unfortunate reality is that the ideology that favors the total destruction of Israel as a higher priority than getting an independent Palestinian state is still dominant; all the mechanisms of terrorism are still in place; incitement goes on daily. It's a very good thing that these are not active and it is important to try to keep them that way. But the real PA and Fatah are far from the diplomatists' dreams and the journalists' description of the group as "moderate."

This is a problem not only because it blocks any hope of a negotiated peace, but it also ensures the group's ineffectiveness. While Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is a pretty genuine moderate, he is also rather alone in that category.

What can Fatah and the PA offer better than Hamas? In theory, the answer is a simple one: a dedication to obtaining a state, living in peace, raising living standards, and providing West Bank Palestinians (the ones it rules) with a better life than Gaza Strip Palestinians (the ones Hamas rules).

There are, however, daily reminders by these same leaders — Fayyad excepted — that this is not the primary focus of Fatah and the PA. An interesting video
(http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_June2009.htm#b180609) is provided by the valuable and accurate Palestinian Media Watch group that illustrates this reality rather effectively.

The televised show was put on by Fatah in order to demonstrate why it is better than Hamas. With top Fatah and PA officials prominently seated in the audience, the event is a mock debate in which Fatah "proves" it is better than Hamas. How? By getting Western aid? By having better schools? By holding out the likelihood of a Palestinian state where refugees can be resettled?

No. By more effectively killing Israelis.

Here's the transcript of the key section:

Fatah student taunts Hamas: "Since Hamas seized power, we haven't heard of any martyrdom operation [suicide-bombing]."

Hamas teacher: "It's called 'fighter's rest.'"

Fatah student: "A Hamas fighter needs rest, but a Fatah fighter doesn't need rest?!"

Hamas teacher: "Every fighter has the right to rest."

Fatah student: "Why is it that when Fatah stops fighting, you [Hamas] say they're cowards, but when Hamas stops fighting, you say it's 'fighters' rest'?"

Hamas teacher: "I don't know much about resistance [terror] and fighters..."

Fatah student: "The first shot was fired by the PLO; the first Jihad was carried out by the PLO [audience applauds], with all the other factions — but Hamas always opposed.

Hamas student: "What do you say about Hamas having kidnapped the [Israeli] soldier Shalit [still held hostage — Ed.]?"

Hamas teacher: "Ahaaa!"

Student: "By Allah, it's good."

Hamas student: "Did Fatah ever capture a soldier?!"

Fatah student: "It was the [other] brigades who captured him [Shalit] and sold him to you [Hamas]. It's a deal that you [Hamas] made for your own benefit, not for the [Palestinian] people's benefit. [Applause]

Fatah student: Remember, in Ramallah the [PA-Fatah] police arrested two soldiers — have you forgotten, teacher?!"

And what happened in Ramallah? Two unarmed Israeli reservists who were driving got lost, wandered into Ramallah, were taken into custody by the PA police, and then turned over to a mob which tore them apart and murdered them in cold blood.

This is one of the greatest achievements Fatah offers to prove its superiority.

The other main Fatah point is that Hamas is "chicken" because it no longer fires as many rockets and mortars at Israel as it did before the attack. Of course, Fatah can't win on that point either since it wasn't firing any at all. And of course the implication is that Hamas should prove it is macho and an appropriate leader for the Palestinians by attacking Israel more.

Aside from the extremism and anti-peace views this approach indicates it is simply a losing argument for Fatah and the PA. Hamas can easily out-terrorism Fatah. If that is the criterion there is no doubt who will win in this competition.

Here is the problem with the argument, so often heard, that Fatah and the PA are "moderate," often accompanied by the speaker saying, "If I were them...." or "If they were smart...."

Well, if Fatah and the PA were led by Western Europeans or Obama supporters we would indeed be better off. They'd say: All Hamas can offer is more decades of bloodshed, whereas we can get Western support, get a state really fast, resettle all the refugees there, get billions of dollars in compensation money, raise living standards, and end the violence.

But they never say that to their constituents. Why? Because that isn't their set of priorities.

For Fatah and the PA the competition in violence and martyrdom, the seeking after total victory, the refusal to make concession or compromise isn't only an immoral argument, it is also an inevitably losing one against both Israel and Hamas.

It is, however, the policy they prefer because this is what the vast majority of them believes in and they also fear that if they were to adopt a real moderate policy they'd lose popular support. To debate the latter point is most interesting — the Fatah/PA leaders may not be right to think that — but those doing such debate are outsiders. The actual leaders know what they themselves think and will do.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by WND, June 28, 2009.

This is by Drew Zahn and appeared yesterday in WND.


Editor's note: Since publication of this story, the auction item has been removed for the third time. None of the item identification numbers in this article remain valid.

An eBay seller who previously promised to deliver a certified copy of President Obama's actual birth certificate — from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya — has twice had his listing removed from the popular auction website.

In a third listing, however, the seller calling himself "colmado_naranja" has explained why the birth certificate was twice yanked by eBay administration.

"The first cancellation was done in what eBay describes as being in the interests of keeping my account safe," the newest listing claims, referring to the now scrubbed item # 160344374585. "eBay was under the impression that a third party had accessed and compromised my account, that this third party put up the Barack Obama African birth certificate auction and that I had no knowledge of the said listing."

Original eBay offer for Obama's Kenyan birth certificate

As WND reported, colmado_naranja's original listing claimed, "President Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961."

The seller, who according to the eBay rankings has completed dozens of transactions on the behemoth auction site without difficulties, further said this birth certificate is the real deal, obtained while he was traveling in Kenya.

"Kenyans were amused at how gullible Americans could be when it came to obvious things like the fact that Kenyans overtly admit to Barack Jr.'s Kenyan birth, yet the Americans continue to believe that they know better," colmado_naranja wrote. "I delved further and found that a birth certificate was on file at The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa."

According to the third, and newest, listing, however, even after calling eBay customer service and restoring the original auction under a new item number, the birth certificate sale was scrubbed again, a second time, for another reason altogether.

Colmado_naranja's second listing of the birth certificate, item # 160344928067, had already generated significant attention this morning. WND readers emailed, stating the bids had topped $7,000, even as high as $10,000 for the alleged Kenyan document.

Even those critical of the questions surrounding Obama's birth and eligibility to serve as President noticed, as members of the message board Democratic Underground claimed to have reported the auction to eBay administration as a "forgery and offensive item."


At some time around 10:30 ET this morning, however, the second auction listing was scrubbed as well.

In the third listing from colmado_naranja, the seller explains, "This time their reasoning for the cancellation was that birth certificates and other forms are government ID are prohibited on eBay."

Nonetheless, the auction lives on.

Under its now third eBay number, 160345002984, the item up for sale is listed as a "story" and specifically states the document is a gift to the winner, not the object of bidding itself:

"I'm now auctioning my story (true story) of how I obtained U.S. President Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate," the listing states. "The winner of this auction will not bear copyrights to my story. However, along with my story the winning bidder will also take home U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama's Kenyan (African) birth certificate. Certified birth certificate. I am giving the birth certificate to the bidder that wins this auction, which is for my story."

Just to be certain, the listing restates, "You are not bidding on Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate in this eBay auction."

Neither photos nor any verification of the seller's claims are available at this point.

In the original listing, the seller explained, "I am not posting any photos of the birth certificate here on eBay. I have not seen this birth certificate anywhere on the Internet, to post it here on eBay would lead to a flood of facsimiles on the Internet. This would inadvertently decrease the value of the certificate as well."

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?" Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected almost 400,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The eBay birth certificate seller is a self-proclaimed "collector of old Dominican and Cuban money" and has worked in the Congo.

"This spring I traveled through Kenya and its capital Nairobi. I was overwhelmed by the 'iconicized' face of U.S. President Barack Obama that displays itself throughout the country. I had lunch at a small eatery and noticed that the club sandwich with fried plantains was now known as 'Obama's Plate of the Day,'" the seller wrote on the initial auction page. "As an American I was bombarded with questions in English (English is national language of Kenya) on my feelings and opinions of a Kenyan governing the United States of America. The first several times I responded in saying that not enough time had elapsed since Barack Obama's appointment as president of the U.S.A., and that I'd have to hold my official opinion until at least January 2010, a year in office might be sufficient for me to judge his ability to govern the U.S.A.

"Naturally I thought that by 'Kenyan' they were referring to Barack Obama's blood, being that his father Barack Obama Sr. was a native of Kenya. After a day and a half of my being in Nairobi I learned that they were literally referring to President Barack Obama Jr. as being born in Kenya, a native of Kenya."

The seller also cited the fact that Obama has not release his "Hawaiian" birth certificate. His administration, the seller says, "in an attempt to put the birth certificate issue to a rest, has presented the American public with a fake, forged, fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificate."

The seller indicated a willingness to respond to questions about the item, for which bidding was set to begin at $1,000. But the seller said questions would be evaluated and may not get a direct response.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate — which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician — is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.  

Drew Zahn is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.

Your donation — from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 — can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, June 28, 2009.

1. This story is just so delicious that I cannot resist posting it. In fact it is so wonderful and encouraging that not a single Israeli newspaper, radio or TV show, other than the Righist Makor Rishon, had the courage to report it.

It seems that a Jewish settlement filed a libel suit against Maariv, Israel's second largest print daily, and won. Maariv had falsely reported in a news story that the settlement of Maale Rehav'am in the West Bank was sitting on land illegally expropriated from Palestinian Arabs. That turned out to be a lie. Residents of the settlement successful sued. The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ordered Maariv to pay 13,000 NIS in damages to the settlers and issue a public apology. The whole settlement has 30 people living in it and it is one of those that Obama is demanding that Israel evacuate.

So let us hope this case serves as a grand legal precedent: Tell a lie about settlers and pay!

2. For years I have been claiming in postings, blog entries and articles that the ex-Chief Justice of Israel, Aharon Barak (he is not a relative of Ehud) is an anti-democratic anti-Israel leftist extremist moonbat. Barak was the leading proponent in Israel of the anti-democratic doctrine of 'judicial activism,' which should be called judicial tyranny, under which non-elected judges make up laws and dictate governmental policy about just about everything. Barak also insisted that anyone who happens to sit on the Israeli Supreme Court should issue rulings based on 'enlightened opinion,' which means whatever Aharon Barak personally thinks in any given week, and that those same sitting judges should perpetually select other judges by themselves to sit on the Supreme Court and other courts, regardless of what the Israeli voter wants.

When I would slap around Barak in my postings, many people objected that I was showing disrespect to Israel's Chief Justice, and was exaggerating his anti-democratic tendencies. Last week Barak had the kindness to step forward and prove that I was correct, and in fact showed I was underestimating his political biases and dislike for democracy.

Last week, Barak took off his muzzle, now that he is retired, and launched a malicious broadside against Israel, Zionism, and 'settlers.' The most outrageous thing he said was that the Jews were plotting to throw the Arabs into the sea. The truth of course is that the Arabs are trying to throw the Jews into the sea, but Orwellian inversions are the favorite tactic of leftist cranks. Barak also criticized Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria as an 'occupation,' and said the Israeli presence there leads to human rights offenses and racism elsewhere in Israel. Barak's presence on the Supreme Court produced anti-democratic restrictions to freedom of speech and to the trashing of any form of checks and balances on the court's 'activism,' and led to an explosion in anti-Jewish racism by Israeli Arabs and Jewish leftists.

There are numerous news reports on the Barak outburst, but try these:

3. LA Times runs a pro-settlement column!:
"In defense of 'settlements'"
Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in Israel.
By Yisrael Medad
June 28, 2009
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/ la-oe-medad28-2009jun28,0,6267445.story

No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That's one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh, a so-called settlement less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem.

After Shiloh was founded in 1978, then-President Carter demanded of Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the village of eight families be removed. Carter, from his first meeting with Begin, pressed him to "freeze" the activity of Jews rebuilding a presence in their historic home. As his former information aide, Shmuel Katz, related, Begin said: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to reside wherever he pleases."

We now fast-forward to President Obama, who declared on June 15 in remarks at a news conference with Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, that Jewish communities beyond the Green Line "in past agreements have been categorized as illegal."

I believe the president has been misled. There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born. To suggest that residency be permitted or prohibited based on race, religion or ethnic background is dangerously close to employing racist terminology.

Suppose someone suggested that Palestinian villages and towns in pre-1967 Israel were to be called "settlements" and that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs should be removed from their homes. Of course, separation or transfer of Arabs is intolerable, but why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area? Do not Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in the state of Israel?

Some have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn't live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn't Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem.

In 1929, Hebron's centuries-old Jewish population was expelled as a result of an Arab pogrom that killed almost 70 Jews. Jews that year removed themselves from Gaza, Nablus and Jenin. The return of my family to Shiloh — and of other Jews to more than 150 other communities over the Green Line since 1967 — is not solely a throwback to claimed biblical rights. Nor is it solely to assert our right to return to areas that were Jewish-populated in the 20th century until Arab violence drove them away. We have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the act of my residency in Shiloh.

I am a revenant — one who has returned after a long absence to ancestral lands. The Supreme Council of the League of Nations adopted principles following the 1920 San Remo Conference aimed at bringing about the "reconstitution" of a Jewish National Home. Article 6 of those principles reads: "The administration of Palestine ... shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands." That "land" was originally delineated to include all of what is today Jordan as well as all the territory west of the Jordan River.

In 1923, Britain created a new political entity, Transjordan, and suspended the right of Jews to live east of the Jordan River. But the region in which I now live was intended to be part of the Jewish National Home. Then, in a historical irony, a Saudi Arabian refugee, Abdallah, fleeing the Wahabis, was afforded the opportunity to establish an Arab kingdom where none had existed previously — only Jews. As a result, in an area where prophets and priests fashioned the most humanist and moral religion and culture on Earth, Jews are now termed "illegals."

Many people insist that settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But that convention does not apply to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza district. Its second clause makes it clear that it deals with the occupation of "the territory of a high contracting party." Judea and Samaria and Gaza, which Israel gained control of in 1967, were not territories of a "high contracting party." Jewish historical rights that the mandate had recognized were not canceled, and no new sovereign ever took over in Judea and Samaria or in Gaza.

Obama has made his objections to Israeli settlements known. But other U.S. presidents have disagreed. President Reagan's administration issued a declaration that Israeli settlements were not illegal. Support for that position came from Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former president of the International Court of Justice, who determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria did not constitute "occupation." It also came from a leading member of Reagan's administration, the former dean of the Yale Law School and former undersecretary of State, Eugene Rostow, who asserted that "Israel has a stronger claim to the West Bank than any other nation or would-be nation [and] the same legal right to settle the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as it has to settle Haifa or West Jerusalem."

Any suggestions, then, of "freezing" and halting "natural growth" are themselves not only illegal but quite immoral.

Yisrael Medad is head of information resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem.

4. Well, the main headline involving political clashes between the 'Chareidi' ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem and the rest of the population there these days is about a parking garage operating on Shabbat. However there is another bizarre confrontation that has been less noticed. It was triggered because of an idiotic attempt to prohibit imports of fur into Israel.

Ronit Tirosh, a backbencher member of the Knesset from the Kadima Party, decided to try to drum up some votes for Kadima among animal rights nuts and people who think fur is murder. The problem is that a lot of the black-coated ultra-Orthodox guys wear fur 'streimels,' those archaic round fur hats that were in fashion in Poland 400 years ago and that some of the Chareidim think make them look more pious. Trust me, Moses and King David did not wear streimels.

But dubious taste in haberdashery aside, there was no reason to antagonize the Chareidim with a silly anti-fur law designed to appease animal rights nuts. After suggesting that the Chareidim just use synthetic furs, Tirosh and her cronies seem to be backing down now.

Which is good, because I have a confession to make. I have a streimel made out of fur. Actually it is a Davy Crocket hot with a raccoon's tail down the back of it, and I only wear my streimel on Purim and once in a while to spook my students. But on this I am with the Chareidim — and am telling Kadima politicians: Hands off my Tennessee-fur Streimel!

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, June 27, 2009.

Nakba commemoration unrelated to exercise of legitimate individual freedom.

Adherence to the doctrine of democratic governance is not a suicide pact. Neither is it obligation to self-destruct by means of terminal stupidity. Belief in democratic principles does not require one to forego the distinction between friend and foe, between ally and adversary. Sadly this something of which many Israeli MKs — including Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan of the Likud — seem to have lost sight, in their opposition to the proposed law prohibiting public commemoration of the 1948 Arab defeat — a.k.a. the Nakba.

The attempt by Israeli Arabs to institutionalize public commemoration of the Nakba has nothing to do with the exercise of legitimate individual freedom of expression in a healthy and vibrant democracy. For as much as it is a ceremonial manifestation of mourning over the consequences of Arab defeat, it is also — ipso facto — a ceremonial manifestation of disappointment at Jewish survival. These two aspects are inseparable sides of the same coin. It is in essence a collective declaration of regret and sorrow that the Jews were not wiped out as a national entity.

Much nonsense has been written recently by Nakba apologists. For commemoration of the Arab "disaster" is not analogous to individuals or groups protesting some (real or imagined) evil or defect in their society which should be removed or repaired. It is not a demand to right a wrong that society or the state inflicts on particular categories of citizens. Rather, it is an implied rejection — in toto — by an entire community of the state and society in which it resides, a collective refusal to come to terms with their very existence, with their intrinsic nature, and with the most elemental foundations upon which they are based.

Let us make no mistake: The demand for the commemoration of the Nakba is not motivated by a desire to mark any sense of personal loss but by a sentiment of national loss; not by a feeling of grief on a private level but by identification with tragedy at a national level; and not by a desire restore losses at an individual level but for restitution of honor at a national level. And the only way to address this grievance is by the obliteration — or at least the negation — of the Jewish nation-state.

Clamor for commemoration

It must not be forgotten that anyone who was personally touched by the events that comprised the Nakba would today be close to 70 at the very least. They certainly do not make up the bulk of those demanding public lament of the Arab military debacle. The clamor for commemoration does not arise from dispossessed, deprived refugees but fully enfranchised citizens who are neither impoverished, nor persecuted or homeless — as the ample homesteads found in abundance throughout most Arab villages in Israel clearly testify. Indeed, had there been no Nakba, the personal socio-economic conditions of most Israeli Arabs would in all likelihood be far worse than it is today — as comparison with of the surrounding Arab countries, not endowed with extravagant oil reserves, such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt, will irrefutably show.

These facts demonstrate how ludicrously inappropriate the examples provided by some Israeli public figures who have endeavored to argue in favor of permitting public Nakba memorial ceremonies. One of the more inane of these attempts was made recently by Yair Lapid in a piece entitled"The Right to Hate." His major argument was an inapt attempt to liken the act of burning the American flag by an obscure (an arguably eccentric) individual, which was sanctioned by the US Supreme Court, to widespread organized political activism aimed at negating the founding values of the State, lamenting the defeat of its enemies and perpetuating the adversarial narrative of "Return.". Unwittingly, Lapid lets slip that he see Israel's Arabs on a par with neo-Nazi skinheads and frenzied mobs in Gaza. He writes:

If someone doubts our right to exist — be it on the hills of Umm al-Fahem or in Munich's beer halls, in Gaza's crowded streets or in the thick woods of Babi Yar — it's their problem.

He thus blithely blurs the distinction between Israeli citizens allegedly loyal to the state, and its most rabid enemies. Proponents of the law could hardly ask for a stronger endorsement.

Transgressors should not be imprisoned

And when he asks "Since when do we need Arab approval?" he betrays just how much he misunderstands the issue and how badly he misses the point. The proposed law preventing Nakba commemoration is not about acquiring Arab approval but preventing Arab incitement.

For in quoting the previously mentioned US Supreme Court decision, Lapid conveniently omits to mention that one of central considerations was that the court concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace. Can he honestly say that this is so in the case Nakba memorial ceremonies? Can he honestly assure us that the chances that such events will lead to "breaches of the peace" are negligible? That political agitators will not exploit such occasions to keep an open wound festering and to prevent it healing with the passage of time?

Indeed, Lapid would do well refer to another ruling of the US Supreme court, which although passed in 1919 still is considered a central pillar in current judicial thinking in the US: "...the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic. . . ..When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr)

There is clearly something deeply flawed in a society that permits a significant segment within it to express grief at the success of that society's success to prevail over its enemies' intent to destroy it. That is why the proposed law is not infringement of democratic rights but a refreshing reflection of national sanity and santé.

However, on one matter the opponents of the law have got it right: Transgressors should not be imprisoned. Rather, they should be stripped of their Israeli citizenship — at least in cases of repeated offenders. Indeed, this should not be a problem — for why should they object to being relieved of membership of a collective they obviously find so obnoxious and objectionable that its very existence is deemed a "catastrophe"?

This article appeared June 8, 2009 in YNET

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit, June 27, 2009.

Israel's not invited to talks to negotiate her fate.

The symptoms that the world sees Israel as 2009 Czechoslovakia are mounting...anti-Semitic and anti Israel nations and organization who favor the Arabs have decided that they are the best parties to negotiate the fate of Israel and the peace process between Israel and its foes!

In these negotiations NO ONE is on Israel's side. To whom does this make sense but to Israel's foes?!

This below comes from the Fresnozionism.org website
http://fresnozionism.org/archives/1270. It is entitled "The Czechs weren't invited to Munich, either."


Foreign ministers of Group of Eight countries urged Israel to halt all settlement construction in the West Bank Friday, during a meeting in Italy largely focusing on recent events in Iran. They also called on Israelis and Palestinians to renew direct negotiations over all disputed issues.

Also meeting Friday on the sidelines of the summit is the Mideast Quartet — the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations — to try to help move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward...

A range of Arab League nations will join in a follow-on session Friday afternoon. Israel was not invited; the Italian Foreign Ministry said that decision was taken by the Quartet, not Italy.

The BBC reports that the Quartet has also asked for Israel "to stop all West Bank settlement building activity and to open its border crossings." Palestinians have demanded this as a precondition for resuming negotiations.

It's almost too easy to point out that in 1938 the Czechs were not invited to the Munich conference either. Of course this meeting will not produce a document with such immediate impact on Israel as the Munich diktat had for Czechoslovakia, but the sense of powerful nations deciding the fate of a small one in consultation with its enemies remains.

If a Martian asked me why the 'Quartet' — the UN, EU, US and Russia — is particularly suited to bring about a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians, I would not be able to answer. The UN is dominated by Muslim and third-world countries and has been particularly hostile to Israel for decades. The EU's member nations have important economic relationships with Arab oil producers, and also have political and psychological reasons for tilting toward the Palestinians. The EU quietly funds many NGOs whose output is significantly biased against Israel. Russia, a traditionally antisemitic nation, has economic ties with Iran and also feels threatened by Israel's nuclear capability.

This leaves the US as the sole member of the Quartet that might be expected to support Israel, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama Administration has few — if any — power centers opposed to the anti-Israel forces in the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon (which has undergone significant changes since the early part of the previous administration). Add to this the fact that President Obama himself seems to be taking a tack designed to improve relations between the US and the Muslim world, and one wonders who will represent Israel's interests in this group.
Contact Nurit by email at nurit_g@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Wake Up America, June 27, 2009.

A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. You would do well to read and pass this along to EVERYBODY that loves his country. This is VERY serious for the direction of our country. The ramifications are staggering for us and our children.

This is what my friend said:

"Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned and articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free."

Below is my friend's summary.

I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There's a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.


1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a 'cool customer' who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's 'behind the mask'. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to 'level the playing field' with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid.

5. He's surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they're going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama's not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He's now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not 'come due' until after he's reelected in 2012. He'd like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. (Remember Dr. Krauthammer is a Psychiatrist)

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We're 'pining' for another Reagan, but there'll never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she's to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and states' rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We're spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed. Fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of 'change' caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising is was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it'll be a dogfight. It'll all be about the economy.

Contact Wake Up America at Wakeupamericans@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 27, 2009.

The Washington Institute Policy Watch Paper #1545 by David Pollock and Mohammad Yaghi was entitled "Saudi Media Take the Lead Against Iran's Regime." This below is a retort by Ali Alyami written to David Schenker of the Washington Institute.

Dr. Ali Alyami, a human rights activist, is the Executive Director of The Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CDHR). As written by Steve on the Rants And Raves blogsite: "Dr. Alyami strongly agrees with many people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and many others, who say that the West is in denial and must wake up to the terrible danger they face from Islamic dangerous ideologues."


Mr. Schenker,

This is a pure propaganda for the Saudi absolute monarchy. If you think the extremist Wahhabis in Riyadh, are or will be any better, for anyone, than the Mullahs in Tehran, you will be in for multitude of regrettable surprises. Look at their past and present policies and practices and then tell me why you think things will change for the better in the long or short terms. The Saudi princes are extremely clever and the same can not be said about a lot of people, anywhere.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, June 27, 2009.

This was written by P. David Hornik and it appeared today in Pajamas Media.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ no-meddling-with-iran-but-oh-those-settlements/

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/


This week President Obama got tougher with the mullahs — but not by much. He spoke of being "appalled and outraged" by their brutality, but also of "respect[ing] the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and ... not interfering with Iran's affairs."

Yet, concurrently, Obama's administration kept up its tough confrontation with Israel over the settlements issue. A meeting in Paris between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and George Mitchell, the Obama administration's Middle East envoy, got postponed, apparently because of too much unresolved tension over settlements. Instead, Defense Minister Ehud Barak is heading to Washington to perhaps work out the issue in meetings with Mitchell and other officials.

Netanyahu, in his June 14 speech at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, seemingly made major concessions to Obama. He reversed his lifelong opposition to a Palestinian state alongside Israel — saying it would have to be demilitarized, a situation known from the historical record to break down easily. And on settlements he said — and has since clarified — that Israel would build no more new ones nor set aside any further land, and would only allow natural growth within the boundaries of already-existing settlements.

But it's still not enough for the administration, which keeps calling for a[1] complete construction freeze in the settlements. With attention now focusing on the fine points of this drama (Does the administration mean no more kindergartens in the settlements? That families will have to live cramped or send some of their kids to dwell elsewhere?) what is often forgotten is how much Israel has already conceded on this issue, and how biased towards the Palestinian side the issue has already become.

The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, has an official status as disputed — not occupied — territory whose ultimate disposition is supposed to be decided in negotiations. UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted months after the 1967 Six Day War,[2] calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" — not from "the" or "all" the territories, and nowhere does it refer to settlements.

Indeed, Eugene Rostow, the late U.S. legal scholar and diplomat who played the leading U.S. role in negotiating 242,[3] wrote in 1991 that:

[T]he Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip ... has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors ... the Jews have the same right to settle [in the West Bank] as they have to settle in Haifa.

Israel has actually built no new settlements in the West Bank since 1999. Although since then population growth has been considerable, it has all been within already-existing settlements. Netanyahu has promised to continue that policy with no further territorial expansions of settlements. The built-up parts of the settlements today constitute[4] about 1.7 percent of the West Bank. Needless to say, extensive Palestinian building continues unhampered in much of the remaining 98 percent.

And the land whose great bulk Israeli policy seems to have conceded before final-status negotiations have even begun is not any old land. It is, first of all, Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people, the origin of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian civilization built on it. Second, it is land that mostly, according to the 1967 Joint Chiefs of Staff study (see[5] here for the map) and all other systematic U.S. and Israeli military assessments, needs to remain in Israeli hands for Israel to remain defensible. Meanwhile, it is hard to see how continued building or "natural growth" within the 1.7 percent would pose a problem for Palestinians — yet the Obama administration is making a major, contentious issue even out of this.

It is often claimed, especially by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that Israel has an obligation for a settlement freeze unde[6]r the road map. That document does state that "Israel also freezes all settlement activity" — but only at the very end of a paragraph that lists these antecedent obligations of the other side:

[T]he Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence. ... Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation ... to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures.

Only then, according to the road map, does the Israeli settlement freeze kick in.

Yet at a time when Palestinian terror continues and anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic incitement remains endemic in the West Bank and Gaza, the Obama administration keeps exerting relentless pressure on Israel for a settlement freeze and none (or so little the radar doesn't pick it up) on the Palestinians to even begin conforming with road map language.

All in all, the U.S. pressure on Israel on this issue is one-sided, harsh, and obsessive, and shows none of the deference to Israeli sovereignty that Obama is still taking pains to demonstrate to Tehran. All this flows logically from Obama's Cairo speech, in which he balanced criticisms of the Muslim world with alleged equivalent sins of the Western world while singling out Israeli settlements as intolerable.

Israel will likely have to choose between buckling still further, compromising its rights and jeopardizing its security, or bracing itself for ongoing, possibly ruinous discord with its ally.


[1] complete construction freeze:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184921980& amp;pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[2] calls:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+ Process/UN+Security+Council+Resolution+242.htm

[3] wrote: http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml

[4] about 1.7 percent:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp? DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID= 442&PID=0&IID=2995

[5] here: http://www.acpr.org.il/books/33-Zero-editorial.pdf

[6] road map: http://www.un.org/media/main/roadmap122002.html

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Dann, June 27, 2009.

Two years ago, Haaretz's chief editor David Landau advised US Sec of State Condoleezza Rice to "rape Israel," to force it into making concessions. Rice tried to follow Landau's suggestion, but her efforts were not matched by her boss, President Bush. Now, that policy seems to be led by President Obama himself.

Assisted by Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, Dan Kurtzer, and others, Pres Obama seems intent on taking Israel down. In addition to the usual left wing Jewish organizations, the Reform Movement's PAC, Americans for Peace Now, a collection of marginal anti-Israel organizations have also lined up for the gang rape. The analogy is appropriate: A stronger power forces his will upon a weaker victim regardless of what is fair, moral, and without any concern for the trauma he inflicts. The rapist (in this analogy) does what he thinks is good for himself. He wants what he wants.

When rape occurs in a family situation the rapist is often aided and abetted by a family member, often the wife/mother, either to please the rapist, or — in denial — to pretend that it wasn't happening, or carelessness bordering on neglect. That a family member is involved in the rape makes the act even more traumatic, since it involves the ultimate betrayal.

President Obama and his Jewish (and some Israeli) facilitators may believe that what they are doing is for Israel's own good. That might be acceptable if they explained how it works. Would a second Arab Palestinian state run by terrorists enhance Israel's security, promote peace with Israel and in the region, resolve the issues of Jerusalem, and millions of "Palestinian refugees"? Would the Palestinians and Arab states recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and acknowledge facts of Jewish and world history? Would the proposed state include Jews with full rights, as Israel includes Arabs with full rights?

Nowhere in Obama's agenda are these questions raised or answered. Nowhere is there a hint of how his plan will be carried out, nor concern for what might happen if things don't go according to his visions. That's understandable, since his policy, like sexual aggression, is single minded.

His Jewish and Israeli enablers, like family members who participate in rapes, no doubt believe that what they are doing is in the name of Love. They might even argue that rape is better than murder, that forcing Israel to surrender and survive, albeit crippled and more vulnerable, is preferable to isolation, attack and invasion.

Raping Israel might be convenient for some, temporarily, even a perverted rescue from more dire consequences that would assuage any feelings of guilt. As long as the victim remains alive and available, however, the rapist will return. There's nothing like conquest to whet the appetite for more.

Finally, the most difficult aspect of rape is when there is compliance, when the victim, because of her fear and desperate need to please and be loved, allows the rape to occur. Many Israeli politicians and pundits believe that Israel's survival depends on American and international good will. They will do anything to achieve it, including denying national interests and integrity. Battered by accusations of causing humiliation, suffering and oppression, "the occupation," they surrender. Hungry for acceptance and temporary security, they acquiesce.

For those whose "wet dream" (as Landau described it to Rice) is the destruction of Jewish homes and communities "in order to advance 'the peace process,'" to reward Arab terrorists with a state of their own, the consummation of rape may satisfy them for a while; it's no consolation for those being violated, nor will it prevent the next savagery.

The author, a former asst professor of History, is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem.

This appeared June 26, 2009 in American Thinker

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, June 27, 2009.

This was written by Joseph Farah and it appeared May 29, 2009 in World Net Daily (WND)

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND.


Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy."

Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.

I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel — let alone their own country.

Of course, that would never happen with "a more balanced approach to the Middle East.

"It's the 1930s all over again. This time, it's the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all.

I know you haven't heard it put like this before. I don't really understand why. There is simply no other accurate way to explain the machinations behind the latest demands on Israel from the West and the rest of the world.

Israel is being reduced to "Auschwitz borders." Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip. Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.

Again, I ask, "Why would internationalists seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn't even tolerate the mere presence of Jews?

"Can anyone answer that question for me?

Obama and Clinton — and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States — have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.

I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don't understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.

Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?

Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated — even condoned?

Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?

Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?

That's what we do when we forbid "settlement construction," repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities.

This is "balance"? Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.

Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well. But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.

All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims — welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors. Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights — and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely.

But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.

I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends. These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.

I say, "No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can — and if they can live.

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 27, 2009.

Perhaps I am mistaken but, I find extremely articulate politicians too often without a brain in their heads. I observe Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu fumble away the Jewish nation with grandiose statements about how he was going to Europe to make Israel's case. Too bad he was too late and the Americans got there before him.

A deep thinker would have known that the scurrilous team who surrounds President Barack Obama would have easily pre-planned to ambush Netanyahu.

One is reminded — again — of then PM Yitzhak Shamir at the Madrid International Conference of 1991 when he was out-maneuvered by then Secretary of State James Baker III and those pejoratively called his "Jew-Boys", i.e., Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer — later to include Martin Indyk.

But, President Obama has his "Jew-Boys" too: Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and the notorious Jew-haters from past administrations who have re-entered the White House 'clout clique' through its ever revolving door and are now advising him: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Baker (again) and Jimmy Carter — all Thinking, Thinking — "How do we subvert the Jewish State of Israel?"

I could not help but wonder if Netanyahu was well aware of their continual scheming plots? Did he agree to collaborate in a plan to give away Jewish cities, towns and Land and yet pretend he was 'merely' outmaneuvered? Tough Luck but, Bibi could say "It wasn't my fault!"

In Obama we see another articulate speaker in the process of bankrupting America by taking over and virtually nationalizing the banks, insurance agencies, auto industries, et al. Obama has covered over his maneuvers with a flow of smooth, deep words — with no viable solutions.

Obama speaks of Islam as if it was a sane, peaceful religion, even the radical forms of Islamist Terror/Blood cult with its virulently anti-West, anti-Judeo-Christian values, which teaches its children as young as 3 years old to kill themselves while killing Jews, Christians — any infidel (non-Muslim). That's definitely an act of child abuse by the Muslim clerics and the parents who kow-tow to their orders. Obama acts as if Islam is wholly compatible with Democratic values of freedom. The people of Iran know better.

How do these various charlatans mesmerize their publics and cheat them out of their own rights?

While Obama steals the American nation and disposes of its Constitution, does Netanyahu collaborate with those greater plans, led by the ring-in-his-nose put there by an American President, in cahoots with those of the Muslims and Arabs who adhere to the blood cult of Terrorism?

The peoples of each of these two democratic nations may have been cheated out of their own sovereignty and the rights they deserve.

The corruption and the gross stupidity of some of these leaders will likely result in a great war in which their nations will be filled with the dead and dying.

No doubt, these leaders will be horribly punished in this life and the next but, that will make no difference to those who must die, be grievously wounded or suffer the death of their loved ones for their leaders' betrayals.

How sad that what could have continued to be thriving civilizations may too soon be reduced to rubble.

This below is a June 25, 2009 DEBKAfile Special Analysis entitled "Netanyahu Folds Under Us Pressure For Pulling Out Of West Bank Towns Before Peace Talks."


Despite his pledge to keep security considerations uppermost in his dealings with the Palestinians, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu is buckling under pressure from the US administration aimed at softening Israel up ahead of Middle East peace talks.

This pressure turned Netanyahu's first official visits to Rome and Paris sour.

He had hoped to outmaneuver the Obama administration's insistence on a total settlement freeze by winning the support of friendly Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy for a compromise formula, which would be presented as a European-Israel deal.

To achieve this, he promised the Italian and French leaders that Israeli forces would soon be pulled out of West Bank Palestinian towns. But he failed to anticipate that the Obama administration would outflank him and get there first. So his arrival in Rome and Paris was preceded by Italian and French officials parroting the Washington line on a settlement freeze, including East Jerusalem

When he met Berlusconi Monday, June 22, the Israeli prime minister saw that he had already talked to Obama on the phone and promised that the Italian boot would toe the American line.

In Paris, he found the same trap had been laid at the Elysees.

In these circumstances, Netanyahu should never have gone through with his visits to Italy and France. And defense minister Ehud Barak should call off his trip to Washington Monday for the interview with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell which the prime minister postponed. He has little hope of persuading the administration to change its tune or head off the impending clash between his administration and the Obama White House.

Netanyahu's promise to the Italian and French leaders to pull the IDF out of the West Bank cities of Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jericho and Qalqilya, has meanwhile gone on record, for no gain in Rome in Paris. But he can no longer capitalize on this major concession for a quid pro quo from the Palestinians. The IDF has also been ordered to reduce to the number of checkpoints on the West Bank to 10 active facilities to allow the Palestinians to travel from town to town free of holdups for searches — another concession to US demands.

These concessions are tantamount to the handover of the main West Bank towns to Palestinian security control.

It is the most sweeping redeployment of Israeli security forces since their unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria four years ago as part of Ariel Sharon's disengagement policy.

To make the gesture palatable to the Israeli public — who have not forgotten that years of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks from the West Bank were finally stemmed by the IDF presence in terrorist city strongholds — Netanyahu told the army spokesman to announce Thursday, June 25, that the measures were being given a one-week trial run before being finalized.

However, once in place, these measures will be practically impossible to withdraw.

The Obama administration has thus cornered the Netanyahu government into giving away valuable assets to the Palestinians before negotiations have even begun. This diplomatic dexterity has not been displayed in Washington's dealings with Iran.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 26, 2009.

This was written by Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, is a veteran award-winning journalist who has been covering Palestinian affairs for nearly three decades. He studied at Hebrew University and began his career as a reporter by working for a PLO-affiliated newspaper in Jerusalem. He writes on Palestinian Arab affairs for the Jerusalem Post and is a columnist
for the Hudson Foundation. This article is archived at
http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/06/ how-to-help-the-palestinian-people.php


The leaders of the Palestinian Authority do not want the international community to hear anything about massive abuse of human rights and intimidation of journalists that its security forces are practicing almost on a daily basis in the West Bank.

They do not want the world to see that, with the help of the Americans and some Europeans, they are building more prisons and security forces than hospitals and housing projects for the needy.

They want the US and the rest of the world to continue believing that peace will prevail tomorrow morning only if Israel stops construction in the settlements and removes a number of empty caravans from remote and isolated hilltops in the West Bank.

The Palestinians do not need a dictatorship that harasses and terrorizes journalists, and that is responsible for the death of detainees in its prisons. In the Arab world we already have enough dictatorships.

The Palestinians do not need additional security forces, militias and armed gangs. In fact, there are too many of them, both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

American and European taxpayers' money should be invested in building hospitals, schools and housing projects. Investing billions of dollars in training thousands of policemen and establishing new security forces and prisons will not advance the cause of peace and coexistence.

There is no doubt that many Palestinians would love to abandon the culture of uniform and weapons in favor of improved infrastructure and medical care.

As for the international media, it's time to abandon the policy of double standards in covering the Israeli-Arab conflict. For many years, the mainstream media in the US and Europe turned a blind eye to stories about financial corruption under Yasser Arafat. The result was that Arafat and his cronies got away with stealing billions of dollars that had been donated to the Palestinians by the Americans and Europeans.

Back then, many foreign journalists said they believed that the stories about financial corruption in the Palestinian areas were "Zionist propaganda." Other journalists said they would rather file an anti-Israel story because this way they would become more popular with their editors and publishers.

Recently, a Palestinian TV crew was stopped at a checkpoint in the West Bank, where soldiers confiscated a tape and erased its content.

This incident, hardly received any coverage in the mainstream media in the US and Europe.

The reason? The perpetrators were not IDF soldiers, but Palestinian Authority security officers. And the checkpoint did not belong to the IDF; it was, in fact, a Palestinian checkpoint.

The story of the detention of the TV crew — which, by the way, belonged to Al-Jazeera and the erasure of the footage did not make it to the mainstream media even after Reporters Without Borders, an organization that defends journalists worldwide, issued a statement strongly condemning the assault on the freedom of the media.

"Journalists must be able to work freely," Reporters Without Borders said. "The erasure of this video footage proves that the Palestinian security forces try to cover up their human rights violations. This incident should be the subject of an enquiry by the Palestinian Authority."

Walid Omari, the head of the Qatar-based satellite TV station's operations in the West Bank, told Reporters Without Borders that his crew was preparing a report on the death of a detainee at the Palestinian Authority detention center in Hebron that might have been the result of torture.

"We were the only ones to investigate this case and we did it despite strong pressure from the Palestinian Authority," Omari said.

Al Jazeera's Hebron correspondent went with a cameraman to the victim's home in the village of Dura, where they interviewed the family and filmed the body.

As they were returning to Hebron in a vehicle displaying the word "Press," they were detained by Palestinian Authority security forces at a checkpoint and taken to a police station, where the video footage they had just recorded was erased. They were allowed to go after an hour.

One can only imagine the international media's reaction had the TV crew been detained by Israeli security forces. Anti-Israel groups and individuals would have cited the incident as further proof of the "occupation's brutal measures" against the freedom of the media.

Moreover, it is highly likely that Israeli human rights organizations like Betselem would have dispatched researchers to the field to investigate the incident had IDF soldiers been involved.

Yet foreign journalists and human rights activists working in Israel and the Palestinian territories either chose to ignore the story or never heard about it simply because it was lacking in an anti-Israel angle.

One can also imagine how the media and human rights organizations would have reacted had a Palestinian died in Israeli prison after allegedly being tortured.

Haitham Amr, a male nurse, was detained by the Palestinian Authority's US-backed and trained General Intelligence Force on suspicion of being affiliated with Hamas. He was one of more than 700 Palestinians who are being held without trial in West Bank prisons that are run by security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

These security forces, which are being referred to by many Palestinians as the Dayton Forces [a reference to ret. US general and security coordinator Keith Dayton], claimed that Amr was killed after he jumped from the second floor of a building where he was being held in Hebron. The family and human rights organizations insist that Amr died as a result of severe torture.

If the Palestinian Authority really had nothing to fear, why did it send its police officers to detain the TV crew and confiscate the tape? Is the Palestinian Authority trying to hide something?

True, Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salaam Fayad hold more moderate views than Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal.

But Abbas and Fayad do not enjoy enough credibility among their own people, largely due to their open ties with Israel and the West. The security and financial support that the Americans and Europeans are giving to the Palestinian Authority is nothing but a bear hug.

That is perhaps why they chose to ignore the story about the male nurse whose family says was tortured to death by security officers who receive their salaries from US and European taxpayers' money.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Saul Goldman, June 26, 2009.

The issue is not our right to build settlements in the West Bank. The issue is that the Palestinians, after having not only rejected the UN Partition Plan and having tried to beat up on one of the partners to this contract, now come back and demand the original terms to an agreement that they rejected. I would imagine that any reasonable person would say that there is now a new deal on the table if they are serious about peace.

Rabin's understanding of Oslo even Olmert's understanding of a two state solution that is negotiated between partners to a diplomatic deal is not what Obama is about. It seems that his "demands" are not only shrill and antagonistic but "imperial" in that he chooses to ignore the facts that two parties must negotiate in civility.

And by ignoring these principles, he clearly sides with people who in their education, culture and propoganda prepare their children for continued hate crimes. Until then Netanyahu has every right to expand settlements in order to show the Palestinians the penalty for not engaging in peaceful negotiations.

Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 26, 2009.

Now let's see how they manipulate this one.

Very Interesting questions

More questions, and this time some good questions.

Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:

What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.  

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.


When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter,the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008.

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this and go into your cocoon.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by CPocerl, June 26, 2009.

This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared in the New Media Journal


Iranian anti-regime activists are hoping for an Israeli technological hand to help them fight the Islamic Republic. As of now, hundreds of protesters have been killed by the regime, which is evidently using Arabic-speaking armed thugs from Hezbollah to help perpetrate the violence.

"Dear Israeli Brothers and Sisters," writes Iranian dissident Arash Irandoost, "Iran needs your help more than ever now. And we will be eternally grateful. Please help opposition television and radio stations which are blocked and being jammed by the Islamic Republic (Nokia and Siemens) resume broadcast to Iran. There is a total media blackout and Iranians inside Iran for the most part are not aware of their brave brothers and sisters fighting and losing their lives daily. And the unjust treatment and brutal massacre of the brave Iranians in the hands of the mullah's paid terrorist Hamas and Hezbollah gangs are not seen by the majority of the Iranians. Please help in any way you can to allow these stations resume broadcasting to Iran. "And, please remember that we will remember, as you have remembered Cyrus the Great's treatment of you in your time of need," Irandoost concludes, signing his blogged call for help "Your Iranian Brothers and Sisters!"

In an interview with Israel National News, Iranian expatriate pro-democracy activist Amil Imani said that Irandoost's message represents the sentiments of much of the youth in the streets in Iran. They have a strong belief in the technological know-how of the Israelis to overcome the Iranian regime's attempts to block communications. "This is going to be the most massive, impressive revolution of the 21st century," Imani said, "and we're seeing it live." However, he added, it is now too dependent on Internet communications, so the protesters are very much in need of outside assistance to fight the technological and information war. More generally, Imani said, the Iranian people are lionizing any leader of any nation who comes out strongly against the Islamic Republic at this time.

Contact C Pocerl by email at at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, June 26, 2009.

This was written by Charles Krauthammer. Contact him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com


Obama the Humble declares there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."

An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone — Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."

What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them — not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns — even before negotiations.

To what end? Over the last decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements — and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.

That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why turn towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?

This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the last decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 — and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a President who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations.

The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. It's farcical to suggest that the peace process is moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren — when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert's peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode — waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave — before he'll do anything to advance peace.

In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations — Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1947, Yasser Arafat in 2000, Abbas in December 2008 — rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders — Fatah and Hamas alike — built no schools, no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, no institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 26, 2009.


Palestinian Authority (P.A.) police raided the house of a Hamas suspect. The suspect's wife said they broke in without warning, whereas Israeli forces ask, first. The P.A. police were reckless, even damaging a Koran, whereas Israeli forces try not to damage personal possessions. She said the Israelis are more polite
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/6).

The woman's honest opinion contrasts with UN views on Israeli behavior in Gaza, as you can find if you click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d12-UN-investigating-war-crimes-in-Gaza

Israel is a tolerant society. Muslim Arab society is undergoing some modernization but still is based largely on primitive oppression, intolerance, deception, sexual neurosis, the shame-honor neurosis, and on imperialism and brutality emphasized by Radical Islam: female circumcision, beheading, amputation, stoning, and other capital punishment including "honor killing" for minor refraction. Their famous charm and hospitality does not compensate.


A dozen al-Qaeda terrorists tried to cross from Gaza into Israel. They had horses laden with explosives and booby-trapped cars. They fired mortars as if hoping to divert IDF forces from infiltrators to searching for mortar launchers. The Israelis injured some of the terrorists and closed off the crossing into Israel.

Hamas gets credit for reducing its firing of rockets, but it is building better rockets and it has increased attempted infiltration (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/8). Israel gets blamed for closing the crossings.

To see a solution to infiltration, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d18-Checkpoints-protect-civilans-from-terrorism


President Obama asked both the Palestinian Authority and Israel to negotiate with each other. Netanyahu agreed unconditionally. Abbas refused unless Israel first agrees to P.A. statehood and to stop building in
Judea-Samaria http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/8).

Draw your own conclusion about who wants peace and who deals honestly.


On May 18, Ben-Gurion University held a day-long conference on academic freedom and responsibility. Of the many speakers, only one seemed a non-leftist. [What does that indicate about the state of academic freedom there?]

The near-consensus was that professors have a right to promote their views and hire instructors not for their qualifications but for their ideology, while critics do not have a right to monitor this and question whether such behavior and the results fulfill the University's function. If instruction is based on opinions and not scholarship, what is its value, why should it be left unmonitored or allowed, and why grant professors tenure and not rotate their jobs among office clerks?

The conference view was that leftist professors may seek, without standards of scholarship, to indoctrinate students against Jewish sovereignty, without private and public underwriters of universities being informed of it. Thus the conference did not take up academic freedom, it advocated academic irresponsibility.

Two billion dollars a year is spent on higher education in Israel. No transparency allowed? Conference sentiment opposed public effort against mismanagement of funds reported by the State Comptroller.

Why should donors to what they think are Zionist universities not know that their money really supports anti-Zionism? The conferees tried to evade this issue, making the conference self-serving. Exposes of anti-Israel academic abuse has caused donors to reduce contributions to Ben-Gurion University.

[Unlike Israeli universities, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. are "...managed by boards of governors, not by their faculty. The governors have fostered world-class excellence by insisting that funds be used efficiently to attract the most talented scholars in every field, and dictating the ruthless weeding out of the merely competent. However, there was no place at the conference table for this point of view."

Most Israeli university social studies departments pursue the agenda of Israel's post-Zionists: They seek to persuade "Jewish Israelis that their own state and nationalism are illegitimate." [Like the NY Times, they don't present the facts, they seek to mold public opinion.]

Prof. Neve Gordon added silliness to malevolence. He contended that Israel lacks academic freedom, because the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) lacks academic freedom, because the IDF closed some of its colleges for promoting terrorism. Is terrorism protected by academic freedom? What has academic freedom in the P.A. to do with academic freedom in Israel? [When P.A. colleges are open, what would happen to students to denounced terrorism and upheld peace? They'd need life insurance. They don't have academic freedom, because they have a religious dictatorship.]

Finally, the noted Prof. Amnon Rubinstein set some realistic standards for what academic freedom should not cover: (1) Activities that harm the institution, such as its boycott; (2) Activity to harm the country, such as its boycott and divestment; and (3) Hate propaganda based on historical falsification.

In a slap at the other conferees, Prof. Rubinstein suggested a university duty to harbor a diversity of opinion (Dr. Yitzchak Klein, www.isracampus.org). That would be a worthy goal for American universities focused only on ethnic diversity.

Students have a right to an objective education and to know what quality of education is being offered.

Monitoring could go too far. It hasn't there. What has gone too far is the enthronement of non-factual, anti-Zionist, ideological indoctrination. I see two levels in this controversy: (1) Instruction should be based on the facts, so students are informed enough to reach their own conclusions; and (2) Diverse opinion may then follow but not be imposed. Israeli ideologues ignore the facts, just give opinion, and their opinions reflect almost no diversity.

The modern world is too dangerous militarily and financially for a country to allow education to be entire subjective and monopolized by one view, a subversive one at that.

For more on freedom to discuss the Arab-Israel conflict, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d18-Israel-curbs-free-discussion-of-ArabIsrael-conflict

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, June 26, 2009.

The U.S. State Department had a tough time this week explaining to a reporter why the Obama administration is talking with Israel about the creation of a Palestinian Authority state instead of letting the two parties themselves negotiate.

A journalist asked spokesman Philip Crowley, "The problem here is that it seems to be that the negotiation that's going on is between the United States and Israel.... The U.S. and Israel are friends and allies and there isn't a — there is no need for a peace deal between — the need here is for a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, not for an agreement between the U.S. and Israel over settlements. Is that correct?"

Crowley tried to explain that one of the first priorities of U.S. President Barack Obama since he took office has been to advance the peace process.

In answer to persistent questioning over the issue of an agreement on construction in Judea and Samaria being worked out between Israel and the PA and not the U.S., he relied, "Our interest is to facilitate the parties to restart a negotiation that leads to a comprehensive agreement. Again, as [U.S. Middle East envo George Mitchell said, we want to get back into a formal negotiation. And we are working hard right now to create the conditions that would allow that to happen. We recognize that positions held by Israel today and positions held by the Palestinians today may be at odds."

Mitchell and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cancelled their planned meeting in Paris this week in order "to clarify" the issue of building for Jews in Judea and Samaria. The State Department also told a reporter this week that the building freeze desired by President Obama also applies to large Jewish neighborhoods near the heart of the capital.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is to meet with Mitchell next week, and Thursday's announcement by the IDF, which is halting counterterrorist operations in four major PA cities, is considered a move to appease the Obama administration.

This article appeared today in Arutz-7 (www.IsrealNationalNews,com)

To Go To Top

Posted by Sultan Knish, June 25, 2009.

When Hitler wanted to carve up Czechoslovakia he began by demanding the Sudetenland, inhabited by the Volksdeutsche, ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia. The world thought this was entirely reasonable and Czechoslovakia was forced to give in. Of course Hitler did not simply want the Sudetenland, anymore than he simply wanted the Rhineland. He was after a much vaster program of conquest.

By coining the term "Volksdeutsche" Hitler created an artificial identity for large numbers of Czechs, Poles and citizens of other Eastern European nations. He used that identity to create regional fifth columns that engaged in terrorism and then used them as justification to invade and seize other nations. Only by the time his ambitions reached Poland did Western Europe wake up to realize what their appeasement toward Nazi Germany had wrought.

By the time it was all over nearly 80 million were dead, a continent lay in ruins, Eastern Europe was in the hands of the Communists and Western Europe's Great Powers would never come into their own again.

"Palestine" like Volksdeutsche is an artificial identity created in order to maintain a fifth column and use them to conduct a proxy war against Israel, by the same Arab Muslim powers who had tried and fail to defeat Israel on the battlefield.

The tactic of course long predates and postdates Hitler. Alexander the Great made use of it in his conquests. The Russians used it only last year when they wanted to invade Georgia. But in the post-WW2 era it has most effectively been employed against Israel.

The absurdity of taking a Greco-Roman name for the region and trying to turn it into two things it never was, a nation and an ethnic identity, would have been inconceivable without heavy backing from both the Soviet Union and Western liberals. But by painting the genocidal urge of both Arab Marxists and Islamists as a drive to liberate "Palestine", the proxy war by Arab terrorists backed by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and more recently by Iran, was successfully repackaged by an oppressed people to liberate a land that never existed.

As "Volksdeutsche" gave Hitler the right to carve up and eventually annex Czechoslovakia, "Palestine" has given the Muslim world and assorted leftists the right to carve up and destroy Israel under the pretext of aiding the "Palestinian People."

In 1937, Awni Abd al-Hadi told the Peel Commission stating, "Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.... Our country for centuries was part of Syria,"

As late as 1980 the Jordanian Prime Minister stated, "The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture."

In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, head of the second largest militia within the PLO and once considered a potential successor to Arafat, stated the premise of the proxy war quite frankly;

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Arafat himself expressed the same basic idea in his infamous U.N. speech in 1988, saying, "The State of Palestine is an Arab State; its people are an integral Part of the Arab nation."

Hamas' Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahour repeated it in an Economist interview in 2008;

He certainly would not now "accept the reality" of Israel, as some of his senior colleagues have hinted. It may, instead, become "an eternal issue", he says, looking ahead to a distant future when, "like your European Union", the Arab nation will form one state across its historic lands, joining up with other Muslim nations such as Turkey. "We [Palestinians] were never an independent state in history," he notes. "We were part of an Arab state and an Islamic state."

That "Great Arab State" or "Great Islamic State", or Caliphate, has always been the endgame. Palestine is to the Caliphate, what the Sudetenland was to Hitler's Thousand Year Reich.

Israel is a stubborn little non-Arab non-Muslim state that stands in the way of the great dream of the Caliphate, a vast Muslim empire stretching across the Middle East into Turkey, Asia and even the heartland of Europe itself.

The fury directed at Israel from the Muslim world is in direction proportion to Israel's obstruction of this messianic vision of an Islamic Arab ruled Ummah stretching across the entire globe and fulfilling the vision of Mohammed.

It was never about "Palestinian rights", because not only is there no Palestinian people, but the refugee camps were themselves created by the Arab world as a first stage for the proxy war.

They began by alternately luring and badgering Arabs out of Israel during the War of Independence, for example;

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."
The Economist, October 2, 1948

And naturally as renegades they would have been treated the same as the Jews, or perhaps even worse, during what was then seen as the "inevitable conquest" of Israel by the neighboring Arab states. At the very least that would mean the loss of property and land. At most it would mean outright massacre.

Once out they became refugees, kept in camps, and maintained as displaced persons, to serve as fodder for both terrorist recruitment and world outrage against Israel. As succinctly stated by UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway in 1958, "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die."

After two lost wars, the "open sore" was transformed into a new Palestinian nation that had never existed but was being suppressed by Israel. Palestinian Terrorism became global, as part of a proxy war conducted by Arab states against Israel, itself part of a proxy war being conducted by the USSR against the West. With the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has shed its Arab Marxist colors in favor of Arab Islamist ones, replacing Fatah, once backed by Arab Socialist regimes in Egypt, Syria and Iraq, in favor of Hamas, backed by Islamist regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Two State solution is the Sudetenland solution, carving up Israel and creating a sovereign and legally independent terrorist regime at war with Israel... inside Israel. With weapons flowing from around the Middle East and Pakistan through open borders, the real job of destroying Israel will finally begin.

Supporting the Two State solution means quite simply supporting the endgame of the proxy war against Israel. The solution has nothing to do with Palestinian rights or stabilizing the Middle East. There is no "tough love" in it, as Obama insists, or love of any kind. It is simply the final phase in the destruction of Israel, which itself is only one phase in the creation of a global Islamic empire.

Advocating the Two State solution means advocating genocide and ethnic cleansing. It means destroying the Middle East's only democracy to make way for a monstrosity that would be the worst of the Taliban writ large across the region and the globe. It means stoning, amputation and a thousand uncounted brutalities. And most of all it brings WWIII or a global clash of civilizations that much closer.

There are two kinds of people who support the Two State Solution. Those who know what they support and those who do not.

This article is archived at
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/06/ two-state-solution-is-victory-for-proxy.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 25, 2009.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in the Jewish Press

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com


Have American Jews abandoned Israel in favor of President Obama? This is a central question in the minds of Israelis today.

In a poll of Israeli Jews conducted in mid-June by the Jerusalem Post, a mere 6 percent of respondents said they view Obama as pro-Israel. In stark contrast, a Gallup tracking poll in early May showed that 79 percent of American Jews support the president.

These numbers seem to tell us that U.S. Jews have indeed parted company with the Jewish state.

No American president has ever been viewed as similarly ill disposed toward Israel by Israelis. With only 6 percent seeing the administration as friendly, it is apparent that distrust of Obama is not a partisan issue in Israel. It spans the spectrum from far left to right, from ultra-Orthodox to ultra-secular. But with his 79-percent approval rating among U.S. Jews, it is clear the American Jewish community is quite sympathetically inclined toward Obama.

Appearances of course can be deceptive. And it is worth taking a closer look at the numbers to understand what they tell us about American Jewish sentiments regarding Obama and Israel. First, however, we should consider what it is about Obama that makes nearly all Israeli Jews view him as an adversary.

The Jerusalem Post poll showed a massive divergence between Israeli Jews and Obama on the issue of Jewish building beyond the 1949 armistice line. The Obama administration has refused to budge in its hard-line demand that Israel end all Jewish building in north, south, and east Jerusalem as well as in Judea and Samaria.

For its part, the Netanyahu government has refused to bow to this demand. Seventy percent of Israeli Jews support the Netanyahu government's handling of the issue with the Obama administration and 69 percent oppose a freeze on Jewish building.

Beyond Obama's agitation on the issue of Jewish construction, Israelis are dismayed by what they perceive as the generally hostile approach he has adopted in dealing with the Jewish state. This approach was nowhere more in evidence than in his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo on June 4.

It wasn't just Obama's comparison of Palestinian terrorism to the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, the American civil rights movement and antebellum slave rebellions that set people off. There was also Obama's inference that Israel owes its legitimacy to the Holocaust.

It is that claim — Obama repeated it during his visit to Buchenwald — which forms the basis of the Islamic narrative against Israel. It argues that Jews are not indigenous to the Middle East, and that the only thing keeping Israel in place is European guilt about Auschwitz. Not only do Israelis of all political stripes reject this as factually false, they recognize it is inherently anti-Semitic because it ignores and negates 3,500 years of Jewish history in the land of Israel.

With Israeli distrust of Obama so apparent, and so easily explained, two questions arise: How has Obama managed to maintain American Jewish support despite his unprecedented unpopularity in Israel? And what is the likelihood that when push comes to shove, American Jews will stand with Israel against the president they so admire?

Obama's great success in maintaining support among American Jews owes much to the fact that most American Jews do not pick up the same messages from Obama's statements as do Israeli Jews. Whereas Israeli Jews recognize that it is morally obscene, strategically suicidal and historically inaccurate to suggest that Israel has no rights to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and that Jews have no right to live there, American Jews do not intuitively understand this to be the case. Consequently, while Israeli Jews recognize Obama's calls for a total freeze in Jewish construction in these areas as inherently hostile, most American Jews do not.

Beyond this, for the past 15 years, Holocaust education — more so than Zionist education or Jewish religious education — has become the hallmark of American Jewish identity. As a consequence, American Jews may not see anything objectionable in Obama's inference that Israel owes its existence to the Holocaust.

If the divergence in U.S. Jewish and Israeli attitudes toward Obama is simply a consequence of a lack of American Jewish awareness of the significance of Obama's positions and policies for Israel, then the disparity in views can be easily remedied by a sustained issues awareness campaign by Israel and by American Jewish organizations. For many of Israel's core American Jewish supporters, such a campaign would no doubt go a long way in energizing them to challenge the administration on its positions vis-à-vis Israel.

But there are other factors at work. According to the American Jewish Committee's 2008 survey of American Jews, some 67 percent of American Jews feel close to Israel. These numbers, while high, are not significantly higher than similar support levels among the general U.S. population. (A survey of general American sentiment toward Israel conducted this month by the Israel Project shows that support for Israel has dropped by 20 percent in the past nine months — from 69 to 49 percent. Presumably, Jewish American support for Israel has also experienced a drop.)

More significantly, the AJC survey showed that in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential elections, only three percent of American Jews said a candidate's position on Israel was the most important issue for them. Indeed, according to survey after survey of American Jewish opinion over the past decade, U.S. Jewish support for Israel, while widespread, is not particularly deep. This sentiment lends to the conclusion that American Jews will not abandon or temper their support for Obama simply because he is perceived as being hostile to Israel.

The picture, then, is a mixed bag. Support for Israel against Obama will likely rise as a consequence of a sustained educational campaign among American Jews about the issues in dispute and their importance for Israel's security and national well-being. But even in that event, it is unclear how dramatic the shift would be. Given the shallowness of U.S. Jewish support for Israel, no doubt many American Jews will not care enough to reassess their positions on either Israel or Obama.

The one bit of encouraging news in all this is the persistence of support for Israel relative to Palestinians among rank and file Americans. Palestinians are supported by a mere five percent of Americans.

No doubt it is this disparity that is motivating leading Democratic politicians — most recently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Senator Robert Menendez from New Jersey — to publicly distance themselves from the administration's Mideast policies.

If U.S. Jewish leaders and pro-Israel activists can educate just a fraction of the American Jewish community, and motivate them to stand with Israel in a significant way against administration pressure, this will likely motivate still more lawmakers and politicians from both parties to maintain support for Israel against the administration. Certainly it will help convince Israelis we haven't been abandoned by American Jewry. And that in itself would be no mean achievement.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, June 25, 2009.

This comes from Memri and is archived as No.# 2420 at


A recent thread on the Al-Falluja jihadist forum discussed the case of whether a Muslim who has nothing else to eat may kill an infidel in order to eat him. The discussion was prompted by a recently published book by Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, one of the most influential jihadist sheikhs active today.

The following is a summary of the discussion thread. The full text of this report is available to subscribers. Contact www.memri.org for information.

On June 13, 2009, a member of the Al-Falluja forum who uses the moniker "Al-Maqdisi's Student" wrote a post based on this passage [in full report] titled "Is it permitted to eat the flesh of American soldiers? A quote from the illustrious Sheikh Al-Maqdisi, may Allah preserve him." He began by recounting an exchange between the early Muslim commander Khalid b. Al-Walid and the Byzantine commander at the battle of Yarmuk (in the year 636 C.E.) The Byzantine commander said to Khalid that the Muslims had only gone out from their land due to hunger, and offered to buy them off. Khalid responded: "It was not hunger that drove us out of our land, as you say; we are a people who drink blood, and we know that there is no blood more delicious than Byzantine blood. That is why we came."

"Al-Maqdisi's Student" then cites the aforementioned passage from Al-Maqdisi's Beginner's Guide [in full report], and follows up with the words: "The mujahideen should inform their belligerent [infidel] and apostate enemies of this exceptional law so that they can bring it up and study it at their conferences on human rights, counterterrorism, and so on! Then they in turn can proclaim that our soldiers lick their lips [at the thought of] eating the flesh of their hamburger- and Pepsi-eating soldiers!"

"If We... Eat Americans, Let's Make Them Into A Gunpowder-Flavored Kabsa With Some Hors D'oeuvres Made Of Apostates"

Most of the numerous responses to the post were off-topic. Some responses, however, did take up the flesh-eating issue. "Abu Hajir Al-Muqrin" wrote: "If we are forced to eat Americans, let's make them into a gunpowder-flavored kabsa with some hors d'oeuvres made of apostates."

"Muhammad Al-Baghdadi" wrote: "But the slaughtering needs to be according to the shari'a. He then wrote "perhaps this is the best way" above stills from the Nick Berg decapitation video.

"Al-Maqdisi's Student" weighed in again towards the end of the thread and wrote: "A true story: a group of mujahideen from one of the brigades was in the mountains during the jihad against the Russians. One of them was sent off on a mission; he went and came back, but he couldn't find any of the brothers. He saw a roasted calf leg that the brothers in the brigade left for him for dinner, and he ate of it until he was full. When he went back to the main camp, the brothers saw him and offered him dinner! He said: praise Allah, I already ate! They said: Where did you find dinner? He said: You left me roasted calf leg! They said: No, no, that wasn't calf, that was the leg of a Russian infidel! He answered: No matter, it's all Islamic slaughter! (smile)"

Contact C Pocerl by email at at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 25, 2009.

It is now three years since Gilad Shalit was grabbed by terrorists who had tunneled under the fence at the border of Gaza.

He is presumed alive, but Hamas, which is holding him, has not permitted visits by the International Red Cross, as prescribed by international law — and a Hamas spokesman is now saying nothing is assured but Israel has to do an exchange in any event. A letter from his parents was sent to him via Jimmy Carter, who met with Hamas officials very recently; a return letter is awaited.

PM Netanyahu and DM Barak have both pledged to devote themselves to the effort to secure the release of Shalit. At the beginning of June, Netanyahu appointed former senior Mossad operative Haggai Hadas as the new envoy to take over indirect Shalit negotiations with Hamas.

In the vast few days there have been rumors flying regarding an imminent deal; the original source for this was the Palestinian Maan news agency — which said Shalit was about to be turned over to the Egyptians, as a first step in a negotiated release. Our government is denying this.

I confess a bewilderment as to what, precisely, the Netanyahu government could (or would) do, that would satisfy Hamas, when Olmert's readiness to release even some Hamas prisoners with blood on their hands (not all) was not enough. But I am not privy to inner negotiations and have no guess as to what other factors might be involved.

The Jerusalem Post is calling for an investigation of why, in the last three years, we have not mounted a serious effort to rescue him.


We are continuing to see a tremendously schizoid situation with regard to the relationship between Hamas and Fatah (the PA).

There is still talk, however diminishing, of working towards a unity government. Khaled Abu Toameh has reported that the PA said this week that they would release hundreds of Hamas detainees as a gesture towards reconciliation with Hamas.

But it was only two weeks ago that PA police arrested 36 members of Hamas in what was seen as an action that further deteriorated Hamas-Fatah relations.

And it was just yesterday that Palestinians from the area of Kalkilyia in Samaria told the US radio network NPR that there was PA fear of a Hamas coup in Judea and Samaria similar to the one that had taken place in Gaza two years ago. Said Fatah representative Ahmed Shreen:

"The Hamas leadership wants to take over [Judea and Samaria] and the proof is that they [PA police] have discovered large weapons cache right here in Kalkilyia in Hamas areas. What I am worried about is that while we are talking in Cairo, Hamas will be planning the coup."


On Tuesday, Israel released Abdel Aziz Dweik, the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, from prison — where he had been since Hamas's abduction of Shalit. Dweik is affiliated with Hamas, which was victorious in the last legislative elections in the PA. There was speculation that this was evidence of a coming deal with Hamas on Shalit, but authorities claimed, no, that it's just that his term was almost up. (Why release him even a day early?)

At any rate, Hamas is now saying that Dweik should be acting president of the PA. I've been wondering what took so long here. If you remember, Hamas claimed that Abbas, who had completed a four-year term as president in January — four years being the term specified by the PA constitution — no longer legally held the office. Abbas claimed that the president and legislature — also according to the PA constitution — are supposed to be elected together, and as he began a year early because of Arafat's death, he had a year to go. Now, with Dweik — who as speaker of the parliament is next in line — out of jail, Hamas is doing a more direct challenge.

This is a further indication that "reconciliation" is not on the way.


A statement today by Hamas politburo head in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal, sheds further light on the current Hamas-Fatah dynamics and the role being played by the US. He praises Obama's "new language" towards Hamas: "It is the first step in the right direction toward a dialogue without conditions, and we welcome this."

In any event this shouldn't surprise us, but especially now that we know Carter met with State Department personnel before meeting with Hamas is this not unexpected.

However, said Mashaal, this is not enough. What the US must do is pull out General Dayton, who is in charge of training PA forces in Judea and Samaria — presumably to take out Hamas terrorists. This, explained Mashaal, is counterproductive to reconciliation efforts. One would think so.


We heard from Dov Weissglas — who was chief of the prime minister's office for Ariel Sharon — recently, with regard to the fact that there was an understanding between the US and Israel that permitted development for natural growth inside existing settlements.

Now Elliot Abrams, who was in charge of Mid-Eastern Affairs for the US National Security Council during the period in question, and was involved directly in meetings with Weissglas, has written a piece in the Wall Street Journal, "Hillary is Wrong About the Settlements."

Says Abrams, in return for his pulling out of Gaza completely, as well as from four communities in northern Samaria, the US worked out an understanding on the issue of settlements with Sharon that:

"There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line (of any given existing settlement), no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements.

"...those four principles...emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.

"They were not secret, either...

"In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that 'in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility.'

"These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation...

"Mrs. Clinton also said there were no 'enforceable' agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?

"Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange...

"For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist."
(Thanks Gordon P.)


PM Netanyahu, in Paris, was subjected to a good deal of pressure by French President Sarkozy with regard to the settlements. I just love the way the Europeans (as did Obama) make declarations about how they are solidly supportive of our right to security, and then proceed to push a situation that threatens our security.

Netanyahu was supposed to meet with US envoy Mitchell in Paris, to discuss the settlement issue, but the meeting was called off, apparently mutually. They are not ready to talk yet.


Herb Keinon, in the Post, has offered a cogent analysis of what Obama is achieving, or failing to achieve, by his adamant insistence on a total freeze on building in settlements.

On the one hand, quite simply, Obama may be doing this to garner credibility with the Arab world. This may not be palatable to us (in fact, seems enormously inequitable), but it makes sense as a strategy.

However, if Obama's goal is to foster movement in "peace negotiations," what he is doing is severely counterproductive. By making negotiations dependent upon something Netanyahu cannot and will not deliver, he has effectively forestalled the possibility of negotiations.

Keinon points out that Abbas doesn't really want to negotiate with Netanyahu anyway. What Obama has done is given him the excuse to not do so.


From my perspective, of course, while there is no reason or justice in making us and not the PA the stumbling block, a situation of no negotiations sits just fine indeed. And so Obama may, very inadvertently, be doing us a favor.


Interestingly, Shaul Behr, in his blog, has expressed a similar thought. Better not a friend in Washington, he reasons. For then there are no illusions, "and no need to pander."

"Obama has truly surpassed all my expectations for alienating Israelis. It really is amazing how he has swung Israeli public opinion since his inauguration: when he started out he had 31% of Israelis thinking he was pro-Israel, versus 14% who felt he was pro-Arab, and 40% felt he was neutral. The latest opinion polls have only 6% still thinking he's pro-Israel, 36% neutral, and fully 50% now feel he's pro-Arab. You gotta hand it to the guy — that is really amazing work. Not only has he debased himself by groveling in front of the Muslim world with his cringing apologetics in Cairo, but he has succeeded in completely alienating Israelis to the extent that only 6% of us feel that he's on our side!

"To me, this is very good news. He now has absolutely no leverage to extract any more stupid unilateral concessions out of us."


I recommend "A call for American boldness in Iran," by Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184910769&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


"The Good News Corner"

This is a special piece of good news for me as it involves a personal connection.

Three of my granddaughters in Beit Shemesh attend Orot Banot — a religious nationalist school for girls that runs through sixth grade. Yesterday, I attended the graduation of the eldest, Rachel, which was held right here in Jerusalem.

School graduations in Israel tend to be elaborate programs, with dramatic and musical elements — and this was no exception.

Part of what was offered for guests was a dance sequence by the girls. As it happens, one of the girls in the class, Chen, is in a wheelchair. She was brought out on stage and placed in the very center. In her hands was a hoop that had streamers attached, and as the girls danced around her she waved the hoop high — essentially the star of the routine.

My daughter than told me about the annual class trip. Tiyulim (trips of various sorts — including some extended, in outdoor areas) are routine for Israeli schools, and it is traditional to do one at the end of the year. Chen was brought along in her wheelchair. But there was some hiking done in terrain where the wheelchair could not be managed. And so the school had hired two men to carry Chen on a stretcher, so that she would not be left out.

Lastly, this: Various girls were given solo speaking parts to introduce segments of the program, and so forth. Rachel had such a part. So did Chen, brought to sit next to the podium with a teacher at her side. She struggled a bit in speaking her part and when it was over and she was being wheeled off the stage, she burst into tears. Then I saw girls from the sidelines rush to be with her, embrace her, and comfort her.

Does it get better than this? A source of great pride.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jake Levi, June 25, 2009.


  1. Prime Minister Netanyahu has agreed to establish a terrorist state on territories belonging to Eretz Yisroel.

  2. The government that he heads, continues to destroy yishuvim (settlements) throughout the Holy Land, and forbids construction in the Yehuda and Shomron region. The Arabs, however, are building everywhere on Jewish lands, without permits.

  3. The IDF removes roadblocks set up to prevent terrorist activity, thereby endangering the lives of tens of thousands of residents.

  4. The destruction of yishuvim and the expulsion of their residents is carried out brutally and wickedly, abusing young children. The Shvut Ami settlement was destroyed with mass desecration of the holy days of Shabbos and Shavuos.

  5. The above activities strengthen the enemy's stance, prefacing the uprooting of Jews from Yesha, and are a terrible existential danger to the Jews in Eretz Yisroel . The Israeli government thus disgraces Hashem's name in public, and serves as the operational agents of our worst enemies, and a groveling slave of Mr. Hussein Obama .

  6. The government uses IDF soldiers to destroy settlements and uproot their residents. A most alarming situation ensues: Jewish soldiers inducted into the army for the sole purpose of protecting Jews, find themselves on the enemy's line fighting against their own brothers and homeland. Experience has proven that as a result, the IDF has lost its battles.

  7. . Dozens of religious ministers and Members of the Knesset are partners in these acts of betrayal by remaining silent, as they are bribed by their membership in the coalition.

Therefore, we rule, with the power of our Holy Torah, as follows:

  1. Neither the President of the United States nor any other Heads of State, may steal the Holy Land from the Jewish Nation, that was given to us from Hashem (G-d), as is specified in the Torah. Pressure on the Jews may bring about harsh punishment upon those nations, as we have seen in the past.

  2. The Israeli government's decision to destroy yishuvim and uproot residents is an out and out declaration of war against Hashem. Such a government has no right to exist in Eretz Yisroel, and it is forbidden to be a part of it.

  3. It is not feasible that a soldier or policeman should have to fulfill an illegal command-namely destroying yishuvim and expelling residents. They must understand that there is a Judge, and justice will be done. We warn that those who expel and destroy will not be exempt, not in this world, and not in the World to Come. Hashem's commands are second to none.

  4. Soldiers being inducted into the IDF, should demand a written promise that they will not be called upon to participate in any activities connected to the uprooting and destroying of settlements. This declaration should be inserted into the soldiers personal army file.

  5. We encourage the wonderful youth and their leaders to continue going out to the hilltops of Yehuda, Shomron and Binyamin, and hold onto the expanses of our Holy Land . You sacrifice yourselves in order to rebuild the ruins. Hashem is with you; your spirit is strong and eternal, more than any president of Prime Minister.

  6. All Jews who love G-d and to whom Eretz Yisroel is dear, must assist those brave Jews that establish outposts. This assistance is threefold: physical, monetary and in spirit. We turn to shul members in Eretz Yisroel and the world over to adopt yishuvim, and make appeals to support them and help them expand. ("SOS-Israel" will coordinate this "adoption" project. Call: 08-8584353)

  7. Each and every resident of Yesha must make an effort to add at least one room to his home as soon as possible. He will thereby be consecrating Hashem's name in public, and making a statement for the entire world to hear: when it comes to issues of Shleimus HaAretz, no one is master over us.

  8. One should put up a large sign proclaiming: "Eretz Yisroel Construction Site — Hashem (G-d) is the King", at the construction site.

  9. "Repentance, prayer and tzedoko (charity) change the evil of the decree". Hashem will send us Moshiach imminently, and he will return the kingdom of the House of David to its former glory, in the true and complete Redemption.

We hereby put our signatures to the above, during the week of Parshas Shlach, with the blessing that "'We should go up at once; for we are well able to overcome it.'

Rabbi Shalom Dov Volpo
"In the name of 'Rabbis for the Land of Israel.'"


Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, June 25, 2009.

President Obama and his advisors pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to avoid intensive contacts with Congress. They claim that such contacts would undermine the Presidency, and would therefore damage US-Israel relations. However, refraining from such contacts would demote Congress into a "Supporting Actor", and thus would be an insult to the American People, to its representatives on Capitol Hill and to the US democracy, which regard Congress as a "Co-Starring Actor." In the long run, it would degrade vital Israeli interests and weaken US-Israel relations.

In 1992, I was told by then Majority Leader, Senator George Mitchell: "Doesn't Israel realize that the US is not a monarchy and that the President is strong but not omnipotent?!" And, in fact it was Congress — and not the President — that stopped US military involvement in Vietnam (Eagleton Amendment), Angola (Clark Amendment), Nicaragua (Boland Amendment), forced the USSR to let the Jews go (Jackson-Vanik Amendment), approved emergency aid to the former USSR (Aspen-Nunn Amendment), toppled the White regime in Pretoria (Anti-Apartheid Act), provided Israel with emergency assistance following the 1991 Gulf War in defiance of Bush/Baker, etc.

Recent Israeli governments have underestimated the power of Congress, as a result of the highlighted global profile of the President. Still, a US President is powerful, but — unlike Israeli Prime Ministers — he is not the chairman of his party and not the leader of his congressional slate. He does not anoint the Speaker, majority leaders and committee chairs. And he does not determine which bills should pass in Congress. The President is one of three arms of government, which are equal in power and independence. He is constrained by the decentralized Federal system, by an effective Separation of Powers and by an elaborate system of checks and balances, which are designed to prevent tyranny. The President initiates and executes policy, but Congress — which is featured in the first article of the US Constitution — possesses the "Power of the Purse" and the authority to change, suspend and initiate policy, prevent senior presidential appointments and add and eliminate government departments and agencies. While the relative presidential weight increases during national security crises, the relative weight of Congress is upgraded during financial crises. The confrontational/defiant nature of the President-Congress relationship, constitute a significant watchdog over US democracy.

Israel's government assumes that the Congressional Democratic majorities provide President Obama with a "free ride." However, Senator Robert Byrd, President Pro-Tempore of the Senate has persisted in quipping at Democratic and Republican presidents: "Legislators are the servants of the Constitution, not the servants of the President." Former Speaker, Democratic House Member Tom Foley, advised President Clinton in 1993 not to take House and Senate Democratic majorities for granted: "We won't be able to support all your ambitious policies, because our political life expectancy (running every two years) is different than yours (running every four years)." Clinton ignored the advice and caused the Democratic Party crash in the November 1994 election. The loyalty of the 535 federal legislators — who represent districts and states more than political parties — is first and foremost to their constituents, to the Separation of Powers and to the independence of the Legislature and only then to the President. Therefore, over 30 Democratic House Members supported the impeachment of Clinton, many Democrats opposed Clinton's free trade initiatives, caused Obama to rescind the appointment of anti-Israel pro-China Chas Freeman, forced Obama to boycott the UN Durbin II Conference and are not automatic supporters of Obama's proposals to close down the Guantanamo jail, to bail out Wall Street and the Detroit car makers, dramatically increase the national debt, etc. As the November 2010 congressional elections approach, and as economic recovery is further delayed, the more dependent Obama becomes on a willing Congress and the more independent and defiant will the legislators become.

In 1891, six years before the First World Zionist Congress, in defiance of the US Department of State, 400 US dignitaries co-led by the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee signed the "Blackstone Memorial," which called for a Jewish national home in the Land of Israel. In 1922, 26 years before the establishment of the Jewish State, The US House and Senate unanimously passed a Joint Resolution, reaffirming congressional support of a Jewish State between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

The enhancement of Israel's critical interests and the demonstration of respect towards the US democracy, behoove Israel's Prime Minister to cultivate ties with Congress — the most authentic representation of the US public, equal in power to the President, a bastion of support for closer US-Israel ties, which appreciates the unique covenant binding the US and the Jewish State: Democracy, shared Judeo-Christian values, mutual regional and global threats and joint strategic interests.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, June 25, 2009.

This was written by Robert Klein Engler and published June 18, 2009 on Chron Watch
(http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1225/ Obama-and-the-Militarys-Moral-Dilemma.html).

Robert Klein Engler lives in Oak Park, Illinois. His book, Contra Obama, is available from Lulu.com.


There is now reasonable doubt that Mr. Obama meets the U.S. Constitution's requirement of "natural born" citizenship. This means that there is also reasonable doubt that he is qualified to be President of the United Sates and commander in chief.

The Kenyan citizenship of his father, the age of his mother, the lack of a [long form] birth certificate, the ambiguous nature of a Certification of Live Birth, the possible forgery of birth documents, the inability of the press to view passport and college records, and even his own statements, all add to the uncertainty many have about Mr. Obama's qualifications to be President.

Even the often quoted "proof" by Janice Okubo only adds more gasoline to the fire of doubt. She said: "Therefore, I as director of health for the State of Hawaii, along with the registrar of vital statistics ...have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record..." Notice that she does not say that this document proves that Mr. Obama was BORN in "Hawaii."

Until proof of U.S. citizenship is presented beyond a reasonable doubt, it is reasonable to say that Mr. Obama is probably a usurper to the office of President. Yet, for many Americans, this is irrelevant. They believe that holding the office is proof that one is qualified for the office.

Even if the Supreme Court declared upon the examination of the evidence that Obama does not meet the Constitution's qualifications to be President, what can be done? The chief justice of the court is not going to the Oval Office with a broom and sweep it clean.

The same can be said for many other American institutions. The people have voted. The man is popular. What Constitution? We prefer the thrill up our leg. These are some of the arguments put forward to support the current regime.

The Military and the Constitution

There is one American institution, however, that has a moral responsibility to support the U.S. Constitution. That institution is the U.S. military. The Constitution is the bedrock upon which military order and discipline is founded.

Colonel Anthony E. Hartle claims in his book ''Moral Issues in Military Decision Making,'' that "When military members pledge to the support and defense of the Constitution, they commit themselves, by logical extension, to the principles and values that form the basis of its provisions."

In their paper, ''Divided Loyalties: Civil-Military Relations at Risk,'' DiSilverio and Laushine write: "The commissioning of military officers is another source of legal support for the Constitution as the primary legitimate authority."

"The commission from the Commander-in-Chief states, 'this officer is to observe and follow such orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by me, or by the future President of the United States of America.'"

DiSilverio and Laushine continue: "The requirement to follow orders also applies to those officers appointed over the subject officer. As Anthony Hartle contends, the fundamental law of the United States is the Constitution, and the commission confirms the supremacy of the Constitution..."

"Hartle goes on to say that if a President were to issue an unlawful order, military officers would be obligated to disobey it, and that this obligation derives its moral basis in the commissioning oath." This same obligation to disobey also holds against an order issued by an unlawful or usurper President.

Add to this, all entering the U.S. military take the following oath: "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States..."

The writer of the ''Natural Born Presidency Blog'' reminds us that, "Military personnel are subject to a world unlike anything a CIVILIAN would ever understand. It is an anachronistic, rule oriented, self contained society which doesn't react amiably when confronted with a breakdown of good order and discipline."

Then he cautions us. "It should be noted...a significant gray area exists regarding whether an ineligible President can render a 'lawful order.' There exists a strong probability the court will reinterpret the Constitution to allow Mr. Obama to hold the office. If such occurs, the military, as a WHOLE, will nod affirmative..."

If a person is clearly not a natural born citizen, then it is hard to imagine how Congress or the Supreme Court can make him one. Furthermore, members of the U.S. military have a moral obligation NOT to follow his orders. As Hartle states, "this obligation derives its moral basis in the commissioning oath."

If Obama is not qualified to be President from the start, then he simply is not President. The only gray area is in the hearts of his supporters. He cannot even resign. He can only be removed.

To complicate matters even further, The Uniform Code of Military Justice may be invoked to get at the truth. Writing in the Huffington Post, Martin Lewis wanted to use this Code to remove George W. Bush from office. If he is right, we can turn the tables and use his argument against Mr. Obama.

Lewis writes, "Article 7 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice specifically says...'Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this Code may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.'"

Removing Obama from office, in Lewis' words, "would not be an action to undertake lightly...However, given the current imperilment of U.S. troops...you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor, and to the U.S. Constitution."

The Constitution is a document with some flexibility. However, the military is an institution that abhors flexibility. Discipline, order, and the chain of command are not flexible. Neither is the line between life and death, honor, and victory.

The Chicago Connection

Barack Obama claims to be a Chicagoan. He is no more a native Chicagoan than Sammy Sosa, who allegedly took illegal performance-enhancing drugs to play baseball. In spite of this, there is a Chicago connection to the moral issues raised by Obama's uncertain natural born status.

In 1815 the land that was to become Chicago was Federal Territory. Fort Dearborn, located by what is now Michigan Avenue and the Chicago River, was commanded by Captain Heald. Captain Heald was ordered to evacuate the fort by General Hull, who commanded Fort Detroit.

What documents we have about Chicago's early history tell us that Lieutenant Helm and Captain Wells, who came up from Fort Wayne, tried to discourage the evacuation. Some historians believe that the order itself was vague and allowed for mitigating circumstances.

It seems that there were enough supplies at the fort to outlast a siege. The native forces outnumbered the U.S. forces almost ten to one. What to do? Question a vague order and save your command, or have a drink and press forward to Ft. Wayne?

Opinions differ as to the character of Captain Heald. Some argue that he was a conservative yet inept a career officer. Regardless of his character, he chose to follow orders, and evacuated the fort on the morning of August 15, 1812.

The result of the evacuation was the Fort Dearborn Massacre. It occurred on the shore of Lake Michigan about a mile and a half from the fort.

The moral dilemma faced by these Ft. Dearborn officers, at what was then a relatively unknown outpost, is no different from the moral dilemma faced by U.S. military officers today. In light of the reasonable doubts concerning Obama's status as Commander-in-Chief, what to do?

Captain Heald and Lieutenant Helm survived the massacre, but Captain Wells did not. Nor did Ensign Rohan, a young officer stationed at Ft. Dearborn. Ensign Rohan was the first graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point to die in battle.

Duty, Honor, Country

The motto of the U.S. Military Academy is "Duty, Honor, Country." These words are imbedded in the academy's coat of arms. It is the duty of an officer to be a moral agent and to support the Constitution. Honor and country mean nothing if duty is ignored.

The crisis in military discipline and order created by the doubts that swirl around Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen can be easily resolved. A simple birth certificate showing birth in Hawaii, along with college and passport documents released to the public, is all it takes.

Up to now, Obama has done little to dispel once and for all the reasonable doubts about his status. He has created, instead, the greatest "moral issue in military decision making" in the country's history.

Given doubts about Obama's natural born citizen status, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have a moral duty to investigate Obama's qualifications to be President. They must then report their findings to those under their command and the American people.

Anything less looks like a violation of their oath and a disregard for the Constitution they swore to defend. If we expect a soldier to die for the Constitution, then he must expect his officers to live by the Constitution.

This is not an issue of legitimate succession to office of Commander-in-Chief, but an issue of usurpation. The moral duty here for military officers is clear: Demand proof, or serve without honor, or resign.

Citizens and servicemen alike should be mindful that once the Constitution is made void, the United States disappears. Who wants to fight and die for nothing? Ensign Rohan did not die for nothing.

Contact C Pocerl by email at at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), June 25, 2009.

This was written by Pam Meister, editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.


A young woman is killed by a stray bullet in the streets of Tehran during the current political uprising in Iran. Her name is Neda. Her death, caught on video and seen around the world via YouTube, became a symbol for everyone in Iran who is a victim of the oppressive regime of the Khomeinists, those responsible for the Islamic revolution three decades ago and who have turned the nation of Iran into the dictatorship of today — its so-called electoral process a joke to anyone with a conscience.

The death of another young woman also becomes symbolic of the oppression of the people of Iran. However, her death transcends one nation and represents the oppression of women throughout the Middle East and everywhere Sharia law is the law of the land. And unlike Neda of today, her death was not mercifully quick, nor was it a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her death was slow, painful, and brought about by one man's desire to be rid of a burden, assisted by others who are easily swayed, easily bullied, or easily fooled — or some combination of the three.

I'm not giving anything away when I tell you that the young woman, Soraya, is stoned to death — the name of the film is, after all, The Stoning of Soraya M, which opens in limited release around the nation on Friday, June 26th (see the theater list at the end of this review). But despite knowing what was coming, I was still stunned. Shocked. Horrified. Saddened. Angered. These are just some of the words that come to mind when watching this powerful film.

Directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh (The Path to 9/11) and written by Nowrasteh and his wife Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh, Soraya is based on the 1995 true story book of the same name by Freidoune Sahebjam. Sahebjam, an Iranian journalist who was sentenced to a death fatwa in abstentia for his reporting on the crimes of the Islamic Republic, continued to return incognito to Iran to investigate sensitive issues surrounding the Tehran Islamic Regime. It is during one of his covert trips that he meets, purely by chance, Soraya's aunt Zahra (played by Shohreh Aghdashloo). Zahra is determined that the tragic farce played out in the name of Sharia "justice" shall not be confined to the walls of her small village, to be buried and forgotten. She is determined that the world shall know of the horror that played out there just the day before she meets Sahebjam (played by Jim Caviezel), who is stranded in the village as he waits for his car to be repaired by the local mechanic. Seeing a tape recorder in his bag, Zahra manages to pique his interest despite his initial skepticism, and she tells him of the final days of Soraya (played by Mozhan Marnò).

BEAUTIFUL CINEMATOGRAPHY BELIES THE UGLY HUMAN NATURE ON DISPLAY. The stark location of the village — due to the movie's offensive nature to Islamists, filming took place in a remote village in an undisclosed Middle Eastern country — matches the bleak lives of the women who fare worse under the new Islamic regime. Pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini are everywhere, lest anyone forget who's now in charge, and women move about the village covered by their chadors, lest they offend anyone by showing themselves.

Soraya is married to Ali (played by Navid Negahban), who has tired of his wife after 20 years of marriage and yearns for a younger woman — a 14-year-old. The problem lies in his inability to support two wives, and he is trying to divorce Soraya. For her part, she is unhappy being married to the cruel and unfaithful Ali, but won't divorce him because she won't be able to support herself or her two daughters, whom Ali would happily throw out in the street with Soraya — keeping their sons with him, of course. When the family is eating dinner, Ali is verbally and physically abusive toward Soraya, and it's obvious that his two sons have been indoctrinated into what Ali tells them is "a man's world. Never forget that, boys."

Because Soraya won't go along with his plans for a divorce, Ali must come up with another arrangement, and he begins to weave an evil plot of deception that eventually ensnares the whole village. He relies on the frailties of human nature to help him attain his goal, including greed, jealousy, and anger. Key players in this terrible scheme are the Mullah (played by Ali Pourtash), Ebrahim, the mayor (played by David Diaan), and Hashem, the village mechanic (played by Parviz Sayyad).

When writing the script, the Nowrastehs stayed true to the real-life characters, but felt they needed to add shading to the characters of the men in order to more broadly reflect how different people react under extreme peer pressure and mob rule. "Frankly, we humanized many of the male characters to show their inner conflicts and dilemmas, whereas in the book they are all evil to the core," said Cyrus. Each of these men has a reason for his complicity, and while some of their reasoning is almost understandable, it doesn't make it any easier to accept. Ali, however, remains untouched by the Nowrastehs. His evil cannot be airbrushed.

Something seen often throughout the film are characters fiddling with prayer beads, especially Ali and the Mullah, who act together as ringleaders in this travesty. It's an action that is representative of the false piety that calls upon them to "cleanse" the village of the "defilement" allegedly brought upon it by Soraya. During the stoning, the Mullah tells the men present that "with each stone you throw, your honor will return." This is why such murders are called "honor killings," as they are meant to restore the honor of the family when a woman brings "shame" upon it (usually in a sex related manner).

ONE OF THE MOST COMPELLING SEQUENCES IN THE FILM happens as Soraya prepares to die, saying goodbye to her daughters and passing on what little worldly goods she has to them. Meanwhile the men and boys of the village prepare for the stoning by digging a large pit and collecting stones that will be hurled at the immobilized Soraya less than an hour later.

It's hard to believe that the stoning scene (achieved by a combination of puppetry, stunt performers and CGI) was scaled back from the reality of stoning deaths, the type of which continue to occur around the world today. For guidance, director Nowrasteh not only read the detailed scene in the book, but watched frightening, covert footage of real stonings. He said, "All I can tell you is that compared to what I saw and read, the scene in the movie is far less graphic than it could have been." Regardless, there is enough violence and attendant emotion to justify bringing a box of tissues, including when Soraya's sons are exhorted to stone their own mother, "Go ahead, boys. For God."

One question remains: if the men are so sure that their actions are justified and sanctioned by God, why do they try so hard to keep Zahra from telling the itinerant journalist about it?

First-rate performances are delivered by a first-rate cast. Except for the parts where Zahra is relating her tale to Sahebjam in English, the entire film is in Farsi with English subtitles, which aids the viewer in immersing himself in Soraya's world: a world where supremacist religious fanaticism and misogyny collide with stomach-turning results.

This is a film that should not be missed. As we left the screening room, I heard one woman say, "The timeliness of this is frightening." This is true, but unfortunately, such honor killings happen around the world where Sharia law rules, not just in Iran. It's time for the disinfection of sunlight to do its work on this most shameful state of affairs.

Due to the film's graphic nature, I would not recommend it for anyone under 17 (hence R the rating).

Rated R (cruel and brutal violence)
1 hr 56 min


Scottsdale, AZ Camelview 5 Theaters 7/10/09

Santa Monica, CA Monica 4 Plex 6/26/09
Beverly Hills, CA Music Hall 6/26/09
Encino, CA Town Center 5 6/26/09
Pasadena, CA Playhouse 7 Cinemas 6/26/09
Irvine, CA Westpark 8 Cinemas 6/26/09
San Francisco, CA Clay Theatre 6/26/09
Berkeley, CA Shattuck Cinemas 10 6/26/09
La Jolla, CA La Jolla Village Cinema 7/10/09
San Jose, CA Camera 3 6/26/09
Marin, CA Cinearts at Marin 6/26/09

Denver, CO Chez Artiste 6/26/09

Hartford, CT Cinema City 4 7/10/09
New Haven, CT Criterion Cinemas 7 7/10/09

Atlanta, GA UA Tara Cinema 7/24/09

Chicago, IL Landmark's Century Centre Cinema 6/26/09

Bethesda, MD Bethesda Row Cinema 6/26/09

Cambridge, MA Kendall Square Cinema 6/26/09

Bloomfield Hills, MI Maple Art Theatre 6/26/09

Minneapolis, MN Uptown Theater 6/26/09
Edina, MN Edina 4 Theater 7/3/09

Frontenac, MO Plaza Frontenac Cinema 7/10/09

Rocky Hill, NJ Montgomery 6 6/26/09
Montclair, NJ Clairidge Cinemas 3 6/26/09

East Village, NY Sunshine Cinema 6/26/09
Jamaica, NY Kew Gardens Cinemas 6 6/26/09
Malverne, NY Malverne Cinema 4 6/26/09
Roslyn Heights, NY Clearview's Roslyn Cinemas 6/26/09

Cleveland Heights, OH Cedar Lee Theater 7/10/09

Portland, OR Regal Fox Tower Stadium 10 7/10/09

Philadelphia, PA Ritz 5 Movies 6/26/09

Austin, TX Regal Arbor Cinema at Great Hills 7/10/09
Dallas, TX Magnolia Theater 7/10/09
Houston, TX Edwards Grand Palace Stadium 24 6/26/09
Houston, TX Angelika Film Center 6/26/09

Seattle, WA Harvard Exit Theater 7/17/09

Washington, DC E Street Cinema 6/26/09

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, June 25, 2009.

As PMW reported earlier this week, PA (Fatah) TV marked the second anniversary of the Hamas takeover of Gaza by broadcasting a public Fatah event that focuses on vilifying Hamas. One part of this performance features a graphic video of Hamas members brutally beating a Fatah member in Gaza.

Another part criticizes and mocks Hamas for the decrease in its terror operations against Israel, glorifies Fatah terror, and ends with Fatah boasting that they "arrested two soldiers in Ramallah," a reference to the October 2000 lynching of two Israeli reservists.

In this scene actors portray a Hamas teacher and student supporters of Fatah and Hamas, debating which movement is greater. Significantly, the competition between Fatah and Hamas supporters is based not on who has built more Palestinian infrastructures, nor on who has promoted peace, but rather on who can take credit for more terror.

The debate ends when a Fatah student trumps Hamas's boast of having kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by mentioning the "arrest of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah" by the PA-Fatah. This alludes to the lynching and gruesome murder of two Israeli reservist soldiers who accidentally entered the Palestinian Authority-controlled city in October 2000. While the picture of a Palestinian celebrating the killing by waving his bloody hands to the mob horrified the world, the murder remains a source of pride for Fatah.

[Note: Seated in the front row at the event are Fatah leaders, including Muhammad Dahlan, former head of PA security; Kadura Faras, head of the PA Prisoners' Association; Nasser Al-Qidwa, former PA Minister of Foreign Affairs; Samir Al-Mashharawi, senior Fatah official; and others.]

Click here to view the "terror competition" between Fatah and Hamas

The following is a transcript of the act:

Fatah student taunts Hamas: "Since Hamas seized power, we haven't heard of any Martyrdom operation [suicide-bombing]."

Hamas teacher: "It's called 'fighter's rest'."

Fatah student: "A Hamas fighter needs rest, but a Fatah fighter doesn't need rest?!"

Hamas teacher: "Every fighter has the right to rest."

Fatah student: "Why is it that when Fatah stops fighting, you [Hamas] say they're cowards, but when Hamas stops fighting, you say it's 'fighters' rest'?"

Hamas teacher: "I don't know much about resistance [terror] and fighters..."

Fatah student: "The first shot was fired by the PLO; the first Jihad was carried out by the PLO [audience applauds], with all the other factions — but Hamas always opposed.

Hamas student: "What do you say about Hamas having kidnapped the [Israeli] soldier Shalit [still held hostage — Ed.]?"

Hamas teacher: "Ahaaa!"

Student: "By Allah, it's good."

Hamas student: "Did Fatah ever capture a soldier?!"

Fatah student: "It was the [other] brigades who captured him [Shalit] and sold him to you [Hamas]. It's a deal that you [Hamas] made for your own benefit, not for the [Palestinian] people's benefit. [Applause]

Fatah student: Remember, in Ramallah the [PA-Fatah] police arrested two soldiers — have you forgotten, teacher?!" [A reference to the lynching in Ramallah in October 2000 — Ed.]
[PATV June 17, 2009]

Itamar Marcus is director of PMW — Palestinian Media Watch — (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative. Contact Palestinian Media Watch by email at pmw@pmw.org.il and visit the PMW Video Library at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 25, 2009.


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has 16 years of autonomy to build schools, roads, courthouses, hospitals, and other institutions to serve its people. Neither Fatah nor Hamas has done so. They divert funds to war on Israel and to their private bank accounts.

President Obama makes it seem as if the resulting suffering of P.A. residents somehow is Israel's fault. It's the fault of the Arabs' own, elected leaders (Charles Krauthammer in Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/5).

Nevertheless, Obama wants to set those leaders up as sovereigns. What would that solve?

For part of the explanation about P.A. neglect of its people, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m5d31-Russian-arms-sale-to-Iran


In discussing President Obama's speech in Cairo, the Lebanese Daily Star referred to Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, as someone "whose pro-Israeli sympathies can't be questioned." IMRA asks why can't it be questioned.

Mr. Emmanuel told the Israel lobby to come up with a better plan before it criticizes U.S. policy. IMRA asks, better for whom
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/5).

That newspaper in ethnically divided Lebanon assumes, as Muslim Arabs often do, that because Rahm Emmanuel is Jewish, he must be pro-Israel. That stereotyping is false. Several of my articles cite Israeli professors who call for boycotting or overthrowing Israel and even supporting Muslim terrorism. They are far from being pro-Israel and not far from being antisemitic.

For another Lebanese controversy with Israel, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d4-Israeli-spy-network-infuriates-Lebanon


The U.S. and other international elites tell Jews they may not live in certain areas of the Land of Israel. This is in addition to many Arab states having expelled their Jews and not allowing Jews in. The Obama regime tells Jews they may not build in such areas and must move out of them. It does not give similar orders to the Arabs. This is discriminatory (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/5 from Joseph Farah, 6/5). For Jews, Obama wants Jim Crow laws. But so did Pres. Bush.

For more on U.S. discrimination against Israel, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d12-President-Obama-ending-discrimination-against-Israel


Egypt has been setting up farms abroad to supply it with wheat. The foreign countries include Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania, and Niger
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/5).

Israel taught Egypt dry farming.

For further irony about Egypt tutoring foreigner states in agriculture, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d11-Egypt-imports-wheat-from-Russia-and-Ukraine


Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Lebanese Druze, wants to join the opposition.

His reasons are not ideological but practical. Already a third of Lebanon's population, the Shiite numbers, wealth, and power are growing. They buy up the land. They dominate the coastal area where half the Druze live. Lacking reliable allies, the Druze cannot resist Hizbullah any more. The Christian population is dwindling. The Sunnis are becoming more radical, hence pose a danger to the Druze. Mr. Jumblatt concludes that the Druze must learn to live with the Shiites, although he does not favor their ally, Syria
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/5).

The Druze are known for practicality, necessary for survival. Jumblatt sounds like the wise old American Indian chief who tells his bellicose young braves that they had better learn to live with the white man. That wasn't easy, either.

If the Druze pull out of the governing coalition and ally themselves with Hizbullah, then Hizbullah would secure its dominance over Lebanon. I think that Israel's Left wing, led then by Foreign Min. Livni and PM Olmert, in their defeatist withdrawal from imminent victory over Hizbullah in Lebanon, sealed Lebanon's fate and undermined their own country's. It was a great blunder.

Finishing and winning the war in Lebanon would have destroyed a big terrorist front and rescued Lebanon. That would have promoted peace, not premature withdrawal and losing the war. They left the terrorists able both to take over Lebanon and to threaten Israel more. Israel has no strategic sense, as it lets its enemies build up around it. Nor has the State Dept. any strategic sense, as it encourages that build-up out of a blind antipathy towards Jewish independence. How can one respect or admire the U.S., when it favors enemies over allies?

For an explanation showing that the U.S. has not caught on to the Iranian/Syrian/Hizbullah axis' power, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d24-Diplomatic-butterup-of-Syria


In a Hamas TV film for women, an Egyptian psychiatrist calls Israelis terrorists motivated by a love of money and by the Israeli curriculum. He verifies and endorses the Holocaust
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/6 from MEMRI).

Let the psychiatrist debate Iran's Holocaust-denying President!

As proof, the psychiatrist cites an alleged teaching not in the Israeli curriculum. The Israeli curriculum and media stress peace and tolerance, unlike the Egyptian, Jordanian, or Palestinian Authority curriculum, media, and mosques.

Such are the adversaries who pursue the Jewish people — defamatory and vicious.

For a short explanation of terrorist motive, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d18-Why-Palestinian-Arab-terrorism


President Obama vowed to tell the world's Muslims "hard truths." Instead, his remarks fighting extremists, equal rights for women, freedom of religion, and democracy were vague. He omitted policy proposals that would have to be taken seriously.

He urged them to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that terrorists' "intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible."

On gender equality, he ignored common Islamic "honor killings," female genital mutilation, and repression of women's legal and human rights. He compared Muslim women to discrimination against U.S. women, which is not comparable.

He advocated religious freedom, but ignored Saudi religious repression. He praised democracy, but overlooked Arab tyranny.

He misled people about Israel, too. Yes, he verified the Holocaust and denounced antisemitism [again without suggesting culprits and reform]. But he also upheld the Arab view that the Jews intruded into Palestine and that Israel developed from the Holocaust. He thus undermined the Jewish people's age-old, historical, regional roots and the legal recognition of the right to their homeland well before the Holocaust.

Like the Arabs, Obama called Muslim Arab terrorism against Israel, "resistance." He equated the Palestinian Arab struggle against Israel to the U.S. civil rights movement and slave rebellions. That is not a hard truth, that is moral dishonesty.

He did propose some policies. (1) End Jewish building in Judea-Samaria. He says that would bring peace. It cannot possibly do so. (2) Convert Iran's nuclear weapons development to nuclear electrical development. He says that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It cannot possibly do so.

[Iran has equipment and fuel for making bombs. It could make bombs at will. Stopping Zionist development cannot win friendship from the Islamists — too bigoted. It would strengthen and encourage them to launch a final offensive.]

Obama's policy toward Israel can be explained only by hostility. His real purpose is to abandon Israel in favor of friendship with the Arab world. His Administration harps on Jewish building but not Fatah terrorism nor on N. Korean ties to Iran and Syria. The Israeli people realize this (Caroline Glick in
http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/6).

Obama is duplicitous, facilitates war, and endangers civilization. He gets his lieutenants to go along with him. How long will he be able to get away with his deceptions and failures? How many millions will be killed, first?

Now consider the opportunities Israel lost, by not annexing and resettling most of Judea-Samaria, to fortify its geographic position! Israel waited, but now the U.S. government has turned harder against it than even before. Israel was foolish not to devise its own strategy. It didn't have a strong enough Right wing.

To see more flaws in Obama's policy on Israel, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d23-5-flaws-in-Obamas-Cairo-Speech


Iran started to mass-produce a supersonic surface-to-air missile system. It can trace swift enemy aircraft and strike them 40 kilometers away, with a huge blast (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/6).

Iran is developing quite a military. Iran considers itself a super power.


The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that "Iran continued to expand its uranium enrichment program despite three sets of UN Security Council sanctions meant to pressure Teheran into freezing such activities." Iran refuses to cooperate with IAEA inspection. Syria refuses, too.

Each rogue state sees that the others get away with it
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/6).

For more on sanctions, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d18-US-conceited-about-sanctions


He praised Islamic tolerance in Medieval Muslim Cordoba and Anadulus. Actually, Islamic rule discriminated against Christians and Jews. They were not allowed to worship in public or build new temples. They paid a special tax on non-believers.

He claimed that Palestinian Arabs suffered trying to get a state. Actually, they had several specific opportunities, but rejected them.

He said that a Muslim country, Morocco, was the first to recognize the United States. No, it was the Netherlands.

He pegged the Muslim population of the U.S. at 7 million. Major studies estimate 1.3-2.7 million. [Islamist organizations claim the larger figure.]

He promised frankness in his speech, but ignored Palestinian Arab and other Muslim persecution of Christians. He mentioned Darfur, but not that Arab states helping to block a UN remedy.

He called Jewish houses in Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem illegal, although those were not sovereign territory when Israelis moved in, and therefore do not fit the definition of "occupied"
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/7).

For earlier articles covering more of Obama's dissembling, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d23-5-flaws-in-Obamas-Cairo-Speech

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, June 25, 2009.


Sihon gathered all his people together, and he fought against Israel. And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from the Arnon unto the Yabbok. (From this week's Torah portion, Chukat, Numbers 21:32-34)

And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Yiftach: 'Because Israel took away my land, when he came up out of Egypt, from the Arnon even unto the Yabbok, and unto the Jordan; now therefore restore those cities peaceably. (From this week's haftarah, Judges 11:13)

Even today, international law places complete responsibility for the consequences of a war on the instigator. Territory that is captured by a country that was attacked becomes the sovereign soil of the victim of the aggression. Germany lost great tracts of territory in World War II, as did Japan to Russia. That is the way the world works and that is the way it should work. For some reason, these simple rules, understood world-wide, were not clear to the king of Ammon and are not clear to all the kings of Yishmael who fight against us today.

Why don't these rules work for Israel? The answer is that we do not have a leader like Yiftach, who answers the nations in the Name of G-d. After the king of Ammon complained to Yiftach that centuries before, the Children of Israel had "stolen" his land, Yiftach had a very clear and simple answer:

The G-d of Israel has driven the Emorites out before the Children of Israel and you think that you will possess their land? Whatever Kmosh, your god has inherited to you, that is what you shall inherit. And whatever Hashem, our G-d has inherited to us, that is what we shall inherit. (Judges 11:23-24)  

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by N. Natan, June 25, 2009.

Nowadays Lady History has become a jarring and hurried Teacher.

Whereas, in the past, it took centuries before she condescended to unveil the infra-lines of force which had agitated and propelled peoples, at present, Lady History takes only a few days to make a magisterial striptease of True Reality.

In Iran's case, a single week has sufficed to demonstrate crudely "in vivo" the immutable Koranic rigidity of Islamic society.

And the least that we can say is that this Muslim opaque Reality, so abruptly unveiled by last Iran's feverishly eruption soon infected by an unrealistic hopes collapse, does not correspond at all to Obama's hippie "progressive vision" of Islam, as complacently publicized in his Unreality Show of Cairo.

When considering the precise timing of succession of all these resounding events, one cannot be prevented to think that Obama did intimately hope that he would decisively influence Iranian elections, and, through their desired results, triumphantly display to the entire World the marvelous power of his rhetoric which had made him win the American Presidency.

But, obviously, his eloquence does not reach the understanding of True Islam mass crowds and power structures. And all his admonishments, with such frightening sentences as: "The World watches Iran", clearly miss their target and contribute only to confusion and to tragic false hopes, as, for this precise example, the Great Ayatollah does not mind that the World watches, or does not watch Iran, as long as Allah may watch the Supreme Leader's accomplishments.

Therefore, Obama, the new pupil in the class of Lady History, may now begin to learn the ABC, i.e. that True Islam crowds and structure powers listen to Allah, not to Obama: And learn also, by the way, that Judeo-Christian Democracy will never be compatible with Islam as defined by the Koran.

Whether pupil Obama will, maybe one day, understand this moral infrastructure basic and primary Law is finally of rather unimportance.

What will become exclusively important is that, in the following historical events to rush in sooner than expected, Barack Hussein Obama may have to go bow eighty degrees to Ayatollah Khameini, and beg him not to wipe off Tel-Aviv, if not for the sake of Israel, at least for the sake of World economy.

Here again we can predict that impassive Ayatollah Khameini will answer the President of the USA that the World economy's fate lies in the Hands of Allah and in His Hands alone.

Also, after thus grading Obama's lacunal knowledge, Lady History will severely enjoin her pupil to learn that we are now in the eye of the Ideologies Cyclone:

Therefore Lady History will certainly ask Obama to get rid, in his exercise book, of some hypnotizing and convenient "UnTruths" which blur the necessary compass to navigate in the tense world maze:

Untruth 1: The Israel-Palestinian "problem" is at the core of the confrontation between West and Islam.

Al-Qaida, Talibans, Islamic Terrorists and Pirates, etc. could not care less about Israelis and Palestinians: For them, Israel problem is a conventional and efficiently emotional scapegoat and propaganda utensil. But, in reality, they are only interested in grabbing Power from the most powerful...

As for Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah & co, the problem of Palestine is simple, or rather, there is no problem of Palestine: Allah willing, Israel must and will disappear, sooner or later: any other solution to this "problem" cannot work.

Untruth 2: Economy and education problems fuel Islamic Terrorists candidates.

Politicians and commentators have a very short sighted memory: the 9/11 attack on New-York was carried out by educated and university Muslims, and it is most probable that the next attacks on America will be carried out by the same sociological kind of Muslim activists. Unfortunately, the USA, probably by ignorance and lack of security concentration, do nothing really efficient to deter such attacks, despite most sophisticated complacent appearances.

Untruth 3: Islam is a global, stable and cohesive peaceful Ideology.

The antagonism between Shiites and Sunnites will soon be amplified by the innate dominance trend of IranTheocracy "Revolutions" to replace Petrodollars Autocracies, through Iran glorious "Religious Democracy model":

Which means, de facto, to replace Shah, Kings, Sultans, Emirs, etc, by Religious Supreme Leaders, such as Ayatollahs, Mullahs, Ulemas, Imams, etc.

Of course this fatal Struggle for Power will become more and more ruthless...

Untruth 4: Moderate Islam (1 billion) will triumph over extremist Islam (a few).

Moderate Islam dozes in some autocratic (openly or disguised) regimes through anaesthetizing True Islam roots. But, in the end, the vivid Ideological roots prevail invincibly, as continuously demonstrated by Islam History and Development:

For example, where and when does take place the International Islamic Council of Ayatollahs, Ulemas, Mullahs, Imams, etc, who condemn, unanimously and irrevocably, bloody Jihad, and dare, thus, publicly contradict the Prophet?

Meanwhile, despite Lady History's daily teachings of True Reality, America will go on spending, in the most inappropriate way, billions of dollars and thousands "regrettable" lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc, under a leadership painting complacently in glowing colors a ceaseless Unreality Show:

So, the President of the USA will go on trumpeting triumphantly the alluring slogan "Down with Reality Truth!", whatever the price will have to be paid for having so absurdly ignored it!

Natan is maverick Expert on War on Terror at ideology-war-observatory.blogspot.com and the Author of the new authentic History of the Temple of Jerusalem.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 24, 2009.

This is very sad. We live in a twisted world. This article was written by Eric Lichtblau and it appeared in today's New York Times


WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers' copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity.

Allegations of Saudi links to terrorism have been the subject of years of government investigations and furious debate. Critics have said that some members of the Saudi ruling class pay off terrorist groups in part to keep them from being more active in their own country.

But the thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents compiled by lawyers for the Sept. 11 families and their insurers represented an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.

Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed "support for terrorist organizations" at least through 2006.

A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself.

Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader.

And a confidential German intelligence report gave a line-by-line description of tens of millions of dollars in bank transfers, with dates and dollar amounts, made in the early 1990s by Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz and other members of the Saudi royal family to another charity that was suspected of financing militants' activities in Pakistan and Bosnia.

The new documents, provided to The New York Times by the lawyers, are among several hundred thousand pages of investigative material obtained by the Sept. 11 families and their insurers as part of a long-running civil lawsuit seeking to hold Saudi Arabia and its royal family liable for financing Al Qaeda.

Only a fraction of the documents have been entered into the court record, and much of the new material is unknown even to the Saudi lawyers in the case.

The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups.

Saudi lawyers and supporters say that the links are flimsy and exploit stereotypes about terrorism, and that the country is being sued because it has deep pockets and was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers.

"In looking at all the evidence the families brought together, I have not seen one iota of evidence that Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks," Michael Kellogg, a Washington lawyer representing Prince Muhammad al-Faisal al-Saud in the lawsuit, said in an interview.

He and other defense lawyers said that rather than supporting Al Qaeda, the Saudis were sworn enemies of its leader, Osama bin Laden, who was exiled from Saudi Arabia, his native country, in 1996. "It's an absolute tragedy what happened to them, and I understand their anger," Mr. Kellogg said of the victims' families. "They want to find those responsible, but I think they've been disserved by their lawyers by bringing claims without any merit against the wrong people."

The Saudi Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, made up of survivors of the attacks and family members of those killed, throwing out the suit on the ground that the families cannot bring legal action in the United States against a sovereign nation and its leaders.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide this week whether to hear an appeal, but the families' prospects dimmed last month when the Justice Department sided with the Saudis in their immunity claim and urged the court not to consider the appeal.

The Justice Department said a 1976 law on sovereign immunity protected the Saudis from liability and noted that "potentially significant foreign relations consequences" would arise if such suits were allowed to proceed.

"Cases like this put the U.S. government in an extremely difficult position when it has to make legal arguments, even when they are the better view of the law, that run counter to those of terrorist victims," said John Bellinger, a former State Department lawyer who was involved in the Saudi litigation.

Senior Obama administration officials held a private meeting on Monday with 9/11 family members to speak about progress in cracking down on terrorist financing. Administration officials at the meeting largely sidestepped questions about the lawsuit, according to participants. But the official who helped lead the meeting, Stuart A. Levey, the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, has been outspoken in his criticism of wealthy Saudis, saying they have helped to finance terrorism.

Even if the 9/11 families were to get their trial in the lawsuit, they might have difficulty getting some of their new material into evidence. Some would most likely be challenged on grounds it was irrelevant or uncorroborated hearsay, or that it related to Saudis who were clearly covered by sovereign immunity.

And if the families were to clear those hurdles, two intriguing pieces of evidence in the Saudi puzzle might still remain off limits.

One is a 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks. The secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers, and the Saudis themselves urged at the time that it be made public. President George W. Bush declined to do so.

Kristen Breitweiser, an advocate for Sept. 11 families, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center, said in an interview that during a White House meeting in February between President Obama and victims' families, the president told her that he was willing to make the pages public.

But she said she had not heard from the White House since then.

The other evidence that may not be admissible consists of classified documents leaked to one of the law firms representing the families, Motley Rice of South Carolina, which is headed by Ronald Motley, a well-known trial lawyer who won lucrative lawsuits involving asbestos and tobacco.

Lawyers for the firm say someone anonymously slipped them 55 documents that contained classified government material relating to the Saudi lawsuit.

Though she declined to describe the records, Jodi Flowers, a lawyer for Motley Rice, said she was pushing to have them placed in the court file.

"We wouldn't be fighting this hard, and we wouldn't have turned the material over to the judge, if we didn't think it was really important to the case," she said.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Mr La, June 24, 2009.

This was written by Richard A. Baehr, the co-founder and chief political correspondent for the American Thinker. For his day job, he has been a health care consultant for many years doing planning and financial analyses for providers.


Two recent public opinion surveys released in Israel and the United States demonstrate that the campaign by President Obama and members of his diplomatic team to criticize and isolate Israel over the issue of settlements in the West Bank is having an impact in both countries.

In Israel, a survey sponsored by the Jerusalem Post revealed a stunning result: just 6% of Israeli Jews now regard the U.S. president as pro-Israel. Another 86% regard Obama as either pro-Palestinian (50%) or neutral between the two parties (36%). No American president has ever been viewed in Israel this way, and it has taken but five months for the Israelis to come to understand the new reality in U.S.-Israeli relations — that the special relationship and friendship between the two countries has ended, at least at the level of the U.S. president and his administration.

A second survey conducted by the Israel Project to measure support for Israel or the Palestinians in the United States indicates that the withering criticism of Israel by the new administration has taken a toll on support for Israel in the U.S. In five months, support for Israel has dropped from 57% to 49%

The administration has made three arguments in support of its new tougher approach with Israel:

1. The Israeli settlements are at the core of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

2. The Israel-Palestinian conflict, and in particular, the perception that the U.S. is on Israel's side, is a primary reason for Muslim hostility to the U.S.

3. If Israel wants the United States and other nations to increase pressure on Iran to end its nuclear program, it needs to stop settlement growth and be prepared to abandon all settlements in the West Bank (as it did in Gaza) and retreat to the "green line (the pre-Six Day War border).

This last argument fully encapsulates the Saudi "peace plan," which may be why the president bowed to the Saudi prince when they met. While it may not be good to appear to be pro-Israel, appearing to be pro-Muslim and pro-Saudi is just fine.

Unfortunately for the Obama team, the current unrest in Iran has been inconvenient for their three-part fairy tale of the conflict; making nice to the mullahs and casting aside Israel has not made the mullahs more reasonable and open to the West. So too, it would be hard to argue with a straight face that al-Qaeda would have abandoned their 9/11 attacks if only Israel had frozen settlement growth.

It is also inconvenient for Obama that the Islamic terror group Hamas, which controls Gaza, continues to reject any reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority, rejects Israel's right to exist anywhere, and rejects any end to the use of violence to achieve its goals. For Hamas, Israeli settlements that need to be abandoned include Haifa and Tel Aviv.

Finally, it has been inconvenient that the administration's point person on Iran, Ambassador Dennis Ross, now moved into the White House to a new job, has specifically dismissed the linkage between the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear program.

The administration has made a bet that by focusing on settlements, an issue that has been controversial both within Israel and among American Jews, it can divide and conquer. There are many liberal Jews who are totally in thrall to the Obama agenda on domestic issues and to Obama personally (psychiatric textbooks could be written on this latter item, but regrettably, they would need to be autobiographical).

During the campaign, there was concern among some liberal Jews about Obama's history and long friendship with people hostile to Israel such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Professor Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, and Samantha Power. To counter this, the campaign rolled out a chorus line of Chicago Jews who could swear for Obama's bona fides as to his love for both Israel and the Jews. For most liberal Jews, Israel is an issue — but not the issue. Abortion rights, separation of church and state, stem cell research, universal health care, saving the planet — these issues are what ignite real political passion for many liberal Jews, not support for Israel. When I appeared on a panel for the NJDC at the Democratic convention, people in the audience seemed annoyed that the subjects of support for Israel or the Iranian threat were even raised as issues.

But the poll results from Israel have got to be worrying to the Obama team. Liberal Jews are a critically important fundraising group and voter bloc for Democrats. With the economy remaining very weak and Obama's national approval ratings sagging, the 2010 midterm elections and the presidential race in 2012 could be more competitive than were the Democratic sweeps in 2006 and 2008.

Will some liberal Jews step back, uncomfortable with the perception that Obama is hostile to Israel? Has Obama crossed a threshold among Jewish voters, much as Jimmy Carter did in 1979-1980, leading to a greatly diminished level of Jewish support in his run for re-election (Carter won but 45% of the Jewish vote in 1980).

To counter this perception, the lapdogs of the Jewish left — in particular, J-Street (a group whose real mission seems to be to reduce the power and influence of AIPAC) and the NJDC — are furiously spinning how Obama is still fond of Israel and the right choice for peace (which presumably is just around the corner if only Israel caved on the settlements issue). It is too early to tell if Obama's near daily haranguing of Israel has cost him any substantial Jewish support at home. Blindness, after all, is not cured by taking off an eye patch. And to be sure, Obama has more public relations skills and personal charm than Carter ever had, and a far more compliant canine-like obedient national media committed to protecting the Obama brand.

But there is anxiety out there among some liberal Jews about Obama's cold hand to Israel, coupled with Iran's nuclear program, which despite all the current turmoil is full steam ahead at the moment. Some Democratic members of the House and Senate are clearly sensing there is a problem with a normally reliable constituency group. In recent days Senator Menendez of New Jersey and even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have created some space between themselves and Obama by reiterating their traditional support for Israel. So far, there is no evidence that the Obama team (including Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell) is backing off its settlement mantra.

As cautious as Obama has been in refusing to support the Iranians on the streets, he has been quite abrupt in his willingness to cast aside decades of ties between the U.S. and Israel. Israeli Jews have caught on that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Will American Jews wake up as well?

EDITOR'S NOTE: There was an interesting encounter between two of the readers of the original article.

1. flickervertigo:

the bullshit is getting so deep that it's impossible to find the truth... but i think that's what the neocons are counting on... truth lost and gone, forever.

the bullshit gets so deep that you have to have a big war to blow the bullshit away, rewrite history, and supposedly start from a clean slate.

the hysteria about this iran election makes it look like the main media is hardening up — a last throw of the dice? ...and maybe there comes a point that everybody gives up, and, bowing to the inevitable, jumps on the bandwagon and gives the warmongers what they want.

this "nuclear primacy" stuff is real scary, because the neocons' american support structure is so weak they'll have to go to their strong point, the military, which is pretty much useless, itself...

but the ultimate club these primitives are relying on is the nukes... and not only the nukes, but preemptive first strikes on russia and china.

but that seems so insane that i keep coming back to the same old thing: this whole caper is cover for the biggest looting operation in history, except in the minds of the deathwish christian/samson option israeli fringe.

america has to be looted while the looting's good, before america collapses from oil shortages and the operation of the looters, themselves.

here's hoping the lunatic fringe doesnt find the nuke trigger... hoping also that the israelis can see that their samson option would be such a PR catastrophe that it could kill jewishness itself.

but maybe they're that desperate.

...or that sick
Jun 24, 2009 — 12:35 am

7. Mongoose:

Flicker, You and that "neocon" business. You still have not answered the questions posed to you about your "neocon" fantasies.

Who are these "neocons" as a "political movement"? How are they not just what we used to call "Democrats" before the Marxist took over te Democrat Party? (and spare me quoting Bill Kristol or Strauss for Pete's sake, how silly can you get?)

You keep ducking this. All we get out of you is regurgitation of hard left agitprop, jargon and its loopy geopolitical "logic" (read "paranoid delusions").

It is you that is being manipulated, and not by some "neocon cabal" but rather by Marxist propagandists whose lineage, intent and agitprop you do not understand, and the context of which you are thoroughly oblivious to. It is Obama's section that departs from the American posture of the last 100 years or so, not these so called "neocons". This attempt to "frame" this as a "neocon plot" is just hokum. This "neocon" meme is just another one of these frauds foisted on us by the left, and like almost all of them the intent is to caste the normal response of America as somehow "evil" and an "innovation" that departs from our ideals, traditions and history. This particular meme also seeks to blame this on "the Jooos". But it is a complete inversion of reality. It is an attempt derail American from her historic role, morally cripple her and cause her to hesitate at exactly the moment when she should not do so. It is just another bit of vile agitprop from the left meant to force America to do just what the International Left has always wanted her to to: Leave them alone so that they can get on with their perdify.

Was JFK a "neocon"? Was LBJ? Was "FDR"? If they were, then just what does the moniker "neocon" really mean? What you are calling "neocons" we used to call "Reagan Democrats", for crying out loud.

As I have seen saind around the net lately:

That vile neocon plot: Freedom and Democracy.

Flicker, just what are you standing for and what are you against? What are you defending? What are you decrying?

You need to do a little soul searching. You are being lead by your vanity to stand for some very immoral things.

Let us be clear: The Left wants to destroy Western Civilization. Two of their key targets are America and Israel. They hope to use Islam to bring both of them down.

If you think otherwise, just like at how the Left is using Islam against the West in the EU. And the "neocon's support structure is weak"? There is no such thing.

It is a complete construct of the Left. This is a fantasy world that you "discussing".

If you think that Americans do not hold dear most of the beliefs that you ascribe to "neocons" you are quite mistaken. The response to Obama's dithering quite shows this.

If you think that the majority of Americans want Israel destroyed or are Jew haters, you are quite wrong. If you think that the majority of Americans do not want America to stand firm in her historical role as a strong leader of the West you are quite mistaken. You are evidently too young to remember the Cold Qar and just what we sacrificed for it. Trust me, the American response to the Cold War was not part of some "Right Wing Plot". It was taken up firmly and with open eyes by a broad coalition of the electorate and upheld strongly by both parties across decades of travail, that is it was upheld by both parties until the hard Left took over the Democrats in the late 1960's and early 1970's. If you think otherwise it is because your teachers have been lying to you.

Assimilated Jews have often had this problem when they encounter statist ideologies in societies where they have mingled and flourished. Ideologues require scapegoats, and the Jews are prime targets, particularly when the ideology in question is a collectivist one. This was the case both in Germany; this was the case in Russia. In the case of Marxism, the whole matter is exacerbated by the tendency of secular Jewish intellectuals to project their religious tendencies and predilections onto that ideology.

In the case of the secular American Jew and the American Left there is nothing new here — it is really just a reflection of the Soviet case. What is new is that by means of the dodge of this "neocon" propaganda anti-jewish bigotry has come out in the open and has become acceptable once again in "polite company". Moreover, for the first time in our history it has actually become part of policy, and in fact a primary policy of one of the major political parties.

This is a shameful business.
Jun 24, 2009 — 4:12 am

Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Mr La, June 24, 2009.

This comes from Carl in Jerusalem, who blogs at israelmatzav.blogspot.com

I wonder how many of you remember Azmi Bishara, the former Knesset member who walked into the Israeli embassy in Cairo in April 2007 and resigned from the Knesset after he got word that he was about to be indicted for treason for helping Hezbullah aim rockets during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Bishara has not come back to Israel since.

Here's an interview with Bishara (in Hebrew) from Israel's Channel 2 television that took place approximately ten years ago. A fuller translation than what you are about to see will follow the interview (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KkYjhFryA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F israelmatzav.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fazmi-bishara-theres-no-such- thing-as.html&feature=player_embedded).

And here's a more complete translation than what you saw on the screen:

In an Interview with Yaron London (Israel's Channel 2, recorded about a decade ago), Bashara said:

"I don't think there is a Palestinian nation. I think there is an Arab nation, I think that this (the term "Palestinian nation") is a colonial invention. Palestine, up to the end of the 19th century was southern Syria.

Yes folks, I keep telling you, there's no such thing as 'Palestine' or a 'Palestinian.' Even the Arabs themselves occasionally acknowledge that truth when their guard is down. Here's another example.

In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the 'Palestinians':

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

So why does everyone expect Israel to cut out half of its guts to create a real state for an imaginary people? Why does everyone expect Israel to endanger its own security to give a state to a people that does not exist?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem

At 3:40 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

If the Palestinians wanted a state, they could have it today. They have repeatedly rejected an end to the conflict with Israel if the price is acceptance of Israel's permanence. For them, its a struggle that has only a winner and a loser and as long as they are on the losing side, they will not agree to any peace terms with Israel, not even as generous as the offer presented to them by Ehud K. Olmert. There is indeed no such thing as Palestine — and that is what the rest of the world and sadly, a number of deluded Israeli Jews refuse to get.

For the Palestinians, the sine qua non as for the last 60 years remains the destruction of Israel.

Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 24, 2009.

The Ramon Crater in the Negev Desert

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

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

A moment of silence for the death of a legend: Kodak announced this week it is discontinuing its revered Kodachrome slide film, which had fallen out of favor, first by newer films and later by the advent of digital technology. While the technical tools of photography will always impact the craft, it is the artist's vision which shapes the final product more than anything else. Fortunately for me, I received a gift in the fourth grade from a wonderful and prescient teacher who rewarded my prowess in the multiplication tables with a puzzle game called Hi-Q. The game required assembling seven odd geometric shapes into more than 200 different wholes. The game kept me busy for years and apparently I'm still playing as I seek to compose features of the natural environment into moving photographs.

This week's image comes from Mitzpe Ramon, the giant crater in Israel's Negev Desert. The crater is vast, barren, dry, and intimidating and I was looking for a way to represent these qualities while also adding a touch of grace to the image. The desert teaches the visitor respect for nature and one can only appreciate its subtle beauty alongside that attitude of respect. I tried this image as a vertical, and although the triangles lined up nicely, that composition lost the expansiveness that is so definitive of the desert. I had been watching the clouds, but couldn't find any earthly complement until I stepped out in front of the small pile of rocks that make up the foreground and give depth to the image. They are a small detail, but a crucial missing link that completes the picture.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, June 24, 2009.

Funded Groups work with Palestinian Authority, promote Iran nukes

This was written by Samuel Sokol and David Bedein and it appeared yesterday in World Net Daily.

Sammy Sokol is a writer for the Israel Resource News Agency. David Bedein is director of the Israel Resource News Agency.


A U.S. organization has been receiving money from perhaps unsuspecting Jewish donors to support blatantly anti-Israel groups.

American Jews wishing to donate money to Israeli causes routinely utilize local city Jewish federations as a middleman. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are sent to Jewish federations across the country with the expectation contributions will be used to aid worthy causes in Israel.

Many U.S. Jewish federations as well as individual Jewish donors give to the New Israel Fund, or NIF, a Washington, D.C.-based foundation dedicated to fostering social change and progressive causes in Israel.

The NIF budget comes from a combination of donors. These include the Ford Foundation, grant organizations such as the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation and the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, as well as various Jewish communal federations such as the Jewish Federation in New York, the Durham-Chapel Hill Federation and the Jewish Federation of Grand Rapids.

However, while many of the programs run by the NIF are considered laudable in the pro-Israel community, such as work the group does with economically disadvantaged Ethiopian immigrants, the flagship grantees of the NIF are Israeli-Arab nongovernmental organizations that openly and unabashedly dedicate themselves to removing the Jewish character of the state of Israel.

The NIF disperses hundreds of thousands of dollars for the core budgets of such groups as Adalah: The Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel, Mossawa: The advocacy center for Arab citizens in Israel and I'lam media center for Arab Palestinians in Israel.

Supporting Iran's nukes

I'lam was founded in the wake of the Palestinian intifada, or terrorist war, initiated in September 2000 after then-PLO Leader Yasser Arafat turned down an Israeli offer of a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem.

The first director of I'lam was Hanin Zoabi, recently elected as a member of the Israeli Arab Balad Party in the Knesset. Zoabi's party spawned Azmi Bishara, the Israeli Arab Knesset member who fled Israel after he was threatened with prosecution for allegedly aiding the Hezbollah terrorist organization. Balad officials routinely condemn Israel and at times openly present themselves as representing the state of "Palestine."

In April, in Zoabi's maiden interview to the Jerusalem Post as a Knesset member, she declared her open support for Iranian nuclear weapons as a counterbalance to Israel.

Zoabi, in her capacity as the director of I'lam, helped draft and sign the Haifa Declaration, which called for the negation of Israel's Jewish identity and for a "comprehensive change in Israeli policy, whereby Israel abandons its destructive role towards the peoples of the region. ..."

In March, I'lam's so-called empowerment coordinator, Zaher Boulos, issued a "cry of solidarity with the Palestinian people who hold strong to the establishment of a Palestinian state that is independent with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of the refugees to their homes" at the annual conference of the Forum of Journalists, an I'lam affiliate of which he is also coordinator.

The conference expressed "support for the Palestinian people in their struggle for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees."

Also in March, I'lam issued a press release stating Israel cannot "liquidate the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Arab culture and will be the future capital of a Palestinian state, and tomorrow will be the focal point of the Arab and Islamic world and the progressive forces in the world."

The terminology in I'lam's media publications resounds with terms such as "massacre" and "ethnic cleansing," as well as accusations of war crimes and the targeted murder of journalists.

Last year, the NIF-funded organization held a conference in Ramallah with journalists from the Palestinian Authority which "aimed to develop and facilitate working relationships between Palestinians journalists in Israel and in the West Bank, and to discuss the role of the Palestinian media on both sides of the Green Line" as well as "exploring strategies for Palestinian media practitioners in addressing Israeli, European and U.S.-American media."

I'lam's official statements are representative of the rhetoric employed by some of the NIF's grantees.

I'lam posted on its website a statement declaring, "The (Israeli) soldiers are the grandchildren of the Nazis' victims, the Nazis' survivors. They have come here to consume food quickly and consume life quickly. This is the true image of Israel."

The statement was made in the context of accusing Israeli soldiers of a "massacre" against Palestinian civilians.

The connection of I'lam to the PA is reflected by its current staff.

Sanaa Hammoud, the current director of I'lam, was a senior official of the PA's Negotiations Support Unit in Ramallah and served in Jerusalem as a senior communications adviser for the Palestinian leadership.

Wadea Awawdy, who served on the founding board of directors of I'lam, worked as a correspondent for the official PA publication Al-Ayyam, which routinely prints anti-Israel propaganda.

I'lam's international relations coordinator, Nasser Victor Rego, has issued numerous statements of support for Hamas, terming the Islamist group "The Palestinian resistance," while providing a link on his blog to the website of Hamas' armed wing, the Essedeen Al-Qassam Brigades.

Nasser also has called on the international community to boycott Israel.

Rego would not return calls to comment on the issue.

In addition to receiving funds from the NIF, I'lam is also a grantee of Al-Quds: Capital of Arab Culture, which works under the auspices of both the PA and the Arab League.

Among other charges laid against Israel in materials distributed by I'lam are allegations that the Hebrew media contains, "Encouragement for killing and destruction."

Other anti-Israel groups

Also supported by the NIF is Adalah, which defines itself as a non-partisan human rights organization. However, its agenda differs significantly from its self-definition.

Jerusalem-based researcher Arlene Kushner, in her study of Adalah published by the Center for Near East Policy Research entitled "Inside Adalah," finds that "in various venues — including the Durban U.N. conference on racism — Adalah has charged or participating in charging Israel with grave breeches of international humanitarian law, war crimes, willful killing, racism, apartheid [and] ethnic cleansing."

Adalah takes the position that the Israeli government is a "junta which proves each day that it is the most fascist and racist in history."

In 2007, Adalah proposed a constitution for Israel in which immigration of Jews would be banned except for "humanitarian reasons." With its demand for the right of return for so-called Palestinian refugees, Adalah sees Israel's future as one with an Arab majority, which would create another predominantly Arab-Muslim state.

Another group funded by the NIF is Mossawa. Last month, Mossawa and fellow NIF grantee Coalition of Women for Peace wrote to the Norwegian government and asked "the Norwegian people to join us in our efforts and to stop investing in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory."

Naomi Paiss, director of communications for the NIF, declined to comment for this report.

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, June 24, 2009.

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels, and so on. However, he should kill the animal after orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in the village; however, the selling of meat to people in a neighboring village is permissible.
— Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Contact C Pocerl by email at at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 24, 2009.

This was posted by Julia Gorin on her website:


Srdja Trifkovic sent in the following:

Take a deep breath and a large whisky.

Think you've seen it all? Now there is a pro-KLA musical by a former law school dean (Chicago Kent) and former Clintonite who spent a little time in Kosovo and uses his position to state that the Serbs are the "cancer" of Europe...and gets friendly reviews and a politely sympathetic article in the ABA Journal. Incredible!

As another tipster on this, named Diana, wrote: "Don't miss the seven-minute youtube [video]. It provides a rare authentic taste of the American view of the world that brought us the Kosovo war...and other tragic farces. I am speechless."

A news story by Lynda Edwards and entitled "Ex-Law School Dean Spins Kosovo Experience Into Rock Opera" describes a musical written by Hank Perritt, the former dean of Chicago-Kent College of Law. The article is in the ABA Journal
(http://www.abajournal.com/news/ex-law_school_dean_spins_kosovo_ experience_into_rock_opera/).

As ludicrous as the concept is, there seemed always something inevitable about a Serb-killing musical, didn't there? Here is an interview with the senile old fool who thought of this. The news clip opens with the song "Shoot Them All".

Check out his reference to the "mostly Christian KLA." That's almost like saying "the mostly caucasian Vietcong." (And yes, "Miss Saigon" was his inspiration for this.)

Hey, Israel-watchers — if you liked the play about Rachel Corrie, you'll LOVE the musical about the KLA. In fact, the concept is only a few rungs beneath the sequel to Corrie — "Hamas: The Musical!" — given that Hamas is actually more moderate than the KLA.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 24, 2009.


Israel's curriculum doesn't entirely cover the Jewish people's long history. One subject not approved by the Education Ministry is that of Arab refugees. Arabs are trying to get that subject taken up, as "the Catastrophe." Some educators prepared a kit on it, embodying the Arab view. They are distributing it to teachers without Ministry approval but with the approval of some teachers (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/4).

Should the curriculum on the Holocaust advocate from the Nazi point of view? That would be absurd. The Nazi view is false and evil. Same for the Arab view.

History is not a point of view. It is a set of facts and judgment derived from the facts. The Arab narrative lies and misleads in order to indoctrinate. The key facts: the Arabs tried to seize the country and exterminate the Jews, lost, and mostly fled. They pretend that Zionists were the aggressors and expelled them.

For more on "catastrophes," click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d16-Catastrophes-for-Arab-and-Jewish-Palestinians


Syria will have a vital role in forging peace, said U.S. envoy Mitchell to Syrian leaders and to reporters. "The U.S. has long sought more Syrian help with keeping weapons and fighters from crossing from Syria into Iraq."

The Obama administration hopes that this palaver would encourage Syria to help. Mitchell seeks a "relationship built on mutual respect and mutual interest. Syria presently supports Hamas (NY Times, 6/14, A12).

Mutual interest and "more Syrian help?" Syria promotes war in Iraq, though sometimes it reduces border crossing temporarily. "Mutual respect?"


In the Middle Ages, Spain and Portugal coerced many Jews to convert to Christianity. Conversos who secretly practiced Judaism, formerly called Marranos, now are called Bnai Anousim. Hundreds of their descendants studied Judaism and are returning to its faith. Israel is training 70 Bnai Anousim how to defend Israel's reputation
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/26).

Hundreds of converses in Peru asre taking courses in Judaism and emigrating to Israel (Simon Romero, NY Times, 6/22, A8).


White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod explained Pres. Obama's Cairo speech. It visualizes most Muslims as extraordinary people simply wanting better lives. This perceives people mainly as consumers, with similar values and without ideology. Actually, many people have competing national aspirations and sacrifice for what they consider higher goals. The U.S. view is insulting and naïve. U.S. policy should take foreign cultures into account (Dr. Aaron Lerner, http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis. 6/4). For Thomas Friedman's world view, at least in part, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d17-Are-Afghanistan-Iraq-Pakistan-separate-wars


Reading a couple of NY Times editorials, I was struck by the absence or weak presentation of opposing arguments. The editors made their case unfairly.

Opposition cases mostly were brushed off as insufficient. That editorial judgment lacks factual backing. How shall readers and voters decide about the issues?

In its news columns, the NY Times picks facts tendentiously or quotes people without giving readers the facts on which to evaluate those quotes. This practice would give equal weight to opposing sides, if the opposing quotes were of equal length and emotional appeal. They are not. Guess which side gets the longer and more emotional quotations? On the Arab-Israel conflict, it is the side that the Times favors, the Arabs. Which Israelis are consulted, if any? The ones that favor appeasing the Arabs.

Bias in the Western media is more deeply entrenched, now. The Free World always had difficulty reporting accurately from dictatorships. Dictators can bar or harass nonconforming journalists. The PLO and Syria murdered their own reporters, attacked or threatened Western ones, and the PLO once kidnapped reporters from the NY Times and colleagues. To preserve their lives and livelihoods, Western journalists censor themselves or submit to censorship. The media did not so advise audiences. The Times and the others tried not to repress news of the kidnapping of their employees, as if that were not news. It was news. It was exciting and significant news.

Not knowing Arabic or the area, and relishing safety, many Western journalists turned to Arab go-betweens for photographs and local news. Some Arabs want to be professional journalists, others share their people's religious bias. Those in the Palestinian Authority have to cope with more threats than outside journalists — the Arab ones' families may be held hostage to "handlers'" conformity to the official line.

Lately, NY Times articles are co-written by Arabs and by American Times reporters. This may not distress the editors much, because the Times mostly favors the Arab side, journalistic ethics be damned. For readers, however, crucial facts are omitted, falsehoods are substituted, one side gets more coverage, wording is value-laden, and picture captions are misleading.

The photographs of Israel often show it at its worst or in conflict with the Arabs, in such a way as to generate sympathy for the Arabs. Israeli advances often are ignored. Beautiful settlements are not shown, though their architecture is stunning. Arabs are shown as unhappy, even deprived, though they are unhappy in being unable to deprive the Jews of their lives and property. That the newspapers rarely admit.


Former Israeli Defense Min. Moshe Arens rejects limiting building in Judea-Samaria to "natural growth." He points out that the Jewish people built there not because of "natural growth but because of natural rights." "'Our settlement in the Land of Israel is the basic right of the Jewish Nation,'" Arens said, 'based not only on the Bible and Jewish history, but [also] on international recognition during the times of the League of Nations and the British Mandate.'"

He asserted Israeli sovereignty in opposition to demands by President Obama. He also opposes building new outposts without authorization.

"Middle East expert Dr. Mordechai Keidar believes that U.S. President Barack Obama has been misinformed regarding the problems facing the region. Obama means well, Keidar says, but does not understand the centuries-old issues of poverty, illiteracy, tribalism and extremism facing Muslim countries, or how those issues play into Arab hatred of Israel."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/5).

For more on "settlements," click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d17-US-denies-accepting-any-settlement-building


Most Palestinian Arabs think that the two parts of the Palestinian Authority, Gaza and Judea-Samaria, are too disunited to form a state. Amnesty International criticized both halves for arbitrary detention, torture, and stifling of free speech.

"Obama did not explain in his Cairo speech...how he plans to get the two groups to unite. 'Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist,' Obama said, but did not elaborate how this might occur."
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/5). Talk is cheap.

For more on Arab statehood, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d11-How-many-states-should-Arabs-have


Two Israeli Members of Knesset drove to the Kalandia and Kfar Akeb neighborhoods in northern Jerusalem, to observe illegal Arab construction on Jewish-owned property. Israel has sovereignty throughout Jerusalem. However, Israeli police told MK Eldad and MK Arial that although they had a right to go there, the police would not escort them. The police say they don't patrol there. What did the MKs find there?

The observers were accosted by Palestinian Authority (P.A.) police, who ordered them to stop. The Israelis fled, as the P.A. police rammed them and called for backup
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/5).

When not watched, P.A. personnel infiltrate areas they agreed not to.

For more on the character of P.A. forces, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d11-NY-Times-flaw-6-on-Abbas--his-forces-antiterrorist

For more on informal, secret division of Jerusalem, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m5d5-Israeli-PM-Netanyahu-dividing-Jerusalem

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Mr La, June 23, 2009.
This was written by Eric Fingerhut and it appeared yesterday in the JTA news service.

Why has the United States made settlements such a big issue with Israel in the last few weeks? Two veterans of Middle East peace negotiations — from opposite sides of the political spectrum — say they are puzzled by the president's approach.

Both Aaron David Miller, who advised Secretary of State Jim Baker on Arab-Israeli issues during the George H.W. Bush and was at the Camp David negotiations during the Clinton administration, and Elliott Abrams, who was deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, agreed last week that the Obama administration's pressure on Israel over settlements isn't the correct move right now. And both said they saw virtually no chance of a conflict-ending agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians anytime soon.

They spoke at a Bethesda, Md. synagogue at a forum — sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington and t he American Jewish Committee's Washington chapter. The crowd seem jarred from Miller and Abrams' pessimism, after hearing all the hope for a peace deal that has come out of the White House and some quarters of the Jewish community since Obama's inauguration.

Miller's criticism of the White House was particularly notable, because he is not opposed to getting tough with Israel — he pointed out that every time the United States has succeeded in achieving a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict, there has been "some measure of unhappiness" and tension. He also believes that settlements are a big problem (although he said even his old boss Baker knew he couldn't get Israel to freeze "natural growth" of settlements).

But "as legitimate a problem as settlements are with respect to undermining the environment toward a negotiation," said Miller, they are a "distraction" given all the problems that need to be addressed.

"Given the stakes and reality, we are going to need a relationship with Israel of great intimacy in order to do this. We need to think very carefully about how we're going about it, where is the strategy, what is the objective," he said.

And while fighting with the Israelis in pursuit of a true "breakthrough" is worth it, he sees virtually no prospect of an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians on the four core issues of Jerusalem, borders, security and refugees.

"There's a tension between two realities" that "cannot be reconciled" at that time, said Miller. "The commitment on the part of a young and transformative president who does not want to be the president on whose watch the two state solution dies, competing with the almost unimaginable possibility that Israel and Palestine can enter into a negotiation and reach a conflict-ending agreement."

Abrams also said that the settlement issue was not being handled "in a way that is likely to produce the most from Israel," particularly the fact that it was happening "on page one" instead of behind closed doors.

"You catch more honey with flies than vinegar," he said.

But Abrams added that he didn't understand "how we got to where we are today," considering that media reports have revealed that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas 96 percent of the West Bank along with land swaps that added up to virtually 100 percent and "the answer he got back is nothing."

"I would have thought this puts the onus on the Palestinians to do something, I would have thought that offer by Olmert shows the settlement expansion issue is phony" because Olmert's offer was better than the one made by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack at Camp David 10 years ago, said Abrams.

"I don't understand," he added, the apparent decision "to take the position that Israel is the problem."

What is the most significant issue right now? For Miller, it is the Palestinians being able to control security in their territory.

"A state must maintain a monopoly over the legitimate forces of violence within its society," he said. "If you do not control all the guns, then you constituents will never respect you, and your neighbors will respect you less."

As the night went on, both Miller and Abrams continued to agree — there was no reason to be hopeful about a breakthrough.

Abrams noted that while everyone has thought they have known the basic terms of a Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement for decades, such a deal still hasn't happened. Maybe that's because "they don't want them" and "neither side, looking at what the deal would be, is prepared to say OK."

Miller essentially concurred, saying, "Neither side is prepared to realistically protect its own interests while meeting the interests of the other side."

Why did these two advisers associated with opposite ideological camps find themselves agreeing so much? Miller said it was a "fundamental testament to just how deep-seated and nasty this conflict really is."

"I'm not here to say it can never be solved," said Miller, but "America cannot afford to have a policy based in illusion."

Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Anne Bayefsky, June 23, 2009.

President Obama has staked his reputation on being a human rights guru to people around the world. But his remarks at Tuesday's news conference and behavior since taking office have instead exposed a different persona — that of human rights charlatan.

On June 15, three days after the phony Iranian elections and the same day that seven Iranian demonstrators were murdered, Obama's UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, made a speech in Vienna promoting the Saint Obama vision: "The responsibility to protect is a duty that I feel deeply. ... We must prepare for the likelihood that we will again face the worst impulses of human nature run riot, perhaps as soon as in days to come. And we must be ready. ... We all know the greatest obstacle to swift action in the face of sudden atrocity is, ultimately, political will. ... It requires above all the courage and compassion to act. Together, let us all help one other to have and to act upon the courage of our convictions."

A week later there were multiple casualties, injuries and threats, and 46 million voters wrenched away from that doorway to freedom that had opened — if only a crack. But when the president was asked Tuesday: "Is there any red line that your administration won't cross where that offer [to talk to Iran's leaders] will be shut off?" He answered: "We're still waiting to see how it plays itself out."

And when asked again, "If you do accept the election of Ahmadinejad ... without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?" He answered: "We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places."

And asked again: "Why won't you spell out the consequences that the Iranian people..." He answered: "Because I think that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out."

And yet again: "Shouldn't the present regime know that there are consequences?" He answered: "We don't yet know how this is going to play out."

This is a man who embodies the opposite of the courage to act. His appalling ignorance of history prompted him to claim at his press conference that "the Iranian people ... aren't paying a lot of attention to what's being said ... here." On the contrary, from their jail cells in the Gulag, Soviet dissidents took heart from what was being said here — as all dissidents dream that the leader of the free world will be prepared to speak and act in their defense.

The president's storyline that we don't know what has transpired in Iran is an insult to the intelligence of both Americans and Iranians. Our absence from the polling booths doesn't mean the results are a mystery. The rules of the election were quite clear. Candidates for president must be approved by the 12-member Council of Guardians. As reported by the BBC, more than 450 Iranians registered as prospective candidates while four contenders were accepted. All 42 women who attempted to run were rejected. So exactly what part of rigged does President Obama not understand?

Instead of denouncing the fake election, President Obama now tells Iranians who are dying for the real thing "the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran." Whose sovereignty is that? The Hobbesian sovereign thugs running the place? Sovereignty to do what? To deny rights and freedoms to their own people? In a state so bereft of minimal protections for human dignity, why should the sovereignty of such a government be paramount?

But President Obama didn't want to dwell on the daily reality of sovereign Iran: A criminal code that permits stoning women to death for alleged adultery and hanging homosexuals for the crime of existing. Instead, he repeatedly invoked "respect" for "their traditions and their culture."

This is the same mantra he espoused to the Islamic world in Cairo when three times he spoke of the "rights" of Muslim women to cover up their bodies. Knowing full well that women in the Muslim world face the contrary problem of surviving after refusing to cover up their bodies, he never once dared to mention that this was also a human right. What part of cultural relativism and traditional oppression does President Obama not know how it plays out?

In his scripted remarks, the president gave the impression of talking tough: "The Iranian government ... must respect those rights [to assembly and free speech]. ... It must govern through consent and not coercion." But with the "or else" pointedly missing from his lines, he made it plain that he continues to have high hopes of partnering with this current Iranian theocracy. "I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people."

This Iranian government has told us in deeds, as well as in words, exactly what path it has chosen. President Obama has told us his path also: pandering to Islamic radicals and empty posturing. Ironically, the rest of the world claimed they wanted a weak American president whose foreign policy would read "apologize, capitulate and stand down." Now that they have what they asked for, real human rights victims are being forced to pay the piper.

Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.

This comes from Eye On The UN organization, Anne Bayefsky, editor. Contact them by email at info@EYEontheUN.org, It originally appeared in Forbes

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, June 23, 2009.

This is by Yaroslav Trofimov and it appeared in the Wall Street Journal
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124571901245939581.html). Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com


JERUSALEM — In his Friday sermon, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reserved special wrath for "Zionist radio" that he said tried to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic. Such attention from Iran's supreme leader was music to the ears of Menashe Amir, a bespectacled Iranian-born Israeli who has been broadcasting in Persian from Jerusalem for the past five decades.

"We're listened to in Iran and considered very credible and effective," Mr. Amir says with pride. "We're close to the Iranian people, we know what they want, and we have our sources that give us detailed news about everything that's going on in Iran."

The spread of the Internet and satellite television in Iran over the past decade seemed to eclipse the prominence of Mr. Amir's old-fashioned shortwave broadcasts on Kol Israel, Israel's public radio. But now, as the Web in Iran is either blocked or dramatically slowed and satellite-TV channels are jammed by the government amid spreading unrest, Mr. Amir has suddenly become relevant again.

"Today we have many more listeners inside the country because Iranians are thirsty for any information" about the unrest, the 69-year-old Mr. Amir says. He estimates the Iranian audience for Kol Israel's 85-minute daily show in Persian is between two million and six million people. Independent audience numbers, for obvious reasons, are impossible to come by.

Though semiretired, Mr. Amir has been hosting the show every day since Iran's controversial June 12 elections, narrating news summaries and taking live telephone calls from listeners within Iran. The call-in part of the broadcast, normally a weekly feature, is now on air daily due to the current unrest. Because Iran bans phone and postal links with Israel, Iranian callers dial a special number in Germany; as a precaution, Mr. Amir asks them not to mention their names or hometowns.

On a recent day, as Mr. Amir sat in his tiny studio in Kol Israel's Jerusalem offices, one caller from Iran, his voice trembling with emotion, recounted how "there's blood on the streets and people are being killed like butterflies." Another urged the world to help the protesters — reminding that Persian emperor Cyrus the Great protected and aided the Jews two and a half millennia ago, and asking the Jewish state to repay the favor by supporting Iranian demonstrators today.

Mr. Amir hasn't made any calls to sources inside Iran for decades, he says, fearing his voice would be recognizable to anyone who may be monitoring his contacts' phones. But he and other journalists at the service keep in touch via email and other means of electronic communications with local sources.

He boasts of being able to beat the competition on anything from the latest price of cheese in Tehran to confidential discussions within the Islamic Republic's establishment.

Neatly dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and a tie despite Jerusalem's sweltering heat, Mr. Amir embodies the golden age in Israel's relationship with Iran, the Jewish state's closest regional ally until the shah was overthrown in 1979's Islamic revolution.

"I am 100% Iranian, and I wish the best to Iran. Israel and Iran are natural friends," he says, his studio decorated with posters of Iranian movie stars, a printout of an Iranian flag and a family photograph of Prince Reza Pahlavi, the late shah's exiled son and heir.

"There are still many who remember the period of fruitful cooperation between Israel and Iran, and they want it back," Mr. Amir adds.

Still, Israeli analysts caution, Mr. Amir's vision of renewed Israeli-Iranian friendship is unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future, even if the protesters, led by former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, somehow gain the upper hand in Tehran.

"The entire population has been raised for the past 30 years with the cultic mantra of "death to Israel," " says Prof. Ze'ev Maghen, a Persian speaker who heads the Middle East Studies department at Israel's Bar Ilan University. "It's almost impossible to conceive of a positive outlook on peace between Israel and Iran."

Born into a Jewish family in Tehran, Mr. Amir worked for Iran's Kayhan newspaper — now the mouthpiece of the Islamic regime — before he moved to Israel in 1960. He is one of some 60,000 such immigrants — a community that still maintains close contact with the estimated 15,000 Jews who remain inside Iran.

The community plans a demonstration of support for Tehran protesters on Tel Aviv's seafront promenade Tuesday. Iranian-born Israelis include Shaul Mofaz, until earlier this year Israel's minister of defense, who is often heard in Mr. Amir's broadcasts.

An institution in Israel, Mr. Amir, who also edits the Israeli foreign ministry's Persian-language Web site, bristles at suggestions that he must be coordinating his programming with Israeli government officials because Kol Israel is a public broadcaster that targets a strategic foe.

"Nobody gives us advice — we're the ones who give advice" to the government, he says indignantly. "We know the Iranian psychology, and can tell exactly what's happened there and what the news means."

Mr. Amir minces no word in expressing his outrage over a statement by Meir Dagan, the chief of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, who told a parliamentary committee last week that the extent of fraud in Iran's contested presidential elections was no worse than what happens in liberal democracies.

"If that's what Mossad really thinks, they don't have any idea of what's going on in Iran," Mr. Amir said.

Kol Israel, of course, isn't the only foreign radio station broadcasting in Persian. The British Broadcasting Corporation, the Voice of America and U.S.-funded Radio Farda also beam into the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Khamenei, however, on Friday singled out Kol Israel, naming it first in his tirade against alleged foreign interference in Iranian affairs.

"The enemies are trying through their media, which is controlled by dirty Zionists. The Zionist, U.S. and U.K. radio are all trying to say that there was a competition between those who supported and those who didn't support the state," the ayatollah said, insisting that all presidential candidates fully accepted the Islamic Republic and its government system. "Accusing the government of corruption because of Zionist reports is not the right thing."

Ayatollah Khamenei's diatribes are likely to lure new listeners to Mr. Amir's program, Israeli analysts say. "The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend," explains Shmuel Bar, director of studies at the Institute for Policy and Strategy in Herzliya. "But, if the regime is so much against it, you have to listen to it."

Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by CPocerl, June 23, 2009.

This is from Times Online


The Iranian authorities have ordered the family of a student shot dead in Tehran to take down mourning posters as they struggle to stop her becoming the rallying point for protests against the presidential election.

Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old trainee tour guide from an eastern suburb of Tehran

Neda Salehi Agha Soltan, 26, was killed as she watched a pro-democracy protest, and mobile phone footage of her last moments have become a worldwide symbol of Iran's turmoil.

The authorities had already banned a public funeral or wake and have prevented gatherings in her name while the state-controlled media has not mentioned Miss Soltan's death.

Today it was reported that they had also told her family to take down the black mourning banners outside their home in the Tehran suburbs to prevent it becoming a place of pilgrimage. They were also told they could not hold a memorial service at a mosque.

Nevertheless posters of Miss Soltan's face have started to appear all over Tehran.

The attempted crackdown came as friends present as Miss Soltan died came forward to detail what happened.

(David McNew/Getty Images)

Hamid Panahi, her friend and music teacher, told the Los Angeles Times how Miss Soltan was shot as they and two others were making their way to a demonstration in Freedom Square in central Tehran. Their car became stuck in traffic on Karegar Street and they got out for some air.

Mr Panahi said that he heard a distant crack and saw Miss Soltan instantly collapse to the ground.

"We were stuck in traffic and we got out and stood to watch and, without her throwing a rock or anything, they shot her," he said. "It was just one bullet."

He later heard other witnesses claiming that the gunman was not a police officer but one of a group of plainclothes officials or Basiji militia.

He recalled watching in horror as blood came out of her chest and then began to bubble from her nose and mouth — footage that bystanders captured on their mobile phones and posted on the internet, where she has become a global phenomenon.

Mr Panahi said that Neda's last words before she slipped into unconsciousness were: "I'm burning! I'm burning!"

A doctor who tried to help ordered him to cover the wound with his hand and press down. A driver coming the other way offered to take her to hospital in his car, but they took a wrong turn down a dead end and had to switch her body to another car.

Protesters screamed at drivers to clear away through the jams but Neda was dead before she reached the operating theatre at Shariati Hospital, said Mr Panahi.

"She was a person full of joy," he added. "She was a beam of light. I'm so sorry. I was so hopeful for this woman...

"This is a crime that's not in support of the government, this is a crime against humanity."

Family and friends who called at the apartment in great numbers to pay their respects said that Neda was born in Tehran, the second of three children. Her father is a civil servant on a modest salary and her mother a housewife.

After studying Islamic philosophy at Azad university in Tehran, she decided to work in tourism, taking private lessons to become a tour guide and studying Turkish with a view to leading tour groups abroad.

She is said to have loved travel and she and two friends had been on package tours to Thailand, Dubai and, two months ago, to Turkey. Persian pop music was one of her passions and she was taking piano lessons. She was also a talented singer.

Miss Soltan was not a political activist, said her friends. It was her anger at the election results that impelled her out onto the streets to join Saturday's protest.

Friends had begged her not to go, but she replied that she was not afraid to die. "Don't worry, it's just one bullet and then it's over."

"She couldn't stand the injustice of it," said Mr Panahi. "All she wanted was the proper vote of the people to be counted. She wanted to show with her presence that, 'I'm here, I also voted, and my vote wasn't counted'. It was a very peaceful act of protest, without any violence."

Denied a public funeral, the mourners travelled in minivans to Behesht Zahra cemetery where Neda was laid to rest on Sunday afternoon. It was a muted affair, as they were — to their fury — under official orders not to sing her praises loudly or to mourn her loss.

They declined to speak but Mr Panahi said he had nothing left to lose in speaking out. "They know me. They know where I am. They can come and get me whenever they want. My time has gone. We have to think about the young people.

"When they kill an innocent child, that is not justice. That is not religion. In no way is this acceptable."

Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 23, 2009.

Over 100,000 Arabs Live Illegally on Jewish-Owned Land in Jerusalem and Israeli government and JNF do nothing about it!

Key land in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which over the years has allowed tens of thousands of Arabs to illegally squat on its land, resulting in the current Arab majority. The organization bought the land in the early 1920s using Jewish donor funds for the specific purpose of Jewish settlement.

Arabs first constructed facilities illegally in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb between 1948 and 1967, prior to the 1967 Six-Day War during which Israel retook control of the entire city of Jerusalem . The bulk of illegal Arab construction in Qalandiya occurred in the past 20 years, with construction of several new Arab apartment complexes taking place in just the past two years. Neither the Israeli government nor JNF took any concrete measures to stop the illegal building, which continues today. (Why isn't President Obama talking about this illegal expansion of Arab settlements?)

Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 23, 2009.

And what message does it send to the world that he (Obama) and his team think that it is appropriate to make a photo op trip for ice cream as Iranians risk their lives on the streets of Teheran?

Something is very wrong in the White House.

Either no one on the Obama understands this — or perhaps even worse — even though there are people on the team who know this, they won't tell him — or he won't listen.

This below was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184900431&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com  

Editor's Note: The cartoon above is by John Cole. It appeared June 1, 2009 on the Townhall.com website; it was not part of the original article.


"Could there be something to all the talk of an Obama effect, after all? A stealth effect, perhaps?"

So asked Helene Cooper, the New York Times' diplomatic correspondent in a news analysis of the massive anti-regime protests in Iran published in Sunday's Times.

It took US President Barack Obama eight days to issue a clear statement of support for the millions of pro-freedom demonstrators throughout Iran risking their lives to oppose the tyranny of the mullahs.

And after eight days of vacillating and hedging his bets and so effectively supporting Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei against the multitudes rallying in the streets, Obama's much awaited statement was not particularly forceful.

He offered no American support of any kind for the protesters. Indeed, it is hard to say that in making his statement, the American president was speaking primarily as an American.

He warned the likes of Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose goons are currently under orders to beat, arrest and murder protesters, that "the world is watching... If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."

According to several prominent Western bloggers with direct ties to the protesters, Obama's statement left the Iranians underwhelmed and angry.

But as Cooper sees it, the protesters owe their ability to oppose the regime that just stole their votes and has trampled their basic human rights for 30 years to Obama and the so-called "Obama effect."

Offering no evidence for her thesis, and ignoring a public record filled with evidence to the contrary, Cooper claims that it is due to Obama's willingness to accept the legitimacy of Iran's clerical tyranny that the protesters feel emboldened to oppose their regime.

If it hadn't been for Obama, and his embrace of appeasement as his central guiding principle for contending with the likes of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, as far as Cooper is concerned, the people on the streets would never have come out to protest.

By this thinking, America is so despised by the Iranians that the only way they will make a move against their regime is if they believe that America is allied with their regime.

So by this line of reasoning, the only way the US can lead is by negative example — which the world in its wisdom will reject.

While Cooper's analysis gives no evidence that Obama's policies toward the ayatollahs had any impact on the tumultuous events now sweeping through Iran, it does make clear that the so-called Obama effect is a real phenomenon. It just isn't the phenomenon she claims it is.

THE REAL OBAMA effect on world affairs relates to the US media's unprecedented willingness to abandon the basic responsibilities of a free press in favor of acting as propagandists for the president.

From Cooper — who pretends that Obama's unreciprocated open hand to the mullahs is what empowered the protesters — to Newsweek editor Evan Thomas who referred to Obama earlier this month as a "sort of God," without a hint of irony, the US media have mobilized to serve the needs of the president.

It is hard to think of an example in US history in which the media organs of the world's most important democracy so openly sacrificed the most basic responsibilities of news gatherers to act as shills for the chief executive.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt enjoyed adoring media attention, but he also faced media pressures that compelled him to take actions he did not favor. The same was the case with John F. Kennedy.

Today the mainstream US media exert no such pressures on Obama. Earlier this month NBC's nightly news anchorman Brian Williams bowed to Obama when he bade him good night at the White House.

On Wednesday ABC News will devote an entire day of programming to advancing Obama's controversial plan to nationalize health care. Its two prime time news shows will be broadcast from White House. Good Morning America will feature an interview with Obama, and ABC's other three flagship shows will dedicate special programming to his health care reform program.

On the other hand, ABC has refused Republican requests for a right of reply to Obama's positions. The network has also refused to sell commercial advertising time to Republicans and other Obama opponents to offer their dissenting opinions to his plans.

This media behavior has been noted by the likes of Fox News and the handful of other US news outlets that are not in the tank for Obama. But the repercussions of the Obama effect on US politics and world affairs have been largely ignored.

THE MOST IMPORTANT repercussion of the US media's propagandistic reporting is that the American public is denied the ability to understand events as they unfold.

Take for instance The New York Times*' write-up of Khamenei's sermon this past Friday in which he effectively declared war on the protesters. As Russell Berman pointed out in the Telos blog on Saturday, the Times' write-up was misleadingly selective.

The Times did not mention that Khamenei ascribed world events to a Zionist conspiracy which he believes controls the US. It similarly failed to mention his long rant against the US for the FBI's 1993 raid on David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Had the Times — and other major media outlets — properly reported Khamenei's speech, they would have made clear to their readers that he is not a rational thinker.

His view of world events is deeply distorted by his hatreds and prejudices and paranoia.

But then, if Times readers were permitted to know just how demented Khamenei's views of the world are, they might come to the conclusion that Obama's intense desire to sit down with him, and his constant pandering to Iran's "supreme leader" are ill-advised and counterproductive.

They might come to the conclusion that it is impossible to achieve a meeting of the minds with a man who calls Americans "morons" and leads his subordinate government officials in chants of "Death to America," "Death to Britain" and "Death to Israel."

And if they came to these conclusions, how could Obama be expected to affect anything?

Sunday, Cooper argued that Obama has changed the course of history in Iran simply by being the US president. In her words, unnamed Obama supporters claim that "the mere election of Barack Obama in the United States had galvanized reformers in Iran to demand change."

And Obama's power as president to change the world is not limited to Iran. As far as his media servants are concerned, his "mere election" is responsible for everything positive that has occurred in the US and throughout the world since last November.

TAKE HIZBULLAH'S defeat in the Lebanese parliamentary elections two weeks ago. As far as the US media are concerned, it was Obama's speech to the Muslim world on June 4 that emboldened the Lebanese to back the anti-Syrian March 14 slate of candidates. Never mind that his speech — which refused to condemn Iran for its support for terrorism and its nuclear weapons program — actually strengthened Hizbullah's position by demonstrating that the US would take no action against its Iranian masters. As far as the US media were concerned, Obama won the election for Hizbullah's pro-Western rivals.

Yet this is not true. According to actual electoral data, what swung the balance towards Saad Hariri's March 14 camp was Hizbullah-allied Christian leader Michel Aoun's failure to convince Lebanon's Christian minority to acquiesce to Hizbullah's takeover of the country.

And Lebanese Christian voters did not reject Hizbullah because Obama is President of the United States. They rejected Hizbullah because the Maronite Christian Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir warned them on the eve of the election, "We must be alert to the schemes being plotted for us and thwart the intense efforts which, if they succeed, will change the face of our country."

WHILE OBAMA'S supporters in the US media are certain that Obama's "mere election" is responsible for every positive development on the world scene, they are equally certain that he bears no responsibility for the negative developments that have happened so far on his watch.

For instance, the fact that North Korea chose to escalate its nuclear brinksmanship shortly after Obama took office with a promise of appeasing Pyongyang is considered irrelevant. The fact that he ordered deep cuts in the US missile defense budget as North Korea tested a long-range missile and a nuclear bomb, and that he has maintained these cuts despite North Korea's announced plan to launch a missile against the US on July 4 has gone largely unreported.

Furthermore, the US media were quick to celebrate the UN Security Council's recent resolution against North Korea which calls for inspections of suspicious North Korean ships travelling in international waters as a great Obama achievement. But they failed to inform the public that the resolution has no enforcement mechanism. Consequently, today the USS John McCain, which is tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying ballistic missiles, lacks the authority to interdict it and inspect the cargo.

OUR WORLD today is complex and fraught with dangers. Some of these dangers are new, and some are old. All require serious discussion.

In free societies, the media's primary responsibilities are to report current events to the public, place those events into an historical context to enable the public to understand how and why they occurred, and to present the public with the options for going forward. It is due to the media's historic role in maintaining and cultivating an informed discussion and debate about current affairs that they became known as democracy's watchdog. When media organs fail to fulfill their basic responsibilities, they degenerate quickly into democracy's undertaker. For an uninformed public is incapable of making the sorts of decisions required of free citizens.

Obama and his media flacks would have us believe that by speaking of American values and by distinguishing friend from foe, former president George W. Bush raised the hackles of the world against America. Perhaps there is some truth to this assertion. Perhaps there isn't.

What they fail to consider is that by genuflecting to tyrants, Obama has made the US an international laughingstock. Far from sharing their adulation of Obama and his cool demeanor, most of the nations of the world believe that the US has abandoned its leadership role. And unlike the US media, they realize that America has no understudy.

Unfortunately, unless the Obama effect wears off soon, by the time the American people become aware of this fact it may be too late to make a difference.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit, June 23, 2009.

This was written by Ben Kaspit and Ben Dror Yemini. It appeared in Hebrew at
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/906/744.html Below is the English translation by Nurit Greenger.


The European Left, the Democrats, the Liberals, the leaders of the West, all go rampant when Israel attacks the Gaza Strip. Where are they now? Why Obama, Blair, Sarkozy keep on sitting on the fence at the time that Iranian Regime is slaughtering protestors and crushing their basic right to be able to protest?

Tell me, where is everyone? To where have they vanished, all those who protested against Israel's violence during Operation Cast, Lead or the Second Lebanon War, or Defense Shield or even the Hague when we were dragged there by our hair when we dared to try build a separation barrier between us and the suicide bomber? Here and there we see protests but they are mainly Iranian immigrants. In principle, Europe is calm and relaxed. Likewise, the USA. Here few dozens, there few thousands. What, they have vanished because it is Teheran, and not here?

Is it possible that all those Europeans who chase peace and justice, British professors who strive for freedom and equality, the friends who fill up the newspapers, the magazines, the academic gazettes with their variety of different demands the ban Israel, undermining Zionism, and blame us and our country for all of the world's suffering and morbidity, have gone on a long vacation?

Now of all times, when the Basij militia forces hooligans have begun slaughtering innocent civilians in the city squares of Tehran? What, they are not connected to the Internet? They do not have YouTube? Terrible virus infected their computer? Their justice glands were removed in a complicated surgical procedure (so they can be successfully re-transplanted for the next conflict or operation in Gaza)? How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extreme Islam regime slaughters its citizens their only sin is their strive for freedom, the world is silent?

Can you imagine that this was not happening now in Teheran, rather, as noted, here; let us say in Shchem (Nablus). The Palestinians spontaneous protests would have turned into an on going blood bath. The border patrol troops, armed with knives, on motorbikes would have slaughtering protestors. A young woman would have been shot in the bight day light by a sniper, dying in front of the camera.

Obama is stuttering

Actually, why imagine? It is possible to simply recall what happened with the Al-Dura kid. This issue (we need to admit very difficult) flooded the world from one end to another. The fact that afterward came an independent investigation that arose difficult questions regarding the type of the weapon from which Al-Dura was shot, did not make any difference to anyone. The Zionists were responsible for that.

And where are the leaders of the world? Where is Obama's wonderful rhetoric ability? Where has his sublime treasure of words disappeared to? Where is the inclination that is supposed to be built in any American President to defend and to come to the aid of those who seek freedom anywhere on the face of the planet? What is this stutter?

Someone who is connected to the Iranian events and security said yesterday that if Obama would have demonstrated in regard to the Iranian issue a quarter of his determination that his demonstrates when he attacks Israel on the settlements in the territories issue, everything would have looked different.

"The protestors in Iran are begging for help," the man, who served for many years in senior posts, said. "They need to know that they have a back, that there is a world out there that supports them, but instead they see apathy. That is all happening in a very critical stage of this struggle on the soul of Iran and on the freedom of the Iranian people. It is so sad."

The West is indifferent

Or for example, the European Union (EU). The one that the height of justice and peace is on its lips each day of the year. Why its leaders aren't declaring openly (with open mouth) that the world wants Iran free and democratic and will give her unconditional support? Could it be that the tongue of too many Europeans is still attached to dark places? The poor excuse that such support will be sufficient for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to have a pretext to call the protestors "the West Agents," does not hold water. As it is they call them "the West Agents," so what is the difference? To think that only half a year ago, when Europe was flooded with demonstrations against Israel, Leftists and Islamists carried pictures of Nasrallah the proxy child of the Ayatollahs' regime. The fact that we are talking about a dark regime did not bother them. We are speaking about mania but it does not seep in and affect the tired West. If there is a truly free world, let it appear at once! And will, for instance, impose sanctions on those who slaughter their people. Just like they imposed sanctions on North Korea and the Burmese regime. It is a matter of will not ability.

Apparently, when it comes to Iran, something happens to the international community adherence to justice and peace. The oppression is clear and known. The Internet age transmits everything live. And this is good. Bullies on behalf of the regime are shooting and stabbing many protestors that are screaming for freedom

Do we need anything else? Apparently yes. Because this will not help. The West remains pathetic. Obama is inexperienced. And why he should not be, after all he aims for a dialogue with the Ayatollahs. And this is nice, really nice, the problem is that at this stage there is no dialogue, but there is death and murder in the streets. At this stage there is a need to forget the manners rules.

Continuing sitting on the fence

The voices that Obama makes raise the suspicion that perhaps we have in fact business with a new version of Chamberlain. Appeasement is a good quality especially when it comes after George Bush's clumsy militarism, but when appeasement becomes blindness, we have a serious problem.

The brave voice of Angela Merkel, who, yesterday, announced her peremptory support for the Iranian nation and its right for freedom, is for the meantime a voice calling in the West desert. It is a pity though that she does not declare a total economic sanction, based on the fact that we are talking about a European country that is the most invested in Iran's infrastructure.

The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband joined her. It is too late, it is not enough. Mullions, demanding freedom, went into the streets in Iran. And the West in on the fence. One foot here, one foot there.

There is another Islam. Today it is already clear. Even in Iran. There, there are millions of Muslims who support freedom, human rights, and women's equality. These millions despise Khamenei, also Chaves, and also Nasrallah. However, part of the tired Left prefers the Ayatollahs' regime to them.

The main thing that they wave flags against Israel and the USA. The question is why the Democrats, the Liberals, and Obama, and Blair, and Sarkozy continue sitting on the fence. It is not a separation wall, it a fence of shame.

Contact Nurit by email at nurit_g@ca.rr.com
This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 23, 2009.

A blind man joins the democracy protests in Tehran. (Iran Press News)

The Iranian people did not see the murder of Neda on TV. But, they heard about it. Maybe they saw it on the internet. Maybe they heard about it from a friend. Today Iranians left flowers on the streets of Tehran in remembrance of Neda. (Iran Press News)

In related news... The regime is charging families of those murdered by government forces a "bullet fee" before they can take the body of a loved one from the morgue.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 23, 2009.

This was written by Judith Apter Klinghoffer. It appeared in History News Network


President Barack Obama is about to hold a press conference in the Rose Garden and liberal blogger, Nico Pitney, is hopeful that finally, finally, Obama will condemn the bloody repression in Iran which Pitney has so passionately and tirelessly documented. He is not alone. Last night I saw David Gergen on CNN lose it. Yesterday, E.J. Dionne expounded on the Liberals' Iran Dilemma. Liberals wish to avoid criticizing their "chosen one" but they can no longer bear his amorality and stubborn refusal to face an unwanted reality:

Obama's initial caution served the interests of freedom by making clear that the revolt against Iran's flawed election is homegrown. As the struggle continues, we cannot pretend that we are indifferent to its outcome.

It's not easy to walk the progressive path. But Obama has always said that he knows how to deal with complexity. This is his chance to prove it.

To be honest, he is mighty late.

The UN, Britain, France, Germany, Czech Republic and Finland have all preceded him.

The Finnish government says it told Iran's ambassador to Finland that Tehran must release opposition leaders, recount votes and resolve the election dispute peacefully.

Dionne argues that those who opposed the president's wish to engage Iran have it easy as they have been proven right. He has a point though speaking for myself, I would have been delighted to be proven wrong.

Be that as it may, Barack Obama is my president, too. As such he represents me and in this past week he did it in a manner that left a bitter taste in my mouth. It will also go down as a shameful moment in American history.

Obama said he admired Reagan but, when the moment came, he behaved as cravenly as George H. Bush in 1989. And, yes, the world has been watching!  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 23, 2009.

You may have your own take on how things will turn out in Iran, and right now it seems to me that whatever you would project has no more or less validity than what the "experts" have to say. For very few agree on the prognosis for the rebellion that has been taking place, whether it will fizzle or is the beginning of the end for the current regime, etc.

Certain things are clear, however: Even if Mousavi were to become victorious (a possibility that is fairly moot at this point), this in no way would mean the world was home free. Nuclear development would continue, as he was part of the original plans for such development, and the mullahs would still be in charge.

As it is, the Iranian regime has come out against compromise. Today the electoral authority in Iran, the Guardian Council, announced that "no major fraud or breach in the election" had been discovered, and that "therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place." Never mind that the Guardian Council had previously acknowledged "irregularities" in the election.

There would need to be a genuine popular rebellion (some signs of which we are indeed seeing now — whether the rebellion succeeds currently or not) for there to be a change in policy. But what started with a protest over electoral fraud has become more.

There are conflicting forecasts: either that even if the rebellion fizzles now the seeds have been sown and things will never be the same there again, or that the regime will come down more repressively than ever, squelching all rebellious efforts.


In passing I note this, which is fairly obvious, but merits recognition: What a different world we live in today, when those rebelling on the street can send Internet messages appealing for help and updating the world with text and pictures. When there is Facebook and Twitter, and all the rest. Seems to me a rebellion can no longer be contained in quite the same way, no matter the repressive forces.


President Obama has pretty much fallen on his face with regard to Iran. It is not my wont to quote Shmuley Boteach, but he is right on the mark here:

"Of all the sins which a leader can be guilty, few are as egregious as the simple refusal to lead. Watching President Barack Obama's at first deafening silence and then weak and hyper-cautious words on Iran has been disappointing and painful.

Our president must decide if he will serve as leader, or spectator, of the free world. This time no one is asking an American president to send in troops; no one is suggesting the deployment of laser-guided bombs. All it takes is a forthright statement from the leader of the free world: 'The people of the United States support the people of Iran in their legitimate quest for democracy and freedom and will hold accountable any and all parties responsible for the bloodshed of nonviolent demonstrators.'

"Pretty easy, right? Our president doesn't think so...

"...Forty-six years ago another young charismatic president went to the very symbol of Soviet oppression in Berlin and directly inserted himself into Soviet affairs by identifying himself with the people who were risking their lives for liberty. 'All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words Ich bin ein Berliner.'

With every passing day I grow more concerned about what might be termed the Obama doctrine. What is it? As best as I can discern, it is a preservation of the status quo. As Obama himself put it, 'America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.'

"Rarely before has an American president spoken out so forcefully in favor of moral relativism." (emphasis added)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184900453&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


The supreme irony is that while Obama stands on his head to avoid what he calls "meddling" in Iran, the regime is accusing him of meddling.


It pleases me that our leaders have now decided to speak considerably more forcefully on Iran.

Yesterday Foreign Minister Lieberman called for involvement of the UN Security Council in the course of a statement that was clear and direct. In Ottawa to meet with Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, he expressed his position to the press:

...that what has been going on in Iran was the result "of a crazy regime (this man does not mince words) shooting at its citizen in the streets. Everyone needs to be clear about the danger of that type of regime holding nuclear weapons.

"...the events in Iran over the last few days obligate a clear response from the international community, first of all to convene an emergency session of the UN Security Council."


PM Netanyahu, for his part, focused more on the positive. In an interview with the German newspaper, Bild, he said:

"What would be good news for Israel is a regime that stops crushing dissent, stops supporting terror, and stops trying to build nuclear weapons.

"It would mean a regime that stops denying the Holocaust and stops threatening Israel with destruction. There is no conflict between the Iranian people and the people of Israel and under a different regime the friendly relations that prevailed in the past could be restored."

He further said that what the regime had done had "unmasked" them. "What we have seen in Iran is a powerful desire on the part of the people to be free..."


Tom Gross, writing on the National Review Online Blog, asks, "So were the Neo-Cons right all along?"

"President Bush said liberating Iraq would have a regional domino effect and give people a taste for freedom and democracy. Is this what we're seeing now in Iran?"


Today Netanyahu started a three day visit — to Rome, first, and then Paris.

In his meeting with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, Iran was discussed at considerable length. Italy is one of the EU nations most kindly disposed to Israel, and interaction is warm and cordial.

What is startling is that Italy is also the number one European trade partner with Iran, accounting for 26% of the import-export trade between EU countries and Iran. Berlusconi said this would continue as long as the US approved.


On another score: Just days ago, PM Netanyahu, in his major address, advocated a "demilitarized state" for the Palestinians. I may return to this with further detail, but wanted to mention here that this concept is not being well-received. Obviously not with the Palestinians, who won't hear of it, but in other quarters as well, notably with the Obama administration.

There is the issue of rendering the "Palestinian state" demilitarized, which means physically removing armaments from them, and then making certain they stay that way. Netanyahu has since expanded on his original statement, saying that he wasn't asking for international forces to go in, but rather for their recognition that Israel would be able to do what was necessary in this respect, and that Israel would reserve the right to go into that state after its formation, if necessary.

It seems to me that the big problem here is that he decided, in a nod to Obama, to label this area he was proposing for the Palestinians a "state," rather than using a term such as "autonomy." Because what he is describing isn't a state and now he is in a catch-22 situation of his own creation.

A state has a right to sanctity of borders and a right to defend itself. And he is suggesting that we would be able to cross the borders of this "state," and deprive it (this is all theoretical, of course) of the means for self-defense. It's not going to play, I think. (Although Berlusconi endorsed it today.)


After Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu) made a visit to the Temple Mount, the Islamic Wakf complained that this was a deliberate provocation and that the visit had not been coordinated with Muslim authorities in advance. MK Taleb A-Sanaa (United Arab List) said the purpose of the visit was to "inflame" the area, and Aharonovitch would "suffer the consequences." Excuse me?

But Aharonovitch's media advisor, Tal Harel, just shrugged it off, saying "There will always be such comments."

The fact is that the purely routine visit indeed was coordinated with the Wakf and representatives of the Islamic presence on the Mount accompanied Aharonovitch.

I deplore the fact that the Muslims act as if our Temple Mount is exclusively theirs, and I wait for the day when their misimpression will finally be corrected. At least now I see some hope of this down the road.


State Department spokesman Ian Kelly yesterday, when responding to a question, said that the US demand for a freeze on settlements includes everything over the Green Line, even eastern Jerusalem. You understand, eastern Jerusalem is not just the Old City — which would be bad enough. We're talking about Israeli Jewish neighborhoods in existence for many decades, such as French Hill and Ramat Eshkol. This is part of Israel proper — all of it.

In their dreams!


According to a State Department release of June 18, before he met with officials of Hamas, former president Jimmy Carter met with Near Eastern Affairs Bureau Deputy Assistant Secretary David Hale and National Security staff.

Does this mean the Obama administration implicitly sanctioned this meeting? Wouldn't exactly be surprised.


According to Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN, the Obama administration has apologized for not attending Durban 2. Anna Morawiec Mansfield, Deputy Legal Adviser of the United States Mission in Geneva also expressed gratitude "to the many country delegations and senior UN officials who worked steadfastly to ... re-focus the Durban Review Conference squarely on the global fight to eliminate racism and racial discrimination."


I would like to share a radically different take from that of Ms. Mansfield. This, from Gerald Steinberg, of NGO-Monitor (and I'm delighted for the opportunity to write this):

The change in tone for Durban 2, Dr. Steinberg related in a recent talk at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was a victory for Jewish organizations.

We were blind-sided at Durban 1, for we had no idea what was about to take place there, especially in the NGO forum. What emerged was not just a declaration, but a strategy to be implemented — it was after Durban 1 that we heard about the "Apartheid wall," and the "Jenin massacre." Boycotts were initiated and charges of "collective punishment." All with intent to delegitimize us.

A pattern emerged: an NGO makes a charge against us, the media pick it up, the UN makes a condemnation, and then academics come on board.


But for Durban 2 we saw it coming, and a host of major Jewish organizations (NGOs) did an astonishing amount of cooperative planning. Lobbying began early to convince nations not to attend; by the time of the conference, 10 countries had announced they weren't going to participate. This immediately undercut the legitimacy of the proceedings.

At the same time, the Jewish community had learned to work the system. Jewish, pro-Israel groups registered for the conference and in the end outnumbered the anti-Israel NGOs present. This time no separate NGO forum was permitted, but the NGOs who were accredited for the conference could speak at the main event and hold side events.

And the presence of the Jewish groups reversed the atmosphere to a considerable degree. They brought in real victims of racism — such as from Darfur — to speak; Eli Wiesel was brought, as well. They brought in the French students who dressed as clowns during Ahmadinejad's talk — disrupting it and making a pointed statement.

A proud effort which must be sustained in other venues.


This has come to me via several reliable sources and so I pass it along:

The specialty retail grocery chain Trader Joe's is being targeted by anti-Israel groups for boycotts because it has refused to bow to demands to remove Israeli products from its shelves. Please, if you have a Trader Joe's in your area, make a point of patronizing it as extensively as possible — and letting the management know why you are offering support. Additionally, buy Israeli products from the store and let the management know you are pleased that these are being carried.

You can find a list of store locations here:


From time to time I would like to present links to videos that you might find interesting.

Here is an absolutely amazing pro-Israel speech by NJ Senator Bob Menendez.

Watch it, and thank him for it — especially if you are in NJ.
http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm Fax: 202-228-2197


"The Good News Corner"

It gives me special pleasure to write about this, announced by a spokesman from Rambam Hospital:

Lieutenant Asael Lubotzky, serving in the Second Lebanon War as part of the Golani Brigade, was seriously wounded by a direct anti-tank missile hit in the course of the horrific Battle of Bint Jbeil in July 2006. He was taken to Rambam Hospital with severe burns and injuries to both legs. Those tending him expected him to lose his right leg.

However, Dr. Alexander Lerner, Senior Orthopedic Surgeon at the hospital, was determined to save both of Lubotzky's legs.

Lubotzky underwent 20 operations and a long rehabilitation. Dr. Lerner told him that one day he would break the glass (a traditional Jewish practice) under the chuppah (wedding canopy) and he would be there to witness it.

This past Sunday, Asael Lubotzky wed Avital Shimal, and under the chuppah he used his right leg to break the glass, on his very first try.

Dr. Lerner was there, of course, and said "the joy was very great."

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

To Go To Top1ont>

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June 23, 2009.

This was written by John Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary Magazine. It is called "The Turn Against Israel."


BARACK OBAMA began the first week of June 1 with a series of interviews on the eve of his journey to Cairo to deliver his address to the "Muslim world." In all of them, he spoke of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the central importance of resolving it as part of his aim of beginning anew with the Arab and Muslim nations that have grown so disenchanted with the Unites States. To National Public Radio, the President made a point of invoking the ties that bind America to Israel and the "special relationship" between the two nations before asserting that part of being a good friend is being honest and I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that's part of a new dialogue that I'd like to see encouraged in the region."

The President is, of course, entirely right about how "profoundly negative" the "current direction, the current trajectory, in the region" is for American and Israeli interests. A theocratic regime committed in word and spirit to Israel's destruction is relentlessly marching ahead with the development of nuclear weaponry. The conclusion of its march poses not only a threat to Israel's existence but portends a Persian Gulf arms race with implications that ought to terrify everyone. This is precisely the kind of "new dialogue" Israel and the United States should be pursuing in the Middle East — honesty about the trajectory of Iran.

But, of course, honest discourse about Iran was not the fearless truth Barack Obama wished to bestow upon Israel or the Muslim world. Rather, his honesty solely concerned the trajectory "settlements" — which is to say, those acres between Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea on which people now live that have not been declared part of the state of Israel by the international community. The President's honesty compelled him to inform his friend these acres of earth have been improperly and illegally built upon, and that their existence imperils the creation of the Palestinian state he believes is a political and moral necessity.

Obama's notion that presidents before him have not been "as honest as we should be" about the settlements is a peculiar one. Every occupant of the Oval Office since Richard Nixon has spoken unfavorably about them. Indeed, when it comes to policy specifics, it is hard to see exactly how Obama has ushered in a new era of "honesty" in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

And yet there is no question that we have entered a new era, one that I expect will be characterized by tensions and unpleasantness of a kind unseen since the days when George II. W. Bush was president, James A. Baker III was secretary of state and the hostility toward Israel oozed from both men like sweat from an intrepid colonial traveler's brow as he journeyed across the Rub-al-Khali.

One tiny detail gives the game away: Obama's very use of the word "honest" It was carefully chosen, and is pregnant with meaning. In the matter of relations between nations, the adjective, "honest" is often deployed to denote animosity. When, for example, a State Department official describes a discussion between diplomats as "open and honest;' that description is presumed to mean that the proceedings were heated and confrontational.

And in the relations between the United States and Israel, "honest" has a provenance that cannot be ignored, It is most often used as part of a two-word phrase whose euphemistic purpose has long been to criticize American closeness to Israel and assert that any such intimacy needs to be abandoned in favor of a more distant, distinctly cooler posture.

The phrase is "honest broker;' as in, "the United States should serve as an honest broker in the Middle East." It goes back at least 30 years, and seems first to have entered the realm of American cliché in tribute to President Jimmy Carter's role in the Camp David peace process between Israel and Egypt. The success of that negotiation led to calls for the United States to continue to serve as an "honest broker" when it came to the relations between Israel and the 21 other Arab countries that, unlike Egypt, continued to refuse to recognize its existence.

Therein lay the flaw in the "honest broker" idea whereby it was exposed for the disingenuous notion it was. For Israel's only offense to those nations was its very existence. There can be no honest deal-brokering if one party refuses to accept the reality of another. The term suggested each party had equal weight and equal standing, but that was precisely not the case with Israel and the Arab states. The Arab nations had the geopolitical weight; Israel had the moral standing.

What the honest-brokers actually meant when they said that the United States should play an uncommitted role was that we ought to keep our distance from Israel in order to maintain good relations with Arab states. Many of these nations, after all, not only sat atop mammoth oil reserves but whose potentates were also genial and lovely hosts, in contrast to the informal and stiff-necked sabras who simply didn't know how to act in a courtly fashion toward the starched foreign-service officers who served as the nation's emissaries.

It was only in the l990s, when Yasir Arafat was parachuted into the West Bank from his exile in Tunis and reinvented as a negotiating partner for Israel, that the phrase began once again to find purchase. For now, at last, there was a deal to be brokered; the Palestinians were now at the table, eager to claim the land Israel had taken in war. Those who advocated for the Palestinian cause argued that the only way such a thing was going to happen would be if the United States were to serve as an "honest broker — that is to say, implicitly, as the representative of the Palestinians in the negotiation. Indeed, effectively, that is what the Clinton administration did do, so well that it all but designed a Palestinian state, induced then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to accept it, and then went into slack-jawed shock when Yasir Arafat rejected it and started a terror war instead,

Nonetheless, those in the "honest broker" camp believed the Clinton administration compromised by its acceptance of the phrase "special relationship" and Clinton's own expressions of closeness to the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Such is the nature of those who hunger for the "honest broker" role — nothing less than a breach with Israel will do.

The honest brokers presume that the United States has tilted in Israel's direction for all sorts of reasons, all of them corrupt, corrupted, and corrupting. The government is always being manipulated, according to the "honest-brokers" by the all-powerful Israel lobby, the all-powerful neo-conservatives or the all-powerful born-again Christians. Also claimed is that Presidents hunger for the Jewish vote in Florida and Pennsylvania, and therefore betray America's true interests. For the honest-brokers, then, American support for Israel is always viewed as dishonest.

PEOPLE will argue about the text of Obama's Cairo address as long as he is president, because he is to plain-spoken clarity what blue-hued cotton candy is to nutrient. But, the message he was delivering to his own State Department, to his own diplomats who will be carrying out his policies, was plain: The goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is now the creation of a Palestinian state. Very little will be expected of the Palestinians in the creation of that state; Hamas should renounce terror and recognize Israel, but a failure to do so will not kill the deal. Violence should be foresworn, but even that is of secondary importance to the state itself.

A great deal is, however, expected of Israel. Settlements are to be frozen, including their "natural growth?' Israel must bolster the Palestinian economy, provide Palestinians with jobs and make things better in Gaza. Israel is to give; the Palestinians are to receive. Israel's giving is to be accompanied by a promise of reduced violence. Palestinian receiving will be accompanied by Israel's surrender of more territory beyond the entirety of Gaza and the near-entirety of the West Bank already in Palestinian hands. Israel, the president asserts, will be better off if all this happens. Trust him. He's Israel's friend. A better friend than anyone else, remember, because he's willing to be honest about Israel's need to sacrifice itself on the altar of nothing more than a promise, and maybe not even that.

And so the turn against Israel that so many predicted (except for the 80% of American Jews who voted for Obama with such zeal and devotion — jsk) during the 2008 campaign is coming to pass — with a smile, and a nod, and an invocation of a word that actually means something very different from friendship. It might even mean its opposite.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 23, 2009.


President Obama says his foreign policy goal is better relations with the Muslims. Accordingly, the U.S. has been demanding that Israel change its national security and national identity policies to suit State Department appeasement of the Arabs.

Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister of Israel to resist such U.S. demands. He has been rebutting U.S. demands sometimes forcefully but not by denunciation.

His chief rival, the Kadima Party, accuses Netanyahu of trying to make Obama seem the enemy, in order to unite Israelis behind him. Netanyahu replies, is Kadima working for the U.S.?
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/3).

It seems strange of Kadima head Livni to accuse someone of trying to make Obama seem the enemy, when she is among those Israeli leftists who urge the U.S. to interfere in Israeli policy in behalf of Israel's enemies. Obama has been so one-sided, admits he is trying to change Israel's policies [to ones that would endanger Israel], and is blocking an Israeli raid on Iran's menacing nuclear weapons facilities. Unable to persuade the majority of their countrymen, some of her colleagues ask the U.S. to pressure Israel to adopt rejected policies.

I think that Kadima goes too far. I think that Netanyahu has not gone far enough in refuting Obama's policy rationalizations.

For more on how much the government imposes on its people, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d18-Israel-curbs-free-discussion-of-ArabIsrael-conflict


President Obama said that Egypt's President Mubarak is not "authoritarian" and is "a force for stability and good in the region."
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/3.)

Egypt's President bans some political parties, arrests dissidents, controls the media, discriminates in favor of Islam, and allows police to persecute Christians. He supports certain terrorist movements, so long as they don't threaten Egypt. How is that not authoritarian, destabilizing, and bad for the region? Contrast Obama's praise for such an Egypt with his specious condemnation of Israel.

Is Obama's praise valid? To help decide, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d11-Egypt-rejects-Obama-diplomacy
and here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d8-Egypt-declares-Israel-an-enemy-state-


1. Much about President Obama's speech in Cairo has not been discussed. For example, he said Jerusalem should be a secure home for the three faiths there.

[Doesn't he know that it is, under Israeli control? It would not be, if removed from Israeli control, as has been our experience.]

2. Obama wants Israel to remove the Jews from Judea-Samaria. He did not indicate whether he included part or all of Jerusalem in that demand. MK Yaakov Katz called the demand antisemitic, because it discriminates against Jews [while accepting the Arab presence in Israel]. Telling them they can't add rooms to a house in the whole area is like telling them they can't have more children. MK Katz noted that some of Obama's advisers are Jews, but that that does not mitigate the anti-Jewish policy with which they concur.

[He still makes drastic demands without explaining why Arabs and not Jews would be entitled to that area, nor why the U.S. should interfere. Not mentioning Jerusalem is a cagey way of stating demands lower key, so as not to alarm as many people. Vague demands leave the door open for more demands.]

3. The Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were called a separate people. [I have written often that they are not. Relatively recently they claimed to be, in order to bolster their claim to it. Obama is repeating the big lie.]

4. "President Obama said that just as the Holocaust cannot be denied, Israel must recognize the right of Arabs to a PA state, which he called Palestine." Israeli MK Eldad thought the comparison false. The Jews were innocent victims of prejudice. The Arabs attempted to do what the Nazis did, but lost their war. Any subsequent Arab suffering from that debacle is their own fault

[The Holocaust is a fact. The right of Arabs to another state in Palestine is not a fact. It is the goal of some, based on curbing the Jews' right of statehood, recognized under international law, in the Palestine Mandate. The case against another Arab state ever was dealt with publicly by the U.S. government.]

5. "President Obama insisted that 'Israel must live up to its obligations' for economic opportunity for Arabs and implicitly compared the situation of Arabs with that of blacks in 19th and early 20th century America."

[Which Arabs? What obligation has Israel to provide for them? They are trying to bring down Israel. Why then should Israel help the enemy economy? Comparing Arabs with blacks implies falsely that Israel represses the Arabs. This is unfair of Obama, even malicious.]

6. "He also demanded a total halt to terrorism, warning that 'moral authority' is not claimed by rockets and bus bombings, but held out the opportunity for the Hamas terrorist organization to deny violence and recognize Israel."

[Since the U.S. continues to subsidize terrorists, his warning is lip service for domestic politics. It reduces his own moral authority. Inviting Hamas to deny violence and recognize Israel is fatuous. Hamas exists for violence, for conquest of Israel, and for imposing a global caliphate upon the world. If Obama doesn't know that, he isn't fit to be President. If he does know, well, that's unthinkable!]

7. Obama described the Muslim religion as one that 'emphasizes the idea of religious tolerance..." MK Eldad thought it foolish to anticipate that sacrificing Israel for an Arab state would resolve distant problems with Islam, such as in Darfur, India, and Europe
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7. 6/4).

Obama claims to understand Islam, but he got that key aspect wrong. Islam emphasizes conquest of other faiths and humiliation of Christians and Jews.

How much slack should we cut Obama, in his attempt to cool off Islamic annoyance with the U.S.? I think he could make that point without lying. He lies a lot. I think he cools off the U.S. too much, making it less alert to the menace of jihad. His strategy would sacrifice Israel to the Muslims. Success in one theater facilitates and rouses Muslim attempts to triumph elsewhere. Obama endangers the U.S..

To see the earlier discussion, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d5-Obamas-Cairo-Speech


So long as the Arabs refuse to let Jews live amongst them in Judea-Samaria, and instead demand an apartheid state, the Arabs' inability to make peace remains obvious. The answer is to build more settlements, to serve as a thermometer of Arab intent (idea of Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/4).

One also should evaluate what a new Arab state would be like, so click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m5d27-What-to-expect-of-a-new-Palestinian-Arab-state


The President of the Zionist Organization of America (Z.O.A.), Morton Klein, visited Israel's parliament with other U.S. Jewish leaders for a meeting with Israeli leaders. He encountered Arab Member of Knesset (MK) Tibi, former aide of Arafat. He asked Tibi why he registered at the Doha conference as a representative not of Israel but of "Palestine," which does not exist. He asked whether it was appropriate for a Member of Knesset to take certain anti-Israel positions, that Klein named, such as calling Israel "apartheid."

According to the many witnesses, Tibi became hysterical and falsely accused Klein of assaulting him physically and verbally. He called for security guards. When they arrived, he admitted that he was not assaulted physically. Nevertheless, the security guards escorted Klein out. Knesset speaker Rivlin told the guards not to let Klein return until he apologized personally to Tibi.

Klein asked why he should apologize merely for asking questions and not for having done anything wrong. Klein simply stated, via intermediary, that he intended no offense. He was permitted to return.

Tibi boasted that Klein gave him an official apology. Steve Goldberg, Klein's deputy, told Tibi to stop telling that lie. Goldberg, too, asked Tibi questions about his anti-Israel stances. Tibi became hysterical, again. He lied, again, this time claiming that both verbally assaulted him. The many witnesses pointed out that Klein hadn't said anything, this time. Tibi relented about Klein, but had guards escort Goldberg out.

Tibi attributed Klein's opposition to him to anti-Arab prejudice. "Klein retorted, 'No, I have a problem with him because he is anti-Israel and also a Knesset member.'"

MK Danon remarked, "There is no reason a Jewish leader who spends his life defending Israel abroad should have to go through this travesty in the Knesset building. I am proud Klein did not apologize, and I commend him for the questions he asked Tibi." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/4 from Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily.)

Notice that even the Israeli Arab representative does not recognize Israel, as indicated by his registering in Doha as from "Palestine." Notice his false accusations and hysterical behavior when someone asks him pointed questions! That is what jihad really is like. As for the Israeli reaction, the Knesset Speaker let Tibi abuse his position.

For more on ZOA, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d9-Zionist-Organization-of-America-rebuts-Cllinton


1. President Obama visited Saudi Arabia, where Christians are not allowed to worship openly. Next, in Cairo, he claimed to understand Islam and that it is tolerant and allows religious freedom. [It bars Jews and Christians from some of their holy sites, etc..]

2. On most issues, Obama says that all points of view should be heard, because we are not infallible. But the "two state solution," Obama says, must be imposed because everybody knows it is right. Not everybody agrees with him, especially Benjamin Netanyahu, who happens to be Prime Minister of Israel.

3. Obama said, "At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's."

The two states are mutually exclusive, because the Arab one would try to destroy the other. Dr. Aaron Lerner asks, "And where is it etched in stone that a Palestinian (Arab) 'autonomous state', where Palestinians enjoy self rule but are denied the means to destroy the Jewish state is not acceptable?"

4. Arabs contend that Israeli settlement building violates prior agreements and undermines peace efforts. They quote a clause in the Interim Agreement, ""Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."

Housing does not change the legal status of any area. Therefore, it is not an Israeli violation. Why don't the Arabs say that their building violates the agreement, too? [They ignore logic, facts, or justice but not religious conquest.]

Actually, Jewish housing puts pressure on the Arabs to come to terms and actually make peace. The more Jewish houses go up, the less land Israel is likely to be willing to relinquish to the Arabs. Israel should go in for extensive housing in the Territories, to put more pressure on the Arabs.

Jewish housing traditionally was an answer to Arab terrorism. It is an affirmative, non-violent answer. Many communities were named after victims of terrorism. The terrorists, heroes to the Arabs, become less popular when their crimes seem to end in more Jewish houses.

5.The Pope regrets the need for Israeli security measures. Pres. Obama doesn't refer to the need for those measures, he wants them dropped. He demands instead that Israel make it easier for Arabs to move around
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/4). He pretends that Israel's duty is to assist the Arab enemy and not protect its own citizens from them.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Teresinka Pereira, June 23, 2009.

She believed in her right

to protest in the public square.

She was wearing her veil

of obedience to the religion

of the country where

she was involuntarily born.

A bullet came from above where

a coward militia was hiding

and stopped her young heart,

the only weapon she had

to demonstrate her power

becoming a martyr.

How do you explain your treason

against the youth of your country



Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, June 22, 2009.

In case you can't make it out, those children on the left are carrying a model of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Presumably the Hamas cretins in charge of this brainwashing were worried that the eliminationist undertones might be too subtle. Which begs the question: was this held at a UN-funded educational center or at one of the ones that the Europeans have poured millions into:

The society is headed by Muhammad Abd al-Jawad Fura, a preacher who serves as a PIJ leader in the Gaza Strip. On June 3, 2009, a website associated with the PIJ (Pal Today) published photographs from a graduation ceremony display of kindergarten children organized by the Dar al-Huda society (kindergartens are the society`s main focus of activity). The ceremony was held at Rashad al-Shawa Center in Gaza City. A show put on during the ceremony (similarly to activities held in Hamas-associated kindergartens in recent years) featured kindergarten children dressed in uniform and carrying (obviously plastic) arms confronting and killing IDF soldiers.

There were more child abuse pictures proudly published in Al-Fateh, Hamas's Britain-based children`s newspaper. The kids staged a gun battle, faked a kidnapping, and some, dressed like IDF soldiers, pretended to kill Palestinian children. Proud family members beamed on from the audience. It was like a school production of Cinderella. Only genocidal.

The photos come courtesy of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which has six months worth of this filth plus a backgrounder on the paper`s Syrian Muslim Brotherhood editor-in-chief. You should click through, if only to take a gander at the wide variety of blood libel cartoons getting fed to Palestinian and Western Muslim children.

Source for the following pictures: Hamas kindergarten graduation, Published in their Britain-based children`s newspaper:


* The hate industry: Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) continue to inculcate the values of hate and support of terrorism in Palestinian children, viewed by those terrorist organizations as a highly important target audience.

* Congress: Hey, Has Anyone Heard About This "We Fund UNRWA And UNRWA Funds Hamas" Rumor? [MR]

* EU to provide €3 million in aid for Gaza residents [JPost]

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Resource News Agency, June 22, 2009.

50 letters to the right person in Israel are more important than a petitition of 5,000 which gets dumped in cyber space.

Send hard copy, closed envelope letters to the following people

1. Dr Uzi Arad, National Security Advisor.
2. Mr. Natan Eshel, Office Manager
3,. Mr. Ron Dermer, Policy Advisor

Send your letter to each of these guys, % OFFICE OF THE ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER, 3 KAPLAN STREET, JERUSALEM 91950 ISRAEL

If the letter is critical, send it registered or by fed ex.

Call to confirm that they got it. Tel of PM office: 02 6705 5555

David Bedein runs the Israel Resource News Agency Center for Near East Policy Research Ltd., which is located in the Beit Agron Int'l Press Center in Jerusalem. To call from the USA: 215 240 4919

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 22, 2009.

This was written by Herb Keinon, and it appeared today in The Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184892341&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull).


The international guarantees Israel is seeking to ensure that a future Palestinian state remains demilitarized does not mean the introduction of foreign forces, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the cabinet at its Sunday meeting.

Expanding on his speech last week at Bar-Ilan University in which he said international guarantees were necessary to make sure a future Palestinian state would be demilitarized, Netanyahu said rather that Jerusalem wanted international acceptance of the principle that Israel could take the actions it thought necessary to ensure the future state's demilitarization.

"We need effective measures to ensure demilitarization," Netanyahu said. "The existing ones in Lebanon and Gaza are not effective."

Netanyahu said that Israel wanted international recognition for the idea of a demilitarized state to avoid a situation wherein Israel would withdraw from territory that was to be demilitarized, the Palestinians would violate that agreement and then Israel would be blamed for going back into the Palestinian territories to destroy weapons.

The prime minister stressed that Israel's security could not be safeguarded without demilitarization, and that demilitarization did not detract at all from Palestinian self-determination.

"I don't understand why for self-determination the Palestinians need Kassam and Grad rockets," the prime minister said. "I understand they need a strong police and security apparatus, and we encourage that, but do they need tanks, artillery or rockets?"

Alluding to the situation in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu said that Israel, based on its experience there, had the full right to demand that a future Palestinian state be demilitarized.

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said that any progress with the Palestinian Authority on negotiations in the West Bank must include the reversibility of the situation in the Gaza Strip, and the disarmament and demilitarization of that region.

Steinitz said that a dangerous precedent would be set if negotiations moved forward with the PA on Judea and Samaria, but there was no demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. He said a demilitarized Palestinian state also meant a demilitarized Gaza Strip.

Regarding the demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people, Netanyahu said this was necessary to ensure that any agreement reached would put an end to all Palestinian claims on Israel.

Netanyahu added, however, that neither the demilitarization of a Palestinian state nor Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state were preconditions for entering into immediate talks with the Palestinians. He said that Israel had no preconditions, and expected the same of the Palestinians.

The PA leadership has made clear it would not enter talks with Israel until it recognized a two-state solution and stopped all settlement construction.

Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, during the cabinet discussion on Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan University speech, said that over the past 16 years successive Israeli governments had created a "dangerous asymmetry" whereby Palestinians speak of their "rights" to the land, and Israel only speaks of its "security." Ya'alon said Israel needed to speak about the Jewish right to the land as well. The Arabs, he said, have the right to live everywhere in the country, from the Galilee to the Negev — while in the country's political discussion it was taken for granted that there would eventually be areas, as is the case in the Gaza Strip today, where it is forbidden for Jews to live.

Ya'alon said it was necessary to change the thinking that in an era of peace, Jews would have to move out of Judea and Samaria, and that the idea — for instance — that Jews could not live in Beit El under Palestinian sovereignty was one that needed to be changed.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, June 22, 2009.
As Kevin Mooney writes in the Washington Examiner
(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ ACORN-drops-tarnished-name-and-moves-to-silence-critics-48730537.html): "ACORN drops tarnished name and moves to silence critics."

The new name is "Community Organizations International." That's so blah. Why don't we all help ACORN find a new name?

After all, how better can we help our wonderful president retain the valuable services of a group that could raise the pride of homeless people by registering each of them to vote, not once as we mere mortals do, but half-dozen times at a clip? A group that could gather a mob in a Mohammad-cartoon second and get it to storm banks, demanding the members of the mob and their buddies be allowed to buy houses that cost so much they couldn't on their own buy the unrenovated attic toilet. A group that payed Barack Obama to train community agitators organizers and were rewarded by their employee by his hiring them in turn whenever he could. A group that has now been designated to take the next census, where they can ask nosy questions having nothing to do with how many people live in a house. Will anyone be surprised when the census figures support any queer legislation Obama wants? Will anyone be surprised when — still further in the future — it is discovered Acorn's census figures were highly inventive?

So why don't we have ACORN-naming parties. Gather your friends together. Or start an internet group. Gather all the facts about ACORN to help inspire people to come up with appropriate names. For starters, look at the review here. Also see "Acorn's 'shock troops'" and especially "Barack Obama's Acorn Tree." Maybe we could have state tournaments and finally a grand tournament? What do you think?


Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) leaders are using the threat of a law suit to silence and intimidate critics, according to current and former members of the liberal activist group.

In a letter dated June 11 an attorney for ACORN advised top whistleblowers that their unauthorized use of the organization's name could make them liable for monetary damages and injunctive relief.

ACORN executives have also changed their organization's name, which was tarnished by investigations in at least 14 states of allegations of voter registration fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign, and charges by current and former members of financial mismanagement and misrepresentation.

The new name will let ACORN leaders continue their operations without worrying about prior bad publicity, according to Marcel Reid of ACORN 8, a group of present and former members.

"We've known for many months now that the name ACORN is going to be retired," Reid said. "The name has been so damaged to the point where the leadership knows it simply can't go on as it has with the ACORN label out front and center, especially after all of the reporting."

In fact, the process has already begun, she noted. Wade Rathke, who founded the organization, announced on his blog that ACORN International has officially changed its name to "Community Organizations International."

Reid also said ACORN is in the process of dismantling Citizen's Consulting Inc. (CCI), a New-Orleans based non-profit, which has been used to maintain centralized financial control, ACORN 8 activists claim. Tax records show that CCI is interlinked with several ACORN affiliates.

Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled almost $1 million from the organization in 1999 and 2000, while he was employed as the organization's chief financial officer with the CCI affiliate. For almost a decade Wade Rathke and other staff members concealed the embezzlement from ACORN's board of trustees, according to the criminal complaint ACORN 8 members filed against the organization.

ACORN's national leaders withdrew a lawsuit Reid filed with fellow board member Karen Inman last October seeking access to internal financial records. Reid and Inman were also expelled from their board positions; a move they say was illegal. Reid and Inman then came together with six other colleagues to form ACORN 8.

"ACORN has to be decapitated," Reid said. "The senior staff and current national board should be dismantled. The only way to have reform is for the current leadership to be removed completely. We also need a forensic audit."

Arthur Schwartz, the general counsel for ACORN, has sent a "cease and desist" letter to Reid and Inman instructing them to discontinue using the name ACORN in a connection with their activities. This same letter threatens legal action if the ACORN 8 members do not provide written assurances that they will comply with this demand by the end of June.

"It is a violation of federal and state law for you to use the ACORN name and mark without the written permission of ACORN," the letter states. "Should you continue to do so, you will be liable for monetary and injunctive relief."

Reid told The Examiner that ACORN 8 will not comply.

"We have no intention of not using the name ACORN 8, it is not a trademark infringement," she said. "This get tough attitude is part of larger attempt to silence people and shut them down. We are not going to be silenced."

Meanwhile, ACORN's Project Vote affiliate has filed suit against Anita MonCrief, a former employee, who has testified under oath on voter registration allegations. ACORN is currently under investigation in at least 14 states for electoral irregularities. The Project Vote suit claims that Anita MonCrief and an unidentified accomplice gained access into private e-mails from group executives and stole the group's name without permission. It also accuses Moncrief of using a company credit card for her own purposes.

"ACORN is attempting to silence me, and the allegations in the lawsuit are false," MonCrief said in statement emailed to The Examiner.

ACORN 8 has released its own statement on "whistleblower retaliation" through its national spokesman Michael McCray that expresses support for new protective legislation.

"On behalf of the national board of ACORN 8, we are all saddened by and express great concern due to ACORN's court action filed against whistleblower Anita MonCrief," the statement reads. "While we do not express an opinion on the merits of ACORN's complaint; we as reform advocates decry the tactic of suing whistleblowers — especially, low to moderate income people who do not have the financial means to effectively fight back in courts of law. Moreover, this is yet another example of why congress must enact strong corporate, government and tax-payer funded whistleblower protection laws."

ACORN 8 has endorsed H.R. 1507, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 22, 2009.

Journalist Tom Gross has posted videos of the Iranian uprising on his website. This regime, being treated with kid gloves all over the free world, is a Nazi-like dictatorship.

When Israeli stood up for itself against Gazan terrorists who had been lobbing bombs into Israeli kindergartens for eight years, Britain, France, and the U.S. were up in arms. The New York Times wept. The L.A. Times swooned.

Somehow, all these same arm-chair liberals are eerily silent about the Iranian dictatorship's bloody repression of its freedom-loving citizens with the courage to stand up against the Islamo-fascists in charge of their lives.



So were the neocons right all along?

President Bush said liberating Iraq would have a regional domino effect and give people a taste for freedom and democracy. Is this what we're seeing now in Iran?

As Bush said, liberty isn't American, or British, or French. It is human. No, the morality police in Iran are not just "part of Iranian culture" as some critics of Bush have claimed. Nor are public hangings. Nor are arbitrary detentions of doctors, or Holocaust denial conferences.

Peace comes through the spread of liberalism and democracy. Whatever the "foreign policy realists" or "regime apologists" might claim, there is little doubt in my view that should Iran become a free nation the world will be a safer place for all, not just a better place for Iranians.

I have posted some videos of the Iranian uprising on my website and I would strongly urge you to watch them. (Item 3 here:

They show the reality of Iran's dictatorship, a reality that many international TV networks are refusing to show. Some of these videos are disturbing but I feel they need to be watched to understand the true nature of Iran's regime and why it should never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

I have not included those which are too bloody to watch. To state the obvious, this is not some video game or Hollywood movie. These events really happened, and they happened last week, and the leader of the free world, Barack Obama, has been extraordinarily slow to criticize them.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, June 22, 2009.

This comes from the Atlas Shrugs website


President Barack Obama steers the cart with his golfing partner, Vice President Joe Biden, left, as they finish 18 holes at the Fort Belvoir Golf Club together on Father's Day, Sunday, June 21, 2009.

From Atlas Shrugs:

Think about the howls of outrage from the Left if George W. Bush played golf while people were being shot dead on the streets of Tehran. (hat tip Katherine)

Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by CIPAC, June 22, 2009.

The following article describing an exciting new archaeological find near ancient Jericho of the largest underground quarry in the Land of Israel, uncovered by a Haifa University team, promises to be a treasure trove for scholars and tourists interested in Jewish, Christian and Roman history.

Just back from his latest fact finding and Israel support mission to the Land, Richard A. Hellman, President of CIPAC, the Christian lobby for Israel now in its 20th year, points out that this demonstrates still another reason why Christians, Jews and others worldwide should support Israeli control over all of the Holy Land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan valley. Only Israel — over the course of more than 61 years now — has protected the rights and the holy sites of all religions and peoples under its control.

Sadly, the Arab record has been far poorer. For example, Jordan destroyed synagogues in Jerusalem's old Jewish Quarter and desecrated Jewish graves on the Mount of Olives, Judaism's most revered ancient burial ground, while Jordan occupied the West Bank of the Jordan River from 1948 to 1967. More recently the Palestinian Authority has allowed the destruction of the traditional Jewish holy site of the patriarch Joseph's tomb in biblical Shechem, today called Nablus, and let the Moslem Wakf trash the priceless caverns and foundations under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during underground mosque construction, with no archaeological surveys or protection of Jewish, Christian or other artifacts. In regular visits to Israel each year CIPAC and other groups find sites that Israel controls are open, safe, well-marked and inviting, while those under Palestinian Authority control are not so.

Therefore, says Hellman, we cannot afford to let any of these priceless world treasures of the Holy Land pass out of the skilled and caring hands of Israel, the only nation in history that has protected them and opened them fully for the safe and comfortable study of scholars, pilgrims and tourists alike.

For details or more discussion, including media interviews, contact CIPAC at www.cipaconline.org or call 202-234-3600

This below is entitled "Ancient Holy Land Quarry Uncovered, Team Says" and was written by Ari Rabinovitch for Reuters


JERUSALEM (Reuters) — Israeli archaeologists said on Sunday they had discovered the largest underground quarry in the Holy Land, dating back to the time of Jesus and containing Christian symbols etched into the walls.

The 4,000-square-meter (yard) cavern, buried 10 meters beneath the desert near the ancient West Bank city of Jericho, was dug about 2,000 years ago and was in use for about half a millennium, archaeologist Adam Zertal said.

The cave's main hall, about three meters tall, is supported by some 20 stone pillars and has a variety of symbols etched into the walls, including crosses dating back to about AD 350 and Roman legionary emblems.

Zertal said his team from Haifa University first discovered the site three months ago while they were putting together a detailed archaeological map of the area.

"We saw a hole in the ground ... and went down and discovered this giant cavern, originally a quarry, built uniquely with hall after hall," Zertal told Reuters.

The team believes the stones were used in buildings and churches in the region, but Zertal said further research was necessary.

The site may eventually be turned into one of the largest underground tourist sites in the Holy Land, he said.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 22, 2009.

This comes from Eye On The UN organization, Anne Bayefsky, editor. Contact them by email at info@EYEontheUN.org


The 11th session of the Human Rights Council, which ended on Friday, included two apologies from the Obama administration for missing Durban II. Obama officials also lauded countries and UN officials for working to improve the Durban II outcome and re-focusing the conference on fighting racism. No effort was made to distance itself from the actual conference — which sported an antisemite as opening speaker — or its outcome which singled out and demonized Israel as racist.

The administration is pursuing actively its new policy of engagement at the Council and ingratiating itself with the human rights abusers who count as Council members and biggest supporters of the Durban process and its outcome. So in the context of the first Council discussion since the conclusion of the conference of Durban and the UN "anti-racism" agenda, two U.S. officials declared on June 16th: "It was with regret that we did not join the recent Durban Review Conference."

In the words of Anna Morawiec Mansfield, Deputy Legal Adviser of the United States Mission in Geneva (speaking during the "interactive dialogue" with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance), and repeated by Mark Cassayre, First Secretary of the United States Mission in Geneva, in a later discussion:

"It was with regret that we did not join the recent Durban Review Conference. We are deeply grateful to the many country delegations and senior UN officials who worked steadfastly to improve the outcome document and to re-focus the Durban Review Conference squarely on the global fight to eliminate racism and racial discrimination."

The Obama administration had made a similar statement when they finally pulled out on Saturday night April 18th just 36 hours before the conference began. But that was before Durban II handed a global microphone to opening speaker Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Although the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and Secretary-General Ban KiMoon had the speech in advance, both sat glued to their seats as Ahmadinejad declared (among other things): "The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces."

Durban II also adopted a declaration that once again approves of singling out Israel and alleging Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism. As High Commissioner Pillay bragged at a news conference on the final day, the Durban II document further demonizes Israel: "The DDPA [Durban Declaration and Programme of Action] includes ... one paragraph which mentions the suffering of the Palestinians ... Palestine is mentioned ... in the DDPA, and the word "reaffirm" carries those paragraphs into this document."

But apparently the actual events at Durban II and its results are not enough to justify for the Obama administration an unapologetic policy of non-attendance. On the contrary, this administration used the opportunity at the Council session to refuse to distance itself from the conference, the appalling behavior of senior UN officials, the failure to re-focus Durban II on a genuine fight to eliminate racism, and its actual outcome.

Instead, Obama officials bent over backwards to issue an obsequious unprincipled statement about working to improve a meeting and its result while fully aware that those improvements never came — unless they mean eliminating international support for modern antisemitism was just one "improvement" among many that fell off the negotiating table.

Music to the ears of the human rights violators in the audience. Embarrassing for those touting Obama's human rights credentials.

For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org .

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 22, 2009.

This was written by N. Richard Greenfield, publisher of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. It appeared in Jewish World Review


"Mark my words," Vice President Joe Biden told donors a few months before the election, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barrack Obama ... We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's going to need help ... to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."

One could easily have said the same thing about American Jews and their relationship with Israel. It is being severely tested. As it turns out, Israel is indeed the focus of U.S. pressure and bullying. The threat to peace in the Middle East, says our current administration, emanates not from Hamas, Hezbollah, Jihad or Arab nationalism, but from Israel. The U.S. is casting Israel in the classic Jewish role of scapegoat, blaming her for all of the region's problems.

President Obama has embraced the ever-ready and willing State Department's negativity towards Israel and, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leading the way, is making demands about Israeli 'settlements' which are harsh and uncompromising. At the same time, State ignores Arab illegal construction which is happening on a much wider and broader scale. State conveniently ignores the fact that if land were truly the issue, Israel and her Arab neighbors would have been at peace for the last 60 years. Even though State has always been biased against Israel, it has never had a Presidency to work with that was in such complete consonance with its views as the Obama Administration is today. The resulting bullying of Israel by the U.S. is without parallel in American-Israeli relations.

In the last month an undersecretary of defense unilaterally discussed Israel's nuclear capability. In the doing, a long-standing U.S.-Israeli agreement to publicly avoid discussion of this topic was broken. Defense is tampering with previously agreed-upon arms deals by denying Israel the right to make adaptations on equipment that Israel deems essential. Effectively, they are moving the long-promised F-35 fighter from Israel's grasp and, instead, Israel will put a good face on buying decades old F-15's and upgrading them to her specifications. At the same time, Egypt is being offered top of the line attack helicopters from a defense department that knows Egypt's only potential adversary for these weapons is Israel.

Meanwhile, Marine General (ret) Keith Dayton is training and arming a 5,000 man Fatah security force designed to secure a Palestinian state on land Israel has not yet ceded. At the UN, Susan Rice is changing U.S. policy from one of support to belligerence. General James Jones, the President's National Security Adviser is touting Presidential Adviser Samantha Power's suggestion that an armed international force including American soldiers enter Judea and Samaria to force the Israelis to make a Palestinian state happen. General Dayton is already training such a force of Fatah soldiers in Jordan, presumably for this task. Meanwhile, George Mitchell, the special envoy to the area, is picking apart previous agreements telling Israel to conform to his selected conditions, while ignoring the obligations to which Palestinians were supposed to have been bound. All of this while rockets still fall on Israel from Gaza, and Fatah and Hamas fight running battles on West Bank streets.

The U.S. media notes all of this pressure and gleefully speculates that it will eventually topple the recently elected Netanyahu government. Mahmoud Abbas, the nominal head of Fatah, says he is waiting for this to happen before seriously considering negotiations. He is hoping the U.S. can get everything he wants before he even sits down with the Israelis.

Where are American Jews during all of this?

It seems they are still divided along pre-election lines. As individuals, most Jews who voted for Obama last November are content to ignore Israel's agony in the face of U.S. pressure because they still trust the President on other issues. They ignore the threats to Israel's safety and security and are blind to America's infringing on Israel's sovereignty as a free and democratic nation. Not coincidently, Soros-funded anti-Israel groups have popped up promoting the scurrilous conclusions of the infamous Walt-Merscheimer report which was rife with accusations of Jewish-American's dual loyalty and Israel's culpability for every ill in the Middle East.

If this continues, and there's little to indicate it won't, Jews will have to make painful and difficult choices between their support for Israel and their preference for other policies of this administration. This choosing will play out during the upcoming 2010 Congressional elections. The President is leaving them little room to maneuver, as there are even stories, unofficial so far, of U.S. political and economic sanctions against Israel if she doesn't accede to Obama's demands.

Without a strong American Jewish voice in support of Israel much is at risk. The solid coalition for Israel in the U.S. Congress is in the process of weakening as Democrats in Congress continue to find the pressures from Rahm Emmanuel and others difficult to resist. If Jews go silent during the 2010 elections and allow apathy, fear or political preference to prevent them from speaking up for Israel, the bullying will increase and the worst and most deadly outcomes will become real possibilities.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 22, 2009.

This was written by Julia Gorin and posted on www.PoliticalMavens.com


I know he's not dead yet, but like so many newspapers which compose obituaries years in advance of a major figure's death — just to be ready — I've been sitting on this one for a while. And I just couldn't wait anymore. I also figured it's best to publish now, since it's wrong to speak ill of the dead.

On the other hand, from the looks of it, Carter might never die. So just in case he never dies, I didn't want this eulogy to go unseen. Please note that any proper tribute to Carter must necessarily come in the form of a poem. Being a big fan of poetry, when Carter was a member of the Georgia legislature, he and the other Democrats would sit around the capitol building analyzing Bob Dylan songs. And recall this past January how actress Renee Zellweger gushed, "I have a crush on Jimmy Carter. I admit it. He has an extraordinary mind. He's an exceptional human being. And he writes poetry, for crying out loud. He's all good things."

Including a Jew-killing enabler. She even stood in line for 2.5 hours in freezing temperature so he could sign her copy of his latest volume of The Protocols.

And so herewith, my poetic eulogy in honor of a hero to Muslims and Nazis alike, Jimmy Carter:

O Jimmy Carter,
Upon this world were you a farter.
Things were tough enough, and you made them harder,
Relations with Iran, never sweet, you made them tarter.
Did you know you'd be such a fire-starter?

You thought yourself a uniter, instead you were a parter,
For jihad were you a happy martyr.
And when you slipped off Arafat's garter,
With the Devil did this "Christian" barter.
In the end, even the Dumb Jews from you did finally departer.

You think you're going to Heaven, but God is smarter,
For it is Hell that will make you a fire-darter.

In closing, since Carter's favorite things to do were building houses for
poor people and helping Arabic people kill Jewish people, to honor him I
think Habitat for Humanity should build his wife Rosalynn a house in Gaza.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, June 22, 2009.

This is by Norma Zager


"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" Dante's Inferno

Standing on the sidelines of humanity may come at a hefty price. As the world stands by and watches the people of Iran battle for freedom from oppression, Dante's vision and assumptions about the payment for indifference in his Inferno seem appropriate food for thought.

Helen Keller said, "Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all — the apathy of human beings."

"I'd rather not get involved, I have my own problems to deal with," seems benign enough on the surface, but beware of its hidden dangers.

The payment is great for a ticket to heaven. Every religion has placed a price on our immortal soul, but whose tag bears the correct price? For all religions good deeds enter into the salvation equation, but what about no deeds at all?

I find it interesting that Dante in his epic Inferno carves out a circle in Hell for those who opt for a philosophy of indifference. In Dante's opinion it seems the decision not to make a decision is evil enough to warrant entering the gates of hell, yet not so bad as to assign a deeper level to the wrongdoer.

This marginal place for souls neither good enough for heaven nor evil enough for hell proper is an interesting conundrum. For, unless we decide to jump into the fray, we are doomed. And there, as Shakespeare says, lies the rub. For how are we to know which side of the battle is the one appointed for goodness, or for evil?

These options were once quite a bit more clear-cut than today. Absolutes like adultery is bad, murder is evil, don't talk back to your parents, maligning and usurping other's rights, all bad and hatred not a good idea either. Altogether, pretty easy rules to discern for even the lesser educated.

Not so today I'm afraid. The answers are fraught with paradoxes of all shapes and sizes: What is the true religion? What is considered murder? If you are killing others to enter heaven and check out some virgins, is that still bad? If you smear another race or religion, is it okay if it aids in your quest to for power?

These are tough questions because they have no answers.

Hitler evil. Or was he? Depends who you ask. Nazis liked the guy, killed and died for him. Murdered others in his name. Not so easy a question as you thought. But at the end of the day will Nazis escape the deeper level of hell because they got involved, took a side, albeit the side right thinking people believe to be the wrong one?

And if a Nazi is a Christian and asks for Christ's forgiveness before his death will he attain salvation for his sins? This is indeed a conundrum. And what of a man who is an atheist and lives a holy life, but refuses to accept salvation? Is he doomed to hell as the Nazi dances happily just inside the gates, forgiven for his sins, laughing and be-bopping around the clouds with Stalin?

Who makes the rules? Used to be a consensus of the world decided what is evil and what is good. Now the lines have so blurred, they are almost invisible.

North Korea threatens to kill its neighbors. Hmmm, some neighbors aren't so concerned, others are. Is it the neighbor with the most people who wins the good/evil argument? Let us see, China has got us beat there I would guess.

There are two billion Muslims in the world and a percentage of them say the 14 million Jews are bad, who wins? No need to scratch your head on that one, is there?

Interestingly, there is a theological justification for Dante's limbo in Apocalypse (Revelation) 3:16: "But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth."

Dante includes in limbo the cowardly souls of those angels who refused to choose between God and Satan. What does this say about Dante's view of human behavior in relation to the afterlife? Although it is important to note the various paths to heaven and their roadblocks are a matter for each human being and their spiritual mentors to debate, about one thing Dante is clear. Indifference does not rate a place in heaven.

Martin Niemölle's famous quote "First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me," validates Dante's theory.

Although the seven deadly sins remain, the sheer numbers of population to disseminate these deeds have grown en masse. Does it seem as though the world is more evil because more people opt for sin? Or is it merely that a greater number of people allows more human beings to opt for sin? A minimal distinction I admit, yet proportionally quite relevant.

I imagine the question Dante poses is his version of the Good Samaritan Law. If one sees his neighbors being harmed, or evil being inflicted upon the world and he sits by and refuses to become involved, shall the punishment be elevated to fit that serious crime?

Perhaps this first circle of hell is a warning not to enter at all, as the gates swing only one way down there. Sorry everyone, I guess you need to pick a side, lest damnation be your lot throughout eternity. And to confuse the issue even further, I must give the last word to Friedrich Nietzsche who wrote in Beyond Good and Evil, "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."  

In the series "Postcards from Israel— Postcards from Home," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports about Israel, homeland of the Jewish People, as seen by two sets of eyes. This "point — counter-point" presentation has, since 2008, become part of our lives. It can be found in numerous websites around the world as well as in print in the USA. Contact Bussel by email at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, June 22, 2009.

This below was written by Matthew M. Hausman and it appeared today on IsraPundit


President Obama's recent speech in Cairo has been extensively parsed, with critics challenging his linking the creation of Israel solely to the Holocaust, his failure to acknowledge the Jews' ancestral connection to their homeland, his weak criticism of Arab support for terrorism, and his adoption of the dubious Arab historical narrative. Although vocally condemning the sins of colonialism in the Middle East (where the U.S. had no colonies), he ignored the history of Arab and Muslim colonialism in Europe and elsewhere. Based on his unbalanced presentation, some of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters have finally started questioning his commitment to Israel. While some are willing to chalk up his inaccuracies to benign ignorance, others have recognized them as knowing distortions meant to appease an Arab audience. Unfortunately, such distortions are consistent with historical revisionism, which is closely identified with antisemitism and hatred of Israel.

The danger in Mr. Obama's revisionist approach to the Middle East is the implication that objective history means nothing and that it can be molded, misstated and misrepresented for political reasons. His subsequent speech at Buchenwald, in which he condemned Holocaust denial, was a cynical gesture intended to give the appearance that he stands with the Jewish people, while the distortions contained in his Cairo speech evidenced precisely the opposite. Moreover, by speaking at the site of a concentration camp, Mr. Obama emphasized the implication he made in Cairo that Israel was created by Europeans to atone for their crimes during the Holocaust, and that Jews do not have a historical pedigree in the Middle East.

The President's flagrant disregard for objective history is consistent with the ongoing efforts of the political left to filter the Jewish experience, including the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel, through the prism of historical revisionism. The most outspoken proponents of this artifice include Noam Chomsky, Louis Finkelstein, David Irving and a cavalcade of Holocaust deniers and opponents of Israel, who represent the most politically radical practitioners of the form. Perhaps more insidious are those who do not appear to be as radical, but whose demeanor projects the image of objective, alternative viewpoints.

Essentially, there are two kinds of historical revisionism. The first legitimately seeks to correct historical stereotypes in light of newly discovered evidence or rational reconsideration of known facts based on new interpretative methodologies. The second type, also known as "negationism," is the disingenuous effort to change historical perceptions based not on new evidence or techniques, but rather on political agendas, subjective advocacy or, in the case of Israel, antisemitic bias. This category includes Holocaust denial, the claim that the Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel, and the canard that Israel was created out of the rubble of a country called Palestine, which supposedly had a thriving and distinctive culture for a thousand generations. This kind of revisionism is not grounded in fact and does not withstand empirical scrutiny, and its proponents are motivated by classical antisemitism or Jewish self-hatred.

Somewhat less egregious in intent but no less destructive in consequence is the advocacy of people who accept the revisionist positions as true because they have insufficient backgrounds with which to verify or debunk them. Presumably, neither Mr. Obama nor his speech writers are ignorant of Middle East history and the Jews' place in it. But they were fully aware in Cairo that they were playing to an audience with a vested interest in a rejectionist narrative challenging the legitimate place of the Jews in their ancient homeland. Thus, the speech had a revisionist slant consistent with that of the negationists who deny the Holocaust.

Chomsky and Finkelstein, although Jewish, are known for their radical views and their compulsion to condemn Israel as a colonial power and terrorist state. They are equally known for their abject refusal to fault the Arab position and their support for terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Moreover, they give credence to the views of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and left-wing dictatorships. Chomsky's support of French antisemite and Holocaust denier John Faurissonneo is well-documented. But their treatment of Israel can only be understood in the context of a revisionism that enables them to turn history on its head and present Israel and the Jews as aggressors in a part of the world in which they were traditionally downtrodden and are in fact still the minority.

Although one could argue that Mr. Obama's speech was not as extreme as the drivel of Chomsky and Finkelstein, it was in a way far more insidious because its cogent presentation and oratorical flair gave the appearance of rationality, credibility and truth. And yet, the President's rendering of history does not withstand critical scrutiny because, among other things, he failed to acknowledge historic Israel and the Jews' connection to it. Moreover, he credited Arab and Islamic culture with far greater influence in shaping western society than it actually had, all the while blaming the friction between the Arab and Western worlds on European and American colonialism. One would have thought after hearing his speech that the United States, not France, had occupied North Africa, or that Arab and Ottoman colonialism never existed and had no impact on ethnic and religious tensions that continue to roil the Middle East and the Balkans today.

To those who have no background and do not know the history, the President's equating of the Palestinian "dislocation" brought about by Israel's creation, and his equation of the "daily humiliations [of] the occupation" with American segregation and slavery sound empathetic and rational. Unfortunately, these refrains are polemical and untrue, and were lifted almost verbatim from the Arab propaganda machine. Lost on the uninitiated was the significance of the President's use of the term "occupation." In the Arab world, "the occupation" refers to the entire State of Israel; it is not limited to the West Bank and certainly not to Gaza, which was ceded several years ago. The President's use of this terminology without qualification was an affront to Israel.

The President failed to challenge his Arab audience to reject the fiction that Israel's very existence is "occupation," although he found it necessary to focus on Israel's supposedly illegal "settlements" as a primary obstacle to peace. In so doing, he tacitly validated the blood libel that Israel stole Arab land and bears sole responsibility for the situation in the Middle East. It would have been inconvenient for him to acknowledge that most of the so-called settlements are actually legal under international law, that Arab rejectionism predates the existence of any settlements, or that there was no call for the creation of a Palestinian state between 1948 and 1967.

Furthermore, Mr. Obama's homage to Islam as peaceful and tolerant ignores its historical treatment of those it considers "infidels." The Sephardic communities who lived for generations in the Arab world, confined to ghettos and without equal rights, as well as the nearly 800,000 Jewish refugees who were dispossessed without compensation in 1948, have an entirely different view of so-called Islamic tolerance. The President's selective imagery and silence regarding the traditional treatment of Jews in the Arab world is astounding for someone who claims to be knowledgeable about the Middle East and whose acolytes assure us that he is a true friend of Israel.

One cannot buy into Mr. Obama's fanciful rendering unless one is ignorant of the historical record or willing to engage in the kind of revisionism espoused by the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein. Although some justify the President's performance on the theory that the Arab-Muslim world needs to be engaged on its own terms in order to effect change, such rationalization presumes that Arab society has the potential for a drastic cultural and religious metamorphosis. There is no indication that it is amenable to such change, however, and in fact the opposite seems to be true. Arab society knows no democracy and tolerates no dissent or diversity of opinion. Moreover, its regard for Jews is dictated by cultural and religious standards under which they are neither equal nor deserving of controlling their own destiny in their own homeland.

In light of the President's education, it is difficult to accept that he is simply ignorant of world history and the cultural landscape of the Middle East. Rather, his Cairo speech suggests that he is well aware of history, but that he made a conscious and calculated decision to dispense with it in order to foster a rapprochement with the Arab world. In so doing, however, he engaged in historical revisionism worthy of the negationists. Although he seems to believe that his condemnation of Holocaust denial somehow rehabilitates the blatant revisionism reflected in his Cairo remarks, the irony is glaring and the moral inconsistency irreconcilable. If the ability to dissent is the hallmark of the American political system, now is the time to give voice and condemn the revisionism that seems to be directing U.S. foreign policy.

Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 22, 2009.


Pres. Obama told Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas, "I also mentioned to President Abbas in a frank exchange that it was very important to continue to make progress in reducing the incitement and anti-Israel sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools and mosques and in the public square," Obama added, "because all those things are impediments to peace." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/31).

Not expressed "sometimes," but in an indoctrination campaign by regime clergy, in the textbooks, and in repeated TV presentation. Nor does the Abbas regime reduce the incitement, despite false claims to have removed it from new texts. Obama dissembling was not a "frank exchange." The U.S. still is pulling punches with the Arabs, while punching the Jews. New president, same story.

Obama pulls his punches with Iran, too. For an example, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Obamas-Iran-policy


A NY Times Op.-Ed. complained that Pres. Obama discussed Arab refugees from Israel, but ignored Jewish refugees from Arab areas. The Op.-Ed. tried to redress the imbalance by relating the poorly known story of the Jewish refugees.

On June 11, Sarah Fike's letter called the Op.-Ed. inaccurate in not mentioning that the "Palestinians" were forced out. [She calls them that, although at that time those Arabs had not yet fabricated claims to being of such nationality.]

She is Inaccurate: (1) In claiming that "the" Arabs were forced out. About 140,000 stayed. Can't accurately assert that all were expelled. (2) Most fled voluntarily. Only a small proportion were expelled, for being in militarily sensitive areas. Israel did nothing wrong. It's the aggressor Arabs' fault. (3) She is further inaccurate in claiming that Israel acted wrongfully. Considering that the local Arabs were allied to the foreign Arab attempt and dispossessing and killing all the Jews, the wonder is that Israel let the 140,000 Arabs remain. I think that was wrongful on Israel's part, wrongful to Jewish national security.

What standards should govern selection of letters such as Fike's? Should the editor accept lies, or should he accept opinions about conclusions from the facts but insist on adherence to the facts? I think that publishing lies ill serves readers.

Ms. Fike's letter had no legitimate purpose. The Op.-Ed. sought to balance the over-presentation of the Arab refugee story by including the under-presented Jewish refugee story. It rectified to an extent the inaccuracy of the general impression by the public of there having been only Arab refugees. Therefore, it is not reasonable to include Fike's letter accusing the Op.-Ed. of inaccuracy in not stating the Arab claim.

For my original report on the Op.-Ed., click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m6d18-Arab-expulsion-of-the-Jews


Some Arabs threw rocks at Israeli vehicles. Near where Israeli military forces were tearing down unauthorized outposts, Jewish youths threw rocks at Arabs. The youths' motive is unclear.

Police defused a bomb planted near the entrance to Avtalyon, in northern Israel. The Land of Israel Legal Forum suggested that security forces concentrate on the budding terrorist cells in the Galilee, which pose a threat to national security, and not on the budding outposts in Judea-Samaria, which do not (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/1).

Actually, as with Zionist attempts to build up the country in pre-statehood days, outposts and settlements contribute to national security. They buffer the state of Israel's larger civilian centers, impede secret terrorist movement, and protect and advance Jewish claims to the Territories, of strategic value to Israel. They also provide cover for security forces to move against terrorists.

The only drawback is the misguided foreign indignation against them. Jews must learn to deal with foreign prejudice and not take it to heart.


Although the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) never moved to eradicate terrorism, and although the U.S. is worn and torn by recession, the U.S. is giving even more financial support to the P.A. The new U.S. Administration has not learned any more from experience than did its predecessor.

Training an additional 1,500 P.A. troops cost the U.S. $161 million more, part of the almost $1 billion pledged. The U.S. rationalizes that those troops protect the Abbas regime from Hamas. However Abbas is negotiating coalition with Hamas.

Abu Yusef, in Abbas' Force-17 security unit, admits that U.S. training was applied against the Israelis. This training helped P.A. snipers, intelligence gathering on Jews' movements, in determining when to infiltrate bombers, and in producing weapons.

U.S. financial aid to the P.A. also goes for terrorism, even for Hamas. Although Sec. of State Clinton pledged that no U.S. aid would get to Hamas, the P.A. Finance Minister admitted inability to prevent it. Indeed, when he gives millions of U.S. subsidy money to pay supposed "employees" in Gaza, it helps Hamas
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/1 from Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld,

The P.A. misuses foreign aid to expand bloated security forces or just to retain their loyalty.

For those who think that the U.S. gives unstinting support to Israel, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m6d12-President-Obama-ending-discrimination-against-Israel


Palestinian Authority head Abbas said, "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements." "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/31).

PM Netanyahu's peace plan: build up the P.A. economy, to stabilize it. But Abbas counts on such help to enable him to resist making peace.

Diplomacy doesn't always work. To see a piece about Egypt rejecting Obama diplomacy, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m6d11-Egypt-rejects-Obama-diplomacy


A candidate backed by the Muslim Brotherhood gained control over Egypt's Bar Association of 205,000 members. The Muslim Brotherhood is the founder of the Sunni Radical Muslim terrorist organizations, including Hamas.

The Brotherhood in Egypt has a political agenda. Commentators believe that the Brotherhood intends to take over the other professional associations in Egypt and then the whole country
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/1).

The Brotherhood controls Jordan's professional associations.


At a State Department briefing, a reporter asked whether the U.S. considers itself bound by the letter President Bush sent to Israel. The briefer, Mr. Woods, hemmed and hawed and brought up irrelevant matters, such as other obligations by Israel and the Arabs and their meetings with the U.S.. The reporter followed up, about a dozen times, asking clearly whether the current Administration will honor the Bush letter or not. The Administration representative would not answer responsively
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/1).


Some small, closed Jewish communities in the Galilee have new rules requiring prospective members to share residents' commitment to Zionism and to the Jewish and democratic character of the State. The writers of Haaretz would not be eligible.

In the large, open town of Ramat Aviv, containing tens of thousands of residents, Orthodox Jews attempting to move in have been harassed by leftwingers.

Haaretz opposes the Galilee residents as racists, and supports the Ramat Aviv leftists as progressive defenders of democracy. How self-contradictory! (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/1).

For another example of Israeli discrimination against Jews, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d11-Israeli-principal-bans-yarmulkes


Russia offered the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) 50 armored vehicles. Will Israel let them in?
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/2.)

During one of the little wars Arafat started, Israel had to destroy most of the P.A.'s armored vehicles. They were used not against terrorism, but against Israel. That shows the folly of arming the P.A..

If the P.A. mustn't be armed, then it mustn't have sovereignty, which would give it the right to arm (for war on Israel).

These weapon/transportation platforms should not be viewed in isolation, but together with related news, such as what you would find by clicking here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m5d31-Russian-arms-sale-to-Iran


Gen. Petraeus described Hizbullah as a terrorist organization that does not contribute to Lebanon's stability. He contends that if the Palestinian Arab conflict is resolved, Hizbullah would have no reason for existence
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/2).

He expresses the Administration's political stand, not an informed military one. Hizbullah claimed it was needed to liberate a slice of Lebanon from Israel. Israel doesn't occupy any Lebanese soil, but for Hizbullah, truth is no object. Actually, relations between the two countries have little to do with the Palestinian Arabs.

Gen. Petraeus misses the bigger picture. Hizbullah is an Islamist organization, which doesn't exist on the basis of grievances against Israel but on the basis of jihad, a drive to impose a caliphate over the world.

For more on Hizbullah's imperialist side, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m5d11-Hizbullah-shows-its-imperialist-side


An Iranian professor traces the origin of Iran's nuclear development to Saddam's invasion of Iran. Neither the Arab states nor the West nor anybody else supported Iranian defense. Feeling alienated, Iran figured it was on its own. It felt it would not be taken seriously unless it had nuclear weaponry
http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/2).

Plausible theory. However, Iran was and is a menace, because it is jihadist.


When Hamas gunmen attacked P.A. police in Judea-Samaria recently, they hid behind a woman and threw a grenade at the police, killing three (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/4).

To see another Hamas use of civilian shields, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m5d31-Russian-arms-sale-to-Iran

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, June 21, 2009.

I don't claim to be a maven on anything. Well, maybe in a past life I used to take pride in being a world class shopper. Actually, I'd consider myself to be a pretty basic person. But, I've come to the conclusion that if I listened to the pundits and our present and past governments, everything would be solved if that "obstacle to peace" the Israelis 'settlements" in Judea and Samaria would just go away and then all of us would have the world peace for which we've been yearning. Of course, nobody ever mentions that the strip of land that they want to settle G-d knows how many millions of Arabs into is about the size of Disneyland.

Forget the fact that North Korea is making daily threats with their nuclear warheads putting them on a collision course with the rest of the world. Forget they are striving to reach our shores as soon as possible. I think I just read somewhere that they are almost ready to be able to reach Hawaii.

Is Ahmadinejad and the riots going on from his free 'election' with millions of dissents taking to the streets, of concern for Obama? Naw. Why should Obama speak out on the need for freedom and democracy in Iran when there are apartments being built in Judea and Samaria that need immediate tearing down? Because, if not, then, according to the leaders of our country, starting with our President and working its way to Miss Hillary, the Middle East will never have a solution to the problems that envelop it.

When I hear friends, and even Israeli friends, tell me that "We are tired of fighting we don't need the settlements.", then G-d help me. I want to scream! When I listen to those that aren't Jewish go on about "the Jews and their state" who are causing all the problems, I know that they are the anti-Semites that somehow electively overlook all that is really going on now with the gathering storm. I used to wonder why everybody hates 'the Jews' and wrote it off to plain old jealousy. But, now, I think it goes deeper than that. And, I don't think that land has a damn thing to do with it. For heaven's sake... take a look at the map! Sure these savages 'need' that land...riiiiight. And, I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you too.

The Jews gave the world a conscience. Before Moses came down from that hill with the Ten Commandments, everyone was decadent, but they were happy, running around sleeping with their sisters and partying with sheep. And, then let's not forget that Hagar, Ishmael's mother could never accept the fact that sibling rivalry between Ishmael and Isaac was caused by the fact that her kid, who later became the father of the new nation of Islam, did not have the legitimacy of being his father's 'favorite' son.

These same friends, who went on ad-nauseum about the hope and change that was going to transform our lives into something wonderful just as soon as Barack Hussein Obama took charge are strangely quiet now. You would not believe how I was attacked when I even suggested that I truly believed him to be a Muslim and he just might not be all they expected.

Why does Israel have to be a sounding board for public opinion for the Arabs? A recent LA Times opinion article in the biased anti-Semitic Los Angeles Times was headed, "Israel Tussle Tests Obama. Deal may be near on settlements issue." But any U.S concessions could undercut the president's credibility." Credibility with whom? The Arab world? In it the article describes how the public quarrel with Israel over the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is developing into a test of the U.S. leaders international credibility, say foreign diplomats and other observers". Wow, I wonder who they could be. More importantly, why should BiBi Netanyahu even consider bowing to Obama when it comes to the security of the future of Israel? For Obama's poll numbers in the Arab world or with our resident Nazi former President Jimmy Carter?

Apparently, the Arab world is being vocal that the 'concessions not only disappointed the Arabs who the president has been courting, but also will be read by US adversaries around the globe as a signal that the president can be forced to back down."

Frankly folks, I don't give a diddly-squat what the Arab world, or even the free world is thinking about Obama's plans for Israel might be. I know whatever they might be are not going to be anything but the advocate to demise of the Jewish state. Land never has had anything to do with it. The Arab world makes no secret about its intent. They won't be happy until Israel does not exist whether as the State of Israel or the Jewish State of Israel. They want every last Jew gone! DEAD! Of course, since our new leader has announced that the United States is no longer a Judeo/ Christian country that might include the Sunday people also. Ya think?

What I don't understand is why Israel bends and bows every time this group who I lovingly refer to as the 'coven' orders BiBi and company to give up something in the name of 'peace' and like fools they do it?

When Israel mentions a few basic suggestions of its own, such as the recognition of their country as a Jewish state with the right to exist, they are labeled as obstructionists of peace. Or, maybe when they sometimes say, they might want some of the Arab world to live up to any of their previous promises and agreements, they are totally ignored. Worse, the former inept leaders of Israel had opened the jails and let out hundreds of the terrorist tigers from their cages in one of their 'good will 'gestures.

I don't care about 'goodwill concessions' from the Arabs because, it doesn't mean a thing anyway. And, now that I feel we have an muslim in the White House, the United States isn't trustable either. Last month, under Obama's direction, Sec of State Madam Hillary Clinton declared that Obama opposed any settlements' growth' saying that he "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outpost, not 'natural growth 'exceptions' Lovely. And, this from the woman that the Jewish community thought was going to be their 'friend' in the White House.

Except, who is she, or who is any US political official to hold the future of the Jews of Israel via Obama's power? Doesn't anyone who is supposed to be watching the store remember what happened the last time they listened to assurances from the Arabs and the U.S. about how wonderful it would be and peace could finally come to the region if only the interlopers in the 'settlements' in Gaza would just move out?

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, June 21, 2009.

This below is archived at
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/ neda-voice-of-iranian-people.html


From FaultLine USA (faultlineusa@yahoo.com):

By now the videos of Neda's death have spread far and wide across the world making her the symbol of the voice of the Iranian People.

Today is Father's Day. No father should have to live to witness the death of a beloved child.

While glued to Twitter early yesterday afternoon I made the mistake of clicking on the link to the close-up, gruesome, and very graphic YouTube video of Neda's death. The image of her beautiful eyes in the last moment of her life seared itself into my soul. I could not shake her dying image from my mind and just prayed all day for her family.

By nighttime the new Twitter hashtag: #Neda was burning up the internet with Tweets and RT's.

RT Woman killed in front of her father " (Neda) which means voice or call in Farsi. She's the voice of the people a call to freedom"

Neda, girl murdered in Iran on film: Eternal rest grant unto her Lord & let perpetual light shine uponher.

"With the Marchers" from The Letters from Tehran column of the New Yorker:

"According to a police official who was quoted in the Western press, a million or more people took part in the Azadi Street march. Later, I asked a person close to the rally organizers how many people there were, and he told me that he thought the figure was closer to two million. It was, he said, the biggest protest Iran had seen since the 1979 revolution, which overthrew the Shah. From where Reza and I stood, half a mile from the western end of Azadi Street, where it enters Azadi Square, a thick belt of humanity stretched eastward seemingly without end. Although the rally was illegal, there was no sign of riot police or Basij militiamen. In an Islamic republic that regards large, unsanctioned gatherings as a threat, the marchers were smiling with the joy of being in one happy, unhindered mass — a pleasurable feeling, utterly unfamiliar.

"On June 14th, two days after the election that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is alleged to have stolen from his main challenger, the reformist Mir-Hossein Moussavi, I hurried back to Iran from a trip abroad. The next day, the day of the Azadi Street march, I had lunch with a journalist friend. In view of the election fiasco and the coverage that it had received abroad, my friend told me, the authorities were now trying to curtail the activities of the Western media. "If you want to write for a foreign magazine," he said, "do it without a byline." The authorities were refusing to extend the visas of most visiting foreign journalists; several Iranian journalists had been thrown in jail. "I had come to Azadi Street to lose myself in a crowd bedecked in green — Moussavi's color and, not coincidentally, Islam's. I had also come to try to work out what sort of Iranian had voted for Moussavi. According to the caricature sketched by his opponents during the campaign, Moussavi was backed by a coalition of radical counter-revolutionaries and their minions, who include some misguided students and pampered, Westernized hedonists from the well-heeled neighborhoods of north Tehran. The supporters of Ahmadinejad, by contrast, were said to be poor and virtuous, and to hold a monopoly on patriotism. The President has referred to Moussavi supporters as 'chaff.'

And yet, contrary to the caricature, the demonstrators around me represented an impressive cross-section of Iranian society. The crowd in Azadi Street was dominated by young people, and many of the girls wore the regulation black maghna'eh, or hooded cloak, that they wear in class. There were also elderly men and women, and families whose dress and appearance suggested that they had come from modest precincts of Tehran or the provinces. I saw a friend who has a government job. She had left work early, along with ten of her colleagues, and with the permission of her supervisor. We passed a government office building where employees were leaning out the windows, waving. I don't think much work got done in Tehran on June 15th.

And BTW: Obama holds firm. The United States continues to say its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies. The voice of the Iranian people means nada. Let their freedom sink. Obama is sure he can work with the Mad Iranian, so why let reality interfere?

As Frank Salvato put it:

"Instead of offering solidarity with those who are literally dying in the streets of Iran in a quest for increased liberty, Mr. Obama put his own political philosophy above the heroic freedom fighters."

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 21, 2009.

Last Thursday, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in conjunction with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (Foundation), sponsored a conference: "Hamas, the Gaza War, and Accountability Under International Law."

A number of points made at that conference are worth sharing here. But I begin with what was for me a highlight:

Maj.-Gen. (res) Yaakov Amidror, chairing the session on "International Law & Military Operations in Practice," told us a story:

Years ago, he served in Intelligence for the IDF Northern Command. After considerable effort they had finally located a key member of Hezbollah, who had been responsible for Israeli deaths and was planning more of the same. He was inside a building, and his car sat outside. They planted a bomb under his car, with intentions of detonating it when he got in.

When the mark entered his car, however, he had a child with him.

Said General Amidror: "We didn't ask what international law said, we asked ourselves what was moral. Could we detonate that bomb with a child in the car?"

They decided they could not, and so they watched the Hezbollah terrorist (marked for another day) and the child drive away together.


Remember this, my friends, and share it widely. We are, barring none, the most moral fighting force on earth. And yet we endure the greatest number of accusations regarding our "immorality."

And this, of course, is part of the story. International law in some instances has become a weapon, used against us by enemies. Often NGOs play a significant role here. Gerald Steinberg, who heads NGO-Monitor, described what is going on: NGOs consistently push cases against us in international forums, such as the International Court of Justice — which brought down a terrible decision regarding our security fence without even mentioning the terrorism that motivated its construction.

This applies as well to the UN — which launches biased investigations from time to time, such as the current Goldstone Inquiry, which is investigating possible Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza. During the visit of inquiry in Gaza, Justice Richard Goldstone, who heads the investigation, was accompanied throughout by armed members of Hamas.


At a national level, there is abuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction — in which a nation provides its courts with the legal jurisdiction to hear cases that involve situations completely beyond its borders. This principle was originally intended to apply to situations such as piracy on the high seas, where there was no national jurisdiction that might have pertained. Now we're seeing things like charges brought in a Spanish court against Israeli leaders for civilian deaths caused in the course of fighting terrorism. Sometimes repeat cases are brought in multiple forums.


There are, indeed, some well-established foundations of international law — targeting civilian populations, using human shields, funding terrorist organizations are all clearly illegal. But when it comes to combating terrorism, in many ways that law is insufficient.

Among the questions to be considered is how to fight a terrorist organization that is not a state — how to determine when it is appropriate to enter the territory of another state in pursuing after such terrorists. This pertained, for example, in Lebanon: In the last war, we were fighting Hezbollah, not Lebanon. (This would change if we were to launch another operation, as Hezbollah now sits in the government of Lebanon.) Part of the answer lies with the inability of a state to control terrorists within its borders.

And there are legal issues, as well, with regard to the question of when civilians deserve protection. Says international law, when they don't take "direct part" in "hostilities." But what does that mean? Most terrorists, in contradistinction to forces in a standing army, are "civilians." There is sometimes a "revolving door" phenomenon in which they rest at home during the day, and go out at night to participate in terrorism.

The Red Cross insists that the terrorist is only a legitimate target when he is perpetrating a terrorist act. We say it's permissible to target them at any time.

Additionally there is an extra-legal, political issue with regard to defining a terrorist: there are "good terrorists."

And then there are pragmatic considerations in terms of deterrence — how to prevent a suicide bomber from acting, for example.


What I find impressive is the seriousness with which Israel takes issues of international law.

— Prior to a conflict, training is done of officers on issue of the law, and legal advice is provided at headquarters.

— During the conflict there is an emergency 24/7 mechanism, as well as daily meeting. The entire issue of what the role of legal advisors is during a conflict is complicated. (When do lawyers and not military people decide if an action can be taken?)

— Following a conflict, incidents are investigated and appropriate changes to rules and procedures are made.


There are four considerations as we enter a conflict:

— Military Necessity: Confronting a terrorist infrastructure.

— Necessary Distinction: Obligation to distinguish between civilians and enemy combatants.

This is vastly complicated by Hamas violations that make response very difficult. Booby-trapping residential buildings; recruiting children; using human shields, shooting missiles from civilian sites.

— Proportionality: This is a balance between over-all military objective and risk to civilians.

We use a variety of techniques to minimize collateral damage, such as early warning mechanisms and aborting attacks if the situation changes.

— Humanity: Attending to human needs.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 21, 2009.

This comes from the Gateway Pundit website:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/ obama-tells-killer-iranian-regime-world.html


The regime in Iran slaughtered dozens of innocent democracy protesters in the streets of Tehran today. Unconfirmed reports suggest that 150 Iranians were murdered by the evil regime during protests this afternoon including young girls shot dead by the basij. Barack Obama finally spoke out against the actions by the regime and asked them to stop the "unjust actions." Then he went out for ice cream...

President Barack Obama stands with daughters Malia Obama, 10, left, and Sasha Obama, 8, and orders frozen custard at The Dairy Godmother in the Del Ray area of Alexandria, Va., Saturday, June 20, 2009. (AP/Alex Brandon)

Richard Romano adds: Just file this under "What if Bush had done this..."

UPDATE: Mark Steyn offers Obama this advice, "Neutrality Isn't an Option."  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, June 21, 2009.

Israel was first settled by the tribe of Judah (fourth son of Jacob, aka, Israel) in c.1450 BCE after their exodus from Egypt with Moses It was founded as a nation in 1312 BCE, and imperialized in c.1000 BCE by King David. Moreover, it was recognized in 539 BCE by the Persian King, Cyrus the Great, as Judea, the homeland of the Ju's (dialectically, Jews). So, in 622 CE, what do Mohammedans claim in establishing a religion (a cult?) that is vengeful against all infidels — most especially the Jews?

IMHO, the issue always has been, and unfortunately always will be: the Arabs "...refusing to recognize Israel." Albeit I don't know what Jimmy Carter is inhaling, maybe the Arabs inhale too much smoke in burning cannabis hemp over camel dung.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Alpern, June 21, 2009.

I received this outstanding letter from a cousin in the US. Please read it with an open mind. It was written by Rani Levy, who was an Adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and resides in Israel with his family. Contact him at ranal@netvision.net.il

Prime Minister Netanyahu made an effort to correct Obama's unacceptable position that Israel is a consequence of the Holocaust. The President never mentioned Zionism or the Jews' unbroken connection to this small area in the world.


Shalom, Mr. President,

I am writing you from a small village in Israel called Asseret. We are group of 7 small villages, united under a Regional Council called Gderot. A County, in American terms. A little over a year ago, I was in a meeting in NYC in a building designed by the world renowned designer, Phillip Stark. The population of that building alone was larger than that of our entire Council. Such, respectively, is the difference between our two nations. Yours is big. Very big. Ours is small. Very small.

In its longest dimension, Israel is a 7 hour drive long country. In its width, we have about 50 miles. You seem like a fairly athletic man. If you leave Tel-Aviv riding a bicycle at 7 in the morning, you will make it to lunch time, on the banks of the Jordan River, our eastern border.

I listen to you very carefully in the past several months. Particularly since you have become President of the USA, I listen to every word you and your senior aides are saying about the Middle-East. In your Cairo speech three days ago, I felt a pain in my chest, and decided I must write you.

I do not think my words will impact you greatly, Mr.Barack Obama. But perhaps, you will at least hear them. To my deep sorrow, no senior Israeli official, is able to say those words to you anymore, words which should have been our official position in the past 2-3 decades. My Prime Minister and his senior aides, like his predecessors since 1992, are confused and lost in 'political correctness'. Had we been a country which takes its vital affairs a tad more seriously, we should have been telling you now these exact words, with all due respect and friendship:

  1. The State of Israel shall never again participate in ANY territorial dialogue with anyone. We are simply tired and ashamed of this hoax, which always failed and was a tragic mistake to begin with. From now on, there are no more territorial discussions ever, with anyone. The present day boundaries of Israel, will be its permanent ones, forever. We shall never discuss handing over the Golan-Heights to Syria. No Palestinian official presence will ever be allowed in our Holy City, our Capital City, Jerusalem. The Cities we built in Ariel, Efrat and Ma'ale-Adumim will be annexed to Israel tomorrow, and shall never again be named occupied territory by any friend of the State of Israel.

  2. The Palestinian Authority is promoting terror and is corrupted. The Palestinians are torn apart amongst themselves and poor. They have no hope for an independent economy nor infrastructure for an independent state. They have nothing, Mr.President. Israel is longing for the day the PA will be a democratic, peace seeking entity, which abandons terror and incitement, and quits sends young children to explode on buses. On the day this happens, Israel will actively participate in creating a better political and economic hope for the Palestinians.

  3. We shall NEVER allow the Palestinian Authority to evolve into a sovereign state. Israel shall never accept establishing an additional Arab country in the narrow margin of 30 miles, between the Jordan River and Ben-Gurion airport. This would be a totally suicidal act on our behalf.

    On the other hand, if and when the Palestinians will fulfill their part of the horrible Oslo Agreements, we shall reciprocate and work together with them to create a fruitful urban and administrative civil body and they will manage it. Other than that, we have nothing else to offer them. A Palestinian State will be another failed experiment, which will bring additional disappointments and bloodshed to the region. A transparent, democratic Palestinian Authority, is the only hope.

  4. Jerusalem is the city of the Jews, and the Capital City of the State of Israel. This has been an undenied fact for 3,000 years. There is no theological basis for the Arab claims over Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran, and has been 'turned holy' in a cynical political assult of the past 40-60 years. Israel shall no longer participate in this circus.

  5. In your Cairo speech three days ago, you have repeatedly suggested speaking in truth and honesty. A noble offer, no doubt. You have also stated that the "dislocation of the Palestinians has been going on for over 60 years". In saying this, Mr.President, you have accepted the false Palestinian Nakba [Arabic: "catastrophe"] claim in fullness. No longer talking about the refugee problem caused as the aftermath of the Six Day War of 1967, but a Palestinian disaster caused by the very creation of the State of Israel, in 1948. I doubt you realize the horrible ramifications of such a statement to my personal well-being, the future of my children in Israel, let alone the very heavy damage this will bring to the ability to reach peace with our neighbors.

  6. In your speech last week, you have repeated the thought that Israel was recreated as a consequence of the Holocaust. This is not your fault, Mr.Obama, we ourselves, have promoted this foolish doctrine in the past 60 years. But if truth and honesty is what we seek, please note that Zionism was live and kicking already in the late 19th Century. The immigration to Palestine, our Eretz-Israel, our redemption of this land "by the return of Jews to their historic homeland" started back then. Even the League of Nations designated this land to the "Restoration", in those very words, of the Jewish people in their homeland. It included all of Judea, Samaria and Jordan of today. It is not your fault to not see this Mr. President, many even here in Israel do not see this anymore. But when the President of the United States preaches for "truth and Honesty", it is recommended to stick to facts, not to Arab propaganda.

I feel you are a fair man, and that you have good intentions, Mr.Obama. I do not think that you are knowingly seeking to harm Israel. I believe the accusations of you being an Arabist and all that, are nonsense. If Tzippy Livni, a leader of the Kadima party in Israel, is the most active agent for promoting a Palestinian State, if Avigdor Liberman has offered portions of the Galilee (!!!) to the Palestinians, if Ehud Barak pressured Arafat to take control of East-Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, (Camp-David, June 1999), if Ariel Sharon was able to destroy and relocate Jewish towns twice (1978 Sinai, 2005 Gush-Katif), how can we come in fairness and be upset with you?

You will probably not be influenced by my letter to you. It will be easy for you to continue in the sorry direction you have started. You will continue to promise that America will stop making threats or dictations, but you will threaten and dictate — only to the Israelis. I can only be saddened Mr. President, that there is no serious Israeli figure today, who will stand up to you, who will correct you, who will work together with you, to take a more just and moral approach. A matter a fact, Israel has produced a leadership that will make it probably easy for you. Peace, unfortunately, what we really so badly need here, will never come out of it.

Israel will continue in its ideological deterioration, and its strategic margins will continue to narrow in on her. All, in the name of "Peace", of course. And as we will watch it through the years to come, more Presidents will come after you, and push us more and more.

But please don't feel bad, Mr. President. You have no reason to feel bad. Because the painful truth is, it is not you to blame for your ideas I cry over. It is us. We did this to ourselves.

Raanan (Rani) Levy

Contact Dave Alpern at daveyboy@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Howard L. Dyckman, June 21, 2009.

This was written by Caroline B. Glick and published June 19, 2009 in Jewish World Review,

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com

Why the Jewish State must assert itself in Iran's affairs


Israel today finds itself in unfamiliar territory. The revolutionary atmosphere building in Iran presents Israel with a prospect it has rarely confronted: a safe bet. With the Obama administration refusing to back the anti-regime protesters, and the European Union similarly hemming and hawing, millions of Iranians who are on the streets, risking their lives to protest a stolen election and a tyrannical regime have been cast adrift by those they thought would support them. To date, Israel has joined the US and Europe in rejecting the protesters. This should change.

In refusing to stick their necks out — and so effectively siding with the mullahs against the pro-democracy activists in the streets — US President Barack Obama like Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Mossad chief Meir Dagan have all rightly pointed out the Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iran's former prime minister and the titular head of the protest movement is just as radical and extreme as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom he seeks to unseat.

Moreover, Western officials and analysts point out that Mousavi's primary backers from within the regime — former presidents Muhammad Khatami and Rafsanjani — are themselves anything but anti-regime revolutionaries. What apparently motivates these men is the sense that through Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's heavy handed attacks against the revolution's "old guard," the presidential incumbent has shunted them aside. They feel slighted. And they are doubly humiliated by the fact that Ahmadinejad has acted with the open support of Iran's real dictator — so-called "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei. The likes of Mousavi, Khatami and Rafsanjani don't want to overthrow the regime whose aims they share. They just want to restore their power within the regime.

It is these twin assessments of Mousavi and his backers that stand at the center of Western leaders' decision to give a wide berth both to the presidential race and the protests that have arisen in its aftermath.

For Israel, the arguments for staying clear of events in Iran align with those informing much of the rest of the Western world. Israel's primary concern is Iran's foreign policy and specifically its nuclear weapons program and its support for anti-Israel terror groups. There is no reason for Israel to believe that a Mousavi government will be more inclined to end Iran's race to the bomb or diminish its support for terror groups like Hizbullah and Hamas than Ahmadinejad's government is. As Iranian prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was a major instigator of Iran's nuclear program and he oversaw the establishment of Hizbullah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Beyond that, there is the fact that Israel — like the US — is the regime's bogeyman. If Israel is identified with the protesters, the likes of Khamenei will use this connection to justify their brutal repression.

Finally, there is the distinct possibility, indeed the likelihood that these protests will go nowhere. They will be brutally repressed or fizzle out of their own accord. So would Israel gain by sticking its neck out?

While reasonable on their face, these arguments for doing nothing all ignore the significance of recent developments. Consequently they fail to grasp the new opportunities that have arisen — opportunities which left untouched will likely disappear in short order.

The fact of the matter is that with each passing day, Mousavi's personal views and interests are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Whether he realized it or not, Mousavi was transformed last Friday night. When Khamenei embraced the obviously falsified official election results as a "divine victory" for Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was widely expected by Western observers to accept the dictator's verdict. When instead Mousavi sided with his own supporters who took to the streets to oppose their disenfranchisement, Mousavi became a revolutionary. Whether he had planned to do so or not, a week ago Mousavi became an enemy of the regime.

The significance of Mousavi's decision could not be more profound. As Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies wrote, last Friday night Mousavi tied his personal survival to the success of the protesters — and pitted his life against Khamenei's. In Ledeen's words, "Both Khamenei and Mousavi — the two opposed icons of the moment, at least — know that they will either win or die."

For their part, by the end of this week, the protesters themselves had been transformed. If last week they were simply angry that they had been ignored, by Thursday they had become a revolutionary force apparently dedicated to the overthrow of the regime. This was made clear by a list of demands circulating among the protesters on Wednesday. As Pepe Escobar reported in Thursday's Asia Times, the protesters demands include Khamenei's removal from power, the dissolution of the secret police, the reform of the constitution under anti-regime Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri who has been living under house arrest for the past twelve years, and the installation of Mousavi as president. These demands make clear where the protesters are leading. They are leading to the overthrow of one of the most heinous regimes on the face of the earth and its replacement by a liberal democracy.

As far as Israel is concerned, this is a win-win situation. If the protesters successfully overthrow the regime, they will have neutralized the greatest security threat facing the Jewish state. And if they fail, Israel will still probably be better off than it is today. For if the mullahs violently repress the pro-democracy dissidents, the Obama administration will be hard-pressed to legitimize their blood bath by embracing them as negotiating partners.

Were Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly announce Israel's support for the protesters, Israel would stand to gain politically in a number of ways. First and foremost, it would be doing the right thing morally and so would earn the respect of millions of people throughout the world who are dismayed at their own governments' silence in the face of the brave Iranian protesters risking their lives for freedom.

Moreover, by acting as the loudest and first democratic champion of the protesters, Israel would catapult itself to the forefront of the campaign for democracy in the Muslim world. Doing so would make it far easier for Israel's representatives throughout the world to defend against false accusations by self-described human rights organizations that Israel is a human rights abuser.

Beyond that, Israel would be building an important alliance with the Iranian people themselves. Contrary to what the mullahs would have us believe, Iranians by and large do not share the widespread hatred of Israel and the Jews that their regime promotes and the Arab world embraces. Over the years, Iranian regime opponents — from the students to the trade unionists to women's rights activists to minority Kurds, Azeris, Ahwaz Arabs and Baluchis — have all appealed to Israel for support. Israel Radio in Farsi, which broadcasts into Iran daily, has more than a million regular listeners.

Were Netanyahu to explain that the same mullahs who seek to disenfranchise and repress the Iranian people seek to destroy Israel with nuclear bombs; were he to call for Iran to stop financing Hamas and Hizbullah terrorists who are reportedly now deployed in Iran to brutalize the protesters, and instead invest in the Iranian economy for the benefit of Iran's people, he would be giving a message that already resonates with the people of Iran.

Finally, Israeli outreach to the Iranian people now struggling to overthrow the regime would expose the Obama administration's effective support for the mullahs against their people in all its absurdity and moral blindness. What's more, the administration would be unable to launch a counterattack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama would be in no position to attack Israel for supporting Iranian dissidents demanding freedom. And their stammering reaction would make their attacks against Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria look ever more ridiculous.

Although Israel is far away from Iran, it has significant capacity to help the demonstrators. It could use its communication satellites to break through the communications blackout the regime has attempted to enforce. Its internet capabilities can be offered to the protesters to reopen closed networks. Israel could temporarily expand its radio broadcasts into the country and allow its airwaves to be used to broadcast events on the ground in real time so that protesters won't have to rely on word of mouth to know what is happening or where things are leading.

Again, it is more than possible that Khamenei will move to crush the dissidents or successfully buy enough of them off to subvert them. But in the meantime, Israel has a clear interest in keeping the Iranian cauldron boiling. The mullahs can only concentrate on so much at once. If they are preoccupied with domestic dissent, they will have less time to devote to Hamas and Hizbullah. If they are busy quelling armed insurrections by Kurds or Azeris or Baluchis, they will have less time to devote to negotiating the purchase of the S-300 anti-aircraft system with Russia, or keeping tabs on their nuclear scientists. Strategically, Israel stands only to gain — either marginally or massively — from the ayatollahs' discomfort.

In an interview this week with National Review Online, Iranian expatriate Amir Taheri explained that Iran suffers from a divided psyche. On the one hand, the mullahs view Iran as a revolutionary vanguard of Islam. They do not see Iran as a nation-state. For them, the normal things that make up a life — economic stability, public safety and the hope that one's children will do better — are of little use as they march forward under the flag of jihad. Israel and the US are necessary enemies.

On the other hand, the vast majority of Iran's people wish to live in a normal and free nation-state. For them, the revolution means nothing but privation, suffering, repression and death. They do not hate America and they do not hate Israel. They do not seek nuclear weapons and they do not support the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah.

As Taheri put it, "When we consider Iran as a nation-state, we see Israel as its natural ally. The reason is that Israel, like Iran, is opposed to an exclusively Arab Middle East. Both want a pluralist Middle East in which there is room for diversity; a Middle East where one finds Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Christians, and Jews, as well as Arabs."

If Israel extends a hand in friendship to these Iranian patriots, the worst that can happen is that they fail to overthrow the mullahs and we are left to acknowledge that we wished them well. There is no shame in that.

Indeed, if they fail to overthrow the regime, and Israel is compelled to attack their country's nuclear installations, it is hard to imagine that they will take it personally. Rather, recalling that it was Israel that stood with them first, they would no doubt understand why we were forced to act, and perhaps be inspired to try again to free themselves from the shackles of their hideous regime.

Contact Howard L. Dyckman at dyckman@dyckman.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Williams, June 20, 2009.


Muslims worldwide violently protest free speech in an Islamic uprising



"Man arrested for "hate crime" for tossing Koran into toilet"

And the murder and mayhem that followed Newsweek's fabricated report about alleged Koran abuse by American GI's?

Newsweek Apologizes

Inaccurate Report On Koran Led To Riots

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer

Newsweek apologized yesterday for an inaccurate report on the treatment of detainees that triggered several days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which at least 15 people died. How about this:

U.S. General Apologizes For Desecration Of Koran

By Andrew E. Kramer
Published: May 19, 2008

BAGHDAD — The commander of United States troops in Baghdad asked local leaders and tribal sheiks this weekend for their forgiveness after the discovery that a soldier had used a Koran for target practice at a shooting range...

Or this:

DOJ Issues Statement "To Protect American Muslims;"

DOJ issues statement "to protect American Muslims;" silent on protecting Americans from jihadists
By Michelle Malkin
June 5, 2009 11:14 AM

WHAT IF A WESTERNER HAD DONE THIS? Utilizing a secure VPN (Virtual Private Network) Dr. Paul L. Williams has been speaking to his Iranian contacts in their besieged Tehran hideouts every few hours during this crisis. Intrigued by photographs showing a burned Koran at the Tehran University, Dr. Williams inquired about the cause of the "desecration". Paul was told that hundreds of Korans were destroyed by the "religious" police and militias loyal to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Paul William blogs at http://thelastcrusade.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 20, 2009.

To Go To Top

Posted by A Beizer, June 20, 2009.

We The People have an elected "leader" in Washington who in a photo op before a national TV audience is not afraid to swat a fly that landed on his hand, yet apparently when people in Iran cry out for Freedom from a tyrannical government, and protest fixed elections, the hands of our great leader become tied. He weakly states that he does not want to meddle in the foreign affairs of a sovereign (terror) state. Here we have a man who likes to compare himself to the giant image of Abraham Lincoln, but shrinks from acting as he should in the face of threats against our country from our enemies abroad.

Mr. Obama you are no Abraham Lincoln.

Obama did not hesitate to kill a fly in a great show of bravado when he thought his macho image would be enhanced thereby and the fly approached too close to his air space.

But when it comes to North Korea's insane dictator Kim Jong Il threatening to fire a ballistic missile toward Hawaii, or Iran's loud mouthed, maniac Amidinijhad, putting down peaceful demonstrations with violence and intimidation, where is our fearless leader? Obama put on a great demonstration of force when encircled by a harmless fly and then summarily executed the fly on national TV without fear of repercussion from animal right activists like PETA.

In contrast, when challenged with real threats to freedom from overseas, he cowers and declares that we must no longer call the War on Terror by that scary name, rather refer to it as Overseas, Contingency Operations. The Commander In Chief orders his Dept. of Homeland Security to no longer call Terrorists, "Terrorists", but hereafter refer to them more sympathetically as "Man Made Disasters" (supposedly caused by ugly Americans he blames for creating a climate and environment that spawns justifiable anti-social behavior by enemy combatants because of some perceived American arrogance).

We The people now have a president who faces the nation on TV every chance he gets to get his face out there, but who is intimidated at the drop of a hat by foreign affairs he is ill equipped to face. When the situation calls for it in the heat of the moment, the president of the United States freezes and shivers in his boots. He puts his head between his tail and high tails it for cover. Here we have a leader with plenty of courage to swiftly slay a harmless insect that posed no security threat to him, but when it comes to standing up to our enemies he hesitates and cannot summon up nerve to react boldly in an appropriate and timely manner. He does not take a tough stand, but adopts a guarded response. Americans call for him to do more and say more but the president maintains a calculated cautious tone, not wanting to be drawn in to a "political football game" as his Press Secretary refers to it.

It might cause him to fall lower in the polls.

This leads U.S. to ask the question as to what will happen when these so-called Man Made Disasters export their nasty operations Over Here and attack U.S. suddenly with no mercy? Will they finally be recognized for the murdering terrorists they are? Will our UN prepared president come to admit that his Overseas Contingency Operations cannot deal with a WAR ON TERROR that has moved across the waters to our shores and our Homeland because our President and Homeland Security stuck their heads in the sand and had their heads up their

Unfortunately, by then it will be too late! High noon will have arrived on the Doomsday Clock and things will not be OK at the O.K. Corral. It is rather high time to invest in National Defense, not in Nationalized Health Care. Our Health and Safety as a nation is threatened. Wasteful spending on another government boondoggle that will not work won't help U.S. The President has cut our Missile Defense Program at a time when Americans face dying in droves not from Swine Flu but from the swines that threaten to invade our land bringing Islamic Jihad and taking the battle to U.S.

President Obama Wake Up before it is too late. Talk is cheap but the high price we will pay for being weak is with our lives! The clock is ticking and it is time to act not to talk.

Our Best Offense is a Good Defense

A. Beizer
Boca Raton, FL.

Contact A Beizer by email at ArnyBarnie@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, June 20, 2009.

This is by Arnold Ahlert and it is archived at
http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/5090/1/ The-Audacity-of-Silence/Page1.html

Arnold Ahlert is a freelance writer residing in Florida. He receives e-mail at: atahlert@comcast.net.


Does anyone remember when liberals were champions of human rights and freedom? I don't mean their infatuation with their politically correct domestic agenda, such as gay marriage or amnesty for illegal aliens. I mean the JFK, "I can assure you that every degree of mind and spirit that I possess will be devoted to the long-range interests of the United States and to the cause of freedom around the world" kind of freedom.

So what is president Barack Obama's response to thousands of Iranian protesters putting their lives on the line against a totalitarian regime? He doesn't want to "meddle" in Iran's affairs.

Does anyone sense the overwhelming irony? Barack Obama is perhaps the most meddlesome president to ever occupy the White House. He's taken federal control of banks, car companies, and the insurance giant, AIG. He's appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, which, if the American public weren't in a coma, would be seen for the gross violation of the Constitution that it is. He wants to completely re-vamp the best health care system in the world, regulate salaries of corporate executives and save the entire planet from global warming.

The Iranian freedom-fighters? Screw 'em — because supporting them might pose a problem in future "negotiations" with the thugs who run that country.

President Obama does not wish to "meddle?" Again, it is difficult to ignore the irony of a president whose considers himself a master of the rhetorical flourish, yet prefers to stand mute against the blatant oppression of a regime that is the foremost sponsor of international terrorism. And how is it that the same leftists who are obsessed with rights — women's rights, gay rights, abortion rights, minority rights, illegal immigrant rights, and even terrorist rights — can ignore the human rights violations being inflicted on ordinary Iranians, seven of whom have already been executed for defying the regime?

Perhaps beneath the veneer of "caring" there exists nothing more than a "freedom for me, but not for thee" hypocrisy. But even if that's true, liberals have always "talked the talk," even when they lacked the courage to "walk the "walk." Now, even expressing verbal support for Iranian dissidents is considered a bridge too far.

Is freedom "God's gift to mankind?" Apparently not. Perhaps Bush Derangement Syndrome means never agreeing with anything the former president said, even if it used to be one of the pillars of liberal ideology. Better to sit on the sidelines, and leave decent Iranians twisting in the wind. Better not to offer a single word of encouragement or hope to those willing to risk their lives for freedom.

Better to be less "meddlesome."

Amil Imani is an Iranian activist living in the U.S.A. Contact him at amil_imani@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 20, 2009.

This week's protests in Iran are truly unprecedented, says Iran expert Afshin Molavi in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. The demonstrators come from all walks of life and from across the country. Discontent with Tehran's hardline leadership is widespread.

This is an interview with Afshin Molavi, an Iran expert with the New America Foundation in Washington D.C. A former reporter for Reuters in Dubai, Molavi has written extensively about Iran, including the book "Persian Pilgrimages: Journeys Across Iran" which was published by Norton in 2002. Molavi was born in Tehran but grew up in the West and once held a job at the World Bank.

The interview was conducd for Spiegel Online by Gregor Peter Schmitz. It is archived at
www.spiegel.de/international/world/ 0,1518,631364,00.html#ref=nlint

Many of those who marched on Tuesday carried candles with them and hung photos of victims around the city.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: On Thursday, a million people demonstrated in the streets of Tehran. Are we witnessing a revolution in Iran?

Molavi: What we are witnessing on the streets is truly unprecedented in the history of the Islamic Republic. We have seen protests in Iran over the past years, such as student protests or teacher strikes. The world only sees the demonstrations in Tehran but they are taking place all over the country.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Who are the demonstrators? What part of society do they come from?

A young woman with a photo of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi supporters accuse Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of stealing last Friday's election. Official results claim that Ahmadinejad won over 60 percent of the vote.

Molavi: We are witnessing the return of the Iranian middle class to the political space. This middle class is vibrant, modern, wired, eager to engage with the outside world, hungry for more social and political freedoms, and for better economic management. Many members of Iran's urban middle class — and its important to remember that Iran is 70 percent urbanized — chose not to vote in the 2005 election, disillusioned with the failures of the reform movement led by (former Iranian president) Mohammad Khatami. They are returning in full after four years of Ahmadinejad and demanding that their votes be counted...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: ...because they feel cheated. Were they?

Molavi: That is the main reason people went out onto the streets. They felt that they were a victim of massive fraud — that their vote did not count. They did not go to the streets for a revolution. The case for a massive fraud is overwhelming. Let's make no mistake: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a base. But on election day, the results of 40 million ballots were announced within an hour of polls closing. Hand counting 40 million ballots? In addition, security services surrounded the offices of Ahmadinejad's main opponent Mir Hossein Mousavi. They shut down Mousavi Web sites. They jailed hundreds of Mousavi supporters the next day. However, as the crowds grow, so do the demands, and what started out as protest with the slogan "where is my vote?" has morphed into something larger, reflecting a generalized discontent with the order of things.

The protests are the largest seen in Iran since the 1979 revolution. (Photo: Getty Images)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: It also seems as though it is no longer just like a battle of the people against the regime, but also a battle within the regime itself.

Molavi: The analysis in Tehran is that this was a coup perpetrated by supporters of the "new guard" of revolutionary elite, many of whom hail from the security and intelligence services. Over the past four years, Ahmadinejad has appointed former Revolutionary Guard members and former security officials to key positions. Facing them is the "old guard," consisting of influential figures like former President Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Mousavi. The clerics are divided, too. Rafsanjani already went to talk to the major clerics and likely warned them that the current turmoil is highly dangerous for the country and for them personally. The interesting thing is: Rafsanjani is also chairman of the Assembly of Experts, 83 clerics theoretically authorized to appoint or remove the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds a strong grip on power. This internal struggle is the most serious ever faced by the Islamic Republic.

Hundreds of thousands were once again on the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran on Thursday.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How does Mir Hossein Mousavi fit in to all of this?

Molavi: Pre-election Mousavi was seen by many as the "anybody but Ahmadinejad" candidate. He is not a man of great political charisma, nor a bonafide reformer. Post-election Mousavi, however, is an entirely different character. Before the election, he was largely just an interesting candidate for voters who wanted to avoid four more years of Ahmadinejad at any price. Now he has become a political martyr, a hero to many Iranians. That is why Barack Obama's statement on Tuesday evening (Eds. note: In which he said "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised") failed to appreciate the reality on the ground. Mousavi is by now not just a leader, he is also being led by the Iranian people.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the power in Iran still resides with the Supreme Leader Khamenei. So far, he has declared Ahmadinejad the winner of the election. Will he change his mind?

Molavi: The Supreme Leader likes to have power without accountability, as Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out. He likes to cultivate this image where he stays above the fray of politics, and he will only intervene in times of crisis. The idea of a bold, ambitious coup as apparently orchestrated by Ahmadinejad's people is uncharacteristic of him. There are questions whether he was even told about it. Then again, Khamenei tends to side with the conservatives — but he has also never seen a crisis like this.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Does that mean that he might even call for new elections should the protests not subside?

Molavi: It would be an enormous U-turn if he called for new elections as the Mousavi camp is demanding. That would be a real blow to his credibility. There is also the fear that the authorities are preparing a Tiananmen Square-style crackdown. That is why they are shutting down Web sites and throwing out the foreign journalists. They don't want to do it in front of the world public. My only hope is: As the crowds get larger, it is getting harder to clamp down on the protesters.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spoke at Friday prayers and called for calm and unity. He blamed "Iran's enemies" for the unrest.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: US President Barack Obama has remained largely silent thus far. Is that a politically intelligent move or rather cold-hearted?

Molavi: I think the Obama administration should not actively take a political side in the internal struggle. However, it should speak out against egregious human rights violations. Their initial reaction has been a little too tepid. But in my view, it is not just about Obama: I get the sense from Iranian cyberspace that they are very keen on hearing from global civil society. They want people around the world to stand in solidarity with them. One idea floating around is that people from Berlin, Paris, London, Cairo, or Washington, or wherever in the world, do one simple thing: wear green, which was the color of Mousavi's campaign, and has become the color of justice for Iranians. I think global civil society will have a far bigger impact than Obama could.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, June 19, 2009.

I know before the election, if G-d forbid I mentioned anything about Obama I was told "Arlene! You're racists!" The man is going to bring us "Change" Well, to tell the truth, I've been living in this country a long time and didn't think it so bad that we needed to change from democracy to what where heading into now. It was never a 'black thing' but a Muslim thing.

I didn't (don't) want a Muslim to be my President!. And, I love not only my country of the United States but Israel as well and see the danger of the 'change' he has brought us. I have had friends tell me that they only want to hear about happy things.. Don't bother (annoy) them by trying to say anything about this "Messiah" that had mysteriously come out of nowhere to lead us. Now, I'm just curious. And concerned that there are still those of you who won't see what is happening.

So, to you, and the others that I feel 'get it' I'd like to share with you some of the information that as a member of the press I am sent. I am also sending you a few columns for recognized journalists so hopefully you don't just discard it thinking.. it's one of my columns (although it's there too! What I wrote BEFORE the election) And, to the ones that aren't drinking the Kool-aide, I'd like to know if you actually waded through all of this and what your conclusions you might have come to.



Watch This Exellent Video (in Hebrew with subtitle): "An Honest Response From Feiglin to Obama" To view the video, click here

SPEAKER: Moshe Feiglin, leader Manhigut Yehudit [Likud Faction]
VENUE: YouTube

Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties. Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best) but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?

This much:

— He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .

— He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.

— He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.

— He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.

— He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya .

— He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill.

— He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.

— He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.

— He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.

— He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.

— He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.

— He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.

For the love of God, there are people in comas that are more aware of world affairs than this guy.


by Bruce Bialosky
http://townhall.com/columnists/BruceBialosky/2009/06/15/ let%E2%80%99s_all_accept_islam

Mr. Obama, your speech in Cairo encouraged me to reconsider my thoughts on how I view Islam as a religion in today's society. I have really thought it over and decided to fully accept Islam ... with just a few caveats.

First, they have to stop treating women as second class citizens. Don't tell me those head covers are worn by choice. They are forced on them just like honor killings. It is sad the French have it right and we don't on this issue. This is a country where we have worked for a hundred years to bring equality to women. Allowing any woman to be subservient is disgraceful. And come to think of it, tell your Secretary of State and Speaker of the House to stop covering their heads on visits. They are supposed to be beacons of the women's movement. By covering their heads, they are not being respectful to their hosts — they are disgracing every woman who ever fought for equal rights.

Next, tell the Islamists to stop killing gays. Maybe gays are not totally accepted in this society, but we have made great progress in the last 50 years. We may not agree on gay marriage, but we certainly agree on equal rights for gays. We don't allow them to be killed just for being gay.

How about the issue of freely elected democratic governments in the Muslim world? Not too many of those around, are there Mr. Obama? When the Islamic world stops being run like feudal societies given up by the rest of the world half a millennium ago, I think it would then be a grand time to accept the Muslims. I know it is sometimes politically expedient to deal with dictators. We even had to make a deal with a mass murderer named Stalin to try and fight another mass murderer named Hitler. But please explain to me why in today's world, where the great majority of people live in democracies, do we need to make nice-nice with dictators. This country is all about not accepting autocracies, Mr. Obama.

Next, the Muslims should stop trying to tell us they really care about the Palestinians and that the trouble in the Middle East is because of their problems. The Arabs have done nothing — I repeat nothing — to help them for 60 years, and we all know that. The Palestinian problem did not start in 1967. It started in 1948 when the Arabs attacked Israel and got their butts kicked. These people willingly relocated out of the Israeli territory, and their Arabs friends did nothing to help them. So please be honest and stop lying to us because we both know it is a lie. Once you do that, we can all move forward.

Mr. Obama, we also want an apology for all those Christians and Jews kicked out of the Arab countries. While they have been really good on creating a lie about the Palestinians being kicked out of their land, they have done an excellent job of covering up all those people they kicked out. Well, they did not really kick them out. They offered them to convert or die. Moving was a much better option. If anyone wonders where all those Jews in Israel came from they should check it out. Not just Europe or Russia, but from all those neighboring Arab states where they were no longer welcome. That may answer why it is such a big deal that Jews are building settlements in the West Bank. It is not that they are Israelis — it is that they are Jews and if Israel gives back the West Bank, Jews and Christians will no longer be welcome.

Last, when Muslims start protesting the murders and indecencies performed in the name of Islam then I will accept them. We are told that the people who do these acts are a small minority of Muslims. So where are the protests, where are the books, where are the articles, where is the Islamic Pete Seeger? If Islam is really a religion of peace, then start showing it. We have been waiting for it and the memories I have are of Muslims out partying after the Twin Towers went down.

Mr. Obama, it is nice that you want us to accept Islam, but would you have asked us to accept Nazism or Communism with their mass murders and mistreatment of people? I suggest you remember we did not elect you to be Brown-Noser-in-Chief or Apologist-in-Chief; we elected you as Commander-in-Chief. I respectfully suggest you start acting like it because these apologies to mass murderers and intolerant sons-of-bitches are really getting tiresome.


by Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz

Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.

It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.

Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.

But this was code.

In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere.

And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.

Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel's actions in dealing with the Palestinians.

This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler's genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.

While Obama acknowledged that "six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today" — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

"On the other hand . . . "?

Obama's clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.

Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.

At first blush Mr. Obama's speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding.

If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.

The immediate danger posed by Obama's speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present.

Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam's peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Has Obama not heard about the Muslim's violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?

In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam's well known and checkered past.

Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America's evils, such as its "colonialism" and history of slavery.

"For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation," Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.

According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.

Isn't it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?

At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?

Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.

Listen to what Obama said: "Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear."

And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.

In his speech, Obama's only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education.

How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for "crimes" such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?

Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.

Obama claimed that "as a student of history" he understands more than most the truth about "civilization's debt to Islam."

He added, "And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."

Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?

Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.

But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.

Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?

Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?

"On the other hand," to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.

Let's start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.

Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel's record in protecting its minorities?

Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.

In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.

You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.

No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.

Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.

You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.

Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?

Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?

You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America's lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.

You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.

But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of "wiping the Jewish state off the map" — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.

Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.

Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.

by Cnaan Liphshiz

Israel will be a major part of Geert Wilders' next film on Islam, the rightist Dutch legislator said last week in an interview for Haaretz. He praised Avigdor Lieberman, observing "similarities" between Yisrael Beiteinu and the Party for Freedom — a small movement which has grown to become Holland's second most popular.

Wilders, a controversial anti-immigration politician, rose to international fame last year when he released a 14-minute film entitled Fitna, which attempts to portray what he considers as Islam's "violent nature." The film, which has been viewed by millions online, provoked mass protests throughout the Muslim world.

In April Wilders announced he was working on a sequel. Just as Fitna focused on genocidal anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, Wilders said that the sequel — which focuses on "Islamization in the West" — will show "how the forces of Islamization are specifically targeting Israel in a fight against all free societies." Advertisement

He added: "The film will demonstrate that the fight against Israel is not territorial, and hence Israel is only the first line of defense for the West. Now it's Israel but we are next. That's why beyond solidarity, it is in Europe's interest to stand by Israel."

Wilders is facing criminal charges for allegedly inciting hate by comparing the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf in the original Fitna film. His party's dark horse achievement in the European Parliament elections earlier this month, he said, is connected to the judicial system's decision to prosecute him.

The Party for Freedom — which has only nine seats in Dutch parliament — won five seats in the June 4 European elections, making it the second largest of all Dutch parties in Brussels. A recent poll shows that if elections were held now, the Party would become the country's largest or second largest.

"The appeals court's decision in January to prosecute me angered many people, as did the decision by the government of the U.K. not to let me enter Britain," Wilders told Haaretz. He added some of the anger manifested itself in the European Parliament election.

According to Wilders, his party's rise in popularity is reminiscent of how Lieberman's party grew to become Israel's third largest. "Our parties may not be identical, but there are certainly more similarities than dissimilarities, and I am proud of that," Wilders said about Yisrael Beiteinu.

"I've met Liebrman and called to congratulate him after the Israeli elections," said Wilders, who visits Israel frequently to meet with leading Israeli politicians, defense officials and opinion-shapers. "Lieberman's an intelligent, strong and clever politician and I understand why his party grew in popularity."

Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu is, according to Wilders, safer because it doesn't automatically accept the two-state solution. But he added: "I am more concerned now about Israel's situation because of the positions of U.S. President Barack Obama."

The president's speech in Cairo "shocked" Wilders, he says. "Until now Israel could rely on the U.S. for support even when the Europeans failed to offer it. Now Israel will have a tougher time," he added.

"The two-state solution is an internal Israeli matter and I hesitate to interfere. But my personal belief is that there is a two state solution for the Palestinians. One of those states is called Jordan," he added.

Wilders also said that Obama's preference for dialogue with Iran despite its ongoing drive to obtain nuclear weapons — according to Western intelligence reports — is "intolerable." The Party for Freedom will not join any bloc at the European Parliament, Wilders said. "We will not join an rightist party with anti-Semitic or xenophobic inclinations," he explained. "The attempts to classify us as such are the result of our rivals' panic."

Wilders' party believes in halting immigration to the Netherlands, and banning the construction of mosques in that country. While defending gay rights and supporting animal welfare bills, the Party holds a hardliner assimilations stance on the integration of existing immigrants into Dutch society, and is consistently Eurosceptic.

"Our achievement in the European Parliament owed partly to a protest vote by people who do not accept that their tax monies are funding highways in Portugal and subsidizing Polish farmers. They want their money back — approximately five billion euros."

Described by some as "fascist" and "ultra-nationalist," other Dutch parties have shunned the Party for Freedom, treating it as a pariah movement. However, as its political power climbs, leading centrist politicians are advocating an alliance with Wilders, touching off a heated debate in their parties' ranks.

"We have no power but a lot of influence, and are now a serious force which cannot be ignored," Wilders said. "I think the stale political establishment of the Netherlands doesn't quite know how to close the window that let in our party, like a cool draft of wind."


By Joseph Farah
World Net Daily 
June 17, 2009

Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama's birth certificate, many have asked me about the president's possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence.

I think there are many plausible motives:

* Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life's story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don't know for sure who his mother is.

* Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the

"certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website.

* Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along — a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution.

What do I mean by that last possibility?

Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn't Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens.

Start your own eligibility billboard campaign in your neighborhood with WND's new yard signs, asking: "Where's the Birth Certificate?"

On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen."

It's interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate."

And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew — or should have known — that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain's.

Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicated it would take two to tango.

He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain's eligibility to serve as president.

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff responded — again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens.

And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too."

By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" — the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Now, I don't know who Barack Obama's parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I've seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama's birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all.

But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii!

So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president.

If he is to be judged by the same standard as his opponent in the race, there is no way he qualifies. That's what Leahy said. That's what Chertoff said. That's what the law says.

A logical question naturally follows: Why didn't the Congress of the United States hold hearings on Obama's eligibility when they did so on McCain's eligibility?

I'm still trying to figure that one out. Maybe the answer is this simple: Because there's no way Obama would have qualified.

Another logical question follows: Why is this man still serving in the White House and turning the country upside down when he is not even constitutionally eligible?

That's the heart and soul of the campaign I've been running.

By the way, further establishing that it was impossible for Obama to have been a "natural born citizen" are some astonishing words found on his own campaign website. They indicate that Obama was "at birth" a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Great Britain. Why did the founders insist upon a "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution? To avoid questions of divided loyalties. (Just scroll down the webpage and read the FactCheck.org excerpt to see this amazing admission for yourself.)

So, again, I ask: Why doesn't Obama want to reveal his real birth certificate? Because he wants this discussion of eligibility to go away — once and for all. It is a vulnerability he cannot explain away. So he would rather not discuss it at all.

But let me remind you all, in case you hadn't considered this: Obama plans to run for re-election in 2012. And that's why we can never, ever let this matter rest.

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, June 19, 2009.

This was written by Jonathan Rosenblum and it is archived at
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/ rosenblum_evil.php3?printer_friendly


Upon his first visit to one of the liberated death camps, Allied Supreme Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "There are those who ask what are we fighting for. Let them come here and see what we are fighting against." Eisenhower's remark contains an important insight: Sometimes it is more essential that one define the nature of evil than that one define what is good. About the latter, there will inevitably be many opinions. But they need not prevent a consensus from coalescing around the definition of evil.

I was reminded of that point last week as I watched the DVD The Third Jihad (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=B001PIHOWI/jewishworldrevie), the third in a trilogy of documentaries on the threat of radical Islam produced by Raphael Shore and Wayne Kopping. Towards the end of the documentary one of the experts interviewed, former CIA intelligence officer Clare Lopez declared, "The real war is between the values of freedom and barbarism. If we are not willing to recognize the battle as one for our civilization, we might as well give up right now."

The last time the West faced such a civilizational threat, many refused to recognize the nature of the conflict. In Troublesome Young Me, Lynne Olsen offers a gripping account of the group of youthful Conservative backbenchers, who eventually ousted British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain from power and brought in Winston Churchill in his place, nearly a year after the outbreak of World War II.

ENGLAND ENTERED THAT WAR TOTALLY UNPREPARED, and lagging far behind Germany in every respect, apart from its navy. Even after Britain proclaimed war, following the Nazi invasion of Poland, Chamberlain pursued it half-heartedly and dreamed of an imminent peace. Britain and France bombed only German military targets most narrowly defined. Meanwhile Luftwaffe pilots in Poland followed orders to "close [their] hearts to pity," happily machine-gunning women and girls picking potatoes, bombing churches and hospitals, and strafing toddlers being herded to safety.

The parallels between today and the earlier period are eerie. Chamberlain, like President Obama today, enjoyed an overwhelming majority in Parliament. His party whips enforced party discipline with an iron hand — think Rahm Emanuel — and backbenchers who stepped out of line put their political futures on the line.

In another interesting parallel, Chamberlain enjoyed almost across the board fawning support from the press and the BBC. That included self-imposed censorship on the information reaching the British public. After the Anschluss, British papers carried no pictures of the hundreds shot in the first days after the Nazi takeover, of the tens of thousands arrested and sent to concentration camps, or of Nazi soldiers forcing Jewish doctors, lawyers and professors to scrub the streets and clean toilets on their hands and knees. When reporters asked Chamberlain about such matters, he snapped at them for believing "Jewish-Communist propaganda," and that was the end of the matter.

The British press ignored both the massive German arms build-up prior to the War, and the pitiful state of British preparedness. Both before and after the conflict started, it suppressed mention or quotations from Hitler's speeches that would have conveyed a much different impression of his goals. As a British TV character tartly observed forty years later, "It is hard to censor the press when it wants to be free, but easy if it gives up its freedom voluntarily."

CHAMBERLAIN NEVER READ MEIN KAMPF, in which Hitler laid out in startling fashion both his future plans for the Jews and for German conquest. Far from viewing Hitler as an evil man, Chamberlain believed him to be a "gentleman," with whom he could do business. He was more than once shocked to find that Hitler had lied to him, even though that too was foreshadowed in Mein Kampf, Said future Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, "He didn't believe people existed [who would] say one thing and do another. ...It was pathetic, really."

Chamberlain, according to Olsen, "could never bring himself to believe that [Hitler and Mussolini] wanted to go to war. Clinging to the security of his ignorance, he created a peace-loving image of them that defied reality." For a decade, the English and French did nothing in response to fascist aggression in Abyssinia (Ethiopia), Austria, and Czechoslovakia, and precious little even in the wake of the German invasion of Poland.

France and England thereby encouraged Hitler to believe they were too weak to prevail, a judgment in which he was very nearly right. That should have taught us — but did not — that those who hope to avoid war via appeasement inevitably end up fighting later on worse terms.

At no point, did Chamberlain recognize that Hitler constituted a mortal threat to Western civilization. As a consequence, he displayed far more ruthlessness fighting those within his own party who dared challenge his policies than he did in fighting Hitler.

The inability to recognize Hitler as evil incarnate is the most frightening parallel to today. President Ronald Reagan was reviled by Western elites for calling the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, as was President George W. Bush for grouping Iran, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq together as the Axis of Evil.

THE WEST STILL REMAINS INCAPABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGING EVIL or giving credence to the pronouncements of evil men. Ayatollah Khomeini long ago made clear that he was prepared to see Iran go up "in flames," if the worldwide rule of Islam were thereby furthered. Mutual assured destruction, says Bernard Lewis, the greatest living authority on Islam, is for Ahmadinejad, "not a deterrent but an incentive." Surveying the scene in Beslan, where Chenyan Muslims killed nearly 300 Russian schoolchildren, one of the speakers on The Third Jihad puts the point succinctly: Why should those who don't hesitate to send out their own children to be killed hesitate to kill other peoples' children?

Yet the highest wisdom in the West today is to not take seriously the threats of Ahmadinejad or the speculations of the Iranian leadership about the mathematics of a nuclear exchange with Israel. They are not madmen, we are constantly told.

President Obama has no taste for confrontation with radical Islam (only with Israel). He cannot even admit that it exists. Evil, it seems, is one of the few words that does not come trippingly off his tongue.

Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by De Webster, June 19, 2009.

I know that what could hit the fan if the history of Jonathan Pollard's real history is revealed, but I believe that it already has been, albeit with caveats for libel and slander litigation. The book The Secret Wars of the Jews, by Loftus and Aarons contains a great deal of detail on this matter, and the surviving participants have little more to hide, it seems to me.

With the spotlight on Iran and Israel's potential survival at risk, I think this would be a good time to push for amnesty for Pollard, especially for an American President with strong ties to Islam. It would be seen as an open-handed move by Obama to keep the confidence of the Jews in the U.S. and Israel while handing Iran the tools to destroy the Jewish nation. Just as Reagan was exactly the right person to negotiate with the USSR, Obama is the right man to pardon Pollard.

Since I think that Netanyahu, his cabinet and the Knesset are capable of acting in the interests of Israel to remove Iran's critical threat to its survival, now is a good window of opportunity to try to get a reprieve and for Pollard to be released after more than 24 years for time served. Once war with Iran starts, there will too many other factors involved.

I still haven't been able to get the Israeli side of the Pollard story. I have a plethora of questions of WHY Israel never officially tried to gain freedom for Pollard. The answers are long overdue. Why are the people standing up for Jonathan and the government not? This question has haunted me for many years, and prevented me from making Aliyah. My reasoning is that if the country of Israel didn't stand up for Jonathan Pollard, what chance would I have in any situation that might be even remotely embarrassing to Israel?

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul L. Williams, June 19, 2009.

Encountering Hamas in Teheran is tantamount to meeting an African American at a KKK gathering.

And yet, the Sunni terrorist group from the Palestinian Authority is now joining hands with the Shi'ite mullahs of Iran to crush street protests in favor of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and to solidify the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This development was reported by the Jerusalem Post and other international news outlets as rioting on a scale unseen in Iran for nearly a decade continued in the wake of the elections and the allegations that the results were falsified.

The protests have now spread from Teheran to other major cities.

Hamas formally welcomed the re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last Saturday.

Despite the blackout of media coverage, thousands of protesters rallied again in Teheran on Tuesday and Wednesday in support of Mousavi. Israeli sources maintain that scores of people have been killed by security forces at rallies that have erupted throughout Iran in the wake of last week's presidential elections.

An Iranian student passed out flyers to Jerusalem Post reporters that listed the names of Fatima Brahati, Kasra Sharafi, Kambiz Shahi, Mohsen Emani, and Mina Ahtrami. He claimed that these individuals were Teheran University students who had been murdered yesterday by pro-government gunmen. "The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the student said, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots."[emphasis added — ed.]

Other Iranian protesters — including a young man who carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other — also testified to the presence of Hamas in Teheran. A young man who carried a butcher knife in one hand and a rock in the other said, "My brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough — they are thirsty for our blood too."

It's ironic, the knife wielding man added, the victorious Ahmadinejad "tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel." He expressed his hope that Israel would "come to its senses" and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.

When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hezbollah, he rejected the idea. "Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets... The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want... [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country."

Official government radio reports refuse such claims by stating that the victims were trying to loot weapons and to vandalize public property, and had been shot by unidentified gunmen.

This raises a larger question.

Why would Hamas, a Sunni terrorist organization, be involved in supporting the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Shiite mullahs?

The union between the two terrorist groups was brought about not by a charismatic caliph or an ecumenical imam but rather by former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

In December 1992, Mr. Rabin ordered the deportation of 415 members of Hamas to southern Lebanon.

In Lebanon, the Sunni terrorists of Hamas were granted shelter and protection by the Shi'ite terrorists of Hezbollah in accordance with the Muslim code of milmastia (hospitality).

The exiled Sunnis responded to this gesture of goodwill by assisting the efforts of their Shi'ite hosts to gain a foothold within Israel — something that Hezbollah had been unable to achieve, since the Islamic population of Israel remained almost entirely Sunni and actively antagonistic to the presence of a Shi'ite party within the waaf ("the land of Palestine").

Other developments followed. Hezbollah began to train Hamas in advanced bomb-making techniques along with the fine art of suicide bombing, a tactic that previously had been shunned by the Sunnis because of the Koran's injunctions against suicide. The first Hamas suicide bombing took place within a bus station in Hadera on April 13, 1994. The attack left five people dead and a score wounded.

An onslaught of other suicide bombings followed throughout Israel in such rapid succession that it became difficult to discern if the attacks were being perpetuated by Hamas or Hezbollah.

The new spirit of cooperation between Sunni and Shi'ite terrorists resulted in a monumental meeting between Imad Mugniyah, the head of Hezbollah, and Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda in 1995 at the headquarters of ali Numeini, a Sudanese sheikh, in Khartoum.

The meeting resulted in joint operations, including the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998 — bombings, according to U.S. military sources, that bore the distinct signatures of bin Laden and Mugniyah.

The same signatures could be discerned on the attack on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000. The blast had been caused by a "cone-shaped charge" that contained "moldable high explosives such as SEMTEX H." It represented a device that had been developed by Mugniyah for terror attacks in Lebanon, Israel, and South America.

In recent years, Iran has given shelter to leading Sunni terrorists, including Saad bin Laden, Osama's eldest son; Yaaz bin Safat, a top-ranking al Qaeda planner; Mohammed Islam Haani, the mayor of Kabul during the reign of the Taliban; Saif al-Adel, the military commander of al Qaeda; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda operative in charge of the expulsion of US troops from Iraq; and Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's second in command.

And so, for many observers of events in the Middle East, the presence of Hamas on the streets of Iran to support Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs comes as small surprise.

"We have been screaming at them [White House officials] for years that these guys all work together," am overseas operative told the Washington Post. "When we hear back that it can't be because they [the terrorists] don't work that way. That is bullshit. . . These guys all work together as long as they are Muslims. There is no other division that matters."[emphasis added — ed.]

The union of Sunni and Shi'ite radicals on the streets of Teheran broods ill for Israel. An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could trigger a backlash that would reverberate throughout the Muslim world.

Paul L. Williams is the author of The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, The Al Qaeda Connection, and other best-selling books. He is a frequent guest on such national news networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR. Visit his website at http://thelastcrusade.org. Contact him by email at thelastcrusade09@gmail.com. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Elias Bejjani, June 19, 2009.

My essay addresses the Hazards of giving up to the threats of this terrorist group in the coming Lebanese government.


Time after time terrorist and fundamental groups like Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas and all others, prove with no shed of doubt that they only comprehend, listen and respond to crystal clear means of decisiveness, overt offensive action and a strong show of strength and power. Their backward and destructive ideologies, as well as their fundamentalist nature and disrespect for all things unlike their own, reveal their true chauvinistic nature, as they look to humiliate, belittle and trample all those who ignore their threats and who do not bow to their logic and demands.

Before the recent Lebanese parliamentary elections, most of the March 14 (Cedar Revolution coalition) leaders and thinking tanks, were not sure that they would be able to win a majority and prevent Hezbollah and its mercenary pro-Syrian and Iranian allies, in the form of the March 8th Coalition, from taking over the country.

Most of the Western free world countries were also almost sure that the March 8th Coalition was on its way to control the Lebanese parliament and accordingly rule Lebanon and turn it into another Gaza conundrum. Some of these countries even issued official statements in which they addressed openly their future inclination to deal openly with Hezbollah when they would win the elections. At the same time the majority of the media facilities in the USA, Europe, Israel and some Arab countries published hundreds of studies, poll results and analytical reports and interviews, all predicting Hezbollah's sure win.

The Lebanese peace loving people were not deceived, discouraged or influenced by all these negative predictions and polls. They held to their solid beliefs, optimism, deeply rooted faith and love for life and voted with their conscience with success. They chose with strong determination and perseverance to safeguard their beloved country and protect its democratic and multicultural nature. These Lebanese bravely headed to the polls, casted their votes and gave once more the March 14th coalition an overwhelming parliamentary majority. They stood tall like their country's Holy Cedars and succeeded victoriously in usurping the expected endgame predicted by most of the world.

The Lebanese people, in spite of all the evil tactics of oppression, intimidation and bribery that Hezbollah and their allies inflicted on them on a daily basis, declared a resounding "No!", and did not allow this Iranian armed terrorist organization to take over their country, uproot their identity, enslave them and downtrodden their dignity and pride.

Hopefully the Western Free World countries and the Arab States will seriously and effectively come to the rescue of the Lebanese people, and help them find a final and lasting solution for Hezbollah's mini state and its huge arsenal of weapons. Neither the Lebanese, nor their government can accomplish this sophisticated, risky and costly mission alone.

Hopefully the Western Free World and the Arab States will seriously and effectively come to the rescue of the Lebanese people and help them find a final and lasting solution for Hezbollah's mini state and its huge arsenal of weapons. Neither the Lebanese, nor their government can accomplish this sophisticated task.

Hezbollah is an Iranian Army stationed in Lebanon that threatens not only the Lebanese and their state, but also Israel, all the Arab countries as well as peace and democracy all over the world. This fact simply means Hezbollah, yes is a Lebanese problem, but also and to a great extent it is a deadly regional and global real hazard too.

Hezbollah's mini state in Lebanon, militarily, financially and organizationally is much more powerful than the Lebanese state itself. This reality is well known to all the Arab and Western countries. According to the France Press Agency, (June 17/09), the former USA head of homeland security, Mr. Michael Chertoff has said in a book that he will publish later this year: ("Hezbollah Could Surpass Al Qaida as Most Serious Long-Term Threat to the U.S. It is better equipped, better trained and better politically positioned than Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. Al-Qaida and its network are our most serious immediate threat, they may not be our most serious long-term threat. Having operated for more than a quarter-century, Hezbollah has developed capabilities that al-Qaida can only dream of, including large quantities of missiles and highly sophisticated explosives. This group also has uniformly well trained operatives, an exceptionally well-disciplined force of nearly 30,000 fighters, and extraordinary political influence").

According to Chertoff, Hezbollah was behind a suicide bombing that killed 200 U.S. marines in Beirut in 1983 and the 1996 bombing of the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, which killed more than 20 people. Despite its defeat in elections earlier this month, Hezbollah and its allies remain a major force in Lebanese politics. It is this power, along with Hezbollah's military weight and ties with Iran that are worrying, according to Chertoff. " Hezbollah shows what an ideologically driven terrorist organization can become when it evolves into an army and a political party and gains a deeply embedded degree of control within a state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon's democratic infrastructure," he warns. Chertoff argues Hezbollah poses a growing threat in the Western Hemisphere, despite limited attacks on U.S. targets. "While Hezbollah may not have carried out attacks in the United States itself, it has developed a presence in the Western Hemisphere, specifically in South America," Chertoff says, alleging that the group carried out bombings of Jewish and Israeli targets in Buenos Aires."These acts disturbingly underscore Hezbollah's reach into the hemisphere, notably the tri-border areas at the margins of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay." (AFP, 7 June 09)

Meanwhile Hezbollah is not hiding anymore its Iranian identity or it mere affiliation to the Iranian notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps). Its clergy leadership is boldly and loudly refusing to disarm or dismantle its mini state: Below is a verbatim fiery and scary statement uttered recently by one of Hezbollah's prominent clergymen:

MTV — Sunday, June 14, 2009: " Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek, the personal representative in Lebanon of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,, and Hezbollah's Party Shawra Council member: "Hezbollah will not give up its strength no matter how much the USA and others dream of its weapons. He who does not own weapons can't live in this world". He added; "Others during the election period (Lebanese June 07/09 parliamentary elections), entered peoples' houses to scare them from Waeleat Al Faqeah and (fool them) that Iran will come to Lebanon to turn it to an Iranian arena. To this extent the surge of militarization, communalism and sectarianism has reached. The whole world came (to Lebanon) to delude the people that if the opposition (8th of March Coalition) wins the elections, Lebanon will become another Gaza. The will and referendum were on the resistance. It (The resistance) has transformed from being weapons to a state of education and society. We will not give up this strength no matter how much the USA and others dream of our weapons. Our weapons are subject to our lives because we see that he who does not own weapons and power won't be able to live in this life. Therefore we have to impose our existence via the strength that we own. This is why we are today better then ever before. Rest assured, you the honest, we are the victorious by God's will because we call for what is righteous and do not)".

Now that the parliamentary election is over, the 14th of March Coalition MP'S, who were awarded the majority by the people, have a national, ethical and legal obligation to hold dear to their election's platform and promises. The Lebanese gave them a mandate to stop Hezbollah from controlling the country, contain its weapons within the state's institutions, put an end to its mini state, and find the appropriate ways and means to end its hegemony on Lebanon's decision making process in regards to war and peace.

Any compromises the 14th of March Coalition cut with Hezbollah on the account of the law, constitution and UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701, will be fatal to the future of the Lebanese state as a democracy, and to the peace process not only in Lebanon, but in the whole region. What the people of Lebanon are looking for as a first step is that the 14th of March Coalition will not give to Hezbollah or its weaponry any legitimacy in the Ministerial Statement of the government that will be formed soon.

While dealing with Hezbollah, at any level, and with what ever issue, the 14th of March Coalition MP'S must never ignore that fact that the majority of Lebanese people from all nominations, and all walks of life, with no fear or hesitation have given them a mandate to say, No to Terrorism, No to Syrian and Iranian schemes against Lebanon, No to Hezbollah's weaponry arsenal and mini state, No to the education of hatred, rejection of others, suicide and fanaticism,

Any deviation from these NO'S shall mount to treason. Both MP'S, Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblat must tailor their stances with the framework of the peoples' mandate and fulfill their electoral promises.

By God's will, Lebanon shall never, ever be a replicate of the Iranian Mullah's oppressive Regime, and will never, ever adopt the Iranian denominational Wilayat Al-Faqih doctrine as a substitute to its constitution, Multiculturalism, Human Rights, Democracy and openness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardianship_of_the_Islamic_Jurists)

Congratulations to the Lebanese faithful and patriotic people for their peaceful and daring achievement.

Beloved Lebanese in Lebanon: We, The Lebanese in Diaspora are very proud of you

EDITOR'S NOTE: From Steven Shamrak, June 30, 2009:

New Broom in Lebanon with the Same Attitude. Lebanon will not conduct an independent peace track with Israel and may not even join the Arab peace initiative: "the Arab initiative includes many countries for the peace process, and Lebanon will come as we see fit." said Hariri, the 39-year-old so-called moderate leader of the largest parliamentary bloc, which dealt a major setback to Hizbullah and its Syrian and Iranian backers, but his hateful attitude toward Israel is the same as others!

Elias Bejjani is a Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist, journalist and political commentator. Email him at phoenicia@hotmail.com and visit his websites:
http://www.10452lccc.com & http://www.clhrf.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 19, 2009.


It certainly helps to stress the positive while still trying to isolate Radical Islam. I give President Obama credit for that much.

There is a limit to how much his approach can work. Jihad is part of Islam. Also, when the U.S. fights for Muslims, as in Bosnia and Kosovo, Muslims abroad hardly express solidarity with us. They still accuse us of being anti-Muslim. When we fight some Muslims to protect the rest, most Muslims complain that we are killing Muslims. When Muslims kill Muslims over religious ideology, few Muslims besides those in the war zone complain.

Consider the jihad against Israel. Purpose: conquer Israel for Islam. The motive is religious. Therefore, the Arabs oppose Israel, regardless of what Israel does. This means that all the Obama efforts to change Israeli behavior are futile.

To conceal jihad's religious motive from the West, Muslim Arabs depict their struggle against Israel in terms of grievances. These grievances either are manufactured or are their own fault and responsibility.

The immediate demand of the jihadists is for Israeli withdrawal from strategic territories. If granted, new demands would follow, until Israel can be conquered. That is the purpose of the demands. That is how Islam operates.

By taking up the jihadists' initial demands, President Obama is not helping to reconcile the Arabs with Israel. He is helping them to destroy Israel. Therefore, Arabs are less likely to reform and make peace. His policy is misguided, at best.

For what Obama said at Cairo, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m6d5-Obamas-Cairo-Speech


China learned to save money. It buys up the world's resources. The U.S. learned over decades to gather debt, blow bubblers, and bail out over-indebted plutocrats. No longer can the U.S. defend the whole world against jihad. We need allies and a savvy, patriotic President. We all need each other.

The U.S. thought it had a big, strong, growing economy. Americans comforted themselves that lost manufacturing jobs were replaced by financial ones. Finance became 40% of its economy, mostly a bubble. Now that bubble has lost trillions of dollars, and U.S. does not have that much manufacturing. As Kevin Phillips reports in Bad Money, foreign countries are gaining control over foreign natural resources and are shifting the global currency away from dollars. They won't buy as many Treasury bonds to enable Americans to borrow what they cannot pay for and keep the stores in business as if we have a strong economy.


One may suppose that the decline of the U.S. started with the 1973 oil embargo, when it was clear that America was living beyond it environmental resources. An alternative starting point is when banks copiously distributed sub-prime credit cards, getting Americans to live beyond their financial resources. In both cases, U.S. industry was in collusion with the culprits, and U.S. government was in cooperation with the colluders with the connivers.

I was hoping from 1973 that the U.S. would develop energy independence. OPEC would have been tamed. At least, the Arabs squandered their sales revenues then.

A lot of ideas come to me. Sometimes they are ideas of what the enemy might do. I keep those to myself. One of those ideas was the obvious one that if the Gulf states retained a portion of revenues for investment, they would have a viable economy after oil runs out. The growth of sovereign investment funds, mostly by the oil states and China, shows that the Arabs have caught on. Too bad they use their money and clout for jihad!

People think that jihad is only military. Here we see it also can be waged financially. For discussion of another method, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d5-Israel-warns-against-jihadi-internet


I didn't report much about the battles in Pakistan, because we had only the Pakistani government's word for it. I now reckon that the government is serious about beating down the Taliban. In addition, there is reliable news about villagers forming militias against the Taliban.

In Lebanon, the anti-terrorist coalition won the Parliamentary election.

Apparently, the Radical Muslims' terrorism against Muslims who don't accept their repressive rule alienates the people. The people are turning against the radicals and gaining government support. There lies our hope.


When my friends lack counter-arguments for my upholding of Israel versus the Arabs, they, who tell me I generalize too much, much fall back on the generalization that every issue has two sides, there is no right or wrong. That, itself, is misguided. Some issues have more than two sides, but when one side is imperialist, totalitarian, intolerant, and fanatical, as have been the Nazis, Communists, and Radical Islamists, then that side is wrong. Their opponents may not be perfect, but let's not quibble in the face of inexcusable evil by the totalitarian side.


The N. Korean type nuclear power plant that Israel destroyed in Syria cost Iran $1-2 billion. N. Korea has contributed greatly to Iran's nuclear and missile development and to Syria's missile development. Since N. Korea cooperates with the other two, the menace is widespread. There is indeed an evil axis. Iran learned from N. Korea how to keep developing while mixing feigned cooperation with defiance. Since the Obama administration has only doves, and it has no answer to N. Korea, and it indicated that it is holding Iran's nuclear development hostage to Israeli fatal sacrifices to jihadists until after Iran will have developed nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't bother any more pretending to negotiate.

Obama's foreign policy is based on negotiating with rogues and imposing on Israel. N. Korea and Iran have exposed his policy on negotiation as futile (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/28).

For more on Obama's Iran policy, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d10-Obamas-Iran-policy


Abdulhakim Muhammad tried to justify his slaying of a solider in Arkansas as revenge for claims that U.S. troops had desecrated the Koran and killed or raped Muslims. Claiming he did it "for the sake of Allah," he denied that his deed was murder (NY Times, 6/30, A22).

He hears a claim, doesn't verify or analyze it, kills someone on account of it, and considers himself to have done a good deed and to be a worthy Muslim. What do Islamic leaders think of that?

The point is not whether the claim he heard is accurate. U.S. troops did not kill Muslims for being Muslims. Rather, U.S. troops were helping free some Muslims from others who were killing fellow Muslims. G.I. rape of Muslim women is rare and not U.S. policy, whereas rape of Christian and animist women is the policy of many Egyptian, Pakistani, and especially of Sudanese Muslims.

Actually, most accusations of desecration of the Koran are false, but accusations of Muslim desecration of Christian and Jewish religious objects are true.

That does not mean we should go out and kill Muslim men at random, out of revenge. That would be stereotyping. Muslims complain mightily that they are victims of Western stereotyping. Note that Mr. Muhammad is stereotyping. He picked on some soldiers he never met and who, as far as he knows, committed no offense. He went solely by their citizenship. That is prejudice of the worst sort, picking on the innocent. It makes such Muslims as bad as the people they complain about, even worse, since often the complaints are fraudulent.

Here is a vacuum into which our righteous media and Muslim leaders should rush. During 9/11, our media and especially our President warned us against stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists. The media should expose the widespread Muslim stereotyping that encourages them to become terrorists to all U.S. soldiers or even all U.S. (and Israeli) citizens. The media should challenge Muslim leaders to demonstrate their moderateness and denounce Muslim stereotyping of Americans.

For a related discussion, click here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d5-Obamas-Cairo-Speech


Gen. Dayton is training Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces ostensibly to keep order and eradicate terrorism. He acknowledged recently [as I reported] that if the Arab-Israel conflict isn't resolved within two years, those forces may well being attacking and killing Israelis.

The General did not express any concern that perhaps his training of such would-be killers is ill-advised. This and the U.S. policy to let Iran develop nuclear weapons and to insist that Israel give up traditional and strategic territory shows that the new U.S. Administration is not friend of Israel. Israel is on its own
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/28 from Caroline Glick).

Not a moral position by the General and by his superiors, who know the cost of Israel of their policy! What kind of an Administration did our people elect! One that give guns and money to murderers.

I find that each President is as bad as his predecessor. My notion is that lobbies influence each political party negatively. This view is echoed in Kevin Phillip's Bad Money. While some prominent people rail about the Israel lobby, see what the U.S. is doing to Israel and how the U.S. is so much under the influence of other lobbies, that we can't end the profligacy and corrupt ways that caused this recession.

For more on Gen. Dayton's building up of P.A. forces, click here or go to:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d2-Gen-Dayton-enlarging-Palestinian-Authority-army

For example of inciting Palestinian Arabs to murder Israelis, click here or go to:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d3-US-imam-urges-more-Palestinian-Arab-struggle


The U.S. has approved the sale of a dozen AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters to Egypt. Its unsubstantiated boilerplate description of the sale denies that this and all the other billions of dollars worth of military gifts to Egypt change the balance of power.

The U.S. has postponed the sale of those helicopters to Israel. The U.S. is studying whether such weapons platforms causes excessive civilian casualties
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/1).

Egypt started its first war with an air raid on Tel Aviv. Capturing Gaza, it sent terrorists to attack Israeli civilians. It threatened to annihilate the Jews. It is not wise to build up a big Egyptian military. This is especially true since Egypt is not stable and Islamist influence there is increasing.

The helicopters are not the only example of the U.S. denying Israel arms. For another, click here or go to:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m5d27-US-still-not-selling-F35-to-Israel

Meanwhile, the jihadists get sold arms. For an example, click here or go to:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m5d31-Russian-arms-sale-to-Iran


From Rabbi Isaac Jeret of South Bay, California, comes this news about boycotts of Israeli products, a tactic copied from Europe into the U.S. The particular boycott is of Trader Joe's, a nationwide chain that has a store on 14th Street in Manhattan. Other stores will be boycotted, too. They weren't named.

The Boycott Divestment Campaign is a coalition of anti-Israel groups based in Pittsburgh, PA.. Affiliated with it is the South Bay Mobilization Group (actually from another, more northern California area than the Rabbi's). The boycott is scheduled to start on Saturday, June 20. Before that, a group of boycotters entered a Trader Joes in Pittsburgh, knocked Israeli products off the shelves, and accosted customers. The manager threw them out as trespassers. [Why not as vandals? Let their bad behavior work against them!]

The Campaign casts Israel as an apartheid state. Israel isn't. The boycotters repeat false claims about dispossession omit the real crimes of the Arabs along those lines.

Europe has many Muslims [tending towards bigotry]. American has enough Jews to oppose the boycott effectively.

Rabbi Jeret urges you people of good will to patronize Trader Joe's, because it stocks Israeli products and did not cave in to the boycott. Introduce yourselves to the managers, and explain why you are there. [Suggestion: have some Israeli products in your cart, when speaking to the manager.]

More information may be obtained from www.StandWithUs.org (6/19).

I sometimes shop at Trader Joes. They are known for moderate prices and some organic products.

I think it shouldn't be only Jews who defend Israel and businesses from bigots. It would be wise for all Americans to nip this campaign in the bud. Remember, the boycotters are allied with the jihadists seeking to conquer America, among other places.

The Campaign supports formation of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza based on expulsion of the Jews. Now that is apartheid! Their accusation against Israel of being an apartheid state therefore is hypocritical. They make that accusation because it is a powerful one, not because it has any validity.

My source explains that the Campaign supporters either are ignorant or are antisemitic. Antisemitism, buttressed by indoctrination in madrassas, mosques, and the Muslim media, and vented by vandalism and assaults, has grown tremendously. Therefore, my source's charge is not an idle one, though antisemites have learned to parry accusations against them as defamatory. Occasionally, some Jews make such serious accusations lightly.

The Jews, once again having become an international scapegoat, now by the current major totalitarian movement, Radical Islam, are easy to target. Any boycott, however sincere its deluded organizers, is bound to pick up support automatically from the fascistic Radical Muslims and from other people eager to have a group to hate. Any excuse will do. Facts not considered. Logic irrelevant. Mob emotion rules.

It is unfortunate that the Left becomes more radical and increasingly allies itself with aggressive Muslims, as on campus and in European political party platforms. This is a stain on the Left's record.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by M. S. Kramer, June 19, 2009.



President Obama responded quickly to Prime Minister Netanyahu's June 14 speech at Bar Ilan University. Obama said: "He acknowledged the need for two states. There were a lot of conditions, and obviously working through the conditions on Israel's side for security, as well as the Palestinian side for sovereignty and territorial integrity and the capacity to have a functioning, prosperous state, that's exactly what negotiations are supposed to be about. But what we're seeing is at least the possibility that we can restart serious talks."

Everyone who wishes Israel well and has a realistic view of how diplomacy works can relax — the president of the United States has responded positively to Bibi Netanyahu's much-anticipated policy speech. So has the European Union: Jan Kohout, foreign minister of the Czech Republic which holds the rotating EU presidency, agreed that the speech was "a step in the right direction".

Many Israeli pundits don't get it. For example, Yossi Verter of Haaretz newspaper wrote: "Why did Netanyahu wait until yesterday? Why did he not say this immediately after the elections? He might have been able to bring Kadima into his coalition. And if not then, then why not in a photo opportunity with Barack Obama at the Oval Office? The growing international pressure, the chill from the Israeli public, all these forced him to climb, even belatedly, onto the lingering two-state wagon." In my opinion, this was the brilliance of Netanyahu's speech. He could have spoken the words "Palestinian state" months ago, but then what bone would he had left to throw to the Obama Administration, while simultaneously turning the tables on the Palestinian Authority?

The Palestinians, of course, don't get it. Arab-Israeli reporter Khaled Abu Toameh wrote in the "Jerusalem Post" newspaper: "Even before Prime Minister Netanyahu completed his speech, several PA [Palestine Authority] officials and spokesmen used every available platform to declare their total rejection of Netanyahu's ideas, especially with regards to the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Some went as far as hurling personal insults at Netanyahu, branding him a liar, a fraud and a swindler. Others hinted at the possibility that, in the wake of his strategy, the Palestinians would now have to resort to another intifada. PA representatives are now saying that Netanyahu 'cannot even dream of finding one Palestinian to talk to.' One senior official in Ramallah announced shortly after the prime minister finished his address that the Palestinians won't resume peace talks with Israel for at least a thousand years."

Abu Toameh continued: "The harsh response of the PA is the direct result of high hopes that its leaders have pinned on the administration of US President Barack Obama. Reports about a looming crisis between the administration and Netanyahu over the future of the Middle East peace process, combined with Obama's conciliatory approach toward the Arab and Muslim worlds, created the impression in Ramallah that the Israeli government had no choice but to accept all the Palestinian demands.

Briefing reporters on the eve of Netanyahu's speech, some of PA President Mahmoud Abbas's top aides predicted that, in the wake of increased US pressure, Netanyahu would be forced to give in, freezing settlement construction and accepting the two-state solution."

The Israeli prime minister, by saying only what he had to say, put the ball in PA leader Mahmoud Abbas' court. Netanyahu's speech hit the raw nerves of Palestinians and other Arabs, explicitly marking red lines which Israel intends to stick to. At the same time, Netanyahu reduced American pressure on Israel by stating frank truths which are very difficult to ignore, even while the Obama Administration rushes to bring about a Palestinian state. Below, I'll expand on some of Netanyahu's most conclusive and compelling phrases from his very clever and important speech. Quote: "The Iranian threat still is before us in full force ... [It's] the greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity ...."

Netanyahu couldn't skip the opportunity to start off with his identification of the greatest obstacle to peace in the Middle East, as opposed to "settlements", which the Palestinians ceaselessly trumpet as the major impediment to peace.

Quote: "I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region."

This economic sweetener is Netanyahu's attempt to promote vested interests among the Palestinians, which might influence them to build a state rather than concentrate on destroying and/or replacing Israel.

Quote: "I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions. Israel is committed to international agreements, and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations. I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. ... I saw the pain of bereaved families from up close very many times. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war."

This was Netanyahu's appeal to the basic human interests of the Palestinians to turn from war to peace.

Quote: "What is the root of the conflict? ... [It's] the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland. In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever. Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin [terrorist] attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria."

Netanyahu sets the historical record straight, saying the cause of Arab enmity towards Israel is not the settlements. As obvious as this is, it's seldom repeated by Israeli leaders.

In contrast to President Obama's recent speech in Cairo, Prime Minister Netanyahu emphasized Jewish historical rights to a homeland in Israel and deemphasized the Holocaust as the impetus for the State of Israel. He emphasized: "The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years: Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, [and] our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers," reiterating his point about the Jews' historic homeland in the Land of Israel.


Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent policy speech treaded a fine line between trying to satisfy the Obama Administration's strictures, Netanyahu's right-wing coalition members, and the left-wing opposition. Though the speech has engendered much criticism, it generally was successful in buying time for Israel and putting the Palestinians on the defensive. Below are quotes from the latter part of the prime minister's speech, with my comments.

Quote: "The Palestinians are not showing us that they want to end the conflict. ... A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers. ... We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality. ... With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to 'liberate' Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias."

By citing recent history, Netanyahu deftly illustrated the futility of the land for peace formula.

Quote: "Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so. ... We need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say, simply 'We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state of its own in this Land. We will live side by side in true peace.' I am looking forward to this moment. ... The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People."

Netanyahu emphasized the indispensable fact of Israel as the Jewish state — the birthplace of the Jewish people — a fact which the Palestinians must accept or there will never be a peace agreement.

Quote: "The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years — persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place."

In contrast to President Obama's speech in Cairo, which identified the Holocaust as the genesis of modern Israel, Netanyahu puts the cart before the horse, citing the need of a Jewish state for the protection of Jews worldwide.

Quote: "We need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes. Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this."

In a short, pointed statement, Netanyahu totally discredited any Palestinian return of refugees to Israel through history, justice and logic.

Quote: "Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarized, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. ... And, to ensure peace we don't want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or [groups like] Hizbullah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel. We must provide for our security needs. ... The Palestinians cannot make military treaties. ... If we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state."

Finally stating the slogan "Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state", Netanyahu explicitly announced the requirements for Israel's approval of a Palestinian state.

Quote: "Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements. But there is a need to have people live normal lives and let mothers and fathers raise their children like everyone in the world. The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters.

Netanyahu put off discussions about territory and gave his intention not to build new settlements, while he retained the right for Israelis living in settlements to add additional space to their homes or build new homes within settlement boundaries. Jerusalem's place as Israel's united capital was emphasized.

Quote: "If the Palestinians truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier and this will help bring peace.

But above all, they must decide: the Palestinians must decide between path of peace and path of Hamas. They must overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit down at conference table with terrorists who seek to destroy it."

Netanyahu signaled the need for reciprocity: an end to Palestinian incitement and violence would result in more freedom for the Palestinians and serious peace negotiations.

Admittedly, some Israelis from both Left and Right wings are unhappy with his speech. For me, the idea of a demilitarized state is not credible, because it can't be enforced. (Remember Germany between the two world wars.) But as premier of a tiny country which relies on America to be its staunchest ally, Netanyahu had a tough job trying to satisfy both a new "even-handed" American president and the Israeli governing coalition, many of whose members hold a dim view of a possible Palestinian state.

Indeed, Netanyahu didn't really break any new ground in his speech. But he did satisfy President Obama's minimum requirement to mention a possible Palestinian state while hopefully enlightening the president and others to Israel's ancient ties to the Middle East. If the Palestinians get one thing out of Netanyahu's speech, it may be that while Obama is leaning over backwards to recognize their claim, Israel has a government that believes in Israel's destiny and will resist selling it short (at least I hope so). In the meantime, I still remain opposed to the idea of a second Palestinian state — Jordan is the first — and think that fruitful negotiations towards peace must wait until the Arabs accept our Jewish state.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." Contact him at sjk1@jhu.edu

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 19, 2009.

"Only if all the religious parties in the municipality quit the coalition is there a chance to stop this travesty." So says a leading Jerusalem activist, regarding a new Interior Ministry-approved municipal plan to increase Arab housing and reduce religious housing in the capital.

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat signed the plans two months ago, but opponents are considering filing a petition against them in the Supreme Court. "The entire process was fraught with irregularities and illegalities," says one activist, who does not yet wish to be identified. "For instance, the public forum was heavily weighted to the left with Arab and left-wing groups, without equal representation for nationalist and religious groups."

The new plans greatly restrict the construction of "sukkah porches" — i.e., porches with no ceiling or obstruction above, enabling residents to observe the Sukkot holiday without having to build Sukkahs outside the building.

In addition, 14,000 new apartments are being planned in Arab neighborhoods, while plans for 12,000 apartments in hareidi-religious areas have been shelved.

Another clause in the new city zoning plan stipulates that the Mt. Scopus-Beit Orot municipal park area will be used to build a new Arab neighborhood.

Especially infuriating to Jewish Jerusalem land groups is the designation of Shaar HaMizrach, a Jewish-owned area run by Aryeh King near the French Hill neighborhood, as a municipal garbage dump. The area has been the source of many battles in the past, and King says that Arab groups have long been pushing to have the area declared non-residential.

Politically-Based Discriminatory Trend

The Sanhedrin, a group of leading rabbis who wish to revive the traditional High Rabbinical Court known in Talmudic times by the same name, has listed the following objections:

"The plans indicate a politically-based discriminatory trend said to be necessary in favor of the so-called Palestinian population, at the expense of the Jewish population. This is manifest in the form of plans to change the demographic balance in the city. The plans also include leaving areas for constructing Arab governmental buildings — thus advancing the current trend of dividing the city into two political entities."

It is also noted that certain employment designations — such as higher education, government, bio-technology and medicine — will be granted preferential treatment, thus discriminating against the hareidi sector, in which these fields are less popular.

NRP Looking into the Matter

The plans also call for the establishment of "institutions for international and Israeli-Palestinian cooperation," as well as initial inquiry into the possibility of establishing an international university in the city.

Israel National News contacted Deputy Mayor David Hadari of the National Religious Party on this matter. He explained, "I brought this matter up before the municipal leadership and the forum of Deputy Mayors [of which there are six — ed. It was decided that the mayor will look into these charges that the plans seek Jewish-Arab 'balance' in the city — and we, too, will be meeting with experts throughout the coming week. The bottom line is that I, and Mayor Barkat as well, object to such a trend — and there is currently a difference of opinion among the experts as to whether this plan leads to such a balance or not. Some say that we're reading the indicators wrongly, and that it in fact does not lead to this balance. This is what we will check."

Asked if he is considering threatening to quit the coalition as a means of pressuring Mayor Barkat to withdraw his approval from the current plans, Hadari explained that there are currently 30 councilmen in the coalition, out of 31. All 15 of the religious-party members would have to quit in order to leave Barkat in the minority — "and this does not look likely at the moment," Hadari said.

When it was pointed out that another councilman, of the Israel Our Home party, could also be counted on to object to the current plans, Hadari still insisted that this was not his preferred approach at present.

Hadari acknowledged that the far-left Bimkom association, working to advance the cause of Arab housing in Jerusalem and throughout the country, was involved in the planning. "This is something we spoke to the mayor about," Hadari said, "and we will work to ensure that there is no trend to 'balance' out the demography in Jerusalem."

At present, the issue is not in the forefront of public opinion. This may change in the coming days, however, and the politicians may then be forced to fall into line.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 19, 2009.

This comes from Gateway Pundit


An Israeli man walks past posters hung by an extremist right wing group depicting US President Barack Obama wearing a traditional Arab headdress. (AP)

Isrealis see through the hype — Only 6% see Obama as pro-Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported:

Only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the views of American President Barack Obama's administration pro-Israel, according to a new Jerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 4.5%, was conducted among a representative sample of 500 Israeli Jewish adults this week, following Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech in which he expressed his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Another 50% of those sampled consider the policies of Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, and 36% said the policies were neutral. The remaining 8% did not express an opinion.

The numbers were a stark contrast to the last poll published May 17, on the eve of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama at the White House. In that poll, 31% labeled the Obama administration pro-Israel, 14% considered it pro-Palestinian and 40% said it was neutral. The other 15% declined to give an opinion.


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 19, 2009.

This is by Pamela Geller, the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and former associate publisher of the New York Observer.


Iran is spinning out of control. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory in the Iranian elections, riots broke out in Tehran.

Huge crowds continue to protest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's allegedly "rigged" victory. The government is trying to clamp down — opposition candidates were placed under house arrest and then released — but the unrest has not yet died down.

The CIA should be in Iran, helping the dissidents and reformers, and strategizing the removal of the country's nukes.

Instead, Obama said that "it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be," and that he was "deeply troubled by the violence" in Iran.

(In contrast, he was "shocked and outraged" when late-term abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered.)

He said: "I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all of those are universal values, and need to be respected." (I hope he will remember to respect them in the United States.) "And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, uh, and whenever the American people see that, uh, I think they're rightfully troubled." But what is he going to do, now that he feels "troubled"? Keep talking to the mullahs: "We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries."

Many people in the United States seem to think that the uprising represents a major sign of hope in America's relationship with Iran.

Both liberals and conservatives have been putting great stock in the outcome of these elections, and they haven't given up hope. They seem to think that if Mir Hossein Mousavi becomes President, things will be different.


On the surface it is a hopeful sign. But the bottom line is that the Presidency is not the highest office in Iran.

The mullahs are in charge.

The election was essentially a show. Mousavi is as radical as Ahmadinejad, but smoother. Nothing would have changed. The Islamic Republic of Iran is going nuclear and annihilationist. That doesn't change.

I feel for those terrified souls who are marching through Tehran blindly, acting out in hope that it might effect any change. They are engaging in an exercise in futility.

In reality, if they value their lives, they will flee Iran. We should have backed the reformers and the dissidents years ago when free men had a shot. But that was an opportunity missed — and now we are here.

The allegations of fixed elections come after polls showed that half of the electorate wanted Ahmadinejad.

But if half of the electorate wanted this bloodthirsty jihadi annihilationist, then what are we talking about? Hundreds of thousands of people turned out at rallies for Ahmadinejad before the election.

The election was and is a ruse.

As Christopher Booker wrote in The Telegraph, "The reality is that this was a completely sham battle between rival factions of a regime as ruthless as any in the world, in which the real power is exercised by the gang of hard-line mullahs round the 'Supreme Leader', Ali Khamenei.

In an election riddled with fraud (six million more ballot papers were printed than there are Iranians eligible to vote), all four regime-approved candidates had long been personally involved in the regime's murderous reign of terror."

Mousavi positioned himself as a reformer.

It was shaping up to be a first-class piece of political theater: the "reformer" would win, and would con the UN and the President while finishing their extensive, comprehensive nuclear weapons program.

Not one nuke, not two nukes. Many nukes.

The world wants so desperately to be fooled. And so the "new" Iranian President would "engage" in a "new era," "new dialogue," and "diplomacy," to Obama's delight.

It was always a ruse.

Mousavi is as establishment as they come. He was Prime Minister of Iran from 1981to 1989, and editor in chief of the official newspaper of the Islamic Republic party.

Further, he's cut from the same Nazi cloth as Ahmadinejad: he was one of the founders of Hezb'allah, and also helped construct Iran's murderous intelligence services.

Mousavi was a favorite of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

He said he was running for President because he could "no longer stand to see... [Iran] moving toward dictatorship."

Nothing about ending Iran's jihad against Israel, or against America.

Yeah, right, a reformer you can ...believe in!

The election was and is irrelevant.

Iran's objective has not changed, nor will it, since the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979.

And at least with Ahmadinejad we know what the drill is. At least he is honest. We know who he is, what he is, and what he says.

A Mir Hussein Mousavi win would have been a time wasting distraction. His objectives were the same as those of the mullahs.

It was a battle between a wolf and a wolf in sheep's clothing.

With an Ahmadinejad victory, be grateful we were spared all the leftist media tripe about "a new era" of "interfaith dialogue," featuring Katie Couric donning the hijab to get to know Mousavi's oh-so-progressive mother — all giving them more time to build more centrifuges.

Bottom line: the Iranian election is a non-story, as are the riots, unless the demonstrators push Mousavi aside and topple the Islamic Republic itself. Failing that, it's all smoke and mirrors. The mullahs are running the mahdi madhouse, and they are pursuing their global agenda. This is nonsense.

The real news story is the 55,000 centrifuges running twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and what Iran plans to do with them. The real news story is Obama's timidity as Iran's youth tear through the streets of Iran. He is abetting the mullahs.

It doesn't matter who won. Iran is an annihilationist state.

And either way, Obama is going to bow to these annihilationists. Iran is not going to cut the weak one in the White House any slack.

No. They have opted not to give Obama the ruse of a "reformer."

There will be no curtain for President Pantywaist to hide behind as he submits to these barbarians.

The mullahs are going to show the world what Obama really is.

The President is naked at the feast, baby.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Carrie Devorah, June 18, 2009.

Special Officer Johns died so others might live. His murder of is tragic.

I proposed to Craig Floyd, president of National Law Enforcement Memorial Fun, that an honorary wreath laying ceremony be held at the Memorial for Special Officer Johns. It was my feeling. I spoke to others, law enforcement an civilian. It is their feeling too, that Special Officer Johns be honored in the tradition of officers honored for dying in the line of service.

The National Law Enforcement Memorial is located at Judiciary Square here in Washington DC. The memorial pays homage to law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in acts of safety and protection of others.

The National Police Week occurs each year during the week in which May 15 fall, The Fraternal Order of Police/Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary organize a Peace Officers Memorial Day Service at the US Capitol. Established by a joint resolution of Congress in 1962*
(http://www.nleomf.org/TheFund/programs/NPW/ 1962National_Police_Week_Proclamation.pdf), it recognizes the service and sacrifice of U.S. law enforcement. Each year, the week of May 15th, the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fun sponsors a candlelight vigil at the Memorial.

A memorial maintenance fund is for the memorial that sits on federal land, The memorial is managed by the United States Secretary of the Interior, Public Law 104-329 (October 20, 1996). The sale of commemorative coins and donations funs the memorial's maintenance. The memorial, designed by architect Davis Buckley, was dedicated on October 15, 1991.

Special Officer John's murder brought attention to Special Officers, clarifying hey are sworn, they are trained, they do save lives. Often Special Officers are former an retired police officers.

The memorial was established by an act of Congress in 1984. The decision to hold a special wreath laying ceremony can be the decision of Congress. Speaker Pelosi issued press release honoring Special Officer Johns. Now, it is up to everyday people to make this honor happen.

What I can do is limited. All I can do is plant the seeds. With Craig Floyd president of the National Law Enforcement Memorial (craig@nleomf.com [NLEOMF, 400 7th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20004 · 202-737-3400 ]); with Wackenhut (SPitcher@wsihq.com [Susan P. Pitcher Exec. Assistant WSI 7121 Fairway Dr., Suite 301 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 561-472-3619 FAX 561-472-3688]); with the Speaker's Office (Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami/Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616); with law enforcement officers (*afried@dc-fop.org [webmaster]); with civilians; with the society of special police officers (Steve Maritas, Organizing Director, spfpa1@aol.com, 646-567-6454); the USHMM (pr contact- Andy Hollinger AHollinger@ushmm.org [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW Washington, DC 20024-2126 Main telephone: (202) 488-0400]); with my media contacts.

I am a news photographer here in DC who once worked inside a police Department at UCLA PD. Please take the ball and run with it.

Sincerest Regards
Carrie Devorah
CCIA, MPI, LACBA-DRS, BA-CSIS Contact: Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami/Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Nancy Pelosi on Holocaust Memorial Resolution: 'We Commit to Continuing Our Work to Build a World Free of Hatred'

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor this afternoon in strong support of a House resolution to condemn the violent attack at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum yesterday and to honor the bravery and dedication of museum employees and security personnel. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 413 to 0. Below are the Speaker's remarks.

"When the news came to the Capitol of what had happened at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, we were shaken — shaken to the core that this could possibly happen. The resolution today allows us to express some of the grief that we have and the strongest denunciation of the despicable hate crime perpetrated yesterday, and to express our strong support of the work of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

"Some of us were there that rainy, rainy day in 1993 when the Holocaust Memorial was dedicated — the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Elie Wiesel spoke to us so profoundly about what it meant, not only in terms of memory and never forgetting what happened in the Holocaust, but what our responsibility it is to the future at the time the Bosnian crisis was happening.

"And so, while the Holocaust Memorial Museum is about something that happened in the past, it is a memorial and a reminder to us about ridding our societies of these kinds of attitudes. So how ironic that this person, this individual, would go into that museum with hate in his heart, a gun in his hand, and kill this beautiful man, Stephen Johns, who really gave his life — he guarded others with his life.

"And I'd like to take a moment to pay special tribute to Stephen Johns, whose life was cruelly taken yesterday. Stephen was known to his colleagues as 'a soft-spoken, gentle giant.' Stephen loved his hometown football team, the Redskins, and he loved to travel across the United States. Sad to say — well it was a happy moment for him, but sad that in such a short time, he had married and moved to Temple Hills, Maryland, just 10 minutes from his mother.

"Stephen died in the line of duty, doing his job to protect those who came to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Today, we honor his sacrifice and his service.

"In the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum — anyone who's visited there knows — there is a flame that burns in remembrance to all who died in the Holocaust. It lights the room over a coffin of earth gathered from the death camps, concentration camps, sites of mass execution and ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe, and from cemeteries of American and European soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany.

"Engraved above that flame it says, from Deuteronomy (4:9): 'Only guard yourself and guard your soul carefully, lest you forget the things your eyes saw, and lest these things depart your heart all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children, and your children's children.'

"Today, we commit to telling our future generations the truths shared at the Holocaust Museum. This heinous act was committed at the entrance to sacred ground for us at the Holocaust Museum, and as I described, where some of the earth was gathered from.

"This is a severe blow to all of us who care about these issues, and I would include in that everyone in the Congress of the United States and in our great country, and those throughout the world who promise never to forget. So we commit never to forget. And we commit to continuing our work to build a world free of hatred.

"Again, I thank our colleagues for giving us the time to publicly mourn this horrible, horrible event, to extend our condolences to the family of that brave guard, and also to acknowledge that like Stephen Johns, our own Capitol Police, and many others who make this area safer for people to visit from all over the world. To make it safer for us to do our jobs here, make it safer for the press to cover us, make it safer for our staffs to work, to express our deep gratitude to them.

"For us, the names Gibson and Chestnut are forever emblazoned in our hearts. Two of those committed to guard the Capitol, whose lives were taken over 10 years ago. We will add to that list Stephen Johns and never forget the sacrifice he made and never forget our responsibility, to end the world of hatred."


Editor's Note: See also below.

Carrie Devorah is an investigative photojournalist based in DC. Former religion editor of "Lifestyles" Magazine, her areas of focus are faith, homeland security and terrorism. Devorah is the sister of Jewish Press columnist Yechezkel Chezi Scotty Goldberg, victim of Egged Bus 19 bombing in 2004. Contact her at carriedev@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, June 18, 2009.

You probably haven't heard about the Andijan massacre, because it happened in Uzbekistan, which I doubt many journalists can find on a map. But it has important implications for what's happening now in Iran.

Between 2003 and 2005 — probably not coincidentally just after the U.S. threw out Saddam Hussein in Iraq — there were a series of "color revolutions" in which mostly peaceful popular revolts overthrew authoritarian regimes. There was the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003; the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005.

The color revolutions came to a screeching halt after Andijan, where security forces loyal to Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov opened fire on a huge, unarmed crowd. A defector from the Uzbek security service estimated 1,500 were killed. Many were buried in unmarked mass graves. Iran is convulsed by its greatest civic unrest since that of 1979, which led to the fall of the Shah. Some news organizations have estimated the number of those in the streets of Tehran protesting the alleged re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at more than a million (the crowd at Monday's protest stretched five miles long). Many hope this portends the fall of the mullahs.

That depends mostly on how ruthless the mullahs are willing to be, and somewhat on the support the protesters receive from the outside world, particularly the United States, because that has an impact on how ruthless the mullahs think they can be. Syria could not do in Lebanon what Mr. Karimov did at Andijan because the world was watching what was happening in Lebanon.

Many in the West have a romanticized notion of what can be accomplished by peaceful protest and world opinion. Really ruthless regimes don't fall to popular protests, no matter how large, because they are willing to kill everyone they need to kill to stay in power.

And world opinion doesn't matter much if the world isn't willing to back up its opinion with more than words. The democracy protests in China in 1989 drew as much attention as the protests in Iran are today, but that didn't prevent the Chinese government from crushing the unarmed demonstators in Tiananmen Square. (China congratulated Mr. Karimov after Andijan, and reportedly is providing advice on security strategy to the government of Iran.)

The young protesters in Iran are as brave as the democracy protesters in Tiananmen were, but whether they triumph, or are beaten to death in dank prisons, depends mostly on whether the security services remain loyal to the regime.

There are some hopeful signs. The army has remained on the sidelines, making it clear it will not turn its guns on its own people. The Cyrus News Agency reported Tuesday 16 senior members of the Revolutionary Guards Corps have been arrested for insufficient repressive zeal. The regime's dirty work has been left largely to the Basiji, a militia composed of young religious zealots from the countryside. But the revolution won't succeed unless significant portions of the army and IRGC get off the fence and support the people.

This is where world opinion can have an impact. If world leaders strongly and unequivocably support the protesters, and credibly threaten the regime with consequences for repression, this could influence many fence-sitters in the army and the IRGC. It could also influence mullahs wavering between more repression and following their Swiss bank accounts out of the country. One reason why Syria didn't do in Lebanon what Karimov did at Andijan is because President Bush had just made it plain he would support democracy with more than words.

The leaders of Canada, France and Germany have harshly condemned the repression in Iran, but President Barack Obama has yet to muster as much indignation for the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he has expressed for the leader of Israel. And Mr. Obama has made it clear there is nothing so horrible Mr. Ahmadinejad can do that will keep him from pursuing rapprochement with Iran.

Little could encourage the repressive forces more. "Probe with a bayonet," Lenin said. "If you encounter steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push."

The mullahs are probing President Obama. They are not encountering steel.

Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Blue Truthe, June 18, 2009.

Shmuley Boteach is the founder of This World: The Values Network. His upcoming book is The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger


There's a storm coming. It will pit a well-organized community of substantial resources but also substantial insecurity — particularly when it comes to charges of dual loyalty — against a popular president of considerable eloquence but misguided policies that identify Israeli settlements as the main obstacle to Middle East peace. The inevitable clash will separate sunshine Jewish patriots who back Israel when convenient against those who stand with Israel even when it means losing their invitation to the White House Hanukka party.

The bogus issue of settlements is already being swallowed whole by many well-meaning Jews. Last week Dan Fleshler, a leader of Americans for Peace Now, wrote in the New Jersey Jewish Standard that Obama has no choice but to pressure Israel because "it is fruitless for a well-armed, occupying power to negotiate the terms of a viable settlement with an almost defenseless occupied people unless a third party mediates and presses both sides."

In reading Fleshler one wonders whether he has been himself occupied with building a settlement on the moon with no knowledge of events on Earth. Is he seriously suggesting that the thousands of Katyusha rockets and nonstop suicide bombers that have killed more than a thousand Israelis (the equivalent of 30,000 dead Americans) have come from a "defenseless" foe? Would Fleshler likewise argue that the US ought to have pressure from, say, Russia or China to make peace with the terrorists in Afghanistan, seeing that America now represents a "well-armed, occupying power" against the comparatively defenseless Taliban? Or is it only Israel that is forbidden from defending itself.

Sorry Mr. Fleshler, but Jewish values do not dictate that the only moral Jew is a dead one who refuses to fight in the face of a 60-year terror onslaught.

Any return to the 1967 borders, which is what Obama's attack on the settlements represents, is simply suicide for Israel. The borders are utterly indefensible. The Arabs know it, which is why they press for it. Had Israel not dismantled its settlements in Gush Katif, Gaza would not have become a terrorist state ruled by Hamas, an organization that kills even more Palestinians than it does Israelis.

BUT MISGUIDED Jewish apologists aside, are the rest of us prepared to speak up against the policies of the administration? By this I do not mean the drunken racist rants of the American Jewish hooligans who got attention disgracing themselves on YouTube last week; their bigoted drivel against our democratically elected president represents an abomination to Judaism. I have already written several columns lamenting how a small minority of the large and praiseworthy contingent of Jewish youth who go to Israel from the US after high school ostensibly to study in yeshivot end up instead hanging out on Rehov Ben Yehuda making asses of themselves. That they have no proper supervision and that they are allowed to go through their year in a drunken stupor is an outrage that must be finally addressed by the institutions which host them.

Rather, I mean courageous and intelligent criticism that accepts the president's praiseworthy efforts in making peace but decries his soft posture on tyranny when he bows to an Arab potentate who oppresses women and warmly embraces the dictator of Venezuela.

Asher Lopatin was one of the first students I met at Oxford and the university's first Orthodox Rhodes scholar. Today he is the successful rabbi of one of Chicago's most youthful congregations. He is also Rahm Emanuel's rabbi. But that did not stop him from criticizing the White House chief of staff in Newsweek for his unfair pressure on Israel. Lopatin could easily have basked in the aura of being rabbi to one of the most influential men in the world. Instead, he spoke truth to power.

In promoting the new translation of his Hebrew prayer book, British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly reminds us that he studies Bible with the prime minister of the United Kingdom. That's nice. But a few years ago Sacks spoke out publicly against Israel, telling London's Guardian newspaper, "There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew."

Sacks is a brilliant man but with a long history of pandering to whatever audience he happens to be addressing. He would do well to remember the admonishment of Mordechai to Esther on the responsibility of being close to political power: "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place."

But while Europe and the UK are significant, the main battle lines will be here in the US and now is the time for American Jewry to organize. From schools to universities to synagogues and JCCs, we must make it clear that when 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama and filled his campaign coffers with cash it was not in the expectation of biased policies against Israel. We're upset, disappointed and we won't take it. We'll march in the streets, write op-eds and blogs, and publish ads making it clear that America should be standing with the Middle East's only democracy and America's most reliable ally.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, our president undermines his moral authority when he pledges that henceforth America will "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," but then only applies that pledge to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but not to Israel.

Last year, right after Obama captured the democratic nomination, I received a phone call from his campaign asking if I would serve as one of the national chairs of "Rabbis for Obama." It was a tempting offer. I was moved by the candidate's remarkable personal story, his iron discipline, his soaring oratory and, most of all, the fact that his victory would be the culmination of my hero Martin Luther King's dream of a man being judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. In the end I declined because I feared that Obama would draw a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians and pressure the former to appease the latter. But even I never suspected that it would happen so quickly and so lopsidedly.

Contact Blue Truthe by email at bluetruthe@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, June 18, 2009.

This was written by Mark Heinrigh and Sylvia Westall and is archived at


VIENNA (Reuters) — Iran wants the ability to build nuclear weapons to gain the reputation of a major power in the Middle East, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a BBC interview broadcast on Wednesday.

Tehran denied the assertion. But International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told Iran at an IAEA meeting that it would not be trusted unless "you go the extra mile" and lift restrictions on U.N. inspections.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election last week has cast doubt on Western powers' hope of a dialogue with Iran aimed at curbing its uranium enrichment program, which Iran says is for generating electricity only.

ElBaradei said the Islamic Republic sees a nuclear breakout ability as an "insurance policy" against perceived threats from neighboring countries or the United States.

"My gut feeling is that Iran definitely would like to have the technology ... that would enable it to have nuclear weapons if they decided to do so," he told the BBC.

The enrichment process can be configured to produce fuel either for nuclear power plants or weapons.

"(Iran) wants to send a message to its neighbors, it wants to send a message to the rest of the world: yes, don't mess with us, we can have nuclear weapons if we want it," said ElBaradei.

"But the ultimate aim of Iran, as I understand it, is that they want to be recognized as a major power in the Middle East and they are. "This is to them the road to get that recognition to power and prestige and ... an insurance policy against what they heard in the past about regime change, axis of evil."

"He's absolutely wrong. We don't have any intention of having nuclear weapons at all," Iranian ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told an impromptu news conference outside a meeting in Vienna of the IAEA's 35-nation governing body.


"Nuclear weapons are not in our defense doctrine. We do not consider nuclear weapons any advantage ... we will never have (them). But we are going to have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes ... We will continue fuel cycle activities without any interruption because Iran has a legitimate need."

Soltanieh said Iran had mastered enrichment technology and Western powers "should cope with this reality. They are unhappy about these facts? It is their problem, it is a reality."

In an apparent slip-up during his exchange with reporters, Soltanieh said, in English: "There is no difference between any factions or groups of the Iranian nation on the inalienable right of nuclear weapons."

Pressed by Reuters in a phone call afterwards to clarify his remark, he said: "I said our peaceful uses of nuclear energy ... and of course our condemnation of nuclear weapons."

The United States told the IAEA's governing board Iran now appeared to be in the position to "weaponize" enrichment.

"Iran is now either very near or in possession of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to (further) enrich it to weapons-grade," U.S. envoy Geoffrey Pyatt said.

To do that, Iran would have to adjust its enrichment plant to yield bomb-ready nuclear fuel and miniaturize the material to fit into a warhead — technical steps that could take from six months to a year or more, nuclear analysts say.

Ahmadinejad indicated on Sunday nuclear policy would not change in his second term since the issue "belongs in the past."

ElBaradei rejected this stance. Gazing at Soltanieh in the 35-nation IAEA governors meeting, he said: "If you want to build confidence, you would do (wide-ranging snap inspections). You have to help me... (Otherwise), you are penalizing yourself."

ElBaradei also bemoaned the IAEA's inability to enforce transparency in suspect countries. "We are called the watchdog but we don't bark at all if we do not have the authority."

Six world powers have offered Iran trade and other incentives to halt enrichment. Iran has not engaged the offer and says its enrichment program is non-negotiable.

Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, June 18, 2009.

This was written by Moshe Ya'alon, who is a fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center. He served as the 17th chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces.


To attain peace, we must look reality squarely in the eye, no matter how difficult that may be.

The following speech was given June 9, 2009 at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, by Moshe Yaalon, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs

Once the mainstream media starts to believe something is true — or, more troubling, where it fails to even investigate, but simply parrots someone else's narrative — and then refers to this as fact or uses it as an underlying assumption, it becomes extremely difficult for anyone to ever thereafter question the veracity of that purported "fact" or the assumption, let alone to uproot and replace it with a different concept. Simply put, it becomes conventional wisdom.

The media is pervasive. It affects our perception, and nowadays perception is a major component of the complicated, asymmetrical conflicts in which our weaker foes depend primarily on cognitive warfare, especially in the changing Middle East.

There are three examples of this phenomenon that I want to discuss today. One relates to the Iranian issue, the second relates to tensions between pragmatists and radicals in the Middle East, and the third, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The Iranian Issue

There are two problems with the way the media frames the Iranian issue.

The first one is the notion that the Iranian problem is first and foremost a conflict between Iran and Israel. Here we can see, for example, the setting of Fareed Zakaria 's discussion on Iran on CNN. Look at the definition of the subject on the bottom of the screen: "Iran vs. Israel".

The second troubling manner in which the media frames the Iran issue is the recurring suggestion in the media that a combination of a sincere dialogue and non-military sanctions will peacefully persuade the Iranians to change their policy and give up the military nuclear program. Unlike the previous example, which has some relationship to reality, this mistaken assumption is based primarily on wishful thinking.

If, as much evidence suggests, dialogue and non-military sanctions will not work, then there may indeed be a need to resort to the military option in order to halt the Iranian project. Yet, those in the media who frame the issue as one that requires negotiations and diplomacy do the world a disservice by failing to present to their audiences the evidence that such a strategy in fact won't work.

The media approaches this issue with the assumption that Iran is a rational actor, very much like Western states, and that its primary concern is American behavior towards it.

While I believe this is unlikely, let's assume that it may be true. But shouldn't the media nonetheless inform their public of an alternative view?

That alternative view suggests that the Iranians have a completely different agenda and set of motivating factors. Those facts will not only sound strange, but very uncomfortable to the Western ear, yet there is substantial basis for them. All the media has to do is take note of them and report them to the public.

For example, many key Iranian players, in particular the Mullahs, consider the destruction of Israel as just a step on the way to changing the entire world order. The Iranians want to bring about this change, and they have many allies who, though they may not share Iran's Shiite goals, nonetheless share its desire to bring down American-led global liberalization. Syria and Chavez are of course key active partners in this. The goal of such an alliance is not just the conquest of Israel, but the entire Western world as well.

To appreciate the fallacy of this notion of Iranian "rationality," it is crucial to understand that the Iranian leadership, just like all the other radicals, is not interested in contributing to stability. On the contrary, they are interested in turbulence and instability — as long as it doesn't threaten their survival and their ability to stay in power — because stability would shore up the very world order they want to replace. Furthermore, the Iranians view the West's reluctance to use force against them as a lack of will and proof that Iran is moving in the right direction.

There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider how little of that affects the way the media refers to the Iranian issue.

Let me just mention some of President Ahmadinejad's declarations in recent weeks. For example when he paid a visit to his Syrian counterpart, President Bashar Al Assad, in early May he said that "Alongside the resistance and steadfastness, we must also strive to create a new world order; otherwise new oppressive regimes will emerge." He called the West's fundamental values "inhuman and belonging to past decades," and insisted that "The philosophy and order that emerged after World War II have come to the end of their road, and [the West] is unable to offer solutions for the world's problems."

Now granted, this may sound silly to Western ears — that we are inhuman and oppressive in comparison with Syria and Iran. But the media censors this material because they either don't take it seriously, or they don't want people to draw the wrong conclusions from it.

Ahmadinejad also added: "today the circumstances in the world and in the region are rapidly changing. Those who, for many years, said that Iran and Syria must be pressured, and wanted to prevent [them] from defending the rights of the peoples in the region, now openly declare that they require the help of Tehran and Damascus in solving their problems. Today we are beginning to move on the path of triumph, and even greater victories lie ahead." Note how Ahmadinejad interprets US desire to negotiate as a sign to press their own advantage.

In a recent speech in Kerman Ahmadinejad announced that Iran was drawing up a new package of proposals for negotiations surrounding the country's nuclear program. He emphasized that the West was weak, and could not force anything on Iran. "If the United States wants dialogue, there must first be a withdrawal of all Western forces, the destruction of the West's entire nuclear arsenal, and respect for Iran's right to its nuclear program," he said, and added. "Nearly 7,000 centrifuges are spinning today at Natanz, mocking you."

"The Iranian nation will not accept domination from oppressive powers," said Ahmadinejad, dressed in his trademark lightcolored jacket and dark trousers as young men and women chanted "Ahmadi! Ahmadi!" "We have to build an Iran that will have a role in directing the future of the world," he added as the crowd kept shouting. Again, some may wish to dismiss this as "mere rhetoric," but is the media acting responsibly when it suppresses the public's awareness of the problem?

There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider that none of this gets reported to the Western public in the mainstream media and, more troubling, that the media doesn't even stop to reevaluate their positions.

How can the American public intelligently discuss major policy decisions that could have major consequences for the entire world, when the mainstream media withholds basic information that would enable them to conduct a serious analysis of the problem?

Moderates vs. Radicals

The second area that deserves our attention, where the mainstream media misrepresents the evidence, is in addressing the tension that exists between the radicals and the pragmatists in the Middle East. The mainstream media almost unanimously adopts two basic approaches.

One is the dramatically unempirical notion that the radicals are but a tiny minority, while the vast majority of Muslims embrace the same moderate principles of peace, prosperity and coexistence that we exalt in the West.

The second, perhaps more realistic approach, rests on the following principles: (1), Radicals are the true representatives of the Middle Eastern society while the pragmatists are too weak to be expected to do anything; (2), the reason for this unfortunate situation is because of the Western policy of confrontation; and, therefore (3), the way to stop the radicals is to engage in dialogue with them and simultaneously strengthen the pragmatists by giving them concessions.

This approach does begin correctly by recognizing that the radicals have succeeded to a large extent in influencing the way Middle Easterners perceive themselves and how they relate to the rest of the world. But then it errs by suggesting that the radicals are ascendant primarily because of the behavior of the West which has supposedly alienated a potentially moderate public. This type of reporting works to the advantage of both the radicals and the pragmatists. Indeed, it turns the weakness of the pragmatists into their most valuable asset.

Both the radicals and the pragmatists take full advantage of the Western response to avoid accountability and expect the West to keep feeding them with more and more money and concessions, especially those that come at Israel's expense. Since this policy has proven quite successful in recent years and since Middle Easterners consider the new administration even more committed to this set of assumptions than its predecessors, the Middle Easterners have bigger expectations and less readiness to change their way of action.

The reaction in the Arab world to President Obama's reconciliation speech last week was very indicative of this approach. The audience was very receptive and supportive to those words they considered a move towards them but very cold at any mention of the need to give up the use of violence or to accept Israel's right to exist. The pragmatists show no intention to adopt these advices but expect the administration to follow up on its demands from Israel.

In fact, the pragmatists constitute quite a large part of the Middle Easterners and, with proper encouragement; they can play a major role in controlling the radicals. This was proven again in the impressive victory of the opponents of Iran, Hezbollah and Syria in the Lebanese elections. I would like very much to see the Lebanese leadership follow this achievement, that reflects their understanding that Israel is not their enemy, with an initiative towards normalizing the relations with Israel, but I doubt if this is going to happen, bearing in mind that the main reason for the pragmatists' animosity towards the United States and to some extent even towards Israel has very little to do with the reality of the way they are treated by the Americans or the Israelis, and much more with their being persuaded by the radical's propaganda which portrays all shortcomings of Muslim society as the outcome of a Western plot against them.

Thus, despite the best of intentions, it is counterproductive for the West to make more and more concessions and to continue to express regret and contrition, since this mea culpa attitude just plays into the hands of the radicals and strengthens their claim about the plot. In the West, we expect that concessions and apologies will lead to reciprocal moves on their part. In the Middle East, it just strengthens their convictions of victimhood and their resolve to restore their honor.

One case which illustrates the dangers of this media-promoted approach is the claim that the Palestinian Israeli conflict is the most important issue for Middle Easterners and that it has to be solved in order to convince the pragmatists to overcome the radicals and help the West and Israel in confronting Iran. But let's seriously look at that claim. In fact, radicalism in the Middle East began long before the establishment of the state of Israel, and was always characterized by anti-Western feelings and was the reason for many wars between rival Arab and Muslim camps that had nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

To sum up these issues, Iran is the main reason for instability in the region. The combination of the strengthening of the radicals and progress on the Iranian nuclear project, both of which are emboldened by the media's selective coverage of these issues, are the main threat to Israeli and American security and other interests. As long as the radicals feel that they are marching towards victory we can not afford to show signs of weakness. They will only make our job harder.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is again a set of so-called facts that have become a conventional wisdom that largely goes unchallenged.

The first is that this is primarily a territorial conflict and therefore there must be a solution for this conflict that can be achieved within a short period of time. The media, and with it most Western politicians, wish to believe that if the obstacle for achieving this solution will be removed — such as by conceding territory — a solution will be easy to reach.

Second, the only possible solution is a 'two state solution' — in which one state is a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as we call it, and the other is the state of Israel.

And third, the Israeli "occupation" and settlement activity are major obstacles for moving towards this inevitable solution and — as I mentioned before — for mobilizing the pragmatic states to the fight against the radicals.

These assumptions stood behind the Oslo process, and its failure indicates that they deserve to be reexamined. Such examination will reveal that, whereas the Israelis were really ready for this kind of a solution, including myself, the Palestinians do not accept that 'the two state solution' refers to two states for two peoples. In their view one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well. Abu Mazen's public statement a few weeks ago that he would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, (just as he refused to recognize a Jewish state before Annapolis), was but another, more recent manifestation of this approach.

This means that there's an asymmetry between the Israeli recognition of the Palestinian demand for self determination and the Palestinian recognition of the existence of Israel. As professor Bernard Lewis has put it before the Annapolis summit: "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence. If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime. If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist."

It is obvious that a solution cannot be realized before there is a change in the Palestinian position and the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish state. The reason the Palestinians refuse to accept this is because for them this is not a territorial dispute, but an existential conflict. The media's failure to report this most basic point, the evidence of it, and the implications of it, creates a dangerously misleading portrayal of the situation and prospects for its resolution. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan were signed without addressing this fundamental issue because unlike the case with the Palestinians, we do not share the same land with them. Regarding the obstacles that prevented the implementation of 'the two state solution' I would argue that the settlement activity was never a serious obstacle to peace. Israel proved several times that it is ready to reverse its settlement activity both in the framework of an agreement or unilaterally. In contrast, the Palestinian reaction to Israeli withdrawals has demonstrated time and again that the dismantling of Israeli settlements or the Israeli withdrawal from territory does not yield peace, but rather more warfare.

Instead of using the implementation of the Oslo agreement as an opportunity to prepare the state institutions, Arafat preferred to establish an authority of gangs, without accountability, allowing freedom of action to terror organizations, and so did Abu Mazen, who turned his weakness into a strategic asset that enabled him to escape accountability.

Following Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza, which uprooted nearly ten thousand Jewish people from more than twenty living communities, leaving not a single Israeli settlement or person remaining on Gazan territory, Palestinians had another opportunity to prove that ending the Israeli occupation would lead to fundamental change and bring peace. Yet, the opposite occurred. Terror activities continued and proved that the problem is not the occupation or the settlements. The lessons that we can learn from all of this are that a permanent settlement of the conflict is not easy to achieve as long as the Palestinians do not remove the real obstacles to peace: namely, by accepting Israel as a Jewish state, by stopping terror activity and incitement, and by addressing the lack of preparedness of the Palestinian authority to assume the responsibilities of a state — governability, monopoly over the use of force, security and economic stability. Without these issues being fully addressed, the creation of a Palestinian state will lead to the establishment of an unstable terror entity on the border of Israel that will threaten not only Israel's security but the stability of moderate states in the region, especially Jordan and American interests in the Middle East.

So, what is the Israeli policy in view of these realities? First, Israel considers itself a part and parcel of the free world and is committed to its strategic friendship with the United States. Just like the new administration, we too believe that friends should be candid with each other. We also believe that since we are living in the Middle East and that we will face the consequences of any policy most directly; it is our duty to explain to our American friends our concerns.

Practically we believe that the radical threat to the world order is the most dangerous challenge of our time. North Korea is a big challenge but the repercussions of a nuclear Iran are much more severe. We consider the prevention of this dangerous development a necessity. If this can be achieved through negotiations and dialogue it's wonderful, but since we doubt it very much we believe that the free world, under the leadership of the United States, has to prepare all the options to deal with this problem and make it clear that it will be ready to use them if it deems it necessary. A credible threat is probably the only effective way to make the Iranians carefully reconsider the direction of their project, and may make them choose another course.

We believe that the pragmatists in the Middle East should, and are ready to, contribute to halting the Iranian nuclear program and to countering the strengthening of the radicals, and that Western concessions are counterproductive toward that process. Likewise, the Palestinian issue has no relationship to it either.

On the other hand, we do believe that such pragmatists have an important role to play in the Palestinian context by adopting the solution of two states for two peoples' and helping to promoting the preparedness of the Palestinians to assume responsibility. Finally, in regard to the Palestinian issue, we have no intention or will to govern the Palestinians and run their daily life. We want to have a stable peace and for that purpose we are ready to consider further ways to disengage and contribute to the ability of the PA to control the territories under its responsibility in a way that does not threaten the state of Israel. At the same time we believe that an almost exclusively top down approach that characterized the way the Palestinian issue was handled under the Oslo and Annapolis processes should be replaced by a determined performance based, bottom up approach that characterized the road map, which would focus first on building the necessary infrastructure for peace. We have spoken much over the past few years about dismantling the infrastructure of terror. Let us begin to talk about building an infrastructure for peace.

This should include five reforms within the Palestinian authority, which at this stage can be performed only in the West Bank:

  1. Educational reform, whereby the PA will stop educating its people to deny any connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, stop treating Zionism as a colonialist movement and every Israeli town or village (including Tel-Aviv) as an illegal settlement. This reform has to include stopping the incitement in the media, the mosques and the public discourse as well as an end to raising kindergarten children to hate Israelis and to carry out suicide bombing attacks against the infidel.

  2. Economic reform that would focus on strengthening the role of the private sector in the economy and fight corruption. The irresponsible system in which money collected from poor people in rich countries helps rich people in a poor area to become even more rich has to stop.

  3. Political reform that would promote an adequate governing culture by strengthening civil society and emphasizing the values of free speech, human rights, and other universal values.

  4. Law and order reform which should lead to the implementation of the concept of "one authority, one law, one weapon" — namely, the existence of a strong police and law enforcement system. We fully approve and support in this respect the efforts led by General Dayton.

  5. Security reform under which there will be a unification of the security apparatuses and a full range of activities against terrorism including: intelligence collection, thwarting activity, investigations, putting to trial of suspects and imprisonment of convicted terrorists. It's not clear whether this process is going to be successful. Its success depends first and foremost on the Palestinian leadership, which until now failed in establishing an accountable political entity. The international community should encourage the Palestinians to make progress in this direction through the use of carrots and sticks and not via the provision of unconditional economic aid and blanket political and diplomatic support. Only when the Palestinians give up this hope of destroying Israel and accept Israel's right to live in peace as a Jewish state will there be a chance to have peace between us and the Palestinians. This is the essence of the change that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to promote.


But if we are to succeed in bringing about this change and advancing peace, we must all be ready to challenge the conventional wisdom. I know that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy and that there is a price to pay for it. But I do not demand of others what I do not demand myself.

As head of military intelligence, I, a member of the Kibbutz movement, was a believer in Oslo, a believer that it could bring about the peace for which we have waited so long. But when I looked at the evidence, at all the facts, I could not turn my back on the truth. And when I saw the dangers that the disengagement from Gaza would pose to Israel's security, I could not turn my back on the truth.

I believe that we always have to look reality squarely in the eye and that we must let the evidence lead us to our conclusions, however difficult those conclusions might be.

The reality may be difficult for us to accept. It does not lend itself to simple answers. But if we are prepared to face it honestly, then I am convinced that we can begin to change it for the better — and we can start heading down the path to a genuine and lasting peace.

Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Pinner, June 18, 2009.

Well, Mr Netanyahu, you've finally done it. You've finally spoken the magic words, "a Palestinian state". Of course you added the rider that "we cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without receiving guarantees that it will be demilitarized".

Powerful words, to be sure. Just a few questions spring to mind, chief among them: How you think you will enforce demilitarisation? You see, I remember that when you withdrew from Hebron back in January '97, the agreement that you reached with Yasser Arafat (remember him?) stipulated that the Arab "policemen" who took over Hebron would be armed with nothing heavier than submachine-guns. The reason was obvious — submachine-guns would not threaten the Jews of Hebron (which in itself shows how much you yourself trusted your own peace partners). And I also remember that the very first uniformed terrorists who marched into Hebron that winter's morning were armed with Galil assault rifles. But what were you going to do about it? — Cancel the hard-won Wye River Accord and invade Palestinian territory just because they were carrying the wrong weapons? Threaten to destroy the entire peace process just because of a technicality? — Of course not. So they got away with that violation, and just over four years later the 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass (Hy"d) paid the price when an Arab sniper, in the uniform that you authorised and the rifle that you could not prevent him from deploying, fired his fatal bullet into her tiny body from the area that you gave away.

But what was the Israeli government going to do about it then? — Invade Hebron just because of one maverick? What are we — fanatics? Expansionists? Peace-haters?

But of course, you have learned this lesson, which is why you added that "we ask the international community for an express commitment that the Palestinian state's area will be demilitarized with effective measures — not like the ones in Gaza".

Now this sounds good. "Effective measures" — like, say, an international agreement, guaranteed by Britain, France and the USA? Do you remember the Sinai War (the Kadesh Campaign) back in 1956? At the end of October of that year, in 100 hours, Israel captured the entire Sinai Desert, including the Gaza Strip, from Egypt. Less than half a year later, in March 1957, we withdrew, and there was an internationally guaranteed agreement with Egypt that Gaza would remain demilitarised. Well, that agreement held up...for almost two complete days.

But what was Israel going to do? — Start a whole new war against Egypt just because a few soldiers took up positions in Gaza City? What are we — militarists?

So we will have an agreement — solemn, internationally agreed, with "an express commitment" for "effective measures" — that Palestine will remain demilitarised. And what are we going to do when the first battalion of Palestinian soldiers take up their position in Hebron? — Invade Palestine because 50 soldiers have marched into the Kasbah? What are we — ruthless occupiers?

So when do we respond? When Palestine takes delivery of five T-74 tanks from Iraq? Are you serious? Five obsolescent tanks hardly threaten Israel, so how are we ever going to justify this brutal death-blow to regional peace?

And then Palestine will revive Atarot Airport in Jerusalem, which, of course, they will call Kalandia — the old Jordanian name (well, really an old Roman name, but let's not quibble — one foreign occupier is much like another). Well, Israel cannot really object to a civilian airport, can she? After all, Palestine will be land-locked (the "West Bank" part, that is — Gaza is another story), so a civilian airport will be essential. True, the runway is barely 800 metres (2,600 feet, or under half a mile) from French Hill — but how can a small, provincial, civilian airport possibly threaten the country that boasts of having the most powerful air force in the Middle East?

And obviously, in this age of global terrorism, every airport in the world needs military protection. After all, even Heathrow Airport in London has military troops protecting it, and even tanks are deployed there on occasion. So how will Israel react when the first tanks and APCs are deployed in Kalandia Airport? Will that be the time to invade Palestine? Because of reasonable counter-terrorism security measures?

And how will Israel respond when the Palestinian Air Force deploys its first Mig 23 in Kalandia? By invading the nascent Palestine? What are we — expansionists? Brutal occupiers? Does Palestine not have the right to protect its sole international airport?

And obviously, it is eminently reasonable that a modern airport — facing, as anywhere in the world, threats of terrorism, of a 9/11-style attack — needs anti-aircraft artillery to defend it. So how will Israel respond to Palestinian defensive measures against terrorists? — By invading? That hardly seems reasonable.

And then, when the first Palestinian (or Syrian, or Iranian, or Hezbollah, or Jordanian, or Iraqi, or Saudi, or pan-Arab) artillery and anti-aircraft division moves into position on the mountain ridges overlooking Ben Gurion Airport — will that be the time to invade? When Saudi, Jordanian, and Iraqi forces took up offensive positions in Judea and Samaria back in 1967, Israel was able to launch first strike. Today that is impossible. Not any more: after all, when Jordanian and Iraqi forces took up offensive positions in Syria in 1973 to reinforce the attack on Yom Kippur of that year, Israel was not able to launch a first strike.

Or will we wait until Egyptian tank brigades, reinforced by artillery and infantry, are deployed in the Gaza Strip? Then do we invade? And risk war against Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the rest of the Arab League? Or do we sit quiet, and rely on the UN and diplomacy to protect us?

Mr Prime Minister, the people of Israel really have a right to know how you intend to achieve something that no one in history has ever managed before. No demilitarisation agreement has ever held up when the intended demilitarised side has not wanted it to. From Germany which was demilitarised by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, to the Bosniaks who were theoretically demilitarised in the 1990's; from the Tanggu Truce which established a demilitarized zone between Japan and China in Manchukuo in 1933, to the Iraqi/Saudi neutral zone; from the Korean demilitarized zone, created by the UN in 1953 to separate North Korea from South Korea, to the demilitarized zone between North and South Vietnam established in 1954 by the Geneva Conference — every single demilitarization agreement was guaranteed by an "express commitment" that the area in question would be "demilitarized with effective measures".

These were all guaranteed by the most powerful forces that the international community could muster — Great Britain, the USA, the UN, and the Soviet Union. So again, Mr Netanyahu, the people of Israel have a right to know: How do you plan to achieve an enforceable demilitarization for the first time ever in world history?

And more to the point: How do you propose that Israel react when the other side violates the demilitarization agreement? Will you, or any other Israeli prime minister, ever dare to authorise a full-scale military invasion of Palestine just because of a technical violation? Or will you, or some future Israeli prime minister, have to wait for it to be too late before responding, as invariably happened in the past?

Or will you simply ignore these issues, and instead use the awesome power of the Supreme Court and the police to forcibly silence anyone who dares ask these questions?

Daniel Pinner blogs at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DanielPinner/

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, June 18, 2009.

But what will you do about American pressure? What will you do when they stop allocating funds to Israel? What will you do when they send NATO bombers like they did in Bosnia? What will you do about the whole world? What will you do?

Every time that an attempt is made to establish an alternative to the conditioned Israeli thought pattern, every time that somebody suggests an approach that veers from the accepted leftist track, the decisive ammunition is pulled out of the arsenal of claims: "The Americans won't let us..."

After that claim, it is no longer possible to debate. The underlying assumption is that we are small and completely dependant on the American superpower and cannot implement any policies not approved by our patrons.

That is the way it seems. There is no comparison between the military and economic strength of the rings of enemies that surround Israel — supported by the U.S. — and our own capabilities.

Let us analyze the economic and military aspects of this theory.

The basic claim is that without American aid, Israel will not be able to exist. But if we check the numbers and history of American aid, we receive a completely different picture.

American aid, in its various forms, currently amounts to about 3.5 percent (yes, only 3.5 percent!) of Israel's annual budget. About half of that aid is military. Parallel to the military aid to Israel, the U.S. is supplying modern weapons to the largest and most threatening Arab army — the Egyptian army. Except for Israel, the Egyptian army has no enemies on its borders. Sudan and Libya do not endanger Egypt in any way, and it is clear that the powerful army that Egypt is building is directed only against Israel.

There is no doubt that it would be worth Israel's while to forgo U.S. military "aid" if the United States would not simultaneously arm the Egyptians. Everybody would gain, except for the American weapons industry. The U.S. would save billions of dollars that it is currently pouring into both sides and war between Israel and Egypt would be postponed.

There is a famous saying that the gun that appears in the first act, will shoot in the third act. In a cynical move to benefit its armaments industry and to create a situation in which both sides are dependant on American weapons, the U.S. has introduced millions of sophisticated guns in the first act. It is reasonable to assume that these guns will shoot as early as the second act. In this way, America promotes the next military conflict between Egypt and Israel, in the guise of military aid.

That being the case, it is clear that the entire entity called "American aid" can be reduced to that part designated as civilian aid. The framework of this article does not allow us to prove that even the civilian aid is nothing but fiction. But clearly, the State of Israel, with the GNP of a modern country, can easily do without aid that amounts to just one and one half percent of its budget — aid for which Israel essentially surrenders its independence.

It is no less interesting to check the history of American aid to Israel:

Israel was not always an economic and military superpower in the Middle East. From the time that the State was established until the Six Day War, Israel's economy was in a precarious state. Israel's military situation was no better. The IDF was spread thin over impossible borders. America had declared an embargo on weapons shipments to the Middle East. All the Arab armies in that era were supplied exclusively with Soviet arms, so that the American embargo was actually a U.S. death sentence for Israel. It seemed that Israel's days were numbered. The sad joke in that era was that the last Israeli to leave the country should please turn off the lights.

In those difficult days Israel did not get even one bullet or one cent in aid from the Americans.

When did the American "aid" begin to pour into Israel? After Israel's "aggression" in 1967, when it conquered the Sinai, Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and after its post-war economy began to boom. Then, when it was clear that Israel was stronger than its neighbors, the American "aid" began to flow.

It's strange, isn't it? America always pressures Israel to surrender its settlements to the enemy and to abandon the parts of the Land of Israel that it conquered. Why did it begin to send us "aid" when Israel took action completely opposed to U.S. policy?

The question becomes even keener when we continue to examine the graph of American aid over Israel's history. It turn out that the aid — that was initiated, as stated above, after the Six Day War — steadily increased until it peaked in the eighties. Then, at a very specific point in time, the level of aid began to decline until the point that we have reached today — half the aid that Israel received when the allocations peaked. And what is that specific point in time? The Camp David Accords, when Israel destroyed its settlements in the Sinai and surrendered the entire peninsula to Egypt.

The question rises again, this time from the opposite angle: When Menachem Begin caved in and gave Jimmy Carter all that he demanded, Israel should have become America's favorite son. It could certainly have expected the aid that it had received up till then to continue at the same level. But once again, reality worked in just the opposite direction.

Clearly, then, American aid is not aid at all. It is a cynical strategic investment in a patently American interest. America had no economic or strategic interest in investing in a weak, pre-Six Day War Israel — just as it had no economic or strategic interest in investing even one American bomb on the railroads that carried the Jews to Auschwitz.

In contrast, as soon as Israel became a regional power, it was in America's interest to invest in it. In the third stage, when Israel began to divest itself of its Six Day War achievements and to retreat to the pre-1967 border with Egypt, America transferred its economic and military support to the Arabs.

Why are these simple, history-proven facts ignored by the Israelis? I have often debated the subject of American aid with Israeli academicians, among them economic experts. The facts stated in this article are completely unknown to them. Why do Israelis insist on developing a sense of imaginary dependence on the U.S. and Europe, specifically at the point that Israel is both economically and militarily vigorous?

The answer to that question is not at all connected to Israel's military or economic capabilities. It is on a totally different plane.

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell) This article is from Moshe Feiglin's book, "The War of Dreams".

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 18, 2009.


We reported recently an attack by Hamas on Abbas' men, whom they stumbled upon in Qalqilya, Judea-Samaria. Hamas asserts that "Tel Aviv" and the U.S. command Abbas' Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces. It claims that the P.A. forces stalk Hamas, and that this attack was coordinated by Gen. Dayton and Israel. Hamas claims that the P.A. troops opened fire first, are traitors, and executed the Hamas men
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis. 6/3).

Hamas refers to the capital of Israel as Tel Aviv, but Israel's government sits in Jerusalem. Hamas knows that, but refuses to admit it. Too doctrinaire and fanatical to admit the status quo [and then negotiate to try to change it].

Operating by conspiracy, Hamas thinks everyone else does, all the time. Abbas does not take orders from Israel, against which he encourages bigotry and violence. Gen. Dayton threatened that the P.A. troops he was training are likely to attack Israel. This is the first instance of P.A. forces pursuing Hamas terrorists. Usually, Israel has to raid Hamas, itself.

If the P.A. were acting against Hamas, it would be to preserve itself and to create the appearance of anti-terrorism such that Israel might be pressured to withdraw from Judea-Samaria. In that case, the P.A. jihadists would have a new base. That is not being a traitor to jihad. That is promoting jihad.

Can't blame the P.A. if it did finally crack down on Hamas, after Hamas overthrew P.A. rule in Gaza and threatens to do likewise in the rest of the P.A..

Arab propaganda can be irrational and unscientific. For another example, click or go here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Muslim-views-of-Jews-and-of-genetics


A 3,000 acre section of Maale Adumim on government-owned land, called E-1, adjoins Jerusalem. Israel plans to develop it.

If Israel does, Maale Adumim would have continuity with, and buffer Jerusalem and other strategic areas. Otherwise, Israel's capital would be exposed to gunfire from abutting Arab areas. Maale Adumim therefore would be kept by Israel even if Israel evacuated from most of Judea. If Israel does not develop it, Arabs would continue their illegal building on it, to prevent Maale Adumim continuity with Jerusalem. They do this so as to be able to assert future claims.

To pressure Israel not to build on it, the Palestinian Authority falsely claims that it would bisect the Arab area. No, Israel plans an Arab road without checkpoints, traversing the whole Arab area (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/25). No wonder the U.S. demands no Jewish building!

For more on safeguarding Jerusalem, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m6d4-Objection-to-US-subsidy-to-Israel


Israel has laws against "racism" and "incitement," defined vaguely. Instead of debating, the Left accuses right-wingers, who criticize Arab policy, of racism, to cow them. The first application was against the Kach Party, which advocated population transfer, but was not racist. The next victim was Rabbi Elba, whose learned article on Judaism stated religious laws about killing people, but did not advocate killing. Then "A Kahanist was indicted and convicted of racism for selling shirts with the slogan 'Where there are no Arabs there is no terrorism.'" Makes sense, in Israel. Is truth racist?

The law is not enforced against leftists and Arabs who demean Jews. Arabs shout antisemitic slogans, and Communists encourage Hamas to murder Jews, but are not prosecuted. Secularists call Orthodox Jews vermin, with impunity. The Left contends that its criticism is free speech. Why isn't right-wing criticism free speech? The law bans ethnic discrimination, but the government discriminates against Jews for civil service and college entrance.

Actually, racism as a private feeling is not the concern of government. Discrimination or violence based on it is. The law makes no distinction.

Democracies don't prosecute "incitement," except incitement to riot. Arguments that leftist officials find difficult to answer they try to repress by calling it "incitement." This is how the Sharon regime treated opponents of its planned expulsion of Jews from Judea-Samaria [which expulsion actually was discriminatory]. Then there is preventive detention, used to silence some right-wingers. Police state tactics (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/27).

For another example in which Israel is undemocratic and anti-Zionist, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m5d21-More-Israeli-discrimination-against-Jews


Strategic Affairs Minister Yaalon said that the Palestinian Arabs' "extreme violence does not stem from despair over their situation, as the West tends to assume, but rather from hope — hope that the State of Israel will disappear."
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/27).

What gives them hope? Israeli concessions and inhibition against self-defense.

For the effect of Arab culture on what they say, click here or go to:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m5d28-Culture-affects-what-Arabs-say


A security guard outside of Maale Adumim thought an approaching Arab suspicious. He detained him. The Arab tried to stab the guard, admitting he came to commit a crime. Two other Arabs were found carrying assault knives at a checkpoint. In two places, Arab rock-throwers damaged Israeli cars but didn't injure anyone
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/27).

The U.S., however, is getting Israel to remove checkpoints. For more on that, click here or go to:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m5d29-Israel-removed-140-checkpoints


Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority claims to be letting more women into official posts. He had anticipated that Israel would bar a women's delegation to a conference in his area, but Hamas did.

He mocked Hamas' notion of "resistance." When Hamas started firing rockets at Israel, he told them it would do no good. For that criticism, Hamas called him a collaborator. Now, he said, Hamas shoots rocket crews.

He derided Hamas for not holding elections
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis).

His term has expired, but he is not holding an election, either. I don't blame him, but he is hypocritical in criticizing Hamas for doing what he does.

His criticism about rockets being impractical indicates his otherwise approval of that war crime of firing rockets at civilians. His unscrupulousness renders dubious his accusations that Israel commits war crimes.

For more on Palestinian Arab discrimination, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m6d12-President-Obama-ending-discrimination-against-Israel


The financial crisis has given OPEC states the financial advantage, because of their large savings. The non-OPEC states and institutions are needy. Saudi Arabia sometimes steps in. Its charity fosters its extreme version of Islam. It subsidizes mosques, universities, NGO's, and terrorist groups.

Muslim refugees fleeing from warfare in Pakistan got 150 tons of dates from S. Arabia. Hamas received much materiel and pledges of about $3 billion. [Note: Hamas is a tool of Iran, which S. Arabia is supposed to oppose.]

S. Arabia, Iran, and that ilk consciously wage financial jihad. They approve subsidy outlawed by the targeted country. Although Islam theoretically bans narcotics, "...the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism 2008 documents the increasing criminal activities of Islamist terrorist groups, sometimes in collaboration with drug traffickers and other criminal organizations. Other crimes include money laundering, human trafficking, arms smuggling, diamond smuggling, counterfeiting, identity theft, and fraud...These operations take place in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East."

Western financial institutions try to garner more Muslim patronage by catering to "sharia finance,' which is finance according to Islamic law. What they don't seem to understand is that Muslim advisers are not likely to approve investment in Israeli, Jewish, or Christian enterprises. They approve unmonitored Islamic charity that may reach terrorists.

Muslim finance also allows transfer of funds by immigrant workers to home countries by means of cards. These cards evade government controls. They can be used by terrorists, sometimes to transfer large sums (Rachel Ehrenfeld, 5/29).

In setting up sharia finance, Western bankers think they are being tolerant. By doing it blindly, they are fostering Islamist intolerance.

Notice the different kinds of jihad, not only military: there's cyberwar, for that, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m6d5-Israel-warns-against-jihadi-internet, there's lawfare, for that, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d13-Lawfare

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Mr La, June 18, 2009.

The winner: for the title world's best recycler of water is...ISRAEL, and the prize: a sustainable water supply for a flourishing agricultural industry and an annual billion dollar water tech export industry. The U.N. report, announced recently on International Water Day, credits Israel far and away as the global recycling leader judged by the percentage of water purified and reused — 70 percent, compared to the runner up recycler, Spain at 12 percent.

The beautiful Jewish State also garnered top ranking as a global leader in the use of desalinated water, and according to industry experts exported in 2008 alone 1.4 Billion "of water management, recycling and purification, irrigation, desalination and safety technologies to over 100 countries" a booming growth industry comprised of 200 Israeli firms.

Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, June 18, 2009.

Dear President Obama,

You keep complaining about the mess the previous administration left behind. But what about the bigger mess we in Israel inherited from our previous government? Yours is just about money, ours is on surrender, and now I'm stuck with you.

If your father was a Muslim, then you're a Muslim. Maybe that's what's written in your secret birth certificate. By calling yourself a Christian you risk death, you're an apostate. My predecessor, your favorite, is an "aprostate".

Lucky you, at least you get to be Hillary's boss. I know she pestered you for the job, but you can always let her go after a decent interval. Me, I'm stuck with Tzipi Livni. Day in and day out at the Knesset, she keeps yapping "Palestinian state, Palestinian state, Palestinian state" non-stop. I finally said it, so she would shut up. We both know I don't mean it.

Yes, you can get rid of Hillary, it doesn't even take a village. But with Tzipi it takes "savlanut", lots of it, and if you don't know what it is, you probably don't have it.

But listen, I don't want to be a show stopper. Let's have a Palestinian state, but it has to be an unimportant one. Something like Pluto, demoted from being a planet to being an insignificant ball of ice. And even so, it must be demilitarized. And how do we ensure it? By having the equivalent of a moon circling and keeping an eternal eye on it. In Pluto's case it is called "Charon", and the irony is not lost on me. Now don't say I'm not being helpful.

The only other alternative I can think of is to create a Palestinian state in your country. There is already a town called Palestine, in Texas. Make it their capital, and give them Texas as their state. I don't know about the anthem, but the flag is already there. Just substitute the lone star for a crescent moon and they're in business.

This would lift a load off your back. The new state of Palestine would border with Mexico. Imagine the possibilities. American weapons to the Palestinians (in this case it can be militarized), who would then sell them to the Mexican drug lords in return for drugs they could market more easily in the US. And there you have it. A source of income to the Palestinian people directly from the US people, but only from those who have the habit. No more taxpayers' money to fund terror. You can use these savings to help fix the US economy.

And what would you care if the Palestinians and the Mexican drug lords start fighting each other? Each will demand more land on either side of the river, now the Rio Grande, the Mexican because it is rightfully theirs, the Palestinians because it is in their nature. "Jamas" (never), say the Mexicans. "Hamas", answer the Palestinians. And life goes on, doesn't it? Two peoples living side by side in...blah, blah, blah.

However, since one Palestinian state is never enough for them, you need to find another one. Well, Mr. President, you yourself have come up with the answer. You're closing down Gitmo Bay, and paying US$200M to the island of Palau to receive a handful of prisoners. Up the ante, pay them a few billion more (pocket money for someone who only deals in trillions) and there you have it, the "Palaustinian" state we all want to see.

So this is my speech, Mr. President. No need to spend the taxpayers' money by financing the relocation of the Mitchell entourage here. On the contrary, all those American Jews who voted for you will start prosperous businesses in the new Palestinian lands, and assuming they declare their income and pay their taxes, your economy will start kicking again, and you may even be reelected.

All the best, Mr. President.


P.S. Don't be alarmed if the French see all this as an opportunity to claim Louisiana back. Just have a word with the Germans and everything will be OK.

Boris Celser is a Canadian. He has an MBA, and is a lifelong traveler and avid reader. He invites comments to this article — please address them to boriscelser@hotmail.com.

This was published in Jewish Indy

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, June 18, 2009.
This is a news item that was posted on the Fresno Zionism website.

US President Barack Obama, while saying for a second time on Monday that there was "positive movement" in Netanyahu's speech, called once again at a press conference in the White House, alongside visiting Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, for a "cessation of settlements."

"And there is a tendency to try to parse exactly what this means," Obama said, "but I think the parties on the ground understand that if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that's going to be an impediment to progress."

Leave aside for now the famously accomplished speaker Barack Obama's sudden inability to distinguish between nouns and verbs, first apparent in his Cairo speech where he said that "It is time for these settlements to stop" — stop doing what? — and yet again when he calls for a "cessation of settlements" and opposes a "continuation" of them.

Let's go from the abstract to the concrete and talk about settlements.

Kfar Etzion is a 'settlement': it is east of the 1949 armistice line which is also called the 'Green Line'. Here is an excerpt from something I wrote about it last December ("No room for Jews"):

One of the places that the Palestinians do not wish to compromise on is Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, south of Jerusalem. Part of the Palestine Mandate from 1917 to 1948, and the Ottoman empire before that, it was purchased from local Arabs and settled by Yemenite Jews in 1927. They lived there on and off (they were driven out several times by Arab riots) until 1948 when the invading Jordanian army overran it and executed all but four of its defenders. All of the West Bank and East Jerusalem were made Jew-free by the Jordanians, who illegally occupied the area until 1967, when the kibbutz was reestablished.

So what I am asking Obama to explain is exactly how is Kibbutz Kfar Etzion illegal?

And consider another 'settlement', the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Jews had lived there from biblical times, but here is how it became free of Jews in 1948:

In 1948 during the Arab-Israeli War, its population of about 2,000 Jews was besieged, and forced to leave en masse. Colonel Abdullah el-Tal, local commander of the Jordanian Arab Legion, with whom Mordechai Weingarten negotiated the surrender terms, described the destruction of the Jewish Quarter, in his Memoirs (Cairo, 1959):

"... The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion... I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty... I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction... Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it... As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud — a cloud of death and agony."

How can it be that it is — in Obama's view — illegal for Jews to live in the ancient Jewish Quarter of the old city of Jerusalem?

In general, how is it that the 19-year Jordanian and Egyptian occupation managed to transform parts of Mandatory Palestine into places like Saudi Arabia, where Jews are forbidden to live?

Explain this, Mr. Obama. And while you're at it, explain the significance — since it is obviously not an accident — of your strange and ungrammatical way of talking about settlements.

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gary L. Bauer, June 18, 2009.

The yearning for freedom continues in Iran, but Barack Hussein Obama remains sphinx-like in his response.

He says he is "troubled" by the events the whole world is watching, but he assures everyone he remains committed to "engaging" Ahmadinejad.

How about engaging the forces of democracy, Mr. President?

How about one sentence from the "Leader of the Free World" urging the Iranian dictatorship to stop shooting, clubbing and arresting dissenters who simply want basic human rights.

Unfortunately for those Iranians being shot, clubbed and jailed, Mr. Obama thinks that taking a stand for freedom would be "meddling."

Has the president noticed that the demonstrators carry signs written in English?

Does he realize the significance of Iranians chanting "Death to the Dictator" in our language not Farsi?

They are trying to get your attention, Mr. President.

They thought "hope and change" included them too.

You may feel the constant need to apologize for America, Mr. President, but oppressed people of color around the world still see the country that embarrasses you as their "last best hope."

The president has a lot on his plate, so I don't want to be unfair. It takes a lot of hours to bankrupt a nation while running several major industries and getting ready to direct health care and control our climate.

He needs to drop something from the "to do" list. Here's my suggestion: You could stop bashing democracies like Israel, which is on our side, and instead bash tyrants that hate America.

ABC — The "All Barack Channel"

In a primetime special on June 24th, ABC News will be broadcasting out of the Obama White House in an effort to promote President Obama's government-run health care plan.

When the Republican National Committee learned of this planned primetime promo, it asked for the opportunity to include a spokesman for its views. (It's worth noting that nearly 70% of doctors serving in Congress are Republicans, such as Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.)

However, ABC News denied the request. Instead, a pre-selected audience will ask the president questions in a town-hall-style format. (I suspect the questions will be pre-selected too!)

The reports of ABC's "infomercial" for Obama's socialized healthcare scheme have sparked a tremendous outcry against this blatant example of media bias. A major media news outlet teaming up with the White House to sell its healthcare plan sounds like something that would take place in Russia or China, not the United States.

Many conservative commentators are now referring to ABC as the "All Barack Channel."

The reaction from ABC was an arrogant statement from Senior Vice President Kerry Smith, who said, "Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control.

To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."


I wonder how many people know that the Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, a former ABC news reporter who worked at the network for nearly ten years.

I'm sure that's just a remarkable coincidence and that Douglass had absolutely nothing to do with arranging this broadcast.

TAKE ACTION: Click here to share your thoughts with ABC News about its biased coverage.

He's Losing Sleep?

President Obama confessed yesterday that he is losing sleep at night.

That's understandable given the tremendous strains of the presidency. Every day the commander-in-chief receives classified briefings about the threats posed by our enemies.

North Korea is firing missiles, and Iran's Holocaust-denying dictator is threatening to wipe one of our allies off the map.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is still plotting to bring more death and destruction to our shores.

I'm sure those classified briefings would give most of us nightmares.

But that's not what is keeping the president up at night.

Instead, the president says he's losing sleep over the state of the nation's finances. Sadly, much of the president's suffering is self-inflicted.

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of a socialized healthcare bill now under consideration in the Senate. According to the CBO, the cost is at least $1.6 trillion. We're being told we must spend this money in order to control healthcare costs.

Before we do that, let's consider the government's track record of controlling the costs in Medicare.

Passed in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" reforms, the program cost $3 billion in 1966.

At that time, congressional leaders estimated that by 1990, Medicare costs would quadruple to $12 billion. In fact, the real cost in 1990 was $107 billion.

Eighteen years later, Medicare costs had quadrupled to $470 billion in 2008.

And just like Medicare, I guarantee that "Obamacare" will grow by exponential factors.

To get an idea of what this president has done when it comes to spending, consider this analysis by the Heritage Foundation.

If anyone should be losing sleep at night over the state of our nation's finances, it should be American taxpayers!

Gary Bauer is the president of American Values. Contact him at gary.bauer@mail.amvalues.org. And visit the website: http://www.ouramericanvalues.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 18, 2009.

This was written by Ben Shapiro, a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is the author of the new book Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House, as well as the national bestseller Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth. Contact him at the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.


President Barack Obama's ego is like an agitated puppy: it requires constant attention and a good deal of petting. Fortunately for Obama, world leaders recognize his insecurities and cater to them.

Unfortunately for America, world leaders have realized that by catering to those insecurities, they can keep the president distracted just long enough to do what they want.

The president is like an unattractive high school girl desperately looking for a date to the prom: Any boor can take her for a few compliments. It's only when she arrives home the next morning, deflowered, that she realizes she's been suckered.

While the world community declaims Obama as a global hero, they ignore his wishes and do precisely what they want; while Obama savors the sickly sweet praise, he ignores their malfeasance. There's only one problem:

He's going to feel used in the morning.

When Obama was elected, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Obama a personal letter of congratulations.

In March, Syrian President Bashar Assad acclaimed Obama as a "man of his word."

On June 10, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt praised Obama as "someone who differs from other presidents of the United States."

Palestinian terror group Hamas trumpeted Obama's election as a "historic victory for the world."

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called Obama "a distinguished man who deserves to be in this position."

President Hu of China described Obama's election as the beginning of a "new historic era."

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia said Obama was "an open, sincere person."

The Europeans unanimously hailed Obama as a global leader and a champion of fairness.

For his part, Obama showers friendliness upon these sycophants.

Obama has repeatedly stated that he wishes to negotiate with Iran, and he has clearly implied that military action against Iran is off the table; he has already blessed Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program and he refuses to OK sanctions against Iran even in the aftermath of the ayatollahs' crackdown on the Iranian population.

Obama has elevated terror sponsor and Lebanon-rapist Syria to high international rank, with envoy George Mitchell declaring that Syria has "an integral role to play in reaching comprehensive peace."

Obama deigned to rest his holy presence on stage in Cairo, Egypt, granting that despotic regime a legitimacy it does not deserve.

Anti-Semite extraordinaire Jimmy Carter has met repeatedly with Hamas — and with Obama, presumably carrying Hamas' handwritten instructions. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have already feted China for its role in propping up the U.S. economy.

Obama famously "reset" relations with Russia. And Obama kowtowed to the Europeans, stating that Americans failed to respect their "leading role in the world."

For his troubles, Obama has gotten a stocking chockfull of coal.

Iran's military-directed nuclear program continues apace; the Iranians recently selected/elected President Ahmadinejad again, despite Obama's direct appeals to the Iranian people. Syria continues to support Hezbollah. Egypt announced this week that it would never accept the existence of the State of Israel.

Hamas announced that they would not accept any of Israel's positions.

China is supporting the North Korean regime despite North Korea's threats of nuclear war. Russia is undermining Eastern European security. And the Europeans have refused to help our efforts in Afghanistan.

We have a president who is "loved" and a country that is held to international scorn.

Does anyone miss a time when America was respected and our president disliked?

Machiavelli asked whether it was more important for a prince to be loved or respected.

"(M)en loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince," wrote Machiavelli, "a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor only to avoid hatred, as is noted."

When a prince — or a world leader — endeavors to be loved rather than feared, he falls into the trap of attempting to please everyone. That is Obama to a T. He is more interested in applause than freedom or American security.

Just because the world community mouths support for Obama doesn't mean they'll stand behind America.

Or perhaps they will stand behind America — in order to plunge a knife deep between our shoulder blades.

Either way, Obama doesn't truly care, as long as the world keeps telling him how wonderful he is.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, June 18, 2009.

This is a Followup of the Blog-Ed "Apartheid, Racism and "Selection" of Jews at the University of Haifa." See below. The essay below is called "Sheikh Salah: Netanyahu wants to rebuild Temple" and was written by Ahiya Raved for NYET.


Leader of Islamic Movement's northern branch warns Muslim students at Haifa University that prime minister intends on completing plans from his first tenure. 'If they suggest we give up our holy sites, we would rather die and will welcome death,' he says

Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement's northern branch, spoke Wednesday afternoon in front of Muslim students at Haifa University and warned them that Benjamin Netanyahu was intending on completing his plan to gain control of the Temple Mount, which he said the prime minister had tried to do during his first tenure.

Some 150 Jewish students staged a protest in the area, equipped with Israel flags and drums. "This is not Tehran," they chanted towards Salah.

The Islamic leader, who was invited to speak by the IQRAA students' organization affiliated with his movement, briefed the students on the history of his movement and on the criminal proceedings taken against him and his people several years ago.

He noted that he had rejected the Shin Bet's offers to agree to concessions in Jerusalem. "We love life, our families, our homes and our children, but if they suggest that we give up our principles and holy sites, we would rather die and we will welcome death."

Salah claimed that the government continued constantly to dig tunnels under the Temple Mount and the al-Aqsa Mosque, and that Netanyahu was planning to complete during his current term what he did not complete during his first one — "to dig additional tunnels under al-Aqsa and rebuild the Temple on the Temple Mount."

Sheikh (wearing white cap) with Muslim students (Photo: Shai Vaknin)

The Muslim students responded by chanting, "Allahu Akbar" (God is great). At the same time, Jewish students clashed with the university's security officers. Police forces were also dispatched to the area but were no required to intervene.

Jewish students banned

The Jewish students were protesting against the event and the fact that the university only allowed Arab students to take part in it. A Haifa University official said that Salah had not been invited by the institution and that there was no legal way to prevent him from coming.

"The university has reservations about Sheikh Raed Salah's remarks, as made in the past, within the walls of other universities as well, but it cannot prevent him from speaking to students. The university hopes that the sheikh will not take advantage of this for incitement but will rather call for peace and coexistence."

University officials noted that they had reservations over the event and that they had managed to prevent Salah from visiting the place for several years, including on the recent Land Day, but that legal advice given to the university recently stated that it could no longer reject students' requests to have the Islamic leader lecture to them.

Addressing the Jewish students' claims, the university officials said that they were banned entry to the event so as not to disrupt public order. "In previous charged events as well, in which (Foreign Minister Avigdor) Lieberman and (former Defense Minister Shaul) Mofaz gave lectures, we banned the entry of Arab students," one of the officials said.

The Students' Union said in a statement that it condemned "any racist act which includes hatred and a desire to incite. We hope for coexistence, and such a speech and such a person creates provocations and disrupts the order within the university's walls. We will not sit idly by as such a serious incident takes place in our home."

The Union said its members had only found out about the events on Wednesday because the invitations were written in Arabic. They estimated that had they known about the event earlier, the number of protestors would have been much higher.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 17, 2009.

From where I am sitting, there is currently a surfeit of articles and analyses about Netanyahu's talk. And while, undoubtedly I'll return to the subject — if not today, then soon — I think it important to widen our lenses a bit and take a look at some other matters.

Before I do, however, I provide here a link to the full speech Netanyahu gave, in English translation. (Scroll down for the speech.) I apologize for having neglected to provide this earlier. This is the full speech; I had found some translations were truncated.


I repeat here, verbatim, substantial parts of a letter to the editor that appeared in the Post on Friday, written by Jan Sokolovsky, an American-Israeli and a lawyer, in consultation with a exceedingly knowledgeable international lawyer. It addresses the question of whether Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon regarding settlement blocs is binding, and was written in response to an article that said it was not because it was not ratified by the Senate.

It is true that the US Constitution requires approval of two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty. But, in addition to treaties, for over 200 years American presidents have conducted foreign policy by executive agreements, which are generally an exchange of commitments between the president or his agent and the head of state of another country, or his agent.

The Litinov Agreement signed in 1933 by FDR and the Russian commissar for foreign affairs is an example, providing for US recognition of the Soviet Union in exchange for the assignment to the US of all calms by Russia against US citizens. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1942, holding that tit had the same binding effect as a treaty.

Executive agreements have become an essential tool of US foreign policy. In fact, since the 1960s, each year has seen, on average, 250 executive agreements, compared to 30 treaties. Ariel Sharon's undertaking to withdraw from the Gaza Strip in exchange for the commitments in the Bush letter constituted an executive agreement.

We have every right to continue to rely on those assurances, and should be shocked that the Obama administration appears to have avowed them. While the president can renege on US commitments...his doing so would call into question this administration's repeated statements that it intends to abide by international law.


This very issue was in the news just today, as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is in Washington and has met with his counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

She reiterated the demand of Obama that settlements be frozen. But Lieberman told her it wasn't going to happen:

"People are born and people die in Judea and Samaria, and the settlements cannot be completely frozen.

"Our stance is clear. We have understandings with the previous administration on the matter."

Right on! Hillary's response, diplomatically put, was that we haven't heard the last from them on this yet.


Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA, yesterday cited a statement by Obama at a press conference, with regard to settlements:

"[Obama:] 'And there is a tendency to try to parse exactly what this means, but I think the parties on the ground understand that if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that's going to be an impediment to progress.'

"OK. So he is president of the United State of America. And you are drawing a salary and don't want to tick off the boss by correcting him.

"But why isn't there someone on his team — or someone from the outside who has access to him — who can explain to him that there are no 'past agreements' that categorize the settlement activity as 'illegal.'

"That's 'agreements.' The Roadmap wasn't an agreement. Nor was the Annapolis 'Joint Understanding on Negotiations.' The only 'agreements' [i.e., signed documents] are the series of Oslo 'agreements' and none of them categorize any Israeli settlement activity as 'illegal.'

"In point of fact, the only construction activity that is illegal in the Oslo agreements is Palestinian construction that is in violation of various mostly security related restrictions."


I will note here that Condoleezza Rice, as Secretary of State, knew the settlements weren't illegal. That's why she would, most irritatingly, refer to settlements as "not helpful," or "not in the spirit." As if we had to go above and beyond. But this is worse.


And there's yet more to say about Obama. (Isn't there always?)

I was going to address his insistence that he still intends to "dialogue" with Iran, the serious questions of recent electoral improprieties not withstanding. But the situation, with regard to the US position, has morphed from merely seriously stupid to shameful. This is with regard to the refusal of his administration to lend even a modicum of support to those currently protesting in the streets of Iran in the face of considerable repression and official violence.

After a long period of silence, Obama has now said, "I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be."


As Jeff Jacoby has just written:

"Obama made it clear that he was not going to lift a finger for the courageous throngs in the streets — and that he was keen to engage the junta, no matter how vicious or contemptible its behavior. 'We will continue,' he said, 'to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries.' Yesterday he repeated that while he does not like to see 'violence directed at peaceful protesters,' it would not be 'productive' for the president of the United States 'to be seen as meddling' in Iranian affairs.

"But neutrality is not an option. By not unequivocally supporting the Iranian protesters, Obama is aiding their oppressors. Reporting from Tehran the other night, CNN's Samson Desta noted that Iranian students have repeatedly approached him to say that 'they want to appeal to President Obama. They say, "Is he going to accept this result? Because if he does, then we are doomed."'

"Should it really be so difficult for a president who campaigned for office on the themes of hope and change to raise his voice on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of brave Iranians who are risking their lives to bring hope and change to their country? Where is the president who proclaimed on his first day in office that those 'who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent . . . are on the wrong side of history?' If he could say it at his inauguration, why can't he say it now?

"'Engagement' with the foul Ahmadinejad and the turbaned dictators he answers to has always been a chimera; if that wasn't clear before last week's brazenly rigged election results, surely it is clear now..."



Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, delivered a similar message:

"On Saturday, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House 'was impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians.' [Vigorous debate and enthusiasm????] On Sunday, Joe Biden allowed that there 'was some real doubt' about the election, but said the U.S. would continue its outreach to Iran anyway...

"This is a strange turn of events. In Cairo two weeks ago, Mr. Obama trumpeted 'my commitment . . . to governments that reflect the will of the people.'

"Here's a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. 'WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT,' this demonstrator wrote. 'Time is not on our side. . . . The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one.'

"...As for the hope — expressed over the weekend by one unnamed senior U.S. administration official to the New York Times — that Mr. Ahmadinejad would moderate his course in foreign policy to allay concerns about his legitimacy, the president [Ahmadinejad] made his views plain on Sunday. 'It's not true,' he said. 'I'm going to be more and more solid.'

"...Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events as his [Obama's] approach to Iran in his first months in office." (emphasis added)


What does it take, to get avid supporters of Obama to hang their heads in shame, for what they have wrought?

Coming full circle, this dishonorable and pig-headed policy of Obama's teaches us what we might and might not expect from him vis-a-vis Israel.


Yesterday, the Post reported that Palestinians associated with Hamas are in Teheran and helping Iranian authorities to crush the street rebellion. They know who butters their bread.

But this doesn't disturb Jimmy Carter. After meeting with Hamas officials, he announced that he plans to ask President Obama to remove Hamas from the US-designated list of terror organizations.

Carter, the man who was in the White House, and blew it badly, when the current Iranian regime violently grabbed control of the country. No remorse, it seems. No good advice for the current White House resident on making genuine national amends.

What moral obtuseness! What lost opportunity.


I'd like to recommend this article, Willful Deafness About the Meaning of Two States." You might find it useful to share with others, to help them understand the parameters of what we are dealing with.

Writes author Peggy Shapiro:

"The Palestinians, Saudis and Egyptians propose two states. The U.N., E.U., U.S. demand two states. Most Israeli governments have agreed to the concept of two states. Other than Israel, none of the proponents of a "two-state" solution ever planned for one of the states to be the Jewish State of Israel."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/ willful_deafness_about_the_rea.html


"The Good News Corner"

— The Israel Antiquities Authority has announced it will be re-excavating a well-preserved 1,700 year old mosaic floor, approximately 180 square meters in size, which colorfully depicts detailed mammals, birds, fish, and ships of the time. It was discovered in 1996, in the course of widening of a street in Lod (south of Tel Aviv) and was then covered over for protection until the funding could be found to complete the excavation and turn the site into a public attraction.

— Israel is joining with Germany and Ethiopia in launching an agricultural development project in Ethiopia to promote irrigation development activities throughout the country. Israel will be providing the technical know-how.

— There are currently 110 bio-med companies in Jerusalem, with Teva Pharmaceuticals the largest. Now Mayor Nir Barkat has announced plans to raise 100 million NIS to be invested into the industry in Jerusalem in the next five years.

Right now, approximately 43% of all bio-tech research and about half of all clinical research in Israel is done at Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical Center, both in Jerusalem. Additionally, Jerusalem hosts the only technological incubator in Israel dedicated to drug development, BioLine Innovations Jerusalem.


A few housekeeping matters:

[] It is not unusual for one of my postings to a reader to bounce back — because it has been rejected by a server (which perhaps identifies my material as "spam) — or because a mailbox is full. I am certainly not in a position to notify each of you when this happens. If my mail stops arriving for a substantial period of time (and I haven't indicated that there will be a hiatus), you might check space in your mailbox, then your own spam settings and finally your server.

[] Please be aware that it is not always possible for me to answer your comments personally. There are simply too many.

[] Remember, you can always unsubscribe by writing to me at the address above.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, June 17, 2009.

Do it, President Obama, please. Take the side of democracy.

Declare yourself and your nation on the side of hope and change where it is more than a slogan and better than a rationalization for ever-bigger government. Stop measuring the success of your diplomacy with Iran by the degree to which the grinning, hate-filled stooge of a clerical junta will "temper" his rhetoric about the pressing need to destroy Israel and slow his ineluctable pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Instead, choose a higher standard. Look to history. Look to the aspirations of the students risking their lives and livelihoods to protest a sham election. Stop fawning over the mythological Muslim street only when it hates America, and look to the real Iranian street at the moment of its greatest need, when its heart may be open to loving America.

You often invoke President Kennedy's pledge to put a man on the moon to justify your domestic agenda. You and your supporters invite comparisons to Camelot. Well, what of John F. Kennedy's most solemn vow? "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

No, we should not bomb Iran, or invade it. Those prices are too steep; those burdens are too heavy. But maybe you could lift a finger for democracy?

During the campaign you mocked those who belittled your rhetoric as "just words." Well, what you've offered so far is less than just words. You've put a fresh coat of whitewash on Iran's sham "democracy." On Monday, you proclaimed yourself "troubled" by the events in Iran, before hinting that you'd negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no matter what an official investigation into his "landslide" victory found. (Would you trust Mafia internal audits, too?)

Before the sham election you cheered Iran's "robust debate." But that debate has been robust only if you are grading on a curve. Ahmadinejad's main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was an accidental reform candidate. The mullahs had disqualified about 400 others, leaving in the race only four presumed hacks deemed pliant enough not to rock the boat. Mousavi's popular support and the robustness of the debate he ignited were an unintended consequence of a rigged election and a clerical politburo indifferent to its people's desires, not the intention of a democratic regime.

Reportedly, you are biding your time, waiting to see what happens, as if it is a great mystery. Your campaign lived and breathed YouTube. Check it now, check it often. You and your team promised "soft power" and "smart power." How about moral power? Because by not clearly picking a side, it appears you have chosen the wrong side.

Do you fear antagonizing the powers-that-be in Iran? That ship has sailed. Though I am sure they're tickled by your eagerness not to roil the seas around them. Is it because you think "leader of the free world" is just another of those Cold War relics best mothballed in favor of a more cosmopolitan and universal awe at your own story?

"Enough about those people bleeding in the street. What do you think of me?" Is that how it is to be?

During the Bush years, what was best about liberalism had bled away. One of the worst things about the Republican Party has always been its Kissingerian realpolitik, the "it's just business" approach to world affairs that amounted to a willful blindness to our ideals beyond our own borders. The Democratic Party may not have always gotten the policies right, but it had a firm grasp of the principle.

In the 1990s, liberals championed "nation building," and many conservatives chuckled at the naivete of it. Then came Iraq, and Republicans out of necessity embraced what liberals once believed out of conviction. The result? Liberals ran from their principles, found their inner Kissingers and championed a cold realism whose chill emanated from the corpse of their ideals.

Labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO, once battled tyranny abroad on the grounds that workers everywhere need democracy. Today, the president turns a blind eye to the independent labor movement in Iran, and the unions and Democrats spend their time trying to figure out how to eliminate the secret ballot in the American workplace.

So far, "hope and change" has meant spending trillions we do not have on expanded government we do not need. Meanwhile, the huddled masses of Iranians yearning to breathe free think hope and change means something more. But the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished.

Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong. Stop voting "present" on democracy.

Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, June 17, 2009.


This comes from Dr. Aaron Lerner 15 June 2009 IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) (Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava) Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730 INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il Website: http://www.imra.org.il

IMRA has learned that during the course of a telephone conference briefing today for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his top political advisor, Ron Dermer, Dermer told the group that Israel would insist it be guaranteed the right to invade the Palestinian state in the even that the state is not demilitarized. Dermer did not explain either which body Israel would insist grant Israel this right (UN?) nor the mechanism for establishing that the Palestinian state is not demilitarized. It should be noted that the United States has a long tradition of declining to recognize or certify Arab agreement violations when recognizing the violation would not serve American interests. During the early years of Oslo, for example, when Congress made PA funding contingent on the issuing of a periodic report that the Palestinians were in compliance, the White House simply lied — in writing — solemnly notifying Congress that the Palestinians were in full compliance.

As Henry Kissinger said to President Richard Nixon back in 1970:

"Israel, with her survival at stake, cannot afford to take chances.... The nature of the Israeli's situation is bound to influence their interpretation of ambiguous events. We, on the other hand, have an incentive to minimize such evidence, since the consequences of finding violations are so unpleasant. Violations force us to choose between doing something about them and thus risk the blowup of our initiative; or doing nothing and thus renege on our promises to Israel, posing the threat of her taking military action.

Accordingly, we tend to lean over backwards to avoid the conclusion that the Arabs are violating the cease-fire unless the evidence is unambiguous." [Henry Kissinger "White House Years", page 587]


This is by Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. A former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal award-winning reporter, he is the New York Times bestselling author of 18 books. His next book, "In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect," will be published Aug. 4 by Crown Publishing and reveals for the first time the secrets of how agents protect the president and what they see behind the scenes, from John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson through George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_hoenlein_israel/ 2009/06/14/225064.html

President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview.

Though Hoenlein says he is only offering his personal views, the conference he represents is a political powerhouse that includes 50 major Jewish groups. Among them are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), B'nai B'rith International, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, Hadassah, and the Anti-Defamation League. Hoenlein has been the professional head of the conference since 1986, overseeing its day-to-day activities as the coordinating body for American Jews on issues of concern in the U.S. and globally.

Jewish leaders "are expressing concern about what was said [in Obama's Cairo speech]," Hoenlein says. "I've heard it from some of his strongest supporters. It's expected from his detractors. Even people close to him have said to us that there were parts of the speech that bothered them."

Obama's speech to a Muslim audience in Cairo in early June was his second effort early in his administration to re-define America's posture toward the Arab world. In April, Obama traveled to Ankara, Turkey, to offer a similar outreach to the Muslim world.

But many in the Jewish community, including some of Obama's most ardent supporters, are troubled by his comments in the Middle East, especially his remarks to his Cairo audience. Others are concerned that, facing a multitude of problems on the domestic front, Obama has traveled twice to the Middle East without visiting Israel, America's stalwart ally in the region for more than a half-century.

"There's a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for," Hoenlein says of Obama's outreach.

Reaction to Obama's speech has drawn a range of reaction from many Jewish leaders. On the right, some have condemned it as a revision of the long and close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But many on the left who backed Obama were also surprised and dismayed over Obama's speech. Such reactions from major Jewish leaders have largely remained beneath the surface, exchanged privately among them.

Hoenlein's comments to Newsmax are his first detailed appraisal of Obama's speech and represent the first time a major Jewish leader has spoken openly about the erosion of Jewish support for Obama.

According to the exit poll conducted by major press organizations during the 2008 election, Obama captured overwhelming support from American Jews, winning 78 percent of their vote. Despite the fact that Republicans are stronger on national security and the war on terror, Obama also won support from Jewish leaders who have been champions of Israel's security, such as the former Democratic mayor of New York, Edward I. Koch. Koch crossed party lines in 2004 to back George W. Bush.

Reacting to Obama's Cairo speech, Hoenlein tells Newsmax, "I have no problem with addressing the Muslim world. I'm in fact in favor of outreach, and we here at the conference have done it for about 12 or 15 years, visiting Muslim countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. But the question is, what is the message they get? It's not so much what he says, but how do they perceive what he says?"

On the one hand, Hoenlein says, "His reference to Israel and the special relationship being unbreakable is important, and references to persecution and Holocaust denial were important, and some of his references to some human rights issues also were important."

But Hoenlein notes the speech included a number of troubling references and comparisons. He cites the fact that Obama claimed America has seven million Muslims. That is a figure "Arab propagandists have put out," he says. "In fact, they say only six million, when in fact there's no study that shows even half of that."

In 2007, the Pew Research Center estimated the Muslim American population at 2.35 million.

Hoenlein is disturbed that Obama did not mention the Jewish people's ancient connection with the land of Israel.

"There was no reference to the 3,000 years of Jewish connection to this land," Hoenlein says. "And that is again one of the propaganda lines that the Arabs have used: that the Jews are interlopers, that the two temples never existed, that there was never any Jewish history in the land of Israel. Even Yasser Arafat and others have used that argument because they're trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state. I don't believe that was the president's intent, but not making those references I think is troubling."

Jews have claimed a connection to the land of their forefathers since 1400 B.C. Even after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and the dispersal of many Jews throughout the Roman Empire, many Jews continued to reside in Jerusalem through the centuries, surviving various invasions. An Ottoman census of Jersualem conducted in 1845 showed Jews outnumbered Muslim Arabs by almost to 2 to 1 and were the dominant ethnic group in the region.

Hoenlein believes that the most troubling aspect of Obama's comments in his Cairo speech was his effort to equate the Nazi killing of more than six million Jews during the Holocaust with Israel's struggle with the Palestinians over six decades and the suffering caused by the displacement of the Palestinians.

"There's no comparison between the Holocaust, even if it was an indirect one, and what happened to Palestinians," Hoenlein declares.

In his speech, President Obama addressed the issue of the Holocaust head-on, saying "Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today." But he quickly changed the subject, comparing Hitler's genocide of the Jews to the Palestinian struggle.

"On the other hand," Obama said, as he transitioned from the Holocaust to the modern Middle East, "it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

Hoenlein doesn't buy Obama's line of reasoning.

"The Palestinian refugee problem, or dislocation as he said, didn't come about because of the creation of the Jewish state," Hoenlein says. "It came about because the Arab states declared war on Israel and warned the Arabs that they would suffer the same fate as the Jews if they didn't get out. And then they kept them as political pawns."

Obama made no reference to the fact that "the reason the Palestinians don't have a state is because their leaders rejected every offer for peace," Hoenlein says. "Whether it was in 1937 or 1947 or 1967, or later on, up until Ehud Olmert's offer and Ehud Barak's offer, they rejected everything, even when they were getting virtually everything they had asked for."

That is because, "The problem really is not what Israel does, it's that Israel is," Hoenlein says. "And they're not ready to accept the existence of the Jewish state."

In discussing the Palestinian refugee problem, Obama failed to mention the other refugee problem involving nearly a million Jews, Hoenlein says. At the time of the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, Jews populated all of the major Arab cities from Baghdad in the East to Casablanca in the West.

Hoenlein notes that after modern Israel saw its rebirth, Jews "were driven out of Arab countries penniless, and some of their families had lived there for a thousand years, and yet there was no reference to them." He adds, "This is not a question of tit for tat. It's a question of the realities that are communicated to a vast audience in the Arab Muslim world."

As troubling as Obama's references to Israel and the Palestinians were, Hoenlein found the president's failure to mention the radical regime now running Tehran equally disturbing.

"What concerned us, concerned many people, was the message to Iran that we didn't hear," Hoenlein says.

Iran, controlled by powerful Shia Mullahs, is set to acquire a nuclear device. Many Sunni Muslim states, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and Morocco, are concerned about this prospect.

Hoenlein says these Arab states also wanted to hear "an absolute assurance about the U.S. commitment not to allow Iran to be nuclear, not to allow it to continue to support terrorism, not to allow it to continue being the major state sponsor of terror around the world."

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who declared himself the winner in the election in Iran this past weekend, has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. In 2005, he declared that he is a devout follower of Iran's late ruler Ayatollah Khomeini. He has vowed to fulfill the Ayatollah's dream that the "occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map."

Asked if he sees Obama's perceived tilt toward the Palestinians as reflecting some of the views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Obama's former pastor who accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and "terrorism," Hoenlein says American Jews are concerned about Obama's policies today.

"That issue has been discussed and debated, and I don't know that it's a relevant concern for right now," he says. "I do feel strongly about what the [current] policy will be."

Hoenlein says flatly, "People [Jews] are genuinely very concerned...about President Obama."


This is by Leon De Winter.

US President Barack Obama's Cairo speech was a historic event in many aspects. First of all it was remarkable that a Western leader felt legitimized to talk about Islamic truths, as if he were a Muslim theologian. Secondly, he approached the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even-handedly, as if the Jewish right to Israel and the Arab resistance to it have the same moral weight.

"For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security."

Within this historic speech, Obama couldn't find words to describe the attack by various Arab armies on Israel the day it was created.

He couldn't describe the terrorist attacks that followed the 1949 armistice. He omitted the growing anti-Semitism in the Arab media, the Arab schoolbooks, Arab radio and TV, in the preaching in the mosques. Twice Obama mentioned the anti-Semitic and anti-Christian Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas: "Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities.

To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."

Obama didn't mention the core message of Hamas: the worldwide destruction of the Jews. Ayatollah Khomeini, the instigator of the present Islamist revolution, defined world history, the course of human events, as follows: "From the beginning, the Islamic movement has been obstructed by the Jews. They were the first who developed anti-Islamic propaganda and conspiracies. And this is still the case."

In other words, opposing Israel, the nation of the Jews, is the driving force of the Islamist revolution, both Sunni and Shi'ite. It is its core. It cannot exist if it would give up its ambition to erase Israel. The destruction of Israel is its ultimate goal, its fuel, its body, its nature, its direction and its destination. Only through the destruction of the cunning, conspiring, obstructing Jews the Islamist revolution can reach its goal: the resurrection of the caliphate.

OBAMA EXPLICITLY decided to ignore this threat, and decided to leave Israel in the cold, or better in the heat of a nuclear explosion.

This is what he said: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons." The president meant: Israel, a single nation, doesn't have the right to deny Iran nuclear armament. Iran, an existential threat to Israel, cannot be stopped by Israel on its own — this should be matter of the international community, according to the president.

Through his Cairo address Obama made an end to America's alliance with Israel that has lasted over 40 years. Israel's strategic early allies were Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and especially France, which delivered its famous delta-winged Mirage jets that gave Israel its 1967 victory in the Six Day War. In that year, America, although with a public that was sympathetic to Israel, replaced the tanks Jordan lost. The French refused to deliver new Mirage jets and America hesitated for some time to sell F-4 Phantoms to Israel.

AMERICA WILL now act as even-handedly to Israel as the European Union. This approach hasn't created any progress in the years since the 1993 Oslo Accords. Corrupt Palestinian leaders have transferred billions to their Swiss bank accounts and the international community wishes to look the other way. Gaza could have been a better place by now if Hamas had tried to peacefully build civil institutions. Hamas did not. Without any necessity it fired thousands of rockets at Israel. The problem is — it is Hamas's core business to oppose the Jews.

The EU wishes to ignore all these events and clings to the idea of a "viable Palestinian state," which is an oxymoron. The Palestinians have tribal communities and only fake having a modern civil society.

No civil institutions have been built because they are not in the interest of the leading Palestinian families.

The famous Jewish lobby has not been able to prevent Obama's change of direction. The truth is the lobby has always been a myth, and American Jewry, which is in majority an affluent, liberal, assimilated and only vaguely religious group, has been distancing itself more and more from Israel, which it considers right-wing, militaristic, chauvinistic, belligerent.

For liberal American Jews, Israel is a confusing phenomenon. They feel connected to Israel through the remembrance and legacy of the Holocaust, but they are highly politically correct and feel solidly at home on the campuses where generations of students have been brainwashed by the works written by the holy spirit of Arab studies, Edward Said. American Jewry was aware of the president's spiritual mentor in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright, a black racist and anti-Semite, and of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian intellectual and anti-Zionist with whom he had a strong personal relation. The Jews preferred to side with him instead of worrying about his opinions about Israel.

And now, after the Cairo address, they will keep standing by him and distance themselves from an Israel that produces awful pictures of bombed buildings and mutilated bodies of women and children — American Jews, at cocktail parties in the Village or the Upper West Side, prefer Israel to act proportionately and to behave as decent, civilized, upper-class Jews, not as Middle Eastern warriors. Since the 1982 massacres in Sabra and Shatila, committed by Lebanese Maronites but attributed to Israel and Ariel Sharon, liberal American Jewry went on a long journey and arrived at a historic point: just like Obama, it gave up on Israel.

A SMALL NATION like Israel, a single and lonely modern democracy in a part of the world in which autocracies and tyrannies are the norm, cannot survive without a strategic partnership with a major international power that is forced, by the sheer size of its interests, to play the complex fields of the Middle East. It is too soon to create a lasting bond with India, a natural ally for Israel.

India will emerge during this century as a major international power, both militarily as economically and scientifically, but it cannot give Israel yet the diplomatic and military backup it needs.

But there is another strategic player in the field who would welcome a partnership with Israel, especially with its cutting-edge electronic industries. Of Israel's 5.7 million Jews, more than 1 million have Russian roots. Despite the old anti-Semitism in Russia, there has been a strong melancholic bond between the two populations.

In Russia, Jews have excelled in sciences and the arts.

Because of its continuous counterbalancing act with America, Russia has been maintaining ties to Iran and Syria, but it needs to diversify and update its economy and reduce its dependence on oil and natural gas income. It could use scientific and commercial ingenuity, qualities Iran and Syria are not able to deliver — Israel is. And Israel could use Russia's vast resources and the determination of its leader Vladimir Putin, a smart and ruthless leader who understands the cruel rules of the international power game.

Obama's loyalties, and those of the majority of liberal American Jewry, don't lie with Israel. So Israel needs to shop for another ally. In his offices in the Kremlin, Putin will receive its leaders with open arms, dark bread, marinated herring and some bottles of Stoli.

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily email called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@israellives.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, June 17, 2009.

This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org


During the past 2,500 years there have been more 1,000 wars in the western world alone. That's an average one war every 2.5 years! Hence the norm of international relations is not peace but war. This means that "peace" is little more than a preparation for war, and that peace treaties are worthless.

This is the conclusion of Lawrence Beilenson's book The Treaty Trap. After studying every peace treaty going back to early Roman times, Beilenson concludes that treaties can only benefit nations governed by rulers intending to violate them whenever expedient. Serious research on war and peace yields two basic lessons:

First lesson: There is no such thing as a "peace process" except for fools and scoundrels. Israel's 1979 peace treaty with Egypt is nothing more than a cease-fire, and hardly that, since Egypt facilitates the smuggling of arms to terrorists in Gaza. Even Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has admitted that Israel's treaty with Egypt — which he initially supported — has been a failure.

Second lesson: If you want peace, prepare for war; if you want war, make concessions for peace. Hence, a Palestinian state is a recipe for war and to Israel's greatest strategic disadvantage. And no agreement regarding demilitarization of a Palestinian state — and no U.S. guarantee that such a state would remain demilitarized — would be worth the paper it was written on.

As Anwar Sadat said: "Poor Menachem [Begin], he has his problems ... After all, I got back ... the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper."

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 17, 2009.

This was written by Melanie Phillips


Yesterday, there were suggestions that Hezbollah forces were being brought into Iran to help put down the revolt against the regime. Today, as reports seep out of the brutality being meted out to the protesters — the anonymous post here at 6.03 pm is particularly affecting — which suggest that the casualty toll is far higher than has so far been claimed, the Jerusalem Post reports that Palestinian Hamas thugs have been imported into Iran to crush the uprising:

On Tuesday two protesters told The Jerusalem Post that Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of Mousavi... 'The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of,' the young man went on, 'is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots.'

Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran. On Monday, he said, 'my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too.'

It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad 'tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel.' His hope, he added, was that Israel would 'come to its senses' and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians. When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. 'Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets... The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want... [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country.'

It would indeed be ironic if, while Obama is putting the thumbscrews on Israel to facilitate a Palestinian state as a precondition for America getting tough with Iran, the Palestinians are being used to keep the Iranian regime in power.

Hamas is, of course, an arm of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. The Iranians are Shi'ites, the supposed deadly foes of the Sunni. Hamas is, however, known to receive funding, arms and terrorist training from Iran, an alliance which has been dismissed as implausible by those who appear never to have heard of the Molotov /Ribbentrop pact. But then, the refusal to grasp that the real agenda behind the violence in the Middle East is the brutal imposition of Islamic theocracy, first upon the region and then upon the world, is the tragic delusion of the west — which extends now all the way into the Oval Office.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, June 17, 2009.

The President's stance vis à vis Israel has little to do with America's national interests or with an accurate reading of political and historical dynamics. It smacks much more of a private agenda on the part of a man who sat for twenty years worth of Sundays in a pew in Pastor Wright's church, absorbing his anti-Jewish sermons and jeremiads; who counts among his personal acquaintances the director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute and former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi, as well as many other Islamic and pro-Islamic supporters such as his campaign coordinators Mazen Asbahi and Minha Husaini and consultant Shakir Muhammad; and who has surrounded himself with demonstrably anti-Israeli advisors and colleagues, too numerous to name here.

This below was written by David Solway, the award-winning author of over twenty-five books of poetry, criticism, educational theory, and travel. He is a contributor to magazines as varied as the Atlantic, the Sewanee Review, Books in Canada, and the Partisan Review. His most recent book is The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity. The article appeared in Front Page Magazine


Be Afraid, Be Very, Very Afraid
There never was a Cat of such deceitfulness and suavity.
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare.

T.S. Eliot, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats

We know how cats, when they inadvertently stumble, tumble or meet with some unexpected embarrassment that disrupts their feline grace, tend to save face by stopping and proceeding to groom themselves, appearing to be sublimely indifferent to whatever obstacle has impeded their progress. Poise is everything. Human beings are no different and the gestures we make to dissemble our discomfiture or mortification are generally quite innocuous and often amusing in themselves. The raised hand to summon an oblivious waiter completes its trajectory by smoothing down one's hair.

It is only when these deflecting maneuvers are raised to another dimension of intent and practiced by those in a position of great power, especially when embroiled in grave or fateful situations, that they cease to be harmless and diverting. President Obama's recent foreign policy decisions are a case in point, in particular with regard to Israel.

What is it that might plausibly explain Obama's obsessive focus on the Israeli/

Palestinian nexus to the exclusion of far more serious and potentially catastrophic world events? Does he have some farsighted plan many of us cannot see that will culminate in unanticipated harmonies? Or is he, like Dubya, too easily swayed by the poor advice of his cronies and confidants? Does he suffer from a debilitating absence of political courage? Or is he, perhaps, not quite as intelligent as adoring multitudes give him credit for, arriving at thoroughly misguided conclusions and policies from mere lack of analytical capacity — as, for example, his stated conviction that Palestine and Iran are mutually implicated, in other words, if the Palestinians get what they want at Israel's expense, then Iran will obligingly shut down its nuclear facilities? Is he, Heaven forfend, an Islamic mole disguised as a Christian? Perhaps swagger and self-regard provide an explanation, as the President may be bent upon proving that he, and he alone, can solve a problem whose solution has stubbornly defeated his precursors' best efforts? The phenomenon is initially rather baffling.


There is a actual genocide taking place in Darfur, but the President is apparently more concerned by the presumed atrocity of "natural growth" in Israeli settlements that were acknowledged and vetted by the previous American administration and whose legitimacy can be historically validated. This is apparently a much bigger deal than the 500,000 dead (according to National Geographic News for September 14, 2006!) and millions displaced in the Sudanese ethnic cleansing campaign.

North Korea with its now, almost routine, nuclear tests, its proliferation of nuclear and ballistic technology to the world's rogue regimes and its defiance of the "international community" surely merits a more studied and effective response than expressions of disappointment by the President, a verbal spanking administered by a pitiable Hilary Clinton, and the threat of revocable sanctions. It clearly requires appreciably more attention than does a scattering of huts and outposts in Judea and Samaria that are, in any case, being dismantled by the Israeli government.

But there is one issue that eclipses them all. Iran is racing to the nuclear finish line, determined to become what Middle East Terrorism expert Walid Phares has called a "Jihadist USSR." It is developing solid fuel missiles capable not only of reaching American military bases in the region but of targetting major European cities. It is perfecting an EMP platform that constitutes a devastating menace to the United States. Disregarding the United Nations Charter, it has promised to annihilate a sovereign nation, with which it is not officially at war, by atomic holocaust. The potential for a planetary cataclysm is enormous and dwarfs by several orders of magnitude any other geopolitical concern in the world today. Yet Obama is intent on preventing Israel from constructing apartment units in East Jerusaelm while doing nothing to prevent Iran from constructing centrifuges in Natanz.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Mubarak of Egypt, nominal allies of the United States, must be asking themselves why their distinguished counterpart gets so excited over these Israeli apartment annexes when Iran is about to launch a veritable game-changer, one that will alter the entire political complexion of the Middle East, putting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and the Gulf Emirates at risk — and, indeed, the world along with them.

The President's stance vis à vis Israel has little to do with America's national interests or with an accurate reading of political and historical dynamics. It smacks much more of a private agenda on the part of a man who sat for twenty years worth of Sundays in a pew in Pastor Wright's church, absorbing his anti-Jewish sermons and jeremiads; who counts among his personal acquaintances the director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute and former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi, as well as many other Islamic and pro-Islamic supporters such as his campaign coordinators Mazen Asbahi and Minha Husaini and consultant Shakir Muhammad; and who has surrounded himself with demonstrably anti-Israeli advisors and colleagues, too numerous to name here.

The President also knows that dumping on Israel is a popular move in the current international climate and will not be faulted by his legionary supporters at home, in Europe and in the radical sectors of the Arab realm. As noted columnist and author Barry Rubin writes in the GLORIA center bulletin (June 3, 2009), "Israel is a soft target against which to play hardball." But in focusing so relentlessly on Israel, Obama is taking the easy way out, for the fact of the matter is that he has absolutely no idea what to do about Iran — the very question that will ultimately define his Presidency — except to extend his open hand and, when that is ignored, to smooth down his hair.

When it comes to the principal dilemma confronting American foreign policy, Obama is utterly clueless. He is the wrong President for the wrong time. The undeniable truth is that he is totally out of his depth — or shallows. And that his main talent resides in the art of parrying instances of political awkwardness, diplomatic gaffes and visionary impotence by drawing on his undoubted charm and self-assurance, which his admirers interpret as presidential savvy. As for Israel, a country to which he is anyway ill-disposed, it serves Obama's purposes wonderfully, allowing him to preserve his sense of aplomb and to keep his ostensible gravitas intact as the international situation continues to worsen.

Obama is not unintelligent nor is he overly impressionable — at least, not any longer — but he is, on the evidence, exceedingly vain and disturbingly arrogant. This is a man who relies on his urbanity and pizzazz to impose his will upon an awed electorate. A man who responds to an unwelcome query with the rejoinder, "I won" and who appears to regard himself as pretty well infallible, irrespective of what reality is telling him. It is this character trait which likely disables him from scrupulously assessing the real nature of the world's preeminent conflict. It is this which may well account for his obvious reluctance to develop a robust and workable strategy on the Iranian file.

Obama is very good at stalking his smaller domestic adversaries but is extremely wary of anything that imperils the suave kinetics of his savoir faire. Obama is wholly cat, supple in his manifestations and graceful in his demeanor, but a cat who has faltered upon an issue before which he cannot admit his helplessness and lack of moral resolve, his failure of audacity. All he can do is divert attention from his incompetence and partisanship by seizing upon a lesser and comparatively nugatory matter — the natural growth of several previously accepted Israeli settlements. By concentrating on a few square kilometers in the Middle East, he is able to avoid facing the greater problem of the danger to his own nation and to the world as well, a problem he is simply not equipped to manage.

It is obvious that Obama has stumbled over Iran. It is equally obvious that he is intensely preoccupied with grooming his image.

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 17, 2009.


The supposedly independent Palestine News Network did not report the Muslim rampage that desecrated 70 Christian graves just after the Pope advocated statehood for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Instead it reported a Muslim-Christian meeting on tolerance between Muslims and Christians. Divert attention from actual intolerance to theoretical tolerance.

The Territories had much better economies from the time Israel took them over relinquishing them to the P.A.. The P.A.. Reuters and other foreign news agencies blame Israel for the Territories' poor economy and Christian emigration.

Persecution prompts emigration. "Two months ago, a fire caused damage to a Coptic Christian church near Ramallah..." Arson suspected. "P.A. terrorists in Kalkilya three years ago set fire to the YMCA headquarters. The previous year, a Muslim mob armed with clubs beat Christians in a Christian Arab village near Ramallah, looting their houses and burning cars and houses." In Hamas-run Gaza, Christian book stores and churches are bombed.

Muslim threats have intimidated Christians into appeasing the Muslims by blaming Israel for their hardships. P.A. Christians often accuse Israel of barring them from entering Jerusalem to visit holy sites, although it was Israel that in 1967 opened to Christians the sites from which the Muslims had barred them. When Jordan controlled the Old City during the prior 18 years, it barred Christians and Jews from holy places.

Actually, the Christian exodus from the Ottoman Empire began before Israel was re-established
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/25).

For more on Muslim persecution of Christians, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m6d9-Muslims-desecrate-Christian-graves-near-Ramallah


An opposition Member of Knesset suggested that since Jordan is in Palestine, let the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli jurisdiction have Jordan as their state. This upset King Abdullah
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/26).

Radicals among them could join with his own Palestinian Arabs to overthrow the monarchy. Nor does he want to relieve Israel.

On the matter of how many states the Arabs should have, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m6d11-Israeli-principal-bans-yarmulkes


The NY Times public editor confirmed a problem of journalism that I often point out afflicts his paper. He referred to a dubious and hastily leaked Pentagon report about former Guantanamo prisoners returning to terrorism. "Most of the caveats about the report were deep in the article, where they could hardly offset the impact of the headline, the first paragraph, and the prominent position on page 1." In other words, the warning is put where it is not effective.

The placement of the caveats about the Pentagon report was inadvertent. Public editor Hoyt, however, thinks that the journalists should have been aware of the importance of placement (Week in Review, 6/7, p.8).

I think they usually are aware of it. I have been warning about the placement of arguments made by the Israeli side further back in lengthy Times articles than most people read. This is in addition to the briefer and less emotional presentation of the Israeli side than of the Arab side, and without the articles' identifying which side is factual and which is fabricating its case. This is part of anti-Zionist prejudice coupled with advocacy journalism.

I sent Mr. Hoyt lengthy proof of NY Times prejudice. He has not taken it up.

For more on Times anti-Zionism, click on my category "media bias" or click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m5d21-Liberal-NY-Times-verges-on-antisemitism


Thomas L. Friedman: "I have never bought the argument that Iraq was the bad war, Afghanistan the good war, and Pakistan the necessary war. Folks, they're all one war with different fronts. It's a war within the Arab-Muslim world between progressive and anti-modernist force over how this faith community is going to adapt to modernity." A victory in Iraq would bolster the modernists in the other area, especially by setting an example (NY Times, Week in Review, 6/7, p.8).

That is just how I put it about one war, separate fronts, except that the jihadists carry the war outside their countries. My liberal friends did not understand that concept. They were hooked on the NY Times campaign for the notion that Iraq didn't matter, even after Radical Muslims made a bid for control there. Friedman has a prejudice and blind spot about Israel, but otherwise perceives how the world is tied together in its economy but has alliances for and against civilization.

I think he goes too far in calling the Muslim opponents of the Radical Muslims "progressive," since many of them are dictators. though of the non-ideological type. He doesn't acknowledge that they exaggerated the Arab-Israel conflict to divert attention from their oppression and failure. I think that they no longer need that conflict, now that they can divert attention to defense against Radical Islam.

People think that each of Israel's wars were separate. Actually, each was a campaign in general jihad, as you can surmise if you click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d3-Rally-unites-diverse-Americans-against-Radical-Islam


"Now, after examining the still-inconclusive evidence about the results of N. Korea's second nuclear test, the administration has come to different conclusions: that Pyongyang's top priority is to be recognized as a nuclear state, that it is unwilling to bargain away its weapons and that it sees tests as a way to help sell its nuclear technology."

Administration officials tired of repeatedly granting N. Korea expensive new concessions that they pocket and then break their end of the bargain. "'This entirely changes the dynamic of how you deal with them,' a senior national security aide said." (David E. Sanger, NY Times, 6/8, A3.)

Iran has the same top priority. It has additional motives for getting a nuclear bomb stockpile: (1) Inhibit an offensive against its proxy militias; (2) Intimidate foreign countries; and (3) Destroy Israel and damage the U.S..

Will the Obama administration realize it should deal with Iran differently, too? Or will it retain the conceit that President Obama can talk unscrupulous, vicious fanatics, with their jihad's built-in imperialism, into civility? The rest of the world did not provoke the Islamists; modernism has upset them.

The Administration has given no indication of realizing that the U.S. has run out of resources and is stultifying its initiative. China probably realizes it. Pres. Putin of Russia may, but he should be paying attention to the behemoth to his east, China, which may not be benign. When the Soviet Union had a population of about 300 million, the U.S. had about half that. Now the U.S. has about 300 million, and Russia has about half that. Putin needs to think more and strut less. That lesson all formerly great powers learn when their decline has momentum.

No longer a superpower, the U.S. has less ability to force its way upon other countries. For a comparable problem with Iran, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m6d10-Obamas-Iran-policy


The government announced intent to expel all the Jews from certain towns [or is it "outposts"] in Judea-Samaria that were not fully authorized. The number of residents is said to run into the thousands. Demolition was set to precede June 6, but the politicians still are taking up the issue. PM Netanyahu defends the decision as upholding the law
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/26).

Clever, isn't Netanyahu? Pretending to be a nationalist, he appoints far leftist Ehud Barak as Defense Minister, and leaves to him the decision for this ethnic cleansing of his own people. Want to uphold the law? Complete the approval process for those towns that government bureaucracy delayed, instead of acting indignant against the residents, as if lawbreakers. Netanyahu does not mind Arab lawbreakers, who steal public land needed for defense, roads, parks, etc..

For more on Netanyahu's defense of expulsion, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m5d25-Israel-claims-to-be-lawabiding-country


Israel cites U.S. agreements that Israel would keep major settlement blocs and would build some houses in settlements. The U.S. denies both provisions. It insists that Israel must negotiate with Israeli withdrawal from all of Judea-Samaria. [What is the point of negotiation, if the U.S. dictates the results?] In an earlier report, I quoted from Pres. Bush's non-binding letter approving Israel's retention of large settlement blocs. Here is further evidence from
ttp://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/7:

1. 4/18/04, PM Sharon referred to that Bush letter in a Cabinet meeting.

2. 4/22/04, PM Sharon referred to the letter's stating that besides Israel retaining large settlement blocs, the rest should be negotiated. Sharon explained that the letter was what Israel got in return for evacuating from Gaza.

3. 10/30/04, the Washington Post reported that Israel never accepted any road map freeze of natural growth in settlements within existing construction lines. It reported concurrence by some U.S. officials.

4. 03/22/05, U.S. Ambassador Kurtzer confirmed at a TV interview that Bush's letter acknowledges that Israel did not have to return to the 1967 lines. [UN Resolution 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal, either.]

The U.S. has denied other agreements with Israel, before. I omit my source for the issue of Egyptian blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, because the agreement is vague. Israel had interpreted the agreement as a U.S. guarantee to re-open the Gulf. During the blockade, the U.S. denied any guarantee and suggested that Israel depend on the UN. Foreign Min. Abba Eban derided UN utility. I recall Israel citing a U.S. document that Washington then claimed to have misplaced, that guaranteed that Egypt would not move its missiles forward, if Israel stopped destroying them. Israel stopped, Egypt moved them forward such that they were more difficult to dislodge, and the U.S. did nothing about it.

In my opinion, the U.S. is duplicitous toward Israel, as it was toward the American Indians. Israeli leaders must think they are clever in attaining these agreements, but get unclear, unsigned agreements. Left open to interpretation, agreements are like putty to the State Dept.. As IMRA suggests, Israel must learn not to give up territory in return for an agreement with the U.S..

PM Sharon had 14, mostly important, reservations about the Road Map. The U.S. ignored those reservations. The NY Times holds Israel to the U.S. version that Israel had not agreed to. That is not fair. Neither is it fair that the NY Times does not hold the U.S. to the promises it makes to Israel. I think Israel should declare that since the Palestinian Authority has not eradicated terrorism in 13 years, but has boosted it, the Road Map is void. Israel should assert that peace won't come from U.S. pressure on the victim of Arab aggression.

For a mini-series on PM Netanyahu's arguments against freezing settlements, click here:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m6d10-PM-Netanyahus-argument-4-against-outpost-demolition

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, June 17, 2009.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is wrong to assume that his June 14 speech will soften President Obama's strident criticism of "settlements" (Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria). At the same time, President Obama is wrong to consider "settlements" as an obstacle to peace.

In September 2005, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish communities from Gaza and Samaria. Gaza became Judenrein, in order to, ostensibly, advance peaceful coexistence. However, expectations were frustrated. The dismantling of the Jewish communities was perceived by Arabs as a further erosion of Ariel Sharon, the role model of Jewish tenacity. It induced escalation of smuggling, manufacturing and launching of missiles at Jewish communities in Southern Israel. It paved the road to the meteoric rise of Hamas. But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace...

President Obama defines "settlements" as the root cause of Arab hostility toward the Jewish State. However, the Arab-Palestinian offensive against the Jewish State was not ignited by "settlements." In fact, "settlements" were established in Judea and Samaria after the wars of 1967, 1956 and 1948, after the sustained 1949-1967 campaign of Arab terrorism, after the 1964 establishment of the PLO, after the 1929 slaughter of the Hebron Jewish community and the 1929 expulsion of the Gaza Jewish community, after the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s slaughter of the Jewish community of Gush Etzion, etc. But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace...

President Obama considers the 300,000 Jews (17%), who reside among Judea and Samaria's 1.5 million Arabs, an obstacle to peace. Why would he, then, view the 1.4 million Arabs (20%), who reside among pre-1967 Israel's 6 million Jews, as an example of peaceful coexistence?!

Obama urges the uprooting of Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria, in order to supposedly advance peace and human rights. Would he, therefore, urge the uprooting of Arab communities from pre-1967 Israel?!

Since Obama tolerates Arab opposition to any Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria — even under Arab rule — would he tolerate Jewish opposition to any Arab presence in pre-1967 Israel?! While any attempt by Jews to reside in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas would trigger a lynching attempt, Arabs have peacefully resided within Israeli-controlled areas in Judea and Samaria and in pre-1967 Israel. Does such a reality alert President Obama to the nature of Arab intentions and the real obstacle to peace?! But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace...

Obama pressures Israel, vociferously, to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, in order to avoid unilateral creation of facts on the ground. Shouldn't Obama demand a similar freeze of Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria, which is 30 times larger than Jewish construction?! Does the absence of a balanced approach, by Obama, prejudge of the outcome, thus severely violating the spirit of negotiation?! Does it reward Arab terrorism, undermining Israel's posture of deterrence, and therefore radicalizing Arab expectations, demands and violence?! But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace...

The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan. The most recent internationally-recognized sovereign over Judea and Samaria was the League of Nations-authorized 1922 British Mandate, which defined Judea and Samaria as part of the Jewish National Home, the cradle of Jewish history. Article 6 of the Mandate indicates the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria was rooted in self-defense and therefore did not constitute "occupation." Eugene Rostow, former Dean of Yale Law School and former Undersecretary of State and co-author of UN Security Council Resolution 242, asserted that 242 entitles Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. The Oslo Accord and its derivatives do not prohibit "settlements." Moreover, Israel has constrained construction to state-owned — and not private — land, avoiding expulsion of Arabs landowners. But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace...

President Obama is facing unprecedented challenges of a melting economy, healthcare reforms, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a potential post-evacuation volcano in Iraq, North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats, a possible nuclearization of Al Qaeda, Islamic terrorist threats to pro-US Arab regimes, imperialist Russia and China, an increasingly violent border with Mexico, Hugo Chavez' "mischiefs," etc. But, Obama claims that he is preoccupied with "settlements" because they are, seemingly, a critical obstacle to peace...

Obama's pressure to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria diverts attention and resources from the crucial threat to peace: Arab rejection of the existence — and not just the size — of a Jewish State in the supposedly abode-of-Islam. Inadvertently, Obama is adding fuel, and not water, to the fire of Middle East turbulence and violence. But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace...

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 17, 2009.

This was a comment posted by A.A. Sheida in the Jerusalem Post


June 12th 2009 will go down as a turning point in the history of Iranians' awakening.

The race for the presidential election officially started three weeks ago. The reform movement had long been pronounced dead, following the inability of the former President Khatami to deliver on promises he had made. The reformists voters were expected to sit home.

The reformists could have easily been disqualified. They were allowed to stand, however, so that the presidential election would have a pretense of competition; so that the regime could claim legitimacy by luring people into participating. Ahmadinejad was expected to win.

Life in the Islamic Republic was moving along as it has been for the past several years. The young people of Iran were making the best out of the situation they were in. In South Tehran, they divided their time between praying in the mosques and taking puffs of their Opium bongs. In Northern Tehran, the youth divided their time between house parties with exuberant amounts of alcohol and TOEFL classes. Their only dream was to leave Iran.

And then a spark came and the whole of Iran was caught on fire.

The spark came in a televised debate between Ahmadinejad and the reformist candidate Mousavi. In this debate, Ahmadinejad accused all of the previous administrations in Iran of corruption.

More importantly, he set aside all Iranian social manners and took a virulent shot at Mousavi's wife, a respected academic, artist, and the designer of several sculptures in Teheran's main squares.

Iranians were outraged. An unprecedented wave of sympathy and support poured into the streets. Green, the color chosen by Mousavi's campaign, became the fashion of the season. Overnight, the stores in Iran were emptied of anything green.

In a matter of days, Mousavi managed to move into the position of the front runner. Hundreds of thousands of young people joined hands to form human chains across the capital in support of Mousavi, creating scenes unheard of since the revolution in 1979.

The election fever spread beyond the borders of Iran to the Iranian communities in exile. From Istanbul to London, from Los Angles to New York, the Iranians prepared to vote. It is as if everybody had been reminded, just in time, how terrible Ahmadinejad has really been.

An unprecedented number of people showed up to the ballot box. An astonishing 85% of those eligible cast their vote and anxiously awaited the results. All indications were that Mousavi had won the elections by a landslide.

An hour after the voting was over, Ahmadinejad is pronounced winner by the state media.

Iran was in a state of shock. Nobody believed this results. People poured into the streets and started chanting "Death to the Dictator." An Intifatha broke out in the streets of Teheran and many other major cities in Iran.


I CALLED my 24-year-old cousin in Teheran who had just come back from a protest. "They are beating people mercilessly," she said. I tell her that I think protesting will not get them anywhere. "We know they are going to suppress us," she said. "We know they are going to re-install their man. But we want the whole world to know that this government is not legitimate."

Three weeks ago, a BBC correspondent wrote that anybody who has spent time in Iran recently knows that people are not in the mood for a regime change. Neither he, nor anybody else, could have predicted the turn of events in the past few days.

The currents guiding the Iranian national psychology have been developing for 2500 years. Most of the time they are just beneath the surface, invisible to both Iranians and foreigners. Occasionally, they break out creating an earthquake in the socio-political scene. This makes Iran one of the most unpredictable countries in the world.

Iranians of all ages, ethnicities and religions came out to vote because they believed that the only way to change the country was through slow reform within the parameters set by the regime.

June 12, 2009, will be remembered as the day that the hope was pronounced dead.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 16, 2009.

The majority of communications I've received with regard to my last posting indicates that those responding to my material, in the main, seem to agree with me. But not everyone does (of course), and those e-mails that have come to me expressing despair at what Netanyahu did in mentioning a Palestinian state, though few in number, are so heart-felt that they merit further discussion.

In the end, as I've just written to one reader, we will likely have to agree to disagree. At least for now. For my opinion has not changed. Which doesn't mean that it might not change in the course of time. (I fervently hope not, not because I need to be correct, but because this would mean the situation was going badly.)


I hope and trust that everyone who reads my material understands fully that I am not glad Netanyahu did what he did; it is not the way I would have chosen. I would have preferred to have had him allude simply to some autonomy, without a mention of a "state," although — clarifying once again — he did not actually say a sovereign state, and it was clear that he did not intend a sovereign state.

But neither am I panicked at this point. And it seems to me important to deal pragmatically in terms of how to best protect ourselves and the nation in the current situation.

Some people are upset at the mere mention of a state for the Palestinians because this is seen as an ideological betrayal: The land is ours. Period. No more to say.

Others are concerned that while he advanced highly appropriate parameters — recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, demilitarization, etc. etc. — the world will quickly forget them and only remember that he said the phrase "Palestinian state" and push us to get on with it. That is, his arguments will have been futile, and, as he made a concession by uttering the phrase, he will have set himself up for ever more concessions.


At the core of the discussion here, I believe, is the question of how much Israel can go it alone in the world, most particularly now.

Again, anyone who regularly reads what I write knows that I reject appeasement as a policy and am sickened by an approach, à la Livni, that is founded in seeking approval from other nations. I delight, for example, in the fact that Netanyahu has had the courage to tell Obama we will continue to build for natural growth in the settlements, even as the president demands a total freeze. If we, as a nation, are not for ourselves, if we do not stand up for ourselves, we are lost.


And yet, and yet... It is legitimate to also ask whether we can stand against the world totally, in all circumstances, when it is so ready to be arrayed against us. It is not necessarily inappropriate to ponder what we would do if no one would sell us needed military equipment, or if the Security Council passes a resolution, under chapter 7, which is binding, calling for international troops to be sent here. (It should be noted that such a resolution would mean that the US, which is capable of vetoing such resolutions, was no longer with us.)

Walking the line between these two poles is an excruciatingly difficult task, obviously influenced by ideology and philosophical bent.

I wrote about Netanyahu early on that his style tends not to be confrontational. He is more likely to play the game, as a skilled politician, in an effort to do what he sees as best for Israel. And I believe that is what he did with his speech:

He held his head high. He said things which, I admit for the first time here, actually brought tears to my eyes. That he spoke about our link to Isaiah, who walked here! That he said this is our home and where we were forged. He gave nothing on that score.

What he gave was the phrase "Palestinian state." With provisos attached. Not free. Not like Olmert who made speeches about how much we must sacrifice.


He may have made a serious tactical mistake to have given this much. But I still believe at this point — and it is on this matter that I pray I won't be proven wrong — that he did it with sincerity in terms of what he sees as best for us in difficult times.

I have alluded to this several times over the last weeks and months: What Netanyahu has said repeatedly is that we are not living in normal times — that we are confronting extraordinary dangers — and that he must consider this as he makes his decisions.

What is implied is that this somehow involves our need to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. This is a major theme of his.

We ask, what can he gain via this concession in terms of our ability to attack Iran? And we have no facile or ready answer. We are not sure at all that there is anything. But that is simply the point: we are not, cannot be, sure. And I have not yet been ready to second guess him on this.

Caroline Glick, in her most recent piece (which I will come back to), addresses this very issue and says that:

"In fairness to Netanyahu, in light of Obama's ideological commitment to the two-state paradigm which blames Israel for the absence of peace, it is far from clear that he has any choice other than to go along with the president and just play for time.

"...For Netanyahu...buying time with a hostile administration may be the best he can aspire to during his current term in office.

"...If his speech succeeded in blunting US pressure on Israel — even temporarily — on the Palestinian front, and...Netanyahu has gained the opportunity to act on the Iranian front. If during his current term he prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power and makes no concessions in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, he will be remembered as one of our greatest leaders ..."



What I am seeing is that the right wing of Likud is lining up behind Netanyahu. There is no desire to criticize him severely or attempt to take him down.

Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon, who is no shrinking violet when it comes to talking tough, is saying that Netanyahu's speech has "exposed the true face of the Palestinians...All their reactions have been refusal and war."

There is perhaps the beginning of a model for us here.


Netanyahu, for his part, claims that our situation is better now than it was before the speech. "The American response to the speech was positive. I would be misleading you to say that the way has been cleared, but our situation is better today than before."

A source in the prime minister's office said that Netanyahu succeeded in "putting a number of diplomatic balls in the air."

While a senior Israeli diplomatic official cited by the Post said, "Before the speech Netanyahu had no credit with the Europeans, and in fact was in deficit. Now he has some credit. Not a lot, but some."


Is this true? Will it make a difference? It's too soon to tell.

But here is the part that causes unease. When the Americans and the Europeans push for more concessions, will Netanyahu, having done his thing, hold tight? If he continues to give, and, especially, if he backs off on any of the red lines he himself set into place, it will NOT be all right. And it will be time to scream and yell.

This will be a time of testing. Already I am seeing that Obama is saying that the mention of a Palestinian state was a great start, but we have to move forward with more.

Netanyahu must hold tight.

Glick believes that ultimately a confrontation between Netanyahu and Obama will be inevitable.


I believe firmly that there is a place for each of us in terms of how this situation evolves. I've said that there is worry that the provisos set out by Netanyahu with regard to a Palestinian state are quickly forgotten by the world. But we can make sure that they are not forgotten. We can raise them at every forum, and in letters to the editor and most especially in communication to elected officials.

Caroline Glick says something similar: "At this point, it is up to the public and our representatives in the Knesset to pave the way for a better policy in the future. This we can do by rejecting the two-state paradigm and conducting a public discourse relevant to our national interests."

I will be coming back to this with specifics.


Glick's article, "Obama's losing streak and us," is well worth reading in its entirety.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371106195& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Among her points:

"Netanyahu's speech w