HOME Featured Stories June 2010 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 30, 2010.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, June 30, 2010.

This was written by Rex Murphy and it appeared June 5, 2010 in
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/05/ rex-murphy-un-condemns-israel-first-investigates-later/ Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National, and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.


I don't suppose the world needs to remember Rwanda to note how sluggish in the face of imminent horror the United Nations is and can be. If that is not a sufficient cue, we could bring in other examples of areas of great threat or immiseration or both: Darfur, Tibet, Chechnya, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Congo or Iran. On these the UN has the patience of a stone but only some of its energy.

But torpid as is its nature, and comatose as are its eternal deliberations, on one subject, and toward one state, the United Nations acquires a strange and uniquely transformative power. Bring Israel under its gaze and the diplomatic sloths at UN headquarters morph into the swiftest of gazelles. From lotus-eaters to adrenalin junkies in the twinkling of an eye. Quite amazing, really.

So naturally when the debacle over the so-called "freedom flotilla" — news media should be wary of letting activists choose the names of things — roared into the headlines, the UN reacted at the diplomatic equivalent of the speed of light. The Security Council issued its "condemnation," and in a wonderful reversal of cause and effect also called for an investigation into what it had "condemned." And the cruellest joke on the planet, what the UN with unbounded irony refers to as its Human Rights Council, issued, as unfailingly in every previous international incident involving Israel it has, a condemnation as well.

If the flotilla's real purpose was to bring aid, then merely by complying with Israel's request to dock at Ashdod — as five of the ships did, with no blood shed and no international headlines — the supplies on the sixth ship would now be in Gaza. In reality, it was exercise in early 21st century propaganda on the battlefield of world opinion. Its only purpose was to challenge and delegitimize Israel's blockade of ships travelling to Gaza — a blockade, as too many news reports fail to emphasize, which up until this "incident" was also being maintained by Egypt. That the Egyptian government, until a few days ago, mirrored in its actions Israel's concerns about what might get shipped into Hamas is the only real obstruction in the otherwise perfectly concentrated anti-Israel narrative.

As to the "peace activists" on that sixth ship, the ones who received the Israeli soldiers boarding the ship with bats, pipes, knives and chains — well, the video footage of the moments preceding the boarding and the boarding itself will make most rational people review their understanding of peace and activism and some of the organizations that fly the flags of these conveniently fungible designations.

Any real investigation of the flotilla will not confine itself to the boarding, but include an equally scrupulous inquiry into the origins of some of its actors, its unstated as well as it stated aims, and the facility and speed with which it revved up the engine of international protest against Israel. It seemed like half the world took to the streets in less than half a day.

This was but one installment in the long and continuous campaign to isolate Israel, and to turn that state in the eyes of international opinion into a pariah, to erode its legitimacy and to break its will. You've seen the branding. Apartheid Israel. Israel is the worst thing to happens to Jews since the Holocaust. Racist Israel. Imperialist Israel.

The campaign has been remarkably successful, which is much to Israel's woe and may be to the world's woe as well. There are far larger, more egregious causes for the world's attention than the episode off Gaza last Sunday, greater threats and deeper anxieties. But it is truly worth remarking that when Israel is in the dock, protest rage goes epidemic. To use that vile term so often recently turned upon Israel when it acts in its self-defence, the response is extravagantly "disproportionate."

I truly do not know why this is so. Israel is a sanctuary state established after one almost successful attempt just two generations ago to rid all the world of Jews. And Israel is now in the shadow of a fundamentalist, ferociously anti-Israel theocracy which is about to equip itself with nuclear weapons. Perhaps, alas, under the threat of a second attempt.

Yet somehow Israel is the rogue, the barbarian nation, the only state on earth that can energize the professionally lethargic diplomats in the great tower of hypocrisy on the East River. Strange and dangerous times.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 30, 2010.

This was written by Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School.


Summary by Daily Alert:

  • Turkey has changed. Gone permanently is secular Turkey, a unique Muslim country that straddled East and West and that even maintained a cooperative relationship with Israel. Today Turkey is an Islamic republic whose government saw fit to facilitate the May 31 flotilla raid on Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey is now more aligned to Iran than to the democracies of Europe.

  • Outside of public view, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul, now his foreign minister, presided over an influx of so-called Green Money — capital from Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirates, much of which ended up in AKP party coffers rather than in the public treasury.

  • Between 2002 and 2003, money appeared in Turkey's financial system for which government reporting cannot account — an amount that increased from approximately $200 million to more than $4 billion. By 2006, Turkish economists estimated the Green Money infusion into the Turkish economy to be between $6 billion and $12 billion. Some Turkish intelligence officials privately suggest that Qatar is today the source of most subsidies for the AKP and its projects. Thus, Turkey's Islamic revolution was bought and paid for by wealthy Islamists.

  • Erdogan equated degrees issued by Turkish madrassas — Islamic religious schools — with ordinary high school degrees. This bureaucratic sleight of hand enabled madrassa students to enter the university and qualify for government jobs without ever mastering or, in some cases, even being exposed to Western fundamentals. When such students still fumbled university entrance exams, the AKP provided them with a comparative bonus on their scores, justifying the move as affirmative action.

    As a NATO member, Turkey is privy to U.S. weaponry, tactics, and intelligence. Any provision of assistance to Turkey today, however, could be akin to transferring it to Hamas, Sudan, or Iran. Does President Obama really want to deliver the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to a hostile Turkey, as promised, in 2014?

  • As mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan quipped, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off."


Traveling abroad on his first trip as president, Barack Obama tacked a visit to Turkey onto the tail end of a trip to Europe. "Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message," he told the Turkish Parliament. "My answer is simple: Evet [yes]. Turkey is a critical ally." On the same visit, however, the president showed that he considered Turkey more firmly part of the Islamic world than of Europe. "I want to make sure that we end before the call to prayer, so we have about half an hour," Obama told a town hall in Istanbul. Obama was not simply demonstrating cultural sensitivity. The fact is that Turkey has changed. Gone, and gone permanently, is secular Turkey, a unique Muslim country that straddled East and West and that even maintained a cooperative relationship with Israel. Today Turkey is an Islamic republic whose government saw fit to facilitate the May 31 flotilla raid on Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey is now more aligned to Iran than to the democracies of Europe. Whereas Iran's Islamic revolution shocked the world with its suddenness in 1979, Turkey's Islamic revolution has been so slow and deliberate as to pass almost unnoticed. Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic of Turkey is a reality — and a danger.

The story of Turkey's Islamic revolution is illuminating. It is the story of a charismatic leader with a methodical plan to unravel a system, a politician cynically using democracy to pursue autocracy, Arab donors understanding the power of the purse, Western political correctness blinding officials to the Islamist agenda, and American diplomats seemingly more concerned with their post-retirement pocketbooks than with U.S. national security. For Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is a dream come true. For the next generation of American presidents, diplomats, and generals, it is a disaster.


The Middle East is littered with states formed from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I. Most have been failures, but in Anatolia, one has flourished: in 1923, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey and, soon after, abolished the Ottoman Empire and its standing as a caliphate, a state run according to the dictates of Islamic law. In subsequent years, he imposed a number of reforms to transform Turkey into a Western country. His separation of mosque and state allowed Turkey to thrive, and he charged the army with defending the state from those who would use Islam to subvert democracy. While Middle Eastern states embraced demagogues and ideologies that led to war and incited their peoples to hate the West, Turkey became a frontline Cold War and NATO ally. Turks faced down terrorists, embraced democracy, and dreamed of full inclusion as a nation of Europe. No longer.

Turkey's Islamic revolution began on November 3, 2002, when Erdogan's Justice and Reconciliation Party (AKP) swept to power in Turkey's elections. Through a lucky quirk of the Turkish election system, the AKP's 34 percent total in the popular vote translated into 66 percent of the Parliament's seats, giving the party absolute control.

Initially, Erdogan kept his ambition in check. He understood the lessons to be learned from the undoing of his mentor, Necmettin Erbakan, the first Islamist to become prime minister. After taking the reins of power in 1996 with far less power in Parliament, Erdogan's predecessor sought to shake up the system — to support religious schools at home and to reorient Turkey's foreign policy away from Europe and toward Libya and Iran. This became too much for the military, which exercised its power as guardians of the constitution and demanded Erbakan's resignation. Afterward, Turkey's Constitutional Court banned the party to which Erdogan belonged because of its threats to secular rule.

Erdogan himself had been banned from politics because of a 1998 conviction for religious incitement. And so he initially managed the newly created AKP from the sidelines only, working through Abdullah Gul, the lieutenant who served as caretaker prime minister after the party's 2002 victory. Gul pushed through a law to overturn the ban against Erdogan, and the latter became prime minister in March 2003. Learning the lessons of Islamist failures of the past, Erdogan sought to calm Turks who feared the AKP would dilute Turkey's separation of mosque and state. As mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan described himself as a "servant of Sharia," or Islamic canon law. But after his party's 2002 victory, he declared that "secularism is the protector of all beliefs and religions. We are the guarantors of this secularism, and our management will clearly prove that." He took pains to eschew the Islamist label and instead described his party as little more than the Muslim equivalent of the Christian Democrats in Europe — that is, all democracy and religious in name only.

Both Turks and Westerners can be forgiven for taking Erdogan at his word. He had cultivated an image of probity as a local official that stood in sharp contrast with the corruption of many incumbent Turkish politicians. Rather than upend the system or pursue a divisive social platform, as prime minister Erdogan first sought to repair the Turkish economy. This was an attractive prospect for Turks across the political spectrum, since in the five years prior, the Turkish lira had declined in value eight-fold, from 200,000 to 1.7 million to the dollar, leading to a ruinous banking crisis in 2001. A Coca-Cola cost millions. Erdogan stabilized the currency and implemented other popular reforms. He cut income taxes, slashed the value-added tax, and used state coffers to subsidize gasoline prices. The Turkish electorate rewarded his party for its efforts. The AKP won 42 percent of the vote in the March 2004 municipal elections and placed mayors in four of Turkey's five largest cities. In July 2007, it increased its share of the popular vote to 47 percent.

But there was far less here than met the eye. Rather than base economic reform on sound, long-term policies, Erdogan instead relied on sleight of hand. He incurred crippling debt and, in effect, mortgaged long-term financial security of the republic for his own short-term political gain. Deniz Baykal, the former leader of the main opposition party, has said that the state debt accrued during Erdogan's first three years in power surpassed Turkey's total accumulated debt in the three decades prior.

And that was only official debt. Outside of public view, Erdogan and Gul, now his foreign minister, presided over an influx of so-called Green Money — capital from Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirates, much of which ended up in party coffers rather than in the public treasury.

And here begins the tale of the interweaving of Turkey's destiny with the nations to its east and south, and to the Muslim world rather than with the West.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Turkish Central Bank's summary balance of "payments for net error and omission" — which is to say, money that appeared in the nation's financial system for which government reporting cannot account — increased from approximately $200 million to more than $4 billion. By 2006, Turkish economists estimated the Green Money infusion into the Turkish economy to be between $6 billion and $12 billion, and given the ability of the government to hide some of these revenues by assigning them to tourism, that is probably a wild underestimation. Some Turkish intelligence officials privately suggest that the nation of Qatar is today the source of most subsidies for the AKP and its projects.

Thus, if Iran's Islamic revolution was spontaneous, Turkey's was anything but: it was bought and paid for by wealthy Islamists.

AKP officials are well-placed to manage the Green Money influx. Throughout much of the 1980s, Erdogan's sidekick, Gul, worked as a specialist at Saudi Arabia's Islamic Development Bank. Before the 2002 victory, he criticized existing state scrutiny of Islamist enterprises. Senior AKP advisers made their fortunes in Islamic banking and investment. Korkut Ozal, for example, is the leading Turkish shareholder in al-Baraka Turk, Turkey's leading Islamic bank, as well as in Faisal Finans, which also has its roots in Saudi Arabia.

Erdogan has systematically placed Islamist bankers in key economic positions. He appointed Kemal Unakitan, a former board member at both al-Baraka and Eski Finans, as finance minister and moved at least seven other al-Baraka officials — one of whom had served as an imam in an illegal commando camp — to key positions within Turkey's banking regulatory agency.

Erdogan also reoriented Turkey's official foreign trade. In 2002, bilateral trade between Turkey and the United Arab Emirates hovered at just over half a billion dollars. By 2005, it had grown to almost $2 billion. That same year, Kursad Tuzmen, the state minister for foreign trade, announced that United Arab Emirates ruler Sheik Khalifa bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan would invest $100 billion in Turkish companies. Not to be outdone, Saudi Arabia's finance minister announced earlier this year that Saudi Arabia would invest $400 billion in Turkey over the next four years. In contrast, in 2001, Turkish-Saudi trade amounted to just over $1 billion. When Turkish-Iranian trade surpassed $10 billion in 2009, Erdogan announced a goal to increase it to $30 billion. Whether or not Turkey and its Persian Gulf allies are exaggerating their figures, the trajectory of trade is clear.


For wealthy donors, the conversion of Turkey has been a good investment. For decades, Turkey stood out like a sore thumb for Islamists. Here was a majority Muslim country which, even lacking oil, was far more successful than any Arab state or Iran. No sooner had Erdogan stabilized the economy and solidified his political monopoly than he turned to changing Turkey's social order and reversing its diplomatic orientation. Erdogan's strategy was multi-tiered. He endorsed the dream of Turkey's secular elite to enter the European Union but only to rally European diplomats to dilute the role of the Turkish military as guardians of the constitution.

While Turkish liberals, businessmen, and Western diplomats took solace in Erdogan's outreach to Europe, his motivation was cynical. His ideological constituents had no interest in Europe, and Erdogan himself is intolerant of European liberalism and secularism. He criticized the European Court of Human Rights for failing to consult Islamic scholars when it upheld a ban on headscarves in public schools — a ban that dates back to Ataturk's original reforms.

Erdogan's ambitions to remake Turkey, however, reached far beyond superficial issues such as the veil. He sought to revolutionize education, dominate the judiciary, take over the police, and control the media. Erdogan worked to achieve not short-term gains on hot-button issues like the headscarf but rather a long-term cultural revolution that, when complete, would render past battles moot.

Erdogan attacked the secular education system at all levels. First, he loosened age restrictions on children who attend supplemental Koran schools — restrictions intended to prevent their indoctrination. He also undid content regulation meant to counter the ability of Saudi-funded extremists to teach in Turkish academies. Those schools that break the remaining regulations need not worry: Erdogan's party eviscerated penalties to the point where unaccredited religious academies now advertise openly in newspapers.

Simultaneously, he equated degrees issued by Turkish madrassas — Islamic religious schools — with ordinary high school degrees. This bureaucratic sleight of hand in theory enabled madrassa students to enter the university and qualify for government jobs without ever mastering or, in some cases, even being exposed to Western fundamentals. When such students still fumbled university entrance exams, the AKP provided them with a comparative bonus on their scores, justifying the move as affirmative action. Erdogan made little secret of his goals: in May 2006, he ordered his negotiator at European Union accession talks to remove any reference to secularism in a Turkish position paper discussing Turkey's educational system. Over the past year, the Ministry of Education has gutted the traditional high school philosophy curriculum and Islamized it.

Moreover, the judiciary is no longer independent. Erdogan's initial attempts to lower the mandatory retirement age of judges (a move that would have seen him replace 4,000 out of 9,000 judges) foundered on constitutional challenges. More than a year later, the Supreme Court of Appeals chided the AKP for attempts to interfere in the judiciary. When Gul, Erdogan's closest ally, assumed Turkey's presidency in 2007, there was no longer any check on his party's authority. The president selects the Higher Education Board, appoints a quarter of the justices on the Constitutional Court, nominates the chief public prosecutor, and officially confirms the commanding general of the Supreme Military Council. Now, on the rare occasion when the high court levies decisions not to the prime minister's liking, the prime minister simply refuses to implement them. In any case, after almost eight years in power, the AKP has been able to remake the courts. The government can now assign sympathetic judges to hear highly politicized cases. And in March 2010, the AKP unveiled proposed constitutional reforms that would make it easier for political leaders to appoint judges.

In any other democracy, discussion and debate about government abuse of power and societal change would saturate the news. Not so in Turkey. No prime minister in Turkish history has been so hostile to the press as Erdogan. What had been a vibrant press when Erdogan took over is now flaccid. The prime minister has sued dozens of journalists and editors, sometimes for nothing more than a political cartoon poking fun at him. When a Turkish media group pursued a story about a Turkish-German charity transferring money illegally to Islamists in Turkey, tax authorities punished it with a spurious $600 million lien. When it continued to report critically, the group received an additional $2.5 billion tax penalty. And, in a strategy borrowed from Iran, Erdogan has confiscated newspapers — the high-circulation national daily Sabah most famously — that he deemed too critical or independent, and transferred their control to political allies.

With the independent press muzzled and almost all print and airtime dedicated to his agenda, Erdogan upped his campaign against both the political opposition and the military. Whereas the Interior Ministry would once root out Islamists and followers of the anti-Semitic Turkish cult leader Fethullah Gulen, the AKP filled police ranks with them. Even AKP supporters acknowledge that the Interior Ministry regularly eavesdrops without warrants and leaks embarrassing transcripts to the Islamist press without consequence. "For 40 years, they have kept files on us. Now, it is our turn to keep files on them," AKP deputy Avni Dogan recently said.

The real coup against democracy, however, came on July 14, 2008, when a Turkish prosecutor indicted 86 Turkish figures — retired military officers, prominent journalists, professors, unionists, civil-society activists, and the man who dared run against Erdogan for mayor years earlier — on charges of plotting a coup to restore secular government. The only thing the defendants had in common was political opposition to the AKP. The alleged conspiracy grabbed international headlines. At its root, the 2,455-page indictment alleged that retired military officers, intellectuals, journalists, and civil-society leaders conspired to cause chaos in Turkey and to use the resulting crisis as justification for a military putsch against the AKP. In February 2010, the prosecutors revealed a 5,000-page memorandum detailing coup plans.

The documents are ridiculous. The indictment was paper-thin. Security forces rounded up most suspects before it was even written. And as for the smoking-gun memorandum, the charge is risible: coup plotters do not write plans down, let alone in such detail. The indictments had a chilling effect across society. Turks may not like where Erdogan is taking Turkey, but they now understand that even peaceful dissent will have a price. Turkish politics had always been rough and tumble, but except at the height of the Cold War, it had seldom been lethal.

Nor can liberal Turks rely on the Turkish military to save them. Bashed from the religious right and the progressive left, the Turkish military is a shadow of its former self. The current generation of generals is out of touch with Turkish society and, perhaps, their own junior officers. Like frogs who fail to jump from a pot slowly brought to a boil, the Turkish general staff lost its opportunity to exercise its constitutional duties. Simply put, the Turkish military failed in its job. Obsession with public relations and media imagery trumped responsibility.


A decade ago, Turks saw themselves in a camp with the United States, Western Europe, and Israel; today Turkish self-identity places the country firmly in a camp led by Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Hamas. Turkey may be a NATO member, but polls nevertheless show it to be the world's most anti-American country (although, to be fair, the Pew Global Attitudes Project did not conduct surveys in Libya or North Korea). Nor do Turks differentiate between the U.S. government and the American people: they hate Americans almost as much as they hate Washington. This is no accident. From almost day one, Erdogan has encouraged, and his allies have financed, a steady stream of anti-American and anti-Semitic incitement. Certainly, many Turks opposed the liberation of Iraq in 2003, but this was largely because Erdogan bombarded them with anti-American incitement before Parliament's vote, which withdrew the support promised to the operation. Much of Erdogan's incitement, however, cannot be dismissed as a dispute over the Iraq war.

In 2004, Yeni Safak, a newspaper Erdogan endorsed, published an enemies list of prominent Jews. In 2006, not only did Turkish theaters headline Valley of the Wolves, a fiercely anti-American and anti-Semitic movie that featured a Jewish doctor harvesting the organs of dead Iraqis, but the prime minister's wife also publicly endorsed the film and urged all Turks to see it. Turkish newspapers reported that prominent AKP supporters and Erdogan aides financed its production. While much of the Western world boycotted Hamas in the wake of the 2006 Palestinian elections in order to force it to renounce violence, Erdogan not only extended a hand to the group but also welcomed Khaled Mashaal, leader of its most extreme and recalcitrant faction, as his personal guest.

The question for policymakers, however, should not be whether Turkey is lost but rather how Erdogan could lead a slow-motion Islamic revolution below the West's radar. This is both a testament to Erdogan's skill and a reflection of Western delusion. Before taking power, Erdogan and his advisers cultivated Western opinion makers. He concentrated not on American pundits who found U.S. policy insufficiently leftist and sympathetic to the Islamic world but rather on natural critics, hawkish American supporters of Turkey and Israel who helped introduce Erdogan confidantes to Washington policymakers.

After consolidating power, however, the AKP did not cultivate Jewish and pro-Israel groups, but they did little to sever the relationships. Turks traditionally looked kindly on Israel and Jews; of all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, the Jews in Palestine were one of the few who had not revolted against the Ottoman Sultan. In the 1980s and 1990s, Turkey and Israel had much in common: both were democracies amid a sea of autocracy. They enjoyed close diplomatic, economic, and military relations. So many Israeli tourists visited Turkey that Hebrew signs became ubiquitous in Turkish cities. It was not uncommon to hear Hebrew in Istanbul's Grand Bazaar or in restaurants along the Bosporus.

Against such a backdrop, many Jewish groups turned a blind eye to warning signs of Erdogan's antipathy and rationalized Turkey's outreach to Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria, Sudan, and Iran. It was not until Erdogan exploded at the 2009 Davos World Forum, telling Israeli President Shimon Peres "you know well how to kill," storming off the stage, and subsequently accusing Israel of genocide, that Jewish groups awakened to the change that had come over Turkey.

Much of the blame for failing to recognize Erdogan's agenda also lies in the West's intellectual approach to radical Islam. For too many, the headscarf was the only metric by which to judge Islamist encroachment. For Erdogan, however, the scarf was a symbol; the state was the goal.

Even after Erdogan began to eviscerate the checks and balances of Turkish society, European officials and American diplomats remained in denial. Certainly moral equivalency played a role: as Erdogan asked last October, why should Turkey accept the Western definition of secularism? For too many Western officials, however, to acknowledge Turkey's turn would be to admit the failure of moderate Islamism. To criticize Erdogan's motivations would be racist.

Many diplomats and journalists inserted into this situation their own disdain for any military, let alone Turkey's, and embraced a facile dichotomy in which Islamism and democracy represented one pole, while the military, secularism, and fascism represented the other. Hence, they saw the AKP as democratic reformers, while the military became defenders of an anti-democratic order. Certainly, the healthiest democracies have no room for the military in domestic politics, but by cheering the AKP as it unraveled the military's role in upholding the constitution without simultaneously constructing another check on unconstitutional behavior, the European Union and Western diplomats paved the way for Erdogan's soft dictatorship.

Alas, when intellectual smoke and mirrors were not enough to deceive the West, Erdogan and the AKP used more-devious tactics. Just as many American diplomats retired from Saudi Arabia to serve commercially their former charges, since the AKP's accession every retired U.S. ambassador to Turkey — Eric Edelman being the exception — has entered into lucrative business relationships with AKP companies. Mark Parris, who led the U.S. Embassy from 1997 to 2000, just prior to the AKP's rise, and has served in various positions at several think tanks, cultivated a business relationship with the AKP and helped with stories in Turkey's anti-Semitic press about neoconservatives and coup plots. Throughout the first four years of AKP rule, Yeni Safak columnist Fehmi Koru, an outspoken Erdogan supporter, published more than a dozen columns accusing American Jewish policymakers, led by Richard Perle — who was not then a government official — of both manipulating the press and plotting a coup in Turkey. Both charges were not only false but also consistent with anti-Semitic refrains about Jewish control of the press and Protocols of the Elders of Zion — like plots. And, indeed, they served their purpose: the AKP used the columns to rally both nationalist and anti-Semitic feelings. Koru would often refer to a well-placed Washington diplomatic source. In a November 2006 column, he revealed Parris to be his source, a charge Parris has neither explained nor denied.

Turkish Islamists also cultivated academics. After Georgetown University's John Esposito received donations from the Gulen movement, he sponsored a conference in the Islamist cult leader's honor, whitewashing both Fethullah Gulen's Islamism and his anti-Semitism. The University of North Texas similarly received Gulen's largesse, as does Washington, D.C.'s Brookings Institution, which has long peddled a soft line toward Erdogan and his agenda.

Turkey today is an Islamic republic in all but name. Washington, its European allies, and Jerusalem must now come to terms with Turkey as a potential enemy. Alas, even if the AKP were to exit the Turkish stage tomorrow, the changes Erdogan's party have made appear irreversible. While Turkey was for more than half a century a buffer between Middle Eastern extremism and European liberalism, today it has become an enabler of extremism and an enemy of liberalism. Rather than fight terrorists, Turkey embraces them. Today's rhetorical support may become tomorrow's material support. On the world stage, too, Turkey is a problem. Rather than help diffuse Iran's nuclear program, Erdogan encourages it.

Turkey's anti-Americanism, its dictatorship, and the inability of Western officials to acknowledge reality endanger security. Hard choices lay ahead: as a NATO member, Turkey is privy to U.S. weaponry, tactics, and intelligence. Any provision of assistance to Turkey today, however, could be akin to transferring it to Hamas, Sudan, or Iran. Does President Obama really want to deliver the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to a hostile Turkey, Iran's chief regional defender, as promised in 2014? Should Turkey even remain in NATO? After all, half a century ago, NATO learned to live without France.

Losing Turkey is tragic, but failing to recognize its loss can only compound the tragedy. The worst outcome, however, would be to let strategic denial block assessment of lessons learned. As mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan quipped, "'Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off." Perhaps, in hindsight, the West's mistake was to ignore the danger of Erdogan's ascendance into the driver's seat.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, June 30, 2010.

CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He's probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large.

Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that's a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally-the most important actions damaging the group-took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about.

But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida-a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta's optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week-but how one should regard that organization.

In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group's decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle.

But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other — leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration's policy.

First, the longer-term historical importance of al-Qaida has not been to be the revolutionary impetus in its own name but the inspiration for a great increase in revolutionary Islamist activity in many places. An increase in anti-American terrorism was a key element in this process but is only one part of the picture. Al-Qaida's role has been particularly important in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in North Africa.

Left out of the celebration regarding victories over the organization has also been the fact that a lot of the terrorist activity has passed to individuals or small groups in the West and Middle East that act on the basis of ideology, or sometimes of some training and encouragement, rather than as the direct arm of al-Qaida.

Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack or failed attacks in a number of places, including one planned for Fort Dix. Individual Muslims or small affinity groups are active. One cannot, of course, achieve a victory over spontaneous decisions of Muslims to become Jihadists, perhaps after reading al-Qaida or other propaganda.

U.S. policy has not so much fought this phenomenon but rather largely pretends that it doesn't exist. An attack like that at the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles Airport, or killing a U.S. army recruiter in Arkansas, or attacking a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest is merely reinterpreted as the act of an individual deranged mind.

The second, and more important, problem with Panetta's triumphalism is that al-Qaida never posed much of a strategic threat to the United States. Of course, it could stage bloody terror attacks but it could not take over countries.

The real threat, then, is the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent alliance plus movements like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and others.

Here, too, the administration has played a strategy of ignoring the problem. It seems to believe that by diplomatic engagement, or expressions of sympathy, or benign neglect, or moving away from Israel, or insisting that these movements have nothing to do with Islam, the problem can be defused.

But while revolutionary Islamism was set back-at least temporarily-in Iraq it continues to advance elsewhere. Moreover, the movement is further strengthened by the prospect of Iran as a nuclear power and by a U.S. policy that constrains Israel, accepts a Hamas regime in Gaza, does nothing to obstruct Hizballah's power in Lebanon, is reluctant to pressure Iran, engages rather than weakens Syria, and many more steps like these.

Al-Qaida can blow up a building. But the revolutionary Islamists can blow up a country. And soon Iran will be able to blow up the entire Middle East.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com. This article is archived as
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/07/ cia-chief-says-al-qaida-weaker.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yosef Rabin, June 30, 2010.

My name is Yosef Rabin. I made Aliyah almost a year ago after having graduated from North Eastern Illinois University this past summer. After high school I was privileged to study in Israel for a couple of years and then went on to serve as a combat soldier in the IDF Netzach Yehuda 97th Battalion. I think it is safe to say that I have learned a thing or two in regard to defending the Jewish People and our inherent right to the Land of Israel.

When I was in university I watched as the pro-Israel group on campus was helpless against the onslaught of vile incitement and hate aimed at the Jewish State. I have seen a similar trend in universities across the US and I would like to suggest as to why this is. Pro-Israel groups talk about a lot of great things: Israel's democratic values, the IDF's unparalleled morality in battle, her right to self defense, Israel's hi-tech and so many other wonderful aspects of the State of Israel. However, this is exactly the problem. The Arab sympathizers talk about one thing and one thing only, justice! They want the world to believe that they stand in the field of justice, while the Jewish People stand in the wrong. In a sense they are completely right; if we Jews came in and usurped their land, we would have no right to continue to be here. We would have no right to defend what is not ours to defend! However, if we Jews returned to our ancestral homeland and our bond to her stems from the deepest historical and religious grounds, then it is we who stand in the field of justice and they who stand in the wrong. You cannot mix apples and oranges and expect to win the debate; it does not work that way. Let me tell you: the audience will not buy it. They talk about justice, so you must talk about justice!

During my last spring semester in NEIU, a Jewish professor wrote a terrible anti-Israel/Jewish piece, which was published prominently in the university newspaper online and in print. He even went as far to write that Israel was "the greatest mistake of the past century" and that "in Judaism, land has never been holy." Needless to say, the Jew haters rejoiced, and Jewish students were too stunned to speak. It was obvious that hitting back with the same old "Israel is such a wonderful democracy" was not going to work. That was not the issue at hand; the issue at hand was our intrinsic right to the land. I wrote back a very strong letter to the editor, which was published in both the print and online additions of the university newspapers.

In my letter I focused on one issue and one issue only, our right to the land through mainly history and through the word of our Torah. Considering that the two intertwine, I put strong emphasis on what the Torah has to say about our connection with the land, because you cannot argue against it. No one dares to tell the Christians how to run their affairs in Vatican City nor would anyone dare tell the Muslims what to do in Mecca, because it is sacred to them. There is no point in arguing about it, neither the Muslims nor Christians will give in regarding their sacred lands. After my letter was published, one of the leaders of the anti-Israel movement came to me with a confession. He said, "We gathered to talk about your letter and no one knew what to say...we were speechless. You were so adamant and passionate about your religious and historical connection to the land, what could we have said." My friends, this is the key!

You must be unrelenting and declare without fear that the Land of Israel belongs solely to the Jewish Nation and that we are committed to the greatest act of justice by returning to our land! My friends, YOU MUST SPEAK WORDS OF JUSTICE! They may not agree with you, but they will respect you for it. It will change the nature of the debate and swing things in our favor. Jews must walk with their heads held high and not be apologetic in any way in calling for our return to our homeland. We have nothing to apologize about for building in Jerusalem, Chevron or Beit Lechem. Do NOT talk about the peace process; leave this to the politicians. Focus on one thing and one thing only, making sure everyone understands where you stand. IT IS OUR LAND AND WE HAVE RETURNED BY HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIRTUE. Please do not get me wrong — I am not telling you to demonize them, to stoop to their level — but I am asking you to stand up for what is yours.

For example, if the Arabs and their supporters have a demonstration about how Israel wants to harm the Dome of the Rock, which stands on our holy Temple Mount, you must respond! Respond not by calling for the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, but, rather, rally for Jewish Rights on the Temple Mount! Speak about our connection to the place. Sadly, as a nation, we have completely forfeited our right to the Temple Mount. Think of this logically: if a Jew has no right to walk and pray at the site of his 3,000 year old holy Temple, what right can he possibly have in Tel Aviv, which just turned 100? In my humble opinion, this issue needs to be addressed quickly and unrelentingly — it must be front and center. We must restore Jewish Pride in the Land of Israel and we must begin with its foundation stone, which is the Temple Mount! I would like to start a worldwide campaign on this issue. I am certain that once Jewish students understand the religious, cultural and historical importance of the Temple Mount, they will passionately push it.

The Land of Israel, for the People of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel!

Thank you,

Yosef Rabin is Liaison to North American Communities HaTenua LeChinun HaMikdash (Organization for Renewal of the Temple).

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 30, 2010.

This was written by Steven Simpson and it appeared in American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/ why_islam_will_never_accept_th.html


It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion — Islam vs. Judaism — cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al-Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what — or more precisely, where — Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews — and Judaism — were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) — then called Yathrib — was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa.

Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.

Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.

In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine."

In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.

This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an — and later on, the various Hadiths — says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.

The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews — not just Israelis — pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate."

Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran — conquered by the Arabs — have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people — or peoples — is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.

Islam — as currently interpreted and practiced — cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.


To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 30, 2010.

The ME Conflict Needs a Dog Trainer!
by Eve Demian.

I think the escalation of the Middle East conflict and boldness of so-called Palestinians particular should be very easy for everyone to understand, if they consider the most basic rules of behaviour:

1) Reward behaviour and it will be repeated. Reward it again, and it will be reinforced, with every repetition of this. Even negative attention is attention, and attention is a.

2) If you want behaviour to stop, you must consistently stop 'rewarding' for it.

3) Inconsistency fosters persistence!

These are three basic behavioural facts common to every living thing on this planet! (Even a bacteria knows how and where they received rewards of nutrition. If they didn't — they would not survive!)

I gave you these simple DOG TRAINING instructions to my clients in dogs training service! And, when they were willing to follow those instructions, they succeeded!

No UN Condemnation — No Demand for Compensation! A group of 25 armed and masked men attacked and set fire to an UN-sponsored summer camp in Gaza on Monday morning. This is the second case of a summer camp set in fire in Gaza this year. In May masked militants burned another UN-sponsored summer camp hours before it was due to open. Both camps were attacked by (HAMAS supervised) Muslim extremists who apparently object to boys and girls going to camp together.

Four Years since Shalit Abduction. Hundreds of people set sail in New York City on Thursday in what they dubbed the True Freedom Flotilla. Ten boats sailed past the Statue of Liberty, around Manhattan, and past the United Nations, waving signs calling to free kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Several decades ago, before and during WW2, some people in Europe tried to use 'scientific' arguments and racial profiling to prove the inferiority of Jewish people due to their Semitic origin. Since the creation of Israel, Jews were screamed at — in Europe, Russia and even the US — "go back to your Palestine !" Now, the same kind of people, should I say scum, are trying to delegitimize Israel by questioning the origins of Jewish people.

Netanyahu's Epiphany: PA Doesn't Want Peace. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) accused the American-backed PA of being unwilling to enter into peace talks with Israel. "Why are there only proximity talks? There is no willingness on the part of the Palestinian Authority to enter direct talks. I say to Abu Mazen: 'There is no way to solve the conflict without direct discussion.'" (They have never wanted peace with Israel ) Speaking in front of the Knesset, the premier added, "The world says we have a right for self defense, but every time we are about to fulfil our right, we are accused of war crimes."

Fatah (Arab) Style Democracy. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Fatah party, has again cancelled elections that were supposed to be held next month, because of fears that Hamas supporters or independent parties will fill the growing leadership vacuum in the PA. The Obama administration has pressured Israel to agree to a long line of concessions to the PA illegitimate government in order to bolster the popularity of Abbas.

There Would be no Need for a Blockade. Israel's President Shimon Peres warned that delegitimizing Israel only strengthens terror organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaida and there would be no need for a blockade on Gaza or flotillas, if Gaza would agree to peace, release Gilad Shalit and stop shooting missiles at Israel.

Quote of the Week: "...as demonstrated by the UN's unusually speedy condemnation of the flotilla incident and the British government's expressions of outrage, anti-Israel sentiment is extremely useful for Western governments and international bodies, too. It allows them to take the moral high ground on the international stage at a time when, post-Iraq, it is increasingly difficult for them to do so. It allows them to brush over their own acts of aggression by going along with the idea that Israel is a uniquely colonialist, belligerent nation whom they, being whiter than white, have the right to lecture and hector. When Israel is continually said to have crossed a "boundary of civilisation", governments can conveniently pose as civilised by posturing against it." — Brendan O'Neill — Honest person, although not a friend of Israel.

Political Blindness. Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni slammed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his decision to ease the siege on Gaza. "Your remarks point to political blindness and giving up. Hamas is getting legitimacy, while Israel is losing it. No one believes you." (Why couldn't her party, Labor, have this political clarity when it was in power?)

Saudi Arabia: No Mingling Allowed. A Saudi court has convicted four women and 11 men for mingling at a party and sentenced them to flogging and up to two year prison terms each. (Where are international outcries and boycott of Saudi products — like oil?)

Is Obama Muslim? That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to article, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda." (The issue is not whether Obama is Muslim or not. The problem that he most likely is and is hiding it — and is covertly implementing an Islamic agenda as the policy of the United States?)

Another Excuse to Dump 'Peace Process'. Chairman Saeb Erekat of the PA's diplomatic negotiating team said that the Jerusalem local planning commission's decision to destroy 22 illegally-built Arab homes as part of the King's Garden reclamation project "proves that Israel has decided to destroy the indirect talks with the Palestinians." (Why must only 'illegally' built Jewish homes be destroyed?)

Turkey: Organiser of Martyrdom Flotilla!

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that "Israel was losing its greatest friend losing its greatest friend in the region" with its actions (Quite a cynical statement from a delusional 'friend'. Wasn't Turkey the major organizer of the flotilla?) Erdogan made the statement after an announcement that all nine of the people, who achieved their life goal and became Islamic martyrs by willingly dying creating an anti-Israel publicity stunt, killed in the Gaza flotilla raid were Turks. (Turkey has always played a game of fake friendship with Israel in order to receive financial help from the US. And it has also never been a good member of NATO. Remember that Turkey did not allow US troops to move through to Northern Iraq several years ago! Why aren't American anti-Semites demanding to end US aid to Turkey?)

Mission Accomplished! — Turkey emerges as Middle East leader.

Martyrs Welcome. Thousands of mourners hailed activists killed in an Israeli commando mission as martyrs on Thursday, hoisting their coffins to cheers of "God is great," while Turkish President Abdullah Gul said "Turkey will never forget this attack."

Flotilla was an Islamic Terror Operation. Evidence released by the IDF on Monday night, June 1, described how the Turkish Marmara, the flotilla's lead vessel, had been commandeered by terrorists indirectly supported by the Ankara government's subsidy to the Turkish Insani Yardim Vakfi — IHH, which is listed by the American CIA as an al Qaeda-linked Islamist terrorist organization with bases in Turkey, Bosnia and Bulgaria. Those passengers attested to more than a hundred members of terrorist organizations aboard acting like a quasi-military group with a command hierarchy... Although they appeared to hail from different terrorist organizations from various countries, they were all ordered to say they belonged to the IHH.

Activist: I Tried Three Times to be a 'Shaheed'. The IDF released footage showing one of the passengers on the Marmora ferry telling an interviewer that "he looked forward to becoming a shaheed, a martyr," during the course of the voyage. "The first time I sailed to Gaza I wanted to become a shaheed, but I didn't have any luck," he said, speaking in English, apparently to a fellow passenger taking the footage with a video camera. "The second time I tried, but it didn't work. This time, the third, I hope to have more luck," he said. (This Islamic terror flotilla was organised by Turkey and supported by brainless Jew-haters or political opportunists who are building their political careers on anti-Semitism!)

World Complacent to Genocide Again? Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan demanded that his European allies cut off funding for Kurdish rebels and extradite suspected rebels to Turkey. (In order to destroy the Kurdish people's wish to live free, Turkey is quite happy with world indifference, just like Nazi Germany before committing the Holocaust!) The United States ambassador to Turkey said earlier this week that the US supports Turkey 's efforts to clamp down on Kurdish resistance: "We stand ready to review urgently any new requests from the Turkish military or government regarding the PKK," (The leading democracy has already signed up with the genocide perpetrator!)

Why not Independent Kurdistan? Turkey admitted to slaughtering as many as 120 Kurdish rebels in raids on their hideouts in northern Iraq last month. (Still there is no UN condemnation of Turkey or at least any call for an international investigation of the conflict.) Speaking at the funeral of Turkish soldiers killed in a battle against Kurdish rebels fighting the Turkish occupation — Prime Minister Erdogan said that Turkey would "wipe out" all the Kurdish fighters. Erdogan's words come only two weeks after he reminded Israel that it is said in the Torah "Don't Murder". (Hypocrisy is the main trait of Israel's enemies! Kurds are true freedom fighters against occupation of Kurdistan by Turkey! But so-called Palestinians are opportunistic, blood-thirsty Arab terrorists.)

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 Richard Shulman, June 30, 2010.


Quartet can't save own economies (AP/Alexander Zemlianichenk)

Israel's Foreign Minister Lieberman denounced the Quartet's two-year timetable for new Arab statehood. He explained that the two sides were far from agreement on much.

If Israeli Arabs had to exchange Israeli citizenship for citizenship in the new Arab state, they would lose a great deal, economically (Arutz-7, 6/30/10).

Israeli Arabs would lose more than that. Their women would become more cloistered, their homosexuals more murdered, their journalists more restricted, their Christians more bombed, and their children more subject to indoctrination in hatred and violence. That is why, in anticipation of Arab statehood, thousands of Arabs whose houses are in the areas contemplated for such a state have been moving into the areas Israel is likely to retain.

When Min. Lieberman says the two sides are far apart, he is under-stating it. Israel wants peace. Abbas wants conquest, his people do, and his Fatah charter enshrines it as official doctrine. That makes the two sides irreconcilable, regardless of what Israel does. If Israel were to give up territory in the hope of gaining peace, Abbas would accept it in the hope of gaining an advantage in conquering Israel.

Such a conquest is not mere fantasy. Israel is a tiny country, not having sufficient land to fully maneuver its forces and with insufficient strategic depth to withstand an invasion that gets past its borders. It faces an enemy that once it gets inside, is likely to slaughter whatever civilians it can find.

The Land of Israel is less than 1% of the Mideast outside of Iran, meaning the Arabs already control 99%. The State of Israel encompasses about 17% of the Land of Israel, the Territories another 4%, and Jordan 79%. That 4%, along with the Golan Heights, is key to Israeli survival. Those areas contain mountain anti-tank barriers and observation points that protect against invaders. They would provide Israel with secure borders. Without them, Israel's insecure borders would invite war from the Arabs, whose ideology is religiously and politically chauvinist.

As for the timetable proposed by the Quartet, the East moves on its own timetable. In setting deadlines, as the U.S. and others do for the Arab-Israel conflict and Afghanistan, they set up for failure, under the circumstances. What circumstances?

The Arab side wants whatever it can get in the short run, so as to conquer Israel in the long run. Refusing to recognize that situation, the Quartet takes the Arab side. As a result, Abbas is in no hurry to negotiate. Rather than make any compromise, he balks, he insists, he insults, and he waits. He waits, as it seems the Taliban will, for the deadline to pass. The Taliban would anticipate a U.S. withdrawal. The Palestinian Arabs would anticipate U.S. pressure on Israel to hurry and yield to Arab demands.

Israeli leaders are appeasement-minded, their national loyalty in doubt, or they are weak willed. They fail to make their own case and put forward or act on Jewish national interests. They make the big mistake of letting hostile outside parties mediate.

As for the leaders of the U.S., ignorant or biased about the issues, they fail to act in the American national interest involving allies and jihadists enemies. In blaming the U.S. for so much not this country's fault, in favoring U.S. enemies, and in disfavoring U.S. allies, as well as in their riding roughshod over the U.S. Constitution and intimidating corporations and over-extending an economy-dragging big government, as Obama and his entourage and radical followers do, there is an element of ultra-liberal anti-Americanism. The big question is its extent.


Backed indirectly by U.S. envoy Mitchell, Abbas raised a new demand for switching from indirect negotiations to direct negotiations: a permanent Israeli building freeze in the Territories and in parts of Jerusalem on his list of immediate territorial demands. ["Immediate," in that his ideology seeks exclusive control of the whole country of Israel, as his regime teaches the children.]

Newsweek, in support of the State Dept. negotiating position, said that most Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu for sometimes holding firm. Actually, most polls show approval of Netanyahu for that, skepticism of any chance of agreement with the Palestinian Authority, and an electorate favorable to Netanyahu and right-wing parties.

Mitchell started the day inspecting goods being transferred from Israel to Gaza. Earlier in that day, terrorists fired a rocket into Israel, destroying a packing house. Israeli neighbors decried Mitchell's lack of interest in their humanitarian needs, as he concentrated on the needs of people imbued with the terrorist ideology.

How could Israelis not be skeptical, when Abbas admits that if the Quartet's two-year schedule for statehood passes, he would ask the UN to confer statehood within "Israel's existing boundaries?" (Arutz-7, 6/30/10.)

That last phrase is inaccurate, perhaps an excess of Jewish nationalism by my source. The Territories are not within the boundaries of the State of Israel, only within the Land of Israel. Israel has boundaries with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, but not adjoining the Territories. There, it has just an armistice line, the Green Line. Israeli law extends up to that line, but Israel has land claims to the disputed Territories.

The building freeze being demanded of Israel is one-sided, akin to apartheid. If they asked for a building freeze by both sides, they would be neutral about it. However, the freeze is harming the natural increase in Jewish population.

As for the Israeli politics of this, the Israeli Left has been shrinking, as its policies have led to more Arab war and terrorism, and conservative economic polices have led to prosperity. Israelis understand reality better, and fantasize less. Why doesn't Mr. Mitchell recognize the significance of the rocket?

Israel keeps falling for Arab and State Dept. negotiating ruses. The ruses are designed to keep Israel making concessions for the same thing. Israel should have learned when Pres. Clinton got Hebron concessions from Netanyahu in exchange for release of Pollard, reneged, as State Dept. advisors said to hold Pollard as a bargaining chip for more concessions. In this case, Israel entered unsatisfactory indirect negotiations as a warmup for direct negotiations, but now Abbas demands another concession for entering direct negotiations.

Many times, Arab negotiators agree to something that produces favorable headlines, but then they deny agreement, say they meant something else, pocket the Israeli reciprocal conession but withhold theirs, and deny the negotiator's authority, or try to change the definition and meaning of the agreement. That's jihad.


A foreign news outlet reported that the Gaza-Israel front has been "quiet" since operation Cast Lead combat in Gaza. The continued shrieking of air raid alarms and explosion of rockets, however, is noisy. Since Cast Lead, terrorists have fired 300 rockets into Israel.

Just Wednesday morning, a rocket destroyed a packing house in Israel, shortly before the workers arrived. The workers went to synagogue to offer the traditional Jewish prayer for having been delivered from evil.

Mostly, Israelis have escaped casualties and much potential damage It seems miraculous. The media takes shooting seriously only if there are casualties (Arutz-7, 6/30/10).

The media's false indication of non-combat makes peace seem within grasp. Then the media acts surprised and outraged when, eventually, Israel can't keep letting terrorists attack with impunity and build up their ability to attack, and fights back.

Some readers have as peculiar a standard of the significance and nature of combat as do the media. I deleted one comment for descending into nasty name-calling, but here will refute the point it made. The comment compared the greater number of Arab civilian casualties in Cast Lead with the smaller number of Israeli civilian casualties, and concluded that Israel must be terrorist. False conclusion, wrong basis of comparison, misunderstanding of terrorism.

"Terrorism" is the deliberate attack on civilians for political gain. Terrorism is the jihadist ideology and practice. By contrast, Israeli ideology and practice shun terrorism. The IDF has risked its soldiers' and civilians' lives many times to avoid harming Arab civilians. I think Israel goes too far for a people too far gone in bigotry.

The civilians killed in Cast Lead were killed because of Hamas war crimes of using human shields both for its fighting forces and its arms depots, and because they sometimes come out to watch. No Arab civilians would be killed, if Hamas kept its arms and army away from populated areas, as per international law. International law holds Hamas responsible for those deaths. Fair enough. But not knowing international law, the reader's comment was not fair.

The reader's comment picks a narrow time frame. However, the Intifadas and all the terrorism before, between, and besides, killed thousands of Israeli civilians and maimed many more. The reader selected too small a sampling. He played into the hands of the terrorists, who deliberately use human shields by the very placement of their weapons depots in apartment houses and by firing alongside houses, schools, and UN buildings. Then, as cynically planned by Hamas, foreigners become indignant not at Hamas for setting up civilians to die, but at Israel, for defending itself. They want Israel to let its own civilians be killed rather defend themselves in a way Hamas prepared to reap headlines from Arab civilians killed in a battle zone.

That erroneous and biased desire infected the UN Goldstone report, so some readers cite that invalid report against Israel.

Recall the battles of Jenin and the first Lebanon war. The media were full of stories about Israeli destruction there. But in the cities mentioned, the destruction was in a small proportion of the city, only where the terrorists were holed up. One would not have realized the extent of Israeli civility and self-restraint from those misleading reports. About alleged Israeli over-destruction, the misleading goes on, and the myths live on.


A new controversy has arisen over the building freeze in Judea-Samaria.

PM Netanyahu announced a 10-month temporary freeze of residential and commercial building in Judea-Samaria, not to include public and religious buildings. It is up to Defense Minister Barak to approve construction. Jerusalem is exempt from the freeze.

Barak has taken it upon himself to bar construction of schoolrooms in Judea-Samaria, although those would be public construction, for which the need is pressing. Israeli law requires school construction to match population growth.

Many in the reigning coalition regime resent Barak's unilateral decision. They say they will obey the law requiring construction rather than the fiat banning it (Arutz-7,6/30/10).

Netanyahu often deceives his own people. He is considered weak. Barak is appeasement-minded. It is difficult to tell whether Barak is merely incompetent or disloyal. Both acquiesce to U.S. demands. In addition, the Labor Party has a record of undermining coalitions in which it shares power. Therefore, it is difficult to tell whether Netanyahu wants Barak to violate Netanyahu's word on the limits of the freeze or is too weak minded to oppose him. Netanyahu would have more justification to fire Barak than Obama had to fire Gen. McChrystal.

In making up your own mind, you should take into account that Netanyahu talked like a right-wing nationalist during his campaign, but on taking office, secretly imposed a construction freeze on Judea-Samaria. When he announed the freeze, months later, he exempted Jerusalem, but secretly allowed no building, or almost none, in eastern Jerusalem.


Knesset Education Committee chair Zebulon Orlev finds that the Islamic Movement has infiltrated Israeli Arab schools. It has participated in selecting staff and educational materials.

The news brief is vague in reiterating charges of illegality. The government may be planning a law requiring its approval for NGOs seeking to participate in schools. MK Masoud Ghanayem (Raam-Taal) said that it should be up to the school principal which MKs to permit (Arutz-7, 6/30/10).

Rather than leaving the matter up to bureaucratic discretion, subject to abuse, Israel would be wiser to ban the Islamic Movement, which is subversive and pro-terrorist, at that.

Whatever I report, some readers distort it into an anti-Israel message. In a report about Territorial building permits controlled by Israel's Defense Minister, a reader took that as proof of Israel being a militaristic society. Israel has civilian control over the military to the point of hobbling defense. The report may reflect Israeli bureaucracy or that the Territories require military participation because the Arabs there have a militaristic society. When last reported, a couple of years ago, the Palestinian Authority had the highest percentage in the world of troops and police. That reader interprets just about everything about Israel as negative and nothing about the Arabs as negative, not their bigotry, not their aggression, not their genocide.


Israel has expanded the powers of the commission investigating the legality both of the embargo and of its enforcement and also the behavior of those organizing the flotilla. The newly appointed commission balked at its lack of power. The government accommodated them by conferring the powers to issue subpoenas, and have them testify under oath, and by appointing two more members.

Out of the commission's jurisdiction is how well the IDF enforced the embargo (IMRA, 6/30/10).


A.P. photo/ David Karp — Ahmadinejad boasts too much to back down?

The third aircraft carrier group has just arrived in the Persian Gulf. A German warship is among them. The USS Truman is posted opposite Iran's commando units. President Obama told Israel that this would be a show of force, intended to intimidate Iran's President Ahmadinejad into ceasing to develop nuclear weapons. This is Obama's substitute for a pre-emptive attack.

Ahmadinejad is not likely to be cowed. He does not act by rational Western standards, but could be willing to take great chances on his countrymen's live, to deliver a great blow of his own. He counts on the hidden Mahdi to bring his forces to victory over all the non-Muslims. [He has hinted that he is the hidden Mahdi.]

Another substitute for pre-emptive attack may be Leon Panetta's new estimate that Iran is two years away from fielding nuclear weapons. That may have been stated to give Obama more time to take us down to the wire (Winston Mid East Report and Analysis, 6/29/10).

Since Obama is appeasement minded, and was foolish enough to announce a withdrawal from Afghanistan at the same time as announcing a troop surge there, his bluff is likely to be called.


Israel arrested a warrant officer and several civilians for passing security information to a Lebanese drug gang connected to Hizbullah (IMRA, 6/30/10).

Evil attracts evil. There are reports of terrorists and drug gangs aligning in other countries, too. Some terrorists tax or conduct some drug smuggling, themselves.

Speaking of evil, a reader who calls me evil, also calls modern Zionism an invasion. Modern Zionism is the Jewish national liberation movement that returned a Jewish population to its homeland by purchase of property. They paid both the absentee Arab landlords and the Arab tenants. With that money, Arab tenants were able to buy land of their own. It was the oppressive Arab landlords and money lenders who turned many Arab peasants into tenants and sharecroppers. Zionism helped liberate the tenants.

In developing their land, Zionists build an economy. The economy provided jobs not only for Arab former tenants, but also attracted masses of Arab immigrants. If the Zionists were invaders, so were those Arabs, who constituted three-fourths of the Arab families in western Palestine.

Some people just don't get the story straight. Nor do they want to, if the true story does not make for alarmist propaganda.


The King of Saudi is visiting the U.S. Saudi Arabia alternately falsely claims that it has revised its textbooks to eliminate proposed, bigoted violence and promises to revise them. After claiming that the books were reformed, Saudi Arabia admitted in 2006 that they had not been, but gave the U.S. a solemn promise they would be by 2008. But they broke that promise. Will President Obama raise the issue with the visitor?

This issue is paramount. The Saudi government can denounce terrorism and even reduce direct financing of it. But since Saudi education encourages the bigotry and violence behind terrorism, the government engenders the attacks that brought the U.S. to war.

Saudi Arabian education instructs the children from first grade through high school that Jews and Christians are their enemies. It teaches them to kill Jews, polytheists (which in their view includes Shiites), and apostates from the Saudi version of Islam. Jihad is presented as a sacred duty. Since the children learn by rote, they are indoctrinated.

Saudi Arabia finances schools elsewhere in the world, too. Indeed, although Saudi Arabia comprises only 1% of Muslims, it pays for 90% of the religion's expenses, overriding more tolerant versions of Islam. Saudi Arabia distributes religious literature to millions of the faithful on pilgrimage to Mecca.

For the U.S., this is a matter of national security (Hudson Institute, 6/30/10 from Nina Shea, National Review Online).

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 Kushner, June 30, 2010.

Special Envoy George Mitchell is here, and resuming "proximity talks." There are reports that even now — why wait until he comes to Washington? — pressure is going to be put on Netanyahu to extend the construction freeze, allegedly in return for a PA agreement to enter direct talks.

All of this simply exacerbates a sense of frustration and extreme exasperation. Netanyahu has been pushing for direct talks with the PA, saying that this is the only way to make progress. But the question that hangs in the air is, progress on what? The two sides are so far apart that talk of "progress" is nonsensical game-playing, no more than a charade.

Will Netanyahu, who pumped for those "direct talks," now have the courage to refuse to extend the freeze if this is the quid pro quo offered to him? Will he fear being accused of being a stumbling block to peace if he refuses to "facilitate" those "direct talks" when presumably given the opportunity to do so?


Netanyahu met with the Septet, the inner Security Cabinet, last night to discuss both Mitchell's visit and the trip to Washington. Members of the Septet are not all of one mind on this issue of extending the freeze.

Mitchell was scheduled to meet with Netanyahu and Barak, as well as PA prime minister Salam Fayyad today, and with PA president Abbas tomorrow.


At the same time that this is going on, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been visiting.

Following a meeting with his Russian counterpart, two days ago, our foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, put out a statement that:

"[in spite of the fact that I am] an optimistic person, I don't think there is any chance that a Palestinian state will be established by 2012. It is possible to imagine, it is impossible to dream, but the reality on the is that we are still very far from reaching an agreement."

I may not agree with Lieberman about everything, but I consistently admire him for his readiness to tell it like it is.


Lavrov, for his part, is of a different mind. After meeting with Abbas in Ramallah he declared that reaching a peace agreement by 2012 was a "realistic objective."

"If everyone shows goodwill and mutual trust, if all international negotiators actively push the sides towards reconciliation, this is quite realistic."

A whole lot of "if"s, with the idea of international negotiators actively pushing being the most unsettling.

The only observation I can make in Lavrov's defense is that it is exceedingly likely that Abbas was on his best behavior, wearing his "moderation" suit and spouting all sorts of peaceful intentions. But then one must ask if Lavrov gives a damn if Abbas happens to not be on the level.

I would imagine that the "goodwill" Lavrov would seek from Israel would be a willingness to move back to the pre-'67 line, turn eastern Jerusalem over to the PA, accept at least some "refugees," and proceed without a recognition by the PA that we are the Jewish state. Oh! And we should look the other way with regard to continued PA incitement and the existence of Hamas in Gaza.

In other words, if we are willing to commit suicide, we would have the opportunity to sign on the dotted line.


In a piece in today's JPost, Khaled Abu Toameh reports that a recent attempt to bridge the gap between Fatah and Hamas has been abandoned. Members of a committee put together by businessman Munib al-Masri right after the flotilla incident have thrown up their hands after Hamas refused to receive the delegation and Fatah was not forthcoming in making certain adjustments.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/ Article.aspx?id=179956


This news is of major significance with regard to the so-called peace process.

I hasten to assure my readers that I do not imagine for a nanosecond that if Fatah and Hamas were to come to an understanding and form a coalition of whatever kind, that this would pave the way for good things to happen. Fatah leaders have made it quite clear — in a ludicrous two-step that dances around the heart of the matter — that they do not demand of Hamas acceptance of major Quartet stipulations such as recognizing Israel or complying with former agreements. All that would matter, they say, is that the representatives for negotiations jointly agreed upon would accept these stipulations. Makes no real sense, but never mind.

The point is that if there were a Fatah-Hamas merger or, more accurately, coalition, there would be a semblance of unity within the Palestinian Arab world and ostensibly one representative body that would speak for all Palestinian Arabs. It would increase the heat on Israel.


But as matters stand, we are left with what I refer to as the elephant in the room: Hamas ruling in Gaza while the world conveniently pretends this is not happening. Abbas most certainly does not represent all Palestinian Arabs, and the PA cannot negotiate for all Palestinian Arabs. So what is being aimed for? It isn't a "two-state" solution, really, at all, is it?

It would be nice if those involved with negotiations were candid enough to acknowledge this major stumbling block. Properly, aside from all other considerations, there should be no talks until the Palestinian Arabs themselves get their act together and until Hamas is out of the picture.


It must be mentioned here that according to Abu Toameh, a Hamas official is claiming that both Egypt and the US are working behind the scenes against a Fatah-Hamas merger. The desire, according to this report, is to avoid strengthening Hamas.


In light of this situation, the unconfirmed report below is of particular interest:

Last Thursday, the London-based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that a senior Hamas official — said to be close to Ismail Haniyeh — claims that senior American officials have requested contact with Hamas, but have asked that this remain secret "so as not to rouse Jewish lobby." Maintained this official: "This is a sensitive subject. The Americans don't want anyone to comment on it because this would catch the attention of [US] pressure groups and cause problems."

This report was carried by multiple media sources. Following this, an Arabic newspaper located in Washington DC quoted a "senior official" who said that an American envoy, carrying a letter for Hamas, is scheduled to meet with a Hamas representative in an Arab country.

The rationale presented for these alleged plans is that Hamas is a factor that must be contended with. Given Obama's predilection for "dialoguing" even with the most problematic of groups, this would not come as a major surprise.

However...Assistant White House Press Secretary Tommy Vietor, has denied this report, calling it "inaccurate." He said he regretted that Al Quds had neglected to request a comment by the US administration.

All of this leaves us...nowhere.


That UNRWA has Hamas connections (e.g., the UNRWA teachers union in Gaza is controlled by Hamas-affiliated people) is hardly news. But this is a different wrinkle, which also involves the US:

According to a report by Israel National News that was released just a week ago, UNRWA is giving a financial boost to Hamas: The currency utilized in Gaza is Israeli shekels. But when UNRWA receives donations to cover its salaries in Gaza — the great bulk of which is from the US — it requests dollars. Those dollars are then deposited in the Gaza Postal Bank, which is controlled by Hamas, so that a currency exchange can be made and UNRWA employees can be paid.

The bank (i.e., Hamas) charges a significant fee for making the exchange. Then, according to this report, Hamas sells the dollars on the Egyptian black market for an inflated price.

This is the same UNRWA, please understand, whose spokespersons become highly indignant at the suggestion that there must be controls on certain materials going into Gaza that might be used by Hamas in constructions of rockets and bunkers. "What's the problem?" is the standard response. "If it's in UNRWA hands it's controlled."


Please see this important piece by Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) for Strategic Studies, on the issue of Israel's right to close its border with Gaza, and the need to do so.

So great is the misrepresentation with regard to the situation in Gaza, says Inbar, that it is not understood that the standard of living in Gaza is generally higher than that of Egypt.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/ Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=179925


From Sarah Stern of EMET in Washington has come good news:

The US government has officially dismissed its deportation case against Mosab Hassan Yousef — about whom I wrote recently — after a hearing at a federal detention center in San Diego. Mosab, who credits the efforts of EMET with making this victory possible, will be given political asylum.

Stern in particular thanks Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), who authored a letter to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, co-sponsored with 21 other Representatives, and former Ambassador R. James Woolsey, who also wrote a letter on Mosab's behalf.


Apologies. When I recommended — and provided the URL for — the very fine interview of Itamar Marcus by Richard Landes it was up on the PJTV website free for the viewing. I had no idea that it was about to be placed in the PJTV archives, and that there would be an announcement that it could be seen only by paying for a subscription — I was not recommending that anyone pay to see this.

I have been in touch with the Palestinian Media Watch office and they are attempting to secure a way for this interview to be viewed without cost. If I receive information on this, I will, of course, share it.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Fern Sidman, June 30, 2010.

Released in May of this year by WND Books, this seminal piece of investigative journalism entitled, The Manchurian President has been both embraced by political conservatives and repudiated by Obama apologists in progressive enclaves. Listed as number 23 on The New York Times non-fiction bestseller list as of June 27th, this eye-opening account of President Obama's ties to radical left-wing extremists represents the latest work of intrepid investigative journalist and WABC radio talk show host, Aaron Klein. I sat down with Mr. Klein to discuss his new book.

FS: Concerning your latest book, The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists, what served as the inspiration for you and Brenda J Elliott to collaborate on such a monumental investigative task?

AK: I was inspired to undertake this task because so few reporters were conducting any real investigation into Barack Obama's background. I reported in February of 2008 that Obama was tied to Weather Underground criminal/terrorist Bill Ayers. When I did a Google search to see if any other reporters or media outlets had uncovered this information, I was stunned to find that they had not. After all, it is the responsibility of the media to engage in a vetting process of sorts when it pertains to presidential candidates. Based on my research, it was clear to me that Obama had a long relationship with Ayers and Ayers even gave Obama his first job at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. They also served together, in the 1990s on the board of the Woods Fund; a non-profit organization that funneled money to leftist causes including the Midwest Academy that practiced Alinsky-like tactics of working within the capitalist system in order to overthrow it. What really served as the impetus for me to write this book was the lack of any real independent investigative journalism on the part of the mainstream media, as it pertained to Obama's past.

FS: As you previously mentioned to Sean Hannity on FOX News, President Obama was not forthright in his book concerning his first boss who he claimed was Marty Kaufman. Since no such person exists, and the person to whom he referred was Gerald "Jerry" Kellman, what connections does Kellman currently have with this administration?

AK: While Jerry Kellman may not have ties to the administration, it is clear that Obama apparently deliberately disguised the fact in his autobiography that he was given a job at the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools or ABC's by someone he claimed was Marty Kaufman, who in fact does not exist. Rather, he was referring to Jerry Kellman, who is an avowed Marxist and a stalwart acolyte of Saul Alinksy, the radical community organizer. Obama also disguises other names in his so-called autobiography, "Dreams From My Father", and neglects to mention that his childhood mentor was another Communist agitator named Frank Marshall Davis. Very little information was known about Obama other than what he had penned in his book. All of this information should be considered a major political scandal and the fact that he changed the names in his book should be challenged.

FS: Why do you think the mainstream media did not scrutinize Obama's background and ties to extremists and why do you think he was not carefully vetted by the Democratic party?

AK: I think the mainstream media promotes the same kinds of policies that Obama is espousing. He is the kind of candidate that they've been wishing for and hoping for. He is their dream come true. The Democratic Party did not carefully vet him because even those in his own presidential campaign such as David Plauth, who made a lot of Obama's videos, admitted that he didn't check out his background and was unaware of his affiliation for over 22 years with Rev Jeremiah Wright's church and black liberation theology. The party betrays it's past and it's roots by remaining indifferent to the polemical aspects of Obama's career. Obama has been pushing for the very same policies that the mainstream media itself that has been advocating for years and now they have this candidate named Obama so of course they're not going to investigate him in any serious way. To them these issues are not scandals. The media has been promoting Bill Ayers and other radical leftists and the causes that Obama has been representing for years, so this comes as no surprise.

FS: Your book sheds light on the sketchy details surrounding Obama's college days. What were his political leanings during his years at Occidental College and Columbia University and was he under the tutelage of Marxist mentors and professors?

AK: As to Obama's college days, no official or unofficial records were ever made available to the media. No college transcripts, published records, or even contemporary newspaper announcements about his education have been released. Obama remarkably relates in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father" that, beginning at Occidental, he surrounded himself with an assortment of radicals, socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and communists. Obama, however, provides neither names nor clues.

It was at Occidental that Obama first engaged in community activism, delivering what has been described as the first political speech of his career. On Feb. 18, 1981, Obama addressed students gathered outside Coons Hall administration building, exhorting Occidental's trustees to divest from South Africa. Obama writes in "Dreams" about the rally in which he took part, reportedly led by the Black Student Alliance and Students for Economic Democracy. Students for Economic Democracy, or SED, was a national student advocacy group established by soon-to-be California State Representative Tom Hayden, now a professor at Occidental, and his former wife, actress Jane Fonda.

FS: As to Israel, the Middle East and relations with the Muslim world, many people feel Obama has coddled our Islamic terrorist enemies such as Iran, and their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. In a recent article (June 15) by Jerusalem Post reporter, Caroline Glick, she writes:

"It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama's friends, former Weatherman Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fundraiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is former US senator from South Dakota James Abourezk."

What are your comments on this?

AK: As I reported back in January of this year, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers along with Code Pink's Jodie Evans were in the forefront of fomenting chaos on the streets of Egypt in an attempt to enter Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement to join in solidarity with the territory's population and leadership. The three helped to stir riots after the Egyptian government refused to allow a large number of protesters to enter neighboring Gaza. Eventually, the protesters accepted an Egyptian offer of allowing about 100 marchers into Gaza. Once in the territory, those marchers were reportedly met on the Gaza side by Hamas' former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Clearly, President Obama's associates have helped shape his adversarial stance towards Israel, but he has a history of political leanings towards Hamas. In the 1990s, Obama spoke at pro-Palestinian events alongside Ali Abunimah, who was with Evans' group in Egypt, and who runs the web site called "Electronic Intifada" which spreads anti-Israel propaganda. In one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for Palestinian "refugees," Abunimah recalled introducing Obama on stage.

Obama, like most leftists, believe that all conflicts can be resolved through dialogue and negotiations, which is why I believe he is coddling Iran in part. He is advancing and agitating for policies that help Hamas and we might see in the future even the White House eventually opening channels with Hamas because they believe that Hamas can be talked out of their extremism that is patently ridiculous. I know many Hamas leaders and have interviewed them and they are looking to spread their brand of Islam around the world and it's not like we can talk them out of it or talk them into peace negotiations. Obama has an "Israel problem". He has a real issue with the Jewish state. This is evidenced by his radical affiliations with such people as Rashid Khalidi, the pro-PLO Columbia University professor and others like him.

FS: Can you shed some light on whom, in the Obama administration, were significant figures in pushing a socialist domestic agenda including the national health care reform bill?

AK: As I reveal in my book, a convicted felon named Robert Creamer who is the husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who was one of Capitol Hill's most visible cheerleaders for Obama's health-care bill is the one who helped provide a blueprint for the president's health-care legislation. Creamer said his declared strategies on health-care reform are not about "policies" but "are about the distribution of wealth and power." Creamer also recommended the president "create" a national consensus that the country's health-care system is in a state of crisis in order to push a radical new health-care plan. Creamer was sentenced to federal prison in 2006 after pleading guilty to bank fraud and withholding taxes while heading Citizen Action of Illinois. While in prison, he wrote a book titled "How Progressives Can Win." Obama's chief adviser, David Axelrod, touted Creamer's book as providing "a blueprint for future victories," including on health care. His book was endorsed by other leading Democrats and by Andy Stern, a close ally of the president who as head of the Service Employees International Union had visited the White House more than any other individual.

FS: You write quite extensively on the role of the SEIU, AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, and of course ACORN in their support for President Obama. Can you tell us if the leadership and rank and file of these unions call for a Socialist and/or Communist agenda and what role, if any, they play in helping to craft legislation?

AK: For example, one of Obama's close advisors is Eliseo Medina, the international executive vice-president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. Medina is in the forefront of spearheading legislation that would grant citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants, with the stated objective being the expansion of the "progressive" electorate that would help to ensure a "progressive" governing coalition for the long term. The SEIU is closely linked to the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN and they are top supporters of Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez's Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Bill, which seeks to document up to 12 million illegal immigrants inside the U.S.

During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina and Gutierrez served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council. Also on the council was Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., the co-sponsor of Gutierrez's immigration reform bill. Medina was a chief lobbyist credited with a change in the longstanding policy of the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the U.S. The union reversed its stance against illegal immigration in February 2000, instead calling for new amnesty for millions of illegals. The New Zeal blog documents how Medina was honored in 2004 by Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America for his "vital role in the AFL-CIO's reassessment of its immigration policy." That same year, Medina became a DSA honorary chairman. The DSA also supported Gutierrez's 1998 bid for Congress. In the mid-1990s, Gutierrez served on the board of Illinois Public Action alongside a number of DSA members, including Obama health-care advisor Quentin Young.

FS: Can you elaborate on David Axelrod's Communist background that you extensively explore in your book?

AK: David Axelrod was mentored by Don Rose, a founder of the pro-Communist publication called "Hyde Park Voices" and who, in the 1960s, was a member of a purported Communist Party front called the Alliance to End Repression. Axelrod began his professional career as a journalist with this paper. Rose also worked with the late David S. Canter, who was the co-founder of the Voices newspaper and was named as a communist in the late 1960s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. In my book, I document the fact that Rose had written to Marc Canter, the son of the late David Canter and said, "Your dad and I 'mentored' and helped educate Axelrod politically, which is perhaps why you may recall seeing him hanging around the house." In 1987, Axelrod was hired to help in the re-election campaign of Harold Washington, Chicago's first black mayor, where he once again worked with Rose and Canter. It should be noted that Washington's campaign was supported by a coalition of communist and socialist groups.

FS: Will you be speaking about this book on college campuses throughout North America?

AK: I will not be focusing on a speaking tour right now but will be putting my efforts into a media tour to help promote the book.

Contact Fern Sidman at AriellaH@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, June 30, 2010.

Click here to view the Video

English Translation of Rav Eliyahu's remarks:

"This week, we read in the weekly Torah portion about the actions taken by Avraham Avinu to save a captive, to save Lot who had gone to Sodom. He went to Sodom and he was undeserving (of rescue); yet Avraham Avinu spared no effort to save him.

"There is a Jew — a very dear Jew — who did so much for the Nation of Israel all over the world and who did so much for the Land of Israel, to save us from some very harsh things — the worst that could happen!

"This Jew is named Jonathan Pollard.

His wife, Esther, has worked endlessly to try to get him out from where he is held in prison. I myself have appealed to several Presidents of the United States: to Regan, to Bush, to Bush's father, to Cardinal Law and to a host of others. To whomever I could turn, I have appealed to them, asking that they act to take him out of there and bring him here to The Land.

"And I told them — also told them here in The Land — if they what they are afraid of is that he will talk, then I will be his guarantor that he will not say a word. He won't say anything. On the contrary! He will praise everyone; he will praise the presidents.

In any case, what we want is this: He is our brother! He must come home to the Land of Israel — and at once!"


Line busy at White House?
Call Switchboard number!

Justice4JPnews — June 29, 2010

Trying to call the White House for Jonathan Pollard?

Getting a busy signal?

Waiting forever for an operator on the comment line at the White House?

Change tactics!

Avoid dialing the comment line number!

Use only the Switchboard number: 202-456-1414

As soon as the operator answers, say:

"I'm calling for Jonathan Pollard; I want to leave a message for the President."

Be sure your first words to the switchboard operators are the name "Jonathan Pollard."

As long as you mention Jonathan Pollard first, we are registering numbers on Jonathan Pollard with switchboard too, even unofficially. The switchboard operator will transfer you to the comment line.

The wait for the switchboard is minimal. Once you are transferred to the comment line the wait may be substantial, but remember, every minute you spend waiting registers in Heaven and keeps the switchboard and the comment line tied up here on Earth! Hurrah!

In Israel: Monday through Friday, 4PM to 11PM (Israel time)

In USA: Mon-Fri, 9AM to 5PM EST

DIAL: 202-456-1414

Everyone is urged to participate in this worldwide grassroots effort for Jonathan Pollard by calling the White House daily, every day (intensively from July 1st through July 6th) to urge President Barack Obama to send Jonathan Pollard home to Israel.

Tell the President that the release of Jonathan Pollard would be the consummate act of friendship to the People of Israel! Send him home with Mr. Netanyahu on July 6th!

The phone-in campaign will continue until Pollard is home in Jerusalem. Get everyone you know to call the White House for Jonathan Pollard, today and every day (especially July1st thru 6th) until Jonathan Pollard is free!

If you have to wait on the phone, it means the Pollard call-in campaign is succeeding!

Thank you for your participation and G-d bless!

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 30, 2010.

The Obama and perhaps future United States administrations, for strategic military and economic reasons, will attempt to salvage a wavering alliance with Turkey, as well as create or enhance alliances with many other Middle East Muslim countries. Thus, Israel becomes a potential pawn, a sacrifice to be thrown to the turbaned wolves and chic Sheikhs, some adorned in Armani suits, if for one the oil pushers come to shove. The writing on the wall, both in English and Arabic, must be carefully analyzed by Israeli strategists, ever aware that survival depends on adaption. When a presumed 'friend' announces to the world that the Israeli Palestinian stalemate ever imperils its troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, not to mention future ventures into raw material rich dysfunctional Muslim autocracies, it is time to react aggressively. Many emerging economic juggernauts to the expansive East, especially China, India, and Russia; afflicted by Islamic fundamentalists willing to blow themselves and crowds of innocents asunder; can relate to Israel's chronic dilemma. Furthermore, the Jewish States kick-butt economy, state of the art technology, world class research centers populated by some of the brightest scientists and engineers on Earth, make her an enticing partner to pal around with on the world stage. The sun may be setting in the West, but could be rising ever brightly in the East for Israel.

Furthermore, reaching out with gusto to other suitors, especially some competing with a less than sanguine Uncle Sam, could very well spark a change in attitude within an administration that apparently takes its perceived protectorate morphed to sacrificial lamb for granted; not to mention a bloc of Jewish voters that could make all the difference in 2012. Politicians are practical fellows; know where their bread, pita, or matzo is buttered. A prescient Israel, sticking to her guns and principles, led by a strong Bibi Netanyahu and wise Likudniks, should continue buildings apartments in the eastern sector of Jerusalem, refuse to be intimidated by an overstepping White House; that by the way has no intention of returning to Mexico America's Greater Southwest won in battle in the 1800s, blithely attributed to 'Manifest Destiny'. Indeed Bibi might suggest to Barack that all of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and each and every inch of core Israel is part of her own 'Manifest Destiny', to be kept under her authority for all time. Period! Additionally, if the U. S. President wishes to get back into the good graces of a nation, expanding her own alliances to the East with folks she can relate to, he had better turn in his chess board for a deck of cards without any hidden jokers.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 29, 2010.

This is from MEMRI.

The following is research published from the Urdu-Pashtu Media Project today. Visit the Urdu-Pashtu Media Project blog daily at
http://www.thememriblog.org/urdupashtu. This is Special Dispatch No. 3059.


Criticisms in Afghanistan of President Hamid Karzai's Policy of Releasing Taliban Prisoners

On June 6, 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a decree, authorizing review of all Taliban prisoners who are detained in various jails managed by the Afghan government. Under the decree, all those prisoners who are being held on the basis of false information or insufficient evidence are to be released. It is not clear if the decree applies to the detention centers managed by the U.S. and NATO troops. As per the presidential order, a committee, headed by the Afghanistan's justice minister, ''shall conduct a comprehensive review of the cases and release those without legally binding evidence of conviction.''

The order to release the Taliban prisoners came after the National Consultative Peace Jirga, held in Kabul June 2-4. The jirga, or meeting of community elders, was organized by the Karzai government to find a way of ending the nine-year Taliban-led militancy in Afghanistan. At the end of three-day deliberations, a resolution adopted by the jirga approved President Karzai's proposals for reconciliation with the armed opposition groups and authorized him to open peace talks with the Taliban militants who could be willing to quit violence and accept the Afghan constitution. As per the jirga's declaration, the Afghan government and the international troops were urged "to take immediate and solid action in freeing from various prisons those detained based on inaccurate information or unsubstantiated allegations."

The move to free Taliban prisoners was welcomed by Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, who argued that such a step will build trust between the Afghan government and the opposition groups. However, the Karzai government's move to free Taliban prisoners has been severely criticized.

The first criticism of such a move came from Azeeta Rafat, a member of the Wolesi Jirga (lower house of the Afghan parliament) who argued that such a step will signal to the Taliban that the government is weak and will not lead to positive consequences for restoring peace in Afghanistan. Qazi Nazeer Ahmad Hanafi, a political analyst, also accused President Karzai of "victimizing justice" with a decision to release the militants. Amrullah Saleh, who recently resigned, also accused Karzai of adopting a soft policy on the Taliban. Recently, Dr. Sima Samar, the chief of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, criticized the proposal to release the prisoners, arguing that many militants who are guilty of human rights could be freed under such a move. According to a report in the Dari-language newspaper Roznama Arman-e-Milli, she said that those militants who helped plan suicide attacks, killed innocent people and burned down schools should not be released.

In an editorial, below, the Dari-language newspaper Arman-e-Milli expresses concerns that such a move in the past to release militants has not yielded positive results and that it might lead to the release of Taliban militants who are backed by the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence. In another editorial, the Afghanistan Times daily argues that the effective way to restore peace in Afghanistan is by expediting the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces.

To read the full report, visit
Special Dispatch No. 3061

Pakistan TV Debate on Concubines and Slavery in Islam

Speaking on "Point Blank with Luqman," a television program hosted by Pakistani television presenter Mubasher Luqman, prominent Pakistani clerics said that Islam permits Muslims to keep concubines. Video footage of the program was posted on the Pakistani website pakistanherald.com. The show, which airs at 11:00pm from Monday through Friday, is a talk show on which a variety of social and political issues in Pakistan are discussed. The particular edition of the program on which the clerics spoke was aired on Pakistani television channel Express News on May 31, 2010.

The participants included Allama Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer, the Secretary General of the puritanical religious organization Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith; Barelvi cleric Maulana Raghib Naeemi, the Nazim-e-Aala of the Jamia Naeemia madrassa; and Dr. Mohammed Aslam Siddiqui, a Jamaat-e-Islami politician and former head of the Department of Mosques at the Punjab University, who joined by telephone.

To read the full report, visit
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/ 4407.htm.
Special Dispatch No. 3063

Editorials in Afghan and Pakistani Dailies Examine Secret Talks between Karzai Government and the Haqqani Network

On June 16, 2010, a leading Pakistani daily revealed that the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is mediating between the Afghan government and the Haqqani Network, a key militant group that is part of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Dawn newspaper quoted an unidentified "senior security official" in Pakistan as saying that "preliminary contacts" have been established with Sirajuddin Haqqani and other leaders of his group through intermediaries in a bid to engineer a rapprochement with the Karzai administration. According to the report, "[a]lthough the future of the initiative is unclear at the moment, the initial signs are encouraging because the leadership of the militant group appears to be willing (to talk)."

The Haqqani Network is led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin Haqqani, who have their bases in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal district and have been supported by the ISI.

The Taliban have not commented on the report that the Haqqani Network's leaders could consider talks. In fact, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban's own shadow government, has rejected any possibility of peace talks with the Karzai government under the framework of the Afghan constitution. However, the latest report about secret talks between the Afghan government and the Haqqani Network could be the Pakistani military's attempt to gain a foothold in Kabul by allowing the Haqqanis to have a say in Afghanistan.

The following two editorials, the first in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn and the second in the Dari-language newspaper Roznama Arman-e-Milli, examine the issue of the secret talks with the Haqqani group. The Dawn editorial, published June 17, 2010 and titled "Haqqani Talks?" stresses that the Pakistani government should first try to secure the Pakistani tribal areas before attempting to gain a say in the internal affairs of Afghanistan; the editorial in Afghan daily Roznama Arman-e-Milli, published June 20 and titled "Why Secret Negotiations with the Haqqani Terrorist Group?" asks why the Karzai government is entering into secret talks with a murderous group like the Haqqanis.

To read the full report, visit
www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/ 4409.htm. Special Dispatch No. 3064

Columns in Jihadist Weekly on Dajjal Caution Against Overestimating the 'Power of Infidels': 'Nowhere Will You Find Islam Praising the Power of Infidels [And] Their Conspiracies'; 'U.S., Europe, Kabbala... All These Satans Will be Destroyed by Jihad Alone'; 'The Mischief of Dajjal Can Be Dealt With By Jihad'

The Urdu-language Pakistani weekly magazine Haftroza Al-Qalam which belongs to Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist organization Jaish-e-Muhammad, recently published two articles on Dajjal, the antichrist. The articles argue that a focus on conspiracy theories such as those about Dajjal lead to a waste of Muslims' energy and prevent them from waging jihad, and to overestimating the power of the U.S.

Jaish-e-Muhammad is headed by Maulana Masood Azhar, a Pakistani militant commander who was released by India in exchange for the passengers of the hijacked Indian plane to Kandahar in 1999.

In the Islamic world, there are two versions of the concep of Dajjal. According to Islamic literature, Dajjal is the antichrist who will be born at the time Jesus is reborn and will try to mislead people. Those who follow him will enter the path of heaven as shown by him, but in reality it will be hell. Those who disagree with Dajjal and go into hell as shown by him will actually be entering heaven. This concept concerns "Dajjal the antichrist."

However, in the popular perception, the concept of Dajjal has come to be of someone out to mislead and corrupt Muslims, a one-eyed, bloodthirsty, and powerful mischief-maker bent upon dividing the Muslim Ummah. With the antisemitic environment influencing international Muslim opinion, the Jews are seen as the contemporary Dajjal, with numerous conspiracy theories built around them.

In the first article, titled "Dajjal, Judaism: A Viewpoint," Talha As-Saif, a regular columnist for Haftroza Al-Qalam, warns Islamic scholars against giving too much weight to the power of the Western countries in their assessment, saying that such a trend in the Islamic world encourages a defeatist mentality among Muslim communities. The article argues that the trend of Islamic leaders' emphasis on explaining everything in terms of Dajjal and the Jews, and their overemphasis on the power of the U.S., is creating a defeatist Muslim mindset.

As-Saif notes: "In our view, the effort [about explaining Dajjal] is positive and good so far as it is helping in setting Dajjal's fitna [mischief], character, and attributes before the people — but now... this is so exaggerated that every work is now said to be the handiwork of Judaism and Dajjal, and their power is being exaggerated so much that [Muslims]... are thinking about hiding from or bowing to these conspiracies about Dajjal."

In the second article, titled "Japanese Dajjal," columnist Saadi urges Muslims not to waste time discussing and researching Dajjal and similar conspiracies that have a negative impact on the Muslims' morale. Urging readers not to waste time on on conspiracies, he writes: "When Dajjal comes, the world will know, and the only people who will be safe from the mischief of Dajjal will be those with perfect belief in Allah who do not worship wealth or fear death. Such people will join the forces of Jesus and fight against Dajjal."

To read the full report, visit
Special Dispatch No. 3065

Taliban Leaders: The People Want To Be Ruled by Islamic Law

Following are excerpts from an Al-Jazeera TV report on the Taliban in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The report aired May 23, 2010.

To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit

Reporter: "The route to the Panjwai region is rough, just like the fate of its inhabitants has been for many years. There is no trace here of the Kabul regime or its allies — at least not in the streets we passed through. The Taliban rules here. They cover their faces and brandish their weapons. Kandahar remains their stronghold — even if it has not been impenetrable for nine years. Nobody can say for sure how many regions are under the control of the Taliban militants, and whether the regions' loyalty to them is out of choice or is bred from fear.

To read the full report, visit
Special Dispatch No. 3066

Views of Pakistani Religious Leader Dr. Israr Ahmed (1932-2010) Regarding the Structure of an Islamic Caliphate

Dr. Israr Ahmed

Dr. Israr Ahmed (1932-2010), the founder of Pakistan's leading religious organization Tanzeem-e-Islami, was a prominent Islamic scholar who campaigned for establishing an Islamic caliphate. Trained to be a medical practitioner, he began activism during his student days while associated with the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, but later developed differences because of its "involvement in electoral politics." In April 1957, he left the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and established his own religious organization, Tanzeem-e-Islami, in 1975.

Over the past few decades, he wrote more than 60 books, delivered television sermons, and founded several organizations such as Anjuman-e-Khuddamul Quran and Tehreek-e-Khilafat, acquiring devout followers in Pakistan, India, and in Saudi Arabia and the broader Middle East. During the past few years, he had been unwell, handing over the leadership of his organization in 2002 to Hafiz Akif Saeed as the acting Emir. While the Jamaat-e-Islami's influence is more in the area of day-to-day activism, Dr. Israr Ahmed's Tanzeem-e-Islami's influence is more in the spiritual, religious, and scholarly domains.

At a meeting in June 2010 held in Lahore to examine the teachings of Dr. Israr Ahmed, Akif Saeed, the new Emir of Tanzeem-e-Islami, stressing the message of his predecessor, diagnosed all problems of Pakistan as originating from the absence of caliphate in the country, and asserted: "The real cause of our woes is the delay in the enforcement of Shari'a [in Pakistan]. Peaceful protest and other tactics can help us in this regard... When the infidels can unite, why can't we? We have the Koran, on the basis of which we can come close to each other. Our belief in the oneness of Allah can make the Muslims one nation."

According to a report in the Pakistani daily Dawn, "A critic of modern democracy and the electoral system, Dr. Israr [Ahmed] believed that the head of an Islamic state can reject majority decisions of an elected assembly. A familiar refrain in his writings is that the spiritual and intellectual center of the Muslim world has shifted from the Arab world to the subcontinent and that conditions are much more congenial for the establishment of [an] Islamic Caliphate in Pakistan than in other Muslim countries." In 1982, he created a furor in Pakistan, claiming that women should be barred from all professions except medicine and teaching.

The following article, which is translated and excerpted from Dr. Israr Ahmed's booklet in Urdu language, "Pakistan Mein Nizam-e-Khilafat: Kia, Kyon, Kaise?" (The System of Caliphate in Pakistan — What, Why, and How?), highlights his conception of how the constitutional structure of caliphate, or a modern Islamic state in Pakistan or elsewhere, has to be organized. The booklet has been published by the Anjuman Khuddam-ul-Quran, an organization of Tanzeem-e-Islami based in Lahore.

To read the full report, visit
Special Dispatch No. 3067

Indian Author Stresses Essence of Sufism in Islam, Criticizes Saudis for Exporting Wahhabism, Notes: 'Saudi Embassies Also Act as Centers to... Outsource Wahhabism'; 'I Regard Wahhabism As Heresy'; 'The Arabized Version of Islam that Wahhabism Represents is Wholly Hostile to Pluralism'

Image from Sadia Dehlvi's Facebook page

In a recent interview, Sadia Dehlvi, a renowned Indian journalist 4and author of the recently published book Sufism — the Heart of Islam, criticized the Saudi regime for exporting the Wahhabi version of Islam in order to bolster its legitimacy.

Calling Wahhabism "heresy" and stating that it contradicts the pluralistic message of Islam, Ms. Dehlvi notes that the peaceful message of Sufism (Islamic mysticism) is central to understanding the 1,400 years of Islamic history.

She explains: "In contrast to how the Wahhabis perceive it, Islam is all about cultural diversity... One of the reasons for the vibrancy of Islam historically has been its capacity to express itself in multiple local cultural forms and milieus and to find God therein, for the light of God, as the Sufis say, is present in every particle of His creation."

She also accuses the "Jewish lobby" of being behind the negative image of Islam and Muslims, noting: "The image of Islam as synonymous with Wahhabi hate and radicalism was aggressively promoted by George Bush, when he was the American president, and by the largely Jewish-controlled American media."

To read the full report, visit
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Contact them at P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837 or by phone at (202) 955-9070.

To Go To Top

Posted by Louis Rene Beres, June 29, 2010.

Louis René Beres is Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University. He is author of many major books and articles on nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Contact him by email at lberes@purdue.edu

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, June 29, 2010.

There's only one war going on right now. And it's global. We are all in it. Only, some of us don't know it, including apparently, our commander-in-chief, our educator-in-chief. Or maybe he does. If so, he should switch to America's side. Or resign. Our fearless leader has distanced himself from or insulted our Western allies, and is attempting to destroy Israel by inhibiting its natural growth. He gifts "Palestinians" with millions of dollars, some of which will buy Gazan children thousands of laptops while millions of children starve in Africa and black Sudanese are sold into slavery. He insists that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the root cause of unrest in the Middle East and has declared there is to be yet another Palestinian state scooped out of Israel. He fired a general without a replacement in situ when the Afghanistan war is starting to look as interminable and unwinnable under current policy as was Vietnam. He has ignored or facilitated Iran's building nuclear bombs, joined the infamous and misnamed Human Rights Council at the UN and enboldened Latin American dictators who look to Iran for inspiration. Domestically, he has put the fight against Islamic terrorism on an unlit burner and has continued Bush's policy of enfeebling agencies such as DHI and FBI by directing them to carry out Muslim Out-Reach programs that Bring-In Sharia law. In sum, his policy this past year has been: let's show the Muslims we care about them. The results? Pew Global Attitudes Survey says: 17% Egyptians viewed him favorably, down from 27% last year. Similar declines in Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Turkey range from 4% to 10%. And domestic terrorism is on the rise. Apparently the Muslims don't like his rendition of the Wimp and Poo song. They might not like America any better if we stopped the Iranian bomb and the Islamic takeovers, but we Americans would be a lot more secure.

This below was written by Stephen Schwartz and it appeared in the Weekly Standard


Envoy Rashad Hussain says U.S. will work with Organization for the Islamic Conference in the UN to stop "defamation of religion."

Rashad Hussain, America's special envoy to the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Saudi-based body formed in 1969 to "protect" Jerusalem from the Israelis, announced a new title this week for President Barack Obama. According to Hussain, Obama is America's "Educator-in-Chief on Islam."

Hussain so designated Obama in a keynote speech Wednesday, June 23, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The occasion was another "post-Cairo" conference, following on the event that welcomed Islamist ideologue Tariq Ramadan to Washington in April. Hussain also declared that Obama is "Educator-in-Chief" on the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, which has produced diplomatic and political events around the capital for some years. Hussain affirmed with satisfaction that presidential iftar dinners, where the fast is broken after sundown, and which had formerly been limited to diplomats from Muslim countries, now welcomed American Muslims from throughout society.

In his remarks, Hussain also congratulated Obama for sending Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser, to last year's annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America, a notorious front for Saudi-financed Muslim radicalism. Worse, Hussain has now divulged that the U.S. will support the OIC in the latter's United Nations effort to criminalize "defamation of religion" — widely perceived as a measure to suppress criticism of Muslim practices that violate human rights. "The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the UN on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe," said Hussain. He had previously said, at the above-mentioned April "post-Cairo" conference, that the U.S. would work with the OIC to defend the Muslim head-scarf against prohibitions on its display in schools and governmental offices — a measure common to secular France and now Islamist-ruled, but still legally-secular Turkey, as well as Muslim-majority Tunisia and Kosovo.

Obama, Hussain declaimed, has created an "overarching framework" for relations between Muslims and non-Muslims that is lacking in Europe. The problem, according to the president's man at the OIC, is that a once-favorable relationship between the West and the Muslim countries has turned negative in the past decade — presumably, since 9/11. Put plainly, Obama's desire to educate Americans about Islam is founded on nostalgia for a warm and reliable friendship that rarely existed.

As noted by Hussain, Obama has called for references to "Islamic terrorism" and "jihadism" to be expunged from the official vocabulary employed by his administration, and has pronounced last year's Fort Hood massacre to be unrelated to Islam. As the president has assured the world, terrorism is anti-Islamic and the term "jihad" has been misused. Thus Obama presumes not only to act as "educator" on Islam to non-Muslim Americans, but to define the religion for its own adherents.

Hussain addressed his comments to an event assessing the impact of Obama's Cairo speech. But Hussain employed a phrase that must have been chilling to those who heard in it an echo, saying "Islam is a solution" to the current global challenges emerging from Muslim ranks. A "post-Cairo" phrase indeed: "Islam is the solution" is the slogan of the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Are we learning yet?

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 29, 2010.

To mark the occasion of 1,000 JINSA Reports beginning in 1995, we have finished reformatting and posting them on our website — www.jinsa.org. Please take a look and let us know which JINSA Reports resonated most with you, which were your favorite, which you disagreed with, and which piqued your interest to learn more or to sound off. We looked back as well.

#49 in 1997 reminded us how long the West has been trying to limit Iran's ability to sow terror and destruction in the Middle East. We pointed to a $2 billion French natural gas deal with the Iranian government, for which France expected — and received — no Western sanction.

#85 in 1998 reminded us that at one time the Palestinians had an airport in Gaza and passage between the Gaza and the West Bank. It is worth pondering how Israel — with Egypt — came to enforce a blockade against the Palestinians in Gaza, and it is worth understanding how both Hamas and Fatah used the world's money and political support not to create a functional Palestinian state, but to create terrorist operations that have killed thousands of Israelis and thousands of their own people by their own hand (see #203 and #204 on "targeted killings").

We chronicled the so-called "peace process," its demise in the "second intifada," (#753) and Operation Defensive Shield that proved that terrorism can be controlled by controlling territory — a lesson that American troops learned years later in Iraq. We called out the Europeans for paying PLO salaries while Palestinians were blowing up cafes and pizza parlors (#164) and the CIA for building the Palestinian "security forces" (#165). We worry a lot about a Palestinian army being built by Americans (#504, #561, #616, #664, #687, #756, #900, #948 and #993, among others), and about the U.S. training and equipping other militaries that may not share our strategic outlook (most recently #984 and #987).

September 11, 2001 was a turning point of sorts, applying the understanding that there are two kinds of people in the world — us and them — and understanding that Israel's war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them was our war as well (#347 is representative).

We took a stand against the phrase "Israel's right to exist" (#574 in 2006) as if a democratic country that is fully integrated into the global economy, a participant in dozens of multilateral initiatives, and a provider of aid and assistance to victims of natural disasters across the globe had to justify continuing to breathe. We published the text of the declassified State Department memo acknowledging in 1973 that Yasser Arafat had ordered the killings of American Ambassador Cleo Noel, Curtis Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid (#630) — how long the State Department knew and how little they cared as they continued to treat Arafat like a fellow-diplomat was sickening.

We followed the run up to the Iraq war, the war, the surge, the elections and the tentative emergence of political reconstruction. We believed — and still believe — the ouster of Saddam was a blow to terrorism in the region and have been impressed by the number of Iraqis who braved the maelstrom to form political parties, publish free newspapers and vote. Last month (#979) we encouraged the Obama Administration to work closely with the Iraqis to help them form a government that will respect the results of the most recent election.

JINSA Reports have been a vehicle for our appreciation for our country and our troops, including raising money for the Fran O'Brien's dinners (#448, #512, #564, #569, #619, #720, #757 and #991). You, our readers, have been responsible for tens of thousands of dollars going into the dinners for wounded troops recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital, and you were responsible for the National Medal of Honor Society selecting Hal Koster of Fran O'Brien's as an honoree in their "Above and Beyond" effort to recognize outstanding Americans. (You can still write a check to JINSA for Fran O'Brien's and every nickel will go to the fund.)

We'll stop now, but hope you will revisit the anthology of JINSA Reports online as a reminder of where JINSA has been, where our country has been, where Israel has been, and where you — our readers — have been over 1,000 Reports.

Archive of past JINSA Reports

To contact Jinsa: email: feedback@jinsa.org
phone: 202-667-3900
web: http://www.jinsa.org

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi.

To Go To Top

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


Israel's Defense Minister Barak is advising Israelis to make a "strategic" withdrawal from Judea-Samaria as soon as possible. He has a reputation as an expert strategist, but has a record of strategic folly. Here is his most important blunder, one that by itself would have gotten Israel destroyed within a year or two.

Nuclear arms and security go through phases. Israel should have learned from the experience of the U.S.:

Phase 1: Monopoly of nuclear weaponry. Excellent deterrent against the USSR.

Phase 2: Mutual deterrent, when the USSR gained nuclear weaponry.

Phase 3: Concern that one side would use nuclear weapons to destroy the other side's nuclear weapons, rendering the other side helpless if not destroyed. The answer was to develop vehicles for a second strike, able to survive the enemy's first strike and retaliate. The U.S. armed surface ships with nuclear weapons. Then it so armed submarines, because they are less detectable. The U.S. also keeps nuclear-armed strategic bombers in the air. That restored mutual deterrence.

Although Israel is ambiguous about its nuclear inventory, it did have nuclear know-how before its enemies did, Phase 1. Then Phase 2 arose, with the prospect that both Iraq and Iran would possess nuclear weapons. That required Phase 3, which in Israel's case meant submarines. A project for acquiring them was begun.

Then the IDF General Staff abandoned the project. The General Staff was persuaded by then Deputy Chief of Staff Ehud Barak, thought to be a brilliant strategist.

German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, however, felt remorse over Germany's major role in Iraqi nuclear development. He offered to finance (at least the first two) submarines for Israel. Thanks to Chancellor Kohl, Israel has a deterrent ready (IMRA, 6/28/10).

Barak has other fiascoes to his discredit. In the first Lebanon war, he ordered his troops into a Syrian ambush. Much worse, as Prime Minister, he ordered the IDF to rush out of Lebanon, though it was keeping Hizbullah at bay. In the rush, they had to leave heavy weapons behind and abandon the Free Lebanese Army. This enabled Hizbullah to gain power over Lebanon and pose a strategic threat to Israel. Today, Hizbullah has about 40,000 missiles pointed at Israel. Hizbullah naturally gained in morale, too, as the Israeli soldiers literally ran away.

Barak also offered almost all of Judea-Samaria to Arafat. Fortunately, Arafat rejected the offer, or Israel would have lost secure borders and Judea-Samaria would have turned into the terrorist base that the later withdrawal from Gaza turned Gaza into.


Israel's Defense Minister Barak claims that his withdrawal from Lebanon was successful and had been overdue. He claims that Hizbullah became strong because of the IDF's earlier presence, and it built up a big rocket force in reaction to blows it received from its second war with Israel (Arutz-7, 6/28/10).

The issues are more complicated than that, but the explanation is simple. The first Lebanon War had an immediate objective, to destroy the PLO military buildup there. This objective was soon achieved.

The strategic objective was to free Lebanon from Syria. At first, Lebanese welcomed the Israelis as liberators from the PLO. Then the IDF troops stayed on, without attaining their strategic objective. At the time, I thought the IDF should have withdrawn. They had become occupiers.

Two Shiite militias arose to oppose them, one being Hizbullah. Hizbullah had Islamist ambitions both in Lebanon and to attack Israel. Therefore, at that time, it made no sense for the Israeli troops to withdraw and be attacked on Israeli soil. The IDF helped the Free Lebanese Army to fend off Hizbullah. With greater help and imagination, the Free Lebanese Army, run by Christians but which had many Shiite troops, might have liberated Lebanon. We'll never know.

Barak has no moral right to call his precipitate withdrawal a success. It left heavy arms for Hizbullah. It abandoned Israel's Lebanese allies. It made the IDF look like cowards. It did not stop the Hizbullah military buildup, but facilitated it, there being no Israeli interference with it from the other side of the border.

Sure Hizbullah has gotten more missiles, after losing militarily in the next Lebanon war. Barak depicts that as if the problem were in retaliating against Hizbullah. But the problem was that the Olmert-Livni regime was defeatist and incompetent, so it sent in insufficient forces to destroy Hizbullah.

On another matter, a critic accuses Israel of seeking a "final solution" against Palestinian Arabs. Ridiculous. Considering the strength of Israel's Army, Israel could have inflicted much heavier casualties on the Arabs. Israel did not bomb any populated areas not having enemy forces. Can't say the same for the Arabs, including Egypt, which initiated wars by bombing Israeli cities. Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel, without much retaliation. Finally, Israeli forces entered Gaza, and inflicted only 1,400 casualties among a population of 1,500,000. Where is the ethnic cleansing in that?

On the other hand, the Arab mosques urge people to murder Jews. Muslim activists have murdered millions of people, as I have documented. Not a word of protest from those humanitarians who worry about the 1,400, mostly terrorists. Neither do they show the slightest appreciation for the IDF code that refrained from many targeted assassinations when civilians entered the target area. These anti-Israel critics must be psychologically incapable of crediting Israel for anything. Too biased.


The new U.S. sanctions on Iran passed by Congress is beset with problems.

The bill does not actually impose sanctions. It authorizes the President to waive and adjust seven key provisions, which are almost all of them. This President had delayed the sanctions bill for half a year, rendering questionable his seriousness about halting Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Executive branch often ignores the substantive points of legislation to stop Iran. President Obama's Secretary of State declares the waivers would be implemented in accordance with his dual policy of "engagement" and "pressure" regarding Iran. To date, his policy has yielded nil. [It has been mostly unrequited engagement and minor sanctions, including UN resolutions.]

"As respected Middle East authority Barry Rubin observes 'the problem is that the administration has been too quick to seek engagement with Tehran, too eager to make unilateral concessions, too naïve in interpreting the Iranian regime as moderate, and too timid about getting tough. In other words, it is possible that the administration will take credit for congressional sanctions that it delayed for six months and then not even carry them out in (unrealistic) hope of making some deal with Tehran.'"

"The fact that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all ignored Congressional Iran sanctions in the past, and that the penalties mandated by previous Congressional legislation have never been imposed on a single individual or company since their inception in 1996, suggest that further instituting Executive flexibility in this latest legislative effort was a mistake." (6/28/10 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member)

I have reported on other waivers that our Presidents use freely, particularly about Jerusalem, so that the law does not bind them. This is an abuse not only by Presidents but also by Congress. Congress gets credit by its constituencies for advocating policies they want but that they let the Presidents waive.

Then there is abuse of the truth. For example, in another context, a reader insinuates that the estimated 1,400 Arab casualties in the Gaza combat stain Israel's honor. Nonsense! War brings casualties. More than half of those in Gaza were military. The rest occurred because Hamas committed the war crimes of using human shields for their arms depots and for their fighting men. Those civilian casualties are the responsibility of the military forces that fight amid civilians. I have documented that and the falsity of the Goldstone UN report that claimed otherwise.

If the Arabs had made peace instead of refusing, and if they did not have a doctrine of total war and exclusive control over the whole area, they would not have any casualties. First they commit aggression, and then they lament casualties?


A couple of Arab journalists challenged the anti-Israel line. From Kuwait's Al-Watan, columnist Abdallah Al-Hadlaq described the flotilla as terrorists posing as humanitarians. Therefore, Israel was justified in defending itself from them. Mr. Al-Hadlaq contrasted the global interest in Gaza, which is run by terrorists, with the global neglect for much more serious human rights issues.

He observed that the hundreds of tunnels prevented the shortages of goods that the flotilla pretends it was needed to restock.

He mentioned what he considers graver and legitimate issues, including Darfur, a possible Kyrgyzstan descent into civil war, southern Sudan, Judea-Samaria, three islands claimed by the UAE but seized by Iran, and an estimated eight million Arabs in Iran, whom he attests are repressed.

Egyptian-American writer Magdi Khalil stated on al-Jazeera TV that "Arab discourse has done nothing but fuel illusions and hatred." He said that Israel takes matters seriously, unlike Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad, who said the UN sanctions resolution belongs in the garbage bin.

In his interview, Mr. Khalil said that Turkey's government is Islamist, so Israel was foolish to believe its assurances that the flotilla activists were peaceable. He thinks Turkey is becoming like Iran.

He claims that more Arabs are killed in Arab police stations than were killed in all the Arab-Israel wars.

As for leftist anarchists in the West, they are anti-Western.

The host and another guest accused Khalil of giving Israeli advice to the Arabs. The host seemed to have hurried Khalil off the air (MEMRI, 6/29/10).

There is health in this Arab intellectual ferment that does not automatically endorse the official line. People need to break away from several mental conceits and straitjackets, and recognize that different cultures produce different ways of thinking:

1. Chauvinism to the point of jingoism and paranoia;

2. Seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses or conspiracy theory, not that there aren't some conspiracies;

3. The American notion that the U.S. is exempt from significant corruption — perhaps half of its governmental spending is for subsidizing what lobbyists demand;

4. A Jewish notion of having special intelligence, citing a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes. As a whole, my fellow Jews have been particularly intellectual, but not particularly wise;

5. The notion that the U.S. government works for the national interest. Many officials do not know what that is or have their own biases and self-interests.


U.S. envoy Mitchell is frustrated in the Palestinian Authority-Israel preliminary shuttle negotiations, because PM Netanyahu does not produce a map showing what boundaries Israel wants. Mitchell says that the negotiations are not serious.

Dr. Aaron Lerner believes that if Netanyahu provided such a map, the U.S. would draw another, less favorable line, as its preference. Then the negotiations likely would resume with the U.S. line as the starting point for the Arabs to demand an even less favorable line, and the Arabs would have a U.S. plan in writing. In other words, providing a map would be a trap for Israel (IMRA, 6/28/10).

Preliminary negotiations appear to be trap in which the U.S. tries to baby Israel along to give away the ballgame before the final negotiations. Indirect negotiations are another trap, whereby the Arabs concede nothing and let the U.S. take its side. Meanwhile, anti-Zionists pretend that the U.S. gives Israel unstinting support.

The whole notion of negotiations are a trap, because there is no reason to negotiate now, while the Arab side remains desirous of conquering Israel, rather than making peace. When the Arabs want peace, negotiations would make sense.

The State Dept. ignores the jihad ideology of the Arab side, and focuses on getting another useless Olso-like pact signed, so it can pretend to have accomplished something, or so it can get Israel sliding down the slope. So it claims the negotiations, really Israel, are not serious. How serous are negotiations when Abbas says that he would not recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, meaning he is not giving up his hostility to it? How serious is Abbas about making peace with Israel, when he honors terrorists and his regime indoctrinates in hating Israel and the Jewish people? Such hatred does not exist on the Israeli side.

Mitchell's frustration seems rather impatient after only four sessions. These issues have been negotiated for years. It is difficult to reach accommodation between a rock and a hard place.

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 Marc Prowiser, June 29, 2010.

Today is the 17th of the Hebrew month of Tammuz, the start of the three week mourning period of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This period ends on the 9th of Av, which of course is the date of the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash (the Temple) in Jerusalem.

The 17th of Tammuz commemorates five calamities that befell the Jewish people on this date, the most known is that it is the date the walls of Jerusalem were breached, which of course led to our defeat in Israel, the destruction of our Temple and our expulsion from our holy land.

The period around the 9th of Av also commemorates another mournful date for many of us, the "modern day" expulsion of Jews from the Gaza Strip, or more commonly known to many as Gush Katif.

Is there a difference today regarding what our enemies desire? Both forces behind our expulsions in the past were world leaders at the time, isn't it strange how the current world leader, the USA, is the driving force behind this modern day effort of expelling Jews from their homeland?

Isn't it sadder and stranger that current Israeli leadership bows to these whims today without learning from our past? We must change this.

This period, more than others should teach us to reflect on our past, to learn from it, to act upon it, and to move forward, not backward.

This façade of a "Peace Process" is falling apart day by day. Indeed it is not based on peace at all, yet racism, bigotry and deceit against the Jews of Israel. As it crumbles, the world, and yes, I mean the world regroups in its efforts to rise against us, to force upon us "solutions" that will only bring about more Jewish victims, and not just in Israel.

We saw how this week, Israel's Defense (?) Minister, Ehud Barak chummed up to President Barak Obama that brought up many questions to staunch supporters of Israel. How could someone that is supposed to be responsible for Israel's defense be a buddy with someone who has been getting closer with Israel's enemies and putting Israel further in harms way.

Here is a clue, neither has Israel's best interest in mind.

We listened in on the leak of Israel's Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren as he spoke behind closed doors of the "tectonic rift" that "rocks" the relations of the US and Israel...this all in the shadow of the continued isolation of Israel on the International scene.

Lets not forget of course Flotillas, Shmotillas....

I, like my people throughout the world will mourn during this period, I will make an effort to try to better understand the events and actions that led us to the historic and horrible events in our past. I will also pray for a better future, but I will not stop there!

We will not, must not let this period bring us down!

This is the time to act, this is the time to double, triple and quadruple our efforts to strengthen our people against our enemies. To make sure the mistakes of the past do not visit us in the present or near future.

Despite what you may read in the media regarding Israel, or hear what many misguided politicians state, know this, we are strong, and the more the world stands against us the stronger we will become, but this is up to us and is in our hands.

We have many, many, many challenges ahead, our land, our home, our heritage is being threatened. It is time to stand up, taller and stronger than ever, all of us, together.

Our leaders both here in Israel and in the US, must know that we are here in Israel and we are here to stay. There is no other alternative and surrender is not an option.

Israel's' Prime Minister Netanyahu will be showing up in Washington DC next week, he must understand that we have no choice but to be strong, President Obama must understand that we have no choice but to be strong, and only we can show the world that we have no choice but to be strong.

May this period of mourning turn into a period of joy and celebration.

Lets learn from our past and act NOW for our future!

Marc Prowiser served as the Chief Army Security Coordinator for the Shilo Region in Israel from 1996 through 2006. He works in the Security field continuing to defend and protect others from acts of terrorism.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 29, 2010.

PART 1: It has been reported on TV and in U.S. DEFENSE NEWS that several U.S. Aircraft Carrier Task Forces have been sent to position themselves off the coast of Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz.

It has been reported on TV and in U.S. DEFENSE NEWS that several U.S. Aircraft Carrier Task Forces have been sent to position themselves off the coast of Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz.

I wondered: What was their mission? I also wondered about the practice take-off and landing sessions of U.S. and French aircraft on each other's aircraft carriers. It sounds like a good idea if their likely targets are nuclear sites in Iran.

BUT, what if it wasn't? What if their alternate mission was to protect Iran from a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike by Israel on those Iranian nuclear sites?

What if their plan is as Zbigniew Brzezinski counseled President Barack Hussein Obama — to shoot down Israeli aircraft in order to insure that Iran reaches full maturity in its nuclear capability?

Do Obama and his advisors wish to see Iran and Syria achieve hegemony and dominate the entire Middle East because Obama finds it easier to deal with dictators? Now we come to the issue "TRUST", honoring one's word comes into play.

How can we forget the deliberate betrayal of Israel when, during Desert Storm, the First Gulf War January 16, 1991 to March, Saddam Hussein launched 39 SCUD missiles at Israel, hitting mostly Tel Aviv. Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was prepared to order Israeli pilots sitting warmed up on the tarmac (runways) ready to find and kill the SCUD missile launchers.

"The Patriot anti-missile missiles of that day hit the motors of the incoming SCUDS.Their shrapnel and explosives hit residential areas [in Israel]. Israeli pilots, trained to fly at deck level could have found and hit those SCUDs and maybe could have saved the 28 American soldiers who were killed when their barracks in Saudi Arabia was hit by a Saddam SCUD." (1)

BUT, President George Herbert Walker Bush, his Secretary of State James Baker, Secretary of Defense Colin Powell and Chief of Staff Norman Schwarzkopf assured Shamir that America would send out U.S. aircraft to eliminate the launchers.

The reason given to Israel is that by Israel entering the war, it could break up the Arab Muslim coalition against Saddam.

However, Bush and group lied. They never issued those orders for U.S. strikes on Saddam's launchers — a fact which was later confirmed by the U.S. GAO (General Accounting Office). Bush and his advisors were artfully protecting Iraq, based upon the philosophy that Saddam would be helpful in fighting Iran.

Perhaps so, but, they were willing to sacrifice Israel to Saddam's SCUDs which could have been loaded with Chemical and Biological agents.

[Proof from the scene: At 3:59 am in Israel on January 16, 1991 after Saddam's first SCUD attack, former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said in a BBC radio interview: "It's a particular tragedy that Nerve Gas was used." He would know that Saddam had Nerve Gas. Israelis spent Desert Storm in sealed rooms with gas masks and protective baby tents because the American Administration knew Saddam had Nerve Gas.] (1)

Allowing Israel to take the SCUD hits was acceptable in the Americans' plans — then and perhaps by Obama now.

When Bush and group succeeded in getting Syria to join a fake coalition, Syria was paid off in several ways. First, Syria arrived to the U.S.-led coalition mobilization Headquarters without arms and with no intentions of actually joining the U.S. in fighting Saddam. Syrians were stationed well away from the actual fighting.

For this great sacrifice on Syria's part, the U.S. arranged a safe air corridor for Iraq's aircraft (a mix of approximately 75 Russian fighters and cargo aircraft) to be shipped to Iran — who didn't have the necessary Russian maintenance facilities and, therefore, had no use for the beneficent gift.

However, the planes were disassembled, crated and then shipped to Syria. Payment to Saddam for this strange transfer came in several Billion dollars from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait — paid to Iraq so Iraq could buy armaments from the U.S. and other international arms' dealers. Saddam had used up his credit line in the arms market and desperately needed a cash infusion — which was why he attacked Kuwait in the first place where he stole $80 Billion in liquid assets.

One should ask James Baker, III and the others about this 'little' Kuwaiti hustle. After all, it was he who would ostensibly have ordered America's Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie to give Saddam the "green light" by having her tell Saddam: "We're not interested in your border disputes."

Getting back to the matter of today's mission for several (possibly four) U.S. aircraft carriers sitting off the coast of Iran, let us speculate on a few scenarios.

Israel has several missile capable submarines tasked as a backup threat to Iran if Ahmadinejad should use a Nuclear Weapon on Israel. Are they to be tracked and targeted by U.S. destroyers lest they launch their missiles at Iran?

The question remains: Why would Obama and his advisor wish to protect Iran and Syria? (Note! The American people and most of Congress consider Israel to be a valuable and loyal ally. But, certain Arabists in Washington act in concert with hostile Muslim Arab nations, both for oil and because of their deep-seated animus against the Jewish State.)

Unconfirmed reports indicate that the Saudis are so fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran that they will allow Israeli aircraft to use Saudi airspace to bomb Iran. Sounds good going in but, how good is the Saudis' word to allow returning Israeli aircraft to refuel in the air or on the ground on their return and not to launch the very large Saudi (American-supplied) Air Force against the returning Israeli aircraft? After all, the Israeli's would have done their good deed by (hopefully) eliminating all of Iran's Nuclear R&D facilities. So would they still be needed?

Let's remember the Good Deed Israel did by destroying the Osirik Nuclear Reactor in Iraq, an act which was condemned by the U.S., E.U., U.N. and Arab/Muslim bloc nations but, was celebrated in the Congressional cloak room and the very happy Saudis (all in secret).

Would Israel have to guarantee the safety of both its air re-fueling cargo planes and returning Israeli aircraft by having a sizable squadron of F-16s and F-15s flying near the Riyadh and Tobruk Air Bases in case the Saudis broke their agreement, no doubt, at the urging of the Arabist State Department?

The matter of trust and confidence building is based upon prior experience and words kept (or NOT kept). Israel has been lied to by both friends and dedicated enemies who rarely keep agreements when their interests have become mired in their vested self-interest and not in their integrity.

I have offered the reader my speculations in part, of what may be a Future War. Israel remains a small, even minuscule nation which could (G-d forbid) be snuffed out by enemies and supposed friends, anxious to pacify Israel's enemies.

"Trust" can be a very expensive commodity when you can possibly disappear in a puff of smoke!

President Obama has demonstrated a decidedly pro-Muslim attitude and a hostility toward Israel never before seen by Israel or the American Congress. Both Houses of Congress have signed letters recognizing Obama's hostility toward Israel and stating plainly that they view Israel as America's staunch and valuable ally. Obama seems not to share the opinion of his Congress as he reaches out to Iran, Syria and other Islamic nations.

As is said: " 'Trust' but verify."


1. "Feelings From A Sealed Room in a Gas Mask" by Gail Winston JEWISH PRESS Jan. 25, 1991

2. "Ordered To Die Quietly" by Emanuel A. Winston MACCABEAN ONLINE from Freeman Center for Strategic Studies April 2003



DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 28, 2010

General Colin Powell was NOT U.S. Secretary of Defense during the First Gulf War, Desert Storm 1991 but rather, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary. And General Norman Schwarzkopf was NOT Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Schwarzkopf was the Commander of the Allied Forces in the Gulf War.

We apologize for the unchecked glitch. The lesson to working in "Journalism on the fly 101" is: Check your facts! NOT your memory! As good as you think it might be.

DEBKA reports today that America has posted a Third Carrier Group opposite Iran's shores in the Persian Gulf.

The USS Harry S. Truman with 12 warships are cruising the Arabian Sea opposite Chai Bahar, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards biggest naval base not far from the Iranian-Pakistan border. That's where most of Iran's special commando units are housed.

The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Force and its accompanying US warships plus an Israeli and German battle vessel each, transited the Suez Canal June 18. First, from June 6 through June 10, the Truman Strike Force deployed 50 miles off Israel's southwestern shore, secretly drilling the interception of incoming Iranian, Syrian and Hezb'Allah missiles and rockets against US and Israeli targets in the Middle East. (DEBKAfile June 21, 2010)

Also posted in the Arabian Sea, further to the west, is the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group. (DEBKAfile June 28, 2010)

Please log on to DEBKA.com to get the complete list of forces but, here is their listing of those ships, planes and soldiers in this Third Carrier group.

1. The USS Nassau Amphibious Assault ship is not just an enormous landing craft for the 3,000 Marines aboard; its decks carry 6 vertical take-off AV-HB Harrier attack plans; four AH-1W Super Cobra, twelve CH-46 Sea Knight and CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters, as well choppers convertible to fast V-22 Osprey airplanes capable of landing in any conditions. This vast warship has 1,400 cabinets for sleeping the entire Marine-24th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard.

2. The amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde which carries 800 Marines equipped for instantaneous landing.

3. The amphibious dock landing ship USS Ashland which carries 400 Marines and 102 commandos trained for special operations behind enemy lines.

THESE MASSIVE FORCES ARE VERY IMPRESSIVE. What does it really mean to those of us who doubt President Barack Hussein Obama's resolve to prevent Iran's use of nuclear weapons against Israel, Europe and American military bases in the Middle East and Europe (with from 300,000 to 500,000 American soldiers in harm's way)?

It appears to me that, having failed to assemble a strong U.N. coalition mandating severe punitive sanctions to halt Iran's head-long enterprise to achieve a Nuclear Weapons' capability, Obama has resorted to a show of force. It seems he's following in the old tradition of Teddy Roosevelt's gun-boat diplomacy. The difference between Teddy R. and Obama is that Teddy meant business and Obama is making a threatened show of force, assuming that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be cowed and too frightened to continue developing his highly prized Nuclear Weapon, let alone use it.

I don't think he knows that Ahmadinejad will NOT be cowed or what he is capable of doing — even risking his own population to retaliatory or pre-emptive strikes. After all, he believes that the Muslim "Mahdi" (Messiah) is to arrive in a great war to lead Islam to victory over the infidels (all non-Muslims).

It was interesting to hear Leon Panetta, current Head of the CIA, state that Iran will not have an operating atomic weapon for "at least 2 years". We've been seeing that same "two years" since at least 1998! Since the CIA has rarely been right in their forecasts of the nuclear developments of North Korea, Pakistan, India — nor the fall of the Soviet Union under Perestroika, it looks like Panetta has been assigned to give Obama a "two-year" false breathing space to actually deal with Iran through appeasement.

I would add that Israel — under Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, has been promised this show of force in gun-boat diplomacy, assuring Israel that it's not necessary to pre-emptively strike Iran's nuclear facilities because Iran will be too frightened to do anything provocative.

I do not trust Obama's military abilities to forecast or "organize" anything — let alone plan an actual war against an implacable enemy under the flag of Islam.

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 Daily Alert, June 29, 2010.

This is from Reuters.


BEIRUT (Reuters) — Several thousand Palestinians and Lebanese civil activists converged on central Beirut on Sunday, demanding more rights for Palestinians, many of whom live in in squalid and over-crowded refugee camps.

Dozens of buses transported demonstrators waving Palestinian flags from refugee camps across the country — from the southern city of Tyre as well as from the northern city of Tripoli.

"As Palestinians in Lebanon we have no rights. We just want to live with dignity," said Palestinian Imtithal Abu Samra, 29, who lives in the Beddawi refugee camp in northern Lebanon.

Some 425,000 Palestinians are registered as refugees in Lebanon by UNRWA, the U.N. agency responsible for Palestinian refugees. Many live in 12 camps across Lebanon in conditions the U.N. has described as deplorable and appalling.

Palestinians in Lebanon are barred from working in dozens of professions and are generally paid lower wages than their Lebanese counterparts when they do find jobs. They are not allowed to benefit from public social or medical services.

Proposals for a draft law due to be debated in parliament in a few weeks would give Palestinians the right to own a residential apartment and would legalise work rights.

The protesters had planned to demonstrate in front of parliament but Lebanese soldiers prevented them from congregating there. Instead they gathered in front of U.N. headquarters, a few hundred metres away.

"Palestinians have been here for 62 years. Their (condition) is unacceptable," said Dalia, a Lebanese assistant researcher. "Civil rights should be given to anyone regardless of their religion, sect or nationality," she said.

Some 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes in the war that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. About 4.5 million refugees and their descendents now live in squalid camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank.

Most of Gaza's 1.5 million residents are either refugees or their descendants. Israel has recently said it would ease a blockade on the Hamas-ruled coastal enclave, which critics say is collective punishment for Palestinians living there.

The issue of granting Palestinian more rights has raised worries it would promote 'naturalisation', which some politicians fear will upset Lebanon's delicate sectarian and demographic balance. Most Palestinians are Sunni Muslims.

The proposals have faced hurdles in parliament because of Christian lawmakers' fears that granting these rights would eventually lead to their permanent resettlement, an allegation refugees and civil rights activists say is not true.

"Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long," Human Rights Watch's Beirut director Nadim Houry said in a statement last week. "Parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians."

(Reporting by Yara Bayoumy: Editing by Matthew Jones)

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 Paul Lademain, June 29, 2010.

This was writen by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu.

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared Monday night he is "proud" of ordering the hasty withdrawal of the IDF from southern Lebanon in 2000. He also blamed previous governments and the IDF's use of strong force in the Second Lebanon War for Hizbullah's strength today."


Barak babbles rubbish. Proof enough that he's incapable of understanding how he's perceived by Israel's antagonists: They see him as an extension of that attention-seeking toady, Shimon Peres. They see him as a weak horse. A weak horse who seeks accolades in all the wrong places. Barak would serve Israel better if he just kept his trap shut.

We think Peres is a perpetually babbling, manipulative old man who thought nobody would ever discover that he tried to secretly do business in Gaza with his "dearest friend in peace" Yasser Arafat, by conducting their operations through their respective NGOs they established in the Cayman Islands. A tax haven that at that time had strict secrecy rules. Yes, his "dearest friend," the bloody Egyptian terrorist, Yasser Arafat — the frog-faced runt Yasser who made it absolutely clear that he intended to steal as much of the Jewish Homeland he and his goon gangs could grab and he made it clear that he wanted to "make the streets of Israel run red with the blood of the Jews." (CNN — Christianne Amanpour) In short, Peres is greatly appreciated by the arab invaders who see as as Israel's "great demoralizer". And the arab invaders know that the grabbing remains good so long as Peres and Barak are allowed to strut the world stage. The damage Peres and his cohorts have already done to Israel is incalculable and just like their dearest friend Yasser, you'll never see either Barak or Peres risking their own skins or their fortunes by straight-forwardly advancing the sovereign rights of Israel ... but you will see them bending their knees and falling over every time Abdullah or the US State Dept. gives them a nudge. Such clever old men would serve Israel best if they kept their traps shut.

Peres should be forced to account for and disgorge all the funds, gifts, and emoluments he's ever received or squirreled away in his NGOs.

Viva Israel and Saludos to the Patriots of Israel and Professor Howard Grief from the SC4Z. We say to Israel: Stop begging for "peace" and start demanding justice — and don't let the Peres-Barak crowd define what this ought to be for you. They either cannot or will not support the law that established the larger boundaries of Israel under the San Remo Resolution and the treaties that followed and still bind the UK, the US, and the rest of europe.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 28, 2010.

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, that is, with regard to carrying out the municipality's development plan, which will include the demolition of 22 illegally-built houses in Gan Hamelech, in Silwan. This in spite of major Arab rioting last night. Good going for the mayor, at least so far.


Sorry that I cannot say the same for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Border Police, it was reported today, will be holding a massive drill in Judea and Samaria this week aimed at dealing with an escalation in Israeli and Palestinian Arab violence. One of the scenarios being rehearsed is the situation that will ensue if the building moratorium is extended.

I would not say with certainty that Netanyahu has already decided that the freeze will be extended — that he already knows he will give the nod to Obama when he visits Washington next week. That decision, one would guess, is going to be played out within a larger dynamic — with various factors to be considered, such as how supportive the president shows himself to be on other issues and how hard Netanyahu's arm is twisted. But it is clear that a scenario in which the freeze is extended is being given weight as a distinct possibility.

How nice it would have been to read, simply, that the police were preparing for the eventuality of increased Palestinian Arab violence in response to the resumption of building in Judea and Samaria in late September. That, of course, is what should have been the case, given the prime minister's repeated insistence that the freeze will not be extended.


If Netanyahu does cave, my guess is that we will not know it right away: Our prime minister is not likely to return and say, "My fellow Israelis, I know I gave my word, but the threats were so ominous, or the deal offered so attractive, that I reversed myself while sitting in the Oval Office." Nah...

The pertinent information will come to us slowly, piecemeal. Perhaps there will be leaks and innuendoes. Or maybe the freeze will be continued de facto, with approvals for building held up, and awareness dawning after some measure of time.

While Netanyahu is in Washington, he will have a photo op with Obama and will smilingly tell reporters how wonderful his visit with the president was.


Indeed, the prediction is that Netanyahu will find a very warm welcome at the White House, for Obama is trying to undo the political damage that ensued as a result of his hostile attitude to Israel. There is a multitude of signs indicating a shift in how the administration is conducting itself with regard to Israel. Yet it's imperative that form and substance not be confused.

Commentator Isi Leibler, in his recent piece, "Netanyahu, Place not your trust in princes," addresses this very issue:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to receive a red carpet reception from President Barack Obama at the White House combined with a reaffirmation about the 'unshakeable US-Israel alliance.' However we should not delude ourselves. It is clear that Obama's recent charm campaign was primarily in response to pressure from the American people and in particular from Jewish Democratic supporters shocked into action by the administration's increasingly negative approach toward Israel and the crass reception accorded to Netanyahu during his last visit.

"The bonhomie was intended to assuage domestic anger to avert loss of votes and funding for the forthcoming congressional elections. Even though administration officials, including Rahm Emanuel, conceded that they 'had screwed up the messaging' and are unlikely to repeat their previous boorish humiliation of Israel, there are no signs that the US administration is about to modify its policy."
http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/ topics/isi-leibler-netanyahu-place


One more dumb move:

Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef. But he is also a convert to Christianity who worked with the Israeli Shin Bet (Security) for nine years, providing information on terrorists that averted attacks and saved numerous lives.

In the US for three years, he has had his request for asylum rejected because he alluded in his memoirs to the fact that he worked with Hamas. His book, "Son of Hamas," was published earlier this year; when he wrote it, he had no idea that it would sabotage his appeal for asylum. In spite of his explanation that his association with Hamas was undercover and that he was working to subvert Hamas, authorities came to the conclusion that he was a Hamas-supporting terrorist. Thus he is threatened with deportation.

Mosab was honored Wednesday night at a Washington DC dinner, at which the pro-Israel organization run by Sarah Stern, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), granted him a "Rays of Light in the Darkness" Award.

Mosab faces a death threat because of his renunciation of Islam.

This past week, his former Israeli handler, G. Ben-Itzhak, a Shin Bet agent, revealed his identity for the first time in order to speak on behalf of Mosab Yousef. "Mosab is not a terrorist! He risked his life every day in order to prevent [violence]," he told those present at the EMET dinner.

Ben-Itzhak is in the US in order to testify at Mosab's deportation hearing on June 30. "I need to come to the courthouse," he said, "and tell the judge the truth."


According to one documentary about Mosab Yousef, when he was asked if the Palestinians and Israel can live together, he replied: "There is no chance. Is there any chance for fire to co-exist with the water?"

It has been suggested that Obama would benefit from reading this book.


While I believe that the Lebanese ships may still be on their way, Iran has cancelled plans to send a flotilla to attempt to break the blockade of Gaza.

According to Hossein Sheikholeslam, secretary general of the International Conference for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada:

"The Zionist regime has made the blockade a political issue and we do not wish to politicise this kind of humanitarian aid because the most important thing for us is to break the blockade of Gaza."

Cute, no?

He said the voyage was cancelled as Israel "had sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on that regime and it will confront it.

"In order to deprive the Zionist regime of any excuse, the aid collected for the oppressed people of Gaza will be delivered to them by other means without mentioning the name of Iran."

There is a great deal going on behind the scenes, and I do not wish to speculate on exactly what did discourage the Iranians. Not yet, at any rate. What I will say is that things may not be as bad as we often feel they are. The fact of the matter is that Iran pulled back, unprepared to confront us — our deterrence power must be OK.


With the emphasis on Gaza in recent weeks, there has been a resurgence of publicity here to bring home Gilad Shalit. Right now, a march for Shalit, from the north to Jerusalem, is underway, led by Noam Shalit, who is accompanied by thousands.

I will not belabor this here. I've made my position clear over time. I, too, would dearly love to see this man brought home. But not — not ever — at the cost of releasing a thousand terrorists who would put many other Israeli civilians at risk and increase the likelihood of further kidnapping of soldiers to boot. We must not be blackmailed this way, and it cannot be Gilad Shalit at any cost.

So far, thankfully, no movement from our government on this. It has been made clear that a deal was offered six months ago, which would permit the release of 600 prisoners, but would not include those responsible for major terrorist operations. Certain Hamas people who would be released would be required to go somewhere other than Judea and Samaria — it is felt their release to this area is sought in order to strengthen Hamas operations there.

This deal is not to Hamas's liking.

Unfortunately, the pressure on the government to bring Shalit's release at any cost may serve to strengthen Hamas resolve that if they hold out they can get what they want.


Obama is opposed to the release of prisoners in this deal. Not because he cares one iota about endangering Israelis, but because this would give Hamas a victory that would weaken Abbas. It would be very ironic indeed if Obama's opposition helped to maintain the starch in Netanyahu's spine on this issue.


I strongly recommend the video provided here:

This is an interview of Itamar Marcus, who heads Palestinian Media Watch, here in Israel, by Richard Landes, academic and author who is an associate professor at Boston U and spends part of his time in Israel. Landes coined the term "Pallywood, which means "productions staged by the Palestinians, in front of camera crews, for the purpose of promoting anti-Israel propaganda." Ignore the pitch to become a subscriber to PJTV and wait for the interview. The 16 minutes is well worth it.

In the course of discussing the need to pay attention to what PA leaders say to their own people in Arabic (something that the Obama administration apparently does not at all!), Marcus touches upon a great many important facts. The video ends with a clip of PA president Mahmoud Abbas, speaking in Arabic recently, and putting the lie to all the sweet and lovely "moderate" things he said while in the US to see Obama.

Save this, and share it.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Wallace Edward Brand, June 28, 2010.


Nine eleven, nine eleven       (Eleven September in US form)
Three thousand innocents sent to heaven
By Islamists who hate our Liberty Bell
Why wait? Send em straight to hell.

Twenty one seven, twenty one seven     (July 21 in British form)
Luckily no British were sent to heaven
Not for want of Islamist trying
London tube riders thankfully not dying

Hundred ninety one dead on eleven four   (April 11 in European form)
Four Madrid trains with bombs galore
Islamists at it again for sure
How much longer can the world endure

One hundred eighty six Beslan kids       September 1
Died to celebrate a paedophile
Mohammed's his name — a billion adore
this guy whose terror is alive once more

Time and time and time again       Constantly
Israelis attacked with bombs, Not when,
But why is what we ask in vain
Jihad, not liberation, a religion insane

Contact Wallace Brand at webrand@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Prof. Paul Eidelberg, June 28, 2010.

In the June 28 Eidelberg Report on Israel National Radio, I said: "The Likud separated Zionism from the Torah, just as it has separated the Land of Israel from the Torah." Hence, ponder the following.

In The World Upside Down (2010), Melanie Phillips writes: "It was Christian Zionism which led Lord Balfour to issue his famous declaration committing Britain to re-establish the Jewish national home in Palestine." Moreover, and contrary to political Zionism, Lord Balfour said this in 1919: "'The position of the Jews is unique. For them race [or. nationality], religion and country [land] are inter-related, as they are inter-related in the case of no other race, no other religion, and no other county on earth." This statement is more consistent with the Torah than the Zionism of the Likud Party and of its chairman, Binyamin Netanyahu!

Of course, and to be fair, a Christian Zionist does not bear the burdens and responsibility of a prime minister of Israel. But consider Melanie Phillips. For this woman, a Jewess (who also wrote Londonistan) to take a strong, outspoken pro-Israel position on the one hand, and expose the barbarity of Islam on the other — this in anti-Semitic England — requires a degree of courage lacking among Israel's well-protected political leaders.

Melanie Phillips has a broad view of Christian Zionism. She writes:

Christian Zionism is an umbrella term for those Christians whose support for Israel is based on theology. They believe that the restoration of modern Israel is the fulfillment of God's prophetic purpose that it would be restored to the Jews, its enemies destroyed and peace brought to the entire world. Within this broad definition, there are different varieties of Christian Zionism, including the most controversial doctrine that the restoration of Israel will bring about the return of Christ on earth and a holocaust or mass conversion of the Jews, resulting in the end of days. But ... this doctrine is not universal and does not form part of the Christian Zionism preached by the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, which has more than eighty branches around the world and which was established in 1980 to represent all Christians who wanted to see their governments affirm the Jews' Biblical right to rule in Jerusalem.

In contrast, and as Phillips documents, the Church of England, having succumbed to moral relativism and even paganism, is viciously anti-Jewish and anti-Israel.

This decay of the Church of England is part and parcel of the utter decline of Christianity in Britain, whose moral and intellectual decadence is more widespread and more horrifying than the decay taking place in continental Europe. Indeed, from the abundance of evident assembled in The World Upside Down, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that England is dying. All the more reason for a prime minister of Israel to stand up as proud Jew so that Israel may once again be a light unto the nations.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is 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

To Go To Top

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


Likud MK Miri Regev thinks that releasing any Hamas terrorists is safe. She asserts that if any return to terrorism, just return them to prison, as simple as that. She declares that she will march in solidarity with the family of Hamas' Israeli prisoner, seeking his release for however lopsided an exchange Hamas demands. She will get favorable publicity.

She claims expertise in this, presenting herself, a former spokesman for the IDF, as a strategist and media advisor. But her plan is simplistic and dangerous.

What does prisoner relapse men? It means they commit more terrorism, killing Israelis. Only after they will have killed more Israelis, would her plan take effect.

IMRA explains that Israel does not have a parole system, whereby released prisoners who relapse must serve the balance of their term. Release means canceling the rest of their sentence. That is the first monkey-wrench in her plan.

To re-arrest the former prisoners, evidence is required. Recidivists would be careful to avoid providing it. They likely would be able to commit more than one crime.

But are they likely to commit any? According to Israel Radio, 63% of former Hamas prisoners resume terrorism. So for the thousand or so terrorist prisoners that she would have Israel release, a whole regiment worth, 600 would be attacking Israelis, in exchange for the one prisoner of Hamas. The deal would save one Israeli and doom what, a hundred Israelis? 500 Israelis? Probably the higher number, because the very triumph of such a deal would prompt more Arabs to volunteer as jihadist assassins.

Also more likely the higher figure, because the influx would restore the terrorist infrastructure that the Israeli security services worked hard to decimate and put on the defensive.

Dr. Aaron Lerner asks whether MK Regev understands the risk to her country but puts her political career first, or doesn't understand these basics? (IMRA, 6/27/10).

Note that that political apostle of concessions to the enemy at war is in a party thought right-wing.

A major problem with Israel politicians, as with American ones, is failure to foresee consequences. That would require thinking, as contrasted with rationalizing.


A shipping executive of Iran says that if Israel inspects ships from Iran, then Iran will inspect foreign ships in its territorial waters (IMRA, 6/27/10).

An embargo in wartime or on reasonable grounds for suspicion is one thing. Israel has reasonable grounds, having caught earlier Iranian attempts to smuggle arms against Israel. But inspection for the purpose of harassment is another thing. That is what the Iranian threatens.

When taking on a scofflaw, such as Iran, the Security Council is sabotaged from within. It wastes futile years on mild sanctions. Meanwhile, the enemy learns how to evade the consequences and now devises threats or sanctions of its own.

We know that Russia and China undermine the Security Council. What about President Obama? He asks the Council to impose mild sanctions and accepts weaker ones. Is he like Israeli MK Regev, who in favoring a lopsided prisoner exchange with Hamas, fails to see the consequences, or is he like her in perhaps putting politics first? Each one jeopardizes national security.


Palestinian Arab rivalry has stopped electrical supply for Gaza. Just when hot weather apparently increased the need for electricity in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), controlled by Fatah, stopped paying the fuel suppliers, at least the one from Israel.

The people of Gaza are annoyed with their rival factions for making them suffer. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights urges the P.A. to pay up. It also recognizes that consumers do not always pay their bills. There was a most complicated discussion over whether the organizations supposed to pay for the fuel have the funds with which to pay.

The report is newsworthy for not automatically making Israel the scapegoat (IMRA, 6/27/10).

Thus the P.A. has its own siege of Gaza.

Except for a concluding comment, this is an objective report. Like many, it comes primarily from Arab sources. Nevertheless, some readers call such reports "Zionist propaganda." When that is all they comment, what good do they do other than to demonstrate not knowing enough to show anything wrong with it?

Some readers refer us to Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. We have relayed reports by Prof. Stephen Plaut that Chomsky favors neo-Nazis, Communists, just about any dictator. Finkelstein is a sort of Holocaust denier stripped of faculty positions for lack of academic credentials and peer reviewed scholarship and for using his classroom to indoctrinate.

One critic, who demonizes Zionists while ignoring the Muslim Arab inspired genocide in Sudan and Saddam's poison gassing of Kurds, refers my readers to pro-terrorist Arab sources, such as al-Jazeera.

Critics who call some Jews "Zionazis" and who call my comments "lies" repeat disproved and refuted assertions. What does that show of them? It makes them practitioners of the "big lie" technique. That places them in the company of the Nazis, the Communists, and the holy war fanatics, who believe that the ends justify the means. Islam has a doctrine that permits lying in behalf of the faith, just as did the Nazis and the Communists.


They slashed children's toys, brought by flotilla? (A.P. photo/Adel Hana)

Masked, armed gunmen attacked a second UNRWA summer camp in Gaza, tied up its guards, and burned the camp down. The identity of the assailants is not known. Non-Hamas terrorist groups in Gaza have bombed restaurants, internet cafes, music stores, and pharmacies dozens of times and have criticized the UNRWA camps. The Palestinian Authority blames Hamas for the arson against the rival camps. The head of UNRWA camps thanked Hamas for its prompt response to the emergency [in time to photograph the embers].

About 250,000 children in Gaza attend the UN camps and 100,000 attend the Hamas camps. Hamas camps offer indoctrination in religion and terrorism, including hatred of Israel, and paramilitary training. UNRWA has normal children's activities and perhaps some human rights lessons (Arutz-7, 6/28/10).

Hard to earn a living in Gaza, when terrorists bomb businesses.


Seven Arab citizens of Nazareth, Israel were arrested for terrorism. They belong to the Salafi branch of Islam, favored by al-Qaida. They started on their path of violence via Internet. Websites advocating global Islamic rule taught them how to build bombs and commit terrorist assaults.

Being equal opportunity Muslim jihadists, they attacked Christians [usually Arab] and Jews, sometimes by stabbing. They threw stun grenades and Molotov cocktails at houses of Christians and Jews.

Their first crime was to murder a cab driver because he was Jewish. [They did not say they asked whether he were a Zionist, just being a Jew sufficed for them. Some of my critics pretend a big distinction, but if the Jewish people were discriminated against to the point of having to give up sovereignty, as the anti-Zionist critics want, the Jews would be exterminated by jihadists. That is a likely prospect that my critics do not bring up.]

The gang tripped up when caught trying to enter Somalia, to attend an al-Qaida training camp, in preparation for fighting U.S. troops (Arutz-7, 6/28/10).

The goal of one Muslim emirate, is sought by one global jihad, active on numerous fronts and on several levels. The same, general, intolerant ideology confronts the U.S. and Israel, Christians and Jews, in fact, almost everybody, including Fatah against Israel, Hamas against Fatah, and Salafis against Hamas. Anti-Zionists are way off base when they accuse Americans who support Israel of somehow being against the U.S.. The jihadists consider the U.S. the Great Satan. Let Israel keep them busy! Let these supposed anti-Zionist patriots defend American allies and have something to say against jihadists who kill Americans here and abroad!


Al-Qaida in Yemen has switched targets. Formerly, it attacked Western facilities. Now it is attacking government facilities. It has detected their weaknesses and lack of coordination (IMRA, 6/27/10).

Certain critics think that their name-calling discourages journalists. However, their obvious lack of facts or inability to reason from them, leaving the reports denounced but not refuted, encourages journalists. Readers should see that they have nothing to say for their own case except, perhaps, fairy tales about Jews resuming status as a minority even in Israel, where hundreds of thousands fled for their lives from being a minority in Arab states before.

Some might have a point, but they do not know how to present it without invective, so I ignore them.


Rep. Sue Myrick (GOP-NC) warned the Dept. of Homeland Security that Hizbullah may be working its way up into the U.S. through Mexico.

U.S. prisoners' tattoos increasingly are in Farsi, indicating Persian influence. Terrorists may be teaching Mexican cartels how to make bombs (IMRA, 6/27/10).

Drug gangs and terrorists work together elsewhere, so why not in Mexico?

The enemy is resourceful. So is the U.S. Army. But the civilian federal bureaucracy and power brokers stumble through the calendar without instituting effective reform over border control.

To be sure, widespread American drug and oil addiction are the roots of the problem, and prohibition of narcotics exacerbates it.

Those who oppose legalization of narcotics do so for ethical reasons. But the violent and expensive results of prohibition are not an ethical outcome.


Saudi Arabia is impatient with President Obama. Faced with the more immediate problem of Iranian dominance if Iran develops nuclear weapons, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that sanctions take too long (IMRA, 6/27/10).

That is a tactful way of putting it. The sanctions take forever, but Iranian nuclear development will not take forever. Today's newspapers report a U.S. estimate of 2 years to develop nuclear weapons. If I recall, a year ago, the U.S. estimate was quite a few years more. Before the election, the NIE estimate was that Iran had stopped development. That was the headline, though the body of the report confirmed the opposite. The headline was a lie by politically or ideologically oriented people in the State Dept. and security agencies.

Saudi impatience confirms skepticism of Obama's contention that Arab opposition to Iranian nuclear development requires Israel first to settle with the Arabs on their terms. the reql question is how far would the Arabs go out on a limb with the Obama administration, which turns against allies.


Arab protesters and Israeli police "clashed," yesterday in a neighborhood of Jerusalem where the City plans to raze 22 Arab houses "which the government says were built illegally on public land." The land would be used for an archaeological park over the ancient City of David. The 200 or more Arabs threw stones at the police.

"Israel, which captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war, considers the entire city its capital. Arabs object to any development in that area, "which they view as the capital of a future state." (Dina Kraft, NY Times, 6/28/10, A8.)

The article is misleading in several ways. It is not that the two sides clashed, but that the Arabs clashed with police. The significance of this is that the Arabs and their supporters depict the clashes as peaceful demonstrations interrupted by unwarranted police crowd control and arrests. My critics put it that way, but many protests in Jerusalem and most at the security fence are violent. The wonder is that there are not more arrests. The government of Israel should be held accountable to its people for dereliction of duty.

Should the newspaper, which has a Jerusalem bureau, leave the matter as "the government says" the Arabs' houses are built on public land? Why not ascertain the facts and report whether those Arabs are land thieves impeding municipal planning?

Should municipal order collapse in an area because Arabs want to take it away from Israel? What kind of a city would they get, that way?

Ms. Kraft omitted the fact that 66 illegal Arab houses and one house owned by Jews would be spared. Anti-Zionists cannot give show any mercy by Israel. But Is sparing the 66 plus one reasonable? Is Israel a government of law or a government that please a State Dept. working against it?

The NY Times is back to misleading historical background. The statement about Jordan makes it seem as if Israel took something belonging to the Arabs. Eastern Jerusalem did not belong to the Arabs. It belonged to the Palestine Mandate, to which the Jewish people were primary heir, until Israel annexed it. Jordan acquired the area by aggression, not that the Times informs readers of that fact.

The UN General Assembly had recommended that Jerusalem be an international city, one of those Utopian follies that failed everywhere. That recommendation had no legal status, and anyway was voided by Arab rejection. The Arabs went to war to get the whole cake. After losing it, they want the Old City, that the UN didn't even recommend, before. Their ideology is to use what territory they can get to make another war to get the whole cake. The newspaper does not alert readers to the real story. Instead, its misleading statements act to support the Arab plan for further war.


Israel's Intelligence and Information Center has translated and examined documents and computers of the Free Gaza Movement seized from the flotilla. The Movement was a flotilla sponsor.

In its legal briefing to members, the Movement advised them not to say anything in support of Hamas. Otherwise they could be prosecuted for assisting terrorism. One implication is that they know that the support they intended for Gaza would bolster the regime that runs Gaza.

The group claims its mission is humanitarian, but it seems more clearly political. That could make its fund-raising in the U.S. criminal. A document that describes the group's goal's does not mention delivering humanitarian aid but generating publicity about the blockade and pressing foreign governments to punish Israel for it (IMRA, 6/27/10).


Reports continue to come in that 3-4 U.S. aircraft carries still are in the Persian Gulf. American and French pilots have practiced taking off from each other's carriers. Their mission remains obscure.

Is their mission to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities? [Is it to protect U.S. bases from Iranian reaction to an Israeli raid?] Or is it to protect Iran from an Israeli raid, as some of Obama's advisers prefer?

Consider first the role of Saudi Arabia. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Saudi Arabia would let Israeli raiders through. But could Israel trust Saudi Arabia to let the Israeli planes refuel and get back home? Does Israel need to post another part of its air force near Saudi Arabia to ensure no Saudi treachery? Can Israel trust Saudi Arabia to keep its word, after Israel would have saved it from Iran, and Saudi Arabia no longer needs Israeli help?

More important, can Israel trust the U.S.? For ideological reasons and notions about access to oil, much of the State Dept. is anti-Israel. Congress has sent letters of protest to President Obama that hint at his strong antipathy to Israel. The U.S. has broken its word to Israel before. [Obama breaks his word to almost everybody, as the AMA and Roundtable lobbies have found out recently.]

Remember the first Gulf War? Israel was within minutes of sending its planes to destroy Saddam's missile launchers. Four U.S. officials in charge of the war — Pres. Bush, Sr., Sec. of State Baker, Sec. of Defense Powell, and Chief of Staff Schwarzkopf — asked Israel not to. Instead, they promised that U.S. planes would do the job, whereas if Israel did it, the Arab coalition against Saddam might dissolve.

That coalition was illusory. Syria sent lightly armed forces at a distance from the combat. The U.S. rewarded Syria by letting 75 Iraqi planes escape to Iran, from which they went to Syria, for which Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid Saddam a few billion dollars. Apparently, the U.S. hoped for future help from Saddam against Iran. [This is like the CIA's predecessor saving Nazis in the hope of their future help against the USSR. P.S.: The Nazis were useless.]

The U.S. officials deceived Israel. They did not order U.S. planes to destroy Saddam's missile launchers. Instead, they let Saddam launch. The Patriot missiles intercepted most of the Scuds, but the debris and explosives nevertheless did much damage to Israel.

Former Sec. of Defense Weinberger knew that Saddam had nerve gas. Anticipating the use of poison gas, Weinberger, in the middle of the first night of Scud-launching, issued a statement sympathizing with Israel for being struck by nerve gas. How callous to betray Israel like that!

Israel, however, had a decent civil defense. Israelis waited in sealed rooms, and the knowledge that they were prepared probably kept Saddam from inserting nerve gas in the Scuds. Israel got the intelligence about Saddam's having nerve gas from Jonathan Pollard, who thereby saved untold numbers of Israeli lives without harm to the U.S..

Incidentally, if the U.S. had let Israel destroy Saddam's missile launchers, Iraq might not have been able to fire one into a U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 28 U.S. soldiers.

Israel cannot trust the U.S. now, either. Those aircraft carriers may be present to destroy Israeli submarines sent to the area as a nuclear deterrent to Iran.

Although Israel is an ally of the U.S., and Iran and Syria are enemies, Obama prefers appeasing America's enemies (Winston Mid East Analysis and Commentary, 6/27/10).

Readers who criticize my articles, in the name of patriotism, seem oblivious to U.S. duplicity in favoring enemies over allies and harming the American national interest.


The U.S. opposes a lopsided prisoner exchange. Why?

The U.S. does not object that such a prisoner exchange would be giving in to terrorism. Neither does the U.S. object that it would encourage Hamas to kidnap more Israelis for more exchanges.

Instead, the U.S. reason is that a large-scale prisoner release negotiated by Hamas would strengthen Hamas against Abbas. The U.S. remains under the illusion that a satisfactory peace could be made by [the ever-weak but ever recalcitrant jihadist] Abbas (IMRA, 6/28/10).

Such a U.S. policy demonstrates to those who can think that the U.S. does not base its policy on what Israel needs or on reality and what is good for the U.S.. What would be good for the U.S. is to defeat jihadists of all types, including Fatah. One may think of Hamas and Abbas as good cop, bad cop, both working for the same goal.

A critic recently stated that the Arabs rise up against Israel because Israel "occupies" them. Illogical. The critic acts as if he never heard of jihad, which in modern times started against Palestinian Jews about 90 years ago, having nothing to do with occupation. Jihad is not rational but bigoted. Like other forms of antisemitism, it pretends to have grievances against Jews, but their bigotry exists regardless of what Jews do.

Hard to imagine Gaza, in which no Israelis are present, as being occupied by Israel. Nevertheless, these critics have that kind of imagination.

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 Yaacov Levi, June 28, 2010.

This was written by Daniel Greenfield who blogs as Sultan Knish.


When you're in a competition and you're losing, one of the first thing to do is to study what your opponent is doing and copy him. In this case Israel is competing for good media coverage with the terrorists. And the terrorists are winning. And if the media likes them so much, maybe it's time to start doing what they do.

1. Get Good Media Coverage By Excluding Bad Media Coverage

Say that two movies will be coming out next week. One of those movies has studio which bans all critics who have spoken unfavorably about it from seeing it. The other movie welcomes all reviewers. When the final numbers are tallied, which movie do you think will have the best reviews? The one that didn't screen the movie for any critics who were not favorably disposed toward it. Sure the other movie might claim that its favorable reviews were honest. And that and a dime will buy you a cup of coffee.

Now say that these two studios keep doing this for 10 years, and that they're the only game in town. Eventually just to be able to do their jobs, critics will almost always positively review movies from the studio that bars critics, and almost always negatively review the movies from the other studio to stay on the good side of the first studio. That is because selecting for optimal results will produce them.

Free societies "screen" for all critics. Totalitarian ones only play to supportive audiences. That is why they get the better publicity than free societies. Journalistic integrity is supposed to make up the difference by telling the truth to the public. When it doesn't, then the journalists are functioning willingly as tools of totalitarian regimes. And maybe it's time to give them the boot.

If Israel wants the same supportive coverage that Fatah and Hamas get, it needs to play by their rules. Press credentials would then go to those who provide positive coverage. Those reporters who want to take pictures of wall graffiti and stage photos of Muslim children throwing stones at Israeli tanks need not apply. If the New York Times or NBC News can't find anyone willing to play by those rules, the way they do in Gaza and Ramallah, then they can stay home and they won't be able to do their jobs.

The mainstream media will be outraged, you say. There will be even more negative coverage. As if there isn't heaps of it now. And what will the negative media coverage be of? Reporters forced to stay home. Foreign correspondents who have to cover an election in Hungary, instead of eating caviar in a Jerusalem hotel and writing vicious articles about Jewish Middle Eastern refugees living in East Jerusalem. Haaretz reporters will have to move to London to write biting columns in the Guardian about how racist the country they used to live in, is. Before they move on to the inevitable theater reviews and finally begin writing ad copy for insurance agencies. Oh the pathos, the pity. No one will care.

Should Israel do this? It's not the way of a free society, but there's only so much propaganda for a totalitarian society that even the freest society can endure before it is destroyed. Freedom comes with responsibility. The main responsibility is not to use that freedom to destroy the free society whose freedom you enjoy. Drill enough holes in a boat, and either the boat will sink or you'll be escorted off and Carnival Cruises will never let you brook a cruise with them again.

2. Get Good Coverage by Killing People All the Time

Terrorist groups are always killing people, which the media is fine with. Israel on the other hand mostly doesn't kill anyone. Occasionally it goes after terrorists and kills some of them. An international outcry immediately results. This paradox is explained by a well known defect commonly present in children and moral idiots. This moral defect judges consistently evil behavior more favorably, than inconsistently good behavior.

Another "Oppressed Mansion" in Ramallah

In other words, someone who steals all the time is viewed more favorably than a seemingly solid citizen who gets caught shoplifting. Don't believe me? Count how many ballads have been written about highwaymen, bank robbers and terrorists. The answer is a whole lot.

This defect does not judge the morality of behavior, but its consistency. Someone who is consistently bad is seen as good, because he sticks to his principles. Which are bad. Clearly proving that he's good. Because if he weren't good, why would he be bad all the time? It must be because he believes that his behavior is really good. So all we have to do is understand his point of view to see why he acts this way.

On the other hand someone who is inconsistent is clearly a hypocrite. Otherwise why is his behavior inconsistent? Clearly he knows he's doing wrong and occasionally tries to restrain himself, but still keeps engaging in wrongdoing. Which means he has no principles, and his behavior is therefore unjustifiable.

Applied to the Israeli-Muslim Terrorist conflict, this means that Israel is bad because it only inconsistently kills terrorists. On the other hand the terrorists consistently kill Israelis, which must mean that they're good. By only killing terrorists sometimes, Israel shows that it doesn't believe that killing them is ever right. By constantly trying to kill Israelis, the terrorists demonstrate a consistent value system that shows they always believe the are doing the right thing.

This seems like madness only because you aren't a cultural relativist. Which is to say that you believe some things are right and other things are wrong irregardless of who believes them or does them. But if you were a moral idiot, or a cultural relativist (but I repeat myself), you would understand that subjective labels such as right or wrong don't matter. What matters is that people behave in a way consistent with their cultural imperatives and global context. Which generally means killing people or feeling bad because their ancestors killed all those people, depending on their level of industrial development, infrastructure and average family income.

Back when Israel was much more consistent about killing enemy insurgents and terrorists, there was also a general consensus in its favor. In the 50's, Ariel Sharon snuck into Egypt and blew up an entire village being used as an insurgent base. Today a single targeted assassination of a terrorist results in shrieks of global outrage. The problem here is the "single" and the "targeted" part. The answer is to kill terrorists like you mean it.

Not only does consistently doing something result in a better global image, but it also deadens any scandal by turning it into static. Assassinate one terrorist in Dubai and the world is upset. Assassinate ten terrorists a day and the world quickly gets bored a month later after the 300th terrorist. There are only so many headlines reading, "Israel Still Killing Terrorists" that anyone will bother to read. And as a major bonus, killing enough terrorists tends to put an end to that whole terrorism thing.

3. Victims of Our Own Competence

The real problem with Israel is not that it has jets and tanks and nuclear weapons. Most of the Middle East has at least two out of three of those. North Korea has all three. The problem is that Israel works a little too well.

What do I mean by that? Israel has working traffic lights, electricity, airlines, police forces and stores filled with things made in the country. Back around 1950 when countries were expected to be able to do things for themselves, this was considered a good thing. But today the anti-capitalism paradigm is dominant, which means that any level of competence defines you as a villain.

When a reporter goes to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, he notices that despite all the flaws, things somewhat work. No one generally tries to murder him on the street. The Jewish residents at least, aren't using donkeys as transportation, no one throws rocks at his head, and sewage isn't flowing through the street.

But when he goes to Ramallah or Gaza, he sees gorgeous villas and classic Mercedes cars, but he also sees dust, dirt and yes raw sewage. Things don't work, or work only unpredictably. Abused animals are everywhere. Militia gangs prowl the streets. Kids throw rocks. The electricity goes on and off. The doctors occasionally work at the hospital, when they aren't heading up the local wing of Hamas\Fatah or selling drugs. Naturally he thinks these people must be the victims.

The solution is to make Israel appear just as dysfunctional. While the country has its problems, by comparison things do generally work. Now is the time to stop making them work. During a crisis, major cities in Israel should repeatedly lose power. The Knesset will have raucous debates by candlelight. Traffic jams will be orchestrated and donkeys will replace taxis. Raw sewage will spill out in the street and doctors will leave their jobs and do nothing but conduct press conferences denouncing Sweden for making us live this way.

Photographers will be invited to take pictures of senior citizens struggling to manually translate Henning Mankell and Iain Banks novels by hand, due to their boycott of Israel. And of children who are receiving inadequate medical care because of being boycotted by British medical journals. And of course there will be people posing buried in rubble due to the boycotts of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Presbyterian Church and Swedish dock workers.

Of course none of this makes any sense. But it doesn't have to make any sense. The facts don't matter. The Muslim terrorists proved that already. The point is to create a lot of sympathetic dramatically staged photos and blame someone for them. It might as well be Sweden since they're spoiling for a fight anyway. This is not about the facts. It's about making the competent feel guilty for their competence. If Israel is demonized because Fatah and Hamas can't provide basic services even with billions of dollars in foreign aid, then it's time for Israel to stop providing basic services.

In the anti-capitalist dogma, competence is criminality. A more advanced society is always more wrong than a less advanced one. Clearly the only way to win their sympathy is a race to the bottom. If the lights go out in Gaza, let there be no lights and sewage in Haifa. In Ramallah has open sewage, then Tel Aviv should go back to using donkeys. If Jenin has armed militias riding on donkeys that are swimming in pools of sewage, it's time to close all the hospitals in the Israel and gather gangs of schoolchildren and start stoning foreign planes.

At some point where Israeli schoolchildren achieve a lower literacy rate than their counterparts in the West Bank. When there is no electricity anywhere in the country, and cold running water only twice a week. When the only forms of transportation in the country are rusting 1960's classic American cars and mistreated donkeys. When there is no working fire department, but cell phones are everywhere. When you can't go a hundred feet without hearing the sounds of machine gun fire. And when there is an entire branch of the UN dedicated to feeding and clothing Israelis. Then finally the public relations battle will be won. Because Israel will truly be a failed state — and therefore wholly moral.

Only successful states take the blame, because only they are judged as being responsible. Failed states on the other hand are always someone else's victim. If paradoxically the only way to be a successful state, is to be a failed state — it's time to start failing upward.

Anyone who supports the Muslim terrorist side, and disapproves of the article should ask him or herself, why?

"Or we'll hold our breath until we turn blue"

If censorship, homicidal mania and deliberate dysfunction are effective media relations tools for the poor "Palestinian Arabs" who can hardly walk four steps without claiming citizenship in the great state of victimhood, maybe it's time their victims got a piece of the action. If the left doesn't like working countries that don't throw critics off buildings or constantly try to kill people — then they're writing a scenario in which those countries will transform themselves into the image of the sort of countries that the left does like.

This is only a satirical piece, but all satire has more than a grain of truth to it. If the media left calls democracy, tyranny and tyranny, democracy. Then perhaps the only way for them to recognize a country as a democracy is for it to become a tyranny. If they praise countries that violate civil rights, for their freedom, and damn countries with freedom for violating civil rights — clearly then the only way to the leftist heart is by violating civil rights. By calling good, evil, and evil, good — the left has written this narrative itself with the inkstains of its own moral hypocrisy. It cannot complain about its consequences.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi. This article is archived at
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/06/ terrorists-guide-to-improving-israels.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, June 27, 2010.

When Israel loses yet another PR battle, many of her friends complain that Israel is partly to blame because she is woefully inept when it comes to PR. I am not one of them..

Glenn Jasper, Ruder Finn Israel, recently suggested that Israel should have all its spokesmen deliver the same message. After all, that's what the Palestinians do. That might be a good idea except that Israel is a nation of presidents and each president will deliver his or her own message. They can't be disciplined.

Alex Fishman suggested that Israel should consider the PR battle as more important than the military battle and organize accordingly.

"Hence, the manager of this war on our side should not be the army via the IDF spokesman, but rather, someone on the highest national level, with the best professionals, who would have the knowledge and ability to write the "scripts" for the war and enforce them on all our executive arms, including the army."

Good as these suggestions are, they don't go to the heart of the matter.

To start with there is a coalition of forces including antisemites, leftists and Islamists, that are dedicated to Israel's destruction. They couldn't care less about truth and justice so a better PR campaign would be irrelevant. Then there is the main stream media that presents news to support their agenda rather than the truth. The fact that they suppressed the flotilla videos, which made Israel's case better than a thousand words could have, is testimony to this fact. They have constructed a narrative in support of their agenda and any facts that are not in keeping with it, are ignored.

But there is something more going on that is little noticed and much determinative. Governments lead by the US also construct a narrative depending on their agenda and they don't let truth and justice get in the way.

Long before the Oslo accords, the US began to suppress negative information on Arafat and the PLO as she wished to build a peace process around them. After the signing of the Oslo Accords, the US made no issue of the violation of the accords by Arafat. She was not about to let such violations scuttle the peace process. In effect Arafat could do whatever he wanted, and this included killing American diplomats, so long as he gave lip service to the peace process. Caroline Glick called the "peace process" an "appeasement process" the goal of which was, not peace, but appeasement.

Iran and Syria also learned this lesson. They could keep killing Americans in Iraq as long as they denied their complicity. The US rarely called them on this because if she did, she would have to do something about it.

President Bush waged a campaign against Syria to hold them accountable for the assassination of Harari and to get them out of Lebanon. Syria put up a strong enough fight to get Bush to abandon his original agenda. Bush then started a process of accommodating Syria rather than attacking her. Pres Obama continued this process. Now Syria is openly arming Hezbollah in violation of Res 1701 and aligning with Iran. The US response is to embrace her, to engage her, to send envoys and generally make nice. Obviously pointing the finger at Syria is inconsistent with the present US goals.

Similarly the US has been attempting to engage Iran and to co-opt her into helping in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus the US refrained from supporting the green movement when it challenged the government. For the same reason she is unwilling to verbally attack Iran or to apply effective sanctions. She is even prepared to live with a nuclear Iran if only Iran will cooperate and even, if not.

In the last year or so Turkey has entered centre stage in the Middle East and is throwing her rhetorical weight around especially since backing the flotilla. Not one critical word did Obama utter. To the contrary he believes "Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process."

Examples are legion but what has this to do with Israel's efforts at public relations? Lots.

The flip side of this coin is that when the US wants to force someone to do something, either friend or foe, she must first demonize them. But the US can't demonize a friend without a pretext so she first creates a crisis as her springboard.

In March of this year the US feigned outrage over Israel's announcement of a housing project in Ramat Shlomo. This outrage legitimated the subsequent US attack on Israel.

Similarly, Israel's legitimate self defense in the flotilla attack in which she killed nine violent "activists" was enough of a pretext for demonizing her and putting pressure on her. On May 31 after news of the deaths surfaced, Obama was a bit more restrained in his condemnation of Israel than his European allies and called for all the "facts and circumstances". Had he been genuine in this, he would have, after the videos of the attack on the IDF went viral the next day, totally sided with Israel and nipped the demonization in the bud, but he didn't. He had an agenda and he wanted to use this crisis to announce the blockade was "unsustainable". He allowed the pressure to mount so he could achieve his ends.

Shelby Steele argues most convincingly that "the end game of this isolation effort is the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation". He attributes this scape-goating of Israel to a "deficit of moral authority" in the West. While that is sadly true, it ignores the fact that realpolitik, which has taken hold of the Obama administration, dictates a similar result.

Yet I would argue that the pursuit of self interest by the US is assured greater success with Israel as a strong ally rather than without her.

This is not to say that Israel should cease its PR efforts. She shouldn't. She should continue to provide her friends with the truth so that they maintain their friendship lest they be infected as well. Notwithstanding all the demonization she is subjected to and the realpolitik, she has managed to keep the goodwill of the American people and others who value truth and justice. Ultimately, this is her trump card.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 27, 2010.


Israel and Egypt stopped some Sinai smugglers. Bedouin in the Sinai have been smuggling more weapons, food, and drugs for terrorist organizations in Gaza. Israel warned its citizens that terrorists are planning to kidnap and murder Israelis.

Egypt has convicted a group of Hizbullah, Lebanese, Egyptian, Sudanese and Palestinian Authority terrorists for planning the kidnapping and for smuggling Iranian arms into Gaza.

Five Sinai drug smugglers had infiltrated the border with Israel, but Israeli forces detected them, shot two. One is recovering in an Israeli hospital. The others were arrested.

Egypt shot two Bedouin near a crossing to Israel. The Egyptian government alleged they were among the bandits that attacked a government security convoy. Local residents alleged that Egyptian security forces had fired rocket-propelled grenades into their village (Arutz-7, 6/27/10).


Bedouin wedding in Gaza (AP/Adel Hana)

Volunteer Bedouin enlistment in IDF combat units, such as for desert reconnaissance, has increased 50% and still is rising. The IDF attributes this to visits by commanders to Bedouin homes.

On the other hand, those who do serve are threatened and their families subjected to mockery (Arutz-7, 6/27/10).


Israel has a new curriculum for its non-religious public schools. The new curriculum includes Jewish culture and tradition.

One of the motives for the change is that people not linked to their culture can more easily switch to a foreign one, such as Silicon Valley's. Another is that people should know what they are defending the country for.

This is a sensitive subject. At what point does knowledge of one's cultural background become indoctrination in particular religious belief? (IMRA, 6/26/10).

Israelis who call themselves non-religious do so in comparison with the very religious. Most Israeli Jews are traditional.

The question is why it took so long for the government to insert its people's culture and tradition into the curriculum.

Perhaps another motive for the change is that parents have been transferring their children from national (secular) schools to religious ones, where there is discipline and learning.


Shalit's picture. Is 1,500 for one an honest deal? (AP/Tsafrir Abayov)

In describing its capture of an Israeli soldier, Hamas boasted that this exploit demolished the myth of Israeli invincibility. It also threatened to capture more Israelis, for ransom. It described its men as "freedom fighters."

Hamas had signed a German proposal for a prisoner exchange, but "Zionist arrogance" obstructed the deal. Hamas implied in its demands for prisoner release that Israeli imprisonment of them were not legal. "This humanitarian effort by Hamas, and its military wing reflect the honest intentions for achieving an acceptable prisoner exchange..." Hamas demands 1,500 Arab prisoners of Israel in exchange for the one Israeli prisoner of Hamas.

Hamas accuses the government of Israel dishonest about the deal, wishing instead of kill Shalit if they can find out where he is incarcerated (IMRA, 6/26/10).

What a weird discussion! The IDF had a reputation for improvisation and hard fighting, not invincibility; being able to win a war does not mean winning every battle. The IDF reputation was sullied by Barak's unnecessary flight from Lebanon and by failing to put enough effort in against Hizbullah the next time, to win.

"Zionist arrogance" scotched the prisoner exchange? No, Hamas demanded the release of murderers. Israel may yet be crazy enough to comply, but it would be crazy to comply. As for exchanging so many hundreds for one, and one who is not invincible, that would be counter-productive, enabling the released terrorists to murder more Israelis than the number saved by the deal, which is one. Jewish law would reject such a lopsided deal, but Israel is not governed by religious law.

Of course the imprisonment of the Hamas terrorists is legal. They attempted or committed murder of civilians or fought in illegal ways against soldiers. Jihadists claim it is not legal because of their own, actual, religious arrogance. They believe that Muslims have superior rights to non-believers, so that self-defense by non-believers is an affront to the Muslim Arabs.

There is no evidence that the Israeli government wishes to kill Shalit. The whole country wants him back. Any regime that succeeds would be popular. The last time IDF forces stormed the holding pen for an Israeli prisoner, the Arabs executed him. So much for their being humanitarian!

The radical Muslims who run Gaza call themselves freedom fighters, but they are free of Israeli rule and would be free of the partial embargo if they did not commit aggression against Israel. A critic, who claims he knows all about the Arab-Israel conflict, says they just want equality. Since they rule themselves now, and they do not mingle with Israelis, because where the Palestinian Arabs rule, they hold the area exclusively for themselves, what need for equality?

What Hamas wants, as its spokesmen attest and I have reported, is to destroy Israel. That critic, however, ignores disproof of his contentions.

Neither is Hamas, a terrorist organization that tries to bomb civilians, humanitarian. Nor is it humanitarian when it stores weapons in houses, making the houses a legitimate military target. It is not humanitarian when it practices a sort of apartheid with women, as well as by barring Jews, when it throws Fatah men out of the window, when it lets people blow up churches, when it steals or blocks humanitarian aid, when it tortures people, etc..

Israel's rule of combat is to abort targeted assassination if two unidentified persons are too close by. That is humanitarian, going beyond international law. The U.S. rule is ten times as many.


Iran foresees self-sufficiency in gasoline in two years. The government is boosting production at its refineries so as to become independent of gasoline imports (IMRA, 6/26/10).

Taking Iran at its word, this demonstrates the folly of starting with light sanctions and escalating slowly. As in war, gradual escalation enables the enemy to accommodate. By the time more serious sanctions are proposed, they are too late to exert strong effect.

Incidentally, the U.S. has not built more refinery capacity in years. Neither has New York City or State built more electric power plants in years. Government regulations seem to be a major factor.


Senator Kerry, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, visited Israel. He:

1. Congratulated Israel for relaxing the embargo on Gaza;

2. Approves of Israeli self-defense;

3. Saw the damage from Hamas rockets in Siderot, and says the U.S. is working on ending that;

4. Does not under-estimate the danger from Iran, hence the "tough" sanctions on Iran (Arutz-7, 6/27/10).

If the U.S. acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense, why does it demand removal of the roadblocks and checkpoints that thwart or apprehend terrorists?

In what way is the U.S. working on ending Hamas bombardment of Israel? What progress was made? Or is what Sen. Kerry said about working on it pious lip service?

The sanctions Sen. Kerry calls "tough" may discomfort Iranian leaders, who, however, express scorn for it and continue nuclear development.


Now that Israel has slashed its list of banned materials for Gaza, the need to smuggle them in has crashed. Instead of 2,000 tunnels and 25,000 workers, only about a hundred tunnels and 3,000 workers continue in operation. They now specialize in cement and iron, which Israel lets in for projects under international supervision. [That means the smuggling is more for Hamas than for housing.]

Some people in Gaza are deferring purchase of cement, because cement from Israel is better in price and quality than what is smuggled from Egypt (IMRA, 6/26/10).


The Jewish-Arab village of Neve Shalom was established to demonstrate peaceful co-existence.

After the flotilla combat, however, the village council, dominated by the Arabs, posted a sign at the village entrance, "The residents of Wahat el-Salaam/Neveh Shalom protest the murder of the activists on the 'Freedom Flotilla' and demand an end to the siege of Gaza."

Jewish residents asked the Council head to remove or amend the sign. He changed "murder" to killing. The Jews still objected. In reaction, the Council restored the word, "murder." In counter-reaction, the Jews erected their own sign, "We, residents of Neveh Shalom, protest against the hanging of signs in Israel that express a one-sided viewpoint. We protest the attack by radicals from the 'peace' flotilla on IDF soldiers and demand the immediate release of Gilad Shalit." The Council had the new sign vandalized and threatened to expel the Jews (IMRA, 6/26/10).

I have reported that the Arab members celebrated special anti-Zionist days, but demanded that the Jewish members not celebrate Israeli holidays. What they called peaceful coexistence was Jewish subordination to the Muslims. As in Moorish Spain.

Self-defense is not murder. Truth is not part of jihad.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, June 27, 2010.

We are approaching 'the three weeks' as they are known, three weeks beginning on the Hebrew date, the 17th of Tammuz, thru the 9th of Av (the 29th of June — 20 July). These three weeks are a time of intense mourning, marking the destruction of the first and second Temples, the Beit HaMikdash, so many thousands of years ago.

This period of time also represents the beginning of the end, as we approach the final days and weeks of the year, by the Hebrew calendar. This is also a time of introspection, usually accompanied by the word 'Tshuva,' which, loosely translated, is repentance. This, as we take up an accounting of the past year, both individually and collectively. How could we have acted better, both with our fellowman, and in our relationship with our Creator? Despite that fact that 'officially' this self-searching does not begin for over a month, actually it begins now. For our sages have taught us the reasons for the destruction of the two Temples: The first, due to idol worship, murder and adultery. And the second, caused by unadulterated, totally unnecessary, hate. In order to rectify these errors of the past, we must delve deep into ourselves, examining our own actions, trying to identify similarities to that behavior which brought about such destruction, spiritual and physical, and, if and when found, corrected.

As mentioned, this must be undertaken both individually and collectively.

How so, collectively?

To this, there are, I am sure, many answers from many diverse vantage points. I'd like to discuss one, which I believe is of the utmost importance.

Very frequently, when speaking with groups and with journalists here in Hebron, I find myself addressing the same issue: "What is the solution?" 'The solution,' of course, dealing with the continued war between Arab and Jew, be it in Hebron or throughout Israel. I'd like to present my answer, as repeated numerous, numerous times.

My response comprises several parts:

Of course, our enemies, our neighbors, must accept our legitimacy, our legitimacy as a people, and our legitimacy to live in our land, freely, as Jews. As of yet, this legitimacy is still denied us; they refuse to accept that Jews have any right to live in Israel; not only in Judea and Samaria, but in all of Israel, be it Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Beer Sheva.

This is nothing new. The Arab-Islamic rejection of Israel has existed from time immemorial. However, in order to reach any kind of 'peace,' this denial of Judaism and Israel must be changed, with the denial itself being rejected.

However, this is the least important element of the answer. Of course, one can rightly ask, how can this first objective be achieved?

NOW WE BEGIN TO TOUCH ON THE ESSENTIAL ISSUES, the first of which is that we, as a people, must accept our own legitimacy, our right to live as a people in our land. As surprising as it may sound, this self-legitimacy is not a given. In many circles this self-acceptance is rejected. I once debated a professor who declared that 'if the cost of establishing the State of Israel was expulsion of any Arab people from their homes, then the State should not have been declared.'

This is, of course, very extreme. But it's not too far from those people who question the Jewish right to Jerusalem, not to mention Hebron. There are many who really don't know — perhaps it really 'isn't ours.' Or perhaps 'their right is no less than ours.'

This is reflected, here in Hebron, on an almost daily basis, when groups coming to visit, both Israeli and others, divide their days in half. Part of the day they spend with 'Breaking the Silence,' whose directors are infamous for having been responsible for involving Israel in Goldstone, having accused Israeli soldiers of war crimes during the last war in Gaza. Even Netanyahu brutally attacked them for their slander of Israeli soldiers. These people are not foreigners — they are Jews, Israelis, who have been accused by many of being traitors to their land and people, aiding and abetting the enemy. Only last week they 'hosted' in Hebron several Arab MKs, including Muhammad Baraka, one the most virulent Jew-Israel hating Arabs in the Knesset. Funded by the EU, Britain and other, this group has become a de facto 'equal' to the Jewish Community of Hebron. All groups, including Israeli pre-military academies wanting to hear 'both sides of the story' spend hours with them, as well as meeting with us. I've had to fight with numerous Jewish organizations who insist on 'touring' with Yehuda Shaul and Michael Menken, the two leaders of this group, this despite the lies and hatred spewed forth from their mouths. For example, how can one explain the photograph shown below, of Menken, smiling, shaking hands with Baraka, head of the Hadash, an Arab, anti Israel political party. Baraka was indicted four times, including for attacking police, but has not stood trial due to his Knesset immunity.

Michael Menken, shaking hands with Muhammad Baraka, head of the Hadash, an Arab, anti Israel political party.

How is it that Jewish and Israeli organizations are willing to allow their youth to hear virtual enemies of Israel? What would happen to any American youth organization which insisted that, in the name of fairness and equality, their participants be allowed a few hours with people representing bin-Laden, in order to allow them to 'hear both sides!?"

It is this very doubt, this craving for what seems to be, albeit only superficially, fairness, that is eating away at the very core of our being. Would parents allow their children to try 'just a little poison' in order to experience it?

This national doubt, which is expressed in such experiences, is a result of our inability to realize who we are, and where we are, summed up, perhaps, in realizing the source of our roots.

As a result, our enemies refuse to take us seriously, because we refuse to take ourselves seriously. For example, Anwar Sadat, speaking in 1972 said," war is now inevitable. Whatever the price, whatever the sacrifice, we will not back down. We will not give up one centimeter of Arab land"
http://soracel.net/israel.htm. Included in one centimeter of holy land was, of course, the sand of the Sinai desert. But, for Sadat, this was holy and not to be abandoned.

Closer to the present, I recall having read statements by Arab leaders to the tune that 'if Israel is willing to give up any of its land, than they really don't believe it belongs to them. For if they did believe it belonged to them, they wouldn't think of abandoning any of it.'

In other words, the Arabs don't think we're serious. For good reason. We're not serious. But not only because we are willing to divide our land and abandon major segments of it to our sworn enemies. There is an even better reason. If Jews really believe that this land, Eretz Yisrael belongs to them, then why don't they live there? Why do they remain in other countries and not move to their land?

This too is a good question which expresses the lack of Jewish seriousness concerning Israel. It stands to reason that if we really did believe that this is our land, we would all be here. Hence, a simple conclusion — we don't believe it's our land; but some other 'people' does believe it's theirs. And guess who wins....

In other words, if we don't take ourselves seriously, why should anyone else take us seriously? We don't know if it's ours, and they do.

The solution — start to grow up and take life seriously. Today there are five and a half million Jews in Israel. The Arabs laugh. When there are 10 million, 12 million, they won't laugh as much; neither will the rest of the world. It was easy to expel 9,000 Jews from Gush Katif. Had there been a population of 20,000, it would have been a different story. Ditto Judea and Samaria. Today's numbers are not enough. The numbers today stand at over 300,000 with the highest percent of annual population growth in Israel. No surprise that Jews are expelled from buildings in Hebron, or building freezes stunt our growth. Because when 300,000 blossoms to 500,000 and growing, well, what are they going to do with us? The government still hasn't figured out what to do with the thousands they uprooted from Gush Katif. What will they do with a half a million or more in Yehuda and Shomron?!

That's the solution, and it's up to us. When we do our thing, take on the responsibility, assuring that our neighbors understand that we really are serious, things will change. They won't laugh any more. And they'll understand that we're not going anywhere fast. We're here to stay.

Many years ago a journalist interviewed an Arab family adjacent to a Hebron Jewish neighborhood. The Arab said that he knew the Jews were here to stay. How did he know? He said that he saw the children, he saw their eyes, and he knew, we will never leave.

This is our secret weapon, our secret solution — this is our future — this is our answer to the three weeks commemorating the great destruction. This is the Tikkun, the rectification, repentance, tshuva, the return. This is Am Yisrael.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, June 27, 2010.

"As a general rule, you should assume that the more unlikely the action I lay upon this stage for you, the more likely it is that I have evidence of its having happened." — Clive Barker, Galilee.

Everyone will probably view the just-released official document, "White House on Israel's Announcement on Gaza," as purely routine government rhetoric that means nothing. But that just shows how much people have become used to taking for granted the lack of any strategic sense in this U.S. government.

The June 20 White House statement opens thusly:

"The President has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change."

One would expect that a rational policy would use the words "unsustainable" and "demands fundamental change" to mean that the president demands the overthrow of Hamas. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: he demands the stabilization of that regime.

The statement continues:

"On June 9, [Obama] announced that the United States was moving forward with $400 million in initiatives and commitments for the West Bank and Gaza. The President described these projects as a down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank."

Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a "down payment on the U.S. commitment," that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money.

Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution.

Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn't the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority?

This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel's existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority's rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the "humanitarian" consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program.

In seeking an analogy to this abdication of strategy and politics, it would be like the United States making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war or North Korea during the Korean war by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state.

Doesn't who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit?

The announcement continued by welcoming Israel's new policy as something that "should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons."

In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach.

Meanwhile, the White House makes clear that Israel's concessions aren't sufficient. "There is more to be done, and the President looks forward to discussing this new policy, and additional steps, with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his visit to Washington on July 6."

So the U.S. government wants the Hamas-ruled statelet to get even more. Blandly but incredibly, the statement continues: "We will work...to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank."

Now while it is true that this could mean supporters of the Palestinian Authority will be able to go to Gaza and have more influence, what it will mean in practice is that Hamas militants (including bomb-makers and agitators) will be more able to get into the West Bank. Though Israel will no doubt closely vet those who pass between the two areas, will it then be accused of inhibiting Palestinian "freedom of movement"?

Of course, there is the requisite paragraph voicing support for Israel, but note that it gives nothing more to Israel whatsoever:

"We strongly re-affirm Israel's right to self-defense, and our commitment to work with Israel and our international partners to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza. As we approach the fourth anniversary of the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, we call again for his immediate release, and condemn the inhumane conditions of his detention."

Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the U.S. aid on Shalit's release? Of course not.

The statement adds: "We believe that the implementation of the policy announced by the Government of Israel today should improve life for the people of Gaza, and we will continue to support that effort going forward." But wait a minute. If this further entrenches a terrorist, repressive regime will that "improve life" for the people of Gaza?

And the statement ends:

"We urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza."

Of course, all of this won't discourage the flotilla ships which will continue to sail and at times will seek confrontation. After all, if confrontation results in gaining such victories why should anyone dismiss them as "unnecessary?" And finally note the veiled hint about all parties acting responsibly. The administration won't even come out openly to demand that Hamas lets in goods and doesn't steal them!

So in this statement there is not one word — not one word — of direct criticism of Hamas. And there is no hint that any thought has been given about the strategic implications of accepting a Hamas regime and allowing it to normalize the economic situation even while it is creating a nightmare political and social situation for Gazans.

Let's assume the administration had the same goals but went about it with a different rhetoric. It would condemn Hamas extensively but then say that, of course, it should not be able to hold the people in Gaza as hostages and that they should not suffer just because they are ruled by a terrible dictatorship. The statement could look forward to the day when they are liberated from these extremist, repressive rulers. I'm not saying this is my preferred policy but it is a far better way the Obama Administration could implement its own wishes.

In other words, the administration could have played it this way: Hamas is our enemy; the people of Gaza are our friends. We don't want you to suffer. We want you to get rid of Hamas, join with the PA, and make a lasting peace with Israel. If you are moderate and abandon terrorism, you will be better off and get your own state through negotiations with Israel. But that is not the strategic line taken.

Yes, it is incredible. The Obama Administration refuses to criticize Hamas in its own statement. Why? Is it afraid that the need to send money and goods into the Gaza Strip is so great that no offense can be given to Hamas lest the regime would refuse these concessions?

In this bland little White House statement we see the policy insanity of the current U.S. government. Again, as problematic as the president's goal is — reducing the sanctions against the Gaza Strip — the real craziness is in the way it is being conceived, explained, and implemented.

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 Yaacov Levi, June 26, 2010.

This was written by Chelsea Schilling and it appeared in World Net Daily


The Obama administration has announced its appointment of 13 White House fellows — and the first person featured on its short list is a Muslim attorney who specializes in Shariah-compliant transactions.

"This year's White House fellows are comprised of some of the best and brightest leaders in our country," Michelle Obama said in the June 22 announcement. "I applaud their unyielding commitment to public service and dedication to serving their community."

White House fellows spend a year as full-time, paid assistants to senior White House staff, the vice president, Cabinet secretaries and senior administration officials.

Samar Ali of Waverly, Tenn., is the first name appearing on the White House list. She is an associate with the law firm Hogan Lovells — a firm that claims to have advised on more than 200 Islamic finance transactions with an aggregate deal value in excess of $40 billion.

According to Ali's biography posted on the White House website, "She is responsible for counseling clients on mergers & acquisitions, cross-border transactions, Shari'a compliant transactions, project finance, and international business matters. During her time with Hogan Lovells, she has been a founding member of the firm's Abu Dhabi office."

Hogan Lovells lists Ali's experience "advising a Middle Eastern university in the potential establishment of a Foreign Aid Conventional and Shari'ah Compliant Student Loan Program and advising a Middle Eastern client in relation to a U.S. government subcontract matter."

"Our team members are at the forefront of developments in the Islamic finance industry," Hogan Lovells boasts. "We help set standards for the sector. We have also advised on numerous first-of-their-kind transactions, such as the first convertible Sukuk, the first equity-linked Sukuk, the first Sharia-compliant securitization, the first international Sukuk al-mudaraba and Sukuk al-musharaka, the first Sukuk buy-back, and the first Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) guaranteed Islamic project financing."

Ali also clerked for Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Judge Edwin Cameron, now of the Constitutional Court of South Africa.

Promoting Islam and Shariah

The White House notes that Ali also led the YMCA Israeli-Palestinian Modern Voices for Progress Program and is a founding member of the first U.S. Delegation to the World Islamic Economic Forum. Ali was listed as a member of the British delegation to the World Islamic Economic Forum in 2009 and as a U.S. delegate in 2010.

Shariah Finance Watch blog noted, "[I]t was at the World Islamic Economic Forum where key leaders declared Shariah finance to be "dawa" (missionary) activity to promote Islam and Shariah."

In fact, the president of Indonesia, H. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, delivered a March 2, 2009, keynote address to Islamic leaders at the World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta during which he called for Islamic banks to do "missionary work in the Western world."

"Islamic banking should now be able to take a leadership position in the banking world," he said. "Islamic banks have been much less affected by the financial meltdown than the conventional banks — for the obvious reason that Shariah banks do not indulge in investing in toxic assets and in leveraged funds. They are geared to supporting the real economy." (And you also can't track their transactions.)

He added, "Islamic bankers should therefore do some missionary work in the Western world to promote the concept of Shariah banking, for which many in the West are more than ready now." 'We didn't consider terrorists to be Muslims' Ali received her law degree from Vanderbilt Law School and served as the first Arab-Muslim student body president at Vanderbilt. She has interned for the Islamic International Arab Bank in Amman, Jordan. According to Vanderbilt Law School, Ali's mother immigrated to the U.S. from Syria, and her father is Palestinian. He left the West Bank town of Ramallah at age 17. America.gov reported that Ali said her parents taught her to "never forget where we came from and to never forget where we are now." "I will always be Arab and I will always be American and I will always be Muslim," she said. Ali spoke out at a campus memorial service days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "In my opinion," she told the Washington File, "Al-Qaida is trying to ruin Islam's reputation and we are simply not going to let them win this fight. If someone has a political agenda, they need to call it what it is, and not disguise it in the name of a religion or use the religion to achieve their political goals. This is simply unacceptable."

While she said she grieved the loss of thousands of American lives, Ali told the File she grew concerned about whether Americans would assume that she, as a Muslim and Arab-American, approved of those attacks.

"Thus, I was worried that many of my fellow citizens, would not realize that just because my friends and I are Muslims and Arabs, did not mean that we were part of or even agreed with the terrorists who caused September 11," she said. "We didn't even consider the terrorists to be Muslims. I was worried that people would confuse Islam with Osama Bin Ladin and his agenda, that they would confuse his agenda as the agenda of all believers in Islam."

Creeping Shariah

Shariah already is moving into some elements of American society, with a lawsuit pending over U.S. government involvement in a financial institution that accommodates Shariah requirements in its business operations.

WND also reported in November 2008 that the Treasury Department sponsored and promoted a conference titled "Islamic Finance 101."

Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments — creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy.

In his July 2008 essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy wrote, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand."

Holton referred to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah — a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims — and could ultimately change American life and laws.

Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork.

However, many Islamic financial institutions also require industry participants to adhere to tenets of Shariah law. According to Nasser Suleiman's "Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking, "First and foremost, an Islamic organization must serve God. It must develop a distinctive corporate culture, the main purpose of which is to create a collective morality and spirituality which, when combined with the production of goods and services, sustains growth and the advancement of the Islamic way of life."

Three nations that rule 100 percent by Shariah law — Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan — hold some of the most horrific human rights records in the world, Holton said.

"This strongly suggests that Americans should strenuously resist anything associated with Shariah."

Tenets of Shariah

In his essay, "Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism," Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from "The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law":

  • A woman is eligible for only half of the inheritance of a man
  • A virgin may be married against her will by her father or grandfather
  • A woman may not leave the house without her husband's permission
  • A Muslim man may marry four women, including Christians and Jews; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim
  • Beating an insubordinate wife is permissible
  • Female sexual mutilation is obligatory
  • Adultery [or the perception of adultery] is punished by death by stoning
  • Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
  • Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
  • Lying to infidels in time of jihad is permissible

'Useful idiots'

Alexiev wrote that many Islamic financial institutions claim Shariah-Compliant Finance "derives its Islamic character from the strict observance of the ostensible Quranic prohibition of lending at interest, the imperative of almsgiving (zakat), avoidance of excessive uncertainty (gharar) and certain practices and products considered unlawful (haram) to Muslims ..." However, he said, "[E]ven a casual examination of the reality of Islamic finance today reveals it to be a bogus concept practiced by deceptive ploys and disingenuous means by practitioners that are or should be aware of that, but remain predictably silent."

Shariah finance institutions have funded militant Islamism for more than 30 years. Alexiev cited Islamic Development Bank's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Hamas in support of suicide bombing. Bank Al-Taqwa and other banks and charities run by Saudi billionaires have funded al-Qaida activities.

Additionally, Shariah law mandates that Muslims donate 2.5 percent of their annual incomes to charities — including jihadists. When 400 banks regularly contribute to such charities, potential financial sums can be virtually limitless.

If Western banks endorse Shariah, they will "end up becoming what Lenin called useful idiots or worse to the Islamists," Alexiev wrote. "And it is a very thin line between that and outright complicity in the Islamist agenda."

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 26, 2010.

Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)

There are times, and this is one of them, when I feel pulled in multiple directions as I consider what to address in a particular posting.

The vast number of messages I am receiving from my readers — on, indeed, a multiplicity of issues — is acknowledged here. I am certain everyone understands that it is not always possible for me to answer directly.


First, an announcement with regard to the destruction of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva at Yitzhar, which was the single focus of my last posting:

American Friends for a Safe Israel (AFSI) is leading a protest on Monday, June 28, from noon to 2 PM at the Israeli Consulate at Second Avenue and 42nd Street, New York City.

To dramatize this decision, a flat-truck and bulldozer will be driven south on Second Avenue to 42nd Street, in front of the Israeli Consulate. The bulldozer will be moving slowly around the block and passing in front of the Consulate as often as possible, depending on traffic. Signs and banners will emphasize that NEVER AGAIN must Israel take destructive action against its own Jews as it did five years ago in Gush Katif.

Those who wish may walk along the sidewalk carrying their signs, following the bulldozer on its path and spreading the message.


It is, indeed, essential that this wrong-headed decision be reversed. This is understood by all those who care about a strong and Jewish Israel. Thus I salute AFSI for its decisive action in publicizing this. And I confess to great heaviness of heart that this announcement and AFSI's action should be necessary.


The Likud Central Committee met on Thursday and voted to resume construction in all parts of Israel once the 10-month freeze in Judea and Samaria expires in late September.

Absent from this meeting — conspicuously so — was chairman of Likud, Binyamin Netanyahu. His public rationale is that he has already stated that building would commence at the end of the freeze, and so there was no point to be made at the meeting. Others, however, saw in this stance a deliberate attempt by the prime minister to distance himself from his party's decision.

MK Danny Danon, who initiated this meeting, which had been delayed from March at Netanyahu's urging, was among those expressing great unease at his no-show position. "It's a bad sign," Danon said. "It means he is more worried about pressure from Obama than from the Likud." Netanyahu, it should be noted, is scheduled to meet with Obama on July 6.

One does not have to be the diplomatic equivalent of a rocket scientist to recognize that Obama will be applying enormous pressure on Netanyahu. He'll accuse him of being a stumbling block to peace negotiations if he doesn't agree to continue the freeze before there has been progress, or just when progress is starting, or whatever.

We know as well how many times Netanyahu has caved in the face of such pressure, and thus unease is justified.


In an interview after the vote, Danon said that the message to the prime minister was that his party was behind him and he should be strong. The vote, he added, was also intended to deliver a message to the White House, which must respect our democracy.

Minister-without portfolio Benny Begin, who did attend the meeting, noted that the freeze would end during the holiday of Sukkot, which is known as our time of joy.


According to Gil Hoffman, JPost political analyst, Netanyahu let it be known among his ministers that "he would not look fondly upon their attendance."

This, it seems to me, of itself puts the lie to Netanyahu's contention that he didn't need to attend because he was already committed to not extending the freeze. If this were the case, why would he care if his ministers did attend?

Thus, it's worth noting the few ministers who did show up in addition to Begin: Communications Minister Moshe Kahon, who chairs the Central Committee; Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein; and Minister-without-portfolio Yossi Peled. Minister-without-portfolio Michael Eitan arrived at the end of the meeting.

Where, I wonder, was Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon.

Begin, the only minister to address the Committee, read the original Security Cabinet decision regarding the freeze, emphasizing that it said that construction would continue at the end of the 10-month freeze.

Flyers distributed at the meeting by the Judea and Samaria branch of Likud featured words Netanyahu had spoken during his campaign. It included this: "The supreme test of any elected official is whether he keeps his promises to the public."



From the time of the announcement about it the other day, there were ways in which I considered what happens in Gan Hamelech, in Silwan in eastern Jerusalem — with regard to the demolition of illegal Arab housing as part of a major Jerusalem redevelopment plan — a litmus test for Netanyahu's strength and our ability to stand strong as a sovereign state.

Netanyahu postponed action on this in March, because the international fuss was too great and the moment considered by him to be too sensitive. Did the mayor run this by him first now? I would suspect so, but am not certain. Will the decision hold? Don't hold your breath.


When originally writing about this, I alluded to the furor that was mounting, but it has since grown greater.

On Thursday, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat's office clarified a matter with regard to providing new housing for the 22 families whose illegal homes are slated to be taken down to make way for public space. Originally, it had been said that there were plans to provide such housing. Now the clarification is that private — international and specifically NGO — money will be sought for these homes, and that public money will not be used.

Quite frankly, this is a relief. For there was reason to question why Jerusalem should build housing for those whose homes had been constructed illegally.

Explained a spokesman for the mayor:

"...I would remind you that these are 22 illegal buildings, and while the municipality is putting significant capital into the planning and zoning process, it will not be using public funds to construct residential units.

"It would be illegal, and it could be challenged in the courts."



But not OK with the secretary-general of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon. In a statement of unmitigated gall he called the plan illegal and "unhelpful to the peace process."

Well, sure, because PA president Mahmoud Abbas has said that "Israeli practices in east Jerusalem hinder peace talks." In fact, they "put the peace efforts in danger." If we weren't talking about taking down illegal housing he'd be signing on the dotted line any minute now. How fortunate for Abbas that he has this excuse to fall back on. You know how ridiculous this has become? Morocco — Morocco! — issued a condemnation of the plan and urged "the major powers and the UN to immediately intervene to dissuade Israel from going ahead with this illegitimate decision and put an end to the Judaization plans in east Jerusalem."

The world truly is insane, and this is nothing short of incredible. Especially since the plan does not call for the illegal Arab housing to be replaced with Jewish housing, but with public spaces — parks, etc. — that would benefit all the residents of the area, most of whom are Arab. While the evicted Arabs would have new housing with superior services, if the funds can be raised. (And believe me, there are pro-Arab Israeli NGOs that could help raise that money in a flash if they wished to help provide Arabs with housing.)

Facts have nothing to do with this hysterical situation. And when I think of all the crises in the world that genuinely require international intervention, I am left breathless by this.


More than ever does it seem to me that it's important to stand strong here.

Watch the fireworks when Arab squatters are evicted (let us hope!) from an old Yemenite synagogue in this same area, so that it can be returned to its rightful Jewish owners — either by the police, as ordered by the court, or, if the police fail to act, by local Jewish residents, assisted by at least 10 MKs.


While on the subject of Ban Ki-Moon, I would like to recommend an article, "Ban Mischief at the U.N.," by John Bolton, a true friend, clear thinker, and former US ambassador to the UN:

"United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is close to making an enormously significant misjudgment about his role and authority. Mr. Ban has repeatedly called for an "international" inquiry into the May 31 clash with Israeli commandos, provoked by supporters of Hamas on a Turkish-flagged ship off the Gaza Strip, resulting in nine killed and dozens wounded. According to the media, he is seriously considering launching such an inquiry by his own personal decision.

"For Mr. Ban to act without express U.N. Security Council authorization, however, would far exceed his legitimate authority. It would create a troubling precedent, with implications not just for Israel but for the United States, extending well beyond Israel's blockade of Gaza or the May 31 events. Nonetheless, President Obama has not moved decisively to quash the idea, and his inaction is understood in U.N. circles as implicitly consenting to Mr. Ban's illegitimate initiative."
www.washingtontimes.com/news/ 2010/jun/23/ban-mischief-at-the-un/

(With thanks to Marta W. on this.)

I had thought Kofi Annan was deplorable and that Ban would be an improvement. Goes to show how wrong I can be. Undoubtedly a certain anti-Israel edge comes with the job.

Just as significant as the error in Ban's thinking — perhaps considerably more significant — is the position of Obama on this. Americans, take note!


YNet has reported that Malaysia is pushing for a discussion in the General Assembly on the flotilla incident. Another Muslim country getting into the act. General Assembly resolutions have no impact within international law, but this would bring Israel aggravation from a PR perspective, which is undoubtedly what is being sought.


Let me note in passing, while on the theme of the UN, that in September Gabriela Shalev will be completing her two-year term as Israel's ambassador to the UN — a thankless job if ever there was one. She is returning to academia and there is much speculation as to who her replacement will be.


I focused on the theme of the disconnect between American Jewry and Israel in a recent post. Now I am pleased to report on a new and broader mission for the Jewish Agency that has been approved unanimously by its Board of Governors, and has been announced by Chairman Natan Sharansky.

While the Agency will still be devoted to its traditional task of aliyah, it will take on as part of its agenda heavy investment in providing identity-forming experiences for Israeli and Diaspora youth.

Said Sharansky:

"There is a time to nurture the tree and time to collect the fruits. Aliyah, support for Israel, these are the fruits. But they only come as a result of solidarity, commitment or connection of Jews to Israel. That's the tree."

The Agency's new mission statement reads: "Inspire Jews throughout the world to connect with their people, heritage and land, and empower them to build a thriving Jewish future and a strong Israel."

Blessings upon this venture, and may it progress well. Much is at stake.


Good to end this posting on an upbeat theme. Much more to follow shortly

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 26, 2010.


Both sides contributed to the flotilla imbroglio. The IDF should have known better than to land commandos in the dark on a ship sponsored by a terrorist organization, IHH. IHH had set a trap for the IDF. But the Islamists initiated the violence that led to the death of nine and the wounding both of Israelis and Islamists.

That same day, Muslim gunmen stormed a hospital in Lahore, where they shot dead a dozen survivors of the terrorist attacks against two dissident mosques that had slain 93 Muslims. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ignored the Muslim terrorist slaying of 105 Muslims in mosques and hospital, but condemned what he called "disproportionate force" by the IDF that killed and wounded people "attempting to bring much needed aid to the people of Gaza."

A week earlier, North Korea sank a South Korean ship and its crew of 46. The Security Council had planned to take up a resolution against N. Korea, but deferred it to take up a condemnation of Israel.

Although Egypt also maintains an embargo on Gaza, only Israel is blamed for the embargo. Suppose foreign activists and Gaza residents had stormed the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, and attacked Egyptian troops, who, in self-defense killed nine. Would the UN have dropped major business in order to condemn Egypt? Not likely.

Nor are the naïve idealists aware of Hamas' goals. Hamas has the goal of conquering Israel. That goal is more important to it than own people. For example, to make a political statement, Hamas barred the humanitarian goods once it was to be delivered via Israel (Joel Brinkley, former NY Times foreign correspondent, in Israel Behind the News, 6/24/10).

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights miscasts the flotilla as attempting to bring much needed aid. No, it was attempting to break a legal blockade, to enable Hamas to import what it wishes. Obviously Hamas would bring in heavy arms. It would produce more war and casualties. How would that serve a humanitarian purpose, as contrasted with sending humanitarian goods to Israel from trans-shipment to Gaza?

Besides those reported double standards of ethics and disproportionate attention to Israel, the UN misuses the term, "disproportionate force" in support of its bias. The UN seems to use the term to mean sufficient force for Israel to prevail. Under international law, a military operation does not used "disproportionate force" if its commanders believe the operation has a significant goal that outweighs risks to civilian lives. When the enemy, in this case, Hamas, fights amid civilians, it is responsible for their casualties.

Considering that the Islamists cleared the deck for combat, no civilian lives were lost on the flotilla. Considering that the Islamists had formed themselves into a mob of squads and were beating and capturing the first commandos, the IDF had to land more troops. These troops used only hand guns.

The IDF did not attack anybody on other decks, and did not sink the ship, which might have been disproportionate. The reasonable military objective was to rescue the captured troops. Think of how mistreated — four years in darkness and isolation — Hamas treats the soldier it captured before!

In close quarters, keeping the deaths toll to nine was an accomplishment, from the humane point of view. Ordinary crowd control methods did not work there.

(For a broader perspective of Muslim terrorism against Muslims, use the same link for the 6/24 article by Ben-Dror Yemini, "Held to a Different Standard)

P.S.: Some readers ask why I favor Israeli murder of civilians. They do not cite any evidence that I favor that or that Israel does it. Accusations against Israel I have disproved, as in my series on the Goldstone report.


At its annual conference, The Methodist Church of Great Britain is taking a vote on its report about the Arab-Israel conflict. An affirmative vote would commit the Church to one-sided positions on "settlements," security barrier, blockade, and to boycott goods produced by Israelis in Judea-Samaria.

Uncritically accepting the false Arab narrative, the report examines Israeli actions by distorting them and ignores Arab actions. Thus the report ignores Arab attempts to destroy Israel. It assumes that further Israeli withdrawals would solve the problem, although prior Israeli withdrawals facilitated more Arab attacks. The report's obsession with Israeli violence, and its indifference to Muslim religious animosity to Israel, is not objective and not peace-making. In depicting Israel as the sole cause of wars in the Mideast, the report feeds the rising antisemitism. What else is its presumption that Jewish sovereignty is the cause of the problems? How can the Arab-Israel conflict bear on Iraq's troubles with Kuwait and insurgents? Nevertheless, the report urges an arms embargo on Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), to make peace for the whole Mideast.

We have gone through a similar period of seeing a victim through the enemy's eyes. Before WWII, French Socialists falsely assumed that the rest of the world is rational. They did not believe that Germany had fallen under the spell of raging fanaticism. They tried to find reasonable points in the German demands, to which they could accede and appease Germany. And so they supposed that the Nazi hatred of Jews must be deserved and not all medieval nonsense.

Likewise, Western intellectuals ignored Palestinian Muslim ideology and supposed that their suicide bombing of Israelis must be a rational response. The Methodist report ignores Arab Muslim motives and misdeeds. It is as if the Arabs made no decisions and bear no responsibility for their actions and for results. [Patronizing, in a way.]

The report examines Christian and Western theology on claims to territory, but not Muslim ideology. Utopian demands are made upon Israeli behavior, without regard to Arab bigotry and violence; no demands are made upon Arab behavior.

Although the report mentions Israeli security concerns with terrorist attacks, the report exaggerates Jewish theological influence upon Israel and statements by an early Zionist leader as the key influence upon Israeli behavior. That is, it under-states the strain of the constant Arab attacks. It also omits popular Israeli support for negotiation and Arab rejection of negotiations, as when Arafat walked out after a new Israeli offer.

Drawing upon personal contacts with Palestinian Arabs [why no contacts with Israeli Jews?], contributors to the reports extrapolate the hospitality they received into goodwill by the entire Palestinian Arab people. There is no justification for doing so. They expect their hosts to brief them objectively. What can they really expect from a people whose society indoctrinates them into the opinion that Zionism took away their country, and they must take away the Zionists'.

To the writers of the report, history in 1947 involves Jewish paramilitary attacks on Arabs, as if there were no preceding Arab attacks on Jews.

The report puts it, "several Arab countries attempted to intervene in support of the Palestinians." That is a whitewash. The Arab states vowed to destroy Israel. The report fails to consider what would those countries have done to the Jews, if their intervention had succeeded. [Nor did Egypt and Jordan do anything for the Palestinian Arabs they did succeed in gaining control over.]

Israel is accused of having expelled 750,000 Arabs. [My sources indicate a much lower total.] To the contrary, Palestinian Arab leaders ordered their people to evacuate from all areas of fighting, especially Haifa and Jerusalem, or be considered obstacles to holy war. Jordan's army ordered Arab women and children out of Beisan. In Jaffa, even after the British forced a Jewish militia out, and in Tiberias, local Arabs organized their own evacuation. And so it went, but for a few exceptions of Israeli expulsions of Arabs for military reasons.

No mention is made of Jews who lost their homes in Mandatory Palestine. Also not mentioned are the Jewish refugees from Arab states who, unlike the Arab refugees from Israel, were forced out. The Jews lost more property. Also omitted from the report is Hamas' mistreatment of Arabs, theft of their humanitarian aid, and refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

The Methodist report would embolden Muslim extremists to persist in jihad (CAMERA, 6/25).

Intellectuals seem peculiarly bereft of facts and logic. My non-intellectual critics denounce general presentations, without identifying errors in the presentation. They are reduced to ad hominem attacks and name-calling and asserting that Israel is just as bad.


To supplement the prior article, here is a recent analysis of last month's BBC report on Israeli Independence Day, a report typified by the same kinds of one-sided omissions as the Methodist report.

First of all, the BBC did not discuss Israeli independence. It discussed only the Arab day of mourning in reaction to it.

The BBC featured Claudette Habesch as a witness to dispossession. It failed to advise viewers that she is a "media-savvy, forceful advocate for Palestinian" Arab causes, an executive who engages in strident "anti-Israel polemics." Thus she recently accused Israel of a "massacre of the Palestinian people." She omits Muslim persecution of her fellow Christian Arabs, who are fleeing Muslim rule but growing in number in Israel, where they are not persecuted.

Mrs. Habesch asks, how could she have lost her (rented) home? BBC fails to explain that if the Arabs had accepted the UN partition resolution, and had not made an illegal war on Israel, there would have been no Arab refugees. The resulting misery for both sides is the Arabs' fault.

Like the Methodist report, the BBC film falsely claims that Israel expelled the Arabs, and fails to explain that the Arab states did expel Jews and in greater numbers. Half of the Arabs fled between November, 1947, when the Arabs responded to the UN partition plan with violence against Jews, and May, 1948, when Arab armies invaded.

Most of the Arabs fled because they followed the example set by their elite, 20,000 of whom had evacuated before any fighting, or because they wanted to escape the battlefield or the coming battlefield, or because their leaders and foreign Arab leaders demanded it or else.

Both Israeli leaders and British commanders urged the Arabs to stay.

[My source fails to grasp the significance of the fact that half the Arabs fled so early. That early flight came when Israel was losing the war. Apparently that preceded unification of Israeli militias and absorption of Czech arms. Israel started the war with few effective troops and poorly armed ones. My host in Haifa told me that he got off the ship as an immigrant, was sent to the front, and was told to run alongside Israeli soldiers so if one fell, the immigrant would acquire a rifle. The significance of the early flight is that Israeli forces did not then have the power for compel a mass-flight.]

BBC has revisionist historian Tom Segev claim that half the Arab refugees had been expelled. He has no evidence for it and for his claim that Zionist leaders thought there was no room for both peoples. Historian Ephraim Karsh cites a letter from Ben-Gurion to his son mentioning there is room for both. [Many Zionist leaders said the same thing and urged the Arabs to live in peace with them.]

Omitted by BBC was the Arab perpetuation of the refugee condition that other groups of refugees from the same period resolved long ago. Also omitted was Arab inculcation of hatred of Jews (CAMERA, 6/24)

MUSLIMS BRING JIHAD INTO GERMANY A Jewish dance group, Chaverim, started to perform at a street festival in Hanover Germany, to perform. Youths threw stones at them, injuring one, and called out, "Juden Raus," meaning Jews out. Police arrested half a dozen suspects, five of whom were Muslim immigrants. The suspects ranged in age from 9 to 19. How young they get radicalized! (Maayana Miskin, Arutz-7, 6/25/10).


Recently, natural gas was discovered in the Mediterranean Sea 50 miles west of Haifa. According to Israel, that is within its economic zone.

Lebanon, however, claims the gas field as off its coast [but not if due West of Haifa]. Hizbullah said it would insist on Lebanon's rights.

Israel's Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said that Israel would defend its resources, according to the rule of law and maritime law. He pointed out that wherever the gas was, Lebanon would claim it. The problem is that Lebanon does not recognize the legality of Israel, he explained (Arutz-7, 6/25/10).

Min. Landau bases his observation of other claims by Lebanon. I find Lebanon's claims to be pretexts for continuing war and for Hizbullah to retain its militia.

When I reported the find, a reader claimed that Israel was stealing the gas from the Palestinian Arabs. Haifa is not near Gaza. There is gas off the coast of Gaza; Israel's government did not claim it for itself. Since the Palestinian Authority does not have the sovereignty with which to claim it, was the government right to relinquish a claim to it?


n a Port Stephens, Australia Go-Karts, the rules for safe dress did not exclude Islamic dress. A Muslim women was killed there when her head covering snagged in her moving axle. The place was closed [at least for a time].

In a Perth, Australia amusement park, the rules for safe dress did exclude Islamic dress from the pool. The concern there was that such clothing could snag in the joints of the slide; clothing would require more sterilization. Refused entry into the pool for violating that safe dress code, a Muslim woman sued and won a settlement sum.

Whatever a theme park does, it gets into trouble. It is time that Western countries figure out a reasonable solution. A standard suggested by Daniel Pipes is "rights for all and special privileges for none." Let Muslim dress be used except for matters of safety, security, legal proceedings, and education (David J. Rusin, 6/25/10).


Israel's PM Netanyahu said that Iran has no excuse for sending a flotilla to Gaza. [He must have been referring to Israel's agreement to let all non-militarily usable goods through, inspecting to make sure they are not militarily usable.] Therefore, the reason they still send a flotilla must be to break down the military inspection part of the blockade, so they can ship missiles to Gaza. That is not humanitarian but for war, Netanyahu pointed out.

These flotillas are organized not by supporters of peace but by opponents of peace, Netanyahu said. They cynically put women aboard, but their own regime does not allow women to dress, work, or express themselves freely. They are exploiting women for propaganda.

Challenging the supposed humanitarians, Netanyahu said, "I call on all the human rights and peace activists in the enlightened world — go to the places where they oppress women, go to the places where they hang homosexuals and deny rights to minorities, go to places where there is no freedom of speech, no press freedom, no independent courts of law, no human rights organizations. Go to Tehran." (IMRA, 6/25/10).


Syria's President Assad demands that Lebanese Party leaders confer with him.

A French mission studying France-Syria relations criticized such meetings as weakening Lebanon. President Suleiman of Lebanon said that only official representatives of the two countries should consult with each other. Observing that Syria is stronger than Lebanon and historically influences a major segment of Syria, Suleiman cautioned that Syria should not use that influence against Lebanon (IMRA, 6/25/10).

But that's how Assad can give Lebanese leaders their marching orders.

The U.S. requires of its own citizens that they let the country's official representatives conduct foreign policy for the government.


Lebanon wants to send a ship to Gaza by way of Cyprus. Cyprus Foreign Minister Marcos Kyprianou, however, reminds Lebanon that Cyprus does not allow such ships to stop at Cyprus.

As for the marines that Iran had said it would station on the new flotilla, Iran withdrew the notion (IMRA, 6/25/10).


inaugurating UAE air cargo flight (AP/Dubai Airport, HO)

As expected, the U.S. Congress authorized more sanctions on Iran. Now the UAE has begun enforcing UN sanctions on Iran. The government closed 40 international and local firms violating the sanctions. Those companies shipped to Iran contraband and banned dual use goods. They also deal with Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

About 400,000 Iranians "are based" in Iran (IMRA, 6/25/10).

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 Susana K-M, June 26, 2010.

This comes from the Take A Pen Organization; their website is at

Background: Hanin Zuabi describes herself as a 'liberal Palestinian woman and a Knesset member.' She participated in the Gaza Flotilla. The Knesset voted to strip her of three parlimentarian privileges. Zuabi saw this rebuke as racist. The Knesset saw her action as identifying with the enemy while serving in the Israeli parliament.


Miss Zuabi,

First and foremost "chapeau" for a very effective P.R. I must admit: I didn't know of your existence until the flotilla provocation. In fact I still don't know anything about you but almost everyone in the country knows of you and that is quite an achievement!

Please allow me then to ask you:

Besides of fame, what were you trying to achieve? You know, as well as we all do, that there is no shortage of food in Gaza, or any other commodities for that matter. Yes, alas, there is a constant shortage of ammunition or materials that could be used in the production of weapons, and so it should remain! Gaza needs no protection! Gaza is not under attack! On the contrary, Gaza is a nasty aggressor who for years has been rocketing civilians on a daily basis! (never heard you comment on that!).

Let's be honest: You did not truly believe that the flotilla was going anywhere! So, what were you thinking when you saw all those hooligans armed with knives and clubs and hatchets, that kept your company aboard the ship? That it was a masquerade ball? Did it occur to you that, as Israel's Parliament Member you should have warned our army of what awaits our soldiers aboard? Did you try to stop that outburst of violence? What did you expect would happen? That maybe like the "Sarajevo Assassination" that ignited 1st World War, your flotilla will ignite the Middle East? And then what?

Let's try to understand your logic:

You feel frustrated, bitter, discriminated, you believe that the regime in Israel is oppressing and ruthless and should be overthrown. Do you have any idea at all what awaits you personally should your aspirations God forbid, be realized? Do you think that in a regime controlled by Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda or Taliban, women have any rights? Particularly independent ambitious women? What about nine year old girls? You may not have children of your own, how about little nieces? Can you imagine life in a regime where any dirty old man can purchase himself a nine year old girl and penetrate her vagina? And appalling as it may sound it would be legal and lawful and even encouraged!!! Did you think of that Miss Zuabi? Do you have any idea what oppressing tyranny is really like?

Did you know that the Islamic revolution in Iran was enthusiastically supported by the intellectuals? Who, like you, considered the Shah's regime an oppressing tyranny that should be overthrown?

Try to find out what they think today (Those who survived...as most of them didn't!!). Ask them about life in the Islamic Republic, about freedom, about human rights, about women's rights. I suggest you read "Reading Lolita in Teheran" by Azar Nafisi, or "A thousand Shining Suns" by Haled Husseini, or "Not without My Daughter" by Betty Mahmudi.

Did you ever wonder why all the so called Arab countries in which over a billion Muslims live are all defined as "3rd world countries"?

Did you ever wonder why although the Shiite leaders condemn western culture as blasphemous and decadent, for their billion subjects the "west" is a desired immigration target?

Did you ever wonder why all those who apply for Family Reunion wish for it to be in Israel and not in Gaza, or "Palestine" or Syria? Is it because of our standard of living? Or our human rights and freedom? Or our social and health security? So maybe, after all, we are not that evil !

Mentioning Palestine and Palestinians: Have you ever wondered whatever happened to the hundreds of millions (yes! Hundreds of millions!!!) refugees scattered all over Europe during and following 2nd World War?

Entire cities were bombarded and destroyed! Dozens of millions of homes ruined! About fifty million lives lost, twice as many wounded and crippled! Hundreds of millions found themselves away from home, out of their countries! So, where are they? They couldn't have vanished! No! They did vanish! They were rehabilitated!!! That is the answer of the "blasphemous" "decadent" west to refugee issues! Any refugees! And indeed the "west" poured incredible amounts of money in order to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees, not knowing or refusing to acknowledge that the Palestinian leaders had no interest in solving the refugee issue! On the contrary, they did everything within their power in order to p r e s e r v e it! At the same time, they did like the idea of the money, so they preserved that too! Very carefully, in their (not so little) own private bank accounts!

In other words, Miss Zuabi, The solution does not lie in destroying Israel and replacing its free democratic regime with an extreme Islamic one. Should that, God forbid, happen, you may enjoy, for a split second, the sweet taste of profound satisfaction, and the next split second you will watch not only your privileges being taken away from you, but all your basic human rights! The Shariah Law does not acknowledge human rights, let alone women's rights: Women are men's property to be treated as they please! But you must know that ....

No, Miss Zuabi, destruction is never a solution! Your solution lies in Education, and more education!!! Not brain wash!!! Not that childish nonsense about Paradise with it's seventy virgins (In any event not meant for you ...) Real free plural western — yes, Western — education that will raise free, moral decent human beings, capable of standing up for their rights without the use of knives and clubs, aware of their duties and place in society.

Miss Zuabi, I so much hope that the day will not come, when from the depth of an open grave into which our bodies would be thrown, I will whisper to you: " I t o l d y o u u u u u ....."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, June 25, 2010.

As the US is struggling to advance the "peace process," there are three words that are wholly responsible for impeding the development of peaceful relations between Israel and its Arab population. These words are: "Occupied Palestinian Territory." These pernicious words have led many in the world to believe that Jews came to Palestine after World War II, drove out the indigenous Arab population, and have continued to occupy their lands. Until this malicious fabrication is dismissed and the international community acknowledges that Jews are indigenous to the region and have every legitimate right to reclaim and settle land anywhere within the borders of the former British Palestine Mandate, there will never be peace between Israel and the Arab population.


Occupied Palestinian Territory" originated.

Excerpts from Wikipedia explain how the erroneous term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" originated.

Occupied territory is territory under military occupation. Occupation is a term of art in international law; in accordance with Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Fourth Hague Convention); October 18, 1907,[1] territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. At the end of a war, usually the victorious side is in possession of territory previously possessed by another state. This territory is known as occupied territory. Acquisition of occupied territory is incidental to a war, where the military forces of the occupying power come into the possession of territory previously held by another state. Occupation is usually temporary; and under the subsequent articles of the Hague convention (articles 43, 44, and etc.), and the Fourth Geneva Convention the status quo must be maintained pending the signing of a peace treaty, the resolution of specific conditions outlined in a peace treaty, or the formation of a new civilian government.[2]

Examples of occupied territory include Germany and Japan by the Allies in the aftermath of World War II; Cambodia by Vietnam from 1979 until 1989; Iraq by the United States and its allies after the 2003 invasion, and the territories occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War of 1967.

The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by many international organisations, governments and others to refer to the territory captured by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. They consist of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and much of the Golan Heights and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as Palestinian territories or Occupied Palestinian Territory. Palestinian Authority and numerous international bodies consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank, a position disputed by Israel.

Israeli position

The use of the terms "occupied" for these territories has been disputed. Paul S. Riebenfeld, an international lawyer, who represented Jewish interests at the League of Nations, argued that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not belong to any other sovereign state, are part of former Mandate Palestine, and therefore fall legitimately within Israel's jurisdiction.

Whether or not Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement from there, assuming it can even be considered that it "occupied" it in the first place, is disputed

The above excerpts are from Wikipedia.

Though the following articles are old, they are still relevant, perhaps more today more than when they were written, as history becomes more distorted with time.

Commentary; New York; Jul/Aug 2002; Efraim Karsh;

Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza. The history of Israel's so-called "occupation" of Palestinian lands and the ways in which Palestinians and Arabs have distorted Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza are discussed.

What Occupation?

NO TERM has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than "occupation." For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel's supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel's allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people.

For most Western observers, the term "occupation" describes Israel's control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of "occupations" dating back to the very creation of Israel on "stolen" land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London's Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled "Occupied Palestine." That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian "right of return" that is meant to reverse the effects of the "1948 occupation" — i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself.

Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel's actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today's terrorist attacks were "what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people"-a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state.

Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 "occupations." "I come to you today with a heavy heart," she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, "leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe]":

In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population .... On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties.

This original "occupation"-that is, again, the creation and existence of the state of Israel-was later extended, in Ashrawi's narrative, as a result of the Six-Day war:

Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonization, and systematic oppression. Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution.

Taken together, the charges against Israel's various "occupations" represent-and are plainly intended to be-a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.

IN 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect — and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan — caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.

Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.

The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination-an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today-namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).

As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."

This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, "it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed." A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that "the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt."

THE BRITISH proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank — which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of "land for peace" as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers-Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem"-a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.

At this time — we are speaking of the late 1960's — Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. "Moderate" Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez alAssad openly referred to Palestine as "not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria"; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000.

Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom's economic, political, and social structures.

For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.

WHAT, THEN, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most "varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution" ever devised by the human mind?

At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel's control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat's PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO's support for Saddam Hussein's brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980's.

Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "systematic oppression" is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this occupation did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of IsraeliEgyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs' "final round" with Israel.

Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.

Israel's restraint in this sphere — which turned out to be desperately misguided — is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression." At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.

In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.

During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the betteroff Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.

Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians' standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars.

Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980's, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 percent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990's, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.

ALL THIS, as I have noted, took place against the backdrop of Israel's hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres. Indeed, even as the PLO (until 1982 headquartered in Lebanon and thereafter in Tunisia) proclaimed its ongoing commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state, the Israelis did surprisingly little to limit its political influence in the territories. The publication of proPLO editorials was permitted in the local press, and anti-Israel activities by PLO supporters were tolerated so long as they did not involve overt incitements to violence. Israel also allowed the free flow of PLO-controlled funds, a policy justified by Minister of Defense Ezer Weizmann in 1978 in these (deluded) words: "It does not matter that they get money from the PLO, as long as they don't build arms factories with it." Nor, with very few exceptions, did Israel encourage the formation of Palestinian political institutions that might serve as a counterweight to the PLO. As a result, the PLO gradually established itself as the predominant force in the territories, relegating the pragmatic traditional leadership to the fringes of the political system.*

Given the extreme and even self-destructive leniency of Israel's administrative policies, what seems remarkable is that it took as long as it did for the PLO to entice the residents of the West Bank and Gaza into a popular struggle against the Jewish state. Here Israel's counterinsurgency measures must be given their due, as well as the low level of national consciousness among the Palestinians and the sheer rapidity and scope of the improvements in their standard of living. The fact remains, however, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the occupation of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little "armed resistance," and most terrorist attacks emanated from outside-from Jordan in the late 1960's, then from Lebanon.

In an effort to cover up this embarrassing circumstance, Fatah, the PLO's largest constituent organization, adopted the slogan that "there is no difference between inside and outside." But there was a difference, and a rather fundamental one. By and large, the residents of the territories wished to get on with their lives and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by Israeli rule. Had the West Bank eventually been returned to Jordan, its residents, all of whom had been Jordanian citizens before 1967, might well have reverted to that status. Alternatively, had Israel prevented the spread of the PLO's influence in the territories, a local leadership, better attuned to the real interests and desires of the people and more amenable to peaceful coexistence with Israel, might have emerged.

But these things were not to be. By the mid1970's, the PLO had made itself into the "sole representative of the Palestinian people," and in short order Jordan and Egypt washed their hands of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever the desires of the people living in the territories, the PLO had vowed from the moment of its founding in the mid1960's-well before the Six-Day war-to pursue its "revolution until victory," that is, until the destruction of the Jewish state. Once its position was secure, it proceeded to do precisely that.

BY THE mid-1990's, thanks to Oslo, the PLO had achieved a firm foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. Its announced purpose was to lay the groundwork for Palestinian statehood but its real purpose was to do what it knew best-namely, create an extensive terrorist infrastructure and use it against its Israeli "peace partner." At first it did this tacitly, giving a green light to other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad; then it operated openly and directly.

But what did all this have to do with Israel's "occupation"? The declaration signed on the White House lawn in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which Israel and the Palestinians would negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank.

By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1, Yasir Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat's abysmal failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank's populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved.

The geographical scope of these Israeli withdrawals was relatively limited; the surrendered land amounted to some 30 percent of the West Bank's overall territory. But its impact on the Palestinian population was nothing short of revolutionary. At one fell swoop, Israel relinquished control over virtually all of the West Bank's 1.4 million residents. Since that time, nearly 60 percent of them-in the Jericho area and in the seven main cities of Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron-have lived entirely under Palestinian jurisdiction. Another 40 percent live in towns, villages, refugee camps, and hamlets where the Palestinian Authority exercises civil authority but, in line with the Oslo accords, Israel has maintained "overriding responsibility for security." Some two percent of the West Bank's population-tens of thousands of Palestinians-continue to live in areas where Israel has complete control, but even there the Palestinian Authority maintains "functional jurisdiction."

In short, since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation.

IF THE stubborn persistence of Palestinian terrorism is not attributable to the continuing occupation, many of the worst outrages against Israeli civilians likewise occurred-contrary to the mantra of Palestinian spokesmen and their apologists-not at moments of breakdown in the Oslo "peace process" but at its high points, when the prospect of Israeli withdrawal appeared brightest and most imminent.

Suicide bombings, for example, were introduced in the atmosphere of euphoria only a few months after the historic Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn: eight people were murdered in April 1994 while riding a bus in the town of Afula. Six months later, 21 Israelis were murdered on a bus in Tel Aviv. In the following year, five bombings took the lives of a further 38 Israelis. During the short-lived government of the dovish Shimon Peres (November 1995-May 1996), after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, 58 Israelis were murdered within the span of one week in three suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Further disproving the standard view is the fact that terrorism was largely curtailed following Benjamin Netanyahu's election in May 1996 and the consequent slowdown in the Oslo process. During Netanyahu's three years in power, some 50 Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks-a third of the casualty rate during the Rabin government and a sixth of the casualty rate during Peres's term.

There was a material side to this downturn in terrorism as well. Between 1994 and 1996, the Rabin and Peres governments had imposed repeated closures on the territories in order to stem the tidal wave of terrorism in the wake of the Oslo accords. This had led to a steep drop in the Palestinian economy. With workers unable to get into Israel, unemployment rose sharply, reaching as high as 50 percent in Gaza. The movement of goods between Israel and the territories, as well as between the West Bank and Gaza, was seriously disrupted, slowing exports and discouraging potential private investment.

The economic situation in the territories began to improve during the term of the Netanyahu government, as the steep fall in terrorist attacks led to a corresponding decrease in closures. Real GNP per capita grew by 3.5 percent in 1997, 7.7 percent in 1998, and 3.5 percent in 1999, while unemployment was more than halved. By the beginning of 1999, according to the World Bank, the West Bank and Gaza had fully recovered from the economic decline of the previous years.

Then, in still another turnabout, came Ehud Barak, who in the course of a dizzying six months in late 2000 and early 2001 offered Yasir Arafat a complete end to the Israeli presence, ceding virtually the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the nascent Palestinian state together with some Israeli territory, and making breathtaking concessions over Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. To this, however, Arafat's response was war. Since its launch, the Palestinian campaign has inflicted thousands of brutal attacks on Israeli civilians-suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, stabbings, lynching, stonings-murdering more than 500 and wounding some 4,000.

In the entire two decades of Israeli occupation preceding the Oslo accords, some 400 Israelis were murdered; since the conclusion of that "peace" agreement, twice as many have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. If the occupation was the cause of terrorism, why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual occupation, why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the occupation, and why did it escalate into open war upon Israel's most far-reaching concessions ever? To the contrary, one might argue with far greater plausibility that the absence of occupation-that is, the withdrawal of close Israeli surveillance-is precisely what facilitated the launching of the terrorist war in the first place.

There are limits to Israel's ability to transform a virulent enemy into a peace partner, and those limits have long since been reached. To borrow from Baruch Spinoza, peace is not the absence of war but rather a state of mind: a disposition to benevolence, confidence, and justice. From the birth of the Zionist movement until today, that disposition has remained conspicuously absent from the mind of the Palestinian leadership.

It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians' rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued-and intensified-after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of "inhuman occupation" with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means.

[Author note] EFRAIM KARSH is head of Mediterranean studies at Kings College, University of London. His articles in Commentary include "Israel's War" (April 2002) and "The Palestinians and the `Right of Return"' (May 2001).

The following is reprinted from Palestine Facts

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ territories_occupied_or_not.php


Are the West Bank and Gaza "occupied territories" as Palestinain Arabs assert?

As a result of the Six Day War, Israel gained all of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Sinai, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank (historically known as Judea and Samaria). Palestinian Arabs often insist on using the term "occupied territories" to describe these areas, usually connected to the assertion that they fall under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Yet, Palestinian spokesmen also speak about Israeli military action in Area A as an invasion, an infringement on Palestinian sovereignty. The use of both forms of terminology is a contradiction. If Israel "invaded Palestinian territories" in the present, then they cannot be regarded as "occupied"; however, if the territories are defined as "occupied," Israel cannot be "invading" them.

Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention:

  • ... is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign.

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former US State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case:

  • Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

Israel only entered the West Bank in 1967 after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, even the United Nations rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War.

Regardless of how many times the Palestinian Arabs claim otherwise, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fundamental sources of international legality decide the question in Israel's favor. The last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory, including the sector east of the Jordan River, almost 80% of the original Mandated territory, that was given to Palestinian Arabs and Emir Abdullah to create the country of Trans-Jordan (later renamed Jordan). Moreover, the rights under the Mandate were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, after the termination of the League of Nations in 1946.

It is important to observe that, from the time these territories were conquered by Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1948 to the time they were gained by Israel in 1967, the territories were not refered to as "occupied" by the international community. Furthermore, the people living in those territories before 1967 were not called "Palestinians" as they are today; they were called Jordanians and Egyptians. (In fact, before Israel was founded Jews and Arabs alike who lived in the region were called Palestinians. The newspaper was the Palestine Bulletin and later the Palestine Post before becoming today's Jerusalem Post, the Jewish-founded electric company was Palestine Electric and so on.) There was no call for "liberation" or "national rights" for the Arabs living there and no Palestinian nation was discussed.

No UN resolution requires Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories, nor do they forbid Israelis from going there to live. In particular, the often-misquoted UN Security Council Resolution 242 (and related Resolution 338) make no such demand or requirement. The demand that Israel stop creating "illegal settlements" is similarly baseless.

Under the Oslo Accords, the "peace process" started in 1991 at the Madrid Conference, Israel agreed to withdraw from the disputed territories and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) was given control over land chosen so that more than ninety-nine percent of the Palestinian population lived under the jurisdiction of the PA. But the committment to Israel's security that was the backbone of the Oslo agreements was never honored by the PA and Israel was forced to periodically re-enter the ceded territory to quell terrorism. In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected sweeping concessions by Israel at Camp David — promoted by US Pres. Clinton in an attempt to reach a final peace agreement — and the Palestinian Arabs turned again to violence with the Al Aqsa Intifada. That is, after the PA was governing nearly all Palestinian Arabs and a generous peace offer with international backing was on the table, the only response Israel got was increased violence. This is the sole reason Isreal continues to have a military presence in the disputed territories.

Sources and additional reading on this topic:

  • Disputed Territories: Forgotten Facts About the West Bank and Gaza Strip
  • Is the Occupation Illegal?
  • Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories?
  • The Myth of "Occupied Territories"
  • What Occupation?
  • The Occupied Territories
  • The Media's 'Occupation' Myth
  • We are NOT colonialists
  • Israeli Settlements and International Law
  • Blame It On The Occupation
  • Pinchas Rutenberg and the Palestine Electric Corporation
  • Foreign Newspapers on Microfilm at the Boston Public Library
  • Comments by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, August 6, 2002
  • Europe's preoccupation with occupation

This entry was posted on June 25, 2010 — at 3:13 pm and is filed under Judaism, Middle East Report, News Articles, Opinion, Recent Posts, Zwick's Picks.

Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net This article was published in

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 25, 2010.


The IDF finally prepared a composite video of the flotilla and especially the battle ship, assembled from many cameras, including helicopters' (ZOA, 6/23/10).

The video rapidly flashed a great number of scenes. I found it difficult to match the photos with the narrative, for sometimes they were not related or switched too fast. The photos should have had simple captions.

Omitted were photos of gas masks and ceramic vests, which I had seen in other photos. But the film made clear these major points:

1. The flotilla was organized by an pro-terrorist, Islamist charity. [It is not relevant whether most passengers had humanitarian intent, if they did.];

2. The IDF informed governments, flotilla organizers, and approaching ships that they could deliver the goods via an Israeli port and subject to inspection, without having to risk confrontation. The flotilla answered with obscenity;

3. The Islamist cohort sought "martyrdom," which means confrontation;

4. The radicals prepared weapons in advance, as we saw being fashioned and later gathered;

5. They attacked the first Israelis to land;

6. Not content with capturing and disarming those commandos, they beat them inhumanely;

7. The next set of commandos to land realized they were in a fight and drew weapons for self-defense and rescue.

The video bolsters the Israeli explanation about the mission intended for violence that would embarrass Israel into abandoning the embargo so Iran could ship arms to Gaza. The humanitarian aspect was a cloak for the military aspect.

Peace is another cloak. The Nazis had professed a desire for peace after "one last concession." Stalin gave out peace prizes while arming insurgents. So, too, the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia profess a desire for peace while supporting terrorism.

Americans need to become more skeptical of scoundrels who take refuge in professions of peace and humanitarianism. Same for false patriotism. In the name of patriotism, someone reacted to my article on Pollard's disproportionately heavy sentence and ill treatment with obscenity and impugning my own patriotism. It is unfortunate that mental institutions allow access to Internet without teaching anger management and manners.

The reaction was a typical one of ignoring all the explanation and focusing narrowly on the conclusion, which, for the critics, is, you disagree with me, you bad.

Patriotic? Pollard became a spy after U.S. policy was subverted, against Israel. None of the super-patriots who hate Pollard suggest investigating that subversion. Patriotic? None of the super-patriots object to other spies, including Arab ones, being let off or given disproportionately light sentences. Not insisting upon life imprisonment for other spies, they fail to explain why Pollard should get it. They ignore the fact that he spied on the U.S. but not against it — the documents he copied for Israel were not about the U.S..

Some of these critics probably object to harsh U.S. treatment of terrorist prisoners in Abu Graib. They do not object to harsh U.S. treatment of Pollard. Their inconsistency appears to use patriotism to cover baser motives.


Last year I reported on my brief guided tour of the Territories. The son of the woman who showed me where Arabs from Beit Jala used to shoot into her town of Gilo, was on guard duty at Beit Yonatan. Beit Yonatan is a house owned by Jews in the Silwan neighborhood of Jerusalem. Now occupied mostly by Arabs, it is the site of King David's town [before he built the Temple Mount], and is opposite the Western Wall.

Why should the son have to guard a house owned by Jews in their capital city? Because the Arabs are exclusivist, practice apartheid, and are violent. When Jews moved in, an Arab threw his dishwasher down at one, striking a car, instead. It was not good for the car.

Realizing, unlike the Obama administration, that the Arabs do not want to live side-by-side in peace, the owners of Beit Yonatan hired security guards. The Army escorts the guards to and from the house.

On guard duty, the son saw Arabs starting to lynch a friend of his, down the road. That is, a gang of Arabs from Silwan were trying to beat the fellow to death. The guard ran to the rescue. At the same time, a security patrol drove up, so the gang fled. Badly hurt, the friend was taken to hospital. Not end of story.

While the guard was fighting off the gang, other Arabs vandalized the electrical wires of Beit Yonatan. Resuming his post in the dark, the guard touched a live wire. The electric shock sent him flying. His internal organs were at risk, and had to be scanned. Fortunately, he escaped injury.

Now the questions arise. The guard was armed. Why didn't he fire at the attempted murderers? Because they are Arabs and he is a Jew. Jews are not allowed to fire at Arabs except the second before the knife would pierce their jugular. Neither are Jews allowed to talk nasty to Arabs, even under such circumstances. The security cameras would reveal to police lip-readers forbidden words.

Why didn't the media carry this story? How many other such stories has the media not covered?

Is it any wonder that violent Arabs attack Jews, under those circumstances? (Israeli associate, whom I thank for this exclusive and inside report, 6/23.)


Checkpoints and roadblocks regularly apprehend terrorists and confiscate weapons. A checkpoint is used to safeguard the Israeli citizens in Maale Adumim and Kadar. Purportedly concerned more about the checkpoint's resulting inconvenience to Arabs than its life-saving function for Jews, President Obama has demanded that Israel remove such checkpoints and roadblocks.

Israel's PM Netanyahu, defiant in words but ever pliant in deeds, the pliable Prime Minister is removing that checkpoint. The checkpoint is just a few feet from the entrance to Maale Adumim. Arab highway traffic from two dangerous Arab towns passes by, but could pass in. The Arabs also would gain access to other Jewish areas, such as Kadar, Mishor Adumim (industrial section) Kfar Adumim and Mitzpe Yericho without inspection.

The road to Kadar is long, winding, and up a cliff. School buses can be attacked and cars forced off the road.

From that area, three roads go to Jerusalem. The old one has a wall at the end, to restrict cars to checkpoint inspection. Jews taking it are subject to lynching and having rocks thrown at them. Many, including infants, were hospitalized. A newer road was resorted to, but Arab threw rocks down from their town, Os Issaya, in the mountains leading to the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem. Now they take a still newer road. That is the kind of siege under which Israelis live (Israeli associate, 6/23.)

The restriction on Arab traffic on certain roads, one of which recently was lifted, is because of security needs for Jews and a terrorist and apartheid mentality by Arabs.


An Israeli court has just awarded Jareis Jareis, an Arab from the Galilee province of Israel, $8,000 tax free. What is his story?

He was convicted in 2006 for PLO terrorist activity, including passing security information to Iran. Based on a plea agreement, his sentence was for 34 months of hard time, after which the prosecutor was supposed to recommend parole.

When the 34 months expired, the prosecutor did not recommend parole. The secret service discovered new information making Jareis still a security threat to Israel. He was kept 81 days longer than the 34 months, although for a total of less than his full sentence.

Upon release, he sued the government, and won. Prof. Plaut prefaced this report with a remark that he and IMRA have to resort to often, that the story is not a spoof (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/23).

Is Israeli justice punctilious or amok? The mostly leftist judges tend to rule in the Arabs' favor to the point of absurdity and against national self-defense. Nevertheless, anti-Zionists lack the grace to accept this if not applaud it. They denounce Israel judicial system as anti-Arab. These anti-Zionists go too far when they condemn everything about Israeli policy toward the Muslim Arabs, and condemn nothing about Muslim Arab policy toward Jews. They accuse Israel of bias, but fail to see their own. With fact and logic, they have run amok.


Osraeli Deputy PM and Foreign Min. Avigdor Lieberman starts his thesis in a right-wing manner, but then, contradicting his premises, veers leftward:

1. Arab recalcitrance thwarted trading land for peace.

2. The world thinks the dispute is over the Territories. However, the conflict arose before the 1967 war that brought the Territories under Israeli control. The PLO began in 1964. Its charter disavowed claims to Judea-Samaria!

3. The world also misunderstands international law and precedent. It increasingly demands that Israelis withdraw behind the 1967 armistice lines, which the armistice pact stated are not borders. The UN resolution does not call for total. Its drafters said such withdrawal would render Israel insecure.

4. Israel's leaders suggest no alternatives.

5. If the armistice lines were made into borders, the conflict would spill into Israel, whose big Arab minority now mostly thinks of itself as "Palestinians." Although they have civil rights, more and more of them identify with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) [which does not enjoy civil rights]. They question Israel's legitimacy and Jewish self-determination. In growing numbers, they assist terrorists against Israel. Some Arab leaders, including public officials, spy on Israel or otherwise assist enemy governments. Arabs regularly hold large demonstrations against Israel, crying "death to the Jews!," and displaying posters of terrorists.

6. Therefore, the conflict is between two peoples. [Actually, it is a conflict by one against the other.] Therefore, the answer is not, as the world expects, a 100% Arab state and a bi-national state still to be called Israel. Bi-nationalism fails.

7. The real answer, Min. Lieberman asserts, is separate self-determination. He would exchange territories, leaving minorities in both states, with civil rights. No Arab influx into Israel. Arabs already in Israel would have citizenship in the new Arab state. The Arab state must be demilitarized. Israeli forces would be present in it to prevent arms smuggling into it.

Dr. Aaron Lerner warns that the resulting boundaries would have the Arab state bulge into Israel in a way that threatens national security; "presence" of Israeli forces is vague. Dr. Lerner often explains that a sovereign state cannot be held to any promises to demilitarize.

Lerner also questions how Lieberman can be considered right-wing (IMRA, 6/24/10).

Lieberman is considered right-wing, because the media likes to make dramatic contrasts and it is a handy excuse to criticize the Israeli government. Lieberman shouts like a tiger but acts like a pussycat.

The P.A. is supposed to be demilitarized now, but the U.S. and Israel cooperate in militarizing it. The notion of demilitarization and IDF "presence" are the type of balancing concessions that are stated in principle but are dropped in practice. In this anti-Israel atmosphere, they cannot be counted on.

Israeli leaders pose no alternatives, because they lack enough nationalism and courage to propose a Jewish claim to the Territories. They are waiting for the Arabs to civilize. Maybe when the messiah comes?

Lieberman mistakenly thinks the conflict is national. He overlooks the primary cause of the conflict, Islam's claim to exclusive control. Now that jihad is almost everywhere, he should be aware of it. Islamist jihad would continue regardless of borders. Lieberman would solve nothing, and he would give up Jewish claims to most of the Territories.

After describing seditious sentiment among Israeli Arabs, he proposes a plan that would permit many of them to stay in Israel. That is in effect the bi-nationalism he derides. Yes, he offers them citizenship in another state, but why would they want it? It would not help them in the state of their residence.

The P.A. forbids Jews from living in its area, and its people often try to lynch Jews who venture inside. Lieberman can propose minority rights, but what Muslim Arab state grants them?

Although Lieberman ridicules an exchange of land, that is what he proposes. Actually, he proposes a gift of land. Israel would give up some of its sovereign territory and would give up most of the disputed territories to which it has the best legal and historical claim and which are not owned by the P.A...


A "true freedom flotilla" sailed yesterday around landmark areas of New York Harbor. The hundreds of passengers on 10 ships sought the release of Hamas' Israeli prisoner, Gilad Shalit.

The flotilla sponsor, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, gave a care package of food, books, and glasses for the prisoner to Rosmary Mackey, representing the Red Cross. However, Hamas has barred Red Cross access to Mr. Shalit for all four years of his activity. The true freedom flotilla brings attention to this humanitarian problem, as contrasted with the Gaza flotilla, sponsored by a pro-terrorist organization (Arutz-7, 6/25/10).

Islamic historical practice has been, when war is not going well, to call for a truce, during which time to prepare for renewing combat better prepared. Hamas called many truces, but continued some firing. This was like its practice of using human shields, but in this case using the official truce as a shield by condemning Israel if it struck back at Hamas truce violators.

During one truce, Hamas built a tunnel under Gaza to Israel. It sneaked into Israel and struck an IDF post by surprise, capturing Shalit in the process. Hamas mistreats him. Islamic terrorists do not treat prisoners according to the rule of war, but expect their enemies to treat them according to the rules of war.


Pakistan had arrested five Americans for plotting terrorist activity in Pakistan. FBI agents who worked with Pakistani security officials on the case had expected Pakistan to extradite the youths to the U.S., where they would face an FBI probe. [If they did what they were convicted for, they would be in violation of U.S. law, too.] A Pakistani court, however, barred extradition.

Prosecutors claimed that the men had a computer and maps indicating they had sought training from terrorists to blow up a dam on the Indus River. Their lawyer claimed they had gone to Pakistan to administer humanitarian services. But apparently they had not informed their parents of their alleged good intentions — the parents reported them missing.

The court sentenced them to 10 years in prison. Defense attorneys claimed the men were beaten in prison, but State Dept. officials who spent time with them deny it.

The young men had met in a mosque in Virginia. The Obama administration added to its list of security concerns what it calls "home-grown terrorism" (Zahid Hussain, Tom Wright, Keith Johnson, Wall St. J., 6/25/10, A3).

Not to second-guess the attorneys, but major terrorist organizations train agents to claim mistreatment under captivity, to gain Western sympathy and smear their captors with antipathy.


StandWithUs (SWU) had proposed months earlier a gay rights program at the Detroit international US Social Forum. SWU sent the Forum its proposed program and background information about itself. SWU has advocated on campuses for gay rights and held an earlier gay rights program in which it networked for gay rights.

In recent weeks, participants in the Forum sent the SWU program leader, whom it had approved, threatening e-mails. They noted that they would not provide security and that the building would be open to all, hinting that he would not be safe.

Two days before the conference was to open, the Forum canceled it. The Forum explained that they felt the "true" purpose of the program was to defend Israel.

SWU denies that. Its program has nothing about the Arab-Israel conflict and everything about how gays are treated in the Mideast. In Muslim areas of the Mideast, gays are punished or discriminated against. Iran orders gay men to have a sex-change operation or be executed. Mideast families honor-kill gays, not only women who hold hands inappropriately. Only in Israel can they come out of the closet. The program was intended to educate about those problems, direct gays to assistance, and build coalitions for them.

SWU believes that the Forum did not want people to hear non-political, favorable reports about Israel and unfavorable reports about the rest of the Mideast. It sacrificed the gay minority and their rights in deference to anti-Zionist prejudice (StandWithUs, 6/24 )


The New York Times and the Wall St. Journal both reported on Thursday and Friday about the repercussions and considerations of firing Gen. McChrystal.

We lost our most capable general over his lack of discretion. On the other hand, his replacement is likelier to review sooner some of the weaker aspects of his military policy.

The criticisms he and staff made of civilian officials elected and non-elected did not interfere with duty, were not insubordinate, and probably are valid though nobody is checking them. McChrystal certainly is not insubordinate to policy — he originated the policy, and the President accepted it. President Obama's civilian aides carped at it. Obama said he was firing McChrystal in order to have unity, but the aides were voices for disunity. Why weren't they asked to resign? If McChrystal were fired for not reining in his staff, who will fire Obama for not reining in his staff?

Obama's firing of the military leader, coupled with Obama's setting an early date for troop withdrawal that makes victory impossible — imagine how that must have frustrated the military — encouraged Pakistan to try to fill the vacuum. It is trying to pull Afghanistan into its orbit. It offered to control the terrorist organization behind the Taliban war effort, in exchange for influence in Afghanistan.

That terrorist organization, however, largely is a creature of Pakistan's intelligence agency in the first place. Pakistan has been posing as a U.S. ally, but is behind much of the terrorism and the fighting against the U.S. and its allies.

What is Pakistan's goal? To what and whom is it loyal?


ActForAmerica displays a video of a few Christians in Dearborn Michigan. When the Christians attempted to distribute a portion of their Bible, printed in English and in Arabic, outside of a Muslim festival, a squad of police came right over to them. The police took them briefly into custody. A policeman told the camera wielder to turn off the video. [Since we saw the video, one assumes the police returned the camera.]

Police said the group could not distribute literature within 5 blocks of the festival. The Christians were denied their Constitutional rights. The Christians believe that this is the only town in America having such a restriction (6/22/10).

Dearborn is known to have a large Arab population. Should this means that the U.S. Constitution does not apply there?

According to Islamic law, non-Muslims are not allowed to display their views to Muslims. Were the police enforcing Islamic law? Did the police act in deference to political forces? To prevent a clash? The Christians did not intend to clash with anyone, but, as I have reported often, Muslims clash with non-Muslims in the Mideast, in Europe, and on North American campuses. Should the threat of a Muslim riot govern law enforcement (as it does on the Temple Mount), or should the law govern Muslim behavior?

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 Jeff Dunetz, June 25, 2010.

I spent much time during the past few weeks helping my son study for the state-wide World History test he took a few days ago. Working with him through his studies, I learned his class presented a brand new version of history, a version that never occurred. Some can argue different versions/interpretations of events that happened centuries ago, but his text book and curriculum distorted events I saw with my own eyes.

The text-book in question is called World History Patterns of Interaction
(http://holtmcdougal.hmhco.com/hm/ detail.htm?ID=1007500000072896), and is published by McDougal Littell. Particularly upsetting was the section of the book covering the period from the end of WWII through the 1980s. It sets up the Cold War period with the mistaken politically correct explanation that both sides were aggressors. On page 983 it says:

Both sides believed that they needed to stop the other side from extending its power." What it should have said was that the Cold War was a battle between the Soviet side wanting to expand its communist philosophy across the world, and the west trying to prevent the takeover.

The book also whitewashes the tyranny of Castro's communist Cuba. Page 985 says "Soviet aid to Cuba ended abruptly with the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. This dealt a crippling blow to the Cuban economy." There was no mention of the brutality of the Cuban regime; the fact that all opposition newspapers had been closed down, all radio and television stations were in state control, or that moderates, teachers and professors were purged. Nor was there any mention of the torture and inhumane treatment in Cuban prisons that is still happening today.

Perhaps the biggest rewriting of history was the discussion regarding the end of the Cold War. It talks about Nixon and detente, then boom on page 991:

... fiercely anti-Communist U.S. president, Ronald Reagan took office in 1991. He continued to move away from detente. He increased defense spending, putting both economic and military pressure on the Soviets.

And how does the book explain the result of Reagan's policies? "Tensions increased." That's it!

According to the text book, an increase in tensions was the only result of that "evil" Reagan's policies. But never fear because, there arose a leader in the USSR who knew not the cold war. Later on page 991, the book explains ".a change in soviet leadership in 1985 brought a new policy toward the United States and the beginnings of a final thaw in the cold war." Wow, look at that... out of the blue the USSR woke up one day and decided to play nice.

That explanation doesn't mesh with history (or my eyes). The peace-through-strength strategy executed by the Reagan Administration drove the Soviet economy into the sewer. I saw Reagan announce, what may very well be the greatest bluff in the history of man, the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). This initiative posed a technological challenge to the Soviet Union and the communist regime spent tons of cash trying to catch up technologically. The part we never told the Soviet Union (until President Obama blurted it out a few months ago) is the technology posed a challenge to us also. The communists thought we were holding a royal flush, but all we really had was a pair of threes; being chess players, instead of poker players, they resigned.

The prospect of Star Wars Technology scared the pants off the USSR, and so did the fact that they thought that Reagan was crazy enough to use it. Crazy like a fox he was. Reagan's willingness to apply significant rhetorical and other pressures against the Soviet Union, or as he called it, the "evil empire," made the Soviets pour even more money that it didn't have into weapons technology (why does that sound familiar?)

At a session of the Russian Politburo in October 1986 Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev tried to sell a groundbreaking disarmament plan including a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals. If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues, the USSR's weak economy could not keep up with Reagan's military expansion.

We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. ... If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable.

This military and economic pressure from Reagan was on top of the political pressure applied by a Pope born in a Soviet satellite country, Poland. John Paul II provided a moral focus with his constant anti-communist sermons. The Pope's visit to the very Catholic country of his birth Poland in 1979 stimulated a religious and nationalist resurgence centered on the Solidarity Union movement that galvanized opposition.

Reagan imposed economic sanctions on Poland to protest the suppression of Solidarity. In response, Mikhail Suslov, the Kremlin's top ideologist, advised Soviet leaders not to intervene if Poland fell under the control of Solidarity for fear it might lead to heavy economic sanctions by the west. These potential sanctions could result in further catastrophe for the Soviet economy. That "non-intervention" of the USSR, because Reagan's threats had bled them dry, was the beginning of the slippery slope leading to the easing of the communist oppression, and the fall the Soviet Union.

It is said that history is written by the victors, and in the past this may have been true. But in the case of Cold War history, it has been rewritten by the progressives who want to indoctrinate our children to their inaccurate version of facts many of us saw with our own eyes.

Contact Jeff Dunetz by email at jeff@jeffdunetz.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Laureen Moe, June 25, 2010.

In a powerful article in the Times of London, Jose Maria Aznar, the President of Spain from 1996-2004, provides a rousing and eloquent defense of the State of Israel. Aznar also uses this opportunity to announce the launch of his new organization "Friends of Israel" composed primarily on non-Jewish Europeans and Americans. President

Aznar is to be applauded for standing up for Israel, standing up for what is right.

The article is below:

If Israel goes down, we all go down

Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West's best ally in a turbulent region /font>


For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion.

In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbors using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathizers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment's peace.

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel's destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.

Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel's right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world's future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel's strength is our strength and Israel's weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.

It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel's legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel's vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defense of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.

Laureen Moe is a Christian Zionist and lives in Canada. She can be reached at her website,
http://www.laureenmoe.org She writes, "I dedicate this to the children that never came; and to my brother who died trying to stop a mad man that was on the loose in Germany."

To Go To Top

Posted by James Caplan, June 25, 2010.

It is not just a delegitimization of the State of Israel. It is the delegitimization of the Jew, a Jew anywhere in the world.

The Turks slaughter two million Armenians and through the Greeks out of Turkey with no compensation from 1915 through 1923. They are a fine group to get on the "human rights" bandwagon.

Never forget, when the Christian General, Jan Sobieski. marched his Polish Catholic army into Austria to save the Vienna from Turkish rule, the Turks retreated and gave up. However, the Turks murdered all their Christian hostages, some 23 THOUSAND.......among whom, 8 THOUSAND Christian children were murdered.

Let's put these fiends in perspective.

This came from Manny. Keep it circulating..  

This below was written by Lior Zagury.


Yes, it is important for me to present myself in this way, especially today when there is a feeling that there is a festival for anti-Semites.

I just came back yesterday from Poland after 8 days of having the privilege of guiding the Inter Disciplinary university students in the death camps. These students, studying in Israel were Jews, Christians and Muslims. 5 huge armed commando Polish soldiers with rifles and pistols needed to secure our check in to EL-AL flight to Israel from the Warsaw airport.

I know that you got at least 100 e-mails about the flotilla to Gaza and I will not repeat what was said there. I want to speak about something much bigger that is happening now.

The header of my letter wasn't taken from the streets of Berlin in 1933 when the Nazi's came to power, not from the neighborhoods of Warsaw in 1941 when the Jews lived in the Ghetto, and not even from the shops of Kielce after the second world war in 1946, just before the pogrom that made Jews understand that there isn't a safe place for them and they need to leave Europe.

The header was taken from signs that were hanged at the entrance to big markets and offices in Turkey in the past few days, in June of 2010 and similar signs that were hung in Jordan. The signs say: "not receive the dogs & Israelis" as you can see in the photo that is attached.

What we see around us is not about the flotilla and Gaza. It is a very sophisticated plan to demolish the legitimacy of the existence of the Jewish state of Israel.

In his first speech at the German Reichstag at 1/30/ 1933 Hitler said the cause of all the world problems is world Jewry. Most of the people didn't take him seriously and felt very safe in their countries, trusting their governments. 12 years later we lost 6 million Jews in the Holocaust in the worst way that human kind has ever known.

These days, 65 years after, Achmadinijad from Iran and many others say exactly the same. The history repeats itself. Most of the people do not take him seriously and feel very safe in their countries, trusting their governments.....

This is a wake up call.

If you will ignore that and convince yourselves that this is not the main stream, this is just a passing storm and that it will never happen to us — sooner or later, you might find those restrictions in your backyard, in your favorite restaurant, in your great Bar and in your amazing university as it was 75 years ago. A few months ago, an Arab restaurant in Haifa didn't allow Israeli soldiers to come in and eat.

We need your support now more then ever. We need to raise our heads, speak in a very clear and loud voice and especially be one, united. I have a complete and strong confidence in our nation.

Israel has the most moral army in the world, it is the only democracy in the world that in each and every given moment there are hundreds of thousands of missiles and rockets ready to be launched to the central of its cities from enemies that want to erase us, and the only place in the world that a Jew can just be a Jew and feel completely safe about it.

We promised NEVER AGAIN. Don't wait to say we didn't know.



Contact James Caplan by email at jamescaplan@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 24, 2010.

Od Yosef Chai Synagogue and Yeshiva

What you see above is a picture of the Od Yosef Chai Synagogue and Yeshiva (place of Jewish study) in Yitzhar in Samaria. I wrote about this on May 20 and repeat the information here:

On May 9, the IDF's Civilian Administration (the administrative body for Judea and Samaria, overseen at the top by Defense Minister Barak) issued a demolition order against this building.

So volatile is this situation that Arutz Sheva cited a warning from MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) that bloodshed would ensue. He called it a "declaration of war against the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria."

"Local residents believe that authorities are purposely punishing the yeshiva because of a confrontation with the IDF that took place on Independence Day, and also because security forces hold the yeshiva's students responsible for various attacks against Arabs in recent months and years."


Note of clarification: Yeshiva head Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira was held by authorities this winter with regard to an arson attack on the Kafr Yassuf mosque. Reports the JPost: "A Jerusalem District Court judge forced the police to release Shapira for lack of evidence."

As to Independence Day, Yitzhar residents say that IDF troops began harassing visitors who wanted to tour the area and prevented them from entering the springs near the settlement. When the soldiers tried to hold back one of the residents, other settlers became agitated. The residents say that one of the soldiers stationed in the area fired a warning shot into the air. When he refused to give his name, the residents demanded that he remain in the area until he agreed to do so.

The IDF says that residents attacked soldiers with stones, lightly hurting three.


According to the Arutz Sheva report:

"'...the authorities are making special efforts to hurt the yeshiva in an unfair and vindictive way,' a yeshiva spokesman said... 'It should be noted that the building is an ornate permanent structure, with an area of 1,300 square meters, which was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the various authorities to serve as an educational institution.'

"The destruction order, the residents said, cited an 11 year old work-stoppage order — one that they had never heard of until now. The building took years to build and cost over $1 million."


Further clarifications from the Jerusalem Post :

The IDF administration in Judea and Samaria claimed that the construction was done outside the zoning area for this type of building. The Yitzhar treasurer, Itamar Posner, however, maintains

"that the building was within an appropriately zoned area of the settlement...

"...he noted that the ministries of Construction and Housing as well as Transportation had invested heavily in the project. They would not have done so if it was illegal, he reasoned.

"Posner added no one at the yeshiva has any record of a demolition order from 1999. Nor had they heard anything about it in past years.

"...The yeshiva...posted a response [on its website] that said, in part, that the legal status of the yeshiva was stronger than many other structures in Judea and Samaria."

I will add here that this must also be considered in light of the reluctance of the government to demolish illegal Arab homes, and the furor that ensures over an attempt to do so (which I addressed yesterday).


Yesterday, I also wrote about how problematic Barak's positions are: how he fails to protect Jewish interests, instead showing an eagerness to make concessions.

He's fond of muscle-flexing, but in the wrong way. He likes to show one and all that he's really tough with the people on the right, courting approval from the left and, need I add, the international community. Obama and Abbas would be so pleased with him if he demolished this Yeshiva. But what a shameful and obscene act it would be.

The date for demolition is just days away.

This cannot be permitted to proceed.


I am asking you to write to Prime Minister Netanyahu (not Barak himself). The demand is that Netanyahu stop Barak. We need a huge outpouring of protest. As always, numbers count.

Make your message short and to the point, please.

If you are writing from outside of Israel, note that the world is watching and if Barak succeeds he will do Israel considerable harm among the very people who are Israel's biggest supporters.

If you are inside of Israel, let the prime minister know that he is being watched and will be held responsible. What happens will affect his support now and in the next election.

The heart of the message: Jews do not destroy synagogues. This is a shameful thing to do and gives great comfort to our enemies.

Share this and encourage others to act.



02-670-5369 Write: "Attention Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary."

Please, also fax to 02-670-5369 and 02-649-6659
(From the US: 011-972, drop the 0 before the 2 and proceed with the rest of the number.)


Please, send to both addresses.

Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm).

For the first address, above, put in subject line: "Attention: Cabinet Secretary, Zvi Hauser."

For the second address, above, put "No Demolition at Yitzhar," "Don't destroy the Yeshiva," "Stop Barak now," or something similar.

Please! Take the time to do this.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 24, 2010.


A young woman in Tehran was fined $50 per finger for wearing nail polish, $250 each for wear a jacket that was short, and that had bright colors, and for wearing make-up, about $1,000 for lightening her hair color, and another $180 for perching her glasses on her hair. The Iranian morality court is on the job!

Iran's President denies that the guidance patrol arrests women for such matters (Arutz-7, 6/23/10).


Iran has been disseminating unconfirmed reports about IDF-Saudi military cooperation. First was bruited a rumor that Saudi Arabia agreed to turn a blind eye to an over-flight by Israeli squadrons going to raid Iran's nuclear facilities. A safe lane in Saudi air space would shorten the flight path significantly to ease the raid's difficulties.

Now Iran claims that Saudi Arabia has turned part of its Tobuk air force base, which practically adjoins Israel, over to the Israeli air force. Iran uses the term, "entity" or "Zionist" to refer to Israel (IMRA, 6/23/10).

Ironically, the U.S. sold Saudi Arabia warplanes on condition that it not station them at Tobuk and not add fuel storage tanks to them. Saudi Arabia broke those conditions, without repercussion. The famed Israel lobby, much overrated, was silent or helpless on that as on much else.

When Saudi Arabia made a military alliance with Egypt, and broached plans for a bridge between the two countries, Saudi Arabia became more of a threat to Israel.

The threat might be discounted, because most strategists, including Israel's see individual jigsaw pieces instead of the whole puzzle. Thus, they may not count Egypt and Jordan, because of peace treaties. But fanatical or otherwise unscrupulous regimes disregard treaties when advantageous to their plans. Egypt and Jordan engage in diplomatic and economic warfare against Israel and Egypt had supported Palestinian Arab terrorists. Hamas broke its truces with Israel.

Strategists also tend to discount individual forces as small, by themselves. Thus, Palestinian Arab militias are mostly omitted from the strategic equation, but especially with their new American training, they could hinder Israeli mobilization long enough for the Arab states to bring up superior forces first. Blind to overall strategic considerations, and vainly attempting to appease inexorable critics, Israel has let itself be surrounded by terrorist militias armed with rockets they have fired at Israeli civilians, for a start.


Organizations have started anti-Israel "Apartheid Week" events annually on U.S. campuses and in cities. The Memphis Friends of Israel has been sponsoring an annual pro-Israel festival and, during the year, educational events. The Friends are spreading the project into other locales. Their idea is not to let the other side monopolize the media on this subject. Give the facts a public hearing (Arutz-7, 6/23/10).

In some countries, the Israeli view is silenced. Thomas Jefferson had faith that in a fair contest between truth and falsity, truth would win. These days, if Israel even gets its message out, the contest is not fair. Falsity is too pervasive and unscrupulous. The Media and educational systems give people a basic misunderstanding. Political correctness hobbles forthrightness.

(That's Memphis, Tennessee, not Memphis, Egypt)


Congress endorsed letters to President Obama urging him to stand behind Israel. The letters were signed by 87 Senators and 320 Representatives.

The letters noted an international effort to deny Israel legitimacy. It described the flotilla attempt to break Israel's legal blockade by militarily ambushing Israel, as part of this improper effort. So, to, are the UN Human Rights Commission efforts to single out Israel [on false accusations and to the neglect of real and serious problems]. The conference on nuclear proliferation tried to isolate Israel, by sandbagging it.

Congress urged the President to have the U.S. veto those untoward efforts in the Security Council. They justified U.S. support for Israel as in our national interest.

The letter concludes with hope for peace negotiations that lead to a "two-state solution." (Arutz-7, 6/24/10).


In a meeting with Austria's Chancellor Werner Faymann, Israel's PM Netanyahu exposed Iranian hypocrisy on women.

Iran intends to load women onto a ship of its flotilla against what it calls Israeli oppression of Gaza. As Netanyahu put it, "My friends, I want to show you the extent of the absurdity. The darkest forces in the world — Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, who want to return the world to the Middle Ages, who prevent their women from dressing, working and expressing themselves freely, where their women live in slavery and oppression, frequently without their basic rights, often subject to violence; they dare to organize a boat of women as propaganda against Israel?!

"The time has come to put a stop to this hypocrisy and work toward genuine women's rights and human rights in our region. I call upon all peace and human rights activists in the enlightened world: Go to the places where they oppress women; Go to the places where they hang homosexuals in town squares and deny the rights of minorities; Go to the places where there is no freedom of expression, no freedom of the press, no independent courts, no human rights organizations and no human rights. Go to Teheran. Go to Gaza.


Israel is protecting U.S. tanks. Having successfully tried out its new "Trophy" anti-missile system on its own tanks, Israel now is installing the same defense against anti-tank missiles on the U.S. vehicles (Arutz-7, 6/24/10).

Israel has made many innovations in military matters, as well as in medicine, computer technology, and agriculture, from which the U.S. benefits.


The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) sponsored a Middle East briefing to Members of Congress by Prof. Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs.

Dr. Rubin is shocked by the disparity between the realty of the Mideast and the illusions by which the West perceives the Mideast.

For example, the West keeps pressing Israel for "confidence-building" concessions to the Arabs. But the Arabs and informed Israelis know there will not be a comprehensive peace.

Why not? The Palestinian Arabs are "intransigent." They do not compromise nor make concessions. Fatah's radical leaders believe they can attain total victory i.e., destroy Israel, without having to compromise. Palestinian Arab moderates are too weak to exert influence. Abbas has named a hardliner radical, Muhammad Ghaneim, as his successor. Therefore, gimmicks will not produce a solution.

The Obama administration believed that if it cooled down the U.S. relationship with Israel, it would gain a strategic advantage with the rest of the Mideast. Did not happen. The U.S. did not gain popularity. The Arabs are not strongly assisting the U.S. against Iran.

Actually, the U.S. lost position strategically. The Turkish Islamist group, IHH, planned violence on the flotilla and secured condemnation of Israel, sympathy for Hamas, and calls for lifting the embargo. The radicals gained status and are encouraged to be ore provocative.

Another setback for the U.S. is Western policies that fail to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Again, in dealing with radicals, who run Iran, Western appeasement or charm cannot distract them from their goals.

Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the Arabs will knuckle under to them. Europe would appease Iran more, too. Fired up by the success of Iranian radicalism, Muslims all over would fall in with it. Iran will have gotten nuclear weapons regardless of U.S. opposition. Radicalism would dominate the Muslim world. Hundreds of thousands would join radical organizations. Could they be contained, as U.S. policymakers may suppose? Not those hardened radicals.

U.S. appeasement of jihadists is worse than was the European appeasement of the Nazis. The Europeans also thought they could buy off the radicals of their day, but at least they knew the danger facing them. By contrast, the West does not realize how dangerous its enemy is.

As ZOA puts it, "Only when Palestinians reject the idea that it is a religious and national duty to murder Jews and to celebrate those among them who act on this instruction will there be any prospect of peace." Meanwhile, the U.S. should condemn the Palestinian Authority as an evil regime that promotes terrorism (6/23/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.)

Prof. Rubin's analysis may be hard to hear but it is harder to refute. Some of my readers might denounce it, but he makes perfect sense.

There is another possibility besides Arab appeasement of Iran. Arabs may develop their own nuclear weapons. That is not a happy prospect, either, for it adds to the risk of nuclear war.


President Obama just fired the country's greatest fighting general, to demonstrate that the top civilian authority outranks high military authority.

Yet when people suggest that a U.S. President free Jonathan Pollard, they are told that the security establishment would not let him. Let them think of Gen. McChrystal, and then revise their assessment (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 6/23/10).

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 Isi Leibler, June 24, 2010.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is likely to receive a red carpet reception from President Barack Obama at the White House combined with a reaffirmation about the "unshakeable US-Israel alliance." However we should not delude ourselves. It is clear that Obama's recent charm campaign was primarily in response to pressure from the American people and in particular from Jewish Democratic supporters shocked into action by the administration's increasingly negative approach toward Israel and the crass reception accorded to Netanyahu during his last visit.

The bonhomie was intended to assuage domestic anger to avert loss of votes and funding for the forthcoming congressional elections. Even though administration officials, including Rahm Emanuel, conceded that they "had screwed up the messaging" and are unlikely to repeat their previous boorish humiliation of Israel, there are no signs that the US administration is about to modify its policy.

TWO RECENT events reaffirm this. The greatest disappointment was the US betrayal at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference. Obama reneged on his promise to maintain the policy of former US administrations and continue to veto repeated Arab efforts to isolate Israel at these conferences. He endorsed a resolution which omitted any mention of Iran but specifically targeted Israel, demanding that it sign the NPT and submit to inspections of its facilities. While Obama subsequently disingenuously shed crocodile tears expressing disappointment that Israel had been singled out, his willingness to sacrifice the Jewish state on such a crucial security issue heightened concerns that the US is no longer a reliable ally.

In the aftermath of the vehement international condemnation following the Gaza flotilla interception, Obama made little effort to curb the anti-Israel hysteria.

Instead, he pressured Israel to co-opt international observers to its inquiry and failed to condemn the proposed United Nations Human Rights Council demand for an international inquiry which would unquestionably be a replay of the outrageous Goldstone Report. In this context, Vice President Joseph Biden's positive declaration endorsing Israel's right to blockade ships to prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza sounded somewhat like a good cop, bad cop routine.

The perception of the US failing to support long-standing allies was highlighted by its tepid response to the unprovoked sinking of the South Korean naval corvette by a North Korean submarine. To Israelis, this conveyed a chilling interpretation of Obama's concept of an alliance.

His inability to retain the support of traditional US allies was also exemplified when Turkey and Brazil displayed their contempt by undermining the minimal Iran sanctions the US was finally able to impose with grudging approval from Russia and China.

US appeasement and renewal of diplomatic relations with Syria, Iran's surrogate state, only encouraged Damascus to strengthen its relations with Teheran, supply Hizbullah with Scuds and intensify its aggressive posturing.

ON A broader level, Obama has reiterated that the US could neither afford nor desired to remain the policeman of the world, preferring to delegate and conduct global affairs in conjunction with other countries and international organizations. To abdicate leadership of the free world during these perilous times is a bad omen, especially if it implies delegating more influence to Europe, Russia or worse to the dysfunctional UN, dominated by Islamic countries.

The most bizarre policy proclamation came from White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan. Following a National Security Council pronouncement stipulating that the term "extremist and militant Islam" should no longer be employed, he made the extraordinary assertion that Hizbullah was not "purely a terrorist body" and that he intended to cultivate the "moderate elements."

Subsequently in an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brennan limited Islamic fundamentalism to al-Qaida and opined that the term "war on terror" should be excluded from the American political lexicon.

"Our enemy" he said "is not terrorism because terrorism is a tactic or a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He added, "Nor do we define our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam to purify oneself or one's community."

Such remarks from a high-ranking US official are mind boggling.

IN RELATION to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the US had warned that it would confront any party indulging in provocative statements or acts. Yet while expressing concern regarding Israeli celebrations on Jerusalem Day, the administration remained silent as the PA lobbied the OECD to block Israel's affiliation. Nor did it respond when PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the most "moderate" Palestinian leader, personally participated in a burning ceremony to promote a campaign to boycott products manufactured over the Green Line, a direct violation of the Oslo Accords. They even failed to react when Fatah leaders reiterated their right to launch armed resistance unless their demands were fulfilled.

American friends of Israel should thus be aware that despite Obama's charm offensive, US policy is no less ominous now than it was during Netanyahu's previous visit to Washington. However public opinion is a factor that a Democratic administration does take into account and Israel can take comfort in the fact that support from the American people and both houses of Congress have strengthened considerably since the Gaza flotilla imbroglio.

In this context, Netanyahu must now clearly spell out his game plan and ensure that Israel is not again confronted by accusations of having misled the administration.

When he meets with Obama, he should assure him that short of endangering its security, the country will do all in its power to avoid embarrassing the US. But he must be definitive and inform the administration which areas are negotiable while simultaneously drawing red lines which his government cannot contemplate crossing.

He must emphatically reject returning to the 1949 armistice lines on the grounds that it would pose a longterm existential threat to the Jewish state.

He must reiterate that Israel will only extend concessions based on reciprocity and that the Palestinians must cease their provocations and incitement.

He must clearly elucidate building policies in Jerusalem and make it known that irrespective of what happens, the building freeze will not be renewed in the major settlement blocs that the Bush administration had agreed would remain within Israel.

If Netanyahu fails to reach a full understanding over Iran, he must request greater transparency in the relationship and be assured that Israel will be kept fully informed and able to provide input. He should also request unequivocal American support against global boycotts and pressures at the UN and other international organizations, including an assurance that in future the US will divert pressures against Israel's ambiguous nuclear deterrent.

Instead of whispering and making light of differences, Netanyahu must speak plainly and unequivocally to ensure that Israelis and our friends abroad understand our position.

Should he continue fudging the issues by basking in the superficial warmth of pleasantries, he will be setting us up for a second and possibly much more unpleasant confrontation with our only global ally.

Contact Isi Leibler by email at ileibler@netvision.net.il

This article is archived at

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 23, 2010.

I asked the question in my last post as to whether there will be gain with regard to the Security Cabinet's decision to allow all goods but those weapon-related into Gaza via the land crossings from Israel.

This remains a dubious proposition. Whatever the rationale for what was decided, there is the clear danger that Israel will be seen as weak, and having caved to Hamas and terrorist forces. On the one hand, Blair has made positive statements about our rights, without question, to keep weapons out of Gaza — a nod to the sea blockade. On the other hand, already we're hearing — not just from the UN but also from Obama — about how this isn't enough for the people of Gaza. It's the old story, with which we are well familiar: Give them a finger, and they want our hand. It's never enough.

When statements are made about the need for the situation to improve for the people of Gaza, always implicit is that it's on Israel to do something about this. Never is there a clear and forthright statement that Hamas, which controls Gaza, is responsible for this situation. In fact, neither is there any direct statement about responsibility on the part of Egypt — which is to Gaza's south and controls the Rafah crossing — to do more for the Gazans.


We clearly see how ludicrous — and maliced — this whole situation is when we read the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs briefing, "The Myth of the Siege of Gaza," by Lt. Col. (ret.) Yonatan Halevi, a senior researcher on radical Islam:

"[In addition to all of the goods brought in from Israel via the crossings] there is also an established economic system of Palestinian imports from Egypt via hundreds of tunnels operating under the control of a Hamas government that grants approval for operating them and collects taxes from their owners. The tunnel network has increased imports from Egypt to Gaza from $30 million annually during the years 1994-2006 to more than $650 million annually. Given the abundance of supply, the price of diesel fuel and gasoline, delivered to Gaza through pipes from Egypt, is half that of the price in Israel.

"Farid Zakout, director of the Gaza Construction Association, told the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam that the price of a ton of cement now stands at NIS 800 as opposed to NIS 1,200 two months ago, and over NIS 3,000 more than a year ago. Cement prices fell after some 80 percent of tunnel owners began to import cement. The renewed surge in construction activity has fostered a rise of 25 percent in the number of those employed in the industry."

Mind-boggling, is it not? UNRWA would maintain that it will not deal with the cement black market of Hamas tunnels and thus needs cement brought in via the Israeli crossings to build schools. But to say there can be no reconstruction of Gaza without unfettered access to building material via the crossings is nonsense.

Halevi further says:

"Gaza is not cut off from the outside world. In the last year, the markets of Gaza have been flooded with produce and merchandise. In fact, in 2009, a total of 30,576 truckloads of humanitarian commodities passed from Israel into Gaza. From June 2007 (the date of the Hamas military takeover of Gaza), overall monetary transfers to Gaza have totaled over $5 billion from governmental and extragovernmental sources. The governor of the Central Bank of the Palestinian Authority, Jihad al-Wazir, confirmed that 56 percent of the PA budget is designated for Gaza. Gaza receives additional aid funds directly from Iran, and the Arab countries."

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID= 1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=4123& TTL=The_Myth_of_the_Siege_of_Gaza


The reality of what is happening in Gaza simply bears no resemblance to "the myth" — as Halevi refers to it. That myth is designed to damage Israel, as well as to court international sympathy and support. Unfortunately (once more) our government has not been forceful enough in promoting the truth and countering that myth.


I call your attention, as well, to the fact that over 50% of the PA budget is allocated for Gaza. This explodes another myth of major proportions: that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are completely separate.

If you are in the US, you might want to contact your representatives in Congress and ask them why your government is supporting Hamas. Money is fungible: If money allocated by the US to the PA is not designated by budget line item to go to Hamas, it still frees up other money that can be sent. Besides which, there is legitimate reason to ask why the US should support the PA at all, if it is so closely allied with Hamas.

Include the URL above for the article by Lt. Col. Halevi. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, headed by Dore Gold, is a highly credible institute, and Halevi is a superbly reliable source.

For your Congresspersons:
http://www.house.gov/house/ MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

For your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/ contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Among those strongly of the opinion that loosening the restrictions on materials permitted into Gaza was a bad idea is Caroline Glick. One point that she makes is worthy of particular note:

"The economic sanctions the government is now cancelling were not simply legal, they were required by international law. Binding UN Security Council resolution 1373 requires states and non-state actors to deny support of any kind to terrorist organizations. And here, in a bid to win international "legitimacy" for its lawful blockade of Gaza, Israel has bowed to US pressure to unlawfully facilitate the economic prosperity of an area controlled by an illegal terrorist organization." http://www.carolineglick.com/ e/2010/06/the-high-price- of-coalition-st.php

Glick also fingers Defense Minister Ehud Barak in regard to this:

"According to sources close to the cabinet, the main advocate for the latest capitulation was Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is the serial bungler."

She's right on mark here, and its worth reading her full comments on this subject (which I will return to it in due course). What I ponder now is exactly who is running the show. Does Netanyahu cave to Barak as well as to Obama? Or is Barak convincing him to cave to Obama?

Perhaps most damning at present is her charge that Barak allegedly convinced Netanyahu to send the naval commandos onto the Marmara equipped only with paintball guns, as this would garner greater support from Obama.


Commentator Moshe Dann, writing in YNet, addresses the same concerns.

Dann writes of, "Barak's failure to anticipate the danger to IDF soldiers sent to stop the Gaza flotilla, his stubborn refusal to consult military and intelligence experts..."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3906261,00.html

The fault for what happened, then, would lie not with poor intelligence, but with the arrogance of a minister who thought he didn't need to rely on that intelligence.


So, it seems to me that it's time to write to Prime Minister Netanyahu as well.

Be forceful but courteous. Using your own words, tell him that he wears the mantle as prime minister of the nation of Israel and he must be relied upon to make decisions with courage and backbone. Say that relying upon the advice of Ehud Barak serves the nation ill. It's time for him to make decisions more consonant with the will of the people, who voted for the right wing.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses


The next round of confrontation with foreign ships seeking to break the blockade of Gaza indeed does seem to be around the corner.

The ship I wrote about last, the Julia, has not left port, but a second ship was given permission to go by the Lebanese government and is on its way, first to Cyprus and then — if it receives clearance in Cyprus — towards Gaza. Last week Defense Minister Barak warned the Lebanese government that it is responsible for these ships. But in a turn-about maneuver, the Lebanese have sent a letter to the UN holding Israel responsible for anything that happens to the ships.

Israel is preparing vigorously for this next confrontation, both from a military and a PR perspective.


Is this true? It's huge if it is. According to the Islam Times website — which is being cited in various quarters — Israeli jets landed in Saudi Arabia last week and unloaded military equipment at an airport in the northwest. This is said to be in advance of a strike on Iran.

IMRA is carrying a report from the Arabic FARS news agency, in poor translation, that says the same thing. This report further says that, "the Zionist entity has created for himself a military base in Tabuk North West Saudi Arabia."


About three months ago, Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat announced a development project for the city that involved the demolition of illegally constructed Arab homes in Silwan, in eastern Jerusalem. At that time, Netanyahu put a stop to it.

But now the municipality's Local Planning and Construction Committee has given the go-ahead. In all, there were 88 structures that were built illegally on land that was "green": zoned for a park and extensive recreational area. But the owners of 66 of these homes will be given the opportunity to apply for retroactive legalization. Twenty-two structures within the area known as Gan Hamelech (King's Garden), all built without permits in an area for which housing was not zoned, will come down. In a gesture of enormous magnanimity, the municipality will provide those whose homes will be demolished with new, legal homes elsewhere in the area.


Needless to say, there are objections in many quarters: from the left wing here, from the PA, from the US government. This is being represented as an "anti-Arab" move that is destructive to the "sense of trust" that needs to be developed between Israel and the PA. The old, familiar line. This project is even being called "ethnic cleansing," although it is not remotely that.

PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat announced yesterday that, "I sent a notice this morning from the Palestinian president to the US, in which he asked the American administration to intervene directly so that the Israeli project is cancelled.

"We vehemently denounce the decision, which will result in the demolition of 22 houses in Silwan."

Give me a break!


Residents claim to be against the demolition of their homes (never mind that they'll get new ones). But most enlightening was what one person involved with this municipal planning told the JPost: "What the residents say to the press and what they say to us are two different things."

The betting is that these residents are coached from the outside, by persons eager for an opportunity to stir things up and make Israel look bad for the international media.

In point of fact, the Jerusalem administration has negotiated with individual residents, to reach a place of understanding with as many of them as possible. They addressed issues of concern such as roads, parking, and fire fighting equipment.


Among those who registered distress over this plan was Ehud Barak, leveling his criticism from the US, and ever eager to please the US. Showing his true colors once again, he said the plan "lacked common sense" and a "sense of timing." He indicated that he would take this up with the prime minister on his return. And there we are. It will be shameful indeed if Netanyahu caves on this.

While at first there was no word from the prime minister's office, there was then a statement that the prime minister "hopes to solve" the dispute.


Mayor Barkat, however, has had his say in response to Barak:

"Rather than support the municipality's effort to strengthen the city and tackle the serious neglect the eastern part of the city has inherited over the years, the defense minister acts without checking the facts.

"The new plan for Silwan allows for thousands of additional housing units for the Arab sector and the resolution for hundreds of construction violations. Barak should be the first to support the plan."

Jerusalem City Councilman Hilik Bar, a member of Barak's own Labor party, then released a statement as well:

"The King's Garden plan is an important project that could have an impact on both the value of the land and the houses in Silwan, and improve the quality of life for its residents.

"...Understand that instead of just destroying the houses — as the courts would have it — the plan proposes to regulate the building in an orderly fashion, and for all, and in a proper and responsible manner."


This bears close watching. Either we are a sovereign state that follow the rule of law, or we are not.

If you are contacting Netanyahu, as I suggested above, it would be prudent to mention this as well: Do not cave to Barak's demands that the Gan Hamelech project be put on hold again!


In a related issue, Arab squatters — some 40 people comprising three families — are living in an old synagogue building in Silwan. This is not "merely" a Jewish building, it is a hundred-year old building that has historical, religious and cultural significance. Known as the Hechel Shlomo Synagogue, at one time it served the Yemenite community of the area, which was forced to leave after violence in 1938. It is 500 feet from the contested Beit Yehonatan. The non-profit organization Ateret Cohanim claims ownership of the synagogue building as well as Beit Yehonatan.

According to a court ruling, additions made to the building by the Arab family holding it must be destroyed, and the building must be returned to its original owners. But the police have not acted on this.

Jewish residents of the area, who maintain that Arab residents are favored, say they will evacuate the building themselves on July 4, if the police fail to act. Ten members of the Knesset, from National Union, Habayit Hayehudi, Shas, Likud, and UTJ, have said they will assist the Jewish residents with the evacuation if the police fail to act. They have sent a letter to this effect to the prime minister.

In an entirely different context, Netanyahu has just made the statement, "No one is above the law." Let's see if he means it. Will he see to it that the court ruling is carried out, or will be he — fearful of manipulated world opinion and accusations of being "anti-Arab" — back off?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 23, 2010.

This letter was sent
From: Jean Evans
Scottish Friends of Israel
To: rev.alison@btinternet.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:19 PM
Subject: Israel Palestinian report

Dear Rev Alison

I was deeply but deeply disturbed to read the extremely biased and one sided report to be presented to the Methodist Conference. I am a speaker on the Middle East and an historian and it beggars belief that that account could be accepted as historical truth. It is about as biased as an account of a history of the Tory Party that George Galloway might write. It is to the everlasting shame of the Methodist Church if it were to accept such a shoddy piece of writing. As a Christian it is even more reprehensible that a Church should be a party to disseminating something quite so unsavoury.

I recently read a blog by Dr Sue Garrard of Keele University and I attach it below for your consideration.

Yours sincerely Jean A Evans


Fintan O'Toole thinks that Israel regards itself as 'exempt from the demands of common humanity' (via Z Word Blog). Iain Banks thinks that 'simple human decency' means nothing to Israel (see this normblog post).

Two well-known writers, very anxious to tell the world that Israel lacks humanity. Israel's not like the rest of us, the rest of the human family. Compared to other nations, it's inhuman. It doesn't recognize what everyone else knows about, the simple requirements of being decently human. It ought to recognize these things, it isn't hard to do so, since they're so simple; and most other people do, since they're part of common humanity.

Leave aside the sinister provenance of that claim, and let's just consider it on its own.

Turkey has killed between 30,000 and 40,000 Kurds in the last 30 years; it occupies North Cyprus; it blockades Armenia and denies its own historical genocide. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Sri Lanka, at the same time that Israel was fighting in Gaza (around 1300 dead) killed about 25,000 of its own civilians in the course of repressing an insurgency. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

Sudan has killed something in the order of 200,000 people in Darfur, with countless rapes and tortures alongside. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Iran rapes and tortures and murders its own dissidents who ask for democracy; it hangs young gays, it oppresses women. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

Yemen is blockading South Yemen, it lets no food, medicine or water through; unlike Israel, which lets around 15,000 tons of supplies into Gaza every week. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Egypt is considering a law to strip their citizenship from any Egyptian who marries an Israeli; it persecutes Copts; it blockades Gaza. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

Russia kills 25,000 to 50,000 Chechens, and almost completely razes the capital city of Grozny; its soldiers inflict hideous tortures on their prisoners before killing them; investigative journalists are murdered. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

China kills somewhere between half a million and one and a quarter million Tibetans in the course of quashing Tibet's independence. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

In Pakistan, Christian churches are burned, hundreds of Ahmadiyyas are killed, violence towards women is endemic. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

In Saudi Arabia, no churches are allowed, no Israeli Jews may enter, women are subject to gender apartheid. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

Congo: what can one say about Congo? More than that 5 million — 5 million — people have been killed in its wars, alongside innumerable rapes and hideous tortures? But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Now, here's one especially for Iain Banks: the USA and the UK initiate a war in Iraq in which more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians are killed. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

France trained and armed the Hutu genocidaires who killed around 800,000 civilians in the Rwanda genocide, and continued to protect them even as they lost power to the incoming Tutsis. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Three things to note. First, most of the other cases I've mentioned have involved far worse horrors than anything Israel has done. But Israel is the one which Banks and O'Toole charge, not with acting wrongly, or having bad judgement, but with being deliberately impervious to morality, with not even rising to the most basic level of decency. Banks and O'Toole (and indeed many others) level this charge at Israel alone. We won't be hearing them say that the Chinese are deliberately impervious to morality, or that the Turks lack simple human decency. Only Israel. Why is this?

Second, we can't in fact leave aside the sinister provenance of these charges. O'Toole at least claims to know about the Holocaust, and what led to that horror; it's possible that Banks knows something about it too. It's a commonplace of historical explanation that one of the enabling factors was the dehumanization of the Jews, the constant Nazi propaganda about how they weren't fully human, how they didn't have the normal moral sentiments and beliefs, about how they saw themselves as the chosen people, above ordinary morality. Here we see these dehumanizing lies being reproduced, 60 years later, about Israel, and only about Israel. Why is this?

Third, and most importantly, every point I've made in this post has been made before, by many others, many many times: forcefully, cogently, analytically; both passionately and dispassionately; with humour and with despair. It hasn't made the slightest difference to the likes of Banks and O'Toole. Nor to the many others shouting or whispering at us, in the teeth of the evidence, that Gaza is the new Warsaw Ghetto, and that Israel is really Nazi Germany come again — and so it's fine to hate Israel, it's to your credit to hate it, it shows the world that you have simple human decency.

Why is this? And where will it lead?

Eve Garrard

To Go To Top

Posted by Sanne DeWitt, June 23, 2010.
This was written by Janine Zacharia

Israeli national security adviser Uzi Arad on Tuesday described the Palestinians as "major actors in the delegitimization of Israel." "In trying to make peace" via the indirect U.S.-led talks, "we are embracing an adversary who is conducting a very effective battle against us internationally." Arad said that Israel still aspires to peace with the Palestinians, but he was skeptical of the value of Israel putting forth any bold new peace initiative. "If we do make an initiative, which incorporates further concessions, it would only validate their current rejectionist position, leading them to say, 'If we wait long enough there will be some more,'" Arad said, referring to the Palestinians.

On Iran, Arad did not directly address the likelihood that Israel would strike militarily to set back the country's nuclear program. "I don't see anyone who questions the legality of this or the legitimacy," Arad said of a possible Israeli strike. "They only discuss the efficacy, which is interesting. It suggests that people understand the problem. And they are not questioning the right."

He also noted what Israeli officials have perceived as a shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, citing a subtle change in rhetoric. Officials say they think Obama is now more willing to employ military force, in the event it becomes necessary, to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. "All of us did take notice that the United States changed the definition of its policy on Iran, from one that said a nuclear Iran would be 'unacceptable,' to one in which it said that the United States 'is determined to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear.' There is determination there. There is activism," Arad said. (Washington Post)

Sanne DeWitt distributes the IACEB newletter. Contact her at skdewitt@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 23, 2010.


U.S. Senators Leahy and Sessions have introduced a bill against libel tourism. Libel tourism is the use of foreign courts, that poorly protect freedom of the press, to bring wrongful defamation suits against authors that criticize Islamism.

Between the burden of proving it is not libel and the burden of high legal costs, authors are intimidated. The result is repression in favor of Islamist ideology and terrorism. [The same abuse could be used by wealthy people for other cause.]

London is one jurisdiction that favors lawsuits for libel. Entrenched there, the late Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz brought dozens of lawfare suits. He forced 40 authors to retract and apologize, until he encountered Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil, which documents Mr. Mahfouz's financing of terrorism.

Although Ms. Ehrenfeld did not publish nor market her book there, an English court took up Mahfouz's libel suit against her. [Two copies of her book had been purchased in England by Internet, so the court claimed jurisdiction.] The court ruled that Ehrenfeld should pay a big fine, Mahfouz's sizable legal fees, retract her statements about him, and apologize. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge English jurisdiction.

She counter sued on free press grounds in New York. New York lacked jurisdiction, however. So that state, followed by six others, enacted "Rachel's Law," authorizing jurisdiction. Now Congress has its own bill. It protects American authors from foreign attempts to undermine their first amendment rights by means of frivolous suits (ACD update, 6/22/10).


In a letter to the L.A. Times, Omar Kurdi, an alumnus of U.C. Irvine, criticized the suspension of the Muslim Student Union (MSU) there. He attributed the suspension to an "alleged" disruption of a speech by the Israeli Ambassador. In the incident, 11 students were arrested; they also face university discipline.

Mr. Kurdi calls this a chilling blow to university activism. He also says that the organization's suspension suffocates Muslim student life there.

According to Kurdi, it was pressure from the Zionist Organization of America and Jewish donors that prompted the University decision. He calls their effort an extreme attempt to "stifle criticism" of Israel.

Half his letter digresses to the flotilla incident and the Goldstone report about the combat in Gaza that called Israeli action a war crime. He concludes protest against Israel is reasonable. He calls the Gaza blockade illegal and the nine people killed, "humanitarian workers." He says that the Foreign Press Association in Israel criticized Israel for "stealing" passengers' photos and then presenting them in a way that distorted reality (6/22/10 letter reprinted by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York).

I saw a video of the Ambassador's good-natured attempt to speak and stated willingness to answer all questions, but he was shouted down by the Muslim students and supporters. That rowdy behavior is not criticism of Israel but an attempt to chill defense of Israel. Hence the justified arrests not by Zionists but by police.

Kurdi omitted mentioning the years of MSU intimidation of opposition and its illegal fund-raising for a terrorist organization. This illegality is serious. That the Zionist Organization of America (of which I am a member) brought the violations of law, of freedom of speech, and of University rules to University and public attention is to its credit.

The absence of Muslim activities formerly planned by MSU should have been thought of by MSU, before trying to squelch opponents' speech and raising funds for terrorists. Kurdi wants us to feel sorry for the MSU and its members. Their viciousness and apparently un-American illegality does not warrant sympathy.

The Goldstone report had no more veracity and logic than Kurdi's letter. Whether Israel acted criminally or not is irrelevant to whether people may protest against it. Of course they may. The question is how. MSU does not protest in a decent manner.

As we have reported elsewhere, the blockade was legal and the nine people killed on the flotilla were assailants, brought in to attack Israeli boarders. "Humanitarian workers," indeed! Certainly, since the ship ran a blockade and its Islamists on board attacked by prearrangement, wounding several, Israel was right to confiscate passengers' film, in preparation for investigation. The ship was a war zone and a crime scene.

Whether Israel doctored the film, I have seen no evidence. We reported that Reuters doctored a couple of photos in favor of the Islamists. Kurdi failed to mention that. In any case, it is irrelevant to U.C. Irvine, where the question of the day is whether people will be allowed to present their views without being shouted down or, as on some campuses, mobbed.


The main difference between Israel and the Arab states is that Israel is a modern state and the Arab ones are not. Israel has technologies of life but Iran has industries of death.

For examples, Rambam Hospital in Haifa, has pioneered in multiple sclerosis, treatment of burns, and embryonic stem cells. Most computer microprocessors were invented in Israel for Intel. Apple's "flash memory" also was invented in Israel. Israel is important to the U.S. economy.

Between 1967 and 1987 [when Israel administered all the Territories], per capita income for Palestinian Arabs tripled. After Arafat formed and controlled the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), GDP declined 40%. [The P.A. started after 1993, so those figures are not complete, but I have seen others that amount to the same effect.] The P.A. remains stuck in the mode of jihad and conquest.

The U.S. needs to base its Mideast policy on the fact that Israel is its greatest asset in the region (George Gilder, 5/25/10, Middle East Forum).

Israel is pro-American and a reliable ally, whereas the rest of the Mideast is not and much of it sympathizes with jihad against the U.S.


National Union MK Uriel Ariel has observed Israeli government discrimination in which buildings to have evacuated. How so? There are about 50 illegal Jewish building and thousands of illegal Arab ones [he may mean just in Jerusalem], but the government now demolishes them in pairs, one Jewish one for each Arab one; it expedites the schedule for demolishing Jews ones and delays the schedule for demolishing Arab ones.

Public Security Minister Yitzcvhak Aharonowitz admitted that diplomatic and political considerations govern current policy.

In Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood, three buildings are owned by Jews: two residences and the Yemenite Synagogue built in 1890. In the late1930s, the Yemenites were forced by Arab pogroms to abandon the building. Four Arab families have occupied it since 1938.

In 2008, an Israeli court ordered police to cooperate in evacuating the squatters, the rooms added illegally razed, and the building restored. The police, however, have taken no action [as usual, when Arabs are concerned].

MK Ariel says that on July 4, he and other Jewish nationalists will evacuate the squatters themselves. Min. Aharonowitz commented that MK Ariel has parliamentary immunity to arrest, but the others do not. The court order states that the police should cooperate in the evacuation, but does not require people wishing to conduct the eviction to get police permission.

On July 4, PM Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with President Obama (Arutz-7, 6/23/10).

One can foresee clashes leading to violence and media headlines blaming Jews for trying to enforce their rights, but not blaming the government for failing to enforce Jews' rights, and not blaming the Arabs for depriving Jews of their rights. Remember that this strife started because Britain did not run the Mandate under a regime of law and order.

Why does Netanyahu bother meeting with Obama? Obama makes more and more demands to make Israel weaker and weaker and its and America's Arab enemies stronger and stronger and to solve less and less. Netanyahu thinks that if he makes a concession, he will relieve pressure on Israel and win foreign, at least Western goodwill. But there is no foreign goodwill to be won, and acting accommodating, meaning appearing weak, does not win approval. The West is, itself, appeasing the Arabs. And the Arabs cannot be appeased, for they are in a degree of jihad, whose goal is not to compromise but to conquer.

Nor can Obama be appeased. His goal is to serve the Palestinian Arabs, among others. He is relentless, though he does engage in damage control for his obvious excesses. He covers up his own mistakes by blaming big companies or his predecessor. He shakes down big companies, and pursues them with a vengeance. Some companies think he will exempt some of their important business necessities from harsh legislation and regulation, if they agree to support his medical insurance bill or other bills. They support it, and he reneges.

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 AFSI, June 23, 2010.

Dear AFSI friends,

The destruction of homes and yeshivas and places holy to Jews is immoral, inhumane, and inexcusable. Israel expends its energies on destroying Jewish lives in a vain effort to appease its enemies. This is intolerable. Please write to PM Netanyahu protesting this wanton destruction. His email addresses are: memshala@pmo.gov.il; bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il; pm_en2@it.pmo.gov.il.

While you are protesting this destruction, be sure to mention your opposition to plans to destroy the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar on July 4. The destruction of a Jewish home or three story brick building is equally reprehensible.

The tragedy of a Jewish government destroying Jewish homes and communities is especially apparent today, as we approach the 5th anniversary, this Tisha B'Av, July 20, of the expulsion of 10,000 Jews from Gush Katif/Gaza and the Shomrom, and the total destruction of their communities. The results of this abomination are the on-going suffering of the Jewish refugees from Gush Katif, and the bombing of Sderot, the 2nd Lebanon war, Operation Cast Lead, the Goldstone report, and the continuing flotilla fiascos. The Israeli government must understand that each "sacrifice for peace" is another victory for Israel's enemies.

This below was written by Nadia Matar of the Women in Green. Contact her at nmatar@netvision.net.il


Reaction by Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green) and the Judea Action Committee to this morning's destruction of two houses in Bat Ayin by tens of Yassam and police forces

The murderers of policeman Yehoshua Sofer HY"D who was murdered by Arabs last week in the southern Hevron Hills were not caught yet, but that did not bother the police to allocate tens of troops to attack Jews.

This Wednesday morning at 5:30am, tens of police and yassam forces arrived in "Mitzpe Erez", in the Jewish community of Bat Ayin, not with paintball guns as in the terror flotilla, but rather with batons and machine guns, and destroyed two houses that were built in the Bat Ayin forest after and in reaction to the murder of Erez Levanon HY"D.

In a letter that the families wrote a few days ago when they heard that their houses were slated for destruction they say:

"Our settling in the forest is not an irresponsible picnic by young couples who are looking to relax but rather a clear statement of growth and expansion at a place where the life of Erez Levanon HY"D was taken away cruelly and heinously, with the clear purpose of scaring us and paralyzing us so we should not dare to go out and expand.

Our settling Mitzpe Erez is the one and real answer to all those who try to paralyze and silence us — whether it is the external enemy or the government, especially at a time of the "freeze" whose meaning is-the destruction of the settlement enterprise and is very dangerous for the future of the Jewish People".

We, members of Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green) and the Judea Action Committee strengthen the hands of our brothers in Bat Ayin and call upon the People of Israel to help rebuild the houses that were destroyed. That is exactly why we founded, a few months ago, the YIBANEH fund for building and expansion in the hills of Judea. The Yibaneh fund will donate, already this morning 5000NIS ($1250) for the rebuilding of Mitzpe Erez and we hope many more will join.

With love for Israel,
Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katsover

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. Helen Freedman is Executive Director.

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, June 23, 2010.

Dear friends,

Please read this article carefully. The future of U.S. Policy toward Iran, and toward the Iranian opposition, depends on understanding clearly who are our friends, and who are our enemies.

The State Department was right to put the MEK on the terrorism list.

Treasury was wrong to put PJAK (an Iranian Kurdish opposition group that is the biggest threat to the regime) on its list of "specially-designated nationals" for alleged terrorist ties.


PJAK is a danger only to the Islamic regime

A bipartisan group of House members last week unveiled a resolution in support of the Iranian "resistance," a code word for an opposition group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) that has been on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations since its inception in the late 1980s.

The MEK has a long record of carrying out violent attacks inside Iran. During the period leading up to the 1979 revolution, the group proudly murdered U.S. military officers and civilians working in Iran. And while the group's current leadership and its apologists claim that those attacks were carried out by a splinter group no longer associated with the MEK, eyewitnesses tell me that the MEK continued to celebrate the anniversary of those murders in ceremonies and song in their training camps inside Iraq all through the 1980s.

In the power struggle that followed the 1979 revolution, the MEK actively promoted the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and planted a bomb that wiped out the leadership of the Islamic Republican Party led by Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, arguably the last of the "moderate" leaders of the revolution.

More recently, MEK operatives inside Iran have carried out hit-and-run terrorist attacks on regime officials and have planted bombs in urban areas that have randomly killed civilians. The MEK and its supporters call these attacks acts of "resistance" against the regime.

Senior State Department officials have stated that their condemnation of the MEK's use of random violence against civilians stems from a desire not to use a "double standard" when it comes to terrorism. The MEK and its supporters claim that keeping the MEK on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations benefits the Iranian regime. Some even argue, incorrectly, that the group was placed on the list in 1994 by the Clinton administration as a sop to the regime. (While the Clinton folks kept the MEK on the list in hopes it would encourage a rapprochement with Tehran, the MEK was placed on the list years earlier).

Contrast the MEK's record of random violence against civilians with the use of violence by the Free Life Party of Iranian Kurdistan, PJAK, a group that was designated by the Treasury Department as a terrorist organization in February 2009.

PJAK guerrillas operate inside Iran in trained groups. Their primary mission is political: That is, they seek to spread a message that Iranian Kurds must abandon tribalism and traditional politics if they want to aspire to democratic self-governance.

Indeed, at PJAK camps I visited in northern Iraq in October 2007, the emphasis was on the political indoctrination of new members, not military training. PJAK prides itself on its inclusiveness: More than 30 percent of its guerrilla fighters and leadership are women.

PJAK makes no bones about its use of violence. Indeed, a Google search of the terms "PJAK attack" results in dozens of incidents in which PJAK guerrillas have attacked Iranian military targets and bases inside Iran. Almost all of these attacks have targeted the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

But PJAK uses violence in defense of the Kurdish population, not as an instrument of terror against civilians. In contrast to the MEK, PJAK has never planted bombs in public areas or targeted regime officials for assassination.

In an interview in Europe, PJAK Secretary General Abdulrahman Haj Ahmadi dismissed a recent claim by the Iranian regime to have captured a PJAK guerrilla fighter and dragged him through the streets of a Kurdish town. "This could not have happened because our fighters always operate in groups. They never go out alone," he said. In other words, when PJAK does engage in violence, it operates as an organized militia, not as a terrorist organization.

PJAK suspended its military operations after last year's disputed presidential election in Iran, "to give the United States and Israel time to convince Turkey to end its growing strategic alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr. Ahmadi told me.

But after the execution of five Kurdish political prisoners by the regime on May 9, the group reluctantly resumed military operations, and in a single week, it claimed to have killed more than 100 Revolutionary Guards, many of them senior officers, in a series of coordinated military attacks against IRGC bases and outposts.

Scores of PJAK political operatives are awaiting death sentences in Iranian jails for their role in organizing nonviolent protests over the past year. PJAK's effectiveness as a political organization and its selective use of violence in defense of the Kurdish population have prompted the Iranian regime to deem the group its main enemy.

Through its Turkish ally, Tehran continues to insist that PJAK be banned in the United States and Europe and has received assistance from Interpol in arresting PJAK leaders in Europe.

U.S. lawmakers would be wiser to demand that the Treasury Department drop its restrictions on PJAK, which is dedicated to a secular, democratic Iran, than to waste time on the MEK, a Marxist Islamist organization that not only uses terrorism as a political tactic but is widely discredited among ordinary Iranians because of its support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

Removing PJAK from Treasury's list of "specially designated nationals" would not demonstrate a double standard toward terror, as some Obama administration officials claim. It would strike a blow at the very heart of the Iranian regime, which has never hesitated to use terror to achieve its ends at home and abroad.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc. He authored "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" and is a contributing editor to Newsmax.com His latest non-fiction books is a thriller called Honor Killing, available at www.kentimmerman.com. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net This article appeared yesterday in the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/ 2010/jun/22/who-are-the-terrorists/

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 22, 2010.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post.


Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and USA President Barack Obama

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his colleagues are doing their best to put a pretty face on an ugly situation. After nearly three weeks of deliberations, Netanyahu and his government caved in to massive US pressure to ease, if not end, Israel's blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza.

On Sunday the government announced that all economic sanctions on Gaza will be immediately lifted. Henceforth, Hamas-controlled Gaza will have an effectively open economic border with Israel. Israel will only prohibit the transfer of military material. Even dual-use items, like cement, will be allowed in if international officials claim that they are to be used in their humanitarian projects.

Netanyahu and his colleagues argue that these new concessions have now given Israel the international legitimacy it needs to maintain its naval blockade of the Gaza coast. But this is untrue. Even as he welcomed Netanyahu's latest capitulation, US President Barack Obama made clear that he expects Israel to continue making unreciprocated concessions to Hamas.

Following the government's announcement, the White House declared, "We will work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the Quartet and other international partners to ensure these arrangements are implemented as quickly and effectively as possible and to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank."

In plain English that means that the administration doesn't trust Israel. It will escalate its pressure on Israel by among other things, pressuring it to provide members of the illegal Hamas regime in Gaza greater access to Judea and Samaria.

AS IF anticipating its next capitulation, government spokesmen told the media that in addition to ending economic sanctions on Gaza, Israel is now considering permitting the EU to station inspectors at its land crossings into Gaza. That is, Israel is considering a move that will constitute a first step towards surrendering its sovereign control over its borders.

The economic sanctions the government is now cancelling were not simply legal, they were required by international law. Binding UN Security Council resolution 1373 requires states and non-state actors to deny support of any kind to terrorist organizations. And here, in a bid to win international "legitimacy" for its lawful blockade of Gaza, Israel has bowed to US pressure to unlawfully facilitate the economic prosperity of an area controlled by an illegal terrorist organization.

There is something pathetic about the Prime Minister's office's protestations that by bowing to White House pressure the nations of the world will now accept our right to defend ourselves from an Iranian-controlled terrorist organization committed to the genocide of the Jewish people. After all, we have heard these hollow words many times before.

This notion that unilateral Israeli capitulation to terrorists would bring Israel international "legitimacy" is of course how former prime minister Ariel Sharon justified his strategically indefensible decision to cede Gaza — and the international border between Gaza and Egypt — to Palestinian terrorists.

If they attack us after we leave, he claimed, we'll have all the international support in the world to really destroy them.

Today, the government argues, all we have to do is sell them spaghetti and cilantro and the international community will suddenly rally to our side.

According to sources close to the cabinet, the main advocate for the latest capitulation was Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is the serial bungler. Ten years ago, he argued that his decision to relinquish Israel's security zone in south Lebanon to Hizbullah guaranteed that Israel would have international legitimacy to really take it to the Iranian proxy army if it dared to attack us after we left.

Barak is also the deep strategic thinker who brought us the Palestinian terror war.

Barak promised that if Yasser Arafat rejected his offer at Camp David and so demonstrated that his commitment to destroy the Jewish state trumped his interest in establishing a Palestinian state, that the international community would rally around Israel and we'd have all the international legitimacy we needed to defeat the PA.

And in the lead-up to the Mavi Marmara fiasco, it was reportedly Barak who decided it would be a terrific idea to outfit the naval commandos with paintball guns. Doing so, he promised would convince the Obama administration to support Israel against Hamas.

A key question that needs to be considered is what makes policymakers like Barak advance such colossally stupid and dangerous policies time after time. Israel's history since 1993, when then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and then foreign minister Shimon Peres opted to embrace Arafat and the PLO, bring thousands of PLO terrorists to the outskirts of Israel's major cities and give them weapons and international legitimacy indicates that three factors come into play.

First there is the fact that many of Israel's leading politicians are simply not that smart.

They are happy to be led by an ideologically radical media that have insisted since the 1980s that Israel must withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.

Not only are they happy to be led by the media, they are loath to dispute its misrepresentation of reality. And so the second cause of serial bungling on the part of politicians like Barak is that they are, in the end, sheep, not leaders.

THE FINAL major cause of Israel's strategic idiocy is corruption. On Monday morning, the police announced that they recommend indicting Sharon's sons Omri and Gilad Sharon for soliciting bribes on behalf of their father.

After an eight-year investigation, the police said they believe that Sharon received $3 million in bribes from former Stasi-aligned Austrian banker Martin Schlaff.

Schlaff, whose former attorney Dov Weisglass served as Sharon's chief of staff, was the majority share owner in the Jericho casino. He also reportedly intended to build another casino on the ruins of the destroyed Israeli community Elei Sinai in the northern Gaza Strip if and when Israel expelled its residents.

There can be no doubt that Sharon's alleged corruption and his fear of the far-left legal fraternity that investigated his alleged corruption played a significant role in his decision to abandon his campaign pledge to voters, toss strategic sanity to the seven winds, expel ten thousand Israelis from their homes and transfer the Gaza Strip lock, stock and barrel to Hamas and Fatah terrorists.

Like Sharon, Barak has been the subject of several corruption probes. Barak is also known to have had strong indirect connections to Schlaff. For instance, during his tenure as prime minister, Barak sent shock waves through the country when, with no prior warning, he announced that he was ceding Israel's rights to the natural gas deposits discovered off the Gaza shore. Barak's move precipitated a deal between the PA and British Gas to develop the gas deposits.

Media reports exposed that Schlaff and Arafat's economic bag man Muhammed Rashid were major shareholders in British Gas.

During his stint as a private citizen, in 2006 Barak sought to lobby Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin to permit Orascom, the Egyptian telecom provider, to expand its ten percent ownership share in Partner, Israel's second-largest cellular telephone company.

Israeli law prohibits foreign entities from owning more than a ten percent share in Israeli telecommunications firms. Diskin refused to meet with him and banned the deal. Rashid and other Schlaff associates are reportedly major shareholders in Orascom.

Barak and Sharon are only the tip of the iceberg.

Schlaff's connections to Israeli politicians run far and wide. Most of the leading founders of Kadima, including Ehud Olmert and Haim Ramon have personal ties to Schlaff. So too does former Shas leader Aryeh Deri. The ongoing criminal probes against Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman include, among other things, investigations into his allegedly prolific business ties to Schlaff.

REGARDLESS OF whether these ties to agents of corruption are criminal or not, it is obvious that they have influenced the policy preferences of more than one major politician in Israel. And regardless of what stands behind his poor judgment, the fact is that it is this judgment that is driving Israel's strategic direction.

It is also apparent, that Barak is being handsomely rewarded by the Obama administration for his actions.

Barak is currently on yet another junket to Washington where he is being given the red carpet treatment. While the premier is forced to conduct international diplomacy with Quartet chairman Tony Blair, Barak is feted by the White House, State Department and Pentagon on a regular basis. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Obama administration agreed to end its public campaign to overthrow the Netanyahu government in exchange for Netanyahu's effective concession of control over national policy to Barak.

Barak has used this control to force the government to accede to every American demand. So far, he has convinced Netanyahu to take a back seat to Obama on Iran; to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria at least until September; to effectively ban Jewish construction in northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem; to embrace the cause of Palestinian statehood; to accept US mediated indirect negotiations with Fatah; and to pretend that the Obama administration is a credible ally to Israel.

Before heading to Washington, Barak reportedly gave Netanyahu an ultimatum: Either make massive concessions to Fatah that will allow Obama to claim victory in the peace process, or Labor will bolt the coalition.

So too, Barak is reportedly behind Netanyahu's latest bid to bring Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni into his government.

Netanyahu and his spokesmen defend both Barak's primacy in the government, and their interest in bringing Kadima into the coalition by noting that the Left's partnership ensures political stability. If Labor were to bolt from the coalition, the government would be less likely to survive until the next scheduled election in 2013.

There is certainly truth to this assertion. With Labor inside the coalition, Kadima has no relevance.

So too, rightist parties are unable to bring down the coalition.

This would be a decisive argument if coalition stability enabled Netanyahu to govern more effectively. But the opposite is true.

Netanyahu knows the folly of his decisions.

He recognizes Obama's hostility to Israel. He also knows that the US president is not going to do a thing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Stability should be a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Netanyahu did not seek the premiership to achieve the goal of overseeing a stable government. He sought to lead the country to secure and strengthen it. As his latest concession to Barak makes clear, the price of governing stability is the abandonment of his leadership goals.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 22, 2010.


The Obama administration, in seconding the Quartet statement, referred to a "U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank." This commitment is backed by donations and pledges of tax funds surpassing a billion dollars (IMRA, 6/21/10).

Why do those people of Gaza and Judea-Samaria "deserve" an independent state? What have they done to deserve anything, including our scarce tax revenue?

They support terrorist dictatorships, dedicated to war, conquest, and genocide. They do this in behalf of a religious view that considers itself superior to others to the point of repressing other ones (not to mention its own people and women). They consider its followers exclusively entitled to the Mideast. They deem Christians bad and Jews sub-human. Hatred and violence are their norm. They not only betrayed Israeli offers of peace, they betrayed their hosts in Jordan, then Lebanon, and then Kuwait, trying to take over the first two countries and helping Saddam conquer the third.

The punchline is that the Palestinian Arabs are anti-American. Their colleagues in jihad attack the U.S.. The U.S. used to be a country that punished murderers and acted in strategic self-defense.

One must conclude that the Palestinian Arabs are among the most undeserving of people. Statehood would reward their 90 years of terrorism. It would punish their victims in Israel, of whom they have murdered thousands after and violating and rejecting peace agreements. It also would strengthen the forces of jihad against civilization.

If they were a separate nationality, they might be entitled to a separate state, but they are part of the Arab nationality. Nor do they have as good a claim to the area as the Jewish people do. The Palestine Mandate and associated WWI peace treaties make that clear. Bear in mind that they already were given 79% of Palestine, which is known as Jordan.

Sovereignty would not solve anything. How can it solve the problem, which is jihad, a drive to conquer the whole world and impose a version of Islam upon it? Worse, statehood would exacerbate existing problems. Sovereignty would confer the right to arm and to invite foreign armies inside, alongside Israel. Israeli retaliation against attacks emanating from the new state would be called an invasion, which the biased UN would condemn. Since the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) in both halves continues to preach and promote terrorism, the new Arab state would continue to permit terrorist attacks on Israel. The new state would disclaim responsibility, and get the UN to condemn retaliation.

If President Obama wants to encourage war, genocide, and strengthen the forces of jihad against the U.S., he is deploying our tax dollars and diplomacy the right way.


Suspect Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to all 10 counts in the attempted bombing of Times Square, New York. Unapologetic, he portrayed himself as a soldier of Islam fighting against those who kill Muslims. This portrayal depicted the current U.S. wars as wars on Muslims. He admitted being helped by the Taliban of Pakistan (Benjamin Weiser, NY Times, 6/22/10, A1).

He identifies himself as a "soldier of Islam." No patriotism. This indicates a problem in immigration, Americanization, and Pakistan.

Shahzad perceives the U.S. wars as being against Islam. The war in Iraq started with Saddam invading another country, trying to capture the world's main oil sources, committing genocide, developing weapons of mass-destruction, and violating Security Resolutions intended to restrict proliferation of nuclear weapons. That was not a war on Muslims but to defend ourselves, and in doing so, to protect some Muslims from others.

The war in Afghanistan was triggered by 9/11, though al-Qaida and allied jihadists had been attacking U.S. facilities for some time. Apparently the "soldier of Islam" does not recognize non-Muslim self-defense. Neither does he recognize that the jihad he fought for oppresses and attacks Muslims more than do non-Muslims. Saddam was wiping out the marsh Arabs in southern Iraq and the Muslim Kurds in northern Iraq. Muslims are bombing each other all over. Not that he seems to care.

The guilty plea spares us the great expense, risk, and distraction of a trial, especially expensive and risky in Manhattan.

The newspaper referred to Shahzad as a "suspect." When the suspect confesses, should it be


The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on aiding terrorist groups.

The issue was drawn narrowly. The justices were split. The Court as a whole recognized the infringement on freedom of speech, but felt that terrorism is an immediate threat to life warranting a crackdown on those who support terrorist organizations.

The support in this case was teaching terrorist groups how to reach their objectives by making peace.

The case and case law are complex. The ruling was not sweeping. The overall rule is that "material support" for a designated terrorist organization is prohibited. The principle is that helping the organization helps terrorism, even if the nature of that help is not itself facilitating a particular terrorist act.

On the other hand, each type of indirect help may have to be interpreted judicially to see whether it qualifies as assisting terrorism (Adam Liptak, NY Times, 6/22/10, A1).

International terrorists use both violence and diplomacy in an attempt to impose dictatorship. Helping them negotiate is helping their criminal goals and reinforcing their criminal means. By that standard, was the flotilla legal or illegal?

The purpose of the flotilla was to end the legal Israeli blockade, imposed to keep weapons from terrorists, by running the blockade and embarrassing Israel in the media. That makes the flotilla illegal.

People claimed that the purpose was humanitarian, to bring goods in. But the goods could have been sent in legally from Israel. The presence of goods on the ship was a cover for the real purpose.

The ship was used by Islamists to provoke a battle, which the media could be depended on to misinterpret against Israel. Israel could be depended on to get the truth out too slowly to affect the general mis-impression that most governments want disseminated. The Islamists aboard are terrorists. Their presence was illegal. Not fully proved but reasonably suspected on the basis of evidence is Turkish governmental collusion with the Islamists aboard. To be an accomplice of terrorism is illegal.


Two high-ranking Israeli officials contradicted or made difficulties for their own government. The Israeli Ambassador to Michael Oren referred to Jonathan Pollard, convicted of transferring U.S. secret documents about the Arabs to Israel, as having been in a rogue operation. He did say that, after 25 years in prison, Israel would welcome Pollard's release. That statement, however, implies, if you think about it, that Israel has not been trying to get Pollard released.

Years ago, the government of Israel recognized that Pollard was not in a rogue operation. Actually, the governments of Israel have not been trying to get Pollard released. They have behaved as if trying to keep him in prison, so he could not embarrass them over their complicity in his spying and in covering it up. He is discreet, but they are afraid. Nor have they much conscience over a fellow Jew and Israeli. (He has dual citizenship, and his information probably saved thousands of Israeli lives from Saddam.)

Pollard was given a disproportionate sentence, by means of breaking the plea bargain with him. He also was mistreated in prison as badly as anyone in Abu Graib.

Defense Secretary Barak reinforced U.S. complaints about the Jerusalem Mayor's plan to convert part of the Silwan neighborhood into an archeological park, legalize one Jewish and 66 illegal Arab buildings and demolish 22 other illegal Arab buildings. Barak said the plan lacks common sense and a sense of timing. The U.S. appears poised to raise an outcry over this exercise of Israeli sovereignty in its capital, and Barak's remarks would reinforce the outcry (Arutz-7, 6/22/10).

Both of those officials are leftists. Leftists undermine rival regimes of Israel. Barak is suspected of plotting with the White House to displace Netanyahu. Upon his return from a visit with Obama, he immediately called for expanding the ruling coalition, which would hem Netanyahu in between avowed leftists. Since the coalition is stable, the only reason for Barak's call is to change Israeli policy to one the Israeli Left and the State Dept. would prefer.

Barak, who is defense Minister, oddly has authority over building in Judea-Samaria. He abuses his authority to please his radical left supporters at the expense of others. He does not resolve disputes over the legality of Jews' houses, but has them torn down. Most Arabs' illegal houses he does not enforce demolition orders against.

Netanyahu would be wise to expel these officials from his government.


The U.S. State Dept. has issued travel advisories for Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem. It prohibits its employees, unless authorized for some mission, not to travel at night on highway 443, recently re-opened to Arab traffic, lest they be victimized by sporadic terrorist attacks. Also, in reaction to terrorist attacks, Israeli security forces may close off certain highways without notice.

Highway 443 is a major link between Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion Airport and Tel Aviv. Since the highway was reopened to Arabs, Arabs have thrown rocks at presumed Jews.

The same State Dept. prohibition applies to Judea-Samaria and to Jerusalem's Old City at night and between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Fridays, the peak of the Muslim Sabbath.

Israel's many goodwill gestures of removing roadblocks often have been followed

not by goodwill but by shootings. U.S. training of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) police to fight against terrorism has not eradicated terrorism. [Even if the police were deployed against terrorism, the P.A. indoctrinates its people in terrorism, providing a steady supply.]

Roadblocks and checkpoints were removed at the behest of the U.S., although it is not suggested that the subsequent shootings were done at the behest of the U.S.. [The U.S. was warned that shootings would follow, but did not care.] Earlier shootings were the reason for the roadblocks in the first place.

The State Dept. warning reads, in part, "U.S. citizens have been killed, seriously injured, or detained and deported as a result of encounters with IDF operations in Gaza and the West Bank." This implies that it is the result of IDF encounters with Americans (Arutz-7, 6/22/10).

The IDF does not attack Americans. But some of the people attacked by Arab terrorists are Americans. One time it must have been deliberate, when U.S. officials went in a clearly marked convoy in Gaza.

The specific daytime prohibition in the Old City must be because Muslims often tear out of their Friday holy services to become "holy terrors."


The sponsor of the Lebanese flotilla, Yasser Qashlak, a Palestinian Arab, spouts jihadist sentiment. One statement was, "Even if our leaders sign peace agreements, we will not respect them. Our children will return to Palestine."

He also said that the Israelis' homelands are in Europe, No wonder some people call this a confrontation flotilla! (IMRA, 6/22/10.)

No peace, just mass-expulsion. Actually, that is what the Arabs attempted more than once, before. The first big attempt resulted in an Arab flight. Apparently, the Lebanese flotilla sponsor wants to attempt mass-expulsion of the Jews, again.

Mr. Qashlak may not even know that half the Israeli families were refugees from Arab oppression and expulsion. The other half also originated in Judea and Israel.

He also may not know that three fourths of the Arab families in Israel and the Territories have no roots there before the mass-migration of modern Zionism. The rest were deposited either in the course of conquering the Christians and Jews or by transfer from the Caucasus part of the Turkish Empire.

If he knew Jewish history, he would know that Europe cannot digest Jews, although Jews are capable of assimilating where the country is tolerant. The question remains open whether Muslims are capable of assimilating where the country is tolerant, or will they try to take it over. Muslim leaders in Europe have made statements about taking over there and imposing radical Islam upon the native population.

A reader insists he is not anti-Jewish but suggests that the Arabs and Jews form a single country in Israel and the Territories. If his plan does not include the descendants of Arab refugees, it would bring into Israel extensive terrorism. If his plan does include the refugee descendants, they would take over Israel. Then that people imbued with the need for vengeance, would expel or murder all the Jews. Sounds more like the "final solution" than a real solution. And he calls Zionists Nazi-like?


Israeli Ambassador Oren more or less retracted his statement that Jonathan Pollard spied for a rogue Israeli operation.

PM Netanyahu stated outright that Pollard worked for the government of Israel.

When Netanyahu was seeking to get back into power, he said he would do what he could to get Pollard released. Since climbing back into power, he has refused to meet representatives of Pollard.

He has not asked the President of the U.S. to release Pollard. He was promised support from Members of Congress, if he did (IMRA, 6/22/10).

The U.S. breach of its plea bargain with Pollard, its keeping him some years in a mental ward, and naked on a cold stone floor, and in solitary confinement, and without medical treatment of certain illnesses that have been progressing, and his disproportionate sentence make him a political prisoner.

The customary sentence would have been fair enough. The way the U.S. treated this person who broke our laws but did not harm the U.S. and who was not charged with harming the U.S., is in itself unjust. For all the supposed clannishness of Jews, most American Jewish leaders fail to raise the issue in their meetings with the President. The head of the Zionist Organization of America once did so, and pointedly was not invited back.

There were rumors that Pollard had harmed the U.S., but those were smears. Other spies had actually assisted the North Vietnamese when at war with the U.S. and had assisted the Soviets to liquidate some of our agents.

The indignation with which Pollard was met was disproportionate, too. The U.S. regularly spies on Israel. Hypocrisy renders indignation hollow.


The government of Canada added its own sanctions on Iran. These deal with uranium and other matters.

Canada explains what sort of regime the sanctions were imposed upon and why. Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust, but propose one of their own, against Israel. They defrauded their country's election and murder "freedom-seeking Iranians just for aspiring to live in a free society." We must not just wait for the terrorist regime to gain nuclear weapons.

Canada urges the G8 and G20 summits it is hosting to work together with Canada on this (IMRA, 6/22/10).

The most effective sanctions would involve petro-fuel shipments and banking facilities. On those, China, among others, refuses to cooperate.

Wall St. Journal columnist Gerald F. Seib considers China's vote for Security Council sanctions and letting its currency float against the dollar as victories for Obama. But he noted that the float and sanctions are minor, and get China off the hook. Then it is not a victory but stalling until Iran gets nuclear weapons.


The Kurdish rebellion against Turkey both from Iran and within Turkey has ramped up, lately. The Kurds claim that Turkey broke its promises of reconciliation.

In any case, recently, 12 Turkish troops were killed at a border post and a barracks. Rumors flew, attributing the deaths to the U.S. withholding intelligence and to alleged Israeli assistance to the Kurds.

Both Turkey and the U.S. denied any withholding of intelligence (Mark Champion, Wall St. J., 6/22/10, A13).

How unfortunate to find Turkey prey to wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories regardless of facts and of probabilities. Neither the U.S. nor Israel wants to harm Turkish soldiers. The last thing either country would want is to take on a country as powerful as Turkey, for no benefit, and at the expense of any hope of restoring the alliance with Turkey. The U.S. already is over-committed and trying to slip out of commitments. Israel has enough enemies.

Other wild conspiracy theories about Israel come from my own readers. When I asserted that Israel does not attack Americans, one reader said it does, naming Rachel Corrie, the dual-citizen Turk on the flotilla, and "peaceful demonstrators" in Judea-Samaria. He calls someone who differs with him a liar.

To lie, one has to know one's point is mistaken. My articles have explained that Rachel Corrie was not attacked. She fell under a bulldozer whose driver could not see her attempt to prevent him from clearing an area terrorists fire from. The Turk, whose dual American citizenship was incidental to the situation was not attacked. My articles have cited extensive evidence that the Islamists planned to attack the Israeli commandos, and did. Other articles explained that the anti-security fence protesters become riotous and attack the troops with rocks. Some non-violence! The troops usually defend themselves with riot-control methods. Since that reader is diligent about examining my articles, he knows their content in this, and he hasn't produced evidence to the contrary. Then it isn't he who should call someone else a liar.


Iran indicated that it was sending more aid through the sea embargo of Gaza. It states that the pair of ships will not have a military escort.

Iran's Navy indicated that if its parliament passes a law require it to inspect the ships of countries that inspect Iranian ships, it is ready to do so (IMRA, 6/22/10).

No military escort, less chance of war. Now that Israel is letting through just about all civilian goods, there is no need for Iran to try to run the blockade. Its purpose is more obviously to try to get the blockade ended, so Iran, caught trying to smuggle war material in, could ship it in without its ship being confiscated by Israel. Iran is the country that claims its nuclear development is peaceful, too.

Turkey showed how to induce pressure to end the embargo — you tell people they will go to Paradise if they start a fight with Israeli boarders and get killed in the process. Then the world condemns not those who initiate the violence but those who quell it. That is the power of scapegoating.

Inspecting ships because its own ships are inspected sounds like the childish tit-for-tat done by diplomats, when one country expels those from another, and then the other country retaliates in kind but without cause.

Incidentally, during WWII, the two sides usually observed diplomatic immunity. At the outbreak of war, they let most diplomats return home, and interned the rest, but respected their persons. Post-Shah Iran did not respect diplomatic immunity, when it captured the U.S. embassy and held its personnel captive. Neither did Arafat, when he gave his PLO men an order to execute the U.S. ambassador and another U.S. diplomat, after capturing a U.S. embassy in Africa. Terrorists do not respect basic law of civilization.


Is Israel's easing of the blockade of Gaza a blunder? The easing was authorized to appease world public opinion. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) cites Donald Kagan's On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace as determining that in the past 3,000 years, appeasement has been tried often but never worked.

Appeasement certainly does not work for Israel. When Israel makes a concession, its opponents claim a victory and call that concession a first step, demand more concessions, and offer nothing of their own. Thus the increase in goods for Gaza is called a victory and used as precedent for demanding more of Israel. The concession is like a reward for the flotilla.

Some parties, such as Tony Blair, complained that Israel's attempt at goodwill wasn't enough. Exchanging concessions for complaints is a poor way to relieve pressure.

By weakening the embargo, as the world wants, Israel strengthens the Hamas regime and takes a greater risk that more material will be diverted from Gaza civilians to Hamas. Hamas stands for dispossession and genocide (6/22/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member).

Incidentally, a reader denied my contention that Pollard did not spy against the U.S.. I contend a difference between spying on and spying against. Soviets spied against the U.S., because the information they gathered was used against the U.S.. Pollard spied on the U.S., because the documents he copied involved Arab military movements are were used for Israeli security and not against the U.S..

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 Reifenberg, Fred, June 22, 2010.

This was written by Shelby Steele and in appeared yesterday in the Wall Street Journal as an Opinion piece. Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. It's nothing more than history repeating. We don't learn, because life doesn't work like that We're all programmed like SHEOPLE.


One of the world's oldest stories is playing out before our eyes: The Jews are being scapegoated again.

The most interesting voice in all the fallout surrounding the Gaza flotilla incident is that sanctimonious and meddling voice known as "world opinion." At every turn "world opinion," like a school marm, takes offense and condemns Israel for yet another infraction of the world's moral sensibility. And this voice has achieved an international political legitimacy so that even the silliest condemnation of Israel is an opportunity for self-congratulation.

Rock bands now find moral imprimatur in canceling their summer tour stops in Israel (Elvis Costello, the Pixies, the Gorillaz, the Klaxons). A demonstrator at an anti-Israel rally in New York carries a sign depicting the skull and crossbones drawn over the word "Israel." White House correspondent Helen Thomas, in one of the ugliest incarnations of this voice, calls on Jews to move back to Poland. And of course the United Nations and other international organizations smugly pass one condemnatory resolution after another against Israel while the Obama administration either joins in or demurs with a wink.

Bret Stephens discusses Iran's nuclear program and ambitions. Also, James Freeman talks about the financial reform's effects on small businesses and small banks.

This is something new in the world, this almost complete segregation of Israel in the community of nations. And if Helen Thomas's remarks were pathetic and ugly, didn't they also point to the end game of this isolation effort: the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation? There is a chilling familiarity in all this. One of the world's oldest stories is playing out before our eyes: The Jews are being scapegoated again.

"World opinion" labors mightily to make Israel look like South Africa looked in its apartheid era — a nation beyond the moral pale. And it projects onto Israel the same sin that made apartheid South Africa so untouchable: white supremacy. Somehow "world opinion" has moved away from the old 20th century view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a complicated territorial dispute between two long-suffering peoples. Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the "occupation" of a beleaguered Third World people.

Israel announces it's partially lifting its land blockade of Gaza. The move follows international criticism of the Jewish state after last month's deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship bound for Palestinian territory. Video courtesy of Reuters.

This is now — figuratively in some quarters and literally in others — the moral template through which Israel is seen. It doesn't matter that much of the world may actually know better. This template has become propriety itself, a form of good manners, a political correctness. Thus it is good manners to be outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza, and it is bad manners to be outraged at Hamas's recent attack on a school because it educated girls, or at the thousands of rockets Hamas has fired into Israeli towns — or even at the fact that Hamas is armed and funded by Iran. The world wants independent investigations of Israel, not of Hamas.

One reason for this is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past — racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on.

When the Israeli commandos boarded that last boat in the flotilla and, after being attacked with metal rods, killed nine of their attackers, they were acting in a world without the moral authority to give them the benefit of the doubt. By appearances they were shock troopers from a largely white First World nation willing to slaughter even "peace activists" in order to enforce a blockade against the impoverished brown people of Gaza. Thus the irony: In the eyes of a morally compromised Western world, the Israelis looked like the Gestapo.

This, of course, is not the reality of modern Israel. Israel does not seek to oppress or occupy — and certainly not to annihilate — the Palestinians in the pursuit of some atavistic Jewish supremacy. But the merest echo of the shameful Western past is enough to chill support for Israel in the West.

The West also lacks the self-assurance to see the Palestinians accurately. Here again it is safer in the white West to see the Palestinians as they advertise themselves — as an "occupied" people denied sovereignty and simple human dignity by a white Western colonizer. The West is simply too vulnerable to the racist stigma to object to this "neo-colonial" characterization.

Our problem in the West is understandable. We don't want to lose more moral authority than we already have. So we choose not to see certain things that are right in front of us. For example, we ignore that the Palestinians — and for that matter much of the Middle East — are driven to militancy and war not by legitimate complaints against Israel or the West but by an internalized sense of inferiority. If the Palestinians got everything they want — a sovereign nation and even, let's say, a nuclear weapon — they would wake the next morning still hounded by a sense of inferiority. For better or for worse, modernity is now the measure of man.

And the quickest cover for inferiority is hatred. The problem is not me; it is them. And in my victimization I enjoy a moral and human grandiosity — no matter how smart and modern my enemy is, I have the innocence that defines victims. I may be poor but my hands are clean. Even my backwardness and poverty only reflect a moral superiority, while my enemy's wealth proves his inhumanity.

In other words, my hatred is my self-esteem. This must have much to do with why Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's famous Camp David offer of 2000 in which Israel offered more than 90% of what the Palestinians had demanded. To have accepted that offer would have been to forgo hatred as consolation and meaning. Thus it would have plunged the Palestinians — and by implication the broader Muslim world — into a confrontation with their inferiority relative to modernity. Arafat knew that without the Jews to hate an all-defining cohesion would leave the Muslim world. So he said no to peace.

And this recalcitrance in the Muslim world, this attraction to the consolations of hatred, is one of the world's great problems today — whether in the suburbs of Paris and London, or in Kabul and Karachi, or in Queens, N.Y., and Gaza. The fervor for hatred as deliverance may not define the Muslim world, but it has become a drug that consoles elements of that world in the larger competition with the West. This is the problem we in the West have no easy solution to, and we scapegoat Israel — admonish it to behave better — so as not to feel helpless. We see our own vulnerability there.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, June 22, 2010.

This is called "Congressional Report: U.S. tax money funding Taliban in Afghanistan." It was written by Nancy A. Youssef.

"Sobering and shocking", investigation, released Monday, subject of subcommittee hearing today

Private security contractors protecting the convoys that supply U.S. military bases in Afghanistan are paying millions of dollars a week in "passage bribes" to the Taliban and other insurgent groups to travel along Afghan roads, a congressional investigation released Monday has found.

The payments, which are reimbursed by the U.S. government, help fund the very enemy the U.S. is attempting to defeat and renew questions about the U.S. dependence on private contractors, who outnumber American troops in Afghanistan, 130,000 to 93,000.

The report's author called the findings of the six-month investigation "sobering and shocking."

"This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials, and perhaps others," wrote Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., the chairman of the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. "Not only does the system run afoul of the (Defense) Department's own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in Afghanistan."

Concerns over whether U.S. contracting is fueling Afghanistan's rampant corruption have existed for years, but only earlier this month did Michele Flournoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, and Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. Central Command, establish a task force in Afghanistan to investigate the effects.

Maj. John Redfield, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Afghanistan, said, "We take these accusations seriously."

The subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing into its investigation Tuesday.

Nearly every company listed in the report is associated with senior Afghan officials, including President Hamid Karzai, the minister of defense, a provincial governor and a senior Afghan army official.

One of those companies, Host Nation Trucking, transports about 70 percent of all goods to U.S. troops stationed at 200 bases and combat outposts throughout Afghanistan, running 6,000 to 8,000 delivery missions a month. The $2.16 billion contract called on HNT truckers to provide their own security, but didn't call for any oversight into how HNT and other companies did that.

The investigation found that HNT has contracted with seven other companies to carry the cargo, but only one of those actually owns trucks. The others hire local Afghans, whose trucks sometimes bear the U.S. flag.

The truckers pay as much as $1,500 a truck to "nearly every Afghan governor, police chief and local military unit whose territory the company passed," en route to a U.S. base, according to the 79-page report.

The report interviewed a major who sat in on a May 2009 meeting between the military and an HNT contractor about goods transported in Paktika province. The contractor complained that he was paying $150,000 a month to get supplies to Forward Operating Base Sharana.

Tierney said he was unable to determine how much was spent on such payments, but he said it could reach millions a week.

The report alleges that neither the contactors nor the military know specifically how the trucks arrive safely at bases when many of the country's roads are regular targets of Taliban attacks.

The report quoted e-mails, PowerPoint presentations and meeting notes of HNT officials alerting local military commanders to the problem but the report found the military did little in response.

"The Department of Defense has been largely blind to potential strategic consequences of its supply chain contingency contracting. U.S. military logisticians have little visibility into what happens to their trucks on the road and virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided," the report found.

(Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this article.)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, June 22, 2010.

Dear Fellow Jews:

We cannot let a yeshiva/shul in Israel be destroyed.

Allow me to explain.

By Rabbi Pesach Lerner,
Executive Vice President,
National Council of Young Israel,

The following article appeared on Arutz Sheva news on Sunday, May 9, 2010:


The IDF's Civilian Administration issued a demolition order Sunday against the spacious building that houses Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva at Yitzhar, in Samaria.

Local residents believe that authorities are purposely punishing the yeshiva because of a confrontation with the IDF that took place on Independence Day, and also because security forces hold the yeshiva's students responsible for various attacks against Arabs in recent months and years, including the burning of a carpet in a mosque at the nearby village of Yassuf.

"It turns out that the authorities are making special efforts to hurt the yeshiva in an unfair and vindictive way," a yeshiva spokesman said Sunday. "It should be noted that the building is an ornate permanent structure, with an area of 1,300 square meters, which was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the various authorities to serve as an educational institution."

The destruction order, the residents said, cited an 11 year old work-stoppage order — one that they had never heard of until now. The building took years to build and cost over $1 million.

Dear friends, the yeshiva administration, the regional councils, etc., are all challenging this destructive order. Individuals within the government are asking questions, but we have a responsibility to do all that we can to ensure that this order gets overturned. We must publicly urge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to forcefully and publically rescind this order. We cannot sit back and allow a yeshiva, a beautiful center of Torah and Tefillah, to be destroyed.

Each of us must send daily emails, send daily faxes, and make daily phone calls to the Prime Minister of Israel protesting this inconceivable action. People need to send letters to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC and to the Israeli Consulate in New York.

We must demand that our community organizations, our rabbis, our entire community, speak out. We cannot allow this Chilul Hashem, this desecration of G-d's name, to take place. Please send an email, send a fax, and make a call, now. Tell the Prime Minister to protect the yeshiva building in Yitzhar and prevent it from being destroyed.

Contact Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu at:


011-972-2-670-5532 (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary of the Israel government)



Fax (send to all three numbers) —

011-972-2-563-2580 (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary of the Israel government)



Email (send to all three email addresses) —

memshala@pmo.gov.il (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary of the Israel government)


pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)

For the contact information of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC or the consulate office nearest to you, please click here.

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. Helen Freedman is Executive Director.

To Go To Top

Posted by Alyse Lichtenfeld, June 22, 2010.

It was way back in January when my parents asked if I would be interested in extending my eighth-grade Schechter Israel trip for an extra week, the additional time to include several days in Chevron volunteering at the preschool gan. Of course they knew I would say yes — I had helped out

I realized that this wasn't like a Sunday barbeque on my grandparents' condominium balcony in Highland Park.

at the gan last year while my parents toured Chevron for a day. But this time I wouldn't be returning to our hotel in Jerusalem. This time I would be staying alone in Chevron.

As the rest of the Schechter class prepared for a Sunday morning departure to the airport, my friend, Sarah, a new Olah from Chicago, met me at the Lev Yerushalayim Hotel. I said goodbye to my eighth-grade classmates and Sarah and I proceeded to the central bus station where we boarded the bus to Chevron. It took about an hour until the bus crossed from Kiryat Arba into the Jewish section of Chevron. Sarah had never been to Chevron before so my dad provided me with the instructions. I was to get off at the stop by the Maarat HaMachpela, walk into the Gutnick Center snack shop and call the preschool director to take me to the gan. Naturally, I didn't follow Dad's instructions and instead, got off at Beit Hadassah, confident that I would recall the way to the gan by memory after last year's visit. I could only imagine what my parents were thinking when I woke them up at 2 a.m. Chicago time and told them that Sarah and I were lost.

After a few minutes of phone time, I tried to re-collect my bearings. I looked ahead into what seemed like an Arab neighborhood and then quickly decided to head back toward the bus stop. All the time, I kept peering toward the dusty side streets until I finally got to the point where the surroundings appeared familiar. That's when I worked up the courage to ask the first person I saw, "Eich magi'im l'gan yeladim?" I must have understood his response because a couple of minutes later, Sarah and I heard the shouts of young children. I hustled to the next corner and there was thegan.

Chevron security director Yoni Bleichard met me downstairs and took my luggage to his office where he e-mailed my parents to let them know I had arrived. He brought me to the gan and I immediately began working with the preschool kids, reading stories, making Shavuot decorations, serving lunch and constantly improving my Hebrew. The children are so cute and friendly. The girls, especially, liked to play with my hair and would constantly surround me and pose for pictures. It was just the way I remembered it from last year. I handed out thirty packages of stickers which I had brought from Chicago. It felt good to bring gifts from the U.S. After school, Rebbetzin Batsheva Cohen from Chabad brought me to her house. She told me to take the baby stroller along with her four-year-old son and his two friends and walk to the Beit Hadassah to pick up the Cohen's baby. We passed many Chevron residents along the streets, both Jewish and Arab, but I was already becoming comfortable traveling alone and remembered the way around without a problem. I returned to the rebbetzin's house with baby Menucha Rachel and then helped prepare dinner.

After we finished eating, the Cohens showed me the apartment where I would be staying. My dad had told me that I would living at the bnei sherut girls' dormitory with Israeli girls who were doing volunteer service in Chevron. But it turned out that there were no other girls there that week and I had the entire apartment to myself. I admit to being a little scared at first, but the building was located right next to the Cohens and the gan. Still, I could tell my parents were shocked when I called them at 4 p.m. Chicago time to tell them I was alone for the night.

The next morning, I arrived at the gan at 8:30. I saw some of the kids in the five and six-yearold class who remembered me from last year. But my favorite age is the three and four-year-old group and I was glad to have this assignment. The girls are so cute and friendly. The boys, of course, are completely wild, fighting with each other and pretending they're in the army, but that's the reality of life in Chevron which is surrounded by IDF soldiers ensuring that the Jewish community is safe.

After the gan closed for the day, I rode in the preschool van and went to Yoni's house. Yoni and Rabbi Hochbaum were actually at my house in Highland Park last year and Yoni had told me that he had a daughter who was my age. Yoni's daughter showed me around for a while and we made Shavuot treats for the soldiers stationed in Chevron. Every week, the community honors the soldiers with treats and pizza. I've seen ladies handing out tiny Tehillim books to the soldiers on my other visits. It's obvious that the Chevron residents support and appreciate all of the soldiers.

After leaving the Bleichards, I returned to the Cohen's house where I spent the next few hours on their rooftop patio cooking eggplants for dinner. As I prepared the food, I could hear Arab prayer calls bellowing loudly in the background. It made me realize that this wasn't like a Sunday barbeque on my grandparents' condominium balcony in Highland Park.

After dinner, I returned to my apartment and just relaxed on the bed as I listened to music and scanned for radio stations on my I-pod. I made sure to call my parents and let them know how the day went before finally falling asleep at midnight.

The next morning was Erev Shavuot. The gan was closed so Rebbetzin Cohen had me take her children to the Avraham Avinu playground. I began thinking to myself and felt proud and responsible, knowing that for the past few days the Cohens had entrusted their young children with me, an eight-grader, whom they had never before met. It's such a different feeling being 5000 miles away from the overprotective atmosphere of the Chicago suburbs. As I watched the Chevron children playing and running through the streets and courtyards, I saw some of the boys and girls displaying the stickers that I handed out on Sunday. The kids were so cute and vivacious!

After bringing back the Cohen's children, I got cleaned up and got ready to leave. There were just four days left in my one-week extension and I still had friends and family to visit in other cities. I put my stuff in Rebbetzin Cohen's car and she drove me through Chevron's winding streets to the Gutnick Center. Peering out of the window, I couldn't believe that I had found the way to the gan on my own last Sunday. I know classmates who aren't even allowed to cross busy streets near their homes. But in Israel, kids seem to grow up faster. It's something I've noticed on all my previous trips.

We arrived at the Gutnick Center and waited for my family friend, Yahel, to drive me to Kibbutz Erez near Sderot for Shavuot. As we stood near the tree-lined grounds by the gift shop, I could see the Maarat HaMachpela just a few hundred feet in the background. I looked toward the old stone steps next to the ancient building. On our first visit to Chevron, my dad explained that those were the seven steps, beyond which Jews were never allowed to pray. Yet, I had been fortunate enough to have entered the Maarat HaMachpela two different times. I've even met a man that actually went into the cave in 1967.

As Yahel's blue car pulled up, I thought about how Avraham purchased the caves and the very field upon which I was standing. I know that is why Jews still live here. I was glad that my parents, the Chevron community and the people from the Chevron Fund helped arrange my stay and I'm looking forward to my next visit to Israel and another chance to come to Chevron and work in the preschool gan.

You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 21, 2010.

For supporters of Israel, it was exceedingly difficult to read the news that the Israeli government has reversed itself with regard to restrictions on items going through land crossings into Gaza. Now all civilian goods will be permitted through, with only weapons and "war supporting materiel" being blocked. Being cute, one government representative announced, "Yes to coriander, no to Kassams."

This decision was made by the Septet, or (inner) Security Cabinet.

The most difficult part of the announcement concerned the fact that it was made with the cooperation of Tony Blair, envoy to the Middle East for the Quartet. Blair, it was said, vetted the announcement. As if we have surrendered our sovereignty (have we?) and require the approval of the Quartet for what we do.


Before we come to that conclusion, I'd like to take a closer look. The situation is extremely tense and complex:

The original restrictions on what went into Gaza had a dual purpose. One, most definitely, was keeping weapons and materiel that could be used in making weapons and bunkers for weapons (fertilizer, concrete, etc.) out of the hands of Hamas.

The other, however, was to weaken Hamas, which is an illegitimate terrorist entity at our border, by restricting certain items. Thus, in the main, what went through the crossings were basic goods that filled humanitarian needs: medicines, basic foods, fuels, etc. Sufficient quantities of these items went in so there truly was not the humanitarian crisis we have been charged with creating. All in all, close to a ton of goods per person was permitted into Gaza between the end of Cast Lead, our military operation in late 2008 and early 2009, and recent weeks.

Other specialty items went in as well. I've written about this over time: Glass to repair windows before winter, salt for operating water purifiers, large numbers of cattle to be slaughtered prior to a holiday, etc.

But luxury items, such as gourmet foods or high-end furniture — which would serve primarily the Hamas people who had generous funds at their disposal — and certain commercial items — which would increase the money those same Hamas people had — were not permitted in. It is not true that no commercial items went in. Certain basic items for those in need went in via humanitarian, or NGO, groups. World Food Bank, UN, etc. But the PA (yes, you read this correctly) also coordinated the needs of commercial vendors, supplying lists of what they required to supply the market.

Now all commercial and luxury items will be let in, with the noted weapons-related exceptions.


What this means is that the Security Cabinet has given up on trying to weaken Hamas via this method. There is no question but that this action will strengthen Hamas — both in terms of goods and financial gain, and in prestige because this will be touted as a moral victory over Israel.

The charge is going to be made, I have no doubt, that if we could do this now we could have done this all along and that we were hurting the people of Gaza unnecessarily or arbitrarily. I hope that what I've written here makes it clear that this is not the case. We had very specific goals in mind with regard to weakening Hamas, and those were legitimate goals.

What has happened is that the goals, or the strategy, has shifted.


The question, then, is why the shift. It is related directly and most obviously to the entire flotilla situation — a situation that is hardly resolved.

Since the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, we have maintained a sea blockade of Gaza. This is legal according to international law, and a legitimate way to defend ourselves. We are at war with Hamas, which fires missiles and rockets at our civilian population. A key way to bring in those missiles and rockets would be via the Mediterranean.

Anyone who doubts that this is a viable means of bringing in weapons, along with and actually more effective than the use of tunnels between Gaza and the Sinai, need only recall the Karine-A weapons ship the IDF captured in 2002. That ship was carrying weapons for the PA, which then controlled Gaza. But consider what it was carrying: $100 million in arms, including rockets, missiles, anti-tank mines, 700,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, etc.

We have no intention of allowing a Karine-A type vessel to successfully make it to the shores of Gaza. In fact, neither do we intend to allow smaller quantities of weaponry (more sophisticated than what was available in 2002) to be smuggled in the holds of ships that reach Gaza.

Actually, I suspect that it is necessary to stop ships bound for Gaza while out in international waters (it's legal). For we have the lessons of the Karine-A: Its weaponry was packed in waterproof containers, so that the military equipment could be thrown overboard and then picked up, piecemeal, by small fishing vessels.


For all the recent ballyhoo about bringing humanitarian aid, the purpose of the flotilla was clearly to break the Israeli siege of Gaza. Were that to happen, the Israeli population would be at greater risk, because it is certain that weapons would then be brought to the coastline.

Those attempting to aid Hamas played it smart however, charging that insufficient quantities of humanitarian aid were permitted by Israel via land crossings, so that it was necessary to bring additional aid via sea. (The Turkish ship, the Mamara, if you remember, carried humanitarian supplies — but supplies that were essentially worthless, such as expired medications.)

These charges muddied the waters (forgive the pun) and made Israel's task more difficult. There was a greater cry against Israel's action because of some suspicion — on the part of those who weren't simply blatantly anti-Israel and rejoicing at the opportunity to lambaste us — that maybe there really was a need to bring in additional humanitarian supplies and Israel was being intransigent.


What the Security Cabinet has done, with its decision, is to make the issues more clearly black and white. If everything except weaponry and military materiel can go into Gaza via land, without limit, there can no longer be a claim that the ships are needed to bring in humanitarian aid. Those on the ships are unmasked in their intentions.

In making this decision, then the Security Cabinet is giving the absolute security need to maintain the sea blockade priority over the desire to weaken Hamas in terms of commerce and access to goods.

Consider now what Blair has said:

"Let me state right at the outset that Israel has the complete right to protect its security and to keep arms out of Gaza."

This is a gambit, a gamble, but the hope, the expectation, is that we will now find more support for our sea blockade within the international community.

So, is this decision a surrender of sovereignty on the part of Israel, or a clever way to shift strategy and turn the tables on those supporting Hamas?


What is certain is that we are going to need whatever support we can garner in the days and weeks ahead with regard to our right to stop ships from reaching Gaza's coast.

The government of Lebanon has given the go-ahead for a ship to sail from Tripoli, stop in Cyprus, and then head for Gaza. The "activists" on board this ship are all female — the group's leader called this a "new secret weapon," because Israel won't fire on women. The French-registered ship is called the Julia, but this particular voyage is dubbed the Mariam. It is going to Cyprus first in an effort to circumvent violation of SC Resolution 1701, which calls for a cessation of hostilities between Lebanon and Israel. (This does mean they are anticipating hostilities, does it not?)

The organizer of this venture is Yasser Kashlak, a Syrian of Palestinian origin who heads the Free Palestine Movement. A movement to "free Palestine" is not exactly about humanitarian aid to Gaza; it is suspected that there is a connection between this group and Hezbollah. The ship is said to be carrying humanitarian aid, but it's not clear what rationale will be presented for its mission in light of Israel's new policy.

Following this, we may still have to deal with ships from Iran and perhaps elsewhere.


The other day I shared a short video of Congressman Mike Pence asking the president, "Whose side are you on?" Now I ask the same of UNRWA, but my question is purely rhetorical.

Christopher Gunness, UNRWA spokesman, has told Reuters that, "We need to have the blockade fully lifted."

UNRWA's concern is that the rebuilding of Gaza, following Cast Lead, is difficult because of Israel's restrictions on building materials. Rest assured, Gunness is not concerned that sending in unmonitored quantities of metal, concrete, etc. might lead to materials falling into the hands of Hamas, which would use it in manufacturing weapons, launching pads, underground bunkers and the like.

He registered no satisfaction about the fact that Israel has said that there are plans to meet with international agencies in the next few days to discuss advancing such projects as the construction of schools and hospitals. The fact remains that there has to be careful monitoring of what goes in and how materials will be used. And so, Gunness grouses that, "The Israeli strategy is to make the international community talk about a bag of cement here, a project there. We need full unfettered access through all the crossings."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 21, 2010.


Hamas is balking at the unity document drafted by Egypt. Egypt refuses to change the draft document. A provision in it authorizes Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces to control the whole area and to recognize no other forces. Hamas does not want to give up its militia (IMRA, 6/19/10).

Without its militia, Hamas could not easily take over the P.A.. Neither could it defend itself from P.A. persecution.


Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt declared Hizbullah's militia vital to defending Lebanon's natural resources. He also called for civil rights for the descendants of Palestinian refugees (IMRA, 6/19/10).

Mr. Jumblatt formerly was allied to the independence movement. At that time, President Bush encouraged it to overthrow the Syrian overlords. Bush encouraged democracy elsewhere, notably helping to free Ukraine form dictatorship.

Apparently, then Bush was beaten down by liberals, who were the party of "no," rejecting his proposed economic reforms and nominations. He also was disappointed with the slow progress of the wars and Israel's unwillingness to send in sufficient forces in its war with Hizbullah to crush Hizbullah. He ended his activist phase and let Secretary of State Rice pursue an anti-Israel policy of opposing all its measures of defense against Arab terrorists.

Hizbullah faced down the other militias. It dominates Lebanon. Syrian influence is being restored. Jumblatt sees that the democratic revolutionaries cannot protect his people. He therefore accommodates Hizbullah, for immediate survival. He now is everybody's friend but Israel's.

Except for Syria, which used to suck the wealth out of the Lebanese economy, there are no foreign threats to Lebanon's natural resources. Even if there were, there is no reason for one religious faction to have the armed forces needed to defend the country. The Lebanese Army would be the proper repository for such forces.


Photographers documented the voyage visually and by notes. This evidence testifies to the IHH leader meeting with the several dozen activists before the commandos arrived, and instructing them to throw the Israelis into the sea. This was attempted, though one fell onto a lower deck when thrown.

The audience shouted Islamic war chants. They were prepared not to surrender and to be martyrs. I saw that, with the translation, on this video: (IMRA, 6/20/10).

If the world were fair, it would acknowledge that this was an Islamist set-up and war voyage.


In other news, Israel indicated it plans to ban only materiel of war from Gaza.

The U.S. reacted by praising Israel but asking for more. Germany asked for a total end of the embargo. Both Palestinian Arab factions denounced the Israel relaxation of the embargo as not complete (IMRA, 6/20/10).

What does one make of these differing reactions? The Obama administration, with poor re-election prospects, realizes it went too far against Israel. It has returned to the former State Dept. model of babying Israel along to excessive concessions that threaten its national security, rather than demand so much at once as to be recognized for the pro-Arab appeasement and anti-Zionism it is.

The German reaction shows that each step of appeasement is just the start for demands for another step. Therefore, Israel gets no relief from criticism. It would be wiser not to take first steps. Instead it should inure itself to criticism, but learn to explain its own case.

The Arab reaction shows that no Israeli good will gesture receives reciprocity, is appreciated or gets by without criticism. The Arabs are in a war to the death. Therefore, Israel should do nothing to strengthen them or weaken itself.

A broader perspective appears in today's Wall St. Journal. Shelly Steele of the Hoover Institution explains the problem as: (1) The West crippling itself with feelings of guilt now over past exploitation of foreign areas; and (2) The world making Israel a scapegoat. "World opinion" is the new club with which to beat Israel. Perhaps Arafat rejected Israeli withdrawal from almost all of Judea-Samaria and Gaza, because without having Israel to hate, the Arabs would lose their unity (6/21/10, A23).

Western guilt is peculiar, because it overlooks the great values of Western civilization and its bringing foreign people out of poverty. It also overlooks the imperialist tendencies of some Third World movements, such as jihad.


The head of the Lebanese Phalange, a Christian faction, Amin Gemayal, interprets the comment of the head of the Lebanese Druze as implementing a set of conditions. Druze leader Jumblatt had voiced approval of Hizbullah retaining it militia (IMRA, 6/20/10).

Mr. Gemayal must be referring to the aftermath of the clash between Hizbullah and other militias. The Lebanese Army did not oppose Hizbullah. Hizbullah easily won. Jumblatt had to plead for mercy. Mercy probably was granted on condition of support for an independent Hizbullah militia.

The Security Council banned independent militias. Apparently, Security Council resolutions are meant only for Israel to obey. The Arabs do not.


Clinton and the Arabs (AP/Abdeljali Jounhar)

Saudi Arabia is evaluating its rehabilitation program for al-Qaida and other terrorists. About 300 terrorists have taken the course. Some 120 were sent from Guantanamo. Of them, 25 are known to have resumed terrorism. Some were killed or recaptured.

The Saudis say that the rate of recidivism of those from Guantanamo is more than double for the rest. Why? They suggest it is the harsh treatment at Guantanamo (IMRA, 6/20/10).

Perhaps. But one should take into account that many had been released from Guantanamo earlier, leaving the more hardened desperadoes to be released to Saudi Arabia more recently. What would one expect?


The government of Israel has issued a demolition order against Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva (and synagogue) in Yitzhar, Samaria. The government bases its authority for doing so on an 11-year old order for work stoppage over a violation of some regulation, that the people involved today were not aware of.

"...the building is an ornate permanent structure, with an area of 1,300 square meters, which was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the various authorities to serve as an educational institution." It took years and $1 million to build, with the help of many student volunteers. Before laying out their funds, the two primary donors had checked with the government, which assured them of its authorization to build.

The government installed the infrastructure and authorized the mortgage. Indeed, many governmental agencies participated in the process of getting a finished building. How, then, can it be called illegal, now?

The Yeshiva originally was in Joseph's Tomb in Schechm (the original Nablus). However, the IDF abandoned protection of Joseph's Tomb, and the Arabs destroyed it.

In Israel and in Judaism, destroying a synagogue is a serious matter, a desecration. If Israel allows it now, what can Israel say to foreign countries that do likewise?

Residents of the area suspect the government's motives. There was a confrontation with the government at the yeshiva on Independence Day. Security officials suspect that students committed several acts of arson against Arabs, including a mosque. Government lawyers must have searched through old records to find a pretext for punishing the yeshiva.

But the residents suggest not punishing the yeshiva for individuals' crimes (Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Executive V.P., National Council of Young Israel, from Jewish community of Hebron, 6/20/10).

Vandalizing mosques is a serous crime. Hateful graffiti hurts feelings and arouses vengeance. Whoever did it should be punished. But the government does not know who did it or it would prosecute. Then why is it punishing anyway?

The government is vindictive, or has a vendetta, against religious and nationalist Jews who maintain the Zionist movement. Not content with withdrawing from Gaza, which let terrorists turn Gaza into a terrorist base for attacking Israel, the leftwingers, particularly Defense Min. Barak, are harassing the Jews of Judea-Samaria.

Meanwhile, PM Netanyahu has given orders not to demolish illegal Arab buildings. We have the spectacle of a Jewish state asserting itself to be a government of law, while it discriminates in favor of Arab enemies and against Jewish patriots.

An anti-Zionist reader claims that Zionism is not part of Judaism. Tell that to Moses. Moses was the first Zionist leader. He was a prophet recognized not only by Judaism but also by Christianity and Islam. Over the centuries, rabbis led followers out of exile and into the homeland. Modern Zionism was initiated largely by secularist idealist Jews, who came in peace.


About 500 protesters against the Gaza blockade arrived at the port of Oakland, California, on Sunday, to block an Israeli ship. Later they announced proudly that they were the first to block an Israeli ship from an American port.

The only problem with their statement is that the Israeli ship was late. The protesters had blocked a Chinese ship. The longshoremen did not cross their picket line, not wanting to get into fistfights they anticipate by such a challenge to the peace loving idealists.

Asked about the mistake, the Israeli Consul remarked that the protesters just want to make a certain impression, facts, to them, are secondary.

Indeed, they demonstrated an incorrect knowledge of what happened to the flotilla. They compared the enforcement of a legal blockade [in which Israel lets the goods through after inspecting them] with piracy, which is robbery. They attributed the deaths of some passengers to "murder" by the IDF.

Actually, Israel warned the ships of the legitimate Israeli blockade. Israel troops rappelled onto ships armed only with paintball guns and pistols. They immediately were mobbed by Islamists wielding iron clubs, knives, and, soon, captured pistols. Some troops were taken prisoner. However, "the Israelis were able to regroup, defend themselves, ward off the terrorist activists, tend to their wounded, and gain control of the boat that had been set on a near act-of-war course."

Most of those killed belonged to Turkish Islamist organizations. Some were known to have wished for death as "martyrs" (Arutz-7, 6/21/10).

What misguided people came to Oakland! Israel imposed a partial blockade primarily because Hamas tries to import weapons for active warfare and of a terrorist nature in preference to peaceful negotiation.


Efrat, where a building was frozen (AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

Efrat is a Jewish town in Judea, founded by Zionist idealists who believe in coexistence with Arabs. Efrat still gets along well with its Arab neighbors. Within municipal borders are agricultural tracts farmed by Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Arabs. There also is a joint Arab-Jewish clothing store. Efrat and its Arab neighbors help each other with medical equipment. Difficulties arise from the language barrier.

To overcome the language barrier, Ariel strengthened its Arab language curriculum. Israel requires Arabic as a second language [for non-Arab], but results are unsatisfactory. Ariel wants proficiency in Arabic for its 3,000 students.

The town sought teachers from the P.A.. Nearby Arabs favor the plan, but are afraid to participate in the teeth of a P.A. boycott of Israeli territorial goods (Arutz-7, 6/21/10).

Left alone, the two peoples might harmonize. Unlike claims by an anti-Zionist commenter, Zionism and Israelis are not exclusivist and not "racist." The same cannot be said for the P.A., which seeks exclusive control over the whole country and on the basis of racist notions of Jewish evil and inferiority and Muslim Arab supremacism, doctrines found throughout the Mideast. Helping the Arabs fosters racism.

Israelis comprise all sorts of races, religions, and nationalities. The country holds more than a million non-Jews, including Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, and non-Arab Christians. Israel has given sanctuary to Vietnamese boat people, Africans, and homosexuals fleeing for their lives from the P.A.. Among the Jews, about half are directly from the Mideast or are blacks from Ethiopia, brown-skinned people from India, and converts from a South American tribe.

The reader, however, emphasizes the color of the more established Ashkenazi Israelis. He condemns them as white supremacists. But he is the one who emphasizes color as if a code for sin. Who then is the racist?

As for the P.A., it imposes capital punishment for selling land to Jews. If the reader really were interested in tolerance and coexistence, he would switch sides. But like the Oakland protestors, he is interested in making a negative impression of Israel, facts being inconsequential to him.


Smarting under U.S. sanctions that nevertheless he says will not stop him, President Ahmadinejad of Iran said he intends to liberate the U.S. from its "undemocratic and bullying government."

Enlightening us on the make-up of Israel, Ahmadinejad also said, "the West" had "gathered the filthiest and greatest of criminals, who only appear to be human from all corners of the earth... so that they would occupy the lands of Palestine." (Arutz-7, 6/21/10).

Here is an opportunity for people who purport to object to racism to condemn Ahmadinejad for it. If they read this and do not condemn him, then they demonstrate my deduction that the cry of "racism" is a demagogic club for cowing opposition, not a sincere disgust.

Where did the people of Palestine come from? The West did not gather up Jews, and soon after authorizing the Mandate, block Jews' entry. The Soviet Union started out blocking masses of Zionists trained in agriculture.

Under the Eastern Roman Empire, at the time of the rise of Islam a large Jewish population had remained in Judea, enough to raise an army to help the Muslims defeat the Byzantines. But the Arabs took over, then the Turks, then the British. Turkey used to bring in foreign Muslims to replace the dwindling population, so desolate had it let the area become. Some Jewish families remained. Groups of Jews kept making their way back to their homeland. In modern times, there arrived the idealistic Zionist pioneers, undoing the Muslims' desolation. Zionist rebuilding attracted masses of Arab immigrants, seeking jobs.

In 1946, Britain violated its Mandate and split off the bulk of Palestine, giving it to the Hashemites, forming Jordan. When the Zionists expelled the British, Jewish displaced persons emptied out of the concentration camps in Europe and British ones. Then the Arab states expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews from their ancient, Mideastern areas. There later was a massive influx of Soviet Jews. Then there was a sizeable rescue of Jews from Ethiopia.

Ahmadinejad treats the victims of Nazi persecution with the same bigotry as did the Nazis. The epithet, "Zionazi," perverts reality. Ahamdinejad is Nazi-like.

As for the U.S., it could use more democracy. We will not learn how to get it from Ahmadinejad, who stole his election, tortures protesters, blocks their media access, and helped Hizbullah repress a democratic Lebanese movement. Let him liberate his own country from its "undemocratic and bullying government!"


The Israeli Civil Administration worked out with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) an arrangement for 50 Israeli tour guides to enter Bethlehem, P.A.. Tour groups originating in the State of Israel not longer will have to change guides upon entering Bethlehem. [That was my experience before there was a P.A..]

The plan is expected to boost tourism in both areas. In preparation, the guides were themselves given a tour of Bethlehem (IMRA, 6/21/10).


Envoy Blair and Quartet (AP/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

The Quartet stated these points:

1. We need a solution that addresses Israel's security needs by ending arms smuggling into Gaza;

2. Unifies the whole Palestinian Authority (P.A.) area under the P.A.;

3. Allows goods and people into and out from Gaza;

4. The flow should be from land portals, not via unnecessary and irresponsible "confrontation";

5. Hamas should end its "deplorable" detention of its Israeli captive and cease violating its "international obligation" to allow the Red Cross to access him.

6. Israel and the P.A. should resume proximity talks, leading to bilateral negotiations and "an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors."

This is a defeat for the flotilla, which sought to open up sea access to Gaza for a huge importation of weapons (IMRA, 6/21/10).

The Quartet statement is astounding for its tone of fairness. On the other hand, it retains the unattainable principles espoused by international organizations.

Sure, Hamas should stop smuggling arms. Who will make it?

Dedicated as both parts of the P.A. are to destroying Israel and to maintaining their undemocratic rule, how can they leave in peace with Israel? Why should they get a state after years of terrorism? Shouldn't their criminality disqualify them, even if their claim to the country were valid?

The Quartet statement seems more like the old effort to get Israel to make suicidal concessions to an existential enemy. When an international organization has nothing to contribute to a solution but pious hopes, why does it propose risks for the victims of jihad?

P.A. TEACHING ITS PEOPLE TO THINK OF ISRAELI CITIES AS STOLEN FROM THEM The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) renewed its commitment not to incite feeling against Israel, and it self-contradictorily renewed its incitement against Israel. Thus the P.A. re-broadcast a documentary it had taken off the air half a year ago, claiming Israeli cities as belonging to it:

"The West Bank and Gaza have another section in Palestine which is the Palestinian coast that spreads along the [Mediterranean] sea, from ...Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa, in the Carmel Mountains. Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port. [Haifa] enjoyed a high status among Arabs and Palestinians especially before it fell to the occupation [Israel] in 1948. To its north, we find Acre. East of Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberias, near a famous lake, the Sea of Galilee. Jaffa, an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine's gateway to the world." [In Israel, Jaffa is a minor port.] [PA TV (Fatah), June 21, 2010, and dozens of times 2007 — 2009]

"For more examples of PA TV presenting a world without Israel see:

1. PA TV quiz in which "Palestine" replaces Israel http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi= 157&doc_id=2394

2. PA TV again to children: All Israel is "Palestine http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi= 157&doc_id=2254

3. PA to Israelis: Go to Europe and Ethiopia — Israel is "stolen" land
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et= 1103500159120&s=4998&e=001_ rE_X2eLuXxSvZ_Xm2vtu1QdT83svg S1kLc8WyVKS0e_noavvvnKVBM- TqLc1hGTtgJZvlFUrwEsu9FyqbCqP 5uA7kZj9zFo9hIk1T13lmFLIEy51U6un Sl3JQApxyakFq1VR8uqjwB9tyni0V6cbPV UzzJG11G9 "
(IMRA, 6/21/10 from MEMRI http://www.imra.org.il/ http://www.memri.org/)

When they think of those cities as theirs, they will think they must seize them from Israel. Thus the P.A. is imbuing its people with a desire for war.

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 Emanuel A. Winston, June 20, 2010.

Excellent! I have been writing about the ignored agenda of Islamic hostility to all "infidels" (non-believers in Islam) and couldn't have said it better. The nations who themselves are, by Koranic laws mandated for overthrow and subjugation as non-Islamic states, find it perfectly acceptable when the Jewish Nation/State is viciously attacked and threatened with annihilation by Muslims.

The 'idea' of a two-state solution is ludicrous when we observe Muslim Islamists blowing up each across the globe. How can we in the Free West insist that Israel surrender to the Muslim Arabs their Jewish ancestral homeland to a hostile State within the body of Israel? From that center the Muslim Islamists could launch missiles and suicide bombers — all dictated by Koranic law and guidance from Mohammed's "Hadith" (Oral Law).

There are no "moderate" Muslims because of their customs and the teachings of submission to Allah (Islam means Submission). The Koran says Muslims cannot deviate in their mission to conquer all people and force them into a Global Caliphate subject to strict Shari'a Laws and dominated by the perceived superiority of Muslims and their pagan desert god, Allah.

A Muslim State next to and within Israel is a death sentence to the Jewish State no matter how its purpose is obfuscated with the language of a false peace.

This was written by Attorney Lee S. Bender, Vice President of the Greater Philadelphia District of the Zionist Organization of America. It appeared June 18, 2010 in Israel Behind the News in Israel.
http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/ content.cgi?ID=4021&q=1


When the core of your enemy's doctrine and religion calls for your subjugation and/or annihilation, it makes achieving co-existence improbable. This is the insurmountable problem in a decades-long peace "process."

Islam teaches that they are superior, while non-Muslim infidels are inherently inferior and must be dominated. Therefore, the success of tiny Israel, the state of the Jews, defies what Allah has told them will happen, and is taken as an affront to their honor — especially since they have not been able to defeat it militarily.

The root of the problem may be in the Koran itself. Here are some notable excerpts:

Koranic Doctrine Regarding "Infidels," Jews and Christians, and Peacemaking:

  • Muslims are "obligated to befriend a believer, even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you" (Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya: 1263 — 1328)

  • Doctrine of Wala' wa Bara': "loyalty and enmity": doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating all things un-Islamic, including persons, i.e. infidels (Koran 60:4)

  • Taqiyya: doctrine revolves around deceiving the infidels, is pivital to upholding loyalty and enmity wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live among non-Muslim majorities: "Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers, Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God " (Koran 3:28.) This has been interpreted by Tabari: "Only when you are in their [non-Muslims'] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim."

  • Hudna: A hudna [also known as a hudibiyya or khudaibiya] is a tactical cease-fire that allows the Arabs to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure in order to be more effective when the "cease-fire" is called off.

  • Jihad: literally "struggle", revolves around fighting and killing the infidel enemy, "holy war," even if it costs the Muslim fighter his life — this is the most native and praiseworthy expression

  • Dar Al Islam v Dar Al Harb: ShariÊ¿a (Islamic) law divides the world into these two abodes. In Dar al-Islam, the citizenry abide by the ordinances, rules, edicts, and assembly of Islam. The Muslim state guarantees the safety of life, property, and religious status (only if the religion is not idolatrous) of minorities (ahl al-dhimma) provided they have submitted to Muslim control. Dar al-Harb (the abode of war) provides the contrast and denotes territory that is not governed by the assembly of Islam, and is directly contiguous to the abode of Islam.

Jihad can be invoked for the sole purpose of turning Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam — in other words, to allow for the prevalence of Islamic edicts and the protection of Muslims. The conflict only is destined to end with the hegemony of Islam, so that the religion reigns supreme, that is the ultimate goal of Islam establish Sharia law throughout the world, non-believers (infidels) are treated as dhimmi (second-class citizens under rule of Muslims, with limited rights): there are only three choices for non-Muslims: conversion, subjugation or death — this is mainstream Islam as per teachings of Muhammad

(From The Al Quaeda Reader)

Palestinian-Arabs groups have expounded on these concepts:

Palestine Liberation Organization Charter (ratified 1964)

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it...

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

(From MidEastWeb.org).

It is important to note that the PLO was established by the Arab League when Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan — three years before Israel captured them in a defensive in 1967.

Fatah Constitution

Fateh, or Fatah (which means "victory" or "conquest") is the leading organization within the Palestinian "resistance." The date of the Fatah constitution is not given, circa 1964 though it was reaffirmed at its August 2009 convention. It states, inter alia:

Article (4) The Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism.

Article (7) The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organization and method.

Article (17) Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine....

Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.

(From MidEastWeb.org).

The Khartoum Resolution of 1967

Heads of state from eight Arab countries met for a summit in Khartoum, Sudan shortly after the 1967 Six-Day War. The resulting formulation became known as "Three Nos" and formed the basis of the policies of most Arab states aligned against Israel through the late: NO peace with Israel; NO recognition of Israel; NO negotiations with Israel

Since then, only two Arab states have signed peace treaties with Israel: Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. The remaining 20 still abide by these principles.

The Hamas (Islamic Resistence Movement) Charter (1988)

Preamble: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it... Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realized.

Article (7) The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: 'The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'

Article (8) Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes

Article (11) The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.... This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgment.

Article (13) Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors

Article (15)... It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses)..... It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.ã??

Article (31)Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions — Islam, Christianity and Judaism — to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

(From MidEastWeb.org).

Palestinian Basic Law (ratified 2002)

Article (4) 1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained. 2. The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be the main source of legislation. 3. Arabic shall be the official language. (From MidEastWeb.org).

Perhaps these explain Palestinian rejectionism: why they incite hatred and violence against Jews and Israelis in their schools, mosques, and media; shun peace talks and direct negotiations; violate their international obligations under the Oslo Accords; engage in terrorism against Israeli civilians; call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, and "lawfare" against Israelis in foreign courts. By contrast, the State of Israel has offered its outstretched hand from the outset and declared as follows: Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 14, 1948)

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

(From Israel Ministry of Foreign Affair)

Israel has been the ancestral home of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years — more than 1,500 years before the founding of Islam. Since 1922 when the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate recognized "the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine" and called for reconstituting the Jewish "National Home" in Palestine, international agreement has recognized Israel as the Jewish people's state. There already exists an Arab state created out of the original Palestine Mandate — Jordan, which is on 78% of the land and has a population that is 70% Palestinian Arabs. The lone Jewish state in the world, Israel, exists on the remaining 22% of the land — the very part of which a second Arab state would be created. There are currently 22 Arab League states (not even counting Iran), all Muslim-dominated, none democratic, on a land mass over 600 times that of Israel, with a population of 350,000,000, compared to 5,500,000 Jews in Israel, which is the size of New Jersey. Moreover, there is a bloc of 57 Muslim states in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, with a population of 1.5 billion.

So, who are the "infidels" against humanity, decency and tolerance? And why should tiny Israel be forced to make concessions? And who are Israel's "partners for peace" supposed to be on the Palestinian-Arab side? Fatah? Hamas? These "revelations" about Islamic doctrine and the governing documents of Hamas, Fatah, the PLO and the like are not secrets. Radical Islam, with its virulent, theologically based anti-semitism, surges through the Muslim realm, spread with Saudi and Iranian funding, to media, mosques and madrassas throughout the Islamic world. Are we — Western governments, media and the populace — just so arrogant or paternalistic that we cannot possibly accept that a people could actually harbor such nasty, ugly beliefs — and act on them? Are we so "politically correct" that we are afraid to be judgmental against others, and their beliefs, no matter how brutal and dangerous?

Ultimately, Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, Arabs and Islam is not territorial, but rather existential. Unfortunately, peaceful coexistence as co-equals in a pluralistic society is not one of the choices that Islamic law gives to non-Muslims. In essence, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when Islam is dominant, triumphant and everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state and ultimate caliphate. And to establish that "peace," Muslims must wage war — global jihadi warfare against nonbelievers is mandated until hegemony is established throughout the entire world. We all need to read their words, because nothing less than our liberty, freedom and Western Judeo-Christian core values are at stake.

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 Arlene Kushner, June 20, 2010.

The charges being leveled against Israel are so off the wall, so outrageous, that I think now is the time to begin to address the connection of American Jews to Israel. For there is the danger — no, more than a danger, sometimes it is the reality — that some American Jews, hearing these charges and fearful that even some small part of them may be true, will see themselves as morally elevated if they separate themselves from Israel.

Those who love Israel, who see themselves as intrinsically connected to the Jewish state, will feel outrage at these perfidious charges. They will understand that Israel need not be perfect to be embraced, and that where there are problems (not remotely of the caliber that is suggested) they must be addressed constructively and with a willing heart.

But sadly, tragically, this is less the case than it once was. I've seen the evidence myself and heard much that is anecdotal. There are Jews, frequently progressive or left in their political orientation, who are not divorced from their identity as Jews and may even be religiously observant, but are devoid of deep concern for or devotion to Israel. In some cases they actually believe themselves to be functioning at a more spiritual level if they are "just" religious and not involved in the politics or the "dirty business" of running and defending a state.

I make no bones about it: I mourn for this alarming state of affairs.


This situation has to be addressed at two levels at once, in my opinion. As I indicated yesterday, this is long procedure that cannot be corrected with any quick fix.

There is, first, the need to counter the false charges and set the record straight. American Jews, like just about everyone else, have been subjected to twisted Arab PR and distorted media reports — the real story of Israel is not making it wide-scale. Thus is there confusion about what Israel is all about, with acceptance of fallacious ideas, such as that we "took" Palestinian land.


But there is something else that needs to be addressed. And that is Israel as our Jewish heritage. It is here that the essential link is made. One cannot be conversant with the Tanakh — the Bible — without understanding G-d's promise to the Jewish people concerning the land, and the ancient settling of that land. One cannot know anything about archeological finds without understanding the extensive roots we have here in this land (and most particularly in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria). One cannot know history without recognizing that over the course of 3,000 years, Jews alone have had an independent nation here and Jews alone have made Jerusalem their capital. One cannot know Jewish liturgy without knowing the prayers for Jerusalem. One cannot know Jewish law without recognizing certain mitzvot (commandments) can be fulfilled only in the land.

No other people has ever been banished from its original land for 2,000 years (except for a remnant population), only to return, have an ingathering, and revive its ancient language. No other people has fought wars repeatedly at such odds, and remained resilient. For me, the hand of G-d is clear in this. We have prospered, and settled our incoming refugees, as no other nation in the world, all the while promoting medical advances and academic achievements, maintaining the most humane and moral standards for our fighting forces, and even reaching out to the world to lend assistance (as in Haiti).

How has this essential link been lost? In the face of all of this, how could Israel become relatively inconsequential for some Jews? I struggle with the question.


When Helen Thomas made her obscene comments about how the Jews living in Israel should return to places like Poland whence they had come, there were responses to her that essentially said that this was a terrible thing to suggest because the nations such as Poland had treated Jews horrendously. I felt that while factually true, this was the wrong answer. This means that if the nations of the world should welcome us with open arms, we would have no rationale for remaining here. Yes, Israel was a haven after the Holocaust, and yes the existence of Israel prior to the Holocaust would have prevented it from happening.

But the most essential reasons for being here are deeper and more extensive than this. This is what Jews — as well as others! — are called upon to understand. And this is precisely what the Arab world does not want people to know, because the truth defeats their aims.


Other subjects to follow shortly, but I include here a link to a superb short video on how the Muslim mind works. It's on the mark, and I encourage you to see it to the end and share it broadly:
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v= RxFzFIDbKpg
(Thanks to the many who shared this with me.)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, June 20, 2010.

The editorial below which ran June 8, 2010 in Hamodia is a deeply principled statement and a welcome change — albeit with one fatal flaw.

While we applaud the editorial's main thesis, it is both puzzling and galling to repeatedly be assailed with the canard so prevalent in the American Jewish Community, namely that there does not seem to be anything practical which can be done to help Jonathan Pollard.

It is puzzling because it simply is not true; and it is galling in light of the massive efforts and hyperbolic publicity that the American Jewish Community Leaders, their organizations and related media arms have invested in other recent cases. Never, in 25 years, has the American Jewish leadership done anything remotely similar for Jonathan Pollard! What is more, the others were certainly not "the mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim for one who was moser nefesh for Am Yisrael!"

The gross failure of the American Jewish leaders to advocate even minimally for Pollard was exposed when President Obama recently sat down with 31 Jewish Congressmen to find out what he might do to improve relations with Israel and the American Jewish Community. Imagine how simple it would have been for the Jewish Congressmen (or even just one or two of them) to say: "Mr. President, Jonathan Pollard's release would go a long way to reassuring Jews world-wide of your fairness and your concern for Israel. Please sign Pollard's commutation papers which are sitting on your desk and send him home to Israel. "

But the Jewish Congressmen had never heard from their Jewish constituents (aka the Jewish leaders) that Pollard is an issue to anyone, so they did not bring up Pollard's name at all when they sat with the President.

Intensive lobbying should have been on-going for months ever since the failed clemency bid when Bush left office, but it never started at all. Since January 21, 2010, the American Jewish leadership (which did precious little prior to the last clemency bid) has once again thrown Pollard under the bus and moved on, disingenuously claiming that there is nothing that can be done for Pollard. That has been their lame excuse for 25 years!

There is, in fact, plenty that can be done to help Pollard!

Just look at the intensive, endless, hyperbolic lobbying that the American Jewish leadership (most notably led by the Agudah and Chabad) have been doing for Shalom Rubashkin; or the hysterical campaign that was waged for the late Martin Grossman! The grossly disproportionate efforts that were made in these other cases put the lie to all the excuses! Don't tell us that there is nothing that can be done for Pollard! Do exactly as much for Pollard as is being done for Rubashkin and as was done for Grossman! In Pollard's case, it would be 25 years late in coming, but better late than continuing to recycle lame excuses ad infinitum!

Except for the repetition of the pernicious little white lie, that there does not seem to be anything that can be done in a practical mode to help Pollard, a recent Hamodia Editorial: "That None Be Forgotten" is a welcome change in a world that has gone all but silent on Pollard. It is a principled wake-up call to the Jewish People. It follows below.


"What's new?"

That question — in one form or another — is repeated probably millions of times a day in conversations around the globe. The overwhelming majority of human conversations — at least those with some substance — revolve around a new development of sorts.

News is of course the lifeblood of the media, with this publication being no exception. The same is true for the rest of the publishing industry. From historical features that appear in magazines to full-length books, all have to contain something new and noteworthy, or they could not sell.

The invention of a vast array of technological gadgets has made the global distribution of news a near-instantaneous affair and this, together with the advent of all-news-all-the-time 24-hour news reporting, has dramatically shortened the journey from front-page headline to the trash heap of history.

Even as certain stories continue to dominate much of the media's attention — for a current example, the BP oil spill — the focus is always on a new angle. Even the most relevant and important stories are, in the absence of a fresh development, pushed to the side like stale bread.

But as Jews, we have to stop every so often to ask ourselves if this approach to our conversations and mindset is the right one. Certainly we all have the power within us to find new meaning, a new sense of relevance, in something that is important — even if there are no new developments.

One example is the plight of Jonathan Pollard. As the Bush presidency drew to a close, there was a flurry of activity on his behalf. The White House was besieged with letters and calls pleading for his pardon, stressing the shocking injustice of his case. Countless tefillos were prayed on behalf of Yehonoson ben Malkah, a precious Yid who has spent the past 8,965 days — nearly 25 years — in prison because of his singular dedication to the safety of his brethren in Eretz Yisrael.

When to the chagrin and great disappointment of the Jewish community Bush left office without commuting the sentence, the Jewish media ran news articles and analysis pieces about it, and the story was on the tongues of people in shuls, in offices, and on street corners.

In the past seventeen months, with no breaking news, talk of Pollard's plight has all but disappeared. As the team of devoted askanim led by Rabbi Pesach Lerner continues to try to find new avenues of hishtadlus, the hearts and thoughts of most of the community have become focused elsewhere.

In the meantime, Jonathan Pollard continues to languish in his dreary cell in North Carolina, feeling alone and abandoned by all except his devoted wife and closest supporters.

What is unique about Pollard's case is not only the unfathomable travesty of his continued imprisonment, but the fact that at this point there doesn't seem to be any practical avenue of hishtadlus.

The tragic ongoing saga of Gilad ben Aviva Shalit is another example of a crucial story all too often ignored. In contrast to Pollard, who is being unfairly imprisoned in a country that is essentially a medinah shel chessed, Shalit is being held by ruthless Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Despite their vaunted reputation, neither the IDF nor the various Israeli intelligence agencies have been able to bring him home, and a series of intense negotiations with Hamas over his release has so far yielded nothing more than proof — in the form of a video — that he is still alive. As the world dallies, Gilad remains in the hands of some of the most heinous murderers of our era.

Numerous other cases come to mind, including the yeshivah bachurim who remain imprisoned in Japan after they unwittingly became couriers for another man's criminal enterprise. While their trials do receive considerable attention, in the long gaps before and after they are all but forgotten.

We at Hamodia have a particular challenge in this regard. As a media outlet, our main mission is to be your primary source for news. At the same time, it is our obligation to keep a spotlight on many of the crucial and important issues of the day, ranging from community-wide challenges to the tragic plight of individuals such as Gilad Shalit and Jonathan Pollard.

As maaminim bnei maaminim we know that the fate of all captives — like everything else in the world — is solely in the Hands of the Ribbono shel Olam. Only the Matir Assurim can free them, and regardless of the naysayers and the pundits, He certainly has the ability to do so at anytime.

As Torah Jews there is no limit to the depth of our compassion. We certainly have enough room in our hearts to care and daven for the many Jews in need of yeshuos, among them Gilad ben Aviva and Yehonoson ben Malkah.

Starting with this issue, we plan be"H to publish calls for tefillos on their behalf until that glorious day when we will be able to report their release.

As we pour out our hearts to Hashem on behalf of all His imprisoned children, we should also make an effort to let Jonathan Pollard know that he has not been forgotten. Though he is not permitted to respond to letters, he receives great chizuk from every piece of mail he gets.

The summer months are letter-writing season. Picking up our pens or plying our keyboards to write to family and friends, let us also write to:

Jonathan Pollard #09185-016
c/o FCI Butner
P.O. Box 1000
Butner, NC
U.S.A 27509-1000

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 20, 2010.


Iran's Hizbullah terrorism militia (AP/Mahmoud Tawil)

In a meeting with the Turkish Ambassador, Iran's Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar "called for enhanced cooperation with Turkey in campaign against terrorism, drug-trafficking and organized crime..." (IMRA, 6/19/10). http://www.imra.org.il/

Against terrorism? Yes, the government of Turkey opposes Kurdish terrorism against Turks, but it favors Hamas, which commits terrorism against Israel.

Iran subsidizes, trains, and arms the terrorist militias of insurgents in Iraq, of Hamas, Hizbullah, and some units of Fatah.

Islamist governments support terrorism not directed at them. They are not against terrorism in principle. They do not share Western principles. They have their own, which is a struggle to the death by any means against whoever is not with them.

Obviously in the case of Iraq, Islamists include as their enemies Muslims who are not with them. When non-Muslim enemies defend themselves against Islamists, the Islamists then accuse those defenders of killing Muslims. The Islamists willingly kill dissenting Muslims, as in Afghanistan, but denounce the Allies as anti-Muslims for trying to protect the dissenting Muslims. Who then really is anti-Muslim?


New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has built a formidable anti-terrorism force that cooperates with other anti-terrorist agencies. His agency has intercepted a number of terrorist plots against the city and arrested many terrorists.

The media, however, emphasizes the mistakes that terrorists make. Ignoring the great police work, and implying a lower quality to it, the calls the terrorists crude and stupid. Actually, observes Commissioner Kelly, governmental efforts keep many of the more effective methods and materials from terrorists.

Beware of complacency, based on the successes and luck, to date! (Wall St. J., 6/19, A11.)

Police work is like a shield. A shield, alone, does not suffice. We also need to overcome radical Muslim ideology, so they don't send swords to test our shields.

How can we overcome radical Muslim ideology, without identifying it and having a program to disabuse people of it? Our President refuses to identify it. His program is mostly to appease it, which serves to encourage it.


The New York Metropolitan section of the New York Times features a controversy in the borough of Staten Island over a proposed Muslim purchase of a convent for conversion into a mosque.

The thrust of the article is to depict solid community opposition as prejudiced. It likens that prejudice to earlier American prejudice against Catholics.

A U.S. marine and war veteran asked the prospective purchasers from the Muslim American Society whether they would work to fit in with the community. They answered in the affirmative. Case closed? (Jim Dwyer, 6/20, M1.)

Not necessarily. The issue is more complex than presented. This may be a case of prejudice against innocent individuals. But Islam has a principle of allowing deception of non-believers in behalf of the believers. Radical Muslims present themselves as moderate, in order to lull suspicion. The New York Times, if it wants to serve readers rather than its ideology of appeasement, should make readers aware of the practice of deception.

The prejudice against Catholics in America started at the tail end of inter-Christian sects' religious wars and oppression in Europe. It overlooked the integration into American life that Catholics were demonstrating.

At present, we are not at the tail end of jihad but in the middle of it. Radical Muslims have murdered thousands of Americans, 3,000 within New York City. They claim to speak in the name of their faith. Leaders of their faith, here, do not seriously oppose them. These leaders and their organizations may give some lip service to opposing them, but propose conspiracy theories about 9/11 that would exonerate their co-religionists. They oppose all anti-terrorism measures. Many of the Muslim organizations raise funds for terrorism.

International jihad is characterized not only by violence but also by penetration of Wetter society and by propaganda. Most of the mosques are financed by radical Saudi Arabia. From the Internet (and from prisons), Muslim youths are radicalized, some turning to recruiters plying the mosques.

Since Islam combines religion and politics, charity and holy war, it is a legitimate question whether a particular mosque project is just a religious site or an outpost of jihad.


Turkish TV libels Israeli troops as murdering Arab civilians (AP/ Cagla Rekla Produksiyon HO)

Thomas L. Friedman reports growing opposition in Turkey to the Islamist regime and a rapidly growing economy. Mr. Friedman suggests that the regime merely is trying to exert regional influence.

"...Erdogan certainly has some Hugo Chavez-Vladimir Putin tendencies. I've never visited a democracy where more people whom I've interviewed asked me not to quote them by name for fear of retribution by Erdogan's circle — in the form of lawsuits, tax investigations or being shut out of government contracts. The media here is rampantly self-centered." (NY Times, 6/20, wk8.)

Democracy is not like a rock, existing in one form. Democracy is a dynamic process, requires eternal vigilance to maintain, and often is under attack. It is under attack in Turkey by an Islamist movement seeking to repress it, step by step.

It may be too soon to write off Turkish democracy, but it is too late to take it for granted and not too soon to worry about its survival.


Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of Iran's parliamentary security and foreign policy commission, said that parliament had ratified a bill authorizing Iranian military forces to retaliate against forced inspection of Iranian vessels.

He said that the recently imposed additional sanctions on Iran over its nuclear development is evidence, along with U.S. vetoes over resolutions against Israel, that the U.S. had turned the Security Council into its tool. His answer is to restructure the Security Council (IMRA, 6/19/10).

When the Security Council and other agencies of the UN act against Israel, anti-Zionists treat them as divine law, not to mention international law. When anti-Zionist countries flout binding Security Council resolutions and consider forcible resistance to their implementation, anti-Zionists fall silent. Their double standard indicates partisanship not based on moral principles.

If the Security Council were a U.S. tool, the U.S. would not have to exercise as many vetoes and it would not have to withhold some resolutions and water others down, in order to get something passed. What it gets passed may be too diluted to exert a solid effect. Such was the case with sanctions.

Notice what the Iranian parliamentarian thinks passes for logic. He does not show the validity of proposed resolutions that the U.S. vetoed. He just denounces them based on asserted stereotype. His side also exercises a double standard. When Israel does not adhere to a non-binding UN resolution, or does not carry out a binding one that depends on Arab compliance withheld, his side calls Israel a violator of the UN. But when Iran violates treaties and binding resolutions for years, including by duplicity, his side calls the UN a violator.

(For more on Iran's reaction to UN, click here.)

A similar kind of illogic, double standard, and effrontery characterizes some of my anti-Zionist critics. Examples are the recent accusation that Israel "murdered" civilians in recent Gaza combat, and questions why do I support mass-murder of Arabs.

Nowhere do I support mass-murder of Arabs. Naturally, such a libelous accusation is made without evidence. What effrontery! What illogic!

"Murder" has a specific meaning. So does "civilian." The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) calls many of its slain terrorists "civilians." Purported humanitarian organizations then count those deaths against Israel. Meanwhile, the P.A., whether Hamas or Fatah, identify the "martyrs" as their militiamen.

Hamas uses civilians as human shields. Hamas stores explosives in residential buildings and fights inside or alongside them and behind civilians. One of its methods of fighting is to fire rockets at Israeli schools. Hamas even urged civilians to surround a military site to deter an Israeli raid. Hamas thus encourages civilian deaths.

In New York, we call what Hamas does the crime of "depraved indifference." In international law, it is a war crime. International law puts the responsibility for such civilian deaths on Hamas. Nevertheless, the so-called humanitarian organizations do not condemn Hamas for bringing about civilian deaths. They and my anti-Zionist critics blame Israel. What ethical perversity!


From Iran and Turkey, outfitted by terrorist organizations Hizullah and IHH, admitted by Iranian officials to be ferrying people willing to be "martyrs," ships are sailing for Gaza. Their mission may be stated as humanitarian but it is not.

Israel's enemies have discovered that if they force Israel to defend itself by force, the UN, EU, and even the U.S. will condemn Israel. One way of condemning it is to form a Kangaroo court, like the Goldstone Commission.

To head off another such court, PM Netanyahu made concessions about a probe and who would observe on it. Concessions do not work, for a scapegoat dealing with enemies who never relent. The Islamist goal is to destroy Israel, not get a fair probe. A fair probe would condemn them, not Israel.

Since concessions do not work, UN Secretary-General Ban is going ahead to press for an international probe. Israel is too focused on that to realize the new kind of threat, attempting, by forcing Israel to defend itself, to produce casualties that would be called civilian and blamed on Israel, not the provocateurs. This is a new kind of warfare, deployed in an attempt to deprive Israel of legitimacy.

Israel needs to develop a new strategy and tactics of defense. And it must resolve each attack swiftly enough to prevent them from leading to war. This is the top priority [along with stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons].

The basic strategy would be to overcome the enemy by non-violence (Madeline Glick in IMRA, 6/19/10).

An anti-Zionist critic abuses the comments box to change the subject, as if unable to find my reports incorrect, and write against me personally, though he does not know me at all. Who can respect such fraud? Will he divert readers from the news I report that he seems unable to rebut, just to deny?

Lately he has been prefacing his remarks by calling them what I or Zionists do not want readers to know. This person has proved himself unscrupulous in several ways, particularly by asserting and insisting that I am paid by Israel, which I am not. He implies that I know bad things about Israel that I hide. That is insulting. I do report bad things about Israel, just not the one he and his like-minded fellows fabricate.

There are two reasons I do not write what he claims I do not want you to know. One is that his claims are irrelevant and the other is that they distort reality. With few exceptions, I report news and then explain it. His remarks are not about current events.


In English too garbled for being sure of much else, a London Arab language media, Al Quds al-Arabi, claims that a dozen U.S. warships and one Israel warship have passed through the Suez Canal, heading to the Persian Gulf.

Iran warns Egypt it made a big mistake in not blocking those ships (IMRA, 6/19/10).

International waterways are supposed to be free for international shipping. The Six Day War was fought partly to enforce that international law.

The import of the report is not clear. Amid Iranian threats to attack any and all, over its nuclear policy, one would expect warships to move closer to the Gulf that Iran menaces. Unfortunately for mankind, Islamists armed with 21st century weapons and 7th century attitudes, may bring to war a world that might have moved beyond that stage. Will civilization survive?

(To start to read Iranian reactions to UN resolution against it, click here.)

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 Zev ben Yehiel, June 20, 2010.

Emergency Appeal

We ask our supporters for 3 things. Please sign the petition along with contacting Israeli government officials and donate generously to help us with our campaign. Donations are needed to help us defray our legal and public relation's costs and to keep the yeshiva going.

Please sign our petition against the demolition order and pass it on

We are also encouraging concerned people to contact Zvi Hauser, the cabinet secretary of the government who reports directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu. His e-mail is memshala@pmo.gov.il and memshala1@pmo.gov.il

The more e-mails he gets, the better. Follow up with hard copy to:

Zvi Hauser — Cabinet Secretary
Prime Minister's Office
Jerusalem, Israel

Yitzhar Yeshiva Demolition Warrant Date is 19 Days Away

"Save Our Building" is the name of the last-ditch campaign launched by students and supporters of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar.

July 4, 2010 marks the demolition date for the yeshiva, located in Samaria. According to a hotly contested order imposed by the IDF's Civil Administration, the 11-year-old building in the town of Yitzhar is not properly authorized, despite amply documented government authorization and funding for its construction.

Yeshiva staff, students and supporters, shocked by the May 9th demolition order, have mobilized to prevent the destruction, which many claim to be due to a policy adopted to punish area residents and students for conflicts with the IDF and for alleged acts of retribution against nearby Arab towns.

Another theory for the government's allowing the warrant to be issued is that by successfully demolishing a structure with a higher level of authorization than most settlements in Judea and Samaria, the court system will have a precedent for uprooting other buildings and settlements. Sources close to the case emphasized that "legally speaking, the building's status is better than several others in Judea and Samaria."

The building has been deemed illegal because it has not received its final approval from the Defense Minister — currently Ehud Barak, who himself helped establish the yeshiva as Prime Minister and who initiated the recent demolition order. "We plan to... gather all the documentation showing how many government offices were involved in the construction of the yeshiva, as well as to pressure... Ehud Barak" to rescind the order, the yeshiva's executive director Itamar Posen told Israel National News.

The ruling to raze the large yeshiva building cites an 11-year-old work-stoppage order, which nobody at the yeshiva has any record or recollection of, according to Posen. He estimates that the government has invested some 3-4 million shekels in building the 13,000 square foot facility since the onset of construction in 1999, meaning that the original stop-work order claimed in the May 2010 demolition notice took place at the same time that issuers of the order were funding the work.

The facility "was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the relevant authorities to serve as an educational institution," adds Posen.

Gush Etzion Regional Council Chief Sha'ul Goldstein notes that "build first, approve later" has long been the model of construction throughout all of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. He cited a study conducted last year of 200 towns, some of which were established as far back as the 1980s. The study found that "every single one of them was first built, and only years later received final approval."

Goldstein stresses that Barak's decision is politically motivated. "To accuse us of building illegally," he said, "when a host of government offices helped us, and when this is how the entire State of Israel was built, is simply to lie and deceive."

Minister of Science Rabbi Prof. Daniel Herskovitz (Jewish Home) met recently with senior officials in the Ministry of Defense. "They admit that the demolition warrant is a way for them to threaten the yeshiva, which they perceive as a nuisance," he said.

Menachem Gottlieb, spokesman for the Honenu civil rights organization, highlighted a historic irony: "The current yeshiva building was constructed to replace the old Od Yosef Chai building at Joseph's Tomb in Shechem. That yeshiva was destroyed by the Arabs — and now Jewish Defense Minister Ehud Barak has set his crosshairs on the same institution."


Zev ben Yehiel writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, June 20, 2010.

This speech was given Feb. 8, 2010 at the Conference in the Global forum for Combating Anti-Semitism in Spain. Pilar Rahola is a Spanish Catalan journalist, writer, and former politician and Member of Parliament, and member of the far left.


A meeting in Barcelona with a hundred lawyers and judges.They have come together to hear my opinions on the Middle-Eastern conflict. They know that I am a heterodoxal vessel, in the shipwreck of "single thinking" regarding Israel, which rules in my country.

They want to listen to me, because they ask themselves why, if Pilar is a serious journalist, does she risk losing her credibility by defending the bad guys, the guilty? I answer provocatively — You all believe that you are experts in international politics when you talk about Israel, but you really know nothing. Would you dare talk about the conflict in Rwanda, in Kashmir? In Chechnya? — No.

Cultured people, when they read about Israel, are ready to believe that Jews have six arms.

They are jurists, their turf is not geopolitics. But against Israel they dare, as does everybody else. Why?

Because Israel is permanently under the media magnifying glass and the distorted image pollutes the world's brains.

And because it is part of what is politically correct, it seems part of solidarity, because talking against Israel is free. So cultured people, when they read about Israel, are ready to believe that Jews have six arms, in the same way that during the Middle Ages people believed all sorts of outrageous things.

The first question, then, is why so many intelligent people, when talking about Israel, suddenly become idiots. The problem that those of us who do not demonize Israel have, is that there exists no debate on the conflict. All that exists is the banner; there's no exchange of ideas. We throw slogans at each other; we don't have serious information, we suffer from the "burger journalism" syndrome, full of prejudices, propaganda and simplification. Intellectual thinkers and international journalists have given up on Israel. It doesn't exist. That is why, when someone tries to go beyond the "single thought" of criticizing Israel, he becomes suspect and unfaithful, and is immediately segregated. Why?

I've been trying to answer this question for years: why?

Why, of all the conflicts in the world, only this one interests them?

Why is a tiny country which struggles to survive criminalized?

Why does manipulated information triumph so easily?

Why are all the people of Israel, reduced to a simple mass of murderous imperialists?

Why is there no Palestinian guilt?

Why is Arafat a hero and Sharon a monster?

Finally, why when Israel is the only country in the World which is threatened with extinction, it is also the only one that nobody considers a victim?

I don't believe that there is a single answer to these questions. Just as it is impossible to completely explain the historical evil of anti-Semitism, it is also not possible to totally explain the present-day imbecility of anti-Israelism. Both drink from the fountain of intolerance and lies. Also, if we accept that anti-Israelism is the new form of anti-Semitism, we conclude that circumstances may have changed, but the deepest myths, both of the Medieval Christian anti-Semitism and of the modern political anti-Semitism, are still intact. Those myths are part of the chronicle of Israel.

For example, the Medieval Jew accused of killing Christian children to drink their blood connects directly with the Israeli Jew who kills Palestinian children to steal their land. Always they are innocent children and dark Jews. Similarly, the Jewish bankers who wanted to dominate the world through the European banks, according to the myth of the Protocols, connect directly with the idea that the Wall Street Jews want to dominate the World through the White House. Control of the Press, control of Finances, the Universal Conspiracy, all that which has created the historical hatred against the Jews, is found today in hatred of the Israelis. In the subconscious, then, beats the DNA of the Western anti-Semite, which produces an efficient cultural medium.

But what beats in the conscious? Why does a renewed intolerance surge with such virulence, centered now, not against the Jewish people, but against the Jewish state? From my point of view, this has historical and geopolitical motives, among others, the decades long bloody Soviet role, the European Anti-Americanism, the West's energy dependency and the growing Islamist phenomenon.

But it also emerges from a set of defeats which we suffer as free societies, leading to a strong ethical relativism.

The moral defeat of the left. For decades, the left raised the flag of freedom wherever there was injustice. It was the depositary of the utopian hopes of society. It was the great builder of the future. Despite the murderous evil of Stalinism's sinking these utopias, the left has preserved intact its aura of struggle, and still pretends to point out good and evil in the world. Even those who would never vote for leftist options, grant great prestige to leftist intellectuals, and allow them to be the ones who monopolize the concept of solidarity. As they have always done. Thus, those who struggled against Pinochet were freedom-fighters, but Castro's victims, are expelled from the heroes' paradise, and converted into undercover fascists.

This historic treason to freedom is reproduced nowadays, with mathematical precision. For example, the leaders of Hezbollah are considered resistance heroes, while pacifists like the Israeli singer Noa, are insulted in the streets of Barcelona. Today too, as yesterday, the left is hawking totalitarian ideologies, falls in love with dictators and, in its offensive against Israel, ignores the destruction of fundamental rights. It hates rabbis, but falls in love with imams; shouts against the Israeli Defense Forces, but applauds Hamas's terrorists; weeps for the Palestinian victims, but scorns the Jewish victims, and when it is touched by Palestinian children, it does it only if it can blame the Israelis.

It will never denounce the culture of hatred, or its preparation for murder. A year ago, at the AIPAC conference in Washington I asked the following questions:

Why don't we see demonstrations in Europe against the Islamic dictatorships?

Why are there no demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of Muslim women?

Why are there no declarations against the use of bomb-carrying children in the conflicts in which Islam is involved?

Why is the left only obsessed with fighting against two of the most solid democracies of the planet, those which have suffered the bloodiest terrorist attacks, the United States and Israel?

Because the left no longer has any ideas, only slogans. It no longer defends rights, but prejudices. And the greatest prejudice of all is the one aimed against Israel. I accuse, then, in a formal manner that the main responsibility for the new anti-Semitic hatred disguised as anti-Zionism, comes from those who should have been there to defend freedom, solidarity and progress. Far from it, they defend despots, forget their victims and remain silent before medieval ideologies which aim at the destruction of free societies. The treason of the left is an authentic treason against modernity.

Israel is the world's most watched place, but despite that, it is the world's least understood place.

Defeat of Journalism. We have more information in the world than ever before, but we do not have a better informed world. Quite the contrary, the information superhighway connects us anywhere in the planet, but it does not connect us with the truth. Today's journalists do not need maps, since they have Google Earth, they do not need to know History, since they have Wikipedia. The historical journalists, who knew the roots of a conflict, still exist, but they are an endangered species, devoured by that "fast food" journalism which offers hamburger news, to readers who want fast-food information. Israel is the world's most watched place, but despite that, it is the world's least understood place. Of course one must keep in mind the pressure of the great petrodollar lobbies, whose influence upon journalism is subtle but deep. Mass media knows that if it speaks against Israel, it will have no problems. But what would happen if it criticized an Islamic country? Without doubt, it would complicate its existence. Certainly part of the press that writes against Israel, would see themselves mirrored in Mark Twain's ironical sentence: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

Defeat of critical thinking. To all this one must add the ethical relativism which defines the present times: it is based not on denying the values of civilization, but rather in their most extreme banality. What is modernity?

I explain it with this little tale: If I were lost in an uncharted island, and would want to found a democratic society, I would only need three written documents: The Ten Commandments (which established the first code of modernity. "Thou shalt not murder" founded modern civilization.); The Roman Penal Code; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And with these three texts we would start again. These principles are relativized daily, even by those who claim to be defending them.

"Thou shalt not murder" ... depending on who is the target, must think those who, like the demonstrators in Europe, shouted in support of Hamas.

"Hurray for Freedom of Speech!"..., or not. For example, several Spanish left-wing organizations tried to take me to court, accusing me of being a negationist, like the Nazis, because I deny the "Palestinian Holocaust". They were attempting to prohibit me from writing articles and to send me to prison. And so on... The social critical mass has lost weight and, at the same time ideological dogmatism has gained weight. In this double turn of events, the strong values of modernity have been substituted by a "weak thinking," vulnerable to manipulation and Manichaeism.

Defeat of the United Nations. And with it, a sound defeat of the international organizations which should protect Human Rights. Instead they have become broken puppets in the hands of despots. The United Nations is only useful to Islamofascists like Ahmadinejad, or dangerous demagogues like Hugo Chavez which offers them a planetary loudspeaker where they can spit their hatred. And, of course, to systematically attack Israel. The UN, too exists to fight Israel.

Finally, defeat of Islam. Tolerant and cultural Islam suffers today the violent attack of a totalitarian virus which tries to stop its ethical development. This virus uses the name of God to perpetrate the most terrible horrors: lapidate women, enslave them, use youths as human bombs. Let's not forget: They kill us with cellular phones connected to the Middle Ages. If Stalinism destroyed the left, and Nazism destroyed Europe, Islamic fundamentalism is destroying Islam. And it also has an anti-Semitic DNA. Perhaps Islamic anti-Semitism is the most serious intolerant phenomenon of our times; indeed, it contaminates more than 1,400 million people, who are educated, massively, in hatred towards the Jew.

The Jews are the thermometer of the world's health. Whenever the world has had totalitarian fever, they have suffered.

In the crossroads of these defeats, is Israel. Orphan and forgotten by a reasonable left, orphan and abandoned by serious journalism, orphan and rejected by a decent UN, and rejected by a tolerant Islam, Israel suffers the paradigm of the 21st Century: the lack of a solid commitment with the values of liberty. Nothing seems strange. Jewish culture represents, as no other does, the metaphor of a concept of civilization which suffers today attacks on all flanks. The Jews are the thermometer of the world's health. Whenever the world has had totalitarian fever, they have suffered. In the Spanish Middle Ages, in Christian persecutions, in Russian pogroms, in European Fascism, in Islamic fundamentalism. Always, the first enemy of totalitarianism has been the Jew. And, in these times of energy dependency and social uncertainty, Israel embodies, in its own flesh, the eternal Jew.

A pariah nation among nations, for a pariah people among peoples. That is why the anti-Semitism of the 21st Century has dressed itself with the efficient disguise of anti-Israelism, or its synonym, anti-Zionism. Is all criticism of Israel anti-Semitism? NO. But all present-day anti-Semitism has turned into prejudice and the demonization of the Jewish State. New clothes for an old hatred.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Where liberty is, there is my country." And Albert Einstein added: "The World is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." This is the double commitment, here and now; never remain inactive in front of evil in action and defend the countries of liberty.

Thank you.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by World Net Daily, June 20, 2010.

This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared yesterday in World Net Daily


NEW YORK — The U.S. extracted concessions from Israel in exchange for American opposition to the establishment of a United Nations commission to investigate Israel's commando raid of a flotilla earlier this month that resulted in the deaths of nine violent activists, WND has learned.

Separately, an official from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office told WND the Obama administration pressed hard on Israel to ease a blockade on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Israel says the blockade is intended to stop the shipment of weapons into Gaza.

The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein, reveals inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore!

Earlier this week, Netanyahu's office released a statement that Israel's security cabinet decided to ease the Gaza blockade.

The White House yesterday called that decision "a step in the right direction."

Obama has called the three-year blockade unsustainable and urged Israel to scale it back dramatically.

In the place of a U.N. commission, which had been opposed by the U.S., Israel established its own commission of inquiry into the flotilla incident earlier this month in which violent activists engaged in confrontations with Israeli commandos who stormed the ship, resulting in the deaths of nine activists.

The Israeli commission consists of three Israelis and two foreign observers — David Trimble, a Northern Ireland politician and Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Canadian jurist Ken Watkin.

Israel had opposed a U.N. commission, believing such an investigative body would be partial.

Previous U.N. commissions investigating the Jewish state were seen as biased against Israel, including a probe earlier this year that claimed Israel carried out war crimes during its defensive war in Gaza in 2009 targeting the Hamas terror group.

Just yesterday, Israel issued an official complaint against the president of the U.N. Correspondents Association for deliberately barring Israeli officials from responding to the public screening of a documentary film on the events of the Gaza-bound flotilla. The documentary was filmed by one of the flotilla activists. Israel called the film one-sided.

An Israeli government official, meanwhile, told WND the Obama administration extracted concessions from the Netanyahu government in exchange for U.S. opposition to a U.N. investigation.

The official said the concessions regard an extended freeze on Jewish construction in the strategic West Bank and eastern Jerusalem as well as a resumption of talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state.

The developments came as Iran announced it will facilitate the sail of more flotillas to Gaza.

Also yesterday, a group of about 150 female activists reportedly prepared to leave Lebanon next week on board a ship called the Miriam. The group said they plan to arrive by sea in Gaza early this coming week.

Meanwhile, Israel's Foreign Ministry yesterday released a new video in which the leader of the Turkish group that sent the flotillas earlier this month is seen telling dozens of activists to throw Israeli commandos overboard if they attempt to board the ship.

"If they board our ship, we will throw them into the sea, Allah willing!" exclaimed Bulent Yildirim, the head of the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, the Turkish pro-Palestinian group that sent an aid flotilla to Gaza last month.

Israel maintains a naval blockade on Hamas-controlled Gaza, fearing if it allows ships to reach the territory, Hamas will be able to transport weaponry for use against Israelis.

Israel and the international community numerous times have stopped ships loaded with weapons destined for Gaza.

Despite claims of activists, Israel does not block humanitarian aid into Gaza. Israel allows a large number of trucks daily to enter Gaza with food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies. Israel transfers monthly into Gaza tens of millions of dollars worth of Israeli shekels to ensure the flow of cash in the territory.

Anti-Jewish battle cries

Activists on Yildrim's flotilla had shouted anti-Jewish battle cries and spoke of using "resistance" against Israel, with one participant stating she saw only two possible outcomes for the boat occupants — "either martyrdom or reaching Gaza."

The main flotilla ship was the MV Rachel Corrie, the namesake of a far-left activist from the International Solidarity Movement who died in 2003 while serving as a human shield to protect a terrorist.

An Al-Jazeera news report one day before Israel's raid translated by Palestinian Media Watch documented men on the flotilla chanting, "[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!"

The chant is often used at rallies for Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Khaibar is the name of the last Jewish village defeated by Islam's prophet Muhammad in A.D. 628. The battle marked the end of the Jewish presence in Arabia.

Al-Jazeera also interviewed a woman on the flotilla who said the participants' goal was "one of two happy endings: either martyrdom or reaching Gaza."

WND reported the commander of the six-ship pro-Palestinian flotilla announced beforehand participants were planning to use "resistance" and declared the ship's activists wanted to die as "martyrs" more than they wanted to reach the Gaza Strip, according to Hamas television.

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Grobman, June 20, 2010.

This was written by Susan Rosenbluth, the editor and publisher of Jewish Voice and Opinion and Chaim Lauer, former executive vice-president of the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York, the Jewish Educa­tion Association of MetroWest (NJ), and the Board of Jewish Education of Greater Washington. It appeared in Jewish Voice and Opinion.



The Palestinian Right to Israel
by Alex Grobman
ISBN-10: 160725588
ISBN-13: 978-1607255888
2010. Balfour Books

If one were to judge a book solely by its title, it would not be unreasonable to worry that historian and prolific author Dr. Alex Grobman had gone over to "the dark side." Not to worry. His new, meticulously researched book, entitled "The Palestinian Right to Israel" (Balfour), firmly establishes that there is none.

Just released in April, the book is garnering praise from leading lights well versed in the issue. Steven Emerson, execu­tive director of The Investigative Project on Terror, and author of the national best-seller, "Ameri­can Jihad: The Terrorists among Us," called Dr. Grobman's new book "phenomenal" and "one of the most important books ever written on the Middle East."

"The research is impeccable and the narrative one of the most compelling I have ever read. This book dispels untruths and reveals the real truth behind the creation of the State of Israel," said Mr. Emerson, insisting it should "be required reading for every col­lege student studying the Middle East and, for that matter, anyone who wants to be enlightened on the truth surrounding the State of Israel."

In a thoughtful review, H. Chaim Lauer, former executive vice-president of the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York, the Jewish Educa­tion Association of MetroWest (NJ), and the Board of Jewish Education of Greater Washing­ton, said Dr. Grobman "explains why the Jews have a moral and legal right to the land, and why no else does."

"The idea of a two-state solution is simply delusional because the Arabs have never accepted the right of the Jews to re-establish their sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Nothing suggests that this will change, if you examine the Fatah and Hamas Charters and witness their attempts to destroy the Jewish state," said Mr. Lauer, who now serves as president and CEO of HCL Resources, Inc, a leading technology enterprise.

Myths and Lies

In his book, Dr. Grobman details the myths and outright lies employed by the Arabs and their supporters to persuade world opinion that the Jews have no legitimate claim to the land and, thus, are "oppressors and occupiers," while the Arabs are "the true victims."

Central to their anti-Jewish argument is that Palestine is a "twice promised land," because, they say, the British pledged it to both Arabs and Jews. Refuting this historical inaccuracy, Dr. Grobman examines the Arab reaction to the Balfour Decla­ration and Jewish immigration to Palestine that established the precedent for Western dealings with Arabs that continues to this day.

He shows that the Arabs have never accepted the right of Jews to re-establish their sovereignty in the land of Is­rael, and, further, do all they can to refute the historically undeniable fact of the Jewish connection to Israel.

Destroying Archeology

"Denying the Jewish con­nection to the Land of Israel, especially the city of Jerusalem, is ongoing and endorsed by the Palestinian Authority. It is pro­moted in the PA's media and its textbooks," said Mr. Lauer, cit­ing Dr. Grobman's book.

In fact, the PA has been inde­fatigable in its attempts to elimi­nate all evidence of a Jewish past, including the willful destruction of archeologically precious — and irreplaceable — artifacts from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Jo­seph's Tomb in Nablus (Shechem), and elsewhere.

"The Arabs accuse Israeli archeologists of manipulating au­thentic archeological evidence to justify the Jewish people's right to Israel, and assert that the Jews are not a people at all, and, thus, are not entitled to a country of their own," said Mr. Lauer.

In his book, Dr. Grobman analyzes the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Is­rael before and after the end of Jewish sovereignty in 70 CE. He provides overwhelming evidence that Jews "never gave up hope of re-establishing their sover­eignty in Palestine, a goal that began to be realized during the early Zionist period in the late 19th century."

Arabs vs British

Using contemporaneous British sources, Dr. Grobman demonstrates that the British never meant to give "Palestine" to anyone but the Jews, and, judging from the evidence pre­sented in "The Palestinian Right to Israel," it is hard to find fault with that original intent.

Dr. Grobman reveals the de­tails of the guerrilla war waged by the Arabs, under the leader­ship of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, against the British and the Jews. In clear violation of an agreement to fight on the side of the West, the Mufti used radio broadcasts from Berlin to urge Arabs to become fifth columns in their home countries and to commit sabotage in order to murder Al­lied troops and Jews.

Demonstrating that there is nothing new under the sun, Dr. Grobman shows that, even before the state was born, the Jews displayed heroic efforts to help the West.

"While the Arabs engaged in trying to destroy the British, the Jews played a significant role in helping Allied military forces by providing medical and highly technical assistance to them throughout the Middle East," said Mr. Lauer, citing Dr. Grobman's book.

Jewish Aid against Disease

For example, the staff of Hadassah Hospital offered weekly lectures and meetings to British medical personnel, acquainting them with regional medical issues, including blood diseases, jaundice, dysentery, anemia, and high blood pres­sure. Courses were also given on how to deal with infestations of sand flies, worms, poisonous snakes, mosquitoes, and other disease-carrying insects.

The Hebrew University's Department of Bacteriology and Hygiene provided anti-typhus and anti-dysentery vaccines. The Zoology Department's re­search on relapsing cave fever taught the British army to avoid encampments near caves.

Dr. Grobman explains that, because malaria was a major debilitating threat to Allied forces, the British Army estab­lished ten anti-malaria units, to be sent ahead of their troops to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Burma, Greece, and Italy. Four of these units were under the command of Jewish malaria experts who had pioneered the use of aerial pesticides to kill nests of mosquitoes. Medical expertise to the British effort was provided by the Hebrew University's Department of Parasitology.

Enormous Problem

Because for so many years history was taken as a given, there was no need throughout most of the 20th century to defend Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The League of Nations and, later, the United Nations both acknowl­edged its legitimacy.

"Questioning Israel's right to exist today, however, is ac­ceptable and even expected and encouraged in some circles, which is why it is imperative to explain how Israel was cre­ated," said Mr. Lauer, endorsing Dr. Grobman's book.

There are some, however, who, while not denying the facts presented in "The Palestinian Right to Israel," suggest the problem of world-acceptance of Israel's illegitimacy is so enormous, trying to respond to the fabrications is an exer­cise in futility.

"The effort to combat psy­chotic prejudice with reasonable counterarguments is not only an act of folly, but capitula­tion," said American-Jewish playwright David Mamet. "One cannot reason a lunatic, or a congeries of the same, out of their delusion, for the delusion is the absence of reason. In es­sence, one cannot reason with people who do not wish to be swayed by facts."

Seekers of Truth

Dr. Grobman says he wrote his book for those who are genu­inely seeking objective truth.

"This book, which provides the weapons and ammunition to obliterate the malicious false­hoods about Israel and the Jewish right to the land, is addressed to them," said Mr. Lauer.

People who can use this information include not only Jews, but, especially, Christians, many of whom are seeking to understand the Jewish roots of their faith, Zionism, and the State of Israel.


Dr. Grobman, a member of the Englewood Orthodox com­munity who holds a doctorate in history from the Hebrew University, is president of the Balfour Trust, an educational outreach organization whose goal is to help Christians do just that. He is also involved with the Institute for Contem­porary Jewish Life, a think tank that deals with historical and contemporary issues affecting the Jewish community.

The founder and director of the first Holocaust center in the US — developed under the auspices of the Jewish Federa­tion in St Louis — he serves on numerous boards working for an understanding of the Shoah as well as current Israeli issues, and as a consultant for many documen­taries and other projects.

"The Palestinian Right to Israel" is the latest of dozens of books, articles, and pamphlets he has authored, and fits nicely with his current project: train­ing students how to respond to Arab propaganda on American campuses.

There is a reason that the Arab-Israeli conflict continues unabated without any solution in sight, despite the countless official commissions and em­issaries who have come to the Middle East to investigate the causes for the dispute. They will never succeed until they understand the truth.

In short, they need Dr. Grob­man's systematic and methodical exposé of the outrageous Arab claims against the legitimacy of the Jewish state. S.L.R.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 20, 2010.

Cacti in a different light

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to ...http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, June 19, 2010.

It would seem that the guardians of law and order are in fact criminals engaged in the arbitrary imprisonment of political/religious dissenters. Who would have guessed?

The problem is that Israel's Supreme Cult has been making up its own laws and powers on the fly unchallenged for so long that they do not feel bound by anything other than themselves. If they are not seriously curtailed, they will eventually declare the election to the Knesset of people they do not approve as "unconstitutional" and appoint their own choices. All this to protect democracy.

It has been commented on in many places that "Leftism" as it is understood today is no longer a political ideology but a psychotic disorder. The essence of psychosis it the existence of an internal fantasy world that is only loosely, if at all, connected to our common reality. Where most of us see innocuous dogs, cats or people, the psychotic sees howling demons that must be destroyed before they consume him.

As long as the psychotic is an ordinary person, the harm he can do to himself and others is limited. When he is a judge, head of a secret police unit, general, political leader or whatever, the potential for damage is unbelievable.

This below was written by Hillel Fendel, Senior News Editor for Arutz-7 and it appeared today in Arutz-7.


(Israelnationalnews.com) The Israel Law Center says Supreme Court has no authority to issue orders against private individuals, but only against government bodies or their representatives.

The Israel Law Center (ILC) filed a "habeas corpus" writ against the Prison Service and Israel Police on Sunday for holding the 43 fathers from Emanuel unlawfully. The suit claims that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority in ordering the parents to be jailed, in that it is permitted to issue orders against government bodies or their representatives, but not against private individuals.

Asked why the suit was not filed against the High Court itself for exceeding its authorities, ILC Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner explained to Israel National News, "That was also an option, but the immediate priority was to file suit against those who are holding these citizens illegally — namely, the jails and the police."

She further explained that nowhere in the law is it expressly written that the Court is the address for perceived illegal decisions by it itself — "although we wrote in the petition that we expect the Court to exercise judicial review over itself in this case. The High Court of Justice is not permitted to assume the authority of issuing orders against individuals."

The High Court sentenced the parents to jail for having aided in the violation of a previous ruling ordering the integration of a Hassidic-religious girls' school in Emanuel. Petitioners, including an organization called Noar Kahalacha, claimed that the school accepted students based on their ethnic background, discriminating against Sephardim — while the parents said that the school's sole standard was religious, and that 27 percent of the students were in fact Sephardic.

Noar Kahalacha is a grantee of the New Israel Fund, an organization that has been accused of being downright anti-Israel for its funding of most of the Israeli NGOs that testified against Israel in the Goldstone Committee, among other anti-Israel groups.

The Court, headed by Justice Edmond Levy, did not accept the parents' position, and when they refused to send daughters to the "integrated" school, he ordered them to spend two weeks in jail. It is now (Sunday) considering a request to exempt the mothers from going to jail; all sides in the court case agree that this request should be accepted.

Taxi Company Precedent — Not Acceptable

The original ruling ordering the parents to jail cited a previous District Court ruling in which taxi drivers were served with contempt of court orders for not enforcing a ruling forbidding taxi companies from taking passengers from Ben Gurion International Airport. The ILC said that this precedent is not relevant, in that the District Court is permitted to serve individuals with orders of this nature, while the High Court of Justice is not.

"The High Court of Justice was created to defend citizens from the authorities," the petition states, "and it must be limited to this. Defense of a citizen from another citizen is reserved for the criminal and civil courts."`

"The High Court expanded the meaning of the law defining its authorities to its most extreme extent," Darshan-Leitner said, "but there is no way to explain the law in a way that will grant it authorities that the law explicitly did not give it. Private citizens are not obligated to follow rulings issued against governmental authorities — even if the ruling comes from the Supreme Court. If such rulings are not implemented, there are various ways of enforcing them — but for the High Court to issue rulings that are not in its jurisdiction is not one of them."

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 Susana K-M, June 19, 2010.

..."In essence, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when Islam is dominant, triumphant and everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state and ultimate caliphate.

And to establish that "peace," Muslims must wage war — global jihadi warfare against nonbelievers is mandated until hegemony is established throughout the entire world.

We all need to read their words, because nothing less than our liberty, freedom and Western Judeo-Christian core values are at stake".

This was written by Atty. Lee S. Bender, Vice President of the Greater Philadelphia District of the Zionist Organization of America.


When the core of your enemy's doctrine and religion calls for your subjugation and/or annihilation, it makes achieving co-existence improbable. This is the insurmountable problem in a decades-long peace "process." Islam teaches that they are superior, while non-Muslim infidels are inherently inferior and must be dominated. Therefore, the success of tiny Israel, the state of the Jews, defies what Allah has told them will happen, and is taken as an affront to their honor — especially since they have not been able to defeat it militarily. The root of the problem may be in the Koran itself. Here are some notable excerpts:

Koranic Doctrine Regarding "Infidels," Jews and Christians, and Peacemaking:

  • Muslims are "obligated to befriend a believer, even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you" (Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya: 1263 — 1328)

  • Doctrine of Wala' wa Bara': "loyalty and enmity": doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating all things un-Islamic, including persons, i.e. infidels (Koran 60:4)

  • Taqiyya: doctrine revolves around deceiving the infidels, is pivital to upholding loyalty and enmity wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live among non-Muslim majorities: "Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers, Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God " (Koran 3:28.) This has been interpreted by Tabari: "Only when you are in their [non-Muslims'] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim."

  • Hudna: A hudna [also known as a hudibiyya or khudaibiya] is a tactical cease-fire that allows the Arabs to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure in order to be more effective when the "cease-fire" is called off.

  • Jihad: literally "struggle", revolves around fighting and killing the infidel enemy, "holy war," even if it costs the Muslim fighter his life — this is the most native and praiseworthy expression

  • Dar Al Islam v Dar Al Harb: Shariʿa (Islamic) law divides the world into these two abodes. In Dar al-Islam, the citizenry abide by the ordinances, rules, edicts, and assembly of Islam. The Muslim state guarantees the safety of life, property, and religious status (only if the religion is not idolatrous) of minorities (ahl al-dhimma) provided they have submitted to Muslim control. Dar al-Harb (the abode of war) provides the contrast and denotes territory that is not governed by the assembly of Islam, and is directly contiguous to the abode of Islam.

Jihad can be invoked for the sole purpose of turning Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam — in other words, to allow for the prevalence of Islamic edicts and the protection of Muslims. The conflict only is destined to end with the hegemony of Islam, so that the religion reigns supreme, that is the ultimate goal of Islam establish Sharia law throughout the world, non-believers (infidels) are treated as dhimmi (second-class citizens under rule of Muslims, with limited rights): there are only three choices for non-Muslims: conversion, subjugation or death — this is mainstream Islam as per teachings of Muhammad
(From The Al Quaeda Reader)

Palestinian-Arabs groups have expounded on these concepts:

Palestine Liberation Organization Charter (ratified 1964)

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it...

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20:> The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
(From MidEastWeb.org).

It is important to note that the PLO was established by the Arab League when Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan — three years before Israel captured them in a defensive in 1967.

Fatah Constitution

Fateh, or Fatah (which means "victory" or "conquest") is the leading organization within the Palestinian "resistance." The date of the Fatah constitution is not given, circa 1964 though it was reaffirmed at its August 2009 convention. It states, inter alia:

Article (4) The Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism.

Article (7) The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organization and method.

Article (17) Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine....

Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
(From MidEastWeb.org).

The Khartoum Resolution of 1967

Heads of state from eight Arab countries met for a summit in Khartoum, Sudan shortly after the 1967 Six-Day War. The resulting formulation became known as "Three Nos" and formed the basis of the policies of most Arab states aligned against Israel through the late: NO peace with Israel; NO recognition of Israel; NO negotiations with Israel

Since then, only two Arab states have signed peace treaties with Israel: Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. The remaining 20 still abide by these principles.

The Hamas (Islamic Resistence Movement) Charter (1988)

Preamble: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it... Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realized.

Article (7) The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: 'The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'

Article (8) Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes

Article (11) The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.... This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgment.

Article (13) Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors

Article (15)... It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses)..... It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis. 

Article (31)Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions — Islam, Christianity and Judaism — to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.
(From MidEastWeb.org).

Palestinian Basic Law (ratified 2002)

Article (4) 1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained. 2. The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be the main source of legislation. 3. Arabic shall be the official language. (From MidEastWeb.org).

Perhaps these explain Palestinian rejectionism: why they incite hatred and violence against Jews and Israelis in their schools, mosques, and media; shun peace talks and direct negotiations; violate their international obligations under the Oslo Accords; engage in terrorism against Israeli civilians; call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, and "lawfare" against Israelis in foreign courts. By contrast, the State of Israel has offered its outstretched hand from the outset and declared as follows:

Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 14, 1948)

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
(From Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Israel has been the ancestral home of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years — more than 1,500 years before the founding of Islam. Since 1922 when the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate recognized "the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine" and called for reconstituting the Jewish "National Home" in Palestine, international agreement has recognized Israel as the Jewish people's state. There already exists an Arab state created out of the original Palestine Mandate — Jordan, which is on 78% of the land and has a population that is 70% Palestinian Arabs. The lone Jewish state in the world, Israel, exists on the remaining 22% of the land — the very part of which a second Arab state would be created. There are currently 22 Arab League states (not even counting Iran), all Muslim-dominated, none democratic, on a land mass over 600 times that of Israel, with a population of 350,000,000, compared to 5,500,000 Jews in Israel, which is the size of New Jersey. Moreover, there is a bloc of 57 Muslim states in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, with a population of 1.5 billion.

So, who are the "infidels" against humanity, decency and tolerance? And why should tiny Israel be forced to make concessions? And who are Israel's "partners for peace" supposed to be on the Palestinian-Arab side? Fatah? Hamas? These "revelations" about Islamic doctrine and the governing documents of Hamas, Fatah, the PLO and the like are not secrets. Radical Islam, with its virulent, theologically based anti-semitism, surges through the Muslim realm, spread with Saudi and Iranian funding, to media, mosques and madrassas throughout the Islamic world. Are we — Western governments, media and the populace — just so arrogant or paternalistic that we cannot possibly accept that a people could actually harbor such nasty, ugly beliefs — and act on them? Are we so "politically correct" that we are afraid to be judgmental against others, and their beliefs, no matter how brutal and dangerous?

Ultimately, Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, Arabs and Islam is not territorial, but rather existential. Unfortunately, peaceful coexistence as co-equals in a pluralistic society is not one of the choices that Islamic law gives to non-Muslims. In essence, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when Islam is dominant, triumphant and everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state and ultimate caliphate. And to establish that "peace," Muslims must wage war — global jihadi warfare against nonbelievers is mandated until hegemony is established throughout the entire world. We all need to read their words, because nothing less than our liberty, freedom and Western Judeo-Christian core values are at stake.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 19, 2010.


In further reaction to UN sanctions on it, the parliament of Iran banned all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) not legally required.

A member of Iran's parliament characterized the new UN sanctions as an attempt by the U.S. and allies to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights (IMRA, 6/19/10).

The UN and U.S. and allies have not imposed sanctions on Iran to prevent it from developing civilian nuclear energy. They imposed it to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and to try to compel it to comply with the IAEA treaty. The treaty requires disclosure of nuclear facilities, whereas Iran has been dissembling about it.

The approved path to civilian nuclear power was never closed to Iran. The member of Iran's parliament is not telling the truth about that. Decades of deception and dissembling in violation of the IAEA treaty demonstrate bad faith. Iran's supporters fail to address that when they assert that Iran seeks only peaceful nuclear development and does comply with the treaty.


After Brazil and Turkey worked out their proposal for putting half of Iran's nuclear fuel under a foreign enrichment process, to prevent it from being used in weaponry, the U.S. went ahead and brought its proposed sanctions to a successful vote in the Security Council.

Brazil and Turkey, according to an Iranian officials, are perplexed by the U.S. action (IMRA, 6/19/10).

The deal would cover only half of Iran's fuel, leaving the other half under Iran's control and available to convert into weaponry. Given Iran's record of violating the treaty by secret developments, some aspects of which are only done for weaponry, such military development was likely. And since Iran has been boosting its capacity for stockpiling nuclear fuel, more fuel would be available, outside the deal, for military development.

The U.S. acted because it did not find the deal credible, especially since the deal relies upon Iran keeping its word, which it does not do. That should not perplex Brazil and Turkey. As new allies of Iran, the question for Brazil and Turkey is whether they possibly missed the fallacy in the deal, whereas the U.S. did not miss.


Some people think that if Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran may build them, too. Sounds logical but is over-simplified. Life is not so simple as that proposition.

What complicates matters is the treaty offered by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). Some countries signed the treaty; some did not. Those who signed pledged not to develop nuclear weapons and to open certain nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection. Those who did not sign did not make such a pledge or at least are not bound by the prohibition on those who do sign.

Iran signed, Israel did not. Iran has violated the treaty for decades by developing nuclear facilities in secret, and taking steps that are not needed for civilian nuclear industry. Rather, they are needed for military nuclear industry. By contrast with Iran, Israel did not violate the treaty. It did not sign the treaty.

The hopes that rested with the IAEA have been dashed by the scofflaws Iran and N. Korea. Dependence upon the treaty was based on a naïve assumption that sovereign states would not cheat.

Iran has a stated philosophy of war, has been building the armed forces to commit it, and has been sending proxy forces to wage it. Israel has a philosophy of espousing peace. If Israel has a nuclear capability, it is for deterrence. If Iran does not mount an existential attack on Israel, Israel would not use nuclear weapons on Iran. Therefore, If not intent on all-out aggression, Iran will not need nuclear weapons.

Complicating matters is Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons. That drive, combined with Iran's ideology of death in battle and that initiating all-out war would be part of Islam's final triumph, has made many U.S., Israeli, and even Arab officials anxious to stop Iran's drive.


UN Secretary-Gen. Ban
UN Secretary-Gen. Ban complained that Israeli probe into the Gaza blockade has inadequate international "weight" to make the panel credible. The two foreign observers on the panel, he and others say, are insufficient.

Mr. Ban had suggested that Turkey be represented on the panel. He observed, however, that if what he called an "independent panel" were set up without full cooperation from Israel, it would be "extremely difficult to have a thorough and credible investigation."

Mr. Ban also condemned the blockade's continuance. Although Israel is relaxing the blockade somewhat, Ban said Israel should do more to "meet the needs of the people."

For background information, journalist Neil MacFarquhar stated that the clash at the flotilla left nine "activists" dead (NY Times, 6/19,A5).

They never mention the Israeli casualties. Some, such as the one stabbed in the stomach, is lucky to have survived. If they mentioned Israeli casualties, they might have to mention that those casualties were sustained first. Then people might question the popular canard that the IDF initiated the violence.

It is not Israel's duty to meet the needs of the Palestinian Arab people but of its own. Its own people are threatened and attacked by terrorists running Gaza. Hence the blockade. Blockades are a long-recognized form of warfare. Since Ban acts as if he does not know it, he either is ignorant or biased. How can Israel end the blockade with an entity that remains at war with it for the purpose of destroying it, in concert with allies? Hamas surely would attack Israelis more than it does now if there were no embargo. Ban is being one-sided.

The UN almost always has been one-sided against Israel. The UN is a political, self-aggrandizing, corrupt organization. Justice is not its goal. The Secretary-General appeases the blocs in the UN. Israel has no bloc in the UN. The various inspections of Israel, culminating in the Goldstone Report, are filled with so much sub-standard methodology, that it takes pages and pages to list their faults. UN reports on Israel are not thorough and not credible.

Because of the general global scapegoating of Jews and the specifically anti-Israel ideology of the huge Islamic bloc in the UN, UN reports on Israel are not objective. Ban assumes incorrectly that because a number of foreign countries may be involved, UN reports are objective. When once considers how much whitewashing the UN does of genocide and other serious problems of international security, and how much it fails to solve those problems, one should conclude that the UN is not objective and is a failure.

Ban also assumes that Israel cannot handle the conflict of interest in evaluating its actions. However, the IDF is known to conduct professional reviews. People are so busy maligning Israel that they do not stop to notice how hard Israel tries to behave toward the enemy according to the highest standards of law and far more humanely than those countries that presume to judge Israel and in stark contrast to the inhumane ways of its enemies. When the Goldstone report downplayed Hamas' war crimes, it proved the UN incorrigible.

Ban now suggests that if the UN set up its own panel, and if Israel did not cooperate with it, it would be "extremely difficult to have a thorough and credible investigation." Israel did not cooperate with the Goldstone investigation, which set out to investigate only Israel (though after being criticized for that, the probe gave lip service to investigating Hamas). Applying Ban's suggestion about the need for Israeli cooperation back in time to the Goldstone investigation, one should at least wonder whether it was thorough and credible. In fact, as my series on the reports showed, the UN did not get Israel's evidence and ignored evidence from private Israeli individuals. Remember my report that Goldstone got in some nice shuteye during testimony by a particularly sharp-thinking Israel journalist, David Bedein?

Now, if Ban assumes that Israel cannot handle the conflict of interest in evaluating itself, why does he imply that Turkey, now embracing an Islamist ideology, can handle the conflict of interest on the panel in evaluating Turkish actions that led to the violence on the flotilla? Perhaps Ban envisions his panel not considering Turkey's role. That would be consistent with the Goldstone report hardly considering Hamas' role in the Gaza combat. So Turkey's Islamist regime would sit in judgment on the Jewish state?


P.A. police (A.P./Nasser Shiyoukhi)

Maan News reports that a deal for Fatah-Hamas unity has been approved in principle and is itemizing the details in a spirit of confidence of success.

The Arab League would have the task of identifying which part or parties violate the final agreement (IMRA, 6/19/10).

Would the deal set up a popular front like the European ones in which the Communists sought to dominate the others? Would Hamas take over the P.A. army that the U.S. has been training ostensibly to fight Hamas but which some of us suspected, as did Hamas, would end up falling into Hamas' hands and fighting Israel? Some observers also suspected that even if the P.A. army remained independent of Hamas, it would fight Israel, not Hamas.

The U.S. kept emphasizing an artificial distinction between Fatah and Hamas as only Hamas being terrorist. What would the U.S. say once the two became unified? Would it say that Hamas reformed, though Hamas is not renouncing jihad? Or would the U.S. admit that Fatah really has the same goal, jihad, as Hamas, and uses the same terrorist means? The U.S. willfully has ignored Fatah's promotion of terrorism.

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 Fred Reifenberg, June 19, 2010.

This was written by Victor David Hanson and it appeared June 13, 2010 in the National Review Online.


I like opinions when they say it as it is, and not dodge the basic issues......READ ON !!

Pretty much everything about the Israel double standard and what it means wrapped in one article:

It is hard to become much more influential than the doyen of the White House press corps, who is given a ceremonial front-rows seat at press briefings and press conferences. So when Helen Thomas suggested that the Israelis should leave their country and "go home" to Poland and Germany, this was not some obscure, eccentric anti-Semite, but a liberal insider who has come to enjoy iconic status and a sense of exemption from criticism.

Note that Ms. Thomas did not call for just a West Bank free of Jews. And she did not just wish for the elimination of the nation of Israel itself. Rather, Thomas envisions the departure of Israelis to the sites of the major death camps seven decades ago where six million Jews were gassed.

Turkey's role in aiding and abetting the flotilla, and its subsequent anti-Israeli outbursts, were excessive even by the often sick standards of the Middle East — but not exactly new. State-run Turkish television has aired virulent anti-Semitic dramas like the 2006 Valley of the Wolves, in which a Jewish doctor harvests organs from captured Iraqi civilians. Former Turkish prime minister Necmettin Erbakan once claimed that the Jews had instigated World War I in order to create Israel. Israel, Erbakan further asserted, in full-blown Hitlerian prose, was a "disease" and a "bacteria" that needed to be eradicated. The current prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, talks of sending in the Turkish fleet to confront the Israeli blockade, says he is sick of Israeli lies, and warns that his new Turkey is not "a young and rootless nation," as Israel presumably is (note the code word "rootless"). So speaks our NATO partner and E.U. wannabe. This week, in reaction to criticism from the West, Erdogan labeled such concerns "dirty propaganda" — note well, not just propaganda but a "dirty" sort.

In an odd way, Thomas's sick suggestions and Turkey's new Islamist and vehemently anti-Israel foreign policy will have a liberating effect on Israel. After all, if the ceremonial head of the White House press corps wants Israel's citizens either gone or dead, there is a legitimate suspicion that things are not quite right in the capital of Israel's staunchest ally. And if the most secular, democratic, and pro-Western Muslim country in the Middle East wishes to pick a fight to prove its Muslim fides, then there is not much hope that Israel is going to win over anyone else in that region.

Anti-Semitism as displayed by both Thomas and Turkey's leaders is not predicated on criticizing Israel, much less disagreeing with its foreign policy. Instead, it hinges upon focusing singularly on Israeli behavior, and applying a standard to it that is never extended to any other nation.

There are plenty of disputes over borders and land in the world. But to Helen Thomas or the Turkish government, Kashmir or the Russian-Chinese border matters little — although the chances of escalation to nuclear confrontation are far greater there than on the West Bank. Has Thomas ever popped off, "Why don't those Chinese just get the hell out of Tibet?" or "Why don't those Indians just get out of Kashmir?"

The Palestinian "refugees" — a majority of whom are the children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of people actually displaced in 1948 — compose a small part of the world's refugee population. There are millions of refugees in Rwanda, the Congo, and Darfur. Well over a half-million Jews were ethnically cleansed from the major Arab capitals between 1947 and 1973, each wave of expulsion cresting after a particular Mideast war. Again, few care to demonstrate for the plight of any of these people. Prime Minister Erdogan has not led any global effort to relocate the starving millions in Darfur, despite his loud concern for "refugees" in Gaza. The United States gives far more millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians than does their Muslim protector in Turkey, who saves cash in winning Palestinian support by practicing anti-Semitism on the cheap. Nor have I heard of any German suicide bomber blowing himself up over lost ancestral land in Danzig or East Prussia, although that land was lost about the same time as some Palestinians left Israel. Few worry that in 1949 tens of thousands of Japanese were forcibly expelled by the Soviet Union from Sakhalin Island.

The world likewise cares little for the concept of "occupation" in the abstract; it is only the concrete example of Palestine that earns its opprobrium. We can be assured that President Obama will not bring up Ossetia with President Putin. He will not raise the question of Tibet with the Chinese or occupied Cyprus with Prime Minister Erdogan. Will Helen Thomas ever ask, "How can Turkey be allowed to keep Nicosia a divided city?" Will she worry whether Greeks are allowed to buy property in the Turkish sector of that capital?

There is no European outcry over the slaughter of South Koreans in a torpedo attack by a North Korean vessel. I don't recall President Sarkozy weighing in on that particular moral issue. The United Nations is angrier at Israel for enforcing a blockade against its terrorist neighbor than it is at Somalia for allowing pirates to kill and rob right off its coast. There was not much of a global outcry when Iran hijacked a British naval vessel; few in Turkey demonstrated when the French blew up a Greenpeace protest vessel.

"Disproportionate" is a term used to condemn Israeli retaliation. It does not apply to other, far more violent reprisals, such as the Russian leveling of Grozny, or the Turkish killing of Kurds, or occasional Hindu mass rioting and murdering of Muslims in India. Does Prime Minister Erdogan wish to allow "peace activists" to interview Kurds detained in his prisons, or to adjudicate the status of Kurds, Armenians, or Christian religious figures who live in Turkey? Can we imagine a peace flotilla of Swedish and British leftists sailing to Cyprus to "liberate" Greek land or investigate the "disappearance" of thousands of Greeks in 1974? And if they did, what would happen to them? About the same as would happen if they blocked a road to interdict a Turkish armored column rolling into Kurdistan.

Nor do human-rights violations mean much any more. Iran executes more of its own citizens each year than Israel has killed Palestinians in the course of war in any given year. Syria murders whomever it pleases in Lebanon without worry that any international body will ever condemn its action. I have heard a great deal about the "massacre" or "slaughter" at Jenin, where 52 Palestinians and 23 Israelis died. Indeed, the 2002 propaganda film Jenin, Jenin was a big hit on college campuses. But I have never seen a documentary Hama, Hama commemorating the real 1982 slaughter of somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians by the criminal Assad regime in Syria, with which we now so eagerly wish to restore ties. I find a 1,000-to-1 fatality rule generally applies: Each person killed by the Israel Defense Forces warrants about as much international attention as 1,000 people killed by Africans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, or Arabs.

I used to think that oil, Arab demography, fear of Islamic terrorism, and blowback from its close association with the United States explained the global double standard that is applied to Israel.

But after the hysteria over the Gaza flotilla, the outbursts of various members of the Turkish government, and Ms. Thomas's candid revelations, I think the mad-dog hatred of Israel is more or less because it is a Jewish state. Period.

Let me explain. Intellectuals used to loudly condemn anti-Semitism because it was largely associated with those deemed to be less sophisticated people, often right-wing, who on either racial, nationalistic, or religious grounds regarded Jews as undesirable. Hating Jews was a sign of boorish chauvinism, or of the conspiratorial mind that exuded envy and jealousy of the more successful.

But in the last two decades especially, the Left has made anti-Semitism respectable in intellectual circles. The fascistic nature of various Palestinian liberation groups was forgotten, as the "occupied" Palestinians grafted their cause onto that of American blacks, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans. Slurring post-Holocaust Jews was still infra dig, but damning the nation-state of Israel as imperialistic and oppressive was considered principled. No one ever cared to ask: Why Israel and not other, far more egregious examples? In other words, one could now focus inordinately on the Jews by emphasizing that one's criticism was predicated on cosmic issues of human rights and justice. And by defaming Israel the nation, one could vent one's dislike of Jews without being stuck with the traditional boorish label of anti-Semite.

So an anti-Semitic bigot like Helen Thomas could navigate perfectly well among the top echelons of Washington society spouting off her hatred of Israel, since her animus was supposedly against Israeli policies rather than those who made them. Only an inadvertent remark finally caught up with her to reveal that what she felt was not anger growing out of a territorial dispute, but furor about the nature of an entire people who should be deported to the sites of the Holocaust.

Finally, as I say, all this may have a strangely liberating effect on Israel. We know now that whatever it does, the world, or at least its prominent political and media figures, is going to damn it. Its longtime patron, the United States, now sees not much difference between Israel's democratic achievement and the autocracies around it, which we are now either subsidizing or courting. As a result, the global censors have lost leverage with Israel, since they have proven to be such laughable adjudicators of right and wrong when Israel is involved.

Israelis should assume by now that whether they act tentatively or strongly, the negative reaction will be the same. Therefore why not project the image of a strong, unapologetic country to a world that has completely lost its moral bearings, and is more likely to respect Israel's strength than its past concern for meeting an impossible global standard? {my highlighting — Fred Reifenberg}.

How odd that the more the activists, political leaders, and media figures issue moral strictures against Israel, the more they prove abjectly amoral. And the more they seek to pressure Israel, the more they are liberating it to do what it feels it must.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, June 19, 2010.

Diffusing the present dangerous confrontation between Islam and the West demands rational impartial and cool heads to untangle facts from myth, understand the Muslims' mindset, and redress any grievances on either side.

The Muslims' perennial complaint is that the imperialist West — all colonial powers of the past, as well as the United States of America — have victimized them for decades and even centuries and continue to do so in every conceivable way. The litany of the alleged wrongdoings by the West is encyclopedic. To begin with, the West has shown utter contempt for the legitimate rights of the Muslim nation by arbitrarily dividing much of the Islamic land into fractured entities, plundering its resources, and topping these crimes by installing in its midst its illegitimate stepchild of Israel — a huge thorn in their side, so they complain.

"A grain of truth is needed to make a mountain of lies believable," is an old saw. In fairness to Muslims, there is some substance to their claims against the West. For now, let us focus on the general mindset of Muslims which bears heavily on the hostility toward the West — a serious hostility that may bring about the dreaded Armageddon.

  • Patriarchy and authoritarianism: The Muslim's mind is imprinted with authoritarianism which starts with the supreme authority, Allah, through his one and only prophet, Muhammad, his Caliphs or Imams, and the high-ranking religious divines all the way down to the village clergy. This authoritarian mentality encompasses all aspects of life for the Muslim. The king and his dominion as the viceroy of God, the Emir and his despotic ways, the Khan and his unchallenged rule over the tribe, the village headsman and his extensive power, and finally the father and his iron grip at home over the women and children. All these authority figures are male.

    The authoritarian type poses numerous problems and presents many ramifications — ramifications much too important and complex to be comprehensively treated here. For now, it is important to understand that a person with the authoritarian personality is an extremist. He can be docility itself under certain circumstances and a maniacal murdering brute under others. He is the type who would just as happily kill or die, when he is directed to do so. He would, for instance, gladly strap on an explosive vest, in obedience to a superior's order, and detonate it in a crowd of innocent civilians without the slightest hesitation.

  • Blind obedience: A dangerous feature of the authoritarian personality is the relative lack of independent thinking. This deficiency makes the person highly amenable to manipulation. Islam, by its rigidly authoritarian make up, robs a Muslim of independent thinking to the extent that the believer blindly adopts it as his infallible system of belief. Hence, the religion of Islam is guilty of conditioning masses of people as easily manipulatable instruments in the hands of authority figures.

    Studies have shown that the authoritarian personality type can be found among all people, including Americans. The important difference is in the degree and prevalence of the condition. Islam breeds vast numbers of extremists, while in America, for instance, the prevalence is significantly lower and less severe.

  • Focus on goal: To Muslims, the goal is everything. As religious fascism, Islam condones any and all means to achieve its goals. The ultimate objective of Islam is the rule of the entire world under the Islamic Ummah — never mind that these life-in-hand soldiers of Allah disagree with one another regarding the Ummah itself and who is going to reign over it. That's a "family dispute" that they will resolve by their usual favorite method — brute force. Each Islamic sect believes that it has the Prophet and Allah on its side and it will prevail over the other. For now they have to work diligently to achieve the intermediary goal of defeating all non-believers. There are countless instances that substantiate Muslims' "End justifies the means" guiding principle. This policy dates back to Muhammad himself. Muhammad repeatedly made peace covenants with his adversaries, only to violate them as soon as he was in advantageous position to do so. Betrayal, deception and outright lies are fully condoned in furthering the work of Islam. In the present-day world, the work of Islam is defined by a deeply-entrenched and influential clergy who issue fatwa — rulings — that become directives and laws to the faithful.

    Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian Islamic state, for one, made extensive use of the fatwa. Widely-known in the west is Khomeini's fatwa condemning Selman Rushdie to death for his book. A less known fatwa of Khomeini during the last Iran-Iraq war led to the slaughter of thousands of Iranian children. Children, nearly all under 15 years of age, were given plastic keys to paradise as they were commanded by the fatwa of the imam to rush forward to clear minefields for the tanks to follow. The Islamic murderers, in obedience to the fatwa of a bloodthirsty man of Allah, had no problem in deceiving the clueless lads clinching made — in — China plastic keys to paradise.

    Such is the existentialistic threat of Islam. It is a rigid stone-age authoritarian system with a stranglehold over many of the nearly one and a half billion people under its command.

  • Fatalism: One of the greatest subtle, yet important differences between the Muslim's mindset and that of the people in the West is the extent to which Muslims are fatalistic. There is hardly a statement that a Muslim makes without being conditional — conditional on the will of Allah. "I shall see you tomorrow, Allah willing," "You will make it home, Allah willing," "Things will work out, Allah willing," and on and on and on. To the Muslim, Allah is on the job — on every job. Allah, with his invisible mighty hand, literally does and runs everything. "Allah's hand is above all other hands," adorns every imaginable space in Islamic lands — a telling point about the Muslim's fatalism and submission to the omnipotent omnipresent hand. If something happens, it is Allah's will. If it doesn't, it is Allah's will. The rank and file Muslim has little will of his own. It absolves him of any and all responsibility. This mentality is in stark contrast with the "take charge" and "can do" mentality characteristic of Americans and others.

  • Psychological uniqueness: People as a group or as individuals are different and none is perfectly healthy psychologically. We all have a loose wheel or two as we travel the bumpy road of life. Yet, most people manage to stay on course most of the time, with perhaps a stop or two at a repair shop of a mental health professional.

    Most psychological disorders are exaggerations, deficits or surfeits of the generally accepted norm — whatever the norm may be. When caution, for instance, is practiced past suspicion, then we have paranoia; when reasonable fear is exercised beyond any justification, then there is phobia. The degree and severity of a condition frequently determine the presence or absence of psychopathology.

    Muslims share a common Islamic psychological milieu, they are on an Islamic "diet," whether they live in Islamic lands or in societies predominantly non-Islamic. The psychological condition of any Muslim group or individual is directly dependent on the kind and amount of Islamic diet they consume. The Islamic diet has numerous ingredients — some of which are wholesome, some are dangerously toxic, and some are between the two extremes.

    Over the years, the Islamic leaders have found it expedient to feed the masses mainly the toxic ingredients to further their own interests. Individuals and groups, for instance, have used the immense energizing power of hatred to rally the faithful; the cohesive force of polarization to create in-group solidarity; and, the great utility value of blaming others for their real and perceived misfortunes. Jews have been their favorite and handy scapegoats from day one. To this day, as true fascists, like the Nazis, Muslims blame just about everything on the Jews.

    Providing a comprehensive inventory of the psychological profile of the Muslims is beyond the scope of this article. Yet, there is no question that the psychological makeup of a Muslim, depending on the extent of his Muslim-ness, is different from that of non-Muslims. This difference, often irreconcilable as things stand presently, is at the core of the clash of Islam with the West.

  • Conclusion. Admittedly, the non-Islamic culture is no panacea. It has, however, one outstanding feature the Islamic lacks — it allows for liberty with all its attendants — good, bad, or indifferent. Those who have experienced liberty, no inducement is likely to make them give it up — particularly not the fictional promises of the Islamists that have failed in the past and are doomed to fail even more miserably in the future.

The best, yet difficult resolution of the conflict is to do what hundreds of thousands of Muslims have already done. They have abandoned the slaveholder Islam: they broke loose from the yoke of the exploitative clergy, renounced Islamofascisim, purged the discriminatory and bizarre teachings in the Quran and the Hadith, and left the suffocating tent of dogmatic Islam for the life-giving expanse of liberty.

Within the emancipating and accommodating haven of liberty, those who wish to remain Muslim can retain and practice the good teachings of Islam but renounce intolerance, hatred and violence. It takes great effort and courage to ascend from the degrading pit of slavery to the mount of emancipation. Yet, it is both possible and exhilarating to do it, since many have done so successfully and happily. As more and more people leave the shackles of religious slavery, more and more will follow, and the long-suffering Muslims, victimized by Islam itself for far too long, will be a free people in charge of their own life and destiny. It is a painful process of growing up, of asserting one's coming of age, and marching lockstep with the free members of the human race.

Slavery of the mind is as evil as the slavery of the body. Islamofascisim enslaves them both.

Contact Amil Imani at amil_imani@yahoo.com

This article is archived at
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option= com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=2

To Go To Top

Posted by Ken Timmerman, June 19, 2010.

Dear friends,

Here is yet more proof of the nexus between the hard-left and the Islamists. The same folks who brought you moveon.org and now bringing you the Gaza "peace" flotillas, thanks to Internet advocacy and Qatari money.

Ken Timmerman

My articles are archived at
newsmax.com/Archives/KenTimmerman/ 90/2010/1/


An American communications firm best known for shaping the liberal Moveon.org into a national movement has tackled a new project: orchestrating an international anti-Israel campaign aimed at breaking the blockade of the Gaza strip.

Fenton Communications, which has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco, signed two contracts last year with Qatar to develop "a communications action plan for an 18-month campaign" aimed at delegitimizing Israel and generating international support for the Hamas-run Gaza strip, documents filed with the Department of Justice show.

The campaign, known as the "Al Fakhoora Project," has a very visible Web presence that boasts of rallying 10,000 activists "against the blockade on Gaza."

Fenton signed the contracts, worth more than $390,000, with the Office of Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned, the wife of the Qatari ruler, and a separate foundation she chairs. The contracts are ongoing, according to Fenton's Foreign Agent registration forms.

U.S. diplomats in the region view the elegant sheikha as a "progressive" force in Qatar, who has partnered in the past with U.S. AID and other U.S. government agencies on projects involving education, women's rights, and the arts.

Fenton's Al Fakhoora project is cleverly disguised as a campaign to help students in Gaza in the pursuit of a better education.

One of the documents filed with the Department of Justice describes Al Fakhoora as a "student-led campaign to protect education from violence during war or conflicts, specifically in Gaza, and to lead an international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks on schools in Gaza."

Robert Perez, the Fenton executive in charge of both accounts who is based in San Francisco, did not return repeated messages from Newsmax.

The Qatari sheikha paid Fenton for "developing and managing" the campaign website, "including regularly advising and updating the site with new content," according to the contract documents.

The website features a YouTube interview with the Al Fakhoora director, explaining why the group took part in the aid flotilla that attacked Israeli special forces on May 31, and a sidebar boasting that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is mulling a resolution "to condemn Israeli Defense Forces' military attack on the Freedom Flotilla."

Fenton's contracts called for the group to assist the sheikha and her Qatar Foundation "in the recruitment of student leaders in US and international college campuses," and "in the recruitment of grass-roots supporters, including NGOs and virtual supporters internationally."

It also called on Fenton to:

  • Train a spokesman for the group and provide "leadership development curriculum for student leaders"
  • Conduct "spokesperson training sessions" for student leaders
  • Monitor social networking and mainstream media outlets and blogs
  • Develop press materials and "pitch stories to university and mainstream press"
  • Train students how to research, compose, and produce propaganda clips
  • Conduct outreach "to potential political partners in the United States"

The cash from Qatar bought a sophisticated U.S. media campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion to generate support for the Hamas-led government and the people of the Gaza strip.

It also included a full-scale fundraising effort aimed at generating a war chest of up to $100 million in addition to the money the Qatari sheikha provided.

Al Fakhoora Director Farooq Burney explains in a YouTube video about the Gaza flotilla attack that "the purpose of us to join this trip was number one, to allow support, or to enable us to interact with students in Gaza. Our intention was to go there and lend our support to students in Gaza and let them know that people care for them, and people are advocating for them to have access to quality education."

Burney says he was carrying 65 computers for schools in Gaza, and that "there was a lot of excitement" among the participants, with "a festive mood" on board the ships.

Schools in Gaza are predominantly run by UNWRA, the United Nations agency set up in 1948 to take care of Palestinian refugees. A video exposing anti-Israel incitement taught in UNWRA schools, "For the Sake of Nakba," made by veteran Israeli journalist David Bedein, was shown last week in the U.S. Senate.

"Unfortunately," Burney went on, "we were attacked by the Israeli navy. People were killed. People were injured. It was very saddening to see that, to have somebody die in front of you . . . We talk about humanitarian work, we talk about activism. I don't know how much more peaceful this could have been."

Video footage taken by shipboard cameras and released by the Israel Defense Forces shows activists suiting up in bulletproof vests and assaulting Israeli commandos with metal bars and clubs as they tried to board the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish "aid" ship Burney describes in his YouTube interview.

Other footage, taken from Israeli helicopters, shows the "activists" assaulting an Israeli commando as he is rappelling down to the ship and tossing him off the deck of the ship.

The primary weapon the Israeli commandos used during the boarding operation was a Tippman 98 Custom — a paintball gun.

Testimony one of the commandos released later described how the "activists" shot this commanding officer in the leg and stabbed him in the stomach before tossing him off the deck. Other "activists" on the lower deck then dragged the officer inside, taking a knife to expand the wound in his stomach.

"They cut his ab muscles horizontally and by hand spilled his guts out," the soldier said.

"When they finished, they raised him up and walked him on the deck outside. He was conscious the whole time. If you are asking yourself why they did all that here comes the reason. They wanted to show the soldiers their commanders' body so they will be demoralized and scared," the soldier said.

"Luckily, when they walked him on the deck, a soldier saw him and managed to shoot the activist that was walking him down the outside corridor. He shot him with a special non lethal bullet that didn't kill him. My commander managed to jump from the deck to the water and swim to an army rescue boat (his guts still out of his body and now in salty sea water). That was how he was saved. The activists that did this to him are alive and now in Turkey and treated as heroes."

On Monday, Burney turned up in Qatar, where he addressed a pro-Gaza rally hosted by the Student Council at the School of Islamic Studies at the Qatar Foundation (his funder).

"Al Fakhoora has launched an advocacy campaign to file legal charges against Israel and change the public perception in the West about its actions," Burney said, according to an account that appeared in The Peninsula, an English-language daily published in Doha, Qatar.

"We need to start somewhere to face the Israeli lobby groups and their sophisticated strategies. The brutal Israeli attack on a humanitarian team with members from 22 nationalities has given us an opportunity to work on the grass root levels and put political and diplomatic pressure on Israel," Burney said.

The daylong event at "Education City," one of the sheikha's pet projects, was titled, "Rise and rise again until the siege is broken," and included a breakout session to train activists "how to break the siege within ourselves."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inadvertently may have provided an impetus to the blockade-busting flotillas when she addressed a town hall meeting that Al Jazeera hosted at Qatar's Education City in February.

When one participant asked what the United States was doing to help young people in Gaza, she responded, "We have worked to encourage the lifting of the boycotts [sic], and tried to get more important materials into Gaza."

President Obama reacted to Israel's interception of the Gaza blockade-busters angrily, calling on Israel to scale back its naval blockade because it had become "unsustainable."

That prompted Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., to rip into the president on the floor of the House.

"Mr. President, your policy in Israel is unsustainable," Pence said. "The American people are on the side of Israel and Israel's right to defend herself. Mr. President, whose side are you on?"

Kenneth R. Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc. He authored "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" and is a contributing editor to Newsmax.com His latest non-fiction books is a thriller called Honor Killing, available at www.kentimmerman.com. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 18, 2010.
This was written by Daniel Pinner and it appeared January 10, 2010 in Arutz-7
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/ Article.aspx/9250).

Answer these 20 questions, but don't check the answers until you are finished. Check your score and find out its significance at the end.

1. As is well known, Palestine is the Holy Land for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Palestine's sanctity in Islam is expressed in the fact that the Koran mentions Palestine:

a) 1,034 times;
b) 837 times;
c) 408 times;
d) 1 time;
e) never.

2. Jerusalem is the third holiest city for Islam (after Mecca and Medina). In honor of this status, the Koran refers to Jerusalem as:

a) Al-Kuds ("The Holy");
b) Al-Medina al-Kuds ("The Holy City");
c) Urusalim ("Jerusalem");
d) Al-Kiblah al-Awalani ("The First Direction [of prayer]");
e) By no name, because Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran.

3. The Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, is one of Islam's holiest shrines. In accordance with this sanctity, Moslems pray on the Temple Mount:

a) facing the Dome of the Rock;
b) in the north-west section, to face the Dome and Mecca simultaneously;
c) standing facing the Dome of the Rock, kneeling facing Mecca;
d) facing the Dome of the Rock for certain prayers, Mecca for others;
e) kneeling facing Mecca, their backsides towards the Dome of the Rock.

4. The Jewish claim to the Holy Land is that God promised it to them. Moses — the Jewish national leader — is quoted as saying: "O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you...and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has decreed for you". This speech of Moses is recorded in:

a) the Book of Exodus;
b) the Book of Isaiah;
c) the Talmud;
d) the Midrash;
e) the Koran (Sura 5:20-21).

5. In popular literature, historical discussions, political debates, and other forums, the Palestinians' standard claim is that they are:

a) the descendants of the Biblical Philistines (a European tribe originating in Crete, who invaded the Holy Land in the early Biblical period);
b) the continuation of the Biblical Canaanites (a Hamatic tribe, in perpetual warfare against the Philistines);
c) the descendents of the earliest Christians (i.e. Jews);
d) an integral part of the Arab nation (a Semitic nation originating in Arabia, and entirely unconnected to the Philistines, the Canaanites, and the Jews);
e) all of the above.

6. In the period of history that Palestine was an independent country, its capital city was:

a) Jerusalem;
b) Jaffa;
c) Haifa;
d) Ramallah;
e) Meaningless, because there was never in history an independent country called Palestine, so it never had a capital city.

7. The earliest mention of a place called Palestine in history is:

a) in the Hebrew Bible, in the Book of Genesis, when God commanded Abraham to go to Palestine;
b) in the Hebrew Bible, in the Book of Joshua, when the Israelites conquered Palestine;
c) in a stone plaque dating from about 600 BCE, commemorating the Babylonian conquest of Palestine;
d) in the New Testament;
e) in the year 135 CE, after the European Roman invaders defeated the Jewish revolt in Judea, and re-named the province Palestine.

8. "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine' is alien to us." Who said these words?

a) Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel, in a speech to the American Zionist Organization, 1972;
b) Moshe Dayan, Minister of Defense of Israel and former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, addressing the General Staff, 1968;
c) Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, in his election victory speech, 1996;
d) Abba Eban, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, in a speech in 1981;
e) Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, addressing the British Peel Commission, 1937.

9. "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." Who said this?

a) Egyptian dictator, President Gamal Abdul Nasser, addressing the Egyptian parliament, a month after the Six Day War, July 1967;
b) Jordanian King Hussein, a week before the Six Day War, May 1967;
c) Syrian dictator, President Hafez al-Assad, addressing the Arab League, 1994;
d) Iraqi dictator President Saddam Hussein, addressing the Iraqi nation in a televised speech, 2002;
e) Zahir Muhsein, executive member of the PLO, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 1977.

10. On the eve of Israel's independence in May 1948, approximately 600,000 Arabs lived in the areas that would soon become the State of Israel. When the War of Independence was over (March 1949), 150,000 Arabs were still there. This is why the UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency) officially recognized that the number of Arab refugees was:

a) 450,000;
b) 600,000;
c) 850,000;
d) 1,000,000;
e) 1,300,000.

11. In June 1982, the Israel Defense Forces entered south Lebanon to fight against the PLO, which had taken refuge Lebanon in 1970, after having been defeated by Jordan's King Hussein. The total population in southern Lebanon was about 400,000, of whom vast numbers — perhaps as many as 10% — fled northwards to escape the fighting. UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) officially estimated the number of refugees as:

a) 40,000;
b) 80,000;
c) 120,000;
d) 250,000;
e) 600,000.

12. The Palestine National Covenant (the constitution of the PLO) states that "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit" (Article 2). 77% of this "indivisible territorial unit" is today:

a) the State of Israel, and the remaining 23% is Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and Gaza;
b) Israel (including Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, i.e. the "occupied territories"), and the remaining 23% are the border areas of various neighboring Arab states;
c) Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (the "occupied territories"), and the remaining 23% is divided between Israel and Jordan;
d) Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and the remaining 23% has been annexed to the State of Israel;
e) The Kingdom of Jordan; the remaining 23% is Israel (including Judea, Samaria, and Gaza).

13. As its name suggests, the raison d'être of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) is to liberate Palestine. Accordingly, the PLO has fought to establish its independent state in:

a) the whole of Israel, starting with Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (the "occupied territories");
b) sovereign Israel alone, rejecting any claim to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (prior to the Six Day War);
c) Jordan (in the late 1960s and early 1970s)
d) Lebanon (from the mid-1970s until 1982);
e) All of the above.

14. The PLO's purpose, as they and their supporters make clear, is to liberate the "occupied territories" which Israel captured in the Six Day War (5th-10th June 1967). This claim is proven by the historical fact that the PLO was founded:

a) in Ramallah, the biggest city in the West Bank, a month after the Six Day War;
b) in Gaza City, which has traditionally been a centre of Palestinian nationalism, on the first anniversary of the Six Day War;
c) as a response to the establishment of the first Israeli settlement in Hebron in 1969;
d) on the 10th anniversary of the Six Day War, in June 1977, in Hebron;
e) 3½ years before the Six Day War, on 1st January 1964, in Cairo (the capital of Egypt).

15. In the 25-year period 1950-1974, the Arab countries (including Iran) donated a total of $26,476,750 in aid to Palestinian refugees, representing 0.04% (i.e. $1 out of every $2,500) of their combined oil revenue for 1974 alone. The only country in the entire Middle East which gave no aid at all to Palestinian refugees was:

a) Israel;
b) Iran;
c) Libya;
d) Jordan;
e) Algeria.

16. Israel has often been accused of "ethnic cleansing" of the Arabs in the "occupied territories". The demography bears this out, because the Arab population of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza has:

a) plummeted from 6,500,000 in 1967 to 3,000,000 in 2009;
b) plummeted from an estimated 5,000,000 in 1967 to less than 2,000,000 in 2009;
c) remained steady at 3,000,000, despite huge natural growth in the rest of the world;
d) increased at one tenth of the pace of natural population growth;
e) increased from about 750,000 in 1967 to an estimated 3,700,000 in 2009, a population growth of nearly 500% in barely more than a generation, which is one of the highest rates of increase anywhere in the world.

17. Israel has also been accused of "ethnic cleansing" of Arabs who are citizens of the state, and deliberately enforcing policies designed to keep the Arab population small. This, too, is shown by the demography, in that the Israeli Arab population has:

a) dropped from slightly over 1,000,000 (40% of the overall population) in 1948 to 750,000 (20% of the population) in 2009;
b) remained at a steady 1,000,000 from 1948 to 2009, while the overall population has increased seven-fold;
c) increased from 500,000 in 1948 to 1,000,000 in 2009, representing a drop from 35% of the overall population to just 12% in 58 years;
d) decreased steadily by 2% per year from 1948 onwards;
e) increased from 150,000 (15% of the overall population) in 1948 to about 1,420,000 (22% of the overall population) in 2009.

18. As of 2009, there are five universities (the Islamic University of Hebron; Bir Zeit University; Bethlehem University; Al-Najah University in Shechem [Nablus]; and Al-Ahzar in Gaza), and five religious higher education academies, throughout the so-called "occupied territories." These institutes are:

a) all that remain of 25 institutes of higher education, the others having been destroyed by the Israeli occupation forces;
b) some of the oldest in the Arab world, with the Islamic University of Hebron having been founded under the original Caliphate in the 8th century;
c) forced to operate secretly, because the Israeli authorities have banned them;
d) barely tolerated by the Israeli authorities;
e) all founded since the Israeli "occupation" of 1967, all under Israeli auspices, the oldest one being the Islamic University of Hebron, founded in 1971.

19. Since the Israeli "occupation" of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza in 1967, nine Palestinians have been sentenced to death by the courts and judicially executed, and scores — probably hundreds — more have been executed in extra-judicial killings. All of them, without exception, were executed:

a) by the Israeli military occupation authorities;
b) by the Israeli Army after military courts-martial;
c) by the Israeli civil administration, following criminal trials in civilian courts;
d) by Israeli civilian courts, acting under special emergency regulations;
e) since September 1993 by the Palestinian Authority in the autonomous zones, because Israel, alone in the Middle East, does not use the death penalty.

20. In early October 2005, an estimated 650 people charged the security fence/separation barrier, and an estimated 350 succeeded in crossing it. Security forces responded with bayonets, shotguns, and rubber bullets, killing between ten and fifteen people and injuring dozens more. This incident was given minimal media attention, and has been entirely forgotten, because:

a) the world media is biased in Israel's favor;
b) a dozen Palestinians killed is so commonplace, it is not even newsworthy;
c) the Israeli authorities imposed a media blackout;
d) Jewish settlers intimidated the journalists and photographers into silence;
e) the incident occurred along the security fence in Morocco, separating sovereign Morocco from the Spanish Sahara, and the security forces in question were Spanish.

Did you write down the 20 answers? If so, now you can score them.

Every a) is worth 1 point;
every b) is worth 2 points;
every c) is worth 3 points;
every d) is worth 4 points;
every e) is worth 5 points.

Your Score Has Meaning!

Now add up your score. If your score is 20, then you answered a) to every question. This means that you got every single answer wrong; you are politically correct and base your ideas of the Middle East on standard anti-Israel and pro-Arab propaganda lies rather than on the truth, historical accuracy, and facts.

Since you are more concerned with Israel-bashing than truth, and since you parrot every canard peddled by pro-Arab propagandists, you are ideally suited to become president of the United States, Secretary of State, a European career diplomat accredited to the Middle East, a BBC or CNN reporter, or even a journalist for Ha'aretz (a leading Israeli newspaper).

If your score is between 21 and 99, then you might have a more open mind than others, and you might know slightly more than the average media report contains. You might be interested in studying more on the subject.

If your score is 100, then you answered e) to every question. This means that you got every answer right. This suggests that you have a good, solid knowledge of the issues involved and are uninfluenced by propaganda.

But be careful: people infected by independent and honest thought tend to become targets of Islamic terrorists and their left-wing cohorts. At the very least, they get demonized as "right-wing fanatics."

If your score is below 20 or above 100, this means that you cannot count properly. Why not consider a career as the Chief Financial Officer of GM or as the Treasury Secretary of the United States?

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Warner, June 18, 2010.

This was written by Kenneth Roberts. and is archived at
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/mohammeds- fantasy-of-the-dominant-alpha-male/


Mohammed was the dominant alpha male in his society. Mohammed was the quintessential alpha male. His unlimited polygamy, his monopoly on the use of force to dominate others, his monopoly on divine revelation, his claim of special powers not given to others, such as superhuman eloquence (Sahih Bukhari 9,87,127), his claim of 20% of all the plunder stolen in raids...all expressed and reinforced his alpha-ness.

We see alpha male behavior throughout the animal kingdom, for instance, in a troop of baboons or a pride of lions. Everyone around the alpha male is subservient to him and exists only to satisfy his urges and to comply with his demands. Of course, the underlings in the group must constantly show the alpha male respect and 'honor', otherwise the alpha male will growl, bare his teeth and bite if necessary, even to the extent of killing to restore his honor. Political Islam works the same way. The Muslim response to disrespect towards Islam is one of the most visible signs of this alpha male instinct to defend 'honor' through violence.

The alpha male in Islam is under no obligation to give anything to or help the 'other' outside his immediate group-in any way, shape or form — but only to protect those within his group. The Golden Rule has no place in the animal kingdom, or in Islam. Violence is their mechanism of survival.

In Muslim society, the Muslim alpha male respects only another Muslim alpha male and only if he can demonstrate that he has everything under control; otherwise he will be despised. The non-Muslim is at the bottom of the hierarchy and is treated with the utmost contempt. Kafirs are dirty subhumans to a Muslim. The kafir is similar to an animal that has no right to graze the land or drink at the water-hole...an animal, whose only right is to be preyed upon for food. This is the meat of Islamic morals.

Jewish ethics are based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, but Mohammed brought a new theocracy based on the primacy of the alpha male. Allah substituted the Arabs for their Jewish cousins... not on the basis of ethics...but on the Arabs' ability to act like alpha males.

The Ten Commandments were tossed out and were replaced by Mohammed's 'alpha-ness'. Islamic Sharia law is based on the alpha-ness of Mohammed. An action is 'good', not because God said so on a table of stone, but because Mohammed did so...from stabbing his verbal critics, to raping war captives, to genocide, to plundering unarmed caravans.

Mohammed dispensed with the Golden Rule and most of the Ten Commandments, since they were incompatible with his opportunistic ethics...the survival of the fittest...the supremacism of 'the best of people' (i.e. the Arabs), whom Mohammed conscripted to usurp the Israelites, Persians and Romans as the new alphas on the world stage.

Mohammed's world is a theocratic dictatorship in which human behavior is motivated by the desire to dominate on the part of those who are allowed to, and fear on the part of those who are selected to be dominated...the dirty kafirs ('najis kufar' in Arabic).

Soul-searching is an alien concept in Mohammedan supremacism. In Mohammed's society, there is no need for self-evaluation or self-criticism, apart from asking whether the alpha male is getting his rightful share and his due respect. There is no need for any Muslim to evaluate his behavior beyond this point. The dominance of the Islamic male is proof of Allah's support for Islam, thus, the more domineering a Muslim is, the more Allah is seen to support him.

If a Muslim bows to the narcissism of Mohammed or to that of his Islamic head of state, he is ethical enough. Giving to 'others', without being forced to do so, is seen as a sign of weakness unfitting for the alpha male. What generally distinguishes the alpha male is his opportunism. Opportunism is the opposing principle to the Golden Rule. With no Golden Rule, Islam is intrinsically opportunistic.

A number of ancient rulers were notable alpha males: Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Nero and Genghis Khan. Mohammed clearly patterned himself on historic examples of pathological narcissism, particularly that of Alexander the Great. For some reason, Mohammed was enraptured by the legend of world-conquering Alexander the Great and claimed this vicious killer as a monotheist and even a proto-Muslim.

To the contrary, the historical Alexander was a confirmed polytheist and even claimed for himself the title of 'Son of Amon'...making Alexander the 'Son of God'...of Amon, the principle Egyptian god, 'Lord of truth, father of the gods, maker of men'. Amon-Ra was associated with alpha male dominance, as a woolly ram-headed deity with curved horns. Since rams were considered a symbol of virility, due to their rutting behavior, Amon also became thought of as a fertility deity.

The Koran is filled with ancient legends and stories plagiarized from a plethora of pagan, Jewish and Christian texts. Textual analysis has identified precisely what they were.

Mohammed's saga of the alpha male Alexander did not come from history...clearly, Mohammed did not get his information that way...but from 'legends'. Due to the discovery of 3rd century texts, we now know where Mohammed got his ideas about Alexander. A highly-romanticized Christian legend composed in the 3rd century A.D. in Alexandria implied that Alexander was a monotheist (far from the truth). However, coins and monuments of Alexander depicted him with ram's horns on his head.

'Dhul-Qarnain' ('the two-horned one') features prominently in the Koran. Mohammed's biographer Ibn Hishaq claimed, 'Dhul-Qarnain is Alexander the Greek, the king of Persia and Greece, or the king of the east and the west, for because of this he was called Dhul-Qarnain'.

It requires no Sherlock Holmes to see that Mohammed's persona was constructed from that of world-conqueror Alexander the Great, combined with that of Moses, conqueror of Canaan. Mohammed's intoxicating fantasy captured the romance, theocracy and military genius of both men and presented him (Mohammed) to the Arabs as the combination of all their alpha qualities rolled into one.

Apart from the story of Alexander, the Koran contains aggressive alpha imagery:

'We hurl the truth at falsehood and it knocks out its brains.' (K.21.18)

In the Islamic paradise, it is the most aggressive alpha males who receive the highest rewards. (cf. K. 9:111)

All in all, we require no message from an Arabian moon god to reveal alpha male behavior to us. Alpha behavior is well known in much of the animal kingdom, as well as in criminal enterprises...such as biker gangs...and in fascist politicians who impose their cult of personality on vulnerable populations.

Much of current Islamic rage takes place at the inchoate, psychological level of alpha male narcissism. Alpha behaviors such as honor-killings and cartoon riots defend the 'honor', misogyny and supremacism that Muslim males have a vested interest in maintaining.

Of course, Mohammed's supremacist model for society is incompatible with a pluralistic democracy based on non-violence, equality and tolerance in the public and personal spheres. The two models contradict one another.

Whether Mohammed's alpha male fantasy has the slightest chance of surviving in the Age of Aquarius, well, that's another story.

Bill Warner is Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Contact him at bw@politicalislam.com and visit their website at http://www.politicalislam.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, June 18, 2010.

This article below is by Julia Gorin and comments on an article by Adam Sherwin called "Bremner fears joke about Islam would mean death."

Sherwin's article appeared June 15, 2010 in The Independent
(http://www.independent.co.uk/arts- entertainment/tv/news/bremner-fears-joke- about-islam-would-mean-death-2000514.html). Text from the Sherwin article is in italics.

Goran's article is called "Belatedly, British Comedian Considers Knocking Muslims — and Notices he isn't 'Allowed'."

"The political satirist Rory Bremner has claimed that the "chilling" effect of fundamentalism means that every time he writes a sketch about Islam he fears that he is signing his own death warrant."

Did he only just notice? Or did it take him 20 years into blatant jihad before he thought of knocking Muslims?

"Speaking to Sir David Frost in a BBC documentary about the future of satire, Bremner argued that self-censorship was the biggest problem for practitioners of topical comedy today.

"Bremner's views are echoed by other comedians including Ben Elton, who has accused the BBC of being "scared" to allow jokes about Islam. But Bremner went further by speaking about fears for his own personal safety.

"The greatest danger now is that one of the toughest issues of our time is religion," Bremner told Sir David in the BBC4 programme Frost on Satire, which will be broadcast on Thursday. "When [I'm] writing a sketch about Islam, I'm writing a line and I think, 'If this goes down badly, I'm writing my own death warrant there.'..."

Uh, even if it doesn't go down badly, Sir.

"Because there are people who will say, 'Not only do I not think that's funny but I'm going to kill you' — and that's chilling."

Sir David said he was "surprised" that Bremner felt that his life could be placed in danger by telling a joke.

About Sir David's "surprise": Don't you just love the way one day the British prototype — necessarily Muslim-loving — is sure to express indignation and outrage over any "insensitive" remarks about Muslims, under the guise of being offended, when really he's terrified but won't acknowledge it. And the next day, he expresses surprise that one could fear for one's life and therefore censor oneself when it comes to knocking Muslims.

Does Sir David Frost really think that he hasn't been self-censoring? Indeed, how much poking fun at Islam or Muslims has Frost been doing on Al-Jazeera, which airs his weekly show? He knows the threat to life and limb all too well, and acts accordingly.

What a liar Frost is, but good for Bremner for finally calling a spade a spade. My tip for him feeling safer: now that he's on board (i.e. noticed that Muslims are censoring him), perhaps he can convince his fellow frightened comedians to SPREAD THE RISK, damnit. Precisely the point of Facebook's "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day."


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 18, 2010.


Appealing for military support and stability (AP/Massoud Hosseini)

The government of Afghanistan is trying to get Taliban troops to stand down, leave the "cause," make peace. It has made a new offer of amnesty. Now it would permit retention of weapons by those who pledge to return home.

The new offer bears the risk that in their villages, the purportedly ex-Taliban would use those guns to dominate the area in behalf of the Taliban.

The theory behind the offer is to enable the ex-Taliban to protect themselves. It is no easier to resign from the terrorist group than it is to retire from a hardened American street gang. The gangs assassinate those who quit.

Along with the weapons concessions come offers of education, vocational training, jobs, and village development. The government anticipates rehabilitating 36,000 insurgents within five years (Maria.


Prince Charles has espoused many advanced ideas on improving or preserving the environment. He has gone too far, however, in bringing religion into it and at the wrong time.

He criticized the Western heritage in a number of ways, starting with the astronomer, Galileo, for "objectifying nature." His main complaint was against Western materialism.

Prince Charles seems to have forgotten that Western science and practicality have raised the standard of living [and freedom] of billions of people.

By contrast, the Prince praised Islam as having "no separation between man and nature." He implies that Islam is good for the environment (Wall St. J., 6/17/10).

Perhaps in his actual speech, he was more thoughtful. As described in the editorial, he made generalizations that mislead. The main problem with his statement is that it comes at a time when that religion has a radical spearhead striving to oppress the otherwise free British people. They tell us that most Muslims are moderate, but there is little Muslim objection to that spearhead and much sympathy with its thrust of imposing Islamic law on the British.

A second problem with the generalization is its falsity. Materialism is healthy. Excessive materialism is not. Disregarding the environment is not limited to the West, and is not excluded from Islamic areas.

Bedouin raids and Turkish deforestation helped turn Palestine into a wasteland, until Zionism restored it. Israel is pushing back the desert, which is encroaching further into other areas of the Mideast and southern Africa. Twice Israel had to rescue the people of Gaza who, when not under Israeli rule, turned their aquifer brackish.

I have reported on leaky water distribution in Arab-run areas and on lack of proper sewage disposal in the Palestinian Authority. Iran subsidizes gasoline, encouraging people to drive unnecessarily. All over the world, people are getting cars in preference to mass-transit. Under anti-Western Communist rule, the USSR shortened the life span, partly by pollution. China now is trying to reduce its own pollution, but it has become known for building industrial facilities in other countries that are highly polluting.


The EU now has added sanctions of its own on Iran, as had the U.S., in support of the Security Council sanctions.

Russia objects to the additional sanctions. Russia complains that the individual sanctions were imposed without working together with Russia (IMRA, 6/17/10).


It was popularly believed that during WWI, Turkey expelled most Palestinian Jews, in an effort to destroy Zionism.

In an otherwise dull book on statistics, The Population of Palestine, by Justin McCarthy, that myth is attributed to British, wartime, anti-Turkish propaganda. British officials mis-characterized the evacuation as cruel deportation of Jews. At that time, the world had accepted many false stories of wartime atrocities. Hence this story persuaded many.

Scandinavian consular officials and a leading Zionist official had rejected the accusation. Only a few Zionists actually were deported because of Turkish fears that they wanted to break away from the Turkish Empire.

What really happened? Realizing that the area was going to become a war zone, Turkey evacuated people of all faiths, and guarded their property for them while they were away. Most were sent elsewhere in the area. Some were sent further away. Later, they returned. This Turkish action saved many lives (p.22).

Nowadays, people are so polarized and propagandized, they lack balance and therefore lack accuracy. They fail to make proper distinctions and conclusions. The current mood is, my people right or wrong, you are either with me on everything, and everything about one's opponents is bad, or you are against me. Truth is no object. Emotion rules.

An exception is if you are an Israeli far leftist. As prof. Steven Plaut described it, the Israeli far leftist view is, against my country, right or wrong.

The Turkish fear for their Empire was well-founded, but was their Empire justified?


Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot depicts as a hero an Israeli traitor and spy, Shammai Liebowitz, now serving time in a U.S. prison. The FBI had caught Liebowitz delivering secret documents to Palestinian Arab terrorists.

Yediot would have it that Liebowitz is a moral hero, a role model. The accompanying photo showed a wall with graffiti declaring Liebowitz a courageous attorney enjoying respect. The photo was Yediot exhibit A.

The problem with the photo as testifying to Liebowitz' greatness and popularity is that Liebowitz was arrested while painting that graffiti on the supermarket wall! (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/18 from Kalman Liebskind of Maariv.)

Delivering national military secrets to terrorists who would try to utilize them in order to blow up one's fellow countrymen is hardly a moral model. The newspaper adulation of him appears ethically perverse.


The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that 1,800,000 Iraqis have requested asylum in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey. "'The acceptance rate by resettlement countries of UNHCR is referrals now stands at 80 per cent, of which nearly 76 per cent have been accepted by the U.S.,' the UNHCR said." (IMRA, 6/18/10).

UNHCR office in Tripoli closed by Libya without explanation. (A.P./Abdel Meguid al-Fergany)

If the English wording of the quotation were clear, those statistics would be. Does it mean that the U.S. determines eligibility for asylum by Iraqis in countries outside the U.S.? Does it mean the U.S. is accepting some refugees?

Suppose some of the refugees are genocidal supporters of Saddam, who fear retribution by Shiites. Should they be granted asylum, as if innocent victims and not potential trouble-makers?

UNHCR is a separate agency for refugees from UNRWA. UNRWA works only with Palestinian Arab refugees. A significant difference is in how the two agencies operate.

UNHCR tries to resettle refugees, so they can settle down in security and normalcy. It spends public funds to resolve the problems. By contrast, UNRWA keeps Palestinian Arabs in a sort of refugee status for generations, consuming ever larger public sums for a problem that increases with population growth and an overly loose definition of "refugee."


When Muslims persecute Copts in Egypt, the (authoritarian) government claims inability to control "extremists" that it nevertheless claims to be only a few. Here is a case, however, of Egyptian government outright interference in the Coptic religion.

An Egyptian court has ruled that the Coptic Church must allow divorced Copts to remarry within the Church. The Coptic Pope Shenouda rejected the ruling as interference in personal religious practice. He said he respects the law, but the constitution of Egypt allows religious freedom, at least allows each faith to rule itself in religious and personal matters. The judicial ruling contravenes the Bible. Marriage is a holy sacrament and not just an administrative act.

There is talk of imprisoning Pope Shenouda. A woman's rights group accused him of imposing his will. However, he enjoys much support from his followers, and they consider govenrment persecution a grave affront. Nor is his stance a novelty in Catholic circles.

The government daily, Al Ahram, describes the ruling as an attempt to liberalize the rules of divorce and marriage from the Coptic Pope who is not amenable to reform.

Is the Pope forcing his views on individual Copts. No. He says they may marry outside the Church or leave it.

Is the government liberalizing? The government, itself, is not liberal. Its Constitution declares Islamic law the basis for Egyptian law. Islamic law is not liberal. It discriminates against females and non-Muslims, obstructs churches, prevents Muslims from changing the religion on their I.D. cards to "Christian," etc.. Islamic law holds apostasy of Muslims to be a capital crime (Raymond Ibrahim, Middle East Forum, 6/16/10, with much documentation Pajamas Media )


U.S. intelligence finds Iran developing the capability of launching scores or hundreds of missiles at Europe. Nor would Iran be the only danger. N. Korea is a primary one, but other countries may develop missile capability. The conclusion is a policy to integrate sea-based and land-based missile defenses around NATO allies and U.S. bases. We had better have this system operational by 2020.

U.S. Defense Sec. Gates realizes that Russia does not like this plan. Russia claims concern that the U.S. would be able to intercept a Russian retaliation [as if the U.S. would attack Russia]. Not so, says Gates. The U.S. could not intercept an advanced and massive Russian attack. Gates also observes that Russia would object to anything that the U.S., and not Russia, builds (IMRA, 6/18/10).

Both Iran and N. Korea are developing long-range missiles capable of reaching into the U.S..

Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Perhaps Iran will station missiles in Venezuela doesn't collapse from its failing version of socialism.

Note that this problem, like that of the prior article's problem of Egypt and its Copts, and like the next article's problem of Saudi Arabia's problem with female radicals, has nothing to do with Israel. the claims that Israel causes all the problems of the Mideast is prejudice, not truthful.


With a jolt to its own complacency, Saudi Arabia arrested a female recruiter for al-Qaida, and realized it was not a one-of-a-kind incident. The government found that al-Qaida is attempting to recruit women in particular. The main venue for recruitment is Internet.

The government is developing a program to counteract this al-Qaida endeavor. Experts have started producing results, also via Internet, and still are studying the phenomenon. Women are particularly welcome in this government counter-terrorism.

The program's objectives are not only to keep women from recruiting, fundraising, and committing violence, but also to shop sheltering male relatives who commit terrorism. For one thing, the government operatives look for signs of female extremism.

There were comments about women being susceptible to recruitment because they are emotional [like enraged Muslim male protestors?], also likelier to quit (IMRA, 6/18/10 from Saudi Gazette).

How far apart is the government's version of Islam, with its emphasis on bigotry and violence, from "extremism?" How easily do recruiters help Saudis to bridge that gap?

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 Daily Alert, June 18, 2010.

This was written by Steven King and it appeared June 9, 2010 in the Irish Examiner
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/ columnists/stephen-king/gaza-activists-were- useful-idiots-in-a-much-bigger-turkish-power- game-121911.html


IN my first year at Queen's in Belfast, no subject exercised the monthly meetings of the students' union more than the name of the hall where our meetings were held.

By and large, republican students supported retaining the name, Mandela Hall; unionist students resented what they saw as a political stunt, especially after it was revealed the Mandela in question was the discredited Winnie, not the saintly Nelson.

Needless to say, accusations of being in favour of necklace killings and of supporting white supremacy flew back and forth. At least, it was a diversion from what really divided the student body, the tit-for-tat violence on the streets outside, I guess.

Of course, for most right-minded people, support for the struggle to end apartheid was a no-brainer. To show your solidarity with the oppressed black majority who were denied the right to vote was important. The only question was how to go about it.

Beyond the ivory tower, that meant no South African wine would ever be served in respectable middle class homes. For others, it meant going on marches. But few went very much further. Life in a guerrilla camp in Mozambique didn't appeal. Besides, the ANC had no time for such adventurers. There was no Irish Brigade camped across the Limpopo.

Beyond the wilder fringes, there used to be a consensus of aims about Israel/Palestine. Just as the desired goal in South Africa was a prosperous multiracial society, in the Holy Land it was of two secure states living side by side in harmony. But for those who have fallen into the trap of equating white South Africa with the state of Israel, the conflict in the Middle East offers many more — and more comfortable — opportunities to protest than years in the bush in the frontline states.

The struggle for Palestinian rights has long since moved beyond the university campuses where the keffiyah became the fashion statement of choice for bourgeois radicals. For a generation to whom Vietnam and South Africa are either faint memories or battles only read about in history books, Palestine is the most perfect cause. Unlike in the Spanish civil war, it's not even as though Ireland, Catholic or Protestant, could be said to have a dog in the race. There are no mutilated nuns to confuse sentiment.

For rebels looking for a cause then, Israel makes a classic enemy. Being a Jewish state makes it racist, right? Aren't its most vociferous supporters in the United States? Don't its leaders often seem impervious to criticism? What more is there to know? Sure, they even have the bomb, for heaven's sake. Only the Holocaust prevents even respectable opinion in Ireland from labelling Israel a fascist state. And as causes go, it helps that Gaza seems so much more immediate and urgent than the effects of global warming, so much more winnable than the Tibetan fight for autonomy.

Even politicians can join in the act — at almost no cost to themselves. They can visit a refugee camp and feel the Palestinians' pain by day and still have time to retreat to a beach-side five-star hotel to sip cocktails before a slap-up dinner.

For the hardcore, that's cheating. So some of these motivated individuals — a ragtag column of faded hippies, D-list celebrities, a long-forgotten Belfast peace campaigner and a few others whom Lenin would have dubbed 'useful idiots' — joined 400 Turkish Islamists on a voyage to break the Israeli blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. They came, they said, bearing medicine and food and toys. What more harmless humanitarian mission could there be?

And, in fairness, for many of them, that's probably what it was: a genuine, if misguided, attempt to relieve Gaza's suffering, whoever is to blame for it. After all, no one would pretend the Strip is anything other than a fly-ridden pit of a place. Who could fail to be moved by the conditions there?

But for the Turkish activists who drove the mission, the flotilla was all part of a much bigger game. It was a subtle repudiation of Ankara's secular Ataturkist inheritance, a premeditated provocation by a gang of wannabe martyrs bent on violent confrontation and on realigning Turkey away from the west. The pity is that they succeeded in their aims.

I ask you, do genuine peace activists chant 'death to the Jews'? And why does the western media turn a blind eye to such scenes which are positively celebrated on Arab TV?

Those who went to fight for the Republic in Spain were driven by a thirst for freedom, by positive visions of the future, by a willingness to take serious personal risks. But not a single one of those admirable traits was present on the ship of fools sailing to Gaza.

Ah, but if only the Israelis and Palestinians could sort out their differences, all in the region would be well, we're led to believe. It's a tempting trap to fall into. "Both sides are as bad as each other" appeals to fair-minded people. It doesn't involve taking sides and no one will accuse you of being anti-semitic — or a lackey of imperialism either. But the impression that Israel/Palestine is the root of all the Middle East's problems is as misguided as it is pervasive. Imagine, for a second, a world without Israel. Would the problems of the Middle East be healed? Far from it. The conflict with Israel merely serves as an effective cover for the region's collective failure to build stable, just and prosperous societies.

The Arab world would do well to rage a bit less against Israel and think a bit more about how to be better governed, better educated, more prosperous — and how to more effectively utilise the talents of the half of its population who happen to be female.

CLOSER to home, beyond trying to save its citizens, even the reckless ones, from harm it's never quite clear where the Government thinks its own interests lie. I would suggest they lie not in pandering to sentiment — it's not as though Palestinian suffering is unique in a region that's going backwards according to most indices — but in preventing a nuclear arms race between Iran on the one hand and the Sunni states, led by Saudi Arabia, on the other. Then we would really be talking "serious consequences", for Ireland and the whole world.

The deaths aboard the Mavi Marmara were regrettable and most probably avoidable. They deserve full investigation. But to avoid the mistakes of the past, politicians need to go beyond kneejerk reactions to examine the effects of their statements on the Middle East peace process, the moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Iranian efforts to establish hegemony in the region.

As for the boats which have been sailing to Gaza, they are neither truly humanitarian missions nor simply vehicles for delivering weapons to Hamas. They are best understood as an armada of people with the kind of bad politics which have been rejected at the polls in Ireland time and again.

True, the fact that the flotilla to Gaza was powered by an underlying desire for punishment of the chattering classes' new pariah does not justify Israel's recklessness. But it does help to explain it.

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 Daily Alert, June 18, 2010.

This was written by Barry Cohen and it appeared in The Australian
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ where-are-the-protests/comments-e6frg6zo- 1225881073566). Mr. Cohen was a minister in the Hawke government.


ON May 18 last year the long, bitter war between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government came to an end. After tens of thousands of deaths over decades, it is believed, 40,000 Tamils died during the final few days.

On January 17 this year, in Nigeria, about 300 Muslims were slaughtered by Christians. In March 500 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims. On March 26, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean ship, killing 46.

On May 28, in Lahore, Pakistan, 95 members of the Ahmedi Islamic sect were killed in an attack on a mosque because they were blasphemous. A few days later six "police" machine-gunned the survivors [critically wounded and in the hospital], killing 12.

Detailed lists of this year's suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are not available, but readers will be aware that barely a week passes without suicide bombers causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent families. It has been one continuous slaughter for almost a decade. Then there were the hundreds massacred after last year's Iranian elections and the 400,000 killed in Darfur in recent years.

The question that comes to mind is, did anyone notice? Most of these massacres received only a cursory glance from the media but few asked questions. Nobody demanded an independent inquiry.

There was some tut-tutting but little else. Where were the demonstrations, protests, marches and letters to the editor by those compassionate souls who demonstrate whenever brutal Western regimes commit an action of which they disapprove? They were nowhere to be seen.

WHICH BRINGS US TO GAZA, and the flotilla of "peace activists" who we had known for weeks would attempt to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza.

A little background is essential. Israel had no desire to run Gaza. It wanted to get out and let the Gazans run it themselves, which is what Ariel Sharon did in 2005.

In the election that followed, Hamas, committed to the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews, won comfortably. They consolidated their position with open warfare with Fatah and about 2000 Palestinians were killed. If they'd do that to fellow Palestinians, imagine the fate of Israelis.

Having established a brutal totalitarian regime, they concentrated their efforts to bring about peace by firing 7000 rockets into Israel, killing 20 Israelis. The inaccuracy of the rockets was little consolation for those who, daily, had rockets whistling over their heads. Finally, Israel decided it had had enough. Hence Operation Cast Lead resulting in 1300 Gazans and 13 Israelis killed.

Those who had remained silent as thousands of rockets were lobbed into Israel suddenly crawled out from under their rocks screaming "disproportionate". Some of us had the bad manners to remind them that "disproportionate", had rarely been used during World War II when the Americans bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Allies flattened Germany, killing 670,000. Not much proportionality there.

Israel decided not to reoccupy Gaza but to ensure that it did not become a repository for rockets and more sophisticated missiles being smuggled in from Iran and Syria. They placed a blockade on Gaza to ensure that any humanitarian aid came through Ashdod (Israel) or El Arish (Egypt). Hamas did not take kindly to these restrictions, which brings us to the "peace flotilla."As the story unfolded it became clear that Israel's chief mistake was to assume that the flotilla's main goal was to deliver humanitarian aid and that those on the six ships were genuine peace activists caring only for the plight of the Palestinians. Some were, but there was no shortage of thugs spoiling for a fight on the lead boat, the Mavi Marmara.

Flotilla organisers had been told that if they wanted aid to reach Gazans they should go through Ashdod or El Arish. One, Greta Berlin, admitted the flotilla's aim was to break the blockade.

Much of the media went into overdrive to condemn Israel, with the loudest cries screaming that the blockade was illegal. Those with a knowledge of maritime law said this was nonsense, recounting the American blockade of Nazi Germany and Japan and president John Kennedy's blockade of Cuba during the October 1962 missile crisis. Israel has already stopped hundreds of tonnes of guns and missiles from entering Gaza.

What was uncharacteristic was for the Israelis to believe that they were dealing with followers of Gandhi. If not, why had they chosen as their weapon of choice paintball guns? Let me run that past you again; paintball guns. The miracle is that no Israelis were killed. They were, however, brutally beaten with iron bars. Naturally the usual suspects in the left-liberal media screamed "disproportionate". What should the Israelis have done? Allowed themselves to be beaten to death or brought out their Monopoly boards?

Israel's critics forget that Hamas is at war with Israel. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But the prize for the hypocrite of the century must surely go to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He accused Israel of "state terrorism, a bloody massacre" and called the attack as being "like 9/11 for Turkey". That is obscene! All this is a bit rich coming from a country that refuses to acknowledge or have an inquiry into the alleged genocide of one million Armenians during World War I.

Nor did he mention the nonstop war between Turkey and its Kurdish minority that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of the latter.

Israel is not perfect and it makes mistakes but it is not alone. When it does the wrong thing it deserves to be criticised. Anyone who reads the Israeli press would be aware that its severest critics are in Israel. Criticise Israel, by all means, but spare us from the hypocrisy of those whose hands are 100 times more bloodied.

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 Mr Arbus, June 17, 2010.

This was written by Sabrina Tavernise and published May 25, 2010 in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/world/ asia/26pstan.html?_r=1&ref=sabrina_tavernise, The original has live links to additional material.


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Americans may think that the failed Times Square bomb was planted by a man named Faisal Shahzad. But the view in the Supreme Court Bar Association here in Pakistan's capital is that the culprit was an American "think tank." At War

Until recently, Zaid Hamid was an outspoken commentator on Pakistani television.

No one seems to know its name, but everyone has an opinion about it. It is powerful and shadowy, and seems to control just about everything in the American government, including President Obama.

"They have planted this character Faisal Shahzad to implement their script," said Hashmat Ali Habib, a lawyer and a member of the bar association.

Who are they?

"You must know, you are from America," he said smiling. "My advice for the American nation is, get free of these think tanks."

Conspiracy theory is a national sport in Pakistan, where the main players — the United States, India and Israel — change positions depending on the ebb and flow of history. Since 2001, the United States has taken center stage, looming so large in Pakistan's collective imagination that it sometimes seems to be responsible for everything that goes wrong here.

"When the water stops running from the tap, people blame America," said Shaista Sirajuddin, an English professor in Lahore.

The problem is more than a peculiar domestic phenomenon for Pakistan. It has grown into a narrative of national victimhood that is a nearly impenetrable barrier to any candid discussion of the problems here. In turn, it is one of the principal obstacles for the United States in its effort to build a stronger alliance with a country to which it gives more than a billion dollars a year in aid.

It does not help that no part of the Pakistani state — either the weak civilian government or the powerful military — is willing to risk publicly owning that relationship.

One result is that nearly all of American policy toward Pakistan is conducted in secret, a fact that serves only to further feed conspiracies. American military leaders slip quietly in and out of the capital; the Pentagon uses networks of private spies; and the main tool of American policy here, the drone program, is not even publicly acknowledged to exist.

"The linchpin of U.S. relations is security, and it's not talked about in public," said Adnan Rehmat, a media analyst in Islamabad.

The empty public space fills instead with hard-line pundits and loud Islamic political parties, all projected into Pakistani living rooms by the rambunctious new electronic media, dozens of satellite television networks that weave a black-and-white, prime-time narrative in which the United States is the central villain.

"People want simple explanations, like evil America, Zionist-Hindu alliance," said a Pakistani diplomat, who asked not to be named because of the delicate nature of the topic. "It's gone really deep into the national psyche now."

One of those pundits is Zaid Hamid, a fast-talking, right-wing television personality who rose to fame on one of Pakistan's 90 new private television channels.

He uses Google searches to support his theory that India, Israel and the United States — through their intelligence agencies and the company formerly known as Blackwater — are conspiring to destroy Pakistan.

For Mr. Hamid, the case of Mr. Shahzad is one piece of a larger puzzle being assembled to pressure Pakistan. Why, otherwise, the strange inconsistencies, like the bomb's not exploding? "If you connect the dots, you have a pretty exciting story," he said.

But the media are only part of the problem. Only a third of Pakistan's population has access to satellite channels, Mr. Rehmat said, and equally powerful are Islamic groups active at the grass roots of Pakistani society.

Though Pakistan was created as a haven for Muslims, it was secular at first, and did not harden into an Islamic state on paper until 1949. Intellectuals point to the moment as a kind of original sin, when Islam became embedded in the country's democratic blueprint, handing immense power to Islamic hard-liners, who could claim — despite their small numbers — to be the true guardians of the state.

Together with military and political leaders, these groups wield Islamic slogans for personal gain, further shutting down discussion.

"We're in this mess because political forces evoke Islam to further their own interests," said Aasim Sajjad, an assistant professor of political economy at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.

Lawyers in Pakistan have a strong streak of political Islam. Mr. Habib, who has had militants as clients, argues that Al Qaeda is an American invention. Their pronouncements are infused with anti-Semitism, standard for Islamic groups in the region.

"The lobbies are the Jews, maybe some Indians, working in the inner core of the American administration," said Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, vice president of the bar association.

Liberals on Pakistan's beleaguered left see the xenophobic patriotism and conspiracy theories as a defense mechanism that deflects all responsibility for society's problems and protects against a reality that is too painful to face.

"It's deny, deny, deny," said Nadeem F. Paracha, a columnist for Dawn, an English-language daily. "It's become second nature, like an instinct."

Mr. Paracha argues that the denial is dangerous because it hobbles any form of public conversation — for example, about Mr. Shahzad's upper-class background — leaving society unequipped to find remedies for its problems. "We've started to believe our own lies," he said.

For those on the left, that view obscures an increasingly disappointing history. For 62 years, Pakistan has lurched from one self-serving government to the next, with little thought given to education or the economy, said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physics professor at Quaid-i-Azam University. Now Pakistan is dependent on the West to pay its bills, a vulnerable position that breeds resentment.

"We acknowledge to ourselves privately that Pakistan is a client state of the U.S.," Mr. Hoodbhoy said. "But on the other hand, the U.S. is acting against Muslim interests globally. A sort of self-loathing came about."

There are very real reasons for Pakistanis to be skeptical of the United States. It encouraged — and financed — jihadis waging a religious war against the Soviets in the 1980s, while supporting the military autocrat Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, who seeded Pakistan's education system with Islamists.

But Mr. Hamid is more interested in the larger plot, like the secret ownership of the Federal Reserve, which he found on the Internet. After three years of fame, his star seems to be falling. This month his show was canceled, and he has had to rely on Facebook and audio CDs to make his points. But it is not the end of the conspiracy.

"Someone else will be front row very soon," said Manan Ahmed, a professor of Pakistani history. "It is the mood of the country at the moment."

Contact Mr Arbus at mrarbus@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Is the Israeli Left High-Minded or Treasonous and Pathologically Ill?
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 17, 2010.

Letters to the Editor of Azure

Re: Assaf Sagiv's "Left in Despair"

Dear Editor;

There is a certain weakness of the Western mind that requires that one always insist that all groups of humans are high-minded, morally driven, and decent. This manifests itself in such mantras as "Most Palestinians want Peace," "Most Arabs are Moderate," as well as in the belief that terrorists are just as interested in material comfort and consumerism as are denizens of the suburban West. There seems to be a psychic need to prettify and bend over in respect towards every enemy, and this posture fills Assaf Sagiv's essay. The Israeli radical anti-Israel "academics" he reviews are painted throughout the essay as decent high-minded folks, so devoted to ethical goodness that they are driven to despair and sadness. "The radical left prides itself on purism, on its unwillingness to compromise its principles," writes Sagiv.

He is wrong.

The Israeli radical Left is as single-mindedly devoted to hatred towards Israel (and increasingly towards Jews) as the American Left is devoted to anti-Americanism. Indeed, since the late 1960s, the virtual raison d'etre of the American radical Left has been anti-Americanism. Since the early 1980s the Israeli Left has become a similar one-issue movement and that one issue is anti-Zionism and hatred of their own country. Anti-Americanism explains every position taken by the Far Left outside of Israel, ironically even its anti-Semitism. A casual look through the web magazine "Counterpunch" will drive home the point. And while Counterpunch is today so openly anti-Semitic as to be properly thought of as an anti-American far-leftist neo-Nazi magazine, one can find published there almost all of the members of the Israeli radical Left Sagiv discusses.

Contra Sagiv, the radical Left in Israel (and in America) is less a political phenomenon than it is a psychiatric one. Membership in it and the political positions promoted by it are ultimately reflections of the psychiatric complexes of those self-recruiting to it. The great psychologist Erik Erikson once attributed radical political ideology to an infantile rage against one's parents. And he did so decades before Noam Chomsky or Ilan Pappe. Treating such people as serious ethical thinkers is to join in the charade and become part of the problem.

Sagiv, for some reason, fails to mention the large numbers of those he cites who are card carrying members of the Stalinist HADASH communist party. He fails to mention that the ones who are NOT members just think HADASH is too tame. The number of communist anti-Israel professors at Tel Aviv University, many discussed in the essay, is no doubt larger than the sum total of people in all of Eastern Europe who still believe in communism. Some of the great "thinkers" in Sagiv's essay are little more than airheads and frauds. The claim to fame of Ariella Azoulay, who figures prominently in the essay, is her penchant for collecting photos and arranging them tendentiously to make Israel look evil. For some reason Sagiv forgets to mention her also being Adi Ophir's spouse. Then there is Stalinist Shlomo Sand, an expert on the French cinema, who published a book recently filled with recycled Neo-Nazi myths about modern Jews all being converted Khazars, with no legitimate claims to Israel. These are the buffoons whom the essay treats as deep thinkers hyper-ethically sensitive to the point of despair.

It is not coincidental that these people have repeatedly embraced as their role models the worst spies and traitors in the country, from Mordecai Vanunu to Anat Kamm to Tali Fahima. Then they turn around and express "despair" that treason failed to garner the votes of the Israeli electorate for them. These are people who want to see Israel annihilated because it will really, really upset Mommy and Daddy. They devote their lives to recreational treason, to public anti-Israel posturing for their anti-Semitic friends. If these people are attacking their own country and their own people, so their friends chant, then just IMAGINE how sublime their sense of justice and ethics must be. In reality, their thinking is as deep as that of Jihad Jane and Taliban John in the US. And increasing numbers of them even collaborate with Holocaust Deniers and Neo-Nazis.

A more interesting target group for Azure might have been the Zionist Left, which Sagiv insists is farther away from the anti-Zionists than the former are from the Right. I am skeptical as to whether a Zionist Left even exists at all. What may once have been the Zionist Left long ago split, with half migrating into the Zionist non-Left and the other half joining the Traitors-R-Us. Meretz today differs little from Uri Avnery's little cult. Peace Now differs in nothing significant from the ultras in Yesh Gvul and Ta'ayoush. The slogan of the so-called Zionist Left today is: Israel — Hate it or Leave it! My country must be attacked, right or wrong. The enemies of my country must be supported, right or wrong. The rump Left sees the suicide bombers, jihadists and the Gaza Flotilla terrorists as its ultimate constituency.

And the Israel Left is also increasingly anti-democratic and hostile to freedom of speech. Most of those cited in the Sagiv essay could more properly be described as leftwing Neo-fascists. They are openly and explicitly opposed to allowing non-leftists to exercise freedom of speech, and they are openly opposed to allowing Israel to conduct its affairs democratically.

The solution to this disease is not pretending that such people are high-minded patriots of a different ethical bend. Only when these Israeli haters of Israel are seen for what they are, a bizarre psychiatric ailment expressing itself in Jewish anti-Semitism, can any real analytic progress take place. The adjective "sad" in Sagiv's headline is not the first that should come to mind in describing these people.

Thank you

Sincerely yours,
(Prof.) Steven Plaut

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 Richard H. Shulman, June 17, 2010.


A Royal Anglian Regiment was marching in Barking, Essex, England, to cheers of thousands of people. The Regiment has just lost several members in Afghanistan. About 40 members of the Muslims Against the Crusades had placards and shouts accusing those soldiers of being murders, rapists, and butchers of civilians, and asking them what they were dying for.

Separated by barricades on different sides of the street were about 100 members of the English Defense League. They called the Muslim protesters "scum" and shouted, "Muslim bombers off the street!" Then they crossed the street and attacked the Muslims. Police escorted the Muslims to safety.

The many bystanders, not all of whom support the war, resented the protestors hijacking a military parade (ActForAmerica, 6/16/10).

The Crusades occurred about a thousand years ago (followed by Muslim conquest of much of Christendom and then liberation of most conquered areas). Many Muslims perceive the current wars as a continuation of the Crusades. They are not. They are wars of defense against renewal of jihad. The Muslim misperception reflects backward views and bias.

British troops are not in Afghanistan to fight civilians. Any civilians killed during their operations are killed by mistake or as bystanders. But the terrorists do attack civilians, many of whom are fellow Muslims. Why no Muslim protest against that, if they really care about civilians?

The Muslim accusations against the troops are false, defamatory, vile, and shameful. One wonders how many of those protesters themselves had to request political asylum from Islamist regimes. They shame English hospitality.

The English Defense League shames English civility. Violence has no place at a parade. Instead of making a bad impression on their own people, thereby setting back their cause, they might have cited the Muslim group as reasons for some program against the domestic Islamist activity and presence and governmental acquiescence to it.


The Israeli Security Cabinet decided to liberalize the Gaza Embargo. Now the pillars of its policy are:

1. Let in more civilian goods.

2. Let in more dual purpose goods utilized under foreign supervision.

3. Retain security procedures intended to prevent admission of war materiel.

The Cabinet asks, in return, that foreign governments work diplomatically to get released the kidnapped Israeli held by Hamas (IMRA, 6/17/10).


Having surpassed Russia as the main foreign military supplier to India, Israel now is having its Israel Aerospace Industry develop the Barak anti-aircraft missile system for India. Last year, military trade between India and Israel reached $9 billion. The two countries jointly develop space technology and train together militarily.

"India is also the second-largest economic partner of Israel Currently, the two nations are negotiating an extensive bilateral trade pact.

The importance of maintaining this growing partnership is critical, while Europe's Western population declines and Islamic jihad attacks all over the world.

In India, leftist parties and pro-Islamic people detest the two countries' growing cooperation, including in military intelligence. They want to sabotage it (Narain Kataria, founder and President of Indian American Intellectual Forum, Katarian@aol.com 8/16).

"Indian American Intellectuals Forum is an advocacy group organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. It aims at strengthening Indo-American relationship. It also spreads awareness about the menace of terrorism in this country."


India has its Muslim activists (AP/Rafiq Maqbool)
A new "Bollywood" film director in India, Rakesh Ranjan Kumar, is preparing a movie based on the movie, Downfall, widely criticized for sympathy toward the man most responsible for the Holocaust and WWII, Adolph Hitler.

The prospect of such a film already has upset people in India, Israel, and elsewhere. Is there more to this film project than a misguided and sensationalist notion of presenting a human side to one of the world's most inhuman persons, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people? Is the project, instead, aimed at driving a wedge between the growing Indian and Israeli alliance and Hindu and Jewish friendship?

Enter India's most wanted fugitive, Don Dawood Ibrahim. He is suspected of having organized the Mumbai terrorist rampage, in concert with Pakistan's spy agency, ISI. Don Ibrahim happens also to exercise a godfather-like power over Bollywood.

The Indian American Intellectuals Forum believes that Ibrahim is behind the film project in an effort to destroy Indian-Israel cooperation. They would isolate India, weaken it militarily, "and balkanize it at an opportune time." (Narain Kataria, President of Indian American Intellectual Forum, 8/16).

A rival of the Israel arms industry, the U.S. Defense Dept., stopped Israel from selling some airplane systems to India.


vWith the additional Security Council sanctions against Iran comes a need to inspect cargoes destined for Iran. Do they or do they not carry contraband?

Iran says that it will not stand for its ships to be inspected at sea. It threatens to fight for its "rights." It tries to intimidate would-be inspectors by boasting of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, which it claims belongs to it, and through which much of the world's oil is shipped.

By what right does the UN condemn Iran, which merely is developing peaceful use of nuclear energy, Iran complains?

Iran asserts that the UN resolution was passed through the influence of the U.S. and the "Zionist state." (IMRA, 6/17/10). http://www.imra.org.il/

Some Security Council resolutions are passed under the provision of the UN Charter that indicates they are advisory. The one against Iran was under a provision indicating it is mandatory. Like it or not, when the Security Council passes a binding resolution, it has the force of international law. Iran has no right to resist inspection of its ships at sea.

Iran, like the flotilla defenders, uses the phrase, "high seas," as if ships are exempt from inspection there. Not so. It depends on the circumstances.

If Iranian nuclear development were innocent, why has Iran been violating its UN treaty and then UN sanctions for a couple of decades?

A country that threatens to cripple the worlds' economy by blocking an international waterway fits anyone's definition of a rogue state. In this case, it would punish innocent billions of people.

Interesting that Iran attributes the sanctions in part to lobbying by Israel. Since the biggest UN member bloc deems Israel its enemy, and since most UN resolutions are against Israel, and since most of them are one-sided or specious, to consider that Israel influenced the Security Council against Iran is ludicrous.

Perhaps Iran should learn more about the "Zionist state." For one thing, it has a name, "Israel."


The season of Russian tourism in Israel is about to start, but Russia is raising strange objections to air travel with Israel. It is not clear why. Israel does not want a crisis with Russia.

A year ago, Russia abolished the need for visas for Israeli visitors. Nevertheless, about a month ago, Russia would not let an Arkia Airlines plane (Israeli) fly from St. Petersburg to Moscow, because the crew did not have visas. Seeking a means to get Russia to relent, Israel grounded a Russian aircraft at Ben-Gurion Airport.

Now Russia has issued new rules to Israel's Foreign Ministry. The most important one is a ban on armed guards on Israeli planes (IMRA, 6/17/10).

Israeli planes are considered among the safest against terrorism, for one thing, because they often carry armed guards. Terrorism or hijacking has been attempted against Russian planes. Russia should appreciate the lower risk of skyjacking on Israeli planes.


People have multiple loyalties. The same person may simultaneously be loyal to country, town, family, friends, tribe, religion, business or profession, political party, and the planet. Nothing wrong with it.

Many ethnic groups in America retain an affection for the culture of their original homeland. Greeks, Armenians, Catholics have schools to maintain their language or culture or religion. Why shouldn't Jews have the same privilege of such an attachment?

We Americans have Old Glory as our symbol and we are devoted to it. If an immigrant has too strong an attachment to his old country, let him return.

Zionism does not insist that all Jews immigrate to Israel. Zionism considers Diaspora Jewry in partnership with it and a source of mutual aid. Israel would not have been reconstituted without the Diaspora.

It is fashionable to be cosmopolitan and an internationalist. Fashion changes, like lily pads waving under every breeze. A true internationalist is rooted in his own nationalism, by which he can understand other cultures and can contribute to them.

What about dual loyalty? Most American Jews approve the existence of the Jewish state. Does that make them disloyal to the American state? No, except for a few bad apples, who should be categorized with non-Jewish bad apples, not with the mass of normal Jews. Like most minorities, Jews are patriotic. They call America the golden state, a wonderful haven. They see no conflict with also feeling warmth toward the Jewish state.

Why should there be a conflict in dual citizenship? In the minds of most Jews and most Americans in general, both countries are peace-loving democracies under attack on different fronts but from the same jihad. They see the two countries as natural allies.


Turkey is lobbying in the Security Council to mandate an international investigation of the flotilla raid. It contends that Israel is a suspect, so it should not conduct a probe.

Israel now explains clearly that (as my prior article anticipated) the civilian investigation with foreign observers check on legality of what Israel did, and that only the military will investigate the utility of the tactics used and how well they were implemented.

One of the passengers smuggled scenes of the raid to a Turkish newspaper, which published them. They show injured Israelis, also a slain Islamist. They indicate that the Islamists attacked the Israelis, not the reverse. Israelis are sensitive to photos showing their men getting injured, thinking it would hurt morale.

As reported here earlier, Reuters cropped the Islamists' knives out of two photos. They called it an accident. But Israelis recall Reuters some years ago adding smoke to a photo of an Israeli raid on Lebanon, making the raid seem more drastic. These dishonest presentations reinforce PM Netanyahu's resistance to demands for international investigations (IMRA, 6/17/10).

The UN almost never was fair to Israel, but now one cannot expect it to, when the UN General Assembly includes the 50 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference, who have expressed their hostility to Israel. They endorse just about any charge against Israel and object to just about none.

If Israel is a suspect, what is Turkey, which the evidence shows set up the confrontation?

Actually, the IDF conducts military probes with probity. It acts professionally. It wants to improve. It is willing to punish incompetents.

Do photos showing Israeli troops injured hurt morale, or make the troops more determined? Israelis know they may sustain casualties.

IDF Commando attacked. knife in lower right (A.P. photo/IHH)

If the Israeli navy seals had intended a massacre, then the first ones would have landed with appropriate guns blazing, not with paintball rifles in anticipation of encountering non-violent resisters.

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 Kushner, June 17, 2010.

Yes, I have returned home, and to my computer, after a hiatus of two weeks. In fact, I have just returned from a visit to the States that was exceedingly important for personal family reasons, but included participation in a short briefing in a Senate conference room on issues of UNRWA and the PA — with more to share about these subjects in due course.

While I am extremely glad that I made the trip — I am ever so glad to be home.

I had hoped to do quite an extensive posting today — sort of a catch-up. But I deluded myself. I'm still in the process of reorienting myself. This, I think, will be (relatively) brief, with a great deal more to follow in the days ahead.

A thank you goes to those readers who refrained from writing to me during this time period.


During my visit I had occasion to read the Washington Post and the Boston Globe, and, once, the NY Times. And I was pleasantly surprised at how little press Israel seemed to be getting. Focus is on the oil spill in the Gulf and other matters, such as how willing Obama is to lead the Democratic party to a November Congressional victory.

Things being what they are, no press is usually the best we can hope for. There was a requisite piece or two regarding, for example, how Netanyahu's policies create "problems" for Obama — as if making things easier for the American president should be our first priority.

Worthy of note, within the past two weeks, is the fact that apparently twice Reuters cropped pictures of the Flotilla incident, so the knives of "peace activists" were removed. See:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/ 36488_Did_Reuters_Crop_a_Photo_to_ Remove_a_Peace_Activists_Weapon


As the Flotilla incident is still newsworthy — with cries for international investigations — I share this video, which has been released by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you don't open any of the other links I am providing here, please do take the time to see this, and share it. Note in particular the response of persons on the Flotilla, who cried such obscenities as "Go back to Auschwitz":
(With thanks to Judith N.)


What is clear is that the Turkish ship the Mavi Marmara was staffed at least in part by Turkish mercenaries intent on doing damage. According to the JPost: "The IDF identified a group of about 50 men — of the 700 on board — who were well-trained and were stationed throughout the ship, where they laid an ambush for the IDF soldiers.

"The men wore bulletproof vests and gas masks, and had communication devices. "The members of this violent group were not carrying identity cards or passports. Instead, each had an envelope with about $10,000 in cash.

"Israeli defense sources suspect the funding for the mercenaries may have come from elements within the Turkish government.

"...Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told a Knesset hearing that all nine men killed on the Marmara were 'involved in the fighting...There were no innocents among the dead.'"


A video has been made available that comes from the ship's security cameras. It clearly shows the brandishing of weapons and the advance preparations for hitting the IDF:


That there were present on the Marmara persons associated with Al Qaida has also become clear. I mention here, for example, Turkish citizen Hussein Aurosh, assistant to the IHH organization, who was supposed to arrive in the Gaza Strip to assist the transfer of members of Al Qaeda via Turkey.


While from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center there is testimony regarding the members of the IHH who boarded the Marmara in Turkey and essentially controlled the ship:
www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_ multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ hamas_e112.htm


You might want to see a briefing from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs — "The Myth of the Siege of Gaza" — by Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID= 1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=4123& TTL=The_Myth_of_the_Siege_of_Gaza


All in all, JINSA, in its report #994 of June 4, said it well:

"Israel was victimized twice this week, first by terrorists hiding yet again among the civilian population (one Turkish-sponsored jihadi boat traveling with five more-or-less civilian boats) and second by a world all too ready to blame Israel for the violence engendered by those who sought a bloody death for themselves and any Jews they could take along."


Other points to be made here briefly:

-- As I understand matters, the "humanitarian goods" unloaded from the Flotilla, which Israeli pledged to send via ground crossings into Gaza, were rejected by Hamas.

-- The ship the Rachel Corrie, sailing from Ireland, attempted to break the blockade of Gaza, but offered no resistance when it was intercepted by the Israeli navy and brought to Ashdod on June 5.

-- There has been some attempt to further ease the restrictions on what is allowed via the crossings from Israel into Gaza to improve the quality of life for residents. I understand that now potato chips are permitted in (originally more basic supplies such as meat, dairy products, grains and vegetables were all that were permitted in). This will undoubtedly make a difference.

-- There is talk of an Iranian ship coming to similarly break the blockade but I have no further details on this.


Prime Minister Netanyahu has resisted calls for an international investigation of the Flotilla incident, but, in a bow to international pressure, has agreed to an Israeli investigation. The evidence is so clear already that I rather regret this.

This, from MEMRI, demonstrates just how clear it is:

"In a June 7, 2010, article in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Watan, columnist Nabil al-Fadl wrote: "The photos of the Israeli soldiers bleeding after being attacked by the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, published yesterday in the [Kuwaiti] daily Al-Anba, prove that the Israeli soldiers were justified in shooting [their attackers]. Clearly, the assault on the soldiers...occurred before they opened fire, and proves that the passengers on board the Marmara were not civilians [trying to] help their brothers in Gaza, as has been claimed."

If a Kuwait columnist recognizes this?


Most particularly do I regret the inclusion of two "international observers," as if we cannot handle this adequately and fairly ourselves.

From the Israeli side, there is only one matter of concern, internally: why was there an intelligence failure, so that the navy was unaware of who was on the Marmara, and with what intentions. Netanyahu would like to see the investigating commission also look at what happened from the other side: What was the involvement of the Turkish government, what links were there to terrorists organizations, etc.

The investigating commission is to be headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel, with participation by Professor of international law and Israel Prize laureate Shabtai Rosen, and Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Horev, former president of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. The two foreign observers to be present during the commission's deliberations are Nobel Peace Prize laureate William David Trimble of Ireland, and Ken Watkin, former military judge advocate general from Canada. Originally there was supposed to be US observer, but it was considered inadvisable.

Note, please, that when there are incidents in other parts of the world, rarely if ever are there strident calls for investigating teams, particularly of an international nature.


On June 8th, Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in Hudson NY, asked "What About Hamas's Siege of Gaza?" Take a look at this article which exposes Hamas hostility to NGOs in Gaza:

"As Israeli naval commandos raided the flotilla ship convoy that was on its way to the Gaza Strip, Hamas security officers stormed the offices of five non-governmental organizations, confiscated equipment and documents, and ordered them closed indefinitely...Hamas has brought nothing to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip other than death and disaster."

If there is going to be talk about suffering in Gaza, it's time to point the finger in the right direction. This is a story that was poorly covered by the general media. Kudos to Abu Toameh for this piece.


According to Haaretz, when PA president Mahmoud Abbas visited Obama last week, he told the president that he's opposed to lifting the blockade of Gaza, as this would bolster Hamas. How about that?

Understand, however, that this is the same Abbas who never misses an opportunity to lambaste Israel for causing the people of Gaza great suffering.

It is news about Abbas and the PA that I am most likely to address when next I post.

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, 2010.

Israel Connect, in Israel — What seemed like a far-fetched idea almost a year ago, became reality last week: on Thursday 3rd June 2010 Israel Connect Israel hosted its first event in Tel Aviv. The aim of the organization would be to create a platform for Zionists who live in Israel and would like to remain involved with current affairs and meet like-minded people. The first event exceeded our expectations, with many new faces and an interesting speaker: Lianne Pollak. Currently working within the National Security Council and advising the Prime Minister on security affairs, she gave us a clear overview of the triangle of the Israelis-Palestinians-US. Of course, with the flotilla-crisis in the back of our minds, many participants were passionate and requested answers on the preparation and aftermath of the events. Afterwards, the participants mingled and swapped contact details, looking forward to many more events of ICI. Regards from the ICI-board, Karoline Henriques, Helena Skibinski & Michael Hess.

For more information/if you know anyone in israel;
www.israelconnectisrael.co.il or email israelconnectisrael@gmail.com.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Helen Freedman, June 17, 2010.

The May 9-17 AFSI Chizuk mission was another remarkable exploration into the enigmatic world of Israel. In that beautiful country live remarkable Jews who put their lives on the line every day. As Hizbullah in the north, Hamas in the south and the PA's Fatah in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem threaten Israel, the Netanyahu government has the unenviable task of making life and death decisions while contending with pressure from the Obama administration, which seems unwilling or unable to comprehend the dangers.

Tragically, while Israel deals with these existential threats, it is pursuing policies that are self-destructive and demoralizing to its Jewish citizens.

During our visit to the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar we heard from Rabbi Yitzchak Shapira that the yeshiva is threatened with destruction.

At Shavei Shomron, a community of 170 families, Rabbi Schmidtlek told us of being beaten by Israeli police while he tried to prevent the destruction of caravans, originally from Yamit, then Homesh, which served as dormitories for the yeshiva boys. Six homes that had been under construction were destroyed.

Eliana Passentin met us in Eli and took us to her beautiful home in Givat HaYovel. Eliana explained that the homes there are not "illegal outposts" — that all legal work had been finalized except for the military stamp from Ehud Barak.

In Jerusalem, we experienced the painful process only Jews must go through in order to ascend the Temple Mount. Rabbi Richman of the Temple Mount Institute endures abuse every time he brings a group to the Mount. Only Jews have to submit passports and stand aside while Christians stream through the gates. Muslims, of course, simply come and go as they please, using the grounds as their picnic and playgrounds.

The Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalem, owned by Dr. Irving and Cherna Moskowitz, awaits the permits necessary to continue its renovation. We learned from Arieh King, founder of the Israel Land fund, that building in Jerusalem is indeed frozen, and despite numerous announcements to the contrary, there has been no demolition of illegal Arab homes. He told us that in Atarot some 10,000 planned units were cancelled.

Additional land freezes can be found in Givat Ze'ev, where 12,000 apartments were scheduled to be built, and in N'vei Yaakov, where 330 apartments had been approved. The E1 corridor, critically important in linking Ma'aleh Adumim to Jerusalem, was supposed to be the site of 187,000 apartments. Instead, Bedouins are settling on the land. In sharp contrast, 1,800 Arab apartments are planned on land originally scheduled to be a park. There is no freeze on that.

At the Shai Dromi farm near Metar we saw the barren room in the goat and sheep pen where Shai Dromi slept to prevent Arabs from stealing his herd and killing his dogs. He is now serving five months of community service for defending his home and farm by shooting at attacking Arabs. Shai's mother told us that filing police reports was futile; the authorities refuse to take action against the Arabs.

In Hebron, Beit HaShalom is sealed tight while the courts decide whether Jews have a right to live in the building they bought at a cost of one million dollars and spent thousands more to renovate. In Sderot we learned that the government has spent half a billion shekels building shelters and reinforcing buildings against the ongoing Kassam rocket attacks. Rather than eliminating the source of the rocketing, the Israeli government has chosen to put band-aids on the wounds.

As for the refugees from the destroyed Gush Katif communities, a tiny percentage now live in their new homes while the great majority still wait for ground to be broken or to see construction begin where the infrastructure has been laid. It is now five years since the Gaza expulsion.

Now we get to the "Destructo Squads," as explained to me by Israel Danziger of Mishmeret Yesha. Seventy million shekels have been designated to boost the budget of the military arm that controls building in Yesha. This will help pay for more inspectors and vehicles to investigate "illegal" building by Jews. The squads are made up of 25-30 special-force "Yassamnakim" with vans, trucks, semi-trailer haulers and every type of mechanized construction equipment to conduct orderly demolitions.

The squads are preceded by Shin Bet and police in civilian clothes, to scout the area and detect "troublemakers" earmarked for arrest. Reserve soldiers are called in for necessary back-up and to create a perimeter to close off the area. The "Desctructo" work usually begins at 5 a.m.

Why is this happening? Why does Israel feel it has to intimidate and harass its good Jewish citizens in order to appease and placate the ravenous appetites of its enemies? Isn't it apparent that there is no way to create peace with people who declare their intention to destroy Israel at every turn? Why not speak the truth and allow Israel's heroic Jews to live in peace in their homes, ready at all times to defend their country? It defies understanding.

Editor's Note: The next AFSI Chizuk mission is scheduled for October 24-Nov. 2 and includes a visit to Hebron for Chaye Sarah on October 30. For further information about the trip, contact Helen Freedman at the AFSI office (212-828-2424) or via e-mail at afsi@rcn.com Read about past Chizuk Missions on the AFSI website: www.afsi.org

Helen Freedman is executive director of Americans for a Safe Israel/AFSI.

To Go To Top

Posted by Honest Reporting Canada, June 16, 2010.

Did CBC falsely imply that Israel was responsible for the death of Gaza babies?

Barry Rubin, respected Mideast professor and director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) asked this very question regarding a June 1 CBC National report which saw Chief Correspondent, Peter Mansbridge, erroneously refer to the Gaza Strip as having "an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world." Writing on his blog "Rubin Reports," Professor Rubin expounded on this misstatement:

"Here's an example of the insanity and profound anti-Israel bias currently gripping mass media.

On June 1, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) anchorman Peter Mansbridge stated that the Gaza Strip "has one of the world's highest infant mortality rates" The obvious implication: it is Israel's fault because of its sanctions.

In fact, the Gaza Strip has a lower infant mortality rate than Turkey, which has been a modern republic with full independence for about 80 years, and Iran, which enjoys the "benefits" of the kind of Islamist government which Hamas and the current Turkish government applaud.

According to the CIA World Factbook, regarded as a definitive source, the Infant Mortality Rate in the Gaza Strip is 17.71 deaths per 1000 births, about the same as Mexico and below that of Brazil, Romania, and many other countries. In neighboring Egypt, the number is 26.2, in Turkey, 24.8, and Iran, 34.7.

The kind of coverage given to living standards in the Gaza Strip seems an example of what sometimes seems a principle of Western journalism: Third World suffering is only of interest if it can be blamed on the West. Third World suffering is the world's lead news story only if it can be blamed on Israel."

HonestReporting Canada (HRC) communicated our concerns to senior editors at the CBC requesting that a review be conducted and that an on-air correction be issued promptly to remedy this error.

In a written response that was sent to HRC by the CBC, a senior editor said that the mistake was more than just problematic, "it is an error; although I certainly do not share Mr. Rubin's view that it indicates CBC's "profound anti-Israel bias". In an effort to give viewers a clearer picture of the Gaza Strip, the introduction to the report that night from Washington included statistics about Gaza's area, population, unemployment and infant mortality rates. However, in one instance, we inadvertently included inaccurate information. In fact — and as Mr. Rubin pointed out — according to the CIA World Factbook, a highly regarded source for such information, Gaza is about half way in a ranking of over 200 countries or regions, (109 out of 224) with an infant mortality rate of almost 18 per thousand live births, a little over four times Israel's. We regret the error. The Friday night (June 11) editions of The National included an on-air note offering viewers correct information."

Ms. Heather Hiscox, CBC National anchor, stated the following: "Earlier this month we reported the Gaza Strip has an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world, but according to the CIA World Factbook, Gaza ranks 109 out of 224 regions in the world, with an infant mortality rate of almost 18 deaths per thousand live births."

While we appreciate and commend the fact that the CBC was quick to investigate this matter and to take the appropriate action in correcting this mistake, with that said, there was no indication given about how this error had occurred and how it had gotten past the trained eyes of the CBC's most veteran editors. Many questions still remain unanswered such as: What was the source of this original erroneous information? It certainly wasn't the CIA World Factbook, was it Amnesty International's (AI) error, as this CBC report attributed various statistics as being derived from AI? Was this just gross incompetence or intentional subterfuge? And finally, since when did the Palestinians achieve statehood? Why is it that this CBC report included a graphic which referred to the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestine" instead of the Palestinian territories?

We trust that this intervention will serve as a teachable moment for the CBC's reporters and editors who are keenly aware that their Mideast reporting is being vigilantly watched and scrutinized.

HonestReporting Canada is the only organization dedicated exclusively to ensuring fair and accurate Canadian media coverage of Israel Contact them by email at info@honestreporting.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Shulman, Richard H., June 16, 2010.


The IDF intercepted a group of armed terrorists who had infiltrated from the Sinai. The security forces shot and killed one of the terrorist squad. The rest fled back into Egypt, after leaving behind an explosive device.

The news brief mentions cooperation with Egyptian forces, but does not state its nature or utility (IMRA, 6/16/10).

Israel has real security problems from real evil. The world does not want to acknowledge that.


An Israel official remarked that Hamas is more interested in politics than in its people 6/16/10).

Goods Hamas kept out of Gaza (A.P./Tsafrir Abayov)

The food and medicine is getting staler. The news brief did not indicate that Hamas agreed to accept the transfer of goods from the UN.

If Israel had not withdrawn from Gaza, none of these problems would have occurred. The withdrawal left the area to terrorist control, first by Fatah and then by Hamas. The people there are oppressed by their leaders, whether elected or not, whether the election were democratic or not.

One would think that those self-appointed humanitarians who profess great concern for the people of Gaza, and some of whom even call the needs there a crisis, would demand that Hamas let the goods through. But they do not. They do not demand an emergency UN meeting over it. They do not even complain. Time and time again, the so-called humanitarians prove their real interest is not in helping Arabs but in harming Jews. The new form of antisemitism is to feign humanitarianism. Once again, leftist ideology defies reason.

Now that we have seen that both the flotilla supporters and the supposed flotilla beneficiaries do not care about the Arab people, and we know that a hard core of Islamist jihadists were on the Turkish ship, perhaps the fog of the stated humanitarian purpose of the flotilla no longer will cloud people's minds into believing that the IDF attacked innocent civilians.

A reader did not understand the notion of the top deck passengers fashioning weapons to fight the mighty IDF. Here is the picture he should perceive, aside from the fact that the Islamists were equipped with ceramic vests and gas masks.

Jihad is proceeding against Israel by asymmetric warfare, now. The men on the top deck had talked beforehand about becoming martyrs. Their priority is fighting for their cause and inflicting damage, caring less whether they survive. Nor do they need to win big. In this case, they sought to trap the IDF into a public relations mess. How they succeeded! Not only did they win diplomatically, most of them survived and were not arrested.

Close combat is different from distant combat. In distant combat, and outside of an ambush, the IDF could direct massive firepower. In close combat, as in asymmetric warfare, the odds are narrowed. The IDF commandos came down ropes one at-a-time, and the first three were overwhelmed one at-a-time. In close combat, and when the Islamists first had great numerical superiority, the Islamists' clubs and knives were as effective as guns, and the IDF men at first did not have guns in hand but plaint ball rifles.

The Islamists had an effective tactic and a successful strategy. Let us not heed sarcastic but misleading statements denying the notion that the Islamists would tackle the IDF.


The U.S. launched offenses in Afghanistan, and fought well, but failed to eradicate the Taliban from supposedly cleared areas. The U.S. Senate is concerned that the government lacks a winning strategy.

Much of the concern arises from President Obama's decision to start withdrawing troops in just over a year. To the native population, the terrorists, and their foreign sponsors, this decision appears to reflect the notorious American impatience. Local allies lose heart and local enemies feel empowered. Some of the terrorists feel they can wait for the deadline and emerge and conquer.

No wonder U.S. officials report increasing evidence that Afghanistan President Karzai is hastening to cut his own deal with the enemy! (Peter Spiegel, Wall St. J., 6/16/10, A1).

The other day, a liberal wrote in the same newspaper that Obama is winning by carrying the war more into Pakistan. But if he "cuts and runs," what will have been the point?

The most self-destructive military policy is to announce a hasty end to a war. That hastens defeat. The Senate, however, has been dominated for some years by liberal defeatists, Obama numbered among them. They wreak havoc and then point fingers outward.

Any President would have difficulty maintaining a war that takes a long time to control. This President has fanned American impatience. Page one of today's New York Times has a photo of the former youthful President already graying and wrinkled. Glibness can carry one only so far.

I think that American officials do not study the enemy enough and do not plan strategy enough. They turn too soon from figuring out what to do to implementing half-baked plans.


Afghans hear Karzai urge working with NATO (AP/Allauddin Khan)

The terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba, that Pakistani intelligence services set up to harass India out of Kashmir, but which also raided Mumbai, India, has expanded operations into Afghanistan. It now targets Indians helping rebuild the war-torn country. India has spent about a billion dollars on electricity projects, roads, and buildings in Afghanistan.

Lashkar also has expanded its base in the tribal region of Pakistan. Pakistan seeks to counter Indian influence in the country. Pakistani officials suggest that India built four consulates in Afghanistan in order to gather intelligence on India. It accuses India of militarily assisting the Taliban against Pakistan, an accusation which it does not back up. India had assisted the Northern Alliance that overthrew the prior Taliban regime of Pakistan. India maintains ties to Afghans involved. But Pakistan continues to allow Taliban anti-Afghanistan bases on its soil.

This increased terrorist activity in Afghanistan seems to be given greater urgency by President Obama's scheduling the withdrawal of U.S. troops. In people's minds, this creates a vacuum that they already are trying to fill, some to position themselves for dominance when the allies depart, and others to show they are not enemies of the Taliban whom they expect to dominate them.

Retaining link to the Pakistani military, Lashkar has extended ties to other terrorist organizations. The various groups exchange favors, including raids and reconnaissance. Lashkar, being more native to the region than are al-Qaida Arabs, whom the people do not like, may be more dangerous than al-Qaida.

The government of Pakistan denies involvement in Lashkar. In some cases, the involvement is by ex-officials of intelligence. Also, Lashkar has splinter groups acting independently.

The article quotes officials and cites the weapons, training, and languages used in terrorist raids to confirm its conclusions (Alissa J. Rubin, NY Times, 6/16/10, A1).

This news confirms my prior reports that Pakistan is a great center of international jihad, ranking along with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Pakistan presents itself has having a paranoid view of India. It is difficult to tell whether it believes that view or whether that view is important, given Pakistan's and its madrassas' paramount interest in radical Islam. Pakistan's civilian leaders, heading secular parties, do not seem to make a difference.

India has no imperial ambition, but, having been attacked by Pakistani terrorists on a scale that dwarfs the Arab-Israel conflict, India does try to shore up Afghanistan. India does it by building. Pakistan insinuates its influence by destroying.


Security Council voting sanctions (AP/Richard Drew)

The Obama administration's double standard on national security troubles the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).

When an Israeli agency gave public notice of another stage in the approval of a housing project in Jerusalem, about which Israel had no agreement with the U.S., the whole Administration "condemned" it as an "insult," an "affront," and "destructive."

When Turkey, a NATO ally, voted against the Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran in an attempt to get it back in compliance with the treaty to prevent development of nuclear weapons, the U.S. did not call that vote "destructive" and an "affront." The U.S. merely was "disappointed."

"Iran has threatened both Israel and the U.S. many times, saying the days of both countries are numbered. Iranian leaders have spoken of using nuclear weapons to eliminate Israel. There is also the real prospect of Iran passing nuclear weapons to terrorist enemies of the U.S. No issue could therefore be more serious to American national security, yet Turkey's opposition to U.S. efforts to pass new sanctions in the UN Security Council is not condemned or treated as the affront and insult that it truly is."

By comparison, Israel's housing project movement is minor.

"...President Obama and his Administration have never 'condemned' Palestinian Arab actions of naming streets, schools and sports teams after suicide bombers, or the Palestinian Authority (PA) refusing to arrest terrorists, or PA leaders calling Jew-killers heroes and martyrs, as they do routinely. They have never condemned the often vicious anti-U.S. rhetoric that appears in PA publications. The Obama Administration has never said these PA actions are 'destructive' or an 'insult' or an 'affront' to America's strong interest in Middle East peace on the rare occasions that they have referred to Palestinian incitement." (6/16/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.)

Just as U.S. rhetoric was too heated over Israel, calling Turkey's vote an insult to the U.S. seems excessive. However, the vote does seem to run counter to top national security for the U.S. and for Turkey's new Arab friends and other countries.

On the other hand, Turkey pointed out, with good reason, that those sanctions would not work. Since the sanctions would fail, they practically are make-believe, a substitute for effective action against Iran. Therefore, the Obama administration, with its fantasy of a sanctions policy, harms U.S. national security.

After the U.S. displayed its standard against Israel, why believe any other, similar complaints by the U.S. against Israel? Obama's double standard damages U.S. credibility, and therefore U.S. national security.

An extenuating circumstance, however, may be that the Obama administration has alienated several allies by unfair and intemperate statements and actions, and now is restraining itself. The Administration has displayed a double standard, betrayed, or affronted Israel, Britain, Honduras, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Bigger than the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is the toxic gusher from the White House.


Civilian mixing cement, but Hamas keeps most bags (AP/Adel Hana)

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel acknowledges that a shortage of cement in Gaza retards reconstruction of war-damaged houses. Unfortunately, Hamas diverts much imported cement for building a war infrastructure. It exploits sympathy for civilians to get more cement for wars [War destroys civilians and their property.] Much of the flotilla cement was said to be for civilians, but most would have gone to Hamas for military preparation.

"According to reliable intelligence information from recent months (based, among other things, on aerial photographs), there has been a considerable increase in the use of cement and concrete by the Hamas military wing in the Gaza Strip.

The military wing acts toward the rehabilitation and fortification of its military compounds and builds new offensive and defensive systems, drawing also on the lessons learned in Operation Cast Lead. A significant number of the military facilities are built in urban areas with civilian populations deep in Gaza Strip territory. That is part of the combat strategy adopted by Hamas...using civilians as human shields.

Hamas uses cement mostly for these military purposes:

a. Building military infrastructure: building and repairing dozens of permanent outposts, training compounds, and weapons storehouses...

b. ...building an infrastructure of underground tunnels lined with concrete for protection. Hamas places considerable significance on its underground infrastructure, used for both defensive and offensive needs (such as minimizing the exposure of terrorist operatives and munitions, transporting operatives between areas, and carrying out attacks by digging tunnels from the Gaza Strip to Israeli territory).

c. Building launch sites for...rockets and mortars: those launch sites are lined with concrete. The positions dug at such launch sites provide an ability to launch rockets at Israel at the push of a button, making the presence of human operators near the rockets unnecessary. This tactic is designed to keep rocket operators alive and to allow sustained fire with a uniform rate of fire and rocket output (IMRA, 6/16/10).


Iran announced discovery of laser technology for enriching uranium, in cooperation with scientists from the U.S., Australia, and China. The new report claims to attain nuclear energy by laser instead of by radioactive material. They claim that the new method does not produce nuclear waste (IMRA, 6/16/10).

We reported this story differently, a few days ago. We await further explanation. Would nuclear scientists from the U.S. and Australia work with Iranian ones?

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 Susana K-M, June 16, 2010.

This was written by Rachel Raskin-Zrihen,


Hundreds are dead and thousands injured in ethnic violence in Kyrgystan. Babies are lying trampled in the streets. Girls are being raped. Tens of thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes. Cities are burning.

But the world's bleeding hearts can't muster up the will to complain, so single-mindedly are they focused on the deaths of nine violent blockade runners at the hands of Israeli soldiers defending themselves against bats, metal bars and knives.

Three Israeli police officers were ambushed by Palestinian terrorist, today, with one killed and two injured, Associated Press reports.

But no one cares.

Meanwhile, AP reports that: two Iranian Red Crescent ships are sailing for Gaza to try to provoke a confrontation with Israel, even as its main religious leader announces that the Quran says no weapon is off-limits to Islam.

Is anyone besides me getting the implications of this?

And even as hundreds of so-called humanitarian Iranians — a contradiction in terms — head toward a certain and intentional confrontation with Israel, the "hardline spiritual mentor of Iran's president" made a public call for producing the "special weapons that are a monopoly of a few nations" — any guesses what he's refering to?

The Associated Press on Monday reported that a book by Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi says that "Under Islamic teachings, all common tools and materialistic instruments must be employed against the enemy and prevent enemy's military superiority," he said.

In case you're wondering, the "enemy" is us. Israel, first, and then us.

He also said "Muslims must not allow a few powers to monopolize certain weapons in their arsenal."

So much for all that crap about Islam not allowing weapons of mass destruction.

And even as the Islamo-fascists actively seek to destroy Israel and later, Western civilization, the failed experiment called the United Nations is "condemning the violence in Kyrgyzstan and calling for calm and a return to the rule of law."

They're demanding an international inquiry into Israelis' right to self-defense over the Gaza Flotilla deaths, but asking people to calm down in Kyrgyzstan, where tens of thousands of minority Uzbeks have fled the deadliest violence there in 20 years. The killing has been going on for a week, and there are no riots in the world's streets.

Both ethnic groups involved are Sunni Muslims, and maybe that helps explain this seemingly inexplicable double-standard.

Maybe no one, including other Muslims, cares if Muslims kill, rape and maim one another or anyone else.

But if a Christian or a Jew gets a shot off, that's another story entirely.

And the deluded Westerners who are unable to see the nature of the beast, help apply the pressure aimed at destroying the only thing standing between the West and the evil wind that is Islamo-Fascism.

Now, practically alone in its fight to halt the planet's Islamization, Israel has bowed to the intense world pressure, and approved an investigation of the flotilla incident, allowing the participation "of two accomplished foreign observers to try to deflect the criticism," AP reports.

Nevertheless, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, naturally, rejected Israel's plan, as did Turkey, whose attitude did a 180 following the ascension of an Islamist government in its last election.

That formerly moderate Muslim country "threatened to sever what remains of its tattered relations with the Jewish state," according to the report.

Never mind. That relationship was predictably lost with that election.

And that, God forbid, may be true here, also.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Babu Suseelan, June 16, 2010.

Bollywood (Mumbai) produces more movies than any other parts of the world. Movies are the main communication channel in India.

It is now being reported that Bollywood has been taken over the Islamic Mafia headed by the notorious Jihadi terrorist leader Dawood Ibrahim. The Jiahdi terrorist leader is the most wanted man in India for his terrorist activities in Mumbai and different parts of India. He is living in Pakistan and is guarded by Pakistan Intelligence agency ISI. He has business connections in Mumbai, Dubai and Pakistan. Dawood Ibrahim is the leading financier for Bollywood movie industry. No wonder leading actors in Bollywood are selected more generally from Islamic extremists. The Islamic Mafia decides the story, select the actors, song writers and directors and production workers.

It is now reported that Bollywood has decided to make a movie glorifying Hitler and his evil deeds. The story reminds the fact once again and it also reminds us how Islamized Bollywood is. A non-Muslim is simply not allowed to invest money or permitted to find a place in Bollywood. Why is Bollywood so Islamized? The movie moguls are real power players and they are unmistakably anti Hindu, anti Jewish and social cohesion.

For several years, Bollywood was interested in producing movies for promoting family values, morality and national spirit. Now Bollywood is interested in the trivialization of family relations. Bollywood use sex to sell their movies. What distinguishes the preset time from the past is that Bollywood movies celebrate sexual revolution, promiscuity, and a wary avoidance of emotional commitments.

The Islamic movie mafia has now decided to take a movie on Hitler glorifying his evil deeds. What is really going on in Bollywood? What are we to make of the calculated move on the part of the Islamic movie mafia? Can Islamic Movie mafia believe in morality? Hitler was evil. How could Bollywood make a story out of ultimate evil? Nazi death camps were hell. Why do Bollywod movie moguls want to make profit by glorifying Hitler and his evil deeds? Hollywood has made several movies depicting the evil-immoral-cruel-inhuman acts of Hitler and his Nazi death squads. But Islamic money mafia wants to make a movie on Hitler glorifying his evil deeds. A film on Hitler, the movie mogul claim can depict good deeds of Hitler. What good deeds? May be the Bollywood Islamic mafia wants to please their Jihadi masters from Pakistan and Arabia. To be frank, a movie glorifying Hitler will be maddeningly smug and dangerously out of touch with human conscience. It is irresponsible. Can Islamic movie producers can be without any sense and decency? Is it an insidious way of persuading the mind of innocent movie goers that Hitler was not evil?

Contact Babu by email at b.suseelan@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Prowisor, June 16, 2010.

Part 1:

Another senseless murder of Jews in the heartland of Israel once again goes unnoticed by the world. I am not surprised, why should I be? Killing Jews in Israel by the hands of Arabs is all right, it is on the same level of Muslims killing Africans in Africa or of Muslims killing other Muslims in any other Muslim nation, it is ok, no problem, Status Quo.

As a Jew, I have a problem that the world has always accepted that the death of, or the killing of Jews and acts of violence against Jews is not out of the norm. Indeed, Jews have excelled at dying and being victimized throughout our "stint" in Europe in the past, now present and most probably the future. We were even good at it during the pre State period in Israel.

We learned many valuable lessons on survival, you know, keep low, don't bring to much attention to yourself, hide your identity, if attacked, don't scream too loud about it, and so on. We took these lessons with us on our travels as we settled in other nations and cultures and we thrived... sort of.

It seems that in Israel the Jewish people there aren't smart enough to learn or remember these lessons, and it just doesn't sink in. For some reason, we just wont sit back while Jews are murdered, we have a bad tendency to react and respond, sluggish at times, but we will respond.

We yelled and continue to yell when attacked, but learned that nobody is listening, we tried bowing, but learned that it caused more damage and death, so we stopped (most of the time), we tried to hide our Jewish identity, but have been noticing that it only caused more enemies to come out of the woodwork, even amongst our own.

The fact that we aren't keeping up with the norm of being weak and "nice" Jewish people seems to really upset the world, mind you, it even seems to upset many Jews outside of Israel. They are apparently afraid of the attention they are getting from non-Jews.

I apologize that we are not as "smart" as our ancestors in Europe, and that we are bringing too much attention to our brethren around the world.

I apologize that we will stand up to our enemies and not accept their rockets, bombings and ambushes.

I apologize that we will not let Anti-Israel activists who would rejoice in our destruction, supply our enemies and assist them in their evil task.

For over 62 years we have been showing the world that Jews will not make good victims anymore, that we will fight back, we are not going to stop now.

Operation: No More Jewish Victims — Join Now

Part 2:

Websters Dictionary's meaning of "Peace"

1 : a state of tranquility or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom 
 2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3 : harmony in personal relations.

From the minute the modern State of Israel came into existence in 1948, a state of war existed between the Arab nations and the Jewish State. Israel did nothing to provoke this situation — they simply came into being. They tried to destroy Israel then, and were defeated. Today they name this occasion, "Nakba" or Catastrophe, I call it be it's more accurate name — defeat.

Since then the Arabs have been trying to erase Israel from the map.

In 1967 Israel was victorious against the Jordanian Kingdom and returned to the land not just historically Jewish, but land allocated to it by the "League of Nations", as part of the partition of the region after World War 1, along with Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, to name a few.

Judea and Samaria were once again in Jewish hands. Now we were being called "Occupiers", whom were we occupying the land from?

Lets see:

Roman rule (63 BCE)
Byzantine (Eastern Roman) rule (330 — 640 CE)
Islamic period (630 — 1918 CE)
Arab Caliphate rule (638 — 1099 CE)
Umayyad rule (661 — 750 CE)
Abbasid rule (750 — 969 CE)
Fatimid rule (969 — 1099 CE)
Crusader rule (1099 — 1187 CE)
Mamluk rule (1270 — 1516 CE)
Ottoman rule (1516 — 1831 CE)
Egyptian rule (1831 — 1841)
Ottoman rule (1841 — 1917)
British Mandate (1920 — 1948)
Jordanian rule (1948-1967)

Pick a name, any name.... I do not see the name "Palestinian Rule" anywhere.

So here we are today with the world trying to bring peace to the Middle East.

The way I understand it, peace is getting along with each other, working together, living in harmony and so on and so on.

So why is the world trying to separate us all the time? You live here, they live there, and that doesn't sound like peace to me.

In fact, the actions being taken by the world powers and "Peace" activists seem to be fueling the conflict. The Western powers have built an army and another "governing" power where there was none, and continue to arm people and "leaders" who would like to see Israel destroyed.

The "Peace" activists provoke and cause violence between Jews and Arabs where there was a peaceful existence before hand, and continue to do so daily.

The rest of the world seems bent on ignoring history and facts and insists on splitting Israel in two pieces...at least two for now.

This doesn't seem like a peaceful venture at all to me. Two States for Two people?

In essence the "world" considered "Jews" a people and decided to create a "Jewish State" on the West Bank of the Jordan River, the whole West bank of the river, from river to ocean.

So there 23 other Arab states? Are there 23 Arab peoples? Since when are "Palestinian" Arabs a separate people?

But I digress...

Lets talk about Peace again. The talk on the Arab street is now longer a "Two State Solution", but a "One State Solution", and the reason is quite simple. Arab leadership is among the most corrupt in the world, it is getting them nowhere, and in fact it is taking them backwards.

The Arabs of Judea and Samaria, are reminiscing of the Pre Oslo days, the "good ole days", the days when they could travel freely throughout all of Israel, the days when millions of Israeli tourist dollars would flow into the Arab occupied cities of Judea and Samaria, and last, but not least, no taxes to be paid.

Now given, it was not the ideal situation for them, far from it, and there were many problems that need to be addressed, but it was much better for them and us, and the world than it is now, and than it would be under any "Two State Solution".

One catch, if you are caught saying this in public, you get executed!

Salaam Fayad, the present PA Prime Minister, indeed doctored this concept of a "One State Solution" by turning it into a threat to Israel, a demographic threat. He has to turn it into a threat — otherwise he can't market it to the Arabs. It must appear that they are continuing to fight otherwise he and all the other fat cats in the PA and Hamas lose their 6-8 figure salaries, and their pensions, and further more, Suha won't get her stipend anymore in Paris.

A new term is born — "Demographic Terror", the weapon — kids, and who has more of them, the means, well you get the idea.

The Western World and the Arabs claim they want to solve the problems of our region, they claim to champion Human Rights, and they claim to want a true and lasting Peace between the Jews and Arabs.

What they really want is not peace with Israel, but a piece of Israel (for now).

Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 15, 2010.

Up a Lazy River

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, June 15, 2010.

In critiquing the Obama Administration, I don't mean to suggest it has no reasons for desiring to please Arabs and Muslims as one of its highest (sometimes seemingly its highest) priorities.

Unfortunately in practice this often means flattering the more extremist forces in those groups and giving short shrift to the more moderate among them.

This strategy isn't a conspiracy; it just doesn't correspond to the realities of the region or work particularly well.

The main factors inspiring this effort in terms of foreign policy — in contrast to ideological premises about America itself — are as follows:

1. The hope that Arab governments will help the United States extricate itself from Iraq and ensure there is a stable regime there that is friendly to the United States.

Leaving aside U.S. efforts within Iraq itself, there is no visible pay-off on this issue. Even relatively moderate (Sunni-led) Arab states are keeping the (Shia and Kurdish-led) Iraqi regime at arms'-length while still favoring Sunni rebels. Syria continues to back Sunni terrorists in every way and if their effectiveness is declining that's not due to Syrian moderation but to U.S. and Iraqi defensive efforts.

2. The hope that Arab governments will help the United States against Iran, especially in trying to stop Tehran from getting nuclear weapons and, if that fails, containing Iran. Clearly, some effort is needed here to assure basing rights. Yet here, too, the policy makes little difference. Arab regimes need U.S. protection against Iran and want American weapons for themselves.

At the same time, though, Arab states are also intimidated by Iran (especially given their perception that the Obama Administration is weak), and worried about internal subversive forces and their rivals portraying them as lapdogs of the West. They also know that nationalist and religious sentiments run high, in part because these same governments have long encouraged them further. Thus, their help will be limited no matter how much Obama tries to persuade them that he is a nice guy, sorry for the past, and not too close to Israel.

3. The hope that if sufficiently soothed, flattered, and appeased, Arabs and Muslims are less likely to join or support anti-American terrorist groups. Here, no doubt there is some limited success but very limited. Al-Qaida has been weakened more by U.S. offensive actions and, in some cases, regime repression than a pro-American shift by the population.

4. The hope that the United States can stay out of crises, including Israel-Palestinian, the struggle over power in Lebanon, the intervention of Syria and Iran backing terrorists in Iraq, of Pakistan backing terrorists in India; and others. Obama succeeds in avoiding such entanglement but the cost is victories for revolutionary Islamists (Hamas entrenches itself in the Gaza Strip; Syria recaptures control over Lebanon and Hizballah becomes stronger; Iran and Syria can intervene in Iraq and kill Americans there without cost; moderate regimes lose faith in America; etc.)

There is also some domestic advantage for Obama, who can argue that he has made America (or at least himself) popular and reversed the armed engagements and anti-Americanism that developed during his predecessor's administration.

Among those who support the administration, there is an assumption that the whole strategy of apology, empathy, the Cairo speech, the Istanbul speech, the distancing from Israel, the redefinition of the "war on terror" into a narrow "war on al-Qa'ida," has brought benefits. Yet it is rather difficult to define precisely what those benefits have been.

The costs of this policy are much easier to measure.

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

This article appeared June 16, 2010 and is archived at
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/06/ what-makes-obama-tock-in-the-middle-east

You might also like to read: An Open Letter to Turkish Friends [In Turkish and English]
(http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/ 06/an-open-letter-to-turkish-friends)

Turkish Regime's Domestic Headaches Leads to Demagogic Desperation
http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/06/ turkish-regimes-domestic-headaches

The Misunderstood Statement of Mahmoud Abbas
http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/06/ misunderstood-statement-of-mahmoud

Obama's Foreign Policy is so "Great" That He's Better Than Bush?
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/ 06/obamas-foreign-policy-is-so-great-that- hes-better-than-bush

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 15, 2010.

This was written by Caroline Glick. It was published in The Jerusalem Post and is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=178470


Since the navy's May 31 takeover of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his advisors have deliberated around the clock about how to contend with the US-led international stampede against Israel. But their ultimate decision to form an investigatory committee led by a retired Supreme Court justice and overseen by foreign observers indicates that they failed to recognize the nature of the international campaign facing Israel today.

Led by US President Barack Obama, the West has cast its lot with Hamas against Israel.

It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama's friends, former Weatherman Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fundraiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is former US senator from South Dakota James Abourezk.

All of these people have open lines of communication not only to the Obama White House, but to Obama himself.

Obama has made his sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood clear several times since entering office. The Muslim Brotherhood's progeny include Hamas, al Qaida and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, among others. Last June, Obama infuriated the Egyptian government when he insisted on inviting leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo. His administration's decision to deport Hamas deserter and Israeli counter-terror operative Mosab Hassan Yousef to the Palestinian Authority where he will be killed is the latest sign of their support for radical Islam.

Given Obama's attitude towards jihadists and the radical leftists who support them his decision to support Hamas against Israel makes sense. What is alarming however is how leaders of the free world are now all siding with Hamas. That support has become ever more apparent since the Mossad's alleged killing of Hamas terror master Mahmoud al Mabhouh at his hotel in Dubai in January.

In the aftermath of Mabhouh's death, both Britain and Australia joined the Dubai-initiated bandwagon in striking out against Israel. Israel considers both countries allies, or at least friendly and has close intelligence ties with both. Yet despite their close ties with Israel, Australia and Britain expelled Israeli diplomats who supposedly had either a hand in the alleged operation or who work for the Mossad.

It should be noted that neither country takes steps against outspoken terror supporters who call for Israel to be destroyed and call for the murder of individual Israelis.

For instance, in an interview last month with the Australian, Ali Kazak, the former PLO ambassador to Australia effectively solicited the murder of the Jerusalem Post's Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh. Kazak told the newspaper, "Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor."

Allowing that many Palestinians have been murdered for such accusations, Kazak excused those extrajudicial murders saying, "Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere."

Not only did Australia not expel Kazak or open a criminal investigation against him. As a consequence of his smear campaign against Abu Toameh, several Australians cancelled their scheduled meetings with him.

AND OF course, this week we have the actions of Germany and Poland. Germany and Poland are considered Israel's best friends in Europe today, and yet acting on a German arrest warrant, Poland has arrested a suspected Mossad officer named Uri Brodsky for his alleged involvement in the alleged Mossad operation against master Hamas terrorist Mabhouh. Israel is now caught in a diplomatic disaster zone where its two closest allies — who again are only too happy to receive regular intelligence updates from the Mossad — are siding with Hamas against it.

And then of course we have the EU's call for Israel to cancel its lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. That is, the official position of the EU is that Israel should allow an Iranian proxy terrorist organization to gain control over a Mediterranean port and through it, provide Iran with yet another venue from which it can launch attacks against Europe.

For their part, the Sunni Arabs are forced to go along with this. The Egyptian regime considers the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood took over Gaza a threat to its very survival and has been assiduously sealing its border with Gaza for some time. And yet, unable to be more anti-Hamas than the US, Australia and Europe, Mubarak is opening the border. Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa's unprecedented visit to Gaza this week should be seen as a last ditch attempt by Egypt to convince Hamas to unify its ranks with Fatah. Predictably, the ascendant Hamas refused his entreaties.

As for Fatah, it is hard not to feel sorry for Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas these days. In what was supposed to be a triumphant visit to the White House, Abbas was forced to smile last week as Obama announced the US will provide $450 million in aid to his sworn enemies who three years ago ran him and his Fatah henchmen out of Gaza.

So too, Abbas is forced to cheer as Obama pressures Israel to give Hamas an outlet to the sea. Such a sea outlet will render it impossible for Fatah to ever unseat Hamas either by force or at the ballot box. Hamas's international clout demonstrates to the Palestinians that jihad pays.

THERE ARE three plausible explanations for the West's decision to back Hamas. All of them say something deeply disturbing about the state of the world today. The first plausible explanation is that the Americans and the rest of the West are simply naïve. They believe that by backing Hamas against Israel, they are advancing the cause of Middle East peace.

If this is in fact what the likes of Obama and his European and Australian counterparts think, then apparently, no one in the West is thinking very hard these days. The fact is that by backing Hamas against Israel, they are backing Hamas against Fatah and they are backing Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hamas and Hizbullah against Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia as well as against Israel. They are backing the most radical actors in the region — and arguably in the world — against states and regimes they have a shared strategic interest in strengthening.

There is absolutely no way this behavior advances the cause of peace.

The second plausible explanation is that the West's support for Hamas against Israel is motivated by hatred of Israel. As Helen Thomas's recent remarks demonstrated, there is certainly a lot of that going around.

The final plausible explanation for the West's support for Hamas against Israel is that the leaders of the West have been led to believe that by acting as they are, they will buy themselves immunity from attack by Hamas and its fellow Iranian axis members.

As former Italian President Francesco Cossiga first exposed in a letter to Corriere della Serra in August 2008, in the early 1970s then Italian prime minister Aldo Moro signed a deal with Yassir Arafat that gave the PLO and its affiliated organizations the freedom to operate terror bases in Italy. In exchange the Palestinians agreed to limit their attacks to Jewish and Israeli targets. Italy maintained its allegiance to the deal — and the PLO against Israel — even when Italian targets were hit.

Cossiga told the newspaper that the August 1980 bombings at the Bologna train station — which Italy blamed on Italian fascists — was actually the work of George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Eighty-five people were murdered in the attack, and still Italy maintained its agreement with the PLO to the point where it prosecuted and imprisoned the wrong people for the worst terrorist attack in Italian history.

Cossiga alleged that the deal is still in place today and that Italian forces in UNIFIL have expanded the deal to include Hamas's fellow Iranian proxy Hizbullah. It isn't much of a stretch to consider the possibility that Italy and the rest of the Western powers have made a similar deal with Hamas. And it is no stretch at all to believe that they will benefit from it as greatly as the Italian railroad passengers in Bologna did on August 2, 1980.

True, no one has come out an admitted that they support Hamas against Israel. So too, no one has expressed anything by love for Israel and the Jewish people. But the actions of the governments of the West tell a different tale. Without one or more of the explanations above, it is hard to understand their current policies.

Since the flotilla incident, Netanyahu and his ministers have held marathon deliberations on how to respond to US pressure to accept an international inquisition of the IDF's lawful enforcement of Israel's legal blockade of the Gaza coast. Their deliberations went on at the same time as Netanyahu and his envoys attempted to convince Obama to stop his mad rush to give Hamas an outlet to the sea and deny Israel even the most passive right of self defense.

It remains to be seen if their decision to form an investigative panel with international "observers" was a wise move or yet another ill-advised concession to an unappeasable administration. What is certain however is that it will not end the West's budding romance with Hamas.

The West's decision to side with Hamas against Israel is devastating. But whatever the reasons for it, it is a fact of life. It is Netanyahu's duty to swallow this bitter pill and devise a strategy to protect Israel from their madness.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 15, 2010.

A day before the confrontation with Israel, a university lecturer revealed on Hamas TV that the Gaza flotilla's commander had announced that the participants were planning to use "resistance," the Palestinian euphemism for violence, against "the Zionists." He added that the participants sought to die as Martyrs, even more than they wanted to reach Gaza.

The following are the words of Dr. Abd Al-Fatah Shayyeq Naaman, lecturer in Shari'ah law at a university in Yemen, now visiting Gaza:

The [Gaza] flotilla commander said yesterday: 'We will not allow the Zionists to get near us and we will use resistance against them.'

How will they wage resistance? They will resist with their fingernails. They are people who seek Martyrdom for Allah, as much as they want to reach Gaza, but the first [Martyrdom] is more desirable." [Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), May 30, 2010] http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157 &doc_d=2339

This below was written by Brendan Goldman and it appeared June 13, 2010 in American Thinker
(www.americanthinker.com/brendan_goldman/). The original article have live links to additional material.

Brendan Goldman, a member of New York University's class of 2010, earned a B.A. in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies. This essay was sponsored by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.


"The martyrs of the [Gaza flotilla] ships are heroes," writes Mark LeVine, professor of history at the University of California, Irvine. "They are warriors every bit as deserving of our tears and support as the soldiers of American wars past and present." In the aftermath of the death of nine mercenaries on the deck of the Gaza-bound Turkish vessel, the Mavi Marmara, professors of Middle East studies lined up to denounce the Jewish State. Ignoring overwhelming video and documentary evidence of the activists' radical agenda and affinity for violence, these professors asserted that the "Freedom Flotilla" of the six Gaza-bound vessels were on a purely "humanitarian" mission.

"Those ships were just bringing aid to the impoverished Palestinians," said New York University professor of modern Middle Eastern History Zachary Lockman. "It's not [the Palestinians'] fault they are under Hamas rule." Has Lockman already forgotten that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians in January 2006?

Even professors who managed to recall the Palestinian elections were determined to demonstrate that the terrorist group has been falsely maligned. Georgetown University's John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, tried to whitewash the terrorist group's reputation by declaring, "Hamas simply does not steal ... thus any aid delivered to the UN will be respected." Yet even traditionally anti-Israel institutions like the U.N. and the left-wing British Guardian have noted that Hamas has illegally seized aid intended for Gaza's poor.

Uninterested in the terrorist connections of the blockade-runners, many professors expressed concern that the U.S. would lose "popular support" in the Islamic world as a result of siding with Israel in the flotilla crisis. Recalling President Barack Obama's controversial Cairo address to the Muslim world last spring, George Washington University's Mark Lynch writes, "If [Obama] tries to ignore the issue [of the Gaza flotilla] or simply defend Israel's actions, then the first anniversary of the Cairo speech will also be its epitaph."

Esposito warned that according to a Gallup poll and his "own experience," "[the] window of opportunity in the Muslim world" will close unless the U.S. stops being "in lock-step stride with Israel."

Apparently shilling for terrorists doesn't close the "window of opportunity" to lecture American administrations on foreign policy.

Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University suggested one way the U.S. could follow Esposito's advice: Confront Israel militarily. He told WBEZ Chicago Radio that ideally, he sees "European or American ships physically breaking the blockade or [the U.N. putting] sanctions on Israel."

Some academics who do not fancy themselves pollsters like Esposito or NATO admirals like Khalidi claimed the mantle of the law, arguing that the flotilla ships were "illegally" boarded. Jennifer Loewenstein, associate director of the Middle East studies program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the Islamic Republic of Iran's semi-official Press TV that "[t]he fact is that legally [the Israelis] have no defense. They violated international laws by attacking a non-violent humanitarian aid convoy to the Gaza Strip in International waters."

Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern politics and international relations at the London School of Economics and Sarah Lawrence College, also asserted his newly discovered legal expertise: "The killing of those activists, sad though it is, could easily serve as a framework to ... force Israel to abide by international law."

In addition to condemning the Israelis, Stephen Zunes, professor of international relations and the Middle East at the University of San Francisco, attempted to exonerate the militant passengers who attacked them. "Certainly it would have been better if the largely Turkish crew of the ship ... had not fought back. But it was well within their legal right to do so."

Actual scholars of international law tend to reject these pronouncements. Ruth Wedgwood, who teaches international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University, convincingly debunks Zunes's, Gerges's, and Loewenstein's arguments. "We had a blockade around Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis," Wedgwood explained, noting that during that period, ships were boarded in international waters. "Under traditional law of the sea, you can visit and search before a boat gets to port."

Reuters released an informative Q&A legal analysis of the incident that supports Wedgwood's position by noting that "[l]egal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives."

As for examining the region's history in order to better understand its present, Middle East studies scholars were as eager to avoid discussing that subject as they were to heap blame on Israel. For instance, the passengers of the Mavi Marmara were recorded on Al-Jazeera chanting in Arabic, "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Mohammed will return!" They were referring to the Battle of Khaybar of 629 CE, in which Muslim forces under Mohammed summarily executed, enslaved, and forced into economic servitude the Jews of the Khaybar Oasis. But you needn't bother looking for commentary on such matters from Middle Eastern scholars — with very few exceptions, they don't exist.

Israeli-Turkish relations were another subject for which many Middle Eastern experts failed to provide context, ascribing the breakdown in the nations' alliance to Israel and the singular event of the Gaza flotilla. Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has warned of Turkey's Islamization for many years, and professor Henri J. Barkey of Lehigh University recently outlined how Israeli-Turkish relations have deteriorated since Turkey's main Islamist party took power. Turkey's current Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, has consistently expressed sympathy for Hamas and Iran's nuclear program.

Yet such basic background information was missing from many academics' analyses. "Historians may look back on the [Mavi] Marmara raid as the moment a new order began emerging in the Middle East, grouping Turkey with Iran, Syria, Iraq and Palestine rather than with Washington and Tel Aviv," University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole writes.

Among Khalidi's saber-rattling; Zunes's, Loewenstein's and Gerges's claims to judicial authority; and Esposito's and Lynch's popularity contest, it is easy to forget that these individuals are scholars who have spent decades studying the history and politics of the Middle East. The media organizations that invited them to speak did not challenge their unsubstantiated claims. Issues actually relevant to Middle Eastern expertise were either distorted or neglected completely. These scholars' response to the Gaza flotilla incident demonstrates that America cannot expect an objective analysis of major news events from the leaders of this troubled discipline.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 15, 2010.


StandWithUs International, and Israeli NGO,in cooperation with Australian Jewish groups, just prepared a couple of hundred students visiting from Australia, New Zealand, and S. Africa to answer anti-Zionists.

The program included three days of lectures, then hands-on activities. They visited the security barrier, where some of its planners explained the situation to them. Workshops reviewed with them, and they rehearsed answering, the typical "demonization, double standards and delegitimization" arguments.

On another day, the students will meet with Israeli soldiers, listen to Sudanese refugees who sought asylum in Israel, and watch a documentary by Prof. Alan Dershowitz.

Every year, about 8,000 foreign students spend a study year or gap year in Israel. StandWithUs hopes to expand its orientation training widely to include many more of them (StandWithUs, 12/14)

The program is necessary for those youths, and can serve a certain purpose with people of a certain curiosity and integrity. However, some anti-Zionists are impervious to facts and logic, as some of my readers have demonstrated. Indeed, they pursue the totalitarian big lie technique, so that as fast as one lie is exposed, they devise another. They are not in discussion mode but in verbal combat mode.


The Jewish National Fund (JNF) had been negotiating with Turkey for two years to make a partly philanthropic purchase of shiploads of water to store in Israel's national reservoir, shared in by the Palestinian Arabs of Jordan and the Territories. The purchase of five tankers and other logistics were worked out, but early in May, Turkey raised a new demand. Turkey demanded that all the water that the Jewish National Fund was purchasing should be distributed to no Jews and only to Arabs. That ended this prospective peace flotilla.

Under the Oslo accords and the Jordan peace treaty, Israel is to furnish a certain amount of water, but Israel supplies more. Israel sends 80 million cubic meters of water to the Palestinian Authority and 50 million to Jordan. The JNF purchases would have provided to all three parties a total of at least 110 million cubic meters, until desalination plants would eliminate the need.

Turkey's decision was in early May. JNF regrets this squelching of its peace flotilla (JNF heads Stanley M. Chesley and Ronald S. Lauder, Wall St. J., 6/15, A15). Turkey's decision preceded the flotilla firefight, which came at the very end of May.

What to make of this? Turkey had turned against Israel, scotched the water deal with an impossible political demand, and put a few dozen Islamists, under the aegis of IHH, an organization on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations, aboard the anti-blockade flotilla, without inspection and in order to provoke violence and bait Israeli self-defense. Now people confuse the flotilla combat result of Turkey's turning Islamist, with the cause.

Imagine, Turkey refusing to sell a commodity unless the purchaser gives it all away to the purchaser's enemies! Obviously a deliberate deal-breaker, that improper demand by a vendor.

What does Israel owe Jordan and the Palestinian Authority? Jordan started two wars against Israel, with the goal of extermination. Its people still seethe with hatred against Israel, and prevent normalization of relations called for by the peace treaty. The PLO and Hamas, reflecting the values of their society, have murdered and crippled thousands of Israelis. They seek to conquer Israel, not make peace with it. Their people are indoctrinated with the mandate to murder more Jews under a distorted religious notion that Jews are an evil and inferior race.

Nevertheless, the Jewish state tries to be decent toward them. What does it get for its efforts? No recognition of such efforts. No recognition of its legitimacy. It does not seem mentally healthy for Israel to offer more than required to enemies who perceive goodwill as weakness to be answered by ill will.

Some critics suggest that the answer is for Israel to fold into a larger state in which the Arabs would form the majority, and ethnicity and religion would not matter. What would produce this fairy tale ending by the Arabs?

How hypocritical to suggest that Israel do this and not to demand that the Arabs cease their bigotry and repression of Jews, which is the underlying problem! How naïve to suppose that the hate-filled Muslim Arabs would act responsibly! How ridiculous to go back to a Jewish minority among Arabs, after Arab states expropriated the property of, and expelled, about 850,000 Jews! How unfair to deny only the Jewish people their homeland, while the Arabs have theirs and more! Or is this a cynical ploy to set the Israelis up to be victims of the genocide that the Arabs have attempted before? How dishonest to present the plan for ending Zionism as a solution rather than as a "final solution."


The IDF Chief of Staff has appointed a former head of the National Security Council to conduct an internal investigation into the military aspects of the flotilla raid.

The probe will evaluate: (1) Whether the unit that made the raid the most suitable one for it; (2) Where there better ways to launch the raid than by sliding down ropes; (3) How were military decisions made that led to the raid; and (4) Should Israel gather intelligence on terrorist operations in Turkey and keep better informed about what is happening there. No Israeli agency does that now.

Such intelligence would be better able to determine the extent of the Turkish government's involvement in financing the Turkish ship (IMRA, 6/15/10). http://www.imra.org.il/

The IDF calls the Islamist fighting squads on the ship mercenaries, because of the large amounts of cash each carried, when captured. Perhaps the money was meant simply to be given to Hamas for its in-humanitarian work.

The IDF constantly reviews its own performance, so it can learn to improve. It does make many changes. Will the probe avoid laying any deserved blame for the fiasco on Israel's top military leader, Defense Min. Barak?

Barak has a string of failures on his record. Here is a lengthy review his record, to put his current performance in perspective. Omitted from it is the Labor Party's other efforts to discredit the war in Lebanon that Barak and other leftist generals mishandled.
(Winston Mideast Report and Analysis, 6/14 from Pajamas Media,
http://pajamasmedia.com — Moshe Dann On 6//6/10)/

There was no need to endanger Israeli troops. How could Ehud Barak not see the looming disaster? Stopping a large Gaza-bound ship could have been carried out below the waterline, or by an assault on the bridge, using smoke bombs and tear gas to take control. Dropping individual soldiers into a mob of hostile people lacks reason.

In 1973, Barak botched a rescue operation during the "Chinese Farm" battle [1] near the Suez Canal and failed to rescue soldiers under the command of General Yitzhak Mordechai.

In 1982, during Operation Peace for Galilee — in which Israel attacked PLO and terrorist groups in Lebanon — Barak commanded the IDF in the eastern region of South Lebanon. He ordered an attack at Sultan Yakoub, in which Israeli soldiers were ambushed by Syrian army commandos and PLO guerilla units. Overpowered and suffering heavy losses, the IDF unit repeatedly begged for help to rescue them. Barak failed to respond. In that battle, 23 IDF soldiers were killed and three were captured: Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman, and Yehuda Katz. Missing in action, their fate is still unknown.

Five years later, when the "first intifada" broke out, Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin assigned Ehud Barak, Amram Mitzna, and Dan Shomron — whose political views trumped military necessity — to quell the rebellion. They failed miserably. This not only encouraged Palestinian terrorists, especially Fatah and Hamas, but led to the PLO's rehabilitation and the disastrous Oslo Accords in 1993, which Barak implemented.

According to Reuven Pedatzur, writing in Haaretz on November 5, 2000:

On the eve of the Gulf War [1990], a decision to scuttle the project [to purchase submarines] was taken at the IDF General Staff: that is, to leave the navy without any submarines at all. Only the stricken conscience of Helmut Kohl, the German chancellor, after the extent of German aid to the Iraqis became known, led to the decision to fund the submarines. Thus, it was German money that saved the submarine project. ...

The General Staff's decision is cause for concern because all those who took part in the discussion knew very well, based on intelligence estimates, that within a small number of years Israel would be threatened by nuclear weapons. It is difficult to fathom how those who are supposed to be familiar with and to understand strategic thinking in the modern era decided to give up the strategic potential inherent in submarines.

[The] person who led the opposition to building the submarines in that discussion, and the person whose position prevailed in the end, was none other than the person who served at the time as deputy chief of staff, Ehud Barak.

In 1992, during a training exercise at the Tze'elim base, a missile hit a unit by mistake, killing five soldiers and seriously wounding six more. Watching this tragedy, Barak did nothing to help and refused to allow his helicopter to be used in the rescue operation. He was severely criticized for his behavior.

As prime minister in 1999, Barak gave away the entire gas and oil fields off the Gaza coast to the PA ... for nothing, and without conditions. He never explained his decision.

In May 2000, Barak ordered a retreat from South Lebanon. Although the action was debatable, the chaotic manner in which it was carried out and the abandonment of the SLA has been widely condemned. Barak's action gave Hezbollah its first victory.

At Camp David and Taba in 2000, Barak offered Yassir Arafat nearly all of the area conquered in the 1967 Six Day War, including most of eastern Jerusalem, without understanding that Arafat was planning a major terrorist insurgency.

Barak not only failed to anticipate the second intifada in 2000 when it broke out, but failed to put it down decisively.

In October 2000, at the outbreak of the second intifada war, Arabs attacked Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus). An IDF soldier, Madkat Yusuf, was trapped inside, critically wounded, and the unit was under fire. Prime Minister Barak and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz refused to rescue the soldiers and Yusuf bled to death.

After resigning in 2001, Barak went into business, using his name and contacts to amass a small fortune. According to a report [2] in Haaretz by Gidi Weitz and Uri Blau, in 2002 Barak formed a company, "Ehud Barak, Ltd," which quickly made (up to that time) almost NIS 30 million. They also reported:

As prime minister and former chief of staff, Barak receives more than MIS 400,000. In addition the state funded his bureau at a cost of NIS 3.2 million in 2004 and NIS 1.8 million in 2005.

They estimated Barak's total annual income at NIS 10 million. Barak was involved in a number of companies and hedge funds. His business interests today are held by members of his family.

Barak was an enthusiastic supporter of the disengagement from Gaza and Northern Shomron in 2005, which displaced 9,000 Israelis and led to Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip.

In October 2009, Globes carried a major expose of Barak's financial connections. That year, Barak spent a million NIS of Defense Ministry funds on a Paris weekend for himself, his wife, and staff.

In January 2009, as defense minister, Barak was directly responsible for the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, which was carried out in the shadow of the failures of the Second Lebanon War and the looming elections. While the action to stop terrorists and missile bombardment was necessary, it resulted in the Goldstone Report and international condemnation. Hamas remained in power, more smuggling tunnels were built, and Gilad Shalit is still in captivity.

At the Herzliya Conference in 2010, Barak offered unilateral withdrawal and begged the PA to assume power in Judea and Samaria. Otherwise, he warned, "Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid nation." This ignores serious security issues, denies reality, and substitutes nightmares instead of critical thinking.

Barak's defeatism and arrogance, his political agenda, and his poor military judgment are simply not in Israel's interests. PM Netanyahu may need the Labor Party for his coalition, but why does it have to include Ehud Barak?


[1] "Chinese Farm" battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Battle_of_the_Chinese_Farm

[2] a report: http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/ friday-supplement/ehud-barak-ltd-1.221318

Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to article:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ ehud-baraks-theater-of-the-absurd/


Nabbed with 5 pipe bombs (AP/Nasser Ishtayeh)

Early on June 14, a bomb exploded near Kibbutz Nirim along the edge of Gaza. Later that day, Israeli troops at a checkpoint south of Nablus caught an Arab with a bag of five pipe bombs. If it weren't for that checkpoint, which the Arabs call humiliating, terrorists would have been able to murder innocent Israelis (IMRA, 6/15/10).

Since the checkpoints serve a legitimate purpose, against the illegitimate terrorism, what can be said against the checkpoints? The State Dept. calls them inconvenient for the lives of the Arabs. But convenience is less important than life-saving. The Palestinian Arabs call them humiliating. As I have stated before, when the Muslim Arabs cannot humiliate people they deem racially and religiously inferior, they feel themselves humiliated.

ISRAEL GETS REPORT OF ITS TREATMENT OF EVACUATION OF JEWISH GAZANS It is several years since the Jewish population was evacuated from Gaza, but many of them still have not been reintegrated into the State of Israel. PM Netanyahu changed policy toward them, and just received a report on how the government treated them.

Their mistreatment is not surprising. The government appointed Yonatan Basi to superintend their resettlement in Israel. Mr. Basi was an ideological leftist. He viewed the Jews from Gaza as right-wingers at the opposite ideological pole. He ridiculed them. He treated them as political enemies to be kept from reforming their notably cohesive communities and possibly entering politics in opposition to his views (IMRA, 6/15/10).

My source puts the onus on Basi. But Basi worked for the Sharon-Olmert regime, which shared his views. They must share the blame. Sharon started out by excessive force and brutality in expelling them. Then the government let their property be looted or damaged, but charged them high prices for storage and obstructed their getting compensation. The government had almost no alternative housing prepared, so that any compensation went to living expenses and the people could not reinvest in new hothouse businesses. The government held the expelled liable for mortgages on the houses that the government took away from them. The government destroyed their houses and records, and then gave them a difficult bureaucratic time proving the houses were theirs and that they were entitled to compensation.


The University of California has become the center of faculty anti-Zionism in the U.S.. How does this manifest itself and how did it come about?

Two student senates in the University of California, one at Berkeley and the other at San Diego, defeated resolutions to divest from Israel. But many of their Middle East Studies faculty signed a petition to divest. The source for this news describes the anti-Zionist activities of about a dozen of them, with documentation.

None of the Middle East studies faculty signed a faculty letter objecting to the "hatred against Jews and Israelis on campus" generated by the [now suspended] Muslim Students Union.

The committee that organized Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel (to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel) had 15 members. 11 represented California universities, including 4 from the University of California.

Why is California the epicenter? Antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism exits elsewhere, too.

Already known for leftist orientation, California universities attracted like-minded faculty.

Once prosperous, California also attracted many immigrants from all over, "so that when anti-Israel feelings and agitation became chic among left-wing student radicals over the past decade, there were sufficient numbers of both Muslim students and fellow travelers around to carry out large-scale demonstrations and create an extremely hostile atmosphere." Left-wing Democrats have appointed like-minded administrators and trustees, reluctant to battle with militant faculty and student groups. By now, newer administrators and trustees may be products of the system (Cinnamon Stillwell, FrontPage Magazine, 6/15/10


Leftists who call themselves "progressive" have aligned themselves with Islamists who would take us centuries back. The combined in forming the Free Gaza Group.

Actually, Israel withdrew from Gaza and Gaza's own people run it. Not content with Gaza, Hamas has its eye on Israel, too. It makes war on Israel. As a result, Israel imposed a naval blockade, to keep war materiel from Hamas )and to put pressure on Hamas to behave.]

Actually, the leftists do not involve themselves with any other poor or oppressed Muslim group, just the one that can enable them to complain about Jews. The leftists listen to the Muslim line on this and get taken in by "Islamist theatre" of the flotilla (StandWithUs, 6/15) http://www.standwithus.com/

No matter how much the Palestinian Arab leadership oppresses its own people, sacrifices their economy to war, and causes them to get killed, the "progressives" express no objection. How sincere is their liberalism?

Some of them go further. They defend that Palestinian Arab imperialism and war crimes as legitimate, because, they contend, the Palestinian Authority was elected democratically. They used to say that Adolph Hitler was elected democratically, not that his having two private militias was so democratic, nor that his behavior afterward, taking away democratic rights was democratic. The nature of his coming to power did not excuse his imperialism and war crimes. Why should it excuse Islamists? Bowing down to democracy makes too much of a lousy system, just because all other systems are worse.

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 Eye on the UN, June 15, 2010.

For Immediate Release:
June 15, 2010 Contact: Anne Bayefsky
(917) 488-1558

UN Human Rights Council Coddles Iran And the Obama administration plays along.

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on WeeklyStandard.com

To watch EYEontheUN video of the Universal Periodic Review of Iran click here.


Just as Iranians were reminded of their stolen June 2009 election and continued oppression, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) decided to kick them while they're down. On June 10, with the active involvement and approval of the Obama administration, the Council adopted a decision on human rights in Iran that was a sentence long and contained no condemnation whatsoever.

The context was a review by the Council of Iran's human rights record, as part of the Council's consideration of all 192 UN states. The review featured a vigorous defense by Iranian representatives of Iran's stellar human rights achievements, followed by Iran's rejection of a host of "recommendations" made to improve its actual behavior. The "outcome" was a sentence identical for dictatorships and democracies alike, in which the Council merely refers to a bundle of documents containing praise, criticisms and responses without drawing any conclusion attributable to the Council itself.

The incomprehensible UN decision reads: "The Human Rights Council...Adopts...the report of the Working Group on the Islamic Republic of Iran, together with the views of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group."

The reaction from the Obama administration was to declare victory and to manufacture something positive to say about Iran. On June 10, U.S. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe rushed to the UN microphones in Geneva to announce repeatedly: "I have to emphasize that we are very pleased that Iran was willing to participate at all.... In the case of Iran, we applaud the willingness to participate at all.... We're pleased that at least they were willing to show up."

Praising Iran despite its total disregard of the fundamentals of human decency is the antithesis of the supposed liberal human rights mantra. Instead of buoying the Human Rights Council's performance, the Obama administration is sinking with it.

When the Human Rights Council was created in 2006 to replace the discredited UN Human Rights Commission, it introduced the process called the Universal Periodic Review or UPR. The UPR has been repeatedly championed as the leading innovation of the Council and the first justification for the Obama administration quickly jumping on board in May 2009. Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, has called it "a good mechanism." State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh has labeled it "an important change" justifying the heart of the administration's foreign policy, or as Koh tells it: "with the HRC...we have chosen principled engagement and strategic multilateralism."

The UPR on Iran is clear evidence of the abysmal failure of so-called principled engagement and strategic multilateralism, since the principles are nowhere to be seen and the strategy guaranteed to defeat human rights.

Here is the story of what happened when the UN's lead human rights body, and its showpiece procedure for promoting human rights, met Iran, human rights violator extraordinaire.

The UPR takes place in stages, the first stage being a 3-hour public dialogue with state representatives. The state is then given an opportunity to respond to recommendations made during the dialogue to improve its behavior, and then some months later the Council adopts a report on the country concerned. In Iran's case, the dialogue occurred on February 15, Iran responded to the recommendations in writing on February 17 and again in early June, and the report on Iran was adopted on June 10.

On February 15 Iran sent a large delegation to Geneva, headed by Mohammad Javad Larijani, Secretary General of the High Council of Human Rights. The UN gave the Iranian representatives a full hour to recount their country's glorious record and Larijani relished every minute of it. He declared: "A salient feature of our constitution is its explicit and extensive reference to...the main pillars of human rights... Iran [has a] firm commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights ...Iran is one of the prominent democratic states in the region."

He also brought with him a few props. The inequality of women in Iran is legendary — men are entitled to kill their wives for adultery if they aren't first stoned to death by judicial decree. But two women on the Iranian team, Fatemeh Alia and Mahboubeh Mobasheri, informed the Council: "The significant advancement of Iranian women's status in the society during the period of 30 years after the victory of the Islamic revolution under the auspices of the strategic national policy and programs is undeniable."

Similarly, Larijani brought along a Christian, Yonathan Betkolia. Iran is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for religious minorities and a Muslim who converts to Christianity has committed a crime punishable by death. But Betkolia said: "Under the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, race, ethnicity, and religion do not distinguish among people, bestowing superiority to one group over another."

After Iran's presentation, other states were given two minutes each to weigh in. UN officials thought fairness meant fairness to the Iranian government, not fairness to the victims of human rights abuses in Iran. So they allowed the same number of states to speak in favor of Iran's human rights record as spoke against.

Hence, another hour passed with the following kinds of contributions. Venezuela congratulated Iran on "shed[ding] light on the efforts and commitment undertaken by the country to promote and protect human rights." Lebanon praised "the efforts made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to promote...the rights of women." Libya "commend[ed] the national legislation in the field of human rights." Syria declared "The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran...consolidates human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people as a basic principle of the general policy of the republic." And Zimbabwe fawned: "The Islamic Republic of Iran's commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights is glaringly noticeable."

The UPR only takes place once every four years and by the time the Iranians and the pro-Iran crowd had finished there was just one hour left for criticism. The Council divided it up into two minutes per speaker. The speed-reading of the Obama administration's 120-second contribution to improve human rights in Iran was duly performed by Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

The Council then gave Iran the last word. Said Larijani: "Violence against women is more than anywhere in the United States and a number of western countries. In Islamic states and Iran, definitely women are very much respected...Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your free and fair leadership of this meeting."

The Council responded by breaking into a warm round of applause. That's applause — from the UN's lead human rights agency — for a country whose leadership has openly declared that genocide against Jews is state policy.

The next step in the UPR process was to give Iran an opportunity to accept or reject the recommendations that had been made to it over the course of the dialogue. Within 48 hours, Iran rejected recommendations to "abolish in practice, public executions by hanging and stoning... Prosecute security officials involved in torturing, raping or killing...Repeal or amend all discriminatory provisions against women and girls in national legislation...[E]nd discrimination and harassment against persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities...."

Over the next three months, Iran was given more time to respond to the recommendations and produced a written statement which the UN duly added to its "report" on Iranian human rights conditions.

In response to the recommendation to "end its severe restrictions on the rights to free expression, association and assembly; and end the harassment and persecution of journalists and bloggers," Iran wrote and the UN published: "press and publications are free to express their opinions except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam."

In response to the recommendation to "consider the elimination of cruel punishment, including...stoning," Iran said: "The term 'cruel punishment' is applicable to none of the punishments stipulated in the laws of the country."

In response to the recommendation to "provide due process of law for those charged with crimes," "provide guarantees of a fair trial," and "take steps to end the current culture of impunity," Iran replied that it regarded these "recommendations to be irrelevant to the internal situation in the country."

Iran understood that it had nothing to fear from the UN Human Rights Council. Far from being a serious mechanism to do anything about Iran's human rights violations, a cocky Larijani reappeared on June 10 at the Council for the final UPR phase. He accurately summed up the process this way: "the universal periodic review has provided a unique opportunity...to raise awareness of Iran's practices and experiences on the promotion of human rights."

He wasn't kidding. He took his seat before the Council and without any hesitation explained why Iran had not ratified the Convention Against Torture: "Torture is one thing and punishment is another thing...This is a conceptual dispute. Some form of these punishments should not be considered torture according to our law." By which he meant flogging, amputation, and stoning. Allowed once more to be the last to speak, he finished off on June 10 by telling the Council: "The Islamic Republic of Iran...is a democracy. We are perhaps the only democracy, the greatest democracy, in the Middle East and we are very proud of this achievement."

What did the UN Human Rights Council do in the face of such deceit from the front man for a serial human rights abuser and the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism? It unanimously passed — with the participation and approval of the United States, now a Council member — the one sentence "adopting the report" — with all its Iranian misrepresentations and rejections of recommendations contained therein.

The Council made no effort to adopt a resolution condemning Iran's human rights record. And the United States delegation made no effort even to introduce a resolution on Iranian rights abuses.

The UN Human Rights Council has in fact never adopted any resolution critical of Iran, nor has it even created an investigator on human rights violations by Iran. (The Council has been too busy with Israel — adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN states combined.) But in the immortal words of Ambassador Donahoe when the Iranian UPR was all over: "the UPR process has been an incredible success for the Human Rights Council."

At least Donahoe clarified the meaning of the crux of the Obama administration's foreign policy, that illustrious principled engagement and strategic multilateralism. She announced at the final press stakeout: "We are no longer willing to stand by and allow empty rhetoric to convince others around the world. We have to shine a light on the facts on the ground and come back with our own rhetoric."

Rhetoric for rhetoric — the modern liberal's idea of protecting human rights.

And so with a rhetorical flourish Donahoe added: "empty promises are not enough. It is time for Iran to actually do something with respect to the human rights situation." To which Iran can now respond "right back at ya."

EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, June 14, 2010.

The last year or so has witnessed a steady decline in Turkey-Israel relations despite scholarly claims to the contrary.[1] The Recep Tayyip Erdogan regime, by its impetuous actions, is all set to destroy the painstaking achievements of its predecessors of cultivating closer ties with Israel, that has not only been the envy of all the Mediterranean States, but also a model for the rest of the world to follow.

The first such instance of friction was manifested at the World Economic Forum Summit at Davos in 2009 when Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey provoked a verbal duel with Shimon Peres, the Israeli President, over the latter's conduct of the Gaza Offensive against Hamas, and was accorded a hero's welcome back home.[2] Thousands of people gathered at Istanbul's Ataturk airport to greet Erdogan when he returned from the gathering of business and political leaders, waving Turkish and Palestinian flags and chanting, "Turkey is proud of you."[3] Turkish airports were replete with slogans of "Dogs and Israelis not allowed." The second such spat came over the nuclear issue and Israel was made the villain of the piece by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference.[4] This was recently followed up by nuclear deals between Turkey, Iran and Brazil in Teheran. Iran agreed to ship much of its low-enriched uranium abroad and then rolled out a new obstacle to nuclear compromise by insisting it would press ahead with higher enrichment — bringing it closer to being able to make atomic warheads.[5] The deal announced calls for Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, Iran would receive, within one year, higher-enriched fuel rods to be used in a U.S.-built medical research reactor.[6]

The Mavi Marmara incident in 2010 has really put things on the boil. The Turkish President together with the Prime Minister has gone to the extra length to put all contacts — military, diplomatic, economic — with Israel on hold. The killing of Turks on the so-called freedom flotilla has brought the already strained relationship between the Jewish state and Turkey's Islamist leaning government close to breaking point.[7] Turkey recalled its ambassador and Prime Minsiter Erdogan, charging Israel with "state terrorism" has called for those responsible for the deaths to be punished.[8] The United Nations Security Council condemned the Israeli attack on the flotilla and sought a "full explanation" from the Jewish state and an impartial investigations into the incident, after an emergency session that lasted more than twelve hours.[9]

Now the question that needs to be asked is that why is Turkey behaving in this manner, when it's long standing policy has been to have "zero problems" with its neighbours? The answer to this should be sought both in the historical and contemporary backdrop.

In fact, much water has already flowed into the Bosphorous ever since the new Islamist AKP came to the helm of affairs in Turkey. Not only have there been attempts to dilute the secular character of the Turkish State (that provoked spontaneous pro-secularist demonstrations) through backdoor introduction of Islamic practices and rituals (banned by Ataturk decades earlier) like encouragement of headscarves and the hijab, but also the new regime is keen on cultivating closer ties with the Islamic world, that seemed to have got lost in the whirlwind of reforms ushered in by the Constitution of 1921. Moreover, there was also the question of identity. No matter, how hard the Turk tried to be a European with a brimmed hat and his/her usage of the Latin alphabet, Europe could not be fully at ease with the new, secular, yet Muslim Turkey. Repeated attempts by Turkish political leaders to gain access into the European Union fell on deaf ears, as European states were afraid of being swamped by an alien culture, both in terms of religion and race. Edmund Stoiber, the German opposition leader, made it plain that there would be no place for "Muslim" Turkey in "Christian" Europe. Greek and Armenian Diaspora lobbies with their stark memories of "Ottoman misrule" and state-inspired pogroms were equally vociferous of Turkey's non-entry into the European Union. Turkey's treatment of the Kurdish problem and its judiciary, police and military apparatus came under closer scrutiny together with the insistence to meet European standards of human rights that came too close for comfort for an average Turk. Frustration over repeated failures to gain "European" status, for a time, encouraged some Turkish leaders to look towards Central Asia as the "Original homeland" of the Turkish race, in the early 1990s. Newly independent (Turkic-speaking) Central Asian Countries like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were wooed into the Turkish fold through generous grants of foreign aid and scholarships to visiting students, and there was hope that Turkey would at last find some succour in the dwelling of its Turkic-speaking kinsmen.[10] But the Turkish economy and politics were ages ahead of these Soviet-era states that were finding themselves in a virtually brave new world, and the issue had to be dumped for all practical purposes.

The result of these confusing political and psychological trends was Islamic revisionist tendencies. Although Turkey was secularized at the official level, religion remained a strong force at the popular level. After 1950 some political leaders tried to benefit from popular attachment to religion by espousing support for programs and policies that appealed to the religiously inclined. Such efforts were opposed by most of the political elite, who believed that secularism was an essential principle of Kemalist Ideology. This disinclination to appreciate religious values and beliefs gradually led to a polarization of society. The polarization became especially evident in the 1980s as a new generation of educated but religiously motivated local leaders emerged to challenge the dominance of the secularized political elite. These new leaders have been assertively proud of Turkey's Islamic heritage and generally have been successful at adapting familiar religious idioms to describe dissatisfaction with various government policies. By their own example of piety, prayer, and political activism, they have helped to spark a revival of Islamic observance in Turkey. By 1994 slogans promising that a return to Islam would cure economic ills and solve the problems of bureaucratic inefficiencies had enough general appeal to enable avowed religious candidates to win mayoral elections in Istanbul and Ankara, the country's two largest cities.[11]

By espousing the Islamic/Arab cause through its support of Gaza Palestinians, Turkey seems to have at last made its way home, and rid itself of the Western taint that has given the former neither hope nor succour. To do so, Turkey would have to play the role of an advocate rather than a bystander in the goings-on in the Middle East. The existing power equations would have to be challenged if Turkey is to emerge as the foremost champion of Islamic/Arab grievances. Under the circumstances, the traditional roles of Arab states like Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia (with Jordan in the sidelines) and the non-traditional roles of irredentist states like Iran, would have to be taken head on.

As far as the present writer of this article is concerned, Turkey is trying to "have the cake and eat it too." The best possible platform is the Organization of Islamic Conference, of which Turkey is an influential and powerful member[12], where the Saudi and Iranian hegemony could be countered through some dramatic action that would speak volumes of Turkey's commitment to Islamic values. Hence the Erdogan regime's belated sympathy for its "suffering Palestinian brothers." Radical Turkish Islamists have long tried to stir up anti-Semitism.[13] Their long standing jibe against the secular Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey's founder, was that he was "really a Jew."[14] In recent years assorted leftists and Kemalists have joined an anti-Jewish chorus that frequently accompanies hostility to America, which is often accused of plotting with Israel to set up an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq that will eventually take large chunks out of south-eastern Turkey.[15]

The Mavi Marmara incident might even be a ploy to blackmail the reluctant West (and the US in particular) to extend EU membership to Turkey on the pain of the latter going Islamic and throwing in its lot with Muslim countries. This is particularly significant since Turkey has a large Muslim population (the largest of all the Muslim countries in West and Central Asia)[16] and the largest standing Army in the NATO armed with sophisticated weapons.[17] Should Turkey swallow its pride and enter into an alliance with Iran in a joint-sponsorship of the "Palestinian cause", then Israel together with all the regional and western countries would be caught in a bind. There would be every possibility of Turkish military equipment (of American make and upgraded by Israel) falling into the hands of Iran and like-minded regimes. Arab states like Syria, and the Arab populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Saudi Arabia, would rub their hands in gleeful anticipation of "another round" with Israel. The Mediterranean countries (except France, Italy and Spain) would be too timid not to cow down to a joint Turkish-Iranian intimidation, so as to isolate and encircle Israel. In the event of a possible outbreak of hostilities with Israel, Turkey might even contemplate pulling out of NATO and forming a separate regional bloc with Iran and Saudi Arabia, probably even roping in Syria and Libya. Turkey might also close its air and ground spaces to Israeli forces thereby denying the latter any strategic depth. The United States, afraid of losing a valuable Muslim ally in Turkey, might do an Eisenhower[18] by pressuring Israel into lifting the Gaza blockade and finding some solution to the Palestinian problem. Turkey would then, under the favourable circumstances of its own making, be in a position to dictate terms and by a single stroke, be able to score several brownie points, for instance:

a.Finding a solution to the Palestinian problem;
b.Winning the gratitude and eternal confidence of Arabs and other Muslim countries
c.Full EU membership, and who knows! Even a
d.Nobel Prize
e.A Turkish Exclusive Economic and Military Zone in the Eastern Mediterranean

If war is a continuation of politics by other means in the Clausewitzian version, then Turkey with it enormous demographic and military resources, together with its geo-strategic position in West Asia, has indeed played a bold diplomatic-military gamble, by stoking the fires of the Mavi Marmara crisis to its cynical advantage.


[1]  For a comprehensive account of Israel-Turkey relations, see Miracles or Interests: What Keeps Turkish-Israeli Relations Going? By Prof. Ofra Bengio, Tel Aviv University Review, summer 2009, p.18

[2]  Turkish PM returns to hero's welcome after Davos walkout, The Indian Express, Kolkata, 31.01, 2009

[3]  Ibid

[4] OIC welcomes Iran nuclear swap deal,
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php? id=58773 (13.6.2010)

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/
05/17/iran-turkey-agree-to-uran_n_578220.html (11.6.2010)

[6] Ibid

[7]  Israel resists international probe into Gaza flotilla raid, The Indian Express, Kolkata, 4.6.2010

[8] Ibid

[9]  UNSC seeks explanation from Israel, The Indian Express, Kolkata, 2.6.2010

[10] The independence of the Turkic states of the Soviet Union in 1991, with whom Turkey shares a common cultural and linguistic heritage, allowed Turkey to extend its economic and political relations deep into Central Asia. The most salient of these relations saw the completion of a multi billion dollar oil and natural gas pipeline from Baku in Azerbaijan to the port of Ceyhan in Turkey. The Baku — Tbilisi — Ceyhan pipeline, as it is called, has formed part of Turkey's foreign policy strategy to become an energy conduit to the West.

[11]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey (Visited on 11.6.2010)

[12] Turkey is a founder member of the OIC (1969)

[13] Bad New Vibrations (Excerpts from an article in The Economist), The Indian Express, Kolkata, 31.01.2009

[14] Ibid;

[15] Ibid;

[16] According to the CIA World fact Book, Muslims constitute about 99.8% of Turkey's population (Source: "Turkey". CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/tu.html#People. Retrieved January 21 2008)

[17] According to NATO Sources, Ankara's forces are greater than those of France and Britain combined, with 514,000 men under arms and 380,000 in reserve, plus a robust air force with American fighters
(www.theage.com.au/news/World/ Turkish-army-crucial-to-EU-power-hopes/ 2004/12/17/1102787272096.html, Visited on 11.6.2010)

[18] President Eisenhower compelled Israel in the wake of the 1956 Suez War to hand over the Sinai with its entire Israeli-made infrastructure to the Egyptians. Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, June 14, 2010.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z) We say: One need not be a Jew in order to stand by Israel and nourish Israel's alliance with the US. We say: Restore the Jewish Homeland from the ocean to the sea and retrieve all the lands your foolish leadership traded away for the insolent air-kisses or the arab invaders.

Perhaps you've read our "politically incorrect" stuff. We were appalled by the al Durah hoax and disgusted by CNN and Christianne Amanpour and this impelled us to speak truth to Islamofascist lies.

We urge Israeli propagandists to acquire new and better skills in order to successfully combat the arab invader's propaganda war against Israel. We have repeatedly advised the Israelis to stop utilizing the cunning words carefully chosen by the arab invaders. For instance, we urge Israel to immediately STOP calling the lands of the Jewish Homeland "the West Bank". When you let the arab invader's put their words in your mouths and when Israelis parrot them, you are conceding the battle and diminishing Israel's sovereignty. Notice how we don't call arabs "palestinians"? We don't because using this word is and has been a persuasive arab invader's tactical ploy.

We presume, entirely correctly, that any arab within the Jewish Homeland is either a Muslim Israeli or an arab invader. We are entirely correct to presume that an arab is an arab invader until proven otherwise. We believe Jews who align with the arab invaders and offer them aid and comfort or incite them to attack Jews or their fellow Israelis are traitors either to the US or to israel and that their words are akin to screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech (at least here in the US) carries consequences. For instance, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater that triggers a stampede will result in criminal prosecution for yelling words that foreseeably lead to death and disaster.

We know that Saudi Arabia is cunning, cold, and patient. Most Americans have a sense of this, too. But this sensibility needs constant reinforcement given the pro-Islamic slant of our young Muslim POTUS. Many believe he is a pretend-Christian, a chameleon "as cunning as a starved reptile with a venomous tooth." We think the POTUS and Democrats have acquired a tight grip on the American poodle-press and around the necks of the desperate-for-money Jewish families who own the NYT. (When it comes to Republicans, they are equally bad, if not worse, just in a different way.) Re: Iran — We believe that the Saudis will engage in any pretense of ''friendship" with Israel in order to use Jews to fight for the benefit of the Saudis in the emerging hot war the Iranian cacas are trying to ignite. This by no means carries any suggestion that Israel ought to decline Saudi cooperation — just accept whatever the Saudis have to offer or give without Israel feeling a need to offer any gestures in return — Israel taking any action against the caca Iranian crazies is "plenty enough."

We stand with the Patriots of Israel. Stomping an arab invader is a good thing!

Paul la Demain

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Helen Freedman, June 14, 2010.

Dear AFSI friends,

The AFSI Chizuk mission was in Netzer this past May. We saw for ourselves how the strip of land between Elazar and Alon Shvut is at risk. Our group climbed the hill to a place where Women In Green had set up a tent, and we planted trees, hoping that by being there, and planting on the land, we would help in establishing the facts on the ground. We urge you to support the efforts of WIG to hold onto this precious land. See the information below.

Thank you.

Helen Freedman

This below was written by Nadia Matar of Women in Green (WIG).


Today, the people of Israel understand the tremendous damage caused by the anarchists who masquerade as peace-lovers, and the danger inherent in their "humanitarian" activity, as they presumably are concerned for the welfare of the "unfortunate" Arabs.

Actually, this is an anti-Semitic struggle backed by tremendous budgets, the goal of which is to push the Jews into the sea — and first, out of Judea and Samaria.

We, the activists in the field, have had to contend with them for some time. At Shdema they used sophisticated, passive violence, but, thank G-d, we succeeded in repelling them, and the IDF returned to the place, and established an outpost there. They are agitating without respite at Hazon David, next to Kiryat Arba-Hebron. Along Road 60 in Judea and Samaria, signs have been erected by the Oxfam organization, that, too, gives the Arabs millions of dollars to work the lands.

In Netzer, in Gush Etzion between Elazar and Alon Shvut, the anarchists from the JAI (Joint Advocacy Initiative) agitate and aid the Arabs to plant and seize lands. On every tree that they plant they put a sticker with the name and symbol of their organization. The sign by the Dutch government that stands at the entrance to Netzer attests, more than a thousand words, to their intentions: "Monetary and agricultural aid to Arabs in reclamation of lands — 123 dunams." The sign lists four organizations and the Dutch government, all partners in their sincere "concern" for the Arabs.

At present, a struggle for every dunam of soil is being waged at Netzer, as at many additional locations in Judea and Samaria.

We can close our eyes, and lose the land reserves for the development of our communities, until we will wake up one day and see that all the lands are worked by Arabs, right up to our windowsills.

The Yibaneh Fund founded by Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), and the Netzer Group have decided to take action and initiate "Operation Establishing Facts on the Ground."

We have been active on the ground for a while and we planted several dunams in Netzer. Now, the pace has to be accelerated.

If we don't hurry up, the Arabs and the anarchists will beat us to it.

Naturally, we call upon every community to act in the same manner.

Youth, too, will be enlisted in this operation for a work camp in July with agricultural guides, to plant trees on the hill and plant values in the heart.Details of the agricultural work camp are detailed in the flyer that can be seen by clicking on the link below.

We expect all friends of Israel to mobilize. We are all partners! Not everyone can go out in the field, but everyone can contribute and thereby be a full participant in the redemption of the lands of Eretz Israel

As we describe in the flyer that you can see on our site:

20 people each contributing NIS 500 ($150) will redeem one dunam, in which 36 olive trees or 220 vines will be planted.

The price includes: work with a tractor, tools, water for a year, tubing, manpower, seedlings, maintenance.

Our goal for this summer is to redeem 20 dunams of land in Netzer, and hopefully an additional 40 dunams in Netzer by Hanukka.

Be partners! Each one donates as much as he can!

Donations can be made by sending a check to
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)-YIBANEH Fund
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel

All details can be found by clicking on our website

For details: Nadia Matar 050-5500834 Yehudit Katsover 050-7161818

Helen Freedman is Executive Director of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI), 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.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 14, 2010.


Helping Afghanistan farmers (AP/Indiana National Guard)

I just met a former U.S. A.I.D. executive, who had been assigned to help develop economic opportunities for women in Afghanistan. This was a difficult mission in a male-dominated society, but the men were amenable to it.

The executive drove through much of northern Afghanistan, with an armed convoy to protect him from possible kidnappers. A couple of times every hour, they were stopped at a different tribe's or militia's checkpoint, usually formed from abandoned Soviet armor.

He found the people most hospitable.

Apparently one of Afghanistan's greatest problems is regional disunity and intimidation by the Taliban. The Taliban just hanged a 7-year old boy as an informant. That will keep his village in fear of the Taliban. Otherwise, many Afghans consider the Taliban a creature of Pakistan. Pakistan wants Afghanistan as a buffer from attack by India.

I mentioned to the gentleman that if Pakistan stopped its informal war on India, it would not have to worry about India. He did not disagree.

While touring Afghanistan, there was no mention of the huge mineral deposits just discovered in that country now, as reported in today's New York Times. The way people argue non-chronologically and confuse cause and effect, I suppose people now will contend that it is for the minerals that the U.S. started fighting there (years before the minerals were discovered).

A reader commented that the NY Times does not always list its sources, so it is a propaganda organ. Right conclusion, wrong reason.

Much news nowadays come from confidential leaks. That does not necessarily make the reporters propagandists. One has to use judgment what to believe. That there was the Karzai-Pakistan discussion is a reasonable conclusion about that region. The real question is what is the motive and what is the goal.

The former U.S.A.I.D. executive finds Karzai trying to juggle all the actors, so that he stays in power.

Many of my articles criticize the NY Times for advocacy journalism, being anti-Zionist and against nutritional supplements.


Turk holding "non-violent" knife over captured Israeli (AP/IHH)

American professors of Middle Eastern Studies have been censuring Israel over the flotilla battle. They call the flotilla purely humanitarian [though the flotilla could have delivered goods without risking the violence from attempting to breach a military blockade]. They blame Israel for the violence. The professors ignore "overwhelming video and documentary evidence of the activists' radical agenda and affinity for violence."

Said New York University professor of modern Middle Eastern History Zachary Lockman. "It's not [the Palestinians'] fault they are under Hamas rule." But such professors also claim that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians in January 2006? Whose fault is that?

Georgetown University's Prof. John Esposito defended Hamas from accusations that it stole humanitarian aid, though the U.N. and the left-wing British Guardian have noted that Hamas has illegally seized aid."

Some professors warn that the U.S. would alienate Muslims if it doesn't oppose Israel on the flotilla. But the flotilla has terrorist connections, as does Gaza. [Likewise the U.S. alienates Muslims by fighting al-Qaida. Should we let al-Qaida fight us with impunity?]

Columbia U. Prof. Rashid Khalidi urges the U.S. Navy to break Israel's sea blockade that he calls illegal. Another professor said Israel's illegality would have been more apparent if the crew did not fight back, though they had a right to. [The crew was restricted from the deck.]

Scholars of international law say otherwise. Ruth Wedgwood, who teaches international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University, convincingly debunks Zunes's, Gerges's, and Loewenstein's arguments. "We had a blockade around Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis." Wedgwood explained. The U.S. boarded ships in international waters, as per traditional law of the sea.

Reuters finds, "[l]egal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives."

The professors omitted Islamist activities and background, such as the fact that the passengers of the Mavi Marmara were recorded on Al-Jazeera chanting in Arabic, "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Mohammed will return!" That refers to holy war.

The Middle Eastern Studies professors try to blame Israel for Turkey's turn to radical Islam, though first an Islamist regime came in and then spoiled Turkey-Israel relations. "Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has warned of Turkey's Islamization for many years, and professor Henri J. Barkey of Lehigh University recently outlined how Israeli-Turkish relations have deteriorated since Turkey's main Islamist party took power. Turkey's current Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, has consistently expressed sympathy for Hamas and Iran's nuclear program."

Middle Eastern Studies' professors are guided by ignorance or bias. Their counsel is useless or counter-productive (Campus Watch, Brendan Goldman, American Thinker, 6/13/10)

Middle Eastern Studies are subsidized by the U.S. government.


The Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) documented numerous instances of Hamas' al-Aqsa TV broadcasting incitement to bigotry and violence.

MEMRI brought these proofs to the EU, whose rules al-Aqsa repeatedly violated. The EU, in turn asked France to ban Hamas broadcasts via the Eutelsat facility in Paris. Now France has asked Eutelsat to shut out al-Aqsa (MEMRI, 6/13/10).

Check the source for the pages of documentation.

Some readers may wonder whether the ban violates freedom of the press. France has less such freedom than the U.S.. Other considerations: (1) Hamas is jihadist, at war with the West, so why should the West give its enemy a platform; and (2) Muslim masses are receptive to indoctrination in hatred of others and in calls to violence. The American notion that there must be a clear and present danger, before speech may be repressed, is valuable, but incitement to holy war has a lower threshold than other kinds of incitement. For example, Muslim riots in Jeruaslem often occur as soon as the mosque sermon ends and the faithful emerge.


UNIFIL at site of rocket (AP/Mohammed Zaatari)

Israel is revising its list of items permitted into Gaza. The lit includes more cement and iron, but to be under international supervision against being diverted to construction of war bunkers by Hamas (IMRA, 6/13/10). http://www.imra.org.il/

Speaking of international supervision, UNIFIL reports that in its area of supervision, the area of Lebanon south of the Litani River, it has seen no smuggling of arms, no illegal arms, no illegal troops, and no military infrastructure. It doubts the imminence of war, finding the situation stable. It denounces Israeli reconnaissance overflights of Lebanon, which contravene the truce agreement.

UNIFIL's commander refused to answer questions about his operations, including questions about UNIFIL not entering certain areas.

IMRA elaborates. It states that UNIFIL does not enter certain areas, at least not without permission after enough time has elapsed so it will see no evidence of illegal arms. UNIFIL's not seeing evidence, under such restrictions, do not mean there is no evidence. The Israeli overflights find such evidence, therefore justifying the overfllghts (IMRA, 6/13/10).

From possessing 10,000 missiles before the war and truce, Hizbullah now is estimated to have more than 40,000. They are hidden in fields. UNIFIL has a crippled mission poorly carried out.

War would depend on orders from Iran. If Israel or the U.S. raids Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran, as it has threatened, probably would give the green signal to Hizbullah. The UNIFIL commander did not take that into account, when he said the situation is stable.


In the same newspaper, Haaretz, that Amos Oz criticized Israeli policy on Hamas, a fellow Israeli leftist, Dina Porat, challenged him on it.

Mr. Oz had called Hamas not just a terrorist organization but an "idea." Ms. Porat shot back, what idea. Quoting from Hamas' charter, Porat proves that a major goal of it is to eradicate Israel. Terrorism happens to be its main means.

As against Oz' claim that Hamas grew out of desperation, Porat cites the Great Depression as an example of depression not leading to violence by the U.S..

Oz cites desperation as an excuse for blaming Israel for the rise of terrorism. Not only is that not fair, but there was no desperation. From well before Israeli statehood, there were many proposals for peace arrangements. Israel agreed to them, but the Arabs did not. They could have had peace and a state, if that is what they wanted.

As for ideas, there are rival ideas. There have been ideas for imperialism both political and religious, and ideas for peaceful development, as in Western democracy with minority rights, education, etc.. The problem is that the Arabs have chose imperialism (IMRA, 6/13/10).


PM Netanyahu has appointed a panel to investigate the flotilla. The panel comprises three Israelis and two, non-voting observers, one from Canada, the other from Ireland.

The panel will investigate: (1) Reasons and legality of naval blockade; (2) Legality of Israeli enforcement of blockade; (3) Identity and actions of flotilla organizers and participants; and (4) Whether Israeli procedure for investigating and compensating complaints and claims over alleged violations of international law conform to international law (IMRA, 6/13/10).

A New York Times report contains a complaint that the commission lacks the power to investigate as much as is needed (6/14/10).

The panel's mission statement does not refer explicitly to another aspect of the incident needing fuller exposition. That aspect is the top deck battle, itself: who started, who escalated, what happened. If PM Netanyahu means to leave that to the IDF, he should have made that clear in the panel statement of mission. If he is not leaving it entirely to the IDF, he should have made that clear, too. Otherwise, it appears as if he is evading one of the key issues: self-defense or murder.

As I stated earlier, in a panic to appease world public opinion, Israel prematurely released the Islamists before interrogating and recording their confessions, and without indicating it had fingerprinted and photographed them. Now, when it needs to prove for world public opinion that they were radicals, it may not be able to as completely.


PM. Netanyahu. Called and talks right-wing, acts left-wing. (AP/Jim Hollander)

More than 700 illegal Arab buildings are in the Shiloach (Silwan) section of Jerusalem, alone, states Aryeh King's Israel Land Fund. Why are they still standing, despite numerous demolition orders?

MK Uri Ariel asked the City for an explanation. The answer is that the city enforces the law in coordination with the police, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has not approved enforcement (IMRA, 6/13/10).

This is yet another case of PM Netanyahu caving in to foreign pressure against the interest of national security. Meanwhile, Israel calls itself a country of law and order.

Many people fault Israel for demolishing illegal Arab buildings. They do not fault the Arabs for building them illegally, as on public land and land zoned for public usage. If as a result an Arab neighborhood does not have sufficient municipal services, Israel would be blamed, again. How many Americans who fault Israel for demolishing illegal Arab buildings would like illegal buildings built near them?

Instead of blaming Israel when it had enforced normal zoning and building regulations, it would be fairer to blame foreign countries that pressured Israel to let pass the illegality in its own country. Those same countries insist that Israel demolish houses erected for Jews whose certificates permitted them to proceed but whose politically-minded Defense Minister refuses to give final approval to, so the foreign countries call those houses illegal. Double standard.


Obama's press secretary has officially commented on the appointment and mission of an Israeli investigation of the flotilla. What it boils down to is that this set-up "can" meet international standards but the U.S. reserves judgment until after it sees what happens and what are the results.

The U.S. did accept the terms of the investigation, which is to evaluate legality, not any military failure.

A potential problem is that the Obama administration, which is trying to oust PM Netanyahu for someone even more compliant, reserves to itself an opportunity to denounce Israel if the results are not to its liking (IMRA, 6/14/10).

What are "international standards?" The UN Goldstone mission did not meet standards of objectivity including starting out with a one-sided statement of mission, keeping the mission mostly one-sided, accepting statements from interested parties without verification, little original research, conclusions based on facts, and inaccurate accurate explication of international law.


Iran named one ship, but stated that it is sending a convoy past the naval blockade of Gaza (IMRA, 6/14/10).

Emanuel Winston warns that Iran may have a more drastic provocation in mind that did Turkey which, Israel found, had a separate and unchecked boarding by the few dozen Islamists. He reminds of the time that an Iranian airliner buzzed a U.S. war vessel [after 9/11 demonstrated Islamists using planes as bombs], inviting the U.S. to shoot it down in pre-emptive self-defense. The Navy did.

The passengers were dressed in burial shrouds, as if having planned a suicide. Iran made propaganda about U.S. aggressiveness against civilians.

This time, Iran may be planning its ships to carry explosives either to destroy an Israeli ship or just the Iranian ship. Alternatively, Iranians on board their ship may fire missiles at the Israeli Navy, which may then, in self-defense, sink it. Then the world, not having "international standards" but bias against Israel, would blame Israel for drowning civilians.

Israel has to disable the ships so they cannot approach (Winston Mideast Report & Analysis, 6/14/10).

Iran may be emboldened by Obama's stance against Israel, as hinted at in the prior article.

How ironic that Iran, which has furnished rebels with the roadside bombs that account for most U.s. casualties in Afghanistan, and which fosters terrorist militias, now pretends to be challenging the blockade out of humanitarian considerations! Can anyone reasonably doubt that Iran wants the blockade lifted so it can gain a port in Gaza as well as ship heavy weapons to its client, Hamas?

American patriots should aware of Iran's support for insurgents against GIs.


OR Books specializes in current events and timely publication. Its next project is Murder on the Mavi Marmara. English Prof. Moustafa Bayoumi will edit statements by eyewitnesses and will analyze the blockade and regional conflict (NY Times, 6/12/10, C2).

The book may be out before Israel investigates. (For Israel's announcement of the investigation, click here )

No mention was made about using the videos and other evidence that Israel uncovered. Sounds like a hatchet job in the making. Such books tend to be premature; this one seems biased. Let us see.


The University of California Irvine finally has suspended its Muslim Students Union (MSU). For years the University took no action against MSU, despite MSU having broken university rules, probably broken federal law, and slandered Israel.

One of the slanders is that "the Israelis" are the "new Nazis."

The suspension won the praise of Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), which had led a years-long campaign for it. ZOA initiated a federal investigation, got politicians and NGOs to intercede, and kept making the case (from a 6/14/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York City and to which I belong.)

What is Nazism? I remember it in its later years: (1) A type of totalitarian fascism with a kind of religious-like ethos, that denies civil liberties; (2) Sought to conquer the world and impose its views, regardless of costs to its own people; (3) Mass-murdered in conquered areas; (4) Considered its people racially the highest of mankind, Jews the lowest, and Negroes and Poles low; and (5) Advanced by deceit, whose repetition convinces, and emphasized propaganda, however ridiculous. Much of this is similar to Soviet Communism.

What is Radical Islam, that MSU favors? 1) A type of totalitarian fascism, with a type of religious ethos, that denies civil liberties; (2) Seeks to conquer the world, to impose its views, regardless of the cost to its own people; (3) Mass-murders in some conquered areas; (4) Considers Jews the lowest, racially; and (5) Advances by deceit, whose repetition convinces, and emphasizes propaganda, however ridiculous. The Arabs in general were and are admirers of the Nazis, and Arafat was an agent and protégé of the Soviet Communists.

Zionism in Israel is: (1) Not totalitarian, though the Israeli Left is harsh on the Right; (2) Wants only its own homeland, though it has compromised even on that, and withdrew from most of the areas conquered, in self-defense; (3) Has improved longevity in the nearby conquered areas; (4) Has no racial notions and multiple races among its members; (5) Does not practice deceit against its own Right, and has very little propaganda and little understanding of the value and methods of propaganda.

Calling Jews the "new Nazis" is based on the big-lie technique of accusing Israel of genocide. But the wars Israel has in defending from attempted genocide against it, and the relatively small casualties it inflicts, enable the population of Arabs in and near Israel to increase.

Preceding and during the wars of 1848 and 1967, Arab leaders boasted of the mass-killings they would perpetrate, to rival those of Genghis Kahn. Now the Palestinian Arab Friday sermons exhort to murder Jews for being Jews, not just for being Israeli. A supposedly moderate leader of Iran welcomed the return of Jews to Israel, so Iran could wipe them all out.

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 Yehoshua Halevi, June 14, 2010.

Date palm grove in the Arava

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

Missed a Photo?
See the entire Israel the Beautiful series online  


Driving through vast, empty stretches of Israel's deserts, I am always amazed to suddenly spy on the horizon a thriving grove of date palms amid the endless rock and sand. A brief stroll in the cooling shade of a palm forest is a welcome stop on any desert journey, and, of course, an opportunity to photograph.

With the sun high in the sky, I left the Arava Highway in southern Israel near Kibbutz Ketura and parked alongside the grove. I wandered among the towering trees for a few minutes, studying the light and looking for a good place to capture the feeling of standing among giants. I chose my ultra wide, 12-24 mm zoom lens to include as many of the frond fans as possible, in order to make the subject clearly recognizable and emphasize the feeling of standing in a forest. I pointed my camera up to the sky and adjusted my position so the sun moved behind one of the thick tree trunks, thus enabling me to shoot directly toward a very bright light source.

Date palms have been a source of food and shelter for millennia in this region of the world. The Hebrew word for date palm is Tamar, also a popular girl's name which has come to symbolize grace and elegance, and, one might add, a bit of chutzpah to grow so well in such a harsh environment.

TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D300, 12-24 zoom at 12mm, f16 @1/160 sec.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, June 14, 2010.
This is Emmanuel Navon's commentary on "Averting Another Gaza" by Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini and Miguel Moratinos. Contact Emmanuel Navon by email at emmanuel@navon.com
"Can the whole world be wrong?" asked Koffi Annan in April 2002. His was a rhetorical question meant to make a sophistic point: If the UN says black and Israel says white, do the math and guess who's right. Coming from a man under whose watch (whether as Head of the Peacekeeping Operations Department, as Under-Secretary General, or as Secretary General) the UN was passive at best and accomplice at worst during the Rwanda Genocide, the Srebrenica massacre, the Darfur ethnic cleansing and the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, asking such a question required no small amount of sang froid.

What Annan meant by "the whole world" was the UN, an organization numerically dominated by human rights violators. Similarly, what The Economist means by "the world" ("How Israel plays into Hamas's hands," June 5th 2010) are those European dhimmis who refuse to face what Islam is up to. So, yes, "the world" of Koffi Annan and of The Economist can indeed be wrong.

If you were still wondering why Europe is expressing outrage at Israel's act of self-defense while excusing Turkey's provocations, then read the op-ed published in The New York Times on June 10th by Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini, and Miguel Moratinos. Those three European foreign ministers provide a crystal-clear explanation for their hypocrisy: they need to appease Europe's Muslim citizens (here's the quote: "[the flotilla incident] must not create the conditions for a further escalation of violence either in the Middle East or in Europe, where deep emotion has been aroused").

The Economist's articles on the flotilla incident are so hypocritical that one wonders if this otherwise insightful newspaper shares the concerns of Kouchner, Frattini and Moratinos. True, The Economist is not a European politician running for office or trying to appease the car-burning mobs of Paris or Malmö. But its editorial line on Islam-related issues is baffling: It supports Turkey's membership in the EU, systematically uses the adjective "mildly Islamist" to describe Erdogan's "Justice and Development" (AK) party, opposes the ban of the burqa in Europe, claims there is no contradiction between Islam and democracy, and that Muslims did (and do) a great job integrating in Europe.

Those claims defy logics. So does the fact that The Economist is surprisingly tolerant of Recep Erdogan. For a newspaper that has no qualms about exposing the buffoonery, incompetence, or brutality of heads of states and governments (its favorite and regular picks are Silvio Berlusconi, Hugo Chavez, and Robert Mugabe), one wonders why The Economist has nothing caustic to say about Turkey's erratic Prime Minister. About the fact, for example, that Erdogan lectures Israel while he himself refuses to apologize for the Armenian genocide, to end the occupation of Cyprus, to accept the establishment of a Kurdish state, or to return the Alexandretta province it grabbed from Syria. Or that Ergogan "demands" that the 3% Turkish minority in Germany be granted the type of cultural autonomy he adamantly denies to Turkey's 15% Kurdish minority. The Economist never expressed outrage at Erdogan's public embrace of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, of Omar Bashir, and of Haled Mashal.

Like most European newspapers, The Economist condemns the Gaza blockade, though it only blames Israel for a policy that is also implemented by Egypt. It also fails to provide a credible alternative to the prevention of the massive armament of Gaza (its suggestion that the UN should "oversee the flow of goods and people going in and out of Gaza" doesn't even pass the laughing test: The UN has been "overseeing" the massive rearmament of Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel). The Economist keeps insisting that "The contours of a two-state solution remain crystal-clear" though this solution has been accepted by Israel and rejected by the Palestinian Authority three times (at Camp David in July 2000; with the "Clinton Parameters" in December 2000; and with Ehud Olmert's offer in September 2008).

In spite of the historical record, The Economist insists that the Palestinians are sincere about peace, but that Israel is not. While Benjamin Netanyahu "does not give the impression of being willing to give ground in the interests of peace," Mahmoud Abbas definitely does. The Economist "understands" why the Palestinians voted for Hamas (it's because Israel prevents peace), but it won't "forgive" Israelis for electing a conservative government (why, indeed, should Israelis have second thoughts about the wisdom of the Oslo process?). If only Israelis would be wise enough to replace their "right-wing" government (actually, a coalition with the Labor Party) for Tzipi Livni (wasn't she Foreign Minister when Abbas said no to the "crystal clear solution" and when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead?), peace will finally ensue.

As for the United States, Barack Obama did see the light but Congress is still the hostage of AIPAC (which won't let J-Street speak out, because J-Street does want peace and does see the light). Indeed, why would anyone in his right mind support Israel if it wasn't for the Jewish lobby? Look at Stephen Harper. He dares to be supportive of Israel. According to The Economist, Harper owes the world an explanation for his effrontery ("Mr. Harper himself has never fully explained his partiality," The Economist, May 29th 2010), though The Economist has an explanation: Harper "is pandering to Jewish voters" (after all, there is no Canadian J-Street).

At the turn of the new millennium, The Economist "predicted" that oil would remain cheap and abundant in the coming decades. After oil prices went from $20 a barrel in 2001 to $145 a barrel in 2008, The Economist had to admit that its theory was wrong. But when it comes to the Middle-East, The Economist will never admit its mistakes. You don't even have to blame the facts. Blaming Israel does the trick better, and it even pleases those Muslim readers who are doing a great job integrating in Europe.

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/ opinion/11iht-edkouchner.html

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor

This below is The Economist article written by Kouchner, Frattini and Moratinos. Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini and Miguel Angel Moratinos are the foreign ministers, respectively, of France, Italy and Spain.

"Averting Another Gaza"
By Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini, and Miguel Angel Moratinos
Published: June 10, 2010

The whole world was shocked by the tragic consequences of the Israeli military operation conducted in international waters against the "Peace Flotilla" convoy of ships. The human cost is unacceptable. Nothing can justify the use of such violence, and our countries immediately condemned it.

Following these dramatic events, the time must come for analysis and reflection on the root reasons of the tragedy. The cause of the boarding of the Mavi Marmara can be summarized in a single word, one that is very familiar to us: Gaza.

It was Israel's unbending determination to force compliance with the blockade put in place in 2007 after the coup d'état by Hamas against the Palestinian Authority that is the origin of this event, just as Operation Cast Lead and its trail of intolerable pain were triggered by the constant firing of rockets into southern Israel. Last year, as it did on the night of May 30-31, Israel decided to use force to achieve its political and security objectives.

That logic must now be abandoned, because if it is not, more tragedies will occur that can only strengthen Hamas and Israel's other enemies in the region, destabilize moderates in both camps and deepen Israel's political isolation.

How? On June 1 the U.N. Security Council expressed its view, indicating three ways forward that we must follow.

First, the investigation: This is indispensable and it must be impartial, transparent and conform with international standards. It must, however, be sure to avoid the mistakes made after the submission of the Goldstone report, whose follow-up was exploited by the Human Rights Council, half of whose resolutions, unfortunately, have been devoted to condemning Israel.

Turkish and American citizens were the victims of this operation, and the investigation must therefore include an international component, as has already been proposed by the U.N. secretary general. He has our support.

Second, the lifting of the blockade: As early as the first hours after the tragedy, we stressed that the situation in Gaza was no longer sustainable.

In using this expression, also employed by the Security Council the following day, we mean that we must meet the humanitarian needs of Gaza's population and remove the raison d'être of the mafia-like tunnel economy, but at the same time provide guarantees that this will not go hand in hand with a resurgence in arms trafficking and an influx of terrorist groups into Gaza. This is in fact what Security Council Resolution 1860, adopted following the war in Gaza, stipulates, and the Security Council called a few days ago for it to be implemented in its entirety, not selectively. This includes the immediate release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Concerning the humanitarian aspect, Tony Blair has suggested a shift from a logic of denial of supplies to Gaza to one based on general authorization, with the exception of banned products. Why not adopt this idea to demonstrate very quickly that the situation can improve?

The European Union already has a civilian mission on the spot ready to be deployed simultaneously at the Karni and Rafah frontier posts linking Gaza to Israel and Egypt.

To guarantee full security of supplies, we propose that inspections supported and funded by the E.U. should be put in place there in conditions acceptable to all in order to ensure that consignments bound for Gaza contain neither weapons nor explosives.

A similar regime could be considered for maritime consignments bound for Gaza, for example, by deploying E.U. monitoring teams in Cyprus. These arrangements would be implemented only against a backdrop of very substantial relaxation of the restrictions on imports and exports to and from Gaza.

A lasting solution also implies that the Palestinian Authority should be fully reinstated in Gaza and that a logic of peace should once again prevail in the Gaza territory. Efforts by Egypt in support of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas must still be supported concurrently with the démarche by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Finally, there is the essential issue: the revival of the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This tragedy must not create the conditions for a further escalation of violence either in the Middle East or in Europe, where deep emotion has been aroused. The scale of the international protests proves that Israel enjoys no immunity. How we wish that other tragedies would arouse the same condemnation!

The Palestinian president, who will be in Europe in a few days, has announced that despite everything, the talks will continue. Let us show the same political courage as that demonstrated by the Palestinian leadership. We want those talks to be able to address the final status rapidly.

The E.U., which on Dec. 8 adopted a strong, ambitious text concerning the broad lines of a future settlement, must itself move forward with the parties, in conjunction with U.S. mediation, with a view to the building and recognition of a Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel.

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Elias Bejjani, June 13, 2010.

In spite of the actual odious Iranian military, religious, economic, territorial, cultural and existential threats, and the ongoing abhorrent internal interferences in their domestic affairs on all levels and domains, the rulers and officials of the majority of the Arab states that Iran is aggressively and openly targeting in its evil contrivance of expansionism, denominational and hegemony schemes, are in general not yet publicly and officially addressing these serious, fatal Iranian problems or dealing with them appropriately.

Sadly, like the ostrich, these rulers and officials have been hiding their heads in the sand, consciously denying the seriousness of the imminent Iranian danger, and scared to unveil courageously the vicious Iranian plot that aims to destabilize, disintegrate and topple their regimes in a bid to erect on its ruins the Persian Empire.

Because of fear of confrontation they have been handling the problem in a double standard and taqiyya* (dissimulation) mentality. Their overt stances are exactly the opposite of the covert ones. Overtly they cajole and appease the Iranian mullahs and officials while covertly they appeal to the Western countries and beg them to protect their regimes and to attack Iran militarily and topple its mullahs' regime as was the situation with Iraq's Saddam regime.

Meanwhile, Iran's intelligence and its notorious Revolutionary Guards have successfully infiltrated many fragile and poor communities in numerous Arab states, recruited from them sleeping terrorist cells, and armed militias. They bought through bribery and fanaticism high standing Arab officials, politicians, political parties, clergy, and fully controlled tens of educational, health, and social services.

Iran annually spends billions of dollars on its both armed proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, and on many other terrorist and fundamental armed organizations in Yemen, Iraq and other Arab states. Iran and Syria openly encourage, instigate, fund, guide, train, and organize and use all the terrorist groups in the Middle East that advocate for havoc, jihad, intolerance, sectarianism and hatred.

Iran alleges that all the Arabian Gulf countries are Persian and not Arabic, and occupies since 1971 three Islands in the Arabian Gulf that belong to the Arab Emirates (Abu Musa, Tunb, and Lesser Tunb). Recently, sleeping Iranian intelligence and terrorist cells were uncovered and arrested in Kuwait, as well as in Bahrain, Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen.

Iran through its two armed proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, controls both Lebanon and Gaza Strip. Hezbollah, the Iranian army in Lebanon, has grown to become not only a threat to Lebanon, but also to the peace, stability and order in the whole Middle East. Meanwhile, Iran is blatantly interfering in Iraqi internal affairs and badly destabilizing its peace and democracy.

Despite all these obvious Iranian threats, plots, and dangers, the majority of Arab rulers and officials are still keeping a blind eye on the whole fiasco and hold on to al-taqiyya attitudes and stances.

In this context of the Arabic dissimulation not even one Arab country openly and officially supported UN Resolution 1929 that was issued on June 09/10 by the UN Security Council against Iran over its nuclear program. On the country, some of them either attacked the resolution or claimed that such an approach was not appropriate.

Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Ahmed Aboul Gheit instead of hailing UN Resolution 1929 and extending Egypt's utmost gratitude to the countries that voted to pass it, rhetorically claimed that sanctions should not be the only option to deal with the Iranian nuclear case and that sanctions did not serve the peaceful means for solving the crisis with Iran. According to him, previous sanctions against Iran have always led to more tensions and more confrontations. Aboul Gheit stressed the importance of continuing diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution for Iran's nuclear crisis.

This blurred and lukewarm Egyptian stance is harmful for both Egypt and the Middle East countries who look on Egypt, the biggest Arab country, as a leading power that is expected to face bravely Iran's schemes, take clear stances against its nuclear ambitions and help deter its interferences and violence that lately targeted and hit Egypt itself through a Hezbollah terrorist cell. What is ironic here is that most observers are under the impression that covertly Egypt supports the sanctions and encourages the Western countries to attack Iran militarily, while overtly do and say the opposite.

Saudi Arabia, the richest and most influential Arab country, is also resorting to dissimulation in regard to Iran. According to a report The Times newspaper published on June 12/10, Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defenses to allow Israeli jets to use its airspace in a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities. "The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way," a U.S. defense source in the area told the paper. "They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren't scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the (U.S.) State Department." Israel, which regards Iran as its principal threat, has refused to rule out using military action to prevent Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is aimed solely at power generation.

The Times said Riyadh, which views Iran as a regional threat, had agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance in the event of any bombing raid on Iran. A source in Saudi Arabia said the arrangement was common knowledge within defense circles in the kingdom. "We all know this. "We will let them (the Israelis) through and see nothing," the source told The Times. (AFP). Sadly, the Saudis immediately stated that the report is fake and fabricated instead of saying loudly, yes we will help in deterring Iran and in curbing its worldwide threats. Again this dissimulated lukewarm Saudi stance is harmful for the Saudis themselves and for all the Arab countries.

There are no justifications whatsoever for the two biggest, most powerful and influential Arab countries, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not taking loud, courageous and clear cut stances against Iran's expansionism, hegemony, sickening plots and ambitions. The painful reality that these leaders should not ignore under any given circumstances lies in the solid fact that all the Arab countries and not only Israel will be Iran's main targets.

The more the Arab leaders procrastinate, hesitate, depend on other powers to protect them, turn their heads to the other side or put them in the sand and keep on handling the actual Iranian threats with double standard, fear and taqiyya stances, the more Iran is going to become blatant, violent and aggressive.

If the Arab states really want to safeguard their people, sovereignty, riches, stability, peace, independence and prosperity they ought to take definite stances against Iran and join all the other regional and world powers who are adamant to contain Iran's recklessness, pull out its teeth of harm and to curb all its unjustified military ambitions.

Arab countries need to wake up, stop resorting to taqiyya stances, and smarten up so that they could differentiate their real friends from their enemies. Iran definitely is not among their friends.

NB: *"Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."

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

This article is archived at
www.10452lccc.com/elias%20english09/ elias.e.arabstaqiyya14.06.10.htm

To Go To Top

Posted by Babu Suseelan, June 14, 2010.

For the last few years the U.S has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. By fiscal year 2010, The Center for Defense Information reports, the cost of Afghanistan fighting will total $739 billion and Iraq fighting$2.337 trillion. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq hiked U.S indebtedness by $900 billion and the debt from military spending will exceed $2 trillion. Pakistan, the epicenter of Jihadi terrorism will receive $7.5 billion from America over the next five years. This aid is in addition to President George Bush had given to Pakistan's Islamized military. American aid was unconditional and the barely supervised fund was in exchange for empty pledges. Decades of U.S. aid only strengthened Pakistan's Islamized military. Pakistan never honored the commitment. Recently American Congress has earmarked another $3.5 billion for Pakistan.

Providing unconditional aid to Islamic nations did not really improve American images in Islamic countries. Islamic leaders claim America is an infidel country and it is a great Satan. Anti Americanism by Islamists is nothing new. It began the year America was established as an independent secular nation.

Now the time has come to crown a victor. While the U.S may have achieved its objectives in Iraq-removing terrorist Saddam Hussein from power — and removing Taliban government from Afghanistan. But the real Winner is the Islamic Jihadis.

America spent more than $5 billion for its air campaign. Peace keeping efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost an additional $10 billion a year. And in the years to come America will dole out billions for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistan diverts American economic aid to amass weapons of mass destruction and to establish Jihad training schools. Jihadis from Pakistan and Afghanistan have extended their reach beyond its borders. They are now entrenched themselves in Afghanistan, Waziristan, and in different parts of Pakistan. Pakistan has become a lawless-failed state. Arms smuggling, opium smuggling and Jihadi training have become the core competency. Corrupt Pakistan army, the ineffective Zardari government and police are aiding and abetting opium smugglers, and counterfeiters. Arms smuggling and opium smuggling are certainly not their only source of income. Pakistan printed counterfeit foreign currencies are widely distributed in the United Arab Emirates, India, Nepal and many South Asian regions. Ill gotten money is being used to plot terrorism strategies against the West, America and India. Jihadi and al-Qaeda operatives are dispersed in Europe and America.

Despite massive economic aid, Pakistan has slipped into un-governability. The Jihadis and al-Qaeda clan continue to thrive because of political deterioration in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The weak governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan have not made any real commitment to fight against Jihadis and al-Qaeda terrorists. The Islamized Pakistan military has no will to arrest, prosecute or contain Jihadi terrorists ambushing American soldiers. American aid flowing into Pakistan has been diverted into Kashmir to fight against infidel India. Most of the annual budget has been allocated for accumulating weapons of mass destruction. The Islamized military in Pakistan is involved in smuggling Jihadi terrorists into Indian Kashmir.

The Islamic mafia has penetrated every segment of the Pakistan government. As President Obama and State Secretary Hilary Clinton look to the future and focus on withdrawing American forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, America needs to move beyond dollar diplomacy. American dollar and the military power have treated the symptoms, but not the source of Afghanistan and Pakistan's malice.

The root cause of hostility against American interests is Islam. Islam forbids democracy, tolerance, friendship with infidels, freedom, pluralism and secularism. America and NATO nations must treat Islam as a political ideology. Economic aids should be made conditional on revising or reforming Islam, practicing Human Right and religious tolerance.

Islamists believe that the only way to achieve their mission is terrorism. As far as Muslims are concerned America still remains as an unfinished Islamic task and Jihad war is both an individual and collective responsibility of all Muslims. Jihadis want to convert all infidels to Islam and be saved or pay the Jizya poll tax or else, they would wage war against us.

America has pumped billions of dollars into all Islamic countries. Creating goodwill with Islamic fascists is an elusive dream. John Quincy Adams said "The essence of Mohamed's doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature." To convert, terrorize or kill all kafirs and to win all infidels for Allah is precisely what the Mohamedans first usage the term "Islam" means. In Islam democracy is replaced with Sharia and the dictatorship of Mullahs or Ayothollahs.

It is strange that the bogus liberals and phony secularists and the leftist media came to ally itself with Islamic Jihad. The destructive antipathy of the leftist media toward American values and ethos is a form of nihilism. In order to create the future and to preserve our democracy and culture, it is necessary to mobilize the free world and treat Islam as a political ideology or fascist dogma for domination. Islam is a worst form of fascism, a virulent and contagious disease threatening the free world. Islam is not a creed of peace and veneration. Obscene crimes have certainly been committed in the name of Islam. In spite of massive aid from America, Islamic leaders are too arrogant to apologize for the appalling and heinous crimes against humanity. They offer pathetic justification for Islamic brutality.

American aid to Islamic countries must be conditional on revising Islamic educational curriculum and treatment of non Muslims. Western governments should not negotiate with irreconcilable Muslims from a position of weakness. The political, social, and religious dynamics created by Islamists around the world seemed to become more and more complicated-and volatile — with time, and less and less solvable. With the unholy alliance they made with our leftist liberals and the media, Islamists are launching an alarming assault on our democracy, values, and freedom and weakening our position in the eyes of Islamic enemies.

In all Islamic countries, Christians, Jews, Hindus and all non Muslims are harassed, discriminated, forcefully converted or driven out. In Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and all Islamic nations have no human rights, independent judiciary, or religious tolerance towards non Muslims. Financial aid must be conditional. Special operations units must be send to Islamic nations to gather intelligence and build ties with local non Muslims. Its goal must be to build networks that could penetrate, disrupt, or destroy Jihadi groups as well as prepare for social change. America also must have tough immigration laws to weed out Islamic anarchists who want to introduce Islamic Sharia law.

If we fail to act the closed, rigid and fundamentalist political ideology of Islam, it will destroy our democracy, our preeminence in economy and undermine our liberty and safety. Since 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, Mohamedans who follow the Koran and Hadith have carried out 15,107 deadly terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and killed more than 75,000 people. It is time for American citizens to protect our national interests, freedom, our values and culture from a position of strength. We must draw clear and sharp distinctions between ourselves and Islamic Jihadis who have taken every possible opportunity to kill Americans and undermine our prosperity and security. It would be tragic, if America loses to Jihadi terrorists and Islamic mafia. Contact Babu by email at b.suseelan@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 13, 2010.

Several things need to be added to this article.

First of all, the training, technology, communications skills transmitted by Lt. General Keith Dayton to the paramilitary Terrorist Army of the Palestinian Authority will have already been passed on to Hamas, Hezb'Allah, Syria and Iran — for sure.

Do not be surprised if Lt. General Dayton will be assassinated as an infidel by the very Palestinian Muslims he trained.

Some will recall Israeli soldiers who were on joint patrol with Palestinians were shot by their Arab Muslim partners — whom they knew — personally.

As for Dayton, he is doing exactly what America did in Afghanistan when we trained them in the art of Terror and, after they defeated the vaunted Soviet Union's mighty Army, they turned on their trainers and that's how America developed Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

That's how New York got hit on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Kenya, Beslan, Fort Hood, ......


This next was written by Avi Yellin and it appeared in Arutz-7 (www.Inn.com).


(Israelnationalnews.com) During a military exercise with the IDF's elite Kfir Brigade last week at the Tze'elim base in Israel's south, GOC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi warned soldiers of potential challenges they may face in the near future.

The Kfir brigade, created December 2005 to deal with unrest in Israel's Judea and Samaria regions, trained extensively in urban warfare and simulated a scenario in which IDF soldiers were pitted against the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority's new American-trained military.

Mizrahi told soldiers that the PA security forces, trained in Jordan by United States Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, is a formidable potential enemy and that the IDF needs to know how to fight them if the need should arise.

"This is a trained, equipped, American-educated force," Mizrahi said. "This means that at the beginning of a battle, we will pay a higher price. A force like that can shut down an urban area with four snipers... It is a proper infantry force facing us and we need to take that into account. They have attack capabilities and we do not expect them to give up easily."

Keith Dayton himself has expressed belief that his PA army would likely attack the Jewish state in the event that Israel does not give in to the demands of the Middle East Quartet, comprising America, Russia, the United Nations and European Union.

At a May 2009 lecture in Washington, Dayton indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria to the PA within two years, the Fatah forces he and his fellow American officers are currently training could easily turn their guns on the Israelis.

"With big expectations, come big risks," Dayton said. "There is perhaps a two-year shelf life on being told that you're creating a state, when you're not."

Following these remarks, United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as deputy to President Barack Obama's Middle East Envoy George Mitchell. The United States has already poured over $300 million into the new PA army and the acknowledged prospect of that army attacking the State of Israel has not deterred Washington from continuing to arm, train and finance it.

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 13, 2010.

This was written by David Suissa.


I love Peter Beinart. The last time we had breakfast, in Washington, D.C., about a year and a half ago, our conversation got so lively that I think someone asked us to quiet down. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but I've been moved by his compelling logic and sense of fairness in the many opinion pieces he has written over the years.

Not so with his latest, much-discussed piece, titled "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment," in The New York Review of Books.

The essay is sprawling and cleverly written; you feel you are reading something important that is revealing a big truth.

My problem, though, is that once I got over the drama, I found myself asking questions like, "What exactly does he want the Jewish establishment to do?"

For example, one of Beinart's key points is that a major reason for the alienation of liberal Jews from Zionism is the fact that the Jewish establishment has failed to criticize Israel's behavior on liberal issues, like its treatment of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

Let's unpack that argument.

Let's imagine a liberal Jew in his 20s who hasn't gone on Birthright, doesn't go to shul and knows little about Israel. During Israeli Apartheid Week on his college campus, he sees pictures of Israeli soldiers portrayed as "Nazi baby-killers." Through the media, he sees Israel as the world's most brutal occupier and favorite piñata: U.N. condemnations, global calls to boycott, accusations of crimes against humanity, Goldstone reports, the works. If he does a little homework, he might come across a recent report from the Reut Institute describing a global movement afoot to delegitimize the Jewish state.

Now, what does Beinart think we should do to bring this liberal Jew closer to Zionism? Have someone from the Jewish "establishment" come on campus and educate him about how Israel is mistreating its Arab citizens? Is he serious?

Tough love is one thing, but showing tough love for Israel to those who have no love for Israel in the first place isn't tough love. It's just pouring oil on the fire.

Beinart loses me not when he criticizes Israeli democracy, but when he tries to pull a fast one by telling me that this criticism will help make alienated liberal Jews more sympathetic to the Jewish state.

His argument ignores some inconvenient facts. One of these facts is pointed out by Shmuel Rosner on The Jerusalem Post's Web site. Beinart quotes Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California, Davis, as saying that "non-Orthodox younger Jews, on the whole, feel much less attached to Israel than their elders, with many professing a 'near-total absence of positive feelings.' "

However, as Rosner notes, the study itself contradicts a key component of Beinart's thesis:

"Political identity, for the general population, has little bearing upon feelings of warmth toward or alienation from Israel. Whatever conclusion one may draw from the actions of political elites, or the writing of intellectual figures, left-of-center political identity (seeing oneself as liberal and a Democrat) in the general population exerts seemingly little influence on the level of attachment to Israel."

The major factor in being alienated from Israel, it turns out, is intermarriage. The more distant you are from your Jewish heritage, the more distant you are from Israel.

Nevertheless, let's give Beinart the benefit of the doubt and continue with his argument on the liberal value of criticizing Israel. Beinart is incredibly good at criticizing Israel. He's like Muhammad Ali: Move like a butterfly, sting like a bee. He'll cherry-pick the best facts and sources, bob and weave away from inconvenient context, and, by the time he's done, Israel might as well be a banana republic.

Beinart ignores the crucial context that Israel is a country under permanent siege and in a state of virtual war, surrounded by terrorist entities sworn to its destruction, and that it still manages, however imperfectly, to maintain a civil society — a society that boasts, among other things, the freest Arab press in the Middle East. He complains about the treatment of Israeli Arabs and Arab members of Knesset (MK) who coddle with Israel's enemies, but like a Likud MK said recently: "Imagine a member of the Taliban being a member of Congress."

It makes me wonder: How tolerant would Beinart be if 6,000 Hamas rockets had fallen on his quiet suburb?

I'm not talking here about whitewashing Israel's mistakes; I'm talking about context. Appreciating this context might have led Beinart to a different approach toward his own goal. After all, if you want to appeal to a liberal Jew who has heard mostly poison about Israel, wouldn't you want to start off with some positive "liberal context" to break the ice? Wouldn't you want to tell the story, for instance, of the Palestinian homosexual who had to flee to Israel to have his rights protected?

In Beinart's world, however, the magic tonic for the revival of liberal Zionists is not context but criticism.

Get bigwigs like Abe Foxman and Malcolm Hoenlein to publicly criticize Israel's democracy and liberal Jews will be more likely to flock to the Zionist tent. Where's the evidence for this? He never says.

He does say that the Jewish establishment's failure to criticize Israel's democracy is a major reason why liberal Jews have "checked their Zionism at the door."

But how does he know that the opposite isn't true — that piling on establishment criticism on top of the world's hyper-criticism would have chased even more liberal Jews away?

What's ironic is that at the beginning of his piece, Beinart cites evidence that contradicts his own theory. He discusses focus groups among American Jewish college students in 2003 that showed how alienated they were from Israel.

He then mentions an ad they were shown that was "one of the most popular."

Did that ad criticize Israel? No, it gave information: "Proof that Israel wants peace," with "a list of offers by various Israeli governments to withdraw from conquered land.".... In other words, instead of piling on the criticism, the AD gave alienated Jews some important context about the peace process that presumably might lessen their shame about Israel.

The fact that the ad was so popular might actually be a sign that these Jewish students are craving more context that shows Israel's side of the story — and that Jews like Beinart are just not hearing that part of their message.

Because he so downplays context, it's not a shock that Beinart is relentless in calling for more criticism of Israel on the peace process. As Jonathan Tobin wrote recently on the Commentary blog, "it's only by pretending that 17 years of Israeli concessions never happened that [Beinart] can hold on to the falsehood that the lack of peace is due to Israeli intransigence aided and abetted by American supporters."

Which brings me to this question: Does Beinart really believe there's not enough criticism of Israel in Jewish America? What's he been reading? The voices of influence today aren't just old-school establishment machers like Foxman and Hoenlein, who I doubt are Facebook friends with alienated liberal Jews anyway.

The new world of influence also includes the multitude of voices in the social networks, in the blogosphere and in the established Jewish media, like The Forward, The Jewish Week and this newspaper, as well as in progressive Web sites like Tablet and Juicy — all places where you'll find plenty of Jewish criticism of Israel.

Go to any event from J Street, the Progressive Jewish Alliance or the New Israel Fund, or hang out at any of the social activist spiritual communities that have sprouted over the last decade, and you'll see lots of friendly venues for liberal Jews who want to criticize Israel and oppose its policies.

Yes, it's true that many defenders of Israel — especially since the Second Intifada and the Hamas rocket attacks that followed the Gaza disengagement — don't do much Israel-bashing. They're too busy trying to push back against the onslaught of hypocritical and disproportionate global criticism that is poured almost daily onto the Jewish state.

Maybe that's their way of fighting for the liberal values of fairness and balance. Anyhow, if they won't do that dirty work, who will? Beinart?

Like many Jews, these Israel defenders are reluctant to second-guess the democratic choices of their Israeli brethren, who have to live with the life-and-death consequences of their decisions.

If Beinart himself is so keen on improving Israel's democracy, instead of beating up on pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, why doesn't he talk to those Israeli voters and try to convince them to vote for Meretz?

Or better still, why doesn't he work through any of the numerous human-rights NGOs or any other groups whose missions coincide directly with his?

Not every Zionist needs to play the same instrument.

Beinart's own instrument is to criticize Israeli democracy, criticize establishment types for not criticizing Israeli democracy, and then hope that in the end, that symphony of criticism will attract more liberal Jews to come under the Zionist tent. Good luck. Whatever power there is in criticizing Israel, it surely won't seduce a Jew tainted by anti-Zionist propaganda to take a second look at Zionism, let alone enter the tent.

To have any chance with those alienated Jews, Beinart needs to go back to that popular ad he mentioned from the college focus groups. That ad was neither criticism nor propaganda: it was context — context that provided information to balance out the anti-Israel venom the students are routinely exposed to, while recognizing that Israel is still a messy and wonderful work in progress.

As part of that work in progress, Beinart can also point, with pride, to the many liberal Jewish groups in Israel who are using the Israeli legal system to defend the rights of Arabs and other minorities.

If all of that "context" helps alienated Jews care more about Israel, he can then introduce them to the Israel activist community so they can pick their own instrument, whether it be joining J Street, AIPAC or a human-rights NGO.

Of course, if he believes in the research he quoted, Beinart must also try to rekindle in those liberal Jews some kind of connection to their Jewish heritage.

In any event, all of these issues are multilayered and complex, and Beinart shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Issues like Jewish alienation from Israel, the evolving role and nature of the Jewish establishment, the character of Israel's democracy and the revival of liberal Zionism in America are infinitely more textured and complicated than what Beinart reduces them to. But complexity doesn't make for hypnotic prose. Alarmism and finger-pointing do.

By largely abandoning nuance and context in favor of dramatic impact, Beinart has made a lot of noise and put a big part of the Jewish community on the defensive. But in the process, he has ignored less divisive approaches to our common problems and discouraged a deeper understanding of complex issues.

In my mind, I consider that a failure.

And I say this with the same tough love that I know he has for Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Brother Shane, June 13, 2010.

This was written by Joseph Farah, Editor and Chief Executive Office of the World Daily Net (WDN). He is a Christian Arab-American who supports the Jewish state.


Palestine Is A Myth!
By Joseph Farah
October 25, 2000

I've been quiet since Israel erupted in fighting spurred by disputes over the Temple Mount. Until now, I haven't even bothered to say, "See, I told you so." But I can't resist any longer. Yeah, folks, I predicted it. That's OK. Hold your applause. After all, I wish I had been wrong.

More than 120 people have been killed since the current fighting in and around Jerusalem began. And for what? If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Moslems want control over sites they consider holy.

Simple, right?

Well, as an Arab-American journalist who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than my share of rocks and mortar shells, I've got to tell you that these are just phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making, and land-grabbing.

Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland?

"Well, Farah," you might say, "that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem." That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. But it didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. It captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

THE TRUTH is that Arab Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name Palestine was used was in 70 AD, when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smash